Military Review

Question on the topic of the day: how much does Russia need helicopter pilots?

92
The question is not from a professional in terms of the knowledge of the world of helicopters. And it is caused by the next news about the next tragedy connected with the helicopters of our VKS.


On the one hand, everything is clear. A helicopter is a combat vehicle, and its use implies a certain probability that the enemy will work on it. And, since this is a matter of survival, it will not just work out, but torn to the British flag. This is a war, there is nothing to change.

However, looking at the video to the accompaniment of jackals howls, I caught some deja vu. I have already seen such a fall. In Dubrovichi, near Ryazan, when the Golden Eagles Mi-28H crashed. And the result was the same: the pilot died. Yes, the navigator-operator survived, although he would no longer fly. Just life to live - and the good.

Plus, the events of April of this year, also in Syria. When another Mi-28H crashed.

But I prefer to leave the technical side aside, this is for specialists. The following question arises: do we have so many pilots? No, really, do we have a lot of pilots, as it may be required in the very notorious "if anything"?

It seems to me that not so much. Yes, the country is big, but if we can’t find about a dozen sportsmen from 140 millions, so that they don’t look like degenerates temporarily released on receipt, then the situation may be even “cooler” for pilots.

Again, it is clear that with the pilots so far everything is smooth. Both in quantity and quality. Otherwise, the results of the Syrian operation would be like the "partners" - imperceptible and half-paid. But - no reason, you know.

At one of the resources in the network read the opinion that, they say, it is necessary to learn from the "partners". For achievements are, but there are no losses. Of course, it is forgivable from Square to hear such a thing, because we are aware of the achievements of "partners". Actually, everything is simple: no losses, because they did not do anything. And the point.

The question is, are the rescue systems in our Mi-24 and Mi-28 up-to-date? There is an opinion that is not very. Losing six pilots in three disasters this year is a bit too much.

The rescue system is a complicated and time-consuming thing. Yes, the crew has the opportunity to get out of the helicopter and escape with the help of a parachute. If the height allows. And if it does not allow? If the height - the very notorious 200-300 meters? Or lower. It remains to rely on shock absorbing landing gear and armchairs. As they say, they must save. In practice, we see something different.

Here is a video that we shot in Dubrovich.



It is difficult to say what the height was when the crew realized that a hydraulic failure had occurred. Definitely more 100 meters. But it is absolutely clear why the pilots did not try to shoot the screws. The reason was here on earth. Thousands of 10-12 viewers, in which the blades could easily fly. And apparently, it was decided to sit on autorotation and rely on the rescue system. Did not work. Exactly half. The pilot died, the navigator survived.

However, it can be said that the systems have worked. And worked well. But here the helicopter was dropping evenly, so there were chances. And in Syria, unfortunately, the fall was at an angle.



Today's day makes one reluctantly think, and whether that’s the way, comrades? Yes, there seems to be no problem with helicopters. The best in the world, the very best and all in that spirit. Normal spirit, our flying technique is really the best. And we have great pilots. They know how to distinguish an oil tanker from an excavator and destroy a gearbox or convoy of trucks without the use of nuclear ammunition.

This, by the way, is a reason to think about the fact that pilots should not just be taken care of. And take good care.

Someone may say that military pilots - it is for that and the military to fight. And combat use is always associated with risk.

I agree. But why not reduce this risk? Moreover, there is something. In addition to the Pamir-K armchair, which the Mil helicopters are equipped with, Zvezda NPK also produces such a thing as the K-37-800 product. Ejection seat, which is used in the Ka-50 and Ka-52 helicopters. Naturally, unparalleled in the world.





This CAS allows the pilot to catapult in the speed range from 90 to 350 km / h and at altitudes from 0 to 5000 meters. Ka-52 and Ka-50 helicopters are equipped with this system.

For me, the secret behind seven seals is why the Chief of the General Staff Yury Baluyevsky decided in 2005 that Ka-50 helicopters were suitable "for special operations," and the Ministry of Defense decided to make the Mi-28Н main attack helicopter. It is difficult to say what was behind the scenes of this decision, what games of our two manufacturers, but we are beginning to reap the benefits today.

The helicopter pilots suffered losses both in Afghanistan and in Chechnya. But then, as if there was no choice. Today there is a choice. And I think it is worth thinking about this issue. Today we are not in a position where you can scatter flying cadres. Still, any pilot is a high-class specialist who takes years of training.

Of course, in helicopters, I am not a specialist. But for helicopter pilots it is impossible not to have the deepest respect, because in combat practice you get almost kamikazes. And I would not want to. And the new must be taught, and the old cherish. Pilot, you know, this is not a machine gunner, you will not mold it in six months.

I think that our helicopters will express their opinion.
Author:
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. corporal
    corporal 13 July 2016 05: 41
    +9
    why defense minister Yuri Baluevsky in 2005
    ?? what Banshee, you got nothing wrong?
    ==================================================
    As for the Mi-24,25,35 and there is a shooting screws?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 09: 00
      +9
      Quote: Corporal
      Banshee, you got nothing wrong?

      He just in the light of recent events, when MI 35 was shot down and two MI 28 crashed, decided to write in favor of KA 50 and KA 52.
      If he dribbled deeper, he would know that the KA 50 crashed in Chechnya, the pilot died.
      Ka 52
      5. The Ka-52 helicopter crashed in the Tver region, one pilot died on the spot, the second in the hospital
      The Ka-52 helicopter crashed in Moscow. The Ka-52 military helicopter, which crashed in the southeast of the capital today at about 15.30 Moscow time, fell near the fence on the territory of the helicopter plant.
      He made an emergency, the car burned down.
      ... The Ka-52 crashed on Monday near the Torzhok airfield, killing both pilots.
      I looked into Google, I don’t know why the author didn’t. The catapult is installed on all fighters, but the pilots die constantly. It is installed on KA 52, but the pilots are dying. The role of the psyche of the pilots who are trying to save the car to the end and escape from residential areas at the cost of their own lives plays the role.
      Therefore, reading this Helicopter pilots suffered losses in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. But then, as it were, there was no choice. Today there is a choice.
      I haven’t met and will never meet a helicopter pilot who will say that MI 24, MI 8 or MI 35 is a bad machine.
      And if the author tried to convince everyone that MI is worse than the spacecraft, then he really does not understand anything about this topic.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 13 July 2016 09: 34
        +5
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        And if the author tried to convince everyone that MI is worse than the spacecraft, then he really does not understand anything about this topic.


        But in fact it's worse. If you use Google. "On account" Ka-52 two falls, in the Torzhok district of the Tver region, with the death of people, and during the state. trials - the crew was saved.
        Mi-28- five. In one case, the entire crew died, in two, the crew commander. For some reason, the pilots were to blame for all the disasters. Even in the case of a failure of the propulsion system.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 09: 46
          +9
          Quote: Spade
          But in fact it’s worse.

          It does not crash, only that which does not fly! I remember a video with an article from Syria, where they beat up the T 90. So many stupid comments, I have not met for a long time. People thought that it was impossible to hit the T 90.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 July 2016 09: 57
            +6
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            It does not crash, only that which does not fly!

            Well yes. Just some do it more often, others less often.

            Well, the situation when only the commander dies in two accidents with a hard landing is already a very unpleasant tendency, and not an accident.

            The same very unpleasant tendency is that all these newest and coolest means of rescue have never been used. Here or it is better to retrain the pilots whose entire service took place on the Mi-24. Or put "forced", as on the Soviet VTOL aircraft
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 10: 17
              +4
              Quote: Spade
              Well yes. Just some do it more often, others less often.

              Well, for example?
              Quote: Spade
              Well, the situation when only the commander dies in two accidents with a hard landing is already a very unpleasant tendency, and not an accident.

              Each accident is unique and you need to know specifically, in detail, why this happened. And to draw conclusions from notes in the media is not serious. Moreover, do it at the amateur level.
              I do not mean you personally, but the discussion as a whole.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 July 2016 10: 39
                +2
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Well, for example?

                For example, Ka-52 two disasters, Mi-28-five.

                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Each accident is unique and you need to know specifically, in detail, why this happened. And to draw conclusions from notes in the media is not serious. Moreover, do it at the amateur level.

                It is understood that amateur. In my absolutely amateurish opinion, two blows to the forehead with a rake handle is already a trend.

                why did it happen

                When over and over again the dead pilots are appointed responsible for the disaster ... what kind of proceedings can we talk about?

                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 13 July 2016 10: 51
                  +6
                  Quote: Spade
                  For example, Ka-52 two disasters, Mi-28-five.

                  This is not an indicator. He is not talking about anything. A very rough guideline could be a failure ratio for an hour of flight. But no one will give us this information.

                  Example - Ka-52 2 disaster, Mi-28 - 5. It seems Ka-52 is better. But if, for example, the Ka-52 flew 100 hours, and Mi-28 - 10 000. For Ka-52, it turns out 1 rejection for 50 hours, and for Mi-28 - 2000 hours. As a result - the opposite is true, Mi-28 seems to be more reliable. But even then, such indicators are very rough, because it must be borne in mind that all failures and catastrophes are too different. The pilot is to blame for one, the failure of equipment in the other, and the weather in the third. Neither the reliability of technology, nor the skill of pilots, such statistics can reliably reflect.
                2. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 12: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  For example, Ka-52 two disasters

                  Strange, I think there are more of them in common.
                  Quote: Spade
                  In my absolutely amateurish opinion, two blows to the forehead with a rake handle is already a trend.

                  It’s clear, that is, if in our country, fighter planes crash from time to time, is that a trend?
                  Quote: Spade
                  When, over and over again, dead pilots are appointed responsible for the disaster.

                  And if the pilot’s mistake is real, then how?
                  1. Orionvit
                    Orionvit 13 July 2016 17: 56
                    +3
                    And if the pilot’s mistake is real, then how?
                    Indeed, I am also interested in what is the pilot’s mistake in the event of a hydraulic and engine failure? By default, on all aircraft, all systems, including hydraulics, are duplicated at least two to three times. There are two engines in general, and they have been produced for more than a decade, and they have proven their high reliability both in Afghanistan and in other hot spots, the more they are constantly being modernized. Two engines cannot fail immediately. If one engine fails, the second should automatically go into emergency mode, and on one engine, not only land, but you can perfectly reach your airfield. And then the question of the fault of the pilots flows smoothly to manufacturers and ground-based technical control and maintenance services.
            2. Denimax
              Denimax 13 July 2016 20: 49
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Well, the situation when only the commander dies in two accidents with a hard landing is already a very unpleasant tendency, and not an accident.

              Depends on where the commander sits. If in tandem it is in front, then the survival rate will be the least. If the helicopter falls with its nose, then the front one will receive more impact. If it is flat, then the front one will again receive more impact, because it is closer to the bottom and has a smaller "crumple zone".
        2. In100gram
          In100gram 14 July 2016 21: 25
          0
          Quote: Spade
          In one case, the entire crew died, in two, the crew commander.

          Well, the crew commander flew in a separate helicopter. The problem is, bailouts. Really need to solve it. We probably will not be able to solve it, on the forum
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 13 July 2016 09: 43
        +10
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        And if the author tried to convince everyone that MI is worse than the spacecraft, then he really does not understand anything about this topic.

        Well, actually, this battle has been for many years. At one time on the pages of the magazine "Wings of the Motherland" there was not a sickly squabble in the form of publications from Mil and Kamov. At the same time, the nature of Mil's articles was very characteristic - the emphasis was on certain "traditions" and "experience" of combat helicopter engineering, they say, the Kamov Design Bureau is an upstart, got into a topic that they do not understand. And we, Milevtsy, wow, how long have we been building our super-high-end Mi-24, which means that our Mi-28 is also cooler. To be honest, no matter what helicopter was better, but it was after Mil's articles that a certain sediment arose that they were being written in a nervous atmosphere, "the plaster is being removed, the client is leaving, everything is gone, the boss." It was read through the lines that they were dumbfounded by the fact that on this topic, in which they calmly settled down and, as it were, were the only experts, suddenly some Kamov could offer something different. And not just offer, but also win.
      3. Falcon
        Falcon 13 July 2016 09: 46
        +2
        decided that Ka-50 helicopters are suitable "for special forces operations", and the Ministry of Defense decided to make the main attack helicopter Mi-28N. It's hard to say what was "behind the scenes" of this decision, what games of our two manufacturers, but we are starting to reap the benefits today.


        Yes, on Ka-50 questions no less.
        For starters, no matter what they say, one pilot cannot effectively perform a combat mission. Attack aircraft even require a co-pilot! What can I say about the turntable - which flies into the dense to the ground, which must be respected from the RPG, and also to direct itself.

        Therefore, the Ka-50 and as a night and as a turntable with more or less serious sighting systems is not suitable.
        Ed Macy, an Apache pilot, wrote in his book that when teaching all cadets, they suffer from severe headaches, due to the huge flow of information. What to say about one pilot.

        Secondly, the coaxial scheme is always more expensive in both production and operation than the classical one.

        Thirdly, on a coaxial scheme, it is already more difficult to place a supratulco radar (and it is much more important than a nasal one), since a not-so-good whatnot comes out.

        Fourth, when they solved the problem with the co-pilot on the Ka-52, he became heavier and less maneuverable. And the pilots are sitting nearby - to save weight.

        Fifth, with such an arrangement of pilots as on the ka-52, everyone controls only their hemisphere (there is no help!) And on the Mi-28 there is a safety net for each other.
        It was not for nothing that the Turks requested Ka-52 with a tandem cabin for their tender.

        Sixthly, retraining a pilot from Mi-24 to Mi-28 is much easier than on ka-52 - where there is a completely different machine and principles.

        Ka-52 with tandem cab:

        But so apparently it is even heavier
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 13 July 2016 10: 02
          +13
          Quote: Falcon
          Thirdly, on a coaxial scheme, it is already more difficult to place an over-the-fly radar

          And why is it, in fact, needed? Should Americans imitate? Well, then it is necessary not only to install a supra-sleeve radar, but also to radically change the tactics of using combat helicopters. Also make it American, "ambush", abandoning direct air support.

          And the funny thing is that in this case, after the Americans, we will come to understand the futility of the over-the-body radar and transfer its reconnaissance functions. UAVs, as they have now begun to do in the US Army Aviation.
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 13 July 2016 10: 14
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            And why is it, in fact, needed? Should Americans imitate? Well, then it is necessary not only to install a supra-sleeve radar, but also to radically change the tactics of using combat helicopters. Also make it American, "ambush", abandoning direct air support.


            Well why. On the Mi-28, I’m still finishing off the sub-bus radar, even though in Iraq they put cars with it. So you need it.
            I think ambush tactics and tactics of immediate support are not mutually exclusive factors. And depending on the conditions - complementing each other, and better when they are.

            In addition to the ambush, the naphthalenaya gives circular awareness during the flight, and during direct support too, there will be no surprises!

            Quote: Spade
            and transfer its intelligence functions. UAVs, as they have now begun to do in the US Army Aviation.


            With uselessness - I completely disagree, but the fact that UAVs and not only its functions need to be transferred is yes. But this is a completely different topic.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 July 2016 10: 35
              +5
              Quote: Falcon
              Well why. On the Mi-28, I’m still finishing off the sub-bus radar, even though in Iraq they put cars with it. So you need it.

              Fight off Iranian tank hordes due to terrain? Maybe. That's just the question, what to beat off. In Americans, a third-generation missile with an active radar seeker is attached to the sub-muzzle radar ...

              Quote: Falcon
              I think ambush tactics and tactics of immediate support are not mutually exclusive factors.

              Absolutely mutually exclusive. In fact, different cars. Well, a station wagon will be very expensive. Even super-rich Americans don't do that.

              In general, the second Iraqi one showed rather weak survivability on the battlefield of the Apache, sharpened for the "game from defense" and "blow from behind the corner". And the Americans rushed to actively correct this deficiency. By means that our helicopter pilots can only dream of, from reconnaissance. UAVs to MANPADS simulators.
              But for a radical decision, they don’t have a new helicopter.

              Quote: Falcon
              With uselessness - I completely disagree, but the fact that UAVs and not only its functions need to be transferred is yes. But this is a completely different topic.

              This is not "another topic", this is a natural development of the tactics of using "Apaches". Further development of the overhead radar station.
              1. Falcon
                Falcon 13 July 2016 10: 56
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                Fight off Iranian tank hordes due to terrain? Maybe. That's just the question, what to beat off. In Americans, a third-generation missile with an active radar seeker is attached to the sub-muzzle radar ...


                For awareness and for radio command correction - for example, for ATGM "Attack". For issuing tsu to the sighting complex. For terrain tracking during flight, especially at night.



                Quote: Spade
                Absolutely mutually exclusive. In fact, different cars. Well, a station wagon will be very expensive. Even super-rich Americans don't do that.


                Yah! And Apache did not provide direct support? Did not use NURSY ???
                Not so long ago, there was a supra-muzzle there, before that in the 80's and 90's, he performed direct support just like our crocodiles. And they do not need to develop anything else, everything is so.

                Quote: Spade
                This is not "another topic", this is a natural development of the tactics of using "Apaches". Further development of the overhead radar station.


                However, no one refuses it, even when paired with a scout, for there will be no one to direct.
                Another - as the development of UAVs will lead to the complete replacement of Apaches. Cobra has already abandoned the infantry in favor of the MQ-9, the next A-10 in line. Directly or from an ambush - it is easier to use UAVs. The only question is time.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 July 2016 11: 25
                  +6
                  Quote: Falcon
                  and for radio command correction - for example, for ATGM "Attack".

                  To control the "Attack" in radio command mode, it is necessary to raise not only the radar, but also the optical coordinator together with the directional antenna above the hub.

                  Therefore, when using "Attack", it is deeply plane-parallel where the radar is located.

                  Quote: Falcon
                  Yah! And Apache did not provide direct support? Did not use NURSY ???

                  Only in cases of guaranteed absence of opposition from the ground. After the enchanting "Raid on Karbella", when the Iraqis managed to shoot down one helicopter with one rifleman, and damage the rest with varying degrees of severity (out of thirty Apaches that flew out, only one returned undamaged, only two months later all the damaged cars returned to service), the Americans became much be careful about "direct support".

                  Well, NURSY ... the company for translating them into a managed version, which began after the second Iraqi, speaks for itself ...



                  Quote: Falcon
                  However, no one refuses her

                  Hanging and hanging. Suddenly need ....
        2. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 13 July 2016 18: 58
          +1
          Not the Ka-52 with a tandem cockpit, but the Ka-50-2 Erdogan - a concept based on the Ka-50, a standard cockpit, for a Turkish tender "
      4. donavi49
        donavi49 13 July 2016 10: 45
        +3
        Where both died in Ka-52, they were caught in an SMU on an extremely small tree. Both survived, but froze overnight (found by morning, 8 km from ab).
      5. dkflbvbh
        dkflbvbh 13 July 2016 13: 22
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        And if the author tried to convince everyone that MI is worse than the spacecraft, then he really does not understand anything about this topic.


        He just wanted to ask: why aren’t they putting catapults on Mi to save the pilots ...
        1. corporal
          corporal 14 July 2016 03: 45
          0
          Quote: dkflbvbh
          why don’t they put catapults on Mi to save the pilots ...

          And here is the answer:
          Quote: Bersaglieri
          There is no ejection of blades and spacecraft on Mi. Only shock absorbing and energy absorbing elements in the chassis and cab structure.
      6. Kozliu
        Kozliu 13 July 2016 13: 41
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        If he dribbled deeper, he would know that the KA 50 crashed in Chechnya, the pilot died.


        This is when it happened and what is the tail number?
      7. berezin1987
        berezin1987 13 July 2016 19: 15
        +2
        The ejection seat clearly saves the lives of pilots, although not always. Without the means of salvation, the death toll would have been many times greater. I do not know why the e-28 did not have an ejection seat installed initially. I hope that in the following modifications of the helicopter this problem will be solved.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 13 July 2016 18: 56
      +1
      Quote: Corporal
      [B]
      As for the Mi-24,25,35 and there is a shooting screws?

      There is no ejection of blades and spacecraft on Mi. Only shock absorbing and energy absorbing elements in the chassis and cab structure.
  2. PKK
    PKK 13 July 2016 06: 23
    +2
    I completely agree with Roman. The Soviet concept of attitude towards personnel is no longer appropriate. It is time to no longer allow machines that are not equipped with normal rescue systems to operate.
    1. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 13 July 2016 07: 57
      +17
      If I were you, I wouldn’t really nod to the Soviet concept of attitude towards the personnel ... what kind of pop, such is the parish. If the urorodiphrenist_ commands, then the personnel will be ill and die, regardless of the environment and CONCEPTS. Devastation in the minds, not in concepts. I served in the Soviet Army near Gorbi and was satisfied with both the service itself and my CEP (he is a graduate of the Ryazan Airborne School). And in general, it is simply indecent to nod at the USSR, which was misplaced by the military nomenclature. stop
  3. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 13 July 2016 07: 16
    +5
    Unfortunately, normal rescue systems for helicopters do not exist in principle, which is a compulsory palliative. A helicopter (more precisely, an autogyro) was therefore invented by De-Sierva as a means of saving pilots in autorotation mode. And if the pilot does not have time to enter the helicopter into this mode, then .op. Shooting the blades for vertical bailout reduces the combat load, and engine power is always not enough. Lateral bailout for physiological indicators and for structural reasons is not always applicable
    1. midivan
      midivan 13 July 2016 07: 32
      +1
      Quote: Fil743
      Unfortunately, normal rescue systems for helicopters do not exist in principle

      that vidyuha that we have, is this autorotation? as I understand it, the pilot and crew in Syria died due to a blow to the ground (fire), but is it possible to equip the equipment with brake engines that stand on capsules in which astronauts land? Well, a couple in each direction for axial stabilization (case in Syria)? Weight problem?
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 13 July 2016 08: 54
        +4
        Quote: midivan
        that vidyuha that we have, is this autorotation?


        If about Syria - then, as far as I understand, the tail rotor was shot off and no autorotation would have saved it already - a spinner without it can only spin around its axis.
        Autorotation

        1. soaring
          soaring 13 July 2016 10: 42
          +2
          Life "extension" is my autorotation! good drinks There would always be enough height to disperse the screw and long live life !!! Good luck to all pilots !!!
    2. berezin1987
      berezin1987 13 July 2016 19: 27
      0
      The helicopter has a large combat load and is not needed. A good drummer should carry 16 Ptur / 80 Nurses / hanging containers with weapons / bombs. All this is combined in different combinations. The combat load does not exceed 2,5 t. But the means of rescue for helicopter pilots will not be superfluous.
  4. tomket
    tomket 13 July 2016 07: 35
    -2
    What does lobbyism look like in life? The crash of the Mi-35 in Syria is the result of the Mil distillery lobbyism. The video of the Mi-35 crash is the strongest argument in favor of the Ka-50. At one time, the Mi-24s were excellent machines, but the appearance of the Ka-50 nullifies them, as the Dreadnought once nullified the entire armored fleet. You can use them further, but is there any point?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 08: 43
      +1
      Quote: tomket
      What does lobbyism look like in life? The crash of the Mi-35 in Syria, this is the result of lobbying for the distillery of Mil.

      How does this come to mind?
      Quote: tomket
      At one time, the Mi-24s were excellent machines, but the appearance of the Ka-50 nullifies them, as the Dreadnought once nullified the entire armored fleet.

      Have you seen a spinner in your eyes in life?
      1. igor67
        igor67 13 July 2016 10: 14
        +7
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Quote: tomket
        What does lobbyism look like in life? The crash of the Mi-35 in Syria, this is the result of lobbying for the distillery of Mil.

        How does this come to mind?
        Quote: tomket
        At one time, the Mi-24s were excellent machines, but the appearance of the Ka-50 nullifies them, as the Dreadnought once nullified the entire armored fleet.

        Have you seen a spinner in your eyes in life?

        I saw Sanya, I myself had been thinking about shooting the blades for a long time, as the master production helicopter told us to fall with stone, therefore quality and quality again, but I found a video of 56 where MI tested pyrocartridges for shooting blades and judging by the video it’s good, why not applied? Perhaps as always saving
        1. v-zk
          v-zk 13 July 2016 10: 52
          +2
          And how many of you tried to fly in a helicopter whose blades can shoot off spontaneously?
          1. igor67
            igor67 13 July 2016 11: 17
            +2
            Quote: v-zk
            And how many of you tried to fly in a helicopter whose blades can shoot off spontaneously?

            How is that? The operator’s and the pilot’s hatch also shoots off such a red handle, I didn’t hear about spontaneous shooting, about the mistakes of technicians, yes, a technician from the LIS was transferred to our team at the time, because he stumbled in the pilot’s cabin while falling and grabbed this very handle, the car was under electric shock, a shot was fired,
          2. klaus16
            klaus16 13 July 2016 12: 48
            +4
            Well, I flew so what? Do you think I was scared? And spontaneously they do not shoot back.
          3. Denimax
            Denimax 13 July 2016 20: 58
            0
            Quote: v-zk
            And how many of you tried to fly in a helicopter whose blades can shoot off spontaneously?

            This is a very unpleasant factor. And if during the shooting not all the blades will be shot? Then, even if it’s a mincemeat, she’s chopped off something.
            Then it’s better to shoot the sleeve with the propeller.
      2. tomket
        tomket 13 July 2016 12: 58
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Have you seen a spinner in your eyes in life?

        Consider yourself the only one? Or a couch expert of the highest category?
  5. tomket
    tomket 13 July 2016 07: 42
    -1
    By the way, about Milevtsev. They apparently did not have enough honesty or courage to admit that the Ka-50 came out better than their car. I remember the story when Stalin asked Lavochkin what we were going to build the La-9 or MiG-9. Lavochkin answered honestly that it was necessary to build the MiG, the future belongs to the MiG. Milevians, on the other hand, pushed their cars with manic stubbornness. At the moment, Mil's helicopters, in fact, leave the pilots no chance of salvation, and the question is, when the “neighbors” fly on “alligators”, how will the pilots of the “crocodiles” and mi-28 feel themselves when going on combat missions? How are the lacquered guaranteed coffins pilots?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 08: 43
      +4
      Quote: tomket
      "How will the Crocodile and Mi-28 pilots feel when going on combat missions? Like the Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin pilots?"

      It is a pity that the rules of Sait do not allow banning for stupidity.
      1. tomket
        tomket 13 July 2016 12: 59
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        It is a pity that the rules of Sait do not allow banning for stupidity.

        You read the memoirs of how pilots flying, for example, on LaGGs or on MiGs (Zimin), looked with envy at their "neighbors" on Yaks.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 13: 10
          -2
          Quote: tomket
          You read the memoirs of how pilots flying, for example, on LaGGs or on MiGs (Zimin), looked with envy at their "neighbors" on Yaks.

          Dear, today is 2016 in the yard. What are you talking about ???
  6. Yozhas
    Yozhas 13 July 2016 08: 12
    0
    The question of how many pilots we do not need is to solve the gene. headquarters when the order is sent to military schools. For example, I can say that at the beginning of 2000, about 240 cadets were admitted to the Syzran school per year, and in 2001 increased to 300.
    1. klaus16
      klaus16 13 July 2016 12: 52
      +1
      In the 90th they scored 600 cadets - they released 200 with something in my opinion. Together with the sailors.
  7. Gardamir
    Gardamir 13 July 2016 08: 38
    +6
    From 2001 to 2001, the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation was the hangman of Mannerheim Ivanov Sergey Borisovich.
    I have a special respect for Baluyevsky, as he was one of the developers of the "Throw on Pristina", this is my "fi" for you gentlemen getting up from your knees. And by the way, Yuri Nikolaevich Baluevsky was against the actions of Serdyukov.
    1. creak
      creak 13 July 2016 11: 05
      +2
      Quote: Gardamir
      Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation 2001 on 2001 was a hanger Mannerheim Ivanov Sergey Borisovich.
      ?

      But Baluevsky is really smart and as an NGS, like no other, was in its place.
      He was also removed for his "unenthusiastic way of thinking" and unwillingness to support any bossy nonsense ...
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 13 July 2016 11: 12
        +1
        with 2001 on 2001
        shit, I didn’t notice a black spot, thank you. The correct numbers from 2001 to 2007
  8. Alex_59
    Alex_59 13 July 2016 08: 49
    +6
    The problem is actually deeper. The whole world is gradually switching to UAVs in the matter of "direct support of the troops." UAVs are replacing manned aircraft. Of course, they will not immediately replace helicopters and attack aircraft, for some time they will complement each other. But the problem is that everything is rather sad with the UAV. How will we support the infantry in 20 years? The same Su-25 and Mi-28? Our potential opponents are already abandoning this in favor of drones. Iron will be knocked down - it's not a pity, they will still rivet. And people are alive. So, by and large, the Ka-50 ejection system is certainly cool, but it had to be done in massive quantities in the 90s. And today the Ka-50 should, in theory, be supplanted by drones. And we still think what we need more - Mi-28 or Ka-50.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 09: 28
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      And today, the Ka-50 should in principle be superseded by drones. And we still think what we need - the Mi-28 or Ka-50.

      I often meet people on the site who are better than the Moscow Region and the president know what the army needs.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 13 July 2016 09: 46
        +9
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        I often meet people on the site who are better than the Moscow Region and the president know what the army needs.

        I am not one of these. I twist nuts on live planes regularly, oil under the nails. So a little bit in the subject, although my modesty does not allow me to assume that I know this issue better than MO. Of course they know better. But this does not prevent me from thinking sensibly with my own head irrespective of them. Serdyukov also knew what the army needed. Yeah.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 09: 58
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          . But this does not prevent me from thinking sensibly with my own head, regardless of them

          True? Well then, think out loud if you can.
          Quote: Alex_59
          . Serdyukov also knew what the army needed. Yeah.

          The army, which we now have, accidentally did not appear under Serdyukov?
          Quote: Alex_59

          I am not one of these. I twist nuts on live planes regularly, oil under the nails.

          I remember here on a website one lady wrote about airplanes how to conduct an air battle. She worked at the airfield of the military-chief of the food warehouse. She was given so many advantages laughing But when the combat pilot said that she didn’t understand nichrome, he was surrounded by minuses. See what I'm hinting at?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 July 2016 10: 05
            +3
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            The army, which we now have, accidentally did not appear under Serdyukov?

            Yeah, with him. And all its huge flaws are again a consequence of his decisions.
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 10: 19
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              Yeah, with him. And all its huge flaws are again a consequence of his decisions.

              And there were shortcomings too and now they are. In essence, they were building a new army. And all the slop that was poured in the press, as Putin said, was necessary.
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 13 July 2016 10: 13
            +6
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            True? Well then, think out loud if you can.

            Somehow you push too aggressively. Okay. Briefly, I urgently need to solve the problem of creating an UAV for the direct support of troops and intelligence. With helicopters, given the current situation, today it is better to leave everything as it is. This is better than breaking the barely settled process of retraining for a new technique. IMHO. You can call me a sofa expert - not a question.
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            I remember here on a website one lady wrote about airplanes about how to conduct an air battle.

            Thank you for the comparison with the lady. Do you plan to establish a normal dialogue in this way or spit on your opponent?
            I am not a combat pilot, I am a DOSAAF volunteer, I am engaged in the repair of light aircraft in my spare time, I dealt mainly with the Il-14, Yak-12, An-2, etc. If it gives you pleasure, you can stomp on me - joke about my "expertise" , for God's sake. In the Big Aviation, with all my desire, they will no longer take me because of my age, so I do what I can, so long as the planes fly and not rot on the ground. Hello lady from the beginning of the food warehouse!
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 10: 23
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              Somehow you push too aggressively.

              Not at all, I just want specifics.
              Quote: Alex_59
              . Briefly, I urgently need to solve the problem of creating an UAV for the direct support of troops and intelligence.

              Do you think the MO do not understand this?
              Quote: Alex_59
              . With helicopters, given the current situation, today it is better to leave everything as it is

              Stop releasing new turntables?
              Quote: Alex_59
              I'm not a combat pilot

              Here, and your conclusions on the application and development of combat aviation, draw at least the commander of the regiment of the airborne forces.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 13 July 2016 10: 46
                +4
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Do you think the MO do not understand this?

                Judging by the tangible results of this "understanding" - then apparently not very much. So far, there is no UAV in the hardware capable of performing shock missions on the scale of the available at least MQ-9. Judging by their intentions, they obviously understand. But you will not be full of intentions.
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Stop releasing new turntables?

                On the contrary. Continue to release what has already been mastered by industry and went into the army. Those. leave in the mass Mi-28 series. Give the Ka-52 to the Marine Corps with the reliable assurance that sooner or later they will still be given a normal landing ship based on these particular vehicles. It is still better to have only the Mi-28 in the videoconferencing system, but here I’m not sure if it’s better to ask the drillmen whether they are comfortable with using two different types in one unit. All the same, they are different LTH, different RLE and different service regulations.
                By means of rescue - on the Ka-52, the claimed system with shooting the blades and ejection was not involved in both disasters anyway. Without Ka-52 RLE before it (and it is secret), no conclusions can be drawn. The pilots either did not want to use it, or did not have time. Depending on this, think about improvements. So for now, Ka-52 is no better in this regard than Mi-28.
                1. Lt. Air Force stock
                  Lt. Air Force stock 13 July 2016 12: 00
                  +2
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  By means of rescue - on the Ka-52 all the same, in both disasters, the declared system with the shooting of the blades and ejection was not involved.

                  So, the Mi-28 has a rescue system, at a height of more than 100 meters, the cutter cuts the cabin doors, a gangway is inflated along which the helicopter pilots can quickly leave the falling helicopter, special seats that absorb the blow to the ground must be rescued at heights of less than 100 meters, neither also did not save the pilots.
                2. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 13 July 2016 12: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Judging by the tangible results of this "understanding" - then apparently not very

                  The perceived results are under the bar and they will not be shown to you.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Those. leave in the mass Mi-28 series. Ka-52 to give to the Marine Corps

                  It is difficult to imagine how and why you send Ka 52 to the infantry, why only to them.
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 13 July 2016 13: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Alexander Romanov
                    It is difficult to imagine how and why you send Ka 52 to the infantry, why only to them.

                    Firstly, because in my understanding, two types of combat helicopters in one structure (VKS) are luxury we can’t afford. And in fact there are three types at all - also Mi-24. And if there is also a regiment (well, or a base at the present) of mixed composition ... The smaller the types, the easier the operation. The shelf should ideally be one type. Two - only if there is no other way.

                    Secondly, because Kamov traditionally makes good ship-based equipment and the coaxial scheme allows you to really reduce the area of ​​hangars for basing (though increasing their height). It seems to me that turning over on the UDK Ka-52 will be easier than the Mi-28 in the marine version, where the transmission shaft with the tail boom, and not just the HB blades, must also be folded. Plus, the nose-strut chassis is a smaller chassis base, higher understeer in tight ship conditions.

                    Quote: Alexander Romanov
                    The perceived results are under the bar and they will not be shown to you.
                    What is it like? They are not landing on the glide path? In test flights? Spotters have never burned? Let us suppose. It also happens. But serial products can’t be hidden anymore. I see when the A-50 swims over me, where does this whopper go, although it’s also secret. I'm waiting for these UAVs to buzz over me too, to land as A-50.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 July 2016 09: 44
      +2
      You write everything correctly.

      But the fact is that at the moment there is no UAV capable of fully replacing the attack helicopter.

      "Our opponents" do not refuse. Quite the opposite, they increase the "shock" of their helicopters. For example, the Americans sawed reconnaissance helicopters into reconnaissance and strike helicopters. And the UAVs go to the troops not shock, but purely reconnaissance. Capable of greatly expanding the combat capabilities of the Apache
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 July 2016 12: 48
        0
        "UAVs go to the troops not shock, but purely reconnaissance" /////

        This is for now. UAV helicopters and tiltrotoplanes are being developed. After few years
        will be in service.
    3. berezin1987
      berezin1987 13 July 2016 20: 50
      0
      Ka-50 has not been produced for a long time, all machines of this type are used as training. Currently, only the Ka-52 is mass-produced. Mi-28 was a good helicopter for its time, but it lacks a normal rescue system and modern missile shot-forgot.
  9. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 13 July 2016 09: 01
    +10
    I am far from aviation. I would like to speak about the general concept of saving people. In my opinion, it has always been secondary in relation to technology and material resources. Well, remember, the salvation of the grain field and the tractor is primary, and the person is secondary, the death of the Kursk and its rescue equipment, etc. We mock the Europeans who tremble for their lives and do not deviate a step from the instructions. We admire the unpretentiousness of our soldier, behind which often lies the inability, unwillingness of commanders to take care of the soldier. We have a truly unique and wonderful people. I am not a supporter of the theory of clinging to life at any cost. But, let's think more about the means of salvation and protect people.
  10. Turkestan
    Turkestan 13 July 2016 10: 35
    +1
    Listen, maybe he’s in the BATH system of rescue such as ejection seats and shooting blades. Maybe the parachute system used by the Airborne Forces to dump the platforms and laid in a container on board the helicopter can be enough. And to stabilize the helicopter use the powder propulsion engine-reactive system PRSM. Maybe it’s easier to save the crew and the car.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 July 2016 10: 55
      +2
      Will not work. Too powerful engines will be needed to raise the detachable cabin to the height of the guaranteed disclosure of parachutes. Powerful, and as a result, heavy

      You understand what the problem is, the helicopter has a danger zone in height, in which the screws do not have time to untwist for autorotation, and at the same time, a blow to the surface cannot be damped to accelerations acceptable to the crew.
      Simply put, the crew can easily be saved when falling from a high altitude and with ultra-small.

      And the worst thing is that it is combat helicopters that are forced to operate in this dangerous range of heights, where rescue is almost impossible.
      1. midivan
        midivan 13 July 2016 13: 19
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Will not work. Too powerful engines will be needed to raise the detachable cabin to the height of the guaranteed disclosure of parachutes. Powerful, and as a result, heavy

        why raise it, I tried to say higher but it didn’t work the first time lolif the same PRSMs are attached either under the belly or on the side so that it looks something like the picture, we only need to extinguish the speed to safe, in my opinion, if such a thing were on the helicopter that was in the first video, it would save the pilot
  11. iouris
    iouris 13 July 2016 11: 36
    +1
    Both helicopters were created in the USSR in a fundamentally different socio-economic and political environment. Raw materials-export-technology-import economy of the Russian Federation does not pull long-term projects. It seems that the main task in the field of defense industry is to make advertising and sell what they had.
  12. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 13 July 2016 11: 57
    +1
    We need unmanned helicopters, the helicopter is extremely vulnerable compared to the plane, if the plane can fly at high altitude, use electronic warfare and bomb militants, the helicopter is forced to operate near the ground and if MANPADS can still be counteracted using heat traps and maneuvering at extremely low altitude, then from ATGMs not to hide, all the operator needs is to keep the helicopter in the crosshair of the sight while the rocket flies to the target, no electronic warfare system will help here.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 13 July 2016 12: 44
      +3
      That's right. The short era of attack helicopters seems to be drawing to a close.
      Unmanned aircraft are already successfully replacing shock helicopters, and development
      Unmanned helicopters are in turbulent stages. Scouts are already in operation,
      drummers - on the way.
      1. berezin1987
        berezin1987 13 July 2016 20: 56
        0
        Most drums are suitable only for hunting Papuans. To work on a serious opponent, the drone must have AI elements and an electronic warfare system, otherwise the control signal will be drowned out by interference or control will be intercepted.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 14 July 2016 01: 27
          0
          Impact UAVs can move around the terrain photo completely autonomously,
          like kr. With the difference that after the strike - a U-turn and back to the base.

          When the Americans began to experience drums in Afghanistan, control channels
          were the simplest. When they realized that they were beginning to "jam", they began to encrypt
          and duplicate.
          Now the drummers have become smaller, "stealthier", lightweight URs have been specially developed for them.
          They are taught to attack in a pack, where "wolves" of different professions: scouts, targets (reconnaissance in force),
          killers of radars, electronic warfare devices, drums, kamikadtsi.
          The "steeper" the enemy, the more sophisticated the flock. And on a safety net - conventional fighters.
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 July 2016 13: 48
    0
    There are two truths:
    1. The profile of flights in combat mode is low altitude, as a rule. You may not have time to eject.
    2. Not the fact that in the ejection seats there is a depreciation system, an analogue of the Mi-28.
    3. But the catapult is still a chance ...
    1. igor67
      igor67 13 July 2016 15: 15
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      There are two truths:
      1. The profile of flights in combat mode is low altitude, as a rule. You may not have time to eject.
      2. Not the fact that in the ejection seats there is a depreciation system, an analogue of the Mi-28.
      3. But the catapult is still a chance ...

      I wonder how to eject from the Mi24 cockpit?
  14. Minotavrik
    Minotavrik 13 July 2016 13: 54
    +6
    Quote: Alex_59
    So for now, the Ka-52 is no better in this regard than the Mi-28.

    Strange conclusions, strange reasoning.
    In fact - hit SAM (well, or in this case TOW missiles) in the rear beam of the helicopter.
    MI- The beam unfastened, uncontrolled fall - the earth - the death of pilots
    KA - The beam unfastened, controlled fall (with the coaxial scheme the yaw control is preserved) - shooting of the catapult - the car died - the pilots are alive.

    What's wrong? It is not serious to consider the case of sawing in an SMU into trees on an NVD of a serviceable machine as evidence of the same accident rate of Kashek. When I fell in the MSC and the pilot didn’t use the catapult, they conclude that it’s not so simple and apparently there are problems ... yes there is a CITY under the car, which is why its pilot landed on a nickle behind the fence. In your opinion, it was necessary to shoot straight over the Moscow Ring Road .. and do not care that a lot of people and cars below ...

    Fact - and it is impossible to challenge. On the spacecraft there is a pilot rescue system. On MI there. The self-propelled chassis and other crap can be put out of the brackets, as can be seen from the case on Darts - it doesn’t help so much.

    I do not conclude that KAM cars are better or worse. I am not a great specialist in the matter. But in terms of the last means of saving the crew - alas, there are no options.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 13 July 2016 15: 26
      +1
      Quote: Minotavrik
      In fact - hit SAM (well, or in this case TOW missiles) in the rear beam of the helicopter.

      If the rocket would have interrupted the tail boom of the Ka-52, it is not a fact that it would have fallen. Since there is no need for a tail rotor due to coaxial propellers, the Ka-52 after destroying the tail boom could maintain controllability, and since the Mi-28/24/35 have a tail rotor, destroying the tail boom immediately leads the helicopter to rotate about its axis with high speed, in this situation, the pilots become disoriented and can no longer do anything, the helicopter crashes into the ground.
  15. Minotavrik
    Minotavrik 13 July 2016 16: 46
    0
    Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
    Quote: Minotavrik
    In fact - hit SAM (well, or in this case TOW missiles) in the rear beam of the helicopter.

    If the rocket would have interrupted the tail boom of the Ka-52, it is not a fact that it would have fallen. Since there is no need for a tail rotor due to coaxial propellers, the Ka-52 after destroying the tail boom could maintain controllability, and since the Mi-28/24/35 have a tail rotor, destroying the tail boom immediately leads the helicopter to rotate about its axis with high speed, in this situation, the pilots become disoriented and can no longer do anything, the helicopter crashes into the ground.


    I'm not sure. Yet TOW is powerful. And it’s not about the fact that having a crew rescue system on board is easier in any situation than without it.
    1. iouris
      iouris 14 July 2016 01: 16
      0
      Quote: Minotavrik
      Yet TOW is powerful.

      The task is for the weapon system, tactics and methods of combat use to make the task of shooting down a helicopter practically impossible or extremely unlikely.
      If there was a hit of TOW in the tail boom - this is an almost impossible event. There is no subject for discussion.
      The question should be posed as follows: how justified in a particular situation was the decision to use helicopters on the enemy.
  16. TOR2
    TOR2 13 July 2016 20: 47
    0
    Quote: Fil743
    Unfortunately, normal rescue systems for helicopters do not exist in principle

    They will not appear on their own, they need to be developed. And using bold and innovative solutions.
    For example, the decision to bail out the Ka-52 if the helicopter is doomed should be made by the onboard computer. It is very difficult to imagine what is happening in the pilot’s head in these seconds. And if the deaths of pilots began to recur, then human thinking must be strengthened by machine.
    Quote: igor67
    I wonder how to eject from the Mi24 cockpit?

    Everything is more complicated here. On the Mi-24, the rescue system must be collective. You need to find a place for the parachute system that will be activated after the shooting of the screws. In this case, the emergency vehicle lands as a BMD.
    In both cases, engineering solutions will not be simple, but as life shows, development is necessary.
    Which rescue system to choose for MI-28 is an open question. If successful, any of the options will do.
    1. igor67
      igor67 13 July 2016 21: 14
      0
      Quote: igor67
      I wonder how to eject from the Mi24 cockpit?

      Everything is more complicated here. On the Mi-24, the rescue system must be collective. You need to find a place for the parachute system that will be activated after the shooting of the screws. In this case, the emergency vehicle lands as a BMD.
      In both cases, engineering solutions will not be simple, but as life shows, development is necessary.
      Which rescue system to choose for MI-28 is an open question. With a successful implementation, any of the options is suitable. [/ Landing like a BMD, that is, a parachute for the entire machine, it’s not realistic in my opinion, the car is ten tons practically, there is nowhere to push such a parachute in 24 ke, I think at 28. We have pilots at the rembase flew without parachutes, only interfered
  17. datur
    datur 13 July 2016 22: 26
    0
    By the way, where is the trace of the perfume rocket in the video?
  18. not main
    not main 13 July 2016 22: 29
    0
    Three years ago, there would have been many interesting and professional comments on this topic, but now they put plus signs for nonsense like "parachutes for a helicopter, or jet engines for an emergency landing"! On the subject: which scheme will show better time, at the moment it is impossible to answer unequivocally! A rescue catapult is a good thing, but only when it is placed without damaging the main structure! And if you consider that the attack helicopter works more over the battlefield or over the enemy's territory, then the use of a catapult looks problematic. Moreover, now the prisoners will still be cut off their heads! Sorry for the cynicism, but it's true nonetheless.
    1. Turkestan
      Turkestan 14 July 2016 04: 44
      0
      All innovations in technology at the first stage look nonsense.
      You are right to use the ejection system today over the battlefield is extremely problematic, in fact, all innovations in this area are raw.

      Powder stabilizing engines will be needed to stabilize and correct the helicopter during the defeat by enemy air defense systems, and a parachute system of controlled braking and helicopter landing.

      As for the weight and location of the parachute container on the helicopter, there is a solution to the problem, parachute systems and bathing equipment are fairly lightweight with modern technologies, and it would be possible to position the container with the parachute system above the helicopter propeller. I think there aren’t any technical problems here, all this can be done without high costs and technical efforts. Teach this work of the Airborne Forces and they will bungle you all for a short time, even if it looks like fantasy. DO YOU SAY Nonsense !!!!!
  19. Minotavrik
    Minotavrik 14 July 2016 12: 31
    0
    Quote: non-primary
    And given that the attack helicopter works more on the battlefield or on the territory of the enemy, the use of a catapult seems problematic. Moreover, now the prisoners still cut off their heads! Sorry for cynicism, but nonetheless it's true.


    Whether or not they cut it off is the tenth question, you will still start working on the question of how to avoid the parachutist's leg falling into the wormhole upon landing. Of course, as the classic said, “the problem of rescue means is that instead of a quick and imperceptible end, they sometimes offer a long and painful end,” but this is not an engineering problem. Rescue equipment provides a tangible chance of rescuing the pilot in the event of a flight accident. One helicopter is equipped with such a means of rescue, the other is not. What is there to argue about?
    If you say that the presence of a means of rescue entails restrictions on the use of drugs, a decrease in its performance characteristics, etc. - so it is necessary to improve the technical and engineering solution to provide this means of rescue. But do not score on him motivating it with maxims in the form "we have men (pilots), many women still give birth"

    Proposals to change the tactics of the vehicle of direct fire support over the battlefield in order to exclude the working off of enemy fire weapons on this vehicle - sorry, utopia. They will still shoot. And in the "shell-armor" race - the armor was always late ...
  20. Petr7
    Petr7 15 July 2016 16: 49
    0
    "and the city thought the teachings were coming" (c)
    in fact, the article is NOT CORRECT.
    It is not correct to compare pilots who could survive, but innocent civilians would die and pilots who died, but fulfilled their international duty.
    And the conversation should not be about the number of pilots (there are never too many army men), but about changing rescue systems, and full change. More precisely, about the change in the operation of the aircraft during and after the pilot bailout!