Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Russia has begun to develop a tiltrotor according to the director of "Helicopters of Russia" Andrei Shibitov
http://alternathistory.livejournal.com/2473379.html
http://alternathistory.livejournal.com/2473379.html
+11
PapaDragon
Rodion_Romanovic
Tsavo Lion
George1
archangelski
GarryB
magnumcromagnon
victor1985
Werewolf
Berkut
Cyberspec
15 posters
Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
Guest- Guest
Cyberspec wrote:Russia has begun to develop a tiltrotor according to the director of "Helicopters of Russia" Andrei Shibitov
http://alternathistory.livejournal.com/2473379.html
Wouldnt be their first try actually. KA22 was lets say somewhat of a father of such design, in terms of idea even tho it wasnt real tiltrotor design in todays terms.
Than KA35 that mixed helicopter for liftoff and jet engines for horisontal flight, never went past drawing board however.
Ka 34 that again, was just a drawing.
Then Mi30 is youngest try, however USSR collapse stopped the project, never went further than RC version for testing.
Also there was funny mockup from few years ago:
I just love it
There were reports earlier this year that drone and helicopter with this configuration shall get funding though next few years. Aerokso company that was on MAKS this year said they are funding research atm for heavy UAV using tiltrotor technology and company Kronstadt Technology has their own design or at least mockup
Berkut- Posts : 190
Points : 215
Join date : 2015-05-05
1; None of the Kamov's are tilt rotor. Tilt rotors and the Kamov design are completely different things.
2; The mock up is a movie one.
2; The mock up is a movie one.
Guest- Guest
Berkut wrote:1; None of the Kamov's are tilt rotor. Tilt rotors and the Kamov design are completely different things.
2; The mock up is a movie one.
"wasnt real tiltrotor design in todays terms"
Berkut- Posts : 190
Points : 215
Join date : 2015-05-05
It was/is not a tilt rotor in any day, any decade or any century. Your examples are irrelevant.
Guest- Guest
Berkut wrote:It was/is not a tilt rotor in any day, any decade or any century. Your examples are irrelevant.
"Any century"...
Right...coz helicopters exist for....centuries... O.oThey are by definition gyrodynes or compound helicopter, whichever you prefer, and they led to tiltrotor designs, are you that uninformed on the matter or you are trolling me here?
Werewolf- Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24
Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.
Guest- Guest
Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.
I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.
victor1985- Posts : 632
Points : 659
Join date : 2015-01-02
Well then are to the aircraft or helicopter as composition?
Guest- Guest
victor1985 wrote:Well then are to the aircraft or helicopter as composition?
I didnt get the question
Guest- Guest
Militarov wrote:Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.
I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.
Whoever downvoted this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gyrodynes enjoy.
Werewolf- Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24
Militarov wrote:Militarov wrote:Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.
I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.
Whoever downvoted this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gyrodynes enjoy.
With my comment in your quote i guess you are addressing this to me, no i did not down vote you.
The other thing is autorotation does not occure on Tilt rotors, they fly by propelling themselfs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
Autorotation is when air comes from the wrong side (upwards) and makes the rotor rotate, the Tiltrotor plane propells itself and maintains its alitude by propelling itself, using partially the wings as surface for lift and exponential less lift from its rotors the more speed it gains the less lift it needs from propellars. This is by definition a plane not a helicopter.
Guest- Guest
Werewolf wrote:Militarov wrote:Militarov wrote:Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.
I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.
Whoever downvoted this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gyrodynes enjoy.
With my comment in your quote i guess you are addressing this to me, no i did not down vote you.
The other thing is autorotation does not occure on Tilt rotors, they fly by propelling themselfs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
Autorotation is when air comes from the wrong side (upwards) and makes the rotor rotate, the Tiltrotor plane propells itself and maintains its alitude by propelling itself, using partially the wings as surface for lift and exponential less lift from its rotors the more speed it gains the less lift it needs from propellars. This is by definition a plane not a helicopter.
Na i wasnt refreing to you bro, just wondering who downvoted post as it is you are there just by an accident could be anyone, since i clearly said that "Ka-22 is gyrodyne" and they are source from which Tiltrotors came to be as we know them now. I never claimed Ka-22 is pure blood Tiltrotor as it is not, however its one of the closest designs USSR ever came up with that are comparable to tiltrotors US fields now.
I agree with everything you said there, i dont have any objections. I am just defending my position that Ka22 was USSR way towards tiltrotors thats all.
Werewolf- Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24
I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.
Guest- Guest
Werewolf wrote:I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.
Well, first thing i do not like about V22 is its price. In 2013. flyaway price per piece was 68mil USD...for that money you can get basically 4 Mi17V5. I think they would prove useful in some roles due to their alot higher speed compared to helicopters and fact they need very short runway to start even fully loaded, but again i dont think they are that useful to prove this insane price worth it.
Where i would like to see some Russian tiltrotor is as air tanker. And that is imo only place where they would prove as being really useful. Alot smaller than big strategic tankers, can operate from very short strips, can give fuel to both helicopters and aircraft due to big speed evenlope...but hopefully with alot more affordable price than this V22 money hole.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Werewolf wrote:I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.
Who knows, the U.S. experience in creating tiltrotors aren't necessarily indicative of how well a from scratch design Russian tiltrotor will perform. Remember when the U.S. created GPS guided shells, they became gold-plated white elephants, costing $50-80 thousand per shell, while also being delicate, and everyone assumed from their experience that it was the only standard and no one could develop a better design. But when the Russians developed GLONASS guided shells it only cost $2,000 per shell, easily 25-40x cheaper, with the additional benefit of the capability of retrofitting old shells.
Keep in mind the U.S. MIC's main purpose is to maximize profits, not efficiency. How else would you explain why so many high profile U.S. military aircraft are such high-maintenance hangar queens? Whether it be the Apache, the B-2 Spirit, the F-22A, V-22 Osprey, the F-35 II B....it isn't mere coincidence, it's a corrupt design practice to maximize profits!
Werewolf- Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24
magnumcromagnon wrote:Werewolf wrote:I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.
Who knows, the U.S. experience in creating tiltrotors aren't necessarily indicative of how well a from scratch design Russian tiltrotor will perform. Remember when the U.S. created GPS guided shells, they became gold-plated white elephants, costing $50-80 thousand per shell, while also being delicate, and everyone assumed from their experience that it was the only standard and no one could develop a better design. But when the Russians developed GLONASS guided shells it only cost $2,000 per shell, easily 25-40x cheaper, with the additional benefit of the capability of retrofitting old shells.
Keep in mind the U.S. MIC's main purpose is to maximize profits, not efficiency. How else would you explain why so many high profile U.S. military aircraft are such high-maintenance hangar queens? Whether it be the Apache, the B-2 Spirit, the F-22A, V-22 Osprey, the F-35 II B....it isn't mere coincidence, it's a corrupt design practice to maximize profits!
Tiltrotors havea specific design sheme, that design limits its usefullness pretty straight out, regardless if your MIC just hails the money or is actually focused on performance. The limits in design are set and the only thing they could go up is with capacity, however russia already has high capacity transporters with vertical start and landing (helicopters) such as Mi-8/26 for medium and high capacity loads and a tiltrotor to achieve what a Mi-26 can achieve would be highly ineffecient design. The entire power for one rotor on Mi-26 is directly linked via gearboxes to turboshaft engines, a VTOL plane in design of a tiltrotor can not achieve anywhere near that power due the design of either fitting rather small engines in the tilting rotors itself or trying to design a body that fits the massive engines in its body and then tries to transfer the power via the wings, which affects the design to be bigger, have less room for cargo in the fuselage (cargo area) and will sacrifice power due the ineffecient power transfered via shaft through the wings to the rotors. That would end up a design with being core essence of ineffeciency, bad design and ending as a dead project overall.
Tiltrotors have due that reasons a very limited use, if any use at all. Hell even US does not need V-22 in service, they just are under MIC hand. There is no job the V-22 currently performs that is necessary or can not be performed by other planes or helicopters with similiar or better performance.
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The primary purpose of the tilt rotor aircraft is vertical landings and extractions with near fixed wing speeds. Helicopters might fly with heavier loads or further but not faster. fixed wing aircraft might fly further and faster with more but not vertically.
Actually, while I don't like the V-22 very much... it looks like a bicycle doing its balancing act... I did like the design for the V-44 with four tilt rotors on a quad layout. Basically with one engine and rotor in each corner of the aircraft it looked more stable and balanced and less vulnerable to side winds or battle damage.
Personally I would prefer something akin to a flying wing with a hovercraft like undercarriage allowing operation from large flat areas of ground or water along with the ability to fly with a normal fixed wing.
I would point out that the V-22 has a few problems including the fact that when used with helos it outruns its Apache support aircraft and any helicopter transports it might be operating with.
If operating with fixed aircraft it is the slow one holding everyone up.
It is really a solution looking for a problem.
Actually, while I don't like the V-22 very much... it looks like a bicycle doing its balancing act... I did like the design for the V-44 with four tilt rotors on a quad layout. Basically with one engine and rotor in each corner of the aircraft it looked more stable and balanced and less vulnerable to side winds or battle damage.
Personally I would prefer something akin to a flying wing with a hovercraft like undercarriage allowing operation from large flat areas of ground or water along with the ability to fly with a normal fixed wing.
I would point out that the V-22 has a few problems including the fact that when used with helos it outruns its Apache support aircraft and any helicopter transports it might be operating with.
If operating with fixed aircraft it is the slow one holding everyone up.
It is really a solution looking for a problem.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
not all, only those which r not as good in their specs for better results.It is your idea that .. all current aircraft used in siberia could be replaced with such aircraft too...
the UDKs will be like USS America LHA/LHD, a smaller carrier, compared to a CVN.Sounds like you think Russia can't afford a CVN and should have something like Mistral with Ka-52 and Chinookski...
before running, 1 needs to learn how to walk. Their Tu-126 was the 1st large AWACS; soon they may make the 1st large tandem/tilt-rotor AWACS...it is the 21st C... Russia should aim higher, not lower.
that's in ur judgement. If their EMALS &/arrestors fail, that will also be a step backward, as their E-2 like plane will be land based.Making their new AWACS platform a tandem helo or a tilt rotor is an unnecessary step backwards and likely not enough of an improvement over the Ka-31 they already have for the job.
after 9/11/2001 (wars in Iraq & Afghanistan), they don't say that anymore. Trump doesn't need another USS Yorktown/Indianapolis sinkings & a war with Iran the Pentagon & people don't want before the 2020 election.But they are the all powerful US Navy, surely all cower before them and they wont hide from a fight... they can defeat two countries at a time in two different wars in two different places... we are told...
they use sats for air navigation & communications.there are cargo ships to navigate around... they don't track their own CVNs using navigation satellites...
it's not a chess game- war has it's own logic or lack of it; in their mind, the USN subs r supposed to be the best in the world & they'll pull them in or move them out to more remote waters ahead of time...they might decide to return the favour... no western sub would be safe... which kinda pisses all over that numbers advantage you have going there... how stupid can you get?
they gradually push the envelope on military force use, & increase the level of risk to get their public used to & accept it. There may eventually come a time when they'll be left alone facing China & Korea. The current alliance with the US & UK is abnormal- as different from Korea & China as they r, culturally they r even more different from the US & UK.Of course... that explains why Desert Storm attacks were led by Japanese forces... they insisted on being in the front line... hell they might even sink their own SSK just to make the other SSKs pay attention during training...
If the VDV wants it, others will want them too. The V-22s r used by the USN/MC & the AF. Civilians also use other models.The main problem is that they don't want that...
there r different niches. How many species of birds, bats & flying insects can be found in a 12 month period in a given ecosystem?With new high speed helo technology why waste time replicating tilt rotor technology?
if a jet powered cargo plane can't safely land, it's useless to send it there or to a spot some distance way to be met by a helo; better & easier to send a slower tilt/tandem-rotor that can deliver door to door & still save time.You claimed it was urgent, that makes speed important.
true, but they can be interchangeable if need be.The VDV use Mils, the Russian naval infantry use Kamovs.
The FSB B/CGs use both:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Service_of_the_Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Helicopter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Guard_(Russia)#Aircraft
I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.
50-50- they import arms just like India, from both US & Russia.So which is it? Egypt has sovereign control of its military equipment choices or the US has the say?
"good $" r needed for good things. The Murphy's law states: "if it can go wrong, it will", & it happens more often than not. If an airfield is potholed, iced/snowed over or flooded, VTOLs, unlike planes, can still safely use it or land around it.Having airfields and aircraft is a GOOD thing, not a problem. Weather conditions seem to change to suit your scenario... if someone is having a heart attack and the weather closes in and there is no doctor they die. A tilt rotor wont fly in weather a helicopter wont fly in.
this isn't just my opinion: In general, the design of the aircraft resembles the design of the American military helicopter Boeing CH-47 Chinook, however, it rather refers to the exterior design, but in essence, in technical terms, both models are very different from each other.Your opinion doesn't matter when there are no tandem helos or tilt rotor options... they don't need them.
According to the data for 2015, the development of this aircraft is actively continuing, and the Ka-102 helicopter is viewed primarily as a civilian aircraft, allowing the transportation of 80 to 90 passengers at a maximum flight speed of 500 km / h, which is turn has no analogues in the world. In addition to performing the function of passenger transportation, the Ka-102 helicopter can also be actively used for the transportation of all kinds of cargoes, which is facilitated by a high payload, and it is possible that later the helicopter could also be adapted for military needs,..
A fairly long fuselage of the aircraft provides the Ka-102 helicopter with good passenger capacity, and the improved aerodynamic shape of the fuselage also provides reduced drag during flight. The maximum take-off weight of the helicopter is 30 thousand kilograms, which in turn ensures the proper carrying capacity for this type of aircraft, which ensures its multipurpose use.
The power plant of the Ka-102 helicopter, according to the proposed project of its creation, will consist of two gas turbine engines, however, the true power of each of them is currently not disclosed by Russian aircraft manufacturers. Among other things, it is also assumed that the maximum flight range of this helicopter may be about 1,100 kilometers, which in turn in most cases will be able to satisfy future customers.
It is expected that the Ka-102 helicopter will be able to pass its first tests already in 2020, however, given the relatively high complexity of the project, this date can be postponed to a later date.
Crew: 2 people;
Capacity: 90 people (depending on the purpose);
Helicopter length: 36.2 m.;
The height of the helicopter: 5.3 m.;
The diameter of the rotor: 18,2 m.;
Weight of empty helicopter: 14600 kg.;
Maximum take-off weight: 30,000 kg.;
Cruising speed: 420 km \ h;
Maximum airspeed: 500 km \ h;
Maximum flight range: 1100 km.;
Maximum height of flight: 4100 m.;
Powerplant: at the development stage;
Power: at the development stage.
http://avia.pro/blog/ka-102
They can use a supertanker to convert it to Ka-102 carrier. At 1/2 size, it's smaller variants, along with tilt-rotors, can be parked on UDK decks & leave the CH-47F in the dust.
time will tell! The CH-53K wasn't meant to replace nor caused the cancellation of CH-47 & V-22...they are already investing in new helos with China and new high speed helos and when they are available tandem and tilt rotor aircraft wont offer any speed or range advantage they will just cost money and offer nothing useful.
they'll start developing them after the Ka-102 appears.With no one developing them they wont get mature.
not all 4 of them, but India has Mi-17/26s, Ka-27/31/226 & CH-47s; PRC has Mi-17/26s & Ka-27/31s, Peru has Mi-17/26s, Iran & Egypt have Mi-17s & CH-47s, SK has CH-47s & Ka-27s:which countries are buying enormous numbers of Chinooks and V-22s that are also operating Mi-26 and Mi-38 helicopters...
https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/05/26/rostec-talking-with-india-to-maintain-mi-17-and-mi-26-copters_597605
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-27#Operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_CH-47_Chinook_operators#_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Air_Force#Current_inventory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force#Current_inventory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Republic_of_Korea_Army#Aircraft
even though, they'll deliver more as work horses- India isn't Pakistan or Bangladesh & can afford it.I would wager large American helos cost more to operate than large Russian ones.
Their Navy will use then too. If Russia produced a CH-47- like helos, India would have procured them instead- so Russia they could potentially export them to India &/ others in the future.
it only proves my point!They already have helicopters better than American ones...
Trump won't allow it, what r u smoking? They could get a CH-47 from Iran & civ. tilt-rotor from abroad- no need to jump through the hoops! But it's better wait for Russia to come with better models before investing in them.But surely if they want tandems or tilt rotors then they need to work with American companies rather than Russian ones...
to me, most probably not! 1 can't rely on "probably" in aviation!The Mi-38 could probably already do that.
true, but they been constantly upgrading them before.There are no plans to upgrade the An-12 or the An-24 or An-26,..
they r still being upgraded:and the Mi-17 will be replaced with the Mi-38...
It turned out that it was too early to write off the honored veteran of the Mi-8: this car was subjected to numerous upgrades, and its latest modifications are quite consistent with the realities of the time. The Mi-8 received modern avionics, its payload increased to 4-5 tons, more powerful engines (for example, VK-2500), and the helicopter were brought into compliance with strict Western certification requirements. As a result, it turned out that modern versions of the Mi-8 have a better price / performance ratio than the Mi-38. It is possible that the Mi-8 is not as convenient for pilots and passengers as the Mi-38, but it is much cheaper, which is often much more important for customers.
https://militaryarms.ru/vertolety/vertolet-mi-38/
http://www.ato.ru/press-releases/izgotovlen-pervyy-opytnyy-fyuzelyazh-novogo-vertolyota-mi-171a2?sea=11917
http://www.ato.ru/content/vertolety-rossii-validiruyut-mi-171a2-v-brazilii
The new variant will replace some of the older Mi-8/17s.
But that doesn't mean that better performing aircraft than the Mi-38s will be passed over by the VMF & other gov. entities. As they age &/ replaced by newer versions, civilians will be getting them.
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
not all, only those which r not as good in their specs for better results.
The current aircraft are fine.
Tilt rotors offer the potential for higher speed flight, but not as much as a conventional aircraft does, so it is a waste of time and money.
the UDKs will be like USS America LHA/LHD, a smaller carrier, compared to a CVN.
See that is the problem... you seem to think a CVN is a US Nimitz class or Ford class carrier... there is no reason why the Kuznetsov could not be a CVN, and they have clearly decided they want a new carrier with more capacity than the Kuznetsov in the 70K ton weight range.
They want helicopter carriers too but that is for a separate purpose.
They have naval infantry and want ships to support their operations, but these carriers we are talking about are to support Russian naval surface groups... they are there to protect Russian ships in foreign waters from enemy air attack.
before running, 1 needs to learn how to walk. Their Tu-126 was the 1st large AWACS; soon they may make the 1st large tandem/tilt-rotor AWACS.
No, they wont. Otherwise there would be no point is developing catapult systems, which they are clearly doing.
Nobody has tandem or tilt rotor AWACS aircraft, because no one wants to make an expensive aircraft shorter ranged and flaky.
If their EMALS &/arrestors fail, that will also be a step backward, as their E-2 like plane will be land based.
And what if their tilt rotors and tandems fail... rather more likely because they make something fairly straight forward and make it complex and dangerous.
they use sats for air navigation & communications.
The ships use the satellites for navigation and communication, the satellites can't locate the ships... that is not their function.
it's not a chess game- war has it's own logic or lack of it; in their mind, the USN subs r supposed to be the best in the world & they'll pull them in or move them out to more remote waters ahead of time.
Hahahahahahahahaha... so they have the best subs in the world... they keep saying... but you say they will take them away and hide them and trash the ocean around the Russian ships to try to sink the Russian subs... come on... and in a way that basically says weapons free... use nukes as you see fit... because Russia is seriously out numbered by the west and using nukes actually really suits their situation much better than it would the US.
they gradually push the envelope on military force use, & increase the level of risk to get their public used to & accept it. There may eventually come a time when they'll be left alone facing China & Korea. The current alliance with the US & UK is abnormal- as different from Korea & China as they r, culturally they r even more different from the US & UK.
It is not the Japanese public that are the problem... most of the countries of Asia would not like Japan taking a more militaristic turn... it would unite Asia together against Japan and any ally she might have... UK or US, both of which have terrible track records in the region... opium den anyone?
If the VDV wants it, others will want them too.
They are looking in to it, but that means nothing... a more conventional high speed helicopter design is rather more likely.
there r different niches.
A tilt rotor aircraft needs two rather big rotors to operate so the bare minimum footprint is that of a tandem helo... a coaxial high speed helicopter can have less than half that footprint and be just as fast...
if a jet powered cargo plane can't safely land, it's useless to send it there or to a spot some distance way to be met by a helo; better & easier to send a slower tilt/tandem-rotor that can deliver door to door & still save time.
Jet powered cargo planes can land in all sorts of different conditions.... Il-76s can land on grass strips when below 200 tons weight... which is most of the time.
I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.
Have never seen an Mi-8 or Mi-6 with naval equipment like that... are you sure it wasn't an Mi-14?
50-50- they import arms just like India, from both US & Russia.
So America doesn't have the final say, because if they did it would be no to Russian equipment.
"good $" r needed for good things. The Murphy's law states: "if it can go wrong, it will", & it happens more often than not. If an airfield is potholed, iced/snowed over or flooded, VTOLs, unlike planes, can still safely use it or land around it.
There are plenty of reasons for all sorts of aircraft to crash, but conventionally landing aircraft are safer than vertically landing ones.... whether it is wind shear, or vortex ring stall, or just vertically landing on ground that happens to be soft under one wheel...
Conventional airstrips can carry more people on larger aircraft that can fly further and faster and is much more efficient and safer.
Lighter aircraft can fly from there to smaller settlements and operate from rough air strips.
According to the data for 2015, the development of this aircraft is actively continuing, and the Ka-102 helicopter is viewed primarily as a civilian aircraft, allowing the transportation of 80 to 90 passengers at a maximum flight speed of 500 km / h, which is turn has no analogues in the world.
Incredibly slow for a conventional airliner and likely shorter range too... totally pointless.
If you are moving 80-90 people then you are taking them from somewhere that has a lot of people to somewhere that is going to have a lot of people so you might as well build a proper runway and do it much faster and more efficiently with a normal aircraft... like an Il-276.
They can use a supertanker to convert it to Ka-102 carrier. At 1/2 size, it's smaller variants, along with tilt-rotors, can be parked on UDK decks & leave the CH-47F in the dust.
Apart from top speed the Mi-26 already does leave it in the dust...
they'll start developing them after the Ka-102 appears.
Assuming it ever does.
even though, they'll deliver more as work horses- India isn't Pakistan or Bangladesh & can afford it.
Their Navy will use then too. If Russia produced a CH-47- like helos, India would have procured them instead- so Russia they could potentially export them to India &/ others in the future.
Bullshit... India doesn't operate Chinooks because they are so wonderful... they operate them because they are American and they want to diversify their inventory... it doesn't matter than Russian planes are better than American ones or Russian helos are better too...
it only proves my point!
Why are you suggesting they copy US designs when their existing designs already do the job and are better...
They could get a CH-47 from Iran & civ. tilt-rotor from abroad- no need to jump through the hoops! But it's better wait for Russia to come with better models before investing in them.
They want to cooperate with Russia because Russia makes good helos. If they want new Chinook designs then they will have to develop them themselves.
to me, most probably not! 1 can't rely on "probably" in aviation!
Then why are you relying on the VDV possibly funding a tilt rotor design and Kamov possibly developing a tandem helo design?
true, but they been constantly upgrading them before.
To keep them operational... once the replacement is ready they are gone because they are worn out and need replacement.
It is possible that the Mi-8 is not as convenient for pilots and passengers as the Mi-38, but it is much cheaper, which is often much more important for customers.
https://militaryarms.ru/vertolety/vertolet-mi-38/
Which is why a tandem or tilt rotor design doesn't have a chance because they will be much more expensive and much more difficult to support and operate because there are not plenty of support options and spare parts around...
The new variant will replace some of the older Mi-8/17s.
But that doesn't mean that better performing aircraft than the Mi-38s will be passed over by the VMF & other gov. entities. As they age &/ replaced by newer versions, civilians will be getting them.
The older aircraft that will be replaced first will be worn out old hack likely used for spares for operational models.
Last edited by GarryB on Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
their future expeditionary forces could use them but won't need too many of them, & it'll be $ well spent!GarryB wrote:Tilt rotors offer the potential for higher speed flight, but not as much as a conventional aircraft does, so it is a waste of time and money.
if they fail with EMALS, that could be an alternative.Nobody has tandem or tilt rotor AWACS aircraft, because no one wants to make an expensive aircraft shorter ranged and flaky.
even after a few failures they'll fix them eventually. The old Mi-12 is more complicated than a tandem type layout & the Ka-22 was more complicated than the V-22 type:And what if their tilt rotors and tandems fail... rather more likely because they make something fairly straight forward and make it complex and dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22
Why would/should they have huge problems with CH-47 & V-22 layouts?
they have the Mi-28s & the Ka-52s- why shouldn't they have both tilt-rotors & compound helos?They are looking in to it, but that means nothing... a more conventional high speed helicopter design is rather more likely.
such a helo could be made even of the Mi-6/26 size; OTH, they could VTOL as tandem helos with their wing still over the fuselage or turned into that position in flight, with their engines permanently horizontal position like on the V-280.A tilt rotor aircraft needs two rather big rotors to operate so the bare minimum footprint is that of a tandem helo... a coaxial high speed helicopter can have less than half that footprint and be just as fast...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rnb0AXTVc
there may not be any clear grass/ dirt strips for dozens/100s of miles around.Il-76s can land on grass strips when below 200 tons weight... which is most of the time.
I'm sure, watched them with binoculars; they didn't have any MAD stings like on P-3s/IL-38s but their sensors were good enough for shallow water off Odessa.Have never seen an Mi-8 or Mi-6 with naval equipment like that... are you sure it wasn't an Mi-14?
they don't want to antagonize nuclear armed India while staring down China, NK, Iran & Russia.So America doesn't have the final say, because if they did it would be no to Russian equipment.
why not make tilt-rotors with adjustable diameter props so they could land like airplanes?conventionally landing aircraft are safer than vertically landing ones....
irrelevant- they won't be flying from Moscow to Novosibirsk or from there to Khabarovsk, but on much shorter routes within the North, Siberia & the FE. Still faster than classic helos & with less stops for refueling while carrying more passengers & cargo.Incredibly slow for a conventional airliner and likely shorter range too... totally pointless.
they fly them once in a few weeks/months to/from temporary work at construction, oil/gas wells, timber, mines, etc., so it's still more feasible than building an airport for the Il-276s.If you are moving 80-90 people then you are taking them from somewhere that has a lot of people to somewhere that is going to have a lot of people so you might as well build a proper runway and do it much faster and more efficiently with a normal aircraft... like an Il-276.
the Ka-102s will be lighter, more efficient & less costly to buy & operate.Apart from top speed the Mi-26 already does leave it in the dust...
I have no doubt it will.Assuming it ever does.
Russia has no CH-47F counterpart, which can do the job of 2 Mi-17s.India doesn't operate Chinooks because they are so wonderful.. it doesn't matter than Russian planes are better than American ones or Russian helos are better too...
It's more efficient to use them than the more expensive & heavier Mi-26s when u need to haul 10T instead of 20T of cargo to/from the bases/mountain outposts; they have 741km range, only by 59km less vs. 800km on the Mi-26:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Specifications_(Mil-17-1A2)
some jobs specifics change- that's why there r many variants of any given aircraft; some helos just can't be used as well as others no matter how good they r. They won't copy designs- the Mi-4 wasn't a copy of the H-34:Why are you suggesting they copy US designs when their existing designs already do the job and are better...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-34
not necessarily- to save $, they can co-develop them.If they want new Chinook designs then they will have to develop them themselves.
not only- Marines, MChS, & FSB can be seduced to support them too.Then why are you relying on the VDV possibly funding a tilt rotor design and Kamov possibly developing a tandem helo design?
amen.To keep them operational... once the replacement is ready they are gone because they are worn out and need replacement.
with more development in Siberia, North & the FE, more helos will be needed; those that can perform 2x better will be thought after.Which is why a tandem or tilt rotor design doesn't have a change because they will be much more expensive and much more difficult to support and operate because there are not plenty of support options and spare parts around...
their industry will produce enough new helos to make more older surplus helos available for civilian use. It's not the socialist post-war USSR where things were used a lot longer than they were designed for.The older aircraft that will be replaced first will be worn out old hack likely used for spares for operational models.
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:51 pm; edited 6 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.
BTW MAD would be useless for finding divers... it is designed to detect enormous metal objects like submarines. They would need disposable sonobouys or dipping sonars to find divers or just detect them visually... they could do the latter but the former two only the Mi-14 would carry.
their future expeditionary forces could use them but won't need too many of them, & it'll be $ well spent!
Yeah, see here is where you step out of reality... when you need a completely new thing you have never made before but you only need a couple your best option is to buy off the shelf from someone with operational experience. It is why Russia bought Mistrals... they wanted them in a hurry, they were probably only going to make 4 of them, but any new design any Russian design bureau might come up with is 3-5 years down the track and it is risky because although they know how to design and build ships you really don't know how a full sized ship will react or perform until you make one and test it... which is incredibly expensive and risky and it takes time too. The French had a ship that ticked their boxes with a few modifications and they agreed to sell it.
Of course in the end it worked out perfectly... a Russian shipyard was taught to make half the ship, so new skills there, they got the complete design schematics for the ship, and most of the money paid was returned. Much of the onboard electronics was adapted to Russian systems and aircraft as well, so when Egypt ended up buying them they now have an export customer for those components and systems and aircraft too.
Apart from being a waste of time it did not end up costing too much.
Making tilt rotor design aircraft but only a few dozen is incredibly stupid and short sighted and will be very very expensive. The whole point of unifying the design of the F-35 into conventional land based, cat assisted carrier based and vertical take off was to avoid Harrier syndrome where the Marines had one unique type of aircraft different from everyone elses with different engines and systems etc etc. The stupid
still managed to make it way more expensive than it needed to be, which is why europe are looking at their own new fighter to replace it... they haven't even got it in service yet and they are actively spending money on a replacement...if they fail with EMALS, that could be an alternative.
What makes you so sure they will fail with EMALS?
It is Physics... they love that shit... besides there are an enormous range of areas where technological progress in that area would be very useful... all electric drive... which they are also working on, magnets, plasma, superconductors...
even after a few failures they'll fix them eventually
It is funny you think they will fail at EMALS but wont have any problems with tilt rotors and tandem helicopters.
I am suggesting they could master all three, but they have no reason to master tilt rotors or tandem helos because they already have superior helicopters and are working on improving flight speed which is the only advantage tilt rotor designs have and they can do that with coaxial designs.
The old Mi-12 is more complicated than a tandem type layout & the Ka-22 was more complicated than the V-22 type:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22
Why would/should they have huge problems with CH-47 & V-22 layouts?
Why did they only make 2 Mi-12s?
Perhaps they realised they would be total dogs in service... expensive to operate but not offering any capacity that alternative much cheaper much more efficient aircraft couldn't also provide.
Why should they have problems with the CH-47 layout... the Yak design was not a good aircraft and was rapidly retired.
Why doesn't the US use coaxial designs like Kamov... they are compact and powerful and have become reliable and useful... and the obvious reason up until now is that the gearbox needed for large 10 ton plus helos with coaxial rotors is heavy and complex and they couldn't manage it.
Right now they are looking at coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... it should be amusing... and you can be your ass if they have not contacted Kamov they will have their spies buying Kamov helos to examine and test...
they have the Mi-28s & the Ka-52s- why shouldn't they have both tilt-rotors & compound helos?
Because the Mi-28s and Ka-52s already do the job...
such a helo could be made even of the Mi-6/26 size; OTH, they could VTOL as tandem helos with their wing still over the fuselage or turned into that position in flight, with their engines permanently horizontal position like on the V-280.
They still need a very large area to land.
And there is no practical reason to have them that big.
there may not be any clear grass/ dirt strips for dozens/100s of miles around.
And their may be plenty. They already have helicopters to operate in rough areas. It is not worth spending billions of dollars to develop tilt rotor aircraft just because it might save one life in a very strange situation... that is just stupid.
I'm sure, watched them with binoculars; they didn't have any MAD stings like on P-3s/IL-38s but their sensors were good enough for shallow water off Odessa.
If they were looking for divers I would suggest the sensors they were using were binoculars... and most small light aircraft could be just as useful at that and probably much cheaper in terms of operational costs.
they don't want to antagonize nuclear armed India while staring down China, NK, Iran & Russia.
So why are they demanding India cancel its deal to buy S-400s and stop buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil?
why not make tilt-rotors with adjustable diameter props so they could land like airplanes?
It is the simplicity of the conventional aircraft and the length of runway they use that makes them safer... but not totally safe.
Smaller diameter props would be like using jet engines on VTOL aircraft... it would need to land on paved surfaces because the more intense exhaust thrust would rip up the ground and throw dirt into the air like a dust storm which will rapidly ruin both visibility and your engines.
irrelevant- they won't be flying from Moscow to Novosibirsk or from there to Khabarovsk, but on much shorter routes within the North, Siberia & the FE. Still faster than classic helos & with less stops for refueling while carrying more passengers & cargo.
Except that that is not actually true is it?
Tilt rotors really don't have amazing payload performance because they can only take off vertically and their flight speed is usually only a few hundred kms per hour faster than many helos...
The shorter the route the less important are speed advantages, which is why over shorter distances smaller lighter aircraft are more useful... and Siberia is covered in places where you can land a light aircraft.
they fly them once in a few weeks/months to/from temporary work at construction, oil/gas wells, timber, mines, etc., so it's still more feasible than building an airport for the Il-276s.
Yeah, but with all those people working there they are obviously not living off the land so they will need a hell of a lot more transport that just taking in people and bringing them home... they will need 200 meals a day just for the people being transferred... so every couple of weeks or months means quite a few tons of food alone.
It would be cheaper and easier to transfer people in smaller groups more often with smaller aircraft... three or four visits from an An-2 would be vastly cheaper and vastly more efficient... its 1,000hp engine would use vastly less fuel than the enormous engines of this proposed helo and it would likely fly faster and further too.
the Ka-102s will be lighter, more efficient & less costly to buy & operate.
Not better than aircraft already being used of a more conventional nature.
Russia has no CH-47F counterpart, which can do the job of 2 Mi-17s.
The west has no counterpart of the Mi-26 which can do the job of 2-3 of any western helicopters... I would say in its class but there are none.
The fact that they don't have one suggests they don't need one.
It's more efficient to use them than the more expensive & heavier Mi-26s when u need to haul 10T instead of 20T of cargo to/from the bases/mountain outposts; they have 741km range, only by 59km less vs. 800km on the Mi-26:
And when Chinooks crash... who do they send to recover the body?
Where is Americas answer to the Mi-17... a 3 ton capacity helo to operate in Afghanistan in a hot and high environment... the Black Hawk is too under powered and in many locations in Afghanistan can't even take off because it has zero payload capacity in those conditions... it can't even manage the weight of the aircrew at certain times of the day. To solve the problem they use the much bigger much more expensive Chinook to do the job of the Mi-17 and you claim that makes the Chinook superior... come on...
Perhaps if the Black Hawk was a better helo they might not even need the Chinook so much.
Clearly the Chinook is not great, the other helos they have are ordinary.
some jobs specifics change- that's why there r many variants of any given aircraft; some helos just can't be used as well as others no matter how good they r. They won't copy designs- the Mi-4 wasn't a copy of the H-34:
Hahahahaha... excellent example... the west would be jumping up and down about the Soviets copying an american helicopter design... except they don't because the dates prove it was the other way around so they don't mention it because it does not suit their agenda of suggesting Russia copies them.
Sometimes the Soviets did copy, they aren't embarrassed... this is survival, not some game.
not necessarily- to save $, they can co-develop them.
Why would Russia spend money on an aircraft design they don't need?
not only- Marines, MChS, & FSB can be seduced to support them too.
There is already Mi-17 for cheap, and Mi-38 for later... they don't need another choice...
with more development in Siberia, North & the FE, more helos will be needed; those that can perform 2x better will be thought after.
Yeah, they already have plenty of aircraft design options to choose from that cover the spectrum of needs and choices... and you can't say tandems and tilt rotors that have not even been designed yet are going to be two times better... the new high speed helicopters might be twice as fast and can be applied to existing designs making them much more suitable than these unmade tilt rotor designs that might be 30 million dollars each and no one can afford.
their industry will produce enough new helos to make more older surplus helos available for civilian use. It's not the socialist post-war USSR where things were used a lot longer than they were designed for.
Arctic conditions are tough on aircraft... most of the plastics used in modern cars shatter at minus 40 degrees... going from 30 degrees when people are in it to minus 50 degrees when they are not is hard on anything man made... these tilt rotor aircraft are going to really suffer if they ever get built... and when they do they will be 50 million or more each and no one will be able to afford them... except that the ones that can will more likely build proper airfields and rail connections.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
then, they probably used optical sensors &/ water penetrating radar, if it existed. The water there wasn't always clear & I doubt binoculars would be of any help in that.GarryB wrote:They would need disposable sonobouys or dipping sonars to find divers or just detect them visually... they could do the latter but the former two only the Mi-14 would carry.
If they were looking for divers I would suggest the sensors they were using were binoculars...
EMALS is based on different principles used up to date, while those aircraft use the same known principles of aerodynamics & testresults during their development phases.What makes you so sure they will fail with EMALS?
It is funny you think they will fail at EMALS but wont have any problems with tilt rotors and tandem helicopters.
by the same token, the US is developing, as u wrote, coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... while already having tandem/tilt rotors. Does it mean they'll get rid of them in favor of coaxials? That's why Russia should develop tandem/tilt rotors to have a "complete tool box"...they have no reason to master tilt rotors or tandem helos because they already have superior helicopters and are working on improving flight speed which is the only advantage tilt rotor designs have and they can do that with coaxial designs.
..the V-12's most important intended mission no longer existed, i.e. the rapid deployment of heavy strategic ballistic missiles. This also led to a reduction in Antonov An-22 production.Why did they only make 2 Mi-12s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Operational_history
they r not suited for SAR, ASW, assault & transport jobs.Because the Mi-28s and Ka-52s already do the job...
not larger than fixed wings; they can airdrop supplies/people from low altitudes. Quad-rotors would be even bigger.They still need a very large area to land.
And there is no practical reason to have them that big.
tandem-rotor & smaller Mi-12 like helos could still do more than Mi-17/38s. Don't tell me they can cheaply use the Mi-26s as an air ambulance since it's already built.It is not worth spending billions of dollars to develop tilt rotor aircraft just because it might save one life in a very strange situation... that is just stupid.
because they come from Anglo-Saxon background & used to demand obedience to see if they'll get it, if it suits their agenda.So why are they demanding India cancel its deal to buy S-400s and stop buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil?
they could have their large helo rotors & reduce their diameter for plane-like landings enough to give them ground clearance, so they don't have to do VLs or shear their props in emergencies.Smaller diameter props would be like using jet engines on VTOL aircraft...
they can also do rolling TOs; I meant tandem-rotors on those flights.Tilt rotors really don't have amazing payload performance because they can only take off vertically and their flight speed is usually only a few hundred kms per hour faster than many helos...
often they need to divert to other LZs to avoid bad weather/fires/floods/mil. & police activity, & pick up/drop other people/cargo- more fuel/internal volume means bigger size...over shorter distances smaller lighter aircraft are more useful...
they have huge storage places in the permafrost for food delivered by ships &/ trucks; no need for regular deliveries.Yeah, but with all those people working there they are obviously not living off the land so they will need a hell of a lot more transport that just taking in people and bringing them home... they will need 200 meals a day just for the people being transferred... so every couple of weeks or months means quite a few tons of food alone.
it's like using An-22/124s to haul 40T instead of Il-76s. The Mi-26s will exhaust their resource faster, & that's why India is buying CH-47s. The Chinook has exceptional ability to deliver heavy payloads to high altitudes and is eminently suitable for operations in the high Himalayas. https://www.facebook.com/IndianAirForce/videos/ch-47f-i-chinook/1276509065836821/Not better than aircraft already being used of a more conventional nature.
https://www.boeing.co.in/products-and-services/defense-space-and-security/boeing-defense-space-and-security-in-india/ch-47-chinook.page
http://www.boeing.com/defense/chinook-block-ii/#/video/boeing-chinook-block-ii
https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/interesting-facts-about-chinook-helicopter-1553519608-1
that may be now true on land; but the VMF may have a another idea. Later, impressed with their performance, the Army/AF/FSB/MChS may want them.The fact that they don't have one suggests they don't need one.
they don't crash in peacetime any more often than the Mi-8/17/26s.And when Chinooks crash... who do they send to recover the body?
If some Mi-26s crash, what helo will recover them, in 1 piece?
they procured some Mi-17s for the Afghan AF, but they don't operate them themselves there; the Chinooks r being used instead of the CH-53s that can't fly with cargo & armed people over the mountains.To solve the problem they use the much bigger much more expensive Chinook to do the job of the Mi-17 and you claim that makes the Chinook superior... come on...
the UH-60s r inferior to Mi-17s, just like the M-16/4 is inferior to the AK-47/AKM.Perhaps if the Black Hawk was a better helo they might not even need the Chinook so much.
The CH-47F is great if compared with CH-53 & other Western large helos.Clearly the Chinook is not great, the other helos they have are ordinary.
see the above reply.Why would Russia spend money on an aircraft design they don't need? ..There is already Mi-17 for cheap, and Mi-38 for later... they don't need another choice...
the Ka-102 already been mostly designed, with 1st flight possible in 2020. The future Mi-12 layout helo will be unified with a tilt-rotor variant, reducing costs.and you can't say tandems and tilt rotors that have not even been designed yet are going to be two times better...
they had their Tu-126/128s/95s & MiG-21/23/25/31s there for decades & know how to use titanium.etc on aircraft. Heated maintenance hangars will prolong their life- so don't worry of them wasting $ on those birds.Arctic conditions are tough on aircraft... most of the plastics used in modern cars shatter at minus 40 degrees... these tilt rotor aircraft are going to really suffer if they ever get built... and when they do they will be 50 million or more each and no one will be able to afford them...
Canada operates those & other helos in the Arctic & Antarctic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhcO7MMk9dE
https://www.canadianhelicopters.com/services/helicopter-operations/antarctic-operations/
The Himalayas climate is similar to that of Alaska & the Arctic:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46594102@N05/39896632280/
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:44 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
For marine SAR assault and.transport jobs, they have the Ka-27 family and they are modernising them.
In addition they are developing the minoga naval helicopter
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/virtual-press-offices/rostec/russian-helicopters-complete-detail-design-for-ship-based-minoga-helicopter/
In your opinion, they should discard the minoga project in favour of a foreign design (the same way they should licence build C130 or Y-9 or An-12 and trash the Il-276 project)?
Edit
And, btw, they are spending.a lot of money to restore former soviet airfields in the nord
E.g
https://aviation21.ru/rosaviaciya-vosstanovit-eshhyo-tri-aeroporta-v-yakutii/
Furthermore as, somebody else was pointing out, even without airfields (or roads that go straight for a mile to be used as occasional anding strip), most Russian cargo planes are quite rugged, and could land also in unprepared airfields. As far as I.remember, in the russian artic they have quite a bit of flat land
In addition they are developing the minoga naval helicopter
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/virtual-press-offices/rostec/russian-helicopters-complete-detail-design-for-ship-based-minoga-helicopter/
In your opinion, they should discard the minoga project in favour of a foreign design (the same way they should licence build C130 or Y-9 or An-12 and trash the Il-276 project)?
Edit
And, btw, they are spending.a lot of money to restore former soviet airfields in the nord
E.g
https://aviation21.ru/rosaviaciya-vosstanovit-eshhyo-tri-aeroporta-v-yakutii/
Furthermore as, somebody else was pointing out, even without airfields (or roads that go straight for a mile to be used as occasional anding strip), most Russian cargo planes are quite rugged, and could land also in unprepared airfields. As far as I.remember, in the russian artic they have quite a bit of flat land
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
then, they probably used optical sensors &/ water penetrating radar, if it existed. The water there wasn't always clear & I doubt binoculars would be of any help in that.
I think you would be surprised how far underwater you can see with the naked eye from an aircraft flying low over water... certainly even Mi-14s didn't have water penetrating radar... the nose radar was to detect small boats and submarine snorkles and masts sticking up out of the water as well as buoys and the like.
The P-3 orion has lots of windows for people with binoculars to assist in searches... the Mk. 1 Eyeball should not be underestimated.
EMALS is based on different principles used up to date, while those aircraft use the same known principles of aerodynamics & testresults during their development phases.
Unlike a blast of steam propelling aircraft, EMALS can use smart technology... during a launch it can detect if it is not giving enough force and compensate and vice versa to prevent a lot of problems and accidents they have with the steam powered system.
Catapult systems likely would not work with the Ski Ramp so you would only have two cats launching aircraft... but that is OK because only their AWACS aircraft would require cat assistance anyway.
by the same token, the US is developing, as u wrote, coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... while already having tandem/tilt rotors. Does it mean they'll get rid of them in favor of coaxials? That's why Russia should develop tandem/tilt rotors to have a "complete tool box".
That sounds like a serious waste of money and time and energy. Why not develop Dolphins with lasers on their heads in case that is useful too?
..the V-12's most important intended mission no longer existed, i.e. the rapid deployment of heavy strategic ballistic missiles. This also led to a reduction in Antonov An-22 production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Operational_history
The V-12 had a max capacity of 40 tons which is nothing like the size they would need for an actual strategic ballistic missile system... that would barely manage an iskander system... but you would need at least ten aircraft to carry a unit with all their support and command vehicles... total waste.
they r not suited for SAR, ASW, assault & transport jobs.
Because there are related helicopter designs that share a lot of parts including engines for those roles... Hip, Helix, etc.
not larger than fixed wings;
An Su-33 is a fixed wing aircraft whose wing folds into a very small space...
they can airdrop supplies/people from low altitudes.
What is your fixation with air dropping supplies and people... do you own shares in a parachute company?
tandem-rotor & smaller Mi-12 like helos could still do more than Mi-17/38s.
AFAIK work in Russia to improve performance seems to be based around increasing flight speed with a pusher propeller... I can't see a Tandem rotor helo being faster than current helos.
because they come from Anglo-Saxon background & used to demand obedience to see if they'll get it, if it suits their agenda.
No, they are just
who can't be trusted and I wont deal with them ever if I can help it.they could have their large helo rotors & reduce their diameter for plane-like landings enough to give them ground clearance, so they don't have to do VLs or shear their props in emergencies.
This is the Russian Navy section, there is no point in suggesting ways to modify their tilt rotors to improve performance because they don't have any.
they can also do rolling TOs; I meant tandem-rotors on those flights.
Tandem rotor aircraft are no faster than conventional helos.
often they need to divert to other LZs to avoid bad weather/fires/floods/mil. & police activity, & pick up/drop other people/cargo- more fuel/internal volume means bigger size.
Bigger size means fewer safe landing options and easier target and more people dead when it crashes...
they have huge storage places in the permafrost for food delivered by ships &/ trucks; no need for regular deliveries.
If trucks and ships can deliver then regular delivery is not problem so they could easily build a decent runway...
The Chinook has exceptional ability to deliver heavy payloads to high altitudes and is eminently suitable for operations in the high Himalayas.
Yet when they crash in the much lower mountain ranges in Afghanistan they are unable to recover their own... Mi-26s are the only helicopter that can do the job of recovery in such situations...
it's like using An-22/124s to haul 40T instead of Il-76s.
Hey, welcome to the real world... sometimes that 40 tons is large and needs a much bigger aircraft to carry it because the problem is volume and not weight.
If you are carrying steel armour plates you could probably fit them in an An-2, but need an An-22 or bigger aircraft to actually get airborne with that 80 ton payload.
Equally some very light objects are huge... the VMT was needed to transport the fuel tanks of the Energyia space rocket... just weight wise a lot of different aircraft could have carried it, but because of its size it needed a VMT to move it because it could carry it on its back externally, which the An-22 and An-124 couldn't.
they don't crash in peacetime any more often than the Mi-8/17/26s.
If some Mi-26s crash, what helo will recover them, in 1 piece?
Well the empty weight of the Mi-26 is less than 30 tons and in 1982 it lifted a 56 ton payload to 2,000m so I guess it could carry itself...
Of course if you remove the main rotor the gearbox and the engines then it is only 14 tons and very very easy to carry...
they procured some Mi-17s for the Afghan AF, but they don't operate them themselves there; the Chinooks r being used instead of the CH-53s that can't fly with cargo & armed people over the mountains.
So not just the blackhawks but also super stallions are bloody useless there too... interesting.
The CH-47F is great if compared with CH-53 & other Western large helos.
A helo isn't great just because it does its job... the Chinook isn't great for working... those other helos are rubbish for not working.
see the above reply.
So you think they should spend a few billion on making helos like the Chinook because it is not a total failure as a helicopter like the other American helos are?
The helos they already have get the job done, and the new technology they are working on can be applied to them to make them better. Spending money to develop a totally different type of helo is just pissing money away in the hope they might end up with a good product... there is no reason to make such a gamble.
the Ka-102 already been mostly designed, with 1st flight possible in 2020.
The Yak-44 has also been designed too... wont that instantly render any tilt rotor carrier design pointless?
they had their Tu-126/128s/95s & MiG-21/23/25/31s there for decades & know how to use titanium.etc on aircraft. Heated maintenance hangars will prolong their life- so don't worry of them wasting $ on those birds.
Titanium seats and control surfaces will tear the skin from your body when below about minus 15 degrees C and hardly make comfortable human friendly structures for people to operate aircraft with. Buttons and switches and even the curly plastic coated cable that connects the microphone to the plug in the control panel can't be made of titanium...
I am not saying they can't operate there, I am saying not just any only construction material and design will do.
When developing Ratnik personal combat gear systems they had to make sure it could all take the cold and wet and heat etc etc.