Mi-28NM: catch up and overtake "Apache"

109
"Apache", "Tigers" and all-all-all

Compare strike helicopters is a thankless task. One of the reasons lies in the colossal experience of the helicopter industry. Over the long decades of confrontation, the United States and the USSR / RF have accumulated so much theoretical and practical knowledge that it is difficult to imagine a frankly unsuccessful attack helicopter. This, in general, also applies to most other helicopter-building countries. The rest, as they say, is a matter of taste: someone likes "Viper", someone - Ka-52. And someone is delighted with the Chinese WZ-10.



If, however, to abstract from personal preferences as much as possible, then you need to recognize that at the moment the most technologically advanced machine of this class is AH-64D Apache Block III or in another way AH-64E. It does not make sense to list all its advantages: briefly, the Americans were able to unleash the full potential of Apache Longbow. However, perhaps the most interesting lies not in the helicopter itself, but in its armament, although modern weapon this is, of course, the default complex of everything.

The new Apache, like a number of other US helicopters, will soon receive a new JAGM (Joint Air-to-Ground Missile) rocket instead of the usual Hellfire. Back in June, 2018, it became known that mass production began JAGM. Ammunition can hit targets at a range of up to eight kilometers. Its weight is approximately 50 kilograms. The rocket has an advanced dual-mode homing head: semi-active laser and radar. The tests showed that the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile is more reliable than its predecessor, and they also say that later its range can be increased to 16 kilometers. Of course, when launched at such a range, the requirements for the on-board electronics of the Apache helicopter will sharply increase. However, his rival in the person of the Mi-28H also has difficulties: both with avionics and with weapons.



Mi-28 as a concept

There is not the slightest doubt that the Night Hunter as a platform deserves the highest praise. Purely conceptual. The simplest example is a tandem crew layout. What not to say, and such a scheme is much more versatile than a side-by-side scheme, as in the Ka-52. It must be assumed that when the head of the crew is turned, it is better to see the surface and / or the likely enemy than the shoulder of the operator (however, again, how many people have so many opinions).

In general, the Mi-28 is potentially the best attack helicopter of the Russian Federation. But there are, as they say, the nuances that we mentioned above. One example. As is known, the ex-commander-in-chief of the VKS, Viktor Bondarev, after his resignation, “pulled” on frank statements. “Electronics failed: the pilot doesn't see anything, the pilot doesn't hear anything. These glasses, which they put on, they call "death to pilots". The sky is cloudless - everything is fine, and if there is a smoke, three days with red eyes go, ”said the military last November. This assessment did not concern the raw machines of the first installment, but quite a large-scale Mi-28H, which, in theory, should have revealed all (well or almost all) childhood diseases. Although this process is, of course, long and complicated, which also needs to be understood.

But the main drawback, which catches the eye almost immediately, is the absence of millimeter-wave radar on the combat vehicles, like the Apache Longbow. It provides well-known advantages in identifying ground targets, followed by aiming high-precision weapons at them. Provided the use of missiles with active radar homing heads AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire radar allows you to implement the notorious principle of "shot and forget." Without an overhead radar station and advanced air-to-surface weapons, the Mi-28H is very similar in its capabilities to the AH-64A. The main difference lies, perhaps, in the fact that the latter was built by a much larger series than all versions of the Mi-28 combined.



The first after "Longbow"

The most technologically advanced and potentially the most advanced modification of the Mi-28, as we see, did not appear on level ground. Mi-28HM was the result of numerous trial and error, as well as a response to the achievements of overseas "friends". The main thing that needs to be said in this case is: this is not a “paper” project or an idea for the future. Flight tests of the Mi-28HM attack helicopter began on October 12, 2016 at the Moscow Helicopter Plant. M.L. Mil. Then the first prototype of the OP-1 rose into the air. The event was overseen by the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia, Yuri Borisov. It was reported that the first flight of the Mi-28HM was successful and all the systems of the machine worked normally.

Purely visually, the main difference of a new machine from all previous versions is the “cut” nose part. There is one important improvement that does not immediately strike the eye. The helicopter operator received a much better side view due to the significantly modified cockpit canopy. By the way, the experience gained while working on the Mi-XNUMHUB was not in vain. In front of the cockpit of the new helicopter installed a second set of controls, which certainly gives new opportunities: both in terms of crew training, and in terms of increasing the survivability of the combat vehicle in real combat. Another good point. Within the framework of the project, Mi-28НМ previously offered to use the new VK-28П-2500 / ПС engines, which can be produced by the Russian defense industry and which meet the basic requirements of modernization.



The most important improvement concerns the same radar headset. She (perhaps in the form of a layout) is present on the prototype OP-1. In any case, it was previously stated that a full-scale installation of an N025 type nadvtulochny radar is planned. According to reports, it is sensitive enough to detect a small UAV 20 kilometers away. It was reported that the radar allows the crew to accompany up to ten targets and to direct weapons at two of them. It is believed that Russian sensors of this type are able to detect a moving target of the type “tank” at a distance of the order of 20-25 km. Also very important is the theoretical possibility of using missiles with a radar guidance system, which should provide the helicopter with the utmost secrecy. For the sake of interest, you can see the photo, where it can be seen that from the “Apache”, which is in the shelter, only the strap-up radar “sticks out”.

And here the most interesting begins. Does Russia have missiles that could be compared in its capabilities with the JAGM? Well, or at least with AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire? “Sturm” and “Whirlwinds” with a laser guidance system, limiting the pilot space for maneuver after launch, will not surprise anyone. About Hermes-A, which was positioned almost as a miracle weapon, has been almost suspicious for a long time. It is worth recalling, however. The range of this ATGM should be approximately 15 kilometers. The manufacturer claims an optical-electronic system with optical capture and target tracking with control of a rocket flight over a laser beam. In general, there is the makings of a “shot-and-forget” principle, but so far everything is very vague.

There is an alternative. In August, the International Military-Technical Forum "Army-2018" was held in Moscow in 2018. There, the Russian Helicopters JSC presented a modified version of the export Mi-28НЭ equipped with long-range anti-tank 9М123М Chrysanthem-VM with a two-channel guidance system - using a laser beam and a radio channel. Here it is appropriate to recall one statement 2016 of the year. “We are carrying out modernization of the“ Attack ”and“ Chrysanthemum ”missiles to ensure a higher detection range, capture and destruction of targets specifically for the Mi-28HM. The complex of guided missile armaments aboard the helicopter is being adapted for new missiles, ”Valery Kashin, General Designer of the Kolomna Engineering Bureau, told TASS.



As we see, the new Mi-28HM risks staying: either a) with openly old Soviet missiles, or b) with an ATGM, whose obsolescence will become noticeable in the coming years. The available products, apparently, are far from JAGM in their capabilities, so the development of fundamentally new anti-tank missiles could become one of the priorities in increasing the combat potential of attack helicopters of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +38
    3 September 2018 06: 52
    Of course, the topic is interesting and very important. Unfortunately, there is more "journalism" in the publication than real technical analysis. In some places the author does not quite understand what he is writing about. Quote:
    Also very important is the theoretical ability to use missiles with a radar guidance system, which should provide the helicopter extreme secrecy.
    How can an attack helicopter "glowing" in the millimeter radio frequency range obtain "ultimate stealth"? what
    An overhead radar is necessary to search for targets, primarily in adverse weather conditions and in the dark. The radar is able to increase the information awareness of the crew, provide terrain mapping, timely warn about the launch of an anti-aircraft missile and provide multichannel guidance of ATGM with RGSN. But he is unable to provide "secrecy" during the confrontation with a technologically advanced adversary. No.
    1. +8
      3 September 2018 08: 05
      Sergey, I bow to your knowledge on the topic, but will the helicopter not be invisible to tankers? It seemed to me that tankers have only a visual method of recognition (although at a distance of 8-16 km the chance to detect a helicopter visually is 0), well, or can they detect by a laser beam when a missile is guided by a radar? And accordingly, if they cannot, then they will not be able to take urgent measures during an attack either ....
      1. +16
        3 September 2018 08: 23
        Tanks do not go into battle by themselves. Under the Soviet Union, they are covered by "Wasps" or "Torah", and they will see a helicopter 30 km away. It is true that they will not be able to hit within 15 km, unless of course a Buk or Carapace is deployed nearby.
        1. +11
          3 September 2018 09: 51
          Quote: Fedorov
          It is true that they will not be able to hit within 15 km, unless of course a Buk or Carapace is deployed nearby.

          =======
          Dear Valery !!! Here in ANOTHER problem! If a rocket with an ARL GOS, then the spinner can shoot "from a jump": "Jumped" from behind an obstacle, found a target, entered data into the rocket, waited until the ARL GOS "captures the target", started up and "hid back" (all about everything - a FEW seconds !!!) Even if "Thor", "Pantsyr" and even "Buk-M3" spotted him and managed to launch a rocket, there is a VERY high probability that he (the helicopter) would have time to "hide" ... In this case, the probability of hitting the turntable is practically = 0 !!! And you will have to fight ALREADY WITH ROCKETS, and not with a CARRIER! And this is MUCH more difficult!
          To combat such "bouncing" targets, missiles of a fundamentally different type are needed .... As far as I know, ANYONE has ANYTHING like this in the world yet !!! request
          1. +2
            3 September 2018 13: 10
            Quote: venik
            To combat such "bouncing" targets, missiles of a fundamentally different type are needed .... As far as I know, ANYONE has ANYTHING like this in the world yet !!! request


            There are - missiles with ARLGSN (active radar homing head). After the shot, the rocket flies by inertia towards the target and, at the final section, searches for the target of its own radar. We should have such missiles at the S-350 Vityaz.

            Whether there are specific modes for "bouncing" targets in the complex I don't know, but I think it's easy to add such a mode. All the same, the helicopter is a low-speed and radio-contrast target.
            1. +2
              3 September 2018 17: 39
              Quote: AVM
              There are - missiles with ARLGSN (active homing radar). After the shot, the rocket flies by inertia towards the target and, in the final section, searches for the target of its own radar.

              =================
              Andrew!! With you fully I agree! ..... But there is "one problem" ..... Active radar seeker with great difficulty can detect a "hovering" helicopter .... (they usually work by the "Doppler effect", or by "angular displacement "....)
              Alas! Those. calculations "Torah" - can be detuned "from the interference created by the" main rotor "" to jump "along the" turntable ".....
              But the ARL of the seeker - "with difficulty" .... The principle of the "Doppler effect" or "angular displacement" works there ...
              Experienced Thor crews can shoot down the "hovering" turntable !!! BUT only if they SEE her !!!!
              Well, and if she ("turntable") - HIDDEN and DEPENDENT ???? .....
              What to do???
              We need a NEW air defense system capable of hitting onclosed"goals !!!
              Of course, he himself is not a "specialist" on this issue .... But for some reason I really want to think that "dislocated brains" (that's how the Americans call our "specialists" !!!) over this they are already "breaking their heads" .....
              And if OUR GUYS started "BREAKING THE HEAD" ........
              1. +4
                3 September 2018 20: 22
                A thermal imaging GOS with a radio data channel based on a bolometric matrix is ​​implanted into the rocket, they are not expensive, and the angular resolution of the system will increase by orders of magnitude and most importantly the complete passivity of the GOS, and most importantly, the rocket will never be more expensive than a combat helicopter, even if it is from a clean gold, compare the prices of the most expensive missile and the cheapest combat helicopter, and I will not say anything about such a criterion as the combat effectiveness of a combat helicopter, because it is not for nothing that they say that the best anti-tank weapon is a combat helicopter, collectively five fighting qualities, and the priority of any army air defense will be just the destruction of attack helicopters, as the most difficult goal, attack and combat / reconnaissance drones.
            2. +1
              3 September 2018 18: 39
              Quote: AVM
              There are - missiles with ARLGSN (active radar homing head). After the shot, the rocket flies by inertia towards the target and, at the final section, searches for the target of its own radar. We should have such missiles at the S-350 Vityaz.

              ==========
              Sorry, Andrey !!! WHAT will the rocket with the AR seeker do if the "turntable" - "hangs" ??? In this case - (and the ARL of the GOS - works according to the "Doppler effect" or "angular displacement") ... - IT IS USELESS !!!!!
              And what to do next???
              Build rockets that will be EXPENSIVE than "turntables" ????
          2. +4
            3 September 2018 20: 06
            There is already, and is called a kamikaze drone, with a cumulative high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the "multi-cumulative strike core" type, to destroy ground and surface, as well as, attention, combat helicopters and reconnaissance / strike drones. I hope everyone remembers the shots of destruction of the air defense system Shell in Syria, a kamikaze drone, so he is the youngest in the family, and believe me there are serious drones.
            1. +3
              3 September 2018 20: 25
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              I hope everyone remembers the shots of the destruction of the SAM shell in Syria

              With a smoking crew? Yes, remember! good And if you think? wink
              1. +2
                3 September 2018 23: 13
                And if you think about what kind of crew I’m on the drum, drinking or smoking, the fact on my face, the use of a barring drone that was in the area and noticing the target, attacked it, that's what I’m talking about, and not what kind of crew or SAM was or wasn’t with ammunition.
                1. mvg
                  +2
                  4 September 2018 16: 38
                  drone

                  Where does the drone info come from? If it was just a rocket, and it’s relatively old ... There is such a participant here, under the nickname Professor, he seems to have really told and showed everything.
                2. +2
                  4 September 2018 19: 30
                  Quote: merkava-2bet
                  , and not what kind of crew or air defense system was or was not with ammunition.

                  "Pantsir" without a crew and ammunition is just a stationary target, with the same success it was possible to attack a target at the range. But for some reason you mentioned exactly the Pantsir air defense system. Did it happen by accident? wink
                  1. 0
                    23 October 2018 23: 09
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    Quote: merkava-2bet
                    , and not what kind of crew or air defense system was or was not with ammunition.

                    "Pantsir" without a crew and ammunition is just a stationary target, with the same success it was possible to attack a target at the range. But for some reason you mentioned exactly the Pantsir air defense system. Did it happen by accident? wink

                    I think it turned out very well, and that's why. A week ago, an article was published on the website of Breaking Defense about the visit by the US delegation (representatives of the Air Force and the company Lockheed manufacturer of Helfires) combat shootings of Apache Tsahal helicopters in Israel. The Apaches fired a new modification of the NLOS ER-missile, apparently Tamir with a range of 20 miles, i.e. 32 km. The article notes that all targets at the ultimate distance were hit. It is noted that Tamir uses two guidance modes -GPS or, in the conditions of EW countermeasures, inertial, on the cruising section of the flight. When approaching the target, the optoelectronic or infrared guidance heads are turned on. There is a manual mode - a television head. By the way, on the cruising area, the operator can twist this head and see what's down there. The rocket manufacturer, Rafael, showed the Americans a versatile launcher for Apache, from which you can shoot both Tamir and Helfire. That is, in clear weather, Tamir, in conditions of poor visibility, Helfire s with GOS millimeter range. What are you saying about the Torah-Shell?
                    By the way, I think that the Shell was destroyed precisely by the new Tamir.
                3. 0
                  28 October 2019 22: 58
                  Of course you don’t care about the drum, it’s all a matter of it, but if you think with this drum you don’t even know exactly what was used, you’ll already assign names like a drone drone by exaggerating the possibilities of this fact.
        2. +6
          3 September 2018 10: 05
          Quote: Fedorov
          Tanks do not go into battle by themselves. They are still covered by the USSR "Wasps" or "Torah"

          You exaggerate the capabilities of military air defense, they will not be enough for all tank companies ...
        3. +1
          3 September 2018 10: 21
          SAM TOR M2 and its various options have a lesion range in range from 1 to 16 km.
          1. +4
            3 September 2018 11: 06
            Quote: komandir8
            SAM TOR M2 and its various options have a lesion range in range from 1 to 16 km.

            =========
            Alexei! To be honest, the minimum 9M331D missile range (1 - 1.5 km for large and small altitudes, respectively), and the maximum - 15 km .... But this is absolutely insignificant .... The main thing is the guidance principle - radio command, which means if the target not visible or disappeared from the "field of view" of the combat vehicle PU-shki, then the miss is GUARANTEED ..... When fighting low-flying helicopters and especially with "jumping" - this is a BO-O-LARGE drawback .... (and inherent not only to the "TOP" but also to ALL currently existing systems similar class) !!!
      2. +18
        3 September 2018 08: 24
        Quote: parma
        Sergey, I bow to your knowledge of the topic, but isn’t the helicopter a helicopter invisible?

        My knowledge is not as great as it might seem. But if tanks in the "big war" are left without the cover of the military air defense, then we can assume that they will not have long to live in this sector of the front. And it doesn't matter what they will be exterminated: ATGMs or self-aiming cluster munitions.
        As for the "invisibility" of a helicopter with an airborne radar, imagine yourself walking along the road at night with the lamp on. Of course, you will be able to see well what is under your feet, but an observer in the dark will see your flashlight from a much greater distance than you will notice an observer.
        Roughly the same happens with ground-based radars. With the help of passive electronic reconnaissance stations, carriers with on-board radars will be detected much earlier than they see potential targets. And we are talking not only about such "monsters" as "Kolchuga", "Avtobaza" or "Moscow-1". Even on the command vehicles of the short-range air defense system "Strela-10" in the air defense of the regimental level there is such equipment. In addition, there is every reason to believe that passive radar radiation receivers will appear on armored vehicles in the future.
        1. 0
          3 September 2018 10: 18
          Quote: Bongo
          Using passive radio intelligence stations

          =========
          Dear Sergey! And what are ACTIVE radio intelligence reconnaissance stations ??? Something to hear about these has never happened .... what The very principle of RTR consists in the direction finding of sources of electromagnetic radiation (electromagnetic radiation) ...
          --------
          Quote: Bongo
          radar carriers will be detected much earlier than potential targets.

          ==========
          Quite a controversial issue ..... Here the difference in detection time will be a fraction of a second .....
          This is the first ....
          And secondly - "to find it WILL BE DETECTED!" And then what ?? The RTR station can determine the PELENG with good accuracy, but NOT THE RANGE !!!! For determining range (or rather, the exact location), the target should detect at least TWO RTR stations (usually spaced 10-30 km ....
          And then - WHAT ??? And then the information through the command post will go anti-aircraft gunners or pilots .....
          During this time, the "bouncing" helicopter will have time to hit some goals, while remaining invulnerable !!! That's where the "dog rummaged" .....
          Here we need some kind of air defense systems for direct cover of the "front edge", capable of hitting even "hidden" targets, if they found themselves!!! How?? what request
          1. +8
            3 September 2018 14: 58
            Quote: venik
            Dear Sergey! And what does the station ACTIVE radio intelligence intelligence ???

            Dear Vladimir, it seems to me you understand perfectly well what is at stake and in this case are engaged in verbiage. request That is how the Czechoslovak stations Tamara and Ramona, which were in our armed forces, were called in the governing documents in the 90s. Also the Ukrainian "Kolchuga" is now classified. Here is what the Kommersant newspaper writes about this:
            Kolchuga - automated passive radio intelligence station (clickable)
            Quote: venik
            Quite a controversial issue ..... Here the difference in detection time will be SHARE seconds.....
            This is the first ....

            Well, apparently you know better, but it is not clear what this conclusion is made from ... request
            Quote: venik
            And secondly - "to find it WILL BE DETECTED!" And then what ?? The RTR station can determine the PELENG with good accuracy, but NOT THE RANGE !!!!

            It is quite enough that the means of army air defense will be brought to alert and notified fighter aircraft. One way or another, but there will be no effect of surprise. In addition, the effective radar radar AN / APG-78 does not exceed 20 km. No.
            Quote: venik
            And then - WHAT ??? And then the information through the command post will go anti-aircraft gunners or pilots .....
            During this time, the "bouncing" helicopter will have time to hit several targets, while remaining invulnerable !!! That's where the "dog rummaged" .....

            You are very roughly imagine the work of the air defense system and combat helicopters. Most air strikes are not applied to targets on the battlefield, but in places of concentration and on the march. And there is a slightly different alignment.
            1. -1
              3 September 2018 18: 05
              Quote: Bongo
              Dear Vladimir, it seems to me that you perfectly understand what is being discussed and in this case are engaged in verbiage. request

              ===============
              Well, excuse me, Sergei, so what-what, but "verbiage", as it was not possible to do ... request
              ---------------
              "Tamara" and "Ramona" - to see how it was not possible ..... About "Kolchuga" - I do not know NICH-CH-E-GO !!! She appeared AFTER .......
              We had OWN stations ..... Old, "tube" stations ..... But very reliable !!!
              ===========
              Well, apparently you know better, but it’s not clear what such a conclusion is drawn from ... request
              ----------------------
              From YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE !!!
              Azm you are the "crew commander" of the RTR station .... Somewhere like that ....
              1. +3
                4 September 2018 03: 02
                Quote: venik
                From YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE !!!
                Azm you are the "crew commander" of the RTR station .... Somewhere like that ....

                Effectively worked on aerial targets? Frankly, I do not remember the RTR lamp stations capable of that.
                It is extremely unlikely that you could work on helicopters, since radar on rotary-winged cars began to appear recently. In addition, I was very surprised by this passage:
                Quote: venik
                Here the difference in detection time will be the share of seconds ...

                Passive means will see the source of high-frequency radiation much earlier. And to argue with that is at least strange. request
                Quote: venik
                "Tamara" and "Ramona" - it was not possible to see something ...

                We didn’t have many of these stations; in 80, about 40 copies were received. In 90, there was an 1-2 kit in each military district.
          2. +9
            3 September 2018 19: 28
            Quote: venik
            And what are ACTIVE radio intelligence reconnaissance stations ???

            the question is certainly not a matter of principle, but I was hooked by the fact that I myself was very interested because I was engaged in research at the intersection of electronic and electronic reconnaissance. Therefore, I can say with confidence that there are developments that allow the use of passive location methods for solving problems of active location. At the physical level, it looks like using the energy of various sources of electromagnetic radiation to detect both the sources themselves and the purposes of which they are illuminated like a flashlight.
            Examples of such developments are the SilentSentry station, the first sample of which was developed by Lockheed Martin in 1998, the HomelandAlerter 100 developed by Thales RS. Later, similar developments appeared at Bae Systems and EADS. I met similar developments in Russia, but all of them were not widely used due to civilian dependence on telecommunication facilities.
            The only thing that can be really used in combat conditions is the development of KB Svyaz OJSC, which issued a patent for the invention of a system that significantly improves the efficiency of signal processing when reflected from marine objects with low radial speeds and actually my research http://allpatents.ru/ patent / 2240576.html
            feel
          3. -2
            4 September 2018 01: 32
            Yeah, and he will have time to jump from the hawk. Enough of these fairy tales from a spherical vacuum. Who controls the sky then won - attack helicopters are simply a means of effectively destroying armored vehicles and manpower and an excellent meat for fighter aircraft.
            Next - missiles with GOS are good but they will not get into the group of soldiers, in the bunker, in the window of the building in the corner of the barn, etc. That is, it is necessary to use the good old laser-guided missiles as on the same Apache - and yes, again, without fluttering)) That is, all missiles with GOS are exclusively means of attack on armored vehicles.
            The only option for covert use of missiles is television-guided missiles - such as the Israeli spike - but there are also a bunch of flaws - but you can use the strengths of these weapons as an option.
        2. +6
          3 September 2018 14: 30
          Quote: Bongo
          As for the "invisibility" of a helicopter with an airborne radar, imagine yourself walking along the road at night with the lamp on.

          It is unlikely that the Apache will fly continuously with such a flashlight. Most likely he will go to the place of battle on a tip from his infantrymen, take a position behind the woods, stick out his nadvulochnuyu "washer from behind the woods, and only then turn on the radar. Quickly find targets, shoot, and turn off the radar will descend back behind the woods. will change its position and repeat the operation in a new place. In this position, our air defense will have serious problems. Even if the work of its radar has time to detect, this is not enough. It is still necessary to shoot at it, and air defense systems with radar guidance may experience no small difficulties in its detection, because the helicopter will merge with the surrounding area, or even completely hidden behind it. And as we know, the noise from this very area can seriously spoil the joy of anti-aircraft gunners. It is not enough to know that a helicopter is working on us. We still need to have time to shoot it down No matter how effective, in this case, another tactic would be altogether - we take the direction of the helicopter's place and use the coordinates to hammer the MLRS there, only extremely quickly, until it leaves. The radar will be even more effective than the entire air defense system. Provided, of course, that the RTR has a direct connection with the artillerymen, and the latter are always ready to fire.
          1. +10
            3 September 2018 15: 19
            Quote: Alex_59
            It is unlikely that the Apache will fly with such a flashlight continuously. Most likely, he will go to the place of the battle on a tip from his infantrymen, take a position behind the woods, stick out his nadvulochnuyu "washer from behind the woods, and only then turn on the radar.

            The fact is that due to the high cost of AN / APG-78, not all modernized Apaches received them. It is believed that the AH-64D Block II and AH-64E should coordinate the actions of helicopters without radar. In this case, you will have to "shine with a flashlight" constantly. In addition, the overhead stations serve to warn the crew of an attack by air-to-air missiles and missile launchers, as well as of the approach of enemy fighters and combat helicopters.
          2. 0
            4 September 2018 15: 33
            Quote: Alex_59
            He quickly finds targets, shoots, and turning off the radar will fall back behind the forest.

            He doesn't always need to get up. Hellfire has a Lock Object After Launch mode. In this mode, the rocket starts from cover with a climb and only then captures the target illuminated by radar or laser.
      3. -1
        3 September 2018 19: 57
        You’re behind, my friend, modern tanks or upgraded ones are equipped with so many devices, mom don’t worry. By the way, there are quite a few articles on this forum on this forum, don’t think that the proverb “It’s dark and dull, like in a tank” is already relevant, modern tanks aren’t which are not inferior, neither to warships, nor aircraft, and even surpass in some systems.
  2. +4
    3 September 2018 07: 51
    They started an interesting topic, fell to pop and didn’t even finish in the middle .... (Everything written also applies to Ka52)
  3. -5
    3 September 2018 08: 50
    In front of the cockpit of the new helicopter, a second set of controls was installed, which, of course, provides new opportunities: both in terms of crew training and in terms of increasing the survivability of a combat vehicle in real combat.


    The fact that for the Ka-52 goes without saying, for the Mi-28 a great achievement.

    It is interesting to what extent the tiny Apache radar located in the most vibrating part of the vehicle sucks at the normal actually aircraft Ka-52 radar.
    1. +10
      3 September 2018 10: 47
      Quote: EvilLion
      I wonder how tiny the Apache radar located in the most vibrant place sucks the car from a normal virtually Ka-52 aircraft radar.

      ========
      "The most vibrating place" ????? And what is and SUCH????? Or vibration from the rotor is not transmitted all designs ???
      As for the "practically airplane" radar .... Well, actually, the Zhuk AE radar is not practically, and the most, that not to eat - "aircraft" (MiG-29b Su-27)! AND VERY NICE !!! It's just that it is so far installed exclusively on the Ka-52K "Katran" naval modification (of which there are only a few out of more than one and a half hundred in Russia so far .....)
      The rest are equipped with RN01 "Crossbow-52" radar, which, alas, does not have any special advantages over the "Longbow" radar ... In fact, these are stations of the same class ..... Each has its own advantages and disadvantages
      Somewhere like that ..... hi
      PS About "sucking" ..... What "teenage boy from the gateway" ???? How can you follow the language ???
      1. +2
        3 September 2018 15: 44
        Is the "Zhuk" radar station installed on the Su-27?
        1. 0
          3 September 2018 18: 18
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          Is the "Zhuk" radar station installed on the Su-27?

          ==========
          Apparently - YES !!
          At least - at the EARLY modification ... !!!
      2. 0
        1 March 2019 15: 42
        Well, actually, on the Ka-52K there is a Beetle-A. and Zhuk-AE is an export modification. And yes, the Beetle is also far from a new system ...
    2. -1
      3 September 2018 19: 51
      . The fact that for the Ka-52 goes without saying, for the Mi-28 is a great achievement.


      No not like this. The fact that the military almost forced them to make searchlights from Kamov is an optional option for Milevians :)
      1. 0
        3 September 2018 21: 13
        And more specifically?
  4. +8
    3 September 2018 09: 09
    Yes, the theme of "Hermes" came to naught, apparently the miracle was cheated, "Attack", "Whirlwind", "Chrysanthemum", they will be modernized, indirectly confirms that the topic of "Hermes" is closed, but it's a pity those characteristics that were announced in the media were really similar to wonder weapon.
    1. +2
      4 September 2018 11: 31
      :) Who messed around?
      Do you think it's simple enough to develop a rocket and that's it?
      We need an aiming system for this missile. Moreover, this complex (surprise!) Is not the same for the Ka-52 and Mi-28 :) For each machine, the integration of the aiming system into existing systems is required. This is time and money.
      In addition, there is a problem: the existing radar stations on the Mi and Ka are not so big-eyed as to confidently see targets at a distance of 25 km in survey mode. We need modernization of machines. The Ka-52 should be equipped with the "Crossbow" radar and the Mi-28 N025. Only with them does it make sense to equip helicopters with the Hermes complex. In the meantime, the helicopters hit as they see. :)
      By the way, no one said that the flight range of the Chrysanthemum and Attack cannot be increased ...
  5. +4
    3 September 2018 09: 18
    why is the exhaust down on the mi-28? I just don’t understand this. practice seems to have forced the flow of gases upward, where they mix with the air flow of the screws, which reduces the thermal signature. what in the design of the mi-28 interferes with this scheme? really "stingers" have ceased to be afraid?
  6. 0
    3 September 2018 09: 20
    The Indians abandoned our helicopters due to the lack of fire-and-forget rockets ...
  7. +7
    3 September 2018 10: 14
    Of course, when launching at such a range, requirements for the on-board electronics of the Apache helicopter itself will sharply increase.

    Guardian navigator can control UAVs up to three pieces, so he does not need to be present in person. This is the main and most important advantage.
  8. +2
    3 September 2018 10: 41
    Who ever came up with the Mi-28 in the army to buy? It was ka-50, ka-52. Why did you have to spray money on another helicopter with similar indicators? To give money to the Mil bureau? And then they will die of hunger? I would suggest an idea that is not new in its simplicity. Until they create a modern I don’t buy avionics and a missile operating under this radar. Americans have overtaken us in electronics a long time ago, thanks to our scientists that they called cybernetics a pseudoscience. Therefore, we lag behind. Yes, and not only that. copies are not Russian at all. Made in Germany or Fra tion, purchased back in 2014 just before sanktsiyami.A that no Russian? Apparently net.A you say ... ugh modernization.
    1. +3
      3 September 2018 12: 02
      Quote: Former gas worker
      To give money to Mil’s bureau, will they die of hunger?

      Yes.
      Quote: Former gas worker
      Until they create a modern avionics and missile working under this radar nefig buy

      Quote: Former gas worker
      And that there are no Russians?

      It is impossible to create modern technology completely in one country. This is not even done by the Americans.
      Quote: Former gas worker
      cybernetics called pseudoscience. Therefore, we lag behind

      We lag behind a lot of other things.
    2. +1
      3 September 2018 13: 18
      Quote: Former gazovik
      Who ever thought of buying Mi-28 for the army? There was ka-50, ka-52. Why did you have to spray money on another helicopter with similar indicators? To give money to the Mil bureau? And then they would die of hunger?


      I think, first of all, yes - in order to prevent the Mil bureau from dying of hunger and to keep the design school. Otherwise, by the time we create the avionics, we can unlearn the helicopters.
      Secondly, the Mi-28 is the heir of the Mi-24, the solutions used in the development of the Mi-28 are going to upgrade the Mi-24. And this is at least the export of both helicopters + their own can be upgraded.
      Thirdly, heaped-up missiles and radars are needed for a major conflict, but you have to drive the bogeyman through the forests. For this we need reliable protected machines - type AK with a propeller). To take only Ka-52 was dumb, they have their own nuances in operation. Yes, and corny plants will not master the release of a large batch of the same brand.
    3. +1
      3 September 2018 15: 23
      The fact of the matter is that at the beginning of the 2000s only Mile had production. Now we are disintegrating this echo of the 90's.

      Americans in electronics overtook us a long time ago, thanks to our scientists that they called cybernetics a pseudoscience. Therefore, we lag behind.


      I’ll tell you one clever thing, but don’t be offended, but in the 1960s the USSR was in the lead in computer science, and, for example, C. Hoar himself trained here before the Caribbean crisis. The problem is that before the WWII the United States had a good time with electronics, and after it there remained just gigantic productions that had to be occupied with something, as a result, television quickly flourished, and computers quickly reached not just serial, but mass production of more or less unified machines. Nothing like IBM \ 360, in which they invested as in space. programs, the USSR simply did not have, and therefore did not have the ability to mass-produce software. Therefore, we moved on to trying to develop this platform for ourselves, but the weakness in the components did not go anywhere, and to some extent even increased.

      And tales about pseudoscience, cybernetics have long ceased to roll even among small children. Only the volume of investments and the presence of prom. base.
    4. +5
      3 September 2018 15: 37
      Quote: Former gas worker
      Who ever came up with the Mi-28 in the army to buy?

      This issue was partially elucidated by Kamzeev in a series of articles about testing the Mi-28 in the GLIC during his work there. Everything is described rather harshly and critically, but most likely this is the case with many (if not all) developments.
    5. 0
      3 September 2018 18: 58
      Quote: Former gas worker
      Who ever came up with the Mi-28 in the army to buy? There was a ka-50, ka-52. Why was it necessary to spray money on another helicopter with similar performance?

      ================
      Paul! Well, I personally like "Alligator" MORE than "Night Hunter" !!!! Well, I like it !!!! And I can do NOTHING with myself !!!!
      But! And I CAN'T do anything with the Hunter either !!!
      Well, he NEEDED !!! As well as "Alligator" .........
      1. 0
        3 September 2018 21: 37
        Why do you need that? Why army 2 completely different (not in capabilities, but in design) front attack helicopters? Neither logistics nor cost is inexplicable
    6. -1
      3 September 2018 20: 04
      The thing is that during the ALL TIME OF THE COMPETITION the Mi-28 was a combat vehicle, not an exotic toy like the Ka-50. When the Mi-28 flew and shot the state. program, Kamovites could hardly carry out missile launches at all. Which, by the way, were also not in the series. If it were not for the overwhelming kamovmkoy lobby in the generals of the USSR and the Russian Federation, the Ka-50 would not have been able to pass the competition at all, since it did not fly when it was needed and did not shoot when it was required. By and large, if it were not for the Kamovites, the army would have received the attack helicopter even before the collapse of the USSR, since it was for them that the competition was repeatedly "held back". In the end, at the time of acceptance into service, the Kamov car remained a toy from the cinema. There was only one combat helicopter - the Mi-28. :) Kamovtsy achieved equal characteristics with the Mi-28 only in the Ka-52 version. And then, provided that a non-standard weapons complex is installed on it. And against the Mi-28NM Ka-52 version, there is nothing to show at all, the overhead antenna on the 28th gives it a circular view.

      :)
      1. +1
        3 September 2018 21: 25
        Regarding Mil OKB, they make beautiful cars that are battle-hardened, but they are more conservative in their approaches, like the Tupolev OKB. But at the same time, the Kamov OKB is innovative, like the Sukhoi OKB, in my opinion this is a very good proportion in progress, without an underhanded struggle of course. And I wish you to read this book here.
        , and here is a link to this book http://militaryrussia.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=734&t=1846&sid=e43487912bf2705ac3742a3254f0938f&start=20#p114897, It is unfortunate that there is no book of this level on the Mi-28.
        1. +1
          3 September 2018 21: 44
          I recommend it again
          http://www.aviation-gb7.ru/Ka-50_02.htm
          1. +1
            4 September 2018 00: 43
            All this is in the book.
        2. +1
          4 September 2018 10: 02
          In my next room there lives a man who saw the Mi-28 / Ka-50 contest with his own eyes and participated in it as a leading designer. So I’m lucky in some ways :)

          You see, everything was very strange there with this competition. To begin with, it was not clear why "Kamov" climbed into it at all. No experience in creating impact machines. The Milevites, on the other hand, did not go into the maritime theme, but they accumulated vast experience on the Mi-24. He was also in the shock cannon modification. Most importantly, Mil had a well-established cooperation of subcontractors. They knew exactly where to order the gearbox, where to order and which radar to order, where the sighting system, where and what weapon to take. Kamov didn't have that. They took the Tula "Whirlwind" and missed, the "Arbalet" radar was late for the competition. And the problem with overlapping blades in general arose essentially due to the fact that the design bureau did not really know what level of maneuverability a ground combat vehicle needed.

          Yes, the Kamov machine is a beauty. Now she’s already quite a combat helicopter. But time is missed. Now we are trying to catch up with the lost ...

          Thank you for the book, I read it.

          PS check the link, it seems not working.
          1. +2
            4 September 2018 10: 34
            You can’t even guess whose design bureau your neighbor represented wink, and about everything else, everything is described on the links there, so to speak, a look from the other side (also let the neighbor read it)
          2. 0
            4 September 2018 15: 16
            Thank you for the book, I read it.

            PS check the link, it seems not working.

            Just go to the forum, to the library department, the Air Force section, helicopters.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    7. 0
      1 March 2019 15: 47
      To keep the competition. For example, Sushi is now trying to squeeze Migi out of the market, but this cannot be allowed
  9. +2
    3 September 2018 12: 56
    There are always reliability issues on all fire-and-forget systems. Detection of an active seeker or helicopter radar should immediately cause opposition from the electronic warfare systems, the setting of passive jamming. At the same time, these or those interferences will also be set by the SD which is controlled by the operator.

    Have application questions. I have little idea of ​​the tactics of shooting the BC from the folds of the terrain with "sticking out one radar" above the hub, especially in high-intensity conflicts. with this tactic, the helicopter is very vulnerable, because a clear front line is still difficult to imagine. Again, the question is for whom the air supremacy is. In this regard, it is already more logical to use such things as spike NLOS.

    Of course, to detect and fire at the enemy further than he detects and fires at you is correct, but whether there is a need for this magic "let it go" is a big question.
    1. +1
      3 September 2018 14: 25
      Quote: RuslanD36
      There are always reliability issues on all fire-and-forget systems.


      Like the issue price. It all depends on what and in what situation to shoot.

      As an alternative to homing - hypersonic ATGM, whose flight speed will be comparable to that of the SAM. In this case, the duel helicopter - the air defense system will be on approximately equal conditions.

      Quote: RuslanD36
      Have application questions. I have little idea of ​​the tactics of shooting the BC from the folds of the terrain with "sticking out one radar" above the hub, especially in high-intensity conflicts. with this tactic, the helicopter is very vulnerable, because a clear front line is still difficult to imagine. Again, the question is for whom the air supremacy is. In this regard, it is already more logical to use such things as spike NLOS.
      Of course, to detect and fire at the enemy further than he detects and fires at you is correct, but whether there is a need for this magic "let it go" is a big question.


      As already written here, the main advantage of the Apache is the ability to control the UAV. Thus, he becomes, as it were, a "group leader." And "jumping" - he no longer needs to substitute himself.

      Of course, UAVs can also be controlled via satellites, but here there is a greater risk of suppressing communications, delays in data transmission, etc. And so the operator processes the results of intelligence from the UAV and distributes targets.
      1. +1
        3 September 2018 20: 23
        . As already written here, the main advantage of Apache is the ability to control UAVs.


        And where did you get the idea that the Mi-28 does not have this opportunity? :) From the very first versions, it has a dedicated radio channel for UAV tracking. They almost never talk about this because the UAV itself is not there, but smart people worked in the USSR, they knew how to look forward.

        . As an alternative to homing - hypersonic ATGMs, the flight speed of which will be comparable to that of the SAM. In this case, the duel helicopter - SAM will be on approximately equal terms.


        It's not about the missile launch range or speed. The point is the target detection range. The antediluvian "Baby" in the era "before the IR" was almost an absolute weapon, since the operator saw the tank from afar, but the tanker did not see the operator at all.
        If a helicopter from a height of 2 km sees a tank at a distance of 5 km in a night sight, the tank is not dangerous to it. You can shoot an ordinary Sturm rocket.
        The main thing for a helicopter to see. And to see you need to hang high. The arguments about sticking out the antenna above the trees are from Hollywood. Firstly, this way you deprive yourself of the advantage of looking from above, which is stupid. And secondly, in helicopters of the classical scheme with hovering at one point, there is not so much ice, especially at the ground, when the air flow from the propellers creates an excess of pressure.

        Well, in the battle with the MANPADS operator, the helicopter loses in 7 cases out of 10. These are the calculated parameters. Alas. :)
    2. -2
      3 September 2018 15: 24
      Well, the whole point is in the cowardice of those who talk about the application, they think only by the criterion of "hide", and not "complete the task."
    3. +6
      3 September 2018 15: 43
      Quote: RuslanD36
      but whether there is a need for this magic "let it go" is a big question.

      In your opinion, the radio command guidance on the Mi28 is much more practical? Hanging on the sight until the rocket reaches (one! And there are 16!) Is certainly courageous ...
      Quote: RuslanD36
      I have little idea of ​​the tactics of shooting the BC from the folds of the terrain with "sticking out one radar"

      It's quite simple, read about Apache Longbow, usually the scheme is painted.
      1. -1
        3 September 2018 16: 35
        In your opinion, the radio command guidance on the Mi28 is much more practical?

        Depending on the situation

        (one! and there are 16 of them!)


        I have never seen in a DB zone that helicopters fly with such garlands. You won’t believe it, but in UR, as a rule, there is a guarantee limit for takeoffs and landings. Plus it's a ton. As a rule, 1-2 anti-tank missiles are enough.

        Hang on sight until the rocket reaches


        Well, in general, sending helicopters to an adequate air defense zone is a crime, so I have a question: what did helicopters forget in such a zone before the air defense was suppressed?

        It's quite simple, read about Apache Longbow, usually the scheme is painted.


        The scheduling in "theory" is of little interest to me. I am interested in practical application. And in practice, that the Yankees, that the Israelis fly high, high, shoot far, far.
      2. 0
        3 September 2018 20: 31
        . In your opinion, the radio command guidance on the Mi28 is much more practical? Hang on the sight until the rocket reaches (one! And there are 16!) This is of course manly


        Did someone teach Longbow to fire volleys? He also shoots one at a time. :)
        The Mi-28 has a target tracking machine, this is the same "fire-forget", but without an expensive missile. And I agree with Ruslan D36 that a helicopter in the normal air defense zone will be knocked down with any weapon. Not from the ground, so the fighter will be called, the same Mi-28 may well get it with "Arrow".
        1. +1
          4 September 2018 01: 59
          The Apache, Longbow radar has several modes of operation, all-round, and sector-wide, with different scales, so if the targets are radio-contrast, then on a certain scale it can fire up to four targets at once, with missiles with a semi-active radar seeker, my friend from the Air Force said He serves them.
          1. 0
            4 September 2018 11: 44
            These modes are standard for Mi-28 radar. In the same way - sightseeing and sighting. Only the panoramic one is not circular, since the military did not consider that such was needed.
            But I can’t say anything about multichannelism - I don’t know. But I agree, the Mi-28’s concept of using weapons is somewhat archaic, and what you wanted, the project was started as early as 1978 year, and actually frozen from 1990 to 2009. No money was given for the development, everything was carried out on an initiative basis. It was during this period of the "damned 90s" that Apache Longbow appeared.
            I think in the near future the concept of the use of weapons will be tightened by our helicopters.
          2. 0
            3 November 2018 12: 57
            on a certain scale, it can fire up to four targets at once, with missiles from a semi-active radar seeker

            Comrade confuses nothing? Precisely semi-active? Otherwise, how is the "fire and forget" mode implemented if the semi-active radar seeker requires target illumination by the guidance station until the moment the missile hits the target?
            1. 0
              7 November 2018 05: 40
              At the beginning and up to 2/3 of the way, the rocket flies in a semi-active-command guidance mode, mm radio range, hence the power of the missile’s radar itself is weak, suffice it to say that the helicopter’s sub-muzzle radar has a range of up to 10-12 km and there the energy potential is orders of magnitude greater than in the missile itself , and only at the final phase of guidance does he switch to homing.
              1. 0
                14 November 2018 16: 02
                Poactive radar and radio command guidance systems are still different things.
        2. 0
          3 November 2018 12: 52
          The Mi-28 has a target tracking machine, this is the same "fire-forget" but without an expensive missile

          If my memory serves me right, then the target tracking machine on the Mi-28 is a navigator-operator who keeps the aiming mark on the target until the moment it hits. But on the Ka-50 ACS was originally.
          1. 0
            4 November 2018 15: 14
            You are mistaken. This is exactly automatic target tracking. A system in which the navigator selects a target on the screen, selects auto-tracking, presses the trigger and can continue reading the magazine.
            1. 0
              14 November 2018 16: 06
              That is why in the video from Syria, the pilot of the 28th after the launch of the ATGM repeats to the navigator-operator "hold-hold-hold." And what is he supposed to keep there if he is on the machine? AND? what
              1. 0
                20 November 2018 11: 21
                :) Human factor. Operators are too lazy to read the instructions for the sighting system and to understand under what conditions which aiming mode is more effective. It’s easier for them to hold the tag.
                1. 0
                  20 November 2018 12: 44
                  If
                  Operators are too lazy to read the instructions for the sighting system and to understand under what conditions which aiming mode is more effective.
                  how did such a navigator operator get permission to take off as part of a helicopter crew?
                  1. 0
                    20 November 2018 13: 11
                    ??? You wrote as if the low competence of performers has never been a problem of the armed forces of different countries of the world. :)
                    And so they get permission. The machine is new, not mastered in the troops, it has been supplied to the troops recently, crews are needed.
                    1. 0
                      22 November 2018 12: 25
                      If I’m not mistaken, before admitting to independent sorties (and especially combat ones), flyers pass the test for knowing the complex of onboard equipment and the ability to use it. And so it turns out that the navigator operator has no idea what modes there are in the sighting system and how to use them. I do not think that they were sent to Syria clumsy and gouging.
                      1. 0
                        22 November 2018 13: 23
                        Have you never taken exams yourself? winked
                        The operator, theoretically, may know about the modes. But using them in real life just does not bother. The sighting system has a quite convenient manual control system, the operator uses what he understands better. As I recall, as many crews as possible were sent to Syria to gain practical combat use.
    4. +1
      4 September 2018 01: 39
      yes spike NLOS is an excellent weapon which, unlike missiles with GOS, can hit any targets. And anyone from scouts to helicopters can use such missiles - it would be from where to launch it.
  10. 0
    3 September 2018 13: 58
    Quote: venik
    If a rocket with an ARL GOS, then the spinner can shoot "from a jump": "Jumped" from behind an obstacle, found a target, entered data into the rocket, waited until the ARL GOS "captures the target", started up and "hid back" (all about all - A FEW seconds !!!)

    This is all good in the highlands.
    But how to "jump" Apache will be in our flat area. Hiding behind some kind of Christmas tree or pine tree from the radar? ))
    1. +1
      3 September 2018 14: 49
      Quote: lucul
      But how to "jump" Apache will be in our flat area. Hiding behind some kind of Christmas tree or pine tree from the radar? ))

      Will crawl at a height of 10 meters beyond the forest stripes. Even if it partially sticks out because of the tops of the trees, there will be no steady contact for the radar due to interference from the terrain.
      1. +5
        3 September 2018 15: 11
        Quote: Alex_59
        Will crawl at a height of 10 meters beyond the forest stripes. Even if it partially sticks out because of the tops of the trees, there will be no steady contact for the radar due to interference from the terrain.

        Well, the resolution and noise immunity of the AN / APG-78 stations of the millimeter range of the latest modifications are not very bad. Another question is what distance.
        Low-altitude "Kasta-2E", and the old P-19 steadily see the turntables on the intersection. A very strong, characteristic "comb" comes from the main rotor.
        1. +2
          3 September 2018 15: 49
          Quote: Bongo
          Low-altitude "Kasta-2E", and the old P-19 steadily see the turntables on the intersection. A very strong, characteristic "comb" comes from the main rotor.

          Seeing is half the battle. You also need to hit him with something. Will the sighting radars of our "Tungusoks" be able to accompany him? That is the question. And if they can, how will the missile defense system behave when flying through the same forest belt, behind which the Apache is scratching a kilometer away? I honestly don't know ...
          1. +2
            3 September 2018 16: 02
            Quote: Alex_59
            Seeing is half the battle. You also need to hit him with something. Will the sighting radars of our "Tungusoks" be able to accompany him? That is the question. And if they can, how will the missile defense system behave when flying through the same forest belt, behind which the Apache is scratching a kilometer away? I honestly don't know ...

            In some of our air defense systems, the "helicopter mode" is implemented. The first in this was the military "Cube". "Osa-AKM" is capable of firing at sitting helicopters with a rotating propeller. Although it must be admitted that a combat helicopter on a PMA is a very difficult target. But it's not about that No.
            Initially, I contested the thesis:
            ... the very theoretical possibility to use missiles with a radar guidance system, which should provide the helicopter with the utmost secrecy ...
            hi
            1. +1
              3 September 2018 16: 05
              Quote: Bongo
              But this is not about that. Initially, I challenged the thesis:

              Well, yes, especially with the wording "ultimate secrecy." The one who shines with the radar, to put it mildly, "extremely" secretive cannot be.
              1. +2
                3 September 2018 16: 13
                Quote: Alex_59
                The one who shines with the radar, to put it mildly, "extremely" secretive cannot be.

                That's it! Yes
              2. -1
                4 September 2018 21: 50
                one who shines for a few seconds and disappears as best he can. It’s much worse for someone who has to shine first to find a target, and then all the time the rocket flies.
    2. 0
      3 September 2018 15: 24
      A couple of kilometers - this is not the effect of curvature of the Earth.
    3. +4
      3 September 2018 15: 45
      Quote: lucul
      Hide behind some kind of Christmas tree, or pine from the radar?

      You yourself answered your question, that is exactly what it will do.
  11. -5
    3 September 2018 15: 11
    Our MI will be pulled up to the requirements of modern realities. Without any doubts. The helicopter is excellent. And it will be even better.
  12. -2
    3 September 2018 15: 57
    Comparing equal machines is a task for professional experts, not for couches like us.
    1. 0
      3 September 2018 20: 52
      Comparing equal machines is a task for professional experts, not for couches like us.
      To be completely honest, only those who have both of them can fully compare.
    2. +3
      3 September 2018 22: 08
      Comparing equal machines is a challenge for professional experts
      especially when you need to compare for a purchase, Indians have already compared, the result is known to all, yes, in general, without them it was known
  13. -3
    3 September 2018 23: 30
    In fact, you compare helicopters rather than weapons. I grabbed the tops, but not a word about the technical characteristics. And in general, only the pilot knows all the data about the car. To great joy, all data is classified. And do not poke your nose where the hell doesn’t pop your cable.
  14. -1
    4 September 2018 05: 05
    The Ka-52 is better than the Mi-28, more maneuverable (the coaxial scheme allows you to fly sideways and hang for a long time, in general, the whole range of everything that helicopters of the classical scheme, if they can, are much worse, and so the "classics" have to fly over the enemy for a new approach, which increases the risk of getting MANPADS in your "hot" tail) ATGM whirlwind at the Ka-52, against ATGM attack at the Mi-28, whirlwind range up to 10 km, armor penetration 1000 for DZ, and ATGM attack range up to 6 km and armor penetration 600mm for DZ , so the choice of Egypt is quite good (and the Turks wanted a Ka-52 for a long time, but they were not given) Mi-28s are produced so that the "plant does not stand" there is a good lobby Milevskoe, although in my opinion their Mi-24 is an excellent proven car, and drums in addition to assault (maybe landing troops) Mi-24 is still better to do Ka-52 - Alligator is good.
    1. +1
      4 September 2018 12: 21
      Quote: nikoliski
      Ka-52 is better than Mi-28, more maneuverable (coaxial design allows you to fly sideways and hang for a long time

      That's right, but the real loop of Nesterov is not made by the Ka-52, but by the Mi-28. :) And energetic maneuvering on Kamov vehicles cost the lives of two test pilots.


      Quote: nikoliski
      kur-ka-52 whirlwind versus Mi-28’s whirlwind, Mi-10’s whirlwind, whirlwind range of up to 1000km, armor penetration of 6 per DZ, and petur whirlwind of up to 600km range and XNUMXmm armor penetration of a wake

      Yes, only "Attack" is being done serially for all branches of the ground army and is a multipurpose complex of guided missile weapons of the ground forces. And "Whirlwind" is essentially a rocket of one machine and (I don't know how it is now, given a couple of years ago) is produced with huge problems in insignificant series. So yes, it flies further, carries more, only it is not. Ka-52 flies with "Attack" and very rarely with "Whirlwind".

      Quote: nikoliski
      so the choice of Egypt is quite good


      Egypt buys 32 Katranas for helicopter carriers, this is an uncontested option - there is no other such short attack helicopter in the world, and the hangars of the Mistrals have been rebuilt for the Ka-52. And I think that Egypt will continue to buy Kamov for the sake of unifying the park.

      Quote: nikoliski
      Mi-28s are produced so that the "plant does not stand" there is a good lobby Milevskoe, although in my opinion their Mi-24 is an excellent proven machine, and the drums, in addition to the assault (can land troops), the Mi-24 is still better than the Ka-52. The alligator is good.


      Just the opposite. Kamov has problems with orders now and his lobby is just several times stronger than Milevsky. So it was in the USSR and remains now. Any participant in the development of the Mi-28 will tell you that the contest was literally broken through the knee in order to drag the Ka-50 through it.
      Now the combat capabilities of both machines are equal. There are pluses for the Ka-52, there are pluses for the Mi-28.
      1. +3
        4 September 2018 14: 22
        You yourself admitted above that the Kamovites used to work only with the naval, what powerful lobby could they have in the army? Everything is exactly the opposite. Let us already link to that contest with your statements. The links led you about the opposite opinion
        1. +1
          4 September 2018 14: 27
          By the way, both cars participate in air darts - who knows by victories which crews are in the lead?
      2. +3
        4 September 2018 15: 42
        And vigorous maneuvering on Kamov vehicles cost the lives of two test pilots.
        And how many lives were given to their pilots Mi-24 and Mi-28, and not only during tests, but during combat training, how many times they chopped their own tails, including Afghanistan, and this is without combat losses. These are two test pilots Kamov’s design bureau died in complicated aerobatics, in such modes that the Mi-24 and Mi-28 would have crumbled in the air a long time ago, by the way, all this is in that book about the Ka-50 that I advised you.
        And from myself, it’s a pity that there is no such book about the Mi-28, it is also scrupulous and detailed, it doesn’t seem strange to you, since you say that the Ka-50 was raw and so on, it’s only in the hands of OKB Mil, according to Ka- 50 there are three books, the first one being published in 1996, there is something to ponder.
        1. +1
          4 September 2018 17: 54
          As for the Mi-28, it has a compartment in the middle of the hull, such as a technical one, and can be used to evacuate downed crews, it’s nonsense, because it’s no secret that the Mi-24 weighed more than a ton of this cabin, and as many sources say, the concept the airborne infantry fighting vehicle did not justify itself, the crews flew a maximum of three (3) people, and there was a period in Afghanistan when the equipment, he was shotgun, was returned to the cockpit on the Mi-28. Search and rescue helicopters are engaged in PPS Mi -8/17 and very often with a pair of Mi-24, so why bother with a garden, opposite to OKB K They proved it and showed that the Ka-50 helicopter is in no way inferior to either the Mi-24 or the Mi-28 and this is in the 1980s. In my opinion, the Mi-28 helicopter, carrying air under the name of the equipment / downed crew cabin, install a turret with 30 mm cannon and ammunition in 500-600 shells and still space for an additional fuel tank will remain. So many advantages: a sharp decrease in the size of the turret, there is no need in stores like on the NPPU-28N, increased firing accuracy, the nose can be redone by improving the visibility of the crew, can be installed in the nose of the radar cm range, in addition to over sleeve, that is, a lot of things can be done.
      3. -1
        5 September 2018 10: 46
        The whirlwind is placed on the modernized Su-25 (called the Su-39 for some reason), so he is not so lonely in the army, but as for who is better, imagine flying towards the Ka-52 and Mi-28 (with a range of up to 10 km of weapons) and the Mi-28 has up to 6 km, thus hovering the Ka-52 will destroy 5 Mi-28s before they approach it at a distance of defeat, that's all the competition is your "who is better", an ATGM attack even against outdated Osa-type missiles does not give Mi- 28 advantages of the "long arm", so the Indians preferred the "long arm" Appach.
        1. +2
          5 September 2018 13: 24
          Quote: nikoliski
          The vortex is put on the upgraded Su-25 (called Su-39 for some reason)

          Please remind how much Su-39 is adopted?
          1. 0
            26 September 2018 12: 15
            Su-39 passed tests in Afghanistan, and it is the only aircraft at that time that could successfully survive under MANPADS fire and use modern assault weapons.

            I am for the Ka-52. Why?
            Compact dimensions. - It’s easier to transport, harder to get in, serviced at jump sites without special equipment, cheaper operation.
            Coaxial design. Better payload, can fly in the mountains, good at hovering and slow taxiing. Resistant to wind. Easier to learn a pilot. MUCH easier to learn a marine pilot.
            One cabin. - Less duplicated equipment, lower price, easier to fly long distances, easier crew interaction.
            There is no excess weight, and that’s + to range, + to reservation + to price + to carrying capacity.
            Open electronics architecture - no comment.
            The presence of a single option - in the conditions of the development of AI - is a good economy and mobilization resource for the army.
            1. 0
              26 September 2018 13: 16
              Quote: goose
              Su-39 passed tests in Afghanistan, and it is the only aircraft at that time that could successfully survive under MANPADS fire and use modern assault weapons.

              The source of information do not share?
        2. +1
          6 September 2018 17: 30
          However, one should take into account the fact that the developments in the field of electronic warfare do not stand still, and it is not worth archaic to take into account only the physical features of a particular machine, as well as the capabilities of certain types of weapons. Today, there are a lot of systems that are capable of providing a varying degree of effectiveness against both ASD and missile defense: from the Russian President-S, the Belarusian BKO Amulet, and ending with western complexes. And even if you take into account this option, when the Ka-52 and Mi-28 met, then the advantage will most likely be behind higher manufacturability.
          1. +1
            6 September 2018 22: 23
            Yes, you are right, progress does not stand still, now, as a rule, high performance characteristics from the carrier itself are not required, but weapons and electronic equipment have dramatically increased their characteristics. For example, fighters F-22, F-35, Su-35S, Su-57, they have tandem "man-machine", and they do very well, the worse are combat helicopters, in addition, there is an example of the Ka-50, on which this was implemented back in the 1980s. In my opinion, everyone in the world will come to this, leaving one pilot or a pilot as a safeguard against the complete autonomy of artificial intelligence, so that a person makes a decision on God's punishment for his own kind, that is still cynicism and mercy.
  15. +4
    4 September 2018 17: 33
    Once again, I am convinced that comments on the article are more interesting and meaningful than the publication itself!
  16. -1
    9 September 2018 10: 15
    I have a children's question, how does the Mi-28NM differ from the Mi-28UB in REO, or what else? I read everything that is possible about them, but I still do not understand what the catch is.
  17. 0
    1 January 2020 13: 08
    If the author has not heard about the PTRK Hermes missiles, this does not mean that they are not there. The Ka-52 combat helicopters aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Russian heavy aircraft carrier cruiser going to the Syrian coast, while on the move, used the latest Hermes long-range anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Products are capable of hitting targets at a distance of 30 km, while the most effective helicopter ATGMs - “Attack”, “Whirlwind” and Hellfire - this figure does not exceed 10 km. According to experts, the use of Hermes in Syria was not only tested in battle by a unique missile system, but also demonstrated a novelty to potential buyers, especially Egypt.
    The Tula Design Bureau of Instrument Engineering has been developing and testing the latest ATGMs since the mid-1990s. Despite the fact that Hermes is officially called an anti-tank missile, it is a universal product that can hit a wide range of targets, including buildings, field fortifications and enemy manpower.
    “A small batch of missiles was prepared for testing, which should be tested on Ka-52 helicopters,” an informed source in the Russian military-industrial complex told Izvestia. - Tests in a combat situation helped to refine the missile system, which should become a standard weapon for Russian Alligator combat helicopters. Earlier tests of the Hermes were planned to be carried out on Ka-52 helicopters already located at the Khmeimim airbase. But there were certain difficulties with the development of missiles. Therefore, it was decided to test the “Hermes” in more difficult conditions of ship-based.
    As the editor-in-chief of the Militaryrussia Internet project Dmitry Kornev told Izvestia, the latest Hermes rocket is equipped with a combined guidance system capable of detecting enemy targets even in the most difficult weather conditions.
    “Hermes has a combined homing head (GOS) with an infrared sensor and a laser guidance channel,” says Kornev. - A missile can be “illuminated” from the ground. That is, the aircraft gunner, helicopter or plane will direct a laser beam at the target, and the Hermes seeker will “see” the laser spot and take the target. But if the laser does not have a backlight, then infrared sensors come into effect, which will detect enemy targets by the generated heat. In the future, Hermes missiles may appear miniature radar stations, which in combination with infrared guidance will provide unique accuracy of the latest products.
    According to the expert, the speed of the Russian guided missile is very close to hypersonic.
    “The two-stage design of the Hermes is largely unified with the design of the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile system,” says Kornev. - The launch stage accelerates the rocket and displays in the target area, after which it is separated from the product. Then a combat unit comes into action, which is already looking for a target, and then destroys it. The disadvantage of this arrangement is the large weight of the rocket. According to reports, the product weighs more than 90 kg, while ATGM "Whirlwind" - two times lighter.
    Currently, only one anti-tank missile system - the Israeli Spike-NLOS - is capable of hitting targets at ranges of several tens of kilometers. Developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Spike has long been the most secret weapon in the arsenal of the IDF. The fact that the launchers of long-range missiles disguised themselves as Merkava tanks testifies to the degree of closeness, and fake guns were even mounted on them for reliability. Now Israeli ATGMs are installed not only on land launchers, but also on helicopters, and even on boats and small ships.
    “Spike-NLOS was created in the 1980s to deal with massive tank attacks of the Egyptian army,” says Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland, to Izvestia. - Hermes and Spike are designed to solve the same tactical problems. Given the decision of Egypt to purchase ship Ka-52K helicopters, Cairo’s desire to get a decent analogue of the Israeli long-range anti-tank complex is quite obvious. Therefore, the combat use of "Hermes" was not only a test for the Russian missile, but also a demonstration of the potential buyers.
  18. 0
    9 September 2021 18: 29
    Garbage article, author -> author -> the author is not a pilot, an analyst, that's who did not reveal his potential, it is the Ka-50M, it is the M, this should be, and not this Ka-52 garbage, and the Mi-28 is not has gone far from the Mi-24 (35)!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"