Military Review

Project Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche Scouting and Shock Helicopter closed

71
The creation of modern military technology is a complex, lengthy and expensive business. However, modern methods of development and design can reduce the risks, so that most of the recent projects have been fully implemented. However, there are exceptions. 10 years ago, the US Department of Defense decided to stop all work on the project of a promising reconnaissance and attack helicopter Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche. The project was developed for a long time and cost the Pentagon several billion dollars. However, after analyzing the current situation and prospects, it was closed.




The main prerequisite for the emergence of the RAH-66 helicopter is the 1982 report of the year, which analyzed the capabilities of existing US helicopter gunships. It stated that most of the armed vehicles could not effectively fulfill the assigned combat missions in the context of an armed conflict with the Warsaw Pact. The US armed forces needed a new car capable of overcoming the enemy’s air defenses, finding targets, and destroying them.

In the 1983 year, just a few months after the report was released, the Pentagon initiated the launch of the LHX program (Light Helicopter Experimental), the purpose of which was to create two helicopters based on a single design. One of them (known as the LHX-SCAT) was intended for reconnaissance and strikes, and the second (LHX-UTIL) was seen as a multi-purpose machine.

The new program immediately attracted the attention of aircraft manufacturers, since winning the competition implied signing several of the largest contracts for the supply of equipment. The ground forces alone, with the exception of the Air Force and the Marine Corps, planned to order up to 5 thousands of new helicopters. It was planned to buy LHX-SCAT 2900 helicopters for replacing AH-1, OH-6 and OH-58 helicopters, as well as more 2 LHX-UTIL thousand for replacing obsolete multi-purpose UH-1.

Nevertheless, the prospect of obtaining large contracts was complicated by the requirements of the military. The army wanted to get helicopters with unique characteristics, the development of which would require special efforts. It was necessary to ensure the lowest possible visibility in the radar, infrared and acoustic ranges. In addition, the maximum speed of the helicopter was to reach 400-450 km / h, which significantly exceeded the capabilities of all the existing machines at that time. The LHX-SCAT reconnaissance and attack helicopter was supposed to have a single cabin, a set of special equipment and a take-off weight of the order of 3800 kg. LHX-UTIL was designed to carry six people or 600 kg of cargo, had to be controlled by two pilots and be slightly larger than the modification SCAT.



Four leading US aircraft manufacturing companies submitted bids for the LHX competition. Bell, Boeing, Hughes and Sikorsky expressed their desire to develop a promising machine. The specialists of these organizations had their own opinions about the prospects for the development of helicopters, which led to the emergence of several projects with completely different looks. For example, the company "Sikorsky" offered a car with coaxial bearing screws and pushing tail. Such an arrangement was supposed to ensure the highest possible flight speed. It is noteworthy that the company Sikorsky continued to develop similar ideas in the future and is now engaged in a similar project S-97.

During the development of preliminary projects, it turned out that the creation of LHX helicopters with the required characteristics is quite a difficult task, which is why the participants of the competition were forced to join forces. The Boeing helicopter unit began working with Sikorsky, and Bell specialists began collaborating with colleagues from McDonnell Douglas, which included Hughes by this time. In the autumn of 1988, these two consortia received contracts for the continuation of work.

The task of this stage was to determine the possibility of fulfilling the requirements while maintaining the set values ​​of take-off weight and cost of the machine. In addition, the layout of the helicopters was checked and the first works on the integration of electronic equipment were carried out. At this stage, it became clear that the customer would have to soften the requirements for promising technology. Providing a maximum flight speed of over 350 km / h proved to be extremely difficult from a technical point of view. In addition, studies have shown that low-altitude flight at such speeds will be available only to highly qualified pilots.

The military changed the requirements for maximum speed, and also canceled the development of a multi-purpose helicopter LHX-UTIL. Since the mid-eighties, funding for the LHX program has been steadily declining, several times it has been proposed to stop work. Nevertheless, the program continued, although reduced. Due to limited financial capabilities, the Pentagon and the participating companies were forced to apply new methods of working out technical solutions. Most of the ideas and suggestions were tested using computer simulation. Some units and assemblies were tested on flying laboratories.

By the spring of 1991, the military determined who would develop the new helicopter, and then begin its mass production. Of the two proposed projects was chosen developed by the union of Boeing-Sikorsky. The project received a new name: RAH-66 Comanche. Like some previous American helicopters, the new car was named after one of the North American Indian tribes. In this case, the letter RAH was used for the first time in American practice. The helicopter, capable of equally well performing reconnaissance and shock missions, was given the appropriate designation - Reconnaisence and Attack Helicopter.



The development contract for the RAH-66 project was signed in April 1991. The choice of the developer made it possible to concentrate all efforts and direct all available funding to just one project, which, in particular, made it possible to begin full-scale tests of various systems proposed for use on a new machine. It should be noted that this possibility was extremely important, since the project had a greater degree of novelty and required checking or refining many proposals.

Designing a new helicopter took a lot of time. The first prototype of the Comanche helicopter was removed from the assembly shop of the Sikorsky plant only at the end of May 1995. A few months were spent on ground tests. The first flight was to take place at the end of 95, but was eventually moved to 4 on January 1996. As time has shown, the tests of two prototype prototypes built by the reconnaissance and attack helicopter were delayed for eight years.

One of the main requirements for the LHX / RAH-66 helicopter was a reduction in visibility for enemy detection equipment. For this reason, the Comanche helicopter received a number of specific features that distinguish it from other equipment of its class. Thus, the outer surface of the fuselage of the machine is formed by a large number of straight-line panels, interlinked with each other at different angles. A rotor hub fairing, a steering screw in an annular channel and a retractable chassis are used. For placement of weapons proposed to use the internal cargo compartments on the sides of the fuselage. At the same time, external compartment covers were equipped with pylons for armament suspension. The nose turret with a gun was supposed to unfold on 180 ° and place the barrels in a special casing-fairing.

To reduce visibility in the infrared range, the helicopter received an original exhaust cooling system. After exiting the engines, they mixed with cold atmospheric air and were thrown out through long slit nozzles located along the sides of the tail boom. This system was used for the first time in the United States. Prior to this, the reduction of heat produced was achieved using special nozzles for exhaust nozzles.

According to reports, the whole range of measures to reduce visibility has led to quite high results. So, in comparison with the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the effective scattering surface decreased by about 600 times. Comparison of these helicopters in thermal radiation shows a fourfold advantage of Comanche.

The main structural element of the RAH-66 helicopter is a long box girder, on which all units and fuselage skin panels are fixed. Most of the power elements and panels of the helicopter's skin were made of composite materials based on metals and plastics. An interesting feature of the fuselage design was the layout of the skin. About 40% of its panels were made removable and could be removed for servicing the internal units. Damage to the cladding panels while maintaining the integrity of the power kit did not affect the strength of the entire structure.




The layout of the fuselage length 14,4 m corresponded to modern views on the placement of units. In the bow there was a double cabin with a common lantern, as well as equipment compartment and a remote-controlled installation with an automatic gun. In the middle part of the fuselage were the engines, the main gearbox, part of the equipment and the internal weapon compartments. The tail boom was given for placement of some units. To reduce the visibility of the steering screw with a diameter of 1,37 m, place it inside the annular channel, and the horizontal tail set on the top of the keel.

A retractable three-point chassis was located in the middle and rear fuselage. The main racks were retracted by turning back, tail - by turning forward. The design of the struts and shock absorbers made it possible to absorb part of the impact energy during landing with increased vertical speed. In addition, in the parking position, the racks could partially retract, reducing the parking height of the machine relative to the full 3,4 m.

Initially, the LHX helicopter was supposed to have one turboshaft engine, but later it was decided to use a more reliable twin-engine powerplant. In the mid-eighties, a competition was launched for the development of a promising helicopter engine, in which the development of LHTEC won. In the middle part of the fuselage of the RAH-66 helicopter, under the rotor, were installed two T800-LXT-801 engines with an 1560 horsepower X. Auxiliary power unit WTS124 is provided, located between the main engines and used as a starter and means of ensuring the operation of some systems.

In the middle part of the fuselage there was a rotor hub, equipped with a fairing. The rotor with a diameter of 11,9 m had five blades, completely made of composites. In terms of the blades had a rectangular shape, as well as equipped with arrow-shaped ending. It was argued that the main rotor maintains performance even when large-caliber small rifles hit weapons.

In the forward part of the fuselage was a double crew cabin with a tandem arrangement of pilots. An interesting fact is that the pilot was in the front cockpit, and the weapon operator was located in the rear. This non-standard location of the pilots was used to ensure the best possible view from the commander's cabin.



Both cabins had the same instrumentation. Both pilots had a set of flight instruments and a complete set of controls. The main element of the dashboards of both cabins were two LCD displays with dimensions 200х150 mm. The left monochrome screen was designed to output the video signal from surveillance systems, the right color screen to display navigation, flight and tactical information. In addition, there were several smaller monochrome displays in the booths. At the bottom of the dashboard installed keyboard to enter the necessary information.

An important element of the onboard equipment of the RAH-66 helicopter became pilot helmets with a helmet-mounted indication system. The helmet system, depending on the mode of operation, could display information about flight parameters, a three-dimensional map, an image from surveillance systems, etc. Thus, using the helmet-mounted shield, the commander could receive the information necessary for piloting, and the operator could use the armament without being distracted by the dashboard.

The cockpit had a set of protection. Pilot seats were covered with light bulletproof armor. To protect against chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, a small overpressure was maintained in the cabin. The system of pressurization also protected the compartments of electronic equipment.

The avionics of the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche helicopter was located in one nose compartment, located under the operator’s cabin, and two tailguns. In the avionics of the helicopter used only digital equipment. The basis of radio-electronic equipment were two digital computers that ensured the interaction of other equipment and the processing of all necessary information. To simplify production, the BREO complex on the 70% was compatible with the equipment of the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor fighter.

In view of the reconnaissance mission, the helicopter received a set of means of detection, communication and data transmission. To determine its own coordinates and locations of detected objects, RAH-66 received a combined (satellite and inertial) navigation system. The helicopter was supposed to carry a radar station, which is a development of the Longbow system used on the latest modifications of AH-64 helicopters. Provided infrared and television viewing systems of the front hemisphere, as well as a laser for highlighting targets. Optical-electronic systems made it possible to observe a sector with a width of 52 ° in azimuth and 35 ° in elevation.

An interesting feature of the Comanche avionics has become the algorithms for working in the search mode and target attack. It is assumed that to increase the survivability of the helicopter should not leave the shelter for a long time. In this case, the crew must climb to the required height, conduct a scan of the terrain and again hide in the folds of the terrain. The equipment “remembers” the collected information, thanks to which the operator can find the target and without any risk prepare for an attack. In the memory of the onboard systems there were signatures of the main targets, objects and equipment of both the enemy and the NATO countries. It was assumed that the automatic recognition of the type of object will reduce the likelihood of fire on their own.



The RAH-66 helicopter was capable of both independently attacking targets and transmitting information about them to other units. Information was transmitted over a noise-free radio channel.

To control the helicopter, it was proposed to use a two-channel digital radio-tracking system with triple redundancy. Used EDSU could be used in three modes. In the first, she did not automatically take into account the flight parameters, completely transferring control of the machine to the pilot. In the second mode, the automatics, based on data from various sensors, helped the pilot to maintain a given speed and altitude, and also controlled the power plant and parameters of the propellers. The third mode is a full-fledged autopilot, interacting with the weapon control system. In this case, the automatics could independently withdraw the helicopter to the combat course and carry out the attack of the indicated target. To control the engines used a separate digital system.

The RAH-66 helicopter's built-in armament consisted of one XM301 automatic cannon with a rotating block of barrels. The gun had three barrel caliber 20 mm. Ammunition guns - 320 or 500 shells. The gun was mounted on a turning turret, which allows shelling targets in the forward hemisphere. When firing at air targets, the XM301 can make up to 1500 shots per minute. To defeat ground targets was used half the pace.

An interesting feature of the turret was the used transport position. To reduce the visibility of the helicopter, if necessary, the gun barrel was turned back along the flight and placed in a special casing. Due to limited volumes inside the nose of the helicopter, the project authors had to use an interesting ammunition system. The drum shop on 500 shells is located under the operator’s cabin, at a sufficiently large distance from the cannon. Supply of ammunition was carried out using a special conveyor.

Missile armament was proposed to be transported in the airborne cargo compartments. The dimensions of these compartments were determined by the dimensions of the AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles and the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air. In addition, the helicopter could use unguided Hydra 70 missiles. The development of new weapons specifically for the RAH-66 helicopter was not planned. For the suspension of weapons it was proposed to use the holders on the side flaps-hatches of cargo compartments. Before using the weapon, the sash should have been raised to a horizontal position. Each of them had three suspension assemblies.

To increase firepower, the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could use the EFAMS suspension system. It consisted of two wings mounted on the sides of a helicopter. The suspension assemblies on these wings increased the total ammunition of rocket armament, making it possible to solve more complex shock tasks. In this case, however, the installation of the wings to some extent reduced the maximum speed of flight.

The initial technical task of the LHX project involved the creation of a helicopter with a take-off weight of about 3800 kg. Ready "Comanche" turned out much more difficult. The mass of the empty helicopter exceeded 4200 kg, normal takeoff - 5800 kg. The maximum take-off weight reached 7900 kg, which is more than twice the initial requirements. However, the technical task has changed several times in accordance with the results of new research and calculations.



The tests, which started at the very beginning of 1996, allowed the flight data of the new helicopter to be established. The maximum speed reached 324 km / h. After installing the fairing of the supra-sleeve radar, which had the shape of a truncated cone, the maximum speed dropped to 317 km / h. The suspension of the additional wings of the EFAMS also reduced the flight speed by about 20 km / h. Cruising speed without a headset antenna reached 296 km / h. With antenna - 275 km / h. The practical ceiling of the helicopter is 5 km, the static one is 3,5 km. Due to economical engines and volumetric internal fuel tanks, the helicopter's practical range was brought to 900 km. Ferry range - 2335 km.

The project RAH-66 was one of those developments, the fate of which was affected by the collapse of the ATS and the USSR, as well as other geopolitical changes of the late eighties and early nineties. Reducing the cost of promising projects has affected the development of a new helicopter. So, by the mid-nineties, plans for the purchase of Comanches had been reduced from 5000 to 1300 units. In the future, the issue of new reductions in planned purchases was repeatedly raised. In addition, the changing views of the military. Since the start of the design work, the customer has repeatedly changed the requirements for a promising machine. Several times in the assignment there was a bias towards reconnaissance or strike capabilities.

Testing, refinement and refinement of various systems promising helicopter continued until the end of 2003 year. By this time, discussions on the feasibility of the project began again in the US ruling circles. Supporters of the RAH-66 helicopter appealed to its high performance and versatility. Opponents, in turn, pressed on the financial side of work. By this time, about 7 billions of dollars had been spent on the development and testing of the Comanche helicopter. Taking into account further work and construction of serial equipment, the total cost of the project could pass for 40 billions.

Numerous discussions have mentioned other arguments against the new helicopter. It was noted that the development of the machine was delayed for more than two decades, and the repeated refinements of the technical specifications can not provide the required relevance of the project. In addition, critics reminded of the military use of helicopters in Afghanistan and Iraq, believing that the characteristics of the new RAH-66 are insufficient or redundant to solve certain tasks. It was also noted that reconnaissance operations can be conducted by unmanned aerial vehicles and do not require the creation of specialized helicopters.

The fate of the project RAH-66 Comanche was decided 24 February 2004, when the leadership of the American Ministry of Defense decided to stop all work. The closure of the project hit the Pentagon’s budget. In order to compensate for the premature termination of the development, the military department was forced to pay compensation to Boeing and Sikorsky companies in the amount of about 1 billion dollars.

By the time the project was closed, two prototype helicopters were built. Machines with dismantled equipment a few years later were transferred to Aviation US Army Museum (Fort Rucker, Alabama). The developments on the RAH-66 project did not disappear. Ideas and solutions created during the development of the new helicopter are now used in new projects of helicopter technology. Some items of equipment were later offered for use on new versions of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. In addition, in the future it is planned to develop a new helicopter, which will replace the existing equipment. Perhaps this machine will become a direct development of the Comanche, which ten years ago did not suit the military and politicians.


On the materials of the sites:
http://airwar.ru/
http://boeing.com/
http://army-technology.com/
http://militaryfactory.com/
http://popmech.ru/
http://worldweapon.ru/
http://aviastar.org/
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 11 December 2014 06: 53
    -6
    Not so bad, we also have: The Ka-60 Kasatka is a project of the Russian medium-sized multi-purpose military transport helicopter. The Ka-60 was intended to deliver ammunition and weapons to the combat area, patrol, search and rescue operations, evacuate the wounded, train flight personnel, as well as transport and drop paratroopers and aerial reconnaissance. Subsequently, the project was developed in the form of a civil multi-purpose helicopter Ka-62 of the development of the holding Russian Helicopters
    1. Parabelum
      Parabelum 11 December 2014 08: 03
      22
      I'm wildly sorry, but where does the "Killer Whale"? The Ka-60 is more of a transport helicopter than an attack and reconnaissance helicopter. Incorrect comparison in my opinion.
      1. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 11 December 2014 08: 14
        +8
        MI 8 is also a transport helicopter, and as practice has shown, it still has teeth and delivers fighters.
        1. corporal
          corporal 11 December 2014 09: 41
          +9
          Following your logic: "Muscovite" can also drive on the roads (you can also load a few packs of potatoes into the trunk), so why not create a "Ferrari".
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 11 December 2014 11: 51
            +4
            Well no. He's just right. At first we had the Mi-2KR, then the Mi-8K came to replace it. Which didn't really satisfy the artillery. Then we tried the Mi-24K, which is "Virage". Due to the characteristics of the helicopter, the gunners were also unhappy.

            The promising modernized "Virage-1M" and the new "Model", as well as the "Gorkovchanin" radar complex, should have had the "Kasatka" as the base machine

            Now the analogue of "Gorkovchanin" is made on the basis of an unmanned helicopter, recently presented to the public. For the rest, there is no information in the public domain.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. MolGro
      MolGro 11 December 2014 12: 18
      +5
      If we compare, that is, examples are better!


      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 11 December 2014 13: 06
        +1
        These are attack helicopters with all the consequences.
  2. lonovila
    lonovila 11 December 2014 07: 23
    +1
    -Maybe I'm wrong .., but the helicopters of this American company were preferred by the Indians to our Russian helicopters ... -And they signed an agreement with the Americans on the supply of their combat helicopters, but the Indians simply ... "forgot" about our helicopters .. ...
    -And what happens ... -Indians buy American helicopters .., the project of which is closed ..? -And "close" their Hindu eyes to this ..? -What, American helicopters are so good .. compared to ours ..? - Or did the Americans give the Indians a significant "discount" in payment ..? -It's incomprehensible ...
    - Quite ...
    1. core
      core 11 December 2014 08: 00
      +8
      I think the Indians are buying Apache An-64, not Comanche. who will sell the prospect and new technologies.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 11 December 2014 08: 57
      +1
      The Americans are selling the brand new Sikorsky 60 in the PLO variant - there is simply nothing to cover the ROE with. Ka-28 dropped out during the selection - for this is 80. There is really no new side - the Ka-27M is conditionally ready, the first helicopters in Kumertau came to the redo, but on the PLO there is still work and work.
  3. Magic archer
    Magic archer 11 December 2014 08: 05
    +2
    The very idea of ​​Comanche was wrong. Why create an invisible helicopter if it can be shot down by a native from the DShK?! How hurt for future helicopters this is certainly a plus, but as a combat unit, this is a failure and another drain of budget money.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 11 December 2014 09: 12
      +7
      Quote: Magic Archer
      The very idea of ​​Comanche was wrong. Why create an invisible helicopter if a native from DShK can shoot it down ?!

      Not really. The main threat to helicopters at that time was MANPADS and stealth technology here absolutely did not save. Not only that, the Americans themselves already had Stingers that were guided not only by IR radiation, but also by reflected UV radiation, no exhaust coolers here help ... Therefore, the bonus in the form of stealth for radar was clearly superfluous.
      Kamovtsi really looked into the future by creating a single armored attack helicopter. An armored, optionally manned vehicle is the future of attack helicopters. The Ka-50 was the first step towards this. Comanch is a dead end branch that the Americans themselves recognized by abandoning it.
      1. Metlik
        Metlik 11 December 2014 13: 00
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        An armored, optionally manned vehicle is the future of attack helicopters.

        Is it possible to securely book a helicopter from MANPADS? I doubt it. Helicopter is the right machine, but it is not a front line fighter. On the events in Ukraine and Iraq, the combat use of a helicopter needs to be reviewed.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 December 2014 13: 14
          +4
          Quote: Metlik
          Is it possible to securely book a helicopter from MANPADS?

          What for? Isn't it easier to equip helicopters with counteraction complexes? Starting with simple simulator shooting systems and ending with missile defense systems similar to tank ones.
          1. Metlik
            Metlik 11 December 2014 19: 48
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            What for? Isn't it easier to equip helicopters with counteraction complexes? Starting with simple simulator shooting systems and ending with missile defense systems similar to tank ones.

            I agree that such funds are needed, but a helicopter will always remain a slow (compared to an airplane and a missile) light target, and MANPADS also do not stand still and are improving.
            It seems to me that a helicopter on a modern battlefield, primarily a mobile carrier of ground forces, or a destroyer of armored vehicles from maximum distances, is contraindicated to fly close to the enemy.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2014 20: 45
              +1
              Quote: Metlik
              I agree that such funds are needed, but a helicopter will always remain a slow (compared to an airplane and a missile) light target, and MANPADS also do not stand still and are improving.

              Means of destruction also do not stand still. "Helfair-2" at 9 km. work. Do you know a lot of MANPADS capable of hitting targets at such ranges?
              1. Metlik
                Metlik 11 December 2014 22: 33
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Means of destruction also do not stand still. "Helfair-2" at 9 km. work. Do you know a lot of MANPADS capable of hitting targets at such ranges?

                But Nurses still put, and 30mm guns. What for? Iron green? This is a good chance to lose a car. They need to be replaced with barrage of ammunition. Arrived - threw off a great height and immediately back. Only we do not have them yet in mass production.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 11 December 2014 22: 43
                  +1
                  Quote: Metlik
                  But Nurses still put, and 30mm guns. What for? Iron green?

                  Yes, iron the green stuff. Shoot down the rear columns. In short, destroy what does not "bite"
                  1. Metlik
                    Metlik 11 December 2014 23: 07
                    0
                    MANPADS and are created for "non-killing" parts. The "biters" have more serious means, such as torus or beech. Who can say whether a soldier has MANPADS in the bushes or not?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 11 December 2014 23: 41
                      +1
                      Is it? You are confusing something. MANPADS is in service with anti-aircraft batteries of anti-aircraft artillery divisions of motorized rifle brigades. That is, the most that neither is "biting".
                      1. Metlik
                        Metlik 11 December 2014 23: 57
                        +1
                        They were at the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, at the Chechens, at the militia of New Russia. Anyone can have them.
      2. sergey261180
        sergey261180 11 December 2014 19: 43
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        the bonus in the form of stealth for the radar was clearly superfluous.

        And here is not superfluous. In 1991, Apache was used in Iraq to destroy anti-aircraft missile systems. There, they flew at night at extremely low altitude, being unnoticed by the radar.
        Quote: Nayhas
        Kamovtsi really looked into the future by creating a single armored attack helicopter.

        The Ka-50 is good at assault operations such as assaulting a city — it's like a tank. Kamanch - he is a commando.
  4. Professor
    Professor 11 December 2014 08: 44
    +5
    Beautiful helicopter, futuristic. good
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 11 December 2014 08: 55
      +7
      Quote: Professor
      Beautiful helicopter, futuristic. good

      Yes. But the Ka-50 concept was more promising.
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 December 2014 08: 57
        +5
        Quote: Nayhas
        Yes. But the Ka-50 concept was more promising

        Ka-52 is my favorite helicopter. Here I can’t be objective.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 11 December 2014 09: 13
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          Ka-52 is my favorite helicopter. Here I can’t be objective.

          I do not agree, the Ka-52 is a concession to narrow-minded skeptics, the degradation of the advanced Ka-50.
          1. avt
            avt 11 December 2014 10: 22
            +2
            Quote: Nayhas
            I do not agree, the Ka-52 is a concession to narrow-minded skeptics, the degradation of the advanced Ka-50.

            good The fifty-kopeck piece inspires! The trouble is in the lobbying war and the fact that it really needs to be invested in on-board equipment, and there were problems with it, aggravated by the "dashing" 90s. Regarding the helicopter from the article, they were written off because they received a new toy from "Sikorsky" while in the form layout, well, the one with a pushing screw and a coaxial scheme. Right now, they will be bugging on it until the flight model, and then as the chip falls down - maybe the model of the flying saucer will be rolled out, but this is their problem and someone has not sourly rolled it into their pocket with a penalty - ,,. In compensation for the premature termination of development, the military department was forced to pay compensation to Boeing and Sikorsky in the amount of about $ 1 billion. "----- for such a bakshish and not so close they could.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 11 December 2014 15: 30
              +2
              Quote: avt
              Right now they’ll loot it on it until the flight model, and then it will fall like a chip - maybe the layout of the flying saucer will be rolled out, but this is their problem and it was someone who didn’t sour their pocket from the forfeit

              Do you seriously believe that without significant costs you can step into the future?
              It doesn’t happen that they’ll necessarily create something breakthrough with the allocated money ... Often you get a zilch, but if out of ten, one turns out to be what you need, then the money was not wasted. The same is true in any industry ...
          2. Professor
            Professor 11 December 2014 10: 42
            +7
            Quote: Nayhas
            I do not agree, the Ka-52 is a concession to narrow-minded skeptics, the degradation of the advanced Ka-50.

            Single machine is a half machine. There is clearly a lack of a second crew member.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 11 December 2014 15: 42
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              Single machine is a half machine. There is clearly a lack of a second crew member.

              Well, yes ... in the matter of piloting and reaching the target, the technician will quite manage herself, because your UAVs are because the UAVs are flying by themselves. Far from the whole route requires the participation of the operator. What was the main duty of the navigator? Navigation! Sorry, but in our time the role of the navigator has become obsolete. One person can search for targets and guide them to target the SD, so it works on the A-10 (and not only on it). One person is capable of controlling unmanned vehicles from a helicopter while being at a safe distance from the target, receiving data about the target, entering these data into the SD, reaching the target, starting and leaving. There are many options ... but a second person is not needed here ...
              1. Professor
                Professor 11 December 2014 16: 27
                +5
                Quote: Nayhas
                What was the main duty of the navigator? Navigation!

                He has not been called a navigator for a long time, but as the operator of the use of weapons or something like that. Lying at a deadly low altitude and using the weapon itself is not good.

                Quote: Nayhas
                One person can search for targets and guide them to target the SD, so it works on the A-10 (and not only on it).

                No, it’s not good. In Israel you will not find a single idyllic airplane for this very reason.

                Quote: Nayhas
                One person is capable of controlling unmanned vehicles from a helicopter while being at a safe distance from the target, receiving data about the target, entering these data into the SD, reaching the target, starting and leaving. There are many options ... but a second person is not needed here ...

                Not able to. Even two drones are controlled by two, there are three crew in the tank, and you propose to put Superman in the cockpit.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 11 December 2014 19: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Even two drones are controlled by two, there are three crew in the tank, and you propose to put Superman in the cockpit.

                  And who is bothering to similarly control a helicopter with a person? Remember there was such a fantastic film where the children of the operators drove cars with criminals who fought out of the car. Those. the operator sits on the ground and controls the aircraft, and the pilot (or what to call him ...) is fighting ...
                  Communication tools allow you to do this, even if the connection is broken, the pilot can independently return the car to the base by going to manual control. It will also be possible to use the helicopter fully in an unmanned version.
                  And then the Ka-50 is the best. We already have experience in converting manned vehicles into unmanned ones .... not with us, but there is ... The Ka-50 had a large reserve for modernization that was spent on creating a two-seat version ...
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 11 December 2014 20: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    And who is bothering to similarly control a helicopter with a person?

                    Here it is necessary to decide either manned or unmanned. The hybrid will not work. Which pilot agrees to remote control?

                    Quote: Nayhas
                    We already have experience in converting manned vehicles into unmanned ones .... not with us, but there is ... The Ka-50 had a large reserve for modernization that was spent on creating a two-seat version ...

                    IMHO it is easier to remake the drone from scratch from scratch.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 11 December 2014 20: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Here it is necessary to decide either manned or unmanned. The hybrid will not work. Which pilot agrees to remote control?

                      People easily agree to total control by the computers of their car. Even such an intimate process as inhibition.


                      At the present stage of the development of electronics, there are no problems with creating a single-seat attack helicopter.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 20: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        People easily agree to total control by the computers of their car. Even such an intimate process as inhibition.

                        A computer, but not another person sitting at a remote control with a cup of coffee.

                        Quote: Spade
                        At the present stage of the development of electronics, there are no problems with creating a single-seat attack helicopter.

                        There is. And even the most advanced country in terms of electronics flies in two-seat combat helicopters despite the fact that pilot training costs a ton of money.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 21: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        A computer, but not another person sitting at a remote control with a cup of coffee.

                        Is not a modern computer capable of replacing an operator of weapons? Even as capable. As well as to take on most of the operations for which the helicopter pilot is now distracted.


                        Quote: Professor
                        And even the most advanced country in terms of electronics flies in two-seat combat helicopters

                        And he can’t fasten the loading mechanism to his tank ...

                        Traditions...
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 21: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Is not a modern computer capable of replacing an operator of weapons? Even as capable. As well as to take on most of the operations for which the helicopter pilot is now distracted.

                        Sounds like a slogan. In practice, there is no artificial intelligence yet. When appears then we’ll talk. I doubt that my generation will find the time when the machine itself will decide on the use of weapons.
                        With a tank price of $ 10 million, the crew is 3 people. One is not capable of driving a tank and firing? wink

                        Quote: Spade
                        And he can’t fasten the loading mechanism to his tank ...

                        Doesn't want to. Considers not appropriate-damned pragmatists.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 21: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Sounds like a slogan. In practice, there is no artificial intelligence yet.

                        Why is artificial intelligence here? The system has detected and highlighted. The pilot marked. The system hit. Belarusians are already screwing such things onto portable second-generation ATGMs.


                        Quote: Professor
                        Doesn't want to. Considers not appropriate-damned pragmatists.

                        Pragmatists would have long given up. Traditionalists, no.
                      5. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 21: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Why is artificial intelligence here? The system has detected and highlighted. The pilot marked. The system hit. Belarusians are already screwing such things onto portable second-generation ATGMs.

                        Here is the pilot. Is this one that, with multiple overloads, in the meantime evades air defense missiles? Have you seen how it looks from the cockpit?

                        Quote: Spade
                        Pragmatists would have long given up. Traditionalists, no.

                        It is pragmatists, they do not refuse to charge, but from the tank itself.
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 21: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Is this one that, with multiple overloads, in the meantime evades air defense missiles?

                        Helicopter pilot? And he "shies away" a lot, and with what success?
                      7. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 21: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Helicopter pilot? And he "shies away" a lot, and with what success?

                        And the helicopter pilot is also overloaded. That's right about success. Because drones are preferable.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 21: 48
                        0
                        Drones? Drones are cool. Until the enemy clogs the air with interference tightly. And it will not begin to work actively on such easily detectable objects as control centers for these drones. As well as the air bases from which these drones take off.
                      9. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 21: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Drones? Drones are cool. Until the enemy clogs the air with interference tightly.

                        It is impossible to clog the air with interference. Explain on the fingers why? (hello to Shamanov wink )

                        Quote: Spade
                        And it will not begin to work actively on such easily detectable objects as control centers for these drones.

                        You have simply never seen the "drone control centers". For the air rider, this is a knapsack on the fighter's back. Well, a very "easily detectable object" ... laughing
                        At Hermes, this is a booth similar to the one on Gas-66. At the Predator, it's a bunker somewhere in Arizona or Nevada.

                        Quote: Spade
                        As well as the air bases from which these drones take off.

                        The sky rider takes off from the "hand". Hermes is from any hard-surfaced site, and the Predator is a bastard in general from Bahrain or Arizona.
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 22: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        It is impossible to clog the air with interference. Explain on the fingers why?

                        Give it a try.


                        Quote: Professor
                        You have simply never seen the "drone control centers". For the air rider, this is a knapsack on the fighter's back. Well, a very "easily detectable object" ... laughing

                        If he could work in a passive mode, I would agree with you.

                        Quote: Professor
                        At Hermes, this is a booth similar to the one on Gas-66.

                        Which is also easily detected by RT intelligence

                        Quote: Professor
                        The sky rider takes off from the "hand".

                        And how many enemy tanks can he destroy?

                        Quote: Professor
                        The traitor bastard generally from Bahrain or Arizona.

                        And a lot of Tzahal Traitors and bases in Bahrain and Arizona?
                      11. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 22: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Try

                        Clog the whole ether by interference can only be the so-called white noise. That is, immediately at all frequencies. In this case, of course, we ourselves will remain without communication, and even elementary power is not enough. To score drone control frequencies is also not easy. They must first be determined, and if this is an HRMF then this is a hopeless business. Medium-sized drones are generally equipped with directional antennas. They can not be drowned from the ground in any way.

                        Quote: Spade
                        If he could work in a passive mode, I would agree with you.

                        Will you find every radio station the size of a brick and bomb it? wink

                        Quote: Spade
                        Which is also easily detected by RT intelligence

                        No, it’s not easy. The booth is in a ravine, and its parabolic !!! antenna hell knows where. Moreover, there are several such antennas.

                        Quote: Spade
                        And how many enemy tanks can he destroy?

                        He is everything. His task is to bring. Next went the 200th parents of tankers.

                        Quote: Spade
                        And a lot of Tzahal Traitors and bases in Bahrain and Arizona?

                        I don’t know how many of my Eitans, but there are bases not only in Israel (OBS tongue ).
                      12. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 22: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        Clog the whole ether by interference can only be the so-called white noise. That is, immediately at all frequencies. In this case, of course, we ourselves will remain without communication,

                        And this does not hurt absolutely. I remember that in 1968, half a million warriors entered Czechoslovakia, having sealed radio transmitters. Using flags and messengers on motorcycles ... Oh yes, Israel is not preparing to fight the armies.


                        Quote: Professor
                        Will you find every radio station the size of a brick and bomb it?

                        Why not? The type of radio station by the nature of its signal is not so difficult to determine.


                        Quote: Professor
                        No, it’s not easy. The booth is in a ravine, and its parabolic !!! antenna hell knows where. Moreover, there are several such antennas.

                        They will detect the signal, send their drone for additional exploration. Will destroy


                        Quote: Professor
                        He is everything. His task is to bring. Next went the 200th parents of tankers.

                        What to "point"? An Israeli stealth pihot moving through the desert at Mach 3?
                      13. Professor
                        Professor 11 December 2014 22: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And this does not hurt absolutely. I remember that in 1968, half a million warriors entered Czechoslovakia, having sealed radio transmitters. Using flags and messengers on motorcycles ... Oh yes, Israel is not preparing to fight the armies.

                        You hit today. Imagine how the battalion commander flags the battle and sends pigeons for air support. By the way, Israel has nothing to do with it again.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Why not? The type of radio station by the nature of its signal is not so difficult to determine.

                        Swaddling is not enough. laughing These bourgeois have a fighter-level transmitter.

                        Quote: Spade
                        They will detect the signal, send their drone for additional exploration. Will destroy

                        Well, if of course England will fight with Germany, then you are right. (hello to Shamanov wink ).

                        PS
                        Antenna parabolic ...

                        Quote: Spade
                        What to "point"? An Israeli stealth pihot moving through the desert at Mach 3?

                        Again, Israel seems to you? When your tank battalion operates in a vacuum, then it is possible to direct infantry at a Mach 3 speed, and if it is still on the ground, this implies all sorts of nonsense such as the enemy, the front, artillery and aviation (such as the article about it). So in this case, the drone will be able to replace the expensive and vulnerable and expensive helicopter and, if not destroyed (and they say it happens), then bring other means of delivery to the enemy’s tanks.
                      14. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 December 2014 23: 22
                        +2
                        Quote: Professor
                        You hit today. Imagine how the battalion commander flags the battle and sends pigeons for air support. By the way, Israel has nothing to do with it again.

                        Dear, it was you who said "Israel has made its choice." To which I pointed out to you that abandoning helicopters in favor of drones is a somewhat stupid decision if a war is planned with a normal enemy, and not with gangs.
                        Well, as for the management of flags, it has been successfully applied. But I do not recall a single case of the defeat of tank columns by drones in conditions of active use of electronic warfare.

                        Quote: Professor
                        Swaddling is not enough. These bourgeois have a fighter-level transmitter.

                        So what? A modern computer can easily distinguish a fighter’s transmitter from a drone control system transmitter.


                        Quote: Professor
                        Well, if of course England will fight with Germany, then you are right.

                        Ta-dam !!! fellow Only UAVs have drones. Well, sometimes the Great Suzerens from overseas.
                        Hatchery
                      15. Professor
                        Professor 12 December 2014 08: 10
                        -1
                        Quote: Spade
                        What I pointed out to you that giving up helicopters in favor of drones is a somewhat stupid decision if a war is planned with a normal enemy, and not with gangs.

                        They know better. In extreme cases, there is Apache Longbow.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Well, as for the management of flags, it has been successfully applied. But I do not recall a single case of the defeat of tank columns by drones in conditions of active use of electronic warfare.

                        Please tell us in more detail how will you call air support? Or adjust artillery fire flags? Do not forget to tell which tank columns opposed the enemy with an attack UAV.
                        Here is an example of how a drone destroys a real device. Tell me then where are the helicopter dusts? Better guess yourself.


                        Quote: Spade
                        So what? A modern computer can easily distinguish a fighter’s transmitter from a drone control system transmitter.


                        Yes? The first sends green signals, and the second red? wink PPRCh steers. No computer will help. How is it to be with antennas?

                        Quote: Spade
                        Only UAVs have drones.

                        Not only. Also among all bourgeois sticking together. All sorts of progressive modes are very behind in this regard.
  5. Denimax
    Denimax 11 December 2014 22: 10
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Is not a modern computer capable of replacing an operator of weapons?

    Attack helicopters also have a movable gun. Can one pilot aim, drive and search for targets? Probably not.
    Better let it be as it is. Tank, figure for three. Aircraft for two.
  6. Lopatov
    Lopatov 11 December 2014 22: 24
    +2
    Quote: Denimax
    Attack helicopters also have a movable gun.

    And how far is the range of its effective use greater than the range of MANPADS?

    However, this is not a problem. There is a Belarusian "Adunak", it is capable of not only hitting marked targets with PKT, NSVT and AG-17 fire, but also work from external target designation. That is, an uncle with a rangefinder can take off the coordinates of several targets, they will be transferred to the combat module and hit in the selected sequence.
  • Bayonet
    Bayonet 11 December 2014 18: 53
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Single machine is a half machine

    Since 1983, research has been conducted in the United States under the ARTI program, the purpose of which was to study the technical principles used to create a rotorcraft that could carry out reconnaissance and strike operations with a crew of one person. The work was carried out in parallel by Sikorsky, Boeing-Vertol and Hughes. On the serial helicopters of these firms, the cockpit of a promising single-seat helicopter was installed and during the flight tests the pros and cons of a helicopter with a crew of one person were studied. Studies of the pilot load carried out under this program showed that one pilot in an automated cockpit will be able to control a helicopter, but will not be able to conduct combat operations at low altitude and at night. Therefore, it was decided to develop a helicopter with a crew of two people: a pilot and an weapons operator.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 11 December 2014 20: 13
      +1
      Quote: Bayonet
      Studies of the pilot load carried out under this program showed that one pilot in an automated cockpit will be able to control a helicopter, but will not be able to conduct combat operations at low altitude and at night.

      The fact that in the 80s it was difficult to implement the option of a single-seat helicopter does not mean the lack of prospects for such a scheme. Kamovtsy succeeded. In this case, Americans who like to step ahead of everyone did not foresee the development trend of aviation in the future. Now they are rushing between the two-seater Apache and unmanned vehicles, either not understanding, or not wanting to admit that between them there should be (purely logical) a single-seat helicopter operated optionally. Those. and pilot and operator from the ground, depending on the complexity of the tasks.
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 December 2014 20: 34
        -1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Now they are rushing between two-seat Apache and unmanned vehicles

        He made his choice, wrote off all the Cobras and replaced them with drones.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 December 2014 20: 57
          +2
          Just Tsahal long ago fell into the pit of hatred. What is fraught ... Especially when the Lebanese rake on the forehead did not help.
          1. Professor
            Professor 11 December 2014 21: 07
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Just Tsahal long ago fell into the pit of hatred. What is fraught ... Especially when the Lebanese rake on the forehead did not help.

            Since 1973, there is no hatred. That lesson was learned very well. Lessons were also learned from the Lebanese war, operations in Gaza are an example of this, and indeed from the operations themselves. Half an hour ago, they showed an investigation into the incident with the penetration of Hamas' ooy swimmers ...
            For helicopters and drones, try holding at least two turntables 24/7 over Gaza.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2014 21: 16
              +1
              No hatred? Come on ... Dzakhal is persistently preparing for war with a priori weaker enemy.

              Quote: Professor
              For helicopters and drones, try holding at least two turntables 24/7 over Gaza.

              Here I am about that ... The "tank brigade" scenario is not even considered, only a gopota running around Gaza
            2. Professor
              Professor 11 December 2014 21: 29
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              No hatred? Come on ... Dzakhal is persistently preparing for war with a priori weaker enemy.

              The weaker enemy is superior to Tzahal in terms of the number of drugs and the number of weapons, and the same as Tzahal, F-16, F-15, Apache is armed ...

              Quote: Spade
              Here I am about that ... The "tank brigade" scenario is not even considered, only a gopota running around Gaza

              The tank brigade does not live in modern combat thanks to the same drones. Do not hide them and not hide. They will be discovered by a heavenly horseman and finished off if not by artillery then by Maglan.
            3. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2014 21: 53
              0
              Quote: Professor
              The weaker enemy is superior to Tzahal in terms of the number of drugs and the number of weapons, and the same as Tzahal, F-16, F-15, Apache is armed ...

              Here you are less and less ready to fight with them. But at the same time, you are becoming more and more capricious, and even the second Lebanese did not become a cold shower for yours.

              Quote: Professor
              The tank brigade does not live in modern combat thanks to the same drones. Do not hide them and not hide.

              fellow Here it is, hatred. Let's start with the drones ... How many of them are needed to repel the attack of the tank brigade? Well, several tanks of a brigade will be like one drone, then what? A couple more will fly?

              And the picture is beautiful. Unlike enemy tanks, an excellent target for artillery.
            4. Professor
              Professor 11 December 2014 22: 06
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Here you are less and less ready to fight with them.

              As I see, you participated in the extreme exercises of the Northern Military District.

              Quote: Spade
              But at the same time, you are becoming more and more capricious, and even the second Lebanese did not become a cold shower for yours.

              I repeat, there is no hatred in Tsakhal. Moreover, military commanders even in the press broadcast what the next war in Lebanon will cost. And the second Lebanese is remarkable only in that the political leadership was engaged in masturbation. An order would be given to take Beirut, it would be sluggish in 2 weeks.

              Quote: Spade
              Here it is, hatred. Let's start with the drones ... How many of them are needed to repel the attack of the tank brigade? Well, several tanks of a brigade will be like one drone, then what? A couple more will fly?

              And where did I write that the drones will burn your brigade? I wrote "they will finish off if not with artillery then Maglan."

              Quote: Spade
              And the picture is beautiful. Unlike enemy tanks, an excellent target for artillery.

              Yeah. When you find this needle in a haystack then it will become the goal. Syrian T-72 burned in Lebanon just such lads, and tankers.

            5. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2014 22: 18
              0
              Quote: Professor
              Yeah. When you find this needle in a haystack then it will become the goal.

              fellow But the enemy has neither drones nor thermal imagers, nothing. Only Tzahal has them. And the enemy never learns from his own mistakes ... And in general, we will throw their hats ...

              You have already received your Finnish, but you have not reached any conclusions. You got problems when you came across not paired terrorist groups, but paramilitares. What will be the consequences of a collision with a real army? Especially if there aren’t enough hats?
            6. Professor
              Professor 11 December 2014 22: 27
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              But the enemy has neither drones nor thermal imagers, nothing. Only Tzahal has them. And the enemy never learns from his own mistakes ... And in general, we will throw their hats ...

              And here is Tsahal? Video made by your friends in Poland. Even if you have both drones and thermal imagers, then finding such a fighter is much harder than a tank.

              Quote: Spade
              You have already received your Finnish, but you have not reached any conclusions. You got problems when you came across not paired terrorist groups, but paramilitares. What will be the consequences of a collision with a real army? Especially if there aren’t enough hats?

              Which Finnish? What are you talking about? 121 fighter died? There was an order to go to Litani. There would be an order to take Beirut would be taken. It would be necessary to drive Lebanon into the Middle Ages, then it would be driven away and no one would be engaged in surgical shelling and scattering leaflets.
            7. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2014 22: 46
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              And here is Tsahal?

              And despite the fact that we are discussing shap-handed sentiments in Israel. Which are present in society against the background of the most powerful tilt towards "anti-terrorism".


              Quote: Professor
              Even if you have both drones and thermal imagers, then finding such a fighter is much harder than a tank.

              A bit harder. But it’s easier to hit. Since he does not know how to run at the speed of a tank. And it is protected much easier.
            8. Professor
              Professor 11 December 2014 23: 02
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              And despite the fact that we are discussing shap-handed sentiments in Israel. Which are present in society against the background of the most powerful tilt towards "anti-terrorism".

              We are discussing the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance and attack helicopter project

              Quote: Spade
              A bit harder. But it’s easier to hit. Since he does not know how to run at the speed of a tank. And it is protected much easier.

              And you first find him. While you are looking for your tank will be gone, and there will be 3 charred bodies that can only be identified by DNA.
            9. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2014 23: 39
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              We are discussing the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance and attack helicopter project

              Right And during the discussion, you issued
              Quote: Professor
              He made his choice, wrote off all the Cobras and replaced them with drones.

              I pointed out to you that this choice is due to the fact that Israel is not going to fight a normal opponent. Because the effectiveness of a drone in modern combined arms combat is near-zero. And drones will not be able to rise to the level of a modern combat helicopter in terms of anti-tanking for a very long time.

              So do not pass off stupidity for the Great Revelation of the Invincibles.


              Quote: Professor
              And you first find him. While you are looking for your tank will be gone, and there will be 3 charred bodies that can only be identified by DNA.

              So what? There are many tanks. Lots of. The next tank will destroy the ATGM crew. Or they'll cover it with artillery. And "forward to Jerusalem" ... The main thing here is to break the front, then everything is easier
            10. Professor
              Professor 12 December 2014 08: 22
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              I pointed out to you that this choice is due to the fact that Israel is not going to fight a normal opponent.

              I always knew that you were attending meetings of the General Staff in Kirye. Ask there if Israel is not going to fight a normal opponent, why does he need any bullshit like NAPL for a billion dollars each? Palestinians can also be driven from motor boats. Why is it developing anti-tank weapons? Palestinians do not have donkeys besides donkeys. Well and so on. What do the Saudis and Egypt say at the meetings? They are now brothers forever, Assad became a Zionist? wink

              Quote: Spade
              So do not pass off stupidity for the Great Revelation of the Invincible

              These fools know better. Ob fight constantly.

              Quote: Spade
              So what? There are a lot of tanks. Lots of

              Are there many tanks? They made fun. There are very few of them. The next calculation will not even wait for the next tank (the next will wait) the same calculation, but the tank will not detect them - there is nothing. And even if you are lucky and find it, it will not destroy, it will not reach it, since the hands of the tank are now shorter than those of the ATGM. And the artillery will not be in time. "Shot and dumped," Maglan, however.

              Quote: Spade
              And "forward to Jerusalem" ... The main thing here is to break the front, then everything is easier

              Like you already advised like that. They broke through the front and ... purged.
  • insafufa
    insafufa 11 December 2014 10: 51
    +3
    KA-52 was created as a command helicopter, not like an attack helicopter, but it inherited impact from KA-50
    1. 31rus
      31rus 11 December 2014 16: 45
      +2
      I support the Professor, tests of the Ka-50 showed one pilot can not cope with the management and search of targets, therefore, the second crew member was introduced, the effectiveness of the Ka-52 was several times higher than the Ka-50, this is a fact and all disputes are not appropriate
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 December 2014 16: 48
        +1
        Quote: 31rus
        all disputes are not appropriate

        Disputes are always appropriate. This is not a Duma for you. wink
        I would not place the crew shoulder to shoulder, but in tandem.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 11 December 2014 20: 16
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          I would not place the crew shoulder to shoulder, but in tandem.

          I support. When positioned shoulder to shoulder, both crew members have limited visibility from the side of the seated one.
  • ABC ABC © ®.
    ABC ABC © ®. 11 December 2014 09: 08
    +1
    The car is not bad, but there are significant aerodynamic flaws. ABC ABC © ®. Commentary. Everyone has the right to express their point of view.
  • Teberii
    Teberii 11 December 2014 10: 41
    -1
    It seems that this particular helicopter crashed during the liquidation of Bin Laden. And as the media claimed all the wreckage was transferred to the Chinese, then there’s no point in continuing further.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 11 December 2014 12: 04
      +5
      Quote: Teberii
      It seems that this particular helicopter crashed during the liquidation of Bin Laden. And as the media claimed all the wreckage was transferred to the Chinese, then there’s no point in continuing further.

      Not this one. With the elimination of Bin Laden, a custom version of the Black Hawke crashed under the stealth version crashed
  • avt
    avt 11 December 2014 11: 16
    +3
    Quote: Teberii
    It seems that this particular helicopter crashed during the elimination of Bin Laden.

    It looks like a Hollywood movie was watched and decided that it was documentary footage - of course Sikorsky fell there, but a modification of the Black Hawk Down. Well, after all, you can look for something before issuing -

    Quote: Teberii
    Since all the fragments were handed over to the Chinese, then there is no sense in continuing further.

    request
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 December 2014 11: 53
      +3
      In the wreckage, he is right.
  • Brother
    Brother 11 December 2014 12: 59
    0
    It seems to me, or he uroD? No, really! I love when it’s beautiful, but here it’s completely for an amateur, I would even say to a very big fan. What a flying piece ... No..
    1. Reader
      Reader 11 December 2014 15: 52
      0
      Well, I would not say that urod.d More prettier than at least the S-97 Raider from Sikorsky, which will have to replace Comanche.
  • STALGRAD76
    STALGRAD76 11 December 2014 16: 04
    +2
    Is this a "promising reconnaissance and attack helicopter" project? the fact that the pilots are just like in a showcase and are protected only from rain and wind by plexiglass does not bother the developers or they are not going to use a reconnaissance and attack helicopter on the battlefield?
  • 501Legion
    501Legion 11 December 2014 16: 30
    +1
    I don’t know how anyone, of course, but I always liked this helicopter
    In Russia, helicopters barely barely accepted helicopters yet hurt the USSR, but there are no fundamentally new designs and solutions. and in America, new solutions are already being demonstrated, we lag behind whoever says it, a very long time has passed the acceptance of equipment into the troops, and even more so the development of a new one
  • 31rus
    31rus 11 December 2014 16: 52
    -1
    The first time I saw the Ka-50 in the distant 83rd, not yet knowing what kind of animal it was and only decided to adopt the Ka-52
  • Denimax
    Denimax 11 December 2014 23: 18
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    And how far is the range of its effective use greater than the range of MANPADS?

    You are something strongly obsessed with comparing aviation weapons with MANPADS.
    MANPADS is a discharge of insidious, invisible guerrilla weapons. Like mines and land mines, which have no range at all. Nevertheless, they bear heavy damage.