Well, I am not one of the ones who thinks these are a setup or anything, but any political and military related news are, IMHO, highly unreliable at this point. For example,

-News claim, there are some 200 tanks in Armor School, and those were claimed to be stopped blah blah blah blah, and now there are 8-10 trucks in front of the gates to “prevent” tanks from leaving the base. Those are all BS, had tanks even attempted to leave that base, 9-ton trucks wouldn’t have been exactly useful for stopping them. Not that tanks would even need roads; they could just run over the fences to the east and be done with it… What we saw in reality is 3 maybe 4 M-60T tanks in Ankara, and no other tanks. Those units are NOT from Armored school because there is none of that type. To my knowledge, belong to 95th Armored brigade of 1st Army (Turkish North West), and probably were in Ankara just there for parades or doctrine training with 28th Mechanized Infantry Brigade.. Those tanks were, from what I’ve gathered, merely taken by colonel-ranked soldiers, simply ordering conscripts on guard to open the gates and drive out of the base. Thats about it and would make perfect sense, from military perspective, they don’t belong to anyone in Ankara and would be easy takes.

-Similar stupid claims of fire trucks blocked runways in Malatya to prevent pro-coup aircraft from taking off. So those coup guys had crew & equipment to prepare sufficent number of cargo aircraft to transport 5000 commandos, and arm a full squadron of F-4Es, (both claimed by news agency not me) but they couldnt arrange a aircraft tug, tractor or tow truck etc to move fire trucks from the runway? 20 of those mentioned commandos could have even pushed those trucks off the airfield with their bare hands. But no, our heroic firefighters stopped the whole invasion.. BS and BS.

-Claim: TR-300 rockets leaving 58th Artillery Brigade stopped by loyalists in Polatlı before they reach Ankara, they were leaving either to bomb Ankara City Center says half of the news (other half gave different targets in Ankara). Ok, they were stopped by police right after they leave their bases, but those rockets have 100 km range and their base is 73 km from city center. They also have a minimum range of 36 km, so they cannot hit Ankara city center FROM Ankara city center. Why leave the perfect launch position in favour of a position you cannot even shoot? Something does not make sense to me.

-Claim: An S-70i belonging to coup soldiers were shot down in Ankara by an F-16 near the parliament. Fact is, I was in Ankara on a balcony with pretty good vision of the events; entire Ankara was buzzed by pro-coup F-16s for up until the morning; their nav lights were on, so they were pretty easy to follow… There were initially 4, then I’ve counted up to 11 in the same scene sometimes (also during the claimed shoot down incident) then reduced to 2 than went up to 4 up until morning, they were doing flybys some times as low as ~40 meters above ground level, (atakule tower is 125 m, I could easily judge their altitude accordingly to that, as some even flied below the height of the tower), and sometimes lower than my friend’s balcony as they dived into the valley. Good thing is, they made a quite an airshow, and it was quite easy to see their ordnance; All the aircraft I’ve seen buzzing the city were armed with either 2 missiles only on the wingtip stations, or few with 2 AIM-120s + 2 additional AIM-9s in outboard wing stations. and 2x wing EFTs. No bombs, no Lantirn; those were all flying with air to air payloads. Then there were 6 F-16 reported to be taken from Diyarbakır MJB that did the bombings. (I’ve never seen them probably their nav lights were off and flying high to drop LGBs) My point is, there is simply NO way a loyalist F-16 to came right into the middle of those 10+ aircraft, shoot down a helicopter without me seeing/hearing it (I was exactly 2,67km away from parliament, at ~173m higher elevation) and get out without getting shot down.

Since this is an aviation forum, I should post some pictures about those low flybys;

EDIT; and a video: starting from 2:32, first part is irrelevant to aviation.

Our president also said “they bombed the hotel he himself residing” which was also clearly untrue. Those were all counter-propoganda BS spitted during the coup (along with missiles fired from ground againist F-16s, reports of dogfights between F-16s, pro-government F-16 shooting down a S-70, pro-government tanks firing on pro-coup tanks, reports of missing F-16s, helicopters, a frigate blah blah blah blah blah) and it is difficult for them to tell none of those happened. So those kinda stuck despite no one -even pro-AKP guys- believe them.

That picture is the evidence yeah, there is no helicopter there. I am not saying I am 100% certain no helicopter was lost, but there is a far greater probability this was as misinformation as the other -at least- two dozen claims made that night.

Size means bearly anything in such scenarios. The size is relative small compared with the projectile cadency and groupings of any Anti-Aircraft cannon let alone dedicated SHORAD/SPAAG. There will be no mission kill if the projectile can not penetrate the armor of the vital part or it penetrates where it want cause much damage to cass a mission kill. Like the armor layout on hinds with small armor plates that indeed only cover the 2/3 of the engine while the last 3rd is uncovered since it is more or less nothing else but the exhaust pipe aswell with last pair of fans which was hit in Afghanistan with total penetration by14.5mm without damaging anything of the engine nor gear box itself.

The disc area has absolutley no meaning against a 14.5mm round. The chances to hit a rotor blade are rather slim, even when it is a hit the rotor blades are modern type rotor blades that do not split like bambus pattern like old rotors did which would cause immidiate stall or imbalance of lift and with it vibration beyond the point of pilots continence. If you come within weapons range of a 14.5mm Anti Aircraft cannon than your last concern are hits to composite rotors but your concerns shoot be that you would prefer not to sit in a Tiger or any other western AH which all lack bulletproof glass. Not that most BP glass can withstand 14.5mm but tests have shown they actually can at least 45mm BP glass shows good single shot resilience.

I think you misunderstood me and you are assuming small helicopters like Tiger or A-129 etc are not armored in anyway. They are very well armored and cockpit glasses are bulletproof againist small arms fire. Vitals of A-129 is protected againist 12,7mm rounds, T-129 is also required to have 12,7mm protection in cockpit glass as well.

So the primary advantage of Mi-28 is its protected againist 14,5 mm rounds plus 20mm HE-FRAG shells, instead of “just” 12,7mm in cockpit area (other vitals like engines are still protected againist 12,7mm IIRC). Hence my comment that Mi-28 brings a greater cockpit armor againist 14,5 mm rounds but the drawback is, non-armored (should have written insufficently armored) parts of the airframe are also more likely to get hit than a smaller helicopter.

From military POV, a position/vehicle which mounts an 14,5 mm or any AAA vehicle which fires an 20/23mm shells could be and should be dealt from a distance by ATGMs. Light helicopters like Tiger or A-129 could do that with ease, and they are very well armored againist weapons which are not as easy to locate (man portable machineguns, infantry rifles etc) with added bonus of requiring half fuel costs to operate, less heat output againist MANPADs. Small helicopters can technically be much quieter too.

Size comparison between A-129 and Mi-28, to accurate scale;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247249[/ATTACH]
A copyright notice: I did this quite some time ago without the intention of putting into web, so I don’t remember where I took the blueprints from. if authors see this pm me and I will add the owners into the image.

@tactical-benny, an accurate calculation, but the problem with claimed Pk (IMHO that is what Amiga500 tried to say, but failed badly in the process), is very much independent from the actual firing scenario.

You fire a AIM-120B at 100km againist an incoming target with ~300 m/s closure rate at ~16 km altitude. What is your Pk? It is what manufacturer claims IF target does nothing. It is ZERO if target does so much as putting a 30 degree angle, without even reducing its speed.

Lets put stealth out of discussion for the sake of argument, if 4xF-35s and 4xSu-27s can exchange their R-27REs and AIM-120Bs at 100+ km range, none will hit. Exchange them at 60-70 km range, they will still fall short if target simply turns 60 degree and still maintaning target lock to its target. Note that those are not hard evasion maneuvers, just gentle turns without even requiring countermeasures.

If target Su-27s drop down to <5km altitude, and when you launch AIM-120s from so little as 10-15 km range, there will still be conditions Pk will be zero, which will be achievable by putting 180 degree to the missile. One can’t even talk about a certain reliable Pk if you fire AIM-120 at less than 7 km range, as this time it will be effective againist tail-on targets, but a high speed approaching target will be immune to it.

Problem with F-35’s 4 AAM limit is, (again without stealth), would you fire your missile at 100 km or even at 60 km? If you do, you will be forcing your opponent to act accordingly (and waste some of its energy on it) but surely be wasting your missile, but if you dont, enemy aircraft will approach you unhindered, gaining both KE & PE, maneuvering to a more advantageous position to fire at you. Again in the above scenario, Su-27 can fire its first R-27RE missile at 100km, second at 60, then 30, then 20, throw a pair of R-27TEs somewhere along the line, and will still have 4 R-73s to merge and finish off if all those R-27RE/TEs fail to hit.

With stealth in question, obviously all such scenario would play differently, but since F-35’s potential adversaries would be equally stealthy, missile count in internal bays will eventually turn out to be a problem.

How can one miss is sufficent to draw the conclusion that probability of kill doesn’t matter or manufacturers are lying about them? A 99% Pk would still mean at least some missiles will miss their targets. As for shooting drones, if my memory serves right, even a MiG-25 shot down a drone in the past. So the low/slow flying ability is not exactly a necessity IMHO.

Ok, compare the size of the two, composition (density). Then consider that the Oniks is not going to be a 3 ton missile at the target nor is it’s speed 3062 km/h at sea level (closer to 2400 km/h, mach 2 at sea level). Velocity is not everything, hardened cap of small diameter vs seeker head on missile. Which one would you say is designed to penetrate? The AP shell was designed for a specific purpose, to penetrate armor plate, the same is not true of modern AShM, they don’t have to.

Valid points but I don’t think you are fully aware of the magnitude of kinetic energy an AShM have. Lets compare from another point of view;

https://youtu.be/BvigKyp_hcs?t=1m17s

Second Anti-ship missile (probably of P-500 type) hits the ship from the bow, penetrates hull and every bulkhead and walls ship has and exits from the stern. Ship is probably (judging from the size comparison with P-500) slightly over 80 meters long. If we look at the path missile follows within the ship there is way greater mass of steel than a 40-50 cm armor would have. Worse, its arranged like a “spaced armor”, so it has much greater effectiveness than a single bulk of metal.

Can an 16/18 inch AP shell penetrate an unarmored 80 meter long ship in similar fashion the missile in the video?

The F-22 is not even in the same weight class as the Su-27

Well that is true, altough not in the meaning you implied; F-22 is full 3,4 ton heavier 26% larger wing surface when compared to Su-27. It is WAY larger aircraft. Comparing F-22 with Su-27 is like comparing 13,3 ton F-15C or 14,3 ton F-15E with 10,9 ton MiG-29A…