Originally posted by flex297
Not quite blame-game.. Let us call it exchange of facts.. I bet you would not call it a blame-game if the facts were speaking for Israel, would you?..

A thread like this can hardly go on without touching politics.. It has started as politically-smelling and it will end the same way.. Actually, modern military aviation is also about who supports who, who picks which product, tenders, offset programmes, all this is tied up tightly with politics. As long as facts and not lies are presented, as far as no a**holes and idiots and similar names are flyin around, why not? Got a problem with truth, mate?

Where do you come from Flex!? What religion are you!?

See, its not nice is it!?

Vaiar
Yes, agreed, but you must also have noticed that theArabs have not tried anything ever since! Egypt, Syria and others are lept in check thanks to a strong Israel!

I think if you consider the bigger picture, then the US taxpayer gets its moneys worth out of Israel! Israel is practically a US Garrison base to guard the middle east and its oil supplies. The US has been getting oil at big discounts thanks to strengthning Israel, things have worked out wonderfully for the US taxpayer, bet they would rather give Israel $4 Billion a year then everyone having to pay another $10 on a barrell of crude….

Originally posted by seahawk
Well I can give you a list of reasons why that will happen.

1) Look at the deep strike the US Army tried with the AH-64Ds during OIF. Nearly all AH-64 were hit, but only 1 lost. That was against a rather badly equipped and uncoordinated enemy without an existing threat from enemy helicopters or fighters.

2) The most probable conflict area would be the desert. So the Cobras will have to work without adequate cover.

3) Going over the enemy frontlines means exposing the Cobras to enemy air defenses and to enemy CAPs that will surely be operating over the frontline.

4) You can´t do much manouvering while guiding a TOW missile. So that means either to hover (like the US Army did) or flying in a relative straight line. Some things you would not want to do.

Sorry Seahawk, I meant the forward edge of he battle area, just ahead of our tank formations, I think PAF will try and cover Pakistan Army here! I did not imply roving Cobras running along 20-30 miles behind enemy lines

So now plz explain to me, why they should succeed operating behind enemy lines.

Originally posted by seahawk
I´m not making the Cobra look better then it is/was.

Sure they suffered looses in Nam and they did only encounter few SA-7s. And they suffered heavily from the SA-7s, which was a rather new eapon during that time.

Many Hinds were lost in Afghanistan against a manpad equipped enemy, who nevertheless was not as good armed as the NVA was during Nam. (that is compared to the time)

The only conclusion I see is, that every attack helo will suffer losses if being used against a well equipped and capable enemy.

So yes, the Hind is better armored, yet the Cobra is harder to hit.

What I meant with “define nimble” is :

The Hind is faster. I believe it even tunrs better at high sppeds. But it can not fly nap of the earth nearly as good as the Cobra.

As Arthur said both helos are totally different concepts.

The Cobra is a mobile anti tank team, kind of extremely fast and mobile ATGM team.
The Hind is more something like an modern times IL-2.

Depending on your strategy on their use, both can be better.

With around 60 choppers I think Pakistans strategy would be for the Cobras to sweep forward of our armoured formations and haress/destroy as much incoming Indian armour as possible before our tanks face theirs….

Their is even talk of a Pakistani Airborne Brigade (Air Assault)…..

Anil
Those pix are a cheap shot………….

Originally posted by flex297
Mate, you cannot take specs of AH-1W Super Snake and compare them to Mi-24 as if this was a comparison between Pakistani Cobras and Indian Hinds. The AH-1S that Pakistani Army uses is powered by a single T53-L-703 turbine of merely 1,485 HP, while the AH-1W gets use of twin T-700-GE turboshaft package (1,775HP each). That is a huge difference in power..

Mi-24 uses two Isotow TV-3-117 turbines with each 2,200 HP. AH-1S empty weight is some 2,940 kg (means 0.505 HP/kg), Mi-24 weights some 8,500 kg (means 0.518 HP/kg).. With a loaded helicopter the ratio gets even worse for the lighter of the two and therefore there is no way a ‘S’ Cobra could be more powerful than a Hind. If you hang some ordnance, the drag will vastly increase in both cases but you got less than 1.500 HP to manage this with the Cobra compared to brute 4.400 HP of the Hind. Another issue is the aerodynamic sleakness, where the Hind with its fully retractable landing gear and much more efficient five blade main rotor wins on every occassion.

I also do not know where did you take the data from, but my friend flies a Hind for Slovak Air Force and he stated that his Mi-24V gets as fast as 340 km/h in horizontal w/o any problem and that is significantly faster than AH-1S.

If the fuel consumption is not on question, I would take the Hind anytime… AH-1S is technically nothing better than a basic UH-1H Huey dressed-up in more sexi clothes. The same weak engine, the same gear system, the same two-blade rotor, the same poor weight-lifting capability.. The AH-1F was the first tandem-seat assault helicopter ever designed and it is just logical that such a new concept was not technically ripe from the very start.. Todays Whiskey or Zulu Super Snakes have only that much in common with the early AH-1F/S as the latest F-16E Block 60 with YF-16 prototype.. Similar external looks..

Flex
The MI-25 weighs almost as twice the weight of a Cobra though, so it needs every bit of the extra power, it certianly does not make it as nimble as teh cobra

Originally posted by Visitor q
A special something for the pakistani retard who said that the Mi-25 performed badly over Sri lanka.

WTF is this!? “Indian flamers thread”!? If you wanna insult people do it somewhere else!