**** All Discussion on Russian PGM , Guided and Unguided Short Range Weapons and Even SRBM 😉 ****
Russia Testing New Guided Bombs
by Michal Fiszer
Nov. 22, 2005
It was recently revealed that Russia is testing a new gliding guided bomb, as well as a new laser-guided bomb.
The UPAB-1500KR (“izdyelye K-070” or “product K-070”) is the first Russian gliding bomb. It was based on the KAB-1500KR guided bomb, with folded wings added to achieve a gliding capability. According to Russian sources, the range of UPAB-1500KR is 50-70 km, when dropped from high altitude and at high speed. The target picture is transmitted from a datalink on the bomb and received by the Raduga (Moscow, Russia) APK-8 datalink pod attached to the fuselage of the host aircraft. When the bomb nears its target, the aircrew marks the target, and the bomb is then attacking it independently, at which point it is locked onto the target.
Russia is currently testing a new laser-guided bomb, the KAB-250L (seen here in the foreground), which is similar in appearance and in characteristics to the US GBU-12 Paveway II LGB. Photo by Miroslav Gyurosi
The other new bomb being tested is the KAB-250L (“izdyelye K-045” or “product K-045”) laser-guided bomb (LGB), similar in appearance and in characteristics to the US GBU-12 Paveway II LGB. Although there is not much information available on the KAB-250L, the bomb was recently developed by the FGUP State”s Scientific-Production Entity “Region.” It has the same seeker as the KAB-500L/KAB-1500L , though in a modernized form. The bomb is controlled by front all-moving surfaces, while the tails are fixed. It is designed for export, as well as for domestic use. Testing of these bombs is being conducted by the 929th State’s Aviation Test Center in Akhtubinsk, Russia.
All Russian and earlier Soviet guided bombs have been developed by the same organization – FGUP State’s Scientific-Production Entity “Region” in Moscow. Various parts of the bombs, however, were developed by other companies.
In the late 1970s, Russia developed two new versions of the KAB-1500L: the KAB-1500L-F with a high-explosive (HE) warhead and the KAB-1500L-PR (seen here) with a penetration warhead.Photo by Miroslav Gyurosi
For example, the Tubus-2 TV seeker used in the UPAB-1500KR, KAB-500KR, and KAB-1500KR (as well as the Kh-29T and Kh-59 Ovod missiles) was developed by NPO Impuls (Akhtubinsk, Russia), the 27N1 semi-active laser seeker for the KAB-500L and KAB-1500L (“izdyelye K-015” or “product K-015”) was developed by the Geofizyka-ART Scientific-Technological Production Complex (formerly NPO Geofizyka) (Moscow, Russia), and the control systems for the bombs were developed by OAO Tambovskiy Zavod “Elektropribor” (Tambov Russia; KAB-500KR has SU-601 control system while KAB-1500KR has SU-609 control system). The warhead for both bombs warhead was developed by FGUP GNPP “Bazalt” (Krasnoarmeysk near Moscow, Russia).
A History of Soviet/Russian Guided Bombs
The first attempts at developing guided bombs were undertaken in the Soviet Union from 1938 to1942 and again from 1947 to 1955. The latter attempts resulted in development of two guided bombs: the UB-2000F “Tshaika” and UB-5000F “Kondor,” based on 2,000- and 5,000-kg heavy bombs, respectively,with radio-command guidance systems. (A TV-command system was tested but not accepted into service, because all work was terminated in late 1957.) Work was conducted by the GSNII-642 scientific institute in Moscow and led by Aleksandr D. Nadiradze. On July 20, 1955, the Tshaika was accepted into service with the designation UB-2F (“Izdyelye 4A-22”). Two such bombs could be carried by by Tu-16 bomber under the wings, or one UB-2F bomb could be carried under fuselage by an Il-28 bomber. GSNII-642 was later merged with OKB-52 from Reutovo near Moscow, led by Vladimir Chelomei, who is best known for his work on the development of anti-ship missiles. Nadiradze transferred to NII-1 in Moscow (now the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technologies), where he later headed development of solid-state strategic missiles (among them, the Topol, known as the SS-25).
Soviet work on guided bombs restarted in late 1971, when NIIPGM (now the FGUP State’s Scientific-Production Entity “Region”) was tasked to develop 250- and 500-kg guided bombs. The requirement was for laser-guided bombs to be used by the aircraft equipped with laser illuminator. The KAB-500 bomb with a semi-active laser guidance system was ready in early 1973 (the KAB designation came from the Russian “Korrektiruyemaya Aviabomba” for “aerial bomb with corrected trajectory”). The bomb’s development was headed by N.S. Privalov, who decided to modify the bomb’s aerodynamics with large tails with control surfaces and small, fixed front stabilizers. Thus, he managed to keep the tail span of the bomb within the 750-mm limit set by the Soviet Air Force. The bomb was equipped with a 27N1 semi-active laser seeker placed on the gimbals in the front, which could cooperate with the Kaira fire-control system used on Su-24M and MiG-27K aircraft .
The 27N1 seeker can intercept the reflected laser signal from a distance of 5-7 km under conditions of 10-km visibility. The KAB-500, later redesignated KAB-500L, weighed 560 kg and had a 460-kg warhead with 200 kg of explosive. The bomb’s length is just over 3 m, its diameter is 400 mm, and its tail span is 750 mm. The bomb could be dropped from altitudes from 500 to 5000 m at speeds of 550 to 1100 kmph. The maximum effective distance to the target for a drop is 9 km (assuming the seeker receives the illumination signal), while the minimum is 3 km. The bomb’s accuracy is within 6-9 m.
While the UPAB-1500KR and KAB-250L are just now undergoing testing, the KAB-500S (seen here) is very close to entering service with Russian Air Force. Photo by Miroslav Gyurosi
Factory tests of the KAB-500L were completed in June 1974, and the first phase of state testing ended in August 1975. Production started in 1976, though the bomb was officially accepted into service no earlier than 1979, after the full complement of state tests was completed.
Already, though, between 1975 and 1977, the same company kicked off development of a whole family of guided bombs, and a version of the KAB-500L with cluster warhead was developed. It was designated the KAB-500L-K and was designed to attack small armored units. The bomb’s warhead was developed based on the RBK-500 free-fall cluster bomb, which contained 266 PTAB-1 anti-tank bomblets. The weight of the KAB-500L-K’s warhead was 405 kg, while the whole bomb weighed 525 kg. The remaining parameters did not change, except the minimum distance to the target for the bomb drop, which was reduced to 2 km.
Two other types of bombs with two different types of guidance were also developed. A TV-guided version of the KAB-500L, dubbed the KAB-500KR (“izdyelye K-07” or “product K-07”), was developed. It received the Tubus TV seeker, with a 3.2×3.2° field of view. It can be pointed +40° to the left and right, +35°/-57° vertically, and could rotate +45°. The seeker worked across a wide range of light levels and had a particularly interesting feature: It tracked the most highly contrasted objects in its field of view and not the target itself, homing the missile into the point market by pilot (or weapon-system officer), artificially calculated from the objects tracked. Thus, the target itself could be an object of very low contrast. The warhead of the KAB-500KR was reduced to 380 kg with just 100 kg of explosive but of a more powerful type. The bomb’s weight was 530 kg, and its body diameter was reduced to 350 mm. The remaining data was the same as the KAB-500L, except for the accuracy, which was improved to within just 4 m. Work on the KAB-500KR bomb was prolonged, and it didn’t enter service until the latter half of the 1980s.
The other direction taken in the development of guided bombs by the Soviet Union was the design of a new laser-guided bomb. In the late 1970s, NIIPGM (now the FGUP State’s Scientific-Production Entity “Region”) developed two new versions of the KAB-1500L: the KAB-1500L-F with a high-explosive (HE) warhead and the KAB-1500L-PR with a penetration warhead. The bomb has length of 4.600 m and a body diameter of 580 mm. The guidance system was the same one used on KAB-500L, but the control system was different. Now the bomb had folded wings (or tails) at the rear part of the bomb, with no control surfaces. When unfolded after drop, the tail span was 1.300 m. Small, moving control surfaces were placed in the front. The bomb weighed 1,560 kg, while the warhead weighed 1,180 kg for the HE variant, or 1,500 kg with a 1,120-kg penetration warhead. The KAB-1500L could be carried only by the Su-24M and could be dropped from altitudes of 1000-8000 m at the speeds of 550-1,100 kmph. The penetration warhead had ability to pierce 3 m of concrete, and against normal soil, the bomb would go to a depth of about 20 m before detonating.
The final version was the KAB-1500TK-PR, with its TV-guidance system. The bomb had a TV seeker and a radio link to the host platform. Contrary to the KAB-500KR, which was guided based on contrast, the KAB-1500TK was continuously guided to the target by the weapon-system officer, who observed the target picture seen by the bomb seeker on a TV screen in the cockpit. All variants of the KAB-1500 bombs entered service in the 1981-1985 timeframe, earlier for the Su-24M and later on Tu-22M3 strategic bomber aircraft. The Su-24M could carry two such bombs, while Tu-22M3 could carry as many as six.
The next phase of development of Soviet and then Russian guided bombs occurred over the years 1989 to 1993. In 1986 the chief designer of NPO Region became V.E. Mertsalov, replacing N.S. Privalov, who retired. Starting near the end of the 1980s, the KAB-500KR bomb with the Tubus-2 TV seeker was produced. The Tubus-2 has two fields of view: 12×16° for target observation before drop and 2.1×2.9° for detailed aiming before drop and for target track after drop. The seeker also had better resolution (520 lines) than the original Tubus seeker, enabling its use with the KAB-1500 bomb, which had higher drop altitudes. Thus, the KAB-1500KR (“izdyelye K-021” or “product K-021”) was developed, which is a “drop-and-forget” type, like KAB-500KR. The crew marks the target and drops the bomb, which them homes itself on the target using picture contrast. The KAB-1500KR has length of 4.5 m and weighs 1475 kg, with a 1,075-kg warhead. The KAB-1500KR entered service in the early 1990s. Simultaneously, a further variant, dubbed the KAB-500KR-OD, was developed, equipped with fuel-air type of warhead. All of the bombs equipped with the Tubus-2 TV seeker have accuracy of within about 3 m.
The newest type of bombs developed by FGUP State’s Scientific-Production Entity “Region” are the KAB-500S, UPAB-1500KR, and KAB-250L, with the latter two just now undergoing testing, as noted above. The KAB-500S, meanwhile, is very close to entering service with Russian Air Force. It will be used on new or modernized tactical aircraft – specifically, the Su-34 and Su-27SM – as well as Tu-160 aircraft (for more information on the KAB-500S.
Guided Bombs in Action
The guided bombs were treated by the Soviet Union as a “second-wave attack weapon.” The majority of tactical aircraft were armed with guided missiles, and only Su-24M aircraft were armed with a mix of guided missiles and bombs. It was deemed that guided missiles were more suitable for the air-defense environment, enabling missile launches from low altitudes (200-500 m) and from greater standoff distances (7-10 km), at least protecting aircraft from air-defense missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. During the first wave of a strike, which was to be connected with the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), missiles were to be used almost exclusively .The guided bombs had the advantage that they could be dropped more precisely from higher altitudes, once the ground-based medium- and long-range air-defense systems had already been already suppressed. So the second-wave strikes, conducted deep into enemy territory by Su-24M bombers, were to use the guided bombs against vital but small-sized targets, such as bunkers, command centers, bridges, etc. Interestingly collateral damage wasn’t a concern for the Soviet Union, so it developed rather large bombs in the 500- and 1,500-kg class. Interest in smaller size bombs (250 kg class) has sprung up only recently.
The Soviet conflict in Afghanistan and, more recently, the Russian wars in Chechnya turned attention to guided bombs as the most suitable air-launched guided weapon. Guided bombs could be dropped precisely from altitudes out of range of small arms and man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS) – practically the only air defense possessed by the enemy. The first combat use of Soviet guided bombs took place in 1988-1989, when the 143rd Bombardment Wing, flying Su-24Ms, dropped KAB-1500L bombs against Mujahedin hardened positions. The KAB-1500L was used again in late December 1995 to destroy a bridge over the Argun River, 10 km to the east from Grozny, in Chechnya. Guided bombs were further employed in both Chechen wars.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th August 2006 at 07:51
It really depends on the construction of the wall. Outer walls made of stone will be rather less effected by a HEAT charge than inner walls. The main exception would be HESH warheads but they are rare these days.
Besides in WWII a Panzerfaust was more use against enemy armour or MG positions than in simple demolition for which the Soviets were well equipped already. Why use an M16 mag to open a bottle of beer when you carry a bottle opener anyway. Especially if you might need your M16 mag to work properly later on.
By: jackehammond - 14th August 2006 at 23:59
They also received some Bazookas under lend lease, but didn’t produce versions of them either.
Not really sure of Anthony Beevors credentials… by the time the Soviets got their hands on large numbers of Panzerfausts I’d have thought they had already worked out a way of blowing down the internal walls of buildings so they could move between houses undetected. Doors and windows are places to get shot entering or leaving. You make your own hole if you want to live very long, and most Anti tank weapons do not use blast power to defeat armour. To a solid stone wall all a Panzerfaust would do is burn a small hole about 2-3 cm across in it. A wooden cross with blocks of explosive placed at each end is what they actually used and is still used to this day as the best way of blowing a hole large enough for a human to crawl through.
Dear Garry,
What you described with the wooden cross and blocks of HE is true (it is called a “Mouse Holing Charge). But I have seen demonstrations when I use to go to AUSA in Washington DC in the 1980s at a Marine base south of Washington with various antitank weapons from other nations. I guarantee you the blast effect does have an effect on brick and concrete walls. Not as effective as HEP or “Mouse Hole Charge” but still effective. In fact in one battle the French had in Iraq they used the APILAS against buildings and because of its 112mm HEAT warhed the effect was devestating.
Jack E. Hammond
By: jackehammond - 14th August 2006 at 23:52
According to my information the Soviets didn’t have any rocket propelled anti tank weapons at all during WWII and the first to enter service was the RPG-2, which did not enter the war till well after WWII.
The RPG-2 had a rocket motor of very short operation that blew the rocket out of the tube. It had no sustainer rocket to flatten the trajectory like the RPG-7 did so it was more limited in range and the weight of warhead it could carry and its trajectory was ballistic.
Dear Garry,
First, I never stated that an RPG entered service before WW2 ended. Second neither the Panzerfaust, RPG-2 or the RPG-7 use a rocket motor to eject the projectile from the tube. All use a variation of the “Davis” principle. In effect the launch tube is open at each end. When the charge behind the projectile is exploded part of the force is used to eject the projectile forward and the rest is allowed to escape to the rear causing a recoiless effect. In this pure version though only 90% of the force is spent on sending the projectile forward. In the pure “Davis” principle you have a counter weight (usually birdshot) that is the weight as the projectile which is blown to the rear which results in a 50/50 split of force of the explosing of the ejection charge. The former Yugoslavian M57 is a good example of that and a close cousin to the RPG-2 (which does not use the counter weight).
Jack E. Hammond
PS. If you have a chance read TANK KILLING by Ian Hogg who is recognized even by the Russians as an expert in infantry weapons including antitank weapons.
By: sealordlawrence - 14th August 2006 at 17:34
They also received some Bazookas under lend lease, but didn’t produce versions of them either.
Not really sure of Anthony Beevors credentials… by the time the Soviets got their hands on large numbers of Panzerfausts I’d have thought they had already worked out a way of blowing down the internal walls of buildings so they could move between houses undetected. Doors and windows are places to get shot entering or leaving. You make your own hole if you want to live very long, and most Anti tank weapons do not use blast power to defeat armour. To a solid stone wall all a Panzerfaust would do is burn a small hole about 2-3 cm across in it. A wooden cross with blocks of explosive placed at each end is what they actually used and is still used to this day as the best way of blowing a hole large enough for a human to crawl through.
Well his books are amongst the most highly acclaimed on the subject ever written so his credentials are certainly better than yours. :p
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th August 2006 at 06:58
RA had some captured (and produced on captured factories) Panzerfaust’s but they was never counted as “soviet” weapons. Just as war throphies in service.
They also received some Bazookas under lend lease, but didn’t produce versions of them either.
According to the Book, ‘Berlin- the downfall 1945’ by anthony beevor the Russians found the panzerfaust to be very usefull in urban combat for making holes in walls.
Not really sure of Anthony Beevors credentials… by the time the Soviets got their hands on large numbers of Panzerfausts I’d have thought they had already worked out a way of blowing down the internal walls of buildings so they could move between houses undetected. Doors and windows are places to get shot entering or leaving. You make your own hole if you want to live very long, and most Anti tank weapons do not use blast power to defeat armour. To a solid stone wall all a Panzerfaust would do is burn a small hole about 2-3 cm across in it. A wooden cross with blocks of explosive placed at each end is what they actually used and is still used to this day as the best way of blowing a hole large enough for a human to crawl through.
By: sealordlawrence - 13th August 2006 at 20:43
RA had some captured (and produced on captured factories) Panzerfaust’s but they was never counted as “soviet” weapons. Just as war throphies in service.
According to the Book, ‘Berlin- the downfall 1945’ by anthony beevor the Russians found the panzerfaust to be very usefull in urban combat for making holes in walls.
By: Chrom - 13th August 2006 at 19:22
According to my information the Soviets didn’t have any rocket propelled anti tank weapons at all during WWII and the first to enter service was the RPG-2, which did not enter the war till well after WWII.
The RPG-2 had a rocket motor of very short operation that blew the rocket out of the tube. It had no sustainer rocket to flatten the trajectory like the RPG-7 did so it was more limited in range and the weight of warhead it could carry and its trajectory was ballistic.
RA had some captured (and produced on captured factories) Panzerfaust’s but they was never counted as “soviet” weapons. Just as war throphies in service.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th August 2006 at 06:09
The first Russian RPG weapon was based on the Panzerfaust 150 (the 150 means its effective range) which went into production in the very last days of the war and it is not known if it saw combat.
According to my information the Soviets didn’t have any rocket propelled anti tank weapons at all during WWII and the first to enter service was the RPG-2, which did not enter the war till well after WWII.
The RPG-2 had a rocket motor of very short operation that blew the rocket out of the tube. It had no sustainer rocket to flatten the trajectory like the RPG-7 did so it was more limited in range and the weight of warhead it could carry and its trajectory was ballistic.
By: jackehammond - 9th August 2006 at 12:29
Nice post, but the above caption is wrong. As later mentioned the 9M113 is Konkurs. The launcher is unified for the two missiles which equate to Milan and HOT respectively.
The list doesn’t seem to include Tank gun launched missiles nor other ground launched systems like Krisanthema or AT-6/-9 SHTURM/ATAKA.
BTW the comments about the panzerfaust being the first in the RPG series is a little flippant. The panzerfausts were more like recoiless rifles in that they were blasted out of their tubes but they didn’t have sustainer rocket motors and so lacked the range of the Russian systems we know as the RPG series that have two methods of propulsion.
Dear Garry,
The first Russian RPG weapon was based on the Panzerfaust 150 (the 150 means its effective range) which went into production in the very last days of the war and it is not known if it saw combat. The first widely used RPG was the RPG-2 which did not have a rocket motor which kicked in after it had cleared the tube a safe distance. While the RPG-2 did not have the effetive range or armor penetration of the famous RPG-7 the Chinese version of the RPG-2 the B-40 had a shallower cone in its HEAT warhead and had a much better blast effect against fortifications and lightly armored vehicles like armored trucks in convoys. Some NVA units kept their RPG-2 even when the RPG-7 became available for assaults on artillery fire based in South Vietnam.
Jack E. Hammond
st
By: Austin - 20th April 2006 at 00:49
France Buying Russian Laser-Guided Shells
Source: CILAS
Apr. 19, 2006
CILAS (Orleans, France) has been recently awarded a contract by the French Délégation Générale pour l’Armements (DGA), France’s military procurement agency, for the qualification of the KBP Krasnopol shells with its weapon system and for the supply of ammunition.
Operational for many years, the CILAS DHY 307 Ground Laser Designator has proven its efficiency during field operations carried out by French and foreign forces. Thanks to the compatibility of the DHY 307 with the only laser-guided shells available on the market, CILAS provides the artillery regiments with a surgical-strike capability.
Guided weapons offer the advantage of ensuring damage at first shooting, with an important probability of destroying the target, and thus tremendously reducing the quantity of ammunition needed to prosecute a particular target. The fire precision dramatically reduces the collateral damage, a high priority as armed forces have to deal more and more with struggles in urban zones.
The DHY 307 is a general-purpose laser designator. Intended to be used by a small unit on the ground, it provides guidance for all kinds of ammunition: missiles, bombs, or artillery shells equipped with a laser-homing head. The DHY307 is flexible and fully programmable, and it can address any type of illumination code.
Russia’s KBP Instrument Design Bureau State Unitary Enterprise has developed over 130 models of weapons and military equipment that have been put into series production and introduced into service with the Russian Army.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st April 2006 at 14:51
How does the R-33 complex work? I assume the radar provide continous illumination of all four targets, does this change at range though?
Would assume it is a bit like Russian laser guided weapons… once the target is detected and its postion established the trajectory of the weapon is calculated and the weapon is fired. At a certain distance from the target the target is illuminated and the seeker starts to search for the reflected energy. Once the source is detected the weapon manouvers to intercept the target.
Have no idea whether the missile could reaquire the target if it loses its lock… would come down to missile seeker design logic. (warhead might be detonated when signal lost as safety measure or it might home on any jamming source detected near the target).
By: Avimimus - 16th March 2006 at 18:11
R-33 lacks datalink. R-27R uses a datalink transmited by the sidelobe of the radar N-019 multiplexed with the main beam. Same for R-77.
Interesting!
I am curious if anyone knows the barriers regarding recapturing of missiles.
How does the R-33 complex work? I assume the radar provide continous illumination of all four targets, does this change at range though?
How does the seeker on the R-33 work to discern which of the four targets it should be slaved to? If the radar was turned off, could lock be regained when the radar came back on?
Is there any way to use a datalink on a modern missile like the R-27 to get the missile to reaquire after being spoofed? What are the barriers to this?
Thank you!
By: Vympel - 10th March 2006 at 07:55
It’s the one marked “32” in the picture from the article. Externally, it doesn’t differ from the second prototype, in that it lacks the big ugly bulge on the right side of the original Mi-28N prototype.
By: Vympel - 10th March 2006 at 07:54
It’s the one marked “32” in the picture from the article.
By: ink - 9th March 2006 at 23:28
Mi-28N looks likely to enter service:
MOSCOW, March 9 (RIA Novosti) – First-stage flight testing of next-generation attack helicopters for the Russian Air Force has been completed and the choppers will soon be in service, an official said Thursday.
Head of the Air Force press service Alexander Drobyshevsky said that the Mi-28N Night Hunter had completed its first test flights, and the Rostov Helicopter Plant (Rosvertol) will launch full-scale production in the immediate future.
The company will initially produce 20 Mi-28Ns under a three-year contract with the Air Force, the official said.
According to Drobyshevsky, a serial model of the Mi-28N Night Hunter conducted its first flight in late December and has made 140 flights since then.
The helicopter is primarily designed to locate and destroy enemy armored vehicles, personnel, small surface ships, low-speed air targets and fortifications and to lay mine fields day or night in adverse weather conditions.
High reliability and powerful weaponry make the chopper competitive on global aircraft markets, the Rosvertol press service said. Military experts said helicopter’s effectiveness was four to five times higher than of any existing helicopters of its type.
Any one got pictures of this production version (or ‘series model’) – all I’ve ever seen are prototypes.
By: Austin - 16th February 2006 at 22:07
Russia Continues Testing Mi-28N Helicopter
Source: OPK Oboronprom
Feb. 16, 2006
The next stage of the official tests of the new Mi-28N combat helicopter will be completed in March.
“Following the results of the tests, the Russian Air Forces will draw up a preliminary conclusion on the helicopter’s conformity with the requirements, which will allow its mass production and continuation of trials,” a source in the Russian defense industry told the Interfax-Military News Agency.
A total of 111 test flights were performed as of Jan. 1, 2006, and 108 of them were credited “The full cycle of the tests is likely to be completed in the second quarter of 2007. In order to meet the deadlines, at least three Mi-28Ns will be tested this year,” the source said.
He also said that the Mi-28N will take part in the Algerian helicopter tender which is expected to be announced this year.
The design of the Mi-28N helicopter, dubbed the “Night Hunter,” takes into account many years of experience in operation and combat use of Mi-8/17 and Mi-24 transport and combat helicopters.
The Night Hunter is different from the baseline variety in having a new integrated set of radars and onboard equipment that ensures round-the-clock combat capability in adverse weather conditions.
The Mi-28N was chosen as the main combat helicopter of the Russian Army. Army Aviation units are expected to get about 50 Mi-28N helicopters by 2010.
By: Rokosowsky - 4th February 2006 at 00:04
What makes you think that? NATO never made any commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. Why wouldn’t they use nuclear weapons against enemy force concentrations?
It is very simple! You, like NATO, permits using of TNW first against WP forces only because NATO conventional forces were unable to stop WP conventional offensive. On the other hand in 1982 “evermemorable” Comrade Brezhnev announced that USSR would never use nuclear weapon first because he knew very well USSR could easily win war with NATO without resort to nuclear warfare!
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd February 2006 at 15:12
As I see you have already admitted NATO was inferior to Warsaw Pact in overall conventional power.
What makes you think that? NATO never made any commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. Why wouldn’t they use nuclear weapons against enemy force concentrations?
By: Rokosowsky - 2nd February 2006 at 14:26
But any concentration would lead to a tactical nuclear target being created.
As I see you have already admitted NATO was inferior to Warsaw Pact in overall conventional power. 😀
As far as I discuss here I always mean only NATO-WP conventional warfare because using of nuclear weapon drives directly to escalation and thus to the all-out nuclear war, in my opinion. So, in reality NATO also wasn’t an enthusiast of nuclear escalation despite its official “flexble response” doctrine because its TNW would have to be used also on NATO’s territory (particularly in FRG) to stop WP tank forces encircling Allied troops after succesive conventional breaktrough.
Besides Soviet strategists took into account such a possibility and thus prepared special troops movement order to secure its dispersion until breakpoint at frontline is reached. When breakthrought at that point is achieved, being so far in reserve self-sufficient, combined formations called OMGs (mostly reinforced tank divisions with organic self-propelled artillery, SAMs, attack/transport helos and airmobile ranger units) would pass through frontline gap and move as fast as possible to occupy strategic positions on NATO’s rear. This strategy was a bit complicated task (Soviet Army spent a lot of time in 1970s and 1980s to adapt its manpower, equipment and C3I onto it) but if executed properly, NATO conventional defense would crash almost immediately!
As Chrom noticed if WP was STRATEGICALLY three-to-one stronger than NATO in conventional arms, there were some areas along intra-German border (especially opposite NOTHTAG’s poorer equipped and trained Danish, Belgian, Dutch and British forces) where WP forces (Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army merged with 3th Strike Army) attacking along Kassel-Aachen line could rapidly achieve five-to-one or even six-to-one TACTICAL supremacy over NATO troops!
Perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere?
OK, but where?
By: Austin - 2nd February 2006 at 06:31
Russia Flight-Tests 3rd Mi-28N Helo
by Piotr Butowski
Jan. 23, 2006
The Russian Air Force’s third Mi-28N combat helicopter (side number 32) made its first flight on Dec. 27, 2005, in Rostov-on-Don in the presence of the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, General Vladimir Mikhailov.
The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD), in the spring of 2005, ordered from Rostov-based Rostvertol three Mi-28N helicopters, which will join two prototypes in tests. Each of the next two helicopters after the one flown on Dec. 27 will be ready in two- to three-month intervals. According to a draft state budget for 2006 announced in Russia in mid-December 2005, the MoD will purchase eight Mi-28N helicopters, including three ordered in spring 2005, plus five in 2006.
In 2003, the Russian Ministry of Defense selected the Mi-28N “Havoc” as its next combat helicopter, replacing Mi-24 “Hind.” Photo by Piotr ButowskiAccording to Russian sources, the recently tested helicopter is the “first series Mi-28N,” meaning that it has been made according to improved series-production documentation as the model for the future series helicopters.
The first Mi-28N was an OP-1 prototype (side number 014) built in the Mil design bureau’s workshop in Moscow and flight-tested as early as on Nov. 14, 1996. The prototype “014” made only a few flights, and then the tests were stopped while development continued on certain aspects of the aircraft, particularly the new main transmission gear (the prototype had an old VR-28 transmission gear incapable of transmitting the full power of the engines). Tests of the OP-1 helicopter were resumed on April 24, 2002, with the new VR-29 main transmission gear and KhR-29 tail transmission gear. OP-1 is now used only as a ground-based testing platform.
The third Mi-28N was presented as the “first production” model just before its maiden flight at Rostvertol’s airfield on Dec. 27, 2005.RostvertolThe second Mi-28N, designated OP-2 (original side number 02, now 024), was made by Rostvertol based on prototype documentation. It made its maiden flight on March 25, 2004, and in late June 2005 started stage A of state acceptance tests.
Stage A means testing of the helicopter as a flying vehicle, whereas stage B means testing of helicopter as a combat system, including tests of equipment and armament. So far, OP-2 has accumulated over 100 flight hours. OP-2 has been substantially modernized in comparison with the first prototype OP-1, having received new main rotor blades, a new control plate and rotor head, and improved control of its engine and fuel systems. The Mi-28N prototypes are powered by 2,200-horsepower TV3-117VMA turboshaft engines, but the production helicopters will receive more powerful 2,400-horsepower VK-2500 engines.
The long-standing competition between Kamov’s Ka-52 and Mil’s Mi-28N for priority in the combat service of Russian Army aviation had until recently been practically irrelevant, since the Russian MoD had no money for the order. Finally, in 2003, General Vladimir Mikhailov announced that the Mi-28N had been chosen and that “up to 50 such helicopters will be purchased until 2010.” The decisive factor in choosing the Mi-28N was its lower cost of production and operation, as well as the possibility of using systems from the Mi-28 in the modernized Mi-24 helicopter. In addition, the decision was aided by the much better financial condition of the Rostvertol factory compared with the Progress factory in Arsenyev, which makes the Ka-50 and Ka-52. Strong lobbying by Mil and Rostvertol also helped.
What now holds back the Mi-28N is not money but technological problems, in particular the immaturity of VR-29 main transmission gear. In principle, only helicopters with transmission gear with a service life of 300 hours can be admitted to state acceptance tests in Russia. Rivals of Mil contend that the service life of the VR-29 transmission gear is a mere 100 hours. The helicopter manufacturer avoids giving specific data concerning the issue but states that “the running hours of transmission gear No. 8 now being tested fulfill the requirements of the Ministry of Defense.” The four-stage VR-29 main transmission gear weights 780 kg and is capable of transmitting 5,100 horsepower.
The N025 dual-band radar designed for the Mi-28N. Photo by Piotr ButowskiMore problematic is the helicopter’s mission systems, which have not yet been determined. The most difficult problems concern the N025 Almaz-280 radar, developed many years ago by Moscow-based company Almaz, which specializes in anti-aircraft systems. Almaz abandoned the development of this radar, and work on it is now being continued by the future series manufacturer of the radar, the GRPZ factory in Ryazan. As of the fall of 2005, prototypes of the radar were still in laboratory tests. The first radar was scheduled to be installed to the helicopter near the end of 2005, but it is unknown if this deadline was met (the Mi-28N “32” had no radar antenna on the rotor mast during its maiden flight on Dec. 27).
The N025 radar’s antenna will be installed inside a big spherical dome on the top of the main rotor mast of the Mi-28N helicopter. The radar has two frequency ranges: Ka (millimeter) and X (centimeter) bands. The X band is used for detecting air targets at ranges of up to 20 km and for observing meteorological phenomena up to 100 km away. The Ka band is used for mapping the ground and for seeking surface targets at a range of up to 10 km, as well as for detecting terrain obstacles.
The helicopter’s basic fire-control system, the Tor electro-optical targeting unit, was developed many years ago by Zveryev (Krasnogorsk, Russia). The Tor unit is installed in the front of the fuselage inside a flat rotating cylinder with two rectangular windows. It contains three channels: optical, TV, and thermal imaging, each of them with wide and narrow fields of view. Zveryev is continuing work on the Tor, but the company is in a desperate financial condition. During the last decade, UOMZ (Yekaterinburg, Russia) has become unquestioned leader among designers of electro-optics in Russia. UOMZ developed the GOES family of electro-optical turrets used in the modernized Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters, as well as in the Ka-50 and Ka-52, and the designers of the Mi-28N helicopter are considering replacing the Tor unit with a variant of the GOES unit.
The nose of the Mi-28N is full of sensors. A huge metal cylinder accommodates the Tor electro-optical sight, and the small ball above it is the TOES-521 turret (actually, a wooden mockup of the turret). The radome in the nose contains a command datalink for the Ataka anti-tank missile.Photo by Piotr ButowskiAnother, simpler electro-optical turret ensures day-and-night piloting of the Mi-28N. The first prototype of the Mi-28N had a Stolb unit, developed by Moscow-based Geofizika, but this device will now be replaced by the TOES-521 unit from UOMZ. However, for the time being, the Mi-28N prototypes are fitted with wooden mockups of the TOES-521 unit. Helmet-mounted sights and display systems combined with electro-optical turrets are now being tested.
The Mi-28N (izdeliye 294) helicopter is equipped with the IKBO-28 (izdeliye 930) integrated equipment suite, developed by RPKB (Ramenskoye, Russia). This is a combination of observation sensors (electro-optical turret and radar), weapons-control system, and communications and self-protection systems. All of the components of the suite are interconnected by means of a data bus controlled by two Baget-53-015 computers. The IKBO-28 system performs the following functions: piloting the helicopter at very low altitude, including avoidance of obstacles both in manual and automatic mode (a three-dimensional map of terrain is displayed on the screen in the pilot’s cockpit); day-and-night search; detection and indication of targets in any weather condition; group operations with automatic acquisition of targets for individual helicopters; and two-way exchange of target information with other helicopters, as well as with land-based and airborne command posts.
An experimental helmet-mounted sight and display for the Mi-28N is being tested.Photo by Piotr ButowskiThe pilot’s cockpit is equipped with two MFI-10-6M liquid-crystal displays and an ILS-28 head-up display. The operator’s cabin is also equipped with two MFI-10-6M screens, as well as the PS-7V control console. Both members of the crew may use the OVN-1 Skosok night-vision goggles, made by LZOS (Lykatrino, Russia), and in the future, the crew will be equipped with helmet-mounted sight and display.
The navigation system consists of an inertial-navigation subsystem, as well as an A-737-011 GPS receiver, a DISS-32-28 Doppler navigation radar, an ARK-25 radio compass, and other devices. The communications system includes two R-999 radio sets, as well as a system for coded transmission of data to the ground, an emergency radio set, and an internal comms system.
The helicopter’s self-defense system receives its warning signals from the L140 Otklik laser-warning unit, the 1L229 radar-warning unit, and the N025 radar. UV-26 flare dispensers are used for protection against infrared-guided threats.
The pilot’s cockpit features two 6×8-inch liquid-crystal displays.Photo by Piotr ButowskiThe standard anti-tank armament of the Mi-28N is the 9M120 Ataka-V (AT-9) missile, which has a range of up to 6,000 m (for a look at the Ataka-V and other Russian anti-tank weapons, see “Russia’s Tank Stoppers, Part 2”). A similar-range 9M123 Khrizantema (AT-15) missile is an additional weapon used for specific missions. The Khrizantema’s advantage is that it may operate at night; its disadvantage is that it requires a podded fire-control radar to be carried by the helicopter. The radar, which has a frequency of 100-150 GHz or a wavelength of 2-3 mm, detects and tracks the ground target and then automatically guides the missile to the target. Using this radar enables the missile to be used at night; in difficult weather conditions, such as fog, rain, or snow; and despite enemy countermeasures, such as smoke. The unique character of the Khrizantema lies in its simultaneous use of two guiding channels: automatic radar control and semi-automatic laser-beamriding control. Thanks to this solution, two different targets can be simultaneously engaged by two missiles, one radar-guided and one laser-guided.
The original land-based Khrizantema-S missile system is mounted on a modified BMP-3 infantry combat vehicle chassis, and this version completed state acceptance trials in July 2003. Currently, two versions of Khrizantema missiles exist: the 9M123 has a tandem high-explosive anti-tank warhead, while the 9M123F has a high-explosive warhead.
Mi-28N Specifications
Fuselage length 17.01 m
Wingspan 4.88 m
Main rotor diameter 17.2 m
Nominal take-off weight 11,000 kg
Maximum take-off weight 12,100 kg
Maximum speed 305 kmph
Cruise speed 270kmph
Climb Rate 13.6 m/sec.
Hovering ceiling, OGE 3,600 m
Service ceiling 5,700 m
Allowable G-load +2.6; -0.5
Normal range 450 km
Ferry range 990 km
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Sign In
December 15, 2005 at 2:13 pm
