So what is it to be Flogger? You seem very confused.

“You know perfectly NATO lost a F-16 and Mirage 2000 in the Balkans and they simply claimed that those losses were to SA-7s”

“Second not all the sources agree all the time, the F-16 effectively many claimed it was shot down by a SA-6 others said it was and Strela 2M.”

Are you still claiming that the F-16 was shot down by an SA-7?

For your info the Straight Flush signal for O’Grady’s F-16 was detected.

TEEJ

I do not think i am confused, i just mentioned what the two Russian articles say, they say the Igla and Strela have shot down several aircraft. they mentioned the F-16 probably was shot down by a Strela.

See that many helicopters have been shot down by RPGs and MANPADs such as the Strela and its derivatives, does not matter what type of helicopter you can see that AH-64 or Mi-24s have been shot down, the question is undoutedly the SA-7, Igla are good weapons and these missiles are arming the Mi-24 and Mi-28s.
Here are two helicopter shot down a Kiowa and an Apache

Another Hind shot down in Afghanistan

source
http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr24-25/aviafoto.htm

They are not as different as you think in fact see these two pictures and tell me which one is the SA-7 and which one is the SA-16

A Chinook another victim of a Strela, shot down in Irak
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/news/Iraq/Iraq_Operations_8.html
Some Mi-24 in Chechnya


sourcehttp://www.aeronautics.ru/chechnya/losses/losses.htm

Flogger wrote:

“the Serbs also used the SA-7 with some success and if you read what brought down some of the know NATO aircraft you will find also the SA-7 shot them down”

“Some of the known NATO aircraft” Still spinning the lie I see Flogger? All those undisclosed NATO aircraft and still you can’t provide how they are being covered up?

why you do not read where the SA-7 has been used with success, if you read the entire post you will see the SA-7 has been used with success since it was first deployed, you can see in some articles that some AH-1 Cobras, Chinooks and some AH-64 have been shot down by SA-7s, some of these articles are written by American news papers, the Russians have also suffered their share of losses to SA-7s and some Mi-24s have been also lost to SA-7s, now nobody forces you to believe or not the Russian accounts, but simply see what they claim, the Serbs also claim to have shot down some aircraft using SA-7s among them F-16 and Mirage 2000.

The Russian article mentions that.

here is the article:

Системы «Стрела» применялись даже колумбийскими наркокортелями, и были довольно эффективны против транспортных американских «ирокезов» с десантом на борту. Во время «Бури в пустыне» жертвами ракет «Стрела-2М» стали четыре вертикалки типа «Харриер», а так же штурмовик А-10 «Тандерболт» и одна «Супер кобра». Много самолётов НАТО было сбито сербами ракетами «Стрела-2М» и «Игла», в том числе – англо-французский «Ягуар» и истребители Ф-16 и «Мираж-2000».

In this they claimed the SA-7 has shot down from AH-1 Cobra, A-10s and Harriers in the gulf war I to Mirage 2000 and F-16s by the Serbs.
You know perfectly NATO lost a F-16 and Mirage 2000 in the Balkans and they simply claimed that those losses were to SA-7s
Source
http://infantry.kylt.ru/tehnol/ptrk.htm

here is another link

In each case this month, a different model helicopter was downed. The helicopters were identified as the UH-60 Black Hawk, OH-58D Kiowa and the AH-64 Apache.

One possibility being examined was that all three helicopters were downed by Iraqi insurgents. Officials said the insurgents might have developed a new means of attack.

In 2003, Sunni insurgents began to employ rocket-propelled grenades to down U.S. helicopters in Iraq. The success of this insurgency tactic led to a U.S. military order for helicopters to reach an altitude that was beyond the range of RPGs.

Since then, insurgents have also used Soviet-origin SA-7 surface-to-air missiles against U.S. and British fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. At least two military air transports were reported to have been struck.

“Certainly, in recent weeks three helicopters have gone down,” Di Rita said. “Nothing has been ruled in or out in any of those three cases yet.”

Source http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453755.0493055554.html

The SA-7 (search) shoulder-fired missiles could pose a significant threat to the helicopters used by the U.S. military in and around Tikrit.

U.S. troops have been carrying out near-daily raids following a coordinated attack by Iraqi resistance fighters on Sept. 19 that killed three American soldiers. The raids have resulted in dozens of arrests and follow-up raids

Source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98488,00.html

AH-64 shot down

http://www.armyaircrews.com/apache.html
This is a Mi-24 shot down over Chechnya

source http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news058.htm
Another Mi-24 shot down over Afghanistan in 1983

Source http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/1983.htm

Some pictures of Mi-24 over chechnya

You know what I really hate about you? First it’s your blatantly childish ‘hehehehehe yeah yeah’ at the end of every sentence, tell me are you on crack or is it some kind of mental disease?

Second, I really mind your constant lying and twisting my words. We were talking about SPARES, man do you hear me? SPARES!!!!!! Japanese cars are relatively cheap and very reliable but their spares are expensive like hell. Buy one and see for yourself.

Vikhr was never an option with Mi-28, only introduced with latest Mi-28N.

So? Even civil Ecureuil can do tricks like this. I absolutely fail to see the meaning of RAH-66 in the debate about Ka-50 and Mi-28.

As already said, spares for Japanese cars are everything but cheap. It is similar like with inkjet printers – the device costs nothing but consumables cost a lot.

Do you understand the word geopolitics? if you live in certain countries japanese car are more expensive than in others i can tell you that in Latin American japanese cars are quit cheap and reliable same in Asia.
By the way i lived in Japan and i can tell you that in japan, the japanese cars are cheaper than any european or american cars there, that is geopolitics

By the way Flex you know perfectly the Vick and ataka are dual role missiles and in that sense the Mi-28 is better than the Ka-50 it can use both.

See that the Mi-28 is in that sense a Helicopter between the Ka-50 and the Mi-24 class and i feel that its proven configuration as the Mil experts said was the reason why it won the contest, it is logic more conventional configurations are many times synonim of reliability and in example is the F-22 and YF-23 or the X-32 and X-35.

Cool down we are just exchanging ideas not fighting to win a price, it is only a conversation between two adults and if i use the yeah yeah it equals to me this icon :rolleyes: next time i will use it so you do not loose your temper 😉

How do you know? In fact, despite of boxy design the Helix is a nimble b!tch. Look, it is generally known that Mi-17 has better performance than Mi-24 in terms of agility and speed due to lack of armor. At the same time Helix is said to be one league better than Mi-17 due to two rotors contibuting to lift. Why should Helix be less agile than heavily armored Ka-50 stays beyond my comprehension. This ‘logic’ as you love to call it is just something you have sucked out from your finger, which does not surprise me at all.

You gotta be out of your mind. As a dedicated combat scout helo the RAH-66 was absolutely different weight class than Ka-50. What sort of weird comparison is that?

Bullsh!t. From the mechanical point of view the only really complex and expensive thing on Ka-50 was the main gearbox plus high-grade alloy rotor shaft. At the same time the whole rear rotor mechanism was dumped which means considerable savings. Engines and lubrication system are identical for both helos, Hokum needs 6 main blades instead of 5 but has no tail rotor, so where the heck the is your big difference? Ka-50 was much more expensive than Mi-28A due to electronics, that had absolutely nothing to do with mechanical parts. Finally, Navy used Kamov systems for decades and those have been produced en masse, so exactly what expensive parts are you talking about?

They don’t perform violent maneouvring.. With Havoc you wouldn’t want to manouver wildly since it cannot do such tricks, anyway.

I don’t see any real differences here between both types.

Yes, I ignore them, because they are as biased as it gets.

What!? Same weaponry? Go back and do your homework, kid. Start with Ataka and Vikhr.

LOL, Toyota having cheap and available parts? You gotta be sh!ttin me. Kid, japanese cars have the most expensive spares you can imagine, even worse than German ones. My father has been driving Hondas for the last two decades, I know something about it. The fact is that Japs don’t need spares very often, they are perfectly reliable but once you need some, prepare for Big Bang.

So now flex you are saying the japanese cars are expensive yeah yeah man do a little research you both the Vikr and Igla can be used by the Ka-50 and Mil-28, same are the S-8 and S-13 unguided rockets, only the ataka is not in the Ka-50 arsenal, however both the Vikr and Ataka are basicly the same type of weapon.

The RAH-66 and the Ka-50 are agile in the same way watch the video and later you complaign.

by the way when you ask your self about spare parts you forget political and geographical factors, the japanese have cheap parts because they do a lot of their production in China and Asia in general and ask the americans if they do not like the cheap and reliable japanese cars

The old articles about the competition between the Hokum and the Havoc were asking: How better the Ka-50 must really have been if it was able to beat the latest child of the Mil company that enjoyed the best possible connections to Russian AF officials given decades of traditional contacts and cooperation? As far as I remember, the Hokum has beaten the 28 by a quite large margin. And since the Ka-27 and Ka-29 are rumored to be practically trouble-free in operations and are exceptionally loved byboth crews and technicians, I can’t swallow it the Ka-50 suddenly becoming a maintenance b!tch out of nowhere.

Why you do not use the logic, the Ka-29 are not agile helicopters in the terms the Ka-50 is, in fact there is only another helicopter that is as agile as the Ka-50 and that is the RAH-66 Comanche that helo is dead, expensive to build means obviously expensive spare parts too, the Ka-50 experience problems when performing violent maneouvring this can cause accidents so what helicopter you will prefer the cheap one and the easier to mantain or the expensive to build and complex to build?, you ignore Mil statements under the premise of politics but there are some realities about the Mi-28 you do not want to understand, at no moment Mil says the Mi-28 is more agile, only they say their helicopter is more reliable and since both helicopters used the same weaponry there is no real advantage buying the Ka-50.

If you have a car you buy a car that has cheap and available parts, if you do not see that logic you can not see why Toyota is one of the most powerful companies in the world.See the comanche could do what the Ka-50 does

see it in video