Key: H = Helicopter, therefore all rotorcraft developments at the time were code-named with words that began with the letter "H."
List in alphabetical order:
Haitun (English: Dolphin) - Harbin Z-9
Halo - Mil Mi-26
Hare (USAF/DoD Type 32) - Mil Mi-1
Harke - Mil Mi-10
Harp - Kamov Ka-20
Hat - Kamov Ka-10
Havoc - Mil Mi-28
Haze - Mil Mi-14
Helix - Kamov Ka-27 / Ka-29 / Ka-32
Hen - Kamov Ka-15
Hermit - Mil Mi-34
Hind - Mil Mi-24 / Mi-25 / Mi-35
Hip - Mil Mi-8 / Mi-9 / Mi-17
Hog - Kamov Ka-18
Hokum - Kamov Ka-50 / Ka-52
Homer - Mil V-12
Hoodlum - Kamov Ka-26 / Ka-126
Hook - Mil Mi-6 / Mi-22 (Mi-6 variant)
Hoop - Kamov Ka-22
Hoplite - Mil Mi-2
Hormone - Kamov Ka-25
Horse - Yakovlev Yak-24
Hound (USAF/DoD Type 36) - Mil Mi-4
BUAA VT-UAV = Haiou
Mi-8MTBP and Mi-17PP = Hip-H EW3
Mi-8MTSh2 = Hip-H EW4
Mi-17PI and Mi-8MTI (Mi-13) = Hip-H EW5
Mi-8MTSh3 = Hip-H EW6
Mi-10 = Harke-A
Mi-10K = Harke-B
Mi-28 = Havoc-A
Mi-28N = Havoc-B
Mi-24VP = Hind-E Mod
Mi-24RA = Hind-G1 Mod
Mi-35M = Hind-J
Ka-25PS and Ka-25IV = Hormone-C
Ka-31 = Helix-E
Ka-226 = Hoodlum-C
Hind-G1/2 are AKA Hind-G Mod-1 and Hind-G Mod-2 despite no sole G type (that we know).
The nice thing about egotists is that they don't talk about other people.======================================================Count Hermann Keyserling once said truly that the greatest American superstition was the belief in facts.
Some problems here.
Haitun - not a NATO/ASCC code name. This was Harbin's nickname which coincidentally starts with a letter H.
Haiou - Also a coincidental nick.
Hind-J - fanboy BS.
Hind-III - major fanboy BS.
Hip-H EW3/4/5/6 - what's the point of the EW designator? As if it needs to be indicated as an electronic warfare type even when others lack such a specific name? The only source I can find using this practice is Wikipedia which makes it highly dubious.
You may be right about Haiou as I cannot find much data about it, but Haitun and the others are true.
According to who? Wikipedia?
They are mentioned in several other places. Also I note that you added Hind-III in your list, very clever. I agree that it is nonsense but from where did you retrieve it?
Gunship wrote:The only source I can find using this practice is Wikipedia which makes it highly dubious.=
The only source I can find using this practice is Wikipedia which makes it highly dubious.=
I don't get the stigma behind sourcing Wikipedia. Just because it's open-edit that doesn't make it less reputable, and I especially vouch for it because of the strict regulations they enforce on accurate information.
We have here the latest in primitive technology.
Internet + Opinions = OMG we are SCREWED!
Gunship wrote:Some problems here.Haitun - not a NATO/ASCC code name. This was Harbin's nickname which coincidentally starts with a letter H.Haiou - Also a coincidental nick.Hind-J - fanboy BS.Hind-III - major fanboy BS.Hip-H EW3/4/5/6 - what's the point of the EW designator? As if it needs to be indicated as an electronic warfare type even when others lack such a specific name? The only source I can find using this practice is Wikipedia which makes it highly dubious.
I wouldn't be so quick to reject "Haitun". I can't find definitive evidence to support either side of the argument, so that one should be left open until we have the facts. "Haiou" however might be coincidental like you said. It doesn't fit the naming sequence being a UAV. But again that's open to speculation.
I agree with Hind-III being fake, but Hind-J is mentioned in several places leaving it open to speculation. The Hind-III name was something Hesham dug up alongside a fake Mi-53 designation (obviously a mix up of Mi-35) no evidence for it exists.
Pepper wrote:Just because it's open-edit that doesn't make it less reputable
Just because it's open-edit that doesn't make it less reputable
Except that it does. Some vandalism goes unnoticed on more obscure articles and the mods have been known to hold biased viewpoints towards some edits. There is little done to enforce a neutral environment even with the millions of rules and regulations they have. Sometimes they go on about being able to prove something other times they just throw it to the wind. It's a good start for researching a subject, but you'll find it best to seek out other sources for your info to confirm its validity.