• UK moves to stop a cargo vessel carrying Russian attack helicopters to Syria.
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;36399070]This really reminds of that nick cage movie, where he plays an arms dealer and "converts" a bunch of attack helicopters to rescue helicopters simply by taking the rocket pods off. Who knows what they will try to circumvent the UN.[/QUOTE] That reminds me of an episode of firefly where they snuck into a medical facility using an Mi-24 with no rocket pods turned into an ambulance.
Colonel, what's a Russian gunship doing in Syria?
[url=http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w266/thejoey_01/MGS1_Solid_Snake_codec.gif]Colonel![/url] What's a Russian gunship doing here?
A MI-24 will go down pretty easily, the tail boom was pretty sensitive I've heard, and a few militiamen with a MANPADS system would stop you quick.
If Russia ever manages to get these helicopters into Syria, they better hope the CIA doesn't intend on sending a little aid of their own.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;36407078]A MI-24 will go down pretty easily, the tail boom was pretty sensitive I've heard, and a few militiamen with a MANPADS system would stop you quick.[/QUOTE] People seem to underestimate the Hind's thick armor. Sure these days they are vulnerable to any strong AA missile but these things are up against militia, and they have been known to take RPG rounds and keep flying. Then again they got slaughtered in Afghanistan because their heat signatures were the size of the sun, and they had to redesign it to carry a fuckload of countermeasures and flares.
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;36409551] Then again they got slaughtered in Afghanistan because their heat signatures were the size of the sun, and they had to redesign it to carry a fuckload of countermeasures and flares.[/QUOTE] They were used wrong in Afghan. But that's kind of understandable, Hind was pretty much the only kind of helicopter in USSR suitable for patrolling missions. Hind is widely called "flying tank" not for it's thick armor, but also for it's role. They wreck chaos, but if there're enough countermeasures (heatseakers) in their AO, they're gonna get slaughtered. There should be initial counter-AA run for them to safely show up. That's what Ka-52 (Ka-50 was an abomination, let's all forget about that one) was developed to do, it can pick targets from large distances. And it's also much more suitable for patrol and recon missions, as it's not as noisy, it's heat signature is smaller, and it's a lot more agile.
[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;36406277]A-10 simply does not give a fuck as to what hits it. It'll keep flying as long as it has a wing and an engine.[/QUOTE] And hydraulics! And functioning flight avionics! And vertical stabilizers!
[QUOTE=Garik;36411109]And hydraulics! And functioning flight avionics! And vertical stabilizers![/QUOTE] Avionics are for pussies, real men fly combat VFR.
And if the Russian ship refuses to stop and just keeps dodging them? What are they going to do? Sink it?
[QUOTE=smeismastger;36411230]And if the Russian ship refuses to stop and just keeps dodging them? What are they going to do? Sink it?[/QUOTE] lots of other options before sinking hint hint gaza flotilla
[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;36411195]Avionics are for pussies, real men fly combat VFR.[/QUOTE] Those real men tend to get shot down pretty quick.
That might, just might have been a joke.
And then the helicopters just fly away, duh! [sub][sub][sub]Good on the UK though :D[/sub][/sub][/sub]
[QUOTE=CommieTurtle;36407140]If Russia ever manages to get these helicopters into Syria, they better hope the CIA doesn't intend on sending a little aid of their own.[/QUOTE] We already did this before and seeing how well that ended I doubt we'd do it again.
Why does every thread about Syria just devolve in armchair "weapons experts" talking about the vehicles used in Syria? It seems like we are ignoring the important part that Russia deliberately tried to sell helicopters to Syria to [B]kill innocent civilians with.[/B]
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36417612] [B]kill innocent civilians with.[/B][/QUOTE] rebels
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36417612]Why does every thread about Syria just devolve in armchair "weapons experts" talking about the vehicles used in Syria? It seems like we are ignoring the important part that Russia deliberately tried to sell helicopters to Syria to [B]kill innocent civilians with.[/B][/QUOTE] Again with you Captain Obvious, we fucking know this. We have discussed this numerous times in dozens of other threads.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;36417858]Again with you Captain Obvious, we fucking know this. We have discussed this numerous times in dozens of other threads.[/QUOTE] Yes, sure, but I think besides the OP there was really only 1 or 2 posts actually discussing the fact that the UK stepped up and took action, which is a pretty big deal because I'm pretty sure they're the first NATO country to do so. (Even if said action was pretty minor)
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36417612]Why does every thread about Syria just devolve in armchair "weapons experts" talking about the vehicles used in Syria? It seems like we are ignoring the important part that Russia deliberately tried to sell helicopters to Syria to [B]kill innocent civilians with.[/B][/QUOTE] Because face it - people get bored of talking about how a piece of equipment will be used to kill innocents when they are made to talk about it over and over again. After a while they still register it but are interested in other stuff as well.
why can't russia send in there mi-28's
Have you ever seen an innocent civilian anywhere?
[QUOTE=mastfire;36419492]why can't russia send in there mi-28's[/QUOTE] Because they suck dick and are not in the mass production.
[QUOTE=gudman;36420539]Because they suck dick and are not in the mass production.[/QUOTE] how do you know they suck dick?
[QUOTE=mastfire;36420577]how do you know they suck dick?[/QUOTE] Discussed it with pilot-instructors of 28th Army. They don't really suck dick, that was an overstatement, but Mi28 failed at suiting it's designated role in very important parameters, such as weight, and somehow it has almost the same heat signature as early versions of Mi24D. Magnet for heat-seekers. Basically all it has to stand out is it's ejection system.
[QUOTE=oakman26;36417795]what do you mean 115mm , its a 23mm cannon, as it says in the name Anything higher than 20mm can fire HE[/QUOTE] the round is 23x115mm, which is why he posted "GSh-23(*115mm)" [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;36409677]They were used wrong in Afghan. But that's kind of understandable, Hind was pretty much the only kind of helicopter in USSR suitable for patrolling missions. Hind is widely called "flying tank" not for it's thick armor, but also for it's role. They wreck chaos, but if there're enough countermeasures (heatseakers) in their AO, they're gonna get slaughtered. There should be initial counter-AA run for them to safely show up. That's what Ka-52 (Ka-50 was an abomination, let's all forget about that one) was developed to do, it can pick targets from large distances. And it's also much more suitable for patrol and recon missions, as it's not as noisy, it's heat signature is smaller, and it's a lot more agile.[/QUOTE] hokums are bloody beautiful. I can see how -50 wasn't too great, being one-seated attack helicopter. I'm not sure though, does Ka-52 co-pilot man anything else than the sensor suite and the navigation systems, or does he get gunner options ala the American helicopters?
[QUOTE=Fippe;36421693] hokums are bloody beautiful. I can see how -50 wasn't too great, being one-seated attack helicopter. I'm not sure though, does Ka-52 co-pilot man anything else than the sensor suite and the navigation systems, or does he get gunner options ala the American helicopters?[/QUOTE] Switch-able roles. Armaments and overal gunnery systems of Hokum-B can be controlled by by either pilot or co-pilot. So at night missions, pilot is more likely to take control of the armaments, while co-pilot is free of anything but navigation. During the day it's the other way around. And yes, they're beautiful. One of the few helicopters in-service that can perform "circle-strafe" maneuver. Combine it to it's ability to pack a decent punch over the long distances with reasonable (and varied) armament. It's rare that you can find something in Russian army worth mentioning, but these are beautiful.
I liked the ingenuity of the black shark and alligator design for rotors. Both are remarkable helicopters.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36417612]Why does every thread about Syria just devolve in armchair "weapons experts" talking about the vehicles used in Syria? It seems like we are ignoring the important part that Russia deliberately tried to sell helicopters to Syria to [B]kill innocent civilians with.[/B][/QUOTE] and china did the same in sudan with the darfur shit news flash, why do AK47s turn up all throughout the world? BECAUSE RUSSIANS GAVE THEM TO PEOPLE TO FIGHT WARS (and kill innocent civilians with). It's not like this is a new phenomenon or something. welcome to the world, whoop de fucking doo [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BananaFoam;36418244]Yes, sure, but I think besides the OP there was really only 1 or 2 posts actually discussing the fact that the UK stepped up and took action, which is a pretty big deal because I'm pretty sure they're the first NATO country to do so. (Even if said action was pretty minor)[/QUOTE] it's not the UK, it's a specific business organization. [quote] It said the cover was withdrawn because the owners of the ship had "broken internal rules" of the club - a mutual insurance association - [B]and not on the instructions of the UK government.[/B][/quote] DIDN'T READ GONNA FLAME FACEPUNCHERS FOR NOT DISCUSSING SOMETHING I DIDN'T READ.
[QUOTE=mastfire;36422449]I liked the ingenuity of the black shark and alligator design for rotors. Both are remarkable helicopters.[/QUOTE] They have some problems though, mostly due to the Kamov having only one pilot. It never entered huge mass production.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.