Russian Arms: Bad Quality and Overpriced

[pmaitra]

^^

Correct.

Whenever anyone compares Mil-24/35 with another gunship, it tells me this person is just a novice on this subject. Mil-24/35 simply doesn't have a western equivalent.

 

[pmaitra]

I had posted this long long time back. Reposting:

Kunal what do you think of exclusive helicopter born troops for fast in and out.

I know you didn't ask me the question, but I'll take the liberty to provide my humble opinion.

Helicopter borne troops are very useful in the event there is requirement for any quick induction of reinforcements as well a MEDEVAC. Moreover, helicopter borne troops are often used in patrol, protecting convoys and assisting ground operations.

This technique was extensively used in Afghanistan by the Soviet Army (Mil-24), and it is very relevant to India since India also has plenty of these formidable machines. Towards the later part of the Soviet-Mujahideen War in Afghanistan, they used these Mil-24s without any troops in its troop compartment because they had problems taking off in the high altitudes, and used Mil-17s for troop transport. In low altitudes, this is not a problem. If India plans to use helicopter borne troops, they will have to ensure that these troop carriers, say ALH, are also escorted by the, say LCH, because, unilke Mil-24, which is a combo of assault and troop transport, these ALH and LCH are specifically designed for troop transport and assault, respectively. This is quite similar to the US approach in Vietnam.

 

[Akim]

Now during modernization of the Mi-8 (24) installed engines of TV3-117VMA-SBM1V, they do not lose power when climbing. The maximum height was is fixed 8200 meters!

 

[Tshering22]

Bad quality? Are you kidding me!?

Whatd'ya say for these beasts:

Mi-35M (modernized)

Ka-52B (modernized)

Su-35BM Flanker-E

Mi-26T2 (modernized)

The only place where they really suck are after-sales support (which improved after the Su-30MKI program).

THAT is truly amazing in western countries.

 

[Ray]

I wonder where my post on the issue vanished.

Are there two threads on this issue?

 

[roma]

what are our alternatives ? do others give us an equal deal ? i thought ,their supplies kept india going during the difficult days after '62 through to at least the early 90's ? .....until we can manufacture something at least similar , i would hold any comments ....even for kaveri engine we are going to them for testing facilities

.... we should concentrate on improving the TOT and level of participation in jint projects and not just sitting in the office waiting for lunch, ( as i've heard some engineers are treated ) .....with this important supplier ...of course price negotiation can take place and point out where it is getting expensive , mprove maintenance supplies, training, attitude, handing over manufacture of sub-assemblies and critical components ( not easy ) ...

but quality ( eg PAKFA besides others ) - has always been good, especially vis-a vis our neighbourhood, our defence environment

- remember we chose to participate

 

[uvbar]

I do not count what Ðœi- 24(35) obsolete. Name to me the helicopter of the same class in the west. Such is not present.

west is throwing a idea of heli gun ships as they sacrifice alot men so they are switching to gun ships

 

[average american]

Robert Hewson
Editor, Jane's Air-Launched Weapons

For more than a decade there has been no realistic domestic market for Russia's military aircraft builders. Bold state initiatives promising more aircraft and new aircraft have evaporated. The required state funding has failed to materialise. What money has been spent has often disappeared into black holes of inefficiency and corruption.

With no reliable customers at home, Russian industry has looked abroad to stay alive. Its success has been patchy. The giant Soviet-era industrial bureaucracy of the aviation sector has singularly failed to reform and adapt to the business realities of the post-Soviet world. Instead, the cornerstone Russian fighter producers – MiG and Sukhoi – have had to rely on traditional export customers such as China, India, Vietnam and elsewhere for revenue.

These customers have been sold the very best in Russian late 1980s/early 1990s technology – because no serious product development has been done in Russia since that time. With no investment in its products and now a declining interest among a diminishing set of potential buyers, Russia's military aviation industry is edging ever closer to oblivion.

Lest anyone doubt the scale of the problem facing Russia and its air forces, the procurement plans for 2006 include one Tu- l 60 bomber, "several" Su-34 attack aircraft and eight Mi-28N night-capable attack helicopters – this at a time when defence spending is supposed to be increasing.

All of these are legacy programmes; indeed, the Tu-160 is not actually in production. This final ninth aircraft had to be rescued from the shut-down assembly line and cobbled together from spare parts. The Su-34, intended as a replacement for the Su-24, has been progressing at glacial speed since production was authorised in 1986. A prototype flew in 1990 and just seven flying aircraft have been built. For years the Su-34 has been hailed as the aircraft that will revitalise tactical aviation in Russia, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The Mi-28N is another antique programme. Once cancelled and later revived, it dates back to the early 1990s. The capabilities of the Mi-28N – and the rival Kamov Ka-50 – are desperately needed by Russian Army aviation but the two competing programmes have been locked in internecine warfare for the last 10 years in a spectacular example of Russian short-termism and fundamental lack of investment.

With such tiny volumes of aircraft being delivered to the Russian Ministry of Defence, it begs the question: What are Russian aerospace firms doing? RSK MiG has about 15,000 employees, a plethora of design and production facilities and has not built a new aircraft for over 10 years. The situation at Sukhoi is better – that company has won significant orders for its Su-30 family – but the aircraft are built at three different sites and two manufacturing blocks (Irkut and KNAAPO) each claim ownership over 'their designs' and compete aggressively with each other, inside and outside the Sukhoi organisation.

It had been hoped that the formation of a single Unified Aircraft Corporation within Russia, the much-heralded OAK, would solve many of these problems. Under OAK all research, development and production would be rationalised and set on some kind of competitive footing for the future. OAK remains a pipedream.

Under the plan put forward in 2005 to create the single company, it was predicted that OAK would generate USD2.5 billion to USD2.8 billion of annual revenue, mostly in military sales. By 2015 production was expected to rise by a factor of 10 (military and civil aircraft sales combined).

These figures have almost no basis in reality. If Russia's military industry is on life support then, sadly, the plug was pulled on its civil manufacturing base a long time ago. There are two prospective commercial airliner projects in Russia: the Sukhoi Russian Regional Jet (RRJ) and the Yakovlev-led MS-21. Both are paper designs and neither have
realistic sales prospects. There is also a serious worry that some of these programmes are being used as 'cash sponges', to soak up investment that will never be channelled into actual development work and will simply disappear when projects are abandoned.

The formation of OAK is bitterly opposed by many of the entities it is supposed to include. More importantly, it intrudes on the personal fiefdoms of senior officials who have no interest in seeing their hard-won positions diluted or disappear altogether. To many observers within Russia, the OAK plan is a bad joke and they look with dismay at the agreements Western companies have made with an organisation that does not exist.

President Putin has instructed Russian industry to form more joint ventures and international partnerships. It is only export sales that have kept the Russian ship afloat, but the ship is springing leaks. There is a real danger that Russia's manufacturers have sold everything they have to offer and have no new aircraft or systems to sell for the future.

The relationship with China sends some clear signals. Sukhoi's multibillion-dollar deal to supply Su-27s has come to an end. The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has absorbed these aircraft and is turning its attention to sustaining and upgrading them itself, with much-reduced foreign involvement. The follow-on Su-30MKK and Su-30MKK-II programmes were for far fewer aircraft and the planned Su-30MKK-III variant has been dropped.

China continues to buy specific technology items from Russia but the days of the big aircraft deals might well be over. Russia's early input into the FC-1 and J-10 fighter programmes has been of great assistance to China's young design teams, but they are now capable of doing most of the work themselves.

For Russia the plan for the future, as far as there is one, is based almost entirely on the PAKFA next-generation fighter programme, for which Sukhoi is developing the 1-50 design. At a press briefing in January Russian Air Force Commander General Vladimir Mikhailov said that development "is proceeding well and generally on time", while also admitting a lack of funding.

Building and flying an aircraft should not be a problem for Sukhoi. Developing and integrating the avionics, sensors and weapon fit that a 21st century combat jet demands is another matter. Russia's once-mighty aerospace sector has withered in a climate of greed, disinterest and inertia that has robbed it of a future.

Looking with disbelief at the course of events since the fall of the Soviet Union, one Russian analyst shook his head and said: "It is as if they have no children

 

[Armand2REP]

MI-24 (35) takes a middle position between Attack Helicopters and multi-purpose. Why there is no such in the West. Because, it was developed for other battle tactics. Of course in the original-it is obsolete, but in a modernized version, with new engines, with composite armor, French avionics and a new set of armament,he presents a formidable rotary-wing machine.

Considering the Mi-24 can only carry 8 men, it doesn't fit well with the size of Western squads of 12. It didn't carry a full Soviet squad of 10 either. In operational use, its troop transport role was considered a hindrance as the added armour would waste much needed payload. During Afghanistan it was rarely used to transport troops and provided fire support for Mi-8s. This made it a gunship and in this role, it is not as effective as dedicated attack helicopters. The Russians learned from this folly to develop the Mi-28, a fully dedicated attack helicopter.

 

[pmaitra]

I have corrected your mistakes, inline:

Considering the Mi-24 can only carry 8 men, it doesn't fit well with the size of Western squads of 12. It didn't carry a full Soviet squad of 10 either. In operational use, its troop transport role was considered a hindrance [only in the higher altitudes] as the added armour would waste much needed payload. During Afghanistan it was rarely used to transport troops and provided fire support for Mi-8s. This made it a gunship and in this role, it is not as effective as dedicated attack helicopters. The Russians learned from this folly to develop the Mi-28, a fully dedicated attack helicopter [but it can also carry upto 3 passengers].

 

[Akim]

Considering the Mi-24 can only carry 8 men, it doesn't fit well with the size of Western squads of 12. It didn't carry a full Soviet squad of 10 either. In operational use, its troop transport role was considered a hindrance as the added armour would waste much needed payload. During Afghanistan it was rarely used to transport troops and provided fire support for Mi-8s. This made it a gunship and in this role, it is not as effective as dedicated attack helicopters. The Russians learned from this folly to develop the Mi-28, a fully dedicated attack helicopter.

The concept of the Mi-24 was created in the late 60's, as "attack helicopters" for the mass army of offensive. Link Mi-24 under the guise of armor and strong armament, attacked an object, landed 16 Troopers for the "cleansing" of dangerous for helicopters goals and preparing a landing field for for flying behind them link of the Mi-8, with the platoon of paratroopers onboard and heavy weapons. Certainly needed and just "attack helicopter". And he was created already in USSR not on the base of transport helicopter (UH-1 AH-1 and Mi-8 Mi-24), and from scratch (Mi-28, Ka-50). But this does not mean that from the Mi-24 gathered to renounce. He has a good thrust-to-weight and protection. Cargo bay is needed not only for troopers. In Chechnya, he was delivering ammunition under fire enemy and coming-out the wounded. On today's time he is based mainly exceptionally, as a "attack helicopter", but the extra features it nobody abolished.

 

[asianobserve]

No doubt that Russians are also visionaries in weapons design. But their manufacturing doctrine is based on cheap, easy and fast production and easy maintainability. So in general Russian weapons have good concept behind them but their quality is not very high.

 

[p2prada]

No doubt that Russians are also visionaries in weapons design. But their manufacturing doctrine is based on cheap, easy and fast production and easy maintainability. So in general Russian weapons have good concept behind them but their quality is not very high.

Replace Russian with Soviet and I will agree.

Russian manufacturing doctrine is the same as the west now.

 

[Virendra]

As Indian defense needs will keep notching higher and higher, there's going to be an uneasy leap from Russia dependent defense procurement to self-reliance.
Leap would be uneasy because now we would find the same Russians merchandise not good enough for us and at the same time, would not have the setup and capability to build it all for ourselves.
Leap would be uneasy because as our stature grows we would see many of the old biggies pulling their hands back.
No one likes to give someone a hand to come up share their top seat. There again, the lack of domestic capability would add to frustration.
Leap would be uneasy because we would at some point face the harsh realities that to "project and apply" ourselves as a powerful entity, we would have to display our own genius in many fields. That includes Defense technology, production, exports etc.
It is going to be a difficult transition.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Akim]

No doubt that Russians are also visionaries in weapons design. But their manufacturing doctrine is based on cheap, easy and fast production and easy maintainability. So in general Russian weapons have good concept behind them but their quality is not very high.

All of this came from the combat experience WW2. After war many institutes worked above it. Germans during the war, make quality, but not enough. Americans did qualitatively and much. Soviet Union did did cheap, not always high-quality, but also much. He did in the war-time a weapon for a mass army, learned when to use it, almost in combat. This concept was to finish USSR. "Simply, but effectively". Now, in modern terms, she changed certainly, technology began to complicate things.

 

[asianobserve]

Replace Russian with Soviet and I will agree.

Russian manufacturing doctrine is the same as the west now.

I doubt. Maybe if Russians start manufacturing on license European weapons.

 

[Ray]

The concept of the Mi-24 was created in the late 60's, as "attack helicopters" for the mass army of offensive.

This is the reason I stay away from threads like Which tank is the Best A vs B.

Weaponry is designed for the designing country's tactical and operational doctrine.and the terrain and climatic conditions range prevalent in the anticipated terrain the weaponry is to operate in.

Hence, one cannot force fit it into another country's tactical and operational doctrine and for the operational terrain and the climate range that the Armed Forces are expected to operate in.

The Soviet concept was based on the Operational Manoeuvre Group.

The concept envisaged deep operations and was an echelon-based doctrine.

The doctrine doctrine was based on the Operational Manoeuvre Groups being inserted to exploit a breakthrough after the motor-rifle units, heavily supported by artillery, helicopters and CAS aircraft would have broken NATO front, the operational manoeuvre groups would be inserted to exploit the breakthrough using elements of, or whole tank armies.

Our doctrine is a hybrid.

Hybrids thus have problems fitting in weaponry designed by other countries and for their operational environments.

 

[Akim]

This is the reason I stay away from threads like Which tank is the Best A vs B.

I do not see the point in the debate when comparing individual samples of weapon. Combat - a set of measures. More 10 years ago, I happened to take part in joint maneuvers and the Americans were very surprised, that our tactics are not similar to the one they studied in textbooks "Tactics of the Soviet Army." General principles are known to all, but the details are kept secret.

P.S. In that year on maneuvers "Safe sky" (Ukraine, Mirgorod), Americans examined our Су- 27. Small electronic, unusual control. But when in him "a ride" U.S. Colonel, with all figures higher aerobatics -he after it gave quite another interview, than before the flight.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

^^
More than you would ever want to know about Warsaw Pact doctrine can be found at the following link.

CIA FOIA - Special Collections: Soviet and Warsaw Pact Military Journals

 

[Akim]

Another small example about the quality of weapons and tactics. During WW2 lend-lease to the USSR supplied many fighters. But their in the main Soviet pilots did not like. And P-39 (63), which did not get accustomed in "tall battles" in the skies of England and the Pacific Ocean, even as fit. And more than half of eih aircraft is exported to the Soviet Union. It is therefore impossible to talk whose technique worse or better. Every country creates a weapon under their tactics.