Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

I would like that they put the next gen IFV cannon (45mm/57mm) as the primary weapon of future mi-28s.
one shot from either of those would demolish most soft-skinned targets, and they can do it much farther than 30mm.
The disadvantage would be the extra weight, enormous reduction in shells, and unneeded redundancy since 80mm rockets exist.

The 2a42 is already very powerful for a chopper, only stronger weapon was the monstrous Gsh-30-2.

45/57mm guns would be totally impractical in that flexible mount, the recoil/weight would tear it apart, not to mention the ammo issues.

Yeah not to mention the fact that as the chopper's 30mm cannon will be fired against top-armour anyway; it's plenty good enough in penetration power against everything other than tanks.

The 30 X 165mm guns of the Russian helos are already serious over kill for most ground targets.

The size and power of the 45mm n 57mm guns would be too mu

Makes more sense to reduce power but with a still heavy HE payload.. 23 x 115mm rounds would much more use.

the rounds are only slightly bigger than HMG rounds while the 23mm rounds have far more HE power than other rounds carried by APCs.

Not to mention that at the start of introduction of Mi-24P with the almost 3m long barreled Gsch-30-2 had such a massive recoil on the highest RPM setting that after only a few engagements the hull and holdings of the gun started to crack, which was later fixed with reinfored rubber and reinforced holdings.

Also everyone who has seen Mi-24P shooting the most powerful 30mm ever installed on any helicopter, knows that after even a small burst the helicopter tends to yaw the nose downwards just from the recoil. An even bigger automatic cannon would reduce the lifespane of the helicopter drastically if not endanger it on the first engagement to a fatal disaster for the crew.
Also most helicopters are to small and leightweitghed even to be able to fire any calibre higher than 3-4t of recoil.

Maybe they could install those 37 mm gun pods on Mi-28N wing pylons.   

If even such overpowered weapon would be considered to be installed on any attack helicopter it had to fullfil certain requirements such as NTOW and MTOW are at least 9t to 12/13t to sustain the recoil, reinforced holdings and mentaling, such weapons had to be installed on the fuselage only like on Mi-24P, since such recoil on stubbed wings would create cracks or rip them apart. Also there would be needed a higher performance and space for storage of the gun, feeding system and a realistic and tactical valueable amount of munition, with 10 rounds such a weapon would be useless, except if they somehow would make mininukes in 1-2kg shells.

And one of the most important things would be that the recoil had to be reduced drastically due a perfect placement of the gravity center and the yaw of the helicopter wouldn't effect any reaction to the rotor mast, not to cause mast bumping or any other interferences.

The recoil would mess with the nearby optics turret as well....barring a new 30mm gun, 2A42 is the way to go.

Mi-28NM was supposed to have some sort of ammo-storage change (more aerodynamic) but I don't think they will proceed with it. Not worth it.

My understanding is that they want a lot more cannon ammo to be carried but the ammo storage bins already generate too much drag and that the belly area of the aircraft will be modified to store ammo in rather greater quantities because the weapon is powerful and accurate and very useful against a range of close in targets.

The aircraft can already carry plenty of guided missiles to take care of heavily armoured targets so for many of the rest the cannon and unguided rockets are useful.

I really hope they will bring the new upgrades of Kurganez25 of the Shipunov 2A42 cannon to Mi-28 and Ka-52. The casing showed increased grouping of cannon fire and that is very imprtant for the Mi-28 it lacks accuracy in comperision with Ka-52 and in comperision how inaccurate it can become when shooting to offbore.

Nobody Does It Better: Russian Aircraft Cannons Outgun America’s Modern automatic aircraft cannons are a combination of artillery guns and rates of fire usually found on conventional machine guns. Some types of Russian-made canons can fire even faster than that.

One of these wonder weapons is the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 six-barreled 23 mm rotary cannon.

The GSh-6-23 has an extremely high rate of fire, with maximum cyclic rates of 9,000 to 10,000 rounds per minute. Compared to the US M61 Vulcan, the GSh-6-23 fires 50-66 percent more rounds per minute, has a heavier projectile, but lower muzzle velocity. The weapon is also lighter and shorter.

An updated version of the GSh-6-23 is standard equipment on the Sukhoi Su-24 bombers and the MiG-31 all-weather interceptor.

A six-barrel version of the GSh-6-23 can also be mounted on the MiG-27 fighter-bomber, even though the plane already carries a 30mm automatic cannon capable of firing 6,000 rounds per minute making it the fastest such weapon around.
The Tula armorers are also famous for their GSh-30-1 automatic aircraft cannon, which, at under 50 kg, is the world’s most lightweight 30 mm automatic cannon.

Another thing that makes it so one-of-a kind is the use of an evaporation cooling system to prevent the detonation of a high explosive round inside a heated barrel. This cooling system consists of a cylindrical water tank around the rear end of the barrel.

The GSh-30-1 is equipped with a unique pyrotechnic mechanism to clear misfires: a small pyrotechnic cartridge is located to the left of the 30mm cartridge chamber.

This pyrotechnic cartridge fires a small steel bolt through the side wall of the 30mm cartridge. The hot propellant gases following the bolt into the dud 30mm round ignite the powder charge of that round and firing continues.

The gun's maximum effective range against aerial targets is 200 to 800 m and against surface or ground targets is 1,200 to 1,800 meters.

In combination with a laser rangefinding/targeting system, it is reported to be extremely accurate as well as powerful, capable of destroying a target with as few as three to five rounds.

The GSh-30-1 is used by MiG-29, MiG-27, Su-30, Su-33 and Su-35 planes.

It may also be mounted on Russia’s T-50 PAK FA fifth generation jetfighter.

max steel wrote:Nobody Does It Better: Russian Aircraft Cannons Outgun America’s Modern automatic aircraft cannons are a combination of artillery guns and rates of fire usually found on conventional machine guns. Some types of Russian-made canons can fire even faster than that.

One of these wonder weapons is the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 six-barreled 23 mm rotary cannon.

The GSh-6-23 has an extremely high rate of fire, with maximum cyclic rates of 9,000 to 10,000 rounds per minute. Compared to the US M61 Vulcan, the GSh-6-23 fires 50-66 percent more rounds per minute, has a heavier projectile, but lower muzzle velocity. The weapon is also lighter and shorter.

An updated version of the GSh-6-23 is standard equipment on the Sukhoi Su-24 bombers and the MiG-31 all-weather interceptor.

A six-barrel version of the GSh-6-23 can also be mounted on the MiG-27 fighter-bomber, even though the plane already carries a 30mm automatic cannon capable of firing 6,000 rounds per minute making it the fastest such weapon around.

Fastest true but very slow muzzle velocity below 700 m/s vs 1050 m/s Vulcan better advantage in aiming when you got very short time window in dogfight. 30mm gun with muzzle velocity 900m/s is mucxh better alternative IMHO.  is better option in this case

Pls correct me if I am wrong but there were some problems with exploding ammo that's why those guns are not used in Russian AF anymore.

Vulcan better advantage in aiming when you got very short time window in dogfight.

Not true.

The Vulcan is not only a heavier gun... it also needs a quite powerful electric motor to fire, which is heavy and takes a second or two to wind up to full speed, so a half second burst will not fire anything like the cyclic rate of the gun.

the Soviet guns on the other hand are gas powered and accelerate much more rapidly to full speed leading to even more rounds on target...

GarryB wrote:

Vulcan better advantage in aiming when you got very short time window in dogfight.

Not true.

The Vulcan is not only a heavier gun... it also needs a quite powerful electric motor to fire, which is heavy and takes a second or two to wind up to full speed, so a half second burst will not fire anything like the cyclic rate of the gun.

the Soviet guns on the other hand are gas powered and accelerate much more rapidly to full speed leading to even more rounds on target...

You may spray lots of rounds but not necessarily you get them on target. In AA fight aiming due to high maneuvers is non trivial if your round has poor ballistic trajectory.  I wish I had comparison. The discussion would be easier

You may spray lots of rounds but not necessarily you get them on target. In AA fight aiming due to high maneuvers is non trivial if your round has poor ballistic trajectory. I wish I had comparison. The discussion would be easier

In a high speed engagement the very short time from leaving the muzzle of the gun to impact the target can and will move so a bit of bullet scatter can improve the chances of connecting with a target actively manouvering.

The problem is the big electric motor taking time to wind up and a gas powered gun that reaches peak firing speed almost instantly means the faster firing Russian gun will get more rounds on target in a shorter burst time than the slower firing american weapon.

The fact that the velocity of the soviet rounds is lower is not important... over such short distances with laser rangefinding or radar tracking the chances of a hit are very high... the higher wind up rate of teh soviet gun means a cluster of rounds arrives almost at once like a shotgun blast instead of a string of rounds arriving in a line.

GarryB wrote:AFAIK the Mi28N is a modified aircraft of the 1980s.

I hope the Mi-28M  has all the electronics and sensors and systems upgraded to current, but as I said a more aerodynamic ammo storage option for the main gun would have been nice IMHO.

Even a change in calibre to the twin 23mm cannon of the new Hinds with smaller more compact ammo with lower recoil could have been a better option in my opinion... though information about how the gun is performing in Syria and Iraq would be useful to consider this option.

Hi, Garry

That's precisely my take on it as well. I just don't see the point in having a gun that so greatly reduces ammunition count, especially when one considers that the 30mm (like in the Apache) is only used against third world shepherds, pick up trucks and Toyotas. A 23mm would be able to achieve everything that the more powerful 30mm achieves while carrying far more ammo and producing far less recoil.

It should be a tier system:

The 23mm should be used against enemy personnel, APCs and last generation IFVs. I assume that the new laser guided 80mm rockets could better penetrate modern IFVs than even the 2a42 and the missiles can deal with the tanks.

The Russian 30 x 165mm round is huge and rather powerful... but most ground targets are engaged with HE shells.

The 23 x 115mm calibre has rather heavy projectiles for its calibre... the tradeoff is low muzzle velocity... but high muzzle velocity is rarely important when used against soft and medium ground targets.

Against hard targets a 30mm calibre is little use anyway.

The 23mm weapon is already used on new model Hinds and the ammo is as compact as HMG ammo so plenty could be carried.

If you really wanted to you could develop a high velocity APFSDS round for it, but I think that might be good for a IFV mounted HMG in that calibre or an anti material rifle in that calibre it would be not very useful for a helo.

GarryB wrote:The Russian 30 x 165mm round is huge and rather powerful... but most ground targets are engaged with HE shells.

The 23 x 115mm calibre has rather heavy projectiles for its calibre... the tradeoff is low muzzle velocity... but high muzzle velocity is rarely important when used against soft and medium ground targets.

Against hard targets a 30mm calibre is little use anyway.

The 23mm weapon is already used on new model Hinds and the ammo is as compact as HMG ammo so plenty could be carried.

If you really wanted to you could develop a high velocity APFSDS round for it, but I think that might be good for a IFV mounted HMG in that calibre or an anti material rifle in that calibre it would be not very useful for a helo.

Thanks for the answers, Garry.

I really am fond of the 23mm and it does seem to offer real-world benefits that can't be ignored. The ZU-23-2 still has much better muzzle velocity [970mps] than the Apache's M230 chai gun [805mps] and so it's already starting from a very strong position with many other great qualities. How much RHA penetration (at 500 m) could we expect from a high velocity APFSDS 23mm round?

Careful... the ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4 use a different round.

The ZU-23/ZSU-23-4 shell is a 23 x 152mm round with a long case with lots of propellent and a high muzzle velocity for shooting down aircraft.

It was developed from the 23mm cannon used on the Il-2 Shturmovik of WWII fame.

The 23 x 115mm calibre round uses the same projectile... which has a heavy HE projectile, but its much shorter case means much less propellent and lower muzzle velocity.

The advantage is the short case allows a lot more ammo to be carried and the low muzzle velocity allows a much higher rate of fire without all the problems of higher velocity rounds.

the 23 x 115mm round is used in air to air cannons as used on the MiG-21 and MiG-23... its high rate of fire and heavy projectile makes it very effective and the twin barrel guns that fire the round have a high rate of fire so fast moving targets are easier to hit with what is like a shotgun blast of shells.

It is not a super high velocity laser weapon... more a shotgun... which is very effective against small fast targets.

Note the late model Hinds use a twin barrel chin mounted 23mm gun in 23 x 115mm calibre where rate of fire is high and shell weight is good and recoil low.

AFAIK there is no current APFSDS in 23 x 115mm, but the 14.5 x 114mm round has a similar sized case and with a larger calibre you can push more energy down the barrel.

APFSDS rounds generally don't like muzzle brakes so a shift to 2A72 cannons instead of 2A42s might be required...

Generally I would say a full calibre APHE for targets like light vehicles and HE shells for soft targets would be the best solution... hard targets like IFVs and tanks would be better engaged with unguided rockets with guidance kits or ATGMs.

Russian command guided ATGMs are cheap enough to be used in enormous numbers without breaking the bank...

GarryB wrote:Careful... the ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4 use a different round.

The ZU-23/ZSU-23-4 shell is a 23 x 152mm round with a long case with lots of propellent and a high muzzle velocity for shooting down aircraft.

It was developed from the 23mm cannon used on the Il-2 Shturmovik of WWII fame.

The 23 x 115mm calibre round uses the same projectile... which has a heavy HE projectile, but its much shorter case means much less propellent and lower muzzle velocity.

The advantage is the short case allows a lot more ammo to be carried and the low muzzle velocity allows a much higher rate of fire without all the problems of higher velocity rounds.

the 23 x 115mm round is used in air to air cannons as used on the MiG-21 and MiG-23... its high rate of fire and heavy projectile makes it very effective and the twin barrel guns that fire the round have a high rate of fire so fast moving targets are easier to hit with what is like a shotgun blast of shells.

It is not a super high velocity laser weapon... more a shotgun... which is very effective against small fast targets.

Note the late model Hinds use a twin barrel chin mounted 23mm gun in 23 x 115mm calibre where rate of fire is high and shell weight is good and recoil low.

AFAIK there is no current APFSDS in 23 x 115mm, but the 14.5 x 114mm round has a similar sized case and with a larger calibre you can push more energy down the barrel.

APFSDS rounds generally don't like muzzle brakes so a shift to 2A72 cannons instead of 2A42s might be required...

Generally I would say a full calibre APHE for targets like light vehicles and HE shells for soft targets would be the best solution... hard targets like IFVs and tanks would be better engaged with unguided rockets with guidance kits or ATGMs.

Russian command guided ATGMs are cheap enough to be used in enormous numbers without breaking the bank...

Hi, Garry

Thanks for this very informative post. The 23x115mm is a very good round and should be a very good alternative to the 30x165mm in Russia's attack helicopter fleet. It would more than double the on-board capacity. I noticed that helicopters like the Rooivalk and the AH-64 have to allow their autocannons to cool down for 10 minutes between 300 rounds, so could a GSH-6-23 type weapon (with a more sustainable rate of fire) truly remove this limitation?

Thanks for this very informative post. The 23x115mm is a very good round and should be a very good alternative to the 30x165mm in Russia's attack helicopter fleet. It would more than double the on-board capacity. I noticed that helicopters like the Rooivalk and the AH-64 have to allow their autocannons to cool down for 10 minutes between 300 rounds, so could a GSH-6-23 type weapon (with a more sustainable rate of fire) truly remove this limitation?

The Soviets analysed the data they collected from real combat in WWII and realised that while high velocity rounds are very good for anti armour use, it was shell weight and HE power that actually made them effective against soft targets when high velocity rounds would punch easily through but actually do not that much damage.

This led to the adoption of the 23 x 115mm round with low velocity and low recoil that could be fired from cannon at very high rates of fire without the vibration and problems with more powerful rounds.

Even so there were serious problems with the GSh-23-6 gun from the MiG-31, which was intended for short range use against small targets like cruise missiles.


One of the requirements of the twin barrel 23mm cannon on the new model Hinds was that it should be able to fire off the entire magazine of ammo without overheating.

The aircraft cannon of the Soviet union and now Russia are electrically fired so changing their rate of fire should not be too hard.

With a normal rate of 12,000 rpm the GSh-23-6 would need to be fired in short bursts to avoid overheating.... but then the only aircraft that carries it as an internal weapon is the MiG-31 which carries only about 250 rounds of ammo anyway.

the twin barrel 23mm cannon fitted to the new model Hinds should be able to fire off their entire load of ammo without overheating... though they do fire at about 2,500 rpm.

From memory I think the late model Hinds carry about 870 rounds of 23mm cannon shells as standard.

Note the first Model D Hind with the four barrel 12.7mm gatling couldn't fire off its full load of ammo without overheating so they upgraded the gun and increased its weight from about 45kg to about 65kgs, which allowed it to fire continuously without overheating.

Garry B wrote:

The Soviets analysed the data they collected from real combat in WWII and realised that while high velocity rounds are very good for anti armour use, it was shell weight and HE power that actually made them effective against soft targets when high velocity rounds would punch easily through but actually do not that much damage.

This led to the adoption of the 23 x 115mm round with low velocity and low recoil that could be fired from cannon at very high rates of fire without the vibration and problems with more powerful rounds.

Even so there were serious problems with the GSh-23-6 gun from the MiG-31, which was intended for short range use against small targets like cruise missiles.


One of the requirements of the twin barrel 23mm cannon on the new model Hinds was that it should be able to fire off the entire magazine of ammo without overheating.

The aircraft cannon of the Soviet union and now Russia are electrically fired so changing their rate of fire should not be too hard.

With a normal rate of 12,000 rpm the GSh-23-6 would need to be fired in short bursts to avoid overheating.... but then the only aircraft that carries it as an internal weapon is the MiG-31 which carries only about 250 rounds of ammo anyway.

the twin barrel 23mm cannon fitted to the new model Hinds should be able to fire off their entire load of ammo without overheating... though they do fire at about 2,500 rpm.

From memory I think the late model Hinds carry about 870 rounds of 23mm cannon shells as standard.

Note the first Model D Hind with the four barrel 12.7mm gatling couldn't fire off its full load of ammo without overheating so they upgraded the gun and increased its weight from about 45kg to about 65kgs, which allowed it to fire continuously without overheating.

Hi, Garry

I really do love the fact that the Russians approach these matters methodically and make decisions on considered evidence. I recently read up on the GSH-6-23 and the troubles that it faced, but the GSH-23 seems like an incredible fit for attack helicopters especially if the rate of fire can be reduced to something more reasonable -- around 300-550 rds/min. The GSH-23 would be ideal considering that it doesn't overheat after over 800 rounds -- which is a lot better than the overheating that the M230 experiences after just 300 rounds.

Garry B wrote:
Being able to do the same job at less cost and with higher ready rates is not a bad thing.

The Ka-50 was probably better armoured than the Mi-28A but I suspect the Ka-52 is less well armoured than the Mi-28N.

The new model Mi-28NMs will have 360 degree radar... but to be honest they would be rather better protected by an Su-35 or MiG-35 flying top cover than just having their own radar...

The Mi-28 is a good attack helicopter and is cheaper and less maintenance heavy due to its less radical design and so it wins point for that, but the Ka-52 is a truly ideal attack helicopter with unique capabilities. There is only one other helicopter that I like as much -- the ever troubled Rooivalk but I found some claims about it (when compared to the Mi-28 and the Ka-52) a little strange.

The latter is best illustrated by its 5,545m "out-of-ground effect" hover ceiling (the height at which it can hover without the cushion of air caused by rotor downwash). The next best is the US Apache (3,866m), followed by the Russian Mi-28 and Ka-52 (3,600m); the Franco-German Tiger (3,200m) and the Chinese WZ-10 (2,000m). The Rooivalk also has the highest cruise speed, the best rate of climb and the best range/weapons load performance, and shares with the Tiger the best power to weight ratio, all factors critical in operations and combat.

Source: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2016/01/21/developing-the-rooivalk-mk2-would-tick-many-vital-boxes

I find it terribly strange that the Rooivalk can apparently hover 5, 545m in out of ground effect even though it's more than half a ton heavier than the Apache and has less powerful engines even though the article claims that it has the best power to weight ratio. Question: could the Ka-52 reach 5, 545m if it was lighter? There are materials now that are stronger and lighter than steel but also crucially cheaper so the Ka-52 can be made lighter - perhaps as light as the Rooivalk but far more powerful. These recent breakthroughs have Soviet origins. Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/news/a13919/new-steel-alloy-titanium/

There are also new alloys that are as light as aluminum but as strong as titanium. Source: https://gadgtecs.com/2016/01/02/new-alloy-strong-titanium-light-aluminum/

I quite like the South African Helo, but those claims are a little weird.

First of all hover out of ground effect is not really of great importance... if you are flying at 5km altitude then a MiG-29 from 60km away will see you and shoot you down and there is very little you could do in return from that altitude.

From what I can tell the Rooivalk has a top speed of about 309km/h... both the Hokum and Havoc are faster and rather better armed with 30mm cannon and the new Hermes missiles offering 20km range.