and it looks like it will have the radar profile of a barn...

With US over the horizon missile capabilities and stealth helicopters I don't know if Id say "out classed"

Like any weapon system, it is how it is used in concert with everything else. It may be susceptible to ATA or GTA missiles like anything which fly's but there is more to the story.

How and when it gets deployed is a big part of the picture. The helicopter itself does appear formidable and advanced. That in itself changes its potential. The question is how it will be used? The insurgents in Chechnya, Iraq, and A-gan have amply demonstrated there is no need to go head to head to be effective.

My guess is it will be a very reasonably priced piece of equipment down the road to many players. Then the whole idea of how it gets deployed is no longer the sellers business.

Originally posted by projectvxn
This is highly advantageous because the tail rotor system tends to use a lot of power and if you lose tail rotor in an AH 64, you die.

Not necessarily, Helicopter pilots have a neat trick called auto-rotation. It allows you to land without power…though it can be a rough landing.

The KA-50 was the Russians answer to the RAH-66 Comanche, which never saw production as development costs and the change of mission, and the advancement of UAVs, pretty much killed it.

It was a sweet bird, too bad it was never brought on-line.

"Insurgents love to hate it"

Haha what a sales pitch.

Very interesting piece of military equipment.

Originally posted by benrl
and it looks like it will have the radar profile of a barn...

With US over the horizon missile capabilities and stealth helicopters I don't know if Id say "out classed"

What stealth helicopters are you talking about?

The blackhawk UH60M, Apache AH64 block 3, or the new CH47F are not stealth. They all have very nice avionics suites but the are not stealth.

Where did you dig this up from? The Ka-50 and Ka-52 have been around for ages.

The twin rotors are unique but the AH-64D Apache is far superior. I've flown both aircraft in highly detailed simulators.
The AH-64D has superior radar, sensors and weapons. The gun on the Ka-50 Ka-52 is fixed not on a rotating turret like the Apache. If I had to pick I would pick the Apache every day of the week.

The other Russian attack helicopter the Mi-28 Havoc is better than the Ka-50 I think. There is nothing that great about the Ka-50. A barrel roll is not very useful in combat and the Apache can do that too.

Attack helicopters are good but other aircraft like the A-10A and F-16C can use cluster munitions on enemy armour and have greater capabilities, speed and range.

Just my personal opinion the apache is far more beautiful helicopter I think the twin rotor system on the Russians heli looks horrible. Also I dunno if its true, but I've seen it in films where a sniper with a 50 cal takes a shot at the rotor and disables the heli. If this is to be true the rotor of the Russians heli looks very vulnerable. I have no speciality in heli technology but if I had a choice I'll stick with the apache

Edited because of my terminal inability to read.

I hear Russia has some really awesome air-air missiles. Can this copter carry those?

There's one thing the apache has going for it. It is a two seater. Flying and performing radar/comm/weapons operations at the same time is a huge task. Having it spread for 2 instead of 1 person is advantageous.

Its a nice aircraft in terms of airframe performance but the avionics package is an antique compared to the AH-64 block 3.

Thats the reason it hasn't made any foreign sales.

Its the same reason the Mi-28 Havok loses out, most recently to india.

The Kamov KA-50 does have it's advantages. Namely the use of a coaxial main rotor and lack of a tail rotor.

The coaxial rotor spins two separate sets of blades in opposite directions making the helicopter more stable in the air. It also increases the aircraft's lift.

The KA-50 also costs $16 million per unit whereas the AH-64 Apache costs $20 million.

Let's look at power and operational range.

The KA-50 has:
Max Speed: 196 mph
Cruising Speed: 168 mph
Combat Range: 339 miles
Ferry Range: 720 miles
Service Ceiling; 18,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 10 m/s
Max takeoff weight: 23,810 lbs

The AH-64 has:
Max Speed: 182 mph
Cruising Speed: 165 mph
Combat Range: 295 miles
Ferry Range: 1,180 miles
Service Ceiling: 21,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 12.7 m/s
Max takeoff weight: 23,000 lbs

Overall, the two aircraft perform fairly equally. Now lets see the armament:

KA-50:
(1) 30mm cannon w/ 460 rounds
(4) hardpoints

The hardpoints can use gun pods, anti-tank missiles, anti-air missiles, laser guided missiles, unguided rockets, unguided bombs or fuel tanks.

AH-64:
(1) 30mm cannon w/ 1,200 rounds
(4) hardpoints

The hardpoints can also use gun pods, anti-tank missiles, anti-air missiles, laser guided missiles, unguided rockets, unguided bombs or fuel tanks.

Overall, I'd say the AH-64 and the KA-50 are pretty fairly matched in all aspects of operation and performance.