Mi-28N Havoc: News

GarryB wrote:I suspect by Serial models I think they mean they think it is ready for service and combat the way it is now and that they don't foresee major upgrades or changes except bug fixes or improvements in the way it is made to make it cheaper or quicker to make.

Ie it has passed tests and has been cleared for production... it will most likely get several changes and upgrades through its operational life but for now it is ready for active service use.

Meaning of "first serial" is always the same for all late Sov/Rus plane.

They are the proof-of-concept planes built during Industrialization Phase.
It means that differently from prototypes, that are unique models build using provisional, ad hoc components and assembled manually at the bench at their respective Design Bureau plant, they are serial items assembled using serially made components but made on purpose of setting up and optimize the assembly line at the APO that have won the large scale production contract.

They were usually followed by a pilot batch destined to cover the OCU (usually at Lipetsk) and the Experimental units, one will train the new pilots and the other would be used both to explore technical limits of the platform and to set up the tactics that would allow the full possibilities of the new platform.

So, in this case i will say:v2 First Serial consigned, a pilot series of eight in production and an initial prevision of total serial production but still not a signed contract for it.

But they have a production contract for it... and it is not a brand new never been tried aircraft, it is an aircraft upgrade, so the basics should work fine, it is the new stuff that needed tests and development work to get it to work and to integrate it with other systems.

At the risk of appear pedantic all three of them are production contracts.
Both the first serial, than the pilot than the large scale ones are all in the form of a direct acquisition of a certain amount of planes, usually 2 for first serial but variable for the other two.

Probably they found easier to award such contracts in the form of a direct purchase of hardware (that in case of first serial is obviously a fictional one) i.e. something that allow them to refer to a standard reference form instead than have to discuss every time an ad hoc one about the development, testing, industrialization and initial production of each different model.

So, in case of Mi-28NM we have a first serial of the usual two, a pilot one of eight and a first batch of large scale one of ?????

In case of the Su-57, that's is a completely new one, first pilot batch was way larger (and actually we just didn't know if such pilot batch still stand on its own or has been absorbed into the 76 large production one).

Probably for naval ships is different, but in that case the first serial is the second ship of the serie, coming after the "pilot" ship.

E.g. in the case of 22350 frigates,

The first ship produced is the Admiral Gorshkov, and the first serial ship (second ship produced) is the Admiral Kasatonov.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Probably for naval ships is different, but in that case the first serial is the second ship of the serie, coming after the "pilot" ship.

E.g. in the case of 22350 frigates,

The first ship produced is the Admiral Gorshkov, and the first serial ship (second ship produced) is the Admiral  Kasatonov.

That's because in case of ships there is not usually the possibility to build prototypes, except for the smaller boats, so you build the first one as a sort of test bed while the second one would be the first build (hopefully) with standard, serially produced equipment of class.
In any case the idea of sign contracts centered on item delivery instead than on the specific developmental or productive phase of a given project is present in all branches of russian military.
Obviously a prototype or first serial plane could end up to cost 10,20 times more than a production one but this is just an artifice to cut down paperwork.

Well as shown by the Lada sub and the Ivan Gren... the first vessel is the prototype...

GarryB wrote:Well as shown by the Lada sub and the Ivan Gren... the first vessel is the prototype...

Yes, in case of planes or land equipment there are prototypes that usually didn't were converted into operative planes but used as test beds for future versions.
In case of ship this would result just too expensive, so for testing new individual components/weaponry they use older ships models bout to be retired instead.

marcellogo wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well as shown by the Lada sub and the Ivan Gren... the first vessel is the prototype...

Yes, in case of planes or land equipment there are prototypes that usually didn't were converted into operative planes but used as test beds for future versions.
In case of ship this would result just too expensive, so for testing new individual components/weaponry they use older ships models bout to be retired instead.

Yes, and that was the problem for both the Admiral gorshkov and the first lada sub. They were the first really modern ship built since the fall of the Soviet Union, and full of new components and untested technologies.

By untested I mean that most probably the single components, sensors and weapon systems were one by one tested on benchs or something similar, but not ona fully integrated platform and not on a ship..

For the new missile of the Mi-28NM version.

A mi-28 crashed in Russia.




Edit: it was a brand new UB version delivered in october with less than 30 hours in the air. Both pilots died. RIP.

Bugger...

RIP.

It looks mostly intact. That's one tough aircraft.

The cockpit is intact too. Must have been the extreme G-forces at collision that killed the pilots. RIP.

They've been having a lot of mechanical troubles and crashes with the Mi-28s I noticed.

Compared to ka-52 and mi-24/35, its reliability is questionable. I wonder when RuAF will stop closing its eyes and tell Mil to solve those issues that killed a good amount of pilots.

I wonder if we can wait to find out what actually happened before offering kneejerk solutions that might actually do nothing to solve the actual problem.

I agree but it is already clear that this helicopter has serious issues. Too many fatal crashes compared to other military units. Even ones
that have much more flight hours. I suspect a design issue which needs to be identified and rectified.

I would want to see actual accident figures before I started making claims about a faulty design... and having too few flight hours is actually a cause of accidents too BTW.

Called lack of experience.

Impressed guys on an internet discussion board know more about this than the Russian military though.....

At least 120 Mi-28's have been produced, and this is a 4th lethal crash. And only 2 of them were technical faults, in 2011 and 2015, and 2 other times it made contact with ground. So are you guys high or what? Serious issues?

ult wrote:At least 120 Mi-28's have been produced, and this is a 4th lethal crash. And only 2 of them were technical faults, in 2011 and 2015, and 2 other times it made contact with ground. So are you guys high or what? Serious issues?

Ironically enough the same people don't talk about how the Apache helicopters don't even have bullet proof glass (7.62x39mm penetrates easily) despite being CAS aircraft, which is a blatant design flaw.

ult wrote:At least 120 Mi-28's have been produced, and this is a 4th lethal crash. And only 2 of them were technical faults, in 2011 and 2015, and 2 other times it made contact with ground. So are you guys high or what? Serious issues?

And over 100 Ka-52s have been produced. How many crashes?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

ult wrote:At least 120 Mi-28's have been produced, and this is a 4th lethal crash. And only 2 of them were technical faults, in 2011 and 2015, and 2 other times it made contact with ground. So are you guys high or what? Serious issues?

Ironically enough the same people don't talk about how the Apache helicopters don't even have bullet proof glass (7.62x39mm penetrates easily) despite being CAS aircraft, which is a blatant design flaw.

The issue is not dick measuring, the issue is that that this aircraft has abnormal crash statistics.

kvs wrote:I agree but it is already clear that this helicopter has serious issues.   Too many fatal crashes compared to other military units.   Even ones
that have much more flight hours.   I suspect a design issue which needs to be identified and rectified.

Does it carry any non-Russian items?

Ironically enough the same people don't talk about how the Apache helicopters don't even have bullet proof glass (7.62x39mm penetrates easily) despite being CAS aircraft, which is a blatant design flaw.

Or the fact that the British found they could not launch weapons from the inner pylons in some flight situations (I believe it was in a hover) because the rocket exhaust gas stalled the engines and made them lose power...

And over 100 Ka-52s have been produced. How many crashes?

The Ka-52 is effectively a heavy armed recon aircraft and would perform different missions against different targets in different situations compared with the Havoc which is an assault/attack helo.

The issue is not dick measuring, the issue is that that this aircraft has abnormal crash statistics.

Well they have several crash instances to determine the cause then don't they...

I would add that the F-111 was an operational aircraft before a fatal fault in its horizontal tail surface was discovered after about 3 were lost over Vietnam... they entered service in about 67 and it wasn't till 72 in Vietnam that the problem was found...

kvs wrote:

And over 100 Ka-52s have been produced.   How many crashes?

Also more than 120. And 3 of them have been lost. In 2012, 2013 and 2018.

kvs wrote:

The issue is not dick measuring, the issue is that that this aircraft has abnormal crash statistics.    

So again, talking without knowing anything. It doesn't have abnormal crash statistics.

The designs of both aircraft (Ka-52 and Mi-28) date back to last century... in fact practically to the 1980s, but neither was in large scale production or service for most of that time... it is not until the last decade that they even went into serial production and use and of course both designs have been heavily updated and upgraded...

As I mentioned the F-111 had a design flaw that remained unnoticed until it was used in combat leading to the unexplained loss of three aircraft before it was determined there was an issue... obviously made more difficult by not really being able to recover wreckage very easily being a war situation.

Considering they are being used in a real war situation... even though it is a relatively low intensity war, it is a war nonetheless... just look up Youtube for shootdowns of Turkish helos in Syria...

kvs wrote:

ult wrote:At least 120 Mi-28's have been produced, and this is a 4th lethal crash. And only 2 of them were technical faults, in 2011 and 2015, and 2 other times it made contact with ground. So are you guys high or what? Serious issues?

And over 100 Ka-52s have been produced.   How many crashes?

There were produced 100 Mi-28 until 2016 (67+30+3 for replace losses), can count 104 if included 4 of installation batch, used only in 2008,and stored without use since 2009

after that have been prodcued about 16 Mi-28UB of a contract of 24 to deliver until 2020

four Mi-28N were lost , 2 in accidents, and 2 in Siria
this UB is the 5º


About Ka-52, about 118 until 2018, with other 12-14 in 2019 is about 130-132
In 2020 the order should be completed and reach more of 140, probably 146

3 were los, two in accident and one in Siria