The new electronic warfare system was developed on the basis of the Mi-8AMTSh helicopter

A new electronic warfare system for suppressing communication systems and automated control systems of enemy troops is being created on the basis of the Mi-8AMTSh helicopter. The development is at the stage of flight tests.

According to a source in the military-industrial complex, the new electronic warfare complex based on a helicopter is designed to neutralize the operation of ground command and control posts and specialized communication systems. He did not give details, only said that flight tests of the development are currently being carried out.

(...) a complex of electronic warfare is being created to suppress communication and command systems, including automated command and control systems. Flight tests of the machine are currently being completed.

- leads TASS source words.

It should be noted that Russia has already developed an electronic warfare system based on a helicopter - these are the Mi-8MTPR-1 "Lever-AV" electronic warfare helicopters, which are already being supplied to the troops. Active jamming stations "Lever-AV" have sufficient power to "blind" the enemy's electronics at a distance of up to 150 kilometers. The Mi-8MTPR-1 helicopter, while in the air, is capable of simultaneously jamming up to 8 enemy radars, interfering not only with ground, but also aviation radars.

Last year it was reported about tests of the modernized electronic warfare system "Lever-AVM".

The Mi-8AMTSh helicopter is based on the multipurpose Mi-8AMT. The new vehicle retained the capabilities for landing, additionally receiving a complex of guided weapons and reinforced armor. The maximum take-off weight is 13 tons, the maximum speed is 250 km / h, the cruising speed is 230 km / h, and the flight range is 610 km.

Comments

[rocket757]

The new electronic warfare system was developed on the basis of the Mi-8AMTSh helicopter

A lot of electronic warfare does not happen, you need more, different and in different ways. The only question is, is everything done smartly?

[And Us Rat]

Quote: rocket757

The only question is, is everything done smartly?

Very correct question.
Here's an example:

The Mi-8MTPR-1 helicopter, while in the air, is capable of simultaneously jamming up to 8 enemy radars, interfering not only with ground radars, but also with aviation radars.

The fact that he is capable of "interfering" does not raise questions.
But "it is capable of simultaneously jamming up to 8 enemy radars ...", but where is the guarantee that it is capable? This requires at least know algorithms for tuning out the interference of those very radars, and have on hand documentation on other Anti-electronic warfare systems built into these radars and other means of radio exchange.
Otherwise, it turns out "at random", like we will do it according to purely theoretical fabrications and keep our fingers crossed that the enemy is stupider and did not foresee this when developing their systems.
Or journalists as always. catch up with pathos and bravado?

[rocket757]

Quote: And Us Rat

Or journalists as always. catch up with pathos and bravado?

Journalists, TOO MANY are not overloaded with all sorts of different knowledge, alas, alas, a lot had to be convinced of this.
And the helicopter is too sweet a target for ... a lot for what!
Such an option, to have one large, powerful, but highly vulnerable fool, or to have a dozen, another, small, less noticeable and, accordingly, difficult to destroy devices, which are much cheaper, besides ... which cope with the task no worse!?!? !? What to choose?

[And Us Rat]

Quote: rocket757

Journalists, TOO MANY are not overloaded with all sorts of different knowledge, alas, alas, a lot had to be convinced of this.

Here I am talking about.

Quote: rocket757

Such an option, to have one large, powerful, but highly vulnerable fool, or to have a dozen, another, small, less noticeable and, accordingly, difficult to destroy devices, which are much cheaper, besides ... which cope with the task no worse!?!? !? What to choose?

I believe that there is no one correct answer, it all depends on the conditions of use ... although ...
It is probably better to have a modular "doRynda" capable of breaking up into a swarm and / or grouping into a "mega-doRynda" as needed and in accordance with the task at hand.

[rocket757]

Everything is good when it is on time and in the right place ... there are many and different places, therefore, as always, an integrated approach, different options.

[knn54]

With the helicopter it is clear. And where is the information about the capabilities of the electronic warfare "Lever-AVM"., According to the title of the article?

[And Us Rat]

Quote: knn54

And where is the information about the capabilities of the electronic warfare "Lever-AVM"., According to the title of the article?

Duc entozh is a military secret.

[riwas]

Good news.
But the Mi-26 base can probably create a more powerful REA complex.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

But the Mi-26 base can probably create a more powerful REA complex.

g .... a sensible idea ...... he can even compete. AWACS A-50

[Flooding]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

he can even compete. AWACS A-50

yeah. with a ninefold difference in flight range

[Crimean partisan 1974]

yeah. with a ninefold difference in flight range

...... The Mi-26 can refuel in the field, but the A-50 does not, ... the Mi-26 has a motor resource of 2 engines up to 1800 hours, and the A-50 has up to 600 hours, and four have sazu .., .. . another thing is that so far no one has thought of this before

[Flooding]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

another thing is that so far no one has thought of this

So it was you who suggested the idea with the Mi-8?

[Crimean partisan 1974]

So it was you who suggested the idea with the Mi-8?

... well speaking about the Mi-8 AWACS I don't know, but I know about the Ka-32 AWACS ... back in 1993 we provided reception to the GDP and conditional refueling at the PSK (search and rescue ship) Kuban, ... so that it is practically not a problem to shove AWACS on the Mi-26

[venik]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

..... Mi-26 can refuel in the field, but A-50 is not

========
Yah! Can't it? And then what?

And here is the receiving rod for refueling in the air:

------------

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

the Mi-26 has a service life of 2 engines up to 1800 hours and the A-50 has up to 600 hours, with four sazu ..., ... it's another matter that no one has thought of this yet

========
I wonder how you came up with this? In general, the D-136 has a life of not 1800 hours, but 1000 hours - between overhauls, but a full one - 3000 hours! And as for the D-30KP (which is installed on the A-50 - initially the full resource was 6500 hours or 3375 cycles, and after the modernization of the D-30KP-2, it was increased by almost 1.5 times (up to 9500 hours or 4875 cycles!).
(https://naukatehnika.com/resursnyie-pokazateli-dvigatelej-d-30kp-2,-ekspluatiruemyix-na-samoletax-il-76,-uvelichenyi-pochti-v-poltora-raza.html)
PS Learn materiel, and you will be happy!

[Crimean partisan 1974]

PS Learn materiel, and you will be happy!

..... I will answer with the words of Pinocchio "teach, teach, teach, teach better than your own" ..... then you don’t think that an air tanker also consumes resources and fuel ... not ... the economy should be economical ...... I do not mind running 8 engines instead of two ... but why ... here is the question ... and in the future, do not send me off ... I still don’t use them ... I’m afraid of electronic contagion

[venik]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

..... I will answer with the words of Pinocchio "teach, teach, teach, teach better than your own" ..... then you don’t think that an air tanker also consumes resources and fuel ... not ... the economy should be economical ...... I do not mind running 8 engines instead of two ... but why ... here is the question ... and in the future, do not send me off ... I still don’t use them ... I’m afraid of electronic contagion

=========
Bla-bla-bla ..... bla-bla-bla ..... And behind all this verbal "cleverness" - one thing: an attempt to hide their elementary dilettantism and a complete lack of understanding of the topic!
You wrote: "....Mi-26 can refuel in the field and the A-50 is not....". You wrote, not me! And now you are trying to" get out "from an unpleasant situation ..... Another would admit:" Sorry! Fraernulsya! ", And here you started:" ...8 engines instead of two ... but why...... ". If so, then why was it possible to expose the possibility of refueling in the air of the Mi-26, as an advantage over the A-50, which (in your opinion) is deprived of such an opportunity?

[Crimean partisan 1974]

And now you are trying to "get out" of an unpleasant situation.

......... where did you get the idea that I need to get out ... quite the opposite. ... about the Mi-26 about refueling in the air, I never mentioned, I just assumed that I could refuel in the field ... I live near Jonkong, and the combined air regiment flies over my roof regularly (which I am sincerely glad) , including the Mi-26, so no need to write ... all the more, it is not for us to decide what should fly ... I am not against the A-50, and let there be more of them ... but in relation to our Crimean situation it is better would be Mi-26 ...... there are not many airfields and fields in the steppes are full

[sivuch]

Such a project was in Soviet times. It seems that they even built a prototype. But then came the hunchback

[Nikolay Dyaglev]

What a crazy idea? Fly over the battlefield in a helicopter and engage in jamming? Yes, and on such a huge monster, just a wonderful target, even for small arms. Why is it impossible to make electronic warfare on a drone and not expose the lives of the pilots? Yes, maybe a big drone needs to be made for equipment, but at least it will save people's lives

[venik]

Quote: Nikolay Dyagelev

What a crazy idea? Fly over the battlefield in a helicopter and engage in jamming? Yes, and on such a huge monster, just a wonderful target, even for small arms.

=======
Consonant! If on the Mi-8/17 the "jammer" for the radar looks quite normal (well, at least, to cover the link of shock or landing turntables), then the appearance of a huge and not very maneuverable colossus over the front edge looks at least complete idiocy! God forbid - I'm not going to mock the Mi-26: it really is absolutely outstanding (and unparalleled car!), but this is a super-heavy transport, and it is absolutely not his task to spin over the battlefield! It is intended for ANOTHER !!!

[venik]

"....A new electronic warfare system for suppressing communication systems and automated control systems of enemy troops is being created on the basis of the Mi-8AMTSh helicopter...... "
========
Good news! And then we have electronic warfare systems aerial basing (specialized aircraft and helicopters) is still not enough ...
-------------
"....Active jamming stations "Lever-AV" have enough power to "blind" the enemy's electronics at a distance of up to 150 kilometer... .... "
=========
Yes! And here, at VO, not so long ago, R. Skomorokhov gave birth to an article where he argued that the Khibiny and Lever are systems capable of covering only a single aircraft or, in extreme cases, a small group ... it turns out as much as 150 km !!!

[Zaurbek]

And there is not a large selection of carriers ... Mi8 / 17 is our everything. Even the aircraft version (which is much more useful and convenient) has nothing to do, we are waiting for Il 114/112 ...

[alex aircraft]

Why, and what is wrong with the 204/214 as an electronic warfare carrier?

[Zaurbek]

And those too are not present ......... Silts are comparable in load with Mi8 ... Tupolevs for more powerful systems

[sivuch]

Aircraft electronic warfare is another niche.

[Blackbeard]

Imagine an American with a bunch of screens taught to work with automated command and control systems, and then suddenly it ceases to work adequately and all their work is down the drain, but in the old fashioned way they will no longer be able to work))