# What do you think about this??



## military granny (14 Jul 2006)

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mi-24_hind.pl


----------



## Red Phase (14 Jul 2006)

A flying tank, what will they think of next!


----------



## chaos75 (14 Jul 2006)

Think about what, the helicopter?  Need more to go on here.


----------



## military granny (14 Jul 2006)

Chaos
There have been many debates on what type of helo the Canadian Government should buy for our military, and what type of fire power it should have. Is this they type of helo we should be looking at ? Could this be what we see overhead near our bases sometime in the future?

just a side note: I know nothing about this so that is why I'm asking dumb questions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2006)

The Hind was a decent helicopter with a good record, but it’s heavy and not very nimble, it’s also getting on. If you were going to buy a Russian attack helicopter, they have far newer ones available like the KA-50,52. The KA-52 is the only helicopter that has ejection seats. But it is more likely we will buy a western built helo with wing pods attached to give ground support. Perhaps even a modification of the Griffion, although I don’t know if it could handle the armour and weapon weight required.

The new Bell ranger 210 and the Aerostar would make good light observation and attack helicopters.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (14 Jul 2006)

and I can't see a Mi-24 Hind AH helping out much with the hearts and minds campaign in Afghanistan......



.....bad memories and all......


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2006)

The Hind is a really huge machine, which packs much of the firepower of an attack helicopter and carries a section of 8-10 men in the back. It was designed and fielded in the 1960's, apparently in response to the need to patrol the common border with China.

As an attack helicopter, it is not very manouevrable (being closer in form to a compound aircraft than a true helicopter), and as a transport it has limitations as to how much can be carried. In the USSR this wasn't that much of a problem, since the philosophy was "give 'em loads!", and the Hind was backed by "Hip" transport helicopters capable of carrying @28 soldiers in the back. An air assault would be announced by carpeting the LZ with mass artillery or air strikes, followed by Hinds swooping in and blasting anything left standing and landing troops to secure the field, followed by Hips landing and disgorging masses of Infantrymen and equipment.

Even in the USSR (and now Russia), the limitations of the Hind were very apparent, and they have reverted to more conventional helicopters for the attack role (MiL 28 Havoc). Since the Havoc owes a great deal to Western practice (Apache, Tiger, Mongoose, Cobra), it would seem we had it right all along. As for which ones we should buy and how many, there are lots of threads in Army.ca on the topic.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2006)

A fundamental problem with buying a HIND (or any other Soviet Russian designs is that they are not desinged with NATO STANAGs in mind.  They will not use standard parts or supplies (to the point where fuels may not be fully compatible), thus increasing the log support tail for the fleets, and placing us in a precaarious position where a less than reliable country controls access to key parts.

The quality control for such aircraft is also suspect; plus, they aren't certified for North American operation.  Every time we bring an Antonov into Canada waivers are required; not really practical for a fleet that will be routinely employed in domestic scenarios (training etc).

Other than the non-standard support requirements, lack of quality control, and lack of reliable access to spares, I can't think of many other problems...


----------



## Koenigsegg (14 Jul 2006)

They are vulnerable in one more way than has been mentioned in this thread already.  Due to the weight of the aircraft, the designers were looking for a way to cut down on the mass.  As such, the tail section of the helicopter is constructed somewhat like that of a WWI fighter.  Instead of metal to skin it, they used fabric.  During the Soviet war in Afghanistan the Mujahideen learned this and took advantage of it.  Although they were fast helicopters, they were not manuevrable so the afghans could take aim at the tail section, open fire and could take the chopper down.  I know the tail of all helicopters has tended to be one of the weak links (or so I am led to believe), but the Hind's is that much more vulnerable given it is fabric.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A fundamental problem with buying a HIND (or any other Soviet Russian designs is that they are not desinged with NATO STANAGs in mind.  They will not use standard parts or supplies (to the point where fuels may not be fully compatible), thus increasing the log support tail for the fleets, and placing us in a precaarious position where a less than reliable country controls access to key parts.
> 
> The quality control for such aircraft is also suspect; plus, they aren't certified for North American operation.  Every time we bring an Antonov into Canada waivers are required; not really practical for a fleet that will be routinely employed in domestic scenarios (training etc).
> 
> Other than the non-standard support requirements, lack of quality control, and lack of reliable access to spares, I can't think of many other problems...



Of course Canada and my parent department (TC) can be a little on the silly side when it comes to certification of aircraft, ships. In example, commercial tourist subs built here in Port Moody, were not allowed to operate with passengers in Canadian waters as they had no regulations pertaining to them. It took Transport Canada 25 years to sort out certification and sea time issues for Hovercraft operated by itself!!!! I hear similar stories from the airside. Some of the concerns are justified, but others can be a “Not made here attitude” or “It’s different so it can’t be as good” trying to determine which is what can be a problem. Not to mention the political landscape, if the Russians could offer commercial helo’s in Canada for ½ the price of the aircraft built here, you can imagine the screaming coming out of Sikorsky (ironic isn’t it) and Bell.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2006)

Canadian Government departments bureaucratic and mindless?  How could that ever be  ?


----------



## Shamrock (14 Jul 2006)

Red Phase said:
			
		

> A flying tank, what will they think of next!



No, _this_ is a flying tank.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Jul 2006)

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka50/

The new Russian AH don't have a tail rotor - I suppose that is one way of removing that weak spot.

I've been told by various relatives in the aviation business that the russian helos are not bad for civilian uses - as long as they are fitted with new, north american made engines. They say that the airframes and power trains are over built, but that the engines are the weak link. 

Any thoughts on how this applies to possible Canadian military uses?

Will we see the Atk Helo Sqn outfitted with Ka-50/52s?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2006)

Speaking of flying tanks, the Russian are the only one to have built an actually flying tank, that was also amphibious.

 http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/KT-40.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40


----------



## Jantor (14 Jul 2006)

How about the Mi-26T?   http://www.rostvertol.be/helicopters/mi-26t.html 

Airborne Energy Solutions has a leased one flying out of Whitecourt Alberta. Rumour has it they want to actually purchase two more and get them certified like VIH did with the Kamov Ka-32's.

I can't see our military seriously considering Russian kit though. Not yet anyway. On Skylinks webpage they had a picture of an Il-76 with a Canadian flag decal under the cockpit. That looked too weird, even for me  

As far as Russian aircraft operating in Canada it seems there are some loopholes that have been exploited lately such as an Antonov 
An-12 "Cub" operating from Yellowknife out to the Diavik diamond mine hauling bags of cement.


----------



## Koenigsegg (14 Jul 2006)

<Highjack?>
Indeed GO!!!, According to the Russian test pilots - and normal pilots - the KA-50 is extremely maneuvrable.  One of, if not the most aerobatic helicopters out there.  It can rotate on its rotar axis very fast, and fly sideways and backwards faster than most other attack helicopters.

But would nations who buy this chopper have to worry about information overload?   pilots in western two-seater attack choppers are already experiencing this (sometimes - depending on the circumstances).  So would taking a job that is current done by tow people, and making one pilot do it all cause problems of Information, and work overload?
</Highjack?> (not totally sure if this was a highjack or not...)


----------



## Jantor (14 Jul 2006)

The other version of the Ka-50, the Ka-50-2 or Ka-52 (I've seen it described both ways) has a crew of two in a side by side arrangement and was last looked a seriously by the Turks. I think it was eliminated from their attack helicopter competition over costs.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka50/ka508.html

Taken from http://www.airforce-technology.com/


----------



## Franko (14 Jul 2006)

First off....... and this is my $0.02 worth....

We aren't going to buy a Hind, Hip, Halo, Hokum or any other sort of Russian AC for the CF period.

The airframes of most of them are in worse shape than the Sea Kings fer Christ sake!

Secondly, we don't need attack helos. We need airlift for the troops.

There.....    /rant.

Fire at will.

Regards


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jul 2006)

wasn't this already discussed to death on several other threads?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Jul 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jul 2006)

Well clearly not to death!  ;D

Mind you having a Russian attack helo zipping around during trials, might have a positive effect on the cost and delivery times for Western suppliers who have been known to get a bit full of themselves.


----------



## Jantor (15 Jul 2006)

I'd like to correct a mistake I made in my post yesterday.


_The other version of the Ka-50, the Ka-50-2 or Ka-52 (I've seen it described both ways)_ 


This is the Kamov Ka-50-2
http://avia.ltd.ee/helicopters_eng/ka-50-2-r.html

I came across something else on this site. I've never heard of this project before.
http://avia.ltd.ee/helicopters_eng/ka-115-r.html

As there has been some co-operation between Pratt & Whitney and Klimov on this project I wonder what else they might be looking at doing?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jan 2007)

Expect to see a MI-26 flying around Dease Lake if they get the OK from TC, can't say anything more at the moment.


----------

