Should Pakistan convert Mi-17 to optional attack role?

[Sulman Badshah]

When the remaining 13 show up IA, is nacheez ko yaad rakhna

theek ha janab. hamain to khushi hogi agar 24 ho jaen

 

[SSGcommandoPAK]

Not a bad idea,how much will the upgrade cost per heli?

 

[Philip the Arab]

Won't it decrease the airlift capability ?

No, new composite blades would probably increase performance and increase airlift capabiltes.

Not a bad idea,how much will the upgrade cost per heli?

No clue, but

Isnt SuperHind program Cancelled?

Restarted by Paramount Group.

Not a bad idea,how much will the upgrade cost per heli?

Per heli I would assume probably a few hundred thousand which is pretty affordable.

Algerian Mi-17Sh(Super Hind)

 

[airomerix]

I think we have already experimented with it. I've seen couple of frames with unguided rocket pods. Maybe someone can pull out pictures?

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

even mig-21 flown by an INDIAN pilot can bring it down. So NO.

 

[Philip the Arab]

even mig-21 flown by an INDIAN pilot can bring it down. So NO.

Basically your saying all helicopters are a NO because they can be shot down? T129, Cobras, Mi-35 can all be shot down by MIG-21 so I guess they are redundant.

 

[GriffinsRule]

The concept of using a transport helicopter has been there since the 70s and is nothing anyone is unaware of. Armies arm transport helicopters as per their needs. You see some countries opting for transport helicopters to be used in such secondary roles but usually it is the case when there are certain factors, such as a lack of dedicated attack helicopters (either none or in very limited quantity) and the type of enemies/resistance those helicopters would face. Then there are also the pros and cons of using transporters in such a secondary role that have to be weighed in before such a decision is thought to be viable. Just because you can do something with an asset does not mean it is a good idea in a particular context.

First all, the conversion, especially for launching unguided rockets, is a very simple one, and PA has the capability to do so if a need was to arise. Fortunately for us, we have a large enough fleet of AH-1s in service where they have been able to perform their primary function while letting the Hips/Pumas do theirs.

Some pictures of PA/PAF Mi-17s. Arming these with rockets would not be rocket science, but is not needed.

 

[Signalian]

AH-1 will not be entirely replaced. Ex-US can be salvaged to keep the ex-Jordanians running. We may see Cobras for another half a decade or more.

@Signalian

Mi-8 saw service in PAA since 1960's while Mi-17's were inducted in 1990's. Mi-17 is known as "Dangar" (beast of burden) informally in PAA (Pakistan Army Aviation), just like C-130 is called "Dangar Jahaz" in PAF. As the name implies, load anything in this chopper; troops, weapons, ammunition, material (construction/bedding/tents/supplies/medical aid/food/fuel etc) and then fly it into the most inhospitable zone to deliver. Furthermore, to support Aviation Combat Group to establish Aerial Forward Area Arming and Refueling Point (FAARP) and Electronic Warfare Operations. It served as a med evac in recent WOT, extracting wounded from combat zones thus saving precious lives.

This somehow reminds me of the APC vs IFV debate. PA doesn't put forth its M-113 in direct combat, instead uses them as troops carriers to keep up with MBT's in desert and other terrain. Loss of APC in direct fire fight means Troops lose their transport mechanism. This concept is applied in PAA as well. The need for transport helicopters is much more than the need for Anti-tank Gunships. This is because transport helicopters have many roles to fulfill as compared to a gunship, which can fill only a handful of roles like Armed Recon or provide surveillance with advanced sensors apart from attack role. The loss of transport helicopter in combat affects more than the loss of Gunship. Mi-17's transport lift capability is unmatched in PAA inventory, both in cargo and troops. Losing a helicopter with carrying capacity of 25+ troops and 11 Ton load in direct combat against enemy will be a big loss. PAA is planning for dedicated gunships, atleast 3- 4 examples since the role of a gunship is very different from that of a transport helicopter, so is the training of the pilot.

Back in early 2000's, the idea of conversion of regular Infantry Battalions to airborne/air assault units was abandoned due to lack of transport helicopters. SA 330 Puma and Mi-17's were the main force for troop and cargo lift in WOT. The role was then shifted mostly to Mi-17 due to its excellent carrying capacity. To cater this need more Mi-17's as well as Bell series of transport helicopters were procured. LCB's were raised and they are capable of conducting missions through helicopters.

Since the thread is about conversion of Mi-17 into gunship especially anti tank role, armed with ATGM's. Mi-17's are slow to maneuver and not as nimble as Gunships. Its role in attacking enemy MBT's or positions will mean it will have to make direct contact with enemy and for the entire mission lose it capability to function as a transport helicopter. PA has enough ATGM systems on ground and few in air through AH-1's which will be able to thwart enemy armored attacks. Comparing OH-58 kiowa to Mi-17 is not sensible. PAA also bought light category helicopters to replace older ones. Some of these also carried armament such as gattling cannon. Fennec and Ecureuil are deployed in northern zones operating at high altitudes as suitable Alouette III and Lama replacements. PAA AH-1F carried Hydra 2.75'' rocket pods and sometimes TOW ATGM for operations in WOT. Better sensors and Mmw Radar were needed, which brought in the need for AH-1Z's. The versatility and nimbleness of a gunship had been seen in AH-1F already, so T-129 and Z-10 were evaluated. AH-1Z and T-129 will relieve Jet Ranger/Bell series from working as scout for AH-1F. The money envisioned here for upgrade of Mi-17's could be spent on upgrading AH-1F bringing it closer to AH-1Z configuration, rather than making a gunship out of a transport helicopter. PAA acquired Mi-35's, instead of converting transport helis into gunships,, this retains the gunships pilots whose primary task will be to attack and secondary mission to offload a section of troops into combat zone.

There is a Ukrainian upgrade that i admire of Mi-17 as it doubles service ceiling and time between overhaul (Slide -16);
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...77b/1384726548511/AUSA+Mi-8+MSB+Briefing1.pdf

 

[Sulman Badshah]

Mi-8 saw service in PAA since 1960's while Mi-17's were inducted in 1990's. Mi-17 is known as "Dangar" (beast of burden) informally in PAA (Pakistan Army Aviation), just like C-130 is called "Dangar Jahaz" in PAF. As the name implies, load anything in this chopper; troops, weapons, ammunition, material (construction/bedding/tents/supplies/medical aid/food/fuel etc) and then fly it into the most inhospitable zone to deliver. Furthermore, to support Aviation Combat Group to establish Aerial Forward Area Arming and Refueling Point (FAARP) and Electronic Warfare Operations. It served as a med evac in recent WOT, extracting wounded from combat zones thus saving precious lives.

This somehow reminds me of the APC vs IFV debate. PA doesn't put forth its M-113 in direct combat, instead uses them as troops carriers to keep up with MBT's in desert and other terrain. Loss of APC in direct fire fight means Troops lose their transport mechanism. This concept is applied in PAA as well. The need for transport helicopters is much more than the need for Anti-tank Gunships. This is because transport helicopters have many roles to fulfill as compared to a gunship, which can fill only a handful of roles like Armed Recon or provide surveillance with advanced sensors apart from attack role. The loss of transport helicopter in combat affects more than the loss of Gunship. Mi-17's transport lift capability is unmatched in PAA inventory, both in cargo and troops. Losing a helicopter with carrying capacity of 25+ troops and 11 Ton load in direct combat against enemy will be a big loss. PAA is planning for dedicated gunships, atleast 3- 4 examples since the role of a gunship is very different from that of a transport helicopter, so is the training of the pilot.

Back in early 2000's, the idea of conversion of regular Infantry Battalions to airborne/air assault units was abandoned due to lack of transport helicopters. SA 330 Puma and Mi-17's were the main force for troop and cargo lift in WOT. The role was then shifted mostly to Mi-17 due to its excellent carrying capacity. To cater this need more Mi-17's as well as Bell series of transport helicopters were procured. LCB's were raised and they are capable of conducting missions through helicopters.

Since the thread is about conversion of Mi-17 into gunship especially anti tank role, armed with ATGM's. Mi-17's are slow to maneuver and not as nimble as Gunships. Its role in attacking enemy MBT's or positions will mean it will have to make direct contact with enemy and for the entire mission lose it capability to function as a transport helicopter. PA has enough ATGM systems on ground and few in air through AH-1's which will be able to thwart enemy armored attacks. Comparing OH-58 kiowa to Mi-17 is not sensible. PAA also bought light category helicopters to replace older ones. Some of these also carried armament such as gattling cannon. Fennec and Ecureuil are deployed in northern zones operating at high altitudes as suitable Alouette III and Lama replacements. PAA AH-1F carried Hydra 2.75'' rocket pods and sometimes TOW ATGM for operations in WOT. Better sensors and Mmw Radar were needed, which brought in the need for AH-1Z's. The versatility and nimbleness of a gunship had been seen in AH-1F already, so T-129 and Z-10 were evaluated. AH-1Z and T-129 will relieve Jet Ranger/Bell series from working as scout for AH-1F. The money envisioned here for upgrade of Mi-17's could be spent on upgrading AH-1F bringing it closer to AH-1Z configuration, rather than making a gunship out of a transport helicopter. PAA acquired Mi-35's, instead of converting transport helis into gunships,, this retains the gunships pilots whose primary task will be to attack and secondary mission to offload a section of troops into combat zone.

There is a Ukrainian upgrade that i admire of Mi-17 as it doubles service ceiling and time between overhaul (Slide -16);
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...77b/1384726548511/AUSA+Mi-8+MSB+Briefing1.pdf

Interesting ... Isn't 9150 m flight ceiling is bit overrated ..because even current gen attack helicopters and scout platforms are maximum achieving 6500-7000 meters

 

[Philip the Arab]

Mi-8 saw service in PAA since 1960's while Mi-17's were inducted in 1990's. Mi-17 is known as "Dangar" (beast of burden) informally in PAA (Pakistan Army Aviation), just like C-130 is called "Dangar Jahaz" in PAF. As the name implies, load anything in this chopper; troops, weapons, ammunition, material (construction/bedding/tents/supplies/medical aid/food/fuel etc) and then fly it into the most inhospitable zone to deliver. Furthermore, to support Aviation Combat Group to establish Aerial Forward Area Arming and Refueling Point (FAARP) and Electronic Warfare Operations. It served as a med evac in recent WOT, extracting wounded from combat zones thus saving precious lives.

This somehow reminds me of the APC vs IFV debate. PA doesn't put forth its M-113 in direct combat, instead uses them as troops carriers to keep up with MBT's in desert and other terrain. Loss of APC in direct fire fight means Troops lose their transport mechanism. This concept is applied in PAA as well. The need for transport helicopters is much more than the need for Anti-tank Gunships. This is because transport helicopters have many roles to fulfill as compared to a gunship, which can fill only a handful of roles like Armed Recon or provide surveillance with advanced sensors apart from attack role. The loss of transport helicopter in combat affects more than the loss of Gunship. Mi-17's transport lift capability is unmatched in PAA inventory, both in cargo and troops. Losing a helicopter with carrying capacity of 25+ troops and 11 Ton load in direct combat against enemy will be a big loss. PAA is planning for dedicated gunships, atleast 3- 4 examples since the role of a gunship is very different from that of a transport helicopter, so is the training of the pilot.

Back in early 2000's, the idea of conversion of regular Infantry Battalions to airborne/air assault units was abandoned due to lack of transport helicopters. SA 330 Puma and Mi-17's were the main force for troop and cargo lift in WOT. The role was then shifted mostly to Mi-17 due to its excellent carrying capacity. To cater this need more Mi-17's as well as Bell series of transport helicopters were procured. LCB's were raised and they are capable of conducting missions through helicopters.

Since the thread is about conversion of Mi-17 into gunship especially anti tank role, armed with ATGM's. Mi-17's are slow to maneuver and not as nimble as Gunships. Its role in attacking enemy MBT's or positions will mean it will have to make direct contact with enemy and for the entire mission lose it capability to function as a transport helicopter. PA has enough ATGM systems on ground and few in air through AH-1's which will be able to thwart enemy armored attacks. Comparing OH-58 kiowa to Mi-17 is not sensible. PAA also bought light category helicopters to replace older ones. Some of these also carried armament such as gattling cannon. Fennec and Ecureuil are deployed in northern zones operating at high altitudes as suitable Alouette III and Lama replacements. PAA AH-1F carried Hydra 2.75'' rocket pods and sometimes TOW ATGM for operations in WOT. Better sensors and Mmw Radar were needed, which brought in the need for AH-1Z's. The versatility and nimbleness of a gunship had been seen in AH-1F already, so T-129 and Z-10 were evaluated. AH-1Z and T-129 will relieve Jet Ranger/Bell series from working as scout for AH-1F. The money envisioned here for upgrade of Mi-17's could be spent on upgrading AH-1F bringing it closer to AH-1Z configuration, rather than making a gunship out of a transport helicopter. PAA acquired Mi-35's, instead of converting transport helis into gunships,, this retains the gunships pilots whose primary task will be to attack and secondary mission to offload a section of troops into combat zone.

There is a Ukrainian upgrade that i admire of Mi-17 as it doubles service ceiling and time between overhaul (Slide -16);
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...77b/1384726548511/AUSA+Mi-8+MSB+Briefing1.pdf

How about upgrading the Fennec, weren't those bought for recon/attack role?

4 Ingwes would seriously help in recon/ anti-tank role.

 

[Tipu7]

Newly introduced MI 17 Transport/Attack Version

Armed BlackHawk helicopter.

Future wars will need helicopter as shown in above pictures. Helicopters which can carry 12 to 14 troops along side the fire power which above helicopters have. These are future of helicopters.

@Tipu7

No, our majority of Mi17 fleet is old and is already over stretched in role of transportation. in presnse of dedicated fleet of attack gunships, converting already low in number transport helicopters is not a feasible idea for Pakistan.

 

[GriffinsRule]

For proponents of the idea of converting transport helicopters to add attack capabilities, here is an example of Lebanon doing the same with their Pumas in house.

Looks pretty nice imo

 

[Signalian]

Interesting ... Isn't 9150 m flight ceiling is bit overrated ..because even current gen attack helicopters and scout platforms are maximum achieving 6500-7000 meters

Yes that is possible, you are right.

How about upgrading the Fennec, weren't those bought for recon/attack role?

4 Ingwes would seriously help in recon/ anti-tank role.

They are in recon role and armed with a 7.62mm gun pod i think. Its also used as scout for AH-1 Gunship.

 

[araz]

Kind of, it is better armed that Pakistani ones though.
The helicopter is armed with Shturm-V missiles, S-8 rockets, a 23mm machine gun, PKT machine guns and AKM sub-machine guns. It features eight firing posts for aiming the weapons. Personally Pakistan should do the same as optional attack helicopters which wouldn't hurt. The Shturm has 500-600 mm of penetration while South African ATGMs have 1000+ after ERA.

Tell me which helicopter is better armed?

Indian Mi-17 V-5 armed with rockets.


South African Super Mi-17 armed with 8 Mokopas or Ingwes which can easily each take on any Indian tank. Also notice how the Indian one doesn't have a FLIR system.



Mokopa

South Africa
Entered service 2005
Armor penetration 1 350 mm RHAe after ERA
Range 10 km
Weight 49.8 kg
Missile length 2 m
Missile diameter 0.18 m
Fin span ?
Warhead HEAT, HE-FRAG, or Thermobaric
Warhead weight ?
Guidance Semi-active laser, infrared homing, or active radar


Ingwe ATGM

Entered service 1987
Armor penetration up to 1 000 mm
Range 250 - 5 000 m
Weight 28.5 kg
Missile length 1 750 mm
Missile diameter 127 mm
Warhead Tandem HEAT
Warhead weight ?
Guidance system Semi-active laser

What about permission from OEM? Why do you think the red bear will allow sale of second hand equipment when it desperately needs to sell some new hardware and we want to buy it. Moreover it knows we want to buy them. This is financial suicide in my view.
A

 

[Maty66]

ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES PAKISTAN IS PROVIDING 150 CONTAINERS OF ARTELLIARY SHELLS TO UKRAINE FOR THE UPGRADATION OF PAKISTAN MI 17 AND T 80UD TANKS . IS THERE ANY TRUTH IN IT ? OR JUST INDIAN PROPAGANDA.