Jump to content

Talk:Kamov Ka-50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by D2306 (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 30 June 2013 (→Renaming to Ka-52). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reasons of failure

As for the crew workload, the deputy commander of russian army aviation corps has been killed in crash while testing the Ka-50... Apparently, the Ka-50 was originally designed as a fighter-helicopter, to destroy NATO's Apache and Cobras. Thus it would operate higher, not very close to the ground. In fact the Ka-50 were supposed to fly fighter-plane style, in pairs always. Kamov bureau has automatic formation flight control technology for helicopters ever since the mid-60's, the naval Ka-25 used this for anti-submarine surveillance and destroy method. So the Ka-50 fighter pairs would conduct dogfight against american AH-1 and AH-64 choppers semi-automatically, hence the need for only one crew in original Ka-50.

The anti-tank role is apparently an afterthought for single seater Ka-50. Even the AH-64's two person crew is too small, they often get confused by information overload and crash in low altitude flight or on landing (see Afghanistan, some four crashed without enemy fire).

Soviet Mi-24s in East Germany flew with three (3) crew, pilot, gunner and flight-engineer/radioman (in flip-down seat in the small corridor between the cockpit and troop cab). Partly to prevent defection to the west and partly to reduce workload, as cramped DDR airspace was was demanding. All in all, there is absolutely no way a single-crew ground attack helicopter can work in real life, just like a tank cannot fight effectively with a single person in it. 195.70.32.136 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Su-25 and A-10 laugh at you. They operate on higher speed but still can use guided munitions. But no one helicopter was designed for any air combat. BTW tank cannon is operated by one man since it has autoloader. Tank commander is neccasary to observe around but aattack helicopter can use only 2 tactics hit and run before it was detected or fly over the battlefield shooting everything in it's sight. No one of them requires 2 men crew. Second man is good for reconnaissance observation and command of group of helicopters the tasks Ka-52 should do not Ka-50.217.173.18.179 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly, we have fully autonomous helicopters, flying, evading stationary or moving obstacles, locating targets and engaging them perfectly fine, with the only human involvement involving the order to green/red light the destruction of the target. The Ka-50 has enough computers to fly and engage in pre-programmed evasive maneuvers basically on it's own with no pilot input. The targeting system is separate from navigational and has a very high level of automation. Ka-52 is even more advanced when it comes to processing ability. I doubt that these helicopters "can't fight effectively" with a single person especially in an anti-ground role. Maybe five or ten years ago this was true, but not today. 99.236.220.155 (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, nobody else produces a single seat combat helicopter. There has to be a reason. Obviously, when using TOW/HOT or similar missiles you need the second crewmember to guide the missiles to the target. A computer system could be devised to do that automatically once the target has been locked, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in building something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The helicopter was officially took in service in 1993. It's no more fail than Su-35 or MiG-33 of 1990s.217.173.18.179 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edelweiss Mountains

In the second paragraph of the Operational History section of the article it mentions the Ka-50 participated in an exercise in the Edelweiss mountain range in Kyrgyzstan. I personally doubt the locals would give a German name to their mountains. I suspect that this was auto-translated from a Russian article and the editor just assumed this was the English name for the mountains when the translation program actually took it to mean the flowers the mountain range is named after. Any Russian speakers have any ideas here? 108.18.151.84 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type in "Edelweiss mountains Kyrgyzstan" into Google and you'll get all the info you need. Furthermore, I have a hard copy of the reference and would be willing to provide a photocopied image in order to dispel any doubts. Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-52K

Naval version of Ka-52. wp --95.188.92.90 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today I had introduced Ka-52K info to the Ka-52 sub-article. Hopefully we can expand upon it. Ltr,ftw (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Samshite" or "Samsheet"?

There appears to be some fog surrounding the name of the system. Some references use the first name, while others, the second. Can anyone shed some light on the issue? Ltr,ftw (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea really. But to muddy the water some more Donald and March Modern Battlefield Warplanes book uses "Samshit" (no e). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done some research. The name remains shrouded, however "Samshite/Samsheet/Samshit" appears to have gone through a couple of versions: "-50" and "-M"(Ka-50N/Ka-50Sh) and "-E" (Ka-52). Sources are not very reliable, so I will leave it at that for the time being. Ltr,ftw (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for ISO 9:1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9:1995) version of "samšit" (or "samshit" if use sub-standart) is correct. Russian word Template:Lang-ru translated as Template:Lang-en.
Russian language Wiki of the Ka-50, also references the system as "Самшит" - "Samšit" - "Samshit". Ltr,ftw (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citing this discussion, I propose a replacement of all "Samshite" and "Samsheet" references with "Samshit". Do any stake-holders have any objections? Ltr,ftw (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motion carried out and discussion considered closed. P.S. Sorry for a late response. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to Ka-52

Since the Ka-52 is the main production version with planned naval versions and a supposed export version, it would make sense to rename the article Ka-52. The lede needs to be changed as well as it is the Ka-52 that is produced.D2306 (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could file a formal move request, via WP:RM -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend revisiting this after the article is developed more. For example, if all of the article is about the Ka-52, and there is only a short historical note that it was developed from the Ka-50. Apteva (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have several comments below supporting an article split. Would anyone object to going ahead and splitting the article now? - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do go ahead with the split. I could help incorporating detail from the Russian wiki page on Ka-52.D2306 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Kamov Ka-52

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This can be revisited in the future, or a separate article on the Ka-52 developed. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kamov Ka-50 → Kamov Ka-52 – Ka-52 is the main production version, while the Ka-50 was an early variant with only a few produced D2306 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: This was proposed as a technical move at WP:RM/TR. I am bringing the request here to allow consensus to be formed. A simple move may not be practical because of parallel histories in the two articles. But perhaps one article might be converted into a redirect to the other. If editors agree, someone could do editorial work to copy relevant details of the Ka-50 history into the Kamov Ka-52 article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the Ka-52 is the only model that went into serial production. Only a handful of Ka-50s, none of them truly "series", were made and, in 2009 their production stopped. Several times more Ka-52s were since then made in just a few years of production. The planned naval version for the Mistrals ordered in France is also based on Ka-52. Notably, the reliable source, the Russian Helicopters company (the unified company for helicopter production in Russia), has a page for Ka-52 under their military helicopters, but not for Ka-50.

HereD2306 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamov_Ka-50&oldid=562299124"