Military Helicopters: Pictures and Videos

If it does indeed carry the 30mm and the 4 barrel 7.62, it just adds to what the helo can do. Then again, having both of them increases weight, which reduces range, payload etc.

AFAIK the 30mm is an option but not a common option as the cabin will be used for troops... not 30mm cannon shells.

It is funny we talk about missing things on Kamovs... it reminded me of a discussion I had years ago on Key Publishing where a member was positive that the Helix had no belly doors for torpedoes and depth charges... just because he had never seen one he believed they did not exist... I found a photo of it but didn't bother posting it because that was how he learned new information... by challenging others to find it for him... so when I found a decent picture I didn't show him... does that make me evil?

Anyway:

This is of course the gun



and this is the external view of the mounted gun:

I dont think Mil is going to make anything similar to the Ka 31 for army use.

It is a variant of the naval AEW aircraft so I doubt Mil will bother... if the army wants some it will likely just buy Kamovs.

But then again, cant tell much from the camo.

it is a pitch to the army so they made it up in camo suitable for the role.

Doesn't mean they have accepted it or rejected it...

They just added an active defense system on the Mi 8 that helps it dodge incoming missiles, i guess IR seekers. There is progress but because all the companies got merged into a government-private conglomerate i dont think we'll see intercompany competition. Maybe they'll integrate the electronics suit to a Mi 8, may the Ka 29 will get the active defence system.

What ever aircraft they choose for service will likely get active defence systems like the Ka-52 and Mi-28 will get. I rather doubt the Army is interested in the Ka-29.

Serious question though, cant Russia make its own Mistrals ? I think if the deal goes sour, that is what they'll end up doing.

Of course they can... it is just the whole idea of Mistral was to already have one by now and soon to be receiving the other. In less than a years time we will likely know for sure what is going to happen, but even if France keeps the Mistrals Russia will have Mistral like vessels... though it might be 10 years before they are operational... When you pay someone to deliver flowers to your wedding and at the last minute they say they wont do it... that does not mean you can't have flowers at your wedding... but in this case the wedding might need to be delayed... of course any future parties and pissups you wont be getting flowers from there any more... you grow flowers yourself, and you only hired them because you wanted the right flowers that you couldn't get for a while... now you will just have to wait a bit, but you will have more creative control now...

It is very much like a strategy game... right now you have x number of slipways and x number of shipyards able to build big ships and work on big ships.

You have some old big ships and you want some new big ships and you want some new carriers.

If you upgrade your old big ships you get much more capable big ships which are useful for all sorts of things but you tie up your big ship shipyards.

Brand new big ships will take a decade to perfect and design and get into service in numbers, while new carriers will take just as long if not longer.

If you start building new carriers now you will likely find yourself in the mid 2020s with carriers but not enough big and medium sized ships to actually support proper operations.

the real choice is... do you start designing a building brand new big ships now and just keep the old big ships as they are which means they will be terribly obsolete by 2020, or do you give the old big ships a decent upgrade using lots of bits and pieces you will be using on the new designs like compact nuclear reactors and vertical launch missile systems and modern powerful radars and sensors and battle management systems so you can test them in the older vessels so when the new designs are ready there will be some maturity to the systems you fit...

Personally I prefer the latter.

regarding the White Swan the problem there is that I have seen estimates that the first prototype PAK DA would fly in 2019... which isn't that far away now.

I would estimate that if you decided right now to build a new factory to make all the components of a Tu-160 as it is now would cost a small fortune and also not necessarily be ready for full production by 2020. By the time you produce your first new Tu-160 the PAK DA should be getting very close to serial production... and to be honest I would rather see that money invested in creating an aircraft factory able to build a large aircraft to the precise accuracy needed to make an aircraft stealthy.

Personally I would prefer a scaled up PAK FA type shape except with the nose pushed back into the wing so the leading edge of the wing is like an angled V shape that could be fitted with an enormous long wave band radar to detect stealth aircraft... that way the PAK DA could also be a long range stealthy AWACS aircraft... and with the weapon load replaced with electronics it could be a Jstars, and a maritime patrol aircraft with enormous loiter time, and of course with the entire payload replaced with fuel it could be an inflight refuelling aircraft... and with super cruising capability it could easily be a Tu-128 like heavy interceptor with enormous range, mach 1.6 speed and an enormous number of AAMs and of course that huge anti stealth radar... they might end up making 400 of them... with 100 as strategic bombers... 100 more as inflight refuelling tankers that take off with the heavy bombers and refuel them and then land and arm with theatre nuclear weapons and refuel and hit targets in europe, maybe 50 AWACS, 25 JSTAR, perhaps 25 for special world wide stealthy missions like transporting special forces, plus say 100 interceptors and 100 maritime patrol aircraft.

OK 400 is probably too much... keep the 100 strategic bombers, maybe 50 inflight refuelling aircraft, 40 AWACS, 15 JSTARs, 10 Spec ops, 30 Interceptors and 30 MPAs... so that is 275...

I cant comment on if they should build new ships or upgrade old frames because i dont know their naval forces very well. Yeah i could very well tell you what is what with weapon systems but i dont have much on how their navy operates 'tactically'.

With their ships their future vessels will be fully standardised... so instead of having ten different anti ship missiles they will have UKSK launchers which can launch a range of anti ship and land attack and anti submarine missiles. they will also have standardised SAM launchers that launch a range of standard SAM types, so an upgrade to the old vessels with these new unified launchers as well as the integration of the Sigma system (Russian AEGIS) and standardised sensors and propulsion upgrading their old vessels actually makes them easier to use.. The Kirov class carry Granit which is no longer in production and the Slava class carry Vulkan which is not being produced now either. Fitting UKSK both can carry Onyx now and Zircon in 10 years time. The new compact nuclear reactors can be tested in them and once perfected will be used in future new large vessels including carriers.

PAK FA, PAK DA, PAK TA, right now its only T 50 and an aging fleet of Tu 95s, Tu 160s, Tu 22M3s. I would personally recommend upgrading the Tu 160s with new electronics and ECM equipment while actively developing the T50. See what this does is provide an active test bed for the new electronics. Like the radars that you talk off or of ECM suites. The Tu 160 gets better functionality, longer service life and the T50 gets battle tested or time tested equipment.

Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS and Tu-160 are all getting upgrades to Tu-22M3M, Tu-95MSM, and Tu-160M standard. With development of new radars for PAKDA and new engines the potential for further improving the Tu-160M is there... new engines and radars can be used on the Blackjack and the Backfire.

Is this really the final design ? Ofcourse assuming it has an internal weapons bay and the artists made it to look cool.

Not even close. That is the T-4MS, which was an aircraft design by Sukhoi... based on their Mach 3 recon plane design the T-4 but the whole design was passed on to Tupolev to build because Sukhoi was too busy with the Su-27... Tupolev rejected the design and built their own design... the aircraft we now call the Tu-160.

Modernizing current warships and aircrafts as long as they are serviceable, fall within safety regulations is a cost effective measure till Russia can begin making a new armada of weapons from scratch so to speak. This way they can gradually test the new equipment, integrate it with existing systems and install them on new platforms with rather ease. This is like a whole new approach to war-fighting and deterrence.

It is a bit like Ratnik... in the past the manufacturer who made helmets had no contact or communication with the companies that made other equipment... they just made helmets.

With Ratnik however everything is considered together so the Helmet will protect the head of course but is designed to be used with communications equipment and optics and will be designed with the rest of the body armour to use the latest materials and leave as few gaps in protection as possible.

Now everything is being developed this way so the Radar manufacturer for ships wont just be making a radar for one weapon system, they will likely be making a range of sensors for several weapons systems and to provide information for the on targets and threats for the shared battle management systems.

Equally electronics suites have traditionally been designed for specific aircraft... you may have noticed shared numbers like the Kh-23, the R-23, are weapons developed for the MiG-23, but the radar and defence equipment also included 23 in the codename.
Electronics suites for aircraft have the name avionics... a combination of aviation and electronics... there is no equivalent term for land vehicles, but the Russians have developed it so over time expect a new name to be developed for it.

The different vehicle families they have developed each have electronics suites shared to reduce costs and increase commonality.

Appears to be a render of the PAK-DA


Comparison of various designs

I rather doubt they have even totally finalised the design of the PAK DA even now so these drawings... which are pure speculation are likely inaccurate... especially the PAK DA.... a subsonic flying wing does not need the complication and weight penalty of a swing wing.... and like I said the design shown is the T-4MS which has already been rejected 30 odd years ago.

In the longer term it would be interesting to see a naval version of the Mi-38 optimised to the role the Mi-14 performs... with modern digital electronics they should be able to equip it with all sorts of equipment.

Always thought that a helicopter that was able to float on the water would be ideal for a variable depth sonar....

There was a lot of talk of putting the Mi-14 back into production, but I would think by now it would probably make more sense to create a new model based on the Mi-38.

I was a popular and capable aircraft AFAIK....

Thanks for posting.