Best russian attack helicopter?

Isos wrote:Here is a video of Tiger firing with canon on talibans (start at 2 min). Not really precise for a modern helicopter. Would be worst for a pod gun ...

It's the same degree of accuracy as the AH-64/SuperCobra. Furthermore with a cold barrel the first contacts coulf have gone a little wide, but overall similar accuracy.

The gun itself Nexter M781 (30x113mm B 1.68m barrel) is quite accurate but the mounting on a lightweight helicopter that weights less than the recoil the gun produces in automatic fire is a big mistake. They should have installed the 20x139mm GIAT/Armscor F2 M693 (2m barrel) which is longer and more accurate while has lower recoil, but also impact, but it does not matter what big punch you have if you can't land a single one.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Hinds will stay for quite some time and they will run up more modern airframe soon. The hind is the only helicopter with such unique capabilities as CSAR missions which will be laid more focus on especially since the west invests lot of money on such subhuman scum as Grey Wolfs to exterminate soldiers. It will be focused on both sides and that alone will make it more focused for future.

Hind is still around out of necessity and lower cost not preference (much like the Blackhawk in its own league). There is pretty much nothing a Hind (of any version) can do that a Havoc cannot, bar cramping some folks of the back and the -P high rate of fire cannon. But CSAR is much more than that. You may need large, refuelable and protected choppers with good loiter time, if possible escorted by proper, dedicated attack helicopters (among other things).

Needless to say Russian helo CSAR approach in Latakia (Mi-24P/Mi17 combo) failed spectacularly, dare I say much worse than Operation Eagle Claw in the most relative terms. In general CSAR in Russia is a generation behind what you have in the US, which is quite surprising given Russia's size and threat environment.

Actually id didn't even came close to failing as bad. The initial CSAR went on a killzone that was laid out by the Moderats and under coverage from the TSK/Turkish forces 4 km away. In a valley wide less than 4 km. They got massive HMG fire, one Chopper got downed, then blown by ATGM...both Crocodiles got lit up like they were birthday cakes and yet they came home, limping but alive.

Compared to the Chinook that got an RPG on its ass resulting in a loss of 16 of Murrica's finest that's like day and night. Unlike the Red Wing fiasco (which got killed specialized SOAR personnel and other Seal, not random Marines) the operation got at least ONE of the airmen alive. While being shot at with HMG fire for at least 5/10 minutes.

Let us all say that unlike the downing of Turbine 13 the people on the ground had complete C2 from Turkey accross the border. If you want to compare fiascos and how the two sides managed out of it, then I guess them Rashans passed the test with flying colours when compared to Red Wings.

I don't buy the whole pre-existing trap on the ground scenario. One that was allegedly "carefully" prepared for the whole event, other examples better deserve that description.

Whatever coordination was done by the Turkish beheaders and their masters, after downing the Fencer, imo was done on the spot. I dont deny the existing Turkish-insurgent collaboration, maybe alert days before on a vague intention to shoot down a jet. TOW crews in that war are always on readiness anyway and in the end of the day the unfortunate pilots did get shot over a live battlefield.

Now, the damaged Mi 17 landed in pretty much no mans land, with minutes of footage covered on ANNA news (less than 2 km away from SAA). The spectacular part of the CSAR fiasco is them not getting their damaged chopper immediately destroyed by the Hinds or ground crew (Eagle Claw comparison) and allowing their opponent to trash it (with associated propaganda video), thinking the landing zone was beyond reach or danger.

I don't think the RPG events in Somalia, Afghanistan or elsewhere matter in this debate. Latakia RuAF CSAR was a grade-A fiasco, unlike e.g. what happened to the F-117 pilot in Yugoslavia back in 1999, which was a stellar success against an arguably properly coordinated, Serbian trap.

Since we talk about "traps".

À CSAR mission is going to always be reactive, unless you plan for your planes, people to get shot. The Idea here is simple. Unlike the Russian CSAR mission, the US in similar circumstances,  haven't been à level above. As for not being à trap, well We had à discussion here and the Turkish math doesn't add up regarding the SU 24 shotdown. Same for that TOW readiness. They hauled it on the spot while being "in front" of it, not behind. The actual TOW team and welcome committee, was on both sides of the valley by the time the CSAR went in. We know this, because the fuckers taped it. An then again in Ex Yu same NATO airmen got caught and roughed up. There is no CSAR superiority. There is specialized personnel. But CSAR is à hit&miss business.

Personally for what was worth, the set up, the actual command to shot down the Su and the area where it was shot down cannot be some kind of mishap.

The Turks done this with the SyAAF where they shot a Syrian jet then an helicopter while it was well behind the border and got the pilots downed. It's not something new. The placement of the Ambush team that was special. Because they were right on the spot of the shot down. Which per se wouldn't be a problem, there were clashes a bit further. What wasn't normal was that the Turkmen group was within range of the air crew within 3/4 minutes and that the plane was shot above their positions. This was new. The two other aircraft shot were around "Moderats positions", but this time the plane was shot over them.

The CSAR left within 15 minutes. The helicopters got there as fast as possible. Although there was nothing to save actually. Because the pursuit group had FIRED on the airmen. They had visual contact, unlike the F117 pilot. It's a great luck that one of the crew-members was still alive.

Same for the Red Wings SEALS, that's why I'm comparing what is comparable.

Airmen/Distress callers in range from their pursuit party.
CSAR mission that goes in.
One mission doesn't get out.
Guess which one.

If you maintain the superiority of the US CSAR in comparable situations, I don't know what to add more. But personally I cannot voucher for that.

GarryB wrote:We need to get something straight here... the Mi-28 has a side door to climb inside the fuselage so you can access the avionics racks... you can climb inside and their would be room for two people in a squeeze, but it is not by any means a troop transport helo... and was never intended as such.

I heard that there is combat detachment with the size of 3 people and Mi-28 can be used to carry such units.

higurashihougi wrote:

GarryB wrote:We need to get something straight here... the Mi-28 has a side door to climb inside the fuselage so you can access the avionics racks... you can climb inside and their would be room for two people in a squeeze, but it is not by any means a troop transport helo... and was never intended as such.

I heard that there is combat detachment with the size of 3 people and Mi-28 can be used to carry such units.

Nah there's a belly trap door, that is most of the time half empty. That's all. It's used for many things. However if push comes to shove, Mil28's can CSAR like AH64's can by having buckles and strapping the rescued personel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430251/Pictures-Marines-strap-chopper-daring-rescue.html

KoTeMoRe wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

GarryB wrote:We need to get something straight here... the Mi-28 has a side door to climb inside the fuselage so you can access the avionics racks... you can climb inside and their would be room for two people in a squeeze, but it is not by any means a troop transport helo... and was never intended as such.

I heard that there is combat detachment with the size of 3 people and Mi-28 can be used to carry such units.

Nah there's a belly trap door, that is most of the time half empty. That's all. It's used for many things. However if push comes to shove, Mil28's can CSAR like AH64's can by having buckles and strapping the rescued personel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430251/Pictures-Marines-strap-chopper-daring-rescue.html

It's not a belly door but an access door under left IR suppressor to access radio/avionic equipment which in modernisation from A to N model recieved modules that are smaller and have freed space for additional equipment if required. It was never filled with more equipment to keep weight low, so they discovered there is enough room to fit 2 man inside.



No seats just enough space to fit in there, still much better than sitting on a stubbed wing next to a 120-140 db loud engine not to mention that this is completley impossible for someone who is not concious or injured, further the pilot has no chance of avoiding ground fire by maneuvering unless he wants to kill the personal in its undedicated role as a CSAR helo. Apaches factually can not perform CSAR missions Mi-28 can and Mi-24 has a predestination to this kind of job.

Werewolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

GarryB wrote:We need to get something straight here... the Mi-28 has a side door to climb inside the fuselage so you can access the avionics racks... you can climb inside and their would be room for two people in a squeeze, but it is not by any means a troop transport helo... and was never intended as such.

I heard that there is combat detachment with the size of 3 people and Mi-28 can be used to carry such units.

Nah there's a belly trap door, that is most of the time half empty. That's all. It's used for many things. However if push comes to shove, Mil28's can CSAR like AH64's can by having buckles and strapping the rescued personel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430251/Pictures-Marines-strap-chopper-daring-rescue.html

It's not a belly door but an access door under left IR suppressor to access radio/avionic equipment which in modernisation from A to N model recieved modules that are smaller and have freed space for additional equipment if required. It was never filled with more equipment to keep weight low, so they discovered there is enough room to fit 2 man inside.



No seats just enough space to fit in there, still much better than sitting on a stubbed wing next to a 120-140 db loud engine not to mention that this is completley impossible for someone who is not concious or injured, further the pilot has no chance of avoiding ground fire by maneuvering unless he wants to kill the personal in its undedicated role as a CSAR helo. Apaches factually can not perform CSAR missions Mi-28 can and Mi-24 has a predestination to this kind of job.

I was under the impression that there was a belly trap door on the Mil28? Anyway, like usual with Russian equipment, half truths-halflies amount to a lot more than expected. Still I'm with you guys. Far better than jock riding the Hunter.

Don't have picture right now but the Ka-50/52 have an entire section of avionics bay that was from the 80's modernized to 21st century modularity with much smaller components and there is now a the right board side? aviation bay below gun free where you could fit two people in a lying position, but very uncomfortable due to the ribs of the fuselage.

I try find a picture of it.

I just found this picture of the rotor mast radar on the Ka-52 and I really like that it provides 360 degrees in air coverage.  The Ka-52 has the potential to be the best attack helicopter in the world and I really don't see what the Mi-28 can do that the Ka-52 can't, other than being cheaper and more easily maintained.

As I know, they cancel the mast mounted radar on Ka-52 due to unresolved vibration problem. So Ka-52 now has only nosed Arbalet radar while Mi-28NM has mast mounted N025 radar.

kopyo-21 wrote:
As I know, they cancel the mast mounted radar on Ka-52 due to unresolved vibration problem. So Ka-52 now has only nosed Arbalet radar while Mi-28NM has mast mounted N025 radar.

Yeah I just read up on that and it does seem that Kamov made the right call by placing RWR sensors, 4 LWR sensors and UV MAWS sensors onto the Ka-52 in lieu of a mast mounted radar. This arrangement apparently produces better results and isn't hampered by vibration problems.

The Ka-50 has an out of ground effect hovering of 4000m - second only to the Rooivalk and since the Ka-52 is heavier, weight does seem to be a deciding factor because the Ka-52 has an out of ground effect hovering of 3600m. If the new, light and cheap aforementioned materials were used, the weight of the Ka-52 could result in a platform with an out of ground effect hovering closer to 6000m. The ka-52 is the best attack helicopter in the world but there are still grounds for improvement.