Mi-28N Havoc: News

The managers of these state-owned companies need to understand that the reason for their existence is to produce the weapons that the Russian state needs at the best possible prices and to build them to meet specification and schedule. Anything else is simply corruption.

It seems the execs at Russian Helicopters think they are running a Western privately-owned MIC conglomerate and that the enrichment of the shareholders at the public expense is their primary purpose. Sorry boys, but no big bonuses for you...

Interesting price negotiation technique they have there...

Ka-52 is better and cheaper. That's logical. Mi-28 have serious issues as all the crashes in last years showed.

Say what?

If the Ka-52 was better and cheaper then why is there an Mi-28NM being developed?

The Ka-50 was seriously more expensive than the Mi-28A, and I doubt newer models have changed this situation...

The Mi-28 has lots of commonality with the Mi-24 and Mi-35 with new components of the Mi-28 being retrofitted to older models as upgrades to improve performance and commonality across the range.

Kamov makes naval helos... the only other Kamov type operated by the Army is the Ka-31/35 AEW type.

Plus Ka-52 avionics we're better too.

Which is largely why they were much more expensive... the Su-39TM didn't go ahead because of the cost of the Shkval-M EO system it carried... which was directly related to the Shkval-M system in the Hokum.

Too bad about Mi-28 but I have a feeling Mil will go back to negotiations when they are not getting the contracts they expect.

They clearly need to talk about costs and production and options to better finance improvements so they don't drive costs up so much...

Mi-35 and ka 52 is enough. Mi-28 brings nothing new, only more maintenance difficulties as they share nothing in common. Even the atgm are different.

True, but the other way around... the Hind and the Havoc share many components... more so with Hind upgrades with Havoc parts.... there are only the bare essentials in common regarding the Hokum.

It seems the execs at Russian Helicopters think they are running a Western privately-owned MIC conglomerate and that the enrichment of the shareholders at the public expense is their primary purpose. Sorry boys, but no big bonuses for you..

Well that could be one inference, but it seems to me that the military is playing hardball and outing them in the media about the costs to try to shame them to shift on their position... we know the Russian military is used to getting simple functional systems cheap and in large numbers... the Mi-28NM is supposed to have helmet mounted sights and all sorts of new flash capabilities... that does not come for free...

The problem lies in the fact that they are 'Joint-Stock' companies, meaning partially privatized, meaning groveling at the feat of shareholders...hardly a mechanism of efficiency. Nowhere more evident is the partially-privatized naval industry, which is out to nickel-and-dime as opposed to being efficient in any shape or form. Time to buy back the shares of under-performing MIC design bureaus, and come under complete govt. control. Once under full govt. control, they should sell to the govt. equipment at cost (because they exist because of govt. funding anyway), and any profits made should be from exports.

I don't disagree, but brand new technology costs money and new stuff is always more expensive when you first get it... they wanted an improved design and they got it but now they are choking on the bill...

Mi-28 was rather underperforming compared to Ka-52. Ka-52 is by all means a superior aircraft. If it's cheaper, that makes it even better. Mi-35's on other hand are also cheap and super effective. So yeah.

A few assumption in there... they adopted the Mi-28N as their standard attack helo, while the much more expensive Ka-52 is for a recon role... in many ways the Mi-28N is the Apache and the Ka-52 is a non stealthy Commanche in this scenario... the Ka-52 certainly wont be cheap by any standards...

BTW complaints about it being more expensive... the difference between the Mi-28N and the Mi-28NM is the latter has 360 degree air to air radar and front 120 degree air to ground MMW radar... of course that is going to be cheap.... BTW did you know that the radar on the Apache D model is also very expensive and only one in four Apache D model helicopters is fitted with a radar... because having every helo with a radar was too expensive for the Americans...

The Algerians and Iraqis seem happy with their Havocs... how many countries apart from Egypt with their Mistral carriers will buy Hokums?

They talk about retrofitting existing Mi-28 to bring them to MN standard instead of buildind new ones: so they will not get rid of the model at all, probably the initial idea was to refit them anyway + acquiring a batch of new ones but maybe such a solution just turned out to be non-economically convenient in front of just ordering a comparable number of Ka-52 coming from a already functioning serial assembly line.

The Mi-28s entered service into units with Mi-24 and Mi-35s and are attack helicopters.

As the older helos get upgrades with Mil parts their commonality increases...

The Hokums in service are in recon units... are you suggesting they withdraw all the Mi-28s and replace them with Ka-52s... there is zero commonality between the Ka-52 and old, new and upgraded model Hinds...

I would suggest they will bitch and moan and reduce the number of airframes they upgrade and new aircraft they buy and spread it over a longer period to reduce costs... like they normally do in such situations.

It could be also a good news about the actual state of army aviation and generally speaking of all VKS: no more need to order a whole array of overlapping items from all possible producers in order to both reach a viable percentage of updated aircraft a.s.a.p. than to keep a decaying industrial base afloat but instead the possibility to go for the more convenient choices, either economical, operative or logistical.

Actually if any company is being protected here it is Kamov... the Indians are about to start making Ka-225Ts, and the Egyptians are getting Ka-52Ks for their Mistrals but otherwise they are not exporting very much at all... in comparison Mil are selling Hips and Hinds and Havocs all round the place and are now making Mi-38s... not to mention joint ventures with China on their new helo and of course the Mi-26 and of course the new high speed projects as well...

Both the Mi-28N and the Ka-52 cost roughly the same - 15 to 16 Mio. $.

Yeah... nah...

In 2013, the AAC "Progress" has completed the contract with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, signed in 2009, and would begin the next long-term contract for supplying 143 Ka-52, worth about 120 billion rubles (≈US$3.5 bln)

3.5 billion divided by 143 gives us about $25 million per aircraft... which sounds about right...

On wiki it has 15-16 million per aircraft, but that is for the Ka-50/Ka-52... which I rather suspect is the former of the two rather than the latter as it has air and ground search radar as well as modern advanced EO systems and self defence suites that will not be cheap.

The wiki page for the Mi-28N also says 15-16 million each, but how many Mi-28Ns are there really?

Technically the Mi-28N has a mast mounted radar and upgraded EO systems for night and all weather capability... most in service Mi-28s look like they have the EO systems in the nose mounted balls but no mast mounted radar... pretty much making them a half way house between the daylight fair weather only Mi-28A and the night and all weather Mi-28N...

Personally I would think the Havocs with night and all weather EO but no radar would be 15-16 million each, the full Mi-28N would be 18-20 million each and these new Mi-28NMs are probably coming in at the same price as the expensive but capable Ka-52s at 25-26 million each or thereabouts.

I suspect their final solution will be the same as used in the US for their Apaches... the vast majority will be upgraded with all systems bar the expensive radar at about 18 million each or perhaps slightly less, and one or two in each flight will be the full standard more expensive model with radar and full systems... they can share target data so the one with the radar always gets the job of popping up to find targets and to hand off target data to the other aircraft in the attack...

The Hokum could do that for some time and could also communicate target information to HQ and ground forces including forward observers and other helos in its flight... hope they have implemented that in the new Havocs... it seems all Russian platforms are getting this sort of capability.

The MoD had no problem to buy Mi-28UB´s which are fitted with a mast-mounted radar. The only difference of the Mi-28NM are the new optics and a few equipment items internaly. The prize tag couldn´t be that different.

My understanding is that it is a serious upgrade including AI assisted targeting and helmet mounted sights with rather more than just a blinking cursor in them...

This new type has completely upgraded the fire control and navigation and communications systems...

As I mentioned above they might be upset by the price but all they can really do is change the ratio of new and upgraded models they buy and extend the period over which they buy them...

Perhaps they should get some to Syria as soon as possible and work out any kinks and then send some to India to see if they want to change their mind regarding buying Ah-64s and their special relationship with the US...

Noo! What have you (mis-)understood, Garry?
I have said that they will update existing Mi-28 to a NM like standard and they would produce Ka-52 instead of + acquiring a (limited) batch of new (Mi-28NM) ones, not any substitution of already existing items.

They are using the Mi-28s and Hinds as attack helos and Ka-52s as recon helos.

If you are trying to say they will buy Ka-52s instead of new Mi-28NMs and just upgrade existing Mi-28s to NM standard then you are suggesting they use mixed brigades of Ka-52s, Mi-28NMs, and upgraded Hinds as attack helos...

Sounds a bit strange to me.

And not, it's not a question of protection in this case: it's just Mi-28NM being a totally new product would require to set up a new or almost modify an already existing assembly line (and this would mean adding additional costs and loss of time) while Ka-52 is actually already in production so they would just need to put their own order in queue (or just add a working shift, if the actual line is not working at 100% capability).

They are making Mi-28s for Algeria and Iraq... so why would there not be a production line able to produce the aircraft they need?

A solution could be the ressurection of the Mi-40 program = a Mi-28 with troop cabin like Mi-24/-35. Fit it with the systems of the Mi-28NM and you got a helicopter with the same sensor and weapons capabilities like the Mi-28NM and the capacity to transport 8 soldiers. VKS can skip the Mi-28NM and stop buying Mi-35M´s and no need for a special development program for a special helicopter for the VDV.

The reason they went to the Mi-28 design was because they found that combining designs of transport and attack helos was not enormously successful.

Sitting on the ground while people get out is dangerous, and it makes more sense to put people in a transport like an Mi-8 or Mi-17 where they can get out the sides and the rear because the faster they get out or get in the better in terms of transport helos... for an attack helo not being on the ground is the best solution because it renders even the most capable attack helo a sitting duck...

The only improvement I could see would be that with a rear ramp door you could have a rear facing gun and optics... these days you could use lightweight ceramic armour for use against small arms and DIRCMS for use against guided weapons but there is always the threat of ATGMs and of course unguided rockets like RPGs.

I would suggest they just harden up and buy the damn things...

GarryB wrote: The reason they went to the Mi-28 design was because they found that combining designs of transport and attack helos was not enormously successful.

it was technically, just then Russians switched to US concept. Which wasnt really suitable for VDV as we can see now,

GB wrote: Sitting on the ground while people get out is dangerous, and it makes more sense to put people in a transport like an Mi-8 or Mi-17 where they can get out the sides and the rear because the faster they get out or get in the better in terms of transport helos... for an attack helo not being on the ground is the best solution because it renders even the most capable attack helo a sitting duck...

Would you suggest that is it better to use un-armored trucks not IVFs to deliver/support troops on battlefield?

Would you suggest that is it better to use un-armored trucks not IVFs to deliver/support troops on battlefield?

Not the same thing... landing troops in helos makes the troops vulnerable... not so much like transporting troops in trucks as having them sit on the outside of tanks operating on the front line...

Their experience was that a Hind was no safer or better off than a Hip when both are on the ground... but you need about four Hinds to effectively deliver the amount of troops one  Mi-8 can deliver in one go and having four Hinds on the ground means they are unable to use their weapons.

They started putting troops in Hinds and ended up just putting extra ammo in them and using them to lift out individuals or small groups.

That is why the replacement Mi-28 has room for 2-3 people in a pinch so it could rescue a downed air crew, but is not intended as a helicopter to land troops...

Look, a successor for the Mi-35 based on the already tested Mi-28NM would mid-term save a lot of money.

Except it would not be ready for ten years at least... though the bonus will be that it should be able to take advantage of the improvements in design they develop from the new high speed helo programmes...

The Mi-XX (Mi-40?) could be used as

All fine and good... but the Mi-28NM is already an excellent CAS and attack helo and the Mi-17 and soon Mi-38 already have the transport applications covered too.

Why would they need a whole separate new helo design to do two jobs better done by separate platforms...

Development of special versions (flying command post, EW and so on) would be possible.

They already have those based on the Hip...

At MAKS both sides will find a compromise (= the ministry of economy and trade will subsidize the purchase with a loan to the company) and the Mi-28NM will be purchased.

As I have said... they have little real choice on both sides.... that will be what they cost, so the Military will just need to change their plans and reschedule the upgrades and purchases to spread the costs out and make it more affordable... they might change their minds about a few of the more exotic capabilities of course... put them off for a later date when the technology is more mature and cheaper...

GarryB wrote:

Would you suggest that is it better to use un-armored trucks not IVFs to deliver/support troops on battlefield?

Not the same thing... landing troops in helos makes the troops vulnerable...

Those troops never land in Mi-8 at first place They will be destroyed in the air, same unarmored tucks would be.
I think you get wrong concept of using "flying ivf" concept.  AFAI understand  It is not to fly to prepared airfield where there is no enemy fire.
It is to fight to suppress enemy fire points  and then deploy troops  and continue supporting.

GB wrote: Their experience was that a Hind was no safer or better off than a Hip when both are on the ground... but you need about four Hinds to effectively deliver the amount of troops one  Mi-8 can deliver in one go and having four Hinds on the ground means they are unable to use their weapons.

IVF can carry   6-8 troops, average truck can carry  20-30  same ratio. Well armored IVF has no problem with 12,7mm fire, truck is destroyed then. With troops.

GB wrote: They started putting troops in Hinds and ended up just putting extra ammo in them and using them to lift out individuals or small groups.

not really both Mi-42 project + new VDV request say something else.

Mi-40 came after Mi-28.

There was a plan for an Mi-40 to compliment the Mi-28 in the same way the Mi-8 and Mi-24 compliment each other as transport and attack helo, but the Mi-40 never got off the drawing board AFAIK.

If you want to be MR Fussy the Mi-24 is broadly based on the Mi-8, so having the Mi-40 based on the Mi-28 is just a continuation of what they have been doing...

the fact that they have Mi-28s in service and are still buying a few Mi-35s suggests the few transports they wanted are being satisfied relatively cheaply with Mi-35s.

Yes, they are producing Mi-28 for Algeria and Iraq and Ka-52 for Egypt but in the first case they are not NM for sure.
Can they switch into producing them without added cost and time or they need to wait these order to be completed and after that to stop and modify the serial assembly line? Price and time to deliver would be way greater in the latter case.

The better question would be how different is the Mi-28 in production and the Mi-28NM they want... have they fundamentally changed the structural design like MiG did with the MiG-29M2/KR/35?

Look, a successor for the Mi-35 based on the already tested Mi-28NM would mid-term save a lot of money.

Not as much money as basically fitting the Mi-35 with Mi-28NM components like rotors and engines and wings etc etc...

IVF can carry 6-8 troops, average truck can carry 20-30 same ratio. Well armored IVF has no problem with 12,7mm fire, truck is destroyed then. With troops.

Debarking troops under heavy enemy fire is not going to go well in either case...

not really both Mi-42 project + new VDV request say something else.

Is that genuine or bullshit like the MiG-37 Ferret?

The nose of that aircraft looks like a British Lynx...