N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:38 am

rm -r *
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5254
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:59 am

France Loses Out as Saudis Sign $2.2 Billion Deal for Russian Helos

(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published Oct. 30, 2007)
By Giovanni de Briganti

That's two in a row, coming hot on the heels of the Rafale's loss in Morocco.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...e-2006-saudi-shopping-spree-02859/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:49 am

Odd, the Saudi's usually go for the superior product regardless of the cost...
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:25 am

I really hope this means the Saudis will not be training their helicopter pilots in America, any longer. Better to train them in Russia, where they are more familiar with the -24 and -17's abilities.

I went to flight school with the Saudis, and I thoroughly did not care for them. Many of us didn't like their attitudes, their arrogance and their immunity to failing marks. Let them train their "princes" else where.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
hunterson
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:02 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:37 am

If this is confirmed, it would be a most interesting development, and with huge political and strategic significance.

In fact, this would be the first time that Saudi Arabia ever bought military hardware from Russia. They did it before with ]China , in the 1980s, when they purchased 4 batteries ( 12 launchers ) of CSS-2 MRBMs, with 48 rounds, as a deterrent against any potential Iranian ballistic missile attack on their oil fields during the Iraq-Iran War at the time. But they never before acquired (at least not officially ), any military equipment from either the Soviet Union ,or Russia.
I am sure we will be hearing more about this in the coming days and weeks.
As for the "quality" of the product, let us not underestimate the proven capabilities of both the Mil-24/35 gunship, and the
Mil-8/17 assault and multi-purpose medium transport helicopters. The two Russian types have long proven to be two of the most effective and reliable designs ,as well as most enduring, amongst modern helicopters in the world, especially in difficult and harsh operational and environmental conditions, let alone their relative ease of maintenance and support, something which thousands of them operating in Africa, Latin America , Asia and the Middle East testify to, and also something that the royal Saudi Air Force will obviously appreciate.

As for the French, I wonder what they will be saying , and how they will react, now that they have lost out on such an imprtant deal , and with such a crucial client for their defence industries like Saudi Arabia. Only the other day , the French defence minister was in Riyadh, where he admitted that the chance to sell Saudi Arabia the Rafalehas effectively gone, at least for the foreseeable future, after the Kingdom opted to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoons from the UK.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5254
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:04 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2):
Odd, the Saudi's usually go for the superior product regardless of the cost...

According to this, they might have hedged their bets too much.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...russian-as-france-loses-out-04111/

Quote:
"The article 'France Loses Out as Saudis Sign $2.2 Billion Deal for Russian Helos' discusses the new arrangements, and also ventures some explanations as to what went wrong. Partial answer: the biggest contributor has been far too much pressure from Chirac's administration to insist on linked bundles of equipment, rather than just accepting the client's money, giving them what they asked for, and saying 'thank you'."

From the D-A linked article.....

Quote:
"Abdallah also is loosening arms ties with France because of its insistence on large, multiple-system packages, and its stubborn arm-twisting to include weapons that the Saudis do not want, like the Rafale combat aircraft, in these packages.

While the Saudis were willing as late as the fall of 2006 to sign two or three medium-sized helicopters deals, covering 42 Fennec light helicopters, 20 Cougar Combat Search and Rescue helicopters and 10 NFH-90 naval helicopters, sources say they indefinitely postponed these plans after French officials continued to insist that the package also include Rafales, several FREMM frigates and Gowind corvettes, and Leclerc tanks."


Quoting Hunterson (Reply 4):

As for the French, I wonder what they will be saying , and how they will react

Again from the link.....

Quote:
"[France is hoping that Libya, which has contracted to upgrade its obsolete Dassault Mirage F-1 fighters, may also agree to buy the Rafale, and an agreement could be announced during Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s forthcoming visit to Paris, possibly in December.]"

And should fortune again favor the Russians there.....

Rosoboronexport Presents Russian Aircraft Industry at LAVEX 2007 in the Libyan Capital
(Source: Rosoboronexport; issued Oct. 27, 2007)

....."If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them" could be the name of the game.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...lp-russia-design-submarines-04093/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:26 am

I know at one time Russia had offered Lybia re-tooled Mig-31's due to the vastness of their borders, but gadafi is pretty pro France and has stated time and time again that he was very interested in the Rafale and the Eurocopter so I am not sure even France could screw that one up.
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:22 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2):
Odd, the Saudi's usually go for the superior product regardless of the cost...

What are you basing that observation? Regardless of where the helicopter was designed, the Mi-8/17 and Mi-24/35 series of helicopters has proven itself in almost every major conflict in the world.
rm -r *
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:26 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
I went to flight school with the Saudis, and I thoroughly did not care for them. Many of us didn't like their attitudes, their arrogance and their immunity to failing marks. Let them train their "princes" else where.

I worked for a retired USAF pilot in college who used to be a flight instructor at one point during his flying career - his sentiments were exactly the same in regard to the Saudi's. Lazy and pompous are two adjectives I have heard used to describe the Saudi pilots on many occassions and from a variety of people.

Quoting N74jw (Reply 7):
What are you basing that observation? Regardless of where the helicopter was designed, the Mi-8/17 and Mi-24/35 series of helicopters has proven itself in almost every major conflict in the world.

Soviet technology has simply not kept pace with that of the West over the last ten years and I believe that even the French technology would have provided for a more powerful package than the Russians; not that it does a whole lot of good because the Saudi's have a penchant for operating front line equipment with a less than stellar force - if it ever came down to a real fight I would liken the Saudi military to a big tough who once they got hit in the lip and that taste of blood set in, they'd fold like a deck of cards.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:23 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
Soviet technology has simply not kept pace with that of the West over the last ten years and I believe that even the French technology would have provided for a more powerful package than the Russians

Don't understimate the latest Russian beasts, specially the Mi-35M since probably the only thing in common with the Mi-24 is the fuselage and shape.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 5):
The article 'France Loses Out as Saudis Sign $2.2 Billion Deal for Russian Helos' discusses the new arrangements, and also ventures some explanations as to what went wrong. Partial answer: the biggest contributor has been far too much pressure from Chirac's administration to insist on linked bundles of equipment, rather than just accepting the client's money, giving them what they asked for, and saying 'thank you'

Wouldn't be the first time.

Sounds a lot like those Nordatlases that the French made the Israeli's buy back in the 1950's. France wouldn't sell them Mystere unless they also bought the transport.

Looks like this time it bit them right in the arse.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
hunterson
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:02 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:21 am

I find it hard to believe, and sometimes quite funny, to see and hear the way some people still deal with anything and everything that happens to be "Russian".
Is it possible, even for just a moment, to forget the politics, the Cold War, the Russian Menace, the "Red Bear" (which is no longer there anyway! ) , and try to deal with this matter away from narrow, jingoistic, uber-nationalistic prejudices, and instead look at it from a purely professional ,objective, rational and impartial view?
Not all Russian equipment is bad, and neither is any Russian product is ,by definition, lagging behind in terms of technological or operational standards. Equally, a lot of Russian products are actually below par , in exactly the same way other products are , whether they happen to be British,French,German, Japanese or even American!
i believe that it is vital for all of us to provide the most balanced and agenda-free assessment and analysis to the best of our ability, whenrver we are trying to make a point about this or that weapon system, regardless of how one might feel bout the country, or political system where that weapon had originated from. indeed, if we fail to do that we would be doing a disserviceto ourselves, and to the whole purpose of the debate.
So please let us stop under-estimating russian equipment which has proven its worth world-wide simply because it happens to be Russian, or because we happen to dislike Russia ( or France, or Japan, or Germany etc...)
Just like we would say with no difficulty that aircraft such as the F-15 or F-16 or F-22 are the best in the world (not because they are American, but because they are the best) , i think it would only be proper to say that aircraft such as the Sukhoi-27/30/35, and helicopters such as the Mil-8/17/171 and Mil-24/25/35, are also some of the best that the world has seen , and indeed as has been proven over and over again in numerous theatres of operation world-wide.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:24 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
Soviet technology has simply not kept pace with that of the West over the last ten years

well, I have a nice story on that one: engineer I know who worked for shell was on an Russian oil platform somewhere (don't remember where it was) and their insurance stated they could only fly Western helicopters. Then the weather got bad and cold, and they needed to get off the rig. The only choppers capable of getting off where Russian, as they have rotor-head-heating.

I agree with hunterson. Getting a bit tired of this cliche dismissing Russian equipement as inferior.

BTW, I don't understand how France can be so unethical and stupid to sell Moamar all those high-tech weapons?! He even fired SCUDS and France in the past?!

Libya made it back into the "respected country list" and the first thing he does is modernize his military with western (read French) equipement!
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:46 pm

I have worked with both sides of the discussion. If I had to take a helicopter to war in the desert, it would be the Mi-17 over the UH-60. Sorry 60 drivers... The hip is not as fast, and not as modern, but the clamshell door in the back is awfully useful. The hydraulic nightmare of maintenance is not as present in the Mi-8 series choppers as it is in the UH-60 or CH-47. I saw a crew chief filter over a pound of sand from a Mi-24 tail-rotor gear box. That is not a great deal of sand, but it would have red x'd a UH-60, or UH-1.

My favorite desert chopper line-up:

Mi-17, Mi-24, OH-6, AH-1.
rm -r *
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:43 pm

Quoting N74jw (Reply 13):
I have worked with both sides of the discussion. If I had to take a helicopter to war in the desert, it would be the Mi-17 over the UH-60. Sorry 60 drivers... The hip is not as fast, and not as modern, but the clamshell door in the back is awfully useful.

Oh come'on. What a ridiculous comparison. I'd want a Mi-17 over a UH-60, as well... if the mission needed an aircraft of that size! If not, then I'd go with the UH-60. You certainly cannot create some blanket statement of which one is better. Especially when they are two totally different classes and capabilities.

You're talking about comparing a helicopter that carries 13 soldiers, to one that carries 35. One aircraft that grosses out ar 22,000lbs, and another that grosses out at 28,500. One aircraft with a range of 250nm, and another with 580nm.

If you were going to even make a comparison, go with the CH-47, not the UH-60.

Quoting N74jw (Reply 13):
The hydraulic nightmare of maintenance is not as present in the Mi-8 series choppers as it is in the UH-60 or CH-47.

Maybe you worked in a jacked-up unit, who wasn't squared away. But hydraulics was never a huge issue for us, in Iraq. In fact... the hydraulics of a -60 is fairly straight forward. I don't know of any Black Bird that has been downed by a complete hydraulics failure.

If anything, our biggest issue in the desert was engines. The sand was harsh to them. But any squared away unit knew how to keep on top of this. And with the new Main Engine Filtration System, even this problem has become less of a headache.

Quoting N74jw (Reply 13):
I saw a crew chief filter over a pound of sand from a Mi-24 tail-rotor gear box. That is not a great deal of sand, but it would have red x'd a UH-60, or UH-1.

Yeah, and we poured over 500lbs of sand out of our helicopters when we did our phase maintenance after the deployment.



-------------------------------------------------

I am probably going to re-ignite a very old Mil-Av war, but I simply do not agree that the Mi-24 is such an amazing helicopter.

It's a beast of a helicopter. However, I think it's highly overrated. Remember back in the good ole days of the Cold War... when the Soviet tanks were feared? And remember how the Gulf War showed us the truth? It's the same way with the Hind. The West grossly over-estimated it's abilities.

She's very fast on a straight dash... but it really doesn't have the agility I would expect from an attack helicopter. The power lag was significant and the xmission energy loss would be totally unacceptable in western helicopters. Their IR signature is totally unacceptable and offers very little protection against IR homing threats. It has some heavy armor for a helicopter... but at what point do you go overboard? One of my biggest complaints was the cockpit visibility, especially the front seat. Having sat in an Apache, and then a Hind, I was shocked. The armored tub the pilots sit in extends too high and interferes with seeing anything beyond the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. The window structural beams were fat, and created sizable blind spots... and when IR missiles are such a threat to this helicopter, the last thing I'd want is restricted visibility. The cockpit layout was inefficient. Cluttered with hundreds of small buttons, pressure gauges, dials, etc... And again... as a helicopter pilot, you need to know where EVERYTHING around you is.

The flight control system is antiquated. When you're handling such a beast, the last thing you want to do is waste energy manipulating the controls. The UH-60 and the AH-64 have SAS, FPS, Trim, and Boost to all aid the pilot in reducing the workload. When you're heavy with troops, or lining up on a gun run, you can't be focusing on the controls - that needs to come naturally.

It is very vulnerable to heat-seeking manpads.

It makes a crappy troop transport. (I know, that's not it's primary mission). You can't do efficient fast rope or rappelling insertions. You cannot do SPIE or FRIE extractions. You can't use a bambi bucket or hoist. You cannot perform paradrops. And the troop doors are cumbersome and do not allow for quick exit, when such is needed in a hot LZ. As a former crew chief - I especially did not like the Mi-24. When you were coming into a tight LZ/PZ you cannot stick your head out and monitor the tail. It is very easy for the pilots to stick that tail rotor into a tree or building.

Also the avionics and weapons packages were subpar. I was very disappointed to say the least. HOWEVER, I was VERY impressed by the Pols. Outstanding pilots and they really knew how to sap every bit of performance out of that turkey. I would trust them with my life any day.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:52 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 12):
I agree with hunterson. Getting a bit tired of this cliche dismissing Russian equipement as inferior.

You are getting very sleepy...

I worked avionics in the Marines and that is in great part where I find the moden Russian equipment severely lacking in comparison to their Western counterparts - in the cockpits and on the flightdecks. Situational awareness is so key as H60Rucker points out, and even the most moden Russian equipment can't even come close as to the level of technology in the electronics available in the West and in particular the US equipment.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:59 pm

Given the critique from UH60 & AirRyan, if the Saudis were so annoyed by the Chirac administration, why did they not opt for American helos or buy from Agusta? Politics?

[Edited 2007-11-01 16:07:30]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:03 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 14):
It is very easy for the pilots to stick that tail rotor into a tree or building

I think the point he is making is that if you stick a Mi-24 tail rotor in a building or a tree, the helicopter is still going to come up on top.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 14):
but I simply do not agree that the Mi-24 is such an amazing helicopter.

I'll go a step farther and say that from what I understand of the beast with that big wing and the hover restrictions, it isn't an actually helicopter, but some sort of hybrid autogyro.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 14):
But any squared away unit knew how to keep on top of this.

I think that rules out 11avn

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 14):
You're talking about comparing a helicopter that carries 13 soldiers, to one that carries 35. One aircraft that grosses out ar 22,000lbs, and another that grosses out at 28,500. One aircraft with a range of 250nm, and another with 580nm.

I agree they are in different classes. Not particularly comparable.

But don't worrry, the last Blackhawk is still going to be taken to DM as a sling load under a Huey!
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
hunterson
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:02 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:17 am

It is just great that we are now having such a serious and meaningful debate about Russian vs. Western ( or is it really US) equipment.

The fact of the matter is that "nobody is perfect" . Like everything else in this world, we have to admit that some things are better than others in certain aspects, while others are better in other aspects.

Now, the Saudis have been operating the UH-60 since the early 90s. I actually flew in one of the RSAF Blackhawks into Kuwait during operation "Desert Storm " in 1991. Also, the Saudis have been operating numerous French(European) helicopters for many many years, such as the Super Puma ( which I also had the chance to fly during the same conflict) , as well as the Dauphin( which is operated by the US Coast Guard as the Dolphin). They of course also rely on many US-designed but Italian-built types, such as the Agusta-Bell-205/212 family.


If we agree that "money" is no problem for a very rich country like Saudi Arabia, and if we also agree that for well knwn reasons , that particular country has no problem in obtaining whatever military equipment it fancies from wherever it chooses, be it the US, the UK, France, Russia or any other source, then the reason for the Saudis to select a Russian package this time must mean something.

At the end of the day, I do not think that these guys are out there wasting their money. They could have easily selected the French package of Cougars and Tigres which was offered to tham. Or they could have, equally easily asked the US to supply thnem with a combination of UH-60/ CH-47/ AH-64s in preference to the French offer.

As it happened , they opted for the Russian offer of Mil-17/ Mil-35s.

So, it could have been a politically-motivated move. Who knows, may be they want to "buy" the Russian vote, by trying to show Mr, Putin that Russia does not have to put all its Middle East eggs in the Iranian and Syrian basket, especially at such a crucial time when Moscow seems to be heading towards becoming the main "ally" of Tehran and Damascus, and when the US, the UK, and even France , are getting ready for a possible showdwn with Iran (and probably its ally Syria, over its nuclear programme).


but whatever the strategic and political considerations may have been, the Saudis could not have bought some "useless", or even "inferior" products, simply because they just have no reson what-so-ever to do so. Just as they had previuosly selected the best that is available on the world market, and paid for it, from the F-15C/D, to the F-15E, and from the Tornado-IDS, to the Tornado-ADV, and now the Eurofighter Typhoon, not to mention the E-3 AWACS, the M-1 Abrams and the Patriot AD system, they obviously now decided to select what they probably think is the best helicopter cmbination on offer, namely the Mil-17/Mil-35 from Russia.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:52 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 14):
Remember back in the good ole days of the Cold War... when the Soviet tanks were feared? And remember how the Gulf War showed us the truth? It's the same way with the Hind. T

I don't think how an Army with a subpar training in said equipment its an objective assesment of the Tanks capabilities.
The only way would have been to see it in operation under soviet crews and tactics.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:31 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 14):
when the Soviet tanks were feared? And remember how the Gulf War showed us the truth?

How are a bunch of conscripted, scared shitless, poorly trained Iraqi's representative for the capabilities of Russian tank design?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
I worked avionics in the Marines

weren't you the same guy that said he never heard of the Falklands war?
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:34 am

Quoting Acheron (Reply 19):
I don't think how an Army with a subpar training in said equipment its an objective assesment of the Tanks capabilities.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20):
How are a bunch of conscripted, scared shitless, poorly trained Iraqi's representative for the capabilities of Russian tank design?

Both of you totally failed to comprehend my point.

I never said anything about Iraqi tactics or fighting ability. I specifically kept it to just the tanks - Soviet supplied tanks. It was the quality of those tanks, which surprised us. One of the reasons they could build the T-72 and T-60 in such numbers, was because quality was not a primary objective.

After the Gulf War, we were able to take a lot of captured equipment home for study. What the Army found was that it had overestimated Soviet tank abilities. The insides were cramped, inefficiently laid out, and lacked zero crew comfort. The tanks had poor fuel efficiency. The tanks were underpowered and had poor single track turning radius. Targeting abilities, navigation abilities, communication abilities, etc... were all sub par. I am going to invite ANCFlyer (who was a former tanker, l himself) to add more to this point, he can no doubt better articulate these points.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):
After the Gulf War, we were able to take a lot of captured equipment home for study

...Familiar with that effort.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):
The tanks were underpowered and had poor single track turning radius. Targeting abilities, navigation abilities, communication abilities, etc... were all sub par.

They hung the fuel in a big-ass drum off of the back of the tank. Who's idea was that? Probably a sailor's....

rm -r *
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:39 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):
I am going to invite ANCFlyer (who was a former tanker, l himself) to add more to this point, he can no doubt better articulate these points.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20):
How are a bunch of conscripted, scared shitless, poorly trained Iraqi's representative for the capabilities of Russian tank design?

I can attest - first hand - that the T-72 is a POS. Having killed several of them in my former career I can assure you, they are NO match for an Abrams . . .

During Desert Storm killing Russian Armor was like a turkey shoot . . . it was more like going to gunnery practice than combat . . . the POS T-72 was absolutely NO match for an Abrams. Anyone thinking it is has been smoking crack, heavily.

It doesn't matter WHO is manning the turret, Iraqi, Soviet, Syrian, doesn't matter. A poor tank design is a poor tank design is a poor tank design. Period. Underpowered, extremely substandard Fire Control System, poor turret design, auto-loader sucks, etc.

I'd be happy to expound on anything regarding the T-72 if anyone cares. Regardless, UH-60s points are spot on. The T-72 is garbage.

Now, I didn't think that way until I killed a few of them. The sheer number of tanks the Soviets possessed would have made them obviously formidible back in the day. However, couple a lousy tank with an inadequate crew (Desert Storm) - even the Republican Guard crews - and you've got a recipe for a slaughter.

Those poor bastards in the Soviet made tanks couldn't track and close to even attempt a shot at the US tanks. 1500 meters perhaps was prime range for their cannon . . . unfortunately - for them - by the time you get that close to an Abrams, you're fodder. Especially if it's a M1A2 with the dual thermals, capable of tracking more than one target at a time - AND getting a Fire Control System lock on all of them simultaneously.

The day a T-72 outguns/outmaneuvers/out-'tanks' ANY Abrams I'll eat my shorts.

Below:

ANCFlyer and Company, Desert Storm



Gunnery:



http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/csmpep/MISCELLANEOUS/Abrams2.jpg

[Edited 2007-11-02 06:44:46]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:50 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
I'll go a step farther and say that from what I understand of the beast with that big wing and the hover restrictions, it isn't an actually helicopter, but some sort of hybrid autogyro.

During certain flight conditions, while turning the Mi-24 pilot would have to be careful and not stall the winglet, leading into the turn. If this happens, the other winglet could flip the Mi-24 over on it's back.

The winglets account for more than 25% of the Mi-24's total lift in horizontal flight.
rm -r *
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:14 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
Those poor bastards in the Soviet made tanks couldn't track and close to even attempt a shot at the US tanks. 1500 meters perhaps was

I guess there are Russian tanks out there with adequate fire control systems.

what is your experience with the Kuwaiti M-84's (Yugoslav T-72 derivative)? They orderded them again and requiested upgrades for their existing armor
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:43 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 25):
I guess there are Russian tanks out there with adequate fire control systems.

Not to my knowledge . . .

As I mentioned, if they got to within 1500 meters, they stood a decent chance at making a clean shot. Problem is, we were tagging them at over 3000 meters (and usually quite a bit further), and accurately, so they couldn't get close enough to make a shot count. Further, they can't 'see' in the dark. Further, the auto-loader in the older model 72s required the main gun to be a zero/zero to reload . . . talk about a serious detractor in combat effectiveness . . .

Now, I'm sure there have been significant improvements in Russian made armor in the last decade . . . but as I mention below, I'm retired. I simply don't keep up on it.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 25):
what is your experience with the Kuwaiti M-84's (Yugoslav T-72 derivative)? They orderded them again and requiested upgrades for their existing armor

None, retired in 2001 . . . haven't been near a tank since . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:47 pm

thanks for the info's
 
hunterson
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:02 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:47 pm

So are we into the tank business now?
( I am only joking )
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:57 pm

Quoting Hunterson (Reply 28):
So are we into the tank business now?
( I am only joking )

we could start a senseless discussion how the west copied Russian tank designs (gasturbine in tank etc.)
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:10 pm

Quoting Hunterson (Reply 28):
So are we into the tank business now?
( I am only joking )

Goes to the overall discussion of Soviet/Russian equipment.

But please, feel free to add something to this thread.  Yeah sure

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:26 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 30):
But please, feel free to add something to this thread.

aw.. I rather not..

but if you insist Big grin T-80 was the world's first tank powered by a gas-turbine..

let's leave at this, since we are going off-topic here
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:31 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
I can attest - first hand - that the T-72 is a POS. Having killed several of them in my former career I can assure you, they are NO match for an Abrams . . .

Maybe not for an Abrams, but what about an M60 Patton, its contemporary?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:00 pm

Well, this is gratitude.  Wink

The Saudi's buy Russian helos. Then the Saudi's, propose a center for enriched uranium, and a Russian nuclear official 'disses them in public!
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0214924020071102

Quote:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's nuclear chief on Friday said only full nuclear powers should create centers for enriching uranium, in a swipe at a Saudi proposal for Arab states to help supply Iran with enriched uranium.

U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states are ready to set up a body to provide enriched uranium to Iran in a bid to defuse Tehran's stand-off with the West over its nuclear plan, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister told a magazine this week.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries -- Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates -- have proposed creating a Middle East consortium for users of enriched uranium, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED).

When asked about the report, Russia's nuclear energy agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said Russia had received no official information about the proposal, RIA news agency reported.

"In our opinion there should be many such centers but it is obvious that such centers must be in countries which have the full technology for enrichment (of uranium) so that this technology doesn't spread around the world," Kiriyenko said.

Prince Saud said Iran was considering the offer. He said the enrichment plant should be in a neutral country, such as Switzerland.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:13 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Maybe not for an Abrams, but what about an M60 Patton, its contemporary?

good point
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:27 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
I worked avionics in the Marines

weren't you the same guy that said he never heard of the Falklands war?

You must have misread, I was the one who said I've never been one to be impressed with the British military tactics used in that engagement.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:44 pm

Ow I think I read it correctly..

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 90):
Yeah yeah, it's not exactly taught in the schools over here and I don't remember hearing much about it when happened but I was only six years old at the time.

thread
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Maybe not for an Abrams, but what about an M60 Patton, its contemporary?

The Patton is hardly the Abrams contemporary.

The M60 series MBT was developed in the late 1950s and fielded in the mid-late 1960s. Twenty years before the Abrams.

Absolutely no comparison.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 34):
good point

No, um, it isn't. It's inaccurate.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 37):
No, um, it isn't. It's inaccurate.

Hey ANCFlyer, I read F27's comment as comparing the performance of the T-72 against the Patton.
Having said that the point is moot anyway because the T-72 didn't meet the M-60 in combat it met the Abrams.

Back to the Hind, is there any truth to what I read(or saw) that it has a propensity fo the main rotor to chop off the tail boom if turned hard & carelessly?

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:24 am

The Mi-24 is over 50' in length and far from nimble. I have never heard of it chopping off it's own tail. I saw an AH-1 come down a little too fast and have the tail hit the ground before the skids, forcing the main rotor to hit the tail. It was all over from there. 'Class A Mishap', one less snake.
rm -r *
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:48 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 38):

Back to the Hind, is there any truth to what I read(or saw) that it has a propensity fo the main rotor to chop off the tail boom if turned hard & carelessly?

Yeah it's one of those "facts" that a lot of people know... but few can back up with hard data. I don't have exact numbers of aircraft who were downed by striking their tail boom with the main rotor.

However, we all know the story where this originated: "During the 1980s an encounter between the two sides' helicopters graphically showed a serious flaw in the design of the Hind. An American AH-1 Huey Cobra met one while flying along the border between East and West Germany; the Hind had been ordered to intercept the Cobra and the pilots chased one another along the border for a while, the American pilot constantly pulling up sharply to force his faster opponent to overshoot. Apparently trying to duplicate this manoeuvre, the Russian pilot eventually pulled up too hard and stalled his aircraft. When attempting to pull out of the dive that followed, the main rotor blades of the Hind hit its tail boom and the helicopter crashed, killing everyone aboard."

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting N74jw (Reply 24):
During certain flight conditions, while turning the Mi-24 pilot would have to be careful and not stall the winglet, leading into the turn. If this happens, the other winglet could flip the Mi-24 over on it's back.

The winglets account for more than 25% of the Mi-24's total lift in horizontal flight.

Thats the number I remember reading, and in a hover they block out a hell of a lot of the rotor wash.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20):
weren't you the same guy that said he never heard of the Falklands war?

Don't you mean the liberation of the Malvinas?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 35):
You must have misread, I was the one who said I've never been one to be impressed with the British military tactics used in that engagement.

I can agree with that to an extent, the brits made a number of mistakes that hampered operations. But they tended to be big picture mistakes, not ones made by the guys on the ground.

Quoting Hunterson (Reply 28):
So are we into the tank business now?

Hey, the Hind isn't the 1st flying tank the russians thought up.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 37):
The M60 series MBT was developed in the late 1950s and fielded in the mid-late 1960s. Twenty years before the Abrams.

I'd put it's development farther back then that....It really was growth version of a M48. Sort of like the jump from an M-16A1 to an M-4.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:04 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 37):
The Patton is hardly the Abrams contemporary.

I think A342 meant the M-60 and T-72 were contemporaries.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:54 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 42):
I think A342 meant the M-60 and T-72 were contemporaries.

 checkmark  Spot on. I think nobody will dispute that an Abrams is superior to a Patton. My question was M60 vs. T-72.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:32 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 36):
Ow I think I read it correctly..

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 90):
Yeah yeah, it's not exactly taught in the schools over here and I don't remember hearing much about it when happened but I was only six years old at the time.

thread

Wow, we're really dense aren't we? As I said you didn't get the point of my message. Tag - you're it; you like this school yard stuff? Get a ruler and get back to me....

Quoting N74jw (Reply 39):
The Mi-24 is over 50' in length and far from nimble. I have never heard of it chopping off it's own tail. I saw an AH-1 come down a little too fast and have the tail hit the ground before the skids, forcing the main rotor to hit the tail. It was all over from there. 'Class A Mishap', one less snake.

There was always a rumor I heard working alongside the Skids flightline that if you came down hard enough the pilot/gunner in the front could have his head decapitated as the rotor blades would swing just low enough.

Good PC sim of late model M1A1 and Leopard 2A5 vs. T-72 tank warfare...


http://www.esimgames.com/sbpropageproductdetails.htm
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:01 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 43):
Spot on. I think nobody will dispute that an Abrams is superior to a Patton. My question was M60 vs. T-72.

Well first, the M60 came around in 1960. And the M60A1 came out in 1963. The T-72 came out in 1971... so they were not true contemporaries. The main threat the designers envisioned for the M60 was the T-54 and later, T-62. And don't forget that the Patton wasn't designed from scratch, it was an improvement over the older M48s.

The M60 saw very little action against T-72s. However, Israeli M60s went head-to-head against T-54s and T-62s, in the Yom Kippur war, and did very well. USMC M60s did encounter T-72s in Kuwait, but I don't know if you could call that an even match up, because the M60 was modified a great deal by that point.

The M60 had a smaller gun than the T-72s, with a 105. But the T-72 had serious design flaws, and was hellish for tank crews to work long periods in. From all accounts, each had their own draw backs and benefits, and in the end, seemed to match up on par with one another.

-UH60

[Edited 2007-11-03 15:13:13]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:44 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 45):
The M60 had a smaller gun than the T-72s, with a 105.

But a much more accurate fire control system, especially after installation of the Thermal Sight and the laser range finder. Stabilization was also better . . . M60A3 was nearly an antirely different tank than the M60A1 as far as fire control. So much so it required a transition course.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 45):
USMC M60s did encounter T-72s in Kuwait, but I don't know if you could call that an even match up, because the M60 was modified a great deal by that point.

Reactive armor, new thermal sights, laser range finder, etc . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:33 pm

The Mi-17 might be an aging design, but have we not all seen them, in news broadcasts, of some beat up looking Mi-8/17 operating in some god forsaken place, away from a lot of logistic/spares support?
It's crude, avionic ally wise, but it does the basic job in very harsh conditions.

The gunships are a more problematic design, being neither fish nor fowl, fast but with limited agility, with a bit of light troop carrying thrown in.
(Though the cabin could be used for missile re-loads to be fitted after landing?)
But, are these choppers for the Saudi Army and/or AF, or their 'National Guard', read that as a Praetorian guard for the regime.
In that case, the gunships would be hosing down hostile crowds or large scale armed insurrections if the Saudi regime's worst nightmare came to pass.
Rather than operating on a complex, modern battlefield environment.

Aside from useless leadership from the top, with static defences, did the T-72's in the 1991 Gulf War also suffer from not being contemporary with the top of the line M-1 and Challengers?
Technology wise, in fire control, the T-72 was more in line with western tanks of the 1960's, T-72's were I think, a more practical development of the complex, difficult T-64, with it's propulsion/chassis and auto-loader problems?
As well as the Soviet habit of often supplying watered down versions of weapons for export (remember all those export Mig-23's with Mig-21 radars and AAM's), with casual racism, the Soviets called these third world exports 'monkey models'.

But, they have often produced some very effective AD systems, look at what SAM-6 and the ZSU-23 SP AA system, did to the Israeli AF in 1973.

Maybe we should see the Mi-17 choppers, as the heli-logistics AK-47/AKM, tough, crude, reliable, easy to operate.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4852
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
Technology wise, in fire control, the T-72 was more in line with western tanks of the 1960's, T-72's were I think, a more practical development of the complex, difficult T-64, with it's propulsion/chassis and auto-loader problems?

I remember reading about early versions of the auto loader grabbing crewmen and trying to stuff them into the breach.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Ruso-Saudi Deal

Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:09 am

I did too LMP, the auto loader grabbing the seated crew member between the legs, with the effect that the Moscow state choir was not short of Sopranos!

The Soviet/War Pac tank force was so vast, any new design would take a very long time to equip even a small % of the inventory, so presumably, more top of the line models (T-80?), would be a very long way down the export list.

In the UK, a short TV advert, for, of all things, a building sealant, had a slogan that has entered into the national lexicon, the advert having a burly man pointing out that this product, does what it says on the tin .
A lot of Russian kit does just that too, the best known being the AK series of weapons.

They also appreciate this in foreign systems, I've seen docs about WW2 with grizzled, medal covered, tough old Soviet WW2 veterans, talking lovingly of the 'Jeeps' and 'Mac Trucks'.
I rate the best all round WW2 tank, as the T-34, in protection, mobility, armament and crucially, ease of production and use.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests