Military Review

ZVO air base in the Pskov region has been replenished with two Mi-35

50
At the army airbase aviation in the Pskov region received two attack helicopters Mi-35, reports MIC with reference to the representative of the Western District Igor Muginov.




“The new combat vehicles went through all stages of factory inspections and tests, were adopted by the engineering staff of the air base. Currently, their active use has begun in the course of training activities, ”said Migunov.

According to the colonel, "along with the Mi-24 and Mi-8 helicopters, the new combat vehicles will perform tasks as part of flight tactical exercises, and will also be used in various tactical exercises from company to brigade level."

Migunov recalled that “Mi-35 helicopters are designed to destroy armored vehicles and manpower of a conventional enemy, fire support for motorized rifle and tank subunits, landing of troops, as well as transportation of goods in the cabin and on an external sling. "

The crew of the helicopter - 2 person, the number of seats for paratroopers - 8.
Photos used:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 9 December 2015 09: 13 New
    0
    Wet turned out MI-35 ... to modify! And so the machine is promising!
    1. Tanker55
      Tanker55 9 December 2015 09: 22 New
      +6
      Comrade Colonel general I want to read. Thank you.
      1. dchegrinec
        dchegrinec 9 December 2015 09: 24 New
        +2
        Из стаей "я вертолётчик части 1,2,3" были ранее.Сам пилот рассказывал про каждый тип вертолёта.
        1. Tanker55
          Tanker55 9 December 2015 09: 31 New
          0
          Thank you, of course, but if you yourself piloted this device, then it would be a plus. And thanks so much!
          1. dchegrinec
            dchegrinec 9 December 2015 09: 40 New
            +2
            We all, including you, rely on written materials. I believe it is not very correct not to trust a Russian pilot.
            1. Tanker55
              Tanker55 9 December 2015 09: 52 New
              +1
              I have no reason not to trust our Soviet-Russian pilots, but when you read, or talk one on one, you ask, then it’s a completely different matter.
              I myself sometimes sit down with friends and talk about Russian military equipment and I am pleased to talk about the T-72, BREM-1 battle tank.
              Thanks for the dialogue. Plus!
            2. Ezhaak
              Ezhaak 9 December 2015 10: 22 New
              0
              Quote: dchegrinec
              Wet turned out MI-35 ... to modify!

              Tell me, have you personally ever created something original and without subsequent alterations, in order to improve it? I suspect the answer: Never created anything.
      2. Dembel77
        Dembel77 9 December 2015 09: 47 New
        +2
        "Mi-35 helicopters are designed to destroy armored vehicles and manpower conditional the adversary
        Let real opponents not hope for a random (I hope) typo, according to them thirty fifths will work just fine too. Definitely!
    2. Nick
      Nick 9 December 2015 09: 28 New
      +5
      Quote: dchegrinec
      Wet turned out MI-35 ... to modify! And so the machine is promising!

      What is the car damp? Mi-35 is one of the versions of the modernization of the famous Crocodile - Mi-24, which has been produced since 1971 of the year. Do you think that our engineers for 45 years have not managed to bring this helicopter to mind?
      1. dchegrinec
        dchegrinec 9 December 2015 09: 31 New
        +1
        They hit articles in three parts of a pilot who piloted all types of helicopters. His opinion is that the helicopter is a little worse in control than MI-24. It needs to be taxied all the time.
        1. Nick
          Nick 9 December 2015 10: 40 New
          0
          Quote: dchegrinec
          They hit articles in three parts of a pilot who piloted all types of helicopters. His opinion is that the helicopter is a little worse in control than MI-24. It needs to be taxied all the time.

          Let me link to the article
    3. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 9 December 2015 09: 28 New
      +3
      not quite so, they are not damp. The Mi-24 is a legendary helicopter, and its 35th modernization, a bit more electronics, has become all-weather and it is possible to operate in the dark.
      1. klaus16
        klaus16 9 December 2015 09: 40 New
        +3
        То, что пришло 2 борта новых в полк это хорошо. Но больше бы радовало такое: "в декабре в этот полк поступило 2 борта, в январе ожидается ещё 2" "В ЮВО в декабре пополнение в 3 полка поступили 6 машин". И вот в таком духе. То есть машин то больше надо! Я понимаю, что не всё сразу, но всё же.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. remy
        remy 9 December 2015 10: 20 New
        0
        Crocodile in the subject
        1. snc
          snc 9 December 2015 10: 39 New
          0
          Only here in the photo is the imported version of the modernization ...
      4. Skifotavr
        Skifotavr 9 December 2015 17: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey-74
        not quite so, they are not damp. The Mi-24 is a legendary helicopter, and its 35th modernization, a bit more electronics, has become all-weather and it is possible to operate in the dark.

        Modernization can also be damp. By the way, the full name of this helicopter is Mi-35M.
    4. Sura
      Sura 9 December 2015 10: 14 New
      +2
      MI-24 has been finalizing all of Avgan’s 8 years, KB representatives lived in combat units, and this will be finalized, and it won’t go anywhere.
    5. Leks69Rus
      Leks69Rus 9 December 2015 11: 53 New
      0
      What is promising then? Based on the obsolete Mi-24. This is not promising, but transitional, between the 24th and 28th. But in fact, neither fish nor meat. And not a full Mi-24 and not a Mi-28. Our command continues to suffer from inconsistency, purchasing at the same time 3 attack helicopters.
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 9 December 2015 09: 14 New
    +3
    Great car, a good decision to modernize and use as directed.
  3. oldav
    oldav 9 December 2015 09: 14 New
    +1
    Why do they continue to produce them? There are already Ka-52 and Mi-28.
    1. Stanislav 1978
      Stanislav 1978 9 December 2015 09: 17 New
      +5
      Quote: oldav
      Why do they continue to produce them? There are already Ka-52 and Mi-28.

      Ka-52 and Mi-28 are purely attack helicopters, Mi-35 attack-transport helicopters, landing reconnaissance groups, participating in rescue operations, evacuating the wounded. Mi-35 goes to replace the Mi-24.
      1. oldav
        oldav 9 December 2015 09: 23 New
        0
        I especially do not remember the cases when it was used as an airborne evacuation. With these and mi-8 is not bad at coping. I just do not understand why produce several types of machines for the same purpose?
        1. Teberii
          Teberii 9 December 2015 09: 29 New
          +3
          In Chechnya, in Afghanistan. Mi-8 and its modifications are poorly protected, so it’s more realistic to use the Mi-35 on the battlefield.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 December 2015 10: 17 New
            0
            Quote: Teberii
            In Chechnya, in Afghanistan.

            In Chechnya and Afghanistan, Mi-8s were used as airborne evacuation vehicles. Mi-24s mainly worked undercover.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 December 2015 10: 19 New
          0
          Quote: oldav
          I just do not understand why produce several types of machines for the same purpose?

          The order for the Mi-35 was issued when the Ka-52 and Mi-28 were even more raw than now. In those days, the secluded this couple did not have BKO and could not fire guided missiles. Now, EMNIP, the problems are only with NAR.
      2. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 9 December 2015 09: 29 New
        +1
        so precisely such turntables are simply necessary
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 December 2015 10: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: oldav
      Why do they continue to produce them? There are already Ka-52 and Mi-28.

      Because both of these cars are still raw. Denis Mokrushin recently had an interview with a helicopter pilot:
      - What would you like to modify or additionally have on the Mi-28H?

      - Hmm ... Probably, to just cure all childhood diseases of the machine. The helicopter from series to series is becoming more reliable, but I would like it to be completed more efficiently. For example, there used to be a problem with gearboxes. Very warm, there was a bad airflow, poor cooling of the oil. Finished. Overheated ceased.
      1. oldav
        oldav 9 December 2015 12: 28 New
        0
        Cars are 35 years old and are they raw ??
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 December 2015 13: 49 New
          0
          Quote: oldav
          Cars are 35 years old and are they raw ??

          For 35 years, there are only prototypes flying on big holidays and piloted and serviced by specialists of design bureaus and factories.
          Serial vehicles in combat units, which are operated much more often and which are piloted and serviced by the army, always in the first few years demonstrate a whole bunch of glitches and bugs.
          In addition, during the development of machines, their avionics changed several times. And he has the same problems: we can lick prototypes, but immediately make a glitch-free series - no.
  4. Igor39
    Igor39 9 December 2015 09: 28 New
    +1
    "Экипаж вертолёта – 2 человека, количество мест для десантников – 8."
    He flew in Mi 24, seven men barely climbed, after 30 minutes of flight, barely straightened his legs, despite the fact that we were without weapons.
    1. Tanker55
      Tanker55 9 December 2015 09: 37 New
      +2
      I assure you Igor39, in combat conditions, in order to quickly leave the battlefield, this unit will enter more than expected (I'm not sure, but it entered the T-72).
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 9 December 2015 09: 49 New
        +1
        In Mi 35, the wings were cut, the number of pylons was reduced to two, thereby reducing the wing area, the article was and the pilot said that the Mi 35 is less stable at the rate than the Mi 24, which was confidently walking, it’s possible to put it there, but it’s a bit much even for Mi 24.
      2. Igor39
        Igor39 9 December 2015 09: 51 New
        +1
        Minus is not mine, I will raise your rating))))
        1. Tanker55
          Tanker55 9 December 2015 10: 00 New
          +3
          Less more, less less! The truth is the matter, and it is born only in dialogues and disputes.
          Thanks Igor 39.
  5. Tanker55
    Tanker55 9 December 2015 09: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Tankman55
    I assure you Igor39, in combat conditions, in order to quickly leave the battlefield, this unit will enter more than expected (I'm not sure, but it entered the T-72).

    Thank you for the minus. And if you need, how many passengers enter your car? I suggest you conduct an experiment.
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 9 December 2015 10: 30 New
      +1
      I can tell you quite reliably that INSIDE BTR-70 28 people enter and the car is quite capable of completing at least 50 km. march then.
      1. Vadya718
        Vadya718 9 December 2015 11: 37 New
        0
        It is about the BTR-70. I don’t know about 28 people, but we - 2 squads (22 soldiers), apart from the driver and commander, our armored personnel carrier took out normally. Yes, it was a bit crowded, but tolerant, especially in conditions close to military ones (exercises).
  6. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 9 December 2015 09: 59 New
    0
    While we have an insufficient number of helicopters, such events are certainly encouraging.
  7. rudolff
    rudolff 9 December 2015 10: 05 New
    +3
    They criticized the Union for the diversity of the nomenclature of weapons, but it seems that they have already surpassed it. There were Mi-8, Mi-24 and Mi-2. Now Mi-35, Mi-28, Ka-52 and Mi-226 with Ansat have been added to them. Regarding the Mi-35, it is not needed. It was not supposed to be adopted, purely for export. Then they nevertheless signed a contract, motivating them with the complexity of the transition to the Mi-28 and the problems of its development in combat units. Type, forced and temporary measure. Now they are driven by inertia, not really thinking why. It would be much more logical to upgrade to the modern level the Mi-24s in service, and instead of the Mi-35, they could long ago launch the dual-control Mi-28 combat training series.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 December 2015 11: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      It would be much more logical to modernize the Mi-24 armed with modern weapons.

      And get as a result of this modernization ... Mi-35.
      In addition, what is the service life of those in service with the Mi-24? It seems to me that for the most part they still remember the USSR. It’s better to have new Mi-35s than pour new wine into dilapidated bellows.

      Вообще же, название "Ми-35" всех только путает. Большинство почему-то считает его новой моделью. Хотя на самом деле - это Ми-24ВП-М или ВМ.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 9 December 2015 12: 49 New
        +1
        If, as a result of the modernization of the Mi-24, the Mi-35 is obtained, God forbid. But it will be a modernization of the combat machines already in service, the resource of which is far from exhausted. And the new wine ... The new wine is Mi-28 and Ka-52. On the approach UB Mi-28N, Mi-28NM with sub-submarine radar, ship version of Ka-52. If we were to reanimate the old car in a new incarnation, then we should recall the Ka-50, and not the reincarnation of the Mi-24P.
        Ситуация с Ми-24/35 аналогична с БТР-80. На смену БТР-80 был разработан БТР-90 Росток. Но где-то далеко впереди замаячил праобраз Бумеранга, Росток зарубили. Но зато запустили в серию как-бы переходный БТР-82, а ля поколение плюс плюс. Зачем? Если до уровня БТР-82 элементарно можно было довести стоящие на вооружении БТР-80. Ну а теперь имеем новую технику с "конвейера" с улучшенными ТТХ уровня 70-80 годов. У всеми "любимых" американцев пословица есть такая: я не настолько богат, что бы покупать дешевые вещи. Судя по всему, мы очень богатые.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 December 2015 13: 52 New
          0
          Quote: rudolff
          If, as a result of the modernization of the Mi-24, the Mi-35 is obtained, God forbid. But it will be a modernization of the combat machines already in service, the resource of which is far from exhausted.

          I'm afraid that the cost of this modernization will approach the cost of a new helicopter. Kapitalka hull, engines and transmissions, a complete replacement of electrics and electronics, a new chassis and wing ...
          It’s not the indestructible T-72s, which were produced so much that you can find hundreds of vehicles (relatively intact and with a low consumption of resources) in the warehouses for conversion into the T-72B3. A helicopter is a delicate and fragile thing, and it does not withstand long storage in our conditions. And only combat machines, which often have already passed two Chechnya, remain for modernization.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 9 December 2015 14: 31 New
            +1
            Aleksey, after all, both the hull, the engines, and the transmission are all the same necessary because capital is necessary, technology is technology. It is better not to touch the wing and chassis at all. It turned out to be too dubious an innovation on the Mi-35. The short wing and fixed landing gear really make the LTX worse. Well, avionics, yes, I need to change.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 9 December 2015 17: 31 New
              0
              Quote: rudolff
              Aleksey, after all, both the hull, the engines, and the transmission are all the same necessary because capital is necessary, technology is technology. It is better not to touch the wing and chassis at all. It turned out to be too dubious an innovation on the Mi-35. The short wing and fixed landing gear really make the LTX worse. Well, avionics, yes, I need to change.

              As a result of such modernization, we get a new avionics and new engines in a practically new building. Isn’t it easier to immediately build a new helicopter? smile
              Fixed gear worsens aerodynamics. But it increases safety. And most importantly - it gives a gain in weight of 90 kg.
              Что же до крыла, то оно, ЕМНИП, даёт выигрыш лишь на больших скоростях. А на малых - наоборот "затежеляет" машину, попадая под отбрасываемый несущим винтом поток (помницца, при проектировании Ми-26 вообще выкинули крылья, исходя из подобных проблем на его предшественнике - Ми-6). Кроме того, после всех модернизаций исходный Ми-24 потяжелел настолько, что конструкторы борются практически за каждый килограмм. Вот и обрезали крыло (у меня вообще есть подозрение, что если бы Ми-35 оставили со старым крылом, то при загрузке всех 6 точек он не взлетел бы).
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 9 December 2015 18: 59 New
                +1
                Aleksey, your question is, isn’t it easier than bothering with the modernization of the old T-72s to launch the new T-72B3s in a series? Not T-90MS, namely 72B3? The analogy is straightforward. Well, let’s say, one new Mi-35 is better (?) Than two unfused and modernized Mi-24s, but ... And with the old Mi-24s, what do you suggest? Write off scrap as unnecessary? And then what will we stay with? In the same Syria, the Mi-24s are working, the group in Armenia, again, the Mi-24s have been strengthened ...
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff 9 December 2015 19: 11 New
                  +1
                  Both have problems with take-off, as well as hanging. That of the 24th, that of the 35th. I didn’t believe it until I realized that the Mi-24 was taking off from the front landing gear. It accelerates in a strip, like an airplane, then lifts its tail, tears off the main struts, rolls on one wheel of the front strut for a while, and then takes off.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 9 December 2015 20: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: rudolff
                    Both have problems with take-off, as well as hanging. That of the 24th, that of the 35th. I didn’t believe it until I realized that the Mi-24 was taking off from the front landing gear.

                    So this is standard practice since the days of Afghanistan.
                    Вертикальный взлет в условиях, где вертолет "сам себя едва носил", почти не использовался. С ВПП обычно поднимались по-самолетному, со 100-150-метровым разбегом. По методике ЛИИ был освоен еще более радикальный способ взлета с разбегом только на передних колесах. При этом наклоненная вперед на 10-12 градусов машина энергично разгонялась и отрывалась от земли вдвое быстрее, а стартовая weight could be increased by 1000-1500 kg. However, this method required a refined piloting technique. In November 1986, in Bagram, during an emergency flight, the pilot started the run right from the parking lot and, striking his blades on concrete, went on a mission with wingtips bent up. He did not dare to return back under the squeal of a mutilated propeller, sat down in the field and there he waited for the repair team.

                    However, they did not invent a methodology for such a take-off from scratch - until Afghanistan such a take-off was a regular take-off for heavy helicopters.
                    According to the methodology adopted in the Soviet Air Force, take-off on heavy helicopters was carried out with a small take-off, and landing with a small mileage, which required a runway with a length of at least 350 m and withstanding certain glide path characteristics. It was far from always possible to comply with all these rules, and more or less suitable landing sites were used to receive the Mi-6.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 9 December 2015 20: 44 New
                  0
                  Quote: rudolff
                  Aleksey, your question is, isn’t it easier than bothering with the modernization of the old T-72s to launch the new T-72B3s in a series? Not T-90MS, namely 72B3? The analogy is straightforward.

                  Nope. And you know why? Because the armored hull, suspension and cannon of the tank are much more tenacious and indestructible than the body of the helicopter.
                  For the tank, you can take the T-72B from storage, take out the inside and sandblast the hull to remove rust. For it takes another 100-150 years for the body to rust to a loss of strength.
                  But in the case of a helicopter, you will have to carefully check the entire set and casing.
                  Quote: rudolff
                  And with the old Mi-24s, what do you propose doing? Write off scrap as unnecessary? And then what will we stay with?

                  If the resource is knocked out so much that modernization is reduced to transferring the nameplates and plates to a virtually new helicopter, then such a machine should be sent only for decommissioning. The rest should be exploited until the resource is exhausted. Alas, we do not have stock reserves of zero or slightly curb Mi-24. sad
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 9 December 2015 22: 15 New
                    +1
                    Alas, Alexei, I understand your logic, but not this logic, the 35th is obliged to be adopted. I repeat, we should not have it. The new version of the Mi-24, designed exclusively for export. Only problems with the development of the Mi-28 were the cause. Well, the lack of UB Mi-28N. In any case, the official version was voiced like that. Temporary need and nothing more.
                    As for your examples regarding the long-term durability of this or that equipment ... Well, let’s say, on the T-72 you can limit yourself to modernization, since the case is not dead. Let's say! But then explain the release of the new BTR-82! Not the modernization of the existing BTR-80, namely the release of new ones. Because the body is thinner? But it’s all business: a new uninhabited BM, and surveillance devices and other trifles. The analogy with the T-72B3 is complete. BTR-82 was simply sold. Good order, good money. And the Mi-35 will not be abandoned for a long time for the same reason.
                    If we talk about aircraft, then with proper maintenance and timely repairs, it can still give odds to tanks. Remember the B-52. Half a century in the service and still not going to retire soon.
                    Regarding the take-off from the front desk, by the way, yes, the Afghans were. Then they said that you couldn’t take off from mountain airfields with a full load in another way. A crocodile is generally a bit strange car. It seems like a helicopter, but with airplane manners. This is good.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 10 December 2015 11: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: rudolff
                      Alas, Alexei, I understand your logic, but not this logic, the 35th is obliged to be adopted. I repeat, we should not have it. The new version of the Mi-24, designed exclusively for export. Only problems with the development of the Mi-28 were the cause. Well, the lack of UB Mi-28N. In any case, the official version was voiced like that. Temporary need and nothing more.

                      And that too.
                      С одной стороны мы имели "сырые" Ми-28 и Ка-52 с длительными сроками освоения в частях.
                      С другой - дороговизну модернизации имеющегося парка Ми-24 и его изрядную "убитость" 20 годами эксплуатации без плановой замены или с заменой в гомеопатических количествах.
                      With the third - Mi-35, mass-produced for a foreign customer.

                      Короче говоря, отечественные Ми-35 - это типичный заказ времён мебельщика. Когда времени ждать вундерваффе от отечественной промышленности уже не было (армия рисковала остаться вообще "безлошадной"), и для своей армии начали заказывать серийно производящуюся экспортную технику. Вот и получили Ми-35, 11356, 636.3, две модификации Су-30...
                      1. rudolff
                        rudolff 10 December 2015 13: 41 New
                        +1
                        "...отечественные Ми-35
                        is a typical order of the times
                        мебельщика. Когда времени ждать вундерваффе от отечественной промышленности уже не было...".
                        Ну-у... Тут и возразить нечего. Все верно. Гладко было на бумаге, да забыли про овраги. Собственно об этом и хотел сказать. Немного странно только, что в той же Сирии воюют опять таки ветераны. Пускай Ми-28 еще только осваивают, но Ми-35 то где? Или сугубо для показательных "проверок боеготовности"?
    2. Leks69Rus
      Leks69Rus 9 December 2015 12: 10 New
      0
      Moreover, I believe that helicopters no longer play the first violin. The use of helicopters as it now carries a huge risk of losing both an expensive machine and most importantly the life of a pilot. Today's war belongs to universal aircraft with high-precision weapons, with advanced detection systems. Impact drones also play an increasingly important role. Helicopters are necessary either to destroy lightly armed formations or, again, to destroy enemy equipment with high-precision weapons, from distances inaccessible for enemy defeat. IMHO is too large a number, and judging by the purchases of other countries with the exception of the United States, nobody buys hundreds of helicopters. In our realities, 200-300 modern attack helicopters will be enough. For reference, we now have 200 mi-24s and the same total of mi-35 28ok and ka-52. Total more than 400. In Syria, for example, only 12 helicopters are involved, and no 28oks and ka-52s. Obviously, for a local conflict, several 10k helicopters will be enough.
  8. Avis24
    Avis24 9 December 2015 10: 33 New
    -1
    Mi-35 is damp. Like the Mi-28 and Ka-52. Bring to mind do not hesitate. Over the past 3-4 years, much has been done. With a creak with scandals and obscenities, but they do. On the Mi-35, the supporting system is composite, lighter. And this greatly affects the features of piloting. There are pilots who fly with great pleasure on the Mi-28 than on the 35th. They say shaking too. So the aerodynamic layout, when considering the mutual influence of structural elements, a serious thing. There is a lot of evidence in the birth stories of aircraft.
  9. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 9 December 2015 10: 35 New
    0
    "...вертолёты Ми-35 предназначены для уничтожения бронетехники и живой силы conditional adversary..."
    It’s somehow strange to read. belay