Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Share

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 568
    Points : 593
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:34 am

    George1 wrote:Russia's next naval (ASW) helicopter options:

    1. Ka-52
    2. Ka-31
    3. Ka-60
    4. New design

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160514/1039618244/russian-navy-ka52-ka60.html

    For me the strongest option is the Ka-52, and the second best would be the Ka-31 (variant of the Ka-27).

    Not sure if I see the Ka-60/62 as a combat helicopter. Surely I would not order it. In the current ships that have helicopters, there is not need of an smaller (and less powerful) combat helicopter. And in the current ships that have not helicopters, if there is some space, but is not big enough for a Ka-52 or a Ka-31, it is likely to be used for drones of different role and size.

    About new designs, I would rule out to begin the design of new projects of combat helicopters that are not unmanned.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:24 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    George1 wrote:Russia's next naval (ASW) helicopter options:

    1. Ka-52
    2. Ka-31
    3. Ka-60
    4. New design

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160514/1039618244/russian-navy-ka52-ka60.html

    For me the strongest option is the Ka-52, and the second best would be the Ka-31 (variant of the Ka-27).

    Not sure if I see the Ka-60/62 as a combat helicopter. Surely I would not order it. In the current ships that have helicopters, there is not need of an smaller (and less powerful) combat helicopter. And in the current ships that have not helicopters, if there is some space, but is not big enough for a Ka-52 or a Ka-31, it is likely to be used for drones of different role and size.

    About new designs, I would rule out to begin the design of new projects of combat helicopters that are not unmanned.

    ASW helicopter does not equal combat helicopter. Also size is being dictated by ships size. There are ASW variants of fairly small helicopters like AW159 Wildcat, AS565 Panther, Westland Lynx, Bell 212...

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 568
    Points : 593
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:06 pm

    In my comment combat helicopters was refered to all the forms of combat roles, including ASW.

    Of course there are smaller helicopters doing this role but are fairly less powerful, and even more fragile. I do not see advantages of their use. Also I would expect the number of ships that currently have not space for a Ka-31 or Ka-52 but have space for a Ka-60 to be very small. The difference of size is not as big, and the coaxial rotor design of the Ka-31 and Ka-52 reduces the rotor diameter from what would be necessary for its size.

    To see it approximately with some numbers from the public data:

    Rotor diameter:
    14.50m Ka-50/52
    14.50m Ka-31
    13.50m Ka-60/62

    Disc area diameter (the diameter of the total area sweept by the main rotor of an helicopter):
    20.51m Ka-50/52 (330.3m2 disc area)
    ??.??m Ka-31 (I found no data but must be almost the same than for the Ka-50/52)
    13.50m Ka-60/62 (143.1m2 disc area)

    This want not to be a precise calculus of the space needed by helicopter, but maybe enough to have a proper idea about the space required by every model.

    Surely the Ka-60/62 can have more advantage in operational costs (by moving less weight), and it is useful for some non-combat roles like transport operations where is not needed as big takeoff weight. But in shipborne combat roles to use the Ka-60/62 would lead likely to lower shipborne air power by ship except in very few cases.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:08 pm

    eehnie wrote:In my comment combat helicopters was refered to all the forms of combat roles, including ASW.

    Of course there are smaller helicopters doing this role but are fairly less powerful, and even more fragile. I do not see advantages of their use. Also I would expect the number of ships that currently have not space for a Ka-31 or Ka-52 but have space for a Ka-60 to be very small. The difference of size is not as big, and the coaxial rotor design of the Ka-31 and Ka-52 reduces the rotor diameter from what would be necessary for its size.

    To see it approximately with some numbers from the public data:

    Rotor diameter:
    14.50m Ka-50/52
    14.50m Ka-31
    13.50m Ka-60/62

    Disc area diameter (the diameter of the total area sweept by the main rotor of an helicopter):
    20.51m Ka-50/52 (330.3m2 disc area)
    ??.??m Ka-31 (I found no data but must be almost the same than for the Ka-50/52)
    13.50m Ka-60/62 (143.1m2 disc area)

    This want not to be a precise calculus of the space needed by helicopter, but maybe enough to have a proper idea about the space required by every model.

    Surely the Ka-60/62 can have more advantage in operational costs (by moving less weight), and it is useful for some non-combat roles like transport operations where is not needed as big takeoff weight. But in shipborne combat roles to use the Ka-60/62 would lead likely to lower shipborne air power by ship except in very few cases.

    Main rotor sweep R does not matter much as navalised platforms mostly have folding rotor blades when stored, and outside on helipad you will have enough space most likely on any ship as 3 sides are not limiting you.

    However what does matter is helicopter hangar, and weight that helipad can take. Max takeoff weight of Ka-27PL is almost double compared to Ka-60, 12t vs 6,4t. On some ships you might even be able to have two Ka-60s instead of one Ka-32 in same hangar.

    UK also wanted to switch to Merlin-only naval arm, and it proved to be wrong, as Merlins had issue operating from small vessels, they are far more expencive to buy, operate and maintain. So Merlins shall stick to major sized ships, carriers and shore, while Wildcats will do the rest.

    US Navy SH-60 Seahawk for an example is alot more comparable to Ka-60 than Ka-27 variants in terms of weight and size.

    When its about Ka-52K i dont think it will do much of ASW role, but rather strike and ASuW.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 568
    Points : 593
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:13 pm

    When the diffierence is between 1 or 0 helicopters, it is necessary the space for takeoff and landing.

    As said I do not think that the Ka-60/62 would make a big difference in the number of ships that can access to have 1 helicopter.

    In other cases of ships with more helicopters it would be necessary to analyze the difference between size, the difference in combat power and the difference in range, to see if to be able to have (as example) 5 Ka-60 instead of 4 Ka-52 or Ka-31 is an improvement on the combat power of the ship or not. In a first preview, it seems to me that the difference in size (related to the space needed in the ship) is lower than the difference in weight (related to the armament carried by every helicopter). It means that the advantage can be on the side of the Ka-52 and the Ka-31.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  max steel on Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:Regarding your question about nuclear warheads for depth charges Max... as Russian subs get quieter the likelyhood of detecting them at a range where you can use nuke warheads reduces... Sea Lance never entered US service because there was no point... its increase in range over ASROC and SUBROC was pointless because they could no longer detect Russian subs at the longer range.



    I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

    Actually I would say Sea Dragon in its domestic version is totally comparable to anything the west has, the problem for both sides is that Russian subs have gotten quieter... to the point where active sonar has become a necessary tactic for surface vessels to detect subs at anything like a useful range on anything like a regular basis. AIP equipped subs will make this even more pronounced as they are quieter than nuke subs.


    By Active Sonar what do you mean exactly ? Can Active Sonars be used in enemy littoral waters or near their waters ? What's the difference between active and passive sonars ? I got your point that due to Russian sub quietness ( reduction in noise levels) US ASW sonars can no longer detect subs at longer range but if they detect it at shorter ranges even then what's the disadvantage ? Still they can use depth charge or torpedoes both from their asw aircraft( chances are less as it'll be shot down) or their own carrier supporting submarines ( highly likely) .




    That ghost unmanned ship using active sonar is again useless in such conflicts.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:35 pm

    By Active Sonar what do you mean exactly ?

    Like a bat in an empty cave where there is no noise... it squeaks and listens to the sound returning to their very large ears... by judging the time it takes for the sound to return it can gauge the distance to the walls of the cave.

    WWII sonars were used to detect subs by sending a ping and listening for the return from objects in the water like submarines.

    Can Active Sonars be used in enemy littoral waters or near their waters ? What's the difference between active and passive sonars ?

    Active sonar can be used anywhere but most subs don't use it to avoid revealing their presence.

    ASW groups of ships often actively ping in peace time to stir up enemy subs... a diesel electric that is running on electric that is not moving makes very little noise so to detect it you can use active sonar pings to detect its presence.

    US ASW sonars can no longer detect subs at longer range but if they detect it at shorter ranges even then what's the disadvantage ?

    If you can detect a noisy old WWII sub from 1,000km then your grid search pattern has 1,000km grids so searching the Atlantic is much easier... if you need to be within 1km of the target to detect it then obviously 1km square grids is going to have 1 million more flight lines in the horizontal and vertical... not to mention the time aspect as the time it takes to search a few widths of those sets of boxes an enemy sub could easily have moved out of the unsearched area into a searched area and be safe till you have looked everywhere and start looking where you have already looked... which would take years and not really be practical.

    That ghost unmanned ship using active sonar is again useless in such conflicts.

    What protects those ghost ships? They would be fairly easy to find targets if they are blazing away with active sonar all the time... even a passive homing torpedo could detect it at enormous range...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm

    Sorry to jump in, but i have been wondering what is the difference between the Kashtan and the Pantsir with respects to naval CIWS, and is the Pantsir going to replace the Kashtan, if so why, when a cheaper modernized version could do just the same?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 04, 2016 1:08 pm

    Kashtan is Tunguska M1, but with 30mm gatling guns instead of twin barrel cannon and Kashtan-M is Pantsir but with 30mm gatlings instead of single barrel 30mm cannon.

    Kashtan has 8km range missiles and two 30mm gatling guns, Kashtan-M has 12k range missiles and longer barrel 30mm gatlings with 960m/s muzzle velocity and better range with improved sensors and drives for better aiming accuracy and faster aiming.

    Pantsir-S1 and Pantsir-SM have longer ranged missiles (20km and 40km range respectively) and offer better performance for vessels.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:Kashtan is Tunguska M1, but with 30mm gatling guns instead of twin barrel cannon and Kashtan-M is Pantsir but with 30mm gatlings instead of single barrel 30mm cannon.

    Kashtan has 8km range missiles and two 30mm gatling guns, Kashtan-M has 12k range missiles and longer barrel 30mm gatlings with 960m/s muzzle velocity and better range with improved sensors and drives for better aiming accuracy and faster aiming.

    Pantsir-S1 and Pantsir-SM have longer ranged missiles (20km and 40km range respectively) and offer better performance for vessels.

    and both Kashtan+Pantsir-M use same gattlings AO–18KD )




    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:39 pm

    Alright.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:08 pm

    and both Kashtan+Pantsir-M use same gattlings AO–18KD

    Are you sure?

    I thought the Kashtan used the original AO-18K, but the Kashtan-M and Palma used the longer barrel AO-18KD...

    Also as a correction, the Kashtan-M has 10km range missiles not 12km that are upgraded to allow day night all weather use.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  medo on Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:33 pm

    http://russianplanes.net/id190351

    Su-33 b/n 88 is in Zhukovsky. It seems they are testing something new in it. It would be good if they modernize it to Su-27SM level with N-001VEP radar.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    and both Kashtan+Pantsir-M use same gattlings AO–18KD

    Are you sure?

    I thought the Kashtan used the original AO-18K, but the Kashtan-M and Palma used the longer barrel AO-18KD...


    You´re right. I meant Kashtan M and Pantsir M apology


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:29 pm

    Run Silent, Run Scared: Russian Sub Hunter to Tote Powerful New Bomb

    Russian engineers are working to adapt the all-new Zagon-2 antisubmarine corrected air bomb for use by Mi-14 helicopters, RIA Novosti wrote citing Techmash Concern’s CEO Sergei Rusakov.

    “The Zagon-2 antisubmarine bomb developed by the Scientific Research Institute of Engineering was originally intended for use by Ka-28 helicopters but we are now looking for ways to use it on other types of aircraft, including the Mi-14,” Rusakov said.

    The Zagon-2 antisubmarine corrected air bomb is designed to engage submarines on the sea surface, under periscope and deep down.

    When dropped on underwater targets the 120-kilogram Zagon-2 bomb descends on a parachute, which is released at the moment the bomb splashes down. The bomb then sinks down under gravitational g-force and is steered towards the target by active sonar target location and a motion control system.

    It can also be dropped from Il-38 and Tu-42M anti-submarine planes.

    Dubbed as “a killer of submarines” the Mil Mi-14 is a nuclear-capable shore-based amphibious helicopter armed with a torpedo, twelve 64kg or eight 120kg depth bombs.

    The Mi-14 can also carry a 1 kiloton nuclear anti-submarine bomb weighting 1,600kg, capable of scuttling any underwater target within a radius of 800 meters.

    The Mi-14 features a watertight weapons bay allowing internal carriage of a single torpedo or eight depth charges, and search radar fitted under its nose.

    The Mi-14 gained its nickname of “a killer of submarines” in the late 1980s when it found and sank a NATO sub which had strayed into Soviet territorial waters.

    Under strong pressure from the United States, all of Russia’s Mi-14 helicopters were decommissioned in 1996.

    With the Russian Navy undergoing massive re-equipment, the Defense Ministry plans to renew the production of Mi-14 nuclear-capable amphibious anti-submarine helicopters in Kazan.

    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160624/1041877132/russia-helicopter-bomb.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    IL-38 May

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:06 am

    IL-38 what kind of ASW torpedoes it carried ?

    And what was its typical weapons load ? Most sources in english Ive seen just mention load carrying capacity without the typical operational weapons load

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1741
    Points : 1781
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  franco on Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:17 pm

    100th Anniversary of Naval Aviation and a skills competition at Yeisk:

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2022159.html

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  medo on Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:03 pm

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2097090.html

    In Gromov center Russia test modernized Su-33, which receive Gefest SVP-24 complex. There are no other informations about modernization of other equipment. To effectivelly work with SVP-24, Su-33 for sure receive satellite navigation and new data link to operate inside network.

    But to receive real multirole fighter, they should modernize Su-33 radar to N001VEP with extended range and modes to operate against ground and sea targets.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:26 pm

    medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2097090.html

    In Gromov center Russia test modernized Su-33, which receive Gefest SVP-24 complex. There are no other informations about modernization of other equipment. To effectivelly work with SVP-24, Su-33 for sure receive satellite navigation and new data link to operate inside network.

    But to receive real multirole fighter, they should modernize Su-33 radar to N001VEP with extended range and modes to operate against ground and sea targets.

    So Su-33s will become multi-role and will not be withdrawn


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 568
    Points : 593
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:29 pm

    George1 wrote:
    medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2097090.html

    In Gromov center Russia test modernized Su-33, which receive Gefest SVP-24 complex. There are no other informations about modernization of other equipment. To effectivelly work with SVP-24, Su-33 for sure receive satellite navigation and new data link to operate inside network.

    But to receive real multirole fighter, they should modernize Su-33 radar to N001VEP with extended range and modes to operate against ground and sea targets.

    So Su-33s will become multi-role and will not be withdrawn

    There is not reason to retire them.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:34 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    There is not reason to retire them.

    i guess MiG-29Ks and Su-33s dont all fit in A.Kuznetsov


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 568
    Points : 593
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:48 pm

    George1 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    There is not reason to retire them.

    i guess MiG-29Ks and Su-33s dont all fit in A.Kuznetsov

    It is possible to use both. One can be better for some missions the other for other. Even it is possible to use both at same time if the aircraft carrier is near enough of some land airfield.

    The Su-33 is still an aircraft very useful, and with some improvements can be better still.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:19 am

    George1 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    There is not reason to retire them.

    i guess MiG-29Ks and Su-33s dont all fit in A.Kuznetsov

    So you have spare if combat losses occur. Kuznetsov could take 26 Su-33 and 33 helos according to wiki. So if you leave 12 Su-33 you can probably take 24 Mig-29k leaving some helos.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:04 am

    Actually the Su-33s have wings that double fold so when folded they are longer than the MiGs but not wider... you would not get 2 MiGs in the space of one flanker.

    Importantly previously the K had two types of aircraft anyway... Su-25s and Su-33s, where Su-25s were trainers only and had no combat role.

    With the MiG-29 coming in single and two seat versions it could perform the role of training and combat roles, it the K will still have two fixed wing types but rather better offensive and defensive capability.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  medo on Fri Sep 02, 2016 5:22 pm

    George1 wrote:
    medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2097090.html

    In Gromov center Russia test modernized Su-33, which receive Gefest SVP-24 complex. There are no other informations about modernization of other equipment. To effectivelly work with SVP-24, Su-33 for sure receive satellite navigation and new data link to operate inside network.

    But to receive real multirole fighter, they should modernize Su-33 radar to N001VEP with extended range and modes to operate against ground and sea targets.

    So Su-33s will become multi-role and will not be withdrawn

    Su-33 were produced in the nineties, so are between the youngest Flankers in arsenal and also they don't have many flight hours as Kuznetsev were rarely sailing and not all fighters are on the carrier. It was said a year ago, that a squadron of Su-33 Will be ground based to provide protection over Arctic region and the rest could still serve on the carrier. Placing N001VEP radar in Su-33 is the best solution for modernization as the radar is more or less the same as old one, but provide better air to air capabilities and totaly new anti-ship capabilities with combination with all Russian anti-ship missiles and anti ground modes including with ground mapping.

    Su-33 have longer range than MiG-29K/KUB and its combat radius is more than 1000 km and distance between Murmansk and Zemlya Aleksandra island is also more than 1000 km and Su-33 is better suited to patrol over the sea in this region and close the door to Russian Arctic region.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:21 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:21 pm