Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Best russian attack helicopter?

    Share

    Poll

    If you could only have one type of attack helicopter which would it be?(please read below first)

    [ 9 ]
    28% [28%] 
    [ 6 ]
    19% [19%] 
    [ 17 ]
    53% [53%] 

    Total Votes: 32
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 833
    Points : 995
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:51 pm

    if you were in charge of procurement and were told you could only have one type of attack helicopter which would you have? bearing in mind that all 3 types are different in there own way, but which would you choose. Please feel free to post comments and please this is just for interest and people views and doesnt have to be taken way over the top on seriousness.

    My personal choice is the MI-35 for its versatillity being able to be used as an attack helicopter which can be armed for any occassion and the ability to carry troops/cargo, its also able to carry underslung loads.


    Last edited by George1 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 2:22 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : spelling)
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Mike E on Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:14 pm

    Hmmmm.... They are all good choices! That being said, I chose the Havoc (personal choice).  russia
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:44 pm

    Well that is actually a hard choice which i feel bad having three options and all of them are quite unique in their design and philosophy.

    The Mi-24VM2 (Mi-35M), is the most versitile and could easily be used in 50 years future and that very capable. The point i love about the Crocodile is it has a compartment which gives you lot of space for transporting armed troops, supplies, extra munition or evacuation and even when the Crocodile would end its military duty it had customers in civil sector,because the cargo capability is also loved in civil and duty purposes for police, UN supply helicopter armored for not so safe regions

    The modernisations for Crocodile are the vast spectrum, from different radars for different purposes, to cargo modernisations for NBC environmental operation. It was even suggest to be used as an UCAV with enough space for lot of avionics,mechanism and Electronic Warfare equipment. Not to mention all kind of fantasies for modernisation of this beauty. Very Happy 

    The Mi-28N is the most solid for regular army with powerful weapons,armor and a limited cargo for 2-3 people to evacuate which it was designed for to evacuate and carry the pilots of the downed Havoc in an armored compartment safe from ground fire which most helicopters lack and therefor through necessity for evacuation have to transport people either on stubbed wings next to the running engine or on the wheel and in both cases soldiers are exposed to ground fire and also the helicopter can not maneuver without killing the people on wheel or stubbed wing resulting that the Helicopter is far more exposed to all kind of weaponaries.

    But when thinking in long term having a Ka-52 is the best way, since Co-axial rotor systems are quite unique in their technology and dealing now with all issues the logistical and mechanical personal would face and teaching them over the early years untill Co-axial helicopters in military come more common which will respresent Co-axial/Compound 5th Gen helicopters, that will help easing the entire situation in the military and the experience they could gather would also give enough solutions for issues that can/will occure.
    Not to mention that the safest one hell of reliable (14 days without major maintenance) and with the strongest weaponary and maneuverability on an Attack Helicopter would be working for you.

    So yes i would go with Ka-52, but i find it heartbreaking to give me the pain and forcing me to decide which beauties i had to leave a side.  cry
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:48 pm

    The Hind would be the cheapest and with upgrades from the Mi-28N would have lots of capabilities of the newer model and the cost sharing would reduce costs for both types as both are widely produced.

    The Ka-52 will be more expensive and also more capable but I don't think it will be as well protected even though it does have ejection seats for the crew most helos can autorotate.

    I would probably go for the Mi-28M with various upgrades including internal cannon ammo storage and more aerodynamic gun setup with increased on board ready to fire ammo and fully operational DIRCMs self defence suite (in this sense the Kamov is probably the most ready to go right now).

    Having said all that... any or a combination of the three would be fine too.

    Perhaps a high low mix of Hinds as the numbers aircraft and Havocs as heavy support... but I would use them with a decent CAS aircraft like Su-25 to increase effectiveness, while the Ka-52 could be used for special missions... and from ships.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3170
    Points : 3260
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:30 pm

    I would take Ka-52 any time. It is not armored as Mi-28N, but is better equipped and better armed. It have full ESM complex with RWR, LWR, MAWS, chaff and flares dispenser, DIRCM and ECM. It have whole EO suite and multimode radar. It will use Vikhr and Hermes missiles, but what is more important, Ka-52 could carry bigger missiles like Kh-31A/P in naval version. Such capabilities could also have ground based Ka-52.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:04 pm

    So far the members are even in the poll for which helicopter they would choose, but i'm interested in the end result.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 833
    Points : 995
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:32 pm

    Hi all, just want to say thanks to everyone for taking the time to vote and your comments. One thing i think everyone can agree on is its a tough decision and all three have there good and bad points, and most people have stated they would want at least two of the types lol. does anyone know the costs of each aircraft?
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1241
    Points : 1263
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:08 am

    Ka-52 is the most advanced and most beautiful. Also the most capable flier thus I voted to have it in my garage so to speak.
    But Ka-52's don't win wars. What you need when in the mid of the hell is a Mi28 for a breakthrough and then a Mi35 to carry your men around.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:48 pm

    The Mi-35 is a very good aircraft... its weak points was lack of all weather capability and the fact that it wasn't very sophisticated in terms of guided weapons or unguided weapons accuracy.

    With the new model Mi-35 with night and all weather optics plus laser range finder unguided weapons accuracy is greatly improved and with the new small low drag wings with the capacity to carry ATAKA and SHTURM and now Krisantema its capabilities in terms of air to ground precision attack is greatly enhanced.

    Its twin barrel 23mm cannon should be devastating.

    The thing they learned with the Hind in Afghanistan and elsewhere was that for small operations it is useful for delivering or retrieving small groups, but for landing troops in large numbers (and large numbers is the best way to deliver them most of the time) then the Mi-8 and Mi-17 have rather more troop capacity with easier exit and entry options.

    the hind is more use orbiting the area blasting everything that puts its head up, while the Mi-8/17s bring the troops in bulk or take them out rapidly.

    the rear area is useful for extra equipment and ammo and having three crew as standard can be useful sometimes... there is an engineer that sits in a small tunnel between the troop cabin and the rear pilot position.

    the flexibility for landing troops and the fact that it is probably the cheapest of the three do count for it too.

    the upgrades that largely involve adding Mi-28 components to the Mi-35 make the two aircraft even more complimentary and capable.

    With all the ground based development of unmanned gun mounts I would love to see a rear facing system on the Mi-35 with either a 4 barrel gatling 12.7mm calibre or perhaps a 40mm grenade launcher.... with full remote control of course.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4496
    Points : 4675
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    With all the ground based development of unmanned gun mounts I would love to see a rear facing system on the Mi-35 with either a 4 barrel gatling 12.7mm calibre or perhaps a 40mm grenade launcher.... with full remote control of course.

    I suggest for future modernization of the the Mi-24 should have:

    All the defensive suites (or at least as many as possible) as the Ka-52. A modular rear payload, so instead of a mandatory passenger area I suggest having a set up similar to the Sikorsky CH-54 Tarhe, where the back area is by default empty, but compatible with modular cargo/payload attachments. One attachment could be a passenger cargo attachment, another could be a special passenger medical attachment with hospital machines equipment to treat the wounded. Another payload attachment could be designed to hold significant more ready-to-fire ammo and is directly connected for mounted turrets, and replacing the chin mounted twin 23mm guns with a long barrel AGS‑40 Balkan, which has similar range to other Mi-24 gun mounts firing from the ground, but with significantly less recoil and shot from the air the range should improve and increase beyond 4 km's, or  a long barrel 57 mm grenade launcher which by it self has range that is over 6 km's. Another attachment could have a large specialized defensive payload designed to hold aerial launched Morfey missiles, integrated with the a Ka-52 level defensive suite and you have a helicopter set up comparable to an airborne SAM, could be especially useful when protecting VIP in places like Afghanistan.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:41 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    With all the ground based development of unmanned gun mounts I would love to see a rear facing system on the Mi-35 with either a 4 barrel gatling 12.7mm calibre or perhaps a 40mm grenade launcher.... with full remote control of course.

    I suggest for future modernization of the the Mi-24 should have:

    All the defensive suites (or at least as many as possible) as the Ka-52. A modular rear payload, so instead of a mandatory passenger area I suggest having a set up similar to the Sikorsky CH-54 Tarhe, where the back area is by default empty, but compatible with modular cargo/payload attachments. One attachment could be a passenger cargo attachment, another could be a special passenger medical attachment with hospital machines equipment to treat the wounded. Another payload attachment could be designed to hold significant more ready-to-fire ammo and is directly connected for mounted turrets, and replacing the chin mounted twin 23mm guns with a long barrel AGS‑40 Balkan, which has similar range to other Mi-24 gun mounts firing from the ground, but with significantly less recoil and shot from the air the range should improve and increase beyond 4 km's, or  a long barrel 57 mm grenade launcher which by it self has range that is over 6 km's. Another attachment could have a large specialized defensive payload designed to hold aerial launched Morfey missiles, integrated with the a Ka-52 level defensive suite and you have a helicopter set up comparable to an airborne SAM, could be especially useful when protecting VIP in places like Afghanistan.

    So i am not the only one dreaming of lots of useful modernisations/versions for weaponary in the cargo room.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4496
    Points : 4675
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:53 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    With all the ground based development of unmanned gun mounts I would love to see a rear facing system on the Mi-35 with either a 4 barrel gatling 12.7mm calibre or perhaps a 40mm grenade launcher.... with full remote control of course.

    I suggest for future modernization of the the Mi-24 should have:

    All the defensive suites (or at least as many as possible) as the Ka-52. A modular rear payload, so instead of a mandatory passenger area I suggest having a set up similar to the Sikorsky CH-54 Tarhe, where the back area is by default empty, but compatible with modular cargo/payload attachments. One attachment could be a passenger cargo attachment, another could be a special passenger medical attachment with hospital machines equipment to treat the wounded. Another payload attachment could be designed to hold significant more ready-to-fire ammo and is directly connected for mounted turrets, and replacing the chin mounted twin 23mm guns with a long barrel AGS‑40 Balkan, which has similar range to other Mi-24 gun mounts firing from the ground, but with significantly less recoil and shot from the air the range should improve and increase beyond 4 km's, or  a long barrel 57 mm grenade launcher which by it self has range that is over 6 km's. Another attachment could have a large specialized defensive payload designed to hold aerial launched Morfey missiles, integrated with the a Ka-52 level defensive suite and you have a helicopter set up comparable to an airborne SAM, could be especially useful when protecting VIP in places like Afghanistan.

    So i am not the only one dreaming of lots of useful modernisations/versions for weaponary in the cargo room.

    Yes! I feel like if Mil goes through a evolutionary path of Mi-24 modernization in the modular cargo load out format that I've mentioned, than I can see Mi-24's still being useful and in service post-2030, and quite possibly post-2040.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:42 pm

    Most probably we will see Mi-24 even in a century but only when Mil company would supply spare parts.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:53 am

    The Soviets had gunpods designed to be mounted on pylons that could be elevated and traversed over a limited range of angles.

    The SPPU-22 has a twin barrel 23mm cannon that can be raised and lowered from 0 degrees to -30 degrees so you can aim at a target in a dive and then pull up up to 30 degrees with the computers keeping the gun barrels on target.

    The SPPU-6 uses the 6 barrel 23mm gatling which can depress even further with angles of 0 to -45 degrees and can also turn left or right 45 degrees.

    On the upgraded Hind with four weapons pylons with the outer pylon able to carry 8 ATAKA or SHTURM or Krisantema then that leaves the inner pylon for an SPPU-6 gun pod. the pod itself can hold 500 rounds of ready to fire ammo, but a large ammo tank in the main cabin could be fitted with an ammo feed leading out to the inner pylon. the 500 rounds in the gun pod could be replaced with a water cooling system and improved traversing gear, while the cabin could hold several thousand rounds ready to fire for each inner pylon mounted gun.

    Most importantly the weapon sharing would allow the gunner to operate the chin mounted gun, while the pilot could operate the gunpods like the guns on a fighter plane but able to track the target while the helo is manouvered.

    With laser range finding the low velocity of the 23mm gun becomes unimportant because the ballistic computer should be able to accurately predict the impact points in real time.

    the very high rate of fire of the 23mm gatling... which may also be present on the Armata BMPT.. good for commonality of ammo... means a dozen HE projectiles could land nearly together in a shotgun blast type effect... scattering deadly shrapnel all over the target area in an instant... easily making up for the smaller calibre... but the higher velocity means they will arrive on target faster than 40mm grenades....


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:24 am

    Using the cargo for ammunition of Grenade launchers or 12.7 up to 23mm HEFI ammunition would be one easiest ways to upgrade ammo storage and firepower against Soft targets.

    Theoratically, a autoloader inside the cargo room for B-8B20A unguided rocket pods could go on pylons which are running on tracks (inner pylons) to the inside turning them 180° re arming them with unguided rockets and bringing them back in position a similiar system is used on ships, the only big issue is how much weight such a mechanism would take from the 1200kg cargo weight capacity to make in beneficial so not to many unguided rockets would be cut off in weight from the 1200kg not including the 2100kg on weapon pylons.

    But i guess such a reloading mechanism would be far to heavy to even allow 452kg of unguided rockets ready to reload which would make about 2 extra armed B-8B20A pods, but i doubt the reloading mechanism with the running tracks mechanism from stubbed wings to inner cargo would weight less then 800kg.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:36 am

    To be fair though the mechanism does not need to extend to the inner pylon.

    Some sort of automated ammo feed system that sticks out the side of the helo far enough to be clear of the fuselage for a launch with a launch position at the extreme outside point with some sort of linkless feed system... in fact a rotary tube launcher with 5 ready to launch positions with one open position that rockets fed via a linkless feed down from the cabin... rockets are fed down from the cabin into the open position which then rotates to allow another rocket in until all five tubes are full... fire the five rockets and then reload the 5 tubes...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:48 am

    That could do the job, but as i read the inner pylons have the minimum acceptable distance from the fuselage because on Mi-24A when they placed this missiles on the side they raised concerns that this missile is to close to the fuselage and during launch and in case of maneuvering it could strike the fuselage.



    So in your case and according to the concerns of the launch to close to the fuselage it would mean they need an extendable mechanism which would expose the entire rotating rocket launcher out of the fuselage, which gives a few problems, more wind drag therefor stronger and heavier mechanism would be necessary at least ot the point which the one rocket tube which is the farest away from the fuselage and would reach the minimum acceptable distance from fuselange and that could be launching point.

    Well all such systems have their advantages and disadvantages but for now i think they don't to invest any money for such a modification even tho when i would run a country i would immidiatley ask Mil if they can come up with a version and i would most probably buy it.

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4496
    Points : 4675
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:56 am

    Personally I think the best modernization plan for Mi-24 would be transforming it from being a attack/transport helicopter to being an attack/cargo helicopter, where a passenger transport module would be an option but it will not be mandatory, and applying the domestic equivalent of Mi-26 engines on the Mi-24 would make it that much more capable.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:59 am

    Briefly, from a "classical" military science point of view, here are a few related definitions and theorems.

    1- BTR (APC): BTR's main role is to provide for the infantry support of tanks. Amphibious capability is a must.

    2- BMP (IFV): BMP's main role is to provide for the infantry support of tanks. Amphibious capability is a must.

    3- Medium/heavy tank (MBT): Requires supporting infantry.

    4- TBTR ("main battle APC", MBAPC): BTR with an armor which is in the same class as a medium/heavy tank.

    5- TBMP ("main battle IFV", MBIFV): BMP with an armor which is in the same class as a medium/heavy tank. MBBMP can replace both the MBT and the IFV; this form of deployment would not be optimal though.

    6- Mi-28, Ka-50, and Ka-52: Aerial main battle tank (AMBT)

    7- Ka-50: Aerial main battle tank (AMBT) enabled through artificial intelligence (AI)

    8- Mi-24, Mi-40, Mi-42, Ka-??: Aerial main battle IFV (AMBIFV). By analogy, AMBIFV's main role is to provide for the aerial infantry support of AMBTs. In reality, AMBIFVs can be utilized independently of AMBTs; this form of deployment may not be optimal though.

    9- If we assume an AMBT is 6 times as fast as an MBT, just due to this factor, each AMBT can replace at least 6^2 = 36 MBTs (plus all the huge amount of the water obstacle assets crossing, the air defense assets that would become redundant, and ...). By the way the only time I have seen this power-of-two relationship being put in writing outside Russia was when Mindstorm wrote about it here.

    10- By analogy with the MBTs, AMBTs require supporting aerial infantry. In reality, AMBTs can be utilized independently of aerial infantry.


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:31 am

    The Hind and Havoc versions are probably the most practical choice for the land force tropical/subtropical developing countries i.e. most of the countries in this world due to the low price, low maintenance cost, formidable power and all-weather capabilities... besides many of them already have some old versions of the Mi-24 therefore they should follow with similar ones like Mi-35 or the Mì-28.

    But for poor/developing countries with strong focus on naval force, for example Vietnam, I wonder whether the Ka-52K is a good choice or not. As far as I know, the coaxial rotor is very good against extreme environment for example strong winds in the sea. Vietnam already have some Ka-27s service in the Navy as anti-submarine helicopters, wonder whether the Ka-52K can be modified to function similarly...
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:50 am

    Except that you have one point wrong, Ka-52 are not cheap and surely not so in the maintenance and logistical sphere when comparing it with Mi-35 or Mi-28.

    The countries which could beneficially use more than one kind of attack helicopter and actually bear the logistical,financial and entire branch of facilities and political involved route to ensure the servicing capacity of more than one attack helicopter, those few countries can be counted on one hand, at least at this moment. That would be only US,Russia,China,India and some countries who could do it in few years, some are trying to get a modern MIC running like Turkey is currently trying to buy off whatever technologies companies have either closed to lack of funding,results or failed projects or just some lower end quality technologies like the A-129 since they were the only company that met the requirement of ToT license production which Turkey has tried to get two times before they actually got it for any Attack Helicopter.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:23 am

    Actually I was thinking more in terms of a mission pod where the doors on both sides are removed and a large box shaped pod is slid into place from one side and bolted into position and plugged into the system.

    the box would have two arms sticking out... one each side of the fuselage... a bit like wings but angled out and down so as not to block ordinance on the wings with the rotary rocket launcher at the tips on each side, with the arms consisting of linkless feed mechanisms for the 80mm rockets.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:34 pm

    Well that sounds more practical and there is quite a big cargo for lot of sorts of weaponary and mechanisms, i could imagine that even each cargo window would be armed with PKM or AGS-17 grenadelauncher and that they are all linked with a RWS system for a UCAV purpose unit.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:05 am

    Coaxial helicopters are inherently mechanically more complex, so how much more maintenance heavy is the Ka-50-2 in comparison to the Mi-28? I imagine that it will be on the ground more than the Mi-28. Another disadvantage is that coaxial rotors weigh more as a system and that it doesn't provide adequate yaw control in auto-rotation, however, Kamov claims to have solved the yaw control problem. I'm inclined to believe them.


    I learned a great deal from the Mi-28 thread, especially from Werewolf's posts. I had no idea that other attack helicopters were so woefully protected. The cockpit glass of other attack helicopters have "transparency armor", which apparently doesn't even protect them from 7.62 rounds, but the cockpit glass of the Mi-28 is armored to withstand 12.7 mm rounds. It's incredibly foolish that other attack helicopters lack this level of protection.



    How heavy do you suppose that door is?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:02 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:Coaxial helicopters are inherently mechanically more complex, so how much more maintenance heavy is the Ka-50-2 in comparison to the Mi-28? I imagine that it will be on the ground more than the Mi-28. Another disadvantage is that coaxial rotors weigh more as a system and that it doesn't provide adequate yaw control in auto-rotation, however, Kamov claims to have solved the yaw control problem. I'm inclined to believe them.

    From that research file from Kamov design bearau itself they have tested the aspect of co-axials in all aspects compared with conventional designs aswell with older Kamov helicopters such as Ka-25/27 to see the difference in capability and limitation.

    The overall design of a co-axial rotor layout is quite complex, due the double rotor sheme that has to work properly in the intended, plus overstretched stress limits to assure proper function. The complexity itself is that the design is a hollow structure of the first main rotor (lower) that has to be arranged in a way that a second rotor set can rotate in opposite direction without interference or reducing safety of structural strength or sub systems of the rotor parts. The design is relative solid based on the principle that both rotor sets with the lower being hollow and housing is oriantating to be structural supported by the inner (upper) rotor system and wise versa. That gives both the stability and structural support to work proper in an intented stressful environment, to be able to maneuver without breaking or must bumping.

    Anyway, the system is quite complex, but due the complexity of conventional helicopters in the sense of durability and safety issues they have with the tail rotor and most often with the tailrotor shaft which translates via gearboxes the momentum to provide counter torque and the high stress such in effecient design has on several sub parts as shafts, gearboxes and junctions and so on, it provides an uneasy way of maintenance. The number of parts that need to be inspected for proper function within limits is higher then on co-axial designs, despite one block of rotor set and gearboxes along with routine engine checks that recieve and are necessary as major maintenance in comparision with many more parts on conventional designs.

    Another thing about maintenance is that co-axial designs have two rotor discs, meaning the weight they lift is half the weight other single main rotor helicopters have to bear. That reduces the stress on the rotor blades and connections which extents the lifespan of such parts and makes maintenance easier. Co-axial designs also reduce stress of the disc load in forward flight, the higher the speed the more benefit you can notice of a co-axial design. In Hovering the Ka-50 for example puts a quite disadvantage on its own design, the lower set of rotors recieves a downwash from the upper blade, which reduces its effeciency to just roughly 10%. This effeciency is increasing with speed of the plattform and at speeds of 230km/h+ the negative downwash effect is almost entirely eleminated and the actual lift and speed increases and is only limited by the air friction and the left downwash on a very low surface of the upper fuselage body and lower blade. In strict theory of co-axial design the helicopter has no speed limits which conventional designs have, due the advancing and retreating blade issue, which creates an inbalance of lift and makes the helicopter tilt at certain speeds, which vary from design and makes the helicopter usually crash fatally.

    The Ka-50 for example like advertized by Kamov can bear flight worthiness for 14 days without major maintenance necessity. The Mi-24 does not need maintenance of major level of 3 days, in some cases in Chechnya a few rare examples flew without 5 days of major maintenance, just routine inspections due the bad logistics they had in first war. This are just of course figures under harsh environments, in actual case they inspect and maintenance the machines regularly for safety reasons and to keep the total failure or fatal failure of machines and subparts low to safe costs on spare parts.

    As for the part of yaw controls and autorotation. The co-axial design provides better stability in autorotation and does not necessarly have to rely on forward speed to keep itself stable, while in autorotation conventional designs that have lost engine power have a harder time to keep themselfs straight and stable on the way down, which is the key to sustain a high RPM at very low, almost flat angle of attack of the blades while having to keep the machine go forward to not allow it to tilt or to have to much force on main rotor to induce a torque so the helicopter rotates around itself. Kamovs co-axials have an reinforced structure to ensure better and more safety during yaws to the prohibited and limited angles such designs have. The first 4 or 6 helicopters have a slightly different internal concept which, i most probably couldn't differ myself, due the lack of actually being in physical contact with such designs, but they were limited in yaw which also killed Voraboyev test pilot which put it to its limits and tilted the helicopter in a maneuver over its limits which put the rotor discs to close to each other and collidated which ended fatally. The structure was reinforced and today in some videos of aerobatic you can see Ka-50/52 maneuvering very close or even above the limited yaw of 80° it was set for the prototypes. I hope i answered to what you meant by yaw limitations of co-axial designs. They still have them because the rotor design of Kamov is a flexible one to assure high maneuverability for Ka-50/52, meaning the both rotor discs come much closer to each other at Gpulls than S-97 for isntance which has a rigid rotor design which does not have great maneuverability and is trimmed for high speeds rather combat task requirements of maneuverability.

    I learned a great deal from the Mi-28 thread, especially from Werewolf's posts. I had no idea that other attack helicopters were so woefully protected. The cockpit glass of other attack helicopters have "transparency armor", which apparently doesn't even protect them from 7.62 rounds, but the cockpit glass of the Mi-28 is armored to withstand 12.7 mm rounds. It's incredibly foolish that other attack helicopters lack this level of protection.



    How heavy do you suppose that door is?

    It is rather a question of requirements and philosphy countries and armies pursue rather than a dogmatic question. That said there are dogmatics in war and that for aircrafts, the slower they are the higher amount of ground fire they are recieving, from peasant to high military degree, which makes such ground fire more effective then dedicated SAM/MANPADS due the number of available weapons that can be used as anti air and due the rather low distribution of SAM/MANPADS in comparision.

    The philosophy of the west (AH-1 and AH-64) were to trying to lift the unrivaled domination of soviet ground forces vs NATO ground forces which have been in quality and quantaty in favor for soviets 4:1, which CIA evaluation says from late 70-80's. The concept was to lift that issue for NATO ground forces by applying CAS/AT operations by air via helicopters use.

    The issue still remaint that soviet ground forces are accomanied by dedicated Anti Aircraft plattforms such as SHORAD/MANPAD equipped mechanized and motorized units aswell SPAAG in high numbers. The concept to avoid that was, to avoid the confrontation by itself and the entire layout was attempt to be trimmed in one direction of LOAL/Longbow capability in the later years.

    The early years however, they did never address that issue in the design of the helicopter in such a manner as soviets/russians did. Different philosophy, not really my job to judge it, but i would prefer the russian/soviet approach since majority of threats that have downed, damaged and occured on battlefields, old and modern are still projectiles of 7.62 and 12.7mm, increasingly more calibres are used in more intense wars above 12.7mm which are very lethal against any aircraft and even "highly" armored helicopters such as Ka-50 and Mi-28 do not have high survival expectancy once they have entered the effective envelope of such weapons.

    I think there is a big misconception going on among many people that hear or read often the advertizement of armored helicopters such as attack helicopters capable of surviving/sustaining 12.7mm and 23mm rounds. That are only cockpit and belly fuselage to center that can do that. The engines are less armored then the cockpit even tho they house a very vital part of the helicopter to assure functionality and therefore survival.

    The basic concept of helicopters, i will quickly and in an amateurish way depict to give you just a glance how the armor is distributed and for what reasons.



    I use Mi-24 as a sheme of explaining the, usually common approach of armoring attack helicopters, regardless of the design, except one...

    In color coded.

    Red, offers no protection or in limited amount kevlar layers that are only there to reduce the fragments spreading of HE-F projectiles to reduce the damaged they make to the structural integrity of the entire tail section and tail itself.

    Yellow, section is usally sufficient amount of protection that can be often translated to 7,62-12.7mm, however that is the average, not impressive not something you would discard for sure.

    Blue is proper protection such as gearbox, engines and an usually simple designed armor plate or cover that protects the tail rotor shaft from penetration from beneath aswell hydraulic and wiring to assure at least low amount of protection to the vital part of the tailsection. The entire tail section can not be armored due the weight limitations and especially that is an aircraft and needs a balanced plattform otherwise it will not fly at all. Therefore almost no attack helicopter offers any protection to the tail section especially after the dark red line where the actual tail begins.

    Green is a good amount of protection that usually has several layers to sustain the advertized 23mm projectiles and fragmentation.

    Purple, is the section that house more or less the core armor of the section to sustain the most amount of abuse they can recieve, titanium bathtub and steel/titanium plate for seperation of engines,gearbox and steel alloy to protect engines from outside along the usual aluminium alloy skin which is rated and has proven to sustain 12.7mm fire without problems.

    Helicopters, can not be armored entirely to sustain 12.7mm let alone 23mm+, that would make them as usefull as a 100+ ton tank, well protected immobile bunker that is object to even infantry with a nice package of explosives.

    I can not answer how much the door of the Mi-28 weights but the window is roughly 45mm (or 55mm) thick and roughly 0.8-0.9m² of surface, which makes the BP window weight more than 110-130kg. The door will weight quite some thing, however the door design is 3 layers of armor with quite an amount of air and padded with kevlar to protect wiring from fire of incendiary rounds or contents of warheads.

    According to mentions of ukrainian article of bulletproof glass which by design a glass-clad is what is used in military purposed armor transparency the weight of m² at 55mm is around 137kg, so that gives us a rough figure.

    Just a relative wild guess but i would think the door weights roughly 180-200kg, could be way off, but i don't have better figures.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Best russian attack helicopter?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:33 am