Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here.

What do you think about this post from an indian blogger?

http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-chinook-is-efficient-and-mi-26-is.html?m=1


He claims that the mi-26 is too expensive to operate for lower payload (it.can make sense), as a bigger aircraft with part load will always be more expensive to operate than a smaller.aircraft (while still maintaining a considerable advantage in range).

And in addition, he says that the advantage of the mi-26 are only at sea level or low altitude, comparing the capabilities of the 2 helicopters with a mission up to 20000 feet (6100 m). From the info found online, this is above the service ceiling of the mi-26, so it is not a fair comparison. In addition, it is above the level of sustainable life, so, it would not be to drop people, but only to overtake a mountain.

If I am not mistaken, in Afghanistan they had the opposite problem, where the mi-17 had better hot & high performance than the black hawk...

Anyway, maybe the next upgrade of the mi-26 will have more use of.lightweight materials and better hot & high performance

Unfair comparison, or how to compare apples and pears...

The Indians don't want to repeat the mistake they made acquiring so many super expensive C-17s instead of more IL-76s & C-130Js.
Their Mi-26s when being used as now will be taking $ away needed for other things.
There's a reason China & Russia r working on a smaller 15T payload helo- they & C. Asia they border on too have many high mountain ranges for helos to fly over, where the Mi-26s wouldn't even be able to carry 20Ts & enough fuel to reach its destination. Less work for them at those altitudes, longer they'll last. The Indians can use them to supply their CVs & naval outposts.
The Chinook is cost effective. A tandem rotor design has significant other advantages over a single rotor design in the high mountains, especially on ridges. The economical fuel consumption of the Chinook versus the Mi-26 helps it get closer to the latter in terms of payload capacities.
http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-chinook-is-efficient-and-mi-26-is.html?m=1

The Ka-102 will have 6 bladed rotors vs. 3 bladed rotors on the CH-47F; it'll be even more powerful & faster, & its specs will be similar & in payload better than tilt-rotor specs.


Even though the CH-47F is still in production, Boeing is already looking for a future enhancements. It is planned that between 2020 and 2025 helicopters will be fitted with more powerful engines, new rotor blades derived from the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche, will have a strengthened airframe and will be capable to carry more payload. The planned future versions are nominally referred as CH-47G and CH-47H. These helicopters are planned to remain operational with the US Army beyond 2060, or over 100 years after the type first entered service. http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ch47f.htm
An even bigger variant of Ka-102 & compound Mi-450 with increased payload r also possible: https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11881/3487/3-A-paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

A naval tandem-rotor helo won't be used only above the water &/ near the shore.

Ka-102 looks basically a civilian project

I meant that if a big coaxial 10-15-20T payload helo appears with just 2 main rotors 1 above the other, it will need to be a lot bigger, with fuselage larger & wider than CH-46/57 & even the CH-53.

No it wont.

If you made the Mi-26 with the same engines and two sets of main rotors slightly smaller than the existing rotors it could be rather smaller than either of those two american helicopters because the payload requirement is smaller than for the Mi-26.

The size of the fuselage is largely irrelevant for the payload capacity of a helo... you could design the helo to carry slung loads and make the cabin almost nonexistent... just crew and fuel... no need even for a tail really... a jet engine thrust booster to increase forward speed would be fine.

they'll be on different levels, just like on CH-46/57- the front rotors lower than those in the back; so they won't need to much extra space between the front & the back rotors.

Even if the blades of the two rotor sets are 10 centimetres apart that means two side by side sets of main rotors... so compared with a helo with the same sized rotors one on top of the other it will be twice as long taking up twice the area.

Coaxial rotor helos can have short tails that don't even extend beyond the main rotor because unlike a conventional helo which needs a long momentum arm to increase the force of that tiny little tail rotor a coaxial rotor helo uses main blade momentum to turn...

at least the VDV is looking into it; the Marines, VMF, FSB & MChS may follow.

And so they should look at all options, but at the end of the day they will almost certainly end up with a coaxial helicopter with a few pusher propeller or pusher jet engine designs... that is high speed helo designs because they wont need a whole new design to be invented and have all potential creases ironed out...

Siberia & many parts of C./N. Russia is covered with the biggest forest on the planet- from the Baltic to the Bering sea. it's like finding a big clearing in the Amazon Jungle or tropical N. Australia. Even in a place with all trees burned years ago, the ground may be full of boulders, potholes, logs & stumps.

Just saw an episode of Russia from Above.... a very entertaining and beautiful video, and it shows the air traffic in various regions... over asia and europe it is busy but over the far east of Russia and the arctic it is not except aircraft going across to other destinations. It mentions there that most travel is by air and every mine has an airstrip they are really not busy because of the cost of commercial airlines not really making much money commercially.... having 40 million dollar Tandem helos or 100 million dollar tilt rotors is not going to change that... in fact it will make air travel less desirable.

Like I keep saying they already have air connectivity... mostly Mi-8s and An-2s over the shorter routes and larger aircraft for the bigger settlements and ports... tandem rotor helos don't offer any real advantages and neither do tilt rotors.

The best way to improve the situation is actually rail lines because rail travel is cheaper and easier and would open up the region the way the rail lines in the US opened up the country too.

And with the transport routes between Asia and europe they have every reason to expand their rail network and make it faster and more efficient.

there'll be many problems for different customers the Ka-102 is worth producing for.

The problem for the Ka-102 is that there will be a lot of much cheaper solutions around...

I was on a CV, & even with email being used, regular mail is a big thing for morale.

That might be true but they don't need to develop a new class of 12 ton payload helicopter just to send mail to the very few Russian sailors who get to sail outside of Russian waters for any period of time.

Especially when their new carriers will have EMALS cats and therefore also large COD fixed wing aircraft with much better flight performance than any helo or tiltrotor.

they'll be armed, but not as heavily as non-transport helos.

You mean not as well as current Russian equivalent troop transport helos... Ka-29 at sea and Mi-8/-17 carry rocket pods and machine guns and anti tank missiles as standard...

The CH-53s & their Western competitors can't do the job of the CH-57s. Using the Mi-26 to do all its missions + what a smaller helo can do is destructive & uneconomical. It's like using An-124 & IL-476s to haul cargo that IL-76/276/An-12 normally would. That's why they r developing a 15T helo with China; however, it too may need help from a tandem-rotor helo, just like the CH-53.

When the only tool you have is a hammer treat every problem like it is a nail...

A 10-12 ton capacity helo is not big enough to carry their vehicles, but carries twice as much as the helos they currently use. The fact that they are developing a 10-15 ton payload helicopter with China doesn't mean they are going to mass produce it and put it into service in their navy or army.

They might decide now that they are developing new Russian engines for the Mi-26 that they will make a lot more of them... using Il-476s to haul cargo is only overkill if there is only 30 tons... if they wait until there is 50 tons to move then they would be perfect... and with the Mi-26 at least they could move vehicles or towed weapons and their trucks and crews and some ammo.

we/they'll find out if those new designs r going to be faster or better performing after their prototypes r built & tested.

The purpose of designing high speed helos is to get helicopters that are faster than todays helos... it is not rocket science here... there is no reason to expect the new helos to not be faster than current models.

In comparison a conventional tandem helo wont be much faster than a conventional helo... one of the fastest conventional helicopters around is the Lynx with a conventional layout.

I meant that if a big coaxial 10-15-20T payload helo appears with just 2 main rotors 1 above the other, it will need to be a lot bigger, with fuselage larger & wider than CH-46/47 & even the CH-53.

Look at that picture... that helicopter is designed around making one main rotor centred a distance away from the other main rotor so the blades don't clash.

Take both main rotor blades off that helo and put them one on top of each other in the centre of gravity of that helo and you could shorten the helo design by 5-6m without effecting the internal volume of space because in that design the rear 5-6 metres is just empty tail area.

If you need internal volume you could make the cabin twice as wide... and one metre deeper.

they'll be on different levels, just like on CH-46/47- the front rotors lower than those in the back; so they won't need to much extra space between the front & the back rotors.

Rotor blades flex in operation... having the rear main rotor slightly higher than the front set is nothing to so with preventing blade collisions... there is a lift shadow with a tandem rotor layout and raising the rear set of blades moves them up into less turbulent airflows to allow them to keep their efficiency.

He claims that the mi-26 is too expensive to operate for lower payload (it.can make sense), as a bigger aircraft with part load will always be more expensive to operate than a smaller.aircraft (while still maintaining a considerable advantage in range).

That could apply to anything, I am sure the Chinook is terribly inefficient carrying around loads you could carry in a Ka-226... the point is that if you want a heavy lift helicopter... what is the max payload you need to shift.... you could say the Chinook can cope but then why not use Mi-26s half as often as you use the Chinooks and fill it up with two Chinook loads?

Having a large payload capacity margin is useful when operating from hot and high airstrips where engine power and performance can be seriously compromised.

The Mi-8 and Mi-17 worked well throughout Afghanistan, but there were places there where a Blackhawk couldn't take off even with a zero payload loadout... in other words even the crew was too much weight to take off...

And in addition, he says that the advantage of the mi-26 are only at sea level or low altitude, comparing the capabilities of the 2 helicopters with a mission up to 20000 feet (6100 m). From the info found online, this is above the service ceiling of the mi-26, so it is not a fair comparison. In addition, it is above the level of sustainable life, so, it would not be to drop people, but only to overtake a mountain.

A restriction for most helos...

Anyway, maybe the next upgrade of the mi-26 will have more use of.lightweight materials and better hot & high performance

Why?

The Indian purchase of the Chinook was political... they wanted to buy American influence and favour... just like the bought the Rafale fighter to buy the same French favour and influence...

The Mi-26 costs 25 million... the Chinook costs 40 million... as a general rule of thumb operational costs for aircraft are generally the original cost again over the life of the aircraft... so 50 million for the Russian helo and 80 million for the American one with half the payload capacity.

Certainly you need to buy to fit what you want to do... if they try using a 20 ton capacity vehicle for a 12 ton capacity job then it wont be economic... of course that is just a question of planning... have half the trips with almost double payloads and the solution is pretty clear, plus when you need the extra capacity it is available... but this purchase really wasn't about which helo is best...

The Indians don't want to repeat the mistake they made acquiring so many super expensive C-17s instead of more IL-76s & C-130Js.

Yeah, but they are... the new C-130s are expensive now too, and the Chinook costs rather more than the Mi-26s they rejected.

It was really about bad timing to be honest... when the Russians have new engines in production for their Mi-26s they will likely start making rather more for themselves and others, and Il-476 probably wont meet the needs of domestic demand for a few years yet, and obviously this new Russian/Chinese helo wont be flying for quite some time so like the C-17, the Chinook is their only choice unless they want to go super expensive with european helos... ouch...

The Chinook is cost effective. A tandem rotor design has significant other advantages over a single rotor design in the high mountains, especially on ridges. The economical fuel consumption of the Chinook versus the Mi-26 helps it get closer to the latter in terms of payload capacities.

Oh, please... Kamovs coaxial designs have been getting all the advantages of twin main rotor designs for decades too... they just don't need a piece of crap Chinook ripoff.

Their new highspeed designs will be coaxial designs to tandem concepts are pointless and redundant.

The Ka-102 will have 6 bladed rotors vs. 3 bladed rotors on the CH-47F; it'll be even more powerful & faster, & its specs will be similar & in payload better than tilt-rotor specs. An even bigger variant with increased payload is also possible. A naval tandem-rotor helo won't be used only above the water & near the shore.

Mi-26s have 8 bladed main rotors and the most powerful engines fitted to operational helos... and a Chinook equivalent tandem wont fit on any Russian ships...

Ka-102 looks basically a civilian project

It is wishful thinking is what it is... there is no military requirement for such an aircraft AFAIK.

GarryB wrote:If you need internal volume you could make the cabin twice as wide... and one metre deeper.

that size won't be liked by the VMF, as they may need to be maintained & take more space in the hangar bay.  

you could say the Chinook can cope but then why not use Mi-26s half as often as you use the Chinooks and fill it up with two Chinook loads?

only in peace time, but waiting for more cargo/people to haul isn't an option when supporting forces on the ground. This helicopter, even though massive and capable, after the end of cold war has little use, it is more attractive to heavy lift companies around the world than the armed forces it was initially designed to serve. It is actually an equivalent of large fixed strategic airlifters like the C-5 in the world of helicopters and is an overkill for tactical operations which are commonly undertaken by helicopter units in armed forces. A Soviet design for a Soviet need, isnt very well suited for others around the world. ..This helicopter is proof that good designs never die, it has been in continuous production for over 50 years, right from 1962, to this date with several countries ordering Chinooks to replace existing ones or to add new tactical lift capability. This helicopter is also used for spec ops by the US armed forces, the variant MH-47 is specifically designed for it, while the latest variant ie CH-47F is being produced for usual tactical role. https://battle-machines.org/2015/06/05/mi-26-vs-ch-47/
Their Mi-26s can be retired/sold or used more efficiently at lower elevations, saving $. They may loose some $ on the CH-47s but will gain time.

Mi-26s have 8 bladed main rotors and the most powerful engines fitted to operational helos... and a Chinook equivalent tandem wont fit on any Russian ships...

but landing the giant Mi-26s on current & even future ships isn't safe/practical, & even the smaller Mi-6/10s never done that; a few well armed Chinook-like helos can fit on the Adm. K & future UDKs/CVNs with room to spare. And they won't take as much space as those fat coaxial cargo helos u propose.

It is wishful thinking is what it is... there is no military requirement for such an aircraft AFAIK.

they may alter/modify & adopt it to their requirements. The USN had to exercise with/use help from the CH-47s many times. Being the largest continental power, it'll make even more sense to use large tandem-rotor helos over both land & water. They would be ideal to fly between the Black, Caspian, Okhotsk, & Bering Seas directly over the high Caucasus & Chukotka/Kamchatka mountains, moving Marines, SOFs, boats, vehicles & supplies.

that size won't be liked by the VMF, as they may need to be maintained & take more space in the hangar bay.

My point is that they can make the cabin any size they please and they don't have to make it a tandem helo rotor arrangement to do so.

You claim the tandem helo has the advantage of larger cabin space... I say the problem with the tandem rotor design helo means they can't make it with a smaller cabin size to fit on smaller ships or fit more helicopters on ships.

Coaxial rotor helos have all the advantages of two main rotors but with different problems whose solutions Kamov have already arrived at.

only in peace time, but waiting for more cargo/people to haul isn't an option when supporting forces on the ground.

No different in war time... who cares about cost efficiency in war time... when you are firing off million dollar missiles every few seconds flying a really big helo when you only need a moderately big helo is not that big a deal... Mi-26s are expensive to operate but Chinooks are not free... they are probably more expensive per kilo of payload anyway...

This helicopter, even though massive and capable, after the end of cold war has little use, it is more attractive to heavy lift companies around the world than the armed forces it was initially designed to serve.

So why are they buying more and developing new Russian engines for them if they are of no use... the cold war never ended... there was a pause during the 1990s, but now that Russia is becoming strong again it is back on.

It is actually an equivalent of large fixed strategic airlifters like the C-5 in the world of helicopters and is an overkill for tactical operations which are commonly undertaken by helicopter units in armed forces.

But planes like the An-124 are useful in isolated regions like the Arctic and Far East where if you need something you have to take it with you...

A Soviet design for a Soviet need, isnt very well suited for others around the world. .

There seems to be rather good demand for Mi-26 and An-124 and even Il-76 aircraft around the world... the only aircraft that fits your description would be the An-225 which was designed and built to shift enormous external loads for the space industry... it is currently owned by the Ukraine which does not have a space industry.

Of course an enlarged Il-96 for internal carriage of rockets, as well as brand new much more powerful engines for the An-124 should actually solve that problem as well...

In the near future need for an An-225 like aircraft will increase as rocket production expands and new larger rockets are designed and built but by then as I said Il-96 variants and An-124 upgrades with rather more powerful engines should solve those problems nicely... plus of course upgrades of tunnels and rail links to the far east should also resolve the problems too.

This helicopter is proof that good designs never die, it has been in continuous production for over 50 years, right from 1962,

Yeah, the Makarov pistol has been an excellent service pistol for the last 60 years (50 years would be 1970s), so I guess the US should design and make a copy of the Makarov... it is small and light and cheap and reliable and makes the same 9mm hole in the target any other 9mm weapon makes without the excessive complication of other western pistols... yeah man... America should copy the Makarov pistol.

but landing the giant Mi-26s on current & even future ships isn't safe/practical, & even the smaller Mi-6/10s never done that; a few well armed Chinook-like helos can fit on the Adm. K & future UDKs/CVNs with room to spare. And they won't take as much space as those fat coaxial cargo helos u propose.

The obvious problem here is that the Russian Navy has no requirement for such helos in the first place.

An Mi-38 sized Ka-226T might be a good idea, but they don't need a chinook or super stallion... The new Minoga replacement helo design will be fine and most likely a coaxial design with pusher engines.

They would be ideal to fly between the Black, Caspian, Okhotsk, & Bering Seas directly over the high Caucasus & Chukotka/Kamchatka mountains, moving Marines, SOFs, boats, vehicles & supplies.

Il-276 and Il-476 would do a much better job... much faster, much bigger capacity and range, and much much cheaper... not to mention safer at much higher altitudes in much more comfort.

GarryB wrote:I say the problem with the tandem rotor design helo means they can't make it with a smaller cabin size to fit on smaller ships or fit more helicopters on ships.

don't they plan to have bigger ships that carry aircraft? if so, they'll be capable of handling a few of them.

No different in war time...

I beg to differ: the CH-47s can fly faster & longer over the mountains between refuelings.

So why are they buying more and developing new Russian engines for them if they are of no use...

to replace & modernize the older 1s, as there's nothing else yet. Kamov was given  a task to develop a smaller less costly helo; the result is Ka-102.

But planes like the An-124 are useful in isolated regions like the Arctic and Far East where if you need something you have to take it with you...

yes, once in a while they fly there.

There seems to be rather good demand for Mi-26...

After India, others may want CH-47Fs or 2nd hand CH-47s, even if they never operated them before.

yeah man... America should copy the Makarov pistol.

they already copied Tu-126 revolving radome, but the powerful US gun lobby won't allow a licenced production of foreign firearms. The USSR copied many American vehicles & aircraft before; in the case of the Ka-102, only the tandem layout is being copied revived as an improved Yak-24 concept.

The obvious problem here is that the Russian Navy has no requirement for such helos in the first place.

did the VMF spokesman personally & officially tell u or any1 else that? Even if true, that may change soon.

Il-276 and Il-476 would do a much better job... much faster, much bigger capacity and range, and much much cheaper... not to mention safer at much higher altitudes in much more comfort.

but they won't be landing directly on ships or very short strips.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GarryB wrote:
did the VMF spokesman personally & officially tell u or any1 else that? Even if true, that may change soon.

Il-276 and Il-476 would do a much better job... much faster, much bigger capacity and range, and much much cheaper... not to mention safer at much higher altitudes in much more comfort.

 but they won't be landing directly on ships or very short strips.

No, but an aircraft like the yak-44 or its derivative will.

Considering it is also quite a bit larger then the american greyhound, we could expect a larger payload, if they make a cargo version. I believe it would be rational to expect something between 8 and 12 tons of payload, but with better speed, range and max operational altitude than a convertiplane or a helo.[/quote]

don't they plan to have bigger ships that carry aircraft? if so, they'll be capable of handling a few of them.

They are planning some CVNs but not to carry transport helos... to carry fighter aircraft and AWACS aircraft.

There are plans for significantly sized helicopter carriers, but AFAIK no plans for tandem rotor helicopters... otherwise why bother with the Minoga replacement for the Ka-27 family... which will include a replacement for the Ka-29 assault helo.

I beg to differ: the CH-47s can fly faster & longer over the mountains between refuelings.

A Mi-26 could carry the same weight as the CH-47 and use the extra 8 tons payload capacity to carry some extra fuel and easily out range the CH-47.

But mainly there are no mountains at sea so I doubt the Russian Navy will give a crap.

Mi-17s and Mi-38s are excellent helos for mountain regions... they are excellent for the job, so we are not accepting CVs at this time thank you.

BTW Kamov also designed the Ka-34 and Ka-35 which were similarly ambitious projects that never went anywhere either... do you actually have any official information from Kamov that there is any real money being spent on the Ka-102?

to replace & modernize the older 1s, as there's nothing else yet. Kamov was given a task to develop a smaller less costly helo; the result is Ka-102.

Now that Russia and China are developing a 12-15 ton payload helo I really don't see a use for the Ka-102... the Russian Chinese programme is rather more likely to get funding...

After India, others may want CH-47Fs or 2nd hand CH-47s, even if they never operated them before.

So you keep saying, but not every country can afford a 40 million dollar helo...

they already copied Tu-126 revolving radome, but the powerful US gun lobby won't allow a licenced production of foreign firearms.

You might want to have a word to the USSOCM because they are putting out tenders for US manufacturers to make AKs and Utes and PKMs... without licences of course...

in the case of the Ka-102, only the tandem layout is being copied revived as an improved Yak-24 concept.

Odds are it will come to nothing like the original Yak design.

did the VMF spokesman personally & officially tell u or any1 else that? Even if true, that may change soon.

Well it has a rather low priority, but they are developing and introducing the Minoga replacement for the Helix... which really would not make sense if they were going to develop a whole new range of rather bigger helicopters...

but they won't be landing directly on ships or very short strips.

Why would they want to... they can drop loads via parachute if need be.

GarryB wrote:But mainly there are no mountains at sea so I doubt the Russian Navy will give a crap.

to save time & $,
they may want to fly directly over islands/peninsulas/mainland that surround their seas or cross country, from 1 fleet area to the other. Having it own organic transport capability is always better than to rely on other services.

do you actually have any official information from Kamov that there is any real money being spent on the Ka-102?

the 1st flight planned for next year or later isn't cheap, it requires big investments!

Now that Russia and China are developing a 12-15 ton payload helo I really don't see a use for the Ka-102...

they'll be for different tasks. The Ka-102 is for passenger/cargo civ. service that may be modified, its size reduced, & adopted for mil. or law enforcement uses, just like many civilian transport planes were around the world since before WWII. The Minoga project isn't necessarily detrimental to it. The Ka-25/27s didn't prevent the Mi-8 based Mi-14s from being used by the Soviet VMF. Btw, there's even a 24-seat civilian transport helicopter variant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-14#Variants

Why would they want to... they can drop loads via parachute if need be.

not in bad/freezing weather &/ during ongoing ops that forbid retrieving of their cargo.

to save time & $,
they may want to fly directly over islands/peninsulas/mainland that surround their seas or cross country, from 1 fleet area to the other. Having it own organic transport capability is always better than to rely on other services.

I don't understand what you mean... they will have a Yak-44 type aircraft on board for inflight refuelling and AWACS... the inflight refuelling model could be configured to also perform transport tasks when needed and would be much much faster and longer ranged than a Tandem helo or a tiltrotor aircraft...

the 1st flight planned for next year or later isn't cheap, it requires big investments!

There is no mention of the aircraft on the Russian helicopters website...

http://www.russianhelicopters.aero/en/

they'll be for different tasks. The Ka-102 is for passenger/cargo civ. service that may be modified, its size reduced, & adopted for mil. or law enforcement uses, just like many civilian transport planes were around the world since before WWII. The Minoga project isn't necessarily detrimental to it. The Ka-25/27s didn't prevent the Mi-8 based Mi-14s from being used by the Soviet VMF. Btw, there's even a 24-seat civilian transport helicopter variant:

The Minoga is not getting enormous attention or enormous funding but seems to be going ahead... they at least talk about it occasionally... have not heard anything about Ka-102 except from you and some fan art.

They are putting the Mi-14 back in to production... which makes me think another replacement is on the way... they might add some high speed helo features to the new Mi-14s to make them faster, but I doubt it to start off with.

not in bad/freezing weather &/ during ongoing ops that forbid retrieving of their cargo.

When the weather is too bad to parachute loads in, then tandem helos and tilt rotors are hardly going to be flying let alone landing and taking off.

Russian narrated video on US tandem-rotors:


If they can produce a helo with a different layout & better specs for the military, I would love to see it!

They are developing one with the Chinese in the 12-15 ton payload capacity range... isnt' the Chinook a 12 ton payload aircraft?

But will it have longer range & be able to fly as high & fast while carrying that load? Time will tell!

It will have the performance they want from it.

System design is not an internet fanboy oneupper game... they don't design the tank guns on Russian tanks to be bigger than HATO tanks, they design the guns to defeat the known and expected protection of "enemy tanks", equally, they don't design their armour protection to be better than foreign tanks, they design it to protect their vehicles from specific angles based on the performance of the entire range of enemy weapons... not just tank guns.

The new helicopter the Russians are developing with the Chinese will have specific requirements and performance capabilities that it will need to reach and exceed before they accept the design into service.

Things like what it can carry, where, and how far and how fast are all going to be part of the mix for the design they choose... just as those same parameters were likely used when developing the Chinook design too, except the what that was being carried was US stuff.

Russian light vehicles will be different weights, and the distances they want to cover might be totally different.

The Soviets were happy with their helicopters in Afghanistan, so they might not bother demanding high altitude capacity, but then China might want those sort of features for some of its more mountainous regions.

So the features the new helo might have might exceed what the Russians want, but I doubt they will be unhappy about that, unless that leads to design features that work against what they want... I am sure they will work it out.

The joint programme of the MTA didn't work out because India wanted different engines and other features added or changed that didn't suit Russia... in the end the Indians withdrew from the programme and so Russia will build its Il-276 the way they want it made with the features they want... because of this it will end up with more commonality and standardisation with the Il-476 which suits Russia much better.

BTW regarding the performance of the Mi-26 in hot and high conditions:

Compared to the Ukrainian D-136, the Russian engine will ensure the expansion of the helicopter's basing conditions due to the large capacity to maintain power in high-altitude and hot climate conditions and the possibility of boosting the capacity to 14,000 liters. from. It is expected that the Mi-26 remotorization will increase the flight range with a payload and reduce operating costs due to improved technical characteristics and lower maintenance costs. Despite the greater weight of the PD-12V compared to the D-136, the new engine will be more economical than the Ukrainian equivalent.

From:

Post 51

The PD-12V is a new Russian engine developed from the PD-14 and will likely be the engine used in the joint Russian Chinese helicopter design.

The Indians could order those PD-12Vs + more Mi-26s, but chose to order the CH-47Fs instead. I wouldn't say they did it for political reasons only. After all, they can't develop a joint 15T helo with Russia due to different req's or China for political reasons, nor build their own in that class. OTH, if the Mi-26 was ideal for them in all respects, the Chinese wouldn't be developing a smaller helo. So, the Mi-26 isn't going to be a mass produced/workhorse helo for both of them. From that angle, they saved on new developmental, procurement & their Mi-26s' operational costs by ordering the CH-47Fs that r more flexible.
I hope the new RF-PRC helo will be up to their expectations!

The Indians could order those PD-12Vs + more Mi-26s, but chose to order the CH-47Fs instead. I wouldn't say they did it for political reasons only.

??? I would say it was pretty obvious why they bought Chinooks... the PD-12Vs wont be ready till 2025...

After all, they can't develop a joint 15T helo with Russia due to different req's or China for political reasons, nor build their own in that class.

They didn't develop the Chinook with anyone either?

OTH, if the Mi-26 was ideal for them in all respects, the Chinese wouldn't be developing a smaller helo.

The Chinese operate Mi-26s both in the military and civilian use and like them, but they also have the money and the interest to develop another helo in a different payload class and size and weight.

From that angle, they saved on new developmental, procurement & their Mi-26s' operational costs by ordering the CH-47Fs that r more flexible.

They are in a hurry, so right now it makes sense and in ten years time they will have the inferior aircraft.

It was the same with the purchase of the Apache and the C-17 transport... they do the job and are experienced and available, whereas the Mi-28NM was not available and the Il-476 is also not available... in 5 years time when both are mature and in full scale production they will be rather better performing than either US model but also rather cheaper... and probably an option to produce them in India...

But they want them now.

I hope the new RF-PRC helo will be up to their expectations!

If it isn't it wont go in to production... they will have a redesign and fix it and then put it into production...

This isn't the US where production of the C-17 or F-35 will go ahead because it is too big to fail...

They didn't develop the Chinook with anyone either?

magically, it's good enough as is, even for that price- the Mi-26 is less than ideal for the tasks/places they been using them in, & that's why they want it now.

The Chinese operate Mi-26s both in the military and civilian use and like them, but they also have the money and the interest to develop another helo in a different payload class and size and weight.

By the same token, the Indians have the money and the interest to buy the CH-47Fs, instead of le$$ capable 2nd hand CH-53s, & for a good reason: the Mi-26 can't be economically used on missions that don't require it's full capabilities, be it in India, the RF or the PRC.

magically, it's good enough as is, even for that price- the Mi-26 is less than ideal for the tasks/places they been using them in, & that's why they want it now.

Yeah, but the problem with your line of argument is that you are suggesting the Russians need a helicopter like the Chinook and to be honest I don't even think the Indians needed one to be brutally honest.

They bought Chinooks to curry favour with the Americans... there is nothing a Chinook can do that a Halo cannot to be honest... you claim it might cost more... but not 20 million dollars more... which is the difference in purchase price.

If it is so damn critical why didn't the Indians think of a joint venture development with Russia for a more suitable aircraft?

The fact is that the reasons India bought Chinooks are reasons that are irrelevant for Russia to want to design and build their own tandem rotor helicopter.

Russia does not have problems carrying heavy loads into high altitude high temperature areas.

The Soviets designed and built the An-32 which is basically an An-26 with twice the engine power so that when operating in hot and high conditions it retains the power to do what an An-26 can do at lower altitudes... great for India for hot and high conditions but largely pointless and inefficient for Russia now because the extra engine power just makes them less efficient at normal altitudes with normal payloads... and it would be the same with helicopters.

The Mi-26 is designed to move around light vehicles and heavy loads that the Chinook couldn't manage.

They are developing a new helo in the 12-15 ton payload range but I seriously doubt it will be like the Chinook in any other way... first of all it will have high flight speed as a requirement so no doubt it will be rather faster anyway, but otherwise it will likely be different.

All their new high speed helicopter designs seem to have coaxial rotor designs with some form of pusher propulsion system... I suspect they will determine a clever and efficient way of designing that to get the best possible result... it is why the Chinese are joint developing the aircraft with the Russians and not just making one of their own.

By the same token, the Indians have the money and the interest to buy the CH-47Fs, instead of le$$ capable 2nd hand CH-53s, & for a good reason: the Mi-26 can't be economically used on missions that don't require it's full capabilities, be it in India, the RF or the PRC.

At $40 million per airframe I don't see how the Chinook could possibly be economically efficient either... which makes me suspect economics are easier to fudge as a reason, but the real reason is they wanted American equipment because the French are losing their sway in the world... which means US, Russia, and China... and China are obviously currently not an option because US pressure makes them so... I would love to see in the future India trading with India and Pakistan with no hostility... an American nightmare because they would not profit from that situation, but it would be good for India and Pakistan and China...

GarryB wrote:Russia does not have problems carrying heavy loads into high altitude high temperature areas. ..the An-32 which is basically an An-26 with twice the engine power so that when operating in hot and high conditions it retains the power to do what an An-26 can do at lower altitudes...

they'll still need helos in the Caucasus, Central Asia & possibly the ME/FE- all those regions have high mountains & deserts, just like in India, only over a bigger area.
In C./S. America, where they may conduct ops, there r also Cordilleras & the Andes. Kamchatka with its active volcanoes is the size of Sweden.

The Mi-26 is designed to move around light vehicles and heavy loads that the Chinook couldn't manage. ..

they still need to carry less cargo &/ more fuel to get over the high mountains.

At $40 million per airframe I don't see how the Chinook could possibly be economically efficient either...

it will be used as a workhorse throughout India & pay for itself with things done & $ saved on other less efficient & slower helos; they'll have a lot more of them than those 4 Mi-26s. If they can help protect their frontiers, it's well worth it. Even if the US later withdraw their support, the Indians could maintain them just like the Iranians do.
This is similar how they switched from the Tu-142 MPA to the P-8s.

they'll still need helos in the Caucasus, Central Asia & possibly the ME/FE- all those regions have high mountains & deserts, just like in India, only over a bigger area.
In C./S. America, where they may conduct ops, there r also Cordilleras & the Andes. Kamchatka with its active volcanoes is the size of Sweden.

But they clearly have been getting by with existing types... the Hips are fine in such conditions as proven in Afghanistan.

The fact that they didn't bother developing a new helicopter till now suggests that only now are they formulating reasons for operating helos with 12-15 ton payloads, where previously presumably they just got by with the Mi-26.

And if the new helicopter is going to use the same engines as the new ones being developed for the Mi-26 then there will be the same delay because of the time it will take to get the engines ready anyway... so no hurry.

they still need to carry less cargo &/ more fuel to get over the high mountains.

If you are transporting things over high mountains why on earth would you waste money and energy using helicopters?

A light transport plane would be much more efficient and faster.

it will be used as a workhorse throughout India & pay for itself with things done & $ saved on other less efficient & slower helos; they'll have a lot more of them than those 4 Mi-26s. If they can help protect their frontiers, it's well worth it. Even if the US later withdraw their support, the Indians could maintain them just like the Iranians do.
This is similar how they switched from the Tu-142 MPA to the P-8s.

I love your denial of reality... using very very expensive American helicopters is not efficient and will make opening up new areas more expensive and make it slower and not faster to expand their presence in their frontier areas.

Chinooks are expensive to buy and expensive to operate and you can bet your ass those regular servicings will be expensive too... all those brand new parts from the states... no cheap generic parts in those aircraft... there is a good reason why India likes Russian products... they work but they are also relatively cheap and simple to operate and to use.

Look at the problems the US is having transferring the Afghan pilots from Hips to Blackhawks... the american birds are much more complex and fragile and in some places they used to use Hips they don't even work at all...

If you are transporting things over high mountains why on earth would you waste money and energy using helicopters?
A light transport plane would be much more efficient and faster.

also they'll be doing it within mountains & deserts w/o any airstrips for planes, not to lose more territory to China/Pakistan.

Chinooks are expensive to buy and expensive to operate and you can bet your ass those regular servicings will be expensive too... all those brand new parts from the states... no cheap generic parts in those aircraft...

they may start producing parts &/ buy them from other users elsewhere. Later they may develop their own similar helo.
Comparing the cost of each type 1-1 is wrong here. Here is why:
In October 2006, the Indo-Asian News Service reported that the Indian Air Force will buy 80 medium lift multi-role Mi-17 1V helicopters from Russia. ..MosNews estimated the deal’s value at approximately $662 million,..  https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-to-buy-80-mi17-1v-helicopters-02755/

That's 8.275M per Mi-17 copy, incl. parts & service.
The CH-47 Chinook is an American helicopter manufactured by Boeing and India inked a $3 billion [for the 14] (around Rs 20,600 crore [$2,993.180B] at today's exchange rate) deal in 2015.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-air-force-chinook-induction-1482931-2019-03-20
http://convert.syzygy.in/what-is-20600-crores-in-millions-and-billions

That's $213.8M per CH-47F copy, which also incl. parts & service. Now, we established that each of the 14 CH-47Fs can do 2x the work of Mi-17s, so they r 14x2=28 of them. Then, they would cost 28x8.275M=231.7M total. So, compared between the 2 types, they could be actually saving 231.7M-213.8M=17.9M by buying 14 CH-47Fs instead of 28 Mi-17s.
That's btw the 17.9M/8.275M=2.16x the cost of a single Mi-17+its parts & service.
Did I miss anything?

also they'll be doing it within mountains & deserts w/o any airstrips for planes, not to lose more territory to China/Pakistan.

What are you talking about?

They can build air strips in deserts and at high altitudes...

they may start producing parts &/ buy them from other users elsewhere.

So the US has completely changed their policy?

Really?

Later they may develop their own similar helo.

Like they are developing their own tank?

In October 2006, the Indo-Asian News Service reported that the Indian Air Force will buy 80 medium lift multi-role Mi-17 1V helicopters from Russia. ..MosNews estimated the deal’s value at approximately $662 million,.. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-to-buy-80-mi17-1v-helicopters-02755/

That's 8.275M per Mi-17 copy, incl. parts & service.
The CH-47 Chinook is an American helicopter manufactured by Boeing and India inked a $3 billion [for the 14] (around Rs 20,600 crore [$2,993.180B] at today's exchange rate) deal in 2015.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-air-force-chinook-induction-1482931-2019-03-20
http://convert.syzygy.in/what-is-20600-crores-in-millions-and-billions

That's $213.8M per CH-47F copy, which also incl. parts & service. Now, we established that each of the 14 CH-47Fs can do 2x the work of Mi-17s, so they r 14x2=28 of them. Then, they would cost 28x8.275M=231.7M total. So, compared between the 2 types, they could be actually saving 231.7M-213.8M=17.9M by buying 14 CH-47Fs instead of 28 Mi-17s.
That's btw the 17.9M/8.275M=2.16x the cost of a single Mi-17+its parts & service.
Did I miss anything?

[/quote]

What?

662 million for 80 aircraft means 8.275 million per aircraft... and spares and support.

3 billion dollars for 14 Chinooks means 214 million per helicopter, so you can get 80 Russian helicopters for the price of four Chinooks!!!!

If the 14 Chinooks they bought for 3 billion dollars could do the work of two M-17s each that means for 3 billion dollars you get the equivalent of 28 Mi-17s... but for 662 million dollars you get 80 Mi-17s, whcih is the equivalent therefore of 40 Chinooks... which would cost 40/14 X 3 billion dollars = which means 40 Chinooks that could do the job of 80 Mi-17s would cost over 8 billion dollars... compared with the 600 million dollars that the Russian helicopters would cost...

AND THAT IS ASSUMING THE CLAIM THAT ONE CHINOOK IS EQUIVALENT TO TWO MI-17s, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT PROVEN BY ANY MEANS.

Actually I am wrong there... at 214 million per Chinook you would only get three plus 20 million dollars change for the price of 80 Mi-17s... so 3 Chinooks or 80 Mi-17s... yeah... that makes good economic sense....

Put it another way... for 3 billion dollars you could buy over 360 Mi-17s... or you could have 14 Chinooks...