TR Attack & Utility Helicopter Programs

[Afif]

We need to scale up prototype/frontier projects such as Titra Alpin, Bvlos Jackal, etc. several times larger and get muscle up unmanned rotary wing attack platforms suitable for military offensive purposes. These helicopters should be capable of carrying multiple numbers of mini loitering, swarm capable missiles/drones. I'm talking about higher lift capacity, more advanced systems, basically, many times more expensive aircrafts.

But, Electric propulsion is not essential. We already have a rotary wing engine, TS1400. It should be a platform that can accompany the T-129 with its light armor and operational range with the 3-4 ton mtow. The attack helicopter's gunner assistant pilot should have direct control access to these rotary wing unmanned attack aircraft. Today's autonomy capabilities make it possible to carry out already a large part of the mission autonomously, so pilot is just needed for final decision making, which again, AI system could give accurate decision support to operator.

In short, we need to synthesize the progress we have made in unmanned systems with conventional close air support systems.

My firend, with all due respect, unmanned attack helicopter is a concept that likely to create more trouble for the crews in real world operational environment than benefits.

No matter how much AI you put into it, today an uncrewed rotary craft is not able to succesfully apply effective and timely combat maneuver on its own. We are far away from it.

Succesfully maneuvering a rotary craft along tree lines and terrain masking during combat scenarios is already incredibly hard. It requires 360 degrees first person eye view.
Even with 360 degree camera coverage on unmanned rotary platform, you can't deliver the responsive first person situational awareness in small cockpit screens for the second crew sitting in manned helicopter.

However, thanks to advance in technology today, he can put on a smart helmet with firs person view (FPV) goggles, but then again, such attempt would defeat the very purpose of having two crew In a manned helicopter. The very reason manned rotary wing combat platforms has two crew compared to fixed wing combat platforms (fighter jets) is that, it is not practical for one person to pilot the helicopter and apply combat maneuver while simultaneously controlling the weapon systems and engagement for a sufficient period of time.
Hence, comes the need for second crew/gunner.

Now, if we put the responsibility of controlling another rotary craft and its weapon system on the second crew/gunner along with the weapon system of his own aircraft that he is sitting in, it is simply not gonna work.

AH-64E crews are already complaining about the workload of controlling simple and small loitering ammunition/ISR UAS that does not even require combat maneuvers.

"The AH-64E also allows its crew to take control of UAVs in its vicinity, and to view ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) information and full motion video feeds directly in its cockpits from both those UAVs and troops on the ground. This further enhances tactical flexibility in high-threat environments by reducing the need for the Apache crew to place themselves at risk in order to locate and engage hostile threats, as well as making targeting faster and more precise in lower-threat environments. However, in personal interviews with the author, US Army crews have complained that the addition of UAV-controlling and -monitoring responsibilities can detrimentally affect crew performance and even flight safety in high-stress situations, especially when flying at low altitude, in bad weather or under fire."

A Rebirth for the British Army’s Apache Fleet

The decision to acquire new AH-64E Apache Guardians will enhance the UK military’s capability in the coming decades. The incorporation of new technology in the airframe will aid crews in accomplishing their missions and allow greater interoperability with allied assets.

www.rusi.org

Not to mention, Most of the manned helicopter's systems and capabilities are duplicated via the multifunction displays so that either the pilot or gunner can assume each other's role at almost any time. Hence, second crew/gunner already also has the responsibility of taking over the control of his own aircraft if required.

Considering these aspects, I would argue that unmanned rotary wing combat platforms should be controlled from the ground, if such concept ever become operational.

 

[B_A]

Can we copy the T700-TEI-701D

 

[Saithan]

My firend, with all due respect, unmanned attack helicopter is a concept that likely to create more trouble for the crews in real world operational environment than benefits.

No matter how much AI you put into it, today an uncrewed rotary craft is not able to succesfully apply effective and timely combat maneuver on its own. We are far away from it.

Succesfully maneuvering a rotary craft along tree lines and terrain masking during combat scenarios is already incredibly hard. It requires 360 degrees first person eye view.
Even with 360 degree camera coverage on unmanned rotary platform, you can't deliver the responsive first person situational awareness in small cockpit screens for the second crew sitting in manned helicopter.

However, thanks to advance in technology today, he can put on a smart helmet with firs person view (FPV) goggles, but then again, such attempt would defeat the very purpose of having two crew In a manned helicopter. The very reason manned rotary wing combat platforms has two crew compared to fixed wing combat platforms (fighter jets) is that, it is not practical for one person to pilot the helicopter and apply combat maneuver while simultaneously controlling the weapon systems and engagement for a sufficient period of time.
Hence, comes the need for second crew/gunner.

Now, if we put the responsibility of controlling another rotary craft and its weapon system on the second crew/gunner along with the weapon system of his own aircraft that he is sitting in, it is simply not gonna work.

AH-64E crews are already complaining about the workload of controlling simple and small loitering ammunition/ISR UAS that does not even require combat maneuvers.

"The AH-64E also allows its crew to take control of UAVs in its vicinity, and to view ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) information and full motion video feeds directly in its cockpits from both those UAVs and troops on the ground. This further enhances tactical flexibility in high-threat environments by reducing the need for the Apache crew to place themselves at risk in order to locate and engage hostile threats, as well as making targeting faster and more precise in lower-threat environments. However, in personal interviews with the author, US Army crews have complained that the addition of UAV-controlling and -monitoring responsibilities can detrimentally affect crew performance and even flight safety in high-stress situations, especially when flying at low altitude, in bad weather or under fire."

A Rebirth for the British Army’s Apache Fleet

The decision to acquire new AH-64E Apache Guardians will enhance the UK military’s capability in the coming decades. The incorporation of new technology in the airframe will aid crews in accomplishing their missions and allow greater interoperability with allied assets.

www.rusi.org

Not to mention, Most of the manned helicopter's systems and capabilities are duplicated via the multifunction displays so that either the pilot or gunner can assume each other's role at almost any time. Hence, second crew/gunner already also has the responsibility of taking over the control of his own aircraft if required.

Considering these aspects, I would argue that unmanned rotary wing combat platforms should be controlled from the ground, if such concept ever become operational.

Could the reason why there is so much talk about unmanned rotary type be due to precision bombing of sorts ? I was thinking an ANKA type flying over the field, mapping ditches, trenches and bunkers of sorts and the coordinates could be relayed to rotary types who'll then conduct hit and runs.

Only issue would be their speed, noise and how low/high it'll fly. It's quite impressive that you can use it to drop mortars on top of enemy soldiers and such, but once countermeasures are prepared I imagine that they'll be targetted and taken out before they get too close.

 

[Afif]

Could the reason why there is so much talk about unmanned rotary type be due to precision bombing of sorts ? I was thinking an ANKA type flying over the field, mapping ditches, trenches and bunkers of sorts and the coordinates could be relayed to rotary types who'll then conduct hit and runs.

Only issue would be their speed, noise and how low/high it'll fly. It's quite impressive that you can use it to drop mortars on top of enemy soldiers and such, but once countermeasures are prepared I imagine that they'll be targetted and taken out before they get too close.

I think this is the practical MUM-T future concept when it comes to rotary wing platforms. Along With these platforms being equipped with long range stand off missiles like SKIPE NLOS, Akeron LP and Omtas-GM.

Loitering ammunitions/small ISTAR UAS will share and continuesly update the target coordination, thus allowing the helicopters to shoot without exposing themselves.

 

[Anmdt]

Wildcat, which is at a similar weight has a fixed aesa radar, can carry torpedos, sonobuoys, 20 Martlet LMMs etc. It's also powered by the same engine we have on T129, which we want our own engine for T625 to match.

With slight sense of engineering, we all may know Wildcat may not do everything that Seahawk us capable of. It can seperately carry those payloads, but when combined or required to be carried in combination they will need to sacrifice from hovering, fuel, amount of sonobuoys, number of LWT. Something will be sacrificed when it comes to the practice.

If the lesser is capable of doing more or the same, entire world would be at the queue to purchase it.

Besides, Royal Navy is capable of operating larger helicopters providing better uses than Seahawks. We either change our doctrine and get larger helicopters for the destroyers, LHD, support class and combine it with the lighter one derived from T625 for other vessels, or Seahawks or the helicopters of the same class is our best bet for a decent rotary wing from frigates, corvettes and destroyers. We heavily rely on Seahawks in our doctrine for ASuW, AAW.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Agree. Suffice to say as Phase 3 is scrapped for T129, the 35 options for T129 will be made a reality with T629 so we can expect at least 35 T629s for KKK already.

Phase 3 is scrapped?

 

[Yasar_TR]

Before discussing helicopters TSK should or should not have, it is important to understand few simple facts:

Atak-T129 is a 5 ton light attack helicopter
These are being built with Italian licensed body and US licensed engines
Hence can be subject to restrictions of license duration and exportability. Initial order quantity was 59 units with around 50 on option. With later additions of Jandarma and Interior ministry quantities this initial quantity has been changed over the years. To date about 75 units have been delivered to TSK.

Atak-T629 is envisaged as a 6 ton light attack helicopter
This will contain indigenous TS1400 engine and a locally designed and built body. As part of improvements over T129, it should have a better cockpit armour and a millimetre wave radar, with the gun ammo hidden inside the helicopter. It should not suffer from instability and extra weight distribution.
Due to indigenisation, there will be no restrictions for production and exportability.

Atak-T929 is a 10+ ton heavy attack helicopter
It is similar to the AH64 Apache.
Ukrainian engine’s performance and availability can be the stumbling block when it comes to getting the best out of this aircraft. It really needs a pair of 3000HP engines powering it.

T926 is the 10+ ton multi purpose heavy class helicopter. Again with the amount of weight involved, it needs a pair of 3000HP engines.

T625 AKA Gokbey, is a 6 ton light multi purpose helicopter.
It has two indigenously manufactured -TS1400- engines powering it. It is in serial production. And it is already being delivered in Low Rate Initial Production mode albeit with LHTEC engine for the first LRIP quantities .

We are also producing under license the Blackhawk T-70 helicopters. It is believed that of the 109 units to be produced, approximately 38 will only be produced within the given license timeline. If more need to be produced , license will have to be renewed. That needs congressional approval from the US.
TEI manufactures the 70% of the 2000HP class T700 engine used on this helicopter; including hot parts. Similar level of indigenisation is valid for the main helicopter fuselage and avionics too.

Now, going forward;
Will TSK still need more light attack helicopters? Or will they invest in heavier T929 version? Or will they need them both? We will see as news start to unfold in the coming months.

T70 Blackhawk is a relatively cheap helicopter for land use. For naval version -Seahawk- price jumps to astronomical figures. T70 has a 10.5 ton MTOW value. But maximum safe operational weight is 8.5 tons. similar figures are valid for the Seahawk too.

please see my post:

Post in thread 'Attack & Utility Helicopter Programs'
https://defencehub.live/threads/attack-utility-helicopter-programs.9/post-287465

 

[Anmdt]

I think the Kızılelma and Hürjet engines have the same problems. If not, it will come out soon. We have a very good proverbs about this.

I personally wasn't trusting Ukraine related to the engines in pre-war conditions. But anyway, the war has been a great excuse for whatever going on.

Before discussing helicopters TSK should or should not have, it is important to understand few simple facts:

Atak-T129 is a 5 ton light attack helicopter
These are being built with Italian licensed body and US licensed engines
Hence can be subject to restrictions of license duration and exportability. Initial order quantity was 59 units with around 50 on option. With later additions of Jandarma and Interior ministry quantities this initial quantity has been changed over the years. To date about 75 units have been delivered to TSK.

Atak-T629 is envisaged as a 6 ton light attack helicopter
This will contain indigenous TS1400 engine and a locally designed and built body. As part of improvements over T129, it should have a better cockpit armour and a millimetre wave radar, with the gun ammo hidden inside the helicopter. It should not suffer from instability and extra weight distribution.
Due to indigenisation, there will be no restrictions for production and exportability.

Atak-T929 is a 10+ ton heavy attack helicopter
It is similar to the AH64 Apache.
Ukrainian engine’s performance and availability can be the stumbling block when it comes to getting the best out of this aircraft. It really needs a pair of 3000HP engines powering it.

T926 is the 10+ ton multi purpose heavy class helicopter. Again with the amount of weight involved, it needs a pair of 3000HP engines.

T625 AKA Gokbey, is a 6 ton light multi purpose helicopter.
It has two indigenously manufactured -TS1400- engines powering it. It is in serial production. And it is already being delivered in Low Rate Initial Production mode.

We are also producing under license the Blackhawk T-70 helicopters. It is believed that of the 109 units to be produced, approximately 38 will only be produced within the given license timeline. If more need to be produced , license will have to be renewed. That needs congressional approval from the US.
TEI manufactures the 70% of the 2000HP class T700 engine used on this helicopter; including hot parts. Similar level of indigenisation is valid for the main helicopter fuselage and avionics too.

Now, going forward;
Will TSK still need more light attack helicopters? Or will they invest in heavier T929 version? Or will they need them both? We will see as news start to unfold in the coming months.

T70 Blackhawk is a relatively cheap helicopter for land use. For naval version -Seahawk- price jumps to astronomical figures. T70 has a 10.5 ton MTOW value. But maximum safe operational weight is 8.5 tons. similar figures are valid for the Seahawk too.

please see my post:

Post in thread 'Attack & Utility Helicopter Programs'
https://defencehub.live/threads/attack-utility-helicopter-programs.9/post-287465

We need pinned posts that will be updated by time and remain on top, like this.

 

[Sanchez]

With slight sense of engineering, we all may know Wildcat may not do everything that Seahawk us capable of. It can seperately carry those payloads, but when combined or required to be carried in combination they will need to sacrifice from hovering, fuel, amount of sonobuoys, number of LWT. Something will be sacrificed when it comes to the practice.

If the lesser is capable of doing more or the same, entire world would be at the queue to purchase it.

Besides, Royal Navy is capable of operating larger helicopters providing better uses than Seahawks. We either change our doctrine and get larger helicopters for the destroyers, LHD, support class and combine it with the lighter one derived from T625 for other vessels, or Seahawks or the helicopters of the same class is our best bet for a decent rotary wing from frigates, corvettes and destroyers. We heavily rely on Seahawks in our doctrine for ASuW, AAW.

Yes, Seahawk is unparalled, we are all aware. but there's not much we can do if US won't sell it to us. Then what do we do when we have an increasing number of frigates, OPVs and Anadolu without helicopters to go with them?

 

[zio]

Why we do not considering 3 TS1400 engine on one helicopter,as such AW101

 

[Anmdt]

Yes, Seahawk is unparalled, we are all aware. but there's not much we can do if US won't sell it to us. Then what do we do when we have an increasing number of frigates, OPVs and Anadolu without helicopters to go with them?

Gökbey's Naval version is a perfect fit for OPVs (I also told this in earlier pages), however i don't support the idea for the frigates-destroyers. It goes as better than nothing, but if we are willing to keep the capabilities then they should find a way to get Seahawks.

 

[Khagan1923]

I personally wasn't trusting Ukraine related to the engines in pre-war conditions. But anyway, the war has been a great excuse for whatever going on.

Yeah I remember you touched several times over the last 1-2 years on the Ukrainians creating artificial problems for some reason , most likely due to pressure from the US and EU, but most people here ignored your warnings about working and relying on Ukraine for these projects.

Guess we are paying the price now.

 

[Sanchez]

Gökbey's Naval version is a perfect fit for OPVs (I also told this in earlier pages), however i don't support the idea for the frigates-destroyers. It goes as better than nothing, but if we are willing to keep the capabilities then they should find a way to get Seahawks.

We still have some number of AB212s in service, 6 ASWs and 3 EWs if some weren't silently retired. They are less capable but find work on older Mekos all the time, which can't support the Seahawks.

Add to it 8 coming Hisar class ships, I can see the need for at least 10 T625Ns just here. Add to it the 14 AB412s Coast Guard operates, 24 navalized T625s can be incurred before we even start talking about Seahawks or potential export. Mind you, only 38 navy wildcats were ever built so far.

If they can keep the costs low of navalizing it and to be frank, this is a capability TAI will have to learn (if not for T625, then for T925 and T929.) they can even turn some profit i think.

 

[zio]

We still have some number of AB212s in service, 6 ASWs and 3 EWs if some weren't silently retired. They are less capable but find work on older Mekos all the time, which can't support the Seahawks.

Add to it 8 coming Hisar class ships, I can see the need for at least 10 T625Ns just here. Add to it the 14 AB412s Coast Guard operates, 24 navalized T625s can be incurred before we even start talking about Seahawks or potential export. Mind you, only 38 navy wildcats were ever built so far.

If they can keep the costs low of navalizing it and to be frank, this is a capability TAI will have to learn (if not for T625, then for T925 and T929.) they can even turn some profit i think.

14 AB 412 cost guard will be modernized by Aselsan

 

[uçuyorum]

We will only get 14 engines for 925/929 if that. And those are already for Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry which ordered 8 925 for firefighting. And even if there were extras those would go to Anadolu. In the end, worse case scenario will happen, we will have only 38 blackhawks and license agreement won't be renewed, no seahawks, no engine for 925/929 any time soon and we will probably not renew T129 license. Out entire helicopter range in terms of those we can produce will be reduced to 625 and 629. That's why it is important to make navalized 625.

 

[Sanchez]

14 AB 412 cost guard will be modernized by Aselsan

Yes, their FLIR will be replaced by R-400D, as well as their radars. As far as I know, no SLEP or anything like that is planned for them however. If T625N becomes reality, it won't see general use for at least 6-7 years anyhow and SGK birds can be replaced later down the line. One thing going for 412s is that they are not exactly old unlike 212s navy operates. Fleet should be less than 20 year old.

 

[boredaf]

That's why it is important to make navalized 625.

For that to happen TS-1400 has to be navalized first, though I'm not sure how long that would take.

 

[Huelague]

T629 is a greedy project that should not be exist.We are not US or China.Why do we have 3 attack helicopter projects at the same time.

Licence production of T-129 ends in 2(?) years.

 

[uçuyorum]

For that to happen TS-1400 has to be navalized first, though I'm not sure how long that would take.

I haven't been able to find anything specific on any source about navalization of turbine engines. There are a few studies on anti corrosion coatings for compressors but those don't seem to be separate for different variants of an engine. There are some documents about testing and maintenance procedures of us navy online but that's about it.

 

[Aloster]

Dear @Anmdt @Yasar @uçuyorum
What happened if we use normal heli at sea platform with basic coating or as semi navalized. I know corrosion issue , I also know navalized one price 6 times or more higher than normal one . Since 1960s if I don't understand wrongly no completly navalized heli exist after that this concept matured. Than to 1960s they operated non or semi navalized ones.
For example anyone can say that if u use none navalized or semi / partially one, u have to major maintenance them after 2000h under sea air condition also u have to spend 20 percent of its costs also Mtff time reduced to 3000 h or like that.
Some degree semi navalized Gokbeys may be accepted at least on OPVs . After that obtained experience with them we can go on. May be main issue at here producing heli number 3 times number of the OPV as flying skeletons. Like Operating one - Mintanence one - Spare one. But as electronics suits number equal to operating ones number.