Helicopters for the Russian Navy

140
Helicopters for the Russian Navy

It is well known that a helicopter is an extremely formidable combat vehicle. It is distinguished from classic aircraft by the ability to take off and land vertically, as well as the ability to "hover" in the air in immobility relative to the earth's surface. These "highlights" give the helicopter special features, thanks to which it is, in fact, so valuable on the battlefield. But at the same time, they impose a number of significant restrictions on rotorcraft.

And these limitations should never be forgotten by anyone who undertakes to think about the use of helicopters in naval warfare.

On the advantages and disadvantages of "rotary wings" on the example of PLO helicopters


Without a doubt, an anti-submarine helicopter is archival and archaic. Its usefulness and necessity for fleet hardly needs proof. But, unfortunately, due to "innate" limitations, the helicopter is in principle unable to solve the entire range of tasks in combating enemy submarines that are assigned to aircraft. There are many reasons for this, and the first of them is a limited combat radius.

Alas, this is the Achilles' heel of any helicopter, which cannot be fixed, neither today nor in the foreseeable future. Let's take, for example, the modernized Ka-27M - it claims a flight time of 3,5 hours at a cruising speed of 250 km / h, a flight range in various sources of 800-900 km (ferry - 1 km) and at the same time a combat radius of 000 km. Which is not at all surprising, because it is obvious that at a distance of 200 km from the warship from which the rotorcraft took off, this helicopter can patrol for less than 200 hours.

Let's compare these figures with the data of the E-3A Viking carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft, which has long since been decommissioned. The latter had a cruising speed of about 650 km / h and a practical range of 5 km. Here, of course, there are big questions about what load this ferry range was considered in, but, according to the most conservative estimates, the aircraft is quite capable, having moved 121 kilometers from its carrier, to patrol there for four hours or more.

Well, for the Il-38N, the combat radius is usually indicated at all as 2 - 200 km.

The second problem of the anti-submarine helicopter is the limited search performance. Two hours of patrolling the Ka-27M is not at all equivalent to two hours of patrolling the same S-3A Viking. Simply because in 2 hours a helicopter at a speed of 250 km/h will overcome 500 km of water area, and a Viking at a speed of 650 km - 1 km, that is, 300 times more. In fact, of course, the controlled water area should be measured in square kilometers. But there are many nuances here, and we need not absolute, but relative figures that allow us to compare the performance of a helicopter and an aircraft performing anti-submarine searches, for which such a simple calculation is quite acceptable.

If we send a Ka-200M helicopter to 27 km, then it will survey 500 km of water area, and if we send a PLO aircraft to the same distance at a speed of 650 km / h and the ability to stay in the air for 4 hours at a distance of the same 200 km ( extremely moderate against the background of the old Viking), then it examines 2 km of water area, or 200 times more.


The same S-3 Viking

And finally, the third problem is the limited combat load. A helicopter is a relatively light aircraft. The mass of the same Ka-27M is almost half that of the Viking. Therefore, helicopters must work in pairs - one searches for a submarine, and the second - its defeat. At the same time, the Viking's standard load - 4 torpedoes and 60 drop buoys - allows it to work independently.

Thus, we see that the PLO helicopter is literally inferior to the specialized anti-submarine aircraft in everything. Nevertheless, the rotorcraft also has advantages, and here is the most important of them: the helicopter does not require a specialized carrier and can be based on almost any warship. This plus outweighs all the minuses taken together, making the PLO helicopter indispensable for any fleet whose tasks include combating submarines. Because even a single PLO helicopter, although it loses to an aircraft of the same specialization in everything, is capable of qualitatively enhancing the anti-submarine capabilities of a corvette, frigate or destroyer-class warship. A missile cruiser, of course, too, but still, hunting for submarines is usually not part of its task.

A PLO carrier-based helicopter is able to quickly find itself where the best sonar system (SAC) of a surface carrier ship cannot reach. No matter how perfect the 800-ton Polynom SJSC was for its time, its range, at which it could confidently “hold” enemy submarines, was measured in tens of kilometers. Accordingly, even for a specialized large anti-submarine ship of project 1155 with its Polynomial, a pair of helicopters on board provided a lot of additional opportunities.

They were the "long arm" of the BOD, which could be quickly "stretched" to the right place, say, in support of another ship that discovered the submarine. The helicopter's speed allows it to get to where the BOD is late. Also, helicopters could, albeit for a short time, dramatically increase the search performance of the BOD, which was useful, say, when the BOD entered the area where an enemy submarine had been discovered shortly before. At the same time, the presence of long-range anti-submarine missiles made it possible for a large anti-submarine ship to support helicopters at a considerable distance: Rastrub B was capable of hitting a target 90 km from the BOD.

Of course, the BOD has radio communication and can call the ASW aircraft. But if the ship is located at a considerable distance from the airfields based on PLO aircraft, then the helicopter, despite all its shortcomings, can be in the right place faster than the aircraft, and there is no need to break the radio silence mode.

In other words, the PLO helicopter is extremely useful and in demand even on a large anti-submarine ship, specially sharpened to counter enemy diesel and nuclear submarines. What can we say about frigates, patrol ships, corvettes, whose sonar systems were much weaker!

The PLO helicopter also has one more plus - it can carry a lowered GAS, which, for obvious reasons, the aircraft cannot use. Of course, a PLO aircraft can drop a buoy, and even a lot, but this buoy is a very expensive thing, and it’s just undesirable to scatter them around.

The conclusion from the above is very simple: in terms of combat effectiveness, an anti-submarine helicopter is definitely inferior to an aircraft and will never be able to replace it. But the usefulness of the PLO helicopter is unconditional and lies in the fact that it is able to significantly strengthen the PLO of ships that are either unable to take aircraft on board, or operate at a considerable distance from the airfields where PLO aircraft are based.

About attack helicopters



It is obvious that an attack helicopter is inferior both in speed, in combat radius, and in payload to the same multifunctional fighter, not to mention specialized attack aircraft like the Su-34. But his shortcomings do not end there.

A significant problem of the attack helicopter is its inability to conduct air combat against enemy aircraft. Yes, at one time a helicopter was a difficult target for a fighter: the old radars did not distinguish at all, or they distinguished, but with great difficulty, low-flying targets against the background of the underlying surface, so targeting the air-to-air missile with the help of radar was extremely difficult. Yes, and air combat missiles were not then intended to intercept targets at "ultra-low" altitudes. But now certain progress has been made in this regard, and the helicopter is no longer so invulnerable in air combat.

In addition, unfortunately, many still confuse invulnerability in the air and the ability to conduct air combat, and this should not be done in any case. In naval warfare, a multifunctional fighter solves many problems. This is a struggle for information space, by destroying enemy AWACS aircraft and patrol aviationthan blinding the enemy is achieved, his ability to detect and control the movement of our surface, underwater and air forces is weakened. This is the struggle for air supremacy by destroying enemy fighter aircraft, and covering warships from enemy attack aircraft raids. This, finally, is the destruction of enemy ships in an indirect (covering one's own attack aircraft) or direct (when a fighter performs a strike function) form.

Obviously, the first two tasks are not up to the attack helicopter - the fact that it is a difficult target in air combat does not allow it to perform the functions of an interceptor. To do this, he has neither the flight range nor the speed. And the same applies to covering its carrier from air attacks by enemy aircraft - a helicopter cannot prevent them from reaching the line of attack. Of course, theoretically speaking, it is possible to hang medium-range air-to-air missiles on a helicopter and, having raised the rotorcraft above the order, try to use them. In fact, the chances that the helicopter will have time to do all this in the event of an air raid are very small, and it will not be too difficult to shoot it down when it is at high altitude.

It is possible that such tactics will increase the air defense potential of the formation (by a few percent), but it is impossible to speak seriously about air defense built on the basis of attack helicopters. That is why no one has ever assigned air defense tasks to land-based helicopters - this is not a task characteristic of helicopters, and they cannot solve it somewhat satisfactorily. Yes, helicopters are sometimes equipped with air-to-air missiles - for self-defense and in some situations - to counter their own kind. Yes, with luck, a helicopter can shoot down a plane. But all this does not and cannot make the helicopter any effective means of air defense.

Let us now consider purely impact problems. For starters, attacks on enemy ships. As the practice of military operations shows, helicopters very successfully cope with the destruction of enemy light forces. But - subject to certain conditions.

So, for example, Israeli helicopters were a very effective means of combating Arab missile boats, but only when the latter did not have air cover. Or, for example, the destruction of the Iraqi Navy, which was trying to escape by leaving the combat area during the well-known Operation Desert Storm. The helicopters, again, did an excellent job: however, one should not forget that they worked in the absence of any opposition in the air and despite the fact that the control of the movement of groups of Iraqi ships was carried out by other means, including Orion patrol aircraft.

And yet - in all of the above cases, the opponents of the helicopters did not have adequate air defense - for example, the Iraqi fleet had a maximum of 76-mm artillery and MANPADS missiles ("Strela" and "Igla"). Thus, the role of helicopters that performed the strike function was reduced to the delivery of missile weapons from point "A", which is understood as the deck of the native ship to point "B", i.e., to the line of attack. It is not surprising that universal helicopters coped with this task quite normally without the involvement of specialized attack machines.

Of course, the helicopter is capable of attacking enemy ships. But - at a small distance from the carrier. Provided that the enemy either does not have aviation at all, or air supremacy in the area of ​​operation is established and maintained by other means. And, of course, in the first place - against small ships, whose air defense does not allow you to "get" a helicopter at the line of attack.

But what if we are confronted by a more serious enemy? Say, a ship strike group (KUG) consisting of two or three destroyers? If we take American developments, then an attack by carrier-based aircraft of such a KUG will look like this.

First, an AWACS aircraft will hover 200-250 kilometers from the KUG, which will control the enemy and coordinate the attack. When everything is ready, the KUG will attack the demonstration group, forcing the enemy ships to turn on the fire control radar. And right there, as soon as they turn on, an electronic warfare group will enter the battle, crushing these radars with interference and using anti-radar missiles on them. And at the moment when the air defense of the KUG is loaded with interference and missiles, the strike groups, sneaking up and hiding behind the radio horizon, attack the formation from different sides with the same "Harpoons". It was believed that such an attack would not necessarily lead to the death of warships, but would reduce their air defense to almost zero, after which they could be finished off with simpler ammunition: the same guided bombs.

In the USSR, this issue was resolved differently - naval missile-carrying aviation had to reach the line of attack and launch such a number of anti-ship missiles that would overload the air defense of an enemy formation - part of the anti-ship missiles would be shot down or taken away by interference, but the rest would break through and cause unacceptable damage. To do this, it was necessary to provide a large number of missiles in a salvo, for which, in fact, divisions of naval missile-carrying aviation were created. In addition, both aircraft and missiles were made supersonic: this reduced the operation time of enemy air defense to a minimum.


Which of these concepts fits into a relatively slow attack helicopter with a pair of light missiles under the wing? Obviously, none. And there is another important aspect. The fact is that the Russian Navy, following the Soviet Navy, relies on long-range anti-ship missiles. The range of modern Russian anti-ship missiles is a secret, but one can hardly doubt that the missiles in service are capable of striking ships at least 500 kilometers away. In such a situation, it is much easier, if the enemy is already detected, to launch a missile attack on him, and not try to organize an attack with combat helicopters: unless this enemy is so small that it does not deserve the expense of "Caliber" or "Zircon".

Things are somewhat better with regard to the possible realization by a sea helicopter of its strike potential against ground targets. A helicopter can really do a lot here. In real battles, he often helped to disable enemy air defense elements. Helicopter is a terrible enemy tank, this is well known and, I believe, does not need proof. In addition, the helicopter is a huge threat to the infantry and other ground equipment. As a means of fire support for the landing, an attack helicopter is invaluable, but ... Unfortunately, this “but” appears every time.

With all its undoubted advantages, in sea operations against the coast, the helicopter is categorically not self-sufficient. Take, for example, a landing operation.

The landing of troops on the enemy's shore is an extremely dangerous action. You can use landing ships with ramps or landing ships-docks, you can land tanks and infantry directly on the shore or practice over-the-horizon landings. But at the time of the landing, both the landing itself and the ships landing it are in an extremely vulnerable position. During this period, our forces are concentrated on board landing ships and boats, or have just come ashore and cannot yet fully fight, but they themselves are an extremely tasty target. At this moment, even a single aircraft that has broken through to the landing order, even one enemy artillery battery, can do terrible things.

And therefore, the alpha and omega of any landing force is unconditional air supremacy and the processing of the future landing zone to a state of complete incompatibility with the life of any hostile equipment, including a machine gun.


When all this is done, attack helicopters are able to work out their bread for all 200%. They will hover over the landing zone, threatening immediate death to everything that miraculously managed to survive and risk opening fire on the landing troops. They will help eliminate enemy tanks and combat vehicles, hastily pulling up to the landing site. They will support the Marines with fire even when they are pretty far away from the coastline, if this is provided for by the plan of the landing operation. After all, a helicopter airfield, even a jump, even a permanent base, is easy to organize in almost any area (we don’t take the Himalayas into account - usually amphibious assault forces do not land there).

In general, it is impossible to deny the importance of an attack helicopter as a means of fire support for an assault force. But it will work effectively only when someone else covers the landing group at the crossing by sea from the air and ensures air supremacy in the landing area, and when someone else smashes everything to smithereens and in half on hostile shores. Both of these tasks, alas, are beyond the power of a helicopter. Air defense has already been mentioned earlier, and he will not be able to plow the coast due to the small payload. The attack helicopter does an excellent job of pinpoint strikes, with the destruction of compact targets. In general, the scalpel is certainly very useful for many needs - but not where a sledgehammer is needed to solve the problem.

From here - simple conclusions. For air defense of naval formations, an attack helicopter, if not completely useless, is very close to that. The anti-ship strike function of a helicopter, in principle, is in demand by the fleet, but against a deliberately weak enemy and in the conditions of our air supremacy. In amphibious operations, an attack helicopter is archival and essential, but these operations themselves are possible only in the zone of air supremacy or at least within the combat radius of a fairly large group of our aircraft.

About AWACS helicopters



What tasks does the AWACS aircraft solve? Firstly, it is the control of the air and surface situation. Secondly, targeting attack aircraft and fighters at air / surface / ground targets and acting as a flying command post for aviation. To do this, AWACS aircraft, as a rule, have in the crew not only pilots and navigators responsible for controlling the aircraft, but also other crew members, radar operators, whose functions include air combat control.

Can a helicopter perform AWACS functionality? Those who are ready to answer this question in the affirmative usually appeal to foreign and domestic experience. The British really created and operate AWACS helicopters, and in our country there is an analogue - Ka-31. But you need to understand that the capabilities of a helicopter to play such a role are extremely limited, and many tactical capabilities are not available at all.

The AWACS aircraft is valuable for its flight range. It can hang in the air for hours many hundreds of kilometers from the order it covers, and even when it unmasks itself, including its powerful radar, it does not unmask the connection. The AWACS helicopter does not have the required range and, in order to provide at least some acceptable patrol time, it must be in close proximity to the formation it protects. But in this case, the inclusion of the AWACS helicopter radar will inevitably tell the enemy's electronic intelligence the location of the ship group covered by him. This is the first, but a very big minus of the AWACS helicopter.

The second disadvantage is the limited capabilities of the radar. It is interesting that the task of controlling air combat was not set in principle for domestic AWACS helicopters. If, for example, look at the advertising poster of the Ka-31


Then there is no question of any control of the airspace and guidance of the same fighters. In fact, story The Ka-31 developed like this. In the distant, distant past, anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 250 km were invented in the USSR. Obviously, it was absolutely impossible to give target designation from a ship at such a distance in those years. There were no aircraft carriers, it was possible to rely on data transmission from land-based reconnaissance aircraft only on big holidays, and the idea of ​​​​a helicopter capable of being based on a missile cruiser and equipped with a sufficiently powerful radar capable of illuminating the enemy for 200–250 kilometers lay, as they say, on surfaces.



This is exactly how, in fact, the Ka-25Ts appeared - an excellent machine for its time. He could, having taken off above the deck of the same Grozny missile cruiser, turn on the radar, being under the protection of the ship’s air defense systems, detect a surface target, automatically transmit its coordinates and parameters of the anti-ship missile launched from the cruiser. The helicopter itself could not correct the flight of the anti-ship missiles, but the ship was able to do this, which, based on the data automatically received from the helicopter, calculated the necessary corrections.

They tried to reproduce a successful helicopter at a new technical level, at the same time trying to expand its functionality. Alas, the capabilities of his radar were only enough to detect low-flying targets. Ka-31, covering the ship's order, could give information about cruise missiles or attack aircraft flying over the water. According to the creators, this information could increase the effectiveness of shipborne air defense systems by 20-30%. Not bad, of course, but nothing more.

What about air combat? The Ka-1995, which was put into service in 31, had a detection range of fighters that did not exceed 100–150 km. One cannot even dream of confronting an air group with a full-fledged AWACS aircraft, like the Hawkeye - the potential of the latter is many times higher, respectively, the enemy has the opportunity to build a battle according to his own rules.

But what about the experience of the British, who not only equipped their Invincibles with AWACS helicopters, three each, but also set about creating a modern model of such a helicopter for the latest aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth type? Yes, the British went down this path, but this does not mean at all that British recipes will suit the Russian Navy. The thing is that the British used AWACS helicopters only and exclusively as part of the air group of an aircraft carrier armed with multifunctional fighters.

What did the British face using their aircraft carriers in the Falklands conflict? With a complete inability to control the airspace. The Sea Harriers could not be in the air for a long time, and the quality of the radar on them was such that the pilots mainly relied on their own vision, and not on the radar. As a result, the British missed many attacks on their ships - their planes were simply not where they needed to be, and did not have time to intercept the enemy.

It was physically impossible to land AWACS aircraft on the Invincible and Hermes aircraft carriers, and there were no bases from which they could cover the fleet near the conflict zone. Under such conditions, six AWACS helicopters (three per aircraft carrier) would have been invaluable to the British. With so many helicopters, it was quite possible to provide a round-the-clock air watch, which would allow the British commander to use his aircraft carriers much more decisively and effectively than in reality. Simply put, having AWACS helicopters, the British received enough information to successfully counter the sporadic Argentine air raids and had an excellent chance of detecting Argentine warships before they reached the missile attack line.

Of course, if the Argentines had an air wing prepared according to the standards of American naval aviation, consisting of fighter-bombers, electronic warfare aircraft and Hokaevs, then no AWACS helicopters would have helped the British. But against the weakest enemy, they would have been quite appropriate and could seriously change the balance of losses in favor of the British fleet. And Royal Navy is precisely such military operations that are coming - the “big good guys” in the person of American aircraft carriers will deal with something serious, but against the armed forces of third countries it will do.

But why do we need AWACS helicopters? Well, yes, on the deck of the TAVKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" several of these machines might have looked appropriate, although this is a rather controversial issue. And outside this deck? Fighter control? But if a fleet formation operates where it can be covered by land-based fighters, then air control over it should be entrusted to an AWACS aircraft of the same land-based. And if the fleet operates in an area where fighters cannot reach from land, then there will be no one to control the AWACS helicopter there.

Control of the airspace, including low-flying targets, in the immediate vicinity of the warrant? Sounds good, but frigate, destroyer, and even missile cruiser warships are incapable of providing helicopter flights around the clock - as a rule, such ships have fuel for only a few full refueling of a rotorcraft. And you can’t put a specialized helicopter carrier for each frigate. Nevertheless, and this is indisputable, a helicopter with a powerful radar can be extremely useful in a number of combat situations.

But why use a specialized AWACS helicopter for this purpose? At present, a powerful radar is an essential attribute of a modern anti-submarine helicopter, which is why the upgraded Ka-27M is equipped with radar with AFAR. Such a radar should be able to detect a raised periscope, detect a person in trouble at sea, which means it is quite suitable for monitoring low-flying targets. By the way, the Ka-27M can also be used for search and target designation of surface targets - its radar sees it at 250 km with a resolution of 10 meters.


It is clear that a specialized helicopter will solve these tasks more efficiently, but it is almost useless for anti-submarine warfare.

Conclusions


They are pretty simple. In my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone, the fleet today needs, first, second and third, modern PLO helicopters. This is the most important function of a helicopter at sea. At the same time, it is quite possible to make PLO rotorcraft universal, capable of using light anti-ship missiles, as well as conducting reconnaissance, including for issuing target designation of PRK. A small modification, similar to what was done with the Ka-27, will provide our fleet with search and rescue helicopters.

Our fleet does not need AWACS helicopters at all. But the Marine Corps would not even interfere with its own attack helicopter, capable of operating from landing ships as well. In my opinion, we should consider introducing attack helicopter formations into the Russian Marine Corps. Of course, we can only talk about adapting ground models of attack helicopters, and not about creating a fundamentally new machine: one should strive for a minimum of differences. Although Marine helicopters will be transported by sea, which means they must be able to land and take off from the deck, they are designed for operations over land, and not for naval battles.

And, of course, no one canceled the need to have relatively heavy transport helicopters in the fleet. Both the fleet and the marines need them - by the way, it is possible to create a specialized minesweeper helicopter on the basis of a cargo helicopter, if there is a need for it and if such a machine today will be an effective tool in combating the mine threat.

Thus, in my opinion, the whole variety of tasks of the Russian Navy can be solved by the presence of three basic versions of helicopters (PLO, attack, transport), of which only one PLO helicopter is a specialized development, and the other two are adaptations of existing Russian Air Force vehicles.

Well, now, having decided on helicopters, it's time to think about the need for the Russian Navy to have specialized helicopter carriers in its composition. But more on that in the next article.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -23
    17 May 2022 18: 26
    The 3rd month of the land war was ending, in which the enemy of MANPADS and MZA, like a fool of candy wrappers, lost helicopters, including those that flew to the airfield after damage, but decommissioned, or came under fire on the ground (remember the Kherson feil with 3 destroyed and 10- 12 damaged helicopters), may well reach 50 units, and will grow, however, the seamen continue to gallop to divert resources for the fleet.

    Is it really so difficult before the completion of the NMD and the clarification of the needs for the equipment of the Ground Forces and the Air Force to stop talking about naval projects? Once I watched a video about the project of a giant train on a wide gauge in Nazi Germany (with a small letter, like Ukraine), the Germans drew beautiful pictures with it throughout the Second World War and the last time they showed Hitler in March 1945. All the Moremanian mries now look no more appropriate.
    1. +13
      17 May 2022 19: 09
      All the Moremanian mries now look no more appropriate.
      The fleet also takes part in the NWO and even suffers losses. Let me remind you that all the weapons that were adopted in the post-war years began to be developed back in the midst of the Second World War. You can't stop progress. And in aircraft and shipbuilding, what is being conceived or even being designed now will appear in metal years, or maybe decades later.
    2. +6
      17 May 2022 19: 53
      I watched a video about the project of a giant train on a wide gauge in Nazi Germany (with a small letter, like Ukraine), the Germans drew beautiful pictures with it throughout the Second World War and showed Hitler for the last time in March 1945. All the Moremanian mries now look no more appropriate.
      - the analogy from all sides is amusing. Bravo! good

      But, although I myself am a supporter of a balanced fleet, I admit: "before the completion of the NWO .... stop talking about marine projects" and even after the "completion of the NWO" there is not much practical sense to "talk about marine projects".
      But, from the point of view of alhistory - why not?
      Excellent training of the mind and some distraction (up to escapism) from reality, no less interesting than the question "what happened in the Tsushima Strait or in the Yellow Sea at the beginning of the 20th century."

      How could we cosplay French helicopters in the fleet, Pumas, Tigers and Gazelles:


      and the British Apaches, who, when necessary, "get bored":


      It would be possible to make a PLO helicopter that could carry weapons and detection systems, like Merlin


      But. alas: only the Ka52 is "wetted", and the PLO will be the same on the Ka27.
      1. -3
        17 May 2022 23: 59
        Quote: Wildcat
        and the PLO will be the same on the Ka27.

        No. Kasatka is on the way (Ka-60/62)
        1. +7
          18 May 2022 11: 16
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          No. Kasatka is on the way (Ka-60/62)

          She has been for over 30 years on the way. The Ka-60 was supposed to fly together with the Ka-50.
          And if you swear, then I won’t go anywhere at all. © smile
      2. +2
        18 May 2022 00: 56
        Quote: Wildcat
        and the PLO will be the same on the Ka27.

        Rumor has it that in 2025 the Ka-65 "Lamprey" will make its first flight, in fact - a further development of the 27th machine. True, with very improved characteristics.
        1. +2
          18 May 2022 01: 33
          hi
          Given the traditional "shifts to the right" and the fact that now the resources that are available will be sent to the NWO and replenishment of what was lost in the NWO, about 2025 and Lamprey (especially the new model) is not very hard to believe.

          Specifically, Kamov (or whatever is left of the design bureau) in the production of the Ka52 plus modernization, will another project be pulled in the light of the optimization of the design bureau? Rather, the Milevtsy could "fake" once again one of the versions of the Mi8 family.

          EvilLion is right about something - it will not be up to the fleet with its wishes in any case, IMHO.

          Moreover, many things can change based on the results of the SVO. One Nobel laureate from the Russian Federation so bluntly writes "... including the voluntary renunciation of nuclear weapons."
    3. +26
      17 May 2022 20: 14
      Quote: EvilLion
      Ended the 3rd month of the land war

      Meanwhile, some unprincipled villains dare to publish articles about Polish first-generation jet fighters, the Battle of Sinop, the golden youth of the Stalin era, and so on. etc. see today's publications "VO". And where is the world heading?
      However, you don’t react to other articles like that, you only got angry at mine. And why? Well, how about:
      Quote: EvilLion
      however, the Moremans continue to gallop to divert resources for the fleet.

      Please quote where exactly I suggested diverting resources from the special operation to the fleet, please. I demanded to urgently order 100 aircraft carriers, 500 destroyers, 100500 helicopters? There's no such thing? Why then such violent reactions? Maybe any expenses for the fleet seem to you a senseless and harmful diversion of resources?
      Quote: EvilLion
      Is it really so difficult before the completion of the NMD and the clarification of the needs for the equipment of the Ground Forces and the Air Force to stop talking about naval projects?

      Yes, what is it for? Talking about maritime projects is far from the worst way to take a break from both personal affairs and military operations in Ukraine. There is nothing reprehensible in this.
      Quote: EvilLion
      Once I watched a video about the project of a giant train on a wide gauge in Nazi Germany (with a small letter, like Ukraine), the Germans drew beautiful pictures with it throughout the Second World War and the last time they showed Hitler in March 1945. All the Moremanian mries now look no more appropriate.

      What is really inappropriate here is your comparison of the Russian Federation with Hitler's Germany arr. 1945.
      And the fleet is fighting as best it can. And it sends missiles into the distance, and the cruiser loses, because there is no one to carry the AWACS, and the BDK is under attack, because there is no one to cover from the OTR, and the marines are fighting, etc.
      1. -16
        17 May 2022 21: 29
        We are not tired of Polish fighters, but we are tired of naval mriy even before NWO.
        1. +7
          18 May 2022 15: 38
          Quote: EvilLion
          We are not tired of Polish fighters, but we are tired of naval mriy even before NWO.

          What is it about. The fleet is simply unpleasant for you, and you use the NWO as a screen to justify your discontent
      2. +1
        18 May 2022 19: 33
        Author, do not pay attention to such "experts", they are not able to see beyond their own noses. And don't waste your time arguing with them. When a roasted rooster pecks them in the butt, they immediately repaint. The idea that there is nothing to defend against the strategic submarines of Russia's adversaries today has not yet reached their meager brains ...
      3. +1
        20 May 2022 08: 22
        Why cast pearls in front of pigs, you waste time answering a stupid comment of an unintelligent narrow-minded person?
    4. +9
      17 May 2022 20: 31
      What is inappropriate? We still have enough equipment for SV and VKS, their production does not stop. Throughout the country, except for the border Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions, plus the Crimea, the war is somewhere far away. What they talk about on TV and on the Internet. Even in the Rostov and Voronezh regions and the Krasnodar Territory, the war is already getting far. The inhabitant and there will soon forget about it. There is definitely time to talk about the fleet and think about how to develop it. Moreover, NATO has not gone anywhere. And their submarines still need to be guarded.
    5. +6
      18 May 2022 11: 21
      Quote: EvilLion
      The 3rd month of the land war was ending, in which the enemy of MANPADS and MZA, like a fool of candy wrappers, lost helicopters, including those that flew to the airfield after damage, but decommissioned, or came under fire on the ground (remember the Kherson feil with 3 destroyed and 10- 12 damaged helicopters), may well reach 50 units, and will grow, however, the seamen continue to gallop to divert resources for the fleet.

      Actually, the article is just about something else - about reducing naval unnecessary projects and choosing priorities.
      And do not forget that the PLO helicopter, like the PLO as a whole, in our situation is part of the strategic deterrence system. Because it is the PLO that ensures the security of 40% of our strategic SBCs.
      And strategic nuclear forces are directly related to the NMD. Or does someone believe that the NVO is conducted in the format "Russia against Ukraine"?
    6. 0
      28 June 2022 15: 26
      excellent, I would put a plus yes sorry the article is old, the site does not give
  2. -4
    17 May 2022 18: 41
    A tiltrotor in this situation would have looked more worthy.
    1. +15
      17 May 2022 19: 55
      Quote from Electric
      A tiltrotor in this situation would have looked more worthy.

      A tiltrotor would not have looked more worthy in any situation. The tiltrotor managed to take the disadvantages of a helicopter and an airplane while having a minimum of advantages
      1. -4
        17 May 2022 21: 13
        This man has been sitting in the cockpit of a fighter jet for a long time! By the way, as they give out similar brakes, and even interested ones! Aircraft to create under human physiology, is not it insanity?
      2. -1
        18 May 2022 10: 19
        But the Americans don’t know))) and they rivet more and more Ospreys over and over again))) Well, stupid-s-s))))
        1. +1
          18 May 2022 11: 44
          Quote: Murat
          But the Americans don’t know))) and they rivet more and more Ospreys over and over again))) Well, stupid-s-s))))

          But can you tell me - how many Ospreys does the US Navy have? Not the Marine Corps or the Air Force, but the Navy? So, the Navy ordered 39 of them. Everything - to replace the Greyhound transport decks.

          The author writes about our fleet. Which does not have a horde of shock and landing flat decks capable of accepting convertiplanes. Does the US Navy have anti-submarine Ospreys based on Burke or Teak? wink
          1. 0
            18 May 2022 12: 09
            The US doesn't. But that's not the point. And the fact that a tiltrotor is, in principle, needed. And he could well replace the helicopter. It's just more expensive than a helicopter, and helicopter manufacturers also want to eat their own piece of the budget pie.
            1. +2
              18 May 2022 12: 56
              Quote: Murat
              The US doesn't. But that's not the point. And the fact that a tiltrotor is, in principle, needed. And he could well replace the helicopter.

              Basically we need everything. But in the specific situation of our Navy, the fleet needs a tiltrotor like a dog's fifth leg. And the speech in the article is about our fleet, today and in the near future. Which does not have the technical, financial and industrial capabilities to order a fundamentally new type of aircraft ... and get it in half a century.
              Do you remember how long Kamovites have been sculpting the usual Ka-60/62? Or how many "Osprey" went before the order and the series? After all, the US Armed Forces planned to start re-equipping it at the very beginning of the 90s.
              1. -1
                19 May 2022 10: 08
                And the speech in the article is about our fleet, today and in the near future. Which does not have the technical, financial and industrial capabilities to order a fundamentally new type of aircraft ... and get it in half a century.

                I do not argue that the Kalashnikov assault rifle is more complicated and more expensive than a smoothbore fusee, but this is not a reason to abandon complex and expensive developments. I don’t believe that the development of a tiltrotor will cost more than the PAKFA program or the resuscitation of Tu-160 production.
            2. +2
              18 May 2022 15: 43
              Quote: Murat
              But that's not the point. And the fact that a tiltrotor is, in principle, needed. And he could well replace the helicopter.

              Yes, he will never replace a helicopter. Firstly, it is initially a heavier machine that can be "slapped" on the same frigate only by reducing the range / payload. Secondly, the same Osprey stands as a modern multifunctional fighter. What's the point? What are you offering to pay for?
              1. -3
                19 May 2022 10: 06
                Firstly, it is initially a heavier machine that can be "slapped" on the same frigate only by reducing the range / payload.

                But the presence of a helicopter ALSO reduces the payload. And then, I'm not saying that you need to copy Osprey "from keel to clot": you can do less. A tiltrotor is an increase in speed and range compared to a helicopter, while maintaining the possibility of taking off from a non-aircraft carrier. And about "overpaying" - so the aircraft carrier will cost more.
                1. 0
                  19 May 2022 15: 16
                  Quote: Murat
                  But the presence of a helicopter ALSO reduces the payload.

                  You did not understand. For example, a helicopter with a maximum take-off weight of, say, 12 tons can be landed on a frigate (the figure may be different). A tiltrotor of similar takeoff weight will have a smaller payload than a helicopter.
                  The same Ka-27 with a takeoff weight of 12 tons has a payload of 5900 kg (the difference between the empty weight and the maximum takeoff weight) or almost 50%. The tiltrotor Osprey has 9 tons with a take-off weight of 24 tons (I take it for vertical take-off), i.e. 38%.
                  1. -1
                    20 May 2022 11: 16
                    Well! you have to pay for everything. If you want a full-fledged aircraft, pay for an aircraft carrier. If you want to take off from the platform like a helicopter, and the speed and range are like an airplane, make a tiltrotor with a reduced payload percentage. If an aircraft carrier fell on us from the sky, and even URO ships, and even the infrastructure for all this, and industry, and even money, then the tiltrotor would not be needed.
          2. 0
            19 May 2022 07: 25
            Exactly what is not! And with such oligarchic power will not be! While there are enough hats to throw the enemy!
    2. +1
      18 May 2022 18: 25
      A device with a price of 4 Il-76 and the cost of an hour of flight, like a strategic bomber, with a low payload and absolutely unarmored and underarmed, has only one advantage over a helicopter - twice as fast. Attention, the question: "Do we need it?"
      1. -1
        20 May 2022 14: 46
        And 2,5 times longer flight range. And yes: a Russian tiltrotor would not cost more than 4 Il-76s.
  3. +10
    17 May 2022 19: 03
    Most of the article comes down to comparing the incomparable - an airplane and a helicopter. It could be called differently - the rationale for the need to have aircraft carriers in the Navy. By the way, I completely agree with this message.
    Regarding deck helicopters. I believe it makes sense to divide the topic into a helicopter for ships of the main classes and the composition of the helicopter carrier air wing. Since a separate article is planned on helicopter carriers, I will try to think about a helicopter for cruisers, destroyers, BODs, frigates, corvettes.
    The main disadvantages of the Ka-27 are described in the article.
    In my opinion, the most problematic is the lack of universalism. On ships, sometimes they cannot take the Ka-27PL, since on a long voyage rescue functions may be needed, which means they take the Ka-27PS.
    Unlike the author, I believe that an AWACS helicopter is needed, because we have only one aircraft carrier, and even that one is under repair, and there are no carrier-based aircraft for this purpose at all.
    However, the Ka-31 is again needed for an aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier that performs the functions of supporting the KUG. And here, I completely agree with the author about the need to equip the ship's helicopter with a powerful radar for target designation.
    That is, we need a helicopter capable of searching for and at the same time destroying submarines alone, rescuing people, and engaging in reconnaissance of the surface situation and target designation for its ship, and carrying an anti-ship missile.
    Is it possible to create such a helicopter? Of course you can. For a helicopter carrier. The question is how to make it so that it is included in the mass-dimensional restrictions for a corvette carrier-based helicopter.
    Perhaps the answer lies in the use of hinged containers with equipment, the modularity of the helicopter itself (possibly following the example of the Ka-26/226). Well, let's remember how heavy and bulky electronic equipment was in 1980.
    1. +8
      17 May 2022 19: 52
      Quote: Vadmir
      That is, we need a helicopter capable of searching for and at the same time destroying submarines alone, rescuing people, and engaging in reconnaissance of the surface situation and target designation for its ship, and carrying an anti-ship missile.
      Is it possible to create such a helicopter? Of course you can. For a helicopter carrier. The question is how to make it so that it is included in the mass-dimensional restrictions for a corvette carrier-based helicopter.

      Ka-27M - almost everything fit (except for the rescuer), and can land on a corvette.
      Quote: Vadmir
      Unlike the author, I believe that an AWACS helicopter is needed, because we have only one aircraft carrier, and even that one is under repair, and there are no carrier-based aircraft for this purpose at all.
      However, the Ka-31 is again needed for an aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier that performs the functions of supporting the KUG.

      In fact - only for an aircraft carrier. The AWACS helicopter carrier will not help much.
      Quote: Vadmir
      Most of the article comes down to comparing the incomparable - an airplane and a helicopter. It could be called differently - the rationale for the need to have aircraft carriers in the Navy.

      Not certainly in that way. The comparison is necessary to determine the niche of the helicopter in the Navy, the delimitation of areas of responsibility between the aircraft and the helicopter. This must be done regardless of aircraft carriers
      1. +7
        18 May 2022 00: 24
        Dear author. So far, Kamov helicopters cannot be universal. The Ka-27 and Ka-27PS radars differ in their power and target detection range. Therefore, a lifeguard was put on the Atlant class cruisers of project 1164, instead of pl. The Ka-27M has been so modernized that you can hardly crawl from the cockpit into the cargo hold. From experience, there was a good Mi-14 anti-submarine helicopter, it was basic, with maximum refueling it could stay in the area up to 5,5 hours, a large range of weapons. In Syria, they were even used as bombers, because he could use weapons both on underwater and surface (ground) targets. In addition, the helicopter could also be used as a lifeguard; there was a winch on board to lift the rescued from the water. Even the advertised modularity for shipborne helicopters is not acceptable. The PL module and the lifeguard module are a huge difference. I agree on one thing. We need a fundamentally new anti-submarine shipborne helicopter. Not a remake from the Ka-27/25, but a new one, with a flight duration of 4-4,5 hours, with an expanded range of weapons, both anti-submarine and ground / surface targets with a launch from 100-150 km. And the Marine Corps also needs a new helicopter, the Ka-29 concept helicopter, an amphibious transport helicopter. Only it should not be an alteration from anti-submarine. It needs a different layout for the placement of fuel tanks, the dimensions of the cargo compartment. A purely attack helicopter is not needed by the fleet; an airborne transport helicopter can also play the role of attack support. It all depends on the range of weapons. Here is an example of MI-8 MTV-5, the next MI-8AMTSh, the next MI-8AMTSh-VN. Well, the main thing is that the Navy finally decides they need helicopters in sufficient numbers or so to designate
        1. +3
          18 May 2022 15: 58
          Quote: Letun_64
          So far, Kamov helicopters cannot be universal.

          I don’t argue at all, all the more so - as I understand it, you flew them? But a versatile helicopter is possible. And the Ka-27M, on paper, seemed to get closer - there is a rather powerful radar, there is also the ability to carry relatively heavy weapons. Another question is that the Ka-27 is old, and all this is already limiting for him.
          Quote: Letun_64
          I agree on one thing. We need a fundamentally new anti-submarine shipborne helicopter. Not a remake from the Ka-27/25, but a new one, with a flight duration of 4-4,5 hours, with an expanded range of weapons, both anti-submarine and ground / surface targets with a launch from 100-150 km.

          There are absolutely no objections.
          Quote: Letun_64
          And the Marine Corps also needs a new helicopter, the Ka-29 concept helicopter, an amphibious transport helicopter.

          Very interesting opinion, thanks! I missed the moment of the airborne assault somehow
          1. 0
            20 May 2022 07: 38
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And the Ka-27M, on paper, seemed to get closer - the radar is quite powerful
            He flew Mi-14pl/bt, Ka-27/28, Mi-8T/mt/MTV2. I didn’t fly on the Ka-27m, I didn’t manage to do it a little bit, but the connection is not lost, reviews about it are constantly reported to me. The declared range of the radar is up to 250 km on paper. Even compare the Ka-31 with a detection range of up to 250 km, since it has a radar antenna area many times larger. Therefore, some characteristics of the Ka-27M on paper. Although the jobs of the navigator and navigator-operator have changed for the better. The problem of Kamovskiys is not a very long flight duration. Even the Indians paid attention to this, therefore the export version of the Ka-28, in my opinion, this modification is better, even though it does not have St. Petersburg. Yes, and another huge problem. The system of data transmission and target indication does not work correctly with everything. Sailors have their own channels, landmen have their own, aviation has their own. For the command posts, they came up with something to combine all this into one information field, conducted research exercises, everything worked out, but I don’t know whether they were adopted or not. Here on the resource, the concept of a ship-based helicopter of various meanings has already been discussed several times. The Ka-27/29/31 series has exhausted itself, because this is still the concept of the Ka-25 helicopter, brought to perfection. Of all this series, I like the Ka-27ps / 32 in variants. as a lifeguard firefighter, the fitter is very good.
      2. +3
        18 May 2022 03: 39
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Ka-27M - almost everything fit (except for the rescuer), and can land on a corvette.

        I would like to look at the characteristics of his radar in terms of the detection range of a fighter and a missile launcher against the background of the underlying surface. If the detection range is 200 - 250 km. , this is for ships, then the characteristics for KR and fighters should be quite tolerable for a universal PLO helicopter. For the opening of a raid by the KR or fighters, even at a distance of 100 km from the order in automatic mode, will give additional time to react to repel the raid.
        But nevertheless, next year they promise to return the Kuznetsov to the Fleet (and right now it should be brought into a new dock), and two UDC helicopter carriers are now being built in the Kerch Bay. And for these ships, without specialized AWACS helicopters, there is simply no way.
        But they will not be the only ships of this class.
        Of course, this should not be a Ka-31 clone, but a much more advanced (?) version of it. New more powerful engines and much lighter hardware will make it possible to carry, even in the same hull, a larger supply of fuel, and therefore stay in the air longer.
        To use for these purposes (DRLO, warning of a KR attack) a crutch in the form of the Ka-27M is justified only for non-aircraft-carrying warships (frigates, destroyers, cruisers ... there are strong doubts about the possibility of normal use of a helicopter from the deck of corvettes on the high seas, there are strong doubts) , but we are already building aircraft-carrying ships (two UDCs) and at least 4-6 such ships will be built. There will also be AB, most likely a medium VI with a non-nuclear power plant. Neither UDC nor "Kuznetsov" are capable of launching / accepting AWACS aircraft. New ABs are also in question, but it is highly desirable to have a catapult on them.
        So, willy-nilly, AWACS helicopters are needed, and I suspect that not only the Navy. Frontal Aviation would not refuse to have AWACS with the possibility of field basing ... and the Aerospace Forces - for special cases.
        If the characteristics of its SLBM ensure the detection of a fighter at a distance of at least 250 km. (for the Ka-31 it was 150 km.), then it will equal the capabilities of the A-50 (without "U"), and if it can be brought up to 5-6 hours (or at least 4-5 hours), then it would be a very popular car.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In fact - only for an aircraft carrier. The AWACS helicopter carrier will not help much.

        Well, don’t tell me, a helicopter carrier doesn’t go alone. In our case, these will most likely be 2 - 4 BDKs in the attachment (if a landing operation is planned) + escort ships - at least 2 - 4 frigates (the corvettes will definitely not be allowed into the distance).
        And for such an order, AWACS is already simply necessary. Both for surface and air situation illumination. For it is also possible for them to be hit by enemy aircraft, anti-ship missiles, incl. and from enemy ships that have reached the salvo range.
        And in such a situation, hanging the "All-Seeing Eye" over the warrant (not necessarily directly overhead, it is possible with the removal in the direction of the expected threat) will be a very useful option.
        How many such helicopters are needed to organize continuous radar control (air watch) has already been discussed before, and it was agreed that a group of 6 such AWACS helicopters is needed.
        A lot for one UDC?
        I agree, for one - a LOT.
        And if, in addition to the UDC, the landing ships also include two large landing ships (those that are now being completed in Kaliningrad) with the ability to carry 3-4 helicopters each?
        And if there are 4 such BDKs?
        In an attachment to the UDC?
        Then - easily, and quite organically. Let's say 4 pieces for the UDC and one for the BDK. Such an air group of AWACS helicopters can continuously monitor the air and surface situation throughout the entire / most of the transition. Yes, and on the theater they will definitely not be superfluous.

        On the modification of an attack helicopter - an air defense helicopter.
        It sounds funny, but you can call it differently, now about the essence.
        It is obvious that "Kuznetsov will remain the only domestic aircraft with limited capabilities for a long time to come. But UDCs will appear soon, and new BDKs will be laid in series. How can they be protected from missile launchers with an ultra-low-altitude profile? Air defense systems of escort ships may not be able to cope .. with a fair degree of probability.
        Without AWACS.
        But an AWACS helicopter can detect them at a distance of 100 - 150 and even 200 km. from the warrant ... And how to shoot them down? Shipborne air defense systems will detect them at a distance of 10 - 25 km. from a loved one (but not from the UDC and BDK covered up) ... so WHAT?
        And this has also been discussed more than once.
        There is absolutely no technical difficulty to integrate into the Ka-52M radar from the brand new, but for some reason unclaimed MiG-35. Of course, together with the APU of the required power. And the ability to take explosive rockets on suspensions. Let's say 2 x R-77M + 2 x R-73M, or 6 x R-73M. smile
        So the carrier-based helicopter-type interceptor fighter is ready. bully
        lol It sounds ridiculous, it is, but the combat capabilities to repel enemy air raids and anti-ship missiles will increase many times over. For the line of interception of anti-ship missiles will roll back by almost 100 km. from warrant.
        And this is when working on targets in WWI.
        And such an opportunity is worth a lot.
        Well, no more expensive than creating such a modification of an attack helicopter.
        It is the strike one, because the AFAR AFAR MFRS from the MiG-35 is universal, and therefore such a striker will be able to work on radio-contrast targets at long range - both ground and surface ... if, for example, it will be necessary to work on enemy ships at a great distance with their own additional reconnaissance. Well, for ground targets - the same "Hermes", which has a range of almost 100 km. called ... that's just inducing such beauty with what?
        But such a radar and direct / target designation.
        Not all the same, the British "Helfire" swing up to 60 km. range?

        And so they are better planes - faster \ higher \ stronger ... But they need a big AB. And we won't have that for a long time.
        And the above is not at all difficult to do ... But you have to try.
        Otherwise, it will be like with "Moscow" (a blind ship for anti-ship missiles in the drive layer) with serious restrictions on air defense systems for targets in the near zone.
        hi
        1. +5
          18 May 2022 10: 50
          hi
          But an AWACS helicopter can detect them at a distance of 100 - 150 and even 200 km. from the warrant ... And how to shoot them down? Shipborne air defense systems will detect them at a distance of 10 - 25 km. from a loved one (but not from the UDC and BDK covered up) ... so WHAT?
          And this has also been discussed more than once.
          There is absolutely no technical difficulty to integrate into the Ka-52M radar from a brand new, but for some reason unclaimed MiG-35. Of course, together with the APU of the required power. And the ability to take explosive rockets on suspensions. Let's say 2 x R-77M + 2 x R-73M, or 6 x R-73M. smile
          So the carrier-based helicopter-type interceptor fighter is ready.

          According to the air defense system: IMHO, firing at a target visible by AWACS from another carrier has already been practiced. That is, the problem "AWAKS sees the target, but the air defense system does not see" is fundamentally IMHO solvable: "we shoot according to the data and with correction (?) AWACS." But here in the topic Bongo is, he can write, "as it really is."

          According to the "fighter helicopter": missile tabular data is often given for high altitude and high carrier speed, an example from R73:
          "So, this is a table of launch ranges (without taking into account the restrictions of the seeker) of missiles from the Su-27. The conditions are the same - the speed of the carrier is 900 km / h, the target is 700, the target is directly on the course, no one is maneuvering.
          |Rocket|Height|0/4 |1/4 |2/4 |3/4 |4/4 |0/4 |1/4 |2/4 |3/4 |
          | R-73 | | 10000|17.5|16 |15 |13 |12 | 8.5| 9 | 9 |10 |
          Comment: "The table is correct. It is precisely the maximum launch range at which the target is hit without taking into account the capabilities of the seeker. The height of the target is equal to the height of the carrier, no one maneuvers, etc. these are standard conditions for such plates in our Air Force. All that is there about hundreds of kilometers they write - a spherical horse in a vacuum. That is, a head-on launch on the ceiling, at supersonic speed and for the same purpose. "
          http://forums.airbase.ru/2002/12/t2411--urvv.html

          For a helicopter, obviously, starting conditions will be worse, both in height and speed. Plus, you need to understand that missiles do not fly by themselves, they need to be installed on launchers and missiles in the R73 format more than 4 on a helicopter, IMHO, there weren’t even at exhibitions. Although, you can put a "battery" of MANPADS of the NEEDLE type request , but their interception of anti-ship missiles, IMHO, is unlikely.

          In general, there is no fighter from a helicopter.

          About the AWACS helicopter. You can do it, the British and the Indians (and so far the Chinese) are dragging on aircraft carriers, because it's better than nothing. But since we are already far, far away from them, is such an ersatz AWACS needed? Isn't it easier to finish AWACS based on IL76? Or on the basis of more efficient Tu204/214 aircraft?
          Well, if all the carriers go into import substitution, then yes, the AWACS helicopter is better than nothing.
          1. +1
            18 May 2022 13: 24
            Quote: Wildcat
            For a helicopter, obviously, starting conditions will be worse, both in height and speed.

            If we are talking about working with such a helicopter for anti-ship missiles, then in height it will be just a helicopter higher. But his own speed is about 200 km / h. , so that the range of the missile in the PPP on a collision course (and it will be exactly the same when providing an air defense warrant) will be 1,5 - 2 times lower than the tabular one for a fighter. But it's still better than nothing, because the line from which the interception will be carried out also matters, and it can be taken out for 50 km. from warrant + missile range.
            Quote: Wildcat
            Plus, you need to understand that missiles do not fly by themselves, they need to be installed on launchers and missiles in the R73 format more than 4 on a helicopter, IMHO, there weren’t even at exhibitions.

            Here the total weight of missiles and launchers for them matters. If 2,5 missiles fit into 6 tons (and they definitely fit), then it is possible to provide for this helicopter 3 pylons per wing (or one T-shaped and one simple). If the goal is to make such a helicopter, technical problems will not become an obstacle, this is all solvable.
            Quote: Wildcat
            . Although, it is possible to put a "battery" of MANPADS of the IGLA type, but their interception of anti-ship missiles IMHO is unlikely.

            No, needles are not suitable here - they simply will not see the KR in the teaching staff with their infrared head.
            Quote: Wildcat
            In general, there is no fighter from a helicopter.

            And in the absence of any at all?
            We don’t have aircraft carriers and won’t be for a long time. And the UDC and BDK are being built and are available. And what does "none" mean if he has an AFAR radar from the latest fighter? Own speed low ? So he covers the warrant, he doesn’t need to twirl aerobatics with fighters - all the work is on a collision course, the targets themselves go to you. And even if the range of destruction of explosive missiles is halved during such a launch, it will still make it possible to intercept anti-ship missiles at WWI, and quite effectively. And if you hang the R-77M, then even with half the range from the table, he will be able to compete with another fighter. After all, a fighter will not consider him as a threat - what a threat from a helicopter, and he is 70 - 80 km away. can cut (if R-77M).
            Otherwise, our KUG will be completely without cover.
            Quote: Wildcat
            firing at a target visible by AWACS from another carrier

            This is still for a more serious AWACS aircraft, I don’t know if such target designation is possible from an AWACS helicopter. If possible, then the more useful the AWACS helicopters are obvious.
            Quote: Wildcat
            Isn't it easier to finish AWACS based on IL76? Or on the basis of more efficient Tu204/214 aircraft?

            They are being made (they still won’t finish it) - the same A-100 is long-suffering. But this is a base aviation aircraft; it is not an assistant to ships on the high seas. We are talking about deck-based AWACS. And for now, only helicopters based on the Ka-31 can be available to us.
            And we need to work on it now.

            As for the armament of the Ka-52 radar from the MiG-35, technically this is not something outrageous. But paired with an AWACS helicopter, it will be able to multiply the security of the warrant against anti-ship missiles on WWI, providing early detection and interception at a sufficiently large distance. And if something breaks through to the warrant, the ship's short-range air defense systems will enter the battle.

            But we still have to build the Fleet - to prevent a naval blockade and piracy against our merchant ships by ships of the Anglo-Saxon coalition against us.
            1. +4
              18 May 2022 13: 58
              Quote: bayard
              And what does "none" mean if he has an AFAR radar from the latest fighter? Own speed low ? So he covers the warrant, he doesn’t need to twirl aerobatics with fighters - all the work is on a collision course, the targets themselves go to you. And even if the range of destruction of explosive missiles is halved during such a launch, it will still make it possible to intercept anti-ship missiles at WWI, and quite effectively. And if you hang the R-77M, then even with half the range from the table, he will be able to compete with another fighter. After all, a fighter will not consider him as a threat - what a threat from a helicopter, and he is 70 - 80 km away. can cut (if R-77M).
              Otherwise, our KUG will be completely without cover.


              Helicopters don't need missiles.
              Not needed.
              Give him a good radar
              give him a satellite data link,
              come up with an analogue of the American NIF-CA,
              and the helicopter will be able to use the arsenal of all shipborne air defense systems as if it were its own.
              Depending on the:
              distance from your order,
              type of detected target,
              target detection range,
              target flight altitude - there is a choice of the type of rocket and shooting.
              Moreover, the choice from which ship the launch should take place is decided by the system itself.
              People shouldn't interfere.
              It can all be done this way.

              Many write about patrolling at a distance of 200 km ...
              Well, well.
              But for some reason, anti-submarine patrols by helicopters on American standards are no further than 50 miles from the carrier ship.
              That is, always under the umbrella of their shipborne air defense systems.

              This is how everything should be done.
              1. +2
                18 May 2022 15: 27
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Helicopters don't need missiles.
                Not needed.
                Give him a good radar
                give him a satellite data link,

                So on the Ka-31, a direct data transmission channel was implemented to the ship's launcher, from where flight control was carried out. Why does he need satellite communications if he is in direct line of sight of the ship and you can use a directional antenna. Although it may be better for noise immunity ... but you can end up in a war even without a satellite.
                Quote: SovAr238A
                and the helicopter will be able to use the arsenal of all shipborne air defense systems as if it were its own.

                Yes, such a possibility was considered when designing the S-350 and "Reduta" - shooting beyond the horizon with external target designation. In the case of receiving primary information from a helicopter, target designation, guidance and correction can be carried out from a single launcher on the ship.
                But if we are considering a landing operation (against a less developed country, say to support a friendly regime), then such a combat helicopter will be useful not only for air defense orders, but also for supporting landing forces. For having such a radar and missiles, he will be quite able to withstand the fighters of the previous generation, which the opponent may have.
                Again, such a radar can be useful for guidance / target designation for long-range air-to-surface missiles - the same Hermes with a range of up to ... 100 km (first proposed version).
                Of course, the question of such a version of a combat helicopter is still quite empirical ... But consider this option - an order for landing ships led by UDC, and in combat guards they do not have frigates 22350 \ 22350M, but frigates pr. 11356 and BOD 1155 (after all, anything can be) . And here the scheme already proposed by you does not work - there are no missiles that could be guided by an AWACS helicopter. And if on the deck of the UDC there was a link of combat Ka-52s of the modification described above, and these helicopters in conjunction would organize cover from anti-ship missiles not only for landing ships, but also for combat security ships in the far / middle zone from anti-ship missiles in WWI.
                That is, my proposal is more universal and flexible - in the case of any composition of combat escort ships, and yours requires escort ships with a level of at least 22350.
                But on the other hand, in your case, for the "DRLO helicopter - ship" connection, the UDC is not at all necessary as the carrier of this aircraft.
                So both proposals are worthy of consideration , evaluation and ... implementation .
                Then one will complete the other.
                Let's say if a PLO helicopter with its standard radar can provide coverage of the air situation and target designation for shipborne air defense systems, then any KUG, and even any individual ship, of a class not lower than a frigate, can work this way.
                But to ensure the air defense of the order of the landing ships, taking into account the possible weakness of the air defense of the escort ships, it is preferable to have a bunch of combat helicopter and AWACS.
                Here's how we cover the landing forces in the Far East, where AB will not be for a very long time? Basic aviation?
                But she may not be in time ... with a probability of 90 - 95%.
                Yes, and ships with normal air defense systems will not appear there soon either.
                hi
              2. +3
                18 May 2022 15: 51
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Give him a good radar
                give him a satellite data link,
                come up with an analogue of the American NIF-CA,

                And we will get a ZGTsU radar for missiles with ARLGSN.
                Mind me, mind me - leave me the spirit of Damantsev ... smile

                Simply put:
                - The radar of the helicopter gives out approximate data on the coordinates and speed of the target, transfers them to the air defense system;
                - the air defense system equipment calculates the data for launching the missile defense system, then the correction data for its trajectory and transmits them via the radio channel to the missile defense system (at the same time, the air defense missile system may not see the target with its radars);
                - SAM onboard INS and correction commands are displayed in the target area at the range of ARLGSN, turn on the GOS, capture the target and fly to meet it.
                At the same time, the accuracy of the radar guidance of the air defense system is not required from the helicopter radar. Because if the ARLGSN SAM has the task of "bringing the missile exactly to the target at the point of detonation of the warhead", the air defense missile control system does not have this task - the GOS of the missile itself performs this task. The air defense system is only required to bring the missile defense system to a much larger area in which this same seeker will turn on, find and capture the target. Even beyond the radio horizon for the SAM radar.
              3. +3
                18 May 2022 18: 42
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Give him a good radar
                give him a satellite data link,
                come up with an analogue of the American NIF-CA,
                and the helicopter will be able to use the arsenal of all shipborne air defense systems as if it were its own.
                And they will shoot him down: the enemy launches anti-ship missiles from aircraft, and short-range anti-ship missiles (150-200 kilometers), what should he, together with anti-ship missiles, launch and RVV into a helicopter that buzzes all over the air with its radar? Moreover, the helicopter will not have time to issue target designation before death: RVV is many times faster than their subsonic anti-ship missiles. We need to come up with something else.
                1. +1
                  19 May 2022 03: 12
                  Quote: bk0010
                  what should he, together with the anti-ship missiles, put into the helicopter, which is buzzing with its radar all over the air?

                  This is a serious threat, especially if the RVV is with the Meteor range.
                  If in the air next to the AWACS Ka-52 with AFAR from the MiG-35 and R-73M, he would try to shoot down the RVV, the capabilities of the R-73M seem to allow this, but here the probability is 50/50.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  We need to come up with something else.

                  Then only an increase in the channel capacity and performance of the ship's air defense system. Let's say by placing instead of ZAK - "Pantsir-M", or supplementing its launchers of the "Frame" type with missiles from "Pantsir-M" - a larger number, including "Nails" (if they have confirmed their effectiveness).
                  And increase the detection range of the AFAR radar of the AWACS helicopter, bringing the detection range of a fighter with suspensions (and at the same time it will glow like a Christmas tree) to 250 - 300 km.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Need something else

                  And start building AB. Let it be of medium VI, but with catapults for AWACS aircraft and normal fighters.
                  Otherwise, there is no need to talk and calculate about any stability of the Fleet in the DMZ (not to mention the OZ).
                  And this is not an easy , complicated , expensive and long business .
                  And what to do in the next 10-15 years?
                  Quote: bk0010
                  We have to invent.

                  Yes It is necessary.
                  Maybe just for the transition period such an ersatz (Ka-52K with AFAR and RVV + AWACS helicopter) will fit?
                  It is easier, cheaper and faster to implement it.
                  And such a helicopter (DRLO) may well be in demand by front-line aviation Yes , and even videoconferencing in some areas.
                  But something definitely needs to be figured out.
                  hi
            2. +3
              18 May 2022 14: 34
              And in the absence of any at all?

              If again "suddenly" anti-ship missiles go, that is, 21 sidewalkers and a head from a stinger:

              Which are ready to work 24/7. Well, if you don't click your beak. Although IMHO, KAMM is better (but we are far from KAMM).

              And if you hang the R-77M, then even with half the range from the table, he will be able to compete with another fighter.
              He can compete with a fighter only if the fighter pilot decides that he urgently needs to go to Valhalla. It's like fighting with clubs with someone who moves 5 times faster and who has a club 2 times longer.

              Here the total weight of missiles and launchers for them matters. If 2,5 missiles fit into 6 tons (and they definitely fit), then it is possible to provide for this helicopter 3 pylons per wing (or one T-shaped and one simple). If the goal is to make such a helicopter, technical problems will not become an obstacle, this is all solvable.
              That's what we Russians are for such a people, we are ready for anything, if only we don’t do a normal fighter in conjunction with a normal AWACS (even the Swedes and Israelis were honored); and a normal marine air defense system too.
              Well, here we are, an indomitable and violent people. request
              We should also consider a tiltrotor with AFAR and missiles and the same VTOL aircraft. The budget for these topics can be cut for ten years, or even more. Well, "having no analogues", of course.
              I never remembered Stalin with a kind word, but I can say that I began to understand him better. When a bomber was needed under nuclear weapons, he had heard enough and seen enough of the projectors, but still he sincerely asked the designers: "don't do it better, make the same as that B29 and quickly!"
              Gold words.
              There is no normal avik - do it like the Swedes. And like the British, only you don’t have to run into VTOL aircraft, it will be possible to complete it when everyone, following the Mask, will fly away to the Moon and Mars.

              But we still have to build the Fleet
              but mostly strategists who have nothing to protect and Poseidons who are needed, but that's why ...
              1. +1
                18 May 2022 16: 41
                Quote: Wildcat
                If again "suddenly" anti-ship missiles go, that is, 21 sidewalkers and a head from a stinger:

                We have something better for this - "Pantsir-M" and even a clouded "Thor", but they do not see further (below) the radio horizon. And the proposed pair of helicopters (DRLO and combat) allows you to intercept the CD at a fairly large distance from the order, and actually detect it.

                Quote: Wildcat
                He can compete with a fighter only if the fighter pilot decides that he urgently needs to go to Valhalla. It's like fighting with clubs with someone who moves 5 times faster and who has a club 2 times longer.

                This is if the fighter is modern with long-range missiles and knows that it is not just a helicopter against it (easy prey). And how would he know? On the marks, all helicopters are the same. So why transfer expensive long-range truckers to them? And he will try to hit with the "Sidewinder" ... and run into the R-77M without reaching the launch line.
                Well, if the enemy is serious, his fighters are modern, and he knows that our helicopter is quite a combat one, then yes - he has the entire advantage.
                Another thing is that having an AFAR and R-73M radar, our turntable can simply shoot down an attacking explosive missile. As well as missiles.
                Quote: Wildcat
                That's what we Russians are for such a people, we are ready for anything, if only we don’t do a normal fighter in conjunction with a normal AWACS

                And how can you take all this wonderful goodness with you into the sea?
                For this, after all, AB is needed. With catapults.
                So your phrase should sound like this: "... as long as you don't do a normal aircraft carrier with a normal fighter and an AWACS aircraft" ...
                Right ?
                After all, we are talking about the organization of air defense of the KUG at the distant frontiers from anti-ship missiles to WWI.
                Everything is in order with the ship's air defense systems, but this cannot be considered sufficient. AB will not be soon.
                Quote: Wildcat
                There is no normal avik - do it like the Swedes.

                And what did the great maritime power Sweden do?
                Quote: Wildcat
                And like the British

                So the British did it like we did before - AWACS helicopter +
                Quote: Wildcat
                only in VTOL you don’t have to run away,

                So you propose - "like the British."
                And they have exactly VTOL aircraft.
                But we don’t have it, but it is proposed to make an interceptor helicopter ..
                A kind of remote airborne air defense system - to remove the line of interception of anti-ship missiles on WWI as far as possible from the warrant.
                You can not even use explosive missiles, but missiles from the "Shell" - both cheaper and no worse, but ... radar ... Therefore, it's easier to take everything from the MiG-35 and put it on the Ka-52.
                Quote: Wildcat
                The budget for these topics can be cut for ten years, or even more.

                Well, you even suggested aircraft carriers with AWACS aircraft and carrier-based fighters. And in no case VTOL aircraft. lol
                My proposal is much more budgetary and is intended to provide air defense in the WWI in the far zone of an order for landing ships led by UDC.
                AWACS helicopter - everything is like the British. Yes
                Here they created a radar for the MiG-35, but the RF Armed Forces do not need it. request
                So what good is lost? Although it is not in vain that budget money will go to development.
                And therefore, in the absence of VTOL aircraft for UDC, there will be interceptor helicopters.
                Creepy in the name, but quite effective in their target niche.
                Quote: Wildcat
                I never remembered Stalin with a kind word, but I can say that I began to understand him better.

                Here's an example of rationalism and iron logic.
                1. +3
                  18 May 2022 18: 02
                  NATO reconnaissance and fighters began to fly directly from the Serpentine.
                  At the same time, defiantly. Eurofighter fighters flew there yesterday, apparently British or Italian, accompanied by AWACS.
                  Today, as usual, AWACS and a few scouts are obviously Italian.
                  One is working 30 km from Serpentine.
                  1. +2
                    19 May 2022 00: 47
                    Quote: Osipov9391
                    NATO reconnaissance and fighters began to fly directly from the Serpentine.
                    At the same time, defiantly. Eurofighter fighters flew there yesterday,

                    They cover the export of grain by bulk carriers across the mouth of the Danube, for the sake of which all the fuss with the attack of the Serpent was started.
                    Today it is difficult for us to indicate our presence there.
                    1. +1
                      19 May 2022 02: 39
                      And why are they chasing fighters there? From whom to cover it?
                      An Italian reconnaissance aircraft flew 30 km from Serpentine.
                      Fighters like British, German, Italian.
                      they do without the participation of the Americans - AWACS is also German.

                      When the cruiser "Moskva" was stationed there, they did not fly there, now they began to fly like at home. Monday, Tuesday all day almost and defiantly.
                      It is difficult to install air defense systems on the Zmeiny - there is little sense from the Thors.
                      Fighters from the Crimea almost do not fly - one of these days near Nikolaev received a missile from the Ukrainian "Buk" and is now lying in the field. The pilots are dead.
                      1. +1
                        19 May 2022 03: 25
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        And why are they chasing fighters there? From whom to cover it?

                        from our aviation.
                        And ships, respectively. So as not to interfere with the export of grain.
                        And so that they do not conduct radar patrols from that area.

                        Only a land operation with the complete liberation of the Odessa and Nikolaev regions will be able to finally resolve the issue in our (RF) favor.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        It is difficult to install air defense systems on Serpentine - there is little use from "Thors"

                        Not the S-300 \ 400 to drag there. And keeping ships there is already risky.
                        Our apparently decided not to interfere with the export of grain.
                        In the end, the coming famine, through the fault of the Kyiv authorities, will only help the current operation, the pace of which is not in a hurry, but they act methodically and assertively. During the summer, the issue with the Black Sea regions, I think, will be resolved.
                      2. +1
                        19 May 2022 03: 32
                        I honestly didn’t think that NATO would send fighters there.
                        And I started talking only about those boards that fly defiantly with transponders turned on.
                        And there are already a lot of them.
                        And for sure there are those with turned off who do not give themselves away and, entering the airspace of Ukraine, mimic under the aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

                        Romania, in fact, does not have combat aviation. Old Soviet cars 2-3 generations mostly.
                        Because all the work is done by NATO aviation. But not the Americans.
                        Apparently Germany, Italy, Britain need this grain.
        2. +3
          18 May 2022 18: 45
          Quote: bayard
          I would like to look at the characteristics of his radar in terms of the detection range of a fighter and a missile defense system against the background of the underlying surface

          Of course, but this is already more difficult. On the "bastion-karpenko" there is evidence that a tank / surface target with an RCS of 10 squares will be seen from 50/70 km, an aircraft with an RCS of 5 sq.m. will see from 85 km. Destroyer - 250 km.
          If the characteristics of its SLBM ensure the detection of a fighter at a distance of at least 250 km. (for Ka-31 it was 150 km.)

          In general, even lower - 100-150 km were indicated.
          Well, don’t tell me, a helicopter carrier doesn’t go alone. In our case, these will most likely be 2 - 4 BDKs in the attachment (if a landing operation is planned) + escort ships - at least 2 - 4 frigates (the corvettes will definitely not be allowed into the distance).

          Sending such a connection outside the cover of aviation is cranial. And within the range of aviation, it is easier to cover it from land, including AWACS
          Quote: bayard
          And if, in addition to the UDC, the landing ships also include two large landing ships (those that are now being completed in Kaliningrad) with the ability to carry 3-4 helicopters each?

          There are still no planes. Accordingly, the constant patrol of the AWACS will cover only from missiles + reconnaissance of the surface surroundings. And it is unlikely that the PLO helicopter will cope with this much worse. That is, if the capabilities of the Ka-31 were estimated as + 20-30% to the air defense system, then there will be + 15-20% somewhere. Is it worth it to fence a garden for this?
          Quote: bayard
          But an AWACS helicopter can detect them at a distance of 100 - 150 and even 200 km. from warrant..

          missiles? Definitely not, much closer
          Quote: bayard
          And how to shoot them down? Shipborne air defense systems will detect them at a distance of 10 - 25 km. from a loved one (but not from the UDC and BDK covered up) ... so WHAT?

          SAM ships, of course. A low-flying missile is quite an accessible target, the main problem there is that it leaves little time for a reaction, but this issue will be solved by a helicopter. The Ka-27M drags the AFAR, which is buzzing, so you can even get the control center on the missile and be completely ready to intercept as soon as it draws from under the radio horizon.
          Quote: bayard
          There is absolutely no technical difficulty to integrate into the Ka-52M radar from the brand new, but for some reason unclaimed MiG-35. Of course, together with the APU of the required power.

          And I was going to talk about this option in detail in the next article :)))
          1. +1
            19 May 2022 01: 52
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There is evidence on the "bastion-karpenko" that a tank / surface target with an RCS of 10 squares will be seen from 50/70 km, an aircraft with an RCS of 5 sq.m. will see from 85 km. Destroyer - 250 km.

            Not bad at all for a PLO helicopter radar.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If the characteristics of its SLBM ensure the detection of a fighter at a distance of at least 250 km. (for Ka-31 it was 150 km.)

            In general, even lower - 100-150 km were indicated.

            This is for targets (fighters) with different EPR. In those days, it was customary to consider the standard EPR of a fighter 5 M2, then 3 m2, now generally 1 - 1,5 m2 for 4 ++. So the scoring criteria have changed. But I’m still talking about AFAR for an AWACS helicopter (promising) with an antenna canvas much larger than that of the Ka-27M, with an area approximately the same as that of the Ka-31.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Sending such a connection outside the cover of aviation is cranial. And within the range of aviation, it is easier to cover it from land, including AWACS

            And if circumstances require it, but we cannot send "Kuznetsov"? Yes, and he will not have an AWACS aircraft. And the base aircraft, the same A-100, will not be able to provide constant watch in the air in the far zone, we need our own - deck means.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There are still no planes. Accordingly, the constant patrol of the AWACS will cover only from missiles + reconnaissance of the surface surroundings.

            So I am for this modification of the Ka-52K and I provide. - To repel the KR at the lines remote from the order. For they will most likely not beat off a massive anti-ship missile attack on the WWI (3 m from the surface) - some of the missiles will reach the target. And there will be many such missiles in a salvo.
            And even early detection of them by an AWACS helicopter will not help, it will only notify and orient where to expect an attack.
            Now, if it were possible to organize target designation for missiles from an AWACS helicopter with correction, for firing over / under the horizon, this would be a serious help in increasing the air defense capabilities against such targets even at times. But for this, escort ships must be of a rank (SAM quality) of at least 22350 and have an appropriate SLA.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: bayard
            But an AWACS helicopter can detect them at a distance of 100 - 150 and even 200 km. from warrant..

            missiles? Definitely not, much closer

            I gave the figures for the detection range of anti-ship missiles, depending on the location of the AWACS helicopter from the warrant - directly above the warrant \ 50 km. from the warrant towards the threat \ 100 km. from the warrant towards the threat.
            And if an "interceptor helicopter" works in tandem with it, then it is at such a distance (or a little less) that it will be able to start working on these goals. And with a high probability, these targets will be destroyed before they enter the visibility zone of the ship's air defense systems. And if some of them still break through (let’s say there wasn’t enough BC), then there will be work for the ship’s air defense systems of the near zone.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: bayard
            And how to shoot them down? Shipborne air defense systems will detect them at a distance of 10 - 25 km. from a loved one (but not from the UDC and BDK covered up) ... so WHAT?

            SAM ships, of course. A low-flying missile is quite an accessible target, the main problem there is that it leaves little time to react,

            That's it . And if the raid is not a "star", but from one angle ("barbecue"), then you need to remember that one canvas of the Poliment radar (at 22350) has the ability to simultaneously fire at no more than 4 targets (all four canvases - 16 targets) ... And if the "barbecue" breaks into the near zone more than 4 targets? And if it is not a "barbecue", but a "front", "bearing"?
            An overload is possible and very likely.
            And when targets are detected with a flight altitude of 3 m at a distance of 15 - 25 km. there will be very little time to defeat them. Subtract from this time the time to make a decision until the salvo of the first missile.
            And the enemy knows about this and will plan his raid based on this knowledge.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but this issue will be decided by the helicopter. Ka-27M drags AFAR, which is buzzing, so you can even get the control center on a rocket

            For now, he can (if he is in the air with the radar turned on) only warn the ship and win 10 - 30 seconds while making a decision and issuing a command to destroy. In order for him to be able to issue target designation beyond / below the horizon, a completely different SLA, combat algorithms, calculation training and technical support are needed. It would be nice to get such an option - whatever it is, but radar control.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: bayard
            There is absolutely no technical difficulty to integrate into the Ka-52M radar from the brand new, but for some reason unclaimed MiG-35. Of course, together with the APU of the required power.

            And I was going to talk about this option in detail in the next article :)))

            To obtain such a modification, only the will, awareness of the need and importance of such a decision, a competent technical task, financing and control over the implementation are needed. We have all the components of such a complex in stock, in fact it will be just Lego from the already existing components.
            I will wait for a new article, I hope to participate in the discussion.
            hi
            1. +2
              19 May 2022 07: 12
              Quote: bayard
              This is for targets (fighters) with different EPR.

              Yes, I have a suspicion that this is for purposes with 3-5 m2
              Quote: bayard
              And if circumstances require it, but we cannot send "Kuznetsov"?

              So, you will have to refuse to send.
              Quote: bayard
              And the base aircraft, the same A-100, will not be able to provide constant watch in the air in the far zone, we need our own - deck facilities

              I can only repeat - why? If the A-100 can’t cover it, then the fighters are all the more so.
              Quote: bayard
              So I am for this modification of the Ka-52K and I provide. - To repel the KR at the lines remote from the order. For they will most likely not beat off a massive anti-ship missile attack on the WWI (3 m from the surface) - some of the missiles will reach the target. And there will be many such missiles in a salvo.

              To be honest, I can't imagine where it is possible to implement such a scenario. If we send DESO outside our own aviation, it means that the enemy has practically no aviation. But at the same time, does he have enough strength to form a massive missile salvo? With what? Fleet forces? So their PLO helicopters will be detected much faster than they themselves will establish contact with the DESO. BRAV? So give them the control center too, and they will shoot from a much shorter distance. Again, the threat of a BRAV missile salvo is easy to fend off with PLO helicopters, a long detection range is simply not needed here.
              Quote: bayard
              Now, if it were possible to organize target designation for missiles from an AWACS helicopter with correction, for firing over / under the horizon

              Okay, but not required. If simply the data of the attacking missile are "leaked" onto the ship, the same 11356 will take it to escort the SLA radar immediately upon entering the visibility zone.
              Quote: bayard
              And the enemy knows about this and will plan his raid based on this knowledge.

              I cannot imagine an enemy that does not have aviation, but is capable of arranging "star" anti-ship missiles for us. Or even massive barbecue :)))
              Quote: bayard
              I will wait for a new article, I hope to participate in the discussion.

              hi looking forward to it!
              1. +3
                19 May 2022 08: 44
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I cannot imagine an enemy that does not have aviation, but is capable of arranging "star" anti-ship missiles for us. Or even massive barbecue :)))

                But you don't even need to imagine such a situation, something similar happened just the other day. Near Serpent's Island.
                The enemy does not have serious aviation, not even a fleet, but ... he "suddenly" had DBKs, as the very Norwegian-American ones are supposed to.
                What exactly happened there is not available to us, but judging by the photograph of the Moskva crew already left, the cruiser received not only two missiles on the left side (one under the helicopter hangar, the second in the middle part of the ship), but all the canvases were completely demolished RLC. And this is at least one or two missiles with anti-radar heads, they then blinded the cruiser. And most likely before the strike there was radio-technical suppression of his radars.
                An example?
                An example.
                The most practical and painful.
                For a technically quite weak adversary may have a very advanced patron. And we have already entered the period when such things will happen more and more often. This must be remembered.

                About our hypothetical situation, when the enemy attacks the order of landing ships.
                Of course, if our geostrategic adversary delivers similar DBKs to our object, then he will take care of target designation for them.
                How ?
                Yes, just like it does today for air defense, air force and DBK ... Ukraine.
                With all the means of reconnaissance and target designation available to him.
                So you need to count on the maximum threat, and not as happened with us with "Moscow" and our grouping near Kyiv - they counted on the weakness of the enemy and their own technical superiority ... and miscalculated.
                This should be a lesson.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If simply the data of the attacking missile are "leaked" onto the ship, the same 11356 will take it to escort the SLA radar immediately upon entering the visibility zone.

                And he will detect these missiles in 15 - 25 km. from his beloved ... but he (the frigate) needs to cover the entire order (!). And the anti-ship missiles that he discovered may not attack him at all, but one (or more than one) warrant landing ship. With such service in the escort of the landing forces, this is no longer a duel situation, and with a terrible shortage of time to react ... at least half of the anti-ship missiles of the volley will find their targets.
                It is for this that low-altitude radar control is needed at a sufficient distance from the warrant. And the opportunity to intercept anti-ship missiles at distant approaches is very desirable, when there is still a margin of time.
                I am still a former combat control officer of an air defense formation, therefore I understand very well the complexity of fighting low-altitude targets without airborne AWACS and fighter aircraft.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If we send DESO outside our own aviation, it means that the enemy has practically no aviation. But at the same time, he has enough strength to form a massive missile salvo? With what?

                After all, it is not for nothing that we are initially considering providing air defense from anti-ship missiles in WWI, the landing force of the Fleet. It is the landing. And the landing force is sent to a remote theater for the sake of landing, to capture a bridgehead and develop success from it.
                If the landing is successful and it is possible to capture the coastal airfield, then base fighter aircraft will be able to quickly fly to it ... and even AWACS aircraft / aircraft.
                But in order to seize this bridgehead, it is necessary to carry out this landing operation.
                And its implementation will be hindered.
                And those who interfere will be helped.
                And if we don’t have our own AB, but the task needs to be completed (sometimes it happens in life, remember the landing in Gostomel), then we will have to carry it out with the available means. And it already follows from this that if we only have UDC and BDK available (as carriers of the air wing), then the air wing should include such helicopters that can at least partially offset the absence of carrier-based fighters and AWACS aircraft.
                And today we have the opportunity to order and receive such funds. Already by the time the UDC and BDK now under construction were put into operation.
                And this will make their air wing balanced and versatile.
                And we simply don’t have another opportunity to make these ships simply ... useful ... and tasks for them feasible ....
                Otherwise, these ships will stand in bases like white elephants and go to sea only for maneuvers and parades.

                There is indeed an easy and almost hopeless hope that by the turn of the next decade, these ships (UDC) may have their own VTOL aircraft. After all, work on it ... is underway. The engine of the "second stage" - "Product-30" was promised to be provided by the end of this year as a finished, tested product, ready for mass production. And as a glider you can take ... "Check-Mat" lol . Yes, yes, his airframe and the architecture itself is quite suitable for creating VTOL aircraft.
                what But it looks so ... unrealistic - in the light of the successes of our KLA ... literally in everything.
                But the Ka-52 with the AFAR radar from the MiG-35 and explosive missiles could become a good and quite affordable "crutch" in this sad (if such a safety decision is not made) story.

                Well, at least the UEC was trumpeted that they were launching mass production of power plants for 22350. This means that we have mastered the running gear, which means that other power plants are also becoming possible for us.
                It would be nice to live up to this. And for this you need to win.
                Otherwise, while I am writing, a counter-battery fight is going on with might and main outside the window.

                So consider my considerations in the article. They are not from a good life, but they allow us to dramatically expand the capabilities of our future UDC carrier-based aviation.
                I'm waiting for the article.
                hi
                1. +1
                  19 May 2022 15: 58
                  Quote: bayard
                  But you don't even need to imagine such a situation, something similar happened just the other day. Near Serpent's Island.

                  Everyone thought, give him an example, or not :)))
                  Quote: bayard
                  What exactly happened there is not available to us, but judging by the photograph of the Moskva crew already left, the cruiser received not only two missiles on the left side (one under the helicopter hangar, the second in the middle part of the ship), but all the canvases were completely demolished RLC. And this is at least one or two missiles with anti-radar heads, they then blinded the cruiser. And most likely before the strike there was radio-technical suppression of his radars.

                  In the photo, the radar arrays seem to be visible (in the smoke), and the "nipple" has not gone away, but that's not the point. And the fact that if Moscow was shot at all (which is not obvious), then this was done from a relatively short distance (it was 100-150 km to the coast) and the PLO helicopter, if it were in the air there, would show approaching targets hardly much worse than AWACS.
                  Quote: bayard
                  It is for this that low-altitude radar control is needed at a sufficient distance from the order.

                  In the case of "Moskva", for example, such control was simply impossible - an attempt to push the helicopter towards Odessa would have led to its destruction by the S-300 air defense system. After all, the helicopter would have to fly high, high and shine with might and main radar - I don’t think that it would become such a difficult target.
                  Quote: bayard
                  It is for this that low-altitude radar control is needed at a sufficient distance from the warrant. And the opportunity to intercept anti-ship missiles at distant approaches is very desirable, when there is still a margin of time.

                  So the enemy is also not stupid, and if he works in conditions where the control center merges with him through NATO, he will not attack from extreme distances. What for? The same DESO will be much easier to shoot when it approaches 60-70 kilometers to the landing zone - first it will "take off" helicopters with the help of air defense systems, and then a missile salvo ...
                  Quote: bayard
                  And this will make their air wing balanced and versatile.

                  The problem is that I highly doubt it.
                  Quote: bayard
                  It would be nice to live up to this. And for this you need to win.
                  Otherwise, while I am writing, a counter-battery fight is going on with might and main outside the window.

                  Good luck to you! Take care of yourself! hi
                  1. +1
                    19 May 2022 23: 58
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Everyone thought, give him an example, or not :)))

                    The example is very clear - a warship with a defective low-altitude target in the drive layer, a radar, was put under attack by enemy anti-ship missiles as a radar patrol ship. Such an outcome was, unfortunately, very much expected. And they allowed this precisely because of the underestimation of the enemy.
                    After all, they knew that the DBK had already been delivered (!), but for some reason they believed that it would take them about one or two months to master them ....
                    And this is just nonsense and sloppiness ... with human casualties and a sunken flagship, in the end.
                    But this is still an example of self-setting under attack, and we are considering the option of conducting a landing operation in the absence of a warrant for a full-fledged aircraft carrier in the escort.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In the photo, the radar arrays seem to be visible (in smoke)

                    I don't have this photo in front of my eyes now, but it was postponed that there were no antennas in place. But even if there was no attack on the radar, the cruiser simply did not see the approaching anti-ship missiles.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    and the "nipple" has not gone anywhere,

                    And this (that the cruiser did not see anything) is just evidenced by the traveling position of the "nipples". Otherwise, it would have been deployed in the direction of the threat.
                    The decimeter range of the Frigate radar does not see anything in the drive layer. Need "cm" range. But "Moscow" did not have such a surveillance radar.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And the fact that if Moscow was shot at all (which is not obvious), then this was done from a relatively short distance

                    At launch, any missile (and anti-ship missiles too) first makes a slide - to start the main engine. If the launch site were not far from the ship, then the Moskva radar would have accurately detected the moment of launch.
                    Or do you think that aircraft were carriers of anti-ship missiles?
                    But an aircraft also needs a certain height to launch anti-ship missiles; it will not be able to launch such a missile with WWI. And if he rises to the required height, the cruiser's radar will detect him. Yes, and the Sumerians did not have aircraft with such missiles ... although Klimov believes that some of the old ones, still Soviet missiles, they could use. But I don't believe in it.
                    I believe in Logic. And when the delivery to / to Ukraine of Norwegian-American anti-ship missiles with very cunning heads (non-radiating) first becomes known, and then the flagship cruiser suddenly sinks "from the fire" ... I see the simplest and most logical explanation for what happened.
                    And they fired from the shore, because they had no other carriers of this complex.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    the PLO helicopter, if it were in the air there, would show approaching targets hardly much worse than AWACS.

                    If at that time he was in the air with the radar turned on, he would certainly have detected the anti-ship missiles in a timely manner and oriented the air defense system. But in order for such a helicopter to be constantly on duty in the air, ensuring the safety of the ship, you need nearby ... UDC with a hangar for at least 4 such helicopters. And "Moscow" has a hangar for one.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                    In the case of "Moskva", for example, such control was simply impossible - an attempt to push the helicopter towards Odessa would have led to its destruction by the S-300 air defense system. After all, the helicopter would have to fly high, high and shine with might and main radar

                    Not at all . For an AWACS helicopter to control PMA within the range of its vision of the same anti-ship missiles, it is enough to hang at an altitude of 50 - 100 m. At the same time, it will see anti-ship missiles at a distance of about 80 - 100 km. (and then he is technically unable to see such a target due to a small EPR) and at the same time be under the radio horizon for enemy coastal air defense systems.
                    In addition, having risen "high-high", the AWACS helicopter will receive a rather large dead zone directly below it (dead funnel). And the higher it rises, the larger the area will be this funnel.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So the enemy is also not stupid, and if he works in conditions where the control center merges with him through NATO, he will not attack from extreme distances. What for? The same DESO will be much easier to shoot when it approaches 60-70 kilometers to the landing zone - first it will "take off" helicopters with the help of air defense systems, and then a rocket salvo ..

                    A very dangerous decision for the enemy.
                    If he lets our landing force get so close, then he must understand that at that moment the ships will already be in full combat readiness (and not "on march"), and their air defense systems will be in trouble-waiting mode.
                    Moreover, the launch of anti-ship missiles from the DBK can be detected at the moment of climbing at the top of the "hill", at such a distance, even by conventional shipborne radars.
                    In addition, approaching such a distance, our ships and the UDC air wing will most likely immediately begin to suppress the enemy’s coastal means (air defense systems, air defense systems, duty radars, airfields, command centers, troop deployment sites. And if so, then our AWACS helicopters will already be in the air and they will see any threat. But at the same time, they will remain out of sight of coastal air defense systems. To do this, they may even have to take a position in the air a little more seaward than the warrant. After all, no one wants to "die young" in vain.
                    And it is precisely at this (initial) moment of the operation that the presence of combat helicopters with radar from a fighter and RVV in the air wing will be in great demand and useful. Like AWACS helicopters in the air.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: bayard
                    And this will make their air wing balanced and versatile.

                    The problem is that I highly doubt it.

                    Having air defense helicopters in the air wing is much better than not having them. Moreover, their specialization will be mainly targets at low and extremely low altitudes.
                    And if the usefulness of AWACS helicopters is absolutely beyond doubt, then there can be doubts about the usefulness of a combat helicopter with RVV only in terms of the possibility and availability of such an option. And to our happiness, Ka-52 helicopters are mass-produced, the radar from the MiG-35 will fit in its nose cone, it can be provided with energy by installing the appropriate APU (from the same MiG-35), and the pylons and suspensions should be provided initially, redesigning them for RVV suspension. Such R&D can be carried out within just a couple of years, and by the middle / end of the decade, a combat deck helicopter capable of conducting air combat and intercepting enemy missiles can be obtained.
                    The presence of such helicopters will increase the security against anti-ship missiles in WWI MULTIPLY. Believe the old air defense officer.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Good luck to you! Take care of yourself!

                    Thank you, and all the best to you and new good articles.
                    hi
      3. 0
        18 May 2022 18: 32
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        Ka-27M - almost everything fit (except for the rescuer), and can land on a corvette.

        Seriously? Here is a list of helicopter tasks in the fleet (from my point of view):
        1) Rescue
        +2) PLO
        3) Impact, landing (inspection group)
        4) AWACS
        5) reconnaissance target
        6) anti-ship (with X-35)
        7) transport
        8) minesweeper
        9) jammer
        10) repeater or UAV control point
        Can he really do all this (this is not sarcasm, I just hope to be pleasantly surprised)?
        1. +1
          19 May 2022 07: 15
          Quote: bk0010
          Seriously? Here is a list of helicopter tasks in the fleet (from my point of view):

          The list of tasks is not bad, but you did not carefully read the discussion. My opponent did not write about the whole variety of helicopter tasks in the Navy. He singled out only a few of them.
          Quote: Vadmir
          That is, we need a helicopter capable of searching for and at the same time destroying submarines alone, rescuing people, and engaging in reconnaissance of the surface situation and target designation for its ship, and carrying an anti-ship missile.

          With regard to these tasks, I have indicated
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Ka-27M - almost everything fit (except for the rescuer)
          1. 0
            19 May 2022 16: 47
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            With regard to these tasks, I have indicated
            Yep, that is
            +2) PLO
            +5) scout-target designator
            +6) anti-ship (with X-35)
            we already have. Little, but not bad.
    2. AAK
      -1
      17 May 2022 20: 13
      For the needs of AWACS, it is much easier for surface non-aircraft carriers to have 2-4 (depending on class) UAVs with radar on board
      1. +12
        17 May 2022 20: 16
        Quote: AAK
        For the needs of AWACS, it is much easier for surface non-aircraft carriers to have 2-4 (depending on class) UAVs with radar on board

        In general, it is not easier, but more difficult. A UAV capable of lifting at least some decent radar will be the size of a helicopter
        1. +1
          18 May 2022 04: 14
          Good, Andrey!
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          A UAV capable of lifting at least some decent radar will be the size of a helicopter
          There is no tethered cable!

          then it examines 2 km of water area, or 200 times more
          And what will it give? That magnetometers, that gravitometers work almost strictly under the plane. Without RGAB, PLO aircraft - transfer of funds. And the RGAB turns out to have rather sickly restrictions, both in terms of excitement and in terms of work time (I myself am in shock!)
          1. +2
            18 May 2022 11: 15
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Good, Andrey!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A UAV capable of lifting at least some decent radar will be the size of a helicopter
            There is no tethered cable!

            then it examines 2 km of water area, or 200 times more
            And what will it give? That magnetometers, that gravitometers work almost strictly under the plane. Without RGAB, PLO aircraft - transfer of funds. And the RGAB turns out to have rather sickly restrictions, both in terms of excitement and in terms of work time (I myself am in shock!)


            As I understand it, now the algorithms for searching by means of radar along the millimeter "hump of the wave", according to the distortion of the wake determined in the water column, provide more food for search than magnetometers and gravimeters.
            1. -1
              18 May 2022 15: 59
              Quote: SovAr238A
              As I understand it, now the algorithms for searching by means of radar on a millimeter "hump of a wave"

              But this is only if you believe Maxim Klimov, and I would not absolutely believe him, because sometimes he gets carried away.
          2. +3
            18 May 2022 19: 04
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            And what will it give? That magnetometers, that gravitometers work almost strictly under the plane. Without RGAB, PLO aircraft - transfer of funds.

            Absolutely not.
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            But this is only if you believe Maxim Klimov, and I would not absolutely believe him, because sometimes he gets carried away.

            Maxim already either himself or through Timokhin wrote that the method is effective, but not far from 100 percent (which I wrote about initially :)))) Nevertheless, it works, but the helicopter ... If he constantly lowers the GAS, then the search area will be minimal, if not scanty
            1. -1
              19 May 2022 03: 41
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Absolutely not.

              It is not clear what is not, the coverage with magnetometers and gravitometers, or that the transfer of funds without the RGAB? Although patrolling is in principle necessary, so not a translation, here I got excited.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              but not far from 100 percent (which I wrote about initially :))
              Very far, here and depth and speed.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              If he constantly lowers the GAS, then the search area will be minimal, if not scanty
              I'm all for a holistic approach. But it’s a pity that the topic of PLO ekranoplans was hacked to death, it would be a powerful and with a large margin overlapping the gap between aviation and PLO helicopters.
              1. +3
                19 May 2022 06: 49
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                But it’s a pity that the topic of PLO ekranoplans was hacked to death

                I'm not sorry
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                it would be powerful and with a large margin overlapping the gap between aviation and PLO helicopters.

                Taking into account the fact that we now really don’t have either helicopters or PLO aviation, all air PLO is one continuous gap, and if we also spent money on ekranoplans ...
                1. -1
                  19 May 2022 06: 57
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  and if they also spent money on ekranoplans ...

                  Lun stands like an Il-76 approximately, without weapons and RTO by itself.
                  1. +3
                    19 May 2022 07: 30
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    Lun stands like IL-76 approximately

                    Sorry, but the harrier is almost three times as heavy, has twice as many engines, and not IL-76 engines, but much more expensive ones from fighters. So there can be no talk of any "approximately equal" cost. This is not counting that Lun needs a separate dock ...
                    1. -1
                      19 May 2022 07: 40
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Sorry, but the harrier is almost three times as heavy, has twice as many engines, and not IL-76 engines, but much more expensive ones from fighters.

                      In Kratz - laughing . Lun is heavier, yes, but much more! simpler, has no titanium in construction and is almost completely welded.
                      Engines modified from IL-86 (eighty-six) (!), And even well-worn (but this is not accurate). Modern Il-76 engines, six of them, provide thrust like the then eight. Maybe more expensive for two motors and "Lun" would become.

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      This is not counting that Lun needs a separate dock ...
                      What, everyone?! Do not read Kaptsov at night.
                      Damn, I just can’t give birth to an article about the 903 project. No discipline. crying

                      P / S / I threw in a comment as an incentive to work on the article, sorry! hi
    3. -1
      17 May 2022 20: 39
      Is it possible to create such a helicopter? Of course you can. For a helicopter carrier. The question is how to make it so that it is included in the mass-dimensional restrictions for a corvette carrier-based helicopter.

      Most of the shortcomings of a helicopter / aircraft are solved by reducing its mass. And we historically regret money for reducing the mass of a helicopter / aircraft, because the use of the same composites will reduce the mass of a helicopter, although this will lead to a significant increase in the cost of the structure.
      In fact, a decrease in the dry mass of a helicopter by 1 ton leads to a good increase in its flight characteristics. It is weight reduction that should become a priority in the development of new helicopters.
      1. +2
        18 May 2022 00: 31
        Quote: lucul
        It is weight reduction that should become a priority in the development of new helicopters.

        Yes it is. But not only the masses. It is necessary to increase the efficiency and power of the dvigun, reduce the mass dimensions of the avionics ... while increasing the survivability of this prodigy.
        So, to reduce the weight of the Ka-60/62 in the design of the helicopter, modern technologies are widely used, including polymer composite materials, the volume of structures of which is up to 60%.
  4. -3
    17 May 2022 20: 08
    The question is whether the design bureaus for carrier-based helicopters remained at all. As for the design of new ones or the modernization of old ones, so land adaptations for the sea. They drove everyone into a heap (UAC) and lost everything. Now even modern requirements for a sea helicopter cannot be identified.
    From Andrey's article, it turns out that the range for a modern marine helicopter needs 3-4 thousand km at least, the combat load is 2-3-5 tons. Engines in two modes economical and high-speed. Radar with a range of 400 km. The body, the fuselage must be made of ultralight materials of durable materials.
    I think it's not a problem to make an air defense missile for a sea helicopter. The main thing is that there is a desire and awareness that a sea helicopter is needed. soldier
    1. +12
      17 May 2022 20: 28
      Quote: V.
      From Andrey's article, it turns out that the range for a modern marine helicopter needs 3-4 thousand km at least, the combat load is 2-3-5 tons. Engines in two modes economical and high-speed. Radar with a range of 400 km.

      No :))) From Andrey's article, it turns out that it is not necessary to give the helicopter functions that are, in principle, unusual for it.
      1. -1
        19 May 2022 12: 16
        But such a helicopter armed with missile defense or air defense only to protect itself, patrolling the dead zone around the cruiser "Moskva" could save him? Even if at the cost of your life. In this particular situation?
        1. +1
          19 May 2022 15: 12
          Quote: V.
          But such a helicopter armed with missile defense or air defense only to protect itself, patrolling the dead zone around the cruiser "Moskva" could save him?

          Could not. Because "Moscow" could not ensure his round-the-clock duty, in principle, and the blow would have been delivered when the helicopter would not have been in the air
  5. -1
    17 May 2022 20: 12
    Crap. I was hoping to read about the finally developed, or at least a new, modern helicopter for the Navy to replace the Ka27 / Ka29. And I read about the differences between helicopters and planes ...
    1. +7
      17 May 2022 20: 18
      Quote: Chief Officer Lom
      Crap. I was hoping to read about the finally developed, or at least a new, modern helicopter for the Navy to replace the Ka27 / Ka29

      Alas, the moderators changed the title of the article
      1. +2
        17 May 2022 21: 34
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        article title changed by moderators

        And how was it?
        1. +6
          18 May 2022 19: 05
          Reflections on helicopters for the Russian Navy hi
  6. 0
    17 May 2022 20: 14
    And why not consider the drone as a platform for AWACS equipment? It is cheaper than an airplane and a turntable, can be made of radio-transparent materials, has a longer range, and to give combat functions, it can be accompanied by loitering ammunition, sharpened specifically to destroy everything floating.
    1. +5
      17 May 2022 20: 23
      Quote: Vicontas
      And why not consider the drone as a platform for AWACS equipment?

      Because in terms of dimensions and weight it will not be inferior to the manned one, but in terms of capabilities it will be quite strong
    2. 0
      17 May 2022 20: 46
      And why not consider the drone as a platform for AWACS equipment?

      And how will you maintain communication with the operator over 200 km in radio silence mode?
      1. +4
        17 May 2022 21: 53
        By satellite channel.
        And if radio silence - then why is it needed at all? Find everything and tell no one?
      2. +6
        18 May 2022 04: 14
        Quote: lucul
        And how will you maintain communication with the operator over 200 km in radio silence mode?

        The channel may be one-way. In addition, it may be a discovery for you, but the Americans have long been flying their medium and heavy UAVs from Creech Air Force Base, in Nevada. In most cases, the equipment located at the forward airfield where the drone is directly based only controls takeoff and landing, and the actions are controlled from the United States via satellite communication channels. In this case, the response time to the received command is approximately 1,5 s. This method of control over drones allows them to operate autonomously at a considerable distance from the home airfield, outside the range of ground-based radio signal transmitters. It is very difficult to detect a narrow beam of a radio signal transmitted vertically from a parabolic antenna by means of electronic intelligence.
        1. -9
          18 May 2022 08: 36
          It is very difficult to detect a narrow beam of a radio signal transmitted vertically from a parabolic antenna by means of electronic intelligence.

          So quite recently, half a year ago, an American medium UAV tried to reconnoiter a cluster of Russian troops, flying too close to the border of the Russian Federation - it suddenly lost contact with the operator, and abruptly turning around in automatic mode, went to its airfield.
          So intercepting the signal (or breaking it) is quite possible.
          1. +6
            18 May 2022 08: 49
            Quote: lucul
            So quite recently, half a year ago, an American medium UAV tried to reconnoiter a cluster of Russian troops, flying too close to the border of the Russian Federation - it suddenly lost contact with the operator, and abruptly turning around in automatic mode, went to its airfield.

            Condolences to the people who believe in this... wassat
            Quote: lucul
            So intercepting the signal (or breaking it) is quite possible.

            What is your education? You understand how noise immunity differs from imitation resistance, and how the process of direction finding and jamming takes place. No. Please talk about what you know a little about.
            1. -11
              18 May 2022 08: 58
              Condolences to the people who believe in this...

              Khe-khe-khe))))

              Here's to you about the UAV
              https://topwar.ru/182372-ammerikanskij-bespilotnik-rq-4a-global-hawk-poterjal-svjaz-rjadom-s-rossijskoj-granicej.html
              1. +9
                18 May 2022 09: 04
                Quote: lucul
                Khe-khe-khe))))
                We monitor only those news in which there is a negative towards Russia, right?

                On the merits of the question, is there anything to say? Your "patriotism" looks especially strange given the fact that you are actually a "foreign agent" and do not live in Russia, which follows from your IP address.
                Quote: lucul
                Here's to you about the UAV
                https://topwar.ru/182372-ammerikanskij-bespilotnik-rq-4a-global-hawk-poterjal-svjaz-rjadom-s-rossijskoj-granicej.html

                Do you give me a link to VO, taking into account the fact that I wrote more than 600 articles for this resource? laughing You will also refer to Damantsev's publications ... wassat Can you share a more authoritative source of information?
                By the way, you didn't say what kind of education you have?
                1. -10
                  18 May 2022 09: 29
                  Can you share a more authoritative source of information?

                  i.e. you
                  that I wrote more than 600 articles for this resource?

                  Published 600 articles not in an authoritative publication? )))
                  On the merits of the question, is there anything to say?

                  On the merits of the issue, Iran proved everything back in 2011, when it landed the American RQ-170 Sentinel on its airfield.
                  Will you deny it too?
                  1. +6
                    18 May 2022 09: 35
                    Quote: lucul
                    Published 600 articles not in an authoritative publication?

                    Different people write articles and comments on VO, including those who do not understand anything about what they are trying to judge. wink
                    I have never been accused of incompetence in my publications. Well, unless, of course, we take into account one clown who said that Turkey did not have its own air defense before the delivery of the S-400.
                    Quote: lucul
                    On the merits of the issue, Iran proved everything back in 2011, when it landed the American RQ-170 Sentinel on its airfield.

                    Are you directly giving your head for cutting off that the American drone was "planted", it did not perform a forced one for technical reasons?
                    I don't know it, and you even more so.
                    By the way, what is wrong with your education, since you are so shy of him, mister "foreign agent"?
                    1. -9
                      18 May 2022 09: 39
                      Are you directly giving your head for cutting off that the American drone was "planted", it did not perform a forced one for technical reasons?

                      Laughter, but any operator would rather have smashed it than made it possible for Iran to capture it whole for study, it was a top-secret UAV. So - just an interception. )))
                      1. +4
                        18 May 2022 09: 43
                        Quote: lucul
                        Laughter, but any operator would rather have smashed it than made it possible for Iran to capture it for study, it was a top-secret UAV. So - just an interception. )))

                        Lord, where do you come from... wassat Any technique can fail. There have been numerous cases in history when aircraft that lost control after that overcame a very significant distance through the air and even landed themselves without much damage. But of course you don't know that. No.
                      2. +8
                        18 May 2022 12: 06
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Quote: lucul
                        Laughter, but any operator would rather have smashed it than made it possible for Iran to capture it for study, it was a top-secret UAV. So - just an interception. )))

                        Lord, where do you come from... wassat Any technique can fail. There have been numerous cases in history when aircraft that lost control after that overcame a very significant distance through the air and even landed themselves without much damage. But of course you don't know that. No.


                        They just interpret things differently.
                        The American "airplane" lost control and flew to Iran and made landings there to run out of fuel - which means they took control of it.
                        The Soviet "airplane" - lost control - the pilot jumped out of surprise - and flew 1000 kilometers to Belgium - which means what a good plane.

                        They are all indiscriminately engaged in Goebbelsism.
                        They twist simple facts the way they want.
                        Not bothering with explanations and analysis of the situation.
                        The fact that Sentinel is controlled only via a satellite channel and nothing else, it doesn’t even have any other radio communication systems - they don’t care.
                        The fact that Iran does not have a single communication satellite that could replace something there - they do not care.
                        The fact that Avtobaza, which was erected into an icon for allegedly taking over control, is just a passive radar system - they don’t care.
                        Or then, in alleged interceptions, they began to glorify Krasuhi. And the fact that Krasukha is just an umbrella cover for headquarters with broadband interference, it’s a very powerful generator of “radio noise” in order to clog reflected waves from enemy AWACS and RTR systems with noise, and they can’t do any interception in principle, of which only 10 pieces were produced and they based near the headquarters of the districts - they do not care.
                        They are. These Lucules.
                        It is very funny to read their opuses of a year or two years ago.
                        When they soberly argued how everything in our Armed Forces is, it is specifically "unparalleled in the world" and we will defeat everyone in 1 week on foreign territory.
                        And NATO is not a decree for us, and we will plug America into the belt.
                        It is very revealing to read the retrospective.
                        The alternative Operator was covered up.
                        At least know under what nickname he reincarnated here.
                      3. +7
                        18 May 2022 12: 23
                        These are all right, that they are Olginskie, that they are just goofs, that they are ipsosh - there is little demand from them.
                        The question is, where did military professionals look, are they "true to traditions"?
                        After all, nothing has changed for so many years, even now write: "How could you prepare listeners the way he prepared - for such a war as we see with you! And if only the tongue was well suspended! Otherwise he really was a knowledgeable person, but he knew one thing and said another.
                        - And you from the very beginning did not believe that he thinks so, as he says?
                        / / / /
                        - I didn't believe it. There were those who sincerely believed that in one fell swoop, seven beatings! By this God will forgive. If alive ... And he could not believe it. Was too smart and knowledgeable for that. "
        2. +5
          18 May 2022 11: 17
          Quote: Bongo
          Quote: lucul
          And how will you maintain communication with the operator over 200 km in radio silence mode?

          The channel may be one-way. In addition, it may be a discovery for you, but the Americans have long been flying their medium and heavy UAVs from Creech Air Force Base, in Nevada. In most cases, the equipment located at the forward airfield where the drone is directly based only controls takeoff and landing, and the actions are controlled from the United States via satellite communication channels. In this case, the response time to the received command is approximately 1,5 s. This method of control over drones allows them to operate autonomously at a considerable distance from the home airfield, outside the range of ground-based radio signal transmitters. It is very difficult to detect a narrow beam of a radio signal transmitted vertically from a parabolic antenna by means of electronic intelligence.


          And with the full implementation of Skylink, the lag will decrease to 0,5 seconds.
    3. +6
      18 May 2022 03: 57
      Quote: Vicontas
      And why not consider the drone as a platform for AWACS equipment?

      The drone is not the third type of aircraft. He is either a plane or a helicopter. With all the advantages and disadvantages of one or the other.
  7. +5
    17 May 2022 20: 24
    Well, in principle, Andrei said everything logically. A separate AWACS helicopter is not needed. For 2038x corvettes and 22350 frigates, plo helicopters are needed. So far, ka-27pl, and then a new version based most likely on ka65. For patrolmen 22160, Coast Guard, BDK and UDK - multi-purpose transport-combat ka29 or the same ka65 in the transport-combat configuration in the future. Well, for udk, there are also shock katrans.
    That is, now ka27pl, ka29, ka52k. Then ka65, ka65 and the same ka52k. request
    1. -9
      17 May 2022 20: 48
      A separate AWACS helicopter is not needed. For 2038x corvettes and 22350 frigates, plo helicopters are needed.

      How not needed? It is needed for new helicopter carriers under construction.
      1. +7
        17 May 2022 21: 05
        Quote: lucul

        How not needed? It is needed for new helicopter carriers under construction.

        why is he to them? What will they decide with it?
        1. -10
          17 May 2022 23: 42
          why is he to them? What will they decide with it?

          In the sense of ?
          You think in categories only in opposition to the US AUG, but Russia can have a conflict with a bunch of countries that do not have the US sea power at all.
          A helicopter at an altitude of 3m has a radio horizon of 000km, which is more effective than the radiohorizon of the ship itself.
          Therefore, the 200 km combat radius of a helicopter does not look so completely lost, against the background of the combat radius of Hokkai itself of 350 km. Yes, Hokkai is better, and it sees further and flies longer, but an aircraft carrier of 70-100 tons is required for it, and a corvette for 000 tons is enough for a helicopter.
          Here, after all, what is the whole tsimes? We now have an advantage in the range of missiles (Caliber vs. Harpoons). And without an AWACS aircraft / helicopter, the radio horizon of the ship is limited to 30 km, and all our advantage in missiles is nullified.
          1. +1
            18 May 2022 19: 18
            Quote: lucul
            In the sense of ?
            You think in categories only in opposition to the US AUG

            By no means.
            Quote: lucul
            but after all, Russia can have a conflict with a bunch of countries that do not have the US sea power at all.

            All right. Why AWACS?
            Quote: lucul
            A helicopter at an altitude of 3m has a radio horizon of 000km, which is more effective than the radiohorizon of the ship itself.

            And an ordinary PLO helicopter - Ka-27M is already capable of seeing a destroyer for 250 km.

            Quote: lucul
            Here, after all, what is the whole tsimes? We now have an advantage in the range of missiles (Caliber vs. Harpoons). And without an aircraft / helicopter AWACS, the radio horizon of the ship is limited to 30 km,

            You are comparing an AWACS helicopter and a ship. And you compare the AWACS helicopter and the PLO helicopter
  8. -6
    17 May 2022 20: 30
    Our fleet does not need AWACS helicopters at all

    In the absence of the AWACS aircraft itself in the fleet at all, this thesis looks, to put it mildly, controversial.
    1. +5
      17 May 2022 21: 04
      Quote: lucul
      In the absence of the AWACS aircraft itself in the fleet at all, this thesis looks, to put it mildly, controversial.

      What is there to argue about? That such a helicopter could theoretically be useful on the deck of Kuznetsov, I wrote. Where else can you use it?
      But if a fleet formation operates where it can be covered by land-based fighters, then air control over it should be entrusted to an AWACS aircraft of the same land-based. And if the fleet operates in an area where fighters cannot reach from land, then the AWACS helicopter will have no one to control there.

      What is its task as a means of controlling air combat? And if such a task is not worth it, reconnaissance remains, for which the PLO helicopter will fit
  9. -1
    17 May 2022 21: 52
    Yes, ... there were airfields from the shallows, there were aircraft carriers from container ships, there were missile carriers from non-existent civil ekranoplans, there were naval aviation from maize, there were also classic aircraft carriers ....... in articles, in real life there is no money, they stole it.

    Now sea helicopters ... Serdyukov seems to be building, the former capitalist minister, the owner ... he will set it up, he will optimize it ....
  10. +7
    17 May 2022 23: 18
    hi
    By SABZH
    But why use a specialized AWACS helicopter for this purpose? At present, a powerful radar is an essential attribute of a modern anti-submarine helicopter, which is why the upgraded Ka-27M is equipped with radar with AFAR.

    The British do not disclose radar data, but their Merlin 2 in the PLO version already has a radar; however, Merlin 2 in the AWACS version gets a detachable Crowsnest radar. Perhaps the characteristics of the PLO radar are still insufficient for AWACS.
    1. +1
      18 May 2022 19: 20
      Quote: Wildcat
      Perhaps the characteristics of the PLO radar are still insufficient for AWACS.

      Definitely not enough. But the Britons have AWACS only on AB.
  11. -1
    18 May 2022 09: 40
    This is, of course, a fairy tale, but you can land on Snake Island. =B At present, a powerful radar is an essential attribute of a modern anti-submarine helicopter, which is why the upgraded Ka-27M is equipped with radar with AFAR. =
  12. +2
    18 May 2022 11: 21

    Alas, this is the Achilles' heel of any helicopter, ... time in flight ... this helicopter can patrol less than 2 hours.

    Let's compare these figures with the data of the E-3A Viking carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft, which has long since been decommissioned.


    What for? Why compare a helicopter and an airplane? In my opinion, it is clear without comparison that the aircraft has undeniable advantages and undeniable disadvantages. But how do you land an E-3A Viking on the aft deck of a corvette?


    If you are already comparing distances and areas, then you need to compare SYSTEMS, and not their individual elements. That is, the range of a carrier-based PLO helicopter in combination with a carrier ship patrolling the water area. At the same time, naturally making an amendment that Russia does not have aircraft carriers. And a heavy PLO aircraft can only be basic.

    If we send a Ka-200M helicopter to 27 km, then it will survey 500 km of water area, and if we send a PLO aircraft to the same distance at a speed of 650 km / h and the ability to stay in the air for 4 hours at a distance of the same 200 km ( extremely moderate against the background of the old Viking), then it examines 2 km of water area, or 200 times more.


    Yes. Certainly. Only a PLO aircraft needs a heavy aircraft carrier and a ship group around it. And the flights of the aircraft will take place from one point. Helicopter carriers, in turn, can be distributed over the water area in the form of a network, covering a much larger area "for the same money".

    And finally, the third problem is the limited combat load. A helicopter is a relatively light aircraft. The mass of the same Ka-27M is almost half that of the Viking. Therefore, helicopters must work in pairs - one searches for a submarine, and the second - its defeat. At the same time, the Viking's standard load - 4 torpedoes and 60 drop buoys - allows it to work independently.


    So the Viking and the airfield need a completely different level! Are you deliberately ignoring this fact? Well, compare the bomb load of the Ka-52 and Tu-95. :)
    1. +1
      18 May 2022 19: 22
      Quote: abc_alex
      But how do you land an E-3A Viking on the aft deck of a corvette?

      Why put him there?
      Quote: abc_alex
      If you are already comparing distances and areas, then you need to compare SYSTEMS, and not their individual elements.

      So let's compare in the next article the systems "PLO helicopter carrier" and "base patrol aircraft"
      Quote: abc_alex
      Yes. Certainly. Only a PLO aircraft needs a heavy aircraft carrier and a ship group around it. And the flights of the aircraft will take place from one point. Helicopter carriers, in turn, can be distributed over the water area in the form of a network, covering a much larger area "for the same money".

      No way. It will cost more than AB with security. Although I am not writing about AB at all now
      1. -3
        19 May 2022 10: 29
        No way. It will cost more than AB with security. Although I am not writing about AB at all now

        And what's the point of writing about the cost of ONE AUG? One AUG, in principle, cannot be combat-ready all the time, so in order to write about one AUG, you need to build 3-4 of them, and even the cost of coastal infrastructure for their maintenance. So all the same, AUG comes out more expensive)))
        1. +2
          19 May 2022 16: 00
          Quote: Murat
          And what's the point of writing about the cost of ONE AUG? One AUG, in principle, cannot be combat-ready all the time

          The "Network" invented by you also cannot be combat-ready all the time :))) And in the same way it needs to be replaced / infrastructure.
  13. -4
    18 May 2022 11: 26
    The article is interesting in general, but there are a lot of indisputable particulars:
    A carrier-based PLO helicopter is able to quickly find itself where the best sonar system (SAC) of a surface carrier ship cannot reach

    If he knows in which specific area he should look for an enemy submarine. Otherwise, it's looking for a needle in a haystack.
    The PLO helicopter also has one more plus - it can carry a lowered GAS, which, for obvious reasons, the plane cannot use

    That is why a comparison of PLO aircraft and helicopters in terms of flight range is meaningless: without such a GAS, an aircraft can simply "slap" the desired submarine with its ears. Therefore, the maxim that
    in terms of combat effectiveness, an anti-submarine helicopter clearly loses to an aircraft

    Next
    destruction of enemy AWACS aircraft

    I note that carrier-based fighters of the 4th generation can destroy the Hawkeye or the Yak-44, but they are not capable of shooting down the A-50 or Sentry in principle. I don't know about the F-35C.
    the fact that he is a difficult target in aerial combat does not allow him to perform the functions of an interceptor

    In the presence of a modern level of radar, it can intercept flying anti-ship missiles.
    Israeli helicopters were a very effective means of dealing with Arab missile boats, but - when the latter did not have air cover

    The helicopter can be equipped with anti-ship missiles, and then air cover from such an attack will require at least AWACS (otherwise the helicopter attack will not be detected in a timely manner). And this is a completely different level and a different price-performance ratio.
    AWACS aircraft will hang 200-250 kilometers from the KUG

    If this KUG is from 3 Arly Berkovs, then the Yak-44 hovering at such a range runs the risk of being hit in the face by an SM-6 missile. And if these are Leaders or Super Gorshkovs, then the ship version of the S-400 will get the enemy Hokai as far as 350-400 km.
    electronic warfare group, crushing these radars with interference and using anti-radar missiles on them

    For 25 years now, aviation has been using OLS to target air defense missiles, without turning on the radar: what prevents you from doing the same things on ships?
    the helicopter is categorically not self-sufficient

    And some element of the armed forces was once self-sufficient?
    Take, for example, a landing operation.

    Let's take it when we understand, fuck the button accordion. Overlord or Chromite today are impossible in principle, because where you want - it is unrealistic, and where it is real - it is not necessary.
    The AWACS helicopter does not have the required range and, in order to provide at least some acceptable patrol time, it must be in close proximity to the formation it protects

    But it gives an overview of all azimuths at once. And the AWACS aircraft has a long range, but if it flies to the side along some azimuth, then its AUG will not see anything further than the radio horizon in the rest of the azimuths. So hanging over your group is not so bad.
    limited radar capabilities

    It is logical that if a sane radar station has not been created since 1995, then this is hardly an argument against the AWACS helicopter.
    you cannot put a specialized helicopter carrier for each frigate.

    But such a helicopter carrier can be the core of the KUG with frigates and destroyers. And the AWACS helicopter will control PLO helicopters and anti-ship missile interceptor helicopters. All you need to do is create it. But it is much easier and cheaper than even one full-fledged AUG.
  14. +4
    18 May 2022 12: 25
    Once again I look at articles in which literate people are trying to figure out that zoo, what is in our aircraft and how to rank this zoo.
    They are looking for something really worthwhile from the last forces.
    Patriotically.
    Really.

    But the truth of life is that we need to change the system itself.
    Just go by direct copying of ideas and technologies.
    Create an analogue of the S-70, in the same modular version.
    And to create variations on its basis for both the fleet and the army and the air force.
    Modular.
    Removable pylons
    If you want to hang a fuel filling rod, if you want a winch on the left or right, hang ATGMs, NURSs, torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, fuel tanks, outboard electronic systems (IR, Thermal imagers, laser, radar), trap firing units, exhaust shielding, lowered GAS, RSL units
    And anti-submarine, and rescue, and army, landing, and electronic warfare, and special forces, medical, and against tanks, and for command. And offshore.
    And there is no more zoo.
    And there will be no problems with the pilots.
    And there will be no problems with spare parts.
    A single helicopter is the greatest boon for the Armed Forces.
    Any army.
    What is 50 years ago, what is modern, what is in 20-30 years.
    1. +2
      18 May 2022 12: 28
      But the truth of life is that we need to change the system itself.
      Just go by direct copying of ideas and technologies.
      Create an analogue of the S-70, in the same modular version.

      Uh .... What system? Do we need to "copy" a normally working economy, working laws, etc.?
      1. +5
        18 May 2022 12: 49
        Quote: frog
        But the truth of life is that we need to change the system itself.
        Just go by direct copying of ideas and technologies.
        Create an analogue of the S-70, in the same modular version.

        Uh .... What system? Do we need to "copy" a normally working economy, working laws, etc.?


        Uh ...
        Are we talking about helicopters now?
        Or has it imperceptibly gone over to me for talking "for life"?

        Fast...

        :)))))))))))))))
        1. 0
          18 May 2022 18: 28
          Uh ...
          Are we talking about helicopters now?

          It's for the helicopters. wink But you can also talk about any other hardware. Even without relating in any way to .... structures that work, including for the defense industry, one can quite draw a conclusion about how everything is going on with us. The stump was bright, in specific cases there are some statistical errors, design features ... But, in general, everything is about the same everywhere. If in the USSR, it used to be, they adopted contraband (not from the "supplier of His Imperial Majesty") products - why talk about these times? As long as there is no normal competition between developers and production, everything will be exactly the same. And there is no competition in noneshnye conditions and can not be. I, essno, not about undercover rat fights.... About normal competition. And it is impossible in noneshnye realities. From the word at all. In such scenarios, your good, in general, wishes will remain them. Let us recall the sad fate of the "Kasatka", for example .... And not only her ....
          For example, it was KB. One might even say, TsKB. Sculpted in the epic era, not bad, in general, projects. Now, being "not in the pool", it is torn away from the military boobs, but still twitches. The result - at the union of lawyers there were 2, now - 5. Plus the so-called patent experts. At the same time, all the work is proposed to be done by engineers, and they .... will check. There were 15 coupons, now there are 42, against the background of a reduction in salary and numbers ... of the main labor force. The number of support staff, such as plumbers, has tripled. Etc. etc. ........ ChSH, a general phenomenon ..... Well, etc. etc. And against this background, who needs your proposals? And what about "stupid copying" ..... We have a lot of things with them ...... "stupidly copied", the Bologna system, for example .... Feel better?
    2. 0
      18 May 2022 13: 16
      Or maybe it was still worth it for Army Aviation to be limited to one combat helicopter?
      For example, the Ka-50, which, in terms of equipment, was largely unified with the Su-39 attack aircraft.
      How many are there now? Ka-52, Mi-35, Mi-24, Mi-28. And all in different modifications.
      Why so ? Is it really impossible to choose one thing? Well, at least two...
      1. +2
        18 May 2022 18: 55
        Quote: Osipov9391
        Why so ? Is it really impossible to choose one thing? Well, at least two...
        What the factory can build, it builds. To choose one thing means you will have as many cars as the factory that produces them can build - that's all. The rest won't. Therefore, we still make the Su-30, although we already have the Su-35S.
        1. 0
          18 May 2022 23: 40
          Well, not everything is so simple - the Su-30 that is being made in Irkutsk is different from what was being done in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, since Vesta is different from Classic.
          Moreover, at the Komsomol plant, its production was curtailed 6-7 years ago.
          Only the Su-35S and Su-57 remained there.
          Although of course in vain. Could have gone further.
  15. -1
    18 May 2022 12: 45
    A significant problem of the attack helicopter is its inability to conduct air combat against enemy aircraft.

    First, the
    And WHY to him? You will probably be surprised, but an infantry fighting vehicle cannot fight a tank either. And the tank is unlikely to be able to engage in battle with self-propelled guns.
    And secondly,
    Actually, it can. On a limited level, of course, but it can. For example, he may well shoot down a PLO aircraft. The Ka-52 is armed with the Sagittarius system. And his radar is actually a cropped MiG-29 radar, he sees the plane from 15 km. The installation of R-52 missiles was announced on the Ka-73. And this is 30-40 km.


    Obviously, the first two tasks are not up to the attack helicopter - the fact that it is a difficult target in air combat does not allow it to perform the functions of an interceptor. To do this, he has neither the flight range nor the speed.


    Wait. And why does an ATTACK helicopter need interceptor functions? Why do you wrap people's brains in a knot? Among the aircraft, there are also drums. In general, the term "shock" in itself indicates that the machine is sharpened for strikes on the ground, to the detriment of all other tasks. Attack aircraft - Su-34, attack aircraft Su-25, strike aircraft F-117. None of them are suitable for interception.
    Naturally, an attack helicopter BY DEFINITION cannot be an aircraft interceptor. Yes, no one is asking him to. Therefore, long, medium and short range air defense systems are mounted on all carrier ships.


    But what if we are confronted by a more serious enemy? Say, a ship strike group (KUG) consisting of two or three destroyers? If we take American developments, then an attack by carrier-based aircraft of such a KUG will look like this.
    First, an AWACS aircraft will hover 200-250 kilometers from the KUG, which will control the enemy and coordinate the attack.


    STOP! Where will the AWACS aircraft come from in a group of 2-3 US destroyers? What is this strange assumption? Again, the next "mind games" like "your Orlan against the 6th US fleet"?
    I can hardly imagine a situation in which there will be an AWACS aircraft for each group of 2-3 US destroyers. The shtatovtsy simply do not have so many AWACS aircraft to hang them over each group of "2-3 destroyers".
    Or are you talking about "2-3 destroyers" and "plus US AUG"? So say it straight: "let's consider the idiotic situation of an attack by one ship of the Russian Navy, the US AUG, reinforced by 2-3 destroyers."
    Or are you talking about "2-3" destroyers and "plus a free-flying AWACS"? So write directly: "let's consider an idiotic situation - Russian aviation with awe and delight avoids attacking the outstanding achievements of the world's engineering genius - US AWACS aircraft."

    Why consider deliberate absurdity? The limitations of attack helicopters based on the Ka-27 are already clear, without modeling absurdity. It is enough to compare the target detection distances and the ranges of anti-ship missiles and air defense systems of opponents. No weird assumptions.

    Is there a way out of this? Yes, I have. Actually the same as for aircraft. This is equipment with heavy long-range anti-ship missiles. Is it possible now? No. Ka-52 has a carrying capacity of approx. 2 tons. RCC class "Onyx" weighs 3 tons. This is if you do not take into account the absence of a suspension point corresponding to strength.
    The mass and anti-ship missiles of the Caliber complex will not pass.

    That is, even without any assumptions like "2-3 US destroyers with an AWACS aircraft" it could be clearly said that the existing helicopters of the Russian Navy are not capable of performing strike functions against ships with developed air defense / missile defense.

    A helicopter is a terrible opponent of a tank, this is well known and, I believe, does not need proof. In addition, the helicopter poses a huge threat to both infantry and other ground equipment. As a means of fire support for the landing, an attack helicopter is invaluable, but ... Unfortunately, this “but” appears every time.

    With all its undoubted advantages, in sea operations against the coast, the helicopter is categorically not self-sufficient. Take, for example, a landing operation.


    ??? A helicopter, like any other type of weapon, is not always self-sufficient. Being a threat to tanks, he is a victim of the air defense of tank formations. Complexes like "Tunguska" or "Tor" will bring down the helicopter easily and naturally. Being dangerous for infantry, the helicopter is vulnerable to MANPADS and their automatic launch systems. Even for barreled anti-aircraft artillery, the helicopter is vulnerable and requires preliminary suppression of equipped enemy positions. The helicopter is invulnerable and self-sufficient only in the "war with the monkeys", even in battles with the "bearded in slippers" the helicopter is vulnerable and requires at least ground and preliminary reconnaissance.

    And therefore, the alpha and omega of any landing force is unconditional air supremacy.


    Yes? How is that? Well, how can a landing force gain air supremacy over the coast?

    But it will work effectively only when someone else covers the landing group at the crossing by sea from the air and ensures air supremacy in the landing area, and when someone else smashes everything to smithereens and in half on hostile shores. Both of these tasks, alas, are beyond the power of a helicopter.

    And cover ships are not suitable for the role of "someone else"?
    1. +3
      18 May 2022 13: 11
      Quote: abc_alex
      wait. And why does an ATTACK helicopter need interceptor functions? Why do you wrap people's brains in a knot? Among the aircraft, there are also drums. In general, the term "shock" in itself indicates that the machine is sharpened for strikes on the ground, to the detriment of all other tasks. Attack aircraft - Su-34, attack aircraft Su-25, strike aircraft F-117. None of them are suitable for interception.


      Well, at least because the fighting is conducted by two sides.
      And at the same moment, two opposite sides can appear on the same battlefield. helicopters, both single and in groups. Attack, landing.
      And it's not just an abstraction.
      This option has been prepared since the late 70s.
      And especially after, "clumsy" to ridiculous tantrums, helicopter battles in AI war
      installing on Cobras - Sidewinders.


      And more.
      You have selected only those aircraft that you think are attack aircraft. Especially among the Americans - they chose the F-117 as a shock.
      But ...
      The main strike aircraft in the US Air Force is the F-15E, which is an analogue of our Su-30SM, Su-35S, in fact ... It has not lost its fighter functionality. He was not castrated in any way and in nothing in this regard.
      The source for the Su-24 was the F-111, which, although it became a drummer, was quite suitable for the VB, carrying up to 6 UR-VV and Vulkan.
      .The fact that ours, before the idea of ​​\u90b\uXNUMXbcreating universal fighters, only eventually came to the middle of the XNUMXs, and before that separate cars spanked, this is our hemorrhoids.
      And ours came to this.
      Having created the Su-30, Su-35.
      True, the Su-34, as a certain miscarriage of the system, continues to exist, but this will be stopped after an analysis of the results of the SVO. I'm sure of it.
      At best, it will be transferred to Naval Aviation.
      Because he is an anachronism.
      Relatively modern, mass-produced, but an anachronism.
      very expensive and no difference with the Su-30.
      1. 0
        18 May 2022 15: 59
        Quote: SovAr238A
        And at the same moment, two opposite sides can appear on the same battlefield. helicopters, both single and in groups. Attack, landing.


        And Russian attack helicopters can engage in air combat with them. The Mi-28 is armed with the "Sagittarius" complex with 8 "needles". The Ka-52 is (claimed) being armed with V-V melee missiles. Yes, and the gun on both machines is not bolted for beauty.

        Quote: SovAr238A
        You have selected only those aircraft that you think are attack aircraft. Especially among the Americans - they chose the F-117 as a shock.


        Certainly. I DIRECTLY wrote it. That the armies have SPECIALIZED strike aircraft. And it never occurs to anyone to hang an interception function on them. It never occurs to anyone to demand air defense functions from a tank.

        Quote: SovAr238A
        The main strike aircraft in the US Air Force ....
        ... By creating the Su-30, Su-35.


        Correctly. Only these machines were originally made universal. And they are not an indicator. A clean F-22 fighter, bombers and "attack aircraft" fly next to them in the United States. Just like in our Air Force there are station wagons, but there is a MiG-31 interceptor, Tu-22 bombers and a Su-25 attack aircraft. And it would never occur to anyone to create an interceptor based on the Su-25.

        Quote: SovAr238A
        su-34 as a certain miscarriage of the system ...
        very expensive and no difference with the Su-30.


        The fundamental difference is in favor of the 34th. Its airframe in the area of ​​the center section is significantly strengthened, this allows you to hang 2 heavy anti-ship missiles of the Onyx class in the area of ​​the center section. What is technically impossible to do with the Su-30 fighter.
        1. 0
          23 May 2022 09: 41
          Quote: abc_alex

          The fundamental difference is in favor of the 34th. Its airframe in the area of ​​the center section is significantly strengthened, this allows you to hang 2 heavy anti-ship missiles of the Onyx class in the area of ​​the center section. What is technically impossible to do with the Su-30 fighter.


          Look at the dimensions of Onyx, as well as at the geometry with such a suspension ... How will it take off and land with 2 rockets ...
          At the same time, look at the mass of Onyx.
          And the maximum takeoff weight.
          And at the same time - the rest of the fuel with two Onyxes and, accordingly, the combat radius.
          There are no stories.
          God forbid one hang without severe damage.
          1. 0
            23 May 2022 13: 11
            There were attempts to hang similar anti-ship missiles on the Su-33.
            It has reinforced points between the air intakes where the UPAZ refueling unit is suspended.
            Nothing happened - only at exhibitions he had these missiles.
            His SLA has not yet been adapted for this weapon.
            "Hephaestus" was only introduced in front of Syria, but that is still disgusting.
      2. +1
        18 May 2022 17: 38
        Apparently, it was the Su-34s that suffered the greatest losses among aircraft in Ukraine.
        Approximately one and a half dozen since the first days of the operation.
        Unlike the Su-30 and Su-35, this bomber with a much heavier warhead is unable to effectively perform anti-missile maneuvers and even dodge Ukrainian MiG-29 attacks.
        So it was near Borodianka.
        And "Buk" and S-300 strike this aircraft at once.
        At low altitudes, military air defense and MANPADS are affected.

        Conclusion: long obsolete its class of aircraft.
        It was correct and logical to separate the functions:
        1. On attack UAVs;
        2. For combat helicopters;
        3. Su-39 attack aircraft with protection against MANPADS and air combat capabilities;
        4. For fighters of the Su-30M2 type capable of operating on the ground but retaining all the capabilities of air combat.
        1. 0
          19 May 2022 17: 07
          Quote: Osipov9391
          Conclusion: long obsolete its class of aircraft.

          Obsolete or not - it will be possible to say when something intelligible appears on the topic of the number of sorties and hit targets for loss, preferably with clarification of the conditions, more to compare losses when firing missiles from afar (they wrote about the Su-35), working with ultra-small in the trenches and when strikes in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe densest air defense against objects in the near rear, it makes no sense.
    2. 0
      18 May 2022 13: 40
      Quote: abc_alex
      Is there a way out of this? Yes, I have. Actually the same as for aircraft. This is equipment with heavy long-range anti-ship missiles.


      And again, there is a thesis about long-range anti-ship missiles in isolation from reality.
      And reality says that: "In order to be able to use long-range missiles, you need to have long-range detection and tracking goals"...
      And we don't have those. And it's not expected in the near future.
      Give a blind man a 12,7 caliber sniper rifle with super optics, so what? Zero without a wand!!!
      Eyes are needed. Vigilant. For this rifle then.
      Accordingly, the only thing that can now be relatively invented for the "additional reconnaissance" of the KUG and AUG in some area of ​​\u1000b\uXNUMXbthe ocean-okiyana within a radius of XNUMX miles is powerful unmanned reconnaissance missiles - target simulators. Which will be able to simulate the signatures of different types of aircraft and speeds, respectively. With appropriate speed performance and the ability to patrol the area.
      Moreover, they should be equipped not only with signature imitation, but also with a full set of RTR detection tools and, if possible, with an IR-OL system for detecting the launch of SAM / RCC missiles.
      A kind of developed analogue of the American MALD / ITALD.
      Only this can at least somehow work in the form of a "live bait".
      It is very expensive, but still not a panacea.

      For the Americans already 10 years ago took steps forward by creating their NIF-CA system. When the AUG patrol aircraft - F-35 or Hokai, detects an air target and aims a missile at it from the ship. For which it is absolutely not required to turn on the ship's radars. Accordingly, again, finding out the location of the KUG / AUG in this case is practically unrealistic. Again we get a radius of 1000 miles.
      And they will continue to distribute this very NIF-CA to almost all types of their aircraft. And on Jistar, and on F-15,18, 22 and on Poseidon and on GlobalHawk.

      so in fact - the range of anti-ship missiles is a useless fiction.
      Absolutely useless.
      Only hit static targets.
      In bases. in small bays and bays.
      What exactly would the INS bring to the area, where the GOS, even with its narrow angle of operation and short detection range, could eventually capture some kind of target.
      And no more than that.
      1. -1
        18 May 2022 16: 30
        Quote: SovAr238A
        And again, there is a thesis about long-range anti-ship missiles in isolation from reality.
        And reality says that: "In order to be able to use long-range missiles, you need to have long-range detection and tracking of targets" ...


        The combat range of new Russian missiles today exceeds (and greatly exceeds) 300 km. For Zircon, a range of up to 1500 km is declared. For reconnaissance at such a distance, neither helicopters nor planes will help. There is a need for a satellite monitoring system. It's called Liana.

        Quote: SovAr238A
        For the Americans already 10 years ago took steps forward by creating their NIF-CA system. When the AUG patrol aircraft is F-35 or Hokai


        Yes? In 2016, they only talked about the possibility of adapting it. And judging by how much they lie about their accomplishments, chances are it's still at this stage. Along with railguns, dozens of Zumwalts, a stealth helicopter, a hypersonic missile and a "laser Boeing". As a beautiful idea, all sorts of "noises" have been voicing this scheme for a very long time. Even when the F-22 was new and went to the troops with might and main. The F-35 itself has not yet been properly brought to a state of technical readiness.

        Quote: SovAr238A
        detects an air target and aims a missile at it from the ship. For which it is absolutely not required to turn on the ship's radars. Accordingly, again, finding out the location of the KUG / AUG in this case is practically unrealistic. Again we get a radius of 1000 miles.


        What rocket? What kind of missiles at "1000 miles", that is, at 2000 km, are you talking about? Tomahawks? Are they anti-ship? Harpoons? Do they fly from a ship for 2000 km? Or the next "new promising stealth super-duper hypersonic missiles" named after Trump? Let's start from reality. Long-range anti-ship missiles are Onyx, Granite, Volcano, in the future Zircon, 500-700-1000-1500 km. And the US anti-ship missiles are Harpoon and AGM-158C LRASM, 100-370 km. There are no 2000 km at all. It is on these 370 km that you can produce fantasies with the interception of control. The rest is fluff.
    3. +3
      18 May 2022 19: 34
      Quote: abc_alex
      First, the
      And WHY to him?

      Well, it's obvious to you that there is no need. And other articles seriously write about air defense helicopters.
      Quote: abc_alex
      Actually, it can. On a limited level, of course, but it can. For example, he may well shoot down a PLO plane.

      Apparently, it is not obvious to you either. Can not.
      No, well, if, of course, you drag the PLO plane by the tail to the warrant, from where the air defense helicopter will take off and hold the plane there by the tail until they shoot it down - then it is of course. And a real patrol aircraft will detect both a warrant and a helicopter long before the latter can attack
      Quote: abc_alex
      Wait. And why does an ATTACK helicopter need interceptor functions? Why do you wrap people's brains in a knot?

      Because even you have some illusions that a helicopter can really shoot down someone
      Quote: abc_alex
      STOP! Where will the AWACS aircraft come from in a group of 2-3 US destroyers? What is this strange assumption?

      I can only recommend reading the article, and preferably not diagonally. I briefly described the technology of attack by carrier-based aircraft of a group of 2-3 EMs.
      Quote: abc_alex
      Or are you talking about "2-3 destroyers" and "plus US AUG"? So say it straight: "let's consider the idiotic situation of an attack by one ship of the Russian Navy, the US AUG, reinforced by 2-3 destroyers."

      I'm talking about the fact that you don't have time to read the article, but you do have to write crazy comments. Before being rude, any adequate person will first make sure that he is right, that he understood the author correctly. You saw some kind of AWACS at the destroyers, and I am to blame for your visions.
      Quote: abc_alex

      Yes? How is that? Well, how can a landing force gain air supremacy over the coast?

      This is done by the aircraft covering it.
      Quote: abc_alex
      And cover ships are not suitable for the role of "someone else"?

      Imagine - no, they are not suitable. NEVER ships have established zonal air dominance. If these are not aircraft carriers, of course
      1. +4
        19 May 2022 11: 00
        hi
        Apparently, it is not obvious to you either. Can not.

        But I have already been convinced that it can.
        So the plan is:
        1. We take the radar from the MIG 35. We hang it on the helicopter.
        2. We hang 6 R73M or - which the party and the government are not joking with - something of medium range, at least 2 pcs.
        3. We take off (we know the exact time of takeoff, we can fly with all this cargo for no more than an hour, IMHO).
        4. We quickly fly to intercept. Planes fly fast, faster than a helicopter, but oh well.
        5. We quietly turn on the radar and quietly launch missiles. If this is not enough, we use an air gun. If this is not enough, we use (on a helicopter you can "open the window") the personal weapons of the crew: AKSU74, Stechkin and PM.
        Victory!
        6. We return for awards.
        7. KR, of course, we shoot down packs from a helicopter. They, KR, fly low, and we can see them well from a helicopter! And far!

        PS In this way, it is possible to shoot down not only enemy helicopters, KR and relatively slow patrol aircraft / ASWs. But also fighters!
        The pilot of the fighter is not aware of our ideas, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2? He thinks "this is a simple helicopter, I'll fly up to look at it closer and slower"; ignores radar radiation warning systems from MIG35 (“this cannot be”) and missile launch warning systems (“this cannot be, part two”).

        P.P.S. I'm sorry, I "threw" into the comments a few convertiplanes with AFAR and missiles and VTOL aircraft ... I thought they would appreciate the joke ... it didn't work out. feel
        But as they say, "the shed burned down - burn the hut"! fellow
        Soforumites! Why has no one considered the possibility of using tethered balloons with radar (it is also possible from MIG35)? So many people do, from the USA to Israel! And you can still hang P73 on them! And R77! Simple and economical solution!.
        So, since there are not enough helicopters, we tie two balloons to the DMZ ship: an AWACS balloon and a balloon with short, medium and long-range missiles.
        We have missiles, we have radars, we will sew balloons with the help of the new pioneers, but we need to fill the balloons with gas - so we now have gas, let NATO regret that it did not buy our gas!
        Hurray!
  16. 0
    18 May 2022 13: 25
    The second disadvantage is the limited capabilities of the radar. It is interesting that the task of controlling air combat was not set in principle for domestic AWACS helicopters. If, for example, look at the advertising poster of the Ka-31


    Yes, this is basically impossible. The crew of the Ka-31R is 2 (two) people. The crews of US AWACS aircraft are from 5 to 20+ people. Who exactly on board the Ka-31R should fly the aircraft?
    The Ka-31 was created and now exists only as a flying radar.

    Control of the airspace, including low-flying targets, in the immediate vicinity of the warrant?

    100-150 km - removal from the carrier, plus 100-150 km of the radar range. 200-300 km. Such a good "close proximity" ...

    But why use a specialized AWACS helicopter for this purpose?

    Field of view and range. Ka-31R provides all-round visibility. And all regular airborne radars, as a rule, are narrowly focused.


    At the same time, it is quite possible to make PLO rotorcraft universal, capable of using light anti-ship missiles, as well as conducting reconnaissance, including for issuing target designation of PRK.


    No. The characteristics of the radar of attack (including anti-submarine) vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles are too different. In addition, the missile system is not only the rocket itself, it is a solid weight and volume of electronics on board. And the corresponding sighting system. I believe it will be impossible to push the Ka-27 and the PLO complex and the strike weapon complex and the reconnaissance complex with a high-energy radar into the dimensions.

    Our fleet does not need AWACS helicopters at all.

    So far, there is nothing else and will not appear without aircraft carriers. And the flying radar dramatically increases the effectiveness of the strike weapons of the ships themselves.

    Of course, we can only talk about adapting ground models of attack helicopters, and not about creating a fundamentally new machine: one should strive for a minimum of differences. Although the helicopters of the Marine Corps will be transported by sea, which means they must be able to land and take off from the deck


    Ka-52K "Katran" shock. There is. There are no carriers for it.

    But if we talk about the transport-strike, such as the Mi-24, then in my opinion there is a dead end. Mi-24 is great for ships. And the Ka-29 is unpromising. The chance of the appearance of a transport-attack helicopter of the marines will appear only when Kamov manages to promote the "coaxial Mi-24" to the army, as they promoted the "coaxial Mi-28". But, I'm afraid, the chances of this are extremely small.
    1. +2
      18 May 2022 19: 39
      Quote: abc_alex
      100-150 km - removal from the carrier, plus 100-150 km of the radar range.

      On which he detects targets of 3-5 EPR squares. Are you going to shoot at "Termites"? Oh well
      Quote: abc_alex
      And all regular airborne radars, as a rule, are narrowly focused.

      Ka-27M - all-round view
      Quote: abc_alex
      No. The characteristics of the radar of attack (including anti-submarine) vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles are too different.

  17. 0
    19 May 2022 15: 20
    As I understand it, the article is directed against "helicopter extremists" like A. Vorontsov, who believe that a helicopter is such a prodigy that can plug all holes in the defense. And the respected author writes precisely in order to dispel this misconception. However, here you can slip a little past the golden mean and neglect the capabilities of helicopters in operations far from the coast and in the absence of an aircraft carrier.

    Therefore, it is interesting to compare the arguments of the author of the article and the arguments of Timokhin, who is more tolerant of helicopters (who, however, does not deny the need to have naval and carrier-based aviation and does not propose to replace everything with turntables).

    First, what is common. Timokhin writes about the need for helicopters, and dear Andrey does not deny it. Timokhin insists on multifunctional machines capable of combining both strike functions, and anti-aircraft defense, and air defense. The author of this article is skeptical about air defense, and even tougher about multifunctionality, pointing out that a multifunctional helicopter can also provide reconnaissance, and it is unprofitable to invest in an AWACS helicopter.

    Now consider Timokhin's argument in favor of helicopters.
    First, about air defense. As far as I understand, according to Timokhin, a helicopter is a means of organizing a "missile ambush" together with a missile ship, nothing more. They should not conduct air battles.

    A turntable cannot completely replace an AWACS aircraft, but how to spin if we don’t have such an aircraft at hand? It turns out that only the helicopter remains.
    It is clear that the helicopter cannot move far from the order. But it can take off from a low-value ship at a distance from the rest of the forces, and refuel from it. It is clear that even on a cruiser there would not be enough fuel for round-the-clock duty of the turntable. But the fuel might be on the supply ship, which we still need.
    In addition, when attacking with missiles, the helicopter - as far as I understand - can move towards the object of attack in order to clarify its location (if the approximate location of the enemy is obtained by other means).
    The whole question is whether it is worth creating a specialized AWACS helicopter if they are not much better than multi-purpose ones, but they take up space. If so, then it’s not worth it, but it seems we have the Ka-35, which has a much better radar than the Ka-31. So it seems like it has already been created, and in some cases it is advisable to use it.
  18. +1
    19 May 2022 16: 44
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And the fleet is fighting as best it can. And it sends missiles into the distance, and the cruiser loses, because there is no one to carry the AWACS, and the BDK is under attack, because there is no one to cover from the OTR, and the marines are fighting, etc.


    And it sends missiles because under Serdyukov the carriers were laid down, and the cruiser loses a couple of hundred kilometers from its airfields, because in the admiral's heads the need for a light SDRLO to control naval fighters does not fit, and the BDK is under attack, because "this is not a royal business - deal with the protection of communications, "and the marines fight as especially expensive and ineffective (before light) infantry, because the idea" landing is not in itself and the marines must have landing means of covering the bridgehead and a second echelon of sea bees "...

    Those. a special operation separately, and a separate simple fact - PLO helicopters to the fleet, to which the tasks of covering and providing at least naval forces are deeply alien - did not give up.
  19. 0
    1 July 2022 16: 47
    In a war with developed countries, the Awaxes will count the helicopters in no time, and the planes will let them go to the bottom of the sea. That is, a helicopter is a cheap version of an aircraft. Drones can further reduce the cost of air assets. For example, small-sized aircraft-type drones will fit even on a small boat. He needs a runway in the form of a crossbow. The landing strip is a mesh along the sides of the ship.

    Due to the small size and composite materials of drones, you can try to deceive the Avaxes.

    Avaks deceived, and then what to do as they say ...
    Collect intelligence to guide equipment designed to defeat the enemy.

    But on long-range ships, sea helicopters are needed for landing, drones do not currently perform this function.
    1. 0
      16 July 2022 21: 20
      The author convinced everyone that a helicopter at sea was, is and will be worse than an airplane, and then suddenly declared.
      - "At the same time, PLO rotorcraft can be made universal, capable of using light anti-ship missiles, as well as reconnaissance, including for issuing target designation of PRK."
      apparently the author thinks that a universal helicopter will somehow compete with airplanes, this is a delusion, everything universal always and everywhere loses to a highly specialized one and helicopters are an exception, it’s just that a long time ago you should have created your own analogue of the S-3 "VIKING", since an aircraft of this type should be created on order is easier than a new helicopter
  20. 0
    6 August 2022 22: 25
    There is such a saying "there is nothing to give out poverty for virtue" This is just about the Ka-31 drill helicopter. it was possible to make a normal carrier-based reconnaissance fighter with a drill function (su-27KUB), even a plane plane in the dimensions of the already mentioned Viking, would be useful both on deck and at base airfields and in modification as a carrier-based tanker.
  21. -1
    7 August 2022 10: 32
    Excellent article from a venerable author.
    It is only necessary to pay attention to one omission, a comparison of the Ka-32 and Tu-160 helicopters in terms of the mass of the bomb load.
  22. 0
    1 December 2022 14: 15
    It seems to me that I flew on a tour similar to) in Moscow, https://svcharter.aero/ your helicopters?)

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"