To be fair, don’t compare the US Military to the Russian military…

@@sidefx996 I'd never do that! You fight goat keepers in sandals. Russia is fighting the largest army of Europe with all the support of NATO...😉

@@daemianbox Stop you might hurt my feelings... "Support of NATO" lol yeah that means the US taxpayer is helping finance the war (and don't forget 10% for the Big Guy). We're barely involved and the Russians are getting their asses kicked. I can only imagine if we actually lifted a finger. Russia has the largest army in Europe (yes I understand Russia is in Europe and Asia). Ukraine is down at 20-something I believe. How are they fighting "the largest army of Europe?" Curious when you put your X-box down and climb down from Mt. Enlightenment what Holy country YOU are from?

Because the US fights wars of choice

​@@daemianboxWhos winning because of US backed weapons 🤦🏾🤦🏾

Apaches have been fighting in total air superiority in almost every single war it fought in. As soon as you put them in the same shoes as the Ka-52 they'd suffer similar losses if not more. The Ka-52's losses can be attributed to Russia's incompetence of being unable to commit SEAD and insistence to deploy them in areas infested with anti-air.

ka 52 if facing rail machine guns and Z pinch plasma core lasers. So no wonder that Russia has already lost 50K of them and 20K Apache donated by NATO.

One are made for conventional army. The other for armed goat-herder with slippers.

​@@kureed79Both are made for conventional armies.

@@phyo1716 The world knows only 1 has been tested.

Nato/US build to fight AKs and Sandals on deserts while Russia and the Soviet build to fight against Nato and US.

not so modern in many cases, but decent anyway

To be fair Oryx is heavily biased in favor of Ukraine and independent audits of their work has shown they are using the same loss multiple times. It's not the great non-aligned neutral observer it claims to be. Of interest is it quit doing it's loss counting after Ukraine's failed counteroffensive when 100s of tanks/apc's were blown out the frame. Instead of counting them it threw over the board and walked out. So if Oryx is saying they lost 37, the real number is probably 50%, no, maybe even 75% lower.

Most us weapons either dont have combat experience or fought bunch of goatkeepers. Imo russians have better weapons, because they actually have used them in serious combat. Same way everyone said russian ground vehicles are worst of the worst. Yeah then arrived to overglorified western weapons and it showed that it actually wasnt that bad.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 This is funny Vatnik get together 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

В войне во Вьетнаме участвовало около 11 846 вертолетов США. В отчетах США указано 5 607 потерь вертолетов. В общей сложности вооруженные силы Соединенных Штатов потеряли во Вьетнаме почти 10 000 самолетов, вертолетов и беспилотных летательных аппаратов (3744 самолета, 5607 вертолетов и 578 беспилотных летательных аппаратов

@@homuchoghoma6789they didint have drones in the 60s 😂 so your claim is total bullshit

​@@Rogbet1В 1936 году капитан третьего ранга Делмар Фарни, возглавлявший проект радиоуправляемой авиации ВМФ США, в своём отчёте впервые употребил слово «дрон», в дальнейшем закрепившееся в качестве альтернативы термину «БПЛА». Под руководством Фарни ВМФ США впервые использовал беспилотную летающую мишень на учениях в 1938 году и вернулся к забытым после Первой мировой проектам «авиационных торпед». В начале 1938 года флот вёл переговоры с «Американской радиокорпорацией» об использовании телевизионного оборудования для дистанционного управления самолётами. В 1939 году учения, проведённые ВМФ США у берегов Кубы, показали высокую эффективность авиации, поэтому флот заключил с компанией «Radioplane» контракт на разработку большого количества БПЛА для использования в качестве мишеней на учениях. С 1941 по 1945 годы компания произвела более 3800 БПЛА «Radioplane OQ-2» и в 1952 году была поглощена корпорацией Northrop. Другой значительной угрозой Холодной войны для США стали советские стратегические подводные лодки. Для борьбы с ними был разработан первый вертолёт-БПЛА Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH, вооружённый торпедами Mark 44 или 325-фунтовыми глубинными бомбами Mark 17. Небольшие размеры аппарата позволяли оснащать им малые корабли, которые в противном случае остались бы без воздушной противолодочной обороны. В период с 1959 до снятия QH-50 с вооружения в 1969 году было построено более 800 единиц этого БПЛА[55]. Во время войны во Вьетнаме беспилотные самолёты-разведчики произвели 3435 вылетов, что привело к потере 554 аппаратов. При попытках перехвата беспилотников северовьетнамские ВВС потеряли 7 истребителей МиГ[63]. Командование ВВС США высоко оценило возможность направлять беспилотные аппараты на самые опасные миссии, не рискуя жизнями пилотов[64]. Беспилотные летательные аппараты на Ближнем Востоке были применены Израилем во время Войны на истощение (1967-1970), затем Войны Судного дня в 1973 году и позже во время боевых действий в долине Бекаа (1982). Они использовались для наблюдения и разведки, а также в качестве ложных целей. Израильский БПЛА IAI Scout и малоразмерные ДПЛА Mastiff провели разведку и наблюдение сирийских аэродромов, позиций ЗРК и передвижений войск. Поначалу израильские БПЛА несли большие потери как от арабских истребителей МиГ-21 и МиГ-23, так и от огня с земли.[65] Только за октябрь 1973 года Израиль от ПВО и истребителей потерял 31 БПЛА.[66] По информации, получаемой с помощью БПЛА, отвлекающая группа израильской авиации перед ударом главных сил вызвала включение радиолокационных станций сирийских ЗРК, по которым был нанесён удар с помощью самонаводящихся противорадиолокационных ракет, а те средства, которые не были уничтожены, были подавлены помехами. Успех израильской авиации был впечатляющим - Сирия потеряла 18 батарей ЗРК и 86 самолётов. Успешность применения БПЛА заинтересовала Пентагон и привела к совместной американо-израильской разработке системы RQ-2 Pioneer

​@@Rogbet1это ты тоже чушью назовёшь? 😏

It's not the NATO AA that is being effective, it's the Soviet ones.

Like it or not, it's being used to invade and kill men who are fighting for their freedom and families.

Also don't be a stooge for the NWO Military Industrial complex.

your so right.and spoons make people fat I like to say when people say guns kill.

@@billbailey1620what did found and explained ever do to you?

Z

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.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD combat losses is not a relevant metric in assessing how good a helicopter design is. There are too many variables that cloud its value. Pretty sure this is a channel about aircraft design, not a forum for shitting on all things Russian because it's currently fashionable.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I dont think you can compare sandals and camels vs what the Ukranian army + NATO has. Amazing they still won the war, but thats something else.

@@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.

​@@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.

Аахахахахахааа лол

Ukraine has been occupied by NATO since 2014! Therefore, there are NATO forces and Russian forces in the confrontation on the territory of Ukraine! Alas, the army of Ukraine has not existed since 2014, there is only an army subordinate to NATO on the territory of Ukraine

stop making up bullshit Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in eu and Russia is struggling.

Large doesn't not translate directly to being good. Ukraine also lacks proper modern anti air defense.

Bruhhh it couldn't even detect a lager which was being pointed at it for half a minute then got blown by an atgm

The US operates over 800 Apaches. According to ASN Aviation Safety Database there have been 12 reported accidents related to US army Apaches since the start of 2018. Not all of them were destroyed / damaged beyond repair but for the sake of the argument lets assume they were. 12 / 800 = 1,5 % of total US Apaches lost due to accidents. Russia had 119 KA-52 at the start of 2022. At least 3 of them have crashed due to accident in 2022-2023 and one in Syria in 2018. 4 / 119 = 3,3 % of total KA-52 lost due to accidents. Russia has lost at least 40 KA-52 since 2022.

@@esportsprodigybuhanil933 so the Apaches is more reliable cause its been built in a greater number ?

@@benediktioakim I'm not qualified to make accurate claims about which helicopter is more reliable and I would be willing to bet that 99% of commenters here aren't qualified either. KA-52 seems to be good at what it was designed for. That being said according to available data Apache has had less accidents in US service per units in operation than KA-52 in Russia service since 2018.

@@esportsprodigybuhanil933 are you a catbot or something ?

@@benediktioakim I'm a paid NATO shill.

you saw a video of a ka52 flying with a DAMAGED tail, VERY different. there are tons of avioncs in the tail, the weight balancing also gets very fucked and hard to control if you lose the tail, and the helicopter still needs the tail control surfaces for yawing at high speeds.

@@teaganfitzgerald9771 cope

​@@teaganfitzgerald9771nah that k52 had no tail at all

@@teaganfitzgerald9771 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rNR2i9eU0dWXias.html

@@marley9800 it was missing its vertical stabilizer. it was not cut in two.

2 KA 52s have been lost so far in 2 months after achiving K:D ratios of us to 70:1

yes its a good attack helicopter @@speen9430

@@speen9430 No.

@@speen9430 russia lost half its combat ready KA-52 helicopters. it doesnt do well against the amount of manpads ukraine has.

​@@jasperdelange4748Sauce?

советы, хех, не приписывай))00

​@@uhohwhy а что КБ Камова куда-то переехало из России после развала СССР? Или инженеры разбежались? Ка-50 начинали разрабатывать и делать в Союзе, Ка-52 это уже российская разработка, доработка и запуск в серию.

@@haroshea пyyтен пабада уииии, скудоум))00

@@uhohwhy ты уж хоть на своем свинячем пиши, если по-русски не можешь

@@uhohwhyты чего не на фронте еще?

В случае гибели пилота К-50 вертолет автоматически берет курс на базу.

(2001-2021) 20 year war in America lost 134 Aircraft, 38 to hostile fire, rest were accidents. (1979-1989) 10 year war, against the same people, Russia lost 333 Helicopters... Russia lost close to 80k Men, America just 2400. Also Apaches spearheaded operation Desert storm, where America beat another global superpower in 42 days...

but the Soviet Union did not participate in Desert Storm. What incredible crap people say in the comments. If the Soviet Union had participated, the United States and the Soviet Union itself would no longer exist because There would be a nuclear war.@@natedmoose5900

@@user-wr4ne3fp7r Eto otkuda takaya infa? Dla etogo nuzhno kak minimum stavit sistemu kontrola za sostoyaniem pilota, a pro eto na Ka-50 nikto nikogda na publiku ne govoril. Pro Su-57 takoe slishal.

@@user-wr4ne3fp7r На хуязу разве что.

Taliban in slippers...who won 😄😉

The taliban killed many Russian helicopters but no western ones.

Most weapons used by the Ukrainian are soviet, and the Ukrainian have way less equipement than the Russian army

@@Hotmaildotcomz taliban 😂

@@ni9274 No

Maybe they shouldn't have involved themselves in a war when they can't do SEAD then.

​@lsq7833 how the fuck do you sead manpads?

@@lsq7833 Oh yes, the Russians CAN do SEAD. And in a much more cost-effective manner too! Their weapon: Lancet loitering munition. The Russians make heavy use of Lancets to destroy the longer-ranged SHORADS (IRIS-T, Strela-10, etc.) and other armoured vehicles. Once those SHORADS are taken out, it’s doors open for the Ka-52. The IR-seeking MANPADS don’t have enough range to hit the Ka-52s at 10km from the front. And even if they can, the Ka-52s have pretty effective IR countermeasures in the form of flares and IR lasers. One Ka-52 reportedly dodged 16 Stinger missiles while 8-10km from the front. The REAL problem however are the beam-riding MANPADS, such as the Swedish RBS-70. Beam-riding missiles are immune to IR countermeasures, and the RBS-70 has a pretty long range. To top it all off, MANPADS are difficult to spot. It’s one thing to conduct SEAD against SAM systems and SHORADS. But against obscure MANPADS, that’s a different story.

​@@aarontheaviationaddict3643Doesn't seem to be enough though. Russia is losing harder day by day.

Here's the thing: attack helicopters are ground attack aircraft, and so, you only use them when you have air dominance Russia has been using them without air dominance. Iraq in 1991 had comparable if not more AA defenses than Ukraine and the US only lost 5 helicopters in Desert Storm

Exactly. One is built with the cowardly doctrine of fighting poor people for their resources. The other is supposed to fight real armies. The fact that he compares them just goes to show how far the cowardice goes. Whltes...

This is so wrong it hurts, the apache was built with armor destruction in mind. What is going to support armor? Infantry and air support. Trust me the apache was not designed for having air superiority. Please dont talk on things you dont know or understand.

(2001-2021) 20 year war in America lost 134 Aircraft, 38 to hostile fire, rest were accidents. (1979-1989) 10 year war, against the same people, Russia lost 333 Helicopters... Russia lost close to 80k Men, America just 2400. These numbers are online took me 5 minutes. Don't talk out your ass when your statistically wrong. Desert storm took 42 days against a global super power with apaches, talk out your ass more please.@@jp3630

The American doctrine is to fight people with NO air support or air defence capability. Once they opponent has that, the Americans won't fight them instead they resort to sanctions or debates about "human rights" or some other nonsense.@@natedmoose5900

Why it always has to be user-jsjwuebdusbwudb? Oh yes, bot farms don't care about credibility

@@AlojzyBomba but what he said is true though

I heard it was a drone

@nobody4248 I saw articles in Ukrainian newspapers and other mass media channels that it was a helicopter, for the drone they used a cup of coffee or sth like this and moreover interwieved those people lol bollocks

There was a rumor that a Ukrainian senior citizen used a you le barrel shotgun and shot down an Su34. I’m not joking they legit tried to pass that as truth.

Mi-28 does fly alot too, with only a single loss. Personally, i saw about a dozen videos of Mi-28 working.

From what I read years back, the Mi-28 supposedly have issues with their rotor gears, making them pretty unreliable. If that is true, it would explain why they are so sparingly used.

actually 8 losses@@vanjat2850

@@vanjat2850 Single loss? LOL come on man please don't drink the russian kool aid

@@vz6235 there is only a single visually confirmed loss of Mi-28, I'm not denying that there could be more, but visually only that, and I haven't seen ukrops claim any at all.

Not only aesthetically, I think its an amazing platform and one of the best systems. Even though I am against the use of it like he mentioned in the video, but nonetheless it's a superb helicopter.

That model is available for purchase on various 3d sites. Doubt they modelled it themselves.

They could've done better with the main armaments limited fire arch and the lack of back up protection systems and guidance jamming equipment but aesthetically it is decent.@@Kenny-yl9pc

I personally likes the Ka-50 more for it's single seater design

Same.

Gosh you must be dumb! According to Kremlin it is not even a war so your statement is disputed. Ka-52 are trash and you don’t see so much of them anymore because they got wasted in a SMO!

really did russia said at least that they having war with ukraine?

true

@@klaabu99 Yes several times, Peskov said it, he's Putin's spokesman... When you have 40+ countries supplying billions of dollars of weapons, and Russia has to fight all of that.. its a war 100%

pretty sure 1991 and 2003 was a real war

Most of the pilot deaths is bcus the missile hit the cockpit first, killing the pilot instantly

There aren't many aircraft that can take beating like this thing can and still keep the crew safe. It's the opposite of the typical Soviet design philosophy, but that's what makes it work so well.

My ass. Two were just shot down, one by an RBS-70 MANPADS. The aircraft were totalled. It's a propaganda machine, just like the T-14.

​@@TheNefastorSource?

@@ihatemyselfxd7252 Oryx, the independent guys who keep tab on all losses during this invasion. You can easily Google it.

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.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD just check out the footage

@@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.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD you're a clown lol

Ehm...

В войне во Вьетнаме участвовало около 11 846 вертолетов США. В отчетах США указано 5 607 потерь вертолетов. В общей сложности вооруженные силы Соединенных Штатов потеряли во Вьетнаме почти 10 000 самолетов, вертолетов и беспилотных летательных аппаратов (3744 самолета, 5607 вертолетов и 578 беспилотных летательных аппаратов

cope 😂😂

@@ce1834 Nah, just facts. Russians had been out of missiles since May 2022, Putin has long ago died of cancer and Urkaine has spectacularly succeeded with their counteroffensive, according to you lot :D

@@Max_Da_G "According to you lot". The fact there's still a war going on shows the ineptitude of Russian systems.

Attempting ? Two more were just totalled by MANPADS.

@@TheNefastor you need to attempt before you succeed big guy

@@xxmobstrxx8535 very cute. Fact is, Russian garbage tech is getting trashed by decades-old NATO weapons. 42 KA-52 so far.

@@TheNefastor lol you’re so naive but go on

​@TheNefastor, you are commenting in every comment. Are you a sales agent of West and US weapons? Tough job to be in. Russian weapon market is getting bigger and bigger. US weapons are only good against inferior country. Now that they're using their weapon against Russia. Truths prevailed.

Apaches are easy to maintain a high successful rate when you fight favelados with machine guns mounted on toyotas and old RPG-7

Of course, it should also be noted that the goat herders in Afghanistan successfully won a war against a fully Western military, including modern air force.

​@@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.

​@@magnusgreel275 No, they won against the ANA after the US left as part of the peace deal signed during the Trump administration.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD And why did they leave ? Because it was costing way too much in equipment and the US could not set up a government with a proper army either, they left *because* they lost but they didn't lose because they left

это не совсем так, проблема была в том, что идеи заложенные в КА-50 стало возможно реализовать толко в 2020х годах, такие вещи, как машинное зрение с опцией автозахвата, автоматического разпознования целей стало возможно только недавно, они же пытались это реализовать на технологиях 80х годов, надо ли говорить, что вышло это отвратительно, в итоге хороший вертолет получил отвратительный по качеству комплекс управления вооружением. Это как СССР в 30е годы пытался получить танки с телеуправлением

On ne ustupal. Fakticheski sovsem. Prosto Kamovtsi v osnovnom dla VMF mashini delali. Tam Milevtsam lovit nechego bilo. Eto dla zameni Mi-24 Kamovtsi reshili sdelat mashinu, i sdelali Ka-50. On okazalsa nastolko kruche Mi-28, chto ogogo, hotya Mi-28 bil sirovat na tot moment. A potom sdelali Ka-52. Tak chto tut vopros bil ne vo vliyatelnosti a raznoy spetsifike mashin.

because most of them KIA?

@@juryfilatov4520 ракета оникс уже могла всё это делать на советских микрухах она летела в район где предполагалось наличие корабля, и распознавала силуэт нужного судна ни рэб, ни что ей не мешало маневрировала как муха - хрен попадёшь по ней

@@user-rf1lz8hn6v эм. у ракеты ОНИКС не было задачи стрелять из 30мм пушки при автоматическом захвате и сопровождении цели, у ракенты Оникс не было задачи управлять поелтем ПТРК, у ракуеты ОНИКС не было задачи вести поиск наземных целей на фоне земли. Процессоры, спомосбнгые более менее распозновать обхъекты на земле по изображению появились вообще лет 10 назад, а задачи для них планировали в 80е

🇮🇶🤝🇷🇺

Прекрасно себя показал? Смешно.

Правильно говориш про Ка-50 / 52. Хороший вертолет. Но про технику запада, я не согласен. У них очен хорошая техника, и они ей пользоватся умеют. Ты не можеш стравнивать украинских танкистов с американскими, которые живут в этих танках годами. И украиниское правительство были долбоёбами, они думали Абрамсы это терминаторы, и посылали их на минные поля. Вся эта политика - деблиьство. На самом деле и у Запада и у России очень хорошая техника, зделана для своих задач. Но по технологии в техники - Россия не в переди. Они впереди в ракетах, как всегда и было с холодной войны.

@@xSintex ну тут на самом деле много можно рассуждать. У украинской армии сейчас боевой опыт больший чем у Штатов и у любой страны НАТО, которые последний раз участвовали в большой войне аж в начале 1990-х и то с сильно отстающим противником в плане техники, обучения и так далее. Поэтому тут такое. А танки это просто танки. Украинцы думали сперва что Джавелины это супер-оружие, затем что Бредли это супер-оружие, затем так же думали про Леопарды и так далее. На деле всё это прекрасно горело от дронов за 100к рублей. А по поводу отставания России в технологиях, это ещё с 1990-х говорят, да вот на деле оказалось совсем не так. Выпуск современных танков есть (у американцев, к примеру, нет новых Абрамсов, они только модернизируют старые), массовый выпуск барражирующих боеприпасов есть, высокоточные планирующие бомбы есть, массовое применение корректирующих боеприпасов есть, истребители выпускают, с ракетами и так понятно. Раньше все считали что эти все вещи только по телеку, а оказалось что нет. С дронами проблемы есть, да, но там проблемы именно в верхушке, а не в том что нет технологий, они как раз есть. Да и в целом большинство проблем именно в руководстве и организации того или иного. Какого-то прям отставания в технологиях что-то я не наблюдаю.

@@Wast1ngBlood экипажам украинской техники не смешно было, как и тебе не будет смешно, когда на фронт попадёшь, если ещё не попал.

Reports suggest that the Vitebsk system has only recently been installed to a majority of the aircraft that use them. That and the fact that they weren't expecting to be staunchly opposed when Russia first launched the operation in Ukraine explain the early losses. The loss rate seems to have slowed drastically.

@@theorncampbell4432reports from CNN😂

@@robert.m6755 That's a stupid fucking comment. CNN would never admit that Vitebsk-25 exists and works, that Russia didn't try to take Kiev by force or that Alligator losses have decreased, while usage has increased.

Where was the Apache facing numerous surface to air systems? The ka 52 faces incredible odds in this special operation. Some of the best air defense weapons that belong to a variety of NATO countries are always ready to bring it down but it has proven to be a formidable shovel.

@@emmanuelsello3419 1991 Iraq air defense was first opened up by Apaches. Low level night op to destroy radars.

It has ejection seats. With separation of blades mechanism. This is where it is different from an anecdote "Irish developed an ejection system for helicopters" While adepts of "razskiyes don'd kare about their men" idea have ingenuous AH-64 Apachè ejection system of new-and-improved type: pancake against sweet old mother Earth, while falling like a battlestar Galactica. I mean like a rock... well, both options can describe this safe method of landing Edit: "adapts" to "adepts"

It’s funny when people assume that certain military tech is “invincible.” Doesn’t matter if it’s U.S., Russian, French, Chinese or any other countries hardware, equipment WILL be damaged and or destroyed in battle. Some are definitely more survivable than others, however. I still think the AH-1Z Viper looks the best( just my opinion) but they’re all great attack choppers and can all cause immense damage.

​@@worldoftancraft Have we seen the ejection system working? Either way, pilots are like knights. More valuable than peasants.

@@ChucksSEADnDEADyes, yes they do work and they’ve saved pilot. I saw a of a Russian pilot ejecting from the ka 52 and getting picked up by a mi 8 helicopter later.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I've seen a surviving pilot after a crash of Mi-28 in 2015. Just a smack against Earth from high altitude. Yet, 50G-capable seats dampered the impact and one of the pilots managed to survive. Other one could be unconscious therefore couldn't extract. But absence of use of catapults on 52s is caused by a lack of situations where it would be desired more than a rotor autorotation landing. Because the only thing I can imagine why it would be a better option - is a complete loss of a rotor or loss of a blade that would cause shift of lift force axis, or failure of swash plate mechanism. Those are rarer than say an engine or avionics computer failure.

apaches went up against iraqi MANPADs and AAA, the MANPADs were fairly modern at the time

@@gibbo_303 ummm no. iraqis had nowhere near the number of manpads the ukrainians have, plus their aa was literally a DSHK mounted to the floor

​@@gibbo_303Most of there stuff was completely wiped out

Yes apaches totally didn’t fight the 4th largest army in the world in the 90s

@@DaSteeJ07 large army does not mean effective army.

wdym? jookraine lost youth to war+immigration, europe is full of patriots right now, country is fucked, its being artificially propped up with by monthly donations. Russia hasnt used much of it's resources and economy is adjusted for military production atm, what does jookraine produce rn?

@@ZaJaCltBeggars🤣

@@ZaJaClt prostitutes.

Haha! Then why more thatn 50 countries that send money and weapon to Ukraine, that press Russia with sunctions can't defeat our country? Every 2 days Russian militaries nake a new locality. Ad why Zelensky was agree to sign any agreement with Russia in Stumbul in 20222? Who made Zelensky go on with the war against Russia? England. Boris Jhonson made Zelenskiy abandon the Istanbul agreements. What benefits and victories did this bring to Ukraine?

The whole "uncontrollable spin" thing for helicopters is actually a half-myth... all a helicopter needs to do when its tail rotor goes out/is destroyed is to cut its power to the shaft and the helicopter will sort of "helicopter seed" glide down to the ground. So, its usually not like the movies where a blackhawk gets hit and uncontrollably spins around and around until it smashes into the ground catastrophically and blows up. This can happen, however, but its usually due to a multi-factor reason rather than just losing power/destruction of the tail rotor.

There is a reason one doesn't bring a helicopter into contested air space and when you do, you bring a long bow...The Long bow is the tip of a hive, it can take out targets from non contested air cover

@@user-xp5id1kh4r well the "helicopter seed glide" doesnt work too well when going 120 mph at low alt.

Like I said, its a "half" truth. There's obviously certain regimes where nothing you do matters. I'm mostly referring the statement the OP made concerning the "uncontrollable spin" phenomena. In your example... then the "uncontrollable spin" would be even LESS likely to occur due to balancing forces - however - you'd still die in this case, so nobody really cares, lol.@@user-ew8qu5yi5h

I don't remember seeing many (maybe a couple) uncontrollable spin videos from the syrian army helicopter shootdown videos... from what I remember, most of them were pretty much high falls where they were either dropping straight down or down at the same angle. I only really remember one spin out heli video. @@muffy469

It looks good somehow.

😅❤

have u seen the mi 28 coaxial in arma 3. that gives me anxiety no cap

​@@Marco-qe4yrtherapist without the 😮

@@nomorepetrenko kazman 😅

If you don’t think Russia has lost aircraft for months I’d encourage you to expand your search horizons. „The Russian Aerospace Forces, or VKS, possessed roughly 900 tactical aircraft before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. These included fighter, attack, and fighter-bomber aircraft. Since the invasion, it has lost between 84 and 130 of those to air defenses, fighter aircraft, and crashes. „ That’s about 11% of their fleet lost in combat. Can’t forget two „own goals“ in October this year when su-35‘s were hit by Russian anti aircraft fire

@@chrissmith7669 are you going to cite me oryx lmao. Or maybe videos of flares which are claimed to be falling aircraft debris. The Ukrainians are notorious for making claims that have no bearing on reality.

Ka-52, while facing air defence systems, is flying in a virtually uncontested air over a completely flat terrain with no cover which makes it nearly impossible to shoot one down with mobile and/or MANPADS systems. While the war itself is very real current situation heavily favor Russians since Ukrainians have no means of covering troops from air without getting into range of enemy aircraft or aa defence. A fox-3 slinging jet could change things quite a bit.

@@blackeagle-zc3qq - that also means there’s no cover for the ka52 either - any fighter jet Ukraine launches will be an immediate target for Russian AD. - there may be a brief benefit to Ukraine having f16s but as their numbers are whittled down that benefit will disappear.

@@AA-or4dt flying low makes you basically immune to long range air defences, short range ones (unless some spec ops somehow makes through behind lines to take pod-shots) cannot get in range to engage a Ka-52 or F-16 that is flying low. The difference F-16 would bring is the AMRAAM capacity. They can easily engage those safely from 15-20 km away and disengage. Best bet of Russians in that case would be their own Fox-3 capable aircrafts (mostly Mig-31 and modern Sukhois with longer range R-37) but those missiles probably will not make it to a fast and low F-16 since they are mostly meant for tankers and AWACS. It would be a challenge to fly helicopters constantly above frontlines in said scenario.

Apache is better. F-15, F-18, F-22, F-35 are all better than anything the Russians can recycle from the Soviet Union. They aren't being offered to the Ukraine either...

@@ElGrandoCaymano I'll agree mostly on the fighter jets but Ka-52s are battle tested. They are arguably much better than Apaches which haven't seen combat vs a conventional army nor a peer vs peer conflict.

@@manwithnoname8229Apache never met a heavily well equipped and high moral army before.

Pure skill coming from that pilot

ruSSkies propaganda. Piorun MANPADS - confirmed over 90% hit rate.

⁠​⁠@@yspear_his flying skill is even more impressive given that the average air time per year for Russian pilots before the war were several times lower compared to American pilots, I suppose more than a year of constantly flying sorties really improved his skills compared to peace time.

Finally some respect towards the Rus. Underestimating them is stupid.

You mean deploying flares and counter measures ?? A helicopter can’t deflect a rocket it has no armor

But it's a lie. This junk can't even hover still because of extreme vibration 😂.

@@JohnDir-xw3hf😂😂😂 ты клоун 🤡

@@JohnDir-xw3hf I can share you a ton of videos from Telegram how Aligator demolishes nato equipment.

@@drec2072 i have seen a ton of videos with burning Alligators. Even its cabin has bad armor because curved glass can't be armored. And is still can't hover still normaly. This video is paid propaganda. Russians pay billions for it over the world.

​@@JohnDir-xw3hfcope harder boi

Yea they use their ka52 during the summer offensive as flying mobile atgms

@@comradericefarmerhao2269 well, like any helicopter with an ATGM is essentially a flying mobile ATGM

Loss of ATRQ only spells doom at lower altitudes, really. While difficult, you can safely land and pull out of the death spiral with enough forward speed. Basically the forward speed of a helicopter, once fast enough, easily cancels out any rudder movement the pilot can input anyway, that's why helicopters turn more like planes when going at high speeds. You basically continuously lean the machine in the same direction as you spin until you gain speed, which cancels out the torque effect, keep going forward as you slowly descend, and then slow down as you slide your skids/wheels on the ground. You generally won't spin when there's enough downward force and your skids/wheels are on the ground.

Yes, Coax rotors is good, give perfect maneuverability ...until both rotors do not collide and torn each other off during sharp maneuver, including change of direction and altitude in the same time. It is happens with Ka-52, a common reason of crashes if pilot is not experienced and badly know limits of his helicopter. Ka-52 is harder to fly and less forgiving than Mi-28 or Apache. But in skilled hands Ka-52 is a marvel of a brute power, though Mi-28, its other soviet counterpart have better sensors and protected much better than Apache or Ka-52.

You are wrong. Coax rotors aren't that good. And most of the helicopters don't have them for a reason.

Biggest issue was they had old Mi-24 pilots, Thus when stressed they flew it like a tank. Its a durable heli but its not a Mi-24. Where you need a minimum of a stinger to possible shoot it down. (Note the word POSSIBLE wich dont mean impossible)

" admirably" interesting choice of words but still true , its been fully vindicated

@@cedriceric9730 my observation is purely amoral. It is now being used as helicopters should. Last year, everyone was proclaiming the death of the helicopter and the tank.

​@@generalrendar7290 and yet the two are still around.

@@generalrendar7290 Idiots always proclaim death of something if a counter was developed lol All that counter does is make people make a counter to the counter :D HEAT rounds gave birth to ERA, APFSDS caused ERA to be modified to also affect the kinetic penetrators, then drones were used to counter the tanks and Russians responded to that by QD vehicle-born jammers. Then Ukrainians work on changing frequencies. It's a never-ending game of measure-countermeasure.

It is because the Ka-52 doesn't have as much of a view as luxury helicopters. The pilot is sunk in so that only the head is barely above the edge of the opaque part of the cockpit. The field of view is terrible when doing close air support. This isn't a concern if using precision weapons from a long distance, but in Ukraine, they aren't using precision weapons on the most part resulting in the pilots having to fly close to enemy anti-air weapons and a terrible field of view to try to spot them.

Personal opinion, I prefer the longbow and the Cobra myself

I don't get why would you buy a $16million heavy steel that requires $100k of maintenance for each month if you could get a $5million luxury heli for thrice the comfort and a fraction of maintenance cost..... omg i just realized smth, as if both of those things were designed with a very different principles in-mind

@@alahsiaboi8909 You clearly don't understand it lol. Why do you think some people set their own Ferrari on fire? Or get huge luxury yachts commissioned that cost more than US Navy ships? Because they can, because it shows how much money they can just spend like that. So buying a literal attack helicopter would be a big flex, especially when all your billionaire friends own the same luxury helicopter models. That's also why some people buy tanks, instead of sports cars.

@@bryancenterfitt7127 If we'd go purely by aesthetics it's the EC665 Tiger, without a doubt for me.

theres a full 50 min compilation of it hitting ukrainian forces JUST IN THE LAST 2 MONTHS, and per min theres at least 6 clips

*Vitebsk (Витебск)

when you actually know how to look at the impact zone, most impacts were misses and the smoke was just a dust kicked up to the air. KA-52's aiming camera is known for a terrible tracking and being unstable. If someone is unexperienced then yeah it looks impressive

​@@gansior4744Some of those suit this yes, but you can't deny the fact that the Ka-52 has been destroying armored vehicles left and right since the beginning of the war.

@@meandthebois7565 Yeah, I remember those John Deere harvesters. 35% loss on the ka-52 fleet says hi

Glory to Ukraine 🇺🇦 Death to the enemy! 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 Бандера герой. Bandera is a hero ❤️❤️❤️

You're an American? That was a word salad.

@@BaldGuyYoYoshut up frick

wasnt that guy a nazi sympathiser and if you think about it yourm aking the russian argument of ukraine is nazis valid@@BaldGuyYoYo

@@BaldGuyYoYo bandera was a nazi collaborator, if you call him a hero, you are nazi too

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y6-doK1jmpmRiWg.html

did you actually just mansplained a video?

@@zoranhome nah he just splained a video

The SB1 already lost to the V-280 Valor. They sued and lost. So the replacement for the Blackhawk is a tilt rotor. As far as I'm aware, they are still looking for the Apache replacement.

We're never going to know the actual losses in Ukraine. So I just ignore them.

The Valors dual rotor is a completely different design approach than the twin rotor on the Ka52...

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y6-doK1jmpmRiWg.html

Can you explain ? What kind of advantages does stealth choppers has in Contensted airspace ?

23 helicopters were downed or disabled in desert storm, with over 400 apaches being deployed, i think thats still a success

@@natedmoose5900 That's not how you measure success of any weapon but you measure it with the number of sorties, effectiveness, survivability and what it faced. You can't just say: "There were 400 and 23 destroyed: success!" That's total nonsense and that's not how things work. You can't compare something that was sent into combat 50 times and something that was sent into combat 2 times and both of those things were damaged or destroyed. But, the bottom line is that because Russians are facing way stronger enemy than the US and NATO army faced on Middle East, Russians will learn shit ton of things and improve weapons, come up with new weapons, come up with new strategies, because a strong enemy can teach you and can point at flaws, but the weak enemy teaches you nothing.

​@@roljavi america went halfway across the world to stomp massed soviet equipment in one of the largest armies in the world thirty years ago. russia in 2023 is fighting a world war 2 artillery battle against an enemy on their own border who's using only soviet hardware they should know everything about and a trickle of cold war nato surplus. if they wanted to start adapting and coming up with new weapons, the time to come up with better ideas than hiding behind minefields was over a year ago and the time to have an economy that can support pushing weapons programs beyond a handful of prototypes and a news headline was over a decade ago

To be fair, Huey was not even armored. Cobra was armored somewhat. Then Apache was made with better armor, although it's still not as heavily armored as Ka-52 and Mi-28 latter of which can take 20mm into the armor and 14.5 into the glass.

The US lost over 5000 helicopters in Vietnam, so way more than the loss of both sides combined in Ukraine. The survivability of these early helicopters were so low that flying them into combat was basically a deathwish.

Ground speed does not matter at all.

​It has nothing to do with ground speed my friend. It is all about relative wind. If the helicopter is flying at an airspeed of 120kts, that airspeed is added to the speed of the advancing blade and contributes to the overall lift produced by the blade. The airspeed of the retreating blade is reduced by a similar amount and the lift produced by the retreating blade is reduced. This difference in lift between the two sides of the rotor disk will cause a rolling moment at high enough air speeds which is a significant factor when establishing the operational envelope of a single rotor helicopter. This is actually referred to as asymmetric lift. Retreating blade stall is a different phenomena and can occur at lower airspeed as well depending on conditions.

Apache flew into Iraq in 1991. SAs from single to double digit, French Rolands and MIM-23 Hawks.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Much easier to fight in the desert, than woodland.

@@topkitena Uh flat desert is absolutely the worst terrain to fly helicopters in as you don't have terrain masking.

False, it fight against old soviet weapons, Ukraine doesn't have many modern AA and modern manpads

@@ChucksSEADnDEADno MANPADS though and none of that was integrated

Verdade, na epoca dos fogos florestais vi um ha uns tempos a passar aqui no norte, grande máquina

Continually sidelined from reliability issues, constantly triggering the magnetic sensors in the oil system.

It was originally meant to also be used for recon. But there is no stealth in it. It's loud as hell thanks to two main rotors. Still a deadly chopper. If you hear it, then something went wrong.

Igor Sikorsky is Ukrainian.

Не будьте так наивны! У власти РФ действительно ещё есть разнообразные и очень крутые аппараты они являются полностью советскими разработками!

@@user-tv6ji3gi2k I do not know what that means. Sorry.

​@@Chris-ok4zoHe said the Russians have many cool soviet vehicles...

@@thespacemanfil4921 I hope. I might copy/paste that onto Translate just to double check later.

The problem with russian millitary equipment is that they do have the design capability and are often pretty innovative and able to design in a way that should be able to do a lot with relativly little. But in the end the what is produced always falls short of what it was supposed to be and ends up pretty mediocre or as a handful showroom models. Russian stuff does often look sexy though. Much better then western stuff usually.

Against Iraq which had the best air defenses of the region at the time including some of the latest Russian AA the Apache did good enough.

@@cesaravegah3787 No comparison .You had air superiority and the Iraqis had old soviet equipment , Mig 21 first designed in 1959. The US will start WW3 which has been their plan all along but will be annihilated by the Freedom loving Russians.

​@@cesaravegah3787Iraq never had the best weapons, it is still very much behind interms of weapons upto now

@@cesaravegah3787Iraq had no MANPADS and only a few old mobile batteries that weren’t integrated, like the Kub. In fact, the only Apache loss in Kuwait was from an RPG-7. So that means, no Iraq did not have good air defense, and Apaches might be vulnerable to unguided rockets lol

@@mabvutophiri5422 In 1991, Iraq had the most advanced air defense network outside of the USSR and America. Apaches led the charge against that air defense network and lost a single unit.

iraq + syria had sams and AAA before the bombing campaign. apaches actually went up against real, at the time modern threats before airfields got bombed out. but you're right, later in those wars there wasn't much modern stuff going up against the apache

beautiful and useless :)))

@@benzobak are you describing yourself?

@@Ayhunt7 Well, if you saw a talking Su-30, then yes, this is what it could say about itsel 🤭

it's not about what they faced but about how they are used ...

there are reports that it deflected like 18 manpads in 1 go but idk about the reliability of the reports

@@ligmasurvivor5600 there’s a video of it on redit

Yes, lack of experience in real war.

30% of the fleet shotdown

and the russians underestimated the ukranians

He already made a Su-47 video.

Серийно СУ 37 и СУ 47 не выпускают.СУ 37 прототип,на котором обкатывались многие инженерные решения.Существует в одном экземпляре.СУ 47 "Беркут" существует в одном экземпляре.Основное назначение самолёт лаборатория.Создавался для проверки различных конструктивных особенностей и поиска проблемных решений в области аэродинамики.

Well they unlocked the atgms now

@@kanestalin7246 and the EW systems

Adversity drives innovation. Nothing wrong with unguided rockets when used correctly but man, the guided ones must have given the UA a world of hurt.

if u want to calculate in prices then 3 leoprad tanks in ukraine cost 1 ka-52... these are facts too

it's like Russian version of turkey shoots

And the Apache was also used against Iraq, which I would argue had a quite comparable air defence system, if not better, ( relative to its age ) than Ukraine does today. And Well- while yes, helicopters are expected to suffer high losses- these are still much higher losses than expected ( percentage wise ) for a so far quite short war.

@@jurajsintaj6644 better than Ukraine????? 😂 No it's not. Russia if you remember was dominating in starting. But after NATO gave AD and manpads to Ukraine then the Russian jets and heli started to fall. It's russia vs the rest of the west. Also Ukraine gets Intel from NATO so that's helping too. Iraq had nothing major

​@@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.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD USA was always behind. Proxy war is what they do. Always have. They earn money through weapons so it's obvious they will do this.

Ukraine generally has air defence systems from the 90s and before that, this includes western systems. Iraq had a substantial amount of soviet air defence systems, most developed in 1960s or earlier. Then again, the united states was way more effective at SEAD and DEAD than the Russian airforce is, and the Apaches might have also been used much less than the KA-52s in Ukraine