Article

2009-07-19 Britain

Now we are borrowing Russian helicopters to fight the Taliban

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2009-07-19 02:38|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Seeing as the Afghans don't have Stinger missiles anymore to shoot them down, this must be OK.

BTW, they should also hire Chinese helicopters with Chinese crews, in case the Chicoms decide supplying some anti-aircraft missiles to the Taliban might be to their advantage.

It's not like anyone is going to hand out these missiles to the Uighurs or Tibetans anytime soon.

Posted by Phil_B 2009-07-19 04:56|| 2009-07-19 04:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Sov's landing on Brize Norton....WHO KNEW? Well, everyone knows Russian aviation enjoys the most rigorous safety regimes in the industry. Nothings too good for the ranker, and that's what he gets!

Posted by Besoeker 2009-07-19 06:01|| 2009-07-19 06:01|| Front Page Top

#3 In Afghanistan, if given a choice, I would probably prefer a Russian built helicopter, for several reasons.

First of all, a big Russian priority is avoiding maintenance and training, so their stuff is inherently simple, across the board. Ideally, with an hour's training, anyone should be able to fly that helicopter reasonably well.

They get around a lot of maintenance by sealing parts like bearings, and making high maintenance parts easy to replace. A US helicopter has to get serious maintenance after every flight. A Russian helicopter after every half dozen flights.

The biggest downside is that the quality control on their spare parts stinks, so when you replace parts, you have to test them to make sure they work.

Another advantage is that they are armored, so can take a lot of small arms fire. And while a Stinger, with a 3kg warhead, can usually take one down, even that is not a guarantee.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-07-19 10:30|| 2009-07-19 10:30|| Front Page Top

#4 The Brits Have used Russian transport as far back as the early 90's. They might have used them earlier but that was the earliest I was exposed to it. Using the MI-8 is a lower profile aircraft when your flying around Africa and othe areas that have a Soviet influence. The heavy transports are run out of a company in Ireland. The crews are mostly Russian with a couple Britts to keep everything in line.

The aircraft are built like trucks. Lots of heavy castings and thick bulkheads. They fly like trucks as well. They are heavy and cumbersome in the air and not a joy at all to pilot. The HIND-D for example is very fast, never run from it in a straight line. It is so heavy it can not hover unless empty, requiring a runway for takeoff. It can not trurn with more than a 30 degree bank or it will spin and crash. Back in the 90's they use a fish based oil, and man it stings like rot in the aircraft. While they are big, they do crash a lot, they just dont make the news much. We lost a group of American soldiers in one in Viet-Nam ten years ago on a full accounting mission.

Posted by 49 Pan 2009-07-19 10:54|| 2009-07-19 10:54|| Front Page Top

#5 49Pan's choppers are a lot cheaper.. and have that nasty Ti mini-gun.

Posted by 3dc 2009-07-19 10:56|| 2009-07-19 10:56|| Front Page Top

#6 seen a Hind grab dirt with its rotor and slam into the ground sideways back in the 80's. During a border trace in the first days of the Apache, they used to send out helicopters to mirror us. So our guy turned partially toward the border (pointing the nose completely at the border was forbidden) which caused the Hind to try to pivot faster, after which our guy lifted off sideways and up. Naturally the Soviet pilot tried to follow, tilted the Hind too far, and eventually caught a tip of the main rotor, slamming into the ground on its side just on their side of the Czech border.

Hinds are big and tought but not the most maneuverable birds off-axis.

Posted by OldSpook 2009-07-19 14:48|| 2009-07-19 14:48|| Front Page Top

#7 So that's why the Soviet Union lost the Cold War: the high cost of replacing broken helicopters. ;-) Thanks, OldSpook!

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-07-19 14:59|| 2009-07-19 14:59|| Front Page Top

#8 ION PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS > ONE-HALF OF ALL PERSONNEL THE US HAS WORKING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ARE PRIVATE [240,000 Contractor employees > approxi 80* are FOREIGN NATIONALS in suppor of USDOD, USState, + USAID Programs and Agendums.

To wit,
* KBR = the largest PContracting Company.
* AFGHANISTAN > 68,197 Private Ctrs versus 40,000 US troops.
* IRAQ > 132,197 Private Ctrs versus roughly SAME.

Lest we fergit, US is planning to downsize to NMT approxi 50,000 troops in IRAQ come Year 2010; and ZERO come 2011???

** PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > SECDEF GATES: AMERICANS WON'T BACK LONG AFGHAN WAR/US FORCES MUST GAIN GROUND NLT SUMMER 2010 TO AVOID US PUBLIC, MEDIAS PERCEPTIONS THAT US IS LOSING IN AFGHANISTAN [+ by extens AFPAK]???

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-07-19 19:58|| NA]">[NA] 2009-07-19 19:58|| Front Page Top

#9 OOOOPSIES, forgot REDDIT > FREEREPUBLIC.COM FOUNDER JIM ROBINSON CALLS FOR OVERTHROW OF THE US GOVERNMENT???

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-07-19 20:00|| NA]">[NA] 2009-07-19 20:00|| Front Page Top

23:25 gorb
23:20 darrylq
23:10 Zhang Fei
23:06 OldSpook
23:05 OldSpook
22:54 AzCat
22:43 Old Patriot
22:24 DMFD
22:05 Anonymoose
21:51 lotp
21:34 Frank G
21:32 Barbara Skolaut
21:15 Large Jeagum5875
21:07 abu do you love
21:02 OldSpook
21:00 OldSpook
20:58 OldSpook
20:56 OldSpook
20:54 OldSpook
20:50 Pappy
20:42 Nimble Spemble
20:34 gromky
20:27 Skunky Glins 5***
20:11 Iblis