The KA-52 will be very vulnerable for naval operations.. Any pirate with a fishing boat could pull a manpad and blow
the aligator in pieces when they facing another direction. They are too slow and easy targets for man pads with lazer guidance.
Helicopters are not super fast but boats are even slower... so the chance of pirates getting on the tail of a Ka-52 means the Ka-52 has done something wrong.
The optics and sensors on the Ka-52 mean it will detect the pirates at much greater ranges than the pirates could ever hope to detect the helo... and more importantly the Ka-52 will be armed with weapons that will allow it to engage the pirates at distances where the pirates quite frankly wont know what hit them.
Incoming missiles can be defeated with the small DIRCM that can be seen on the Ka-52 mounted near the main undercarriage... they contain laser dazzlers to defeat optically guided missile systems.
Too slow to cover long distance fast ,
300km/h+ is faster than any boat.
too small for humanitarian use.. can only carry 2 passenger or perhaps 3.. The mistral is too expensive for an humanitarian ship,
It would not be used as a transport... they already have Ka-29 and Ka-226T and Ka-64 helos as transports.
Mistral is a helicopter carrier that will have a range of uses... humanitarian aid will be one of those uses... showing the flag and providing medical services to outlying regions like Pacific islands or poorer asian countries would be far more valuable to Russian interests in the region than any supercarrier weapon of war.
The Mistrals are paid for so the more uses you get out of them the easier it is to justify their expense.
for mas evacuation you could simply develop a civilian ship that will be far cheaper. you all can say what you want but even
others Top ranked Russian generals/ministers have complained about how useless are this mistral for Russia.
For mass evacuation having 16 heavy transport helos and a 100 bed state of the art equipped hospital would be incredibly useful... a few cruise liners can carry more people more efficiently but the Mistrals helos will get them from where ever they are to the cruise ships rather faster and rather safer than buses and the Ka-52Ks will ensure none of the local armed factions try to interfere with the evacuation.
Many top ranked Russian officials lack imagination, or would prefer the Mistral to be a Russian designed and built ship... I would like that too of course but it would mean the first ship would enter service in 2022 at the earliest and there is no guarantee it would be any good.
Mistral is a proven design adapted to Russian needs and will be ready next year!
What is even more questionable is they buying 2-4..
Makes no sense to just have one... what if it is in repair when it is needed? All that expense and you can't use it.
2 Make sense if you just want them in the Pacific Fleet... if you want to defend the Arctic territory then 4 make sense.
The mistrals with Ka-52s will not become
a deterrent to anyone other than pirates ,because any decent combat plane can detect the Ka-52 and shut it down from very large
distances . helicopters were never intended to 1 vs 1 combat jets ,even if they can do it.In my opinion they buying the
mistrals only to lure France away of Syria.
You seem to be a little confused... these Mistrals are not to replace the Kuznetsov, they are to replace the old Ivan Rogov landing ships. They are not intended to take on enemy carrier groups.
And Helicopters like Ka-52 its place belong
to the army ,for close combat support to infantry. If they ever used in the sea close to insurgents they will be fall like flies
from the air. Contrary to Ground fights in Urban zones ,in close combat support to infrantry ,In the open sea there is nothing blocking the view of anyone with a manpad. and the will be no infantry protecting it ,they will be alone vs terrorist. and they will be will be an easy prey to any combat plane. THey werent designed for air superiority but for close ground support.
They will be used to support Russian Naval Infantry landing operations by providing direct air support the same way Army Aviation Havocs and Hokums will support Army ground units.
The "the enemy ground forces can spot helos from great distances and shoot them down" argument doesn't work because in the big flat ocean the AESA radar of the Ka-52K will detect even small row boats at 20km or more... it is those on the sea surface that will have no where to hide... in fact at sea the Kamov will actually be safer than over land as there is no cover or protection... they can't dig in.
For humanitarian missions again wrong helicopter. for that a transport helicopter like mi-8 will be far more useful.
An unarmed Ka-52K could use its advanced detection sensors and equipment to find people in distress and containers on its weapon pylons could be used to drop inflatable boats in case of flooding or emergency shelters and survival equipment... it could even use its power and a belly mounted grappling hook to pull a capsized yacht upright... who knows?
ith the money they will spend in mistrals they could also modernize but also expand
their ship buildings facilities that they seriously need.
They are spending money on expanding their boat building capacity and they are also increasing orders so that new capacity is used.
Since 1988 all russian Attack Helicopters are designed to have air-to-air engagement capabilities since the Cessna could land on the red square in 1987.
Not really true. When the Mig-23s sent by the PVO to investigate found it was a civilian cessna they handed the "interception" duty to the nearest air unit, which was an Army Aviation unit. They sometimes are sent to intercept balloons too, but without radar they had trouble tracking down Rusts plane and he landed before they could find him and force him to a nearby airfield.
The Ka-52K on the other hand will have AESA radar and the capacity to carry modern AAMs like R-73 and R-77 which would make them rather better equipped than any other helicopter in history to deal with enemy aircraft.
Lack of speed and short range would still be an issue of course.
yes your missing a lot dude is not even fun. Seems you never have heard about the war in Syria ,and how Saudi Arabia supply weapons to terrorist including manpads . And somali pirates make millions kidnapping ships.. but thats up to you to investigate. Is not the lack of food or job why pirates exist but because is a very profitable business.
Even if every pirate had a MANPAD the DIRCMs on the Ka-52K and its standoff weapons would still mean my money would be on the helo.
They could be the safest helicopters in the world ,still is irrelevant , they will not be able to operate in places where many fishing boats are.. every little boat could be a major threat to them ,and they will not know if they are terrorist or not until they have a missile chasing them.
Just follow the smoke trails from the MANPADS back to the boats and destroy them. DIRCMs will defeat the missiles incoming.
Good luck on using your Ka-52 to defeat F-35's ,F-16 ,F-15s ,Eurofigters ,Rafales or Japanesse combat jets..
Of course the Ka-52 can defeat all of those... don't forget to include B-2, F-22, and SR-73... the replacement for the SR-72 which isn't in service yet.
If your objection to the Mistral is that it is not a replacement for the Kuznetsov then your objection is pointless... the US Marines should retire all their useless Tarawa class carriers too because they are inferior to the new US fixed wing carriers.
Again helicopters weather Ka-52 or apache longbow ,will be at serious disadvantage versus any combat jet.. PERIOD.
And that is why they are putting them on Mistral class helicopter landing vessels and not replacing Mig-29Ks on the Kuznetsov with them...
Combat planes can shut down any helicopter from 100 to 160km distance. In Beyond Visual range and almost any distance
the helicopter will lose very badly to a combat plane.. not even fun.
In the sea there is nothing of support for any helicopter used for attack missions. will be alone.
What do you think the Kuznetsov will be doing?
If the enemy has air power the Russians are hardly likely to send a Mistral class helicopter carrier in without fixed wing air support.
If it is an anti piracy operation there is no reason for a Ka-52K to get within 3km of a fishing vessel that is about to be boarded... and funny business and Vikhr will cover the 3km twice as fast as an RPG-7 grenade except the Vikhr can kill at 10km while the RPG self destructs at 900m.
To defend its territory in the pacific Russia Mistral + Ka52 will have to face Japan destroyers + combat planes.
With the support of land based Su-35s and PAK FA...
So for sure Russia will need to also use Destroyers to help protect the mistrals.. So makes null the point of having a mistral
If you are landing ground forces having a helicopter carrier means you can land troops and vehicle 100 times faster... and it is the period when the troops are landing that they are at their most vulnerable... helos landing them moves them much faster and safer than zodiacs and Ka-52s offering fire support means enemy troops will be keeping their heads down rather than firing back.
Enemy aircraft will be dealt with via air support... not helos.
Anyway im not convinced why they needed. Everyone is free to have its own opinions. i still think ,saving the money for more destroyers ,that the ones they already had planned or for a new brand new stealth Cruiser will be much more deterrence than a mistral with KA-52s.
The money saved not getting Mistrals would not buy that many new other ships and more importantly the new ships it would buy would not enter service for another 5-10 years anyway.