How is it wrong? What was the German doctrine for helicopter borne forces in Europe but fire brigade tactics?

You said:

The armored attack helicopter was invented by the Americans after experiencing hot LZs in Vietnam.

What the US did is to design the first purpose built armored gunship helicopter. This is rather different and it explains in part why Eu did not field the same path in its doctrine.

The purpose built Gunship concept, which, obviously, proved to be the right-one, was designed to spare pilot lives and ease combat application (less causalities, more payload, less support, less training, less cost, less logistic) .If the US won’t have been involved in a massive scale Air Mobility OP in Vietnam, probably that we won’t have seen a concept of the Gunship surfaced.

In the Cold war perspective, Eu/Russian planners might have seen the dedicated Gunship as a gadget in view of the expected massive losses (1 week war). Point conflicts like Afghanistan and the series of engagement characterizing the post cold war era made the Gunship concept evident for all nations.

Don’t forget also that the Anti-tank helicopter in Eu accounted for hundreds units at that time. Not dozens like we can see today.

No, that’s wrong. Sry.

Air Mobility traces its infancy in Korea (departing from a pure Medevac role) and the decolonization conflicts, in Asia and North Africa (Fr in Indochina and Algeria notably).

French presidency confirming that the plane went down and crashed near Gossi in Mali close to the border with the Burkina-Faso border.

Plane is “disintegrated”. Nobody seems to expect any survivor sadly

It was 2000ft >Russian generals from Ru MOD called it SU-25 and it is impossible for SU-25 (even without external ordnance and stores) to shadow B777 crusing mach 0.85 at 10060m
SU 25 Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km 7
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 0.82
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

I had a second thought about that.

Maybe the Russians are trying to tell the press that it was all BUT a Su25 ?

The echo that was seen *hovering* cld have been the result of sophisticated Jamming.

I think we have to get back to node1 – Hypo:
– something was shadowing MH17
– The 777 was shot down
– the *something* broke-off with ECM switched ON
– Echo then disapeared showing that it was the result of a modern system

Then the why Malaysia again get a place back in the reflexion.

[
For instance, if the separatists did it with an SA-11 stolen to Kiev, then the responsability will be shared between the separatists (who call themselves a republic and should have acted accordingly by closing their upper airspace) and the ukrainian government (who should have informed the ICAO of such a threat immediatly).
If the SA-11 was provided by Moscow, then Russia will probably have the biggest responsability share, followed by the rebels.
If Kiev fired the missile then it will be their responsability alone.

Nevertheless, I agree that the International civil aviation organization have a bit of responsability for having underestimated the potential threat and irresponsability of the guys above, but this is only a secondary responsability.

Very good post. Totally agree. But IMOHO the ICAO/Euocontrol have somewhat failed in its mission.

KAI to develop 4.5t civil, military helicopter

WASHINGTON – (AP) – Senior U.S. intelligence officials :

Russia was responsible for “creating the conditions” that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

“we don’t know a name, we don’t know a rank and we’re not even 100 percent sure of a nationality,” one official said, adding at another point, “There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here.”

The officials said the most likely explanation for why the plane was shot down is that the rebels made a mistake.

And…

Sat img of crash site

Sources:
http://connecticut.news12.com/

http://www.abc.net.au/