Why doesn't the USA employ transport gunships like Russia?

Doctrine, mostly.

>>33299559
Because the US has this crazy thing called money and could develop different helicopters for different purposes. We also went through this war called Vietnam, you heard of it? Where in we learned smaller faster and more dedicated gunships were needed for clearing out LZ's and attacking mortor teams and reinforcements while the slower troop transports landed.

After during and Afghanistan, Russia reluctantly developed their own dedicated attack helicopters for these very reasons.

Really makes you think

>>33299599
Obviously, but it makes no sense to me as to why they don't just use a helicopter with greater air support ability than Blackhawks and Chinooks. Instead they use completely different helicopters. But why use more helicopters when you can have ones that can do both?

>>33299559
The Osprey seems to begin fulfilling that role more and more. They're planning on giving it missiles, and heavier guns.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1678180-marines-to-arm-osprey-with-rockets-guns

File: f472bbd7c298dcebb0c9cf73c3ca065e.jpg (79KB, 625x450px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 625x450px

>>33299673
>But why use more helicopters when you can have ones that can do both?

Because the more tasks you make a machine perform the less specialized it is in that task and the more it sucks in that task.

The Cobra and Huey shared most of their mechanical parts. They were essentially the same helicopter at their core. But the cobra wasn't carrying all the bullshit that would make it a transport helicopter so it could have a narrow profile, be harder to hit, and carry that spare weight in weapons.

The Cobra and Huey are a great example of minimizing costs and using the same engines and rotor mechanisms to power two different vehicles.

>>33299727
I heard the opposite. It was originally designed to carry a nose turret but the scrapped the idea when they realized how vulnerable to fire it was. They don't want them hanging around getting shot at. They want them to get in and out fast.

>>33299727
I think being an osprey pilot would probably be pretty cool until it fucks off out of the sky. It's obviously not as prevalent as when they were first introduced, and it's an interesting concept, but I'd never truly trust it. I just really don't like the idea of being around a fucking tranny all day and finding out it's decided throw a bitch fit and slam me into the desert.

>>33299667
Vietnam was lost... Obviously there were no lessons learnt there. And it's not a surprise that America has lost all these wars since adopting the chopper + light infantry doctrine

>>33299673
because helicopters fucking suck & are hella expensive

>>33299787
The Osprey is a prteey safe concept since actual flight status in 2007. It had a rocky start when it was in prototype stages, but that shouldn't be unexpected given the fact it's the first of it's kind.

Since it's introduction in 2007 3 of the 5 crashes related to the osprey were attributed to pilot error. Of the 2 attributed to aircraft mishap, one was related to a combination of low visibility, a poorly executed approach, loss of situational awareness, and a high descent rate, and the other was attributed to dust intake to the right engine, changing from a recommended hover time in dust from 60 to 30 seconds, although most pilots rarely spend more than 10 seconds in dusty conditions.

Ospreys, now that they are fully developed and combat tested, are very good aircraft given their role. Their early history in developmental stages shouldn't really hold back it's current capabilities. The worst thing the Osprey has going for it is the fact it has been in development since the 80's. If the US DoD scrapped the Osprey and made a V-23 off of all the learnings of the V-22, nobody would have any issues related to it. But instead they chose to keep researching and developing the same Air frame, so a curse of 3 decades of research and development has tainted the public perception of an aircraft that has reached less than a decade of operational status.

>>33299909
The Osprey is a fucking disaster now, it's very much NOT SAFE when being used in actual combat conditions.
However it flies like a plane so regular engine outs aren't fatal like they are to a helicopter.

>and a high descent rate
This is a buzzphrase because the Osprey enablers don't want to admit that when you are flying in plane mode you have NO IDEA whether your aircraft is capable of landing in your location.
A chopper can't fly itself to some place it can't land, Osprey's can very easily be way too heavy to hover at 5,000 ft altitude.

>>33299559
The only reason Mi-24 was "made" to carry troops is because it's based on Mi-8 transport helicopter.

Yes, I know AH-1 is based on UH-1, but we are talking about two completely different classes.
UK-1 weights 2363kg and takes in 11 to 14 canon fodder.
Mi-8 weights 6990kg and takes 24 canon fodder.

This is why AH-1 is slim & agile, while MI-24 flies like a cast iron bathtub.
Look at vids of MI-24, you'll never find pics of MI-24 attacking from hovering, hiding behind trees or hills to pop out and deliver payload. They fly like planes.
Look how hard it is for it to take off vertically. In Afghanistan it was physically impossible, they ware taking off STOL style, "from front wheels" due to thin air.

Also, the 12mm "autocanon" is completely useless at the distance (and tactic) it operates, and it's not the strongbox russian propaganda tells us.

All that being said, it's probably the most beautiful attack helicopter in the world. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IngP0BfCAk

>>33299956
>>33299909
I've heard osprey pilots need to be very careful about not rolling left/right too fast while in helicopter mode. The prop that is moving downwards can descend into its own propwash and suddenly lose lift increasing the rate of roll beyond what is being commanded by the pilot. At lot levels this can be impossible to recover from.

It's a dangerous design flaw that is blamed in "pilot error" for flying outside the ridiculously narrow performance envelope.

File: Hind_crash.webm (1MB, 1024x532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x532px

>>33299996
The Mi-24 would be cannon fodder to a modern airforce. It's basically the equivalent of a slow lumbering WWII or even WWI airplane.

>>33300065
It only works because of fly by wire & following strict limits.
Even following the strict limits you still get crashes due to the plane not being able to perform.

>>33299755
>They want them to get in and out fast.
lel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZAfYrMYko&feature=youtu.be
Not a combat situation, but lel.

Chinook pilots make fun of how long it takes the Osprey to set down.

>>33300098
fuck that'd be scary being that second helo
"cyka blyat, cyka blyat, cyka blyat, cyka blyat,"
ah slavs.

there are variants of the Blackhawk that can carry autocannons, rockets, and hellfires, while retaining limited troop transport capability. the US military had capable aircraft, but doesn't value the role of a dual purpose gunship/transport in the same way that russia did.

and yes I say "did," because with the development of the more modern Mi-8M (Mi-17 internationally) and modern gunships (Mi-28, KA-50, KA-52) it's clear that modern russia appreciates the two distinct roles more than the soviet union did.

>>33299996
>Look how hard it is for it to take off vertically. In Afghanistan it was physically impossible
Because afghanistan is a pretty high place, higher then what the Mi-24 is rated to operate in.

>>33299956
Engine failures aren't fatal to helicopters.
Look up autorotation.
Trust me, i'm a helicopter mechanic

>>33301033
Yes, I forgot to write that, but even on lower ground, they take off like elephants.

File: Hind Strafing run.webm (2MB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x360px

>>33299956
They don't look like they'd glide very well.
Provided you've still got rotors you can auto-rotate a chopper down if you're above about 300ft, otherwise its like anything else- kiss your arse goodbye

>>33300098
Most helicopters, even the modern ones are easy meat to modern jets and half competent AA systems unless they can find somewhere to hide quick smart.

>>33301042
>few bursts from autocanon than back for reload
>a few bursts from unguided rockets than back for reload

If you think about it, MI-24 pretty much attacks like a WW-2 fighter plane, except it's much slower & much less agile.
It must be hell to aim at even stationary target, if you can't normally stop and hoover.

For the same reason, I don't think the guided anti-tank rockets are of any effectiveness.

Still, a sexy beast.

>>33301119
>It must be hell to aim at even stationary target, if you can't normally stop and hoover.
Protip: Apache and Cobras arent firing while stationary right now in Afghanistan. And Mi-24 is perfectly capable of hovering.

>>33301119
From what little I know about the 24's they can hover, but burn through massive amounts of their fuel doing it for very long. Shooting shit is the problem of the gunner and generally in 1st world military they're fairly good at it

>>33299996
>it's based on Mi-8 transport helicopter
No, it is not.

>>33301183
Yis iit is.

>The core of the aircraft was derived from the Mil Mi-8 (NATO reporting name "Hip") with two top-mounted turboshaft engines driving a mid-mounted 17.3 m five-blade main rotor and a three-blade tail rotor.

>>33301036

Probably because it is highly resistant to 12.7mm MG fire as well as packing a lot of weaponry.

Meanwhile, american helos often have armored seats for the pilot.

>>33299667
i dont think there are many helos faster than the Hind
it may look like a fat whale but those things are fast [spoiler] probably because they need the lift to stay in the air lmao [/spoiler]

>>33301200
List of stuff that is common between the two: rotor and tailrotor blades, swashplate, reduction drive, transmission, some of the electronics and controls, engines.

>>33301222
>half the vehicle is the same

Anon, I don't know how to break it to you, but you're essentially telling me that the Lee/Grant, Sherman, and Wolverine are not related tanks right now.

I don't know what to say.

The Mi-24 was built out of the Mi-8. This statement has not been refuted.

>>33301241
This is quite far from "half of the vehicle". Actually things you claimed:
>Mi-8 weights 6990kg and takes 24 canon fodder.
>
This is why AH-1 is slim & agile, while MI-24 flies like a cast iron bathtub.
are directly related to the fuselage, which is obvisously 100% unrelated to Mi-8.

File: mi-24vm with 9m120 ataka (1).jpg (149KB, 1194x870px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1194x870px

>>33299956
>engine outs aren't fatal like they are to a helicopter
It is exactly the opposite. Helicopter loses an engine, it has another one on the same shaft. Osprey loses and engine, it's fucked beyond salvation.
>>33299996
>This is why AH-1 is slim & agile, while MI-24 flies like a cast iron bathtub.
No, it's because AH-1 is a glasscopter while Mi-24 is armoured.
>hovering, hiding behind trees or hills to pop out and deliver payload
Gee, could it possible have a thing or two to do with a different doctrine?
>In Afghanistan it was physically impossible
Because Afghan is in mountains, dumbass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrYPQZu7dNo
>12mm "autocanon" is completely useless
Gee, must be the reason it was replaced with 23/30 mm guns later.
>>33300098
Too fat, try again.
>>33301016
>modern russia appreciates the two distinct roles more than the soviet union did
Soviet Union very much appreciated it, as Ka-50 and Mi-28 are Soviet projects.
>>33301119
>Wtf are missiles?
Nigger, you really need to stop playing these modern games where they let you reload in air.
>Responds to a video of Mi-24 hitting a target
>It must be hell to aim at even stationary target
Nigger, it exactly due to recoil that shooting on the move is easier than while hovering. Leave this place and read a book.
>I don't think the guided anti-tank rockets are of any effectiveness
Jesus fucking Christ, nigger...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1w-Si1Hwzc

>>33301241
>Moving goalposts
Your claim was that Mi-24 had its transport role inherited from Mi-8, being developed from it. Anon above posted the lost of things it actually shared and it is apparent that it had nothing to do with transport role or fuselage. It is nowhere near "half the vehicle" and was done to cheapen the production by unifying some elements with Mi-8, not "building Mi-24 out of Mi-8" as you have claimed.

>>33299996
>Look at vids of MI-24, you'll never find pics of MI-24 attacking from hovering, hiding behind trees or hills to pop out and deliver payload. They fly like planes.

That's because their doctrine tells them to. Get in wreck shit get out. Hovering around just makes you a target.

>>33300098
Any helicopter would be cannon fodder to a modern airforce

hell I could say that any helo would be cannon fodder to an upper third world airforce

>>33301212
Thats not really the issue, due to its weight its only good at traveling in a straight line

>>33299838
>Vietnam was lost

Obvious b8 but read a book shit heel

>>33301315
You're wrong

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

>>33301350
Vietnam still has a communist government..

File: M4uDfT4.jpg (150KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 768x1024px

>>33299559

Because any helicopter big enough to carry a squad and enough weapons to support them for an extended period of time is going to be slow, heavy, and easily destroyed by MANPADS

See: Soviet Hinds in AStan. Most of them are still there, scattered in pieces across the countryside.

>>33301350

>hurr durr we killed more so we won.

It's like bragging about your K/D ratio in Halo even though you were playing CTF and your team lost.

>>33301377
It also involves only counting your own deaths and ignoring that your team died more than the enemy
When the south vietnamese did most of the fighting

>>33301346
>its only good at traveling in a straight line
Except for all the times when it dodged MANPADS in Afghan, dumbass.

>>33299559
The Hind is a meme
Sure it's good at blowing shit up but it's pig fat.

>>33301359
>communist
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%95i_m%E1%BB%9Bi

>>33301439
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam
Government Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic

>>33301442
>posted from their twenty one legislators not in that party

>>33299559
>Seems like a neat idea to me.
Not in practice.
>Only 6 blyats onboard helicopter because you can't carry any more than that while also carrying rockets
>like 20 chechens shooting at helicopter with machine guns
>It does work because troop compartment is mostly unarmored, only 4 blyats left now
>choo choo the landing zone with rockets and drop your conscripts off
>Get RPG'd before getting back in the air, because you don't have a dedicated gunship on-orbit supporting the LZ
>the remaining villagers capture and lynch the remaining unsupported conscripts

>>33299673
>why use more helicopters when you can have ones that can do both?
Quite simply, because the combination transport/gunship exemplified by the Mi-24 (or it's unadopted American equivalent, the Sikorsky S-67), while very impressive at a glance, is quite an atrocious compromise upon closer inspection. As a troop transport, it is woefully limited in capacity due to the weight associated with armor and weapons. As a gunship, it's somewhat under-armored in places and it's enormity makes it as easy a target as the broadside of a barn. In practice, a single dedicated troop transport like the CH-47 or Mi-8 can carry more than twice as many troops than a Hind can, and a single dedicated gunship such as the Apache or Mi-28 is more capable and much less vulnerable at that role than a lone Mi-24 (or even two mutually-supporting ones) are. The ONLY reason the Mi-24 is still around at all is because Russia (and other Mi-24 operators) can't afford enough Mi-28s to replace them in the gunship role.

>>33299667
>We also went through this war called Vietnam
HINDs would have ruled in vietnam mate.

>>33299559
>Fly around shooting stuff with squad of troops still onboard

There is literally no point to this

>>33301471
You capture the flags faster with more people in the capture zone

>>33301358
No he isnt. Read your own article.

>>33299838
our infantry are heavier than ever before and were better equipped than Warsaw Pact troops, what do you want Mobile Infantry power armor?

>>33301358
>To the surprise of many involved in the program, the helicopters proved extremely dangerous to the fighters when they were properly employed, racking up a 5-to-1 kill ratio over the fighters when fighting at close ranges with guns.

what the fuck
Still though, its not like AMRAAMs would be magically less lethal if fired from choppers

>>33299838
>Vietnam was lost... Obviously there were no lessons learnt there.

if you werent for your downs syndrome, you'd know that we learn more from failure than we ever do from success.

File: image.jpg (18KB, 282x194px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 282x194px

>>33301495
Still haven't learned to never get involved in a land war in Asia.

>>33299838
> Vietnam was lost... Obviously there were no lessons learnt there. And it's not a surprise that America has lost all these wars since adopting the chopper + light infantry doctrine

So was the first Afghan War and the Hind is still around.

>>33301494
>racking up a 5-to-1 kill ratio over the fighters when fighting at close ranges with guns. The lesson was that fixed-wing aircraft should not attack helicopters except at long range and/or high altitudes with long range missiles.
They will be quite a bit less lethal, m8, pitbull range would have to be pretty much 0. Protip: the fact that aim-120 is active radar guided does not mean you do not need radar to fire it.

File: AH-1Z with mixed loadout.jpg (216KB, 750x1154px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 750x1154px

>>33301494
>Still though, its not like AMRAAMs would be magically less lethal if fired from choppers
They actually would be, for a few reasons.
>No radar to cue the AMRAAM with, so shots must be taken in visual mode at close range with the missile's seeker locked on before launch
>Less forward airspeed means AMRAAM doesn't reach as high of mach, which in turn prevents it from flying as far and limits it's endgame maneuverability
That said I don't think anybody's ever put AMRAAMs on a helicopter. Sidewinders are a thing, though.

>>33301479
Yes he is.
>hell I could say that any helo would be cannon fodder to an upper third world airforce

Which is bullshit, just because the US has developed heli hunters doesn't mean most other countries, especially shitty third world ones have access to it

>>33301509
>>33301516
Apache's got radar

My point with "wtf" was why would the fighters be trying to use their guns against helicopters.

File: image.png (801KB, 1078x536px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1078x536px

>>33299559
A Hind-D?!

>>33301373
The stingers actually didn't lead to a significantly increased loss rate. Most where shot down by 23mm cannons. What killed them where the predictable flight paths because they couldn't make it over the mountains, having to fly through the valleys.

The Russians should have sold/given MANPADS to the Iraqi's
Teach the Americans to mind their own business

>>33301532
No he isnt, no one is retarded enough to go dogfighting with a helicopter using fucking guns, they will just fire a missile at it and its done, it is not 1978 anymore.

>>33301535
>Apache's got radar
Does not mean he can use aim-120.
>My point with "wtf" was why would the fighters be trying to use their guns against helicopters.
Because thats what J-CATCH was all about, pretty much.

>>33301572
>only two confirmed A10 kills against helicopters
Feelsbadman

>>33301578
With a gun. And those were A-10As, which means they only had mk.1 eyeballs to find and identify the target. A-10C would have spotted with a pod from long range and kill it with aim-9 withpout ever going anywhere near helicopter's engagement range.

>>33301594
But where's the fun in doing that? Shooting down a helicopter by putting a few hundred 30mm rounds in it should be way more satisfying.

>>33301614
You'll be embarassed when they shoot you down with a hellfire though

Gunstrafing with helicopters is a terrible doctrine. Russians, the king of air defense, surprisingly haven't caught up with the USA with the idea that helicopters will be shot down with MANPADS if they so much as get close to infantry.

File: mh-60l dap blackhawk.jpg (40KB, 640x379px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x379px

>>33299559
>Why doesn't the USA employ transport gunships like Russia?

>>33301692
They did, m8, its minimal exposure time.

>>33300098
>such armor
>such survivability
>wow

>>33301701
Guess what gunstrafing does to your exposure time?

>>33301710
You found other ways of attacking non-armored targets with a helicopter?

>>33301556
After Stinger deployment in Afghanistan daytime usage of gunships and deployment of strike aircraft below 5000 m radar altitude was prohibited. Nothing of such was required when only 23mm cannons were present. Of course with such measures losses from Stingers were reduced. Effectiveness of soviet airforce became nonexistent though.

>>33301719
Missiles with millimeter wave radar and active guidance already made gunstrafing obsolete. Protip, I bet you don't even know that Russians are progressively replacing all their Mi-24's with Mi-28's. Gunstrafing is an outdated doctrine.

>>33301692
Russia simply doesn't have money to modernize their chopper fleet
Hopefully Trump will end sanctions asap

>>33301745
Sure, thats why pretty much all of the helicpter action in late Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much slow gunstrafing.

>>33301752
The US is not facing any anti-air threat in either of those countries, and their ROE encourages gunstrafing

>>33301752
Who gives a shit about sandniggers? You don't need a dedicated gunship to strafe the third world. And Hinds are being replaced by Havocs whether you'd like it or not.

>>33301745
>progressively replacing
Its not going well, they've made a bit over 100-125 or so of the things during roughly the same amount of time the Apache has been in production, which I think is well over 2000 units
Not that the 28's are a bad bird, but its really not out there in enough numbers to really replace anything. I think they'll be beating on the old 24 for a while yet

>>33301774
They do, its small arms. Thats why they are always on the move. Protip: popup tactics does not protect you from small arms and manpads, it protects you from AAA and SAMs, it actually makes you vulnerable to infantry AA weapons, since you cant always predict their position, they can be hidint in dense foliage right on the hill you are trying to use as cover. Both USSR and US designated small arms/AA as their primary threat at first, thus Cobra, Cheyenne, and Hind. Then they switched to popup doctrine with Apache, Ka-50/52 and Mi-28. Now strafing doctrine is coming back.

>>33301796
>I think they'll be beating on the old 24 for a while yet
The point is that the big armored gunship is an outdated concept. Russians don't order any new Mi-24s and merely export them now.

>>33300098
Good hit.

>>33301815
>The point is that the big armored gunship is an outdated concept. Russians don't order any new Mi-24s and merely export them now.
Mi-28 is a big, very heavily armored gunship.

>>33301806
US gunships are proofed against small arms, and thats the ROE thing, they WANT to be shot at then return fire.

If they were facing heavier guns or manpads they wouldn't be doing that

>>33301504
Or to gamble with a Sicilian when death is on the line

>>33301837
>US gunships are proofed against small arms, and thats the ROE thing, they WANT to be shot at then return fire.
No, they arent, they are pretty vulnerable to HMG fire. And last time i checked cockpit glass does not even protect from intermediate.
>they WANT to be shot at then return fire.
Oh no, they dont.

>>33301824
>Mi-28 is a big, very heavily armored gunship.
That's just a meme with the cockpit. It's much less armored than Mi-24, which is already definitive proof that Russians admit that a big armored gunship is worthless (Mi-28 is not a gunship). The rest of the helicopter is very exposed. Protip, rotors and engines are the weakest link.

>>33301857
>That's just a meme with the cockpit. It's much less armored than Mi-24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fj9hdmEeBY
It is protected against everything up to HMG and 30m HE. Hind is nowhere near protection wise.
>Protip, rotors and engines are the weakest link.
Nah, rotors have been protected even against 20-30mm for years now, engines are also quite easy to protect simply by putting a layer of armor between them, so you do not loose both engines at once. Most vulnerable part of a traditional helicopter is structural failure (tailrotor boom falling off) and tailrotor loss.

>>33301885
>Its cockpit is protected against everything up to HMG and 30m HE
Fixed for you.

>>33301899
Yes, they protected the cockpit and forgot about everything else. Makes a lot of sense. Another protip for you: only armor Hind has that is not cockpit armor is the armor layer between the engines that i mentioned. And Mi-28 is one ton heavier than Mi-24, despite not carrying infantry compartment.

Does anyone have that screen cap about a poster recounting a story some veteran of the Chechnya war? It was about a helicopter pilot for the Russians that flew a Hind (I think), and the most interesting part is his protecting a downed Russian helicopter while fighting off Chechnya fighters, who are firing MANPADS and machine guns at him while he fires literally every ordnance he has, only to realize after a few minutes that the people in the downed helicopter are already dead. Then he say something like that he fired millions of dollars worth of ammo to protect dead bodies.

>tfw you had a retinal detachment and the Air Force won't let you be a helicopter pilot

It hurts bad, lads

I'll never brrrrttt. Apparently I can still man a tank but those seem like deathtraps.

>>33301885
>It is protected against everything up to HMG and 30m HE. Hind is nowhere near protection wise.
>Proceeds to post videos of cockpit protection
Not helping your case

>Nah, rotors have been protected even against 20-30mm for years now, engines are also quite easy to protect simply by putting a layer of armor between them, so you do not loose both engines at once. Most vulnerable part of a traditional helicopter is structural failure (tailrotor boom falling off) and tailrotor loss.
Tail rotor is still rotor. Rotors are not immune to MANPADs or explosives fragmentation. Mi-24 has heavier steel armor protecting its engines compared to Mi-28. So yea, Mi-28 is much less armored than the Mi-24.

>>33301969
>Not helping your case
It does, unless you claim that they literally protected just the cockpit.
>Tail rotor is still rotor. Rotors are not immune to MANPADs or explosives fragmentation.
So?
>Mi-24 has heavier steel armor protecting its engines compared to Mi-28
And you just pulled that out of your ass, right?

>>33301976
>It does, unless you claim that they literally protected just the cockpit.
You are making the claim that they protect the entire helicopter.

>And you just pulled that out of your ass, right?
And you're puling out of your ass that the Mi-28 has more mechanical protection than the Mi-24. There's no proof beyond the cockpit. Hey, I'm just quoting the fact that the lumbering Hind is no longer being produced.

>>33301992
>You are making the claim that they protect the entire helicopter.
Yes, this makes sense.
>And you're puling out of your ass that the Mi-28 has more mechanical protection than the Mi-24
Its cockpit is enormously protected, and it is one ton heavier, despite modern materials and no infantry compartment. Can you into fucking brain?

File: mi-24 tail gun mod (1).jpg (55KB, 719x456px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 719x456px

>>33301465
>Not in practice
Read a book before posting bullshit, dumbass. It is exactly practice in Afghanistan that proved its troop compartment to be very useful, as Hind crews specifically requested additional crew member to sit there and shoot goatfuckers. A modification with a tail gun was developed specifically to address this practice, but some fatass general got mad getting stuck in a gun turret and so it was never adopted.
>6 blyats onboard helicopter
Why would a Russian helicopter carry americans?

File: mi-24 without cargo bay.jpg (359KB, 800x911px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 800x911px

>>33301796
>81 Mi-28, 74 Ka-52 and 60 Mi-35M in service
>Its not going well
Yeah, right.
>during roughly the same amount of time the Apache has been in production, which I think is well over 2000 units
Oh look, another wikinigger "expert". Mi-28 trials finished in 2008 and full rate serial production started in 2009.
>its really not out there in enough numbers to really replace anything
They already did. The number of older Mi-24 variants remaining in service is 118.
>>33301857
>It's much less armored than Mi-24
Lol, no.
>rotors and engines are the weakest link
Rotors can withstand 12,7.
>>33301969
>Tail rotor is still rotor
And a helicopter is still a helicopter, not a flying titanium bunker. This is not an argument against Hinds and Havocs. Quite the contrary, sitting in one is much safer than in any other attack helicopter.
>Mi-24 has heavier steel armor protecting its engines compared to Mi-28
Oh really? Prove it.

File: 0_8cd25_c93aa233_orig.jpg (833KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1000x667px

>>33301992
>Hind is no longer being produced
>What the fuck is Mi-24VM aka Mi-35M?
http://gelio.livejournal.com/216241.html

>>33301720
I wonder what would have happened if the russians returned the favor and gave the taliban some Igla's. Or if the serbs got their hands on some proper heavy SAM's.
But still, half of the battle is won if you can control what your enemy gets to use.

>>33300098
Almost every helicopter is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkOAFWkPxU

>>33303668
Mi-35 is export variant. There are no Russian orders of Hinds since 2007.

>>33303788
Oh look, another wikinigger "expert". Or are you the same one?
http://army-news.ru/2011/12/pervye-novye-mi-35m-vvs-rossii/

>>33303800
You need to put a little more effort into your shitposting. This is an English discussion so get to translating your relevant part.

>>33303788
>There are no Russian orders of Hinds since 2007.
2010, last one delivered in 2014.

>>33303811
Uh oh, poor wikinigger got exposed. Go cry in a corner, wikinigger. And then learn to use google translate. Also, this is a Russian helicopter, so get fucked, dumb cunt.

>>33303833
Posting an unreadble link and talking like a snownigger is not an argument

>>33303850
Being a dumb nigger who can't use google translate is not an argument. Posting a link proving you're a wikinigger is. Get the fuck out.

Why doesn't the USA have a replacement for their Apaches? Can't, or won't? I mean the Muhreens are replacing their Cobras, why are Apaches still flying?

>>33303870
Youre wrong about the hinds, man, calm your tits.

>>33303878
Theyre fine, i guess.

>>33303878

They will after the transport tender is complete.

>>33303888
Try harder dumb wikinigger cunt. I posted proofs, you posted your verbal diarrhea and damage control.

>>33303829
2010 was the first batch, the second one was ordered in 2012.

>>33303922
That is pretty much what i said. And no need to be offensive, m8, it is just an anime imageboard.

>>33303870
You posting a link is still not an argument.

>www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi-35m-hind-e/mi-35m-hind-e1.html
>The Mi-35M attack helicopter is an export version of Mi-24 helicopter.

>http://www.newspepper.su/news/2011/10/4/ministry-of-defence-chose-quotnight-hunterquot-export-quotcrocodilequot/
>Russian Ministry of Defense decided to buy a party transport and combat helicopters Mi-35M export version of Mi-24, better known by the nickname "The Crocodile", the newspaper "Izvestia", citing a source in the military-industrial complex. These machines will be purchased instead of attack helicopters Mi-28N "Night Hunter". The military explained the decision by the fact that the Mi-35M easy to use and cheaper than the Mi-28N.

See what I did there? The Mi-35M is the export variant.

File: IMG_0009.jpg (26KB, 641x469px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 641x469px

>>33301493
These days light/heavy infantry refers to the amount of vehicles attached. Light will either be footmobile or drive in trucks and disembark before contact if at all possible. Heavy infantry will ride into combat and fight inside/alongside APCs or IFVs. The actual troops will be equipped about the same, except light infantry will carry packs and whatnot when dismounted. Airborne and air assault infantry units are considered light infantry as well.

File: 0_114ec6_37ac45c_orig.jpg (108KB, 1288x727px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1288x727px

>>33303945
Heres a Mi-35M in russian air force livery, so no, this is not an exclusively export helicopter.
There were two contracts for a significant batch of helis after 2007, unlike you claimed, so you are wrong here too.

>>33299742
It also looks pretty bad ass

>>33303435
The ass gunner would have a tiny chance of shooting the incoming missiles, if the machine gun had a certain rate of fire.
They already had warning systems on board, if they found a way to show the ass gunner where the missile is coming from (probably at the ass directly) he would have a chance to save the entire gunship.

>>33303966
>Heres a Mi-35M in russian air force livery, so no, this is not an exclusively export helicopter.
>There were two contracts for a significant batch of helis after 2007, unlike you claimed, so you are wrong here too.
Mi-35 export started around 2005 so it was exclusively an export variant for 5+ years. A couple of last orders does not change the fact that Russians are replacing Hinds and buying more Mi-28s than Hinds.

>>33303922
You said that there are no Russian orders for Hinds since 2010, which is incorrect, since the last Russian order for Hinds were placed in 2012.
>>33303945
>Hurr durr Hind is not longer produced
>Link proving otherwise
>Hurr dull, let me move the goalposts, there are no Russian orders of Hinds since 2007
>Link proving otherwise
>Hurr dull, ur wrong! WRONG! LIES!
Dumb wikinigger cunt, you are not getting out of this.
>B чacтнocти, пo eгo cлoвaм, c пpeдпpиятиeм «Pocтвepтoл» (Pocтoв-нa-Дoнy) пoдпиcaнo coглaшeниe нa пocтaвкy 27 вepтoлeтoв Mи-35 «дoпoлнитeльнo к тoмy oбъeмy, кoтopый был зaкoнтpaктoвaн».
http://vpk-news.ru/news/784/
>The Mi-35 is operated by the Armed Forces of Russia, Venezuela, Brazil and Azerbaijan.
http://www.russianhelicopters.aero/en/helicopters/military/mi-35m.html
Stay rekt, faggot.

>>33304044
Are you mentally challenged, faggot? You claimed Russia did not order Hinds after 2007. Mi-35 was ordered by Russia in 2010 and again in 2012. Fucking dense wikinigger imbecile, Jesus fucking Christ.

You are all wrong.

>>33303986
I said nothing about shooting down missiles. The additional crew member was tasked with shooting goatfuckers that remain behind the helicopter or in their general direction to suppress the return fire. This tactic proved to be effective in Afghan.

>>33304110
Yeah i understand.
But could the ass gunner shoot an incoming missile if he had a direction of where its coming from?
I think he could have a chance.
There are similar things on ships.
Why couldnt anyone put it on a helicopter (in smaller scare ofcourse) is what bothers me.

>>33301042
>>33301283
>It is exactly the opposite. Helicopter loses an engine, it has another one on the same shaft. Osprey loses and engine, it's fucked beyond salvation.

Man, we need that guy from about a month back to come back and explain the Osprey to you people

While it isn't fatal to helicopters, it isn't to an Osprey either. They don't look like it, but they can glide. If one engine fails, the way the driveshaft works and the two-engine system, it can usually putter along long enough to function.

The real problem is that it's just different to fly, and we don't have experience of flying something like it since like the fucking 50's.

The numbers don't lie. Statistically, it had less fatal incidents during research and development, not just spread out, not just year-to-year, but by ratio, than like the F-18 and a lot of the other modern aircraft. It's proven pretty safe in service that way, too. You're buying into decades of bullshit the media threw out to try and say "Do we really NEEEEEEED to spend on the military?" then forgot about, and it just carried on from there.

It has a bad reputation from development, maybe rightfully so, but it's actually pretty solid now. Don't believe everything you read.

>>33300065
That said this is sort of the first I've heard of that, and that sounds viable and scary. I would figure they'd have trained not to do that if that is an issue, but shit happens. I'll have to look into that.

>>33301540
is that a famas?

the ass gunner is not a bad idea...
i have to think about this

File: Mi-24 Hind_65465465.jpg (85KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 900x450px

>>33299559
>Why doesn't the USA employ transport gunships like Russia?

The Mi-24 Hind was developed for the Soviet border guard units along the 2,700+ mile long Chinese-Soviet border, where small teams of border guards had to cover huge areas.

And while the Hind or a similar helicopter would be handy for U.S. border guards for the same reason, (except we’re too pussified to blast illegal Mexicans crossing the border) for the U.S. military as a whole, separate transport and attack helicopters make more sense.

File: Mi-24 Hind_eubaoopo7tetcpkf9lz1.jpg (32KB, 636x473px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 636x473px

>>33304238

File: Mi-24 Hind_s5el5dtqhf3tkzzapjme.jpg (23KB, 636x473px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 636x473px

>>33304255

File: Mi-24 Hind_tcclvdctjzp8nsdjuvzh.jpg (24KB, 636x473px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 636x473px

>>33304269

>>33304158
>If one engine fails, the way the driveshaft works and the two-engine system, it can usually putter along long enough to function.
Does it even have shaft transmission from one wing to another? Even if it can manage to glide its way out of engine malfunction, it would still require some insane pilot skill to pull. The missile is much more likely to fuck its shaft up and leave it with just one engine on one wingtip. It is nowhere safer than a helicopter.

File: Mi-24 Hind_wwybgxv2cmmbolnnocif.jpg (32KB, 636x424px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 636x424px

>>33304279

>>33299742

This desu

>>33304279
It's from a Russian movie dedicated to the 200th anniversary of US Coast Guard though.
https://youtu.be/R0JKlC2U8EY?t=1h26m52s

>>33304286
>Does it even have shaft transmission from one wing to another?

I think it might. The way it was described is that it works in redundancies. Because of the way it was set up, allegedly, it could make it out of it. It'd be pretty fucked with total dual engine failure in helicopter mode, yes. It'd basically just drop. But if it's gliding at all, it should be somewhat fine. It's incredibly unlikely for it to get dual engine and driveshaft failure in one shot, and if it does happen, then it was something big enough or a sort of hit that would have absolutely wrecked a normal helicopter, too.

File: 1485100356214 (1).jpg (713KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1920x1280px

>>33304318
While I hadn't heard of any of this and accept that, I can only dream something this cool could happen.

Really, we've all been talking about it in military doctrine this whole time. I think the idea of a mixed transport/gunship works very well for like a smaller nation or PMC that isn't bleeding edge, and absolutely has applications for like National Guard/Coastguard and the like.

Plus it'd look cool.

>>33304056
>You said that there are no Russian orders for Hinds since 2010
No, i did not.
>A couple of last orders
For as long as they have an active production line they will order more.
>are replacing Hinds
Replacing with what? Right now Mi-35 is a dedicated spetznaz transport/support helicopter, they cant replace it with anything since no other aircraft has both attack and transport capability.

>>33304379
Yes you did. Here >>33303829 you fix that autist wikinigger, saying there are no Russian orders since 2010, while in fact the first batch was ordered in 2010 and the second one in 2012.
The other two quotes are not even from me.

>>33300098
All helicopters are cannon fodder, slower than fixed wing ground attack aircraft, have shit endurance and poor performance at high altitude.

Helos are for permissive environments or you have to expect heavy losses, Viet Nam style. The US Army and Air Force only want fast jet CAS for this reason, but helo purchases are not questioned and they do well enough for most missions. If you are Marcus Luttrell and bros the US can't provide loitering CAS (or even loitering LOS C4ISR to relay comms like we had in Nam), but nobody cares enough to fix that so it must not be broken.

Osprey is nice but its payload is pitifully small. The US doesn't need more than that since we don't bring vehicles to the airhead except in permissive environments, and our Airborne assume all vehicles will die so they prefer to be infantry pedestrians. We have infinite time to camp out on airheads and wait until a nice FOB is constructed to support constabulary missions.

The US doesn't need to have very good helos or doctrine to kill ragheads, and we don't need helos in nation-state war. There isn't a lot on the line so there's no pressure to do a better job.

>>33301211
Only the cockpit of the Hind is armored. Troop bay is thin-skinned aluminum, and there are a LOT of stories about a Hind pilot setting down then going "wtf why's nobody getting out" and realizing his troop bay got swiss cheese'd by tallybans and everybody's dead or wounded.

Especially since the pilot box can't talk to the troop compartment on anything pre-D model.

File: V-22-Cutaway.jpg (647KB, 1983x1256px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 1983x1256px

>>33304286
>
>Does it [V-22 Osprey] even have shaft transmission from one wing to another?

Yes.

>>33301405
And all the times it didn't.

>>33301509
Longbow and later Apache's, -1Z Cobras, and even the fucking Kiowa have targetting radars now. If they ever stick the Lakota in an armed role it's plug-and-play compatible with the Apache's fire control radar and could theoretically carry up to 4 Aim 9X's plus 2 Aim 120's.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 2.52.03 PM.png (239KB, 643x362px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 643x362px

>>33304318
>
> a Russian movie
> U.S. Coasties
> killer commandos
> hooking up with q.t.s

WTF am I watching and when can I join the Coast Guard and get in on that action?

>>33301694
Those don't have a usable cargo compartment though, it's full of ammo and electronics.

>>33301752
Because the goatfuckers are just absolutely thick with AAA and MANPADs, right?

And we *still* lost a fair number of helo's to SAF and lucky RPG's.

File: mi-24 tail gun mod (2).jpg (56KB, 489x352px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 489x352px

>>33304134
>I think he could have a chance.
Only by a huge amount of luck, essentially random. Things on ships send kilograms of bullets into missiles much bigger than MANPADS. A radar assisted automatic bomber tail gun has like 4 to 10 seconds to shoot an incoming missile. I don't think a human can do this intentionally.
>Why couldnt anyone put it on a helicopter
Like I said, Russians almost did.

>>33301806
Which is why every US helicopter has an extensive day/night/thermal camera system to find all the fuckers hiding in dense foliage, so they can then either rocket the shit out of the area or just not go there.

Also:
>Iraq and Afghanistan
>dense foliage
Pick one.

>>33303878
As of the moment they serve their purpose and the airframes are still new enough to not need total replacement.

We also just got done with a refresh. The -64 E improves even further on the Longbow, and the -64 F (which is not in production) is ready to go if the DoD ever decides to postpone the FVL past 2030.

Apache serial production is contracted through 2026.

>>33304158
It can only glide in plane mode. If it suffers engine or rotor failure in hover mode it's going down HARD.

Is it more survivable than that one anon claimed? Yeah. But it's still significantly more likely to kill the crew and suffer total airframe loss in the event of lift failure in either mode than a traditional helicopter.

Also, part of the reasons its safety record looks so good is it's still relatively low on flight hours. It has killed more people per operational flight hour than any aircraft other than the F/A 18 B.

>>33304325
Power failure happens with disturbing regularity with flying things. One hit to the APU, or a short, and you have total power failure.

Fixed-wing planes typically operate at enough altitude to glide long enough to restart engines or eject. Traditional helo's can autorotate in with little or no damage to the airframe and very low odds of crew injury provided they don't land on like the side of a mountain (they don't get a lot of choice in where they land).

The Osprey is kind of in between. Flies low enough due to generally not being pressurized they probably can't restart the APU in time, doesn't have ejector seats and those wouldn't help passengers anyway, can't autorotate in either mode, and doesn't glide as well as regular planes.

File: Bell Boeing V-44.jpg (233KB, 1600x1001px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1600x1001px

>>33304509

V-44 when?

File: ka-52 (3).jpg (280KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1280x848px

>>33304753
>doesn't have ejector seats
They only had to listen.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e42_1429167831

File: Bell Boeing V-44_1231321.jpg (61KB, 640x593px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x593px

>>33304796

File: Bell Boeing V-44_jhl-image42.jpg (104KB, 800x604px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x604px

>>33304808

>>33304456
But i did not say anything, i mentioned first contract and last aircraft delievered.
>>33304550
>plus 2 Aim 120's
Erm, no.

>>33304706
see
>>33304325
>>33304509
I remembered it does have the dual driveshaft, I spoke of that. Gliding can only occur in plane mode, which should be fine. In hover mode, it would require dual immediate engine failure with no power to really drop. While autorotation might cushion it a bit, it'd still probably wreck a normal helicopter in the same situation, at least as I understand it. Due to the redundancy it should be able to land well enough, if hard.

>Safety record
If I recall, the way it was divided was by test hours and operational hours. If you take the test there's barely worse, but in full service it's done well. There was some mitigation that it wasn't just per flight hour (Which would obviously be offset by something with less hours), but I don't have it offhand.

However it was done, basically, it's got lower in actual service, and development is generally pretty messy, sadly. It didn't seem far out of the norm in that regard, it was just very well publicized and became known for it in the internet age.

>>33304753
That's fair. I haven't seen much about the total power failure, at least not in full service. Can you provide more on that? I only know so much about it. As I understood it, the way it worked could kind of work out of it because of the redundancies, and that it wasn't that frequent for the whole thing to shut off 100%.

The in-between bit is absolutely a weakness I will concede, though. It's just inherent to the design.

>>33304796
That looks kind of cool, but with in-line engines like that isn't the flight mode like a fucking aerodynamic nightmare?

File: Bell Boeing V-44_jhl-image41.jpg (51KB, 726x514px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 726x514px

>>33304819

>>33304819
>doublewide aircraft carrier
>ramp
>osprey over fighters
god damn the marines are stupid

File: Bell Boeing V-44_hl-image40.jpg (70KB, 854x566px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 854x566px

>>33304832

File: Bell Boeing V-44_gunship.jpg (38KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x370px

>>33304843

File: Bell Boeing V-44_gunship cutaway.jpg (54KB, 600x324px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x324px

>>33304878

File: Bell Boeing V-44_60553354756.jpg (100KB, 1600x640px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1600x640px

>>33304891

The hind can do one or the other, not both. It cannot have a combat load and transport troops. It cannot have a combat load and hover out of ground effect either.

The closest thing that the US Army has is the MH60L/M DAP. However it never carries troops because the army realized that shits dumb and doesn't work. You don't see attack helicopters that transport troops for the same reason you don't see main battle tanks transport troops.

File: Avatar C-21 Dragon Assault Ship.jpg (264KB, 1280x664px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1280x664px

>>33304901

>>33304831
>can you provide more on that?
Not directly related to the Osprey, no. I'm a 15Y, Apache electrician (although due to commonality of design and mixed units I've also worked on Blackhawks and Shithooks and could theoretically work on Kiowa's if we had any). Power failure is pretty easy to achieve in most things that fly because there's really no room for a second APU and literally everything but the black box turns off when the APU dies (which is easy to happen). Even disregarding combat damage, aircraft vibrate enough I'm *constantly* replacing wiring harnesses and abraded wires. Shorts are a daily occurrence leading to systems failure and occasionally total power failure (for some reason APU's are very prone to failure from overvoltage).

I've heard similar horror stories from my fixed-wing and UAV maintainer brethren as well. It's a problem endemic to the design of pretty much everything that flies, I have zero doubt that the Osprey suffers the same issues.

>>33301283
There's a drive shaft in the wing that connects the two gearboxes.

Educate yourself before you go spouting bullshit and ruin peoples' primacy.

Dick.

>>33301299
No, it just can't hover with a combat load.

>>33305036
>No, it just can't hover with a combat load.
It can, since Mi-24V.

File: MI24-Hind-D cutaway.png (2MB, 1600x1029px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1029px

>>33304952
>The hind can do one or the other, not both.

Nonsense, as I mentioned above; the Hind program was initiated by the Soviet Border Troops specifically to carry a rifle squad AND heavy fire support along the Soviet-Chinese border, where the scattered Border Troops outposts were a long way from fixed-wing support aircraft.

>>33305036
And if it loses and engine due to a missile hit or large enough autocannon calibre this drive shaft will have nothing to connect to.

File: mi-24p gsh-30-2k gun (1).jpg (123KB, 1000x634px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x634px

>>33305092
>#27
Wait, what? That's GSh-30-2K gun on Mi-24P.

>>33305105
Combat survivability is a bit less important than general "not falling out of the sky for no reason" survivability.

>>33305149
And this corresponds with the original claim that "Osprey engine outs aren't fatal like they are to a helicopter" in which way exactly?

>>33304573
So is a Hind with a strike payload, it's so overloaded it needs a rolling takeoff

>>33305144
The drawing just shows two variants.

>>33305175
No, it does not. Stop it. They had problems on high elevations in Afghanistan, a new enginve - TB3-117B was introduced, and it fixed the problem.

>>33301283
>Gee, could it possible have a thing or two to do with a different doctrine?
Gee could doctrine be developed to suit the limitations of equipement?

>>33305206
so your criticism of the western design from the 80's was the size of electronics, which if it had contined development would have been rapidly miniaturized, filling the troop bay and the fact that the troop bay was used as ammo stowage.

As opposed to the Russian design where they use the troop bay for ammo stowage and an anemic engine that was later replaced as part of an engine that was replaced as the design continued development.

>>33305399
>so your criticism of the western design from the 80's was the size of electronics
I did not say anything about western designs in this thread, i have no idea what are you talking about. And i am not sure what this
>As opposed to the Russian design where they use the troop bay for ammo stowage and an anemic engine that was later replaced as part of an engine that was replaced as the design continued development.
means at all.

>>33305333
Not in the case of Mi-24 that was specifically developed for its role.

>>33305433
If it wasn't you then let me clarify, I was responding to the person here
>>33304573
who was refering to the Blackhawk DAP

>>33305444
The Mi-24 was developed to perform aggressive attack runs where the wings would provide a substantial amount of extra lift until stores where used in a presumed way to reduce threats in the drop area

File: xc142 hover.jpg (148KB, 1280x1023px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1280x1023px

>>33305036
Cross shafts are a major pita.
Better aircraft have been abandoned for less.

>>33301373

The hind is quite fast.

File: mi24011 (a10 record setting version).jpg (28KB, 450x201px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x201px

>>33305678
Nothing does fast quite like the, now retired, Lynx.

This is a fast Mi thing.

>>33299742
Before the AH-1, there was the UH-1C. UH-1B gunship variants were too heavy to keep up with UH-1B transports. So they made a UH-1C with more engine, so the gunships could keep up with the troop ships.

Also, if your troop ships are your gun ships, then who is going to suppress the LZ while disembarking troops?

File: Mil-Hist-Mount-Stupid.jpg (101KB, 960x1143px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x1143px

>>33301504
Actual historyfag here, shut your mouth until spoken to plebe.

File: BN2.jpg (63KB, 530x797px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 530x797px

>>33305759
Apache still cannot keep up with Chinook.
I wonder it the "Argie" door is still on there.

File: mi psv.jpg (156KB, 1024x639px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x639px

>>33305728
apparently this is now the fastest heli ever made

>>33305832
Cheers from here if it also had a female crew. :)

>>33303986
why not chaffs and smoke?

>>33299559

because they're shit. they did okay against other slavs and goatfuckers, but the second those mountain boys were given stingers, russashit choppers were being swatted down like flies.

choppers that are big enough to carry people AND are packing a full armament are going to be low, slow, and lacking manuverability. What you end up with is a big fat target lumber across the sky, well within shoulder fired missile range.

attack choppers need to be fast, agile, and bristling with weapons. not much room for passengers.

transport choppers need to carry tons of fuel, and people. not much room for guns.


you can't do both without making a complete piece of shit.

>>33305678
This
Where did the idea come from that the hind is slow and slugish? That thing held a lot of speed records for quite some time. It can do barrelrolls! Fucking barrelrolls! That thing is fast and very manouverable.

And don't forget that the normal doctrine for hind usage was two hinds with one hip in tow. The hind troop compartens were loaded with ammunition and fuel while the hip carried troops. The additional ammo the hind carried inside proved to very usefull to give thos few soldiers enough cas over a long period of time. Educate yourselfs before talking shit about that beautiful thing.

>>33299559
>brrrt brrrt the remaining villagers with your cannons

uses a war crime as a example to promote a stupid doctrine

>>33305832

Really? As of last autumn the record for level conventional helicopter flight was still 400.87 km/h by a Lynx set in 1986.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-37034595

>>33305883
Out of 74 lost hinds 24 in afghanistan were due to stingers. And those kills were done during a very short period of time before they installed adquate countermeasures on the hind.
Again: hinds are fast and manouverable and were very effective in afghanistan. The goat farmers did call them the devils chariot after all.

Stop spreading those baseless claims that the hind is slow only because it looks fat.

The chinook looks also fat but is way faster than the apache.