Kazan Ansat 2RC Recon Helicopter

d_taddei2 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:You might as well use a drone these days instead of a light recon/attack helicopter

Drones and scout attack heli have their pros and cons. Stone is unmanned so zero loss of life if lost, depending on the drone the payload could be smaller on the drone. The drone doesn't have any defensive systems like this has. And a drone can't pick up a downed pilot like this can. I see it as more of a export opportunity for forces who either need a light, cheap scout Heli, or can't afford the more expensive mi-28 Ka-52. And if they already operated the Ansat it would make sense to keep parts and training the same. This costs for this is around a 1/3 of the more expensive Heli. Just like that yak-130 cheap light fighter so poorer nation's but not something Russia would use in combat. I read an article end of last year where they talked about COIN aircraft Vs drones, mentioned the super tucano which is brilliant at what it does, the article basically said both have there uses and neither can fulfil each others role better than the other. Also stated drones aren't as agile as Helis or turboprops, light fighters.

You're probably right

But Russia itself I don't think has a need for such a chopper. If you want the capability to pick up a downed pilot - send a Mi-35 or Mi-28

d_taddei2 wrote:My personal opinion the mi-35 is ideal for such a job. As I said not something Russia would use, export potential is where this is likely to sell. It could also be useful for shipborne operations against pirates of the horn of Africa, or general marine policing. Being of a small size would fit nicely on ships.

I always thought that if Iran was ever to do arms deals with Russia, a production rights on the Ansat and the Ansat 2RC would be decent. As Iran hasn't really done well with it's both it's two Helis the sea cobra copy and it's other homegrown Heli that looks similar to the 2RC.

I wonder if the kamov 60 will ever see an armed version for export if it ever goes properly into production.

I always find Russia never really pushes hard enough with the poorer nation's on Heli like this and yak-130. Missed sales opportunities. You deals on poorer nation's buying second hand crap at silly prices.

I suspect the military ultimately lost interest in the Ka-60; at least there's been no talk about it for years. It may be that interest will return after the VK-1600V domestic engine is developed for the Ka-62.
When that problem is solved, Russia could potentially start to replace its Mi-17 fleet in the lighter role with Ka-60s that are cheaper to operate, and in the heavier roles with Mi-38s that are more sophisticated and can carry more. The Ka-60 can also be converted for naval operations.

As for the Ansat, it will likely face the same problem with Iran considering the sanctions the country is under; it doesn't have a domestic engine. In Russian service it's only used in the civilian sector (air ambulances, etc), and with the military as a training helicopter.
There isn't a dedicated engine in development for it, but potentially it could use the same VK-650V engine that's in development for the Ka-226 and that's in exactly the right horsepower range.

The company went bankrupt.

I think I remember reading that... bit of a shame because as you can see in the photo I posted it had good big doors and would be really good for sky diving in a small light cheap aircraft. For some missions it would be rather useful...

Back to the helicopter...

With the new types of light weight armour they are putting on their new light armoured vehicles it would be interesting to see what they could actually do, though those enormous windows would have to go...

Much better to have a smaller cockpit with small but armoured windows like the Havoc...

I see it as more of a export opportunity for forces who either need a light, cheap scout Heli, or can't afford the more expensive mi-28 Ka-52.

They already operate Ansat type helicopters, and not every location needs a huge heavy attack helicopter.

It would be useful little police helicopter instead of those western helicopters they use at the moment... they could load all sorts of non lethal rockets in the thing, though of course some times shots do need to be fired...

A light naval version for use on light ships would be interesting, though I would think a Ka-226T might have that area covered...

Perhaps a manned helicopter for perimeter defence that is not intended for the modern battlefield, where enemies are shooting at it with small arms fire and MANPADS, but as a perimeter patrol helicopter looking for signs of drones threatening whatever it is guarding... the guy in the cockpit being the pilot of course but the rockets and machine gun fire forward and are fixed so the gunner in the front is not doing anything because the pilot points the helicopter... so the pilot can fire rockets or machine gun fire... the guy in the nose could be using optics or perhaps a MMW radar to detect tiny flying things like drones and transmitting their location and information to base defence for them to deal with.

A chin mounted turret with a 40mm grenade launcher with airburst shells would allow the "gunner" to engage the drones, while any ground forces could be engaged by the pilot with rockets and machine gun fire.

Maybe replace the Kord HMG with a KPVB in 23 x 115mm calibre for a bit more potent HE rounds.

But Russia itself I don't think has a need for such a chopper. If you want the capability to pick up a downed pilot - send a Mi-35 or Mi-28

In Russia I would see the Ansat as more of a police or FSB or MVD type aircraft to replace those european helicopters they are using now... the armed model could be used for security without blowing the budget on the fuel a big heavy helicopter uses.

My personal opinion the mi-35 is ideal for such a job. As I said not something Russia would use, export potential is where this is likely to sell. It could also be useful for shipborne operations against pirates of the horn of Africa, or general marine policing. Being of a small size would fit nicely on ships.

Agree with your logic but on a ship the most dangerous thing is a swinging tail rotor, so the Ka-226 would more likely get the nod there as light helicopter.

I think policing or paramilitary use would be ideal with both this and the standard troop transport version working together.

I always find Russia never really pushes hard enough with the poorer nation's on Heli like this and yak-130. Missed sales opportunities. You deals on poorer nation's buying second hand crap at silly prices.

I totally agree there... I remember a lot of articles on the Mi-34, which didn't take off (pun intended) but it was upgraded and it appeared to be rather improved but that didn't seem to be popular either.

None of the Russian helicopter design bureaus (Mil and Kamov) seem to be going for light helicopters, though to be fair Kamov have had the Ka-226 but it has been handicapped by its french engines, so engines are probably at the core of the problems regarding new light helos.

When that problem is solved, Russia could potentially start to replace its Mi-17 fleet in the lighter role with Ka-60s that are cheaper to operate, and in the heavier roles with Mi-38s that are more sophisticated and can carry more. The Ka-60 can also be converted for naval operations.

They said something about putting the Mi-14 back into production but honestly I would like to see a naval Mi-14 version being made out of the Mi-38 the way the Mi-14 was made out of the Mi-8.

Otherwise I agree, it is probably engines holding them back regarding new small helicopters...

There isn't a dedicated engine in development for it, but potentially it could use the same VK-650V engine that's in development for the Ka-226 and that's in exactly the right horsepower range.

I suspect that engine will dramatically help its chances in the military as well as government related branches... don't they currently use a european helicopter... called a Squirrel or something... replacing that with something Russian should be a priority IMHO.

d_taddei2 wrote:As for engine's not sure if u missed it but article says two Russian companies are designing alternatives – Klimov in St Petersburg with its VK-800V, and Salyut in Moscow with its TV-500A.

The VK-800V was a 90s project that was put on hold eventually; it was meant to power a range of helicopters but for the Ansat specifically it's a little overpowered, although it can of course be down-rated.
It of course gives 800hp while the current P&W engine being used yields 630hp

Anyway, the VK-800S (in its turboprop configuration not turboshaft) was revived recently, but this time to power the An-2 replacement, so probably the Baikal aircraft that is being readied for production in Ulan-Ude.

The VK-650V on the other hand is a much more recent project that was announced well after that article was written, and with a 650hp rating would ostensibly fit the Ansat like a glove.

As for the TV-500V, with a rating of 630hp it also sounds like a great fit, but the most recent news I can find on the project is from 2017

d_taddei2 wrote:Thanks never knew about the other newer engines. But one of the things Iike about Russian arms industry is that they have systems for pretty much any need, cost, etc unlike the west. Hence I feel Russia could do more in arms sales selling a mix of items as I suggested like the 2RC,  and Yak-130. If you look at poorer nation's air forces many have aging light aircraft, this is where Russia could be selling, 2RC, Ansat, ka-226, mi-35, Mi-17, Yak-130, Mig-29M etc Russia has the equipment just not pursuing the sales. Only area I think Russia doesn't cover (but it could easily do so) is a combat turboprops COIN such as a super tucano type design, but to be honest the tucano pretty much dominates that market.

Don't see why you wouldn't just use a Hind in place of a Tucano to be honest. Can rev up quite a speed, can be well armed for COIN ops, and is pretty armoured.

I suspect the reason that NATO relies on them is because they don't have Hind-class gunships

Only area I think Russia doesn't cover (but it could easily do so) is a combat turboprops COIN such as a super tucano type design, but to be honest the tucano pretty much dominates that market.

Well they do use light patrol aircraft, but the distances are generally rather too great for such a small aircraft as a Super Tucano.

They have things like the An-72P with gunpods, rocket pods and bombs... but I would think an armed version of the new monoplane they are designing to replace the An-2 would be a good contender too as well as perhaps the Yak-152... or indeed the Yak-52s which will become available as Yak-152s replace them.

Don't see why you wouldn't just use a Hind in place of a Tucano to be honest. Can rev up quite a speed, can be well armed for COIN ops, and is pretty armoured.

Most importantly it can carry a small group of troops or recover people... or just carry extra ammo.

I suspect the reason that NATO relies on them is because they don't have Hind-class gunships

Very true.

What I would like to see with the Hind is one of these new RWS gun turrets being mounted on armoured vehicles being fitted to the base of where the tail attaches to the body of the helicopter facing backwards in a stabilised turret.

The Hind normally carries a crew of three... gunner, pilot, and flight engineer... the rear gun turret could be operated by the engineer.... it would be ideal for suppressing enemy fire as the hind leaves an area and for spotting any launches of MANPADS so the pilot can take evasive action.

The twin barrel 23mm cannon they have in the nose mounted chin turrets looks an ideal combination of size and weight and recoil and rate of fire and shell weight.

In one of the Hind upgrades with a large thermal imager placed in the nose they had to put a 50kg ballast weight in the rear to compensate for the extra weight in the nose. With the 23mm chin turret forward and its ammo and the new optical balls any ballast that might be in the rear of the helicopter could be replaced with this new gun turret and sight.

Would make it more of a gun ship.

The Russian twin barrel 23mm gun as carried in the nose chin turret would probably be lighter and deliver a round with a bigger HE charge.

Rate of fire is up to 3,500 rpm so it is no slouch in terms of that.

The 23 x 115mm shell it uses has a lower muzzle velocity but the heavy projectile of the round fired by the Shilka (though it is a much more powerful round being 23 x 152mm).

It is close to the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round which appears to be used less and less on Russian weapons with APCs carrying 30mm cannon or Kord 12.7mm guns.

d_taddei2 wrote:I would say the super Tucson Vs mi-24 both have pros and cons. Both carry roughly the same weight of arms.
The Hind has the advantage of being able to pick up troops and hover basically anything a Heli can. The super Tucano is most likely more agile, has a faster crusing speed, and higher ceiling height, both can have armour, and if a technical failure happens on the Tucano u can at least glide and somehow reduce impact speed, a Heli pretty much just falls out the sky. Just like Su-25 and mi-24 normally work together, I actually think the super Tucano and mi-24 could work together as well. Obviously the Tucano is for specific market.

As for the suggestion of the mi-24 having a rear gun, the Chinese and N Koreans produce a 14.5mm Gatling gun that would be pretty lethal decent range and penetration. I will post pics etc of the gun in NK thread. It a bit of a beast lol so it might be a bit heavy, or put a gun on each side of the Heli on the weapons mounts it could be nasty for ripping up convoys. Or as center line gun mount on a yak-130.

Link to the NK. Four pics and a gif of it firing.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t5695p175-korean-people-s-army-news#321847

Whatever happened to autorotation?

Don't forget the Mi-24 has the ability to drop free-fall bombs too.

The Mi-24 is used a lot like the Tucano would be in a lot of conflicts

You can make arguments for one of the other, but I don't see why you would need both

The 14.5mm has its uses, mostly used on ships now in Russian service. And I feel it's still useful against light or soft skin armour. I think the reason for armoured vehicles removing it as majority of western armour is now protected from 12.7mm, 14.5mm and even 30mm. But as Syria has shown us those calibres are still useful.

The 14.5mm basically serves the function of a 20mm cannon and a 50 cal slap round firing weapon in the Russian army without having to resort to subcalibre rounds.

It has an edge in terms of performance against armour, but it is on the verge of becoming obsolete simply because the 12.7mm does a similar job against most things and light anti armour rockets generally have more effect too.

Its primary use in Soviet forces was as the main armament for the BTR-60PB and later BTRs, and of course the BRDM-2s turret on the gun armed model.

These vehicles are getting 30mm cannon fitted, and another option is the KPVB, which is the KPV 14.5mm HMG modified for the 23 x 115mm round.

Lower muzzle velocity but much bigger and more effective HE round.

I rather suspect that soon the 14.5mm calibre will be eliminated along with the 23 x 152mm round of the ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4... they are still useful calibres but as the weapons are withdrawn from front line service their use will decline and production of the ammo will reduce making them more expensive to fire.

I think where the 14.5mm Gatling gun had over the twin 23mm is rate of fire and amount of ammo storage.

The 23mm gun of the MiG-31 fires at between 10,000 and 12,000 rpm and the large HE rounds makes it quite devastating... even very short bursts... which are effectively much like shotgun blasts of exploding rounds.

I think if your were facing a convoy of logistics vehicles 12.7mm or 14.5mm Gatling gun on each side of the Heli would be pretty devastating, or spraying down troops in the open or even in a light forest.

For the Russians the four barrel 12.7mm and four barrel 7.62mm gatlings already exist... the latter would be useful for helicopters because the round is light and effective within 1km range but anything further away you probably couldn't hit from a moving helicopter without using a lot of ammo anyway.

Certainly 12.7m gatlings are also useful but as a defensive weapon as it is outranged for being a main weapon.... 40mm grenade launchers would also be useful but with ammo that is bulky and not light.

u could have a bolt on enclosed turret version with varying levels of protection, from 12.7mm/14.5mm protection, upto 30mm protection, u could add on ERA or cage armour to enhance it, everything part would be Modular/bolt on to specific requirements with very little modification.

With new vehicles including unmanned vehicles having remote weapon stations, perhaps that would be a way forward... a modular gun mount that can accept a range of weapons and ammo types depending on the role with externally mounted guns that can have good depression and elevation and arcs of fire...

I actually think a T-55 with 100mm gun removed and replaced with a 14.5mm Gatling gun turret, with a couple of kornet on the side would be a pretty decent fire support unit, you even even have a mixed unit consisting of this version, along with the standard T-55, and the T-55 with BMPT turret as was proposed to Peru, this would give u a light versatile mobile fire support unit that would be great for backing up infantry, and could use up older T-55 this option would be for export customers currently using or have T-55 in storage.

The small calibre would allow enormous amounts of ammo to be carried, and the protection levels would be better than BTR-40s and BTR-152s with twin gun and quad gun mounts... would be a very interesting fire support vehicle.

If they buy from NK or China it would certainly make sense, but buying from Russia the four barrel gatling of the Hind chin turret fame would probably make more sense, though the newest twin 23mm gun would be interesting too... the ammo is a similar size but with big slow HE shells... at a very high rate of fire.

The Russians have a range of cannon in single barrel, twin barrel and four or 6 barrel gatlings that covers a range of calibres and rates of fire... would like to see them using some of them more, but it is tricky getting the size and weight and rate of fire right.

Am I correct in saying that aircraft guns are different from normal guns of the same calibre and the rounds are more expensive.

Generally yes, if we look through the calibres even the ammo for the old ShKAS rifle calibre machine gun and its upgraded model the UltraShKAS needed special ammo and special belts because their enormous rate of fire put serious tension on the belts and the rounds.

Most cannon rounds used by the air force like the 23x115mm and 30 x 165mm calibre are actually electric fired rounds rather than percussion or firing cap like the ground based versions, and are in terms of ballistics rather different.

The Naval 30mm cannon shells often had longer barrel guns and higher muzzle velocity because weight is not an issue on a ship like it is on a plane or helicopter.

Smaller production runs of aircraft weapons probably makes the ammo more expensive too.

There are special chaff and flare rounds in 23 x 115mm calibre for the tail guns of bombers and transport planes... sounds mad, but modern IR guided missiles are smart and look for IR patterns like an aircraft to home in on so modern flares are normally fired in groups to form heat patterns to fool IR sensors... at 60 shells per second per gun with two guns an Il-76 can launch 120 flares in a burst in one second that could be directed either side of the aircraft and it would move away at speed distracting missiles as it goes... another 1 second burst of chaff dipoles to deploy 1km away amongst the flare cloud and you have a radar return with a complex pattern IR signature... even with good AI many missiles think that is a plane... and by now it is much bigger than the one it locked on to...

Another interesting round is called a cargo round and is an air fired 30 x 165mm round that is essentially a very basic AHEAD round. No smart fuse... just a fixed one that explodes at a specific range or on impact and it is designed for use against enemy troops on teh ground or large area soft targets and it just flys through the air for about 1.8km and then explodes sending tungsten fragments forward in a cone like a claymore mine.

If it hit a plane or helicopter I assume it would blow these fragments through the structure like getting hit with a directed fragmentation round.

For 30 x 165mm ground forces they had HEI, HEIT and APT and APDS that can be used by the 2A42 and 2A72 cannon on ground vehicles and helicopters.

The 2A38 cannon of Tunguska uses the same ammo but not either of the AP rounds.

The naval 30mm rounds are also only HEI and HEIT for the various 30 x 165mm calibre round firing gatlings.

They did have a twin barrel 30mm gun but it was a different weapon with a 30 x 210mm round...

30mm rounds for aircraft use like the GSh-301, as well as the GSh-6-30 and GSh-30 and GSh-30K... (note the GSh-6-30 is the 30mm gun of the MiG-27, while the GSh-30 is used on the Su-25, and the GSh-30K is used on the Hind in the fixed twin barrel mount and the GSh-301 on their fighters from the MiG-29 and Su-27 onwards) include HEI, APT, AP, and CC or cargo carrying.

No subcalibre rounds for aircraft or Tunguska or Pantsir to prevent Sabot fragments destroying jet engine or the induction coils at the muzzles of the AA guns that measure muzzle velocity in real time to improve aim.

I suppose like they did in Libya where the aircraft were knackered, removed the guns and used in fire support is most likely the only reason u would.

If you can't use the plane you might as well stick the gun on the back of a pickup and use the ammo.

In the Ukraine there was video one time of a hand made 23mm calibre barrel section they were attaching to the muzzles of their AKs... presumably they were pulling 23mm cannon shells from the aircrafts 23 x 115mm rounds and muzzle loading them onto these tubes and firing blanks to launch them like grenade launchers. Not very predictable or accurate I would think but certainly a use for them.

Note the projectile of teh 23 x 115mm round is the same as the 23 x 152mm round for the Shilka and ZU-23, but that ammo would be more use from those guns than lobbed in the general direction of the enemy.

It is a desperate measure and is what made me think Russia is not directly giving these guys everything they need to defend themselves... in the back ground of the video a guy was holding a PTRS-41... which would still be a very useful anti material rifle, but not state of the art supported by a military superpower neighbour.

Looking at the pics NK use the 14.5mm Gatling in s defensive manner. And if Russia was to adopt the system I would see no reason why they wouldn't just buy from China or NK rather than go the hassle of designing their own, of course if they bought from NK they can just rename it and say it's their own version to circumvent sanctions. Nobody would ever know lol.

The thing is that the 12.7 x 108mm is half as powerful, but with a SLAP round developed for it could mimic the armour penetration performance already, and going to that length the 23mm gatling carried by the MiG-31 and Su-24 could be adapted for ground use and loaded with Slap rounds with a similar powder capacity and larger calibre meaning a bigger sabot round able to be loaded hotter because the larger calibre means more room for propellent.

I think the 14.5mm round is on the wane in Russia.... it was a good round and I always wondered why they didn't make anti material rifles out of it, or sabot APFSDS rounds whose performance would be astounding and all those light western vehicles who thought they were safe would no longer be safe, but then they revealed a single shot 30 x 165mm anti material rifle for shooting MRAPs that can fire APDS rounds for sneaky beaky special forces use. The 30mm HE round is rather beefy too and would have serious effect on target too.

What about the YakB 12.7mm Gatling gun used in the Mi-24?

Yes, both that one and its replacement.

The YakB-12.7 is a 45kg four barrel gatling with a 4-4.5K per minute rate of fire.

It was replaced by the YakBYu-12.7 which weighed 60kgs and had heavier and stronger barrels so the entire ammo load of 1,440 rounds of 12.7 x 108mm ammo on a Hind could be fired in one burst without the risk of cookoffs and overheating... it fired at 4-5K per minute.

Interestingly the extreme lethality of the large bullets against the human frame led to the developing a duplex round where two bullets are loaded into the one cartridge case so when one round is fired two projectiles head down the barrel and towards the target. The bullets are slightly different weights and half the weight of the normal round but still much heavier than a rifle calibre machine gun round and of course they are 12.7mm calibre so while being lighter they still are big heavy chunks of metal, and of course it doubles the actual rate of fire of the weapon... to 8 to 9 thousand rounds per minute for the older gun and 8 to 10 thousand rounds per minute for the newer model. getting hit by either round would still be very lethal... there is just twice as many in the air...

to crawl back to topic the Kord 12.7mm machine gun on the Ansat attack helo could use duplex rounds if required... as it uses smaller lighter rounds but their weight together makes them a similar weight to the normal projectile so they move at a similar speed rather than a higher speed as you would expect for a single light projectile they are better for dealing with soft targets like humans but less effective against harder targets as they lose armour penetration potential.

Obviously rockets would be better for harder targets.