Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Russian combat helicopters spray missiles toward Ukrainian ground targets" video.

Kinda of sorta The KA-52 primary precision weapon is the Vikhr which can engage targets up 7 mils away which is well outside MANPAD range ,however the Vikhr problem is that its like arrow it can' only travel in straight trajectory as it laser beam control system is rear mounted. Pro the system is immune to countermeasure Con, it can't alter its trajectory The Hellfire missile travels in arc allowing it to literally drop on targets but most importantly, the Hellfire can fired without the helicopter breaking cover whereas the KA-52 has to break cover to use its precision missiles. Because of Ukraine's terrain and forest, its hard for KA-52 to get shots in with Vikhr missiles The KA-52 another problem is that it lacks advance sensors and weapons like the AH-64 Now as Ukraine is getting closer and closer to having an functional Integrated air defence system (IADS) with western systems The range is going from SHORAD 3 to 5 miles to medium range 15 miles plus which means Russia aircraft will no longer have free reign
4
@ericzhao2286 Ukraine does not need more anti-radiation missiles and kamikaze drone They need weapons able to cross of targets more effectively The MGM-140 ATACMS can strike targets up to 190 miles away with 500lbs warhead and Harpoon Block II can do the same up 150 miles against land and sea targets The M30 rockets only have 200lbs warhead which has it limits and are limited to 50 mile range Ukraine need longer range weapons able to engage targets pass 100 miles Thats Swedish RBS 15 Mk. IV Gungnir, , the newer models of US Harpoons and MGM-140s
3
Russia didn't pay the cost of upgrading its gunships weapons with better precision capabilities and are paying for dearly The US has used its Hellfire missiles against personnel and other targets several times in Iraq and Afghanistan The Hellfire was upgraded from AGM-114A- Armored vehicles to AGM-114K, M, N, and P for various targets to AGM-114R Hellfire II-All targets allowing Hellfires to be used for any target. The US went a step further with Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) upgrades the 70mm into precision laser guided munition costing only 22K per missile considerably less than the Hellfire Neither the Ka-52, Mi-28 or Mi-24/35 has any sort of weapons upgrades , hence why videos of them spraying and praying are common and them uses precision missiles are very rare The US lost 42 AH-64/AH-1Ws in Iraq from 2003-2010 and 16 AH-64/AH-1W in the 2020 years in Afghan Russia is 35 KA-52/Mi-28/Mi-35 combined in Ukraine so far The key difference is that Iraq and Afghan, The NATO/US made damn sure to cut both countries off from the outside which allowed them to severely limit what weapons enemy forces could get Russia's tactical blunder was leaving Western Ukraine open to the West Without them cutting off supplies , Ukraine has gotten better and better air defense equipment Now they Aspide, NASAMS and IRIS-T which moves them from only having SHORAD defenses with 3 to 5 mile range to medium range defenses able to engage targets over 20 miles away
2
Its not Those are S-8 rockets. Their version of the US 70mm hydra. Assuming they cost the same They fired 10 rockets from each pod which 20 rockets total is about $60,000 plus wasted The US made Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) upgrades the 70mm into precision laser guided munition $60,000 plus is roughly 3 APKWS munitions The US does the same job with only 3 munitions and it being laser guided means better than 90 percent chance of hitting the target The West has several precision kits for its 70mm that take the guess work out of it Ukraine uses it because they have no choice Their Mi-24s can't use anything else The reason why they have to use it The KA-52 primary precision weapon is the Vikhr which can engage targets up 7 miles away which is well outside MANPAD range ,however the Vikhr problem is that its like arrow it can' only travel in straight trajectory as it laser beam control system is rear mounted. Pro the system is immune to countermeasure Con, it can't alter its trajectory The Hellfire missile travels in arc allowing it to literally drop on targets but most importantly, the Hellfire can fired without the helicopter breaking cover whereas the KA-52 has to break cover to use its precision missiles. Because of Ukraine's terrain and forest, its hard for KA-52 to get shots in with Vikhr missiles Secondly hovering in place even at 7 miles away is problematic to say the least several Ka-52s have been downed that way
1
At what point will Russian forces realize that spray and pray tactics are obviously not working. Ukraine is getting closer and closer to having an functional Integrated air defence system (IADS) with western systems
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman Russia's problem's in Ukraine are easy to understand First Russia's tactical blunder was leaving Western Ukraine open to the West. With that door open, the West has continued to make Russian forces lives in Ukraine that much worse One of the fun thing that the US discovered while Iraq and Afghan was that EA-6B could use its EW suite to locate targets on ground Three of the newer EA-18G Growlers networked together can generate targeting tracks for hostile radio-frequency sources in real time. able trilaterate targets to a very, very small area. Russian forces can't track HIMARS as they dont have airborne assets with the same capabilities as the EA-18G, however the supposed Tu-214R has both electronic intelligence (ELINT) and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) similar the RC-135 River Joint should be able to track HIMARS however ?? The US from operations in Gulf and Serbia determined that all aircraft needed targeting pods whereas Russian aircraft ?? By far the craziest thing from Russian forces is the SVP-24 Gefest How in the hell they convinced themselves that was as good as JDAMs, the world will never know
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman The Russian T90/80/72 problem is Russian doctrine and lack technology What we are seeing is very poor coordination, communication and tactics The Russian military has both Arena and Drozd active protection system (APS) which are supposed to shield tanks from ATGMs but neither systems has been deployed in Ukraine The Russian military has Remote controlled weapon station (RWS) technology like the US CROWS family yet RWS use again very limited The Russian military has Unmanned Aerial Vehicles but Orlan-10 comical has been found not using mil spec camera but consumer Canon EOS 750D/EOS 800D digital SLR cameras. and even comically equipped thermal imaging Crappy doesnt even come close
1
@Артём-ц5э8з The burning wreckages 20 KA-52s say otherwise
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman The Abrams is typical supported by several other elements which scout ahead and perform reconnaissance both on the ground and in the air The US army supports its troop on the ground with RQ-7, MQ-1C from the air. If RQ-7 or MQ-1C are not available, troops carry RQ-11 with them The USMC uses ScanEagle and RQ-21 BlackJack for air and RQ-11 on the ground The USAF supports both with MQ-9s All these UAVs have highly advanced sensor payloads allowing them to easily spot threats We are not seeing Russian forces use any UAVs in this manner. And as the saying goes, what you don't see will kill you and thats what's happening to Russian armor They are not spotting the ambushes , they are getting rektted Secondly the Abrams has Remote controlled weapon station (RWS) . plus the gunner and commander sights which allows it to look in multiple directions at once Most of the Russian tanks lack RWS and they can only look where the gun is aimed. Russia tanks are built around a carousel autoloader. Pro gives them sustained rates of fire, Con, the ammunition is in turret with crew As seen many times, if the ammunition cooks off , its sayonara for tank and crew The Abrams ammo is stored in the rear of the turret separate from the crew. The top of the ammunition storage has whats called blow out panels and the access in the turret is via armored door. r if ammunition storage is hit the door slams shut. its called the path of least resistance which allows the explosive force of the ammunition to be directed up and away from the crew Unlike Russian tanks, if there is ammunition explosion, as long as the crew is inside with the hatches closed and nothing interferes with the safety features 9 out of 10, they will survive. and Abrams would simply have the turret replaced
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman As I stated before, Russia's tactical blunder was leaving Western Ukraine open to the West. Their plan was very straight forward and if it had worked, they would have had Ukraine under control in 2 to 3 months The plan was capture Antonov Airport which was only 6 miles away from Kyiv and use it as base of operations With Antonov Airport in their hands, the plan was landing 18 IL-76s of additional forces As Kyiv was only 6 miles away , its was likely armor and artillery which would have allowed Russian forces to lay siege on Kyiv as well as established a buffer between the West and Ukraine which would prevented Ukraine from being supplied with additional weapon Effectively , Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine would be surrounded by forces from Kharkiv, Kyiv, Odessa. Mariupol and, Luhansk with Russian forces cutting Western Ukraine off from the rest of the country. Basically if they had succeed, Eastern Ukraine would have been massive kill box for them So blunder number one why in the name of insanity would you launch an airborne assault like this in broad daylight When you are trying to secure an objective like this , you do it under the cover of night Blunder number two where was forward arming and refuelling point (FARP) at? Russian forces were forced to withdraw as they lacked air support Again with an assault like this, you normally have a FARP set up nearby so your gunships can be quickly turned around and back into the fight Blunder number why IL-76s ?? One of the things that US military spends on is aerial refueling capability for aircraft Specifically, MC-130s transports as well MH-60 , MH-47, MV/CV-22 and CH-53 medium to heavy lift helicopters can be refueled in the air The US would have sent MH-60 with troops to secure LZ nearby as well as strip for MC-130s to land or drop cargo while MH-47 and CH-53 heavy lift light armor and artillery Have AH-64s fly in with just external fuel tanks to the FARP sit where they would exchange them for Hellfires and 70m hydra rockets Coordinate with the USN launching of TLAMs against key targets at airport. Once the missile hit, the airborne forces move in Again for reasons unknown, Russian force did no coordinate with missile strikes from fixed but instead attacked with gunships The key difference is that US forces would be attacking after TLAMs had laid waste to key targets, not trying to attack them on fly like Russia did Russia didn't pay the cost of upgrading its gunships weapons with better precision capabilities and are paying for dearly
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman Capturing the capital has several advantages but the biggest is that you are disrupting the enemy command and control as 9/10 thats were the enemy leadership will be It gives you a high chance of decapitation of the enemy command. Without effective command and control, enemy forces are easier to defeat Secondly you are cutting off outside influence Capturing Kherson is not beginning of the end of it. The word on the street is that Ukrainian air force is currently working on integration of Storm Shadow missiles to their aircraft The export version of the Storm Shadow range is 150 miles but still carries 990lbs warhead however Ukraine is part of the MCTR, they can likely get the 300 mile range model a 300 mile range missile with 990lbs would be the beginning of the end Black Sea Fleet bases are easy targets as well as all Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine would now be targetable 990lbs warheads are what we call crowd pleasers The Crimean Bridge would out of action with just 3 missiles Frigates in port would be sunk with a single missile While I am all for the Storm Shadow, the KEPD 350 is better choice KEPD 350 has the crowd pleasing 1000lbs warhead as well and 300 mile range but its targetable against moving targets like ships at sea
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman Love no. Quake in absolute terror as Ukrainian forces cross of Russian assets wholes sale Storm Shadow would give Ukraine much needed and over due true long range precision strike capability and would free up HIMARS and Pzh-2000 to strike other targets As Ukraine has balls of steel and Moscow is only 279 miles from the Ukraine border I wouldnt put it past them to symbolically take a few shots at Moscow just as Russia has with Kyiv as well as other Russian targets if they do get the 300 mile models without any restrictions
1
@Popeye_the_Haterman No Striking hard , fast and accurately destroying the aggressor's forces completely ends conflicts Nothing is more demoralizing that learning your entire force was completely destroyed with no survivors The US did so on the Highway of Death by destroying Iraqi forces trying to escape. if Ukraine could inflict massive damage both on personnel and equipment with Storm Shadow strikes Then Russian morale even with most brained washed propagandist would plummet Ukraine needs Storm Shadow, Mavericks, CBU-87 and Paveway for air ground Youtube this CBU-87/B Combined Effects Munition (CEM) Live Fire by jaglavaksoldier and see what I say CBU-87
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 Incorrect Thats for missiles with front mounted seekers that look for laser spots. The Vikhr seeker is rear mounted, you can't arc like hellfire
1
@ericzhao2286 Those missile are Ukraine needs. Those missiles have warhead between 440bls to 500lbs which is substantially more effective at destroying targets RBS 15 and Harpoon can KO Russian naval assets Ukraine needs to major asset denial like they did with Moskva The Frigates, S-400s and bases , easily destroyed with those missiles
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 Again incorrect if they could do that, there would be no need for them utilizing rocket toss method if they could strike precisely Secondly wouldnt have double digit losses in 20s The VIkhr is well outside MANPAD range The Vikhr can't be arced like hellfire can
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 It can't be done nor has it been done There is no confusion about the Vikhr, you written anti-tank only emphasizes my point The US has used its Hellfire missiles against personnel several times in Iraq and Afghanistan The difference is that the Hellfire was upgraded from AGM-114A- Armored vehicles to AGM-114K, M, N, and P for various targets to AGM-114R Hellfire II-All targets As you stated , its just HEAT charge for armor penetration not multi purpose like the Hellfire and goes back to my point, they have no choice as the Vikhr is basically useless in every way possible Secondly again you emphasizes my point "what happens when the helo finds infantry instead of tanks? It uses the "rocket toss method" with rockets designed specifically to kill infantry insted of trying to pick off individuals with expensive anti-tank missiles" While the US had no problem using hellfires, its was still an expensive solution at 100K per missile So what did the US do The US made Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) upgrades the 70mm into precision laser guided munition costing only 22K per missile considerably less than the Hellfire Lets price this attack Those are S-8 rockets from Ka-52. Their version of the US 70mm hydra. Assuming they cost the same and they would likely have a full load thats 40 missiles costing $120,000 that they just sprayed The US does the same job with 1 Hellfire or 5 APKWS munitions and it being laser guided means better than 90 percent chance of hitting the target but most importantly, the key design feature of the APKWS is that it used all existing 70mm payloads HEDP, HEAT and APERS (anti-personnel) warhead In Russia's case ,they have only waste dozens of missiles in spray and pray tactics Its funny you say that as another key claim about the KA-52 is that its Semi-rigid mounting improves the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges than with a free-turning turret mount. Yet another again ???
1
@L00K2008 Poor attempt at twisting what I as clearly stated this not the nonsense you wrote Now as Ukraine is getting closer and closer to having an functional Integrated air defence system (IADS) with western systems The range is going from SHORAD 3 to 5 miles to medium range 15 miles plus which means Russia aircraft will no longer have free reign
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 The S-8 does not cost $200 The US 70mm unguided costs $2799, The French made SNEB and Canadian CRV7 are similiarly priced manufacturing cost for S-8 warhead and motor alone are over $1500
1
@L00K2008 Why waste unguided missiles when you can strike precisely The US development of several precision kits for their 70mm shows they are done wasting time with spray and pray tactics
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 And that sums it up right there The US is willingly to pay the cost for precision while Russia is not as apparent by 20 KA-52s destroyed thus far
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 Yes they did across years and decades not several months and unlike Russian, they fielded new weapons and technology in short order to address their issues quickly hence why their losses are were relatively low while Russian losses despite claims continue to mount
1