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.
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.
Taking the alcoholic Russian out of a Lada and replacing him with Lewis Hamilton will help a little bit but it's still a fricking Lada at the end of the day.
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.
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.
>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.
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
>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.
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 moronic-ass placement of the designator, that's directly led to the shootdown of one Russian heli, you know the webm I'm sure.
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
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
>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.
>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.
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
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.
>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
>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
>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
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.
Helicopter for her.
same vibe
I need to rape her and mastubate in her feces
anon, are you okay?
After I saw how their "ejection" system works, I no longer wondered why we've not seen pilots use it during the war:
Looks like a fun ride (and probably your last one).
What happened there? Was he driving like a dumbass?
That's GTA online footage.
Le mans the driver is exhaushed, but the race still continues with another driver, it's planned.
Endurance racing. That guy is probably exhausted, so that is how they sped up the driver change.
Are you seeing what I am seeing?
Yooooooo
It looks great and it works great. I like it.
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.
Anon it needs to hover mostly in place to launch missiles.
guarantee it would fare better then at least
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
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.
I.e it's basically a future Ukrainian trainer craft. Quite a few will end up captured.
Taking the alcoholic Russian out of a Lada and replacing him with Lewis Hamilton will help a little bit but it's still a fricking Lada at the end of the day.
Yes, because Poois Hamilton is as fraudulent as you can get
I just love its aesthetic, shame it performs like shit apparently.
I never understood people's fascination with Soviet tanks, jets, etc. or even AKs, but I've always loved how their copters looked.
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
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.
>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.
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
>F&F tv-guided missiles
like which?
even their latest missiles are beamriders lmao
>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.
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 moronic-ass placement of the designator, that's directly led to the shootdown of one Russian heli, you know the webm I'm sure.
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
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
My bad, you're both absolutely right.
I misremembered something about the Kornet-M and the X-59.
>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.
>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
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
I needs LOS to operate its wire guided missiles, so yeah it is a PoS.
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.
>The Russian choppers are at least more aesthetically pleasing than Western choppers.
They are chonky and curvy, that's it.
have we seen any of these in Ukraine?
the frick, dude?!
yes, and like all other chopper, they were badly used, probably in bad conditions and got shot.
>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
So shit the British MoD are compelled to make a press release about it
More that 25% destroyed
>23 VERIFIED by UK MOD
it really is a chopper slaughter
Thanks
the Havoc actually looks decent, specially the one with the mast-mount
>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.
Deleted my post due to an error.
Luv 'er
Shame she's r*ssian
It shows how confident NATO MI are in Oryx's count. Then again, I personally suspect he's SADF glowie, so why not
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.
>less than 100
>significant number
You get what you pay for