There is news that a heavy armament of more than 10 tons has successfully made its first flight, which has lasted for dozens of days! The challenge for the future will be to conduct a number of parallel series test flights, and if all goes well, the technical standards will soon be formalized and the stage of mass production will be reached. So, what does this new generation of heavy armament***, which is considered to be the world's leading in various indicators, look like?
Aside from the models that have been occasionally unveiled over the past few years, there have been no official exterior disclosures yet. The only thing that is certain is that it has a take-off weight of more than 10 tons, with a newly designed engine and reducer. The 10-ton class has reached the weight range of standard heavy armament*** comparable to the Longbow Apache.
So, whether the appearance of this new type of armament*** is similar to the longbow Apache, it is not certain at this time. It is also believed that it is closer to the Ka52 and even largely references the S97 high-speed ***, which was abandoned by the superpowers
It is also possible that it is a synthesis of the Longbow Apache, the KA52 and the S97, absorbing their advantages. In short, this is an unprecedented and powerful heavy high-speed armament*** It is believed that its level flight speed can reach more than 400 kilometers per hour, and the ultimate flight speed may even exceed 500 kilometers per hour; Coupled with its powerful carrying capacity, it is bound to have world-class firepower intensity and actual combat strike range.
Crucially, the battlefield survivability of this powerful model will be greatly improved compared to models such as the Longbow Apache, which has a top speed of no more than 370 kilometers per hour. The main reason why this powerful model is only now available is because of the complete breakthrough of the completely new design of the turboshaft. In recent years, despite a series of breakthroughs in advanced turbofan engines, the brilliant achievements in turboshafts are often overlooked!
In the field of turboshaft engines in the 1000 to 2000 kW class, it can be said that it has reached the world's top level. Coupled with advanced composite materials, electronic sensing systems and supporting systems, it is natural to make it possible to have a comprehensive performance of a leading heavy armament. However, in recent years, with the rise of various unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles in actual combat, people have naturally developed the concept that "traditional armed weapons are outdated".
Some believe that the traditional armed forces, which once dominated the battlefield, can be replaced by a large number of drones; And the drone will not lead to our personnel **, so it has an incomparable cost performance in real combat. Against this background, is it worth investing a lot of resources in the development of heavy armaments? There is no final answer to this question yet.
However, just last year, the superpower placed a large order for more than 180 new Apache armed forces***, enough to equip 2 or 3 combat-ready air assault divisions. This shows that even the world's most powerful superpower still attaches great importance to the strategic importance of arming *** and is still massively expanding the size of its existing fleet.
Those voices that emphasize that drones and cruise missiles can dominate the world every day often come from countries that cannot even produce high-end missiles independently. From this stark contrast, it can be concluded that it is clearly premature to think that UAVs can completely replace traditional manned *** and especially armed***.
After all, national strength and resources are different; Small and poor countries have to choose, while world-class powers pursue all-round military power. Another important factor is that some people place a special emphasis on the role of drones, opposing the traditional manned low-altitude rotorcraft or *** on the battlefield, largely because they don't want to see too many people**.
Winning a large-scale war at zero or close to zero seems to have become one of the absolute criteria for judging a country's actual combat capability by military enthusiasts around the world since the Gulf War.
Will modern warfare necessarily achieve zero**? Zero** wars are often the result of non-contact wars, which require absolute technological gaps and a certain element of luck. But if a war is to be fought on a larger scale on land, it is unrealistic to hope for non-contact and zero**. The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have numbered tens of thousands.
After all, the purpose of war is to achieve total victory, not the unilateral pursuit of zero**. Against the backdrop of this principle, heavy armament*** remains a key support system in the event of large-scale military operations between major powers. If it is said that the armed *** is easy to be shot down by ground air defense, then the direct reason is not that there are too many inputs, but too little.
For example, if 500 UAVs and 50 armed *** are invested in a war zone at the same time, the loss statistics show: 300 UAVs and 10 *** were lost during the operation, but if 50,000 UAVs and 5,000 *** were invested at the same time, which enemy would dare to continue to resist?