Russian Naval Aviation: News

Shipborne assault helicopter for the Navy - a quick solution

The Ka-29s look beautiful. But not commercially available. Sub-optimal and inconvenient for the landing. And they were built back in the USSR. But Russia has nothing else.
Currently, four landing ships are under construction in the Russian Federation. A couple of ships of the improved project 11711 with increased displacement (very strange and very irrational, I must say) are being built by the Yantar plant. Each of these helicopters carries two multipurpose (landing) helicopters.

Two more large landing ships of the "usual" project 11711 - "Ivan Gren" and "Pyotr Morgunov" have already been built. But the most important thing is the two UDC projects 23900 "laid down" in the Crimea, with which everything is also very, very "difficult".

And it is the latter who pose another problem to the country. UDC is of little use without special naval helicopters - landing and attack ones. And if everything is more or less good with attack helicopters, we have a serial Ka-52K, then with landing helicopters everything is bad. They simply do not exist.

Those interested in the UDC issue can familiarize themselves with the corresponding article in the "VPK-Courier" (please note that the title and some headings are editorial). The important thing in all this is that the press estimates the composition of the air group of each of the UDC at about 16-20 helicopters.

Thus, if we take the minimum estimate of 16 machines, of which, for example, 12 are the Ka-29, and four are the Ka-52K, then the carrier helicopters of the BDK and both UDCs will require 32 helicopters of the Ka-29 type. And we also need several cars in the Combat Use Center. And you also need to compensate for the losses that are inevitable in any military conflict. It is necessary to teach technicians on some helicopters. But Ka-29s are not produced in our country, and the resumption of their production is not planned.

A total of 59 units were built, some of which have already been lost in disasters, for example - “A Russian military helicopter Ka-29 crashed in the Baltic Sea. There were two crew members on board, both were killed . " People cannot be returned, but the fact that the loss of the helicopter is irreparable is very wrong. But this is exactly the case.

Where is the Ministry of Defense going to get the Ka-29 from?

FULL ARTICLE:

https://6b6gjclcha6ibjpa45wvvqdamu--topwar-ru.translate.goog/180083-korabelnyj-desantnyj-vertolet-dlja-vmf-bystroe-reshenie.html

It's called - building them.

I'm pretty certain it won't be considered rocket science to convert Ka-27 to 29 since that's all it is. They make the VK-2500 engines that will work for this anyway.

miketheterrible wrote:It's called - building them.

I'm pretty certain it won't be considered rocket science to convert Ka-27 to 29 since that's all it is.  They make the VK-2500 engines that will work for this anyway.

That is examined in the article, not enough internal transport space and entrances.

Then a navalized Mi-8.

The author is useless. Saying that nothing will work but Ka-29 at the end and "who will produce it". Gee, where the fuck do you think it will be produced?

They are developing Lamprey and have the Ka-52K too, they will survive. All this whining coming from Russia is a bit odd quite honestly...

I have to admit that I was wondering myself on how they were planning on handling the amphibious air assault transport issue. They have just about exhausted the Ka-29 option and apparently the Mi-8 series is too big. Hopefully the Lamprey can be developed into the solution.

miketheterrible wrote:Then a navalized Mi-8.

The author is useless. Saying that nothing will work but Ka-29 at the end and "who will produce it". Gee, where the fuck do you think it will be produced?

Yeah why not put the Mi-14 back into production. I think there is great commercial value in this helo as well. No one else as far as I know, builds a floating helo today. And with all the issues with transport helos in the oil industry, a floating medium size helo would probably be welcomed with a HALLUJAH!! Put some nice side doors on the assault version and you also have all the rocket attachements available for MI-8 that can also be adapted.

The Ka-29 was build in Russia. They have the blueprints and the tools to restart production if they want to. Besides the wider cockpit section it is identical to the Ka-27 (= civilian Ka-32) so it should be no great problem to do it.

With their programmes for high speed helicopter designs and the fact that they are working on replacements for the Helix family of helicopters anyway I think this is a bit of a red herring...

Certainly in terms of transport helicopters the Ka-29 is pretty good... certainly better than the Blackhawk as it is much more powerful and manouverable yet compact... both have the issue of having side door entry only so rear ramp doors would certainly make the Ka-29 better and hopefully its replacement might consider improving that aspect of its design but it is a well armed and well equipped helicopter with plenty of power and good handling with two main rotors making it easy to fly and much safer on the deck of a ship than any equivalent alternative design with a tail rotor.

Now that they are going ahead with building the first two helicopter carriers means they are committed to the design and use of such vessels... much as they were committed when they built parts of the two Mistral ships that were produced. By getting this delay it means they can spend more time with the upgrade... but does the article mention what transport helicopters Egypt is using on its Mistrals? We know they are using Ka-52s don't we, but are they going all Russian or are they going to use western transport helicopters or Russian ones.

LMFS wrote:They are developing Lamprey and have the Ka-52K too, they will survive. All this whining coming from Russia is a bit odd quite honestly...

The wining is psuedo experts who just talk trash of their own developments by claiming they don't or can't do something, then get proven wrong shortly.

It's so pathetic. These people shouldn't be writing but instead serving food at a drop in center at best.

Fighters of the air wing "Admiral Kuznetsov" will be attracted to combat duty in the Arctic

Pilots of individual fighter aviation regiments belonging to the wing of the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser will be on combat duty to protect air lines in the Arctic. Reported by "News" with reference to sources in the Ministry of Defense.


According to the publication, the military department decided to include pilots of individual ship fighter aviation regiments (OKIAP) on the schedule of combat duty on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago and other Arctic airfields during the repair of "Admiral Kuznetsov".

The Ministry of Defense believes that this innovation will allow OKIAP pilots to maintain experience, while the use of carrier-based aircraft, coupled with MIG-31 interceptors, will provide better coverage of the country's northern borders.

It is emphasized that serving at the Arctic airfields does not mean the termination of planned training of deck aviation pilots on the NITKA simulators in the Crimea or Yeisk, especially since combat duty in the Arctic, according to the Ministry of Defense, is carried out on a one-month watch.

The test site in Crimea will not replace the experience of real combat service in extreme arctic conditions. We have already had precedents when, due to the lengthy repair of the cruiser, its air group had to be recreated practically from scratch. (...) flying in the Arctic is also extremely difficult

- explained the military expert Vladislav Shurygin.

https://en.topwar.ru/181797-istrebiteli-aviakryla-admirala-kuznecova-privlekut-k-boevomu-dezhurstvu-v-arktike.html

^ they are getting the carrier wing ready for Arctic conditions. Because that is where the carrier and new carrier will be busy

Good way to spend extra $ on aircraft maintenance & upkeep while shortening the Adm. K active life.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Good way to spend extra $ on aircraft maintenance & upkeep while shortening the Adm. K  active life.

What good is an AC if you don't use it?

It can be used in different ways, some more efficient than others.
If the Turks scrap the Montreux Doctrine after completing the Istanbul Canal, RF could benefit with Adm. K in the BSF with extra firepower it would bring.

Tsavo Lion wrote:It can be used in different ways, some more efficient than others.
If the Turks scrap the Montreux Doctrine after completing the Istanbul Canal, RF could benefit with Adm. K in the BSF with extra firepower it would bring.

Russia's aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is the Crimea. It doesn't need another one there.

2 is better than 1. The Kola peninsula is even more protected w/o any CV/Ns.

Tsavo Lion wrote:2 is better than 1. The Kola peninsula is even more protected w/o any CV/Ns.

The Arctic ocean is a lot bigger than just the Kola peninsula

And an unsinkable AC is a lot better than any number of ordinary ones

The Russian Arctic doesn't need CBGs to defend it, & there r many unsinkable ACs on its islands & shores already.
The only reasons the Adm K. is there is that it's the only base next to the open N. Atlantic, is in European Russia with shipyards & rail links to other parts of the huge country. After all, the TAKRs Kiev & Adm. Gorshkov were also in the NF.
The future agreements on the Turkish Straits may allow BS states' ships of any size & class. Turkey will benefit as she'll charge transit $ based on ships' tonnage. TAKRs & CV/Ns from the Black Sea would have access to the Med./Red Seas, Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, & be closer to the S./W. Pacific than from the Barents Sea.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian Arctic doesn't need CBGs to defend it, & there r many unsinkable ACs on its islands & shores already.
The only reasons the Adm K. is there is that it's the only base next to the open N. Atlantic, is in European Russia with shipyards & rail links to other parts of the huge country. After all, the TAKRs Kiev & Adm. Gorshkov were also in the NF.
The future agreements on the Turkish Straits may allow BS states' ships of any size & class. Turkey will benefit as she'll charge transit $ based on ships' tonnage. TAKRs & CV/Ns from the Black Sea would have access to the Med./Red Seas, Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, & be closer to the S./W. Pacific than from the Barents Sea.

Russia's Arctic shore doesn't need protection no, albeit the conditions there are sometimes too extreme for permanent military settlements and air defence

However the Arctic ocean extends way past it and is a growing route for world trade; Russia would at the very minimum need to be able to contest control of it and provide air-cover to naval groups in these waters; the Russian Northern fleet is the largest out of all Russian fleets. Futhermore it's also a straight path to the Atlantic from Northern fleet bases, and in the northern Atlantic the Russian navy cannot count on any air support from the mainland at all.

2 is better than 1. The Kola peninsula is even more protected w/o any CV/Ns.

The purpose of a Russian fixed wing aircraft carrier is not to protect ports...

It is to protect ships at sea... like the North Sea Route, or those on visits further afield.

And an unsinkable AC is a lot better than any number of ordinary ones

Especially as it never needs to sail through the Bosphorus Straights...

The Russian Arctic doesn't need CBGs to defend it, & there r many unsinkable ACs on its islands & shores already.

The article above suggests otherwise.

However the Arctic ocean extends way past it and is a growing route for world trade; Russia would at the very minimum need to be able to contest control of it and provide air-cover to naval groups in these waters; the Russian Northern fleet is the largest out of all Russian fleets. Futhermore it's also a straight path to the Atlantic from Northern fleet bases, and in the northern Atlantic the Russian navy cannot count on any air support from the mainland at all.

Plus by transiting its own north sea route it can also reach the Pacific Ocean too... renew ties with Vietnam... come visit their loyal agent in the south pacific.... would accept complete Ratnik 2 set in lieu of back pay....

As I said many times before, they have land based bombers, tankers, MPA, UAVs, besides icebreaking OPVs that can carry helos, subs & expanded bases to patrol, defend & cover all approaches to the NSR.
Recently 2 MiG-31s got refueled above the N. Pole from an IL-78.
Their SSN/SSGNs can break ice with special torpedoes & launch AShMs from 100s of miles away.

Having an aircraft carrier up north means a moving airfield that can be positioned where it is needed or it can embark on long duration missions via the atlantic or pacific oceans.

If/when the VMF gets more TAKRS/CV/Ns, it would be better to have them in the Barents/White Sea & the Black Sea, besides in the Green (Japan) Sea/on Kamchatka.