H20 is not reliant on parts from Russia.
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Why would that be an issue? Does Russia have reasons not to sell Ka-28s or offer technical support thereof to the PLAN?
No, but not as reliable as your own national OEM. Also H20 is being mass produced so should be cheaper, and better to back your own industry than someone else's anyway.
Lethe
Captain
Published aircraft specifications are notoriously sensitive to operating conditions that are often unspecified. Are you able to share the sources suggesting the superiority of the Ka-27/etc. platform?
Pretty much the usual sources:
I, of course, cannot attest to the absolute accuracy therefrom, and likewise for their respective avionics and ASW suites.
Still, as a general guide in terms of raw specs the differences between the platforms are quite stark in some respects, such as range, payload, MTOW etc. like mentioned, whereas the SH-60 i.e. S-70 i.e. Z-20 edges out in speed and service ceiling, and maybe flight time. It's all I could discern from comparing the two anyway.
PLAN's usage of Ka-28 should tell you what they really think about the helicopter. They'd rather use Z-9C ahead of Ka-28. Of course, naval Z-20 would be a lot better than Ka-28. Better engines, more advanced rotor system, can carry all domestic systems and have much better electronics.
lcloo
Captain
For an anti-submarine warfare helicopter, excessive range is not important, a range of 300 to 400km is sufficient since most torpedo range is less than 100km. Also, a submarine launched cruise missile launched from 900km away or 300km away makes little difference for the defending surface ship since their radar would likely pick up the cruise missiles at less than 300km away.
Service ceiling is also of secondary importance for ASW helicopter since their primary target is under water, that is not much point for a ASW helicopter to fly at high altitude if it can perform better at just a few hundred metres above sea level.
Payload wise, if ASW version Z20 can carry two or four torpedoes and advance detection gear, and have 300 to 400km combat radius, that is good enough for fleet defence.
Better detection gear is more important that just having bigger payload and longer range. ASW version of Z20 is not even in service yet, we don't even known its capability, thus having an strong opinion of Z20 vs Ka-28 is pre-matured. We should wait until its induction and disclosure on its capabilities before we should make comparison.
As capable as the Z-20 is likely to become, the inherent limitations of its airframe by its very nature as an S-70 derivative means it simply doesn't compare against the Ka-28 in range and payload capacity.
On the other hand, the Z-20 is a quick, high-flying and nimble beast, which is never in dispute. And like @Icloo said, range and payload aren't everything.
The PLAN probably sees the Z-20's pros worth the trade-off, with self sufficiency no doubt being a critical factor, despite the apparent advantages the Ka-28 brings. It goes without saying the quality of its sensor suite is gonna make all the difference for the eventual Z-20 ASW.
That said, the new Ka-27M for the Russian Navy (and the export Ka-28M) with its Kopyo-A sensor suite looks to be a quite potent ASW platform with much expanded multi-role capabilities (ASuW, AEW etc.) as well:
What I find particularly interesting is its greater surface and sub-surface detection capabilities which are clearly designed to one up the USN's mainstay MH-60R --
250km and 2,624ft for Kopyo-A on the Ka-27M
vs
200km and 2,500ft for AN/APS-153 / AQS-22 on the MH-60R; and a whole host of other goodies.
Depending on how satisfied the PLAN will be with the Z-20, me still thinks the Ka-27/8M could be an option that's worth a gander down the road.
