The main obstacle to the counteroffensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, besides minefields and fortification lines, was the Russian army and front-line aviation. Attack aircraft and bombers attack from a safe rear without entering enemy air defense coverage. Attack helicopters risk the most when operating at ultra-low altitudes, but show the most impressive results, destroying fairly modern armored vehicles, including Western-made ones. But how long will our air superiority last?
This question is far from empty. It is extremely likely that as a result of the counteroffensive, instead of signing Minsk-3, Kiev will receive A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, fourth-generation F-16 fighters and attack helicopters Apache. After that, the picture on the battlefield, unfortunately, will seriously change, and not in our favor. Our own attack helicopters, once under threat from American air-to-air missiles, will no longer be able to dominate the air and the enemy will begin to support ground attacks from their armored vehicles. In the long run, all of this can create serious problems. In this publication I would like to talk about the possibility of increasing the efficiency of the aviation of the national army by developing the previously expressed ideas for re-equipping attack helicopters.
“Flying BMP”
If you look at the reports of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, it is obvious that the Ka-52 and Mi-28NM helicopters play the first fiddle in them, heroically destroying enemy armored vehicles under retaliatory strikes from defense systems aircraft and MANPADS. At the same time, the survival potential of the Alligator was revealed, which was able to return to base with the keel torn off following a bombardment. Any other conventional helicopter could hardly repeat the feat of the Ka-52 crew, but I would like to focus on another aspect.
The fact is that the Soviet and NATO concepts of using attack helicopters initially followed different paths. The potential enemy expected to stop our tank corners with the help of numerous two-seater light helicopters carrying 4-6 air-based ATGMs. In the USSR, they relied on a well-protected heavy attack helicopter, at the same time capable of transporting troops. It was assumed that such a “flying infantry fighting vehicle” would destroy the enemy’s infrastructure from the air with unguided weapons, finishing off its firing points and manpower from cannons and airborne machine guns. Then, in the near rear, it was possible to land troops from helicopters.
This is how the Mi-24 appeared, unofficially called the “Crocodile”. In terms of the number of cars produced, it ranks second in the world after the American Apache, it is 3500 units. Based on the export version of the Mi-24 (Mi-35) helicopter, a modernized Mi-35M was created. This rotorcraft managed to take part in many armed conflicts around the world and showed itself well. However, it has been experimentally revealed that for maximum effectiveness in combat use, great specialization is required: either shock or land. Military versions of the Mi-8 are more suitable as an amphibious helicopter, in particular the Mi-8AMTSh-VN, which is positioned as a “flying airborne combat vehicle”. Like a shock Mi-24 with its compartment for eight paratroopers, it turned out to be too big and cumbersome.
In the end, everything fell into place. Enemy armored vehicles are now hit by Ka-52 and Mi-28NM attack helicopters. But during the operation of the Airborne Forces near Gostomel, the main charge fell on the Mi – 8, supported by the Ka – 52, Mi – 28N and Mi – 35.
Does this mean that the very concept of “Crocodile” was wrong and that there is nothing more we can do about it?
The return of the legend
As we noted earlier, talking about the prospects of unmanned helicopters, the main problem of army aviation is the need to operate at ultra-low altitudes within the reach of enemy air defense systems and even MANPADS. This is mainly due to the relatively short range of air-launched anti-tank missiles, which can effectively hit targets at a distance of 6-10 km.
For your information: the maximum destruction range of American-made Stinger MANPADS reaches 4500 m, and that of the Buk air defense system – up to 70 km. This is a very serious threat to Russian attack helicopters. However, the alignment can be quite easily and simply changed in our favor by re-equipping or re-equipping the rotorcraft.
Thus, it seems to be a very promising way to introduce kamikaze drones of the Lancet type and even of the Cube type into the range of armaments of our army aviation, equipping helicopters with an air launch system. The flight range of “Cuba” reaches 10 km, but for “Lancet – 3” it is 40-70 km! With a warhead weight of 5 kg, using trailing ammunition, you can burn all enemy armored vehicles, staying outside or at the limit of the range of its medium-range air defense systems Buk type and completely out of range of MANPADS.
The Ka-52, Mi-28NM and Mi-8AMTSh-VN can be fitted with lancets, but the outdated Crocodile seems like an almost ideal platform for creating an aerial drone carrier. This helicopter is initially well armored and protected, and in its troop compartment it is possible to place a checkpoint for hanging out with operators. The suspension will be able to freely accommodate a dozen “Lancets” and even several “Cubes”, which are a kind of low-budget high-precision weapons.
Mi-24 and Mi-35M re-equipped with kamikaze drones can become highly mobile air firing posts that can hit targets at a distance of 40-70 km. In one sortie, each helicopter is capable of destroying several enemy armored vehicles, remaining outside the zone of its air defense and receiving target designation data from a reconnaissance drone. Operators at a protected air point will be able to target munitions lying around.
Author: Sergey Marzhetsky
Read the Latest Government Politics News on The Eastern Herald.
