is the Ka-52 better than Mi 28? For sure the Ka 50 was better than Mi 28, but lost out due to being a single seater. Does the Ka 52 retain all the capabilities and design capabilities of the Ka 50?
China apparently seeking "Ka-50, MRLs and subs" from Russia next
- Thread starter drg
- Start date
I hope these pages will answer your questions-
http://www.enemyforces.net/helicopters/ka52.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/ka52-01.htm
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081013/117707666.html
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-52.php
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20071031.aspx
http://www.kommersant.com/p-11581/Combat_helicopter/
The Rosvertol can produce more Mi-28s per year than Kamov can produce Ka-50/52s. IMO, they are very close in their capabilities. OTH, I read somewhere that coaxial helos have bigger RCS and easier to detect.
http://www.enemyforces.net/helicopters/ka52.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/ka52-01.htm
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081013/117707666.html
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-52.php
After reading all of the above data, it seems to me that at least in Russia, Ka-52s will complement Mi-28s as force multipliers. The latter will replace Mi-24s.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20071031.aspx
http://www.kommersant.com/p-11581/Combat_helicopter/
The Rosvertol can produce more Mi-28s per year than Kamov can produce Ka-50/52s. IMO, they are very close in their capabilities. OTH, I read somewhere that coaxial helos have bigger RCS and easier to detect.
Last edited:
Also Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece.
The weapons were "dual-key". The US crew had to arm a weapon before it could be used. The delivery vehicles were locally owned & operated.
Right, this article confirms their main purpose-
http://www.izvestia.ru/armia2/article3122131/?print
The last 2 columns on the table-
speed: Ka-52 310km/h AH-64A 269km/h
range: Ka-52 520km AH-64A 400km
Mi-24s can carry extra fuel/ammo instead of soldiers, and many still have years of useful life. I heard something of PLA's interest in Mi-28 as well- will they get them?
Last edited:
flyer19999
New Member
When someone has already done the R&D why not adopt the system to your needs if applicable? Saves lots of time and loads of money. The Chinese are getting very good at adapting technologies for their own purpose. Generally, the Chinese improve on the end product too. They have copied and improved the: S-300 air defense missile system, The Kilo-class ss submarine, the TOR-m1 air defense missile system, the Lavi fighter aircraft, the SU-27 flanker, and US missile ICBM guidance systems.
A good example is the system they have on the 052C destroyer. On the surface, the system looks superficially like an AEGIS, but beneath, the genetics are closer to the naval S-300 RIF-M. Instead of a single large array on a turntable, they used four fixed arrays with track integration with a 360 degree FOV. There are no visible illuminators meaning if the missiles are not actively guided, the illumination beams would have to emanate from the arrays themselves, and the arrays must be able to pass the guiding beam from one array to the another once the missile moves out of one array's FOV. All these while the arrays are simultaneously conducting search and tracking functions. Unlike the turning rotary launchers used on the RIF-M, the cold launchers on the 052C are stationary, which means the pop up cannisters are going to be beneath each tube.
In the land based HQ-9 systems, while the missiles themselves bore more of a resemblance to the S-300s, the radar units look much closer MPQ-53s used for the Patriot systems. The MPQ-53 is able to put different arrays into the same set while similar systems on the S-300 required separate arrays and with each, a separate vehicle. Later the Russians were able to resolve this with the 30N6E set, but the Russians only exported the earlier ones to China like Flaplid, Clamshell and Tombstone. 30N6E only got exported to China with the latest batches in the last few years, even though the HT-233 unit has been shown in China since 1998. The HT-200 phase array unit gave way to the H-200 and the current SJ-321, which also works for the KS-1A missiles. However, the Type 346 radar on the 052C is a different design, being completely monolithic, from the SJ-321 whose face appears to have different arrays beneath the main array.
The Chinese does not appear to have indigenized the Tor M1. They seem pretty content on their HQ-7 and QWs as their point defense SAMs.
They seem to have however, taken a page on the Buk-M1 system, aka Shtil for the naval versions, then slapped them on hot launched VLS for the 054A. The original VLS Shtil actually uses a highly compact cold launched system set on a squared matrix.
In the land based HQ-9 systems, while the missiles themselves bore more of a resemblance to the S-300s, the radar units look much closer MPQ-53s used for the Patriot systems. The MPQ-53 is able to put different arrays into the same set while similar systems on the S-300 required separate arrays and with each, a separate vehicle. Later the Russians were able to resolve this with the 30N6E set, but the Russians only exported the earlier ones to China like Flaplid, Clamshell and Tombstone. 30N6E only got exported to China with the latest batches in the last few years, even though the HT-233 unit has been shown in China since 1998. The HT-200 phase array unit gave way to the H-200 and the current SJ-321, which also works for the KS-1A missiles. However, the Type 346 radar on the 052C is a different design, being completely monolithic, from the SJ-321 whose face appears to have different arrays beneath the main array.
The Chinese does not appear to have indigenized the Tor M1. They seem pretty content on their HQ-7 and QWs as their point defense SAMs.
They seem to have however, taken a page on the Buk-M1 system, aka Shtil for the naval versions, then slapped them on hot launched VLS for the 054A. The original VLS Shtil actually uses a highly compact cold launched system set on a squared matrix.