Thank you a million times over, Werewolf for taking time out of your day to educate me on this. I can't thank you enough. I don't know how to feel; you've gone to such trouble. The grit-edged information you've provided is surprising; I really thought coaxial rotors would be significantly more maintenance heavy than a conventional rotor system and that it would weigh more. I've read elsewhere that coaxial rotors actually provide greater hovering performance over conventional rotors. Westerners love to think that we do everything to provide the greatest possible degree of protection whereas the Soviets [now Russia] were apparently not concerned about the well-being of their troops and that this was evident in their platforms.... but the opposite seems to be true; Russian platforms are better protected, more durable and are able to operate in any environment. Russian tanks have quite ingenious multiple layers of protection.
I greatly appreciate you for committing so much time and effort into answering my flurry questions. You and Garry B are the best.
This is a chart of target spectrum of attack helicopters, including unfinished prototypes who's capabilities are unclear in standardized active service.
There is another chart unfinished yet about effective, maximum range of weapons versus specific targets aswell maximum and effective range of targets against helicopters to illustrate their danger zones.
It's a Mi-24 with more agility. It has a small compartiment for one extra man or some more ammo for the gun. Would like to see it in Syria.
Mi-24 lacks agility.
The side by side configuration of the the Ka 52 is dangerous for close fight as the pilot can't see on the right side.
The weapons used by all three are almost the same. The big missiles carried by the Ka 52 would probably used by an aircraft.
Mi-24 does not lack agility, it is impressivley agile and has one of the shortest U-runs among attack helicopters which are the standard CAS maneuver on all attack helicopters.
Close fight is always dangerous and is not in the tactical sphere anyways and he can see through FLIR.
The big missiles carried by Ka-52 are used by the Ka-52 that is why it is carrying them.
It's a Mi-24 with more agility. It has a small compartiment for one extra man or some more ammo for the gun. Would like to see it in Syria.
Mi-24 lacks agility.
The side by side configuration of the the Ka 52 is dangerous for close fight as the pilot can't see on the right side.
The weapons used by all three are almost the same. The big missiles carried by the Ka 52 would probably used by an aircraft.
Mi-24 does not lack agility, it is impressivley agile and has one of the shortest U-runs among attack helicopters which are the standard CAS maneuver on all attack helicopters.
Close fight is always dangerous and is not in the tactical sphere anyways and he can see through FLIR.
The big missiles carried by Ka-52 are used by the Ka-52 that is why it is carrying them.
Well, I red on wiki that Iraqi pilots said it lacks agility.
wiki wrote:In general, the Iraqi pilots liked the Mi-25, in particular for its high speed, long range, high versatility and large weapon load, but disliked the relatively ineffectual weapons and lack of agility.[23] The Mi-25 was also used by Iraq in chemical warfare against Iranians and Kurdish civilians in Halabja.[24]
It's said that Soviet removed protection for troops when they fly without them and improve performance.
It's a Mi-24 with more agility. It has a small compartiment for one extra man or some more ammo for the gun. Would like to see it in Syria.
Mi-24 lacks agility.
The side by side configuration of the the Ka 52 is dangerous for close fight as the pilot can't see on the right side.
The weapons used by all three are almost the same. The big missiles carried by the Ka 52 would probably used by an aircraft.
Mi-24 does not lack agility, it is impressivley agile and has one of the shortest U-runs among attack helicopters which are the standard CAS maneuver on all attack helicopters.
Close fight is always dangerous and is not in the tactical sphere anyways and he can see through FLIR.
The big missiles carried by Ka-52 are used by the Ka-52 that is why it is carrying them.
Well, I red on wiki that Iraqi pilots said it lacks agility.
wiki wrote:In general, the Iraqi pilots liked the Mi-25, in particular for its high speed, long range, high versatility and large weapon load, but disliked the relatively ineffectual weapons and lack of agility.[23] The Mi-25 was also used by Iraq in chemical warfare against Iranians and Kurdish civilians in Halabja.[24]
It's said that Soviet removed protection for troops when they fly without them and improve performance.
According to Wikipedia, they used them to support Gazelles which fired their TOW missiles on Iran's tank. It's an export version from 70s, not the best...
It's a Mi-24 with more agility. It has a small compartiment for one extra man or some more ammo for the gun. Would like to see it in Syria.
Mi-24 lacks agility.
The side by side configuration of the the Ka 52 is dangerous for close fight as the pilot can't see on the right side.
The weapons used by all three are almost the same. The big missiles carried by the Ka 52 would probably used by an aircraft.
Mi-24 does not lack agility, it is impressivley agile and has one of the shortest U-runs among attack helicopters which are the standard CAS maneuver on all attack helicopters.
Close fight is always dangerous and is not in the tactical sphere anyways and he can see through FLIR.
The big missiles carried by Ka-52 are used by the Ka-52 that is why it is carrying them.
Well, I red on wiki that Iraqi pilots said it lacks agility.
wiki wrote:In general, the Iraqi pilots liked the Mi-25, in particular for its high speed, long range, high versatility and large weapon load, but disliked the relatively ineffectual weapons and lack of agility.[23] The Mi-25 was also used by Iraq in chemical warfare against Iranians and Kurdish civilians in Halabja.[24]
It's said that Soviet removed protection for troops when they fly without them and improve performance.
What iraqi's said has nothing to do with the different versions nor with their training.
There are some features on Mi-24 that make maneuvers easier and sometimes more difficult. The mast is not rigid it has a comfort soft area where it can move 3.6° from its center position to make the plattform more stable in hovering for more accurate fire aswell obersvation via Raduga sights.
The point is that due to this non rigid mast it makes it more difficult for aerobatic performance, the pilots skills have to be significantly more advanced than on other helicopters. The other point is that the fuselage is longer which makes it more stable but gives it great abilities to recover from U-run maneuvers.
It is very agile for its weight and size.
Here is a video just a little bit of display how agile it can be and those are old versions with 2000 shp engines, non Mi-28 rotors and rotor head, still old arrangement of tail rotor which is less effecient in torque, more weight and overall less agile.
1:30 that is a U-run, which is used in CAS strafe runs against positions/fortifications and formations in close air support to attack enemy and then as fast as possible to redirect weapon systems against the remaining forces since the backside is exposed after such a run. The hind has among the fastest U-runs there is.
The other point is that it has a crew compartment which is usually designed for at least one technician and spareparts in small crates, if not for that purpose they sometimes use it as cargo room for extra ammunition if the base they are operating from is not as close and situation and clear enemy formations are known, they land and re-arm. Not often but happened. This is exactly the design that has standard requirements and limitations in how the machine is allowed to be operated by pilots and unless you have Tzar bomb like balls to break limitations set by Army/Air Force aswell Mil Mi company that might terminate some aspects of contracts and warranty, i doubt that most would even dare to try something like that.
Yes, they have dismantled some of the armor of the crew/cargo room because in Afghanistan temperatures are extreme, they had to be as agile as possible and the temperature put a huge stress on the engines aswell the ammunition loadout weights down its performance. The hind is not exclusive to such maneuvers, the Apaches often flew with half fuel to not overweight it with their usual loadouts for such missions,they also fly without heat suppressors Blackhole in very hot summer days because they only increase the kern temperature of the engines which will shut down if they reach 980-1000°C which the Blackhole HIRSS manual states. They were often left only with the HIRSS cover to direct the exhaust gasses upwards and to avoid direct LOS to the hot engine parts from below and possible MANPADS.
The hind is certainly not exclusivley exposed to such measures it is just the nature of the climate/temperature and the nature of how they are designed.
The last point is that the hind in its standard LTOW (light take off weight) is already almost 2 tons heavier than Apaches LTOW and is above its NTOW.
Look at the chart i have posted of the Target Spectrum of how "ineffective" its weapons are. It can engage more targets than all more modern foreign helicopters. It has no equals of what the foreign Attack Helicopter market has to offer.
The Hind is more of a huge/heavy gunship, Havoc is a pure, cheaper(than Hokum)-to-make attack helicopter and the Hokum/-B is basically an evolved, heavy scout. Since Russia has the money and expertise to have such choppers in-service, good for them. But at some point they ought to build Havocs in more numbers and slowly dump all them Hinds.
Hinds will stay for quite some time and they will run up more modern airframe soon. The hind is the only helicopter with such unique capabilities as CSAR missions which will be laid more focus on especially since the west invests lot of money on such subhuman scum as Grey Wolfs to exterminate soldiers. It will be focused on both sides and that alone will make it more focused for future.
Werewolf wrote:Hinds will stay for quite some time and they will run up more modern airframe soon. The hind is the only helicopter with such unique capabilities as CSAR missions which will be laid more focus on especially since the west invests lot of money on such subhuman scum as Grey Wolfs to exterminate soldiers. It will be focused on both sides and that alone will make it more focused for future.
Hind is still around out of necessity and lower cost not preference (much like the Blackhawk in its own league). There is pretty much nothing a Hind (of any version) can do that a Havoc cannot, bar cramping some folks of the back and the -P high rate of fire cannon. But CSAR is much more than that. You may need large, refuelable and protected choppers with good loiter time, if possible escorted by proper, dedicated attack helicopters (among other things).
Needless to say Russian helo CSAR approach in Latakia (Mi-24P/Mi17 combo) failed spectacularly, dare I say much worse than Operation Eagle Claw in the most relative terms. In general CSAR in Russia is a generation behind what you have in the US, which is quite surprising given Russia's size and threat environment.
KiloGolf wrote: Hind is still around out of necessity and lower cost not preference (much like the Blackhawk in its own league). There is pretty much nothing a Hind (of any version) can do that a Havoc cannot, bar cramping some folks of the back and the -P high rate of fire cannon. But CSAR is much more than that. You may need large, refuelable and protected choppers with good loiter time, if possible escorted by proper, dedicated attack helicopters (among other things).
Needless to say Russian helo CSAR approach in Latakia (Mi-24P/Mi17 combo) failed spectacularly, dare I say much worse than Operation Eagle Claw in the most relative terms. In general CSAR in Russia is a generation behind what you have in the US, which is quite surprising given Russia's size and threat environment.
War is always about necessities not about expensive toys that are the la creme de la creme. Everything costs and in real logistics effeciency outweights top notch technology as long it serves its needs and that is where the Hind is unparalleled and will stay that way for quite some time, the only helicopter that might change that is Z-10, but unlikely.
Russian CSAR concept is not embedded like in the west but that has nothing to do with isolated events such as turkish forces and terrorists all across the place which were undeniably directed and coordinated before the jet was even downed which has been clear from start on. Thus this is not a failed mission because this is unique treason and terrorist act and preplanned event by Turkey using turkmens for execution. Most CSAR missions will not have such coordinated execution terrorist squads. The other point, how doubtful it still is, one pilot was safed by SAA.
Over time like i said in previous comment the CSAR will be focused on exactly due to such events and USrael madness for global domination and destruction attempt of russia.
Werewolf wrote:War is always about necessities not about expensive toys that are the la creme de la creme. Everything costs and in real logistics effeciency outweights top notch technology as long it serves its needs and that is where the Hind is unparalleled
No disagreements. FLIR, decent datalink, etc. costs money but saves lives as well.
Werewolf wrote:Russian CSAR concept is not embedded like in the west but that has nothing to do with isolated events such as turkish forces and terrorists all across the place which were undeniably directed and coordinated before the jet was even downed which has been clear from start on. Thus this is not a failed mission because this is unique treason and terrorist act and preplanned event by Turkey using turkmens for execution. Most CSAR missions will not have such coordinated execution terrorist squads. The other point, how doubtful it still is, one pilot was safed by SAA.
That's the threat environment, it's been there since 2011/2012 (Latakia). Also like the OBL mission f***up in Pakistan, having a contingency pair of choppers and other assets ready to go, also helps.
No disagreements. FLIR, decent datalink, etc. costs money but saves lives as well.
That is what Mi-24VM/PM have (Mi-35M/PM) coupled with Vitebsk and Okhotnik it will outweight already everything the west has in capability while still being much cheaper with better capabilities.
That's the threat environment, it's been there since 2011/2012 (Latakia).
The forces where there yes, but this downing of Su-24 was preplanned and the Grey Wolf scum was told to be at some place where they pre-calculated where they would be downed. That was cold blooded murder and it was undeniably planned to happen that way it happened.
Also like the OBL mission f***up in Pakistan, having a contingency pair of choppers and other assets ready to go, also helps.
That never happened, only the US claims that it happened. Nothing they had to offer to proof it, not to mention they had for weeks a restored place inside US that was designed like that supposed building of Osama Bin Laden, while that guy was hiding 10 years while being on kidney disease and needed dialysis every few days.
What US claims has to be first backed up with facts not claims. They claim alot but never actually provide evidences for their claims. The likeliness that this happened is as big as me being secretley Putin's advisor on the global chessboard.
Werewolf wrote:That is what Mi-24VM/PM have (Mi-35M/PM) coupled with Vitebsk and Okhotnik it will outweight already everything the west has in capability while still being much cheaper with better capabilities.
And those -Ps during the Latakia CSAR incident?
Werewolf wrote:That never happened, only the US claims that it happened. Nothing they had to offer to proof it, not to mention they had for weeks a restored place inside US that was designed like that supposed building of Osama Bin Laden, while that guy was hiding 10 years while being on kidney disease and needed dialysis every few days.
I already explained you the situation. There is nothing they could have done better when the enemy is coordinated in a backstabbing preplanned murder with boots on the ground already loitering the area of the precalculated zone where the pilots have been expected to parachute. Nothing to be blamed on helicopters and there are all other helicopters that would have been useless entirely.
KiloGolf wrote: I meant the backup Chinooks, but OK....
What chinooks, the entire set up hollywood nonsense was about a non existing stealth helicopter only remains of a prop of a part of the tail rotor while they claimed they had to blow it up to avoid technology falling in wrong hands. You might be not as adknowledged about such stuff but such methods to destroy downed helicopters look entirely different than what this hollywood scam the US has presented. The destruction of helicopters is actually set in US and russian manuals, first they have to puncture or leak the fuel to let the body melt away and use explosives along with a seperated ignition to assure fuel and lubrication of the remains are set on fire. There would be nothing left of the helicopter except parts of engine and titanium/steel parts of the gearbox, rest is either aluminium or other lightweight, low melt point materials.
There would be nothing left and lot of ash and molten aluminium parts. We all saw that picutre, absolutley clean, nothing else but a prop. Maybe you want to recheck the picture with actual destroyed helicopter fuselages, where it is almost impossible to determine if it is a helicopter or something else.
You might choose US word over mine, but i know for a fact it never took place.
I agree with you about "War is always about necessities not about expensive toys that are the la creme de la creme". The fact is no one of these machines was designed to fight some normal gus with kalashnikovs.
The Mi-24 was designed for a conventional war between east and west with big waves of men, tanks, heli, planes attacking in same time.
The Mi-28 and Ka-52 are more specific. They have to destroy as many as possible of ennemy positions, vehicles and men quickly. This is the most important as we saw in 1991 or in Lybia. High psy effect. The today's conventional wars are (would be) expensive, precise and require very advenced technologies.
Look at the armies today. With 80 Mi-28 you can destroy in 1 global surprise attack all the tanks of one or two countries, plus their airforce if they are not hidden in bunkers. The first who attacks will win. You can't get up after such an attack. Even Russians planes to use nuclear at this point.
This is why I prefer Mi 28. Cheap, precise, and advence technology. Mi-24 is good but old. Of course you can upgrade it but I'm not a fan of upgrading, it has too much limits. New stuff improve R&D, is optimized for all your need, and the export version's costs are higher than upgrade packages costs.
Even if their are some differences between them, Russia uses all three because it gives work to Mil and Kamov. It's better to have just one model but they are big companies with lot of workers who need to live.
Isos wrote:Even if their are some differences between them, Russia uses all three because it gives work to Mil and Kamov. It's better to have just one model but they are big companies with lot of workers who need to live.
Agreed on your other points (jobs program approach on the Hind side of things), but on this last one you got it wrong imo. A capable scout chopper like Hokum is indeed useful and fits a role which is very crucial for any Army that wants to claim it's in possession of decent Air Cav/Airmobile spear forcce. After axing the Comanche (a good decision) people in the US are enraged that Kiowa Warriors are gone with no replacement (much like the Sheridan on the ground during the 90s). UAVs can help in scouting, but there is a moment where you need them, specialized choppers.
The duo of Havoc + Hokum will work for many decades to come.
PS. Also navalized Hokum will make a good SuperCobra equivalent for the Russians.
i think that all 3 heli's have a place and a unique ability, the Hind has serve well during its long service. Russia sent the Hind's to Syria not Mi-28 or KA-52, and they could have easily have sent them, the reason why is simple the Hind is capable heli for the missions it was needed so Russia sent them, if it wasn't then Russia wouldn't have sent them plain and simple. But dont get me wrong the Mi-28 and Ka-52 are capable as well, they could have sent any of the 3. I am hoping that the both heli's see action in Syria.
I have always said that for poorer nations the Hind is the better option out of the three as it gives them more versatility for their money, as it can double up as small troop transport or insertion of SF troops, so thus eliminating the need for small transport heli's which when you have a tight budget makes sense. The Hind with its bolt on and bolt weapons system means can be easily armed with what ever the occasion. And i might be wrong in saying this but i am sure the Hind is cheaper than the Mi-28 and Ka-52 to purchase. Of course another option for poor countries who already operate the Mi-8 would be armed themselves with the Mi-8AMTSh/Mi-171Sh this keeping to one platform which could be better for maintenance and training costs, and yet again cheaper to buy than the other three.
In general CSAR in Russia is a generation behind what you have in the US, which is quite surprising given Russia's size and threat environment.
So what you are saying is that a Russian transport helo used in a rescue mission should have been protected from TOW missiles... that would require protection from all ground threats out to 3.9km radius of the area being scoured for missing pilots.
I am wondering if Russian abilities are so crap in comparison to what the west has then why were Somali civilians able to bring down Blackhawks in Somalia with RPGs with an effective range of 500m or less?
I mean if we are talking about uber capable super western helos...
Werewolf wrote:Hinds will stay for quite some time and they will run up more modern airframe soon. The hind is the only helicopter with such unique capabilities as CSAR missions which will be laid more focus on especially since the west invests lot of money on such subhuman scum as Grey Wolfs to exterminate soldiers. It will be focused on both sides and that alone will make it more focused for future.
Hind is still around out of necessity and lower cost not preference (much like the Blackhawk in its own league). There is pretty much nothing a Hind (of any version) can do that a Havoc cannot, bar cramping some folks of the back and the -P high rate of fire cannon. But CSAR is much more than that. You may need large, refuelable and protected choppers with good loiter time, if possible escorted by proper, dedicated attack helicopters (among other things).
Needless to say Russian helo CSAR approach in Latakia (Mi-24P/Mi17 combo) failed spectacularly, dare I say much worse than Operation Eagle Claw in the most relative terms. In general CSAR in Russia is a generation behind what you have in the US, which is quite surprising given Russia's size and threat environment.
Actually id didn't even came close to failing as bad. The initial CSAR went on a killzone that was laid out by the Moderats and under coverage from the TSK/Turkish forces 4 km away. In a valley wide less than 4 km. They got massive HMG fire, one Chopper got downed, then blown by ATGM...both Crocodiles got lit up like they were birthday cakes and yet they came home, limping but alive.
Compared to the Chinook that got an RPG on its ass resulting in a loss of 16 of Murrica's finest that's like day and night. Unlike the Red Wing fiasco (which got killed specialized SOAR personnel and other Seal, not random Marines) the operation got at least ONE of the airmen alive. While being shot at with HMG fire for at least 5/10 minutes.
Let us all say that unlike the downing of Turbine 13 the people on the ground had complete C2 from Turkey accross the border. If you want to compare fiascos and how the two sides managed out of it, then I guess them Rashans passed the test with flying colours when compared to Red Wings.
regardless if people like or dislike the Mi-24/35 this heli will be around for a very long time, its the mainstay for so many armed forces and with the versatility of the heli just makes it so useful to many. Figures from flight global 2016 states the Mi-24/35 is the sitting at number 5 of most heli in service with 918 in service around the world. A good indication of how successful it has really been.
We need to get something straight here... the Mi-28 has a side door to climb inside the fuselage so you can access the avionics racks... you can climb inside and their would be room for two people in a squeeze, but it is not by any means a troop transport helo... and was never intended as such.
It is an attack helo that has two crew and no passengers.
It is very well armed and very well protected... and this will greatly improve in the near future with the new Mi-28NM model with more ready to fire cannon ammo and of course Hermes air to ground missiles... it might even get a bigger wing with 6 pylons for air to ground and air to air weapons like the Ka-52.
I would suspect one pylon for ATGMs, one for unguided rockets and one for short range AAMs for self defence or for shooting down UAVs and UCAVs as they are detected... will become standard... I wonder if they will keep the large powerful 30mm cannon or go for a smaller twin barrel 23mm cannon as used on the latest model hinds which would greatly reduce recoil and increase rate of fire and ammo capacity with much smaller rounds.
The use of laser guidance kits for unguided rockets means for most targets standoff ranges could be used which places less pressure on the cannon for use at longer ranges.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
[27%] 
