Hellicopter Gunships: Who ya got?
- Thread starter TheGLOV
- Start date
Cobra! I need to be loyal (If not nostalgic!) to the ole girl, as she bailed my sorry 17 year old ass many a time during my first war!
Russia always builds impressive looking hardware that's behind the curve one way or another.
The Russians are not to be taken lightly. Their philosophy is to have their weapons systems VERY heavily armed and carry LOTS of ammunition. In battle, their goal is to throw the Sunday punch first.
When I was on active duty, Russian (Soviet in those days) ships bristled with guns and missiles. Where they compared unfavorably to us was in maintainability and survivability. Their sensors were good, not great. All of that was OK though because their plan was to throw the haymaker. They were prepared to lose their entire surface fleet if they could take out the USN carriers. Thank God we never had to find out whose strategy was better.
This attack helo is carrying a rocket pod, I'm sure it can shoot visual, laser-designated or IR. They have some sort of air-to-surface missile system for anti-armor. The big silver thing is either a bomb or some sort of external fuel tank. The futuristic shape is to reduce radar cross section making it harder to locate. Not the shrouded engine exhaust - less IR and heat sig, harder for the enemy to shoot down.
I'm sure they have a 20mm Gatling gun in the nose.
That is a mean adversary and a worthy opponent for anyone. Now it is up to the pilot training/skill to make the difference.
When I was on active duty, Russian (Soviet in those days) ships bristled with guns and missiles. Where they compared unfavorably to us was in maintainability and survivability. Their sensors were good, not great. All of that was OK though because their plan was to throw the haymaker. They were prepared to lose their entire surface fleet if they could take out the USN carriers. Thank God we never had to find out whose strategy was better.
This attack helo is carrying a rocket pod, I'm sure it can shoot visual, laser-designated or IR. They have some sort of air-to-surface missile system for anti-armor. The big silver thing is either a bomb or some sort of external fuel tank. The futuristic shape is to reduce radar cross section making it harder to locate. Not the shrouded engine exhaust - less IR and heat sig, harder for the enemy to shoot down.
I'm sure they have a 20mm Gatling gun in the nose.
That is a mean adversary and a worthy opponent for anyone. Now it is up to the pilot training/skill to make the difference.
The real question should be........
AirWolf vs. Blue Thunder....
Because we all know that both of those helicopters would destroy anything else
AirWolf vs. Blue Thunder....
Because we all know that both of those helicopters would destroy anything else
Oh, happy happy joy joy.........yet ANOTHER thread about war. And, as Lion8286 always reminds me, on a Penn State FOOTBALL board, no less
HUMANITY IS DOOMED!
The threat to our carriers was never from those surface ships-they were going to the bottom a soon as our fast attack subs got the order. The threat was- and is- from the enemies attack subs. And that threat is growing with the new generation of super quiet diesel electrics- and fuel cell powered subs are on the way now. Countries that could never build a nuclear powered sub will soon be adding very capable and dangerous attack subs to their arsenals. I don't envy our task group commanders today.
Disagree with that - the primary mission of the fast attacks was to go after Soviet boomers. Of course if they happened upon a Soviet surface action group we would certainly engage.
That is why virtually every Soviet ship from destroyers on up was outfitted with ASUW missiles. I still remember the threat missile classes - SILEX, SUNBURN, SHIPWRECK - it was pounded in my head.
I can't find my car keys in the morning but I remember Soviet missiles from the 1980's.
Yes, you're right about their primary mission, but it wasn't unusual to add a sub(or subs) to a battle group when the mission required it. That would certainly include a large surface action.
I have little doubt that the newer gunships have far superior technology and weapons capability, but I am right there with you.
My ass was a little older than 17 in 1970 , but
The sound of the snakes coming in was so distinctive. Grunts have always associated good results with the noise announcing the arrival of gun ship support.
If I recall, air wolf made a coast to coast trip in a few minutes. So, is this even close?
but Blue Thunder was full beast mode with all that armor and stuff....could really tear some $h!t up.
Akin to what you were saying about the Russian designed helicopter meant to throw the first (and hopefully for them only haymaker), I remember watching a show about the development of the Russian tank during WWII. The guy who designed it essentially designed it to have the biggest gun, the thickest armor, and the fewest workable and moving parts at the expense of any speed/maneuverability and the requirement to build as many as quickly as possible (so kept it extremely basic design). He did this because he said that the Russians operating the tanks would be Russian peasants who were essentially very dumb but very tough. So they had a big gun and thick armor at the expense of any maneuverability as he said that the Russian tank needed to win the fight quick in one shot and be able to take multiple hits as the tank couldn't move and the operator most likely wouldn't know how to anyway. He said that the tank was built with minimal parts as nobody would be able to repair it anyway, so might as well make it simple and with no comforts at all as the Russian peasant was used to extremely harsh conditions.
I agree. It's like the Phantom pilots eating up the Eagles at the early Red Flag events. Old and treacherous always beats new and aggressive!
That is exactly correct. They chose to make up for qualitative deficiencies with quantity.
The Soviets never took anything out of service - they just folded it into the second line. Upon mobilization, their reservists would operate the older systems - the same ones they had when they were on active duty.
They certainly had some horrific submarine accidents. But their boats were capable, make no mistake. Loud, but speedy. Packed with cruise missiles.
Their boomers - we'd get most of them. They would try to hide under the ice. The problem is, even if you get most of them, the other guys launch, and it is going to be a very bad day. They didn't have the accuracy, but so what. You make the warhead bigger and more powerful, all you need to do is get into the vicinity.
I have a lot of respect for the Russian (Soviet) Navy. Those boys are tough.
Cletus we found out for instance that Soviet trucks were manual transmission, hydraulic brakes, no upholstery in the driver's seat. Build lots of them, fast, because #1 you're going to lose a lot of them and #2 make them super-simple for the Russian conscript to drive it.
If you are in an NBC environment, a lot easier to decon a Russian truck. How do you decon upholstery?
They were always being flown at tree top height looking for NVA also. Some huey pilots transported us that way too. Others high in the sky. To fast to get off a good shot or to high and to small of a target. Name your poison! It was definitely more fun, like a roller coaster, following the contours at tree top height. The most interesting thing for me, and being amazed as an fng (f***ing new guy), was the power of centrifugal force. When orbiting to land, a huey is banking such that the floor angle is maybe is between 1:00 and 2:00, if you were looking at it perpendicular, relative to 3:00, the floor being level (best way I can explain it) and there sat the M16 flat as a pancake not sliding out. Nor of course you sitting on the edge, legs dangling out. They should send ever middle school up to learn what the true meaning of centrifugal force is all about!
