Talk:Kamov Ka-50/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kamov Ka-52 → Kamov Ka-50

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - The Kamov Ka-52 really only differs from the Ka-50 in the cockpit; otherwise it is basically the same helicopter. In addition, there is not enough content on either article to justify seaparate pages for such similar aircraft. - BillCJ 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - It's a variant, you could say Ka-50-2 (which I've seen) or even Ka-50B, but it's the same thing. --Born2flie 05:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - In my opinion, the Kamov Ka-52 is an altogether different aircraft. Although it has been derived directly from the Ka-50, an additional crew member (thus, added functions) will most certainly enhance the aircraft's functionality as an attack helicopter greatly. It may even be successful as a ground-support helicopter without the requirement of formation flight whilst engaging enemies. --- Ash sul 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - As Ash sul states, the -52 is a derivative of the -50. Wikipedia will get cluttered if we continue to put up a single pages for every variant of every airplane ever produced. Some of these craft need to be grouped. The -52 frankly, is not different enough from the -50 to warrant a separate page, in my opinion. — Andrew 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose 2 different aircraft and the articles will sooner or later be filled out, just give it time. The problem will be if merged that in the future the then merged article will be so big that people will cut out information to save space and thus information will be lost Potaaatos 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support These are practically the same craft. Why not merge them then list the variants and the changes within each? I see no point in having two completely separate pages for each. G8summit 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there are many posibilities to expand this articles without merging them. In my point of view there are 2 different helicopters, with quite different design and specifications(check the max. speed and the rate of climb) - Eurocopter Tigre 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Ka-50-2 (modificated Ka-50 Black Shark for 2 pilots) and Ka-52 Alligator - different machines. They of course have similar things, but Ka-52 were designed as officer hellicopter (Leader of hellicopters' attack-groop).

The 2 helicopters share the same basic airframe, tail, engins, rotors, and systems. They differ primarily in cockpit, mission equipment and role. But the Ka-52 is still a minimum-change variant of the Ka-50. It's like I'm suggesting combining the Ka-50 with the Ka-25 and Ka-27 because they are all Kamov co-axial designs. Both articles are currently Start-status, which means they need lots of improvements to become good articles. One way to do that is to combine them on the same page. There are many other variants that share the same page, for example the AH-1 Cobra family. The AH-1G and the AH-1Z are far more different than the Ka-50 and Ka-52, but yet are still on the same page because they share a similar role and design heritage. Wikipedia is not just a repository of information on every aircraft ever built, but an encyclopedia. The goal is to have good articles, and combining both helicopters on one page will help to make this a better article in the end. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem will be if merged that in the future the then merged article will be so big that people will cut out information to save space and thus information will be lost Potaaatos 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I had seen Ka-50-2 when the Ka-52 came out and before they dreamed the Erdogan. I'd have to find a really old webpage with photos for reference, though. --Born2flie 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you dream big! The Ka-50 and Ka-52 will both likely never enter significant production, so there probably will never be that much info about either airframe. That point aside, if the combined article ever does grow that big, the it would be split up again. It happens all the time on Wikipedia. If one version was significantly larger than the other, used more powerful engines, had larger rotors, ect., then I would support saying they are differnt aircraft. But based on what I have read, including in both articles, the major differences are confined to the nose.

The early HU-1A and the latest UH-1Y are far different aircraft, yet are covered on the same page. Same with the AH-1G and AH-1Z. Yes, the UH-1 and AH-1 are not covered on the same page, but neither the Ka-50 or Ka-52 is a utility version. The basic role is the same, though they fill different dities within that role. But if the AH-1Z had been a single seater, it would still be covered with the other versions, especially the closely-related AH-1W.

THere's obviously no consensus to merge here, so will close the discussion. - BillCJ 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cost?

See Talk:Mil_Mi-28#Cost.3F.

RebDrummer61^alalala! [22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)]

Deaths

There were several deaths during explouatation of Ka-50. In 20 june 1998 pilot and director of pilot-training center, major general Boris Vorobyev died during traning on Ka-50. Here is the links about it: in russian, and in english. Here is one more link (on russian) about expluataion of Ka-50 at all, and in the part, named "Helicopter not for war (Вертолет не для войны)" you can find mention about at least two deaths on this helicopter. ~~User talk:Yegor Chernyshev 02:08, 26 april 2007~~

Wow, the Red Star article is very accusatory of Kamov. For those who cannot read Russian, it basically refutes the Kamov smear campaign against Mil with quotes from leaders of Russian army aviation and army ground forces from Afghanistan and Chechnya as saying that Mi-24 was an excellent combat platform and that Ka-50 has a number of serious deficiencies and was never used in actual combat (Chechnya deployment was by two helicopters, one of which was broken for three weeks, that operated under Mi-24 cover, only in daylight, and only in safe environments). Some of the specific criticisms of the Ka-50 listed in the article are:

1. Lack of safety/efficacy evidence for combat use of coax rotor helicopters, particularly with concerns for the rotor blades hitting each other during high-G maneuvers or as the result of combat damage. This has been apparently the cause of two test-pilot deaths in Ka-50s.
2. Vulnerable electronics
3. Labor-intensive maintenance and long start-up procedures precluding forward deployment (in contrast, Mi-24 can be serviced by its two crewmembers)
4. Lack of an internal cargo bay (there is very extensive experience from Afghanistan and Chechnya that these cargo bays can save lives of both ground troops and crews of downed helicopters... hence the cargo bay was retained in the Mi-28).
5. The inherent disadvantage of a single-pilot helicopter in high-speed low-altitude combat. The article cites a Mi-28 vs. Ka-50 test in which the Mi-28 was able to locate all 25 targets without being detected while the Ka-50 was only able to find 2 targets and was detected shortly after takeoff.
6. Very tall side profile.
7. Slow (but then just about everything is compared to the Mi-24)
8. Complex and labor-intensive disassembly for transport in cargo aircraft.
9. Vulnerable side-by-side crew placement in Ka-52 which both limits side visibility and makes it likely that the entire crew would be disabled by a single episode of cockpit damage.

- Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. :)~~User talk:Yegor Chernyshev 15:45, 26 april 2007

Contra rotating props are safer than single props, I don't know where you got that from 99.236.220.155 (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The crash in 1998 was result of overrun in demonstration flight. In real war helicopter would never make high-G, maneuvers fly fast near earth, or start duels with AA defence. Without special reconessance any helicopters would suffer heavy losses. Kamov bureau understood this and Ka-50 should be used in complex with special recon helicopters like American Apaches. In this case helicopter doesn't need second pilot better take more armor. No one modern light strike plane has second pilot. So counterarguments about finding targets gushing of blades looks more like Mil's propaganda. Each year tens helicopters crash when blades strike their tail boom. Except Ka-50 there are only 3 episodes of gushing of blades for the last 50 years all as result of overrun. 217.66.28.169 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested merger 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kamov Ka-52 → Kamov Ka-50

• The Kamov Ka-52 really only differs from the Ka-50 in the cockpit; otherwise it is basically the same helicopter. In addition, there is not enough content on either article to justify seaparate pages for such similar aircraft. The Ka-50 and Ka-52 will both likely never enter significant production, so there probably will never be that much info about either airframe. - BillCJ 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. - Very little has been doen to improve either article, esp. the Ka-52, since the last merge proposal earlier this year, where several editors stated that they would be improving it. I do beleive the combined article will be much better than either alone, and will have a better shot at raising it's status. - BillCJ 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing mergers.)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - When Ka 52 will have enough information for "more than stub" article we can always separate it. Currently we have two poor articles. Piotr Mikołajski 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Merging the two articles will immediately inform a person looking for information on the one about the other related aircraft. --Born2flie 09:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support -
• Support - Per nomination.--Dali-Llama 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose - I'm sure that there is potential to expand both articles - unfortunately the person which has that potential didn't appear yet. You don't merge articles because they don't have sufficient content. I propose keeping the articles just as they are, because I'm sure we will be able to expand them in the future. --Eurocopter tigre 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Actually, merging articles without sufficient content is a good thing, as it improves the final article to the point of having a beter shot at GA or FA status. There is a long development history with both variants, but neither has achieved full-rate production, and that does not look likely in the near term. But the main point here is that these are closely-related variants, and the differences really don't justify separate pages. - BillCJ 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding merging articles, how about merging the majority of the Romanian Land Forces' brigades, because they are almost all stubs and closely related? Regarding production, what does "full-rate" mean? 3 new Ka-50s will be acquired this year by the VVS, while 15 Ka-52 will be delivered to the Special Forces until 2015 (the Russian SF will be the sole operator of the Ka-52 - they already operate 9 Ka-52s). --Eurocopter tigre 22:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• That is a very small production run, even for today's Russian military. As to the brigades, if no one intends to expaand them, and they are that closely relate, it might well make sense for them to be on the same page. THat's not a topic I'm interested in, as I don't even edit any US Army unit pages, so I really can't say what's best for those pages. I have split a number of articles, and I've merged a number of them, and I honestly feel these two need to be merged. - BillCJ 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you feel this articles need to be merged, but you've never tried to expand or improve them. That's not a small production run for the Russian AF, which has a constant need of new equipment and modernization - note that the VVS is also acquiring 67 Mi-28 gunships until 2015. Since 2001 to 2006, the production run for the Ka-50 was 0, and in 2007 3 examples will be comissioned - that's quite a difference. As for the brigades, even if they are stubs, you can't merge a mechanized brigade with an infantry brigade (that's almost the same difference as between the Ka-50 and Ka-52). --Eurocopter tigre 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, I have done work on the main article, around the time of the first proposal, but I don't recall on the second one. And merging is HOW I would improve them, as a first step anyway. Second, you are comparing apples and oranges: aircraft are not brigades. They are substantially the same aircraft. It would be different if they used different engines or or numbers of engines, one was larger than the other, different rotors, etc. But as far as I can tell, other than the nose/cockpit, and avionics fit, they are pretty much the same aircraft. Thirdly, don't put too much emphasis on the word "feel": Americans use "feel", "believe", and "think" interchangably in discussions on ther opinons, beliefs, and ideas. Fourth, 67 and 3 are quite different; 67 and 15 are still a ways apart, even in the modern Russian Army. Finally, you stated in the last discussion there are many possibilities for the two articles, yet they are still pretty much the same as they were. If they had been improved by anybody, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is nothing wrong with merging them now to make a better article, and then splitting them later if the page becomes too long, or it otherwise seems best. You seem to prefer two mediocre start-class pages about what is really the same aircraft, tho they do have slightly-different roles. That's your choice. I'd rather see one good page on one aircraft that is produced in two versions. - BillCJ 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First, I'm not comparing apples with oranges, as in my opinion merging Ka-50 with Ka-52 is similar with merging a mechanized brigade with an infantry one. Second, don't forget that the Ka-50 is a single seat helicopter, while the Ka-52 is a two-seater - that's quite a difference which you forgot to mention it in your latest comment. Thirdly, you said It would be different if...one was larger than the other, well, the Ka-50 is 0,5m taller than the Ka-52. Fourth, 67 Mi-28s were suposed to be commissioned in 8 years, while 3 Ka-50s would be comissioned in one year - so that will be a 67/24 ratio, if the production run will be stable, but most likely it will grow up. Fifth, I prefer two start-class articles, rather than a mixed article - which I'm pretty sure it will also be a start-class. Finnaly, if you merge the articles, will you make the new page a good one, yourself? --Eurocopter tigre 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ka-50 is a single seater? Uh, never mind about the merge then. Actually, I was waiting for you to mention it first. I will admit that a single-seat combat helicopter is unique, but there are many single-seat combat aircraft that have two-seat versions, some with different roles, that are covered on the same page right now: F/A-18C/D (D is used by USMC in the all-weather role, often with a different back seat cockpit), F/A-18E/F (F is used in separate squadrons, and carries roles the E does not, such as refueling), A-4 and TA-4 (non-combat trainer), F-105D/F/G (F was combat trainer, G was SEAD role), and on and on. A good example of the other is the F-15 and F-15E, which are on separate pages, but are both fairly-lengthy artcles with substantial content. I mentioned the AH-1 family in the previous merge discussion, that there were severla widely-difering variants all on one page. We have since split the singles and twins, with the intention of improving each, but that has been a slow process. Still, each page covers differnt variants: THe AH-1F is far superior to the AH-1G, same with the AH-1W and AH-1J (more so with the new AH-1Z). We may yet split off the Z at some point, but it's not warranted now. As to your question of would I work on improving this article alone? If I had to, sure, but I would hope the other editors would vote to merge would chip in also. I will say this: If I do the merge myself, the article WILL be better than either was alone, even if just to B-class, which is not that hard to do with the combined material. I would fix the easily-fixable problems during the merge, which is one reason I want them merge. At this point, I think we covered most issues, and I don't think either of us will change his mind. We'll just have to see how the rest of the editors vote. - BillCJ 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ka-52 article looks like a stub type article to me. Maybe there's enough info to get it to starter, but that's about it, I think. I would only merge the articles if the helicopter models have a fair amount in common or very similar (scaled up for example). Kamov's page says the Ka-52 is "twin-seat derivative of the attack Ka-50." Good enough for me. I did some clean-up on both articles. Merge them or not, doesn't matter to me.. -Fnlayson 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very well, I will have a look to see if I can find some sources to expand both articles. Note that if we merge the articles, we'll have to make two separate specs tables (speed, height and armament are different) - certainly the armament and equipment used by the SF differs from the one used by the Air Force. --Eurocopter tigre 08:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Last time this merger was discussed, I had mentioned that I recalled the Alligator being referred to as the Ka-50-2 long before the Erdogan came along:

“ I had seen Ka-50-2 when the Ka-52 came out and before they dreamed the Erdogan. I'd have to find a really old webpage with photos for reference, though. --Born2flie 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ”

Well, if you read the "quote" from Jane's (JAWA 2004-2005) on All the World's Rotorcraft site, you'll see that it also refers to the now-named Ka-52 as the Ka-50-2 and the Erdogan as another variant of the Ka-50-2.

“ Second variant of Ka-50-2 is another two-seater, intended to have conventional stepped tandem cockpits; is offered to armed forces which do not accept the single-seat or side-by-side two-seat layouts.[1] ”

It appears to me, that the language in Jane's understands that there was an original designation, even if that is not what the aircraft is designated now.

1. The OH-58D has structural and systems differences from the OH-58A Kiowa, but they are included in the same article because they are derived from the same airframe. One seat or two seat is similar to whether or not the newer aircraft can carry passengers or not.
2. The argument about the Russian Air Force's use versus the Special Forces use of the two airframes is a red herring to the discussion as to whether the article should be merged or not. That information proves nothing except each service's preference for configuration and operation.
3. Whether a particular editor will make the article a better one or not is also immaterial to the merger being considered, as the one posing the question should also be reflective upon whether they will be the editor to make it a better article no matter what the consensus is. I've heard more arguing about why articles should remain separated and promises that attempts will be made to give them more substance and I have seen such promises fail to be followed through on. So, once again, I believe that would fail to be a criteria as to whether or not a merger should be completed, as it is simply an emotional appeal and lacks any valid logic or justification. Anyone can vote on these mergers and only one or two people will do any of the work regardless of the number of editors that vote one way or the other in the consensus. It is just how the wiki is.
4. My personal opinion on merging or separating articles is based on the amount of information that lends itself to the quality of the article. If you have three Start-class articles when you could have one A-Class or GA-Class, or even, heaven forbid, an FA-Class article, then you've merely increased the size of the encyclopedia, not made it better. A well written article of a higher class, even if it combines several related variants, will do more to educate people about those aircraft than three poorly written and organized articles that become scattered except by little links that people may or may not click. Why make them search for the tidbits when they can all be combined together and educate them on how the aircraft are related to each other in one place instead of repeating that information in three separate places (not counting a Kamov template that may appear in the Related content at the bottom)? --Born2flie 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez people; less talk, more editing!

Did we really need a discussion about a merger that's longer than the article itself? There's only two paragraphs of information that's not common, the merge took me about 2 minutes. Be bold! Maury 12:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Hey, here's my pet guideline. Let me throw it out at you as if it explains everything. I'm a flash in the pan on this article. I mean, I just got here and all, but I'll ridicule you for trying to achieve consensus on whether the merge should occur or not and all without acknowledging that there is a failed previous merger suggestion that might explain why the discussion was so long." Glad you're here to solve all of our problems! --Born2flie 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to be of service! Maury 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Borovik

This just in from a fellow named Borovik! Upper left hand side of this photo you can see an initial Ka-50/V-80 design study: http://www.aviation.ru/jno/MACS99/images/Kamov_projects.jpg

I have a better photo (But this one is already part of a set available for legal use on the Wikipedia). It was a light two seat helicopter with only two hardpoints and a fixed forward firing cannon on the port side of the fuselage.

S! --Avimimus (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Movie?

Should the article include any comment to the action movie made for this helicopter in 1993? I think its more curious because i think it was sponsored or made by Kamov themselves.. or maybe just a note in a "KA-50 in popculture" or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.166.207 (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ka-50 needed to have a major role, not just an appearance. That need to be referenced also. See WP:Aircraft pop culture and WP:Mil Hist pop culture for more information. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The KA-50 is the main role in the movie, the whole movie is about it and the movie was made or heavy exponsored by Kamov. The movie plot is that the URSS sends the KA-50 prototype to afghanistan to fight a drug dealer who allied himself with Talibans and attacked russian troops to have his own drug-empire. Lets say the movie focuses more in the KA-50 than "Firebirds" focused on the AH-64 I have the movie , and there is lot of videos in youtube from it. I will search for some site wich references the movie, because its not listed on IMDB. Is that enought? The movie title by the way is "Chernaya Akula" (Black Shark) wich is the nickname of the Helicopter in rusia (the movie also has some quotes about the NATO nicknames "cheater" and "werewolf", tought "Hokum" is not mentioned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.166.207 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. this is a link to a site wich sells the movie: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/69689/?partner=153333 will try to find something more especific.. i found sites with screenshots wich offers the movie to download if you know what i mean, but i think it wouldnt be apropiate to use those here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.5 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A book, Modern Battlefield Warplanes says the 5th Ka-50 in all black paint was in a film named Black Shark in the early 1990s and the name has been associated with the helicopter since. It does not mention Kamov sponsoring it though. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I should also add to this discussion that there is an entire game base around the Ka-50. It's called Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark. Victory in Germany (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge V-80

I planned to asking about merging the Kamov V-80 (Ka-50 prototype) to here. But I think I'll try to improve that article and this one first. Both need more inline references/footnotes. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to this action. However, it might make more sense to merge all Kamov paper projects into a single article with separate headings for each (and have in line links to the production aircraft articles). I also believe that the earlier design studies were to sufficiently different specifications to warrant a separate heading within the Ka-50 article if the merge goes ahead. One final note: The addition of new information confuses the citations in the V-80 article - I got all of my information on the V-80 from Borovik's forum post and he gave the three Russian books as references - but not having copies I can't sort out which information comes from which. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the main aircraft articles can should stay separate from the Kamov article. The helicopter was still publicly named V-80 when early production began. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this for almost a year, I'm recommending against merger. The primary reason is the fact that earlier V-80 designs were aimed at a significantly different role and the extensive confusion regarding the V-80 in the West (which still hasn't completely cleared up). If there is to be a merger I'd recommend merging all of the Kamov research projects into a single article. This would be a logical response to concerns over a multiplication of articles on paper design studies, while at the same time maintaining the V series sequence and the separation between research designs and production variants. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, this was already a dead discussion. Nothing has been done on merging. The V-80 article need more inline references/footnotes, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

why is samsung referred to as "samshite"

one example is: completely replaced by "Samshite" day-and-night system

another is: and "Samshite" day-and-night TV/thermal sighting system

talk about failing on the NPOV

user id teknotiss (didn't bother logging in Sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.123.34 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Samshite is the name of the Russian night vision equipment. It isn't made by Samsung. --Leivick (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this is a Russia helicopter. What makes you think Samsung would have any involvement with it?? -fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ka-52K

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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 Russian: Самши́т translated as English: Buxus.

Russian language Wiki of the Ka-50, also references the system as "Самшит" - "Samšit" - "Samshit". Ltr,ftw (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Motion carried out and discussion considered closed. P.S. Sorry for a late response. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

You could file a formal move request, via WP:RM -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

• Oppose - The Ka-50 is the original version, and the first one produced. I'd prefer seeing the the article split to cover the Ka-52 separately to a move, as one reason the articles were originally merged was that the Ka-52 had not entered production at that point, so coverage in reliable sources was sparce. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: It looks to me like the Ka-52 is one of several models in the series, and we base article titles on reliable sources (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME), not on production numbers. This move request strikes me as something akin to moving Pontiac Firebird to Pontiac Trans Am. I could support splitting, but not moving. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)4

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)

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.