Armament and combat capabilities of the Sikorsky Raider X helicopter (USA)

109

Experienced Raider X under construction, March 2022

As part of the US Army Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, Lockheed Martin / Sikorsky has developed a promising reconnaissance and attack helicopter Raider X. Currently, one of the company's factories is completing the construction of the first prototype of this type. Next year, she will have to go to the test and confirm the calculated characteristics, as well as demonstrate her combat capabilities. At the same time, Sikorsky is already ready to show the helicopter in combat configuration.

Under construction


The development of the Raider X helicopter for the FARA program was first reported in October 2019. At the same time, the main features of this project were revealed and the first computer images of the future machine were shown, incl. with weapons ready for use. However, detailed information about weapons and related systems was not published at that time.



In March 2020, the US Army chose the most successful out of five proposals for the FARA program. The Raider X project and the Bell 360 helicopter were to be further developed. The development companies received orders to complete the design and build experimental equipment. According to the original plans, flight tests of the two machines were supposed to start in 2022, but then they were shifted to 2023.

The other day, in the last days of June, the Sikorsky company spoke about the current work and the latest successes of its project. So, at the plant in West Palm Beach (Florida), the first prototype is being built. To date, it is about 90% ready, and the company already has 98% of the necessary parts and components. The construction is carried out under the supervision of the army, and the acceptance procedures are 50% complete.


Assembly continues: helicopter at the end of June 2022

Obviously, the delivery of the remaining 2% of the parts and the completion of 10% of the construction will not take much time. However, officials are not yet ready to name the exact dates for the completion of construction and the release of the helicopter for flight tests.

The development company has published two photos of an experienced helicopter in the assembly shop. They show that the assembly of the fuselage is complete, but it still needs to be painted. The machine is on its own chassis. The carrier system is partially assembled on the basis of the original screw hub. The installation of internal equipment and equipment continues.

In addition, the helicopter is already receiving weapons - an artillery mount and beam holders for missiles. At the same time, all the necessary fairings and, probably, weapons control equipment are still missing. It is also obvious that mock-ups of guided missiles were hung from the helicopter before the photo shoot.

"Earth-surface"


According to the requirements of the FARA program, a promising helicopter should be able to monitor ground objects, identify targets and use one or another weapon on them. The Raider X project complies with such requirements, which is reflected in promotional materials and shown on the example of a prototype under construction.

A movable gun mount is placed under the forward fuselage. She receives a casing with characteristic contours, indicating a decrease in stealth. Behind it there is an additional fairing; probably, in it the helicopter in flight should hide the barrels of the guns. The prototype in the workshop does not yet have casings and fairings, but has already received a tool, which allows us to consider some design features.


With cannon and rockets

Raider X is equipped with a 20mm triple-barreled automatic cannon. This can be a serial M197 product used on various foreign helicopters, or its modified version. The gun is placed on a mobile installation with the possibility of guidance in two planes. There is probably a down-to-back firing mode on the span. The M197 cannon and its derivatives can use 20x102 mm rounds with various types of high-explosive fragmentation and armor-piercing projectiles.

Behind the cabin, in the central part of the fuselage, a multifunctional cargo compartment is provided. It is equipped with side flaps that open up and to the sides. Pylons and beam holders for missile weapons are placed on the inner side of each leaf. In the flight position, the doors are closed, and the weapon is inside the fuselage. This improves the aerodynamics of the helicopter and reduces visibility. Before the use of weapons, the doors are raised, as a result of which the missiles are "on an external sling."

On the suspension, the helicopter will be able to carry various products. Advertising images showed ammunition in the form of two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and four small bombs on each side with the placement of weapons in two tiers. Recent photos show the use of two-tier holders with four Hellfire missiles on board. Probably, real helicopters will be able to use other weapons.

With the help of a cannon, the Raider X helicopter will be able to attack unprotected and lightly armored targets at a slant range of no more than 1,5-2 km. Rate of fire up to 1500 rds / min. increases the probability of hitting small objects. AGM-114 missiles will increase the firing range to 11 km and, depending on the modification and equipment, will be able to hit armored vehicles or other objects.


Another combat load option

The combat load of the Raider X helicopter has not yet been named, but published materials allow us to evaluate it. So, the total mass of eight AGM-114 missiles reaches 400 kg, to which you need to add the weight of the shells for the gun. Accordingly, the total payload of the helicopter must reach or exceed 500 kg.

Promising platform


The combat qualities of the new aviation complex will depend not only on the composition and characteristics of their weapons, but also on the helicopter itself. The main goal of the Raider X project is to improve flight performance, but other measures are also envisaged. All this should make the new helicopter a successful and efficient platform for equipment and weapons.

The Raider X helicopter is built according to the original scheme, known as the Sikorsky X2. He received a carrier system with two counter-rotating coaxial propellers with a diameter of 12 m, providing lift and flight at low speeds. Acceleration to increased speed is provided by a separate pusher propeller in the tail. All propellers are driven by a single General Electric T901 turboshaft engine with an HP 3000 power. through the gearbox of the original design.

It is expected that a helicopter with a takeoff weight of at least 6 tons will be able to reach speeds of more than 250 knots (from 460 km/h). The practical ceiling will be at the level of 2,7-3 km. At the same time, Raider X will retain all the capabilities of conventional helicopters. He will be able to hang, fly at low speed, perform vigorous maneuvers, etc.

Raider X and other samples of the FARA program are intended for reconnaissance of ground targets. In this regard, he needs a multi-purpose sighting and navigation system, which includes equipment for various purposes and has the potential for modernization.


Features of the Sikorsky X2 circuit

Apparently, the main means of observation and detection will be an optoelectronic station with day, night and laser ranging channels. In addition, with its help, the use of barrel and missile weapons will be ensured. The model of this product and the method of its placement are unknown. Moreover, such an aggregate has not yet been seen in published materials. Perhaps the "ball" with optics will be made retractable so as not to degrade visibility parameters. In addition, it cannot be excluded that the optics will be integrated into the gun mount, due to which some technical advantages will be obtained.

The composition of the PRNK should include means of communication and integration into the contours of command and control of troops. Data on found targets should be transmitted to headquarters, firepower or other consumers with minimal delay or even in real time. In addition, data and target designation should also go in the other direction - from other reconnaissance means to the helicopter.

However, the exact composition of the onboard electronic equipment and its capabilities are still unknown. We can only talk about the main functions and overall potential. In addition, various weapon configurations are demonstrated, which to some extent reveals this topic.

Soon


The Raider X project from Sikorsky / Lockheed Martin is moving forward successfully. The construction of the first prototype is coming to an end, and in the foreseeable future it will be able to take to the air for the first time. Then comparative tests will take place, according to the results of which the Pentagon will choose the most successful development for further development and future re-equipment of the army aviation.

Whether Raider X will be able to win the current competition is unknown. However, the development company is doing everything possible for this and pays the necessary attention to all major areas. A new unusual aerial platform has already been developed, and now it is receiving weapons. So far, these are only mock-ups, but in the future it is planned to use real products of all necessary types.
Our news channels

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

109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -28
    1 July 2022 16: 20
    Well, the barmaley will do.
    In a real combat situation, zero.
    1. +9
      1 July 2022 23: 54
      Quote: Gippo
      Well, the barmaley will do.
      In a real combat situation, zero.

      Sorry, but at least some can you hear the argument? feel
      1. +5
        2 July 2022 00: 09
        Excuse me, but at least some reasoning can be heard?

        Do not wait.
        But the first
        1. +5
          2 July 2022 10: 12
          But the first
          Light incontinence. It happens.
          1. +3
            2 July 2022 23: 40
            Quote: Dude
            Light incontinence. It happens.

            This is different! Such worthless jingoistic patriotism is now in trend!
    2. 0
      11 August 2022 00: 03
      For all "specialists" I want to note that this helicopter does not replace the Apache or Comanche, but the Black Hawk !!
      and such a speed is quite possible thanks to the coaxial rotor.
      That's how it is, dear 'avio-experts'
      The helicopter is not bad for hanging special forces, their evacuation, etc.
      Cannon and a few ex. rockets were added so that the helicopter could directly support the landing, if necessary, otherwise you need to specifically call for a drone like, for example, Predator ....
      1. -1
        17 August 2022 15: 15
        What landing? As can be seen from the diagram, there is an outboard weapon at the landing site.
  2. sen
    -5
    1 July 2022 16: 24
    Armament and combat capabilities of the Sikorsky Raider X helicopter (USA)

    Stealth, how much RCS? The speed is decent for a helicopter "from 460 km / h". At what height is he going to fly at such a speed so as not to be shot down by air defense? What armor and self-defense systems?
    1. -5
      1 July 2022 17: 03
      How will a speed of 460 against air defense help him? Not quite clear? Against shilka chtoli
      1. +10
        1 July 2022 17: 45
        Quote: Clever man
        How will a speed of 460 against air defense help him?
        It will reduce the exposure time ... it will hide faster behind a natural barrier so as not to reflect the MANPADS ... bully
        1. +7
          1 July 2022 18: 28
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          It will reduce the exposure time ... it will hide faster behind a natural barrier so as not to reflect the MANPADS ..

          The main time is to build up forces and means. The response time to a call, the flight time, otherwise, at such a speed at an extremely low altitude, hiding in the folds is not entirely comfortable.
          1. +7
            1 July 2022 20: 34
            For "very comfortable" there are systems of automatic rounding of the terrain. Even at night. I don't think it's a problem for them.
        2. +1
          1 July 2022 22: 28
          368 km / h on mi 24 70s is much worse than 460? From the point of view of air defense ??????
          1. 0
            7 July 2022 21: 05
            At 345 km/h there was such a vibration that the RU involuntarily leans back. I didn’t bring it to the critical point of destruction (according to strength of materials), I wanted to live))))
        3. -3
          2 July 2022 09: 26
          It will reduce the exposure time ... quickly hide behind a natural barrier so as not to reflect the MANPADS ... bully
          What a fool you are. In order to maneuver the helicopter faster, it slows down. YesAnd what to say about it?
          1. +4
            2 July 2022 12: 14
            Quote: Observer2014
            What a fool you are. In order to maneuver the helicopter faster, it slows down.

            Well, thank God! finally SMART found ...
            Just a pancake, very inattentive: Exposure is the time of being under observation. What's with the maneuvers? It was meant to "slip" quickly and hide behind the trees (as an option).
            But we have SMART!!! He decided that a light unarmored spit should MANEUVER in the sight of MANPADS and other AIAs at LOW speed. Like - "Look how impossible I am! But you won't get in!"
            Although your nickname, observer, is infantry, you don’t cut anything in the tactics of fire support for motorized rifle units ... Looks like Vasily Ivanovich, “didn’t finish the academies”! And there - hang labels ... In a word: OBSERVER !!! laughing
        4. +2
          2 July 2022 10: 57
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Reduce exposure time ... hide faster behind a natural barrier

          Yes, you look at the composition of his weapons - 8 Helfires and a 20 mm cannon. Without armor.
          Is the speed high?
          Well, for screw anti-guerrilla attack aircraft, it is even higher.
          And the payload is higher.
          And stealth ... If today UAVs made of a composite air defense system are seen and hit, then with such a fool - with a coaxial screw and a screw in the ass, with a wide cabin ... well, how to miss one? Such a "miracle" is perhaps for special operations against drug dealers ... and even those "Stingers" and ZUShki will be found - the Sumerians will sell it anyway.
          I think that if we insert a propeller into our Ka-52's ass, then it will also fly noticeably faster. But the rest of the useful qualities (security, armament and combat load) will not be lost.

          Or maybe just return to an inexpensive turboprop single-engine attack aircraft?
          You can also book it.
          It will land / take off on any primer, and work on the enemy no worse than any helicopter, and it will surpass the helicopter in speed, and it will not yield in payload, and it will be cheaper by a multiple, and pilots can be trained on them faster and cheaper ... Some pluses .
          We tried.
          But again, it’s wrong - they tried to compose something like the Il-2 with an engine of 1000 - 1500 l / s ... but there is no such engine in Russia. request They even tried to screw the engine for such an attack aircraft from "Aurus" ... "Aurus" rests ...
          Postponed. recourse Say, let's compose an engine for the Ka-62, it will just fit ... But it does not compose in any way.
          But today such attack aircraft in WWI would be quite useful.
          So what can you do?
          TURN ON BRAIN.
          In the late USSR, developments were also carried out, the concepts of such a "mobilization attack aircraft" were proposed - based on the experience of Afghanistan. And there were very interesting proposals.
          Including lineups.
          To begin with, we transfer the screw from the nose to the ass ... and lo and behold - the screw no longer interferes with placing a whole battery with a good ammo in the nose (everything else under the wings and fuselage to choose from.
          The tail is two-beam, like that of "Bayraktar".
          Engine ...
          But it’s not worth messing with the engine at all - we take a regular engine from a helicopter (Mi-8\17\24\35\28 ...) ... Would you say excess power?
          What does she give us?
          And it gives us the opportunity to well book the cabin and all the vital organs.
          And take more ammunition, fuel ...
          As well as the best thrust-to-weight ratio, which means maneuverability, throttle response, and therefore survivability.
          The result is an attack aircraft with excellent cockpit visibility, armored, with a good payload and combat radius, and with the most common engine in the world. Our engine.
          And all this for half / a third of the cost of a combat helicopter.
          Pilots can be trained in ordinary flying clubs, as before in DOSAF, on a voluntary basis. And finish teaching in 1,5 - 2 years at flight schools in special. program.

          ... AND THE SKY WILL BE FILLED WITH PLANES. fellow Yes bully
          1. +2
            2 July 2022 12: 05
            And stealth ... If today UAVs from a composite air defense system are seen and hit

            See at what distance?
            You understand that the decrease in EPR reduces aircraft detection range? And this is a tactical advantage.
            1. 0
              2 July 2022 15: 37
              Such helicopters, as a rule, have a low-altitude flight profile, and therefore ground-based radars will see it at a distance of only a few tens (up to 10 - 15) km. , and at such a distance no "stealth" for our radars works. Moreover, in the meter range it will be visible without any special restrictions at all (our main range for the RTV air defense duty forces), and in decimeters it will be visible very well.
              After all, it was not for nothing that I pointed out such features as two coaxial and pushing propellers - they themselves are radio contrast, and a large glazed cabin - the cabin itself and everything in it also violate the stealth ideology. So, on a saturated theater air defense, such helicopters are unlikely to have any special advantage. Therefore, if they are put into service or simply go into production, then they will be used for special operations, where they are not expected and against a much less developed enemy. And this is definitely not our case.
              Yes, and it is small for such tasks, the payload is only 500 kg. + cannon ... 8 Helfires in total. But for the MTR, the MP corps, the CIA, as a tool for the first disarming strike against an unexpected enemy, in order to pave the way for an air and / or amphibious assault, it’s quite.
              1. +1
                2 July 2022 21: 12
                Moreover, in the meter range, it will be visible without any special restrictions at all (our main range for the RTV air defense duty forces)

                Have you seen the dimensions of the meter range radar?
                Are you planning on hitting them?
                Every 50 km or more often?
                Carry in running mode with columns of equipment? No.
                (up to 10 - 15) km. , and at such a distance no "stealth" for our radars works

                You just have to count: the Pantsir radar sees the conditional Apache from 40 km (if it flies high enough).
                With a decrease in RCS by 200 times, the detection range is reduced by 3,76 times, to 10,6 km. That is, less than the effective range of the new Hellfire.
                The radar on the "Ryder" will be like that of the "Apache" above the propeller hub, so that it will calmly aim and fire ATGMs with ARL seeker.
                like two coaxial and pushing screws

                The screws are composite, mostly radio-transparent.
                Let me remind you that the EPR of the Comanche was 200-300 times lower than that of the Apache.
                a large glazed cabin - the cabin itself and everything in it also violate the ideology of stealth

                Therefore, it is made with gold plating. Like on the F-22.
                Yes, and it is small for such tasks, the payload is only 500 kg. + cannon ... 8 Helfires in total

                Yes, he is noticeably inferior to Apache here. Maybe they will decide something. Or not.
                1. 0
                  3 July 2022 04: 06
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Have you seen the dimensions of the meter range radar?

                  Yes
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Are you planning on hitting them?
                  Every 50 km or more often?

                  Look carefully at the parameters "Harmony" and P-18.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  You just have to count: the Pantsir radar sees the conditional Apache from 40 km (if it flies high enough).

                  The "Pantsir" has a "mm" range and such tricks can pass with it, they encountered this in Syria and took measures - the sensitivity to inconspicuous and small-sized targets has increased. Perhaps the range of the detector's radar was changed, perhaps the signal processing algorithms. And as a rule, in tandem with a similar air defense system, an "m" or "dm" range radar works - the experience of Libya.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  With a decrease in RCS by 200 times, the detection range is reduced by 3,76 times, to 10,6 km.

                  If a helicopter goes to WWI hiding in the folds of the terrain, then an ordinary helicopter can be detected at such a + range, it all depends on the underlying surface (relief) and the position of the radar.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Therefore, it is made with gold plating. Like on the F-22.

                  In this case, the sputtering prevents the penetration of the probing signal inside the cabin, but the sputtering itself reflects the signal, i.e. works like a metallized surface.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Yes, he is noticeably inferior to Apache here. Maybe they will decide something. Or not.

                  I say that this is a helicopter for special operations, more secretive, but less armed and protected.
                  But the means of detection do not stand still.
                  1. +1
                    3 July 2022 04: 32
                    Look carefully at the parameters "Harmony" and P-18

                    I saw them and they are not impressive.
                    P-18 is an archaic technique of impressive size (impossible to reduce).
                    On the march, it can NOT guard the column, two-coordinate, inaccurate (significant deviations in determining the coordinates of the target, hundreds of meters).
                    And I repeat: are you going to instruct these radars every 30-50 km? By the way, how are they with the minimum target height?

                    According to Harmony: its “working” RCS of the target is unknown, a small-sized radar will always be inferior to the same “Shell”. Including - exactly, see: the error is up to 100m, how are you going to direct the rocket using the RK (if we are talking about the Shell)?

                    And again the problem: what will prevent the radar station (searchlight in the dark) from being located in advance and crushed with the help of PRR?
                    The Riders will be used by the country with the largest Air Force.
                    In this case, the sputtering prevents the penetration of the probing signal inside the cabin, but the sputtering itself reflects the signal, i.e. works like a metallized surface.

                    All this is great, but there is data on the Comanche, you can draw analogies.
                    The "Shell" has a "mm" range and such tricks can pass with it, they encountered this in Syria and took measures - the sensitivity to inconspicuous and small-sized targets has increased

                    It is impossible to cancel the general principles of radar. Reducing the EPR by X times (compared to the working EPR of the radar) reduces the detection range by the "4th root of X" times.
                    I say that this is a helicopter for special operations, more secretive, but less armed and protected.

                    Like the Comanche. But he carried only 6 ATGMs in stealth equipment, so the Ryder slightly surpasses him in this.
                    In the assault version, additional pylons were installed on the RAH-66 for another 8 ATGMs. I assume that a similar solution will be used on a new helicopter.



                    Behind the flaps there is just a place for wings with suspensions for weapons.
              2. 0
                6 July 2022 00: 51
                Quote: bayard
                So on a saturated theater air defense, such helicopters are unlikely to have any special advantage

                Any technique in the modern army is not a spherical horse in a vacuum (SLE), but a SYSTEM tool. And if there are tolerances and indulgences in certain aspects of the requirements for the tool, it is only because there are other tools in the SYSTEM that close this gap for him. This allows you to reduce the cost of strategic planning and increase the volume of the series.
                And trying to mold an uberwafer from each individual tool will either doom the tool to small-scale production due to the price, or it will become obsolete until it is brought to production.

                In this case - what for should he climb under the air defense radar? Because the stupid commander sent? Well, then you don’t need to keep fools in the army. And you need to PLAN military operations, like any work activity, and not send the personnel of the "order to get".
                That is, to clean up the theater of operations first from the enemy’s air defense and air force, especially when there are 100500 tools for this in the SYSTEM, and then send helicopters to clean up the rest of the equipment.

                The winner in the war is not the one who has the thicker uberwafer, but the one whose brains are more alive.
                1. +1
                  6 July 2022 07: 33
                  Yes, there is a whole dispute about the merits and place of the new American helicopter on a potential battlefield. The lack of acceptable armor and the limited ammunition against the background of stealth suggests that it has a place in special operations, mainly outside the zone of developed air defense. Everything else is sophistry.
                  In the USSR, such a project - an inconspicuous and at the same time well-armored and armed helicopter was carried out at the turn of the 80s / 90s in the Kamov Design Bureau. And all these forms and decisions in the United States are mainly from that project. Well, the desire to get the same helicopter with a coaxial propeller, without a rudder. They wanted it for a long time, there were problems with the complexity of the gearbox, but they still got it, albeit in the form of a prototype.
                  And for our Aerospace Forces, it would be useful to get a light but protected attack aircraft with a screw propeller, preferably with a turboprop engine (we have absolutely seams with pistons), and it is desirable that this engine be the VK-2500, as the most common and proven. Such an attack aircraft would be a good help both in the theater of operations and in counter-terrorist operations, to help attack helicopters and jet attack aircraft. I also wrote about this.
                  And the Aerospace Forces, the FSB, and the border guards would like to receive such an attack aircraft for a long time.
    2. +1
      1 July 2022 17: 31
      Stealth, how much RCS? The speed is decent for a helicopter "from 460 km / h". At what height is he going to fly at such a speed so as not to be shot down by air defense? What armor and self-defense systems?
      I think not high. Not much higher than the Mi 24 pair that they worked out in Belgorod. More speed. Less time against them if they fly higher to fire contact against this product. It doesn’t always fly at maximum speed bully
      1. -1
        1 July 2022 18: 45
        Everything depends on the cost of the machine itself and the hour of its flight time. Personally, I think that the reconnaissance and reconnaissance-strike functions of helicopters have, in fact, gone to UAVs. There is no point in this helicopter.
        1. +1
          2 July 2022 11: 10
          Quote: Snail N9
          There is no point in this helicopter.

          They harnessed the Sikorsky for a long time, having peeped the concept in the line of promising projects of the Kamov Design Bureau.
          But they did, it is already flying (without weapons, only a concept) ... And now what to do with it?
          The only thing it will do is for special operations. This is not a full-fledged combat helicopter, and in a modern conflict it will not live long ... But for the CIA ... Maybe for the MP corps - for special operations forces.
          And in response, we need to make an ordinary turboprop attack aircraft. But to do well, not expensive, but cheerful and affordable. And most importantly - a lot.
          And immediately there will be happiness.
          1. +2
            2 July 2022 12: 05
            A turboprop attack aircraft is also useless in modern conditions. It is not suitable for special operations such as special services, since it does not have a vertical take-off and cannot hover, which is the main function in a special operation. As a battlefield attack aircraft, the turboprop attack aircraft is vulnerable due to the extreme saturation of the battlefield with light MANPADS. The presence of a pilot or even two on a turboprop attack aircraft is also a very vulnerable factor - the loss of each pilot is too expensive now. Well, the turboprop attack aircraft is useless now because of the saturation of the battlefield with long-range artillery and rocket launchers, as well as tactical missiles with high hitting accuracy, which makes the function of attacking the front line and columns of troops on the march unnecessary with extremely vulnerable aircraft and helicopters. UAVs for various purposes in perspective with AI + are the future of battlefield aviation. Classical manned aviation is actually already dead. Many simply cannot yet realize this and accept it as a fact.
            1. 0
              2 July 2022 16: 19
              Quote: Snail N9
              Classical manned aviation is actually already dead.

              Quote: Snail N9
              UAVs for various purposes in perspective with AI + are the future of battlefield aviation.

              Are you sure this is our case?
              What is the tactic of using attack helicopters over the battlefield and during an attack on enemy positions, or enemy columns on the march?
              Approaching a target in WWI, hiding behind the folds of the terrain and at full speed. The target has a slide, a capture, a blow, a sharp turn and again on WWI. And all this at full speed.
              Which of these is not capable of making a turboprop attack aircraft? All of the above is capable, and given that his speed is 1,5 - 2 times higher, then he will be able to reach the target and retreat after the impact even more successfully. And no one will hover over the battlefield - now for a helicopter this is certain death. And if the UAV transmits a picture of the target to him in real time, then it will take him a minimum time to detect / capture the target.
              What is its advantage over UAVs? shock?
              In the payload and in the fact that it is capable of operating on WWI and at speeds inaccessible to helicopters.
              Early this morning (around 7-00) an attack aircraft (or FB) flew over Donetsk and dropped something heavy on the enemy (the sound is far away, but it gave off very strongly through the ground). I hope on the bunker, I hope I hit.
              But the UAV will not pull such ammunition.
              And if any pulls, it will be shot down on the way to the target, because the profile of the UAV is high-altitude or medium-altitude. And a turboprop attack aircraft will be able to reach the target at WWI and at high speed (500 - 700 km / h) and drop one or two FAB-500 or FAB-250 from a pitch-up or flight. When throwing from a span, it is desirable to use bombs with braking parachutes in order for the attack aircraft to have time to get out from under the zone of destruction of their bombs. And all this is available, this is the standard armament of attack and bomber aircraft.
              And such an attack aircraft will cost 2-3 times cheaper than an attack helicopter, it will be simple and cheap to maintain, easy to pilot, and training pilots for such an aircraft will take noticeably less time.
              And it is not needed to replace ... say, helicopters over the battlefield, or jet attack aircraft, it will very organically complement them, fill the niche in which helicopters will be worse, and attack aircraft will not always be able to be on time, because they are tied to airfields. And screw attack aircraft will be able to be based on unpaved strips, on sections of roads, from any flat field. And they will sit on the forced one anywhere, and the catapult will help if anything.
              The ideology of the "small army" during the current SVO failed with a crash, and all new weapons became too expensive, complex, they are long / expensive / difficult to replenish in case of losses, they are difficult to master.
              MANPADS?
              Do they interfere with helicopters?
              But helicopters are less fast cars. And by definition - low-altitude. And they won’t throw a bomb from a pitch-up ... they’ll launch a rocket ... so a screw attack aircraft can do that. But it is simpler, cheaper, can be mass-produced, unpretentious in terms of bases, it is easier to train pilots for it. And he can do what is inaccessible to attack UAVs. It is very convenient as an aircraft for territory control, counterguerrilla, anti-sabotage. Such an aircraft has its own fair niche, where it will be better than any other type of aircraft. The USSR wanted and ordered such an aircraft (but did not have time), and such an aircraft was made by the United States, and then a number of other countries of the world. And we are very pleased with such an inexpensive and unpretentious tool.
              But in our country today , unfortunately , many cannot realize and accept this ... as a fact .
              1. +1
                3 July 2022 10: 30
                You didn't understand anything. I wrote about vertical takeoff and landing and hover mode in terms of its extreme necessity for SPECIAL OPERATIONS. Or are you going to land and pick up saboteurs from screw attack aircraft? They also didn’t understand that the main drawback of ANY aircraft, its pilot or pilots, is a too slowly renewable resource, subject to losses .. What you describe was relevant 30-20 years ago. Now the troops are saturated with small-sized air defense systems of quick response and effective guidance and destruction. Which will continue to develop and saturate the troops in increasing numbers, especially on the march and on the front line. In general, what you are writing about is the last century, now the era of the NET-CENTIC BATTLE FIELD has come. Read what it is if you don't know. That is, the era of drones, automated systems and artificial intelligence united into a single system has come. Moreover, all this in order to carry out an instant reaction of all means to a change in the actions of the enemy, which implies the massive use of constantly loitering means of detecting control and destruction with an instant reaction to commands. Under such conditions, there is no place for manned aircraft taking off from airfields controlled by such means of opponents.
                1. -1
                  3 July 2022 13: 57
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  I wrote about vertical takeoff and landing and hover mode in terms of its extreme necessity for SPECIAL OPERATIONS. Or are you going to land and pick up saboteurs from screw attack aircraft?

                  So it's not about the landing, but about the attack helicopter. And by no means instead of attack helicopters, but to supplement them.
                  And this is the mobilization potential - for half or three times less money, get a strike apparatus that is not inferior to an attack helicopter and surpasses it in speed by 1,5 - 2 times. In addition, an order of magnitude easier to maintain and many times cheaper to operate.
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  They also didn’t understand that the main drawback of ANY aircraft, its pilot or pilots, is a too slowly renewable resource, subject to losses ..

                  And I will say again that this also has a mobilization potential. Especially if you revive the experience of DOSAF and amateur aviation schools for light aviation. Such an attack aircraft is much easier to master and pilot, and if you take a person who has received flight practice on any light-engine aircraft, he can be retrained for such an attack aircraft in a short time. And if you take training for such a machine from scratch, then the period will be two times less than for a jet fighter or attack aircraft.
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  What you describe was relevant 30-20 years ago.

                  And how are times fundamentally different?
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  Now the troops are saturated with small-sized air defense systems of quick response and effective guidance and destruction. Which will continue to develop and saturate the troops in increasing numbers, especially on the march and on the front line

                  It was the same before - MANPADS were in the ammunition rack of each BMP / BTR, the columns were accompanied by "Shilka" and "Infernal threshers", "Arrows-10" and "Tunguska" ... what's the difference then ??
                  As then they could shoot down the "Crocodile" when attacking a column, so in the future there will be an opportunity to shoot down an attacking screw attack aircraft. But such an attack aircraft will be 2-3 times cheaper, and the pilot training period for it is 1,5-2 times less than the training period for a combat helicopter pilot. And any amateur pilot can be retrained for it in a few months.
                  Not ?
                  Don `t come in ?
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  In general, what you are writing about is the last century, now the era of the SETECENTIC BATTLE FIELD has come.

                  Will we play computer shooters?
                  What about robots on the battlefield?
                  I have been in the war for eight years and have not seen robots.
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  Read what it is if you don't know. That is, the era of drones, automated systems and artificial intelligence combined into a single system has come.

                  My very close friend created one of the first in the Russian Federation (and most likely the first) ACS of interspecific interaction for an army-front theater of operations. It was an initiative project of the Far Eastern Military District, and he was the leader of this project. At the 2008 exercises "Interaction" (as it was supposed to be called), the automated control system coped brilliantly in conditions as close as possible to combat. So I'm a little familiar with the topic.

                  Quote: Snail N9
                  That is, the era of drones has come,

                  smile And for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has come?
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  automated systems and artificial intelligence combined into a single system.

                  Yes
                  Uh-huh, only the topic of my friend was closed immediately after the exercises, and those involved were taken out of state and soon dismissed for early retirement ... Three copies of that automated control system remained as a backup, because they showed greater reliability than regular ones ... And a few years later it appeared similar system nationwide...
                  But again, about drones, do we definitely have them? Or are they just planned?
                  Are the units and calculations saturated with mavics?
                  Are they produced by us?
                  And what about secure communications?
                  Is a new era already here and now?
                  And who will manage this system (ACS with "artificial intelligence")?
                  On the battlefield?
                  Where to draw information from and what will be the executive tool?
                  On the battlefield?
                  Attack helicopters?
                  Jet attack aircraft from distant airfields?
                  Or screw attack aircraft from the nearest lawn or section of the road?
                  And what is the difference for ACS!??
                  The main thing is that the tool is at hand, as close to the target as possible and has the opportunity to complete the combat mission.
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  Moreover, all this in order to carry out an instant reaction of all means to a change in the actions of the enemy, which implies the massive use of constantly loitering means of detecting control and destruction with an instant reaction to commands.

                  Will the enemy allow you to "constantly barrage" over him?
                  And if it allows, then it will not interfere with the screw attack aircraft, because it does not have the appropriate means of detection, control and destruction on this theater of operations.
                  And the electronic warfare equipment will not affect the pilot in the cockpit, he will not be taken control, and his attack aircraft will be able to carry a multiple or an order of magnitude more ammunition than any strike UAV ... Except perhaps for the monster that the Sukhoi Design Bureau is preparing.
                  Quote: Snail N9
                  Under such conditions, there is no place for manned aircraft taking off from airfields controlled by such means of opponents.

                  Tell me please, what is the military air defense of the RF Armed Forces doing with all this zoo of loitering, reconnaissance and attack UAVs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine today?
                  And also the means of domestic electronic warfare?
                  I would rather believe the words that with such a saturation of air defense and electronic warfare equipment, there is almost no room left for medium-altitude (and high-altitude) UAVs in the strike version on the battlefield.
                  They usually don't reach it.
                  But attack aircraft (and helicopters), even jet ones, perform tasks in WWI. Moreover, both at speeds of 700 - 950 km / h, and at speeds of 200 - 300 km / h.
                  So WHAT will prevent an attack aircraft with a propeller, at a speed of 450 - 700 km / h, from performing the same tasks, flying on the same PMV?
                  Given that his home base will be closer to the theater of operations than the airfield of a jet attack aircraft?

                  Think before you answer.
                  And for me, for 8 years of the war in the Donbass, such things are simply obvious. And in my proposal of such an attack aircraft and such an engine for it, all the realities of the modern capitalist, not very smart and with a commercial psychology, modern Russian Federation are taken into account.
                  Moreover, there were also attempts to create such an attack aircraft in our time, but a suitable engine was never found ... Because they were looking for an engine with 1000 - 1500 l / s, and there will not be such for a long time.
                  But there is an engine in 2200 - 2400 l \ s, it has been worked out, serial and universal. It's just that the attack aircraft needs to be made a little larger, more secure, more thrust-weighted than previously thought.
                  And it is highly desirable to remove the screw in the ass - so as not to interfere with the placement of weapons and surveillance devices (the same OLS).
                  1. 0
                    7 July 2022 21: 21
                    Sir, let me correct you ... Our (used Ukrainian TV3-117) modern dvigun (VK-something) for helicopters gives much more than 1250 hp. from maternal. And why are you not satisfied with the American Thunderbolt with a cannon with a barrel of more than 7 meters. There they even matched the glider and power to this gun) Good performance for front-line / assault aviation
                    1. +1
                      8 July 2022 10: 35
                      Quote: helicop-man
                      Sir, let me correct you ... Our (used Ukrainian TV3-117) modern dvigun (VK-something) for helicopters gives much more than 1250 hp.

                      See my comments on this topic above, where I described the proposed attack aircraft in more detail. It is the VK-2500 with a capacity of 2400 l / s (2700 in forced mode) that I proposed because of its availability, availability and sufficient maturity. And create an attack aircraft around an existing engine, and not look for an imaginary engine under a non-existent airframe. More power will make the attack aircraft more responsive, maneuverable and fast, get good armor and a good payload.
                      In the late USSR, such an attack aircraft was being developed based on the experience of the war in Afghanistan, and then very interesting layout schemes were proposed. Including a twin-boom pusher airframe. This allows you to provide good visibility to the pilot's cockpit, the placement of guns / guns / machine guns in the nose, and well book the cockpit. And this (pushing screw) will provide complete freedom and ease of use of weapons, unlike the situation with a pulling screw.
                      Quote: helicop-man
                      . And why are you not satisfied with the American Thunderbolt with a cannon with a barrel of more than 7 meters.

                      I really like our "Grach" Su-25SM. But a jet attack aircraft needs a hard-surfaced airfield, which you cannot organize at once on any convenient lawn / field. Therefore, both jet attack aircraft and attack helicopters of the Army Aviation have their own niche and scope. A screw attack aircraft occupies an intermediate position in terms of speed and combat capabilities, but at the same time it will cost both to create and operate, much cheaper than both, and will be very unpretentious in terms of basing. It can be created for the Army Aviation, for the Border Troops, the Coast Guard, for the FSB (counter-terrorist operations), and for the Special Operations Forces and the future (there were intentions to create this) Expeditionary Force.
                      This proposal is precisely to complement the existing types of attack aircraft and build up the strike capabilities of battlefield aviation, and where the use of jet attack aircraft would be inconvenient or redundant.
                      Quote: helicop-man
                      . So why are you not satisfied with the American Thunderbolt with a cannon with a barrel of more than 7 meters.

                      The fact that he is American, that he is still in service, and that he may have to be shot down over the battlefield.
                      I love domestic.
                      And the Su-25SM is still better.
        2. +1
          3 July 2022 06: 45
          It looks like it will be a variant of the F-35 from the world of helicopters.
          Replacement for both UH-60 and AH-64.
          The choice: to put the armament compartment or the passenger cabin.
          The car will most likely cost the same as both of the above helicopters combined.
          But the budget allows.
          The same F-35s are planned for the purchase of 2100 units, 800 have been produced, the pace is 15 vehicles per month.
          They will decide to rearm with Raider X - they will also build new factories for mass production in the same way.
      2. +5
        1 July 2022 20: 44
        The cruising speed of the Mi-24 is 5 km / h, which is 300 meters in height, which is 270 meters. They went to Belgorod in general along ravines and riverbeds, which are below the barometric "0" height
    3. +1
      2 July 2022 12: 02
      According to the EPR "Comanche" it was announced that it was 200-300 times less than that of the "Apache".
      There was no data yet on Ryder.
      1. 0
        5 July 2022 21: 01
        Quote: 3danimal
        According to the EPR "Comanche" it was announced that it was 200-300 times less than that of the "Apache".

        Are you broadcasting about the EPR of a non-existent helicopter ("Comanche")?
        1. 0
          6 July 2022 03: 37
          About the EPR of 2 flying prototypes, yes.
          About measures to reduce radar visibility, which are universal and work.
          1. 0
            6 July 2022 21: 01
            Quote: 3danimal
            About the EPR of 2 flying prototypes, yes.

            What the hell is something about prototypes? The prototype is by no means a serial combat copy. And the combat serial "Comanche" does not exist, the combat serial did not work out from the prototype. And since there is no serial combat, then it makes sense to talk about its EPR, about the EPR of a non-existent helicopter.
            Quote: 3danimal
            About measures to reduce radar visibility, which are universal and work.

            Yeah, only the result of the work is different for different objects. "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines."
            1. 0
              7 July 2022 02: 58
              C-57 for a long time existed only in the form of prototypes and that's okay.
              (Even now, out of 10 aircraft, only 1-2 are serial).
              There were calculations to reduce stealth and they are known.
              1. 0
                7 July 2022 22: 25
                Quote: 3danimal
                C-57 for a long time existed only in the form of prototypes and that's okay.

                And "Comanche" does not exist at all, it does not exist. And the Su-57 is and will be. And what does the Su-57 have to do with it, if we are talking about the EPR of the non-existent Comanche?
                Quote: 3danimal
                There were calculations to reduce stealth and they are known.

                A good idea, but there is no Comanche, despite all the calculations for reducing stealth and the fact that they are known.
                1. 0
                  8 July 2022 02: 58
                  there is no Comanche, despite all the calculations

                  The program was closed, that's all. Although the helicopter was in a high degree of readiness for mass production.
                  UAVs appeared, the need for an expensive stealth helicopter disappeared.
                  Built more attack Apaches D and E, plus drones.
                  And where does the Su-57

                  Analogies. The parameters of the Su-57 were quite known and determined 8-9 years ago, but for a long time it existed only as flying prototypes.
                  The difference from RAH-66 is that its program was not covered up.
                  1. 0
                    8 July 2022 23: 44
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    The program was closed, that's all. Although the helicopter was in a high degree of readiness for mass production.

                    What was closed?
                    UAVs appeared, the need for an expensive stealth helicopter disappeared.

                    No-ee. the program was closed in 2004. And the tasks of the UAV are solved by others. UAVs are useless here.
                    Built more attack Apaches D and E, plus drones.

                    The tasks of the Comanches and Apaches differed, and therefore they began to create Comanches. UAVs are completely irrelevant here, especially in 2004, when Comanche was closed.
                    Analogies. The parameters of the Su-57 were quite known and determined 8-9 years ago, but for a long time it existed only as flying prototypes.
                    The difference from RAH-66 is that its program was not covered up.

                    If there is a difference, then there is no analogy. And since this is not an analogy, then the Su-57 is not appropriate here. We are talking about the Comanche, about the non-existent helicopter for which you voiced the EPR. I'll hint - the wrong EPR.
                    1. 0
                      9 July 2022 17: 22
                      I'll hint - the wrong EPR.

                      I hope that you will voice the information you have obtained. Very interesting.
                      What was closed?

                      Your option request
                      1. 0
                        15 July 2022 21: 44
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Your option

                        "Comanche" did not fulfill the requirements for radar or infrared visibility. It is impossible to make a helicopter with a very low RCS due to the rotation of the movement of the propeller blades. No matter how they tried, but even in laboratory conditions, the screw does not work out less, EMNIP, 0.1 m ^ 2 /
                      2. 0
                        16 July 2022 15: 00
                        Comanche "did not fulfill the requirements for radar or infrared visibility.

                        Where did you get this information?
                        The IR visibility reduction system implemented in the RAH-66 is the best of the existing ones (try to challenge it).
                        It is impossible to make a helicopter with a very low RCS due to the rotation of the movement of the propeller blades.

                        The blades can be composite, radio transparent.
                        And I did not talk about any specific values, but only that the RCS of the Comanche was 200-300 times less than that of the Apache, which is quite realistic, given the difference in design.
                        As intended, it would have functioned as a stealth helicopter, incorporating a number of different techniques and technologies in order to reduce its radar cross-section (RCS) along with other areas of visibility and detectability. The exterior surfaces of the RAH-66 were faceted and covered with both radar-absorbent material (RAM) coatings and infrared-suppressant paint; as a result of these combined measures, the Comanche's RCS was stated to be 360 ​​times smaller than that of the AH-64 Apache. The acoustic signature of the helicopter was also reported to be noticeably lower than comparative helicopters; this reduction had been partially achieved through the adoption of an all-composite five-blade main rotor and pioneering canted tail rotor assembly.

                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing–Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche

                        Here the difference is generally called 360 times.

                        No matter how they tried, but even under laboratory conditions, the screw does not work out less, EMNIP, 0.1 m ^ 2 /

                        In what laboratory? lockheed?
                        And even 0,1 m2 - gives a significant advantage in comparison with the EPR of conventional attack helicopters.
  3. IVZ
    +11
    1 July 2022 16: 31
    It looks like a new era of helicopter construction. Promising. would not fall behind.
    1. -6
      1 July 2022 17: 15
      this is not a helicopter, this is an atozhiro, a repetition of the past
      1. IVZ
        +6
        1 July 2022 18: 23
        This is not a gyroplane, it is a rotorcraft like the experimental KA-22, but at a new technological and aerodynamic level.
  4. +3
    1 July 2022 17: 07
    It is expected that a helicopter with a takeoff weight of at least 6 tons will be able to reach speeds of more than 250 knots (from 460 km/h).

    Serious speed, for which a coaxial scheme with shorter propellers was chosen.
    1. +1
      1 July 2022 17: 53
      Quote: Konnick
      It is expected that a helicopter with a takeoff weight of at least 6 tons will be able to reach speeds of more than 250 knots (from 460 km/h).

      Serious speed, for which a coaxial scheme with shorter propellers was chosen.

      However, it only has one engine! Is it not enough to have 3000l.s. for 6 tons? then, well, somehow modestly - the combat load is only 500 kg! I understand there 1000 kg, at least! and then only 500 kg. Is this "light cavalry" in reconnaissance, or what? Everything is tied to speed. Not a word about booking (there will probably be Kevlar), which means it’s not a battlefield turntable. If these are "eyes in the sky", then why was the rider imprisoned? A UAV would have been much cheaper ... Or did they know in advance about our "unparalleled" REP and decided not to risk equipment in vain? bully
      1. +5
        1 July 2022 18: 31
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        what, "light cavalry" in intelligence, or what?

        In the first paragraph of the article it says:
        promising reconnaissance and attack helicopter Raider X.
      2. +2
        1 July 2022 20: 51
        Yes, nothing is not enough. Our TV3-117V is in the region of 1250-1400 hp. for 1 engine. Total - 2500 on board. With a takeoff weight of the Mi-24 12,8 tons. And here - 3000 mares for 6 tons ......
        1. +1
          2 July 2022 07: 10
          where is the power data? in the same place 2x2400 hp and at maximum speed 2x2700
          1. 0
            13 July 2022 19: 41
            In a notebook about TV3-117
      3. 0
        6 July 2022 05: 31
        One engine generally raises questions - but what about survivability? There should be two of them, there are excellent ready-made samples from Apache / Blackhawk.
        Either the existing one needs to be made more powerful (which does not remove the above question).
        I would generally suggest making a kind of “Joint Helicopter”.
        Able to replace Apache, Kiowa, and UH-60.
        For strike missions, install additional pylons behind the folding ones, as was supposed on the Comanche.

        Intelligence - built-in folding pylons are enough. Or a cabin instead of them on a Blackhawk substitute.
        Immediately from the minuses - a "row" cabin, instead of a tandem.
        It is clear that this is better for the UH-60 substitute, but not for the drummer.
        Option - 2 modules with cabins, except for the modules of the central compartment (passenger / reconnaissance-strike).
        Another minus is the gun. IMHO, 30mm with slightly reduced ballistics on Apache is better.
        You can use projectiles with programmable detonation, cumulative, and this with all the advantages of the turret and with good accuracy.
    2. IVZ
      0
      1 July 2022 18: 32
      The coaxial scheme was chosen rather in order not to install a tail rotor - a torque compensator, like the AH-56 Cheyenne
      1. +6
        1 July 2022 18: 50
        The coaxial scheme was chosen rather in order not to install a tail rotor - a torque compensator, like the AH-56 Cheyenne

        With a coaxial scheme, with the same lifting force, a smaller diameter of the screws is required. With the same amount of lift, the speed of the incoming ends of the propeller is less for helicopters with a shorter propeller length, therefore, the separation of air flows from the ends of the propeller occurs at a higher helicopter speed than that of a traditional helicopter
        1. IVZ
          +3
          1 July 2022 19: 00
          Sorry, I didn't know this. Thank you.
        2. +6
          1 July 2022 21: 00
          There are many advantages there - in the absence of RV, there is no additional power take-off to compensate for the reactive moment, an improvement in the thrust coefficient of the HB due to two planes of lift, the absence of aerodynamic asymmetry in control, etc.)
        3. +2
          2 July 2022 00: 14
          It's also just beautiful


          And a typical scheme: with screws it would be like mixing water with such somersaults
      2. +1
        2 July 2022 12: 24
        Quote: IVZ
        The coaxial scheme was chosen rather in order not to install a tail screw - a torque compensator,

        So where is there so much mechanics to sculpt if a pushing propeller was installed in the stern. If you also stretch the steering shaft through the beam - the tail will fall off! bully
        And the coaxial scheme allows the skewer to even fly sideways. Yes, and the CG is practically combined with the CG, which reduces inertia and torques. So, co-aligners are nimble and fast. I looked at the "original" lineup and did not see the swash rods there. And we still can't get rid of them. Surely the Yankees turned out to be smarter than us !? belay
        1. +1
          7 July 2022 21: 47
          With all due respect, I will add mechanics to the understanding of the design of coaxial helicopters. I have mentioned the pros before. Cons, if you're interested: 1. more likely to hit the vortex ring (aerodynamics); 2. constructive and technological complexity of the main gearbox (kinematics). The most painful point of any helicopter. If there is a problem with the gearbox (speed, temperature) - 10 minutes, and you are in the photo with a black frame. And 3rd (mechanics, levers-moments): swashplate of the coaxial HB scheme. Very difficult to maintain and 2x heavier than older swashplates.
  5. -2
    1 July 2022 17: 30
    The opinion of professional pilots, helicopter engineers, maintenance personnel, etc. is interesting.
    Do you really need that much speed?
    1. +3
      1 July 2022 18: 34
      This is not for them, this is for military tactics. Engineers at least screw the turbojet engine ...... Take for example the Soviet ekranoplanes
    2. +2
      1 July 2022 19: 10
      Quote: Maxim G
      Do you really need that much speed?

      This is a helicopter and the indicated speed is maximum. He can also hover in place and slowly crawl.
      Something else is interesting - his attitude to MANPADS, the Stinger and others.
      1. +2
        2 July 2022 12: 33
        Quote: Starover_Z
        Something else is interesting - his attitude to MANPADS, the Stinger and others.

        God bless him, with the stinger! Yes
        The main thing that they have against our PINE!
        How its composite sides digest our 23, 30 mm shells. I'm not talking about 57 mm, because even the LBTs do not like such dumplings, not like the spinners.
    3. Alf
      +3
      1 July 2022 19: 22
      Quote: Maxim G
      The opinion of professional pilots, helicopter engineers, maintenance personnel, etc. is interesting.
      Do you really need that much speed?

      I am not a pilot, but I believe that high speed gives more chances to survive over the battlefield at the moment of exit from the impact or after the launch of my rocket.
      1. +3
        1 July 2022 21: 11
        For air defense systems and MANPADS, there is no difference in this speed range. They'll catch up anyway. With small arms resistance - yes, there is an effect
      2. +3
        2 July 2022 00: 12
        greater speed is also the time to reach the attack line, or leave it, or arrive in the database zone.
        Speed ​​is always good
        1. 0
          5 July 2022 21: 08
          Greater speed -> greater flight altitude -> greater probability of defeat at a greater distance from the line of attack.
          1. -1
            5 July 2022 21: 50
            I do not see a logical connection with greater speed and greater flight altitude.
            Tea isn't supersonic, is it?
            RCC harpoon goes at 850 km / h at altitudes up to 3 meters, X-35 / R-360 at 15m and from the mountain at 100m
            The Ministry of Defense on Tuesday, May 3, published a video showing a Su-24M front-line bomber. In the footage, the plane strikes at Ukrainian positions at extremely low altitude.


            and this one is so "easy to knock down", because how much speed?
            aha

            greater probability of defeat at a greater distance from the line of attack.

            FIM-92 Stinger range 4,5 km
            flight height 10m

            flight height 50m

            more than 10 km you need to run to the goal
            1. 0
              5 July 2022 22: 29
              Quote from TreeSmall
              I do not see a logical connection with greater speed and greater flight altitude.
              Tea isn't supersonic, is it?
              RCC harpoon goes at 850 km / h at altitudes up to 3 meters, X-35 / R-360 at 15m and from the mountain at 100m

              Isn't the topic about a helicopter here? Or is the aerodynamics of a helicopter, a variable-sweep wing aircraft and a cross-wing missile the same for you?
              1. -1
                5 July 2022 22: 54
                Someone wrote about
                Greater speed -> greater flight altitude -> greater probability of defeat at a greater distance from the line of attack.

                I'm talking about greater heights.
                The plane is given specially.
                Helicopters to bring to WWI?
                And the visibility range and radio horizon of a helicopter differ from an airplane?
                Or do the stinger / willow by helicopter continue to work?
                The aerodynamics of the helicopter is of course different:
                It has no stall speed and there is practically no screen effect.
                And how does this relate to a greater likelihood of defeat?
                1. 0
                  6 July 2022 20: 55
                  Quote from TreeSmall
                  I'm talking about greater heights.
                  The plane is given specially.

                  What for? The plane has nothing to do with the object under discussion.
                  Quote from TreeSmall
                  Helicopters to bring to WWI?

                  The point is that with an increase in flight speed, it is necessary to increase the height. Needed for safety. What will the video with the helicopter give in WWI? Although, here is the Ukrainian Mi-24 shot down at the very beginning, which was first mistaken for Russian, it was clearly visible that it was flying fast and high.
                  Quote from TreeSmall
                  And how does this relate to a greater likelihood of defeat

                  The probability of defeat always depends on the altitude of the target. The probability of defeat that you usually read in the characteristics is the average over the affected area. A combat helicopter needs to fly very low and slowly to survive.
    4. +3
      1 July 2022 21: 08
      Only for prompt response when setting a mission to complete a flight mission) If it is necessary to urgently strike (for 200 kilometers), then an ordinary helicopter will be at the target in 45 minutes, and this pepelats - in 25. Although there are Calibers and other shnyashki.
      1. 0
        5 July 2022 21: 10
        Quote: helicop-man
        If it is necessary to urgently strike (for 200 kilometers), then an ordinary helicopter will be at the target in 45 minutes, and this pepelats - in 25.

        For 200 km, an aircraft is used, which will be at the target in 12 minutes.
        1. 0
          13 July 2022 19: 39
          Will he be able to land the DRG?
          1. 0
            15 July 2022 20: 19
            Quote: helicop-man
            Will he be able to land the DRG?

            First, there was the need
            strike urgently (200 kilometers)
            , and secondly, if the helicopter flies at high speed, then it is unlikely to fly to the landing point unnoticed.
            1. 0
              16 July 2022 22: 46
              Firstly, landing is one of the tasks of AA, and secondly, at low speed it is no less noticeable)))))) Only a flight to WWI (extremely low altitude) will help here, better at a meter and a half. At a speed of 250-270 you can safely walk like that. Only then bushes or cereals should be removed from the "beard" (sighting system from front to right).
  6. +1
    1 July 2022 18: 04
    How about the cost of it?
    1. 0
      1 July 2022 18: 32
      What to know: Apache, depending on the version, - 50-60 million $$$. And LA itself is not the most expensive part of it.
  7. +4
    1 July 2022 18: 30
    Something theorists are confused:
    Either attack helicopters and attack aircraft are already everything .... Then something is being done in the middle, not armored, but with a cannon and we want to shoot at someone else with it.

    Here already a10mu and su25 are not allowed to shoot from cannons .....
  8. +3
    1 July 2022 18: 40
    The 20mm cannon is outdated according to modern realities, and so the machine is a breakthrough in helicopter engineering
    1. -1
      4 July 2022 15: 19
      Moreover, breakthrough, more in civil and transport use
  9. -9
    1 July 2022 19: 05
    Sikorsky turned out to be a skin
    1. +6
      1 July 2022 19: 22
      Sikorsky - died a long time ago. Russian engineer from the Russian city of Kyiv (do you know such a city?). By the will of fate, he ended up in the USA (Americans are stupid).
      1. -10
        1 July 2022 19: 40
        That's why the skin. Nothing - Kamov and Mil are even better
        1. +1
          4 July 2022 14: 43
          Well, you are a hard nut to crack.
          Sikorsky left his homeland after and because of the 1917 revolution.
          1. -1
            4 July 2022 16: 46
            And what m moreover? There were many of them there.
      2. +1
        2 July 2022 22: 19
        By the will of fate, he ended up in the USA (Americans are stupid).
        Well, the chief designer of the DS-3 and B-29, Asen Yordanov, is generally a Bulgarian
    2. Alf
      +2
      1 July 2022 19: 24
      Quote: Novosibirsk
      Sikorsky turned out to be a skin

      What exactly ?
  10. -6
    1 July 2022 19: 21
    A real wunder waffle. I do not believe that a normal person could "compose" this.
  11. -5
    1 July 2022 20: 30
    Nothing special, good luck chasing Kamov
  12. +1
    2 July 2022 00: 04
    The development of the ideas of KB Kamov at the modern technological level, however.
  13. 0
    2 July 2022 00: 21
    Something reminds
    1. +3
      2 July 2022 01: 08
      Quote: Mint Gingerbread
      Something reminds
      And I remember this helicopter
      AH-56 Cheyenne.
      First flight in 1967, engine 1 - T-64-GE-16 2580 kW cruising speed 370km / hrmaximum speed 408km/h
      The project was closed in 1972, released 10sht.
      Remembered push screw.
      But instead of Cheyenne, Apache AH-64 was taken into the army ...
      hi
  14. -1
    2 July 2022 07: 14
    And now the most interesting. What is the price of a SERIAL SAMPLE ... which will go to the troops ... if it manages to pass all state tests .... although we know how they pass these state tests using the F-35 as an example. So in the best case, a few dozen will appear .... and in the worst case, the whole program will shut down.
    1. 0
      26 September 2022 21: 05
      Price incl. depends not only on R&D, but also on wages at the plant. Considering that in the USA a development engineer earns about $100-120 per hour, and an assembler on the line (depending on qualifications 40-70), it’s a no brainer that this machine will be 2.5-3 times more expensive than the Ka52
  15. +2
    2 July 2022 11: 00
    "Earth-surface"...
    Is it like in the context of a helicopter? Shooting in the parking lot? Maybe still "air-to-surface"?
  16. +1
    2 July 2022 11: 24
    She receives a casing with characteristic contours, indicating reduction stealth.

    Correct the typo.
  17. 0
    2 July 2022 14: 09
    Technically, the helicopter is very interesting. But here are the questions from the point of view of application. It is being created under the LittleBird light multi-purpose helicopter replacement program. But here's the problem. He cannot replace him. The new helicopter, of course, is faster and a little more inconspicuous than the "bird", but it will not be able to perform operations for quick landing and selection of troops in the city. Simply because it is much BIGGER and HEAVER than "LittleBird". And flights in the city with airborne landings and signal relaying, one of the most frequently used operations that are performed by birds. The new helicopter will either be unable to perform them or will perform worse. As a result, it turns out that this helicopter will be good in reconnaissance (and then, there are questions about whether having THREE propellers will be able to maintain an acceptably low RCS) but nothing else. It copes with the landing force worse than a bird, since the latter is small and maneuverable, capable of performing quick landings on very difficult terrain (for example, in a forest-steppe or urban area). The functions of the repeater are disastrous, as they will make it noticeable, which means that all tricks for stealth will be useless. As an attack aircraft, he is bad, even the "black hawk" which has a higher combat load beats him. Not to mention the fact that 20 mm. the auto gun has not been relevant in caliber for 15-20 years.
    As a result, a good scout can get out of the helicopter. But with the rest of the tasks, there is either no progress, or even regression.
  18. 0
    2 July 2022 21: 11
    They have been working on the problem of a high-speed helicopter for more than a decade. But the main controversy has not yet been resolved. The higher the speed of the helicopter, the worse it is in the hover mode.
    Take the same Mi-24, which, although it was built taking into account the creation of the Mi-8, has its own carrier system. NV only 17 with a penny of petrov, against 21 for the Mi-8. At the same time (sorry for inaccuracies from memory), the NV speed of the Mi-24 is higher, 240 rpm versus 190. Due to this, the maximum speed reached 335 km/h (Mi-24V/P).
    But the price for this was height. And although with a normal takeoff weight, the Mi-24 can climb 5000 meters, this is a dynamic ceiling. Static alas and ah. If at sea level it is still tolerable, then in the mountains there is sadness and sadness. In Afghanistan, we worked like short takeoff aircraft.
    And here the developers announced a dynamic ceiling of 3000. This means only one thing, such a pepelats can take off vertically only at sea level in a standard atmosphere. In the mountains, give him an airfield for a run, otherwise nothing. There is nothing to say about the hovering mode.
    A logical question, why then fence such an apparatus, both complex in design and control, if it is quite realistic to build an aircraft with a short takeoff and landing for such a speed range?
    1. 0
      5 July 2022 21: 05
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      They have been working on the problem of a high-speed helicopter for more than a decade.

      Yes, no need for a high-speed helicopter, except in rescue and search and rescue operations. It's just that in the helicopter industry in this class there is nowhere to move in development, except for increasing speed.
  19. -2
    2 July 2022 23: 09
    Is it like the one that was announced 2 years ago as super-high-speed?

    I remember that "our answer" was also promoted, but since then it has somehow faded.
  20. 0
    9 July 2022 20: 40
    With glazing like on the veranda, is this a military rotorcraft?
  21. -1
    6 August 2022 16: 38
    "Earth-surface"

    What is it like?!
  22. 0
    31 August 2022 15: 00
    I remember admiring the Comanche super helicopter, but where is it?
  23. 0
    26 September 2022 20: 44
    The Sikorsky firm is the creator of the world's first helicopter. They definitely have the knowledge and experience.

"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"