Mi-35M helicopters in Special Operations

93
Mi-35M helicopters in Special Operations


Russian army aviation equipped with several types of combat helicopters. One of the main models on its arms is a transport and combat Mi-35M. The crews of such helicopters regularly carry out combat sorties and solve various tasks. They independently attack designated targets or provide combat use of other aviation equipment.



Helicopters in the frame


Transport and combat Mi-35M of various units and formations are widely used in the Special Operations area, and the Ministry of Defense regularly shows the combat performance of helicopters and their crews. Over the past months, pilots and their equipment have been the subject of reports by the department’s press service several times. At the same time, they talked about the specifics of their service, and also showed footage of real combat work.

Thus, in the last days of August, the Ministry of Defense showed one of the episodes of the use of the Mi-35M in the Krasnolimansk direction. The helicopter commander spoke about the combat flight. The pilots were tasked with destroying an enemy stronghold. The helicopter reached the launch line, detected the target and attacked it with unguided missiles. To reduce risks, shooting was carried out from a nose-up position, after which the helicopter performed an anti-aircraft maneuver and fired decoys. The stronghold was reportedly destroyed.

A few days later, the Ministry of Defense demonstrated the joint work of the Mi-35M transport and combat helicopters and the Ka-52 attack helicopters. Crews from the Central Army Aviation military The districts also worked in the Krasnolimansk direction and were supposed to destroy another stronghold. The use of missile weapons, including guided ones, was demonstrated.


On October 10, a new report was released, the heroes of which were helicopter pilots with the call sign “Zeus”. They spoke about their positive experience of working on the Mi-35M, the characteristics of the service and the performance of combat missions. The pilots highly appreciated their equipment and also reported that as part of the Special Operation, the crews quickly gain experience and improve their skills.

Spectacular footage of combat work was again shown. The report included takeoff, flight to the target, launches of unguided missiles and departure from the combat course. In addition, as in other reports, they showed a view of the terrain and the target through the optical-electronic system of the helicopter. Having completed the fire mission, Zeus returned to the airfield.

The combat work of Mi-35M helicopters and their crews continues. They are used in all main directions, destroy targets independently or support other helicopters and show the desired results. We can expect that in the future the Ministry of Defense will continue to publish reports about helicopter pilots, their equipment and the work they do.

Modern generation


The modern transport and combat helicopter Mi-35M, used in Special Operations, is one of the last representatives of its family. Let us recall that the first production version of the Mi-24 helicopter was put into service half a century ago - in 1972. Four years later, Soviet army aviation received the modernized Mi-24V with a number of innovations and advantages. This vehicle was exported under the designation Mi-35.

By the end of the nineties, the existing family of helicopters was supplemented by the Mi-24VM or Mi-35M modification. In the mid-35s, mass production of such equipment for export began. Subsequently, the Mi-2010M was supplied to a number of foreign countries. In 24, the first batch of Mi-XNUMXVM was ordered by the Russian Ministry of Defense; later new orders appeared. Under these contracts, army aviation received more than fifty new helicopters.


The latest modifications of the transport-combat helicopter, known as the Mi-24P-1M and Mi-24P-2M (export designation Mi-35P-1M/2M) or "Phoenix", were first introduced in 2017. Less than two years later, in In 2019, this equipment reached mass production, and the first products went to the troops. According to various sources, Phoenixes remain in production, but the number of such helicopters in army aviation is unknown.

Thus, the formations and units of the army aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces have a large number of transport and combat helicopters of the Mi-24 family. A significant share of this fleet consists of modern Mi-35M and Mi-35P-1M/2M aircraft, built in the last 10-12 years. Now this equipment is actively used in the Special Operation for the Defense of Donbass and solves a variety of combat missions.

Potential growth


During all modernizations of the past and present, the Mi-24 helicopter retained the general architecture and main design features. As a result, modern Mi-35M/P are largely similar to all their predecessors. The helicopters were updated and their combat qualities were improved by replacing individual components and assemblies, improving systems and weapons, etc.

Like all its predecessors, the current Mi-35 is built according to the traditional design with one main rotor and one tail rotor. The special fuselage layout with tandem crew cabins and a cargo-passenger cabin behind them has been retained. The Mi-35M uses an energy-absorbing non-retractable landing gear, but the Mi-35PM has a retractable one.

The Mi-35M received a new propulsion system based on two VK-2500 products with a power of up to 2700 hp. in emergency mode and 2200 hp. on the takeoff The five-bladed main rotor with a new hub and composite blades, as well as the X-shaped tail rotor, were borrowed from the Mi-28 attack helicopter. All these innovations made it possible to improve flight performance and load capacity.


The Mi-35M / Mi-24VM helicopter received the OPS-24N surveillance and sighting system based on the GOES-324 optical-electronic station with day and night channels, thanks to which it became 35-hour. Modern avionics are used and “glass cockpits” are made based on multifunctional displays. In the Mi-1P-2M/24M modifications, the weapons control devices were changed and other devices were installed. At the request of the customer, it is possible to install an on-board radar - for the first time in the Mi-XNUMX family.

From the point of view of weapons, the Mi-35 is similar to other variants of the Mi-24, but has certain advantages. Thus, the Mi-35M uses a mobile cannon mount with a 23-mm GSh-23 gun. In turn, the Mi-35P-1M/2M received a fixed gun, but of a larger caliber - GSh-30K.

Under the shortened wing of the Mi-35M there are four suspension points with a total payload capacity of 1,5 tons. The newer Mi-35P-1M/2M received an elongated wing with three suspension points under each plane. All variants of the Mi-35 can use unguided missiles and bombs. The built-in cannon can be supplemented with hanging containers. The use of Ataka, Shturm or Vikhr anti-tank missile systems is also envisaged. In the future, such helicopters will become carriers of the new Hermes-A missiles. It is possible to carry R-60 air-to-air missiles for self-defense.

Using standard detection equipment, the latest Mi-35 helicopters can monitor the situation within a radius of 10-15 km and detect various targets, primarily ground ones. The destruction of such objects is carried out within a radius of 6-8 km, depending on their type and the weapons used. Unguided and anti-tank missiles, as well as cannons, allow the helicopter to attack and destroy a wide range of targets - from manpower to heavy armored vehicles.


A characteristic feature and advantage of the Mi-35 is the ability to transport several paratroopers in a separate cabin. In this case, the helicopter turns into a transport for landing or receives several additional units of small arms weapons to improve overall fire performance.

It should be noted that in terms of a number of tactical and technical characteristics, equipment and capabilities, even the latest modifications of the Mi-24/35 transport and combat helicopter are inferior to the specialized attack Mi-28 or Ka-52. However, practice shows that this is not a fundamental obstacle to effective combat work and use. Such design and configuration deficiencies are leveled out by the competent use of equipment, incl. joint work of machines of different types.

Confirmed by practice


Over half a century of service, transport and combat helicopters of the Mi-24 family have proven themselves to be successful, reliable and efficient machines capable of solving various tasks. Due to consistent modernization, their characteristics and capabilities constantly grew. Recent projects continue this development and again achieve the desired results.

Modern Mi-35M and Mi-35P-1M/2M are being tested in practice right now. These helicopters and their crews are involved in the current Special Operation and are systematically engaged in the destruction of various enemy objects and targets. They are making their contribution to the current demilitarization of the Kyiv regime, and also provide testing and development of technical solutions for the further development of the Mi-24 family.
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    24 October 2023 05: 09
    Engine VK-2500: takeoff mode - 2400 hp, emergency mode - 2700 hp. Typo in the text...
    1. +7
      24 October 2023 11: 44
      For me, far from aviation, it is a mystery:
      The helicopter reached the launch line, detected the target and attacked it with unguided missiles. To reduce risks, shooting was carried out from a pitched position,[B] [/ b]
      If the missiles are unguided, and the shooting is on the move, and even from a pitch-up (jump), what devices (sights) are such shooting carried out? How to combine the point of destruction with so many variables in motion? Or is there a computer on board that gives the pilot the command to launch unguided rockets, keeping all the variables in mind?
      Something like a torpedo firing machine on my old submarine, where data was manually entered: distance, bearing and speed of the target. But the torpedo already had at least an acoustic target guidance system and it was enough for it to catch the target noise with its receiver... but what about that? Explain, who knows...
      1. +2
        24 October 2023 16: 45
        Such crap: I took off, banged (the expense is obvious) and... the grass didn’t grow. That's not true for everyone, guys. Not for everyone, flyers...
      2. +4
        24 October 2023 22: 30
        Of course the computer gives instructions.
        While still on the ground, the coordinates of the target are entered and the computer gives the coordinates of the launch area and the necessary flight characteristics.
        The accuracy there is acceptable, but naturally not for hitting precise targets, but for covering bad ones. A group entered a forest regiment, they were digging trenches, and here it was effective to cover them; if, again, the mortar battery was working, it could be covered within normal limits. If, of course, there is a single box there, then it is difficult to target it from a pitching position, and even then you can scare it away.
        Large bunks usually don’t work like this, but more precisely when possible.
        There is no problem for the on-board computer to tell the dispersion spot to cover the target spot.
        The formulas are known, the speed of the turntable, wind speed, temperature are read online...
        The main thing is that the coordinates are given correctly, accurate and up-to-date, and not so that the enemy was there yesterday, and we’ll fly to bomb tomorrow. And so the accuracy is commensurate with the accuracy of ground-based MLRS and higher than that of ersatz helicopter bunks and a motorized skiff or pickup truck.
        1. +2
          25 October 2023 12: 13
          Georgiy Sviridov (Georgiy), thanks for the answer! It turns out that I correctly assumed the participation of an on-board computer (targeting complex), which takes into account many parameters and inputs before shooting. The cons under your comment from readers are surprising. And here it’s not entirely clear to me, if you don’t agree or see a mistake on your part, then it’s better to write it yourself and correct what’s wrong. But it turns out that they pooped in the bushes.
      3. +4
        24 October 2023 23: 57
        When you see videos from NWO, you can often see fields in the style of a lunar landscape. This is the result of the operation of the MLRS, the gunners’ errors (etc.) and... firing of the rocket launchers from the pitching position.
        Such shooting covers the target area.
        1. +1
          25 October 2023 14: 42
          You can’t get a lunar landscape from S-8 - you can’t get it from the word at all - at the training ground or a hole in the ground or an earthen mound the size of a saucepan
      4. TIR
        0
        25 October 2023 00: 38
        There were shots of the launch of the NARs from the Ka-52M. We fell right into the forest planting on target. On the Kamovs, it seems like they are approaching the launch area using instruments. In general, if the Ka-52 is assembled with armored glass from flat parts, then its armor can be increased. The Mi-35 must be abandoned. Or send for export
        1. +4
          26 October 2023 10: 46
          Tell the pilots and soldiers who went through Afghanistan and Chechnya about the bad and unnecessary Mi 24/35
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. 0
        24 December 2023 21: 22
        No way. This is shooting in squares. 10 rockets per 1 sq km. But the helicopter's resource is being emaciated and the crew is at risk. That's all for combat use. It's simply called horror. Nightmarish.
        1. 0
          25 December 2023 08: 25
          Glagol1 (Andrey), you upset me by pointing out the complete uselessness of shooting from a pitched position. And where are the authorities looking, wasting the helicopter’s resource? request
  2. -8
    24 October 2023 07: 14
    Even the rich USA has ONE combat helicopter for the army (AN-64) and ONE for the Marine Corps (AN-1). And only in the Country of Pink Ponies THREE combat helicopters are in production simultaneously (Mi-35, Mi-28 and Ka-52). Incompatible in terms of equipment, spare parts and crews. In a normal country this would be called sabotage.
    1. +1
      24 October 2023 07: 41
      But what about the UH-60, the same black hawk that the Somali guys landed in the early nineties? He is also in the ranks. In addition, all three come from the 70s, and the AH-1 is even ten years older, if I’m not mistaken.
      1. +11
        24 October 2023 09: 09
        We were talking about COMBAT helicopters. UH-60 - transport aircraft. Just like our Mi-8.
        1. -2
          24 October 2023 09: 13
          In this case, the Mi-35/24 is a transport and combat vehicle, just like the UH60. Total, two “pure” combat ones on each side. Questions?
          1. +10
            24 October 2023 09: 36
            Let's start with the fact that in the USA the Army and the Marine Corps are two different planets. Each with its own weapons, its own logistics, its own schools for pilots. And each of the structures has ONE combat helicopter. For the Army it is Apache, for the Marine Corps it is Cobra. No options.
            We have three combat helicopters in ONE structure. Which requires training pilots and repairmen in THREE different programs, and having THREE different flows in logistics. What crazy money is spent on this, compared to having one combat helicopter in service - only God knows.
            In this case, the Mi-35/24 is a transport and combat vehicle, just like the UH60

            Have you modestly forgotten about the Mi-8 AMTSH? It is also a "transport and combat" one.
            As for the Mi-24, it turned out back in Afghanistan that it can either be combat (in which case its transport cabin is a dead weight) or transport, but the helicopter is not able to carry weapons on pylons. They tried to lighten the Mi-35 (they shortened the wings, lightened the chassis, making it non-retractable), but in fact it is either a combat or a transport one. In all the videos where troops are landing from the Mi-35, the pylons are either empty or the blocks for the NAR are empty.
            1. -4
              24 October 2023 09: 50
              that it can be either combat (and then its transport cabin is dead weight) or transport
              - no one in this world is perfect, has this made the crocodile any worse?
              1. +2
                24 October 2023 10: 45
                The remark concerned the opponent’s statement that the Mi-24/35 is a transport and combat vehicle.
                And a “crocodile” without a transport cabin is a Mi-28.
                In general, everything is like a classic. The boots should be made by the shoemaker, and the pies should be baked by the pie maker.
                1. -1
                  24 October 2023 11: 19
                  PeZhe, you are fundamentally wrong. Mi-35, Mi-28, Mi-8/171, Ka50/52 have essentially the same engine, a lot of identical instruments, even the gearbox and propellers are the same, except for Kamovtsev. The Mi-35M is essentially a Mi-28 in an old, albeit modified fuselage. It is simply cheaper due to well-established production and the absence of some sighting flight equipment. It is needed at least so that we can offer for export an inexpensive, reliable and familiar car to the buyer. Who will buy your decommissioned turntable? And servicing this variety is much easier than a completely new (except for the engine) Ka-52. The 35th is essentially a transitional model to the Mi-28
                  1. +7
                    24 October 2023 12: 52
                    Quote: URAL72
                    The Mi-35M is essentially a Mi-28 in an old, albeit modified fuselage.

                    Mi-35 is tit in hand. It was ordered because the furniture maker did not believe in the readiness of the Ka-52 and Mi-28 for military service.
                    As a result, it was the Mi-2014 that flew to Crimea in 35 - while in Torzhok they were trying to “make friends” of the Ka-52 and Mi-28 with missiles. smile
                  2. +2
                    24 October 2023 13: 05
                    The devil, as always, is in the details. I can assume that the Mi-35 is backward compatible with the Mi-28 in terms of engines, GR, elastomeric bushing, GV. At least there were such non-serial demonstrations. But in terms of transmission on the RV they are not compatible. And both of them have nothing in common with the Ka-52 coaxial, except for engines.
                    And the most important thing is avionics and crews. Well, maintenance and repairs. There is complete sadness here. And who prevented us from stopping at one helicopter for two decades is a mystery to me.
                    1. +4
                      24 October 2023 18: 21
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      And who prevented us from stopping at one helicopter for two decades is a mystery to me.

                      The state of industry was a hindrance. When the minimum needs of the army could only be met with the parallel operation of two factories. For the Ka-52, the maximum production rate was, EMNIP, 25 vehicles per year, and the initial rate was 10-15 vehicles.
                      And the condition of the helicopters themselves also interfered. When, even after the start of mass production, it was not clear which of the machines would be completed and whether they would be completed at all.
                      1. -1
                        24 October 2023 19: 34
                        Who prevented the development of production of the Kamov helicopter in both Arsenyev and Rostov? Yes, and in Ulan-Ude it was possible. But no, it’s better to produce hodgepodge. In addition, they compete with each other for engines.
                      2. +1
                        24 October 2023 21: 48
                        Who prevented the development of production of the Kamov helicopter in both Arsenyev and Rostov?
                        I think that there will be no answer to this rhetorical question.
                      3. +3
                        25 October 2023 05: 13
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Who prevented the development of production of the Kamov helicopter in both Arsenyev and Rostov? Yes, and in Ulan-Ude it was possible.

                        Would you like the towers to fork out money in peacetime to launch three factories at once for the production of the Ka-52? I think that the decision to launch at Arsenyev was not just made. But the Ka-52 is too good - the son of the “Black Shark”, and its naval version was needed for the UDC. And there are at least 4 of them. were going to build.
                      4. +2
                        25 October 2023 05: 42
                        Hmm, Ulan-Ude used to make a lot of all sorts of flying equipment: airplanes and helicopters. Now only Mi-8 and its modifications. Yes, and the staff has decreased by 8 times. With the beginning of the SVO, the team increased, men suddenly wanted to work/book jobs as storekeepers and general workers.
                      5. +1
                        25 October 2023 10: 15
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Who prevented the development of production of the Kamov helicopter in both Arsenyev and Rostov?

                        The machine is not ready for operation. The Mi-35 was not ordered because of a good life.
                    2. -2
                      25 October 2023 03: 40
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      And who prevented us from stopping at one helicopter for two decades is a mystery to me.

                      Objective reality.
                      If deliveries of the Ka-52 are stopped today, the Kamov Design Bureau will simply die. He doesn't have another production project on the pipeline.
                      And if the production of the Mi-28 is stopped, the topic of the attack helicopter will die, since the Kamov Design Bureau is not capable of creating a combat vehicle. The Ka-52 is actually a Mi-28 in a coaxial design.

                      The Mi-24\Mi-35 is not an attack vehicle, but primarily an amphibious assault vehicle. All the innovations that are described in the article appeared on it only in recent years. And not for our army, but for export. The USSR supplied the Mi-24 to many places, but its strike version appeared only based on the experience of Afghanistan, and then rather in small series than on the assembly line. After the collapse of the USSR, foreign owners of the Mi-24 wanted to expand its strike capabilities and, based on the equipment of the Mi-28, they added all the new items to it.

                      In general, the real development of the topic of attack helicopters occurs only within the Mil cooperation; Kamov conceptually copies the solutions on a coaxial scheme, and the Mi-35 is a “side” branch of Mil’s attack vehicles.
                      There’s not much to choose from, as you can see.
                    3. +7
                      25 October 2023 05: 09
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      And who prevented us from stopping at one helicopter for two decades is a mystery to me.

                      By definition, there could not be one helicopter. The Mi-24 is a machine proven by practice and war, and has proven itself to be excellent. And his airborne squad was never a burden. When relocating there, various equipment could be loaded, and you couldn’t imagine a better way to deliver command personnel. We have them as a general's taxi, incl. used . They gave our air defense division a Mi-24 squadron, immediately withdrawn from Afghanistan, to intercept low-altitude, low-speed targets. It was after Rust that the border air defense formations were strengthened. And they justified themselves in this capacity beyond all praise. And when the command arrived, the entire commission could fly through the inspection points on such a handsome aircraft. Head to high mountain points. We didn't have any other helicopters. And it’s much safer to evacuate the crews of a downed plane/helicopter on this one - after all, the armor is from a rifleman. And the fact that it’s “either-or” in the sense of weapons or landing forces/passengers, so the gun is always loaded. And now the engines are more powerful, and perhaps something can be taken on suspensions during the landing.
                      In any case, the American military, incl. Helicopter pilots always respected the Mi-24 very much, and envied us that there was one.
                      Therefore, there have never been any questions or doubts regarding the need for the Mi-24\35. The choice was between purely combat Ka-52 and Mi-28. And the disputes were serious.
                      The Ka-52 is better in all respects - higher combat capabilities, avionics, and overall survivability. But it is also more complex, more expensive, and piloting it requires special training and skills. You can’t just switch from the Mi-24 to the Ka-52. But on the Mi-28 it’s quite possible. And this last argument was cited by many aviators in favor of the Mi-28, even when it was not yet in service. I personally spoke with several experienced helicopter pilots about this topic. They were not familiar with coaxial machines, so they were not only afraid, but specifically retrained, new skills, new instincts. But young pilots board the Ka-52 easily and praise it very much. SVO and showed in practice which combat helicopter should be the main one.
                      So, if you had to choose from scratch, then as a combat vehicle you would definitely choose the Ka-52, as the most advanced and with enormous development potential.
                      The Mi-28, despite the fact that it is inferior in many ways, is still cheaper and easier to maintain. That’s why he was the first to export, and apparently that’s why he started purchasing for himself in equal proportions.
                      The Ka-52 was also exported - to Egypt, to complete the two Mistrals that we did not get. That is why all three helicopters are in service. Over time, relying on rich experience of use, they will probably make a choice in favor of one of the two. But the Mi-24\35 will be in service in any situation. An armored troop compartment and excellent strike capabilities, no one else has this. A flying infantry fighting vehicle, as Mil intended.
                      If the choice falls on the Ka-52 as a single attack helicopter for the Army and Navy, then all combat Mi-28s can be exported. But since now the Army and the Aerospace Forces are sharply increasing their staffing levels, new air regiments and brigades of the Army Aviation are being formed, all three types of helicopters will serve. Distribute them to different districts and directions to simplify the logistics of their service, and let them serve. Moreover, in the Navy we have only coaxial officers, so the training of pilots, navigators and technicians for them has been and will continue to be. And no problems in logistics. It’s just that now the Army Aviation has a coaxial attack helicopter. And he is the best.
                      1. +2
                        25 October 2023 10: 30
                        Quote: bayard
                        And when the command arrived, the entire commission could fly through the inspection points on such a handsome aircraft. Head to high mountain points. We didn't have any other helicopters.

                        Hmmm.... judging by the distribution of helicopter squadrons in the country's air defense, Mi-24s were a rare beast - only in the Leningrad Military District, PribVO and TurkVO. And besides them, there were always other helicopter units and formations of air defense forces in the area.
                        In almost all districts, the air defense forces had their own separate regiments, squadrons and detachments flying the Mi-8 and Mi-9. In several districts there were squadrons and detachments already flying the Mi-26 (ZakVO, LenVO, Siberian Military District).
                      2. +1
                        25 October 2023 22: 38
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Hmmm.... judging by the distribution of helicopter squadrons in the country's air defense, Mi-24s were a rare beast - only in the Leningrad Military District, PribVO and TurkVO.

                        They forgot the ZakVO. In 1989, they gave us a squadron, based in Sangachal, at the school aviation airfield (Armavir School). They were on duty one at a time (during the threatened period and during martial law there were two) in Kurdamir and Imishli.
                        Well, about air transport. In our division, of course, there was a MiG-25 fighter regiment, there were also PSS helicopters, but they tried not to touch them. And the Mi-24 is a whole squadron, and aces with experience in combat operations in the mountains. And of course the armor. After all, we were turbulent there - three martial law in three years. Well, and most importantly, there is no need to ask anyone to provide aviation transport. The commander flew to Nasosnaya, Kala or Sangachali, transferred with his retinue to the Mi-24 and went to the points.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        In several districts there were squadrons and detachments already flying the Mi-26

                        To this day I will not forget how in half a day 17 (seventeen) helicopter regiments (44-48 vehicles each) were transferred to us (to Azerbaijan), and in addition several airborne divisions on Il-76s. And this is not counting the BTA aircraft (An-12, An-22 and Il-76) engaged in the evacuation of military families. There was really a mess in the sky. And if they had arrived in place, but no - they began evacuating the Armenian population and transferring troops. I don’t remember a greater density of aviation in the sky since then.
                        And we have our own helicopter squadron. If you want command over the points, you can scare away the militants in Karabakh so that our separate radar company is not disturbed, and combat duty with two sides in the Imishli Ledge. Thanks to the fact that in Imishli and Kurdamir (this is nearby) we had duty officers (Mi-24) on standby, we managed to foil a terrorist attack on the oil and gas pipeline... Well, by the “second coming of Rust” (when he was along our southern borders in the Tsesna "was traveling) were ready - according to operational information, he wanted to fly to us again, but this time from the south. But we were already waiting for him, and he was arrested then, either in Iraq or in Pakistan. But for at least a week, control over low altitudes on the border was especially close.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        In several districts there were squadrons and detachments already flying the Mi-26

                        We also visited Mi-26s and old but hefty Mi-6s in January-February 1990, no less than a regiment in total... fellow The whole sky is in helicopters. hi
                      3. 0
                        30 October 2023 11: 18
                        Quote: bayard
                        ...we were given a squadron in 1989, based in Sangachali, at the school aviation airfield (Armavir School). They were on duty one at a time...
                        ..at the school aviation airfield - you are very evil lol Well, at least they called it 'the field airfield of the Aji-Kabul training regiment'... it's a shame, you know laughing
                        '90 in nearby Pirsagat aka Cowboy They threw link 24P, they were assembled from boxes on the spot. The guys sat away from the authorities and were happy... and they didn’t bother us... school aviation - that's what they came up with lol
      2. +3
        25 October 2023 01: 22
        Quote: Rus_80
        AH-1 is even ten years older, if I'm not mistaken

        "Super Cobras" are available only in the USMC aviation. These are deeply modernized, fairly recent helicopters, equipped with modern avionics and two engines.
    2. +12
      24 October 2023 12: 50
      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
      In a normal country this would be called sabotage.

      * looks closely at two types of LCS being produced in parallel in a normal country. smile

      Three types of helicopters are the legacy of “15 years without orders.” As a result, when the Armed Forces finally remembered about helicopters, it suddenly turned out that the industry simply could not digest their money. The formula “product-money-product” without production suddenly stopped working.
      As a result, we had to order helicopters from two suppliers at once - Mil alone would not have been able to cope, and converting the Progress into Mile helicopters would have required time and additional funding.
      A legacy of the Soviet era - each plant is designed for the products of its “own” design bureau.
      Actually, exactly the same situation arose with Sukhoi - Irkutsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur diverged so much in the modification tree that they had to order two types of Su-30. And then, instead of one of them, a Su-35 appeared.

      Returning to helicopters: the third type, the Mi-35, appeared because the furniture maker was wary of having no taxes in the world products that have undergone testing at least in export orders. And so I decided to hedge my bets by simultaneously ordering an attack helicopter of a localized “export” version, which had already been tested. What is characteristic is that Serdyukov turned out to be absolutely right - that the Ka-52 and the Mi-28, even after being put into service, showed so many defects during military operation in Torzhok that they were eliminated until 2015. Because at first the vehicles that arrived in Torzhok could only fire a cannon - the NARs turned off the engine when starting, and the ATGMs had problems with guidance.
      1. +3
        24 October 2023 13: 13
        All the problems you listed regarding the Ka-52 were eliminated during the testing of the Ka-50. Which, by the way, won the competition on the 28th, and was supposed to become the only combat helicopter. But the oligarchs close to Rostvertol pushed their right to continue to sit on budget flows at the top. The Mi-35 was just the icing on the cake.
        Thus, I personally believe that the presence of three combat helicopters in production at the same time is not based on technical reasons at all.
        1. +4
          24 October 2023 18: 34
          Quote: Mr. PeZhe
          All the problems you listed regarding the Ka-52 were eliminated during the testing of the Ka-50.

          Well, yes, well, yes... and in the Ka-52 they were allegedly eliminated.
          And as soon as the cars fell into the hands of end users, it immediately became clear that the Ka-52 and Mi-28 for 2015 had the same problem.
          - It turns out that the old problem with the NAR has not been resolved?
          - Yes, there is a flaw. The rockets are very smoky, there is a danger that the smoke will get into the engine, and it just “sneezes”. The car has a protection system: when firing NAR, water is injected into the engines, which increases their power and compensates for smoke. But this system works only with the forward movement of the helicopter, on hover, the engine can support.
          - This promise to fix?
          - While not heard. Probably something needs to be changed in the rocket engine. But when will they be replaced, if there are a lot of old NAR? ..

          This is the Mi-28, but the Ka-52 in Torzhok had the same problem.

          Both vehicles also had problems with ATGMs - but here, rather, there are questions about the ease of control and the complexity of servicing the ATGM guidance system.
          1. -2
            24 October 2023 19: 37
            With proper helicopter tactics, NARs are not needed at all. ATGMs with mounted launchers - yes, they are needed. And drones are even more necessary. The same Lancets used from a helicopter will complete 90% of the tasks. And when they are launched, the engines are not in danger of surging.
            1. +3
              25 October 2023 01: 13
              The lancet in its current form is a snag spread out in all directions; its helicopter propeller will immediately blow away when uncoupled. We don’t have mounted-launched anti-tank guns, except for LMUR and S-8L (there are few of the former, the latter did not go beyond the exhibition)
              1. +1
                25 October 2023 05: 23
                Quote from alexoff
                We don’t have mounted-launched anti-tank guns, except for LMUR and S-8L (there are few of the former, the latter did not go beyond the exhibition)

                And "Whirlwinds"?? They really showed themselves in the Northern Military District.
      2. +1
        25 October 2023 05: 46
        It seems that only the Su-30SM is produced in Irkutsk; completion of the Su-30 roofing felts MKI, roofing felts MKK or MKV.
        1. +3
          25 October 2023 11: 11
          Quote: AlexisT
          It seems that only the Su-30SM is produced in Irkutsk; completion of the Su-30 roofing felts MKI, roofing felts MKK or MKV.

          Irkutsk - these are former Indian Su-30s.
          The story there was typical for our aircraft of the late 2010s. By the time of Serdyukov, aircraft technology had degraded so much that new production vehicles were needed here and now. There was no time to rebuild the process - already the air regiments were reduced to squadrons. Therefore, it was decided to order what is already in production and what the plant is optimized for. Specifically, according to Sukhoi, at that time there were the Irkutsk Su-30SM (nee the Indian Su-30MKI) and the Komsomol Su-30M2 (nee the Chinese Su-30MKK). The Irkutsk vehicles were richer in equipment, but the Komsomol ones... they were simply in series - EMNIP, they were distributed among the regiments as combat training, in return for the completely worn-out Su-27UB.
          At the next stage, Irkutsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur completely separated into branches of the Sukhoi family: at KnAAZ, they mastered the production of the Su-35S. Now Irkutsk continued to make fighter-bombers with a focus on working against ground targets (Su-30SM), and Komsomolsk-on-Amur - fighter-bombers with a focus on air combat (Su-35S).

          And the 22nd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Red Banner had to take the rap for all this (named swan cancer and pike smile ).
          In 2016, his squadrons were armed with both the Su-27SM, Su-30M2 and Su-35S (according to some sources, also the Su-30SM). Oh yes, the regiment also had (and still has) one squadron flying the MiG-31 and MiG-31BM/BSM. laughing
    3. +1
      25 October 2023 00: 00
      I absolutely support it. And even despite the fact that they now complement each other quite well (it’s great when the pair consists of a KA 52 and a Mi 28), I’m sure that the Ka 52 needs to be completed, and the Mi 28 is an extra one in the trio.
    4. +1
      25 October 2023 15: 52
      Are you proposing to close one of the Kamov or Mil factories? This is a lot of jobs and a large number of related industries
      1. 0
        26 October 2023 10: 41
        In no case! Factory transfer to Mi 35/8/26
    5. 0
      26 October 2023 10: 51
      This was the case in the best country.
      The spacecraft is for the fleet and the national economy.
      MI is for the army and the national economy.
      And now modern models have been added and things have mixed up a bit. There is no huge difference in service 24/35 and 28.
  3. -1
    24 October 2023 09: 02
    Does the author know that modern Ka-52 and Mi-28 are inferior to the Mi-24 in a number of important characteristics?
    1. -1
      24 October 2023 09: 20
      A modern combat helicopter is essentially an airborne anti-tank missile system/drone carrier. The correct tactics for a modern combat helicopter boils down to a covert (at extremely low altitudes, hiding behind the terrain and buildings) crawling towards the target within the ATGM launch range, emerging from behind cover, launching the ATGM and diving back behind the cover. Therefore, the main dynamic characteristics for a combat helicopter have long lost their relevance - the days when helicopters with packages of NARs rushed at the enemy with their chests are long gone. And attempts to feel nostalgic, as a rule, end tragically.
      1. +1
        24 October 2023 09: 25
        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
        A modern combat helicopter is essentially an airborne anti-tank missile system/drone carrier. The correct tactics for a modern combat helicopter boils down to a covert (at extremely low altitudes, hiding behind the terrain and buildings) crawling towards the target within the ATGM launch range, emerging from behind cover, launching the ATGM and diving back behind the cover. Therefore, the main dynamic characteristics for a combat helicopter have long lost their relevance - the days when helicopters with packages of NARs rushed at the enemy with their chests are long gone. And attempts to feel nostalgic, as a rule, end tragically.

        Only between “surfacing” and “diving for cover” does the helicopter have to hang in the air and aim the missile at the target.
        1. +3
          24 October 2023 09: 45
          For us, unfortunately, yes. Because of the ancient, like mammoth shit, missiles with laser beam or radio command guidance, while our opponents have long been armed with both Spikes and Brimstones.
          However, in our country, LMUR (“product 305”) is slowly appearing in commercial quantities, which, after being captured, goes to the target on its own, allowing the helicopter to immediately go into cover.
          1. +2
            24 October 2023 11: 33
            Why are you all broadcasting from the sofa, your place is in the UAC Design Bureau. They should show these idiots some class and teach them.
            1. +4
              24 October 2023 13: 16
              I offer you my sincere apologies for broadcasting from the couch without your permission.
          2. 0
            25 October 2023 01: 15
            LMUR does not allow you to immediately fly to cover, since the signal must be transmitted somehow, and the transmitter on the rocket is not very powerful
        2. TIR
          0
          25 October 2023 01: 02
          You can hang just below the radio horizon. But then you need to carry an aircraft-type reconnaissance and guidance UAV on a helicopter. And an ATGM with a range of 15 km. The concept will be such that the helicopter flies to a given area, launches the UAV and the weapons operator already controls the drone. Using the same IR guidance, the UAV illuminates the target and launches an ATGM. Then the helicopter may not fly into the air defense system’s coverage area at all. The main thing is people don't take risks. After the missile launches, the operator independently guides the UAV to the base. In terms of weight, an ATGM+UAV can quite possibly cope with the same Mi-8. Just redo the communication system with the UAV and attach it to the helicopter.
          1. +1
            25 October 2023 05: 31
            Quote: TIR
            you need to carry an aircraft-type reconnaissance and guidance UAV on a helicopter. And an ATGM with a range of 15 km. The concept will be such that the helicopter flies to a given area, launches the UAV and the weapons operator already controls the drone. Using the same IR guidance, the UAV illuminates the target and launches an ATGM.

            Maksim ... what , but why does a helicopter have to carry a UAV with good optics and a laser illumination for this? The UAV can take off ahead of time, search for targets, and having discovered them, the helicopter from the waiting area as an ATGM/LMUR arsenal carries out launches based on target designation from a reconnaissance-target designator UAV.
            And it is impossible to launch any UAV from a helicopter - the flow of the rotors will blow them all to the ground.
      2. +5
        24 October 2023 13: 04
        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
        The correct tactics for a modern combat helicopter boils down to a covert (at extremely low altitudes, hiding behind the terrain and buildings) crawling towards the target within the ATGM launch range, emerging from behind cover, launching the ATGM and diving back behind the cover.

        Everything new is well forgotten old. smile
        Tactics"jump-capture-launch-defeat-withdrawal for WWII" - these are the times of the end of the Cold War, the standard tactics of NATO helicopters in a zone of strong military air defense. And then in the West they developed over-the-barrel systems and fire-and-forget ATGMs, which did not require a high jump and hovering of the helicopter in the visibility zone of the target until it was hit.
        1. 0
          24 October 2023 13: 25
          Now it's even easier. The helicopter no longer needs to detect the target itself - this function is assigned to the drone. And you don’t even need to jump out from behind cover. Both the Spike (with guidance via a fiber optic cable) and the Brimstone (with external illumination of the laser target from a drone) helicopter can be launched from a canopy while remaining behind cover.
          1. +1
            25 October 2023 05: 34
            Quote: Mr. PeZhe
            Both the Spike (with guidance via a fiber optic cable) and the Brimstone (with external illumination of the laser target from a drone) helicopter can be launched from a canopy while remaining behind cover.

            Suspend the UAV with good OLS and laser illumination, and let the “Whirlwinds” come from behind cover. Cheaper, more widespread and using existing equipment.
      3. 0
        24 October 2023 14: 54
        The correct tactics for a modern combat helicopter boils down to a covert (at extremely low altitudes, hiding behind the terrain and buildings) crawling towards the target within the ATGM launch range, emerging from behind cover, launching the ATGM and diving back behind the cover.


        It was this moronic tactic of launching an ATGM from a hover mode, which was licked from the west and became the reason for the losses of helicopters.
        1. -3
          24 October 2023 15: 00
          The main reason for helicopter losses is cowboy attacks by NARs (does everyone remember Gostomel?). Having received a slap on the nose, they began to launch the NARs from a pitch-up position, without crossing the “ribbon”. With corresponding "efficiency".
          And only when they started working with ATGMs from hovering did the Ukrainians begin to have real problems.
          1. +6
            24 October 2023 15: 38
            The main reason for helicopter losses is cowboy attacks by NARs (does everyone remember Gostomel?). Having received a slap on the nose, they began to launch the NARs from a pitch-up position, without crossing the “ribbon”. With corresponding "efficiency".
            And only when they started working with ATGMs from hovering did the Ukrainians begin to have real problems.


            Circus with horses. What an amazing time we live in, thanks to the Internet. When every schoolchild can teach a specialist.
            Seryozha, I have more than a dozen ATGMs used with the Mi-24 in combat conditions. And among them, not a single one from hovering, only dynamic launches.
            And not at all because it is not available for the Mi-24. Okay, Afghanistan, where there was heat, high altitude, and a full load of fuel from the BC, some problems arose.
            But this also applies to Chechnya in the first half of spring, where there is no heat yet, and the altitude is lower.
            Firstly, hover launch was not used because an experienced crew did not need such a tactical technique for nothing. If only because to implement it you need to reduce the speed to zero, thereby reducing the survivability of the helicopter.
            Secondly, even in the conditions of Chechnya, finding a convenient place for an ambush is almost impossible. That is, reality does not want to adapt to “brilliant tactical plans”; convenient shelters behind which the helicopter can safely hover will be separate, and the enemy separately. And even if it matches, it is not a guarantee of safety. The enemy will take control of such places, setting up ambushes with ATGM crews. This anti-helicopter mining is not yet used.
            Thirdly, being behind cover, the crew loses visual control of the situation, namely this basis for the combat use of helicopters. And after the helicopter rises from cover, it will take time to assess the situation, search for targets, and launch. And this is all the time during which the helicopter will flaunt in plain sight, like a star on a New Year’s tree. It is quite enough for the enemy to shoot at a pop-up target at the training ground.
            1. +2
              24 October 2023 15: 55
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              But this also applies to Chechnya in the first half of spring, where there is no heat yet, and the altitude is lower.

              So in Chechnya there was no such air defense. In the Northern Military District, they do not set up air defense ambushes near shelters, but cover the entire area where helicopters are used, starting from the front line and even partially over our territory.
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              Thirdly, being behind cover, the crew loses visual control of the situation, namely this basis for the combat use of helicopters.

              And when flying within the target's visibility zone, it exposes itself to enemy air defense. Because appearances work both ways.
              The experience of Chechnya and Syria is, of course, good. But the air defense system is a full-scale military operation against an enemy comparable in equipment with a fairly battered, but still existing army air defense system.
              1. -1
                24 October 2023 16: 09
                So in Chechnya there was no such air defense. In the Northern Military District, they do not set up air defense ambushes near shelters, but cover the entire area where helicopters are used, starting from the front line and even partially over our territory.


                And what kind of air defense will a helicopter reach at an altitude of no higher than 15 meters, a speed of more than 200 km/h, and a distance of more than 3000 meters from the enemy’s forward formations?

                And when flying within the target's visibility zone, it exposes itself to enemy air defense. Because appearances work both ways.


                Under the conditions listed above, only an ATGM can be reached, but again. extremely static helicopter.

                The experience of Chechnya and Syria is, of course, good. But the air defense system is a full-scale military operation against an enemy comparable in equipment with a fairly battered, but still existing army air defense system.


                Sorry, but you understand absolutely nothing about this topic. For example, you have absolutely no idea what kind of air defense poses a threat to a helicopter.
                1. +2
                  24 October 2023 17: 50
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  And what kind of air defense will a helicopter reach at an altitude of no higher than 15 meters, a speed of more than 200 km/h, and a distance of more than 3000 meters from the enemy’s forward formations?

                  And for what purposes can you work from a height of 15 m at a distance of more than 3000 m from the front line? Taking into account the fact that our ATGMs still require continuous visibility of the target from capture to destruction.
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  Under the conditions listed above, only an ATGM can be reached, but again. extremely static helicopter.

                  MANPADS "Stinger" or "Starstreak". Which, alas, work very well against a moving target.
                  This is not Chechnya - here the enemy has collected MANPADS from all over the Western world. And even MD air defense systems of the army air defense are still found.
                  1. +1
                    24 October 2023 18: 21
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And for what purposes can you work from a height of 15 m at a distance of more than 3000 m from the front line? Taking into account the fact that our ATGMs still require continuous visibility of the target from capture to destruction.

                    Along the same lines that ground-based ATGMs operate on fellow
                    1. +1
                      25 October 2023 11: 16
                      Quote: Maxim G
                      Along the same lines that ground-based ATGMs operate on fellow

                      From positions 3 km from the front and moving at a speed of 200 km/h? wink
                      1. 0
                        25 October 2023 13: 28
                        What is it that bothers you?
                        Quote: Alexey RA

                        From positions 3 km from the front and moving at a speed of 200 km/h?
                  2. +2
                    25 October 2023 05: 45
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And for what purposes can you work from a height of 15 m at a distance of more than 3000 m from the front line? Taking into account the fact that our ATGMs still require continuous visibility of the target from capture to destruction.

                    Judging by numerous videos, the same Ka-52s are now very actively using Whirlwinds, which have a range of up to 10 km. , so being located 3 km. from the LBS the rocket flies up to 7 km. deep into enemy lines. So the goals there are different - from a tank to a separate jeep or truck with ammunition.
            2. -3
              24 October 2023 15: 57
              Vovochka, I have two questions for you.
              Have you heard about the use of an experimental group of Ka-50 and Ka-29 in Chechnya? Which, using just the flights in the WWI and the work with ATGMs from the hover, figured out the targets that the dashing cowboys on the Mi-24 “couldn’t.”
              And why did these wonderful dynamic 24th not participate in the five-day war 080808 (in South Ossetia)? Due to the fact that there was not enough height to overcome the main Caucasian ridge. And then they “couldn’t do it.” And the Kamov co-axler wouldn’t even break a sweat.
              The twenty-four is a legendary car that has brought a lot of benefits. But her time has passed. More precisely, the time of heroic assaults by NARs and cannon has passed.
              Now let the drones do it.
              1. +6
                24 October 2023 16: 28
                Have you heard about the use of an experimental group of Ka-50 and Ka-29 in Chechnya? Which, using just the flights in the WWI and the work with ATGMs from the hover, figured out the targets that the dashing cowboys on the Mi-24 “couldn’t.”


                Have you read stories on the Internet? What goals, everything we carried out in the first Chechen war, we were on those same Mi-24s. lol

                And why did these wonderful dynamic 24th not participate in the five-day war 080808 (in South Ossetia)?


                Who told you that they didn’t participate? lol

                Due to the fact that there was not enough height to overcome the main Caucasian ridge. And then they “couldn’t do it”


                And you are also an “expert”. I don’t even know the ceiling of the Mi-24, or the heights of the Caucasus, or where the 292nd helicopter regiment was based in the Soviet years. lol

                The twenty-four is a legendary car that has brought a lot of benefits. But her time has passed. More precisely, the time of heroic assaults by NARs and cannon has passed.
                Now let the drones do it.


                Only those who have flown the Mi-24, and not armchair strategists, can judge this.
                1. -5
                  24 October 2023 16: 32
                  What goals, everything we carried out in the first Chechen war, we were on those same Mi-24s.

                  Evgeniy Vaganovich? I didn't recognize you in makeup.
                  1. +3
                    24 October 2023 17: 01
                    Evgeniy Vaganovich? I didn't recognize you in makeup.


                    You don’t need to try to turn on the fool, it’s been turned on and correct for a long time.
                    And we, ordinary pilots, worked.
                    1. -2
                      24 October 2023 17: 45
                      And what should I understand from this video?
                      A pair flight of two 24s over some flat terrain. No maneuvers in height and direction, no shooting of the LTC. It doesn't look like a combat mission, and even less like Chechnya.
                      And we, ordinary pilots, worked

                      So far we haven’t heard anything from you except artistic whistling.
                      1. +4
                        24 October 2023 17: 59
                        And what should I understand from this video?
                        A pair flight of two 24s over some flat terrain. No maneuvers in height and direction, no shooting of the LTC. It doesn't look like a combat mission, and even less like Chechnya.


                        To understand, you need to be a specialist, and not an armchair strategist like you. This is Chechnya 1995, work in the area of ​​the "Shtok" site, there is a valley there, if you don't know. There was a front line, work along the front edge at maximum range.
                        ASO is not always used, only after turning back. They run out very quickly if you spend them thoughtlessly.
                        And what is similar and what is not, well, is it for you to judge? lol

                        So far we haven’t heard anything from you except artistic whistling.


                        In this discipline you are the undisputed leader.
                      2. -2
                        24 October 2023 18: 25
                        Well, of course! I tell everyone that I hit all the targets during the first Chechen war.
                        Isn't it true, Mr. Munchausen?
                      3. +5
                        24 October 2023 19: 16
                        Well, of course! I tell everyone that I hit all the targets during the first Chechen war.
                        Isn't it true, Mr. Munchausen?


                        But you are a liar. Where did I say that I did it alone? But he did make his modest contribution.
                        This is where you and I differ. I have already come out of anonymity here several times. You will remain PeZhe, or ZhePe, that’s not the point. As they say, rearranging the terms does not change anything. lol
                      4. -4
                        24 October 2023 19: 31
                        There are no arguments - is it time to move on to subtle jokes about the nickname? Predictable. You can even emboss a screenshot from Kin-Dza-Dza. If it's any consolation.
                      5. +2
                        24 October 2023 19: 45
                        There are no arguments - is it time to move on to subtle jokes about the nickname? Predictable. You can even emboss a screenshot from Kin-Dza-Dza. If it's any consolation.


                        Why are you immediately in tears, Seryozha? Come to terms with who you are and don’t try to be clever in topics where you have neither knowledge nor practical experience. lol
                      6. -6
                        24 October 2023 19: 52
                        Vovochka, you are confusing me with someone. It was you who turned the discussion into a showdown.
                        Why did you come to the battle of wits without taking a weapon with you?
                      7. 0
                        25 October 2023 09: 57
                        Why did you come to the battle of wits without taking a weapon with you?


                        Is this a question you ask yourself? lol
                      8. +6
                        24 October 2023 20: 17
                        In February 1995, Mi24 took off from Mozdok and struck the enemy and then landed at the Grozny airport where a charging point for ammunition and fuel was set up, and at the end of the day they flew to Mozdok. Mi 24 main attack helicopters in the first and second Chechen wars.
                      9. +1
                        25 October 2023 10: 00
                        In February 1995, Mi24 took off from Mozdok and struck the enemy and then landed at the Grozny airport where a charging point for ammunition and fuel was set up, and at the end of the day they flew to Mozdok. Mi 24 main attack helicopters in the first and second Chechen wars.


                        That's not all, ten Mi-24s were based at Beslan airport, in April a link (four aircraft) from this group was transferred to a field base in Kizlyar.
            3. +3
              24 October 2023 21: 00
              Guys, here you are arguing over rivets, but the point is different, not in the technical component, but in the tactical one. In Russia, much has been done to enlarge helicopter formations; attack brigades of army aviation have appeared, capable of concentrating 50-60 combat helicopters on a narrow section of the front. Are they enough to develop tactical success into operational success? The answer is, to put it mildly, not enough. Why? There is an oversaturation of air defense systems; at the very beginning, Ukraine received about 15 thousand MANPADS alone. As a result, we switched to nurses from pitching... well, we need to do something, not sit at the base. Now all over the world, military experts are thinking about what PeZhe voiced - a helicopter is simply a platform for launching weapons, and in itself needs cover from serious air defense (the Afghan and Chechen wars, where the enemy did not have serious air defense and where the helicopter dominated the battlefield , does not count). But PeZhe did not go further logically and did not complete the design. Why even have a helicopter if it’s just a platform for launching missiles and drones? The platform could even be the Zaporozhets ZAZ-965A car, but as a platform, the “humpback” is much cheaper than a helicopter. That is, there is no point in a helicopter at all. Why hang weapons on an expensive helicopter when it already works from a conventional “Cossack”? But it’s a dead end, missiles and drones have become too smart, they no longer need expensive carriers. Actually, this was also shown by the “Toyota war”.
              1. +3
                25 October 2023 06: 17
                Quote: yaglon
                The platform could even be the Zaporozhets ZAZ-965A car, but as a platform, the “humpback” is much cheaper than a helicopter.

                What is the speed and reaction time of your “Cossack”?
                Yes, helicopters have become more vulnerable in a theater oversaturated with air defense systems, but they are carriers of long-range ATGMs, and these platforms are fast and maneuverable enough to quickly appear at the desired point and disrupt an enemy attack, or defeat his columns at the time of deployment. When target designating them (and even with illumination) from a UAV, they have no value at all.
                There are no obsolete types of weapons. And the SVO clearly showed this. Combat effectiveness may decrease due to the emergence of new threats, but weapons remain weapons. The same NURS, when used from a pitching position, can disrupt an enemy attack while the artillery piece is changing position, or while the MLRS is being reloaded. NURS is an air-launched, area-launched multiple launch rocket system. And if you need to cover a group of enemy infantry in landing, preparing to attack, this is quite a tool. One salvo with a pair of NURS blocks is 40 missiles, and if a pair works - 80. And the same amount from the second approach. And then gather the infantry at the landings.
                The same T-55s have served their purpose a long time ago, but as self-propelled guns for infantry fire support in defense, they turned out to be very useful. They have bins full of shells, and protection from heavy fragments is at a high level. It's quite a tool for working from closed positions.
                In war, every bast is in line.
                Especially helicopters.
                1. +1
                  25 October 2023 19: 13
                  I completely agree with your description of the capabilities of a combat helicopter; moreover, you very clearly described its main tasks, respect to you. A helicopter is a very powerful combat unit, one cannot but agree with this. But I spoke more about the “efficiency-cost” criterion. A helicopter is a very expensive machine, there is nothing to say about the long-term training of a pilot - even piloting a helicopter is more difficult than an airplane. The loss of even one car and one pilot is a very serious loss that cannot be made up immediately. It is no coincidence that I cited the example of the Libyan-Chadian “Toyota war”, in which Chadian militias in civilian pickup trucks with machine guns and anti-tank systems (a very low-cost option), without any aviation, defeated the Libyan army, armed with expensive weapons - tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled guns, attack guns Mi-24 helicopters, bombers...
  4. 0
    24 October 2023 12: 33
    This is essentially a flying Galez.
    Landing route.
    She could either carry people or not bother at all.

    It’s another matter if you put the radar/launchers from Chrysanthemum in the trunk, then it will be interesting.
  5. +2
    24 October 2023 17: 34
    In the first month of the operation, 9M120 ATGMs with different warheads were also used. Like the Mi-28N and Mi-24. The rocket is good. But the range of up to 6 km later turned out to be insufficient. Therefore, now the missile launchers are used only with the Ka-52 and Mi-28 NM-Vikhr and Mi-28NM-Chrysanthemum. They have a range of up to 8-10 km. Of course, LMUR with Ka-52M and Mi-28 NM. And the Mi-35M and Mi-28N are currently only working with the NAR Ami S-8 and S-13. I saw the use of the latter only with the Mi-28N and 28 NM.
  6. +2
    24 October 2023 22: 46
    Nobody seems to have ever been against helicopters on turntables, ever since the “baby” days.
    But at the same time, NARs have their own niche. You cannot drive dispersed infantry with anti-tank guns... In the city, too, a salvo at the facade of a high-rise building with heavy bunks is often more effective than an anti-tank gun, even with a thermobaric warhead.
  7. +1
    25 October 2023 14: 44
    Quote: Mr. PeZhe
    As for the Mi-24, it turned out back in Afghanistan that it can either be combat (in which case its transport cabin is a dead weight) or transport, but the helicopter is not able to carry weapons on pylons

    Did you come up with it yourself or did you fly like this yourself?
    1. +1
      25 October 2023 17: 29
      Did you come up with it yourself or did you fly like this yourself?


      Yes, he only saw the helicopter in the picture. And only armchair specialists criticize the Mi-24 for its cargo compartment.
      In practice, this is a fairly small compartment:
      length - 2,52 m
      width - 1,46 m
      height - 1,2m
      was a great help, especially when working from the jumping platforms.
  8. 0
    27 October 2023 22: 32
    Is this really Ryabov’s article? Usually they are much more interesting to read and supported by facts and technical characteristics, but here they are a pale and boring imitation of the clichés from TC “Zvezda” and other media.
  9. -1
    28 October 2023 18: 29
    mi-28 and mi-35m is a mistake
  10. 0
    29 October 2023 12: 28
    The wings were cut in vain, additional suspension points and landing gear must be removed, the speed drops by 10%, Mil was right, further modernization is only due to composite armor, titanium weighs 500-600 kg, composite 100-200 kg. The avionics can no longer reduce the weight, just change the Armor!
  11. 0
    7 January 2024 20: 49
    It has been written more than once that a transport-combat helicopter is a dead-end branch in development. You need either a strike weapon with various types of guided weapons, or a cargo vehicle capable of carrying at least 20-30 people...