Convertibles: on relevance for US marines and the Russian army


The prospects for convertiplanes are mixed. In Russia, there are several interesting projects of their own, but serial production of convertiplanes has so far been established only in the USA.


The Bell V-22 Osprey tiltrotor remains the only one in the world to be mass-produced. Its first flight took place more than thirty years ago, in 1989, but the V-22 Osprey became operational only in 2007. Now it is in service with the Marine Corps, the Navy and the United States Air Force.

Recently, US Marine Corps fighters trained on America’s latest naval landing ship, located in the South China Sea. The personnel of the 31st company of the Marine Corps worked out, including rope landing with the latest modification of the MV-22B Osprey. In any case, such skills can be useful to the Marines, therefore, the command of the US ILC pays special attention to their development.


As you know, the US Marine Corps has at its disposal several MV-22 squadrons, including 2 squadrons deployed in the Hawaiian Islands, in the Kaneohe Bay area, and 2 more squadrons at the US Marine Corps airfield in Japan. In May 2019, 4 MV22 convertiplanes made a transoceanic flight, flying more than 5300 miles over the Pacific Ocean - from Okinawa to Hawaii. The MV-22 accommodates 3 crew members and 24 or 32 marines. The special version of the convertiplane for the US Air Force CV-22 accommodates 4 crew members and 24 or 32 paratroopers.

The tiltrotor MV-22B, from which the marines on the America ship were landing, has a new satellite communications and data exchange system. The SATCOM system is known as NOTM-Airborne Increment II. At the U.S. ILC, tests began in November 2017, after which the system was installed on the MV-22. It provides effective communication beyond line of sight.

In Russia, convertiplanes are not yet available. But there are several projects that are no less interesting than American ones. So, the Kronstadt group is developing an unmanned convertible plane Frigate. The developers believe that he is able to replace helicopters and airplanes in the future, since he can take off vertically like a helicopter, but at the same time develops high speed like an airplane. Speed ​​limits for such a machine are 550 km / h, and it can lift up to 1 ton of payload.

The development of convertiplanes for their own needs is also being considered in the command of the Russian Airborne Forces. Moreover, at the time they planned to acquire similar devices in the Soviet Army. In 1972, the Mi-30 “vintoplan” project was proposed, the development of which was undertaken by the staff of the Moscow Helicopter Plant under the leadership of Marat Tishchenko. By the 1980s a whole line of propeller planes was created, but they never went into mass production - the lack of money in the nineties affected, resulting in a reduction in military spending.

Of course, the most attractive characteristics in a tiltrotor are vertical takeoff ability and high speed. That is, you can quite quickly deliver the paratroopers to the appointed place. For special forces and reconnaissance units, the possibilities of delivering personnel to the landing site more secretively than by helicopter are especially interesting.

However, the convertiplane has tangible flaws. These experts include difficulty in operation, problems with management, a high risk of machine destruction when trying to land on autorotation in case of engine failure. Therefore, the very need for such machines raises certain questions among Russian experts.

In addition, the tiltrotor is also distinguished by its high cost: for example, the cost of the American tiltrotor is estimated at $ 70 million. And if for the colossal US military budget this is, albeit a lot of money, but quite affordable (if Washington is planning to allocate $ 2020 million to modernize air defense alone in Poland in 50), the Russian military budget will not be able to bear such costs. Another thing is that our developers may well come up with a car no worse in performance, but more affordable. In any case, the presence of convertiplanes in service with the Airborne Forces, Marines, and special forces would be quite relevant.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. novel66 21 February 2020 12: 44 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    there is no aircraft carrier - and no convertiplanes are needed
    1. Aerodrome 21 February 2020 13: 44 New
      • 10
      • 7
      +3
      the machine is complicated, unnecessary, we can cope without this concept. IMHO.
      1. Bolbot 27 February 2020 18: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This is the car of the future, when capacious electric batteries will appear, then the time will come for light, reliable, inexpensive airplanes that do not need airfields.
    2. iouris 21 February 2020 14: 17 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Quote: novel xnumx
      there is no aircraft carrier - and no convertiplanes are needed

      These are two unrelated questions. But we do not really need convertoplanes "in hardware" now. R&D - probably appropriate (within reasonable (budget) constraints).
    3. Izotovp 21 February 2020 16: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      A tiltrotor does not need an aircraft carrier. It can be based both on helipads of ships and on a helicopter carrier.
  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 12: 45 New
    • 15
    • 13
    +2
    We don’t need hovercraft — it’s the same dead end as ekranoplanes. Take a closer look at Osprey - and everything will be clear
    1. Klingon 21 February 2020 12: 57 New
      • 15
      • 11
      +4
      ekranoplanes are not a dead end, for the coastal sea zone as a carrier of missile weapons they were faster than any missile boats, we simply have no one else to develop them. in the USSR, this was done by the Design Bureau named after R. Alekseev Pts. talented designer inventor. and now who will do it? Rogozin or Chubi? or any D'effective Managers?
      1. Whalebone 21 February 2020 13: 16 New
        • 9
        • 9
        0
        For the coastal and not very marine zone, the Su-30/34 will solve any tasks of ekranoplanes + will also close the air. And no need to cross with a hedgehog.
        Naval aviation must be developed, here is the solution to most of the "naval" issues. MRA A2AD in 1000 km zone will be installed in a matter of hours in any of our coastal area.
        1. Klingon 21 February 2020 13: 31 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          then explain to me what the hell rivet missile boats are riveting if, as you say, drying can easily cope with these tasks ??
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 13: 58 New
            • 10
            • 4
            +6
            Missile boats are riveted for 2 reasons, firstly, medium-range missiles can be placed on them bypassing the agreement on limiting medium-range missiles (which is now not particularly relevant), and secondly, the fleet is desperate for at least some ships, and we until forgotten how to build
        2. surok1 24 February 2020 06: 06 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Whale, it is necessary to cross, at least mentally, to find the reserves of construction, to work out a theory so as not to be lagging behind.)) This is the alphabet. Recently I saw that an unmanned flying taxi with electric transmission was invented in Japan: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/code/vot-bespilotnoe-koryto-a-kak-vash-den-5e2163222beb4900ada5c419#comment_206676963
          Yo-mayo, so this is a convertiplane! Neodymium magnets in engines change a lot.)) A wing of small elongation is blown along its entire length, like Boldyrev’s, inductive resistance is minimized by this, failure of one engine is uncritical.)) They fly it.))
      2. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 13: 17 New
        • 12
        • 7
        +5
        Quote: Klingon
        for the coastal marine zone, as a carrier of missile weapons, they were faster than any missile boats

        Do not run from the sniper - you will die tired. ©
        The ekranoplan is a subsonic low-flying target the size of an RCA (or even an RTO). At the same time, he collected the worst features of an airplane and a ship: he does not have the survivability of an RCA, does not have the defensive armament of an RCA, and is inferior in speed and maneuverability to missile-carrying aircraft.
        The WIG is also a myth, since WIG fans artificially limited the range of torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, leaving the air-to-air missiles behind. What can the ekranoplan contrast with the same Phoenix with its 130 kg warhead and a speed of 5 M? A low altitude will not help here - firstly, new GOSs can clearly see even airplanes against the sea, and secondly, it is very difficult not to capture or miss a target measuring 30x60x16 m.
        1. Klingon 21 February 2020 13: 33 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          again, the question WHY then need rocket boats if the aircraft solve the same problems ??
          1. God save the king 21 February 2020 14: 17 New
            • 0
            • 6
            -6
            again, the question WHY then need rocket boats if the aircraft solve the same problems ??
            the most cheap missile carrier, which is capable of this (if the enemy does not have reconnaissance aircraft) continuously be in the launch square awaiting orders. However, in our time there are practically no missile boats left, which hints at their dubious usefulness.
            1. Cyrus 22 February 2020 08: 44 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Not a fact, in the Baltic and the World Cup and for example, of course, subject to the support of larger ships.
        2. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 24 February 2020 23: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          What can ekranoplan


          Scatter mines on the AUG path, for example. Or provide take-off and landing of shock drones.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 13: 19 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        And much less speed than any aircraft, with the same vulnerability. Generally speaking, we don’t really need RCA, but they can do a lot of things that the ekranoplan cannot do and is much cheaper
    2. Aerodrome 21 February 2020 13: 46 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      as ekranoplans.

      Quote: Klingon
      ekranoplanes are not a dead end, for the coastal sea zone as a carrier of missile weapons they were faster than any missile boats, we simply have no one else to develop them. in the USSR, this was done by the Design Bureau named after R. Alekseev Pts. talented designer inventor. and now who will do it? Rogozin or Chubi? or any D'effective Managers?

      with all due respect, Andrey, I agree with Klingon (Úlfar)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 13: 59 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Yes, it’s not a question, as old Voltaire used to say: "For your point of view, I am ready to cut your throat, but for your right to express it I will give my life"
    3. figwam 21 February 2020 13: 52 New
      • 2
      • 7
      -5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      We don’t need hovercraft — it’s the same dead end as ekranoplanes.

      A tiltrotor is not needed, but ekranoplanes, even if not large, have a fleet.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 14: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Just one question: why?
        1. figwam 21 February 2020 14: 44 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          So with its speed, carrying capacity and range it is universal, transporting military equipment, cargo, pestilence. infantry, as a strike platform, as a lifeguard, as a guard of maritime borders.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 15: 39 New
            • 8
            • 4
            +4
            In speed of range and load capacity - inferior to a conventional aircraft, as a lifeguard is useless due to the restriction on waves, as a guard of the sea borders is even more useless, since it does not have sufficient autonomy
            1. figwam 21 February 2020 15: 49 New
              • 3
              • 6
              -3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In the speed of range and load capacity - inferior to a conventional aircraft,

              Are you kidding me there? WIG KM with a loading capacity of 300 tons! and modern would carry even more. Flooding up to 5 points.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              as a guard of maritime borders is even more useless, since it does not have sufficient autonomy

              This is not a ship, what autonomy? A range of up to 2000 km is enough for patrolling.
              1. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 16: 22 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: figvam
                Are you kidding me there? WIG KM with a loading capacity of 300 tons!

                Compare with the AN-225 - in terms of mass, weight return, number of engines and sizes. Or with a pair of An-124.
                And do not forget to compare the dimensions of the runway / body of water on which the plane lands / a heavy ekranoplan is brought down. Moreover, the ekranoplan for unloading will need an equipped shore (or better, a port).
                Quote: figvam
                A range of up to 2000 km is enough for patrolling.

                That is, you propose to use a 140-ton ekranoplan with range 2000 km to replace the 68-ton aircraft with combat radius 2200 KM? belay
                1. figwam 21 February 2020 17: 03 New
                  • 4
                  • 3
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Compare with AN-225

                  And what do we have AN-225? The ekranoplan is 40 percent more efficient in terms of load and fuel consumption of any aircraft.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And do not forget to compare the dimensions of the runway / body of water,

                  Is the sea small for you?
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  ekranoplan for unloading will need an equipped shore (or better - a port).

                  Like any ship, but an airplane is an air base.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  That is, do you propose using a 140-ton ekranoplan with a range of 2000 km instead of a 68-ton aircraft with a combat radius of 2200 km?

                  Can a plane land on water and take 500 people from a sinking ship at once and deliver them quickly ashore? Or approach our ship at sea and deliver ammunition, fuel, spare parts, products, water, thereby increasing its autonomy?
                  1. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 18: 27 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Quote: figvam
                    And what do we have AN-225?

                    And what, do we have an ekranoplan? wink
                    For the complexity of preparing for the release of final products, these two programs are almost the same.
                    Quote: figvam
                    The ekranoplan is 40 percent more efficient in terms of load and fuel consumption of any aircraft.

                    Seriously?
                    An empty CM weighed 240 tons. The maximum take-off weight is 544 tons. That is, on fuel and cargo 304 tons were allocated.
                    An-225 has an empty weight of 250 tons, the maximum take-off is 640 tons. That is, on fuel and cargo 390 tons were allocated.
                    Quote: figvam
                    Like any ship, but an airplane is an air base.

                    That's just the air base can be built anywhere. And the port for the ekranoplan is only where there is a water surface with a width, length and depth. sufficient for landing.
                    Or do you propose instead of a runway to dig a take-off and landing lake? wink
                    Quote: figvam
                    Can a plane land on water and take 500 people from a sinking ship at once and deliver them quickly ashore?

                    Unfortunately, ships have a bad habit of often suffering distress precisely in such weather conditions when landing on water is impossible. Actually, that is why in the USSR, for rescue at sea, they began to develop a rescue boat landing with the crew, which could either be engaged in rescue, or collect and tow life rafts dropped from other aircraft to a ship in distress.
                    Quote: figvam
                    Or approach our ship at sea and deliver ammunition, fuel, spare parts, products, water, thereby increasing its autonomy?

                    A single ship at sea is a target. And behind the connections of the ships there is always a floating rear, the carrying capacity and speed of transfer of cargo from ships which is several times higher than that of an ekranoplan.
                    And most importantly - all this has already happened. In the 60s, our design bureaus regularly developed projects for transport seaplanes to supply ships. And it all ended with the closure of projects.
                    1. figwam 21 February 2020 19: 31 New
                      • 2
                      • 4
                      -2
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      The An-225 has an empty mass of 250 tons and a maximum take-off of 640 tons. That is, 390 tons were allocated for fuel and cargo.

                      The AN-225 has 300 tons of fuel, and with a maximum load of 250 tons, it will fly 3000 km.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And the port for the ekranoplan is only where there is a water surface with a width, length and depth. sufficient for landing.

                      He sits next to the port or base, and then goes by water to the shore or towed.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      ships have a bad habit of often suffering distress precisely in such weather conditions when landing on water is impossible.

                      Modern ships do not drown from bad weather, I’m talking about technical reasons, fire, hole.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      A single ship at sea is a target. And behind the connections of the ships there is always a floating rear,

                      One ekranoplan will deliver cargo to one ship, several to the entire squadron and there is no need to drag the supply fleet with them.
                      1. Private-K 24 February 2020 09: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Look carefully at the photo of the ekranoplan. And now, tell me what kind of RESISTANCE he will have if he "flies" / hovers at a height of 10-15 m above the water. The answer is simple - no. A pilot can lay a “turn” only at a VERY limited angle. That is, the turning radius is calculated in kilometers. This is a fundamentally important limitation that significantly affects the practical suitability of ekranoplanes.
                        Personally, I see the likely-possible use of large-sized ekranoplanes exclusively as a cargo CIVIL ship on lines from a specially equipped (loading and unloading operation) port to another specially equipped port above the water surface. (Sobsno, this is how the transport-landing Eaglet’s worked during the evacuation from Azerbaijan in 1990.)
                        The military use of ekranoplanes is extremely doubtful. A Be-200 or A-40 seaplane is much more interesting and practical.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 17: 20 New
                • 4
                • 3
                +1
                Quote: figvam
                Are you kidding me there?

                No.
                Quote: figvam
                WIG KM with a loading capacity of 300 tons!

                We take an An-225 of comparable size and see 390 tons. Only here is the practical range of KM 1500 km, and the An-225 - 15 km. feel the difference
                Quote: figvam
                Flooding up to 5 points.

                That is, we will wait until the storm subsides, and only then save
                Quote: figvam
                This is not a ship, what autonomy? A range of up to 2000 km is enough for patrolling.

                NOT enough
                1. figwam 21 February 2020 17: 38 New
                  • 3
                  • 5
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  We take a comparable in size An-225

                  I wonder where you all take the AN-225, nothing that this aircraft in a single copy is located in another state and it does not land on the water)))
                  1. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 18: 31 New
                    • 5
                    • 4
                    +1
                    Quote: figvam
                    I wonder where you all take the AN-225

                    In the same place where you take ekranoplan. smile
                    Quote: figvam
                    nothing that this aircraft in a single copy is in another state and it does not land on water

                    But the ekranoplane is ... but no, not at all - it is only in the pictures.
                    Quote: figvam
                    and he doesn’t land on water

                    His happiness. With seaworthiness 3 points at the same KM landing on the water somewhere far from the base (where there is no exact meteo in real time) will be Russian roulette.
      2. Galleon 21 February 2020 15: 26 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        А
        Quote: figvam
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We don’t need hovercraft — it’s the same dead end as ekranoplanes.

        A tiltrotor is not needed, but ekranoplanes, even if not large, have a fleet.

        And who offers you a tiltrotor? Or the aforementioned "Frigate" craft with a speed of one and a half helicopters and a carrying capacity of one ton (what is it to load it with? - is it just his fate to fly underloaded) can be taken seriously ??
        The article is frankly weak. The reasoning that the Americans have had a second decade and what could have been ours is “we just don’t really want to.” What means US Marine Corps at the disposal of several squadrons of MV-22? - write specifically, the author - 268 pieces, and another 49 pieces from the command of special operations.
        1. figwam 21 February 2020 15: 38 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Galleon
          And who offers you a tiltrotor?

          Well, an article about it)
          1. Galleon 21 February 2020 15: 46 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: figvam
            Well, an article about it)

            Yoeyoёo, but I didn’t make out belay Ah, yes, they do, but they say it’s expensive)))
    4. God save the king 21 February 2020 14: 21 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      We don’t need hovercraft - it’s the same dead end
      an aircraft that combines the strengths of both a helicopter (vertical take-off) and an airplane (fast and economical horizontal flight) ... really, why do we need it.
      1. 75 Sergey 21 February 2020 14: 28 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -7
        Compared to boats, it’s certainly faster, but for a throw through the English Channel or the Bering Strait - that’s it!
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 14: 50 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Have you heard the proverb about free cheese? Well, the Americans, in order to achieve the result, were forced to extremely lighten the fuselage (one of the reasons for Osprey's extreme high cost), even to the point of refusing to heat the cargo compartment. Presented what buzz catches the landing at altitude? And this is just one nuance, and there are a lot of them
        1. God save the king 21 February 2020 15: 10 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          to achieve a result, they were forced to extremely lighten the fuselage
          aircraft have long been built lightweight to the extreme.
          one of the reasons for the extreme cost of Osprey
          The reasons for the high cost of the V-22 are different:
          The fabulous cost of research and development, because the car is the first of its kind.
          Expensive components, many of which are unique, extraordinarily powerful engines for a machine of this carrying capacity
          Government agencies were the customer of Osprey, and where budget money appears, a frantic sawmill always starts there.
          After launching the series, the cost dropped to a perfectly acceptable $ 60 million overboard.
          up to the failure of heating the cargo compartment.
          laughter and nothing more. How much will a radiator with 10 meters of heat pipes weigh 10-20 kg? And what do you consider “saving” on a machine with a carrying capacity of 9 tons? Yes, even a banal wind turbine weighs a kilogram maximum, and even the energy of 13 mares will generate as much as you like.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 15: 40 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            I will answer in the evening
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2020 17: 28 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: God save the King
            aircraft have long been built lightweight to the extreme.

            That's just Osprey lightened even stronger than a conventional aircraft.
            Quote: God save the King
            The reasons for the high cost of the V-22 are different:
            The fabulous cost of research and development, because the car is the first of its kind.

            Forget about R&D. Americans citing the cost of the machine usually indicate ONLY the cost of its manufacture (R&D paid earlier).
            Quote: God save the King
            After launching the series, the cost dropped to a perfectly acceptable $ 60 million overboard.

            there are different opinions on this matter, I will not cite it. For one simple reason - even $ 60 million you recommend - this is the cost of a 4th-generation modern fighter at that time or two CH-47 Chinook, each of which carries as much as Osprey, only further.
            Quote: God save the King
            laughter and nothing more. How much will a radiator with 10 meters of heat pipes weigh there

            The fact is that they did not put heating on the Osprey :)))) Savings, s
    5. Jack O'Neill 21 February 2020 20: 15 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      We don’t need hovercraft — it’s the same dead end as ekranoplanes. Take a closer look at Osprey - and everything will be clear



      Osprey can deliver the Marines to the battlefield much faster than the turntables, sit where the plane does not land. The right thing.
      Moreover, the evacuation - like the wounded, to deliver faster, which increases the likelihood of survival, which is just the evacuation of the group. It will fly faster, take it faster, which means the marines will fly away faster from the battlefield.
      When the helicopter appeared, it gave very wide opportunities for maintaining the database. The same Huey - Iroquois, who threw soldiers on the battlefield. I immediately recall the battle in the Ya Drang Valley.
  3. bessmertniy 21 February 2020 12: 46 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Well, let's get by with helicopters. There are still more risks for the tiltrotor in real combat operations. hi
    1. Whalebone 21 February 2020 13: 17 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Significantly more risks. And 1 Osprey stands like a dozen blackhawks.
  4. Mikhail3 21 February 2020 12: 51 New
    • 7
    • 10
    -3
    A tiltrotor is a device that combines the flaws of a helicopter and an airplane, in addition, these devices are more complicated than both. If people with a printing press giving cheat "endless money" allow themselves to frolic, releasing frank junk for advertising purposes, this does not mean that you have to reach for them.
    1. Victorio 21 February 2020 13: 02 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      A tiltrotor is a device that combines the flaws of a helicopter and an airplane, in addition, these devices are more complicated than both

      ===
      if the fuel issue is decided (soon or not), then such machines will be relevant. and then developments will not hurt
      1. Mikhail3 21 February 2020 13: 10 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        They will interfere, of course. It's like buying a Rolls Royce potato. In the army of such brittle money-eaters, nobody needs a hundred years. There are helicopters. There are airplanes. If you cross them, you get a dachshund with a suitcase — slower than an airplane, less adapted to landings than a helicopter, mechanization that allows you to flutter a bit, eats fuel, resource and place.
        At this stage in the development of technology, substantial benefits can only be obtained in two cases. The first is when environmental conditions change. I’m not ready to think up what needs to be changed so that these cuttlefish are suddenly needed, but suddenly? And the second - some kind of new principle. WIG can be, or something else like that.
        These things are a luxury item. For those who have nowhere to go.
        1. Victorio 21 February 2020 13: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Mikhail3
          They will interfere, of course. It's like buying a Rolls Royce potato. In the army of such brittle money-eaters, nobody needs a hundred years. There are helicopters. There are airplanes. If you cross them, you get a dachshund with a suitcase — slower than an airplane, less adapted to landings than a helicopter, mechanization that allows you to flutter a bit, eats fuel, resource and place.
          At this stage in the development of technology, substantial benefits can only be obtained in two cases. The first is when environmental conditions change. I’m not ready to think up what needs to be changed so that these cuttlefish are suddenly needed, but suddenly? And the second - some kind of new principle. WIG can be, or something else like that.
          These things are a luxury item. For those who have nowhere to go.

          ===
          I do not agree, technology also does not stand still. plus new fuel, and there will be a result. further development of the helicopter is already running out. jet propulsion is not for this niche, anti-gravity is an undeniable future.
          1. Mikhail3 21 February 2020 15: 05 New
            • 5
            • 6
            -1
            If the development of the helicopter is running out, then screwing it to the plane will not give GROWTH characteristics. Do you understand? Crossbreeding, joining, screwing a hammer to a shovel is not an invention. Generally quite. Not opening, not steps forward. This is creative, that is, attempts to get something for nothing. Man is not smart, not inventive, not able to give birth to a new one. Then he shows creativity - mixes up several already known things and hopes to deceive people, hoping that they are the same as him, or even more stupid.
            When you combine several well-known things into one, you get a device that performs any function of mixed devices by no more than 60%. That is, it will be 40% less convenient to hammer nails with a hammer, it is 40% less convenient to dig nails with a shovel, plus irrevocable losses in the contact zone of two damaged things.
            Try to professionally work the day with multitool. By evening, you will be ready to kill others, that's the whole “win”. And your productivity will drop from 40% or more, because you, besides the inconvenience of the tool, get tired much faster. All this porridge rolls because there are more people, but less reason ....
            1. Victorio 21 February 2020 15: 49 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              the example is unsuccessful, the conclusions are generalized / superficial and unfounded, we will leave it to specialists.

              ps quite often I use a screwdriver with a drill function (there is also a hammer), a handy thing (drilled, twisted), although it is inferior in some ways to specialized specimens (drills, jackhammers)
              1. Mikhail3 21 February 2020 16: 31 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                The rating is wonderful. I’m waiting for a video about how it is convenient to work with a hammer attached to a shovel)
                A screwdriver, arranged like a screwdriver, is more convenient to turn the screws. I know you won’t believe it, but ...
                1. Victorio 21 February 2020 17: 36 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  The rating is wonderful. I’m waiting for a video about how it is convenient to work with a hammer attached to a shovel)
                  A screwdriver, designed as a screwdriver, is more convenient to turn screws. I know you won’t believe it, but ...

                  ===
                  ?! I do not like the assessment, turn to specialists for the truth, what is the problem, I, in fact, wrote this already.
                  a screwdriver and a drill screwdriver are no different in appearance, so twist the same way, you and here have spaces, as well as with humor, however.
            2. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 16: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Mikhail3
              Crossbreeding, joining, screwing a hammer to a shovel is not an invention. Generally quite. Not opening, not steps forward. This is creative, that is, attempts to get something for nothing.

              I immediately remembered a bearded anecdote about rationalization in the army:
              “What, comrade lieutenant, do you want to go on vacation ?!”
              - Yeah ...
              - And you can’t come up with a rational proposal ?!
              - Yeah ...
              - Hang a flashlight on my forehead !!! Lamp!!! So I also mow at night !!!
              ©
        2. Klingon 21 February 2020 13: 35 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          let's not invent anything new at all, but why, there are still Soviet developments, the question is how long will they last
    2. Couchexpert 21 February 2020 13: 30 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Well, why? Such a machine and “endless money” would not hurt us either. And we could come up with something in our own style: we would have developed a couple of MBTs based on the T-72, a couple of new aluminum armored personnel carriers, projects of boats of 1500-2500 tons ... it’s all later in parades, in Syria ... You can, for example, rename the army as “army” - cool! To rearm all shooters with the latest ... AK-100500 caliber 6,66 (already scary, isn't it?). Each military unit will finally receive, instead of the banal Tigers, a car with its own - unique - name and design (there would be enough animals in the dictionary!). Finally, we will build an aircraft carrier with the function of an icebreaker and a carrier of Poseidons and Peresvet! A better couple! A tiltrotor ... well, somehow they "do not bite" ...
    3. 75 Sergey 21 February 2020 14: 31 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      And when compared with a missile boat, the survivability of the boat is doubtful, and the ekranoplan has a higher speed, only how does it fly in a storm?
      1. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 16: 29 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: 75Sergey
        And when compared with a missile boat, the survivability of the boat is doubtful

        At the ekranoplan, it is even more doubtful - because the RCA only needs to displace, but the ekranoplan needs with all this take off. So the survivability of the ekranoplan - like an airplane.
        Quote: 75Sergey
        and the ekranoplan has more speed

        The plane has even more. And for a rocket it’s 40 knots, that’s 250 knots of the target’s speed - no difference. smile
        1. chenia 21 February 2020 22: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The plane has even more.


          WIG as a shock tool naturally garbage. In this capacity, there is nothing better than a rocket. And aviation and space will organize reconnaissance and guidance.

          But the logistics plan is not even bad. For fleet in the sea or coastal zone. when you need to urgently deliver a significant load. When aviation is impossible to use, and ships do not fit into the concept of "urgent."
          Well, a life-saving tool (naturally in certain conditions). Let it be somewhat slower than the plane to get to the place, but not only deliver life-saving equipment (and this is better than the plane will do it), but it can also take the victims (with immediate medical assistance).
    4. God save the king 21 February 2020 14: 42 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      A rotary wing is a device that combines the flaws of a helicopter and an airplane
      Are you a high speed, do you consider flaws in the presence of vertical take-offs to be disadvantages? I must admit, very complex logic.
      1. dauria 21 February 2020 19: 40 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Are you a high speed, do you consider flaws in the presence of vertical take-offs to be disadvantages?


        Yes, do not convince you so anyone. More clearly necessary. Like that -
        "Guys, if you teach the An-26 to take off and land vertically, will you need it?"
        1. Alex_You 21 February 2020 22: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: dauria
          Are you a high speed, do you consider flaws in the presence of vertical take-offs to be disadvantages?


          Yes, do not convince you so anyone. More clearly necessary. Like that -
          "Guys, if you teach the An-26 to take off and land vertically, will you need it?"

          You can make a plane for Kuzi AWACS.
  5. asura 21 February 2020 12: 58 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    A tiltrotor will become a very good vehicle if it is an electrolyte. Lightweight electric motors can be rotated directly on the wing with much lower risks and without auxiliary transmissions. But at the current level of technological development, this is hardly possible.
    1. mark2 21 February 2020 15: 46 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Electric plan wink . light engines and sooooo heavy batteries. And most importantly, sooooo expensive.
      1. Azim77 21 February 2020 17: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Not really. There are developments and projects of a hybrid installation for an electric airplane. In Russia, for example, the Research Center "Institute named after N. E. Zhukovsky" is engaged in this.



        The bottom line is that electricity is generated by a gas turbine engine. Operating at an always optimal and economical mode. From this, and his resource is high. Batteries are needed only during take-off or other demanding maneuvers. In cruising, there is enough electricity generated by a gas turbine engine.

        Such a scheme for the tiltrotor of the "electrolyte" is its future.
        1. prodi 21 February 2020 18: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          “such a dviglo” (without a generator and batteries) would cheer for the aircraft
        2. Andrey.AN 21 February 2020 20: 17 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          then cross with a biplane, to reduce the size, if you do not need an airfield, and set the screws like a quadrocopter (only two-plane traction), pressing it to the fuselage, so that if something is not dragged into a tailspin. Wires anyway where to throw.
  6. Sergey Averchenkov 21 February 2020 13: 04 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    I have already spoken about corvetlanes ... Well, speed is higher, it’s true, but how much more expensive are they? An ordinary helicopter is much simpler and better.
  7. Whalebone 21 February 2020 13: 11 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    I did not understand what Polonsky wrote. They have and for a long time, but we "can come up with"? About 30 years will pass from “notions to a series.” Osprey is considered not the most successful and in return they prepare Vailor, which is smaller, simpler, cheaper.
    The Russian Federation has no expeditionary fleet, and there are no tasks for convertiplanes. We would have to put a normal transporter in a series in exchange for the Mi-8, and make a good universal deck, such as SiHok.
  8. prodi 21 February 2020 13: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    or maybe he just doesn’t have yet another “pushing” engine (jet) for safety during transient conditions?
  9. Per se. 21 February 2020 13: 21 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    The prospects for convertiplanes are mixed.
    Of course, the estimates are mixed, these are the main ones from the negative. The first is “too expensive and not optimally complex toy”, namely, for vertically taking off transport vehicles, gain in speed does not give big advantages. Secondly, this is a high accident rate, since the tiltrotor is a very difficult technique to operate. The hardest part of the machine is the transition from vertical climb to horizontal flight.

    As summed up by my respected Andrei from Chelyabinsk, "this is as deadlock as ekranoplans." Yes, in technology there was something that wasted money like a torpedo boat. However, if this "water-armored" lost the speed and maneuverability of the destroyer without gaining the stealth of the submarine, the ekranoplane combines vertical take-off from a helicopter, and greater speed, already from an airplane. It’s easiest to do nothing, but to “cut money”, if you nod at the price, you can do anything at all, here the “managers” have plenty of space without convertible plans. Everything new is born in agony, everything new is more complicated than the old, more accidentally, more expensive, but without this it is impossible, this is natural. There was a time, and they made fun of the first airplanes, they say, and you can shoot down from a slingshot ...

    Turntop planes, like VTOL, have a future, and it will come for them. We need to deal with the topic, improve the scheme, otherwise, we will lag behind forever.
  10. Operator 21 February 2020 13: 21 New
    • 4
    • 10
    -6
    Any light turboprop aircraft with advanced wing mechanization covers a convertiplane like a bull sheep.
    1. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 20: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      Any light turboprop aircraft with advanced wing mechanization covers a convertiplane like a bull sheep

      Well, well ...) And can he take at least two tons of load? (I’m silent about 4-5 tons at Osprey) And even the lightest airplane doesn’t have a run and a run at all? Even Shtorku (who took only 150 kg in overload) needed a run-up, and he did not stop immediately after landing.

      The competitor to the convertiplane is a high-speed helicopter. And only real operation will show which of the machines is optimal for certain tasks.
      1. Operator 22 February 2020 22: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For example, an expandable slot wing, a propeller and take-off power of 10000 hp engines. 20 tons of take-off weight provide a range of about 200 meters during take-off and landing, a cruising speed of 600 km / h, a payload of 5 tons and a range of about 3000 km.
        1. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 22: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          provide mileage of about 200 meters

          I will not focus on the characteristics you have given, I’ll say only one thing: where to get these same 200 meters, if there are none ??? If you need to sit on a patch, like a helicopter?
          The whole chip of the tiltrotor is to land and take off vertically, but have a speed and carrying capacity comparable to that of a propeller aircraft.
          1. Operator 22 February 2020 22: 44 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            200 meters of the runway + 200 meters of take-off distance to lower / rise are formed in any forest, settlement or industrial zone with the help of a volume explosion bomb.

            Plus roads of any class as ready runways.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 11: 44 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              200 meters of the runway + 200 meters of take-off distance to lower / rise are formed in any forest, settlement or industrial zone with the help of a volume explosion bomb.

              1. On the deck of the UDC, say, 200 meters of GDP cannot be found. They need vertical take-off and landing.
              2. In the mountains - how will you solve the problem? Here, too, "helicopter" inclinations are needed.
              3. Suppose the landing of the DRG in the rear of the enemy. You will start to throw ODAB, telling everyone in the district: “look, and we have arrived!”
              1. Operator 23 February 2020 13: 41 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Why use SCVP with UDC - with a flight range of the first +3000 km?

                For highlands, there are helicopters, for DRG - planning parachutes.
                1. Grigory_45 23 February 2020 14: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  Why use SCVP with UDC - with a flight range of the first +3000 km?

                  as an option - as a transport, patrol, search and rescue, for delivery of the same DRG to the territory of the enemy.

                  Quote: Operator
                  For highlands there are helicopters

                  we have already talked about the advantages of a tiltrotor over helicopters and airplanes of the classical scheme

                  Quote: Operator
                  DRG - planning parachutes

                  Will the group return by parachute? If there will be wounded? Or evacuated? Need transport.
                  In addition, landing by landing has many advantages - safety, stealth, the ability to give the group light vehicles, etc.
                  1. Operator 23 February 2020 14: 32 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    To evacuate DRGs, you can always choose a suitable site, and the sound from clearing the site using the ODAB immediately before the SCVP landing does not matter.

                    The secrecy of the DRG landing using gliding parachutes (completely silent, with low radar visibility, a planning range of ~ 100 km) has no analogues.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat 24 February 2020 00: 07 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      The secrecy of the DRG landing using gliding parachutes (completely silent, with low radar visibility, a planning range of ~ 100 km) has no analogues.

                      This has also been discussed more than once, look for why the MTR of various countries use ultralight BBMs starting with the buggy in conjunction with helicopters. Analyze and realize the tactical and strategic nuances. Even if you are aware of 1% of the available information, it will be enough to change your opinion.
          2. SVD68 23 February 2020 11: 01 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Gregory_45
            I will not focus on the characteristics you have given, I’ll say only one thing: where to get these same 200 meters, if there are none ??? If you need to sit on a patch, like a helicopter?

            That's why they write that if there is no aircraft carrier, then a tiltrotor is not needed. Because only at sea there is nowhere to take these 200 meters.
  11. Proton 21 February 2020 13: 21 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    request Why the hell do we need this rattle, I don’t understand why a hedgehog should be crossed with a snake
  12. Warrior MorePhoto 21 February 2020 13: 44 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    I have already spoken about corvetlanes ... Well, speed is higher, it’s true, but how much more expensive are they? An ordinary helicopter is much simpler and better.


    Yes ... why Escalade, UAZ is simpler, better and several times cheaper
  13. Knell wardenheart 21 February 2020 13: 51 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    An envelope is an expensive toy for an army of massive offensive. For covert operations, it fits less and worse than a helicopter, because it is larger, more whimsical to land, more noticeable, etc. The speed bonus that comes with respect to a helicopter is not so significant, given the specifics of using forces interested in transporting envelopes or helicopters. There, nevertheless, secrecy is important, which the envelope has less than the helicopter, as well as maneuverability, as well as the ability to fly at very low altitudes, which is necessary for covert operations. Thus, an envelope is a very dubious decision for the narrowly specialized transportation of an attacking army, which already has a numerical advantage on a TVD. I don’t think we need it - we have good experience with transport helicopters and airplanes.
  14. Vasily Ponomarev 21 February 2020 14: 22 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Quote: CouchExpert
    Well, why? Such a machine and “endless money” would not hurt us either. And we could come up with something in our own style: we would have developed a couple of MBTs based on the T-72, a couple of new aluminum armored personnel carriers, projects of boats of 1500-2500 tons ... it’s all later in parades, in Syria ... You can, for example, rename the army as “army” - cool! To rearm all shooters with the latest ... AK-100500 caliber 6,66 (already scary, isn't it?). Each military unit will finally receive, instead of the banal Tigers, a car with its own - unique - name and design (there would be enough animals in the dictionary!). Finally, we will build an aircraft carrier with the function of an icebreaker and a carrier of Poseidons and Peresvet! A better couple! A tiltrotor ... well, somehow they "do not bite" ...

    it’s not endless money that built 6.8 million kilometers of roads in America, and it’s not an endless budget that made Silicon Valley, you know, a hint?
  15. Professor Preobrazhensky 21 February 2020 15: 23 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    I would be curious to read the comrades who have unsubscribed above, but under such news.
    Today began the flight tests of a promising aircraft from the Kalashnikov concern. The device is built on the principle of a rotary rotor. The closest competitor is the American Osprey tiltrotor, but the product of our developers surpasses it in all respects. According to representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defense, GvintoKryl-50 plan to be delivered to the troops by the end of 2024 in the amount of 368 flight units.
    1. mark2 21 February 2020 15: 53 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      And gvintokryl it in Ukrainian?
      1. Professor Preobrazhensky 21 February 2020 16: 12 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        By Belarusian)))
  16. magadan72 21 February 2020 17: 30 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    In my opinion, a tiltrotor is needed in Russia more than anywhere else. Giant sparsely populated territories of the Far East and Siberia. Often villages, mines are located 500-700 km from each other.
    At such distances, the helicopter is not very effective - slow speed, short range, and the tiltrotor is most suitable for sanitary, rescue and other purposes in remote areas. A sanitary tiltrotor will save many lives. And the cost of freight and passenger transportation on a tiltrotor is cheaper. The sailors who are dying in the water from the sinking ship "Far East", I think, would prefer to see not useless EMERCOM planes in the sky, but rescue tilt planes ... Rescue pilots from downed planes ... seconds are important ..., tilt planes for delivery of special forces rescuers outside competition ...
    Maybe they’re not needed as big as the Osprey, but it’s quite possible to build Klimov’s ready-made engines to make it cheaper ... So that only the gearbox with the screw would rise, after hovering the wing would rise vertically to reduce the load, maybe some kind of retractable wings for horizontal flight improvements ... It's time to design and build in large quantities. Otherwise, it will be too late ...- while there is no competition in this field ...
    1. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 20: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: magadan72
      In my opinion, a tiltrotor is needed in Russia more than anywhere else. Giant sparsely populated territories of the Far East and Siberia. Often villages, mines are located 500-700 km from each other.
      At such distances, the helicopter is not very effective - slow speed, short range, and the tiltrotor is most suitable for sanitary, rescue and other purposes in remote areas. A sanitary tiltrotor will save many lives. And the cost of freight and passenger transportation on a tiltrotor is cheaper. The sailors who are dying in the water from the sinking ship "Far East", I think, would prefer to see not useless EMERCOM planes in the sky, but rescue tilt planes ... Rescue pilots from downed planes ... seconds are important ..., tilt planes for delivery of special forces rescuers outside competition ...
      Maybe they’re not needed as big as the Osprey, but it’s quite possible to build Klimov’s ready-made engines to make it cheaper ... So that only the gearbox with the screw would rise, after hovering the wing would rise vertically to reduce the load, maybe some kind of retractable wings for horizontal flight improvements ... It's time to design and build in large quantities. Otherwise, it will be too late ...- while there is no competition in this field ...

      perhaps the only adequate, sane comment in the entire branch on the topic of convertiplanes
    2. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 23 February 2020 14: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: magadan72
      So that only a gearbox with a screw is lifted


      ... or an electric drive. Each screw has its own electric drive, like a quadrocopter. And on top of the case somewhere in the tail - a common turbine generator. At the same time a lot of electricity on board, you can power some equipment.

      I agree with your thesis title.
    3. ycuce234-san 24 February 2020 15: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      At such distances, the helicopter is not very effective - slow speed, short range, and the tiltrotor is most suitable for sanitary, rescue and other purposes in remote areas. A sanitary tiltrotor will save many lives.


      For sushi, it is better to use a large gyroplane flying from the ground or a synchrometer. These mechanisms are simpler than a helicopter and cheaper. Where there is where to sit, a gyroplane will fly; if not, a synchroopter. It’s quite accessible - for example, I saw on YouTube how businessmen are carrying, on the external sling of the Kaman K-MAX synchroper, logs cut down by loggers in mountainous areas - and this suggests that it’s not only beneficial for them to carry people or medicines, but even logs and not far from the mountains, from a dozen kilometers to the loading point.
      On YouTube, you can see how they harvest the mountain forest in the "aviation" way:




      Helicopters also do not lag behind and do not give up: the experimental, from a new generation of technology, high-speed SB-1 Defiant - in the X2 demonstrator version - has a speed of 463 km / h (82% of the Be-12).
      Therefore, tiltrotor aircraft will still have to withstand serious competition in the military version with high-speed helicopters and in civilian - with syncopters and gyros, landing on the ground and water.
  17. Old26 22 February 2020 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: iouris
    But we do not really need convertoplanes "in hardware" now. R&D - probably appropriate (within reasonable (budget) constraints).

    Then R&D is not worth it. For R&D is scientific research and development work. And when OCD opens, the output is always hardware.

    Quote: novel xnumx
    there is no aircraft carrier - and no convertiplanes are needed

    And these are not interconnected things.

    Quote: Klingon
    ekranoplanes are not a dead end, for the coastal sea zone as a carrier of missile weapons they were faster than any missile boats, we simply have no one else to develop them. in the USSR, this was done by the Design Bureau named after R. Alekseev Pts. talented designer inventor. and now who will do it? Rogozin or Chubi? or any D'effective Managers?

    This is just a dead end. If they were not a dead end branch, they would develop in the Union. And so a huge car, which on the radar screen will glow like a Christmas tree. Eating a lot of fuel, but at the same time having a minimum of weapons. Its seaworthiness is worse than that of river-sea ships. If they appeared in the 40s - 50s - maybe they would be in demand. Now the first and last missile ekranoplan "lun" is rotting in Kaspiysk.

    Quote: figvam
    So with its speed, carrying capacity and range it is universal, transporting military equipment, cargo, pestilence. infantry, as a strike platform, as a lifeguard, as a guard of maritime borders.

    It is not universal, Sergey! Speed ​​- about 350-400 km / h. Carrying capacity - the "Orlenok" EMNIP had a maximum of 28 tons and a practical range of 1500 km. But he will never take away 28 tons for 1500 km.
    Like a missile - 6 missiles and huge sizes. At about the same speed and range of 2000 km. As a rescuer, he is also not capable of anything. Sit in the wave of a ship in distress, maybe it will land, but it will not take off


    Quote: figvam
    Are you kidding me there? WIG KM with a loading capacity of 300 tons! and modern would carry even more. Flooding up to 5 points.

    It’s not always possible to believe Vicki, who sometimes writes nonsense. An empty CM had a mass of 240 tons. The maximum take-off was 544 tons. And 10 engines of 13 tons of thrust within 3 hours will probably be fed by the holy spirit?


    Quote: figvam
    This is not a ship, what autonomy? A range of up to 2000 km is enough for patrolling.

    It is generally not clear what. Half-ship half-plane. And where will he patrol? Territorial waters? Or an economic zone? So the intruder will not wait for exceptionally good weather. The patrol time is 3-4 hours. Well, he will fly these 2000 km, and then what? He will not be able to land an inspection group. Open fire on the intruder - too. For all its trunks are intended only for hitting targets in the upper hemisphere ...
  18. SVD68 23 February 2020 10: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Convertiplanes have one inherent flaw - they are too technically complex. This means not only the high cost of creation, but also the high cost of operation. As McCain put it popularly: "The V-22 looks great in the sky ... when it’s not idle to repair." Therefore, convertiplanes are used only by the military, for which price is a secondary issue.
    Therefore, when considering the need for a convertiplane, you need to consider the question, but is it possible to carry out tasks for convertiplanes with other means? The first challenger will be a helicopter or rotorcraft with a propeller. True to them, too, difficulties.
    For civilian use, light propeller planes and conventional helicopters will be more effective.
    1. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 23 February 2020 14: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But you can simplify it - put each screw on an electric drive and power it from a common generator turbine. I don’t understand why the Americans haven’t done this already. Small flying quadcopter drones have already accumulated vast experience in controlling such a propulsion circuit (though on battery power).
      1. SVD68 23 February 2020 17: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There is an obvious answer in the weight of such engines. Because there is no electric aircraft, it is not profitable.
    2. ProkletyiPirat 24 February 2020 00: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: SVD68
      But is it possible to carry out tasks for convertiplanes by other means? The first challenger will be a helicopter or rotorcraft with a propeller.

      ask yourself what is the main problem of the helicopter and how does the tiltrotor solve it? you can google, you can look in my old comments more than once voiced in other articles on the topic of convertiplanes.
      Quote: SVD68
      Convertiplanes have one inherent flaw - they are too technically complex.

      tiltrotor has the same complexity as a helicopter, because it consists of the same nodes. Your misconception lies in the fact that you confuse the concepts of “tiltrotor” and “osprey” and attribute the problems and disadvantages of otprey to all tiltrotor aircraft. For example, osprey is too expensive due to the use of expensive avionics, the use of polymer-composite materials and the use of small-scale highly specialized power plants. Subtract all this, enter the correction for the mass production and get a price similar to a helicopter.
      1. SVD68 24 February 2020 08: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        ask yourself what is the main problem of the helicopter and how does the tiltrotor solve it? you can google, you can look in my old comments more than once voiced in other articles on the topic of convertiplanes.

        Are you often sent? This is because of this manner of leading the discussion.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Your misconception lies in the fact that you confuse the concepts of “tiltrotor” and “osprey” and attribute the problems and disadvantages of otprey to all tiltrotor aircraft. For example, osprey is too expensive due to the use of expensive avionics, the use of polymer-composite materials and the use of small-scale highly specialized power plants. Subtract all this, enter the correction for the mass production and get a price similar to a helicopter.

        Well, give an example of low-cost serial convertiplanes.
        1. ProkletyiPirat 25 February 2020 12: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: SVD68
          Well, give an example of low-cost serial convertiplanes.

          Give an example of inexpensive reliable mass-produced helicopters of the first / second world wars. hi
  19. Nameless 24 February 2020 18: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: magadan72
    In my opinion, a tiltrotor is needed in Russia more than anywhere else. Giant sparsely populated territories of the Far East and Siberia. Often villages, mines are located 500-700 km from each other.
    At such distances, the helicopter is not very effective - slow speed, short range, and the tiltrotor is most suitable for sanitary, rescue and other purposes in remote areas. A sanitary tiltrotor will save many lives. And the cost of freight and passenger transportation on a tiltrotor is cheaper. The sailors who are dying in the water from the sinking ship "Far East", I think, would prefer to see not useless EMERCOM planes in the sky, but rescue tilt planes ... Rescue pilots from downed planes ... seconds are important ..., tilt planes for delivery of special forces rescuers outside competition ...
    Maybe they’re not needed as big as the Osprey, but it’s quite possible to build Klimov’s ready-made engines to make it cheaper ... So that only the gearbox with the screw would rise, after hovering the wing would rise vertically to reduce the load, maybe some kind of retractable wings for horizontal flight improvements ... It's time to design and build in large quantities. Otherwise, it will be too late ...- while there is no competition in this field ...

    I also agree with you on everything: for our aircraft, they will be most relevant for units of the Airborne Forces and Special Forces detachments: it flies faster and farther than a helicopter, can land and take off vertically on any suitable surface, so runways will be completely unnecessary - any will do relatively smooth glade. The landing party can land both upon landing, and jump with parachutes "on the fly", and descend on cables to the roofs of buildings.
    Such IL-76 and Mi-26 hybrids will allow you to quickly transfer a large number of people and light military equipment anywhere!
    1. ProkletyiPirat 25 February 2020 13: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Nameless
      will be most relevant for the units of the Airborne Forces and Special Forces units

      *) for the Navy with a range of 5000 + km for the transportation of reusable buoys with a hull
      *) for the Ministry of Emergencies for the delivery of special equipment and evacuation of people
      *) for SV to compensate for tactical miscalculations
      *) for the FSB for the delivery of people and equipment for cordons and searches in the forests / mountains
      and much more
      1. Nameless 25 February 2020 13: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Quote: Nameless
        will be most relevant for the units of the Airborne Forces and Special Forces units

        *) for the Navy with a range of 5000 + km for the transportation of reusable buoys with a hull
        *) for the Ministry of Emergencies for the delivery of special equipment and evacuation of people
        *) for SV to compensate for tactical miscalculations
        *) for the FSB for the delivery of people and equipment for cordons and searches in the forests / mountains
        and much more

        Well, the first thing that came to my mind was the Airborne Forces and Special Forces of various departments (including the FSVNG, GRU and FSB) as the most potential exploiters of this type of equipment. I somehow did not think about the rest of the armed forces, so with your permission I will allow myself to express my thoughts about the examples you have given:
        - In the Navy, they can also be useful - not only for transporting buoys, but also for anti-submarine warfare, landing marines, rescue crews of sunken ships. The only problem is that in our fleet there are no aircraft carriers that were capable of placing them on board in the future. Therefore, their use could be limited.
        - for the Ministry of Emergencies - completely, absolutely and unconditionally agree with you.
        - Not everything is so simple with SV: to compensate for tactical miscalculations, we have the so-called "strategic reserve" - ​​Airborne. Ordinary MSVs are not capable of airborne landing; their patrimony is land. The tanks are too heavy to lift into the air. The only thing that comes to mind is KShM, a flying hospital, transportation of equipment and ammunition, and most importantly - this is the movement of the MLRS and OTRK calculations.
        - Well, the FSB is like my suggestion on the Special Forces. This also includes the FSVNG and the GRU.
        Because Since a tiltrotor is an airborne vehicle flying at subsonic speed, it would be very wise to use low-latency technologies in its design - this would allow the Airborne Forces and Special Forces detachments to seamlessly cross enemy air defenses without disastrous consequences for themselves. And they’re saying right now that the Airborne Forces aren’t relevant now because in order to land in the rear of the enemy they first need to overcome the air defense system and enemy fighters - and this is impossible to do at the initial stage of the war. Those. they are trying to say that today the Airborne Forces can conduct military operations only against countries with an absent or poor air defense system - for example, against Africans. The use of stealth technology could to some extent solve this problem.
        1. ProkletyiPirat 25 February 2020 23: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nameless
          in the Navy, they can also be useful - not only for transporting buoys, but also for anti-submarine warfare, landing marines, rescue crews of sunken ships. The only problem is that in our fleet there are no aircraft carriers

          You don’t understand, a tiltrotor delivering buoys and drones (weighing from 15t) to a range of 2500 \ 5000km (radius \ range) covers the functions that corvettes, patrol vessels, and frigates now perform. It performs these functions several orders of magnitude better. Since it can provide thousands or even tens of thousands of scan points and can quickly be transferred between our isolated marine theater. Consequently, it will be possible to reduce 50-90% of the marine surface fleet, and in return to get an ocean surface fleet. That is, there is a bunch of tiltrotor + Mn. Buoys + drones + PLUR (ground-based in UVP) based on land, or also based on large Panamax-class vessels. At the same time, the tiltrotor performs the functions of PLO, AWACS, air support (air racks), delivery of light armored infantry fighting vehicles (MRAP, MTLB, BTR) with airborne landing in / out into water or forest (lift spreader through the lower bomb bay), mining and clearance of water areas. Of the non-overlapping functions, civilian tugboats, icebreakers, supply transports, etc. will remain.
          In general, it’s not necessary to focus on the American version of using convertiplanes.

          Quote: Nameless
          Because Since a tiltrotor is an airborne vehicle flying at subsonic speed, it would be very wise to use low-latency technologies in its design - this would allow the Airborne Forces and Special Forces detachments to seamlessly cross enemy air defenses without disastrous consequences for themselves.

          It is pointless and costly. No need to make a stealth convertiplane, it is enough to equip a military-civil convertiplane with reusable stealth drones and slots for the installation of military equipment by the crew (for example, spherical radars and anti-aircraft defense missiles).
          1. Nameless 25 February 2020 23: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Now I absolutely agree with you on everything! hi
            Simply put, konvertoplanam and VTOL - to be, because they have the future!
            1. ProkletyiPirat 26 February 2020 00: 29 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Yes, the future, but not everywhere. In medium military transport aviation, convertiplanes are good, and in ultra-small UAVs they are also good, but like attack aircraft and anti-tankers in a war against an equal enemy, they are much worse than attack helicopters, on the other hand, in asymmetric wars when air superiority is ensured, they will again be better than helicopters.
              As for the VTOL aircraft, in the version that was implemented earlier and is being implemented now (f-35), the VTOL aircraft will not achieve anything, then a completely different power plant and propulsion system are needed.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Nameless 26 February 2020 00: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So I had in mind the average BTA - as a replacement for the IL-76 and Mi-26. I didn’t even think about their “shock” application.
                With regard to VTOL, I just madly like the idea of ​​a technique that is completely independent of the construction of runways, capable of landing and taking off from any suitable horizontal surfaces of small dimensions. In my opinion, such aircraft would be useful not only for naval aviation, but also for conventional air forces, as airdromes are one of the primary goals of the enemy at the beginning of the war - and the plane can take off / land or not depending on the state of the runway. VTOL could solve this problem.
                1. ProkletyiPirat 26 February 2020 14: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  1) Turntop planes will not be able to replace IL76, they have restrictions on the length and weight distribution of the cargo compartment. By weight, these restrictions can be moved up, but by size (length), no.
                  2) Mi-26 is generally not a competitor to convertiplanes because it is military unsuitable due to problems with strategic transfer (does not fit in the An-124)
                  3) The runway, especially the military runway is repaired in a couple of hours. At the Air Force, aviation is less demanding on the quality of the runway. In general, the destruction of a refinery and its infrastructure is the most dangerous thing for a military airfield.
                  1. Nameless 26 February 2020 15: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Clear. Those. tiltrotor can serve as a complement to the BTA and a kind of intermediate link between light and medium transporters (that is, if we talk about their role as vehicles, not taking into account all other ways of their use)?
                    As far as I know, the U.S. ILC got the idea of ​​owning this kind of aviation equipment (convertiplanes, VTOL aircraft) back in WWII - during the battles for the islands and Pacific archipelagos, an urgent need arose for equipment that could be taken from an aircraft carrier with itself, and which would didn't need a runway.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat 26 February 2020 15: 27 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      As for the date when I don’t know, they didn’t know what to take with you. The beauty of the VTA with the VVTPZ (VTOL) is that it allows you to land (and take) anywhere and thereby makes it possible to surround and block the supply and reconnaissance of the enemy. Turnkey planes are better than helicopters due to the increase in the area of ​​the theater of operations inland enemy territory at a lower cost relative to helicopters (minimum 4 to 1, maximum 10-20 to 1).
                      1. Nameless 26 February 2020 15: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, I actually meant it - you better managed to express it. hi
                      2. Nameless 26 February 2020 15: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I hope that someday in the foreseeable future, thanks to people like you (and maybe directly thanks to you), this worthy model of technology would take its place of honor in the military and civil aviation park.
                      3. ProkletyiPirat 26 February 2020 18: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Strongly doubtThe history of the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR and the Russian Federation shows that we have problems with the remuneration of analysts (they give money for analytical calculations but don’t pay (they give to someone (who has papers and connections), but they pay for something (for goods in in the form of informational calculations))). And all analytics in the field of technology comes down to “copy-paste”, even when someone came up with something / suggested / analyzed something, that implementation occurs if and only if it starts to be done “in the West” (in the sense of other countries not necessarily Western )
                        You can google it yourself and find out that technologies such as PC, GPS, Internet, LA catapult seats, aircraft static instability, helicopters, attack helicopters, BBM dynamic defenses and many other technologies were offered and developed with us many years before they appeared in other countries , but no one here has ever launched them "in series." The only exception is the time of Stalin, Beria and their company with an attempt to introduce a "ratsuh".
                        Judge for yourself when public services write in a covert form on their websites “we want you to give us your ideas and best practices, we promise to finance their implementation, but we don’t have to give you anything” will a reasonable person spend his time and resources to work out, design and presentation of their ideas? Of course no! So it turns out that we have all sorts of left-handed people, “kulibins” and urban lunatics worn with “ideas” (for example, a couple of these are worn with ekranoplanes next to other comments).
                        Even though I work out, design, refine, structure and balance analytical calculations, for me it is a by-product of the development of GIAS (global information-analytical system) and its elements (for example, “analytics” as a science, not pseudoscience).
                      4. Nameless 26 February 2020 22: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes, I’m not telling you as an analyst, but as a person very well versed in this topic. It would simply be very good if someone like you with such knowledge could explain to the right people the need and benefit of these machines, interest them in the need for R&D and production adjustment. That's why I hope that in the aviation design bureaus and ministries there could be people who thought the same way you did.
                        This is just such a magical feature of our mentality. I previously unsubscribed below on this subject using the example of a Fedorov assault rifle. I think that people here simply learned how to handle what is available at the moment, and they either can’t comprehend any innovations, or consider them an unnecessary waste of money, or perceive with hostility - all this on the principle of “a bird in the hand is better than pie in the sky". And in the end, no one canceled the proverb about the fact that we harness for a very long time, but we drive amazingly fast! Sooner or later, we will also acquire this - after other people fill the bumps in the implementation of our ideas. In principle, convertiplanes are not such a know-how - the Osprey of Americans has been in operation for a long time. And this could be the reason for the appearance of such machines with us.
                        Well, it depends on the state services and the "competition" they hold. Because there are those who announce an open competition with a tender, and there are negligent people to whom the higher leadership entrusted the task, they cannot reach their solution with their own minds - that’s what they do.
                        Well, I would not say something about Stalin and I take something good. Okay, setting clear tasks for subordinates there, tight control over their implementation in case of violations or crimes is punishment, but why arrange terrorism in relation to your own people? Yes, especially with such excesses that only occupiers are capable of? It just doesn’t fit in my head how you can send it to a bunk or shoot a designer for creating many prototypes on the way to the prototype. This is some kind of wildness! It reminds those movie scenes when the mafia representatives set deadlines for some hackers and in case of any problems they kill them like little bipods! Then many were killed from rationalizers and inventors for alleged "wrecking." As an example, an automatic Taubin grenade launcher, which we could acquire at the beginning of the Second World War. The same Korolev might not have lived in the camp until that bright moment when his knowledge could be useful to the people - and that’s all, we would have neither the first satellite, nor the Squirrel and Strelka, nor Gagarin, nor as an offshoot - ballistic and cruise missiles . And these are just a few examples.
      2. Nameless 26 February 2020 13: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Avianthantraki? Those. ganshipy? Like the American AC-130 "Specter \ Spooky"?
        1. ProkletyiPirat 26 February 2020 14: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          yes, in the Russian segment of the Internet they are called differently
          1. Nameless 26 February 2020 14: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It’s just that the gantraki doesn’t hurt a little - this term refers to automobile technology that has been turned from a bad life in artisanal conditions into a combat one (as in WWII tanks were made from tractors “for fear”).
  • remal 25 February 2020 03: 26 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The Americans themselves are laughing at them. So all the time these things are under repair. In addition to the cost, there is still a lot of money spent on repairs. There is a complex transmission, and even with mechanical synchronization.

    For landing, an ekranoplane with the possibility of a vertical landing is suitable. We take the engine from AURUS (light diesel) + an electric generator. Put it in the tail, fasten the screw and the guides guiding the air. On the sides and where necessary, add a few more electric motors that can be twisted to change the thrust vector. On take-off, all electric motors operate for traction, including an “electric generator." In normal mode, the diesel engine produces energy, the rest of the engines from it work. In general, we change the mechanics of an electric transmission.
    1. Nameless 25 February 2020 13: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: remal
      The Americans themselves are laughing at them. So all the time these things are under repair. In addition to the cost, there is still a lot of money spent on repairs. There is a complex transmission, and even with mechanical synchronization.

      Well, what they got as a result of R&D is "the first pancake turned out lumpy." To date, their Osprey is the first and only model of this kind of technology adopted into service. A kind of engineering miracle. The fact that they turned out to be complicated and sometimes unreliable does not in any way make the idea of ​​a tiltrotor vicious.
  • EvilLion 25 February 2020 13: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    , a tiltrotor and not an airplane or a helicopter, with the shortcomings of both.
    1. Nameless 25 February 2020 14: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In fact, with the merits of both - and he has his own shortcomings, like all things in this world ...
  • Yury Siritsky 25 February 2020 14: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There are helicopters, figs need this device.
  • Nameless 25 February 2020 14: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Yuri Siritsky
    There are helicopters, figs need this device.

    It allows the airplane to do what a helicopter can do - i.e. take off \ land vertically, hang in the air. And he does what the helicopter is incapable of - to fly far and quickly like an airplane. If you attach the mind, then you can find many uses for it. What - I wrote earlier in the comments here. This is a kind of promising replacement for military transport aircraft and heavy cargo helicopters (such as the Mi-26) of army aviation. It would be very nice if the PAK TA project conceptually turned out to be a convertiplane - this could increase the flexibility of using other combat arms.
  • Nameless 25 February 2020 15: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, about the “unnecessity”: they used to say about Fedorov’s assault rifle - where do we find so many cartridges for it? This is already some kind of feature of our mentality!
  • Bolbot 27 February 2020 18: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Turntop transport of the future. When capacious electric batteries appear, then there will be reliable, light, economical aircraft that do not require airfields.