Mi-35M and its main features

24 718 60
Mi-35M and its main features
Mi-35M involved in the Special Operation to Protect Donbass


The Mi-24 transport and combat helicopter was put into operation more than half a century ago. Over time, the original machine was developed, and its latest modifications are still in service. The most modern serial version of this helicopter is the Mi-24VM, also known as the Mi-35M. It was created in the XNUMXs using modern technologies, materials and components of that time. Thanks to this, it was possible to improve the main characteristics of the helicopter and enhance its combat capabilities.



The last in the family


In the nineties, the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant Design Bureau began developing a new modification of the existing transport and combat helicopter. The project envisaged the modernization of the Mi-24V helicopter in order to improve its tactical, technical and flight characteristics, as well as to increase the level of unification with other modern models.

The first experimental helicopter of the Mi-24VM type, later designated Mi-35M, was created in the mid-nineties. The testing process lasted for a decade and was completed only in the mid-XNUMXs. Based on the results of the tests, the helicopter was recommended for adoption into service.

The first contract for the delivery of Mi-35Ms to the Russian Air Force was concluded only in 2010. Subsequently, the Ministry of Defense placed at least one more similar order. In total, several dozen helicopters were purchased, although the exact number is unknown.

Even at the testing stage, the developer company began promoting the helicopter on the international market. As a result, in 2008, the first export contract was concluded - Brazil ordered 12 new helicopters. In the following years, orders were received from nine more countries of the near and far abroad. Helicopters were sent to Asia, Africa and Latin America.


Russian army aviation continues to actively use its Mi-35M. Since 2022, they have been participating in real combat operations against Ukrainian formations. Almost all foreign operators have also retained their helicopters, and some of them have experience in their combat use.

The only exception is Brazil. In 2022, it decided to abandon Russian helicopters due to the impossibility of full technical maintenance.

Design changes


The Mi-35M helicopter is based on the older Mi-24V model. During the development of the Mi-35M, some changes were made to the design, new units and instruments were installed. As a result of these improvements, the helicopter retained its appearance and general architecture, but acquired higher flight and technical characteristics, and also improved its combat potential.

The Mi-35M was created using the existing airframe, but with minor changes. The overall design, layout and other elements remained the same. The most noticeable innovation was a wing with a reduced span and fewer suspension points.

The new wing reduced drag. At the same time, lift was reduced and the ammunition load was reduced. Nevertheless, such changes were considered acceptable.

To make the design lighter, it was decided to abandon the retractable chassis. In addition, such a design of the struts in some situations can weaken the impact with the ground and save the helicopter and the crew.


Pilot at work

The Mi-35M is equipped with an updated propulsion system unified with the Mi-28 helicopter. A pair of TV3-117V turboshaft engines were replaced with newer VK-2500-II engines from the same engine family. In cruise mode, they develop 1500 hp, and in takeoff mode, 2200 hp. An emergency mode is provided: in the event of failure of one engine, the second develops 2700 hp.

The upgraded Mi-28M also received the rotor system from the Mi-35 attack helicopter. The titanium main rotor hub with elastomer blade hinges was transferred to it. Composite blades with several longitudinal spars and a swept tip are used.

The X-shaped tail rotor was also adopted. It is characterized by increased efficiency and improves the helicopter's maneuverability.

Onboard equipment


The Mi-35M helicopter retained two tandem-configured cabins for the pilot and weapons operator. As before, both cabins have a full set of controls.

During the latest upgrade, some of the devices and indicators were removed from the instrument panels in both cockpits. They were replaced with large-format multifunctional liquid crystal displays. Now the pilot can use these displays to display flight information and maps, and the operator can use optical-electronic and other means.


Launching unmanaged missiles with a pitch-up

An important upgrade for the Mi-35M was the new OPS-24N surveillance and targeting system. It provides surveillance, target search and use weapons. The main element of the system is the gyrostabilized optical-electronic station GOES-24, which has day and night channels, as well as a laser rangefinder. To use this station, the operator has the appropriate controls.

Also during the modernization of the Mi-35M, the L-370 Vitebsk onboard defense system was installed. It includes a set of sensors, control devices and jamming devices. Vitebsk automatically tracks anti-aircraft missile launches and uses active infrared jamming or false heat targets to protect the helicopter.

Armament complex


The helicopter carries a built-in mount with a 23-mm automatic cannon GSh-23 on a mobile platform. Experience in testing and use has shown that this weapon is more effective than the YakB-12,7 machine gun or the GSh-30 cannon, which were used on previous models of Mi-24 helicopters.

The range of additional weapons has remained virtually unchanged compared to previous Mi-24 modifications. The Mi-35M helicopter can carry unguided rocket pods, universal gun pods, guided missiles and other weapons. In various combinations, they are suspended on four pylons under the wings.

The guided weapons system has been retained. The Mi-35M can carry up to eight Shturm-V or Ataka-V guided missiles. These weapons are designed to destroy armored vehicles and other protected targets at a distance of up to 5-6 km. In both cases, radio command guidance is used.

Results of the upgrade


The modernization of the Mi-24V combat helicopter, also known as the Mi-35M, was carried out in the simplest and most obvious way. Aircraft engineers retained the basic design of the base model, making only minor changes. At the same time, they replaced key units and systems.


The modern Mi-35M differs from its predecessors in several ways. It is equipped with more powerful engines and an improved rotor system, which has improved flight and maneuverability characteristics. The avionics system has also been radically redesigned, receiving smaller but more efficient equipment. Control of the helicopter and its weapons has become much easier. In addition, the operator can now use all standard weapons more effectively and with greater convenience.

The weapons complex did not undergo any major changes, but it was formed taking into account the maximum increase in combat qualities. In addition, the updated sighting and navigation complex allows in the future to change the composition of weapons without any particular difficulties and costs.

The result of the Mi-35M project was a modern combat helicopter with wide capabilities and high performance. In some respects, it is inferior to the newer Mi-28N or Ka-52, but the use of a well-developed and time-tested platform has its advantages.

Service continues


The first transport and combat helicopter Mi-24 was accepted into service by the USSR Army Aviation half a century ago. During this time, many modifications of the helicopter were developed, some of which are still in service.

The latest serial modification of the Mi-35M helicopters appeared in the troops just over ten years ago and continue to serve. Since 2022, they have been participating in real combat operations and demonstrating their potential in practice, as well as confirming the correctness of the decisions included in the modernization project.
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 28
    7 September 2024 05: 59
    An article for those who have been banned from Wiki.
    1. +3
      7 September 2024 17: 56
      An empty article and the same comments. If you hang modern weapons on the "Crocodile", which are not yet available, and improve the system, then the machine will serve for a while. Two crew members will allow you to control the UAV, which can take off from the cargo cabin. It is very cool to carry out shooting outside the kill zone based on target designation from your UAVs. For example, this UAV can find targets for LMUR. It's not about the helicopter, it's about new weapons for it and new approaches... Alas, our tacticians and strategists are not in the know...
      1. +8
        7 September 2024 18: 50
        Do you understand what you are writing?
        Launch of the UAV and its subsequent control from the weapons operator's cabin?
        Are you seriously?
        Do you understand what kind of work UAV operators have to do for visual reconnaissance?
        They sit and watch for hours on end on huge 24/27/32/40 inch monitors... Constantly changing the zoom of the cameras, changing the angle, changing the sectors...
        How would you do this in the cockpit of a helicopter?
        Keep the helicopter in the grey zone, constantly exposing it to the danger of being hit by a MANPADS from the nearest forest belt?
        Truly a couch solution...
        1. +1
          7 September 2024 20: 31
          Do you understand what kind of work UAV operators have to do for visual reconnaissance?

          Species reconnaissance does not exist, as does interspecies reconnaissance. These are the inventions and tales of one uncle... We do not have any technical means of reconnaissance in real time, as such...
          They sit and watch for hours on end on huge 24/27/32/40 inch monitors...

          If that were the case, the SVO would have ended in three weeks. These guys don't even know the provisions of our "Military Doctrine" from 25.12. 2014:
          15. Characteristics and features of modern military conflicts:
          ...
          b) massive use of weapons systems and military equipment, high-precision, hypersonic weapons, electronic warfare, weapons based on new physical principles comparable in effectiveness to nuclear weapons, information and control systems, as well as unmanned aerial and autonomous marine vehicles, controlled robotic weapons and military equipment;
          ...
          f) strengthening the centralization and automation of troops and weapons control as a result of the transition from a strictly vertical control system to global network automated systems for controlling troops (forces) and weapons;

          https://docs.cntd.ru/document/420246589
          Where is all this? Almost ten years have passed!
          And I understand what I'm writing. On "Apache" all this has been working for a long time!
  2. + 28
    7 September 2024 06: 02
    The new wing has reduced drag

    And thanks to the non-retractable landing gear, this resistance increased...
  3. + 11
    7 September 2024 06: 51
    I'm reading... Key features... what are they? A Wikipedia article, retold? I want to know about the possibility of stabilizing the Mi-35's position for firing NARs from a pitched position, I want to see a video of this helicopter taking off from a field, and not from a concrete airfield runway. And of course, to find out the assessment of the use of the Mi-35 helicopter, worth 700 million rubles (in 2016) in the SVO. Is such equipment needed for that kind of money? There is also the Ka-52 for a billion rubles, but for some reason tanks destroy UAVs, and not these hyped monsters
    1. + 23
      7 September 2024 07: 04
      Kirill should have been "banned" a long time ago - not a single normal article in recent years.

      Those who are older have probably read Ilf and Petrov's "The Golden Calf"
      The episode when Ostap Ibrahimovic created a manual for writing any articles:

      "With the help of the materials of Section 1, using the methods of Section 2, the following are also composed: novels, stories, poems in prose, short stories, everyday sketches, fiction, reports, chronicles, epics, plays, political reviews, the game of political forfeits, radio oratorios, etc.

      When Ukhudashchansky became familiar with the contents of the document, his eyes, hitherto dull, came alive. He, who had been making do with reports of meetings, suddenly discovered sparkling stylistic heights.
      “And for everything – twenty-five tugriks, twenty-five Mongolian rubles,” said the great schemer impatiently, tormented by hunger.
      “I don’t have any Mongolian ones,” said the union official, not letting go of the “Ceremonial Set.”

      Kirill Ryabov has been writing using this method for a long time.
      Loud, a lot, but at the same time - about nothing.
      1. + 15
        7 September 2024 09: 15
        I have a different associative series.
        "Nikifor Lapis entered the building through the outpatient clinic. He was one of the people at the House of Peoples and knew the shortest paths to the oases where the bright springs of honorarium splashed under the broad-leaved canopy of departmental journals."
    2. 0
      7 September 2024 11: 57
      The Americans' combat helicopters, except for light ones, cost $35-50 million apiece. Ours are not expensive. It's just that the equipment is complex. 2 engines, gearboxes, transmission, blades, avionics, hydraulics, weapons, and finally, the fuselage. We can't do without helicopters.
    3. +2
      9 September 2024 00: 02
      but for some reason tanks destroy UAVs

      Not only UAVs, but also: ATGMs, laser-guided artillery shells, and finally tanks have put their barrels to use. However, it is right that we need to compare the cost and effectiveness of helicopters and UAVs in different conditions. It seems to me that helicopter pilots are losing in many places.
  4. +3
    7 September 2024 08: 29
    One of the features of the Mi-35M is that up to 8 ATGMs can be suspended only under one rightmost pylon.
    1. +9
      7 September 2024 09: 03
      ATGMs are almost never used. They need to be aimed, the chance of hitting a vehicle with MANPADS is maximum. They mainly shoot with Nursas from a cobra. Kashniks cope with this better. Although... Mostly somewhere in the fields. (I personally observed this in the SVO)
      1. +6
        8 September 2024 08: 34
        Several years ago there was an article on VO, where the opinion was quite reasonably expressed that the very concept of "airborne infantry fighting vehicles" of the Mi-24 or Mi-35 type is wrong. How vicious are all the ideas of unjustified universalization. Because as a combat helicopter they are inferior to the Kamov ones, as a transport helicopter - to the old man eighth, and cost as much as both of them put together.
        And I tend to agree with this point of view.
      2. 0
        12 September 2024 12: 37
        Quote: Bacha
        They need to be led, the chance of hitting the vehicle with a MANPADS is maximum.


        Yes, the 24th does not have a target holding system, so you cannot maneuver after launch.

        Quote: Bacha
        The Kashniks cope with this better.

        Do you think we just gave the Ka-52 a compliment? :) This expensive machine was not made for salvos of NURS, but for attacks with URs.
        1. +1
          13 September 2024 11: 24
          This is an expensive car

          The expensive one is the MI-28, for the sake of which a competitor in the form of the Kamov Design Bureau was actually destroyed (yes, that is how Mikheev S.V. called the merger of the two design bureaus, Mil and Kamov, in an interview); a lot of money has been invested since the launch of the series to bring this helicopter to mind.
  5. -4
    7 September 2024 09: 15
    The helicopter is good rather because it is mass produced! In all other respects it is a bit outdated. It was conceived as a flying infantry fighting vehicle, now the concept has changed, but it can still fight.
    1. +9
      7 September 2024 09: 28
      Vadim, he's good at chasing bogeymen, like in Afghanistan or Chechnya. The army doesn't measure up to the army. They're practically not used in Ukraine.
      1. +4
        7 September 2024 19: 29
        Quote: Bacha
        In Ukraine it is practically not used.

        In Ukraine, there is a very strange operation in general.
        The bridges are not touched, the railway works and carries everything almost to the LBS, no one noticed the month of preparation for the invasion of the Kursk region...
        And, of course, no one thought or thinks about destroying the air defense system.
        The American military is probably already laughing out loud at the actions of our General Staff and Supreme Command.
        Like, they don't even need to strain themselves...
    2. +7
      7 September 2024 09: 48
      Mi 35? How is it popular?
  6. + 17
    7 September 2024 09: 17
    Results of the "modernization":
    - deterioration of flight performance, despite more powerful engines;
    - reduction of weapon suspension points and, as a consequence, reduction of combat loadout options (4 ATGMs, + 2 B-20 blocks + 2 PTBs like on the Mi-24 cannot be taken).

    The wing is not new, but cut off, as a result of which it no longer unloads the rotor as effectively, which led to a decrease in speed, and in addition, lateral stability has worsened.
    Unfortunately, with the departure of Tishchenko, KB Mil does not shine with talent.

    PS
    To the author of the article. If you take on such articles, you need to study the question first.
    Mi-35M two pilots, the second pilot COMBINES the duties of an ATGM operator.
    1. 0
      12 September 2024 12: 46
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      reduction of weapon suspension points and, as a result, reduction of combat loadout options (4 ATGMs, + 2 B-20 blocks + 2 PTBs like on the Mi-24 cannot be taken)


      What do you mean? 2 NURS blocks - easy, 4 ATGM - yeah, can't take it. Since there are 8 of them in a block.
  7. + 11
    7 September 2024 10: 53
    The project involved upgrading the Mi-24V helicopter to improve its tactical, technical and flight characteristics.

    The author gets a minus for the entry.
    The site has plenty of people who not only understand airplanes and helicopters, but also build them.
    Therefore, tell your grandmother stories like: a short wing and non-retractable landing gear certainly significantly improved, expanded, etc.
  8. + 10
    7 September 2024 11: 21
    Ryabov has written himself out! It’s true that he didn’t shine with talent before, but reprinting Wikipedia is already the bottom... Or wait until they come knocking?
  9. +4
    7 September 2024 13: 58
    Let's leave the author alone for now. 3 types of attack helicopters - isn't that too much for a great energy power? I remember a down-to-earth example, when our battalion deputy commander forgot the literary language despite having 14 brands of cars on staff...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  10. +9
    7 September 2024 21: 41
    A completely "unexpected" step, the Phoenix project.
    They returned the normal wing and the dying chassis.

    Not even 15 years had passed since the start of operation, when the authors of the "invalid" began to understand that, compared to the Great Mile, they were still aerodynamicists and had "gone too far" with their rationalizations and began to roll back.
    And I foresee the next “brilliant” step, in which a lot of money will be saved. This is a return to external suspension units of guides for ATGMs. wassat
    1. +2
      8 September 2024 21: 21
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      They returned the normal wing and the dying chassis.

      Well, it would be more correct to say that they didn't return it, but returned to the version before the Mi-35 - the Mi-24VP-M(I), which was normal, and they decided to forget about the Mi-35, leaving what they had already managed to produce in service and making normal machines in parallel. But here too, there was a division into 2 versions with OLS and AFAR. I wonder if they make both or just one. Although why do we need 3 strike aircraft, even if the Mi-24 is a hybrid, it still comes out too fat for the economy. I would leave the Ka-52 and Mi-24.
      1. +1
        8 September 2024 21: 50
        In principle, it is true. Ka-52 is for mountainous terrain. And Mi-28 has no real advantages.
        1. 0
          9 September 2024 10: 49
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          A-52 for mountainous terrain.

          Why only for mountain? It is good everywhere: on the plain, over water and in the mountains. An excellent all-rounder.
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          But the Mi-28 has no real advantages.

          Well, except for the thickness of the armor. And so it has real disadvantages in the form of the lack of a radar and a normal KAZ. For some reason, they were never able to install "egg of life" on it, either the landing is low, or there is no room.
          1. 0
            12 September 2024 13: 09
            Well, except for the thickness of the armor. But it has real disadvantages in the form of the lack of a radar and a normal KAZ.


            And what the hell is this over-the-hub radar needed for?: To give away the helicopter's location?
            1. +1
              12 September 2024 14: 14
              Well... the distances at which our helicopters operate allow them to be detected without radar. But radar can increase both the distance and the crew's awareness. So it certainly wouldn't be superfluous. But we have what we have.
            2. 0
              12 December 2024 06: 09
              Make it a drone interceptor!
          2. 0
            12 September 2024 13: 23
            Quote: JD1979
            Well, except for the thickness of the armor. And so it has real disadvantages in the form of the lack of a radar and a normal KAZ. For some reason, they were never able to install "egg of life" on it, either the landing is low, or there is no room.


            Thank Phazotron for the lack of radar. He promised at the highest level to make a hub-mounted station, and they believed him, even allocated a plant for serial production. But then Phazotron decided "oh, no one is going anywhere anymore" and "there are vibrations there." But in fact, it was simply more profitable for him to adapt one of his previous developments for the Ka-52 than to strain himself and make something new.
            And by the way, what's the point of the radar on the Ka-52? If it still needs to get close enough to the target acquisition distance to launch missiles?
            The Mi-28M has a radar, the Ryazan people tried hard, honor and praise to them, and the weapons complex is already tied to it.
            1. 0
              12 September 2024 13: 58
              For the lack of radar, thank Phazotron


              There is no need for this radar at all. It's like a flashlight for a policeman searching for partisans in a forest at night.
              What is really needed is operational target designation from ground troops to the aircraft. And also the ability to intercept ATGM guidance by them.
              1. +1
                13 September 2024 11: 43
                What is really needed is operational targeting from ground forces.

                All of this was implemented in the KA-50, in Chechnya this helicopter received target designations from the KA-25, it was possible to receive information about the target via telecode from the Pchela UAV (test pilot Alexey Novikov spoke about this in an interview) and most importantly, in the event of a combat loss of the machine, it was not two pilots who were threatened with death, and this is the most expensive thing in the helicopter systems.
                This is for those who think that in KA-50 only one person participated in all processes, no, the second worked remotely.
                But the narrow-mindedness of the generals there ruined the project (they had to undock the single-seat cabin and install a two-seat one; there are KA-50s converted into KA-52s, used for training).
                1. 0
                  13 September 2024 11: 55
                  All this was implemented in the KA-50, in Chechnya this helicopter received target designations from the KA-25,

                  This is not it. We need prompt information exchange with the troops on the front line.
                  1. +1
                    13 September 2024 12: 41
                    operational information exchange with troops

                    Perhaps this would have been implemented, considering that the helicopter had an external target designation system implemented back in the 90s, which, according to the Kamov Design Bureau, automatically guided the helicopter to the target with an accuracy of up to a meter after receiving information from reconnaissance assets.
                    The KA-52 also has this system, but it is not fully implemented (this is what a former employee of the Kamov Design Bureau answered me in a telegram) and this is more likely to be true, since the 52 was developed as a command helicopter for work in conjunction with the KA-50 (the KA-25 in Chechnya could not keep up with the KA-50).
                    1. 0
                      13 September 2024 12: 51
                      What does this have to do with it, reaching the target? A helicopter is not a bomber, this machine is designed for rapid response to threats. That is, for actions in a rapidly changing situation.
                      1. +1
                        13 September 2024 13: 20
                        What does this have to do with anything?

                        Apparently the text was too complex.
                        The essence of the idea was that the KA-50 would patrol at a safe distance from the LBS and after receiving information about the target on the external target designation system from ground-based (in the future, it would probably be possible if the project had not been closed), the IPR reconnaissance UAV would promptly fly to hit the identified threat, and it could do this automatically after the pilot pressed the necessary buttons on the VCU system console.
                        That's exactly what you mentioned in your message.
            2. 0
              12 September 2024 14: 26
              Quote: abc_alex
              But then Phaztron decided "oh, no one is going anywhere anymore" and "there are vibrations". But in fact, it was simply more profitable for him to adapt one of his previous developments for the Ka-52 than to strain himself and make something new.

              What's with the whining about the Ka-52 again))) How bad the Kamovites are, and they're plotting against the Milevites))) Or maybe vibrations in the gearbox prevent the radar from working and it's someone else's hands growing out of their butt?
              Quote: abc_alex
              And by the way, what's the point of the radar on the Ka-52? If it still needs to get close enough to the target acquisition distance to launch missiles?

              Well, yes, yes, we couldn't do it, so we also have to throw some shovels onto the Ka-52))) We don't have it and they don't need it))) that's all the fucking mile))
              Quote: abc_alex
              The Mi-28M has a radar, the Ryazan people tried hard, honor and praise to them, and the weapons complex is already tied to it.

              Is this the one that is purely for illumination? for guiding the Ataka missile system?)))) Oh yes, a powerful radar)) So much so that it is not mentioned anywhere))), except in the detailed description of the missile system and its guidance system on several specialized sites))) And yes, what kind of modification is this secret Mi-28M?)) Maybe you are confusing it with the Ka-52M, which has a new OLS and AFAR? Sorry for rubbing salt into the wound))
        2. -1
          12 September 2024 13: 16
          Besides the fact that it is the only helicopter that is actually being made and improved? Let me remind you that the Kamov Design Bureau independently degenerated the single-seat Ka-50, which could only fight in the movies. And the Ka-52 was forced to be made by the military in an ultimatum form. And this is conceptually the Mi-28 on a coaxial scheme. Remove the Mi-28 from the troops and the troops will be left without an attack helicopter at all, since the Kamov Design Bureau has not independently made anything in the last 30 years, except for some delusional projects "for the world market". Even the Ka-226, a project that is certainly promising, managed to be made in such a way that it still cannot be delivered to the troops...
          And right after that: remove the Ka-52 from the troops and Russia will be left without coaxial aircraft. And that means goodbye to helicopters on ships.
          The situation with the 28/50 competition was difficult from the very beginning, there was a lot of fly-tipping there, and now it will not be possible to simply cut this knot.

          As for the real advantages of the Mi-28, in your opinion, does the Ka-52 pilot-operator sitting to the right or left of him see anything?
          1. 0
            12 September 2024 14: 01
            As for the real advantages of the Mi-28, in your opinion, does the Ka-52 pilot-operator sitting to the right or left of him see anything?


            This is a minus, but there is also a big plus: the interaction within the crew is much better.
            Moreover, considering the distance at which helicopters operate, it is not critical.
            1. 0
              15 September 2024 15: 27
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              This is a minus, but there is also a big plus: the interaction within the crew is much better.


              And who said that the Mi-28N crew has poor interaction? :) Do you really think that during the development of the Mi-24 and Mi-28 attack versions, no one at Mil thought of seating the pilots in a row? How do they sit on the Mi-8? In a row. On the Mi-2? Yes, on almost all Mil helicopters, the crew sits in a row. But for some reason, on the Mi-24, the row placement of the crew is changed and the gunner is moved forward. Do you really think that this was done by accident or mistake?

              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              Moreover, considering the distance at which helicopters operate, it is not critical.

              What does removal have to do with it? It's a matter of situational awareness. And helicopters of the 28/50 concept detect targets through the OLS. And its visibility sector is quite narrow. This is exactly what the Kamovites with the Ka-50 smashed their heads on. Their pilot could not in an unfamiliar target environment find targets even at the training ground. They relied on an automatic target detection system. But they couldn't make it. Therefore, as with the Mi-28, the primary target detection is done visually. Well, you should make an adjustment for the fact that helicopters were developed at the end of the 70s. When the OLS on a helicopter was a breakthrough.
              1. 0
                15 September 2024 18: 58

                And who said that the Mi-28N crew has poor interaction? :) Do you really think that during the development of the Mi-24 and Mi-28 attack versions, no one at Mil thought of seating the pilots in a row? How do they sit on the Mi-8? In a row. On the Mi-2? Yes, on almost all Mil helicopters, the crew sits in a row. But for some reason, on the Mi-24, the row placement of the crew is changed and the gunner is moved forward. Do you really think that this was done by accident or mistake?


                Young man, you don't need to argue, you need to ask.
                Firstly, the Mi-24 does not have a gunner, there are two pilots. In combat versions, the commander combines the duties of a navigator, the second pilot combines the duties of an ATGM operator and a bombardier.
                Secondly, these are the known disadvantages of transverse and tandem pilot placement. In the first case, the limitation of the viewing sectors, in the second, interaction in the crew only through the SPU.


                What does the removal have to do with it? It's about situational awareness. And helicopters of the 28/50 concept detect targets via the OLS. And its visibility sector is quite narrow. This is exactly what the Kamovites broke their heads over with the Ka-50. Their pilot could not find targets in an unfamiliar target environment even at the training ground. They relied on an automatic target detection system. But they could not make it. Therefore, as with the Mi-28, primary target detection is carried out visually. Well, you should make an adjustment for the fact that helicopters were developed at the end of the 70s. When the OLS on a helicopter was a breakthrough.


                I have to disappoint you. The target is first detected visually, through the glass of the canopy, and only then in the field of view of the OLS, and this is still a dance with tambourines.
                As for the Ka-50/Mi-28 competition, not everything is clear-cut there.
                1. 0
                  16 September 2024 01: 34
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  Firstly, the Mi-24 does not have a gunner, there are two pilots. In combat versions, the commander combines the duties of a navigator, the second pilot combines the duties of an ATGM operator and a bombardier.


                  And again you avoid a direct question addressed to you. Now you start to "press with authority" on the verge of a foul. It won't work. :)
                  The developers call the crew members "pilot" and "operator". I like this division better than the military-regulatory "pilot combining...". You? No? I'm not forcing you.
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  In the first case, the viewing sectors are limited; in the second, interaction in the crew is only through the SPU.


                  Correct. And the question was what is more important in battle: to see the battlefield well or to chat with a partner in person. The Milevites had time to make a choice and confirm its correctness during the combat mission.
                  And by the way, is it even possible to communicate in a helicopter cabin during a flight without a SPU?

                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  I have to disappoint you. The target is first detected visually, through the glass of the canopy, and only then in the field of view of the OLS, and this is still a dance with tambourines.


                  I don't argue. And you won't disappoint me.

                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  As for the Ka-50/Mi-28 competition, not everything is clear-cut there.

                  There are very few things in life that are so unambiguous. And I can't bring myself to condemn the Kamov people for throwing themselves into this competition with the desperation of the doomed: the Kamov design bureau and school should have been preserved. But in the end it turned out that with their intrigues and lobbying they delayed the acceptance of the attack helicopter from the late 80s to the early 90s, and in fact for more than 30 years. As a result, the troops are now receiving machines that should have already left the troops. And the Kamov people have created a museum exhibit. After all, the Ka-52 is extremely far from the Ka-50 concept, it is an Mi-28 on a coaxial scheme, and in some important respects it is worse.
                  1. 0
                    16 September 2024 21: 24
                    And again you avoid a direct question addressed to you. Now you start to "press with authority" on the verge of a foul. It won't work. :)
                    The developers call the crew members "pilot" and "operator". I like this division better than the military-regulatory "pilot combining...". You? No? I'm not forcing you.


                    The reality is that the position of operator does not exist.

                    Correct. And the question was what is more important in battle: to see the battlefield well or to chat with a partner in person. The Milevites had time to make a choice and confirm its correctness during the combat mission.


                    The priority was to shrink the midsection.


                    And by the way, is it even possible to communicate in a helicopter cabin during a flight without a SPU?


                    Of course it is. It is much easier to point a finger at a target than to try to explain to the commander via the SPU where the target is. On the Mi-24P, you simply had to intercept the controls and place the sight mark on the target. Or even add a burst of fire from the cannon.


                    There are very few things in life that are so unambiguous. And I can't bring myself to condemn the Kamov people for throwing themselves into this competition with the desperation of the doomed: the Kamov design bureau and school should have been preserved. But in the end it turned out that with their intrigues and lobbying they delayed the acceptance of the attack helicopter from the late 80s to the early 90s, and in fact for more than 30 years. As a result, the troops are now receiving machines that should have already left the troops. And the Kamov people have created a museum exhibit. After all, the Ka-52 is extremely far from the Ka-50 concept, it is an Mi-28 on a coaxial scheme, and in some important respects it is worse.


                    The Ka-50 was an excellent and promising machine.
                    It was the old guys from the AA management who ruined it, because after the Mi-24 they couldn’t fly without a “guide”.
          2. 0
            12 September 2024 14: 51
            Quote: abc_alex
            Besides the fact that this is the only helicopter that is actually being made and improved?

            In fact, YES)))
            Quote: abc_alex
            Let me remind you that the Kamov Design Bureau independently degenerated the single-seat Ka-50, which could only fight in the movies. And the Ka-52 was forced to be made by the military in an ultimatum form.

            Oh, how someone is upset that they didn't film about the Mi-28)) Which couldn't even make it into the movie))
            Quote: abc_alex
            And this is conceptually the Mi-28 on a coaxial design.

            Seriously?))) I look at my ego as higher than Everest)))
            Quote: abc_alex
            The Mi-28 from the troops and the troops will be left without an attack helicopter at all.

            AHAHAHAHA yes logic and facts left the chat, bot adept mil burned out at work and stupid lies began)) Well, they will remove the Mi-28 in the end))) And what will remain? Right Ka-52M)) Of which there are already more than these blind tadpoles. And it was precisely the Mi-28 that was removed from the front line because someone could not get into a normal KAZ))) or is this again a Kamov conspiracy?))
            Quote: abc_alex
            Kamov Design Bureau has done nothing independently over the last 30 years, except for some crazy projects “for the world market.”

            Oh, how it burns))) Well, how can Kamovites only under the sensitive leadership of the great Mil Design Bureau)) You should decide there either Kamov Design Bureau can’t do anything or how they made the Ka-52M which covers the Mi-28N (not NM, which still doesn’t exist)) like God covers a turtle))
            Quote: abc_alex
            And right after that: remove the Ka-52 from the troops and Russia will be left without coaxial aircraft. And that means goodbye to helicopters on ships.

            Dude, you are so pathetic in your attempts to shit on a competing design bureau that made a pure Mil in the field of attack helicopters)) Here, you losers will most likely be removed, leaving a purely transport direction.
            Quote: abc_alex
            The situation with the 28/50 competition was difficult from the very beginning, there was a lot of fly-tipping there, and now it will not be possible to simply cut this knot.

            Yeah, so confused that the commander-in-chief of the Aerospace Forces once said: the Mi-28 was brought to mind thanks to Syria. So, the pilots say that it has become better, but not everything has become better - the electronics are a failure: the pilot does not see anything, the pilot does not hear anything. These glasses that the pilots put on, the pilots call "death to pilots". The sky is cloudless, everything is fine, but if there is some smoke - they walk around with red eyes for three days. )))
            Competitors' machinations again?
            Quote: abc_alex
            As for the real advantages of the Mi-28, in your opinion, does the Ka-52 pilot-operator sitting to the right or left of him see anything?

            And how quickly did the Mi-28 get backup control?)) And the pilot-operator controls the weapons and does not look out the window)) Better tell me what the pilot-operator of the Mi-28 sees below in front when his entire view is blocked by the nose? OR IS IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT?))
            1. 0
              15 September 2024 15: 04
              Quote: JD1979
              Yeah, so confused that the commander-in-chief of the Aerospace Forces once said: the Mi-28 was brought to mind thanks to Syria. So, the pilots say that it has become better, but not everything has become better - the electronics are a failure: the pilot does not see anything, the pilot does not hear anything. These glasses that the pilots put on, the pilots call "death to pilots". The sky is cloudless, everything is fine, but if there is some smoke - they walk around with red eyes for three days. )))


              If only you had an idea of ​​what you're writing - with your talent for cheap clowning, you'd be priceless :)
              1. 0
                16 September 2024 14: 39
                Quote: abc_alex
                If only you had an idea of ​​what you're writing - with your talent for cheap clowning, you'd be priceless :)

                And you?)) How was the night vision system there? Couldn't do it again?) And when will you be able to get into a normal KAZ? Or will the Kamov guys twist your arms again?))
          3. 0
            13 September 2024 13: 07
            As for the real advantages of the Mi-28, in your opinion, does the Ka-52 pilot-operator sitting to the right or left of him see anything?

            Mikheev S.V. did not come up with the idea of ​​arranging the crew in the KA-52 in an empty head.
            There are statistics from Afghanistan (I don’t remember the numbers), in general, some MI-24s crashed because the weapons operator did not know that the pilot was seriously injured or died, not having time to take control of the helicopter.
            Also, the internal radio communication may fail, which will make communication between the weapons operator and the pilot impossible, and as a result, the second weapons operator becomes just a passenger.
            1. 0
              15 September 2024 15: 00
              Quote: Order
              Mikheev S.V. did not come up with the idea of ​​arranging the crew in the KA-52 in an empty head.

              Of course. Out of desperation and inevitability. He simply COULDN'T land the second one any other way. The helicopter's design didn't allow it. And redesigning the entire helicopter meant simply giving up.
              Do you think that A.N. Ivanov and M.V. Weinberg were playing cards with the crew arrangement scheme? It was precisely based on the experience of Afghanistan, where Mil cooperation engineers sat around making strike versions of the Mi-24 and came to the tandem arrangement.

              Quote: Order
              There are statistics from Afghanistan (I don’t remember the numbers), in general, some MI-24s crashed because the weapons operator did not know that the pilot was seriously injured or died, not having time to take control of the helicopter.


              And there are exactly the same statistics that in case of unsuccessful small arms fire from the ground, the pilot and operator located next to each other in the same cabin died simultaneously. That is why in 1971, based on the statistics collected there in Afghanistan, at the site of military operations, the Mi-24 cabin was divided by an armored partition and generally completely redesigned.

              Here is the cockpit in which the pilots were killed by a single machine gun burst.
              And this is what it became after 1971

              And most importantly, the cause was eliminated: thin cabin walls. The cabin was armored. At least from small arms. And the Mi-28 cabin is up to 20 mm caliber.
              so the Milevtsy did not allow this mistake to be repeated. The only way to kill a pilot in a Mi-28 is to fire at the machine with something larger than 20mm.

              But the fact that you avoided answering my question, immediately moving on to criticizing the Mi-24, shows that you understand perfectly well: in the Ka-52 cockpit, the one on the right does not see anything on the left, and the one on the left does not see anything on the right. The crew members INTERFERE with each other.
              Yes, they can talk, have coffee, or even play cards, theoretically. They cannot fight together normally.
              1. +1
                16 September 2024 15: 53
                And there are exactly the same statistics about how, in the event of an unsuccessful attack from small arms from the ground, the pilot and operator, located next to each other in the same cabin, died simultaneously.

                Your example is not correct, the glass cockpit on the first MI-24s had no armor, in the KA-52 the pilots sit in an armored bath which has spaced armor and there is armored glass on the front side and at the moment there are no statistics on how often two pilots died at once in such a cockpit configuration.
                In any hot skirmishes, the crews of the KA-52 most often work and there are more losses among these helicopters, because the Mi-28 cannot operate outside the range of the small MANPADS due to the short range of the Atak ATGM (in connection with this, the Vikhr ATGM was installed there).
                The ATGM Vikhr appeared thanks to Mikheev S.V., who united many KB around himself when creating his KA-50, and if it were not for Kamov's KB, there would not have been the Vitebsk BKO (it was first developed on the KA-50), the ATGM Vikhr, etc.
                The military conflict showed that the MI-28 is a commercial project, and the KA-52 is a combat helicopter.
    2. 0
      12 September 2024 13: 05
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      Less than 15 years had passed since the start of operation when the authors of the “disabled” began to realize that, compared to the Great Mile,

      And Mil had a DIRECT relation to the Mi-24? He died in 1970, a year after the first flight of the Mi-24, and the last helicopter he designed himself was the Mi-12 rotorcraft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but after him he only carried out general management of the design bureau.

      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      This is a return to the external suspension nodes of the ATGM guides.


      Isn't 16 ATGMs in two packs of 8 like now not enough for you? People from the SVO say that even launching a couple of them is a problem...
      1. +1
        12 September 2024 13: 16
        And Mil had a DIRECT relation to the Mi-24? He died in 1970, a year after the first flight of the Mi-24, and the last helicopter he designed himself was the Mi-12 rotorcraft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but after him he only carried out general management of the design bureau.


        He started working on the Mi-24 earlier.

        People from SVO say that even letting a couple in there is a problem...


        Launching an ATGM, especially finding a target, is a very complicated matter. And given how the level of training of today's helicopter pilots has collapsed, there is nothing surprising. Alas, the generation gap did not just pass.


        Is 16 ATGMs in two packs of 8 like now not enough for you?


        The point is that this type of suspension is not available for the Mi-36.
        1. 0
          12 September 2024 13: 33
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          The point is that this type of suspension is not available for the Mi-36.

          Well, as I was told, the Mi-35 was made for the foreign market. At some point, attack helicopters became fashionable. And the Mi-24, unlike the Mi-28, had already proven itself well. And so they made this strange version. They tried to reduce the price to a minimum and enhance the attack capabilities as much as possible. That's why the landing gear does not retract, the wing is smaller, and the speed is reduced. The machine was unified with the Mi-28 as much as possible. No one was going to supply it to the Russian army, that's what the Mi-24P was and is for. And as usual, it has both the landing gear and pylons. I know that they installed the propellers from the Mi-28, but what's next with the modernization - alas, I don't know. And it's a problem to find out now - since the beginning of the SVO, Rostec has removed current information about military equipment from all its websites and from all materials.
  11. -1
    7 September 2024 22: 45
    Experience of testing and use has shown that this weapon is more effective than the YakB-12,7 machine gun or the GSh-30 cannon.
    Is 23mm more effective than 30mm???
    1. 0
      8 September 2024 12: 06
      And the number of ammo rounds and accuracy? Well, you can put a 100 mm cannon there.
    2. +2
      8 September 2024 17: 24
      The GSh-23L is mounted in a rotating turret, while the GSh-2-30K is fixed to the right of the hull and has an ammo capacity that is almost 2 times smaller.
      1. +1
        8 September 2024 20: 15
        The GSh-23L is mounted in a rotating turret, while the GSh-2-30K is fixed to the right of the hull and has an ammo capacity that is almost 2 times smaller.

        The GSh-23L is very inferior to the GSh-2-30 in terms of range.
        1. 0
          8 September 2024 22: 59
          Here the question is for the Mi-24P pilots, to what extent the advantage of the GSh-2-30K in range can be realized in practice: the capabilities of the sight and the accuracy of the helicopter's maneuvering guidance.
          Although, there is a Mi-24P simulator for DCS World in early access. You can roughly estimate how it is in reality.
          1. +1
            8 September 2024 23: 31
            From one and a half kilometers away on the training ground, it is no problem to hit a target such as a tank.
  12. The comment was deleted.