PAF going for MI-35 attack helicopters?

[S.U.R.B.]

So, everyone is considering that moving far away from uncle sam will be the idea.I thought it was a phenomenon just related to the fighter jets.Since we are very selective in our approach.

Just for the change of taste.

So, why not wait for it to be officially available for international costumers. Meanwhile generate the funds to buy something formidable and have a futuristic approach.We won't be facing the rag tag militia all the time.
Will worth the buck.
General characteristics

Crew: 0-2 pilots
Capacity: 6 troops
Length: 35 ft (11 m)
Gross weight: 8,945 lb (4,057 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg) [9]
Main rotor diameter: 1 (2 coaxial)× 33 ft (10 m)
Performance

Cruising speed: 253 mph; 407 km/h (220 kn) [9] (with external weapons)[8]
Never exceed speed: 276 mph; 444 km/h (240 kn) [9]
Range: 354 mi; 308 nmi (570 km)
Endurance: 2hr40min
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,048 m) 95℉
Armament

Guns: .50 cal gun w/500 rounds
Rockets: 7 shot rockets pod

 

[Gentelman]

Deliveries of t-129 has started..

Pak should wait little more and choose for t-129 a real modern dedicated attack helicopter.

Pak is waiting am sure
but fan boys don't stop…
well PA is intrested in T-129 or Super Cobra……

 

[Gessler]

Buying Mi-35 in this day and age!

you guys look like you're going back in time. Lol maybe you should buy more of those
Vietnam-war era AH-1s.

Mi-35 is obsolete (especially without the Israeli electronics that IAF version has) for attack
helo role, it only makes for one attractive target for missiles.

Even IAF is going to phase them out as we receive brand new Apaches and LCH to back them up.



No attack helo in the world is as capable, reliable and battle-proven as this beast. All the
attack helos of the world are pimps compared to this one. Even T-129 is not a match.

PAF/PA Air Corps should buy Apache in numbers of around 12 to protect tank divisions.
Otherwise you are cooked.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Deliveries of t-129 has started..

Pak should wait little more and choose for t-129 a real modern dedicated attack helicopter.

Talks have already started. PA Aviation likes this helicopter and would ideally like to procure 2 squadrons. PA Aviation is not going to be procuring MI-35, the only two platforms in which PA Aviation has shown interest are Super Cobras and T-129's.

 

[Amaa'n]

Talks have already started. PA Aviation likes this helicopter and would ideally like to procure 2 squadrons. PA Aviation is not going to be procuring MI-35, the only two platforms in which PA Aviation has shown interest are Super Cobras and T-129's.

T129 are turkish isnt it?.....its good that PAA is getting these as they will be useless in PAF hands

 

[notorious_eagle]

T129 are turkish isnt it?.....its good that PAA is getting these as they will be useless in PAF hands

PAF do not operate attack helicopters, it will always be in the hands of PAA.

 

[Amaa'n]

PAF do not operate attack helicopters, it will always be in the hands of PAA.

i know that sir, but since the thread was started about PAS procuring attack helis and its still in PAF section made me say that

 

[Tshering22]

Altitude my Pakistani friends, altitude.

Mi-35 is a deadly helicopter. In its haydays, it was called the Krokodil in Russian. No gunship can carry the amount of firepower a Hind does.

But you need to understand the requirement of your terrain and landscape.

A significant part of your country is mountainous and at least has high hills if not full blown Himalayas on an extensive scale.

That's where the Hind fails.

Mi-28 Night Hunter or the Ka-52 Black Shark solve that problem. Both have tremendous ceilings, deadly firepower and can hold on their own easily.

But getting this variant as pointed out by some members, will be tricky as these are totally new design platforms needing complete infrastructure setup which is more than just the fly away unit cost of each helicopter.

Our Hinds have out-lived their lives way beyond they were supposed to and hence we were to scrap them, in favour of the AH-64 Blk III. So due to the eventual nature of our requirements, we had to scrap off our entire setup. Yours however is not the case.

Firstly, because you need gunships very, very badly and secondly you need them in reasonable amount.

So cost valuation of the setup will be a critical deciding factor.

Since you are not scrapping off your entire setup anytime soon and will phase out slowly, it is best you stick to a western built platform.

You still have the option with T-129 if not the Bells.

Buying Mi-35 in this day and age!

you guys look like you're going back in time. Lol maybe you should buy more of those
Vietnam-war era AH-1s.

Mi-35 is obsolete (especially without the Israeli electronics that IAF version has) for attack
helo role, it only makes for one attractive target for missiles.

Even IAF is going to phase them out as we receive brand new Apaches and LCH to back them up.



No attack helo in the world is as capable, reliable and battle-proven as this beast. All the
attack helos of the world are pimps compared to this one. Even T-129 is not a match.

PAF/PA Air Corps should buy Apache in numbers of around 12 to protect tank divisions.
Otherwise you are cooked.

You're over-estimating the AH-64s too much by saying it is matchless.

The Mi-28N is equally lethal and has a far superior endurance.

Let's face it; Apache won because of our government's eagerness to please the Americans.

Apache is excellent no doubt, but Night Hunter is deadly.

The item on the picture is a Mi-28...

PAF should go for something with much more agility, sharpness than Mi-35. You need something small like AH-1Z or WZ-10 or AW-129 etc..

Their weakness is altitude.

The Mi-28 would really fit their bill but they're quite meaty in terms of their price tags.

So PAA has to decide a slow phase-out.

 

[Tshering22]

Tshering22, first you need to be able to make a distinction between Mi-35M and basic Mi-35P. Mi-35M with its new VK-2500 engines (which is also used on Mi-28) are good enough for mountains and has a improved ceiling and maneuverability, it uses the same rotor system from Mi-28. Actually, service ceiling have been increased to 5,700m.

Bro. Because of its hybrid nature, it is limited even after the improvements while Mi-28 is a dedicated gunship.

Are you really telling me that a Hind will perform better with its additional bulk due to design, against a leaner, meaner gunship like the Night Hunter?

 

[Gessler]

You're over-estimating the AH-64s too much by saying it is matchless.

The Mi-28N is equally lethal and has a far superior endurance.

Let's face it; Apache won because of our government's eagerness to please the Americans.

Apache is excellent no doubt, but Night Hunter is deadly.

Mi-28N is not a war-proven machine like Apache.

Even if you think they are equals, Apache still remains matchless in our immediate threat
perception (Pak, China) atleast.

 

[jamesseo89]

At the moment better to get license of Z-10 and join in the Chinese on it.

 

[Tshering22]

Mi-28N is not a war-proven machine like Apache.

Do you even know what 'war proven' means?

It means having seen a combat.

Tell me the last time US fought with a country using gunships, at its equal. None.

First sent in fighters; sanitize airspace, send long range bombers, flatten terrain off people and then send in gunships to hunt down whatever is left.

Has the Apache faced a PLA with WZ-10s or a Russia with squadrons and squadrons of Hinds. Black Sharks and Night Hunters head on?

No.

So your claim of 'war proven' hold no ground.

A machine becomes battle proven because it has been sent to fight and comes out in a piece.

If there was no war and the machine was made, that too by a country that has decades of advanced aeronautical experience, does it mean that the machine is crappy?

Even if you think they are equals, Apache still remains matchless in our immediate threat
perception (Pak, China) atleast.

I don't think they're equals, I know they're equals.


Now LET's get back to the topic; PAKISTAN ARMY AVIATION PLANNING GUNSHIPS.

 

[Gessler]

@Tshering22

1) No twin-engine attack helo in the world has seen as much combat as Apache,
and those who have gotten close to it's experience, never fared as good even while
faced with the same type of odds.

2) Mi-28N has never been deployed in a war where it may have to deal with enemies
down below firing RPGs or Stingers on it, but Apache has seen these kind of combat
for decades, and has emerged largely successful in destroying enemy targets even with
the presence of AAA/MANPAD units below in aplenty numbers.

3) It looks as though you have your own criteria to call a product battle-proven, but eventhough,
remember that Apache has been tested and has proved to be reliable in a far wider spectrum of
intense conditions in countless insurgent-held vicinities. And the helos' systems have been improved
a great deal in accordance to each one's performance under combat conditions, flying 1,000s of
sorties and destroying 100s of targets while evading countless RPGs in it's service life.

In short, Mi-28N is no match for Apache's record in a set number of criteria. It has a long way to
go before it actually arrives at a position where a customer country can actually consider buying
it instead of the Apache, while it's also on offer and there is enough money to sign a deal.

P.S. - Whenever did I go off topic? Right in the post where I mentioned Apache's capabilities,
I had already said that Pak should look to buy a number of Apaches instead of lesser mortals
like T-129 or AH-1Z.

 

[Tshering22]

@Tshering22

1) No twin-engine attack helo in the world has seen as much combat as Apache,
and those who have gotten close to it's experience, never fared as good even while
faced with the same type of odds.

Bro I am not contesting Apache's capability. Rather I am saying that there are others equivalent and even superior to Apaches in some aspects. You can't deny that.

Name me one non-US gunship that has fared terribly in similar situations when their air force has already bombed half the enemy state to smithereens and nothing is left for the gunships to kill except a few defensive enemy sites?

2) Mi-28N has never been deployed in a war where it may have to deal with enemies
down below firing RPGs or Stingers on it, but Apache has seen these kind of combat
for decades, and has emerged largely successful in destroying enemy targets even with
the presence of AAA/MANPAD units below in aplenty numbers.

There was a time when Apache was also not combat tested.

But did that mean that Americans did not induct it? They did and they tested it in wars which is why it has a battle-proven tag.

So unless you fight a war, how you do expect it to be certified as combat proven?

3) It looks as though you have your own criteria to call a product battle-proven, but eventhough,
remember that Apache has been tested and has proved to be reliable in a far wider spectrum of
intense conditions in countless insurgent-held vicinities. And the helos' systems have been improved
a great deal in accordance to each one's performance under combat conditions, flying 1,000s of
sorties and destroying 100s of targets while evading countless RPGs in it's service life.

There's no different standards of battle proven.

It is one; to be able to take on something equivalent or greater.

I am not contesting Apache's mettle but saying that there are equally good machines around

In short, Mi-28N is no match for Apache's record in a set number of criteria. It has a long way to
go before it actually arrives at a position where a customer country can actually consider buying
it instead of the Apache, while it's also on offer and there is enough money to sign a deal.

The F-22 is also a long way from achieving what the F-15 has done. Does it make Raptor look pathetic?

What a logic you got!

BTW if you didn't know, the Night Hunter has the armour of the Hind with no limitations of Hint equipped with a rotor-mounted radar (similar to AH-64), twice more powerful engines and a deadly payload.

It is in no way inferior if not superior.

 

[batmannow]

Do you even know what 'war proven' means?

It means having seen a combat.

Tell me the last time US fought with a country using gunships, at its equal. None.

First sent in fighters; sanitize airspace, send long range bombers, flatten terrain off people and then send in gunships to hunt down whatever is left.

Has the Apache faced a PLA with WZ-10s or a Russia with squadrons and squadrons of Hinds. Black Sharks and Night Hunters head on?

No.

So your claim of 'war proven' hold no ground.

A machine becomes battle proven because it has been sent to fight and comes out in a piece.

If there was no war and the machine was made, that too by a country that has decades of advanced aeronautical experience, does it mean that the machine is crappy?



I don't think they're equals, I know they're equals.


Now LET's get back to the topic; PAKISTAN ARMY AVIATION PLANNING GUNSHIPS.

last time US fought with a country using gunships, at its equal. None.
they fought in somalia, it all ended in the black hawk down, dont you remember. my friend!