And yes, I find the nose antenna design rather ugly. And they have modified it on the NM. I am not sure if that has technical reasons or was just to improve its looks. If it was the latter, I would say it is not much of an improvement. On the other hand, I think the Mi-8 is totally hideous.
No the nose thimble antenna was not removed for aesthetics... it has been made redundant with laser beam riding versions of Ataka... for the same reason the BMPT does not need one either.
OK you don't like the looks of the Mi-8... I don't think they care. Certainly the Afgans prefer the Mi-8 that works to the pretty Blackhawk that doesn't.
It is a 60 year old helicopter that holds the world record for numbers produced... pretty damn good for an ugly aircraft...
But it is wrong to assume that just because something is a military equipment, it totally has no requirement for visual appeal
Pretty sure as long as it does what it is designed to do that looks don't come in to it at all, and if it does look amazing that this wont help it much if it is useless... I am of course talking about the Russian and Soviet military, not the west.
Part of the reason may be that the customer subconsciously understands that such levels of design detail can only come from a vendor with a similar level of technical competence. This, imo, is also true in military aviation.
I think you are confusing a few things here.... modularity and order and structure are nothing to do with aesthetics.
Case in point would be the AA-1 Alkali compared with the AA-2 Atoll.
The AA-1 was incredibly complex and had electronics and engines and seekers and servos all over the place...
If you just look at the drawings for it:
You can see the rocket motor exhaust between two of the rear fins, the rear facing datalink for communicating with the launch aircraft, and inside it was a rabbit warren of wires and components. When they captured the Sidewinder it wasn't that the Sidewinder was more advanced, the IR seeker on the Russian missile was actually better and so they kept that for their AA-2 Sidewinder copy, and their rocket motor was better too so they kept that as well, but the real different was the modularity of the Sidewinder... you could build each piece separately and assemble it for use. If one part failed you could remove it and swap it out. or in their case with SARH versions, they could change seeker element if they need more radar or IR guided models very easily, or to upgrade a missile with a more powerful rocket motor or new more capable sensor.
Of course the change in design paradigm would take years to introduce and apply and rather than wait for new Soviet modular missiles to be designed and tested they copied the missile to begin with and made the necessary changes in their missile design bureaus.
The best example of a modular air to air missile would have to be the R-27 family, which is enormous.
I have recently seen Russia make more effort in its military gear design. If we consider transport helicopters, look no further than the Mi-38. Doesn't anyone notice something different? Or have they sacrificed any performance to come up with the new looks?
Design has as much to do with fashion as anything else... the Mi-8 was designed 60 years ago and is the most popular transport helicopter in the world...
The Mi-38 doesn't look a whole lot different to be honest.
By the way doesn't the Mi-28NM already has a nose mounted radar, just below the 'timble' antenna?
No. The Hokum has a nose mounted radar, the Mi-28NM has a mast mounted radar.
The area above the green ball turret for the pilot is the rotation mechanism and below that is the large black drum optics for the long range optics for the gunner.