Military Review

Aviation against tanks (part of 8)

106



Mi-24 combat helicopter, which was the main striking force of the army aviation, absolutely not suitable for placement on large landing ships. Therefore, in the early 70s, the Kamov Design Bureau, which had become the main designer of helicopters for the Navy at that time, began to create a transport and combat helicopter in the interests of the Marine Corps. According to customer requirements, the new machine was supposed to have the ability to deliver ashore marine units with a personal weapons. For fire support and combat with enemy armored vehicles, the helicopter had to carry small-arms weapons, blocks of unguided rocket projectiles, bombs, and anti-tank missile systems.

It should be noted that in the second half of 60, the Kamov Design Bureau proposed a Ka-25F combat helicopter armed with NAR blocks, suspended cannon containers and the Phalang ATGM. But by that time there were no landing ships suitable for its deployment in the USSR Navy. A Ka-25 armed with an ATGM could have turned out to be a nice light anti-tank helicopter, but the command of the ground forces only chose the Mi-24, then created, which corresponded to the modern concept of a “flying BMP”.


Ka-25 with NAR UB-16 blocks


With the construction of the ocean fleet in the USSR, the question arose of increasing the combat potential of naval infantry units. One of the ways to solve this problem was the creation of large landing ships, on which it was possible to base universal transport and attack helicopters capable of delivering to the landing zone of marines and everything necessary for conducting military operations on the enemy coast. In addition, the helicopter had to solve the tasks of fire support for the landing, and also with the help of guided missiles to deal with tanks and destroy enemy firing points.

Since it was too expensive and too long to create a new helicopter from scratch, they decided to build it on the basis of the anti-submarine Ka-27, which made the first flight in December 1973 of the year. Due to the fact that the helicopter, acting in the interests of the marines, was to fly under enemy fire, measures were taken to increase combat survivability. The cockpit that was extended compared to the Ka-27 was covered with armor providing protection against rifle-caliber armor-piercing bullets. TVZ-117ВМА engines, pump controllers and hydraulic systems were also partially protected. The total mass of the armor was 350 kg. To prevent the explosion of fuel tanks in the event of their defeat, they are filled with polyurethane foam, and to prevent fuel leakage when the chamber is pierced, they have self-retracting protection. In order to reduce thermal visibility, the installation of screen exhaust devices of engines is provided. From the very beginning, a station for optoelectronic interference and a cassette for ejection of heat traps were provided for in the anti-missile complex with the IK GOS.


Ka-29


The attack weaponry of the helicopter, designated Ka-29, consists of the built-in speed gun GSHG-7,62, 7,62-mm caliber, the 30-2 42-cannon suspension container, the UNK-23-250 universal gun with 23 -Ha -HN-8 universal gun cannons. 20В80А with 8-mm C-500 missiles, free-fall bombs weighing up to 2 kg, incendiary tanks, KMGU-8 or 9 ATGM 114X9 anti-tank missile complex Shturm-M. On several helicopters of the later series, the Ataka ATGM with 120М2000 missiles was installed. The weight of a combat load can reach XNUMX kg.

Aviation against tanks (part of 8)

Block NAR and ATGM on the Ka-29


The movable machine gun, the fire from which the navigator-operator is in the “stowed” position, is closed in the embrasure by a sliding shutter. When 1800 rounds of ammunition, its maximum rate of fire is 6000 rds / min.


Mobile installation GSHG-7,62 on Ka-29


When performing percussion missions against lightly armored targets and field-type fortifications, the 30-mm 2А42 cannon can be used in the outboard container with 250 rounds of ammunition. This is one of the most powerful aircraft guns of this caliber. It has high reliability. With an initial projectile speed of 960-980 m / s, good firing accuracy is ensured. At a distance of 1,5 km, an armor-piercing tracer with a mass of 400 g at an angle 60 ° to the normal penetrates the 15 mm steel armor. An armor-piercing projectile weighing 304 g, launched at an initial speed of 1120 m / s, penetrates 25 mm armor under the same conditions.


Ka-29 with suspended cannon container


As on the Mi-24, in the Ka-29 crew, in terms of the use of armament, there is a division of duties - the pilot fires stationary cannons on the external sling, launches NAR and bombs. At the disposal of the navigator-operator mobile machine-gun installation and guidance equipment ATGM. The crew, as in the Ka-27, sits "shoulder to shoulder." Under the fuselage in the nose is located fairing sensors electro-optical fire control system. To communicate with ground units, a universal aviation command radio station of the VHF / DtsV-bands P-832М “Eucalyptus” is installed on the helicopter, which, if there is a special set-top box, can operate in a closed mode.

Flight data Ka-29 are approximately on par with the army helicopter Mi-8МТ. With a maximum take-off weight of 11500 kg, the marines transport and combat helicopter is capable of operating at a distance of up to 200 km from the carrier ship. Maximum flight speed 280 km / h, cruising - 235 km / h. The static ceiling is 3700 m, which greatly exceeds the high-altitude capabilities of the shock Mi-24. The helicopter can take 16 paratroopers with personal weapons or 4 stretcher and 6 seated wounded or 2000 kg of cargo in the cabin or 4000 kg on the external suspension. Thanks to folding coaxial screws and the absence of a beam with a tail rotor, the helicopter is ideal for shipboarding. In the stowed position, the rotor blades almost fit into the dimensions of the airframe in length, height and width.

With a slightly worse security, which is a consequence of the creation of the Ka-29 on the basis of the anti-fighting and rescue Ka-27, which is armored without the need, the combat helicopter of the marines surpasses the Mi-24 in a number of combat characteristics. Compared to the Mi-24P, also armed with an 30-mm cannon, the firing accuracy of cannon containers and unguided rockets on the Ka-29 is higher. The same applies to guided anti-tank weapons.


Start NAR C-8 with Ka-29


Thanks to the use of a much more stable coaxial rotor scheme, it was possible to reduce vibration and, as a consequence, to improve the accuracy of shooting. Ka-29 was the first of the domestic military helicopters, where a laser rangefinder with a fixed axis of sight was installed and successfully used. On the Mi-24, this did not work out and had to use the correct, much less accurate, method of measuring the distance to the target.

The very nature of the coaxial rotor scheme gives the Ka-29 a low level of vibration. As a result of oscillations of the upper and lower screws mutually compensate each other, due to the fact that the maxima of the amplitudes of vibrations of one with a certain shift coincide with the minima of the other. In addition, there is no low-frequency transverse vibration generated by the tail rotor on the helicopter of the coaxial circuit, so the Ka-29 has fewer errors when aiming the weapon.

Ka-29 was the first of the domestic combat helicopters capable of making a flat turn in the entire range of flight speeds. For Mi-24, such a maneuver is unacceptable because of the possibility of destruction of the transmission, tail boom and tail rotor. Due to the high maneuverability of the Ka-29, superiority was ensured over all combat helicopters of its time. Ka-29 has the ability in the shortest possible time to take a position advantageous to attack the target while maintaining the high accuracy characteristics of the weapon. Pilots who had previously flown on the Mi-8 and Mi-24, noted the high maneuverability and obedience in the management of the Ka-29.

Thus, the low-volume Ka-29 fleet was more suitable for use as a tank destroyer than a massive Mi-24 combat helicopter, which is ensured by better maneuverability and simpler piloting technology, with a higher vertical rate of climb and overload. Ka-29 is able to better, faster and safer to occupy an advantageous position for launching anti-tank missiles. A number of solutions worked out during the creation of the Ka-29 transport-combat helicopter were subsequently used on the Ka-50 and Ka-52. The adoption of the Ka-29 into service significantly increased the combat stability and landing speed of the Soviet marines. In addition to accomplishing transport-assault missions, helicopters could provide fire support and fight tanks, significantly surpassing the Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft in combat effectiveness.



Serial production of the Ka-29 began in 1984, at the helicopter plant in the city of Kumertau. Before the collapse of the USSR, 59 machines were built. Unfortunately, the data on how many helicopters out of the total number built were equipped with anti-tank missiles could not be found.

Formally, the Ka-29 was intended for basing on the large landing ships of the Rhino 1174 Ave. The first BDK Ave. 1174, named "Ivan Rogov", was built at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad in 1978 year. Four decker helicopters could work with this type of BDK. At present, the head BDK pr. 1174 is cut into metal, and two more ships of the same type are “in reserve” and will most likely not be returned to service.


BDK pr. 1174 "Ivan Rogov"


After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the existing Ka-29 was used mainly to perform routine transport and passenger flights in the interests of the Navy. The remaining 5 helicopters in the Crimea went to Ukraine. After the reduction of parts of the marines, in the course of measures to "reform" and "optimize" the armed forces, several naval helicopters handed over to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.


Target helicopter Ka-29VPNTSU


In December 2000 - January 2001 of the Chechen Republic as part of a combat experimental group in combat operations against bandit formations took part 2 Ka-50 and one Ka-29ВПНЦУ, converted from transport and combat into a helicopter of observation and targeting.

In the process of refinement and conversion into reconnaissance target designator, the Ka-29 armament remained. To use the Ka-29 as an air point of guidance and targeting to a helicopter, a complex of automation and communication equipment was installed, as well as the aiming flight-navigation system Rubicon. As a result, Ka-29 VNTSU received the ability to control group actions of helicopter gunships in the air, and communications in closed mode with the command posts of the Air Force and the Ground Forces based on the continuous exchange of information in real time.

To reduce vulnerability to MANPADS, the helicopter was equipped with heat traps and screen-exhaust devices. Before the flight to the combat area, the identification marks and vehicle identification numbers were painted over. The most notable difference between the Ka-29VPNTSU and the Ka-29 was the optical window of the PrPNK Rubikon under the nose of the fuselage.

Helicopters with a coaxial propeller scheme from the very beginning demonstrated the best ability to operate in adverse weather conditions and mountainous terrain. "Kamov" machines compared to the Mi-8 and Mi-24 were more resistant to sudden gusts of wind. The absence of the tail rotor significantly facilitated piloting in narrow gorges, and the ability to turn literally in one place also affected.

Most of the targets were located in remote mountainous and wooded areas, on the slopes, in the gorges and on the tops of the mountains at an altitude of up to 1,5 km. The Ka-29VPNTSU not only corrected the actions of other helicopter gunships while striking the camps and militant locations, ammunition depots, dugouts, shelters and firing points, but also participated in the destruction of targets. A total of 29 firing was performed with the Ka-29 VLSTU and the C-184 projectile 8 was expended.


Equipment NAR C-8 of B-8В20А units on Ka-29ВПНЦУ helicopter


Often, sorties were carried out in bad weather. Sometimes passes pass by fog, and flights had to be carried out along the gorges, which was not an obstacle to the performance of combat missions. Although the main forces of the militants were scattered at the time of arrival in the North Caucasus, the Ka-29 and Ka-50, the enemy had an active fire resistance, and there was a real danger of running into the line of an anti-aircraft heavy machine gun or a MANPADS missile.

In Chechnya, the Ka-29VPNTSU, in conjunction with the Ka-50, made 27 combat missions. The actions of the Mi-24 combat helicopters were also adjusted. In general, despite some shortcomings caused by the rush in the installation of equipment and the lack of funding, Ka-29VPNTSU during the fighting in the North Caucasus has established itself positively. Pilots Ka-50 and Mi-24 noted that due to better information awareness and external target designation from the airborne command post, the effectiveness and accuracy of strikes against ground targets increased significantly. The safety of flights has also increased and the vulnerability of militants’s air defense assets has decreased. The crew of the Ka-29VPNTSU, being outside the zone of effective fire, using optoelectronic means of observation and targeting, determined the coordinates of the targets and measured the distance to them. If necessary, the reconnaissance and target designation helicopter could not only warn the crews of percussion vehicles about the danger, but also independently suppress the anti-aircraft installations that had manifested themselves.

Despite the fact that the Ka-29VPNTSU well manifested itself in the course of hostilities, everything is known about the two machines of this modification. The Army Aviation Command, taking into account the experience of using Kamov helicopters during the fighting in Chechnya, decided to develop the theme of two-seat specialized helicopter gunships, although command and reconnaissance vehicles would not prevent them, especially in various "anti-terrorist" operations. Apparently, the rejection of the further construction of the Ka-29VPNTSU is associated with a banal lack of funds. As is known, the creation of the Ka-29VPNTSU was mainly carried out at the expense of the means of the Military Scientific and Technical Complex named after Kh. N.I. Kamov and the state actually withdrew from financing this topic.

In 2012, the modernization of the 10 helicopters began as part of the formation of the Mistral-type UDK wing. A total of 8 Ka-29 and 8 Ka-52K should have been based on Mistral.



As of 2016, the Navy of the Russian Federation as a part of the Baltic Fleet, the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet nominally 28 Ka-29. However, more than half of these machines needed repair. At the end of 2016, domestic media reported that 155 Ka-6 was overhauled for the 29 of the marine brigade of the Pacific Fleet. There is also information that repair of the Ka-29 for the Black Sea Fleet will be carried out at the Sevastopol aircraft repair plant, but apparently, these vehicles will be used from coastal airfields, as there are currently no suitable landing craft for their deployment in the domestic fleet.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://avia.cybernet.name/hel/model/ka-29.html
http://www.kumape.narod.ru/produkt/av_produkt/Ka29/ka29.htm
http://www.airforce.ru/content/daidzhest-1/208-proverka-boem-podlinnaya-istoriya-boevoi-udarnoi-gruppy/
The Military Balance 2016


Articles from this series:


Aviation against tanks (part of 1)
Aviation against tanks (part of 2)
Aviation against tanks (part of 3)
Aviation against tanks (part of 4)
Aviation against tanks (part of 5)
Aviation against tanks (part of 6)
Aviation against tanks (part of 7)
Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venik
    venik 27 October 2017 08: 39 New
    +7
    Good day, Sergey! Thank you - the article, like the previous one, is very good!
    But I would like to argue with something. You write:
    "... A Ka-25 armed with an ATGM could have turned out to be a good light anti-tank helicopter, but the command of the ground forces only preferred the Mi-24 that was being created then, which corresponded to the fashionable concept of a" flying infantry fighting vehicle. .... "
    Let me disagree with this! It was originally created as an attack and anti-tank helicopter. However, despite the fact that the “coaxial” scheme, of course, is a more stable platform and, therefore, is better suited for the use of guided (and uncontrollable too) weapons, “25” absolutely did not suit the military in a number of ways: the combat load is too small (just about a ton), it did not allow the installation of armor that could at least somehow protect against bullets even a rifle caliber (and this is at least 300 kg!). Another shortcoming was recognized as a very small (even at that time) speed - only 220 km / h maximum, (cruising 185 km / h). Very miserable static ceiling - only 600 m (!!!) did not allow using the car in the mountains. And the dimensions (width and height) were considered excessive, especially the “annoying” fuselage “irritated” the military - it was believed, and not without reason, that the helicopter could become an “excellent target” ... Moreover, the helicopter experienced big problems with full load in the "hover" mode, the engines warmed up quickly (their power was clearly declared insufficient ... By the way, that is why, almost immediately after adopting the "25" for the Navy, the "Kamovtsy" set about developing the "27" model.
    Therefore, the reason for abandoning the Ka-25 as an attack and anti-tank helicopter is not at all that it did not correspond to the concept of a “flying infantry fighting vehicle” (it just did so, because it had a bulky cargo and passenger cabin (!!!)), but in its low characteristics !!! That's about the Ka-27 - that is YES !! It could very well be a multi-purpose attack land helicopter !!! But! By that time, “Crocodile” was already firmly entrenched in this position. By the way, according to some reports, a number of "27" exported were converted into drums!
    And yet, Sergei call the 7-ton Ka-25 "light" well, it's somehow "not comme il faut" ......
    Well, for the article - THANKS again !!!!
    1. Bongo
      27 October 2017 09: 46 New
      +7
      Quote: venik
      Let me disagree with this!

      Hello Vladimir!
      Thanks for the comment! hi
      Well, you do not have to agree with my private opinion. By indicating the static ceiling in 600, do you obviously mean an anti-submarine modification overloaded with equipment?
      But it seems to me that Ka-25 had reserves. I remain with my opinion that it was quite realistic to create a good anti-tank machine armed with ATGM on the basis of Ka-25. But an attack helicopter similar to the Mi-24 would certainly not have come out of it.
      1. venik
        venik 27 October 2017 10: 53 New
        +9
        Hello again, Sergey!
        Quote: Bongo
        By indicating a 600 m static ceiling, do you obviously mean an anti-submarine modification overloaded with equipment?

        =========
        Well, of course, there wasn’t any birthmark of it, there weren’t any other serial modifications (apart from the small-scale "exotic"). By the way, anti-submarine “25” ki were in 2 versions - one search (carries only search equipment, RSLs (acoustic buoys), and a missile defense with a lowered antenna), the second - shock (does not carry equipment, but carried an anti-submarine torpedo or several deep small caliber bombs). They worked mainly with anti-submarine cruisers - a couple. On the BOD and destroyers - there were only "search engines". The reason for this "division of labor" - the INSUFFICIENT power of engines - he could not raise "both that and another" at the same time. When (in both versions) the engine crashed, it was necessary to “cut” it into “take-off mode” - the result is understandable ...
        In the early 70's, my father (he participated in the development of search equipment for naval aviation), attended an extended meeting at the Kamov Design Bureau (he was still alive). Then the sailors made very big claims against the Ka-25 (both versions): the strike (without equipment) - it was difficult to lift 2 aircraft torpedoes (normal load - 600 kg, in the "overload" -1100), the search - could not bear any serious weapons, both versions insufficient static ceiling and problems with "freezing". The problem was - in the engines of the GTD-3F (their power was clearly not enough cars of this class!). Since it was not possible to seriously increase the power of the engines (the design potential was almost exhausted), and the development of new ones would take too much time, a “Solomon solution” was made - try to “push” the car with more powerful (and already used) TV3 engines -117 (the same as on the "Milev" cars). To do this, I had to lengthen the fuselage by 2.5 meters, which required some (albeit small) reinforcement of the structure. The remaining dimensions remained unchanged. The car is a little "heavier" (including due to new engines and gearbox), but the characteristics have grown O-GO-GO !!! In the series - went with the Ka-27 index! Now that was REALLY a good car !!
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 27 October 2017 11: 41 New
          +3
          At the expense of the Ka-25, a pair of helicopters of various modifications. But weren’t they the helicopters of one modification, just with a different combat load?
          1. venik
            venik 27 October 2017 14: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: maximghost
            At the expense of the Ka-25, a pair of helicopters of various modifications. But weren’t they the helicopters of one modification, just with a different combat load?

            ======
            No! Were not! On the "drums" there was no "search equipment". There were only devices allowing the "reset." in a strictly DETERMINED point (according to the data from the "search" helicopter !!).
            1. maximghost
              maximghost 27 October 2017 14: 41 New
              +1
              But do not tell me where to read about it? Previously, I never came across such information. It is about the various modifications of the anti-submarine 25s.
              1. venik
                venik 27 October 2017 16: 48 New
                0
                Quote: maximghost
                But do not tell me where to read about it? Previously, I never came across such information. It is about the various modifications of the anti-submarine 25s.

                =====
                I’m afraid I won’t say it right away ... I know that I worked from those who worked with this business! (and not from one person "). But with the" sources "- THE PROBLEM !!! THIS - DO NOT advertise ...... But, the fact that THIS WAS - FACT !!!" Sources "- I will look!
      2. venik
        venik 27 October 2017 12: 52 New
        +8
        Sorry, Sergey! I was interrupted all the time and the thought "went astray" ...
        Come on, "anti-tank helicopters." Actually, this idea was born as an "asymmetric response" to the tremendous superiority of the USSR and the "allies" of the ATS in tanks on the European theater of war (up to 10 times !!!). So the NATO team needed a “cheap and effective” answer). He was found - special "anti-tank" helicopters! The requirements were as follows:
        1) - should be cheap in production (cheaper than 1 enemy tank) and operation;
        2) subtle (in the absence of "stealth technologies") - small and low noise;
        3) hardly vulnerable (high-speed, maneuverable and small)
        4) protected (at least - the crew and engine) from small arms;
        5) armament (and all other qualities) - had to ensure the destruction of 5-7 enemy tanks, before the helicopter itself was destroyed.
        Hugh Cobra met this criterion best. By the way, it was proved by numerous clashes in the Middle East!
        Now - WHY in the USSR did not attach due importance to the creation of specialized anti-tank helicopters ??? And the question is "on the fig" ??? If there is a HUGE numerical superiority over a "potential adversary", if he WILL NOT be able to use the "enormous masses" of tanks against you, then WHY need such a "specialized" helicopter ??? So, the decision to create a specialized station wagon ("fire support"), capable of fighting both, with tanks and other tasks - THIS was, ACTUAL! In fact - the Mi-24 became the FIRST SPECIALIZED FIRE SUPPORT Helicopter !!!
        Well, if we ignore the problems of the need to create “specialized anti-tank” helicopters in the USSR, please tell me WHAT of the above criteria does the Ka-25 helicopter “correspond” to ???
        "Cheap"? - so he was 3 times more expensive than the "Cobra" was worth it!
        “Little-sighted” - Did you see him live? He is HUGE !!! (it only seems “small” in the photo (because it is very “proportional”)! If Korokodil has a “tail beam” sawed off in the sense of “whole” placed next to the Ka-25, it will even be smaller so !! (of course Compared with the Mi-8 - “Kashka” is much more compact, but with the “crocodile” - COMPLETELY comparable !!
        “Speed” - well, the same “Cobra” is even higher (I don’t even say anything about “Crocodile .....”)
        So, WHAT could he be a “good anti-tank” helicopter ????
        PS Actually, the "topic of anti-tank helicopters" has already "died out" - they have already been replaced by the class of "universalists" - fire support helicopters (powerful, high-speed, protected, well-armed !!!).
        PPS In general, in the USSR and Russia there is only ONE project of a specialized ANTI-TANK helicopter - this is Kazan "Ansat" (or "Ansar" - hell - I confuse them all the time). But he won’t go to the series. It is calculated - under the Canadian engines, on and the need for it in general is NO!
      3. shuravi
        shuravi 27 October 2017 14: 08 New
        +1
        The fact is that a light anti-tank helicopter armed with ATGMs alone is not needed. This is a dead end branch.
        1. venik
          venik 27 October 2017 14: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: shuravi
          The fact is that a light anti-tank helicopter armed with ATGMs alone is not needed. This is a dead end branch.

          =======
          That's right !!! It was an “asymmetric” response to the colossal superiority of the USSR and the ATS in the European theater of operations. Now, in connection with the changed "balance of power" - this is already in the PAST !!! Although, in those days - it was ACTUAL!
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 27 October 2017 15: 37 New
            0
            That is not the point. The West lagged behind the USSR in the ATGM area for a very long time.
            We have already managed to forget about the “Phalanges” and go to the “Sturm”, and there they continued, and continue to use the “Toe”, a subsonic ATGM controlled by wire.
            The latter circumstance imposes strong restrictions on the carrier in terms of maneuverability. It is better that it is generally static.
            Hence this tactic, starting from a hang, the use of shelters and so on. It sounds beautiful. but in practice impossible.
            In the USSR, the main was the launch of ATGM on the move. Although hanging is possible, it is not even practiced in practice.
            1. venik
              venik 27 October 2017 16: 54 New
              +2
              Quote: shuravi
              That is not the point. The West lagged behind the USSR in the ATGM area for a very long time.

              =========
              No!! "Case" is exactly THIS !!! THEY (NATO) - in those days - HIGHLY inferior in the "tanks". ATGMs at "them" were .... Of course, "worse" than at US ... BUT, THERE were !!! .... But the way is VERY quick "transfer" to the "point of impact" ... It’s better helicopter - you can’t imagine ANYTHING !!!!
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 27 October 2017 18: 20 New
                +3
                In this case, a combat helicopter launching ATGM on the move is much better than flying bubbles.
                But only a bubble can hang and bounce for a long time. Although the tactics are flawed in advance.
                1. venik
                  venik 27 October 2017 18: 30 New
                  +5
                  Quote: shuravi
                  In this case, a combat helicopter launching ATGM on the move is much better than flying bubbles.

                  + + + + +
                  Well, actually the tactics of attacking tanks “from bouncing” because of “terrain” were developed from the “USA” (although it is possible in the USSR as well), it brilliantly proved itself in the Near and Middle East ... Now it’s not particularly relevant, due to the lack of tactics of "massive tank strikes" .... Much-CHANGED .....
                  1. shuravi
                    shuravi 27 October 2017 18: 40 New
                    +2
                    It is not relevant if only because the terrain will not always coincide with tactical plans. And the helicopter is not a sniper, so that for hours lying down waiting for the enemy.
                  2. sivuch
                    sivuch 27 October 2017 22: 47 New
                    +6
                    Those. where there was no normal anti-aircraft defense, and Shilka was considered the top of the high-tech.
                    1. shuravi
                      shuravi 27 October 2017 23: 20 New
                      +1
                      Yes, and air defense in this case is not necessary. It is enough to conduct remote mining of potential helicopter ambushes.
      4. mkpda
        mkpda 1 November 2017 19: 14 New
        0
        More precisely, on the basis of the Ka-25, it was possible to create a light helicopter fire support. But from the Ka-25 only the propeller group would remain.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 October 2017 15: 19 New
      +1
      Ka-25 did not have and could not have normal TTX because of the engine, Mi-24 was designed for the outstanding engine that did not exist, which they eventually created. Milevtsy took a chance and won.
      1. venik
        venik 27 October 2017 17: 02 New
        +4
        Quote: EvilLion
        Ka-25 did not have and could not have normal TTX because of the engine, Mi-24 was designed for the outstanding engine that did not exist, which they eventually created. Milevtsy took a chance and won.

        ======
        This is NOT AT ALL !!! More precisely - absolutely not so !!!! The engine was ALREADY !!! Klimovsky TV3-117 !!! (Used on the Mi-8) And the gearbox - WAS ALSO (ready) .... True, the gearbox had to be redone, under the "larger gear ratio" ...
        But on the "Kashka" - put rather weak engines - only 900 "forces" on takeoff mode !!! If THERE we would have had similar (in terms of mass and dimensions and fuel efficiency) engines (BUT! 25-30% POWERFUL !!!). THERE would be a MACHINE !!!!!
    3. max702
      max702 28 October 2017 11: 00 New
      0
      Well, if the author has half-copied an article about KA-29 from the Corner of the Sky, then I suggest that you read it completely, it’s worth it ...http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sh/ka29.html
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 29 October 2017 08: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: max702
        Well, if the author is half skipipastil article about the X-29 KA from the corner of the sky, I propose to read it completely

        Sources of information in the article indicated. It never occurred to you that they could be the same ... fool
      2. Bongo
        30 October 2017 12: 03 New
        +2
        Quote: max702
        Well, if the author half-copied an article about KA-29 from the Corner of the sky

        Oh well, in what place? stop Do you generally know that all articles before being published on the VO will be checked for originality?
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 27 October 2017 09: 01 New
    +3
    The shock armament of the helicopter, designated Ka-29, consists of an integrated quick-fire GShG-7,62, 7,62 mm caliber,

    He recalled for a long time where he had seen, but never found the scheme of the SiBeMas machine gun: "In 1935, together with M.E. Berezin and P.M. Morozenko V.I.Silin, the 7,62 mm caliber Sibemas machine gun was created with a revolving automatic circuitry, the forerunner of all rapid-firing guns and machine guns.
    “The machine gun had a unique rate of fire - 6000 rounds (!) Per minute. But the person suggests ... The design work on this product was soon stopped (apparently the reason was a long-standing disease of production lag from design thought - B. B.). Former Deputy Commissar weapons of the USSR V.N. Novikov wrote in his memoirs:

    ... The machine gun, designed by V. I. Silin, M. E. Berezin and P. K. Morozenko, had ... an incredible rate of fire - 6000 rounds per minute. Unfortunately, this aircraft machine gun was underestimated and work on it was stopped. The Germans took advantage of its operating principle, having created in the middle of the war a model of an automatic revolver gun of 20 mm caliber, and by the end of the war its prototypes were also used. After the war, the American specialists went the same way, having received one of the types of high-speed aviation weapons in the mid-50s. "Https://myslo.ru/club/blog/oruzheynaya-sloboda/fv
    zlWtI-3k6T1JZluPwKVw
    Thank you for the article, I discovered a lot of new things.
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 27 October 2017 10: 36 New
      +7
      Quote: Amurets
      machine gun sibemas

      Sorry, but you have a photo of the machine gun Savin and Norov SN

      Machine gun designed by V. I. Silin, M. E. Berezin and P. K. Morozenko

      1. Amurets
        Amurets 27 October 2017 10: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: WUA 518
        Sorry, but you have a photo of the machine gun Savin and Norov SN

        look at the link yourself, there is Sibemas. Lying source, I'm lying too.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 October 2017 15: 24 New
      +1
      7.62 in aviation is of little use. The normal destructive effect is given by the 12.7 mm battery.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 27 October 2017 15: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        7.62 in aviation is of little use. The normal destructive effect is given by the 12.7 mm battery.

        I agree. Already in the years of WWII, even for self-defense, they tried to put heavy machine guns on the bombers. I’m not talking about fighters. They tried to put small-caliber guns there. The Sibemas machine gun is interesting in that it was the first to implement a revolving automatics drive from a gas engine, unlike the Gatlings, which used a mechanical or electric automation drive.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 November 2017 08: 43 New
          +1
          At the “gatling”, if anything, you can retrieve the cartridge with a misfire, and from thousands of bullets a misfire of one is very likely. If the automation is powered by powder gases, then most likely a weapon with a rate of fire of thousands of shots will be unreliable. Or it will be necessary to make it possible to manually recharge in flight.
  3. parma
    parma 27 October 2017 09: 25 New
    +3
    The topic of domestic marine helicopters has always been far from me, it always belonged to our Kamovites very, as it were, to put it right, with neglect or something, apparently due to the relatively small number of machines ... I never understood why there are no marine versions of the Mi-8 Mi-24 (in the same USA, ground Huey, cobra and black hockey in the Navy found a place, and the first two are actively serving now, though not in their original form, despite their age), I thought that because of the workload of Milevtsi they simply no time for sea helicopters .... So MUCH THANKS! Very informative...
    1. venik
      venik 27 October 2017 09: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: parma
      I never understood why there are no marine versions of the Mi-8 and Mi-24

      =======
      And why, in fact, do you think that there were no marine versions of the "Milev" cars ???? Well, what about the Mi-24 - it definitely did not fit into "sea roles" - it drags too much armor (when operating over the sea it is practically useless ("dead weight"), and problems in the "hang" mode too. And this is for anti-submarine of vehicles - a fundamentally important parameter !! But Mi-8 - they tried to adapt. A model with folding blades and a tail boom was tested. However, the sailors rejected it - it was too "a hefty and heavy bandura" for the fleet - except that it was possible for the cruiser "cram" and even that with difficulty. If in those days there was something like “Killer Whales”, the fleet might have taken them into service ... But! there wasn’t much to choose from ... So we stopped at the “Kamov” “co-aligners” - they are the most fit ....
      1. WUA 518
        WUA 518 27 October 2017 11: 04 New
        +3
        Quote: venik
        And why, in fact, do you think that there were no marine versions of the "Milev" cars ???

        Landing of the Mi-6 landing helicopter at the Novorossiysk TAKR.
        1. venik
          venik 27 October 2017 14: 11 New
          +5
          Quote: WUA 518
          Landing of the Mi-6 landing helicopter at TAKR Novorossiysk

          ======
          Sorry, dear! But do you even UNDERSTAND THAT they "wrote" now ?????
          A HEAVY helicopter lands on an Aircraft Carrier (read "light aircraft carrier") !!! Well sat down !!! FURTHER, WHAT? in general, it’s possible to put Mi-26s and even B-12s .......
          What to do next with it ??? Drive to the hangar? So HE WILL NOT PLACE there !!!! Have you ever "carefully" read, WHAT is written there ????
      2. maximghost
        maximghost 27 October 2017 12: 04 New
        +3
        Well, by the way, mi-14 (mb mi-8) were used from the deck (on the anti-submarine cruiser Leningrad) as minesweepers. This of course was one episodic option. And the basing was only on the deck. Neither in the sub-ice, nor in the upper hangars, the Mi-8 was placed.
        1. venik
          venik 27 October 2017 14: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: maximghost
          Well, by the way, mi-14 (mb mi-8) were used from the deck (on the anti-submarine cruiser Leningrad) as minesweepers.

          ==========
          Absolutely right! At least during the "cleaning" of the Suez Canal .... Well, what about the fact that, from Leningrad, almost all of the Ka-25 had to be "unloaded" you didn’t ???? At the same time, “Bears” -translers, was Twice less than the number of “regular” “Pieces” ?? !!!
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 27 October 2017 14: 25 New
            +1
            So I did not offer the Ka-25 to replace the Mi-8. He simply cited the fact of using eights from the deck, while noting the inconvenience of such use.
            1. venik
              venik 27 October 2017 14: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: maximghost
              So I did not offer the Ka-25 to replace the Mi-8. He simply cited the fact of using eights from the deck, while noting the inconvenience of such use.

              =======
              Well, with that you can’t disagree! That is why the Fleet refused the "Bears" (please note - from the DECK). How were “coast-based” machines used and applied (but I don’t know - HOW MUCH?).
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 27 October 2017 17: 07 New
      +6
      Kamov won the contest against Mil primarily because of the compactness of the coaxial scheme. This outweighed precisely in the conditions of the fleet where the dimensions of elevators and hangars are extremely critical. Well, the stability of the coaxial circuit is higher with a smaller "swept area" ...
      1. venik
        venik 27 October 2017 18: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: Taoist
        Kamov won the contest against Mil primarily because of the compactness of the coaxial scheme. This outweighed precisely in the conditions of the fleet where the dimensions of elevators and hangars are extremely critical. Well, the stability of the coaxial circuit is higher with a smaller "swept area" ...

        ========
        Absolutely agree!!!! In addition - they are "Kashka" - they were also easier ...
  4. otto meer
    otto meer 27 October 2017 09: 44 New
    +1
    Mi-24 combat helicopter, which was the main striking force of the army aviation
    But what about the Su-24 and the old killer Su-25?
    1. Bongo
      27 October 2017 09: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: otto meer
      But what about the Su-24 and the old killer Su-25?

      And they once were in army aviation? request
      1. otto meer
        otto meer 27 October 2017 10: 30 New
        +3
        Oh hell! army! Sorry, sorry!
        1. dauria
          dauria 27 October 2017 11: 44 New
          +3
          Oh hell! army! Sorry, sorry!


          Apologize in vain. In the 80s, the army aviation had regiments Su-25 and Su-24. Then the "army" and the "front" differed in submission - front (district) or combined arms army. This was done in order to "proximity" and speed management in the interests of mother infantry. Then there was a leapfrog of the 90s, and in 2003 it was generally reassigned by the Air Force. The decision is very controversial. . Sincerely, veteran of the "Armenian" aviation. wink
          1. ty60
            ty60 28 October 2017 19: 17 New
            0
            I appreciate your humor!
      2. dauria
        dauria 27 October 2017 11: 05 New
        +1
        Did they ever exist in army aviation?


        Su-25 were available. The word "army" means that it is subordinate to the "infantry" at the level of the army, and not the county (front). When the army had the headquarters of the Air Force. And besides the helicopter units (usually the military aviation department in the operational subordination of the division) there were also regiments of attack aircraft.
        1. Bongo
          27 October 2017 11: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: dauria
          Su-xnumx were available. The word "army" means that it is subordinate to the "infantry" at the army level,

          Army aviation was called Ground Forces Aviation
    2. venik
      venik 27 October 2017 13: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: otto meer
      But what about the Su-24 and the old killer Su-25?

      ======
      Sorry !! THEY belonged to the Air Force !!! And not to the "army aviation" .....
  5. avt
    avt 27 October 2017 09: 57 New
    +3
    Solid review good But here
    With somewhat worse security, which is a consequence of the creation of the Ka-29 on the basis of the anti-aircraft and rescue Ka-27, which does not need armor,
    Nashlnik, mana! The consequence of all the reasons
    Ka-29 flight data are approximately on par with the Mi-8MT army helicopter
    и
    The helicopter can take on board 16 paratroopers with personal weapons or 4 stretchers and 6 seated wounded or 2000 kg of cargo in the cockpit or 4000 kg on external load.
    That is, well, if, according to, the work of K.E. "drummer, BUT let him take a lot of paratroopers. bully As a result, they came to the Mi-28 and Terminator based on the Mi-8 based on the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. By the way, I heard that the Ka-27 was driven there and the reviews were more awesome than from the same experienced runs in mountains Yak -38. So it was the Ka-27 that was successful, the flying BMP "BUT .... ,, cost-effectiveness", namely, the scale of the launched Mi production is not comparable to Ka, so it remained small for the fleet Well, nobody canceled the competitive struggle in the USSR for the advancement of their car. Competition in the USSR was absent only in the brains of future economist liberals from the sect ,, Witnesses Gaidarovs ”
    1. Bongo
      27 October 2017 10: 06 New
      +4
      Quote: avt
      Initially, the Ka-27 was made under the landing craft with the possibility of fire support for the landing.

      Sorry, but you are confused with Ka-29. Ka-27 was built in series only in anti-submarine and search and rescue versions.
      1. avt
        avt 27 October 2017 10: 14 New
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Sorry, but you are confusing with the Ka-29. Ka-27

        Yes. The figure has beguiled. I really spoke about the hero of the article -Ka-29. But I can’t fix it anymore request ,, Pencil "under comment, burned out" bully
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2017 10: 25 New
      +5
      Quote: avt
      Well, no one has canceled the competition in the USSR for the advancement of their car. Competition in the USSR was absent only in the brains of future economist liberals from the sect ,, Witnesses Gaidarovs ”

      Sorry, but it was not a competition. So the "economy liberals" were still right.
      When the characteristics of the armament model do not matter at all, but the "hardware weight" of the leaders of the organization-developer matters, it is, so to speak, "competition" is more likely to harm the country's defense. And to our great regret, this unacceptable position on this issue takes place to this day. You can recall the Tigers, you can recall the BAZ, you can recall the sluggish schizophrenia with the adoption of a new rifleman, you can remember dressing up the army in a new field uniform ...

      Serdyukov tried to create artificial, pseudo-competition. Between domestic defense industry and foreign manufacturers. But even this small one was enough to be devoured. And Shoigu is aware of this.
      As a result, the situation worsened even more.
      1. Bongo
        27 October 2017 10: 30 New
        +5
        Quote: Spade
        Serdyukov tried to create artificial, pseudo-competition. Between domestic defense industry and foreign manufacturers. But even this small one was enough to be devoured. And Shoigu is aware of this.

        With all due respect, he was not an innocent sheep and did not forget his beloved. I am well informed about what damage the "Serdyukovschina" caused to the Air Force and Air Defense. am It was impossible to name what was going on otherwise than treason. But who was responsible for this?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 October 2017 11: 00 New
          +7
          Quote: Bongo
          With all due respect, he was not an innocent sheep and did not forget his beloved.

          However, it was the uncles from the military-industrial complex who ate it. While he didn’t get into this sphere, they allowed him to frolic as much and as much as desired .. Although, it seems to me, Serdyukov acted more as an “effective manager” who did not forget himself. “Generators of ideas” and strategy developers were Medvedev and people from his environment.

          Moreover, in the initial period of the "reforms" they all acted more likely in the interests of the "military-industrial complex generals", facilitating this, with the permission to say "competition".
          I'm talking about military science. It's because they decided not to revive her, but to finish it off. Because it interfered. Because the military could know exactly what they really need, and defend this opinion with figures, facts, calculations.

          Here is an article about Ka-29VPNTsU. A good example of weapons, which turned out to be ultimately useless to anyone.
          And I can even imagine why he was out of work. because a similar situation with machines of almost the same purpose has developed in artillery.
          He dealt with this topic during the USSR 37th Research Institute of Radioactive Aviation and Aviation. In the process of Yeltsin’s “optimization,” he was, so to speak, demoted to the branch of the 3rd Central Research Institute of the RF Ministry of Defense with abbreviations and other “gifts”. He was partially transferred to Moscow, away from the landfills. Well, in 2011 solemnly finished off.
          As a result, the artillery has neither a modern spotter / target designator, nor a full UAV to replace it.
        2. venik
          venik 27 October 2017 14: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Bongo
          With all due respect, he was not an innocent sheep and did not forget his beloved. I am well informed about what damage the "Serdyukovschina" caused to the Air Force and Air Defense.

          ========
          Yeah! That’s whom it would not hurt to suspend "for a causal place .... Alas - he - only the" killer "(" executor "), the" customer "(or" customers ") should be looked for ......
          1. Bongo
            27 October 2017 15: 10 New
            +2
            Quote: venik
            Yeah! That’s whom it would not hurt to suspend "for a causal place .... Alas - he - only the" killer "(" executor "), the" customer "(or" customers ") should be looked for ......

            Who is our supreme commander in chief everyone knows ...
            1. venik
              venik 27 October 2017 17: 11 New
              +1
              Quote: Bongo
              You mean "supreme commander in chief" mean?

              ========
              Well no!!! Just NOT HIM !!! There, somewhere, the “gaskets” were lost .... (between the “king” and the “retinue” - “it is necessary to look for gaskets!) Here they should SEARCH, but HOW TO SHOULD !!! ......
      2. avt
        avt 27 October 2017 10: 34 New
        +4
        Quote: Spade
        Sorry, but it was not a competition.

        Apologies are not accepted! bully In its purest form, competition is for the budget line, and on all fronts, including the possibility of an administrative resource with the intricacies of the intersectoral war of ministries for the same budget. The classic of these wars is the destruction of the "Spiral" from the "aviators", the "astronauts." So they said in the bottom line - even if they say they make seeds in their ministry, but they don’t go into space bully So
        Quote: Spade
        "econom liberalists" were right.

        not once. Well, then what
        Quote: Spade
        When the characteristics of an armament model do not matter at all, but the "hardware weight" of the leaders of the organization-developer matters, it is, so to speak, "competition" is more likely to harm the country's defense. And to our great regret, this unacceptable position on this issue takes place to this day.

        And not only with us! Just look and find for an example HOW they strangled a company that designed and manufactured C-123 when they decided to make a four-engine. Lockheed made them, an offer which they could not refuse. "
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 October 2017 11: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: avt
          Just look and find for an example HOW they strangled a company that designed and manufactured S-123

          Appealed to the US Presidential Administration with a request to deprive the company of all military contracts so that it goes bankrupt?
          At the same time, he demanded money from the state in order to build an enterprise that should occupy the niche of a bankrupt.
    3. venik
      venik 27 October 2017 13: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: avt
      Initially, the Ka-27 was made under the landing craft with the possibility of fire support for the landing.

      ========
      Yes, NEVER THERE WAS IT !!!!! Ka-27 is Ka-25 with TV3-117 engines !!!! And no more!!!! Because GTD-3F turned out to be TOO weak !!!!!! And it was created EXCLUSIVELY as an anti-submarine helicopter !!! (to replace the Ka-25 !!!) Other modifications appeared LATER !!!
  6. Taoist
    Taoist 27 October 2017 11: 23 New
    +1
    Well, I would definitely not begin to directly compare the "combat effectiveness" of the Ka 29 and the Yak 38. If you take only the "anti-tank component"? And the question is not even how many and what kind of weapons this or that vehicle carries, but how quickly and accurately it can work according to "requests from the ground." At one time, it was precisely this moment that was practiced in Afghanistan with our “products”. Unfortunately, the time of "approach" of any rotorcraft is much higher ... and the ability of VTOL aircraft to work from helipads allows you to have the same "support shoulder".
    1. Bongo
      27 October 2017 11: 38 New
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, I would definitely not begin to directly compare the "combat effectiveness" of the Ka 29 and the Yak 38.

      Good evening! (I have already evening) hi
      And let's compare the mass of the combat load and the flight range in the vertical take-off and landing mode?
      1. venik
        venik 27 October 2017 14: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        And let's compare the mass of the combat load and the flight range in the vertical take-off and landing mode?

        ========
        Yes, do not compare ANYTHING .... It will be the same as comparing the "gift of God" with fried eggs! To be honest - then the Yak-38 is, in my opinion, a PR-action (like: do we have a Harrier too !!). BUT! This experimental (in general) machine opened the way for the Yak-141 ..... Alas! It did not work out (Union "crashed"). In general, I have a firm conviction: There are planes (and helicopters) - "lucky", and there are - "unlucky" .... The first - appeared "on time and in place", the second - a little "late" ..... And there are lots of examples!
    2. avt
      avt 27 October 2017 12: 16 New
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, I would definitely not begin to directly compare the "combat effectiveness" of the Ka 29 and the Yak 38.

      And who actually and where did he become? wassat They were driven in the mountains. Well, the fact that the Ka-29 mountain-a-ah-zdo is more effective than the Yak-38 in terms of fire support for ground operations, so it was not even necessary to send the Yak to Afghanistan. Even only with
      Quote: Bongo
      And let's compare the mass of the combat load and the flight range in the vertical take-off and landing mode?

      already loses, if you do not delve into the comparison of operational characteristics in the field. When dust isn’t sprayed by the sea, even when it’s a permanent airfield, and not a ship on a hike. I don’t stutter behind the jump platform - here’s Yak in .... a deep and dark gorge a priori / in kind bullyOf course, the Yak -38 is a cool car, but it’s not even its analogue - Harrier, even once. It might be something they would have dispersed to the Yak-141 .... but I doubt it. A fully-fledged classic airplane device no one has yet taken off, so much so as to shut up the turntables with speed, and so far no one is foreseen.
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 27 October 2017 11: 25 New
    +2
    "And there is an antires ... what do you go there ....." In short, I had to mention references to a certain modification of Mi-24, called .... either "Terminator" or "Tyrannosaurus", armed with a multi-barrel 30-mm machine gun ... At first I kept quiet, expecting that it was about ...; but I could not bear it and ask: is it a fake or something real? what
    1. Vadim Kurbatov
      Vadim Kurbatov 27 October 2017 18: 12 New
      0
      there is a modification with a 30mm gun but it is dual there is also a gatling system but there is a 12mm caliber
    2. venik
      venik 27 October 2017 18: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In short, I had to meet the mention of a modification of the Mi-24, called .... either the Terminator, or the Tyrannosaurus, armed with a multi-barrel 30-mm machine gun ...

      ========
      I haven’t heard anything about such "xp @ ny .... But about the hanging containers with a 30-mm" gun "- Yes! was infa! As for the multi-barrel 30-mm gun - Yes, there WAS such (they were suspended under the MiG-27, I don’t remember what it was called ...). Well, there the “bestowal” was kind of “brutal”, that even the MiG “jarred” ...... Where can there be a spinner !! Although the "excrement" may have been carried out ......
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 October 2017 20: 14 New
        +2
        A couple of years ago I saw a photo. On both sides, on the first pylon from the hull, gun mounts with 6 barrels are suspended. The tape feed sleeve goes into the housing. PHOTOSHOP looked sooo high quality. I regret that I did not download.
        Such works of computer graphics, plus the imagination of a journalist, and a new super-super unit are ready.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 October 2017 02: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: venik
        Although the "excrement" may have been carried out ...

        Actually, yes ..... the prototype was mentioned in the article ... I'll try to find this info in my gimbal.
    3. Eight
      Eight 28 October 2017 01: 47 New
      +1
      The name "Terminator" was a modification of the Mi-8ATMSh.
      Armament: two 12.7 mm machine guns and a rear PKT machine gun
      Combat load - 1400 kg on 6 suspension units:
      4 PU UV-16-57 16x55 mm or UV-32-57 32x57 mm, or
      4 250 kg bombs, or
      6 ATGM "Attack" or "Assault",
      4 ur air-to-air needle

      As for the 30 mm guns, the Mi-24 used GSh-30K (double-barreled). Mi-28 used 2A42. The six-barrel GSH-6-30 was not put on helicopters. There were enough problems with her and on airplanes.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 October 2017 02: 40 New
        +1
        I’ll try in my “ruins” to look for the mentioned info ... The name of the prototype was most likely not “Terminator”, but “lizard” ..... like “Tyrannosaurus” ... it is possible that the article (if I find it ) 30-mm will turn into 23-mm (sclerosis!). I muddied this question in the calculation that they would quickly explain to me: hu from hu ... but now I understand that I need to get out myself.
  8. maximghost
    maximghost 27 October 2017 12: 36 New
    +3
    [QUOTE] In addition to performing airborne missions, helicopters could provide fire support and fight tanks, significantly surpassing the Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft in combat effectiveness. [/ QUOTE]
    I disagree here. I’m certainly an ordinary sofa expert, and I’m also a fan of verticals, but
    The Ka-29 could not carry x-23 / x-25 (although they tried to put it). Also 38 could carry more bombs. I did not hear about the s-24 on the ka-29 either. And to compare a ground attack aircraft (even such an outstanding and semi-experimental) with a helicopter, kmk is not worth it at all. Nobody compares mi-24 with su-25 (instant-27 / su-17 / su-7b)
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 27 October 2017 14: 26 New
      +2
      from and I’m talking about the same thing ... but they don’t like "vertical lines" ;-)
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 October 2017 15: 32 New
      +2
      In Afghanistan, the Yak-38 could not take off at all, stop whining about it.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 27 October 2017 17: 01 New
        0
        Who told you such nonsense? maybe it's worth asking those who served them all the same? 38 has more 100 sorties in Afghanistan ...
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 27 October 2017 19: 00 New
          +2
          By the way, this is an interesting topic in Afghanistan. I didn’t find who was there “with what and why” flew. It seemed to be said that Alferov should be in the Memoirs, but there are only very casual about the flight of yaks. There are a couple of words that there were sorties, but nothing more. The main emphasis on the accident and the fact that the metal strip was quickly rendered unusable. + there is even some kind of confusion even with the number of yaks. You have no information about this you. Particularly interested in what kind of load they flew and, roughly, for what purposes did they work?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 28 October 2017 00: 28 New
            +3
            Yes, the Rhombus group is just my regiment, 4 cars worked. There were many real tests, they worked from the strip, from special sites, even experiments were conducted with a caravan. There was a problem with working in the highlands (more precisely, with take-off), I had to rebuild the PD fuel automation, there was a problem with the standard coating of the strip, I had to build a special heat-resistant platform. Phabs up to 250 kg were used. UB 16, UB 32, UPC 250 and C24. The working combat load was about 600kg. In general, a full cycle of combat tests was conducted in two runs. It was found that Yaks allow somewhere two to three times faster to respond to calls from the ground but their operation is very costly, and the pilots on these machines are “piece goods”. By the way, pilots flew in special armored suits. In principle, here are the recollections of one of the pilots of our regiment ... probably the only thing that is adequate on this topic on the network ... Then everything was secret and then wrapped up fiction ..
            http://takr-kiev.ucoz.com/forum/116-609-1
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 November 2017 08: 44 New
          0
          Is this for the whole Rhomb group, where there were not only disgraced Yaks?
      2. venik
        venik 27 October 2017 18: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        In Afghanistan, the Yak-38 could not take off at all, stop whining about it.

        =======
        Yes, NOT THIS was his problem - when he took off vertically, he “devoured” more than 25% of the fuel .....
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 November 2017 08: 46 New
          0
          Well, afterburner is long. The problem is that what for he was generally needed there. There were no problems with airfields in principle.
    3. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 27 October 2017 17: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: maximghost
      38 could also carry more bombs.

      Those. Are you saying that the combat load and range on the Yak-38 with vertical takeoff is higher than in a helicopter?
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 27 October 2017 17: 12 New
        +1
        No, but the yak could take off not only vertically, but also with armored personnel carriers. And the load there is already coming out the same. In range with armored personnel carrier and landing with slipping I do not remember. But in general, it was not about range, and it was about the mass of the combat load.
        Yak could take more bombs because of the peculiarities of the suspension of these bombs on a plane and a helicopter. Ka-29 seemed to take no more than 2 five hundred. The Yak-38 (not m, but normal) during the armored forces could take 2x500 + 2x250 4x250, 10x100, a nuclear bomb.
        1. Bongo
          28 October 2017 01: 45 New
          +2
          Quote: maximghost
          No, but the yak could take off not only vertically, but also with armored personnel carriers. And the load there is already coming out the same. In range with armored personnel carrier and landing with slipping I do not remember. But in general, it was not about range, and it was about the mass of the combat load.

          This is about combat effectiveness, including the ability to deliver maximum combat load to maximum range. With the support of the landing (suppression of enemy defense), NARs are most effective, in this regard, the capabilities of VTOL and helicopter are the same. Well, compare anti-tank the capabilities of the Yak-38 and Ka-29 are generally incorrect.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 28 October 2017 11: 33 New
            +1
            You miss such a parameter as "response time" - a helicopter from the "standby on the ground" position at a distance assume 100 km to the target is at least 30 minutes from the time of the call to the moment of impact ... 38 is the maximum 10 minutes. For a convoy ambushed, the question is critical. So combat effectiveness is not only a parameter of the weight of the combat load.
            1. Bongo
              28 October 2017 12: 26 New
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              You miss such a parameter as "response time" - a helicopter from the "standby on the ground" position at a distance assume 100 km to the target is at least 30 minutes from the time of the call to the moment of impact ... 38 is the maximum 10 minutes.

              I have never dealt with the planning of landing, their support and fire support. But you are probably aware of the distance to the coast of the BDK Ave. 1174 and aircraft carriers of Ave. 1143?
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 28 October 2017 16: 03 New
                +2
                And here we begin to compare the “warm with the flat” - in Afghanistan it was not the assurance of landing operations that was checked, but the fire support and escort of the columns ...
                Those. purely land operations. Again, if we begin to recall the tasks for which 1145 ave. Was done, then in general, it could be used for fire support of the landing, but at the same time, the strike capabilities of the airborne wing significantly exceeded those of the 4 helicopters that the BDK could carry. By the way, in terms of radius too ... and in terms of the possibilities of intensity of use, we generally have a difference in order. Still it is worth remembering that 38 was still a semi-experimental machine and had to be replaced, and the shock capabilities of the "freestyle" had a completely different parameter with which helicopters could not equal at all.
                Well, in general, we are of course now discussing things that are purely theoretical. Because We have not had ships or cars for a long time ... But for some reason, in the USA, they are working hard both on transport tiltrotopes and on strike machines with WRC.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 21 November 2017 08: 46 New
              0
              For this, there are duty Su-25 with pilots in the cockpit.
  9. venik
    venik 27 October 2017 14: 27 New
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: avt
    Initially, the Ka-27 was made under the landing craft with the possibility of fire support for the landing.

    Sorry, but you are confused with Ka-29. Ka-27 was built in series only in anti-submarine and search and rescue versions.

    =======
    This is all true !!! But! The fact that some countries used the Ka-27 (not Ka-25, not Ka-29, but EXACTLY Ka-27 (!)) As an attack helicopter - THIS EXACTLY !!!). Unfortunately I can’t say who exactly ......
  10. shuravi
    shuravi 27 October 2017 14: 57 New
    +2
    Seryozha, you don’t do such “revelations” anymore:
    The very nature of the coaxial rotor circuitry gives the Ka-29 a low level of vibration. As a result of oscillations of the upper and lower screws, they mutually cancel each other, due to the fact that the maximum amplitudes of the vibrations of one with a certain shift coincide with the minima of the other.


    The lower vibration level of the Ka-32 and its variations compared to the same Mi-8 is explained only by the fact that it was created later and there were more developments in the field of vibration control. In addition, since the vibration level of the Mi-8 is at an acceptable level, no one does any cardinal alteration of the carrier system. That's all. The very nature of the coaxial screws contains much more sources of vibration than the classical scheme.
    And with the Ka-32 itself, not everything is going smoothly.
    https://my.mail.ru/mail/oliryk55/video/_myvideo/2
    7.html

    Further, you have listed many advantages of the coaxial scheme, but completely forgot about the disadvantages.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 October 2017 15: 41 New
      +1
      Oh, another milefan of detectives.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 27 October 2017 16: 14 New
        0
        Do you like fairy tales?
    2. venik
      venik 27 October 2017 17: 30 New
      +4
      Quote: shuravi
      Further, you have listed many advantages of the coaxial scheme, but completely forgot about the disadvantages

      =======
      Yes!! The "coaxial" scheme is more difficult to "maintain" (and more expensive to manufacture) .... On this, in fact - its DISADVANTAGES come to an end .... BUT! What makes you think that they are not KNOWLEDGE to Sergei ??? Yes He KNOWS !!! Why do other countries rarely use it? Yes, it is SIMPLE because only the “Kamovites” managed to develop an EFFECTIVE and reliable “coaxial” scheme (I think that it did NOT do without TsAGI and the Institute of Applied Mathematics !!!). At "pin @ owls, it’s not very good so far ... Although" attempts "- WAS !!!
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 27 October 2017 17: 49 New
        0
        Yah? And the overlap of the blades where to do, but the mutual influence? And the fact that on RSNV track handling only in the presence of speed?
        There, not everything is as simple as it seems.
        1. venik
          venik 27 October 2017 19: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: shuravi
          There, not everything is as simple as it seems.

          ======
          ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!! Actually, the "Theory of Coaxial Screws" is already from the "diocese" of TsAGI and the Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences!
          To be honest - in the field of "applied" research - the Yankees were great ahead of us, but in the fundamental science -U-o-o-o-o-o-o! They still have to us - "how to Africa cancer" .....
          1. ty60
            ty60 28 October 2017 19: 44 New
            +1
            They have enough of our applicators. Theorists to each other have already calculated ideas on simplicity ... And the implementation speed in the West is higher - ours will first calculate the possible cut, and only then effective - they are affiliate managers with maximum efficiency for their wallet and not for the benefits of the state will begin to be realized.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 October 2017 21: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: shuravi
          And the overlap of the blades

          And the blow of the blades on the tail boom?
        3. max702
          max702 28 October 2017 10: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: shuravi

          0
          Shuravi Yesterday, 17:49 ↑
          Yah? And the overlap of the blades where to do, but the mutual influence?

          Tell us at what angles of piloting this is happening .. and what will happen to the helicopter of the classic circuit long before reaching these values ​​..
        4. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 November 2017 08: 49 New
          0
          If it came to overlap, then Milefan was blown away. After all, this is the last "trump card" to talk about overlap, forgetting how many classics cut their tail, or fall from the damage thereof.
    3. venik
      venik 27 October 2017 18: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: shuravi
      The lower vibration level of the Ka-32 and its variations compared to the same Mi-8 can only be explained by the fact that it was created later and there were more developments in the field of vibration control.

      ========
      Sorry !, Sorry, Sorry !! And here you are, Father, ABSOLUTELY NOT RIGHT !!!!! But Sergey is just RIGHT !!!
      The fact is that the rotor of the helicopter (and this is a certain analogue of the “wing”) creates terribly complex vortex flows! Moreover, the opposite rotating screws create vortex flows that “mutually quench” each other according to the laws of interference !!! (well, something like "counter-resonance"). AND THIS IS A FACT !!! (Believe me "by the word" - well, do not believe me - study the Theory of wave interference !!!). So, HERE - EVERYTHING is clear !!!!
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 27 October 2017 19: 12 New
        0
        What did you eat? Mutually quenching vortex flows. laughing
        Forgive me, before choosing, take your word for it while forgetting to hell all the aerodynamics of the helicopter, or consider your words nonsense, I choose the second option.
        For reference, I graduated from the Saratov VVAUL at one time, and you?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 October 2017 21: 54 New
          +3
          Quote: shuravi
          What did you eat? Mutually quenching vortex flows.

          I don’t know how in aerodynamics, in hydrodynamics, for sure.
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 27 October 2017 23: 18 New
            +1
            And what are you doing in the throwing zone of the rotors in oblique blowing mode?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 28 October 2017 09: 40 New
              +2
              8)))))
              The problem of damping oscillations is solved by almost all weapons developers, starting with a pistol and ending with an underwater rocket carrier. Do you really think that the cyclic process that occurs when the rotors rotate is something incredibly complicated against this background?
              Back in college, I considered the effect of a rocket on a package of guides during start-up, including in terms of reducing vibrations. That is, it was considered simple enough for the course work of cadets-commanders.
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 28 October 2017 10: 39 New
                0
                Do you think that only this is what HB vibrations are limited to?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 28 October 2017 11: 01 New
                  +2
                  I believe that any vibration can be mathematically modeled, and minimized based on this model.
                  Is this done by helicopter developers? I do not know. But here is one small fact: in the Meadow in 1993, the Mi-8K and Mi-24K were tested for their use as a means of illumination for guided and adjustable shells with semi-active LGSN.
                  And just because of the high level of vibration, the Mi-24K did not suit the military.
                  1. shuravi
                    shuravi 28 October 2017 12: 10 New
                    +1
                    In 1993, it was already allowed to change the blades one at a time. Before that, they changed the kit. What eventually happened, I know perfectly.
        2. ty60
          ty60 28 October 2017 19: 46 New
          0
          Yeah, I interfered with sleep regularly. I flew in the Falcon