What's new

China to procure 36 Ka-52K Katran helicopters from Russia

DJ_Viper

FULL MEMBER
Mar 17, 2008
1,657
2
1,989
Country
United States
Location
United States
Only for the chopper version - otherwise the general trend is to have a larger wing area.
Making the necessary changes to allow the F-16 to operate at sea meant the V-1600 had a three-foot greater wingspan and was almost three feet longer than an F-16A. The structural and other changes added nearly 3,000 pounds to the empty weight of the aircraft, and increased the maximum takeoff weight over the F-16A’s by 10,000 pounds, from 35,400 to 44,421 pounds.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

Reducing aircraft size for storage has many approaches including everything from folding wings to tails for fixed wings. The F-14s swing wings fold was a secondary benefit from the early 60s obsession with variable geometry wings and their benefits of allowing both slow speed handling and good transonic & supersonic performance.

The SH-60 folds its tail, so did variants of the sea king. The osprey twists the wings on its axis.
Here they have folding rotors for the Alligator K variant and decided to shorten wings to fit more on the Mistral class(for which it was originally intended).
We are both saying the same thing on choppers with reduced wingspan for storage. The use case works for AC's and for LHD's, etc (including the Mistral class, although that's just one of many).

On -16, back in the days, GD used to own all the rights to it. In fact, it was a General Dynamics plane in the beginning. So they did pitch it and everyone does these things to reduce taxes and get taxable write-offs. The USN does NOT operate single engine jets so -16 had no future as a lead-in fighter / multi-role air craft for the navy. In fact, even in the aggressor role, it still kept it's air force configurations and was never really re-configured to take off from AC's. Tells you that there was no interest. The single engine lead-in fighter dynamics changed due to -35, it's stealthy and super advance tech. Even then, in real conflicts, -35 will not fly solo and will have a missile truck formation behind it with -18's in the Navy's case and the new -15 ER's in the air force's case with over a dozen AMRAAM D's, utilizing -35's powerful radar and advance cueing and data link system.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,746
416
75,847
Country
United States
Location
United States
We are both saying the same thing on choppers with reduced wingspan for storage. The use case works for AC's and for LHD's, etc (including the Mistral class, although that's just one of many).

On -16, back in the days, GD used to own all the rights to it. In fact, it was a General Dynamics plane in the beginning. So they did pitch it and everyone does these things to reduce taxes and get taxable write-offs. The USN does NOT operate single engine jets so -16 had no future as a lead-in fighter / multi-role air craft for the navy. In fact, even in the aggressor role, it still kept it's air force configurations and was never really re-configured to take off from AC's. Tells you that there was no interest. The single engine lead-in fighter dynamics changed due to -35, it's stealthy and super advance tech. Even then, in real conflicts, -35 will not fly solo and will have a missile truck formation behind it with -18's in the Navy's case and the new -15 ER's in the air force's case with over a dozen AMRAAM D's, utilizing -35's powerful radar and advance cueing and data link system.
When the Naval variant was pitched the navy was operating A-7s so that’s not entirely correct. However, dual engines were the way to go based on the safety requirements and the fact that the viper’s rather narrow gear track was a concern. There is a good article on an old Lockmart code-one magazine on it.
 

casual

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 8, 2011
2,352
1
1,646
Country
China
Location
United States
I think we should buy 100 to use,After all, it's only $2 billion per 100.

Apache , you can also buy a few dozen to see.
After all, now that the military has money, the Chinese navy spends $28 billion a year on equipment purchases.
China will need these helis delivered in the next 3-4 years. I think 36 is their production limit.
 

CAPRICORN-88

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 19, 2015
3,271
-5
6,197
Country
Singapore
Location
Malaysia
IMO what attracted China to probably procure these KA-52K naval attack helicopters is the 2 coaxial contra-rotating main rotors developed by Kamov Design Bureau. Its speciality.

Kamov has developed a great working relationship with China.

China may even license produced these helicopters.

China Navy is already operating the Ka-32.
 
Last edited:

Beidou2020

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 3, 2013
6,822
-48
18,303
Country
China
Location
China
Heavy attack helicopters and heavy transport helicopters are the 2 areas China doesn’t yet have a domestic equivalent.

Buy it, study it, use the knowledge to help in the development of China’s own heavy attack helicopter. China-Russia already has a joint project to develop heavy transport helicopters.
 

johncliu88

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 16, 2021
30
0
21
Country
China
Location
United States
For 20Mil each, this is a great deal from any angle that you look into it. Nice move, China!
 

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
10,764
14
17,972
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
For 20Mil each, this is a great deal from any angle that you look into it. Nice move, China!

IF this deal is real ... so far there is NO official confirmation and even if there is indeed some rationale behind it, I miss a clear confirmation yet.
 

Tai Hai Chen

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 15, 2017
20,805
-23
9,782
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
While it makes sense due to Ka-52's powerful engines and compact folding wings and rotors and Kh-35 anti ship missiles, it is unlikely due to China's aim to achieve self reliance.
 

Brainsucker

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 11, 2014
2,380
3
2,582
Country
Indonesia
Location
Indonesia
While it makes sense due to Ka-52's powerful engines and compact folding wings and rotors and Kh-35 anti ship missiles, it is unlikely due to China's aim to achieve self reliance.
Anything can goes, whatever it's true or not. The example is Chinese procurement of SU35. But, there's no confirmation about this. So we shouldn't see it as a serious news...., yet.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom