Military Review

Shipborne assault helicopter for the Navy - a quick solution

100

The Ka-29s look beautiful. But not commercially available. Sub-optimal and inconvenient for the landing. And they were built back in the USSR. But Russia has nothing else.


Currently, four landing ships are under construction in the Russian Federation. A couple of ships of the improved project 11711 with an increased displacement (very strange and very irrational, I must say) are being built by the Yantar plant. Each of these ships carries two multipurpose (landing) helicopters.

Two more large landing ships of the "usual" project 11711 - "Ivan Gren" and "Pyotr Morgunov" have already been built. But the most important thing is the two UDC 23900 projects “laid down” in the Crimea, with which everything is also very, very “difficult”.

And it is the latter who pose another problem to the country. UDC is of little use without special naval helicopters - landing and attack helicopters. And if we are more or less good with attack helicopters, we have a serial Ka-52K, then with landing helicopters, everything is bad. They simply do not exist.

Those interested in the UDC issue can familiarize themselves with with the corresponding article in the "VPK-Courier" (please note that title and some headings are editorial). The important thing in all this is that the press estimates the composition of the air group of each of the UDC at about 16–20 helicopters.

Thus, if we take the minimum estimate of 16 machines, of which, for example, 12 are the Ka-29, and four are the Ka-52K, then the carrier helicopters of the BDK and both UDCs will require 32 helicopters of the Ka-29 type. And we also need several cars in the Combat Use Center. And you also need to compensate for the losses that are inevitable in any military conflict. It is necessary to teach technicians on some helicopters. But Ka-29s are not produced in our country, the resumption of their production is not planned.

In total, 59 units were built, of which several have already been lost in disasters, for example - “A Russian military helicopter Ka-29 crashed in the Baltic Sea. There were two crew members on board, both were killed. "... People cannot be returned, but the fact that the loss of the helicopter is irreparable is very wrong. But this is exactly the case.

Where is the Ministry of Defense going to get the Ka-29 from?

From here, for example.

Shipborne assault helicopter for the Navy - a quick solution

These are dismantled vehicles from the half-abandoned ARZ. Surprisingly, they can be restored, and almost all of them. But this is not a solution to the problem of a landing helicopter for fleet... And because the vehicle sent into battle must still be mass-produced.

Link to the entire photo session with ARZ - here.
First, let's look at what helicopters the Navy plans to get and what it can. And then we will formulate the requirements for the landing helicopter and find a solution to this problem.

Helicopters "Ka" - possible options


A huge mass of requirements is imposed on a naval helicopter, which ground-based machines absolutely do not satisfy. This concerns the dimensions and everything that needs to be "crammed" into these dimensions, onboard navigation equipment for flights over a non-oriented surface in any (this is fundamentally) visibility conditions. And so on for any design feature, up to the requirements for the corrosion resistance of materials. About folding blades and (not here in Russia, but "in general") tail booms need not be mentioned, it is common knowledge.

Today the only brand of marine helicopters in the Russian Federation are the Ka helicopters. Although the Russian Helicopters holding is currently pursuing a strange policy of “optimization” of design bureaus, which is unknown how it will end in the end. But so far, the available documentation only allows for shipborne Ka helicopters. Serial shipborne helicopters and their ground modifications are also produced under the same brand.

And it is within the framework of the Kamov design school that a promising helicopter, known in the media as the Lamprey, is being created.


Model of the ship's helicopter "Lamprey"

Let's say right away that the hypothetical future version of the Lamprey should be excluded from consideration in the near future.

On the basis of this platform, a more or less good landing helicopter may well turn out. But it will be sometime. It is assumed that the first flight of this helicopter will take place in 2025.

But, first of all, it needs to happen. And, secondly, it is necessary that, according to its results, the helicopter would not have to be completely redone. For this "test of strength" of post-Soviet designers, everything can turn out to be very difficult.

It is worth recalling that 27 years have passed between the first flight of the Ka-8 and its introduction into service. True, it was an anti-submarine helicopter, with sophisticated avionics. Nevertheless, the timing is indicative. Moreover, the Lamprey is also made as an anti-submarine.

Naturally, this does not mean that this program is not needed - on the contrary, it is long overdue. There is simply no need to hope that the landing version of this helicopter will appear on time. Most probably not.

This is a matter of the future so far away that today's students and cadets should be theorizing on this topic.

Now the question is posed in an acute form - how to "overlap" before the appearance of the landing version of the Lamprey?

The answer to this question will have to be looked for in the line of "Kamov" cars. There are simply no other options for today. It is not in China to buy helicopters (although with our organizational approaches it may come to that).

How to make the process of creating a helicopter fast?

The answer is that it needs to be done on the basis of a serial machine, which is still in production. The list of such helicopters is very short.

But before contacting him, it is worthwhile in advance, in advance, to assess the possibility of restarting the production of the Ka-29 according to the same scheme according to which the Il-76 was restarted in Ulyanovsk at one time.

The point is, this is a bad helicopter.

From its progenitor, the Ka-27, the 29th vehicle inherited the layout with fuel tanks under the floor of the cargo compartment. And this limited its height. The height inside the cargo compartment of this helicopter is the same as that of other variants of the Ka-27 - 1300 mm. This is very small. Especially for a soldier in body armor with weapons and equipment.


The helicopter has very sub-optimal landing hatches.

If on the left side there is a wide hatch (120x120 cm), which allows you to quickly leave the helicopter, then on the right side there is only a small door behind the cockpit. And closer to the tail, an even smaller escape hatch.


By the way, the height inside the cargo compartment is very clearly visible.

At the same time, the hatch on the left side opens, like in the Mi-24 - the sash is up, the sash is down, which does not make it possible to fly regularly with an open hatch and a machine gun installed in it. However, this helicopter is also hindered by the placement of missile weapons.

Actually, the way the Ka-29's fuselage is made is quite perplexing.

We look at the photo. The helicopter even retained a compartment in which the anti-submarine helicopter has a descending hydroacoustic station. The "torpedo" compartment also remained ...

Why is he there?


The covers and hinges are very visible. Photo: igor113.livejournal.com

Photoshoot with external detailing Ka-29 is available here.

It also raises the question whether this vehicle has a wide range of missile weapons, including guided ones, for which the helicopter had to be equipped with an aiming system. Soviet helicopters were supposed to operate autonomously, both as landing and attack helicopters - the USSR had no other shipborne helicopters capable of hitting ground targets. Russia has such a helicopter, it is the Ka-52K. And it would be logical to remove non-core tasks from the landing vehicle, if only for the sake of making it cheaper.

But the ability to quickly leave the helicopter with a landing force should be improved.

Airborne operations at the tactical level "easily and naturally" turn into airborne assault operations, when the fighters actually enter the battle at the moment of landing. In such circumstances, the ability to quickly jump out of the "turntable" and let her immediately leave -
can become critical.

And for this, instead of a narrow door on the starboard side, you need to get hold of the same hatch there as on the left. And it is desirable to make both hatches movable, like on the Ka-32. Moreover, the width of the hatches must be ensured as much as possible without touching the supporting elements of the helicopter fuselage.

This is what a quick landing in a real assault looks like through wide doors. Watch from 2:40.


Thus, the Ka-29 does not meet the requirements that would be logical for an amphibious helicopter today. But it has a lot of superfluous and a bunch of "inherited" structural elements of the anti-submarine helicopter.

In addition, restarting its production (even with all the unification with serial helicopters) will take too long.

Thus, it remains to turn to the machines that are already being produced.

At first glance, the Ka-32 comes to mind. This helicopter is in the series. It is even used by foreign military forces, namely South Korea.


Ka-32 Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea during the exercise.

The helicopter has a large payload. And it was created on the basis of the marine Ka-27PS, which is also listed as serial. This means that "crossing" a search and rescue helicopter (in terms of folding propellers, avionics and other features of a naval ship vehicle) and the fuselage, which has eliminated all the "legacy" of an anti-submarine vehicle, is quick and easy.

Moreover, the latest modifications of the Ka-32 have the desired two hatches on the sides. And the technical possibility of placing various antennas on the fuselage outside the fairings, which may well be the electronic warfare means necessary to protect the helicopter.

But here the problem of internal dimensions arises.

The Ka-32 was created on the basis of the Ka-27PS. And the latter is based on a special anti-submarine helicopter, during the creation of which the issue of maximizing the volume of the cargo compartment was not raised. The fuselage width of the Ka-32 is the same as that of the Ka-27 - just over 1400 mm.


Dimensions Ka-27 and Ka-32

Thus, this machine does not have at least an extended nose, like the Ka-27.

At the same time, the problem of fuel tanks under the floor of the cargo compartment remained - they are in the same place. As a result, the dimensions of the cargo compartment of this helicopter are standard "Kamov" ones: width - 1,3 m, height - 1,32 m, length - 4,52. At the same time, closer to the cockpit, the gearbox casing "hangs" from the cockpit ceiling, further reducing the useful volume.

Usually, to show this helicopter from the inside, these photos are laid out.


The reality, however, is sadder.

In order to understand how little space there is in such a helicopter, look at this photo.


Inside with a suspended load. Photo: Marina Lystseva, fotografersha.livejournal.com

These are two rescuers, and they carry much less equipment than the Marines, but they also have to be reclining for elementary observation of the behavior of the load on the suspension.

But if you look closely through the hatch, you can see how much height the structure with a double floor and tanks inside the fuselage "ate".

But in the landing you have to carry a lot of various property, ammunition, weapons such as hand-held and automatic grenade launchers, rocket-propelled flamethrowers, large-caliber machine guns, portable anti-tank systems with a stock of missiles, MANPADS and much more.

Does this helicopter make it possible to provide a full-fledged landing of troops?

No.

A few Marines, twisted to such an extent that by the time they disembark, it will hurt them to move on their feet - that's all.

Let's formulate what we need in the end from a temporary (to "Lamprey") helicopter:

- A helicopter based on the design of the OKB im. "Kamova".

- The maximum volume of the cargo compartment. Why do you need a car with a maximum fuselage width.

- The design, internal volumes and carrying capacity should allow the placement of electronic warfare equipment, infrared traps and other defense equipment on board.

- Due to the presence of naval attack helicopters and the fact that the proposed helicopter is a temporary solution (which means it should not be very expensive), it will be sufficient to equip it with a pair of machine guns on the sides and include air gunners in the crew (as they did and do Americans).

- The helicopter must be based on a serial machine.

Now let's see if we have a suitable base model. And what can we do with it.

The solution


Today, the serial shipborne helicopter, which is in serial production and has the largest fuselage, is the Ka-31 AWACS helicopter. Or its reconnaissance modification Ka-31SV (Ka-35), tested in Syria a few years ago.

The internal volumes of these helicopters are occupied by electronic equipment, but they are large enough to try to develop a transport and landing version on the basis of this machine - the width of the fuselage of this helicopter is similar to that of the Ka-29, and the carrying capacity is also high. At the same time, until the middle of the helicopter, the fuselage is clearly wider, the further to the tail.


The Ka-31 in the bow is wider than the Ka-32 or Ka-27.



The fuselage is similar to the Ka-29 - a 120x120 cm hatch on one side, a narrow uncomfortable door on the other.

However, the same cab height problem arises. And here the only option is to transfer the fuel tanks to the outside of the fuselage. Approximately the way it was done on the Mi-8/17.


The weapons bay and tanks "eat up" a lot of internal volumes on Ka helicopters and always due to the height of the cargo compartment.


The hatch height is only 10 cm less than the interior height of the cab. People nearby are clearly visible for scale.

Is this technically possible?

Yes.

The fuselage of the Ka-31 helicopter is strong enough to carry the large fairing of the retractable nose landing gear legs and the rising landing gear legs themselves, both nose and rear.


It can be seen how many different loads this helicopter can carry along the sides. Instead, there can be just two fuel tanks.

By and large, if you use an ordinary chassis, without a lifting mechanism, then the fuel tanks are completely placed on the sides of the helicopter. In the same place as the Ka-31 landing gear fairings. They will simply be longer.

Moreover, the sides of the Ka-31 have been expanded up to the rear landing gear. This gives additional space to accommodate the onboard avionics of the helicopter, which will not need to be placed in the cargo compartment.

The Ka-31 repeats the "architecture" of the Ka-29 in terms of hatches - one large hatch on the port side and one narrow hinged door behind the cockpit on the starboard side.

The landing helicopter does not need a door, but you can have one window behind the cockpit for firing onboard machine guns. At the same time, the forward fuselage, like the Ka-29 (wider by 500 mm than the Ka-32), will make the placement of air gunners more convenient. The location of the two sliding hatches on the sides can not cause any serious problems. In addition, they can be “built up”, following the lowered cab floor (there will be no tanks under the floor now).

The cabin height of such a helicopter will be at least 1600 mm.

The width is more complicated.

In order to speed up the work, the fuselage must be left as it is. And this implies maintaining its size. But, nevertheless, the design of the Ka-31 fuselage with its extended front part makes it possible to "remove all unnecessary" from the cargo compartment and, at least a little, but free up space along the walls.

The helicopter will be able to easily carry a full-fledged squad of soldiers and have a reserve of a couple of seats, which is the optimal capacity for airborne assault operations, since the principle “one vehicle = one squad” is maintained. And there is no loss of control during disembarkation (due to the division of units into different vehicles).

Moreover, the large carrying capacity of the helicopter, which the landing force with its cargo will not choose even close, allows you to fix the composite armor plate on the bottom of the helicopter (with a smaller mass than steel) and partially protect the personnel from fire from the ground.

Naturally, we are by no means talking about some kind of multi-ton construction.

The fact that a large number of different fairings and casings are attached to the outer skin of the Ka-31 makes it possible to fix all the necessary means of electronic and optoelectronic countermeasures on this machine.

Equipping such helicopters with screen-exhaust devices for protection against missiles with IR-seeker will also not be a problem.

Transportation of goods on an external sling will require a separate study, since the method of transportation should not require a significant share of the volume in the cargo compartment. And the transportation itself on an external sling, without a doubt, is useful for carrying out amphibious operations, as it allows you to transfer artillery, mortars and light vehicles (for example, UAZ vehicles). But this is definitely a solvable problem.

The fact that there are external sponson-like structures on the Ka-31, and all the other design features of this helicopter, indicate that on the basis of its fuselage it is possible to develop an amphibious version, with an enlarged cargo compartment and external fuel tanks, capable of "covering" the needs of the sea infantry in amphibious assault helicopters before the appearance of the Lamprey.

And, unlike the Ka-29, these helicopters will be better suited for their main task, due to the volume of the cargo compartment. And they are more protected thanks to modern defense systems and the ability to carry at least minimal armor protection.


Approximate visualization.

For the technical and flight personnel of the Navy MA, this will be a familiar helicopter, which does not differ fundamentally from those already in service and mastered long ago.

The fact that the Navy is building amphibious ships, the growing tension in world politics and the active actions of the Russian Federation on the world stage indicate that amphibious helicopters may be required very soon. And in considerable quantity.

The proposed helicopter makes it possible to get them quickly and in the required quantity even before the new landing ships enter service.
Author:
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 24 February 2021 05: 36
    -9
    but we have "Poseidons" and "vanguards" .... "with little blood, on foreign territory."
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 09: 11
      +17
      Like 41 straight, right? If tomorrow is a war, if tomorrow is on a campaign, if the enemy's force is coming ...

      And then with the millions killed to Moscow, the Volga and the Caucasus. We don't learn anything.
      1. Destiny
        Destiny 24 February 2021 09: 57
        +25
        "History is not a teacher, but the magistra vitae (teacher of life): she does not teach anything, but only punishes for ignorance of the lessons."
        IN. Klyuchevsky
      2. Lara Croft
        Lara Croft 24 February 2021 17: 38
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Like 41 straight, right? If tomorrow is a war, if tomorrow is on a campaign, if the enemy's force is coming ...

        And then with the millions killed to Moscow, the Volga and the Caucasus. We don't learn anything.

        Can't the KA-60 be used for this in the Navy (including deck-based MA)?
        Here is an article about "Kasatka" was on VO, about 7 years ago ...
        https://topwar.ru/64592-mnogocelevye-vertolety-ka-60-i-ka-62.html
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 February 2021 18: 01
          +2
          It won't be able to be produced at all, I'm afraid to be mistaken, but there are imported engines. The project stopped a long time ago, only last year there was some movement in the civil version.
          But the issue must be resolved quickly - a year or two.
          1. venik
            venik 24 February 2021 20: 18
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            It won't be able to be produced at all, I'm afraid to be mistaken, but there are imported engines. The project stopped a long time ago, only last year there was some movement in the civil version.

            ========
            There is a problem not only and not so much in the engines (although this problem also exists) - Just on the Ka-60 - the volume of the cargo compartment even lessthan the Ka-32 (7.5 m3, versus 7.8 m3) ..... request
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 9 March 2021 01: 50
              0
              The volume may be less, but there are at least normal sliding doors on the sides.
              But they let us down with height. Have you ever looked back at Blackhawk?
        2. DLord
          DLord 25 February 2021 01: 00
          0
          About ka60 -
          The latest modification has imported engines, the cabin is the same low (1,3m). A light helicopter has just turned out. But I think the naval will insist on a coaxial scheme because of the exceptional stability when hovering - rescue operations on water, for example.
    2. max702
      max702 24 February 2021 19: 02
      +7
      The Ka-29 in comparative trials won in all respects MI-24 .. There was no talk of MI-8 .. The problem is not in the car, but in the production capacity, which can be solved, but if you look more closely, the question is, why is the Russian MP supe duper helicopter? What are these tasks the MP will solve somewhere there? Serious landings ala Omaha Beach are not expected in the General Staff, they understand this ,, The maximum operations are special forces against terrorists and that's all .. They'll tell me here, why are the helicopter carriers then building? Duc they are built in order to be used in 99% of cases as troop transports, because there is nothing else and these ships will approach this best of all from what is available .. Accordingly, the Ka-29 after modernization is quite enough for them .. And Helicopter carriers will carry military cargo and no more, then there will be pribluds needed by the ship like humps to a camel in the zoo, then the matter is, the position and other naval toys by themselves will not appear, so all sorts of dock cameras and landing boats will occupy a useful area, then that on them the maximum admirals to go fishing will not be able to do anything because the fleet .. There is no sense to raise this problem on such a scale, like everything disappeared due to its insignificance .. The problem of communications, night observation devices, and the same boots for infantry are an order of magnitude more important than some Wishlist of the Navy ..
      1. Flyer_64
        Flyer_64 13 March 2021 17: 52
        0
        However, during military trials of the Ka-29 in Afghanistan and with good results, only the experimental batch remained in AA. Which suggests that, in general, the helicopter did not quite meet the requirements for army aviation helicopters. But in general, the topic of the revival of the series or the modernization of the Ka-29 is nonsense. And the main reason is that it is not needed for the Navy. There is not a single full-fledged division in MA where there is a full staff of helicopters, only piecemeal ones, for demonstrations.
        1. max702
          max702 17 March 2021 15: 17
          0
          Quote: Letun_64
          However, during military tests of the Ka-29 in Afghanistan and with good results, only the experimental batch remained in AA. Which suggests that, in general, the helicopter did not quite meet the requirements for army aviation helicopters.

          This speaks of the huge lobbying resource of KB Miles and no more .. In the USSR, paradoxically, money was deciding EVERYTHING, like orders with medals, because they were also converted into money .. And if you are thrown out of the suppliers of helicopters for ground forces, then how can you live? The same picture with the KA-50 was for such a piece and in someone else's company? This will not happen! And the fact that the soldiers will die will be the designers as they do not care, their children will definitely not trample the brilliant green in the mountains ..
          1. Flyer_64
            Flyer_64 17 March 2021 22: 05
            0
            I wonder whose lobbying resources were when the Mi-14PL, PS, BT helicopters were removed from the armament of the IA Navy ahead of schedule. Leaving only the Ka-27,27PS in the lineup. But at the VO, the topic of restoring the serial production of Mi-14 helicopters has been raised more than once, because there is an expert opinion from Western specialists with a high assessment of its flight and tactical characteristics.
            1. max702
              max702 21 March 2021 22: 25
              0
              Here are questions for the "sleeping" of our "partners", and the assessment of Western experts is the last thing to be guided by ..
              1. Flyer_64
                Flyer_64 24 March 2021 11: 14
                0
                the assessment of Western experts is the last thing to be guided by
                This is when there is a current assessment, such as their review of the SU-57, Su-34, Su-35 aircraft. And when there is "posthumous" this is the most objective assessment.
                1. max702
                  max702 25 March 2021 08: 54
                  0
                  Well, why would that be? Suppose we were armed with something very expensive and absolutely useless and we removed it, then why not our partners that we did it in vain because we stopped spending money on absolutely unnecessary garbage, which can lead to a redistribution of resources with greater efficiency .. Nafig do they need this efficiency? They have completely different goals .. Screams about the fact that we do not have AUG from the same opera, it can be different misinformation ..
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 24 February 2021 05: 48
    +10
    An interesting article, analysis of shortcomings, revision of the existing one and suggestions for improvement. Hammer author!
    1. Mister X
      Mister X 24 February 2021 08: 36
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Interesting article, analysis of disadvantages

      hi
      What kind of oil is this ?! wink
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 24 February 2021 09: 07
        +6
        Typo, you can help in editing with CTRL Enter. Personally, the toad does not press me to help.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 24 February 2021 12: 52
          +5
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          you can help in editing with CTRL Enter

          hi
          I do this all the time, and on this typo I sent it in the morning.
          Editors do not immediately make edits.
      2. timokhin-aa
        24 February 2021 09: 10
        +8
        Typo, isn't it clear?
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 24 February 2021 17: 51
          +6
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Typo, isn't it clear?

          hi
          Excuse me generously.
          I always carefully read the texts.
          In the morning I offered editors to edit.

          You hooked me with your article.
          It can be seen that you have been collecting facts and analyzing for a long time.

          How do you rate the Ka-226T as a landing helicopter for the Navy?

          Its production has already been established,
          It is in service with the Russian Air Force, Rosgvardia, FSB, etc.
          Deck modification developed;
          Cargo compartment height: 1,4m (more than on Ka-27 and 29);
          Cabin volume: 5,4 m3;
          Payload: up to 1500 kg or 7 paratroopers;
          A sliding sunroof is provided. The second is not a problem;
          The landing / disembarkation of paratroopers can be carried out through the rear of the cockpit;
          There will be no big problems with the hitch either.
          What do you think?





          1. Grits
            Grits 25 February 2021 15: 36
            +1
            Quote: Mister X
            How do you rate the Ka-226T as a landing helicopter for the Navy?

            Its production has already been established,

            Moreover, recently there was information that the engine has already been developed and is being launched into production, which will just go to Agnsat and Ka-226
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 9 March 2021 01: 53
            +1
            Good option for a landing helicopter good
          3. Flyer_64
            Flyer_64 13 March 2021 17: 57
            0
            Another nonsense, the Ka-226T is only suitable for border guards and the police and the FSB.
            1. Mister X
              Mister X 13 March 2021 21: 44
              +1
              Quote: Letun_64
              Another delirium

              In your comments, you used the word "delirium" 27 times.
              In essence, please justify.
              1. Flyer_64
                Flyer_64 14 March 2021 20: 58
                0
                And you will lay out the flight and tactical characteristics of the Ka-226t helicopter in comparison with the Ka-29, UH-1Y corps of the US MP, Mi-8AMTSh / MTV5. Better in the comparison table. At the VO, there was already a detailed analysis of the Ka-29 helicopter and after this review, the Ka-29 topic was stopped in real time. Therefore, all subsequent reviews are just dreams or simply delirium. And by the way, the Kamov Design Bureau, back in the mid-90s, offered the Navy to modernize the helicopter, but the proposal was stuck in the search for funding. And until now, financing remains very problematic for MA. If we compare it with the Aerospace Forces, the Navy's MA has the oldest fleet of aircraft and helicopters, I don't take into account the Su-30SM. To philosophize and talk about the prospects knowing that there are no prospects is this nonsense.
                1. Mister X
                  Mister X 14 March 2021 21: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Letun_64
                  And you will lay out the flight and tactical characteristics of the Ka-226t helicopter

                  Couldn't have written like that right away?
                  Normal male response.
                  I will look, study, compare.

                  Remembered "Aluet" SA.316 / SA.319
                  Issued 37 items
                  Aircraft carriers Clemenceau and Foch
                  In service were in the period 1962-1999
                  Not amphibious, but up to 6 passengers.
                  1. Flyer_64
                    Flyer_64 15 March 2021 18: 09
                    +1
                    By the way, the USSR Navy was armed with 4 Chitak / "Aluet" SA.316, after one disaster the helicopters sucked. Why? Because during the training of pilots, they excluded the training of landings in autorotation, and used imitation. As a result, the pilot could not cope with the landing in case of engine failure, a disaster occurred.
                    1. Flyer_64
                      Flyer_64 15 March 2021 18: 42
                      +1
                      And one more not-so-known fact slightly discrediting the Ka-29 helicopter. In the 2s, the question of providing and supporting the Navy's MP grouping in the Caucasus was raised. Helicopters Mi-8MTV, Mi-24P, Ka-29 were taken into account. At that time, only Mi-8MTV and Ka-29 were alive. In preparation, it turned out that the combat radius of the Ka-29 does not provide cover for the MP grouping. Installation of additional. tanks in the bomb bay when performing combat use is not provided because in the compartment is not a fire extinguishing system (there was such a system on a slop Mi-14 helicopter). The tanks are installed only for the distillation. Severe turbulence in the mountains impaired the piloting of the helicopter, which led to a return to base. The range of altitudes of the Mi-8 and Ka-29 is not in favor of the Mi-8. And there are a number of other factors that cut the Ka-29 off from real combat use. Therefore, with the high qualities of the helicopter, four MI-8MTV MA Navy were blown away.
                    2. Mister X
                      Mister X 15 March 2021 22: 37
                      0
                      Quote: Letun_64
                      By the way, the USSR Navy had 4 Chitak / "Aluet"

                      Didn't know about it. We need to look for details.

                      By the way, on VO I published an article about the Romanian IAR-316B Alouette III and IAR 330L Puma
                      In my profile: Deck helicopters of the Romanian Navy
                      1. Flyer_64
                        Flyer_64 16 March 2021 22: 11
                        0
                        Do you know what the concept of a shipborne helicopter of the Russian Navy is. This is a continuation of the Ka-25, which is most suitable for the fleet when designing ships. Relatively small overall characteristics make it possible to make a small hangar in the project. In terms of the armament range, the Ka-27 lost to the Ka-25.
                      2. Mister X
                        Mister X 17 March 2021 08: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Letun_64
                        the concept of a shipborne helicopter of the Russian Navy. This is a continuation of the Ka-25

                        The author of the article expresses either his opinion, or the requirements of the Navy,
                        but for modern BDK and UDC, the Ka-29 and Ka-52K are being considered.
                        Quote: Letun_64
                        In terms of the armament range, the Ka-27 lost to the Ka-25.

                        Curious.
                        It is necessary to rummage through the modifications and reasons.
                      3. Flyer_64
                        Flyer_64 17 March 2021 21: 54
                        0
                        During the construction of the Mistral-type UDC, initially the helicopter group was considered from the Ka-27, Ka-52, Ka-60. After some failures in the tests of the Ka-60, they remembered the Ka-29. But at the moment, neither their modernization nor the restoration of a small series is an issue. On the staff of the Navy their pieces, which will not quite correspond to the state of the UDC.
                        About the range of weapons Ka-25 and Ka-27, the first was armed with aircraft anti-submarine torpedoes and anti-submarine bombs, the second only anti-submarine torpedoes.
  • Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 24 February 2021 05: 48
    +21
    The big trouble with the Kamov machines is the deplorable state of the KUMAPP as the leading helicopter manufacturer. The scheme for the development of an amphibious assault vehicle based on the Ka-31 fuselage, in my opinion, will require very close cooperation between KUMAPP (in view of the devastation and other restrictions) and ARZ, which have recently joined the Holding. If such a decision is made, then it is still possible to connect to the UUAZ circuit, with a lesser likelihood - to KVZ. In general, naval aviation is financed on a leftover basis, and the construction of such a complex cooperation is possible only if there is a steady interest of the Ministry of Defense. And it looks like it is ready to wait for Lamprey, it is not in vain that they ordered the serial modernization of the Ka-27PL into the Ka-27m.
    Purely from the technical side of the question (although I may be mistaken), the transfer of tanks will require a significant change in the design and power scheme of the fuselage. it's time to talk about the development of a new machine using walking units, rather than about the development of a machine based on the fuselage of another helicopter.
    1. Destiny
      Destiny 24 February 2021 06: 29
      +26
      I think so - they will wait for the Ka-65 "Lamprey." applications (anti-submarine helicopter Ka-27 (product 27), search and rescue Ka-500PS (product 27) and transport and combat helicopter for the Marine Corps Ka-501), and now the task is to create a universal vehicle that can be quickly transformed into various options Let's see how it turns out, they plan to supply it with TV29-7VK engines with a maximum takeoff power of 117 hp. (short-term emergency power - 3000 hp) developed by JSC "Klimov", NPP "Polyot" created an anti-jamming communication complex for the Ka-3750, the radio-electronic equipment "Lampi" will be compatible with automated command and control systems. Let's see, by 65 they promised, that "In five years we will be able to create the first flight model, which will be ready to make the first" hover. " with other enterprises of "Rostec".
      1. timokhin-aa
        24 February 2021 09: 06
        +3
        I think so - they will wait for the Ka-65 "Lamprey". In principle, they could have gone along the path of modernizing the fleet of Soviet vehicles, but apparently it was decided to invest in the development of a new model. This Soyuz could afford the Ka-27 in three applications (anti-submarine helicopter Ka-27 (product 500), search and rescue Ka-27PS (product 501) and transport and combat helicopter for the Marine Corps Ka-29), and now the task is to create a universal vehicle that can be quickly transformed into various options application


        Firstly, it will be necessary to wait until the first third of the 30s in the optimistic version, and secondly, there can be no transformability, the pro-submarine helicopter and the amphibious assault helicopter will be different even in the fuselage, they have too different requirements.
    2. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 09: 09
      +4
      The big trouble with the Kamov machines is the deplorable state of the KUMAPP as the leading helicopter manufacturer. The scheme for the development of an amphibious assault vehicle based on the Ka-31 fuselage, in my opinion, will require very close cooperation between KUMAPP (in view of the devastation and other restrictions) and ARZ, which have recently joined the Holding. If such a decision is made, then it is still possible to connect to the UUAZ scheme, with a lesser likelihood - KVZ


      Well, it's all to do anyway, what other options? Losing the industry completely?

      And it looks like it is ready to wait for the Lamprey, it is not in vain that they ordered the serial modernization of the Ka-27PL into the Ka-27m.


      Well, let's see when it waits for her. In general, there is such optimism in the Ministry of Defense that even if you call doctors, it seems that they have forgotten that the Armed Forces exist not for PR, but for WAR.

      Purely from the technical side of the question (although I may be mistaken), the transfer of tanks will require a significant change in the design and power scheme of the fuselage. it's time to talk about the development of a new machine using walking units, rather than about the development of a machine based on the fuselage of another helicopter.


      I disagree, it was just on the Ka-31 that the sponson was mounted (though not under the tank), and the heavy system of tightening the chassis, the hull holds well, the question is that you can simply put fuel tanks into these volumes. and use the standard chassis, which is not compressed.
      1. Nikolay R-PM
        Nikolay R-PM 24 February 2021 12: 04
        +8
        thanks for the answer.
        I do not argue with you that it is necessary to preserve the industry. unfortunately, KUMAPP has become a kind of suitcase without a handle. they do not know what to do with him, and they do not pin much hopes on him.
        I agree with you about the optimism of MO
        I may be mistaken, but I will assume that the tanks together with the load-bearing floor make up a single load-bearing structure, therefore, probably, they cannot be taken and transferred to the sides of the fuselage. but that's just my guess
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 February 2021 12: 29
          +1
          I may be mistaken, but I will assume that the tanks together with the load-bearing floor make up a single load-bearing structure, therefore, probably, they cannot be taken and transferred to the sides of the fuselage. but that's just my guess


          I have huge doubts about the tanks - this is not a helicopter solution, to put it mildly.
          The floor - perhaps considering how the external suspension is provided, but just the fuselage set at the bottom of it can be done differently. This is not something supernatural.
          1. Nikolay R-PM
            Nikolay R-PM 24 February 2021 21: 42
            +3
            Dear author, I looked through the RTE (book 2, part 1) on the part of the Ka-32A fuel system. Given that the 29th and 32nd have a common ancestor, it can be suggested that their fuel systems are close or even unified. The 32 has soft main fuel tanks that are housed in compartments between the floor power set. My assumptions turned out to be wrong. In this case, redesigning the floor is in any case simplified from a technical point of view.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 24 February 2021 06: 21
    +8
    Too many changes in the production helicopter.
    While all this will be redesigned, while they will be redesigned ... not much less in time than a new helicopter. Lamprey will be launched faster into the series.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 09: 05
      +2
      You shouldn't think so. Such a helicopter can be launched into production by 2026.
      And Lamprey will only start tests this year, and God forbid that she finish them by 2030, these are optimistic terms. The production of the required number of machines, and their development in the troops is somewhere between 2033-2034 in a very optimistic version.

      And if you have to fight earlier?
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 24 February 2021 09: 18
        +7
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        it is somewhere in 2033-2034 in a very optimistic version

        Do you hope that helicopter carriers will be built in Kerch earlier?
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 February 2021 09: 25
          +5
          I don’t know, but by the time they are delivered, the helicopter units should have already been formed, trained, have pilots and technicians, spare parts and accessories, the machine should be fully studied, interaction with the Ka-52K should be worked out, etc.

          If on the mind.
    2. Mister X
      Mister X 24 February 2021 09: 09
      +9
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      While all this will be redesigned, while they will be remade ... not much less in time than a new helicopter.

      But this is also a way out.
      The Romanian Navy has 3 frigates, it needed deck helicopters.
      It was decided to build them on the basis of existing machines.
      The choice fell on the Puma SOCAT (tank destroyer).


      A plan for the modernization of existing helicopters was drawn up and approved. It included the installation of various weapons, systems and equipment. The implementation of the plan was divided into 4 stages.
      It took about 10 years.
      But this is Romania, no specific experience.
      Russia has experience, more resources.
      Therefore, the process will take less time.

      Puma Naval. Stingray training torpedo launch
      The 57th Tuzla helicopter group includes 4 2B-2 version vehicles
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 24 February 2021 09: 24
        +7
        Quote: Mister X
        But this is also a way out

        Then it's easier to spoil the Mi-8. There is a cabin, at least known to be suitable for people. Install folding blades, add some equipment and replace a few parts with more corrosion-resistant ones.
        Again, the bosses are more fond of Milevites now, they are more likely to give money.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 24 February 2021 09: 36
          +9
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          Then it's easier to spoil the Mi-8. There is a cabin, at least known to be suitable for people.

          Of course. If only the dimensions of the decks and the dimensions of the hangars allow

          You can remember the old Ka-126

          Ka-126 with a cargo and passenger cabin.


          “Flying Chassis” Ka-126.

          or a more recent development of the deck-based Ka-226T
  • Runway
    Runway 24 February 2021 07: 31
    +12
    Ka 226 is quite an analogue of the "Iroquois" (it will take away the department, fortunately the shoulder is not big - half an hour / 45 minutes of fear).
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 09: 03
      +6
      This is hardly a good option - sometimes you have to carry something on an external sling, a UAZ, for example, a cylinder of a mortar, plus the wind factor above the deck, the 226 will often simply be demolished. The border guards will be with them again.

      Well, all the same, it is small, for example, with a downed guardhouse, such a helicopter will not even be able to raise 8 fighters with weapons and two pilots (and maybe two machine gunners more).
      1. Runway
        Runway 24 February 2021 12: 06
        +10
        For a forward detachment in detachment, thrown by air (tactical landing) - technology = evil. Group - wearable.
        Shooting from machine guns / personal from the sides is still a pleasure with a dubious result. Cleaning the pad is the job of the shock boards. "Ishachok" unloaded and washed away, no options.
        There are no such turntables in PS (linear divisions). They are for transporting the bodies of "happy people".
        The Ka 226 seems to assume modularity as its predecessor and 1000 kg of drags (which is 90 zinc / daily bq to 5,45 per full-blooded company).
        In general, in conditions of fishlessness and sprat-coho salmon.
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 February 2021 12: 34
          +2
          For a forward detachment in detachment, thrown by air (tactical landing) - technology = evil. Group - wearable.


          This is purely for amphibious operations, but it will not always be so. The same special forces can be thrown with equipment, plus sometimes there can be a landing on an undefended shore, and you will have to move quickly, plus such things as mortars, ATGMs, memory.
          Sometimes it will be necessary even for the forward detachment, especially if its task is to dig in and not to prevent the landing of the main forces on the shore.

          Shooting from machine guns / personal from the sides is still a pleasure with a dubious result.


          But sometimes you have to. And we and the Americans had to. And it will have to.
          And it's not about cleaning the site, but about a pair of unnoticed enemy soldiers with a rifleman who decided to die with dignity.

          The Ka 226 seems to assume modularity as its predecessor and 1000 kg of drags (which is 90 zinc / daily bq to 5,45 per full-blooded company).


          There is little space there purely in terms of volume. He is small and very dependent on the wind.
          1. Runway
            Runway 24 February 2021 14: 48
            +6
            I will not dispute your opinion in part for objective reasons. On VO flashed a note about the creation of airborne units in the Airborne Forces. The modern GXNUMXs will operate. Which is very true.
            Comparing the number of the Airborne Forces and the MP, it can be assumed that they will not sculpt a specialized board for the MP (what is Lamprey - ????, for what tasks - ??, when and in what quantity -?).
            The transport helicopter must be the same for the landing (any), that for the infantry.
            Yankees on their UDC nest CH-53 - a classmate of the "eight".
            "Eight" lives on icebreakers. "Yamal" was carrying two "eights" (one on the site, the second with the blades removed in the hangar).
            1. timokhin-aa
              24 February 2021 17: 43
              +4
              The fact is that the Mi-8/17 needs to be altered to fit a ship so that only a part of the drawings from the original vehicle will remain there. , And under construction and built large landing ships with hangars, it will not fit.
              1. Runway
                Runway 25 February 2021 00: 14
                +2
                I am neither a designer, nor a pilot, therefore I have no right to discuss the scope of work on the overwhelmed "eight" and how the MI-8 used on icebreakers differ from the "land" ones.
                The Mi-8 will not fit into the hangars of warships, definitely. However, as they say in all sorts of Internet, the large landing craft under construction supposedly grew in displacement, incl. in order to temporarily take on board land turntables.
                The "air group" of the future large landing craft itself, with a theater landing scheme (2x4 - strike / transport), will not deploy more than two platoons at a time (4 sides not involved in the landing - BMT vehicles for the task and reserve, since all eggs are not in one basket lay down).
                In 7-8 years (God forbid) - let's see what the fleet gets as a result. And then suddenly (I am hoping for this) the "white elephants" under construction will turn into anti-submarine helicopter carriers.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 25 February 2021 21: 58
                  0
                  Timokhin did not write about helicopters yet, but I pointed out to him the Mi8, Timokhin himself does not know the difference between sea and land helicopters, this is a dark forest for him and therefore he is afraid to offer the MI8 family and its modifications. There is no difference in metal, helicopters do not splash down, and aluminum alloys are not very corrosive, if anything can be painted. Of course, reworking the screw with the possibility of folding, this task is quite within the power of the designers.
              2. Eroma
                Eroma 5 March 2021 22: 23
                0
                We have, as always, as in the forest, so feed the dogs laughing it was impossible at the design stage of a ship with a transport turntable to decide, to understand that acrom MI8 / 17 is nothing worthwhile and to build ships with hangars for them? In the meantime, the ships are at war, saw down the upgraded Mi-8 under the sea and start to clip them! fool
            2. DLord
              DLord 25 February 2021 01: 10
              -1
              The Mi-8 will have to be made marine. Timoshin wrote about it above
              1. Runway
                Runway 25 February 2021 01: 29
                +2
                Everyone writes. Not everyone reads. Timokhin in the article showed his own, subjective version of the solution to the issue that has not been resolved since the times of the Union.
                I, after reading the Internet gossip, came across a "justification" for the growth of displacement of the ships under construction and voiced that - "the possibility of taking on board the Land Board."
                Even if we assume that the reason is “different” (the dog has grown up on the way for material reasons), the very possibility of using the same figure eight with a short “shoulder” for DESO (our coast and islands, and not all of Africa) is a solution to the issue of mobility of marines before the birth of a specialized sea board (which I strongly doubt).
  • Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 24 February 2021 10: 29
    +4
    If there is a wide hatch on the port side (120x120 mm)

    Or it's not "mm", ... or the Marines in the DShB were crushed! laughing
    1.20x1.20 m. But there is not enough space! And the Mi-24 is not very spacious either ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 February 2021 11: 08
      +5
      Quote: VIK1711
      If there is a wide hatch on the port side (120x120 mm)

      Or it's not "mm", ... or the Marines in the DShB were crushed! laughing

      No, they did not crush them - the height of the cargo compartment of 1,3 meters is still not enough for them. smile
      The height inside the cargo compartment of this helicopter is the same as that of other Ka-27 variations - 1300 mm. This is very small. Especially for a soldier in a bulletproof vest with weapons and equipment.
  • next322
    next322 24 February 2021 11: 05
    +12
    naval aviation has long been gone ... an example of the Black Sea Fleet ... from one remaining mixed squadron, only 6-7 operational helicopters for the entire FLEET !!!!!, .... and THIS IS ALL !!!!! !! although patrolmen 22160 are under construction, there are 3 frigates, a couple of corvettes 20380 are expected .... but where are the helicopters ??? where is the ka-52k, produced in an amount of 2 pieces?
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 24 February 2021 17: 24
      +2
      Quote: next322
      where is the ka-52k, produced in an amount of as many as 2 pieces?

      In egypt preparing for mistralki ...
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 24 February 2021 18: 09
        -2
        In egypt preparing for mistralki ...
        can already start and build full-fledged UDCs themselves, than to play with foreign contract orders !?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 24 February 2021 11: 14
    +5
    Soviet helicopters were supposed to operate autonomously, both as landing and attack helicopters - the USSR had no other shipborne helicopters capable of hitting ground targets. Russia has such a helicopter, it is the Ka-52K. And it would be logical to remove non-core tasks from the landing vehicle, if only for the sake of making it cheaper.

    So the Ka-29 is an analogue of the Mi-8. And a multi-purpose vehicle in the Soviet Air Force should have been able to clean the landing zone itself from suddenly reviving firing points.
    For the drummer at the right moment may traditionally not be at hand. And if it turns out, it will start a confusion with target designation - a multipurpose vehicle approaching the landing zone sees the target from its angle, the drummer does not see (landmark bachu, goal - not bachu! ©). smile While they are sorting out - the target will have time to fill up the multipurpose.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 12: 35
      +2
      But now we will have a different situation.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 February 2021 14: 15
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But now we will have a different situation.

        The same, if not worse. For the commander of DESO to speed up the landing of the first echelon can sacrifice part of the strike vehicles in favor of multipurpose ones.
        But even with the normal cover of the landing by striking vehicles, situations like the one I described above will arise regularly. For 100% cleaning of the landing zone is unrealistic.
        In Afghanistan, during the landing of one of the landing forces, despite the BShU in the landing zone and a cover in the form of an Mi-24, one of the Mi-8 had to work with NARs almost point-blank: a spirit with an RPG suddenly appeared right in front of the descending helicopter.
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 February 2021 17: 41
          +2
          The same, if not worse. For the commander of DESO to speed up the landing of the first echelon can sacrifice part of the strike vehicles in favor of multipurpose ones.


          His first echelon is not rubber - well, UDC BTGr, all moves are scheduled. The number of people who will go through the air in the first wave, of course, will not have much to build up there.
    2. Intruder
      Intruder 24 February 2021 18: 12
      0
      Mi-8. A multipurpose vehicle in the Soviet Air Force should have been able to clean the landing zone itself from suddenly revived firing points.
      and had such opportunities and now they even exist -
      Mi-8AMTSh (export designation Mi-171Sh)
      on VO, there is an article about them, by the way ... wink
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 24 February 2021 12: 54
    +2
    "A soldier enters the battle, having barely jumped out of the helicopter"))))) with the current air defense systems, will they give that helicopter the opportunity to land the Zoldates or will they "overwhelm" it even on the way?
  • tone
    tone 24 February 2021 13: 33
    +3
    It should be done on the basis of the Mi-8. I jumped to the bmpd infa that in the USSR there was a sea version of the Mi-8 for icebreakers.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 24 February 2021 17: 27
      +3
      Quote: tone
      It should be done on the basis of the Mi-8. I jumped to the bmpd infa that in the USSR there was a sea version of the Mi-8 for icebreakers.

      with the same success you can revive the "Killer Whale" ...


      1. Intruder
        Intruder 24 February 2021 18: 20
        0
        with the same success can be reanimated
        or to modernize the classics for the needs of the fleet and landing, such as: Ka-226T, only in a heavy modification, also a fairly recognizable machine and not bad, in 2015 they were even going to deliver to India, by the way:

        ... efficiency and modern avionics make the light multipurpose Ka-226T one of the best in its class. The main distinguishing feature of this machine is the modularity of its design. The helicopter can be easily converted into one of five modifications: the Ka-226T can be a passenger, transport, medical, police or search and rescue helicopter. The helicopter is built on a modular basis, which involves the use of various replaceable modules.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 9 March 2021 02: 22
      0
      If it is on a budget, then yes. The height is about the same.
      But, the length is much longer - approximately 25m, versus 15m for the Ka-27.
      The same Backhawk is 20m long.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 24 February 2021 14: 41
    0
    Plus, definitely. The topic is relevant and requires a solution if we want to get hypothetical UDC combat-ready
  • snc
    snc 24 February 2021 15: 42
    +4
    The problem is raised urgent, but I do not agree with the author's solutions. From the Ka27, 29,31,35, XNUMX, XNUMX, whatever you do, a normal transport and landing vehicle will not work, the design is too specific.
    It is much easier and more effective to deaden the Mi8, after all, there is experience in operating them on icebreakers and drilling rigs. After all, the Americans are quite comfortable with Black Hawks (Sea Hawks) both on land and at sea.
    You can also remember the Ka-60, which took off 20 years ago and whose standard size, in theory, should be the most massive in the army and in civilian life, but its march was crushed by the Mi-8 lobby. Yes, and the engine for it also has its own, RD600.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 17: 40
      0
      It is much easier and more effective to deaden the Mi8, after all, there is experience in operating them on icebreakers and drilling rigs. After all, the Americans are quite comfortable with Black Hawks (Sea Hawks) both on land and at sea.


      Then the lamprey must wait, the same time will be obtained for development.
      1. tone
        tone 25 February 2021 05: 36
        +1
        Alesander can't believe that a super duper upgrade will be required. Navigation devices foldable propeller (and even then IMHO can not necessarily be based on the deck). How long were the ka-52s created for the mistrals?
    2. 911sx
      911sx 24 February 2021 21: 06
      +1
      Ka 60 comes to mind first after this article. RD 600 seems to have been lost (and it is). developing VK 1600 for him. in short, the same is not thank God. A helicopter in a naval version would be good as a search and rescue and for the landing ...
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 24 February 2021 16: 24
    +4
    The fuel tank should be with the center of gravity under the axle, not in front, as in the last "visualization". The center of gravity must not move with fuel consumption. smile
    The door is far behind the wheel and behind the likely protruding fuel tank, therefore the troopers will not be able to shoot forward and forward and downward, and there will be poor coordination with the pilots. The person who has jumped can be crushed by the wheel.
    K-31 close up and "live" gives the impression as if it had been made in a village workshop. sad
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 17: 39
      +2
      Visualization does not pretend to be correct from an engineering point of view, its task is to show the principle, the tanks can be shifted as needed.

      The best thing can be solved when designing a helicopter and it will be even easier.
    2. Scaffold
      Scaffold 24 February 2021 23: 00
      +1
      You think of the fuel tank as a single tank mounted on your credit Logan. In aviation, these are different containers with controlled pumping of fuel between them and into the supply tank - just to maintain alignment.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 25 February 2021 12: 37
        -1
        You don't have to imagine that you know what I imagine. First, figure it out and imagine how everything works in your hunchbacked "Zaporozhets" inherited from your grandfather.
  • Alexander Ivanov_10
    Alexander Ivanov_10 24 February 2021 18: 26
    +7
    All the helicopters listed in the article (Ka-27, Ka-27PS, Ka-32, Ka-29, Ka-31) are one and the same helicopter. And supposedly one can be replaced with another to solve the "problem of fuel tanks under the floor of the cargo compartment" will not work. The tanks are not the problem. There, under the bottom of the cockpit, there are power elements of the fuselage, and then there are tanks in them. Therefore, you can draw as much as you like on the photographs of the landing hatches.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 February 2021 22: 23
      0
      And supposedly one can be replaced with another to solve the "problem of fuel tanks under the floor of the cargo compartment" will not work. The problem is not in the tanks. There, under the bottom of the cockpit, the power elements of the fuselage, and then they already have tanks


      Diagram, it can be seen that there are transverse elements under the floor, but the longitudinal elements of the fuselage frame go along the bottom level.
      This is because at the bottom of the helicopter there is an armament compartment with a long hatch.



      The elimination of this compartment will allow the fuselage to be redesigned so that these cross members run along the bottom rather than under the floor. Then the bearing load is removed from the floor, and hatches can be drawn.
      After all, this is not about reworking ready-made helicopters, but about creating new ones, simply based on the existing design.
      1. Alexander Ivanov_10
        Alexander Ivanov_10 25 February 2021 10: 03
        +2
        Kamaz cannot be made from the Zhiguli family (VAZ-2101, 02,03,04,05,06,07). And why this article, if in the end there is such a conclusion: "We are not talking about reworking ready-made helicopters, but about creating new ones." That's exactly new! If it were so easy to do, the floor would be lowered for both the rescue and the trooper.
        Quote: "Then the load-bearing load is removed from the floor ..." Have you seen this floor in section? It does not bear the load anyway, it is made according to the principle of a honeycomb, very light.
        Another quote: "the cross members went along the bottom." There are longitudinal load-bearing elements.
  • Momotomba
    Momotomba 25 February 2021 08: 32
    +1
    But I wonder if the KA-29 is a "bad helicopter", then why was it so adopted? What prevented you from making the hatches on the right and left the same, removing unnecessary compartments and eliminating other disadvantages indicated by the author? After all, the designer and the commission understood it all ...
    1. snc
      snc 25 February 2021 12: 55
      +1
      Yes, hell knows, Kamovites are silent. Perhaps because of the extremely small series (less than 40 of them were made like)), a serious alteration of the fuselage was considered inappropriate, but the personnel "must overcome the hardships of service." Maybe they just didn't give enough money or time ...
    2. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 25 February 2021 14: 21
      0
      Why was it so adopted?
      Rewards, bonuses, and staffing won't do themselves. A new helicopter is needed here. Which helicopter? - any helicopter. The Ka-29 will do just fine for this role.
      What prevented you from making the hatches on the right and left the same, removing unnecessary compartments and eliminating other disadvantages indicated by the author?
      These are not "flaws" - they are redesigning a new machine.
      After all, the designer and the commission understood it all
      The designer and the commission realized that the country needed a new helicopter. And they gave it.
      The producers received a large order and awards. The military commission received prizes, length of service and awards. Patriots with caps received a helicopter that has no analogues in the world.
      The political leadership with the new helicopter has gained the prestige and loyalty of the aforementioned sailors, manufacturers, military and patriots. Everyone was happy... apart from the eternally buzzing bores like Timokhin, Klimov and Co.
  • Maikl59
    Maikl59 25 February 2021 13: 45
    0
    Strange, but Mil helicopters are no longer considered ...!?
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 25 February 2021 14: 10
      +1
      Well these are sailors, they are not like people, this is a principled position.
      And the story is the same with helicopters, serial versions are not even considered - just give them an exclusive.
    2. whitebeard
      whitebeard 6 March 2021 01: 20
      0
      What's the point? They have no nautical options, and it takes too long to develop and adapt them. Although, if the Mi and Ka will now work together, it may be easier to finish up to the naval version of the Mi-24. But still, the coaxial scheme for the sea will be better, and the amount of alterations may be comparable
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 25 February 2021 16: 14
    -1
    Nichego do Minogi novogo nebudet.
    Polatayut vsie starie Ka-29 i budut zhdat Minogi.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 28 February 2021 23: 38
    -1
    I didn't finish reading the whole towel, but what's the problem with saying standard mi-8/24 and derivatives on the deck?
  • Diverter
    Diverter 1 March 2021 20: 09
    0
    My deep couch opinion. On udk, quickly (before the appearance of the Lamprey) it is possible to put .... Mi 8 (Terminator which), changing only the blades to fold. The whole world flies on a uniaxial scheme in the seas and nothing.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • whitebeard
    whitebeard 6 March 2021 01: 18
    0
    Exactly how fast the current modernization is - I agree with the author. But I would also add an external conformal tank under the tail boom, so that the contour of the rear part resembles the contours of transporters like the Il-76
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 8 March 2021 23: 35
    0
    Ka-29s look beautiful

    I disagree with the author. Handsomely? When is the AS.365 Dauphin, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk?

  • 3danimal
    3danimal 9 March 2021 00: 32
    0
    The height inside the cargo compartment of this helicopter is the same as that of other variations of the Ka-27 - 1300 mm.

    Again, comparing to the UH-60 Blackhawk:
    Cargo compartment with dimensions 4.95 x 2.21 x 1.87м and a volume of 11.6m3 has sliding cargo doors with dimensions of 1.5 x 1.75m on both sides

    Moreover, it is lower by 0,3 meters.


    Just wondering what the terms of reference were for the Ka-27/29?
    In addition, it is obvious that the Kamov design bureau's love for the coaxial propeller scheme, with restrictions on the maximum altitude of the helicopter, played a negative role.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 9 March 2021 02: 08
      0
      I will clarify the height of the cabin for the UH-60: in English-speaking sources it is indicated exactly at 4,5 feet, that is, 1,4 meters. (They are more trusted, the photo is indirectly confirmed)
      But in Russian-speaking they reprint the same figure - 1,87 meters.
      As for the Doors of the cargo compartment and its volume, everything is flawlessly here.
  • grumbler
    grumbler 11 March 2021 22: 51
    0
    And again we are here "at our leisure" doing what military research institutes should do - requirements engineering : analyze the needs of operators (flight range, ceiling, rate of climb, hover and maneuverability characteristics in anticipated operating conditions (gusty winds, icing). And to the volume and mass of the payload and methods of its attachment. Number of seats, habitability, etc. Explore conditions and methods of application, how this tool fits into existing technological chains (production, operation, maintenance and repair, modernization). spit-up (MIL-SPEC).

    It is the MIL-SPECs, written by military specialists, that should reflect the Operators' vision of what tool they need and how They will be used by them, and be the input for the Developers. MIL-SPEC, even at the stage of the preliminary design, allows you to formalize the requirements that the solutions proposed by the Developers must meet. And in some cases, even contain the preferred architectural solutions that should be adhered to by the Developers. This will allow the Developers to minimize the stage of collecting and formulating requirements (and very expensive costs associated with this: endless approvals, linkages, prototyping, shuttle trips).

    The article notes a typical problem - that hatches / doors are inconvenient. But the Developers don't have to figure it out for themselves. All dimensions must be fixed in MIL-SPEC, based on the knowledge of what and how will be loaded / unloaded through these ports in a given application context. The developer simply opens the technical specification and sees a link to the corresponding MIL-SPEC, where all parameters are given with extreme tolerances and details are specified (for example, the optimal characteristics of handrails, handles, steps: diameter, length, shape, grip, etc.).

    MIL-SPEC will significantly reduce the costs of Developers and Customers due to "suddenly emerging" requirements, the implementation of which at later stages of design leads, or to a complete redesign of the project. The Operators suffer - they do not receive the "tools" they need on time. The customer suffers - expenses grow in multiples, deadlines go. Developers suffer - the project is being reworked in a hurry, with a lack of funds, under the administrative pressure of the Customer.
    (and sometimes, you can hear accusations of “sabotage and sabotage” from the inadequate among the "jackets / lapmasniks"). Or such "suddenly arising" requirements lead to compromise solutions - "crutches". From which Operators suffer the most - such solutions hit the convenience of operation and maintenance. But also the Developers - such emergency decisions lead to "strumming" and have an extremely de-motivating effect on the developers (you are forced to trash a beautiful design, in which months of work and soul have been invested). And they greatly impede the further development of systems.

    Publicly available and well-defined MIL-SPECs allow for harmonization of requirements across domains. It would be much easier for developers to unify equipment for civil / commercial and military applications, for land / sea.
    Already at the stage of architectural design, taking care to "encapsulate" fundamental differences. And build machines for land / sea by hanging a universal "core" with specialized modules. Or, on the contrary, to weight the specialized "kernel" with unified modules.

    In the USA and Japan, MIL-SPEC development and application practices formed the basis of civil standards and systems engineering practices (Systems Engineering).

    imho, the main problem is not in design bureaus and at factories - but in insufficient quality engineering requirements
    in MO, Admiralty. The clearly low efficiency of the operator-customer feedback. The Ministry of Defense itself should take care of creating a system for collecting comments and recommendations, improvements and rationalizations (in the form of questionnaires, questionnaires, letters, by mail and through websites). And organize their processing, verification and formalization in military research institutes. And create a MIL-SPEC distribution system (so that they can be downloaded after a simple registration procedure).

    I think that it is quite realistic to design a new car in a short time, under the conditions:
    - Availability of clear MIL-SPEC.
    - Open competition.
    - System design (systems engineering, TRIZ, model design (MDD)).
    - The requirement to take as a basis a basic set of serial domestic units that form the core of the system (redesign, which is impossible in a short time).
    - A unified electronic database of available serial components, units and assemblies (equally open to all bidders).
    - fabless approach - maximum abstraction of Developers from Manufacturers.
    So we can achieve the division of competencies, we can establish industrial cooperation between ordinary competitors.
    - Widespread use of new materials (composites, "3D printing", "kirigami").
    - Open architecture of control systems. Widespread use of single-board computers. Transition to optical data buses (in particular, the advantage of using a unified optical data exchange network is that this will allow using the same data exchange circuit, both at the test stage (for collecting data from sensors and supplying test signals) and stage of operation (for control and diagnostics)).

    I think that at today's level, checkmate. Simulation teams of young brainy engineers with a "clean" look will be able to create such a machine in a short time at a reasonable cost. Provided expert and production support from design bureaus with tradition.
  • ppgt90
    ppgt90 April 17 2021 10: 40
    0
    This is how many different kinds of experts have divorced. There is a plug right in every hole. Mr. Timokhin. You are a representative of the Russian Navy. Do you represent the General Staff of the Russian Federation? Who and what are you? Well, really, except for Timokhin, no one bothered with the problem of helicopters for landing ships? And in general, what kind of freaks. After all, NOBODY "reported" to Timokhin what and how? Mr. Timokhin, if you think of yourself as a tough expert, then explain how the terms of reference were issued and design documents for the construction of ships were made? You, a great technical expert, probably understand what I mean? I don’t think that in Russia there is not a single sane designer, navy officer, except Timokhin. Already sick of all kinds of "technical artisans" with sheep's heads.