vasu raya wrote:We have Kamov with a rotating radar panel under its fuselage, another radar will be positioned right at the rear door in a Helo's GMTI/SAR role, and they operate at standoff distances which can be termed as safe zones and they need not necessarily land.
The Kamov with folding & rotating radar has much restricted flight envelope than an ASW or SAR Kamov. Even Phalcon has a restricted flight envelope than a tanker or transport Il-76.
Its not simple making these platforms – remember the Hs748 AEW crash?
The Ka31 has a simple folding & rotating mechanism with simple movements whereas a robotic arm would have more complex movements.
Given that the envelope would be restricted; would one want such a lumbering bird in a war zone? Phalcons and Ka-31 are used far from the battlefield.
vasu raya wrote:The basic premise is the Mi-17 has more capacity than what it can carry on its pylons while being maneuvarable enough in combat zone.
No, its NOT maneuvarable enough for full fledged attack missions. CERTAINLY NOT with a heavy load. Weapons are an additional capacity but these birds spend 99% of their missions transporting.
The perils of using transport Mi-17 in attack role was tragically demonstrated at Kargil.
vasu raya wrote:Hmmm... most of my detractors landed on the same thread
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
somebody who gives free lectures on what afflicts desis, and those lectures are not worth a dime, keeping a broader perspective helps.
My worth is well known to the world, but since you spoke of
broader perspective...
You’ve got the problem right. Certain situations may require firepower more that what an aircraft can carry. Like a ground position being surrounded, and after the aircraft/helicopter providing cover exhausts its ammo, then what? The ground position may be overrun by the time the aircraft/helicopter rearms & returns.
Do we really need a helicopter incase firepower volume is required? No, all a helicopter does differently than an aircraft is hover & VTOL, that is useful to SAR people & land/takeoff where there is no runway or flying really low to avoid radar. For delivering firepower, hover, VTOL capability is not essential, and neither is low flying. And where one needs to deploy volume of firepower persistently, the enemy will know you'll come & you'll stay.
So if an aircraft can do the job, lets use a bomber. Tu-142 / B-52 with very high endurance. Can stay over Tora Bora for hours, if not most of the day.
But everyone doesn’t have bombers.
However, most forces have transports, that have both volume & endurance.
Eureka!
Gunships!
Equip a Dakota or C-130 or An-12 or An-32 with bombs & machine guns. You got volume and you got endurance.
As a bonus, they can also carry DIRCM or loads of flares to decoy MANPADS and use armour in vital areas.
Problem solved!
http://imageshack.us/f/168/r3879662353.jpg/
vasu raya wrote:keeping a broader perspective helps
So now we know whose mind is narrowly focussed on robotic arms reloading. Those with broader perspective solved the problem 48 years ago in 1964, probably before you were born.