One can’t blame these pilots. I find it astonishing and rather appalling that these issues with the F-22 haven’t been fully addressed yet. Carry on like this and the F-22 could adopt the same nic-name the Luftwaffe gave their F-104s.

That’s a bit unfair on the F-22, how many people have died flying the Raptor, compared to say, the Rafale?
Bit unfair to the Starfighter as well.

Especially since each modern military transport is be powered by a fighter engine !

The Il-76 and MiG-31 are essentially powered by the same engine…

Not really debatable – the 2A42 has both a higher muzzle velocity (100 to 200m/s more, which is quite a lot) and higher projectile weights (~50% heavier – GAU-8 territory!), also sub-calibre APDS rounds are available. It WILL hit significantly harder than the M230 – count on it!

I don’t doubt that the 2A42 is the more powerful gun, what I am asking is, what sort of damage can the gun do to an M-1 Abrams or a Leopard 2? Just as critically, at what range? And why is the anti-tank capability of of these guns so important – what’s wrong with the 16 or so Hellfire and Ataka missiles these helicopters carry?

if so why the gun turreted again now on the newer hind :confused:

Touche…

There are hundreds of gun camera videos on youtube, etc, demonstrating the power and accuracy of the 30 mm gun on the Apache. The majority of the gunships produced in Russia in recent years have a turret mounted gun – it’s just a more flexible solution.

The T10 wasn’t a Su-27…..

The 1977 T10 was supposed to have been the definitive Su-27 design, I am pretty sure about that. I don’t think it was some sort of technology/concept demonstrator like the LM X-35A of year 2000. the T10 was more comparable to the first F-35A prototype of 2006. The T10 was extensively tested in 1977 and 1978 using the F-15 as sort sort of benchmark, and it was eventually decided it lacked somewhat against the American aircraft – it failed, it was scrapped. Like you say, a fundamentally redesigned successor, the T10S first flew in 1981. This was the aircraft that would become the Su-27. It’s as if the the F-35A design was scrapped in 2009 and an extensive redesign was ordered.

That would be like saying the time between the first flight of the Northrop YF-17 (1974) and the definitive F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (1995) was 21 years

That’s a invalid analogy. The YF-17 was Northrop’s entry to the USAF light fighter competition eventually won by the YF-16. It was not originally designed as a carrier-borne fighter, but it was later adopted by MD and the USN as such. But this change of role for the YF-17 entailed an extensive redesign for carrier operations – but that’s a separate development programme timeline.

Even if the Chinese wanted to order the Su-35 and the Russians were willing to deliver, when would Sukhoi be able to deliver? Recently the Su-35 completed 500 flight hours in its development programme, after 4 years since its first flight. How many more hours are needed, 2,000, 3,000? I would say the Chinese wouldn’t get their Su-35s till 2017?

Well, according to this list, one Mi-24 was lost to small arms fire, compared to none for the Apache:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan

But these statistics are basically meaningless. An AH-64 is designed to survive small arms fire, including 14.5 mmm and RPG-7, by not flying within range of such weapons. Why do you think the Apache carries a 30 mm gun, and all that expensive electronics, laser rangefinders, night-vision, etc?

More Chinooks have been shot down than Apaches – wonder why?

Low balistic protection …as apposed to what ? A tank ? :rolleyes:

Anything that can fly and still take a punishment from a .57 Cal to a surprise of both the pilots and the beardies and get back home without crashing and to boot without a scratch to the pilot. I would think is very well protected.

.57 cal? You mean 14.5 mm? Lots of helicopters have survived it, including Hueys in the SE Asia war and Apaches in Afghanistan, or even Mi-8s as well.