Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Did Russia build the best attack helicopter ever?" video.

  1. The US was using air mobility a lot in Afghanistan. Neither Russia or Ukraine are. Completely different cases, as the US was using helicopters as battle taxis. If Russia was using helicopters like that, they'd have no more in inventory.
    25
  2. ​ @8492nd  Apaches went in first into Iraq before SEAD/DEAD. Along with the F-117 they have the honor of meeting the enemy alone and unafraid before the air defence was degraded.
    16
  3. ​ @magnusgreel275  No, they won against the ANA after the US left as part of the peace deal signed during the Trump administration.
    16
  4. ​ @kureed79  Russia literally had their defenses breached recently.
    15
  5. ​ @xylven5918  The Apache was one of the first aircraft flying into Iraq in 1991. They had no air superiority. They flew under the radar to target military installations.
    13
  6. ​ @kureed79  Iraq had both Western and Soviet equipment. Not only Russian defenses but also Roland missiles and MIM-23 Hawk batteries captured from Kuwait.
    10
  7.  @topkitena  Uh flat desert is absolutely the worst terrain to fly helicopters in as you don't have terrain masking.
    9
  8. Apache flew into Iraq in 1991. SAs from single to double digit, French Rolands and MIM-23 Hawks.
    8
  9.  @rauldelvillar374  Combat losses are relevant metrics because that's what military equipment has to avoid to remain competitive. The Tornado attack jet had its entire low level attack doctrine changed because of just 6 losses in Desert Storm. The Harrier was kind of seen as obsolete with just 7 losses in Desert Storm. Here's something about aircraft design - design the freaking thing to carry weapons if you're going to sell it to the military, to avoid the winglet flutter issue in the Ka-52. Embarrassing.
    8
  10. @@thondyhalomoan889 Right. So it's not impressive that it can fly without it. That's like saying it's impressive someone is a boxing champion after having the appendix removed after appendicitis. Uh, yeah? You don't need it to punch.
    6
  11. ​ @noideas-l7q  the point of using unguided rockets is NOT having to fly over MANPADS threat
    6
  12. That doesn't make any sense. The tail rotor is a critical component in conventional rotary wing aircraft. A true statement wouldn't be a damaged tail, but a direct blow to the main rotor that caused one of them to come loose.
    5
  13.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  How was the goalpost shifted? A helicopter with a tail rotor needs it to be operational to remain in controlled flight. A conventional helicopter getting the tail damaged but surviving IS impressive because it needs it. Like a fixed wing aircraft needs both wings to remain in level flight. When the Ka-52 loses its tail and remains in control, that is by definition NOT impressive because it didn't need the tail like a conventional helicopter does. It's like a lizard losing a tail fleeing a predator. It happens.
    5
  14. ​ @PetrusJosephus-z6c  Iraq was a conventional war.
    5
  15. ​ @estebanpacheco7102  What does that have to do with anything? Lack of air mobility to prevent losses means that each loss is more relevant to the discussion. The helicopters are being babied and coddled to avoid vulnerabilities, and yet they still are taking losses both from combat and attrition from just heavy use running the clock on airframes and engines.
    4
  16. ​ @yspear_  Ka-52s laser guided missile outrange the MANPADS by severak km. Using MANPADS as an excuse is copium.
    4
  17. ​ @worldoftancraft  Have we seen the ejection system working? Either way, pilots are like knights. More valuable than peasants.
    3
  18.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  Cry about it. Now brag about the boat that doesn't need to run on land.
    3
  19. Iraq had better defenses than Vietnam's SA-2.
    3
  20.  @kureed79  lmao this is pure delusion. What happens when the "winning team" fails and everyone else just comes down from the fence?
    3
  21. ​ @anshulsingh8326  Nope. The US wanted to let Ukraine fall, and they fought alone with minimal donations from the UK. It was only after Ukraine proved they could fight Russia that they got NATO aid.
    3
  22. Continually sidelined from reliability issues, constantly triggering the magnetic sensors in the oil system.
    2
  23. ​ @chaosXP3RT  Egypt bought some
    2
  24.  @ni9274  Because they were flying into MANPADS range. They switched tactics and hovered inside Russian held terrain to fire missiles from relative safety. Now the situation is changing again.
    2
  25.  @googleplex1589  The Apache requires the tail to fly. If it loses a tail and flies... that's incredible. It shouldn't be able to do that. The Ka-52 uses a rotor on top of the main rotor to counter torque, which means that losing the tail does not affect the counter torque.
    2
  26.  @vaskedagame880  Yeah, genius. The Ka-52 was shot in a non-critical part so it survived. If you shoot a Blackhawk's landing gear instead of the tail, it will fly too.
    2
  27.  @vaskedagame880  A non-critical part being shot off is not impressive. You're adding importance to a tail when in a conventional helicopter it is important because it houses a rotor. Without the rotor, it's just less impressive. It's not even Russophobia, if the US made a helicopter that didn't need a tail, and it got a tail shot off, that wouldn't be impressive. Why the hell would I be impressed? That's like being impressed at someone being alive after they had their appendix removed. Want to impress me? Show me someone alive without a heart. Now that's astonishing.
    2
  28.  @Stormyy6310  Now you're talking. Thanks for correcting the record.
    2
  29.  @shlug  Most of it went towards outdated Western equipment. Fun fact, the Stinger was declared obsolete in 2022 and a replacement was supposed to be selected in 2023. The war put a wrench in those plans. The Bradleys being sent aren't modern ones.
    2
  30.  @shlug  In the particular case of the Stinger, we actually have no latest and greatest because we never got to plan for the replacement before the war started. Stingers are both outdated but also the best we have, we don't have a better MANPADS.
    2
  31.  @rauldelvillar374  Not much to go wrong with a Tornado. It was a performance beast. It was not handicapped to fly low. It just performed well enough to even have an air defense variant. So by making it fly mid-level it was spared from further losses. If you design your stuff to die, you're already planning for failure. I don't know what the Russian expectations are. But if their expectations were losing enough helicopters to the point that the Ka-52 is entering endangered species status, they've bet on the wrong horse. Drones exist precisely because the humans are valuable, so you save tremendously by sending a drone. Helicopters are several times more expensive than drones and carry pilots.
    2
  32.  @yspear_  Link a single video of Ukrainians deploying MANPADS behind Russian lines before the breach.
    2
  33.  @Killdozer-do4mc  The Vikhr missile has around 10-12km range. The Stinger 4.8 km. The most modern Stinger variant has a 7.6 km range but Ukraine probably didn't get that one. Either way, even the latest Stinger would require a man to take a 16kg system, arrive in the frontline, start sprinting for 2.4 kilometers, wait for the Ka-52 to pop out of the horizon to fire at incoming armored vehicles and then shoot. Obviously sprinting across trenches with over 20kg of equipment on your back while people shoot at you is NOT SERIOUS DOCTRINE for shooting down helicopters. They are not static. They are not games. But if men can just move 2.4 kilometers without getting shot at, they could just bypass the trenches, clear them, then let the armored vehicles through by taking out ATGM teams and artillery observers.
    2
  34. The Wagner nazis bagged a couple of them Kamovs.
    1
  35. The Apache faced top of the line Soviet defenses in 1991.
    1
  36.  @klown463  How is it my problem that Iraq didn't have their MANPADS ready?
    1
  37.  @klown463  And the US planned for Iraq to be a major threat, which is why the war was so lopsided. Russia had their war plans leaked, including the rough date of invasion, of course Ukrainians had MANPADS at the ready.
    1
  38. The Ka-50 looked better. The Ka-52 looks terrible.
    1
  39. Not true plus the Ka-52 outranges MANPADS with the Vikhr missiles.
    1
  40.  @merafirewing6591  And an airplane can fly with a missing seat.
    1
  41.  @X9xredgkoa  The only ones coping are the ones who lost a bunch of Alligators to a 1996 missile ahahaha
    1
  42.  @ntf5211  How about that Ka-52 hitting the Russian MT-LB?
    1
  43.  @sosig6445  So it's an engineering feat. Not an outstandingly tough aircraft. See how it pays to just say the truth?
    1
  44.  @vaskedagame880  Humans are designed to have limbs. A snake living without limbs isn't impressive. Because it evolved to not need them. Aircraft from WWII landed shot full of holes, even with entire sections of skin blown off. The very first helicopters had no fuselage. They were just structures of tubes with a person exposed to the open air. Awe of what? You want awe? The F-15 has an example of landing with an entire wing missing, and a F-16 has an example of landing with half a wing missing. Aircraft need two, typically. Not 1.5. Not 1. The Ka-52 has two rotors. Fly with just one. Then I'll be in awe.
    1
  45.  @vaskedagame880  But the wing is critical. The F-15 cannot sustain itself on a single wing. It was skilled flying from the pilot and thrust that allowed him to balance the lift and land. The aircraft could have not kept flying and landed somewhere else, it was an emergency. If an aircraft lands without engine power, that doesn't mean the engines aren't critical. Without engines, aircraft can't take off. The reason the F-15 being recovered was remarkable is precisely because it shouldn't be possible. There was no redundancy. The aircraft was on the razor's edge of spinning out of control. The problem is that you're seeing a fallacy where there is none. Surviving without an appendix or wisdom teeth isn't impressive, because we know those are body parts that can be removed.
    1
  46.  @vaskedagame880  But that's not the point you are making. The rotors on a helicopter work like wings. Instead of using forward velocity to drive air over the airfoil, they spin the airfoil around to generate lift. Then you either need to use counter-rotating rotors or a tail rotor to counteract the fact that a rotor alone will cause yaw. The tail on a helicopter is there to prevent loss of control. If you pick counter-rotating rotors, you no longer need the tail rotor. If an aircraft has wings and thrusters to remain airborne like some kind of sci-fi craft, then getting hit in a wing but using thrusters to remain airborne isn't impressive. If you only have wings, then losing half of one is serious. Russophobia is a made up term by crybullies. They invade, kill and torture and then have the gall to say others are -phobic. Like a steet gang that cries racism when people ask for police to protect them from the shootings and drugs.
    1
  47. ​ @Belkan88  Look up Rimon 20. Soviets always blamed Arab incompetence. Then they get slaughtered.
    1
  48. ​ @isn0t42  False. The US left Afghanistan as part of the peace deal. It was the ANA which was unable to fight.
    1
  49. MANPADS are very limited in range and warhead. Apaches flew into Iraq in 1991 against telephone pole SAMs with greater range, greater speed, and massive warheads.
    1
  50. Do their bananas have seeds? Humans have manipulated the genetics of all food since we started agriculture. True organic foods taste horribly. We used genetic selection to have things like seedless bananas you buy at the supermarket.
    1
  51.  @shlug  I was talking about the Stinger because it's a glaring example of the latest and greatest being also outdated. If all I have is a Pentium 4, that's my latest and greatest. Simply because I bought nothing new.
    1
  52. Iraq had to of the line Soviet equipment in 1991. So what?
    1
  53. Bruh the Apaches flew into Iraq before the SEAD campaign in 1991.
    1
  54.  @kubadanecki8573  The Apaches went in to destroy radar installations. They specifically flew in the conditions you asked for and now you're trying to come up with excuses.
    1
  55. @jmutevedzi3708 Iraq had the 4th or 5th biggest army in the world at the time, and equipped with Soviet and Western equipment.
    1
  56. No they didn't.
    1
  57. ​ @Globalscanningeyes  The Russians are facing Cold War MANPADS.
    1
  58.  @Sanctus-Susanin  How is that logical? By the way, 1996 expired ATACMS shredded the Alligators. Endangered species now. Instead of destroying themselves with words, Russia destroys itself with actions.
    1
  59. And yet Bradleys are still assaulting Russian trenches.
    1
  60.  @yspear_  The MANPADS is not stationary, but if you're going to assault minefields and trench lines you can't just put your MANPADS guys forward of the enemy positions. JuSt GeT cLoSeR are you out of your mind? Hide in some bushes? Do the trench lines have bushes to conveniently hide approaching troops like a freaking cartoon?
    1
  61.  @voidtempering8700  There's no obstacles. Just hover inside the safety of your own territory and lob missiles at incoming columns. They don't have to find a target. The advancing column has to get close to the trench lines to breach. They don't fly over MANPADS. They fly inside Russian territory.
    1
  62.  @Killdozer-do4mc  Explain why it isn't logical. It's perfectly logical. The Ka-52 suffered losses as the attacker, but in a defensive stance the missiles it fires can get to the enemy before the enemy can bring MANPADS close.
    1