"ka-52 isn't a scout version of the ka-50, it has all of its capabilities, and has the additional advantage of 2 pilots." I know. The intended role of the Ka-52 is to lead formations of Ka-50s and designate targets while still engaging in its own right. I should have said FAC with attitude :(

KA 52 is a serious liability. Its' co-axial rotors could strike each other and cause the helicopter to crash. I would prefer the Mil Mi 28 N over the Ka-52 or Ah 64. But off course the best attack helicopter in the wold today is the Tiger.

jacques, co-axials and contra-rotaters actually offer better stability. They remove the issue of torsional shift (that is typical for most helicopters that use a fenestron or NOTARs system) One off the reasons why Russian Bears were so smooth in flight was due to prop design and configuration.

"But off course the best attack helicopter in the wold today is the Tiger " You'd have to be French to make a statement like that. What do you base that on? Enlighten us.

that it is Frech ofcourse!!! Live LA France, Le roi c'est moi and blablabla Grinzzz I think Jaques was just kidding The tiger is a really nice affordable and capable helo. But with enough money the apache is the best. Australia, (who has ordered the tiger) thought so, Holland thought so, Greece and and and.... The tiger is the low(er) budget answer

I am not sure which one of us is right since jane's is a pretty good source and i got my info from my second cousin who is flying a ka-50 and he told me that he wants to switch to a ka-52 when they become available. BTW, by pit i meant the underside since it will be taking the brunt of fire from the ground (it might indeed be 23mm shells I may be mistaken), the glass of cource cant take hits from shells, but then again it probably wont have to.

"But with enough money the apache is the best." LOL, here we go again. The best for what? Tank killing? probably. Soft targets? Not quite. Anti-Helo? It is very good but not the best. Again, I say that for the best compromise the Ka-50/52 is the best.

Boris, tell me this: the AH64 has a very good ergonomics pit, but still both members are kept very very busy. Traditionally russian designs have been much less user friendly, but they can make due with only one pilot? So, they are either brilliant or they can't process the same amount of data...thus losing SA thus losing their life. Even against soft targets you still need somebody fixed on the targets and somebody who look after the immediate surroundings. you know like those pesty farmers carring 23mm rifles ;) Anyways, the KA 50 can't acuiry targets as fast as the lonbow can, especially in the rain/dust/fog etc. The longbow milimetric radar gives a clear 360 picture in these circumstances Ther KA 50 is grounded or flying blind Also in the apache one crew member can be looking for targets while the other is ducking wires, tress etc. The KA can only do one of these tasks, so probably targetting and consealment will lose out. With the new arrowhead targetting sensors the Apache will leap ahead even more so I think it's safe to say that the Apache wins in the targetting arena The KA can't really it train it's 30mm off axis (except a few degree's) SO for soft close in (surprise) targets, the KA 50 is not going to do it. The apache has 1200 round of 30 mm ammo, the KA50 460... so gun wise the KA50 is not better. Which missle's are better? well I don't know I do know that the hellfire's are very very effective and proven. Much of their ability comes from their electronics. The radar guided versions are really realy hard to fool, no smoke, flare, chaff or whatever really helps. I've not seen one russian anti tank kill...So i don't know As for the apache service: The Apache was first used in combat in 1989 in the US military action in Panama. It was used in Operation Desert Storm and has supported low intensity and peacekeeping operations worldwide including Turkey, Bosnia and Kosovo. The AH-64D Longbow has been deployed by the US Army in Afghanistan as part of Operation Anaconda, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and, from June 2003, in South Korea. USA,Netherlands,Singapore,Israel,Egypt,South Korea, The United Arab Emirates, Australia,JApan, Kuwait,brittain,...how many export order for the KA50? Futhermore , the AH64 D has got datalink capabilities (even more SA) secure radio's and the countermeasures a far more extensive tha the KA50's. The only real advantage the KA50 has is it's manouverability and it's top speed. Speed ain't important, cause any smart helo pilot will stay low and slow if he want to live. A helo at 3000 ft flying 350 km/h is just as easy to shoot down as a helo flying 250 km/h Manouverability is and important thing is you want to hug the terrain, but with only one pilot, who's gonna look for the bad guy? Yes it has terrain following radar, but are you goning to trust ut 100% or are you still looking for that hanging wire, high tree peak and such? The KA 50 might be a good thing but please educate me how to use it

jacques, co-axials and contra-rotaters actually offer better stability. They remove the issue of torsional shift (that is typical for most helicopters that use a fenestron or NOTARs system) One off the reasons why Russian Bears were so smooth in flight was due to prop design and configuration. ....You must be talking about the Tupolev. You're comparing 2 different things here. The Tu 95 was created at the time when USSR was having trouble producing efficient jet engine. So they were forced to use turboprop. Propellers are not efficient at high altitude because there are less air density (molecules); That was the reason why it use contra rotating propellers in order in increase the area of the propellers. Also notice that it uses extra long 4 blades propellers. All these measures were taken to compensate for inherent propeller inefficiency at high altitude. It's still not as good as the B52. Back to the Ka 50/52. They're not expect to operate at high altitude so extra rotor area is irrelevant. I understand they don't want to deal with anti torque rotor (duct fan/NOTAR) but the Ka50/52 is not a naval helicopter and again it's irrelevant. So now what you are having is a helicopter to 2 rotors stacking on top of each other with no justifiable reason. On a typical nap of earth flight profile; the rotors are subjected to tremedous stress of high G both negatif anf postive. There will be a chance that the 2 rotors might strike each other and sent the helicopter and its' pilot to an instant DEATH. There are cases of the Mil Mi 24 having its' rotor strking its' tail boom before. Imagine it's much easier for the Kamov rotors o strike each other than the Hind rotor striking its' tail boom. I don;t like the Kamov50/52 it's a death trap.

The Tiger is the best attack helicopter in the world. I'm not joking. I'll will enlighten you both. All other attack helicopters out there today are having chin mounted FLIR/optical sensor (some Kamov 52 models have roof mounted FLIR). The Tiger have either a roof mounted or mast mounted FLIR/optical sensors. That means the Tigre is less expose to hostile detection and fire than other attack helicopter out there. Eventhough KA52 can have roof mounted sensor; its' co-axial rotors made it a death trap. That helicopter is a worthless heap of metal. The AH64 longbow and Havoc N has mast mounted RADAR. It's actually a hindrange. Why ? because radar emmits radiation which help hostile side detect it. Once it is detected it can be destroyed or neutralise. The Tiger use passive optical sensor which emit no radiation. It hide itself behind trees, buildings and etc... and expose itself minimally since only it's optical sensor suite is expose. That make the Tigre the hardest helicopter to detect. You can't detect it thefore you can't neutralise or destroy it. Another point look at the stub wings of the Tiger. Thye're canted downward to reduce radar return from the side (extra kudos for the Tiger).