Jesus christ what a fucking piece of shit

Jesus christ what a fucking piece of shit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Helicopter for her.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      same vibe

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I need to rape her and mastubate in her feces

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          anon, are you okay?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      After I saw how their "ejection" system works, I no longer wondered why we've not seen pilots use it during the war:

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like a fun ride (and probably your last one).

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What happened there? Was he driving like a dumbass?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's GTA online footage.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Le mans the driver is exhaushed, but the race still continues with another driver, it's planned.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Endurance racing. That guy is probably exhausted, so that is how they sped up the driver change.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are you seeing what I am seeing?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yooooooo

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It looks great and it works great. I like it.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's not the plane, it's the pilot. Guarantee it would fare quite well in the hands of a pilot trained to NATO standards. Not in the hands of Comrade Flight Commandant DrinknDriveNiki though.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon it needs to hover mostly in place to launch missiles.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        guarantee it would fare better then at least

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, guess what all that vibration and flex does not only to its missiles but to its components

        the wear and tear must be insane

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's supposed to be able to use F&F tv-guided missiles of which the USSR was supposed to have a lot.

          Russians use their helicopters like VTOL ground attack planes with lots of strafing, less defensive pop and shoot like NATO helis are designed to do. Flying low in hostile areas is already a guarantee of attracting a lot of fire and helicopters in general tend to be destroyed much more than other aircraft due to being more fragile than fixed wing aircraft because of weight limitations.
          It's more or less in line with what we'd see when we compare the kill rates of pretty much any ground attack aircraft to other planes like A-10s and Harriers.
          I won't say if it's mechanically or technically bad or not but there's been some weirdly bad executions in their attack missions.

          The USA learned some lessons from Vietnam and started to treat their helos like very fragile, very mobile ground craft - following terrain, popping in and out of cover, shooting and scooting, scouting out an enemy before engaging.
          The USSR learned no lessons from Afghanistan and treats their helos as CAS planes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I.e it's basically a future Ukrainian trainer craft. Quite a few will end up captured.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Taking the alcoholic Russian out of a Lada and replacing him with Lewis Hamilton will help a little bit but it's still a fucking Lada at the end of the day.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, because Poois Hamilton is as fraudulent as you can get

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just love its aesthetic, shame it performs like shit apparently.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/0iOH62K.jpg

      The Russian choppers are at least more aesthetically pleasing than Western choppers.
      That is all they really have over their western counterparts, but hey, its there.

      I never understood people's fascination with Soviet tanks, jets, etc. or even AKs, but I've always loved how their copters looked.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the looks of soviet weaponry is their biggest perk. too bad their shit tends to break down if its more complicated than 3 springs and a gas tube

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Russians use their helicopters like VTOL ground attack planes with lots of strafing, less defensive pop and shoot like NATO helis are designed to do. Flying low in hostile areas is already a guarantee of attracting a lot of fire and helicopters in general tend to be destroyed much more than other aircraft due to being more fragile than fixed wing aircraft because of weight limitations.
    It's more or less in line with what we'd see when we compare the kill rates of pretty much any ground attack aircraft to other planes like A-10s and Harriers.
    I won't say if it's mechanically or technically bad or not but there's been some weirdly bad executions in their attack missions.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's more or less in line with what we'd see when we compare the kill rates of pretty much any ground attack aircraft to other planes like A-10s and Harriers.
      Dammit, mistyped.
      >It's more or less in line with what we'd see when we compare the kill rates of pretty much any ground attack aircraft like A-10s and Harriers to planes with other roles.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The reason why is that they don't have enough laser-guided PGMs so they're forced to use rocket pods most of the time. With rocket pods they really do have no choice but to strafe like a jet, get in, dump load and get out.

      But that's not all. Stupidly, they've mounted the laser designator in an under-chin mount, when almost all NATO attack helicopters put theirs on the rotor mast or the roof so they don't have to expose so much of the chopper. This means when they lase the target, they have to expose all of the chopper to AA fire while the missile is running - plus of course, they have no fire and forget capability

      It's supposed to be able to use F&F tv-guided missiles of which the USSR was supposed to have a lot.
      [...]
      The USA learned some lessons from Vietnam and started to treat their helos like very fragile, very mobile ground craft - following terrain, popping in and out of cover, shooting and scooting, scouting out an enemy before engaging.
      The USSR learned no lessons from Afghanistan and treats their helos as CAS planes.

      >F&F tv-guided missiles
      like which?
      even their latest missiles are beamriders lmao

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >like which?
        I'm not sure what he's refering to. The X-29 is too bit to be hung from a helicopter. The X-25 can be, and I've heard it's been mounted on the Ka 52 before, but I don't know if it has a TV or IR guided variant.
        Nothing wrong with beam riders by the way, at least if you have decent optics for lasers. Dot chasing laser guided missiles (like AGM 114) are better for the most part, they can take more efficient lofting trajectories, but when soft-kill countermeasures for them are devised, beam riders will still work.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The problem is that they're ONLY beam-riding compared to say Hellfire and Brimstone which have multiple guidance options; thus the Ka-52 has no choice but to expose itself for the duration of the missile flight time whereas the Hellfire is true fire-and-forget. Coupled with the retarded-ass placement of the designator, that's directly led to the shootdown of one Russian heli, you know the webm I'm sure.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Having multiple seekers isn't cheap.
            Last I heard, longbow hellfire was out of production, and AGM 114N (thermobaric) only had terminal radar guidance, it still needed the target lased.
            The though is amusing. Missiles in the future being (at least) 203mm lumps of sensors and flight computers just delivering a 20kg (at max) warhead.
            >front seeker head:
            >dual purpose IR and SALH
            >CCD contrast
            >UV contrast
            >multiband AESA radar, active, semi-active, passive
            >HOJ modes for all above
            >rear beam riders&data links:
            >radar and laser
            >radio and optical
            Maybe a wire and SACLOS guidance too, just because.
            >cost to taxpayer:
            >yes

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Army thinks they have enough Longbow Hellfires in stock, the ones they're getting now is the R variant which is laser guided and more for general-purpose aircraft deployment

              that's because they're transitioning to JAGM which will have multiple sensors

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >like which?
        I'm not sure what he's refering to. The X-29 is too bit to be hung from a helicopter. The X-25 can be, and I've heard it's been mounted on the Ka 52 before, but I don't know if it has a TV or IR guided variant.
        Nothing wrong with beam riders by the way, at least if you have decent optics for lasers. Dot chasing laser guided missiles (like AGM 114) are better for the most part, they can take more efficient lofting trajectories, but when soft-kill countermeasures for them are devised, beam riders will still work.

        My bad, you're both absolutely right.
        I misremembered something about the Kornet-M and the X-59.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but there's been some weirdly bad executions in their attack missions
      This tbh. you need superb C4ISR to get modern airpower firing on all cylinders and delivering results. something that the Russians dont have and is only compounded by they rigid command structure and horrible culture.
      Even the AH-64s took a pounding during that raid on Karbala when mission planning was sub par.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Russians use their helicopters like VTOL ground attack planes with lots of strafing, less defensive pop and shoot like NATO helis are designed to do. Flying low in hostile areas is already a guarantee of attracting a lot of fire and helicopters in general tend to be destroyed much more than other aircraft due to being more fragile than fixed wing aircraft because of weight limitations.
        It's more or less in line with what we'd see when we compare the kill rates of pretty much any ground attack aircraft to other planes like A-10s and Harriers.
        I won't say if it's mechanically or technically bad or not but there's been some weirdly bad executions in their attack missions.

        >you need superb C4ISR
        I don't understand what Russia thought would happen, thinks is happening, and thinks will happen
        like how exactly are you supposed to do what is essentially a counterinsurgency/annexing mission when you're basically facing a parity military force
        like the force multiplier provided by:
        >RC-135's and E-8 JSTARS doing target aq
        >E-3's doing AWACS
        >M109/HIMARS/ATACMS sniping everyone
        >iglas and stingers constantly murdering your helicopters
        just so far exceeds the doctrine of "dump human bodies into the fray"

        like the pinnacle of russian warfare that I've seen has been
        >Flying su-24, su-25, su-27, mig-29, ka-50, mi-24, mi-30, whatever, they're all used literally the same lmao
        >look through aliexpress FLIR bolted onto dashboard
        >rip off a salvo of S-8's at an abandoned wood shack
        >strafe a civilian with 30mm
        >get shot down

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Answer: didn't expect there to BE a
          >the force multiplier provided by:
          >RC-135's and E-8 JSTARS doing target aq
          >E-3's doing AWACS

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I needs LOS to operate its wire guided missiles, so yeah it is a PoS.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Russian choppers are at least more aesthetically pleasing than Western choppers.
    That is all they really have over their western counterparts, but hey, its there.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Russian choppers are at least more aesthetically pleasing than Western choppers.
      They are chonky and curvy, that's it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      have we seen any of these in Ukraine?

      I need to rape her and mastubate in her feces

      the fuck, dude?!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes, and like all other chopper, they were badly used, probably in bad conditions and got shot.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >have we seen any of these in Ukraine?
        There was a video of one having its tailboom snapped off by a missile, and a couple of videos of them firing rockets at high angle in mixed flights with Ka-52s

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So shit the British MoD are compelled to make a press release about it
    More that 25% destroyed

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >23 VERIFIED by UK MOD
      it really is a chopper slaughter

      >have we seen any of these in Ukraine?
      There was a video of one having its tailboom snapped off by a missile, and a couple of videos of them firing rockets at high angle in mixed flights with Ka-52s

      yes, and like all other chopper, they were badly used, probably in bad conditions and got shot.

      Thanks
      the Havoc actually looks decent, specially the one with the mast-mount

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >23 VERIFIED by UK MOD
        Looks like they just pulled Oryx numbers, which are just the visually confirmed ones and haven't accounted let for the recent lose spree of these things over the past week. Would not be surprised if they've lost up to 40 of them.

        [...]
        It shows how confident NATO MI are in Oryx's count. Then again, I personally suspect he's SADF glowie, so why not

        Deleted my post due to an error.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Luv 'er
    Shame she's r*ssian

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It shows how confident NATO MI are in Oryx's count. Then again, I personally suspect he's SADF glowie, so why not

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hey, at least they are cheap compared to western chopper. Pretty good choice for poor 3rd world countries that want to field attack chopper in significant number.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >less than 100
      >significant number

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You get what you pay for

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *