The evolution of combat helicopters and their weapons: before and after the NWO

90
The evolution of combat helicopters and their weapons: before and after the NWO

In the material "Combat helicopters - the basis for countering the breakthroughs of enemy armored units in the NVO zone" we examined how the designs of combat helicopters developed and what tasks they were intended to solve.

The last months of the Russian Special Military Operation (SVO) in Ukraine have shown what a huge role these vehicles play in deterring breakthroughs of enemy armored vehicles. With proper application, without "cavalry" attacks using unguided aviation missiles (NAR), and working on armored vehicles using anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), combat helicopters show the highest level of survivability.



Nevertheless, already several decades ago, the developers of combat helicopters understood that their vulnerability to air defense (AD) fire would gradually increase, so the designs of promising combat helicopters and concepts for their use began to be prepared in the leading countries of the world.

At the end of the 28th century in the USSR, and then in Russia, there were serious problems with financing, so there was no time for the future - with great difficulty, the industry managed to save and bring to serial production the Mi-50 and Ka-52 combat helicopters (in the form of its " heir" Ka-XNUMX).

At the same time, overseas in the United States, the program of the advanced reconnaissance and attack combat helicopter RAH-66 Сomanche ("Comanche"), which was supposed to become a new word in helicopter engineering, was actively conducted.

RAH-66 Comanche


The RAH-66 Comanche, developed by a consortium of Boeing and Sikorsky, was supposed to be the first "invisible" helicopter, that is, a machine made with the widespread use of stealth technology, which was super popular at that time (stealth). The first prototype was presented in 1991, it was planned that the armed forces (AF) of the United States would purchase 4-000 RAH-6 Comanches.


RAH-66 Comanche prototypes

Significant efforts by designers were made to reduce visibility in the radar, thermal and acoustic ranges - the effective dispersion surface (ESR) of the RAH-66 helicopter in the radar wavelength range should have been lower than that of the AGM-114 Hellfire ATGM, and 350 times lower, than the AH-64 Apache helicopter. An inconspicuous body with fully retractable weapons (including a cannon) was supposed to provide the Comanche with the advantage of a “first shot” when meeting with enemy anti-aircraft missile systems (SAMs).

In addition to stealth, the RAH-66 Comanche was equipped with the latest reconnaissance equipment and cockpits with augmented reality helmets that implement the concept of "eyes outside the cockpit", in general, at that time this car seemed weapons from some fantasy movie.


Cockpit and helmet pilots RAH-66 "Comanche"

At the same time, the RAH-66 Comanche had practically no armor protection, so its use for fire support of ground forces was completely excluded.

The collapse of the USSR put an end to the program for the creation and purchase of the RAH-66 Comanche, hordes of Soviet armored "hordes" went to be melted down, surprises from the former US empire were no longer expected, and the Comanche was not intended for the war with bearded terrorists and cost too much. expensive.

In Russia, it is often customary to make fun of the closed programs for the development and production of weapons of our opponents - they say, "this is a cut, stupid Americans have wasted their money."

However, this is far from being the case - such programs provide a huge reserve for the future, which can be used both to modernize existing equipment and to develop promising products. On the contrary, to realize in time that the time for a particular combat vehicle has not yet come, not to drive “raw” equipment into the troops is a sign of the “maturity” of the command of the US Armed Forces.


How could the RAH-66 Comanche show itself in the NWO zone?

Of course, if you use this car as an attack aircraft, then it would be quickly dismantled “for spare parts”. But in scenarios where it would be used competently, everything is different.

If the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) had RAH-66, Russian troops would get a serious headache - even ordinary Soviet-made helicopters of the AFU are trying to operate on the battlefield, even if they are shot down, but not always. And what would happen if we were faced with inconspicuous machines?

At night, using their highly effective reconnaissance capabilities, they could inflict serious damage on Russian tanks, artillery, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and other equipment, to carry out raids in the rear of the RF Armed Forces.

In the daytime, the RAH-66 Comanches could counter the Ka-52 and Mi-28 combat helicopters, covering the actions of the armored vehicles of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and stealth would increase the chances of their survival in the conditions of Russian aviation dominance near the front line.

However, as it is, it is - the RAH-66 Comanche stealth combat helicopters never made it to the battlefields, so the developers began to look for other ways to increase the survivability of rotorcraft.

Survival through weapons


The creators of combat helicopters have found a solution to the problem of increasing the survivability of combat helicopters in confrontation with enemy air defense systems by introducing new types of weapons into the ammunition load of combat helicopters. There are several possible directions for development.

The first is an increase in the range and flight speed of ATGMs. For example, Russian Ka-52 helicopters are equipped with the second-generation Vikhr supersonic ATGM, guided along the “laser path”, with a flight range of up to 8 kilometers and a flight speed of up to 600 meters per second. The problem is that it is quite difficult to compete with air defense systems in this matter, since missiles also have an impressive range and flight speed.


ATGM "Whirlwind" under the wing of a Ka-52 helicopter

The second direction is the use of ATGMs operating on the principle of "fire and forget", which belong to the third generation. Western designers have chosen this path. The use of such ATGMs allows the combat helicopter to emerge from behind cover (buildings, trees, hills, etc.) only for a short moment, capture the target, launch the ATGM, and then the combat helicopter can again hide in the terrain.

The problem is that such ATGMs are much more expensive, since they must include an optical infrared / multispectral and / or active radar homing head (IR seeker / ARL seeker). In addition, it is easier for jamming devices or smoke screens to divert an ATGM with a seeker from the target than to confuse the guidance system of a combat helicopter controlled by the pilot.

There are ATGMs of the following - conditional fourth, fifth, sixth generations (there is no general classification, now the concept of "generation" has become a marketing term), having a feedback channel with the operator, who receives an image from the homing head and can correct the point of impact or even redirect the ATGM in flight.

However, the feedback channel is potentially affected by electronic warfare (EW) - the exception is control over a fiber-optic communication line, but it limits the firing range of ATGMs and is poorly suited for helicopters.


Israeli ATGM NLOS (Non Line Of Sight - out of sight), launched from a combat helicopter AH-64D

Analysis of the development of defense technologies in the foreseeable future suggests that ATGMs with GOS may become vulnerable to promising self-defense systemsmade on the basis high power lasers.

The solution to the problem may be the emergence of hypersonic ATGMs https://topwar.ru/173607-perspektivy-razvitija-ptur-giperzvuk-ili-samonavedenie.html, capable of hitting enemy armored vehicles protected by active protection systems (KAZ) and dynamic protection (DZ), a direct hit by a kinetic warhead - essentially the equivalent of a tank armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectile (BOPS).

So far, even combat helicopters with second-generation ATGMs, with proper use, shoot down the equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with virtually impunity. However, everything can change when Western countries decide to supply more modern air defense systems. Or we will face them directly in future conflicts.

It can be assumed that the optimal solution would be a combination of ATGMs of various types. For example, a combat helicopter can carry a pair of hypersonic ATGMs to suppress advanced laser air defense systems, a pair of ATGMs with a seeker designed to suppress air defense systems, as well as half a dozen conventional, relatively inexpensive supersonic ATGMs, guided along a “laser trail”, to destroy enemy armored vehicles that have lost their cover .

Leading and led


One of the possible ways to increase the security of combat helicopters was the concept of their joint use with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). In particular, this possibility has already been implemented on the extreme modification of the American combat helicopter AH-64E Apache Guardian.


AH-64E Apache Guardian and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV

How effective and justified is it?

The question is open - if we are talking about medium-sized reconnaissance and strike UAVs of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle type, and we have a high-quality communication system via satellite, then a helicopter is clearly superfluous in this scheme.

Provide the pilot and operator of a combat helicopter with the opportunity to receive intelligence data from the UAV? Yes - it won't hurt. But to manage it? Why distract the operator of a combat helicopter from his work, when it is easier and more efficient to do it from a control center located safely in the rear, thousands of kilometers from the battlefield?

On the other hand, in autonomous missions, escort in the form of a reconnaissance UAV for a combat helicopter may well come in handy, for example, push it forward, provoke the enemy to open fire, identify targets that have unmasked themselves and destroy them with airborne weapons fire.

The fighting in the NVO zone does not indicate a clear need for UAV control from a helicopter, however, it can be assumed that a small reconnaissance UAV operating in conjunction with a combat helicopter would not only allow faster identification of targets, but also confirm their defeat in order to there were no disputes, such as whether the tank was hit, or the tractor.

Active protection


One of the most effective solutions that increase the survivability of combat helicopters on the battlefield was the L-370 Vitebsk airborne defense systems.

The L-370 "Vitebsk" complex automatically detects the launch of enemy missiles using laser irradiation detection equipment and ultraviolet direction finders, after which the optoelectronic suppression station (SOEP) is activated, operating in the infrared and radio ranges, as well as devices for emitting passive interference - false thermal targets and chaff.


L-370 "Vitebsk" on the Mi-8AMTSh transport and combat helicopter (one of the blocks is highlighted with a frame)

During the SVO, a remarkable record was set - the Ka-52 combat helicopter managed to repel the attack of 18 (!) SAMs with infrared seeker launched from Stinger man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The disadvantage of the existing airborne defense systems is the inability to withstand second-generation ATGMs, in which there is no homing head - some Russian combat helicopters in the NMD zone were destroyed precisely with their help.

It can be assumed that the successful use of airborne defense systems in the NMD zone will spur their further development and improvement not only in Russia, but also in other countries of the world.

With a high probability, it can be assumed that the experience gained in the NMD zone is already being used in the course of work on the modernization of the L-370 Vitebsk complexes and / or the development of new airborne defense systems based on them. The main thing is that it doesn’t work out, as with active protection systems (KAZ) of tanks - being developed in the USSR, they never went into large-scale production, as a result, in fact, only the Israeli Trophy KAZ is now fighting.

In the future, we can expect an expansion of the functionality of airborne defense systems by ensuring not only the withdrawal of attacking enemy ammunition, but also their functional suppression (disabling the seeker) or complete destruction. In particular, the United States is already integrating powerful laser weapons into the weapons system of the AH-64 helicopter. With a power of several tens of kW, it will already be able to shoot down missiles and anti-tank missiles, and when the planned power of 150 kW or more is reached, such a laser can also be used to destroy fairly large UAVs, as well as other unarmored ground and air targets.


Helicopter AH-64 with a powerful laser weapon on board

The appearance of combat helicopters on board cannot be ruled out. air-to-air interceptor capable of operating on air-to-air missiles and missiles.

Or, airborne self-defense systems can evolve into KAZ-AT - complexes of active protection of aviation equipment.

In general, it can be confidently assumed that increasing the survivability of combat helicopters will require the abandonment of the use of unguided munitions, the use of weapons of various types and purposes, including hypersonic ATGMs, ATGMs with homing heads and low-cost second-generation ATGMs. The mass saved by abandoning the use of NARs can be used to deploy advanced airborne defense systems, air-to-air missiles and advanced active defense systems for aviation equipment, which can significantly increase the survivability of combat helicopters on the battlefields of the near future.

Outside the brackets, there is such a direction in the development of combat helicopters as a significant increase in the speed of their flight - up to 400-500 kilometers per hour. However, according to the author, this direction is hardly of great importance precisely as a way to increase the survivability of rotary-winged vehicles, rather as a means of increasing mobility, speed of arrival in the area of ​​combat missions.
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    8 July 2023 04: 27
    An interesting and well reasoned review and analysis of likely areas for improvement. Step by step without revolutionary "non-analogues". Thanks Andrey!
    1. +1
      8 July 2023 07: 00
      I wondered on this site what is the advantage of a helicopter over an attack aircraft. And the main trump card was the presence of the "Vitebsk" system on a helicopter. Now it remains to be understood whether this system can be placed on the Su-25 or will it "gobble up" all the aerodynamics and will not work at its speeds?
      On the other hand, I understand that the question is akin to comparing a tank with a self-propelled gun and each weapon has its own place in battle.
      1. +5
        8 July 2023 11: 36
        It exists and works on the Su-25 (for sure on the Su-25SM3). But the Su-34 is no longer there. I recently listened to a conversation with a Su-34 pilot, they attack at ultra-low altitudes and at speeds of about 1000 km / h, such "dagger strikes". And the Su-25s operate at speeds 2 times less, the reaction time is longer and the danger too. Moreover, their armor is comparable, perhaps the Su-34 is even better.
        1. -3
          8 July 2023 12: 13
          Yeah, balabol your source - SU 34 is just guided bombs and they suck. And you listen more Tsipso
        2. 0
          9 July 2023 02: 01
          Su-34, they attack at ultra-low altitudes and at speeds of about 1000 km / h, such
          .........
          Beaver, exhale
      2. +8
        8 July 2023 13: 11
        I wondered on this site what is the advantage of a helicopter over an attack aircraft.
        Advantage in non-aerodrome basing. An airplane needs at least a dirt runway of 500-800 meters.
        1. +1
          8 July 2023 15: 27
          Quote: Aviator_
          I wondered on this site what is the advantage of a helicopter over an attack aircraft.
          Advantage in non-aerodrome basing. An airplane needs at least a dirt runway of 500-800 meters.

          what you voiced is an OPPORTUNITY, not an ADVANTAGE, the advantage is "the minimum time to complete a combat mission from target designation to destruction" which is achieved due to the opportunity, it is important not to confuse, since the same advantage can be achieved by different capabilities.
      3. +1
        9 July 2023 02: 21
        Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
        I wondered on this site what is the advantage of a helicopter over an attack aircraft.


        The fact that a helicopter can hit more targets. If we compare Mi-28N and Su-25, then the latter is not capable of using guided weapons. It has one pilot who must combine piloting and searching for targets, which at his speed means "find one target out of 5". An attack helicopter can search for targets at a leisurely pace. In a nutshell, his advantage is that he will find more targets and hit them with fewer missiles.
        1. +2
          10 July 2023 16: 29
          You need to compare the Mi-28 with the Su-25T (more suitable for such a comparison in terms of tasks and terms of creation). And as a result, it turns out that a single-seat attack aircraft is able to effectively use guided weapons. And if the helicopter on the battlefield does the same without haste, then they will land it just as slowly
  2. +5
    8 July 2023 06: 56
    Graphomania with lasers - however, like the last two years
  3. IVZ
    +6
    8 July 2023 08: 36
    The collapse of the USSR put an end to the program for the creation and purchase of the RAH-66 "Comanche"
    The program was shut down in 2004. Expenses at the time of closing were 7 lard, and projected 40.
    1. +3
      8 July 2023 12: 10
      Quote: IVZ
      Expenses at the time of closing amounted to 7 lard
      Here's exactly what you need to know about the RAH-66 program. Amers know how to calculate the cost / result ratio, you can’t refuse.
      The author, speaking of Commanche, decipher the abbreviation RAH and the phrase
      its use for fire support of ground forces was completely excluded
      will look very strange.
  4. +5
    8 July 2023 10: 25
    Can you explain what is the difference between an ATGM and a "kamikaze" UAV like the same "Lancet"? Am I the only one who thinks that in the near future they will merge in ecstasy?
    1. +5
      8 July 2023 11: 28
      In fact, absolutely none.
      The lancet is used as a 4th generation ATGM. Who he actually is.
    2. +4
      8 July 2023 14: 17
      Can you explain what is the difference between an ATGM and a "kamikaze" UAV like the same "Lancet"? Am I the only one who thinks that in the near future they will merge in ecstasy?


      The Lancet is a very low-speed ATGM, moreover, with a weak warhead. Even on new models, it is about 5 kg, while on ATGMs it is 7 kg or more.
    3. +4
      8 July 2023 15: 36
      Quote: Not the fighter
      Can you explain what is the difference between an ATGM and a "kamikaze" UAV like the same "Lancet"?

      Do you see the difference between a rocket and a propeller-driven aircraft?
    4. +3
      9 July 2023 02: 27
      Speed. Domestic ATGM "Ataka" supersonic. There will be no ecstasy. ATGM means searching for and recognizing a target BEFORE launching through the sighting system of a helicopter. Therefore, it can be given high speed. And the Lancet implies the search and recognition of the target is already strong after launch, so it cannot fly too fast, because the operator simply does not have time to figure out where everything is. So the ATGM will remain an ATGM, and the UAV will remain by itself. They have different uses on the battlefield. Here is the equipment of attack helicopters with a kamikaze UAV launch system, I think it is already being worked out. In any case, the MI-28N initially has a dedicated radio channel for receiving a "picture" from a drone.
      And there are also ATGMs created in the logic of a "flying TV camera". Item 305.
    5. 0
      9 July 2023 21: 27
      "" Both the crying flute and the roar of the tambourine merged together in the melody "" (C). Yes, you are right, drones and loitering ammunition are gradually replacing humans. The machine war is just around the corner....
    6. +2
      9 July 2023 23: 50
      An ATGM is a missile in the first place, and it is launched at an already reconnoitered target using the carrier's sighting system, i.e. aim through the sight, and direct the rocket at the target!

      The Lancet is a UAV, i.e. a controlled aircraft with explosives on board, the operator of this UAV is himself able to search for a target using an onboard camera, he can even give out, for example, artillery or tell ground forces about the location of the enemy, in fact these capabilities are rarely used if at all because the operating time is limited. Guidance occurs through the onboard optics, in theory, the Lancet does not have any sight, the operator simply dives at the target, observing it with the camera!

      those. the principles of operation are completely different and the possibilities are also completely different and the speeds are completely different and the range is also, moreover, the firing range of ATGMs is much less.

      and with regards to helicopters, with all the tricks they are already standing like a fighter! strike capabilities are irrevocably transferred to UAVs for various purposes, since the loss of a helicopter is already serious, UAVs can burn enemy tanks on LBS attacking from their territory with no less efficiency, but today only UAVs can operate over enemy territory, the role of helicopters in the end will be reduced to either covering the UAV, for example, as a command post equipped with a radar and electronic warfare equipment, possibly also as a carrier of long-range missiles by the standards of LBS, to destroy air defense systems or command posts, as a repeater for operators, and most likely in the near future the UAV will control a neural network, for example, a helicopter crew will only select targets and possibly some tactical techniques, and AI-controlled UAVs will attack targets and perform these techniques !!! the helicopter is obsolete as an infantry support strike vehicle or as an anti-tank weapon, but not obsolete as a combat vehicle, battlefield functions are changing
    7. 0
      19 August 2023 17: 14
      Well, a 4th generation ATGM is essentially a fvp drone, but not a quadrocopter, but a small cruise missile like a lancet ...
      The trick is, such a system has a rather expensive projectile ... Cheaper than those targets that strike, but all the same expensive, therefore no one gets rid of the 2nd generation ptur completely, even the Americans, they don’t write off the tou-2 and even the ancient dragons didn’t write off everything more...
  5. +9
    8 July 2023 10: 35
    Hmm, I re-read the article twice, but I still don’t understand what the author is actually talking about. Some movement from side to side. No.
    The first thing to understand is that the basis for completing a combat mission and surviving in hostilities is the right tactics. With this, it is possible to successfully use even obsolete weapons, the same Mi-24s with the Shturm complex.
    And if you hang in front of the enemy in an attempt to look out for something there, let alone hang about a hundred meters, then no technique will save.
  6. +6
    8 July 2023 11: 40
    Here about the UAV, the reconnaissance officer subordinate to the operator on board the helicopter does not completely agree.
    The helicopter needs to be made a highly mobile platform for the use of guided weapons.
    A simple example.
    We take Mi 24 in any iteration.
    We mount the Lancet control equipment in the troop compartment.
    Under the wings of the Lanceta proper.
    Plus two lancets in the reconnaissance configuration.
    The machine maneuvers outside the enemy air defense zone.
    Lancet - a scout hangs over the sector and "looks". Upon discovery, a blow with Lancets follows. And the turntable does not need to be substituted for this.
    A simple and reliable tactic. It will seep into the flank with a couple of cars, taking advantage of the folds of the terrain. Cover the direction from the impact of armored vehicles.
    Free hunting.
    The lancet is essentially an extremely flexible tool with great potential, and it is imperative to develop it into a wide range of ammunition with different capabilities.
    1. +1
      8 July 2023 14: 12
      We take Mi 24 in any iteration.
      We mount the Lancet control equipment in the troop compartment.
      Under the wings of the Lanceta proper.


      And instead of a combat helicopter, we get something incomprehensible that is absolutely useless against armored vehicles.

      A simple and reliable tactic. It will seep into the flank with a couple of cars, taking advantage of the folds of the terrain. Cover the direction from the impact of armored vehicles.


      There is one significant flaw in your "simple and reliable tactics". The terrain, or rather its folds, will almost always not coincide with your tactical plans. And also the enemy will not want to adapt to you.
      1. +2
        8 July 2023 16: 10
        Look at the tactics of turntables. In half the cases, they are hiding in the folds of the terrain. And they have to go into the air defense zone in order to hit the target.
        The question is why stick out somewhere if the same thing can be done remotely.
        I do not propose to replace all helicopters with the pepelacs I have described. I propose to supplement the helicopter fleet with a flexible and multifunctional tool.
        Such a turntable as the leader of the Ka 52 strike group will be able to conduct reconnaissance and thin out air defense on the ground. Without endangering the actual helicopters.
        1. +1
          8 July 2023 19: 32
          Look at the tactics of turntables. In half the cases, they are hiding in the folds of the terrain.


          It just seemed that way to you. In fact, you just huddle closer to the ground, trying not to let it go above 15 meters.
          And the area, it is what it is and nothing can be done about it.

          And they have to go into the air defense zone in order to hit the target.


          Nope, not always. In addition, the lower limit of the defeat of MANPADS and other air defense systems is for ideal conditions.

          The question is why stick out somewhere if the same thing can be done remotely.


          Pak launch of ATGMs with PMV allows this.

          I do not propose to replace all helicopters with the pepelacs I have described.


          It can complement, but not replace the helicopter.
          1. 0
            8 July 2023 20: 42
            And snuggle up to the ground is not a synonym for hiding in the folds of the terrain?
            And the launch of an ATGM with PMA is possible only if there is a line of sight.
            And the air carrier of the Lancets will be able to strike at a target hidden from direct observation.
            And besides, he will be able to hit an undiscovered target.
            I n5 propose to replace.
            To complement.
            The reality is that it is easier to tape the Lancet to something volatile than to establish a direct transmission of operational information from the intelligence officer to the executor. As stated in the article.
            1. +2
              8 July 2023 23: 17
              And snuggle up to the ground is not a synonym for hiding in the folds of the terrain?


              No.

              And the launch of an ATGM with PMA is possible only if there is a line of sight.
              And the air carrier of the Lancets will be able to strike at a target hidden from direct observation.
              And besides, he will be able to hit an undiscovered target.


              You simply do not understand the purpose and tasks of a combat helicopter.
              1. 0
                9 July 2023 10: 01
                I perfectly understand the purpose and tasks of an attack helicopter. And I also understand that with the short-range air defense density that can be created today over the Battlefield, the activity of helicopters is extremely limited and very dangerous. The lives of pilots are not a bargaining chip.
                1. +4
                  9 July 2023 10: 14
                  I perfectly understand the purpose and tasks of an attack helicopter. And I also understand that with the short-range air defense density that can be created today over the Battlefield, the activity of helicopters is extremely limited and very dangerous. The lives of pilots are not a bargaining chip.


                  Yes, you did not understand anything. With the right tactics, even using the Shturm ATGMs, whose declared range is less than that of the Attack, you can work completely safely.
                  The trouble is that the ATGM is not enough.
                  1. 0
                    9 July 2023 15: 57
                    Do you want to say that there are not enough missiles ????
                    1. +1
                      10 July 2023 10: 21
                      Do you want to say that there are not enough missiles ????


                      And you look at the photos and videos of how they go on combat missions. Charging 2, maximum 4 ATGMs, or even without them at all.
                      1. 0
                        12 July 2023 11: 41
                        This is not from a lack of missiles. This is such a tactic. Save on iron. Alas. Nothing has changed for hundreds of years.
                2. 0
                  9 July 2023 14: 32
                  with the tactics that helicopters are now using, only medium and short-range air defense systems are dangerous to them, but their enemy is afraid to turn them on, fearing being hit by anti-aircraft missiles, and you can’t get helicopters MANPADS.
                  1. 0
                    9 July 2023 16: 13
                    Quote: vova1973
                    with the tactics that helicopters are now using, only medium and short-range air defense systems are dangerous to them, but their enemy is afraid to turn them on, fearing being hit by anti-aircraft missiles, and you can’t get helicopters MANPADS.


                    In a MANPADS/helicopter duel, MANPADS win in 75% of cases. Statistics. It's just much easier for an anti-aircraft gunner to hide on the ground than for a helicopter in the sky.
                    1. +2
                      10 July 2023 10: 23
                      In a MANPADS/helicopter duel, MANPADS win in 75% of cases. Statistics. It's just much easier for an anti-aircraft gunner to hide on the ground than for a helicopter in the sky.


                      What the hell duel. At a distance of more than 1 km and with a helicopter height of no more than 15 m, not a single MANPADS will reach it.
                      1. 0
                        12 July 2023 11: 43
                        It strongly depends on the area.
                        And from the training of the operator. And from the organization of the service.
                        A modern MANPADS is a fairly efficient machine.
          2. 0
            8 July 2023 21: 23
            By the way, the AMTSh in the photo has 3 pylons on the plane and a place for equipment for "Vitebsk", a competent decision, unlike how it was done on the Mi-24.
    2. 0
      9 July 2023 02: 40
      :)
      Quote: garri-lin
      Plus two lancets in the reconnaissance configuration.

      Well, what will you do if the scouts are shot down? UAV loitering over the battlefield, the goal is not the easiest, but not prohibitively difficult either. You get a strike complex worth millions and millions with a bunch of people on board (two pilots, two reconnaissance drone operators, two shock drone operators, 6 people minimum) critically dependent on two vulnerable devices located in the most dangerous zone - above the battlefield .

      Quote: garri-lin
      Upon discovery, a blow with Lancets follows. And the turntable does not need to be substituted for this.

      Why do you need a helicopter for this? :) All this can be mounted in the back of a truck in the same way. And it will be cheaper and safer.


      Quote: garri-lin
      Cover the direction from the impact of armored vehicles.
      Free hunting.


      They will shoot down. How to drink to give knocked down. The helicopter is not very shown to glow in the air defense coverage area. And what about the scheme for searching for a target by loitering UAVs, and even in the free hunting mode, that is, without primary target designation? They will shoot down.
      1. 0
        9 July 2023 10: 09
        If two scouts are shot down, then two targets will already be detected. Moreover, the profile goals of air defense. Which shock lancets will be destroyed.
        Good exchange.
        Plus, the Lancet itself, in the form of barrage ammunition, can conduct reconnaissance. Extremely limited in terms of the capabilities of optics, but it can.
        It is not necessary to make a child prodigy with a bunch of people on board.
        Pilot. Weapon operator. And their cabins. Plus a reconnaissance operator in a converted troop compartment. Nobody else is needed.

        There are many things you can do on a truck. But this will only be effective where the truck can go. And we are talking about helicopters that are much more mobile than trucks
        So the fact of the matter is that such an air platform may not be included in the air defense zone. And maybe, just when used correctly, they will be engaged in hunting for enemy air defense. Working in a band with regular drummers.
        1. 0
          9 July 2023 16: 09
          Quote: garri-lin
          If two scouts are shot down, then two targets will already be detected. Moreover, the profile goals of air defense. Which shock lancets will be destroyed.


          And further? The system will go blind. The Lancet is not a fast car. Until it flies 10 km (and the Mi-7N and Ka-28 are already working on 52), the target situation will change. And the Lancet will fly to where there is no one else. Or where they are already waiting.

          Quote: garri-lin
          Plus, the Lancet itself, in the form of barrage ammunition, can conduct reconnaissance. Extremely limited in terms of the capabilities of optics, but it can.


          Maybe. But he must fly in circles for a long time. Looking for goals. At the same time, while maintaining a communication channel with the board. They will shoot down.

          Quote: garri-lin
          It is not necessary to make a child prodigy with a bunch of people on board.
          Pilot. Weapon operator. And their cabins. Plus a reconnaissance operator in a converted troop compartment. Nobody else is needed.


          And how will one operator track two scouts? Man, you know, a single-headed creature and by nature is not designed to process two independent visual streams. If you want two reconnaissance UAVs, then you need two operators. Otherwise, there is a risk that by switching attention from channel to channel, the operator will miss the target. Which is unacceptable.
          Accordingly, two strike drone operators are needed. You will not launch two scouts in one place. You will spread from the observation zone at least along the front. Well, what will one striker operator do when he receives target designation from two places at once? What is more important to choose?
          So it turns out 6 people. Two in the cockpit, and two in the compartment per channel. And this is the minimum. There will be more in real life.

          Quote: garri-lin
          There are many things you can do on a truck. But this will only be effective where the truck can go.


          The range of the Lancet is 40-60 km. The truck has enough options for where to go. The helicopter is more mobile, but it is much more expensive, there are fewer of them, and they have specific tasks. Why burden this platform with a non-specific task that can be done from a cheap and simple platform? Now it is important for the helicopter to be above the target, otherwise it is not visible. But in the scheme with the UAV, the scout does not need to lift the platform into the air, the "eyes" of the system themselves fly above the target. In addition, the ground platform is less limited in load. She may have several backup reconnaissance UAVs and a much larger ammunition load.
          1. 0
            12 July 2023 12: 05
            The lancet is not slow. The cruiser speed for the barrage ammunition mode is about 100 km per hour. However, if the coordinates of the target are known and there is no need to hang in the air for a long time, the speed can be maximum. And this is 300 km/h. Flying time 2-4 minutes. At quite operational ranges.
            Now, who can shoot down the Lancet and with what??? MANPADS do not take it. Therefore, it must be complex. Which immediately becomes the target.
            Why would an operator track two scouts at the same time ???
            One in action, one in reserve.
            When a target is detected, the Lancet starts and follows the coordinates. At the last moment, the operator is distracted from reconnaissance, corrects the impact and switches back to the reconnaissance.
            It is the same as the weapon operator delpet on a conventional helicopter, but only outside the line of sight.
            It's strange why then helicopters fly if everything can be done from a truck ???
            Maybe because there are different targets for different weapons ???
  7. +2
    8 July 2023 13: 29
    Helicopters have already reached the maximum in terms of modernization. The future is for screwless machines, but such conceptually new engines have not yet been invented. request
  8. -1
    8 July 2023 15: 28
    Amer developed stealth helicopters. When, as in Russia, alternatively gifted generals adopted a coaxial Ka-52 with two propellers that glow 2 times more, and even without an armored cockpit
    1. 0
      8 July 2023 17: 22
      Your suggestions? Russia was unable to pull the development of the single-seat Ka-50, including due to the inability to provide it with modern electronics with a high degree of automation, and give you stealth technology ...
      1. 0
        9 July 2023 02: 43
        Quote: KERMET
        Russia was unable to pull the development of the single-seat Ka-50, including due to the inability to provide it with modern electronics with a high degree of automation


        Yes? And why, then, did the Kamovites swear an oath to make such a car back in the 70s? :) :) :)
        It's not about automation. But in man. One person is physically unable to split the creation and search for targets and pilot a helicopter. A single-seat attack helicopter is conceptually a utopia.
        1. +1
          9 July 2023 10: 19

          Yes? And why, then, did the Kamovites swear an oath to make such a car back in the 70s? :) :) :)
          It's not about automation. But in man. One person is physically unable to split the creation and search for targets and pilot a helicopter. A single-seat attack helicopter is conceptually a utopia.


          Wrong partially. It's not about the ordinary pilot, who coped well with the tasks mentioned. And the big-star old farts, in whom the Ka-50 caused a stupor on the topic, how will I confirm the class without a co-pilot on it? To whom will I transfer all my responsibilities? It won't work like that, let's get a co-pilot.
          1. 0
            9 July 2023 15: 52
            Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
            Wrong partially. It's not about the ordinary pilot, who coped well with the tasks mentioned. And the big-star old farts, in whom the Ka-50 caused a stupor on the topic, how will I confirm the class without a co-pilot on it? To whom will I transfer all my responsibilities? It won't work like that, let's get a co-pilot.



            Even the testers of the Kamov Design Bureau at the training ground could not cope with this task. Things did not reach ordinary pilots there. During test flights in an unknown target environment, the Kamov Design Bureau pilot at the training ground could find no more than 10-15% of the targets. If you have read Kamov's tales, don't believe it. In real life, it was the “big-stars” who frantically drowned for the Ka-52, over and over again extending the stages of the competition, which eventually turned into an outright farce. BUT no matter how much they pulled, the Ka-50 could not fight. In the cinema - yes, in combat - no.
            It got to the point that the Kamovites received a "brilliant proposal" to give the single-seat Ka-52 a separate reconnaissance-target designation helicopter. This is how the Ka-60 project appeared. However, even the Kamov generals' lobby was no longer able to explain such a trick to the customer. As a result, the Ka-50 was sent to the museum along with the concept. Simply because the Mi-28 at the same ranges in an unfamiliar environment worked out 90-95% of the targets. Moreover, he was ahead of the Kamov project at times by a year.
            Kamovites promised to make automatic target recognition. But it didn't work for them then, and it doesn't work now. They did not grow together with other automation either. For example, the target tracking machine, judging by the video on the Web, did not work for them. Correct me if I'm wrong. But in the absence of all these promised and failed systems, the pilot, being a man with one head and two eyes, physically could not simultaneously pilot the car and search for targets. And the point here is not in the old farts, but in neurophysiology. Milevtsy did not just make a two-seater car. They definitely knew from the experience of using attack versions of the Mi-24 in Afghanistan that one person could not cope with the control of an attack helicopter. This has been verified.
            1. 0
              9 July 2023 22: 29
              It is strange that G.I. Kuznetsov, at a meeting on the operation of the Mi-24P in Afghanistan at extremely low altitudes, argued the opposite - piloting, searching and attacking ground targets is carried out by the pilot and the operator cannot help him in this and is essentially a ballast.
              1. 0
                9 July 2023 22: 33
                The Su-50 complex was taken as the basis of the Ka-25 complex, which means that, even at higher speeds, the pilot is able to perform tasks, but not on the Ka-50 ... Here we are ...
                1. 0
                  10 July 2023 22: 53
                  Quote: KERMET
                  The Su-50 complex was taken as the basis for the Ka-25 complex, ...

                  Vice versa. On the Su-29, a complex was introduced from the Ka-50 with the Whirlwind ATGM.
                  1. 0
                    11 July 2023 22: 45
                    It was already later, and at the very beginning of the development of the V-80 (future Ka-50), the sight, the display system on the windshield and the television target tracking machine were taken from the Su-25
                    1. 0
                      12 July 2023 00: 05
                      Quote: KERMET
                      It was already later, and at the very beginning of the development of the V-80 (future Ka-50), the sight, the display system on the windshield and the television target tracking machine were taken from the Su-25

                      The Su-25 did not have a television device and a target tracking machine.
                      1. 0
                        12 July 2023 12: 24
                        We are talking about the Su-25T under development, its development went on almost at the same time as the Ka-50, so to save time, the Kamovites first took it from it, and then "shared" it
                        back with a ready-made missile system
            2. 0
              9 July 2023 22: 35
              Do not believe the stories of Kamovites, believe mine? And why would it? It was the Milevites who dragged out the competition, who lost it at all stages, in fact, slipping a raw helicopter in, not expecting competition
              1. 0
                10 July 2023 22: 54
                Quote: KERMET
                ... It was the Milevites who dragged out the competition, who lost it at all stages, in fact, slipping a raw helicopter in, not expecting competition

                No, both helicopters were unable to operate at night.
                1. 0
                  11 July 2023 22: 51
                  And what does this have to do with it? The competition was for an attack helicopter primarily to fight tanks, a kind of response to Apache
                  1. 0
                    12 July 2023 00: 12
                    Quote: KERMET
                    And what does this have to do with it? The competition was for an attack helicopter primarily to fight tanks, a kind of response to Apache

                    When the competition ended, the military already had a clear awareness of the need to fight tanks not only during the day, but also at night. None of the participants in the competition could do this, so there was no point in buying the winner of the competition for the military. But the night helicopter required a crew of two, and it was not known how the two-seat Kamov version would turn out. Therefore, under these conditions, it was unreasonable to abandon the development of the Mi-28, which was already a two-seater from the very beginning.
                    1. 0
                      12 July 2023 12: 06
                      And what is the impossibility of implementing a single-seat night version of the Ka-50?
                      In my opinion, the Ka-50 has only one drawback - the same Arbalet radar will not fit into its dimensions, but its use nullifies all stealth in night flights. In extreme cases, suspension modules and over-hub radars solve these problems (the question is whether the military-industrial complex can implement them)
                2. 0
                  11 July 2023 23: 47
                  The task of creating a round-the-clock complex was set by the military-industrial complex and could be solved already in the series, although the USSR did not have time to finish it
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. 0
              10 July 2023 11: 13

              Even the testers of the Kamov Design Bureau at the training ground could not cope with this task. Things did not reach ordinary pilots there. During test flights in an unknown target environment, the Kamov Design Bureau pilot at the training ground could find no more than 10-15% of the targets. If you have read Kamov's tales, don't believe it. In real life, it was the “big-stars” who frantically drowned for the Ka-52, over and over again extending the stages of the competition, which eventually turned into an outright farce. BUT no matter how much they pulled, the Ka-50 could not fight. In the cinema - yes, in combat - no.


              Let's not tell me tales. It so happened that I have much more knowledge and experience in this matter.
              For starters, do you know that the pilot did quite well on the IL-2 alone? And this is with much weaker navigation equipment.
              As for the test pilot, I completely agree, he could not cope with this task.
              But what's the matter, take an experienced Mi-24 pilot-operator from any combat unit, or a co-pilot with Mi-8, give at least an export program on the Ka-50, then they will cope with this task much better. Moreover, the crew of the Mi-28 testers also has every chance to surpass.
              And not because the test pilots are so bad, they just have a different job and other tasks.
              You also need to take into account the fact that every test pilot, before he became one, was a combat pilot. But in most cases, he either immediately got to the position of helicopter commander, or stayed in the right place (front) for a very short time. Therefore, his experience with cards is extremely weak.
              To be more precise, there is a certain degradation of skills from the school. What to do, such is the price for the fact that the task of navigating and finding a target is shifted to a subordinate.
              And the funny thing is that the same Mi-24V is not much different from the Ka-50. According to the instruction to the crew, the duties of navigation, the search for targets is assigned to the helicopter commander. And the front cockpit was originally conceived for a graduate of the school of ensigns, or even ShMAS.
              But since the time of the Mi-24A, big bosses, those same old farts, began to whine - we can’t fly alone, give a co-pilot, that is, a guide.
              So they went on about it, since then they have been putting a graduate of the school in the front cockpit, arguing that in the event of a war we can easily double the number of attack helicopters.
              This is about whether the pilot can work alone. Yes, it can be on the Ka-50, but it was best to assign it, either from the pilot-operators, or immediately after the school.

              Now for the competition itself. Such a big gap to say that there were clearly no fair conditions there, the Mi-28 crew clearly had “additional information”.
              And the competition itself would be organized in such a way as to present the Mi-28 in the best light. At the same time, this had nothing to do with real requirements.
              If you are not in the know, then the helicopter crew should not be engaged in an independent search for targets. Its task is to destroy the threats that the ground forces have identified during the fighting. And the special value of the helicopter is that it can operate at minimum distances from the front line of its troops. This is where the reaction time of the helicopter comes into play. And with this parameter in tandem cabins it is very sad. The launch of an ATGM is still a dance with tambourines.
              Also, do not forget the moment, helicopters do not fight alone, although in the Russian Federation this may not be the case, in the USSR the minimum outfit was a link, four cars.
              And in the same Afghanistan, only the pilot-operator of the leading machine was sweating, especially if the commander is just an application to the autopilot. For the rest of the pilot-operators, if the work of the NAR is of all concern, that the safety switches are turned on in time, and the ASO should be fired.
              1. 0
                11 July 2023 08: 35
                Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                Yes, it can be on the Ka-50, but it was best to assign it, either from the pilot-operators, or immediately after the school.

                And pilot a helicopter and at the same time keep the mark on the target?
                1. 0
                  11 July 2023 09: 30
                  And pilot a helicopter and at the same time keep the mark on the target?


                  What's so complicated?
                  1. 0
                    11 July 2023 09: 34
                    Good afternoon, I do not know - I'm clarifying.
                    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

                    What's so complicated?


                    And another question, in your opinion, how much worse and worse is the Mi-8AMTSh transport-combat helicopter compared to the Mi-24?
                    1. +1
                      11 July 2023 11: 31
                      And another question, in your opinion, how much worse and worse is the Mi-8AMTSh transport-combat helicopter compared to the Mi-24?


                      The armament of multi-purpose vehicles is carried out both in our country and in the USA. This story has been going on with us since the time of the Mi-4AV.

                      But, whatever one may say, ersatz. This is more support for combat helicopters.
                      Of course, there is a sense in them if there are enough ATGMs. And we don’t have enough for combat helicopters either.
                      1. 0
                        11 July 2023 13: 46
                        If we talk about Mi-8, then why ersatz?
                        More slow-moving, less maneuverable, and not such a booking?

                        Equipment and weapons, it’s fashionable to visit there the same as on the Mi-24.
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        The armament of multi-purpose vehicles is carried out both in our country and in the USA. This story has been going on with us since the time of the Mi-4AV.
                      2. 0
                        12 July 2023 09: 54
                        If we talk about Mi-8, then why ersatz?
                        More slow-moving, less maneuverable, and not such a booking?


                        That's why ersatz. First of all, that it was created for other purposes.
                      3. 0
                        12 July 2023 10: 34
                        There are two questions:
                        1. How much worse is it than the Mi-24, in mass use. Those. is it possible at
                        its mass use to neglect its lower characteristics.
                        2. How much better / worse is the Mi-24 than the Ka-52 (Ka-50), Mi-28.
        2. 0
          9 July 2023 22: 20
          Kamovites, if they promised something for the Ka-50, then they did it in another more economically and scientifically developed country.
          As for utopia, this question has already been answered positively by the employees of the State Research Center, GosNIIAS and the Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine. I think they were more competent in these matters than an unknown sofa expert.
          1. 0
            10 July 2023 22: 56
            Quote: KERMET
            As for the utopia, this question has already been answered positively by the employees of the State Research Institute, GosNIIAS and the Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine ...

            What is the concept of using a helicopter?
            1. 0
              11 July 2023 23: 02
              We are talking about the ability of one pilot to simultaneously pilot and search, target and attack targets
              1. 0
                12 July 2023 00: 19
                Quote: KERMET
                We are talking about the ability of one pilot to simultaneously pilot and search, target and attack targets

                This was within the framework of a certain concept for the use of a helicopter. Those same 10-15% and 90-95% are in a different concept for the use of a helicopter. Action at night is also another concept for using a helicopter.
                1. 0
                  12 July 2023 11: 58
                  Well, what would be the fundamental difference between the algorithm of actions of the Ka-50 pilot in day and night modes using the same Shkval complex (assuming that the military-industrial complex had created acceptable night vision equipment and thermal imagers by that time)?
                  Well, for example, here is the algorithm for combat use
                  http://www.virtalet-raf.narod.ru/journal/2/s30.html
      2. 0
        10 July 2023 22: 50
        Quote: KERMET
        Your suggestions? Russia was unable to pull the development of the single-seat Ka-50, including due to the inability to provide it with modern electronics with a high degree of automation, ...

        And no one could. If the range of tasks solved by a manned aircraft includes strikes against ground targets at low and ultra-low altitudes at night and / or in SMU, this is an aircraft with a crew of two.
        1. 0
          11 July 2023 23: 26
          Initially for the competition
          no one set such tasks for a promising attack helicopter. If that is the beginning of the 80s
          1. 0
            12 July 2023 00: 23
            Quote: KERMET
            Initially for the competition
            no one set such tasks for a promising attack helicopter. If that is the beginning of the 80s

            I do not argue with this. But by the time the competition ended, the need to perform the tasks of delivering strikes against ground targets at low and ultra-low altitudes at night and / or in SMU was already undeniable, and it was unreasonable to purchase equipment that did not provide these tasks.
            1. 0
              12 July 2023 11: 30
              Well, the Ka-50 itself, as a weapon platform, did not interfere with the solution of such problems and quite allowed to modernize its potential on production vehicles, but the collapse of the USSR crossed out its further development
        2. 0
          11 July 2023 23: 54
          They just didn’t have time, with the collapse of the USSR military-industrial complex, all work in this direction was suspended
    2. +2
      8 July 2023 22: 10
      And where did you get the idea that the Ka-52 propellers glow 2 times more? The propeller diameters and the number of blades are not the same.
  9. -3
    8 July 2023 15: 29
    the best serial helicopter is the Kawasaki ninja. For Amaterasu !!!
  10. 0
    8 July 2023 18: 04
    I think that all these measures are just prolonging the agony of attack manned aircraft. Drones, not by night be remembered, will take their toll.
  11. +1
    8 July 2023 22: 27
    For example, a combat helicopter can carry a pair of hypersonic ATGMs
    To obtain hypersonic speed at low altitudes, a breakthrough of fuel is required (seriously, not every BOPS has hypersonic speed when taking off from a tank barrel), it is unlikely that a helicopter will carry more than one such missile. In addition, it is extremely problematic to make it controllable in the lower layers of the atmosphere.
    I think that helicopter pilots should not mess with UAVs, they have their own tasks through the roof. It is better to organize interaction with the UAV operator by radio, and to ensure the required range, create an UAV repeater and place it every 120-150 km from the UAV control center (yes, we are not cameras, we do not have a repeater satellite for each long-range UAV) . But it makes sense to hang an observer UAV and a pair of kamikaze UAVs on a helicopter: this will allow you to cover the helicopter during the task from MANPADS operators (well, you can kill someone else if there is no MANPADS).
    1. 0
      9 July 2023 02: 51
      Quote: bk0010
      I think that helicopter pilots should not mess with UAVs, they have their own tasks through the roof. It is better to organize interaction with the UAV operator by radio, and to ensure the required range, create an UAV repeater and place it every 120-150 km from the UAV control center


      The Mi-28 was originally planned and is still planning to use UAVs to search for targets. There is a radio channel. There is no drone itself. Still, the helicopter is blind, you can see little and badly from it. The radar will solve some of the problems, but when will the Milevites launch the Mi-28M into the series. And again, what to do with a bunch of "the most superb and even coolest" Ka-52s on which to get new systems like on the Mi-28N during the modernization may simply not work out due to the design bureau's refusal to cooperate with weapon developers, as was the case during integration Attacks. So, I think we will see the integration of the UAV into the sighting system. You just need to wait until a full range of guided weapons is developed for the Mi-28M at a distance of more than 10 km, where the "eyes" of the 28\50 competition vehicles do not reach, and then, I believe, as part of the modernization, it can happen.
  12. -1
    9 July 2023 05: 18
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    Can you explain what is the difference between an ATGM and a "kamikaze" UAV like the same "Lancet"? Am I the only one who thinks that in the near future they will merge in ecstasy?


    The Lancet is a very low-speed ATGM, moreover, with a weak warhead. Even on new models, it is about 5 kg, while on ATGMs it is 7 kg or more.

    At the same time, the Lancet hits the Nazi armored vehicles from above, into the weakly protected upper part.
    1. +2
      9 July 2023 09: 59
      I don’t agree with you, watch the video on the channels, all the weaknesses of the Lancet are clearly visible there. not a specialist.
  13. 0
    10 July 2023 22: 43
    How could the RAH-66 Comanche show itself in the NWO zone?

    Like a normal helicopter.
    And what would happen if we were faced with inconspicuous machines?

    What is the point of guessing about something that does not exist in nature (inconspicuous helicopters)?
    Nevertheless, as it is, it is - the stealthy combat helicopters RAH-66 "Comanche" did not reach the battlefields

    And "Comanche" did not turn out to be inconspicuous either in the RL or in the IR ranges. Because of this, the Comanche project died, along with all the money spent on it.
    The solution to the problem may be the emergence of hypersonic ATGMs

    The author in his fantasies is well behind the times.
    The second direction is the use of ATGMs operating on the principle of "fire and forget", which belong to the third generation. Western designers have chosen this path. The use of such ATGMs allows the combat helicopter to emerge from behind cover (buildings, trees, hills, etc.) only for a short moment, capture the target, launch the ATGM, and then the combat helicopter can again hide in the terrain.

    The duration of the short moment of exit from behind cover and the range to the target at the same time?
  14. -1
    21 July 2023 00: 24
    In general, it can be confidently assumed that increasing the survivability of combat helicopters will require the abandonment of the use of unguided munitions


    Let me go on the couch and disagree.

    If we are talking about a high-precision strike, then it is quite possible to use drones.

    The only value of attack helicopters now lies not in the fact that they are designed to fight armored vehicles, but in the fact that they provide lethal support to ground forces.
  15. 0
    10 August 2023 08: 41
    good the most interesting article. I completely agree with the author. Plus definitely. I don't even know what to add. Covered the topic as much as possible.
    1. 0
      28 August 2023 08: 25
      Helicopters, due to their ability to land anywhere, do not always have to use their weapons from the air, for example, you can arm a transport helicopter with a mortar for firing from the ground, that is, they flew up at low altitude, sat down, fired a mortar (preferably automatic or multi-barreled from light alloys) fired a volley and flew away conversely, for counter-battery combat, this can be effective. By the way, mortar mines have always been and will be cheaper than rockets or shells of a similar caliber, and they can also be made controllable.
  16. 0
    2 October 2023 09: 48
    What functions should a helicopter currently perform on the battlefield - representatives of the ground forces can probably formulate this. Apparently, relaying UAV control signals is relevant, although there is a high risk for the crew and equipment.
  17. 0
    2 December 2023 00: 02
    As I understand it, our helicopters do not have enough eyes to control the targeting!
    These eyes could be a drone, which is hardly noticeable and not expensive, in principle, by launching, say, an ATGM from behind cover, the guidance of the missile can be controlled by this drone.