User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:17:51 AM EDT
Can someone please tell me why the greatest Military power in the world can't stop a simple basic RPG? I'm very upset again that many of our brave special forces have been lost to this same scenario. I'm not sure what they are called but the bar armor on tanks and MRAP's, why can't we adapt them onto the Chinook's sides, back and bottom of the aircraft. I know the weight will increase but it's gonna stop.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:19:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Gonna put it on the rotor assembly, too?
ETA: You might want to talk to the Russians regarding their experiences with armored helicopters in Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:21:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Can someone please tell me why the greatest Military power in the world can't stop a simple basic RPG? I'm very upset again that many of our brave special forces have been lost to this same scenario. I'm not sure what they are called but the bar armor on tanks and MRAP's, why can't we adapt them onto the Chinook's sides, back and bottom of the aircraft. I know the weight will increase but it's gonna stop. Shit like that costs big money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:22:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Gonna put it on the rotor assembly, too? ETA: You might want to talk to the Russians regarding their experiences with armored helicopters in Afghanistan. Yeah, that place was a freakin graveyard for HIND's. Helicopters are an inherantly vulnerable platform, who's mechanical nature makes them very sensitive to damage. Until somebody can poop us ducted turbines that work worth a damn, or anti-gravity, they are pretty much what weve got. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:22:58 AM EDT
[#4]
I'm not an engineer, but I'm gonna go with...
Those things barely fly as is, any more weight and they wouldn't be able to take any cargo. Personally I think we'd be better off to use multiple black hawks which are a smaller target and if they do get taken out were only looking at 12-15 guys instead of 35+ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:24:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone please tell me why the greatest Military power in the world can't stop a simple basic RPG? I'm very upset again that many of our brave special forces have been loist to this same scenario. I'm not sure what they are called but the bar armor on tanks and MRAP's, why can't we adapt them onto the Chinook's sides, back and bottom of the aircraft. I know the weight will increase but it's gonna stop. Shit like that costs big money. And its heavy too. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:24:34 AM EDT
[#6]
You know why the Chinook aint armored up against RPGs?
Because the rotors would peel off on overpasses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:31:37 AM EDT
[#7]
The CH-47 Chinook along with other U.S. Army aircraft do have ballistic armor installed in them. They are attached to the floor in the cabin and in the cockpit to protect against small arms fire. When I was in Taji, Iraq in 2005 we lost an Apache due to an RPG and killing both crew members. It doesn't take much to take down a helicopter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:32:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I'm not an engineer, but I'm gonna go with... Those things barely fly as is, any more weight and they wouldn't be able to take any cargo. Personally I think we'd be better off to use multiple black hawks which are a smaller target and if they do get taken out were only looking at 12-15 guys instead of 35+ The problem with that idea is altitude, Chinooks are better in the mountains, like Afghanistan, than the Blackhawk. That is why they were using one instead of Blackhawks. OP, your armored Chinook might fly at sea level, but it wouldn't have enough power to take off in Afghanistan. A whiz-bang laser anti-missile system would work, if we could invent one small enough and powerful enough that could withstand the rigors of being on a flying eggbeater. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:35:56 AM EDT
[#9]
A fleet of MH-6s would really be a hard target . I dont see akmad herp derp hitting one with a rpg unless he was really lucky and even if he did max on it is what pilot + 6 ? . Its still would be tragic but beats loosing a flying school bus full.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:38:52 AM EDT
[#10]
All I know is some brass's tit is in the ringer over that decision to put those men in that death bird.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:39:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
A fleet of MH-6s would really be a hard target ridiculously inefficient. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:45:39 AM EDT
[#12]
The RPG shaped charge warhead can penetrate around 100mm of hard steel armor. No aircraft in the world can defeat that warhead, and most main battle tanks have a hard time with them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:46:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A fleet of MH-6s would really be a hard target ridiculously inefficient. Not to mention power considerations. There is very little that can be done to stop RPGs, There have been a bunch of threads on this in the past few days. I feel like a lot of you don't understand just how power limited helicopters are in general, not to mention in Afghanistan. I can only speak for the one I fly, but I'll tell you with a full load we BARELY get off of the ground in the US! Armor is simply out of the question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:49:11 AM EDT
[#14]
Why don't you ask why the greatest military in the world can't stop a simple 7.62X39 round or a simple IED?
If it was so easy,we wouldn't have been there for fast approaching 10 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:57:53 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
A fleet of MH-6s would really be a hard target . I dont see akmad herp derp hitting one with a rpg unless he was really lucky and even if he did max on it is what pilot + 6 ? . Its still would be tragic but beats loosing a flying school bus full. Optimally,each MH-6 could carry 6 troops,but realistically it's 4. Except in Afghanistan where they can't because it's too high,too hot and the Little Birds don't have enough power so let's pretend that they actually could fly all over the Hindu Kush with 2 ( except they can't...). You're going to need 15 of them to equal a Chinook. Go and find landing zones in the mountains big enough for 15 to set down at one time or else they're just going to die in pairs waiting for everyone else to land and form up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:00:31 AM EDT
[#16]
High velocity chunks of metal have been killing people for centuries, and will continue to do so. There is nothing magical about being an American solider, you die just as easily as everyone else.
We have been losing people to homemade explosives stuffed milk jugs for a decade, and you act like there is something special about a mass produced weapon like an RPG actually working? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:04:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Why don't you ask why the greatest military in the world can't stop a simple 7.62X39 round or a simple IED? If it was so easy,we wouldn't have been there for fast approaching 10 years. The armor installed on U.S. Army aircraft can stop 7.62 X 39. A Blackhawk flew into a hostile area in Baghdad and took some fire from 7.62 X 39 and it stopped the rounds from penetrating the belly of the cabin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:09:14 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why don't you ask why the greatest military in the world can't stop a simple 7.62X39 round or a simple IED? If it was so easy,we wouldn't have been there for fast approaching 10 years. The armor installed on U.S. Army aircraft can stop 7.62 X 39. A Blackhawk flew into a hostile area in Baghdad and took some fire from 7.62 X 39 and it stopped the rounds from penetrating the belly of the cabin. And as far as IED's go, these motherfuckers are creative. they can turn literally ANYTHING into an IED, and any time we come up with counter measures, they have a way to defeat it inside a couple months. Your average hadj aint too bright but the guys at the top, the thinkers, they're some smart assholes. (pretty much true of anything) You would be surprised what some fermented camel shit and an alarm clock/cell phone can do to an up armored truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:10:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The RPG shaped charge warhead can penetrate around 100mm of hard steel armor. No aircraft in the world can defeat that warhead, and most main battle tanks have a hard time with them. here's your answer... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:10:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Oh ok I thought they had a bit better power weight ratio , learn something new every day . Yeah it would slow down insertion a bit but I figure AH-6 for cover would help but I guess it would just cluster fuch things more.
Quoted: Quoted: A fleet of MH-6s would really be a hard target . I dont see akmad herp derp hitting one with a rpg unless he was really lucky and even if he did max on it is what pilot + 6 ? . Its still would be tragic but beats loosing a flying school bus full. Optimally,each MH-6 could carry 6 troops,but realistically it's 4. Except in Afghanistan where they can't because it's too high,too hot and the Little Birds don't have enough power so let's pretend that they actually could fly all over the Hindu Kush with 2 ( except they can't...). You're going to need 15 of them to equal a Chinook. Go and find landing zones in the mountains big enough for 15 to set down at one time or else they're just going to die in pairs waiting for everyone else to land and form up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:11:25 AM EDT
[#21]
Afganistan's stats
Wins Alexandrer the Great Gengis Kahn England TWICE Russia Losses Islam- not a military defeat spread through trade. USA We are not doing bad. The problem is tactics not equipment. The way to avoid this is worry less about civilians and prep the sight with artillery. bombs, and gunships. However then we would loose the war of hearts and minds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:12:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why don't you ask why the greatest military in the world can't stop a simple 7.62X39 round or a simple IED? If it was so easy,we wouldn't have been there for fast approaching 10 years. The armor installed on U.S. Army aircraft can stop 7.62 X 39. A Blackhawk flew into a hostile area in Baghdad and took some fire from 7.62 X 39 and it stopped the rounds from penetrating the belly of the cabin. I meant in general. With all of the modern body armor and uparmored vehicles in service,people still die from small arms fire and IEDs. They just don't make the news and warrant 19 threads because it doesn't happen in one event featuring high profile people. Instances of RPG's hitting and shooting down helicopters are very,very rare.Sometimes the badguys just get lucky,but that's gonna happen when you've got X thousand people shooting who don't really seem to mind much that chances are,they're gonna die anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:12:47 AM EDT
[#23]
No military in the world can defend against guerrilla warfare! The soviets fell down a rabbit hole in Afghanistan! We are going down same road! It will be death of U.S. !
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:14:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
The RPG shaped charge warhead can penetrate around 100mm of hard steel armor. No aircraft in the world can defeat that warhead, and most main battle tanks have a hard time with them. Slat/Cage armor works, but it is a total non-started for aircraft as it would utterly destroy the aerodynamics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:15:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
No military in the world can defend against guerrilla warfare! The soviets fell down a rabbit hole in Afghanistan! We are going down same road! It will be death of U.S. ! BS we have taken that culture apart and handily beat them on thier own ground, while playing with kid gloves. In 10 years the 36 we lost thsi weekend was the highest one day stat. Think about that we lost 3000 on D Day and normally lost 100 each day the 30 days after d-day in the Bocage. We have won that war you defeatism is utter Bull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:23:32 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Can someone please tell me why the greatest Military power in the world can't stop a simple basic RPG? I'm very upset again that many of our brave special forces have been lost to this same scenario. I'm not sure what they are called but the bar armor on tanks and MRAP's, why can't we adapt them onto the Chinook's sides, back and bottom of the aircraft. I know the weight will increase but it's gonna stop. Fuck helos. Pull out all of our troops and carpet-bomb everything from now on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:24:29 AM EDT
[#27]
iirc, RPGs have shot down more helicopters in Afghanistan than MANPADs have...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:31:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why don't you ask why the greatest military in the world can't stop a simple 7.62X39 round or a simple IED? If it was so easy,we wouldn't have been there for fast approaching 10 years. The armor installed on U.S. Army aircraft can stop 7.62 X 39. A Blackhawk flew into a hostile area in Baghdad and took some fire from 7.62 X 39 and it stopped the rounds from penetrating the belly of the cabin. I meant in general. With all of the modern body armor and uparmored vehicles in service,people still die from small arms fire and IEDs. They just don't make the news and warrant 19 threads because it doesn't happen in one event featuring high profile people. Instances of RPG's hitting and shooting down helicopters are very,very rare.Sometimes the badguys just get lucky,but that's gonna happen when you've got X thousand people shooting who don't really seem to mind much that chances are,they're gonna die anyway. You are very correct in saying that the armor does not protect against everything. In that same aircraft the co-pilot had a round pass between the side and back armor on his seat and passed through his body armor and then proceeded to pass through one of his lungs then through the body armor on his front side then take out the windscreen. I was told it was at least a .50 caliber round that did that though. I inspected the aircraft and the armor did a good job of stopping the other rounds fired at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:36:13 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
iirc, RPGs have shot down more helicopters in Afghanistan than MANPADs have... They just have a shit-ton more RPGs than MANPADs. First of all,there really weren't all that many delivered 20+ years ago and those that have been left have been subject to battery expiration and general abuse to render them unservicible,practice,sent to other places ( a couple Stingers were used to shoot down Russian planes in Chechnya,funneled over by Iran or Pakistan most likely). If there were bunches of them there,plenty more aircraft would have been shot down by the ones left functioning. If you take a look at the rebels in Libya,there are a shitload of SA-7's and 14's around and they apparently will shoot 'em off as fancy rockets in the general direction of "over there",suspect plenty were used that way in Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:43:00 AM EDT
[#30]
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:45:20 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
iirc, RPGs have shot down more helicopters in Afghanistan than MANPADs have... Most MANPADS actually take a little bit of training to use as well. It's not just point-tone-shoot. Achmed the goat-fucker is unlikely to understand the concept of super-elevating his launcher before he hits the bang-switch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:52:45 AM EDT
[#32]
I get using the Chinook's, but putting so many Corp level assets on one bird is fuckin' ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:59:40 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Can someone please tell me why the greatest Military power in the world can't stop a simple basic RPG? I'm very upset again that many of our brave special forces have been lost to this same scenario. I'm not sure what they are called but the bar armor on tanks and MRAP's, why can't we adapt them onto the Chinook's sides, back and bottom of the aircraft. I know the weight will increase but it's gonna stop. War is a risky business. That is always how it has been, and always how it will be. There is no magic way to eliminate risk. Sometimes the enemy gets lucky, even when you are doing everything right. Bar armor would be too heavy, and make it a pig from an areodynamic standpoint. Plus bar armor works because it is attached to something with heavy steel armor, so setting the RPG off a few feet early works. Not so much with thin aluminum set the RPG off in teh bar armor and the bird still gets lots of damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:00:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. The Chinook is capable of performing the mission but it is however not able to defeat some aerial defenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:01:05 AM EDT
[#35]
Sometimes a David can beat a Goliath. It's war. It happens. Think of all the men killed every time a ship sunk during WWII by something as stupid as a floating mine. Or the entire fleets of bombers shot down by blinding shooting exploding shells into the air. If that round or RPG or mine or IED or rocket or missile or falling piano has your name on it, that's just the way it is. Gasping louding and grabbing your chest demanding that armor be added or whatever else is a typical knee-jerk reaction that will just result in more casualties. Put more armor on a helo? Make it a beast that can barely take off in thin air? Awesome? Reduce the amount of troops it can carry? Brilliant! Make it half as fast? Thanks Howard Hughes. So now we have a helo that can barely take off and has to leave half the amount of people on the ground while it takes twice as long to bring back more troops. Sounds like a game plan to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:06:16 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. The Chinook is capable of performing the mission but it is however not able to defeat some aerial defenses. RPG threat is only eliminated by not flying in the threat zone. All helos are vunerable to ground fire and RPGs no way around it, it is the nature of the beast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:08:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. MH-6 max speed - 152 knots. Carrying troops externally much less. UH-60 max speed 159 knots AH-64 Max speed 159 knots CH-47 Max Speed 170 knots The Chinook its not "lumbering" by any means. It is actually very fast, and in capable hands very nimble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:09:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. The Chinook is capable of performing the mission but it is however not able to defeat some aerial defenses. RPG threat is only eliminated by not flying in the threat zone. All helos are vunerable to ground fire and RPGs no way around it, it is the nature of the beast. Very true, RPG's are a helicopter's worse nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:11:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. MH-6 max speed - 152 knots. Carrying troops externally much less. UH-60 max speed 159 knots AH-64 Max speed 159 knots CH-47 Max Speed 170 knots The Chinook its not "lumbering" by any means. It is actually very fast, and in capable hands very nimble. When a Chinook is escorted by Apaches it has to slow down to the Apache's speed of 120 knots when they are fully armored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:16:28 AM EDT
[#40]
Lots of non-aviation folks here.
The reality is that weight is a killer for aircraft, especially for helicopters. Yes, there is armor around some critical areas, but in reality most of the airframe skin could be punched through by a weak kid with a screwdriver.  Every ounce of weight added to an aircraft means one less ounce of fuel, ammo, cargo or altitude capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:19:34 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Lots of non-aviation folks here. The reality is that weight is a killer for aircraft, especially for helicopters. Yes, there is armor around some critical areas, but in reality most of the airframe skin could be punched through by a weak kid with a screwdriver.
Every ounce of weight added to an aircraft means one less ounce of fuel, ammo, cargo or altitude capability. Exactly, in other words, don't expect an uparmored Chinook any time soon. I wish we could protect our precious cargo better but aircraft can only do so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:20:30 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No military in the world can defend against guerrilla warfare! The soviets fell down a rabbit hole in Afghanistan! We are going down same road! It will be death of U.S. ! BS we have taken that culture apart and handily beat them on thier own ground, while playing with kid gloves. In 10 years the 36 we lost thsi weekend was the highest one day stat. Think about that we lost 3000 on D Day and normally lost 100 each day the 30 days after d-day in the Bocage. We have won that war you defeatism is utter Bull. We were losing, on average, 7000 people a week in the Pacific during the closing months of the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:21:22 AM EDT
[#43]
For those who think the Chinook is slow, or lumbering, or not manueverable, watch this:
Crap, embedding isn't working, watch it here. Honestly, I can't think of a better choice for such missions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:23:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. MH-6 max speed - 152 knots. Carrying troops externally much less. UH-60 max speed 159 knots AH-64 Max speed 159 knots CH-47 Max Speed 170 knots The Chinook its not "lumbering" by any means. It is actually very fast, and in capable hands very nimble. People often mischaracterize cargo helos as huge floating targets. They don't realise that Big Lift=Big Power=Big Speed when you are just carrying pax. The Big Iron was constantly throttling it back wait on the Snakes when we flew with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:27:10 AM EDT
[#45]
IIRC It's the fastest bird we have.. Doesn't help that its the size of a bus though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:28:01 AM EDT
[#46]
When you consider that the rotor span on a shithook is 99'6" front to back and something like 60 odd feet wide.....that's a big assed target area.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:31:35 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me a big, lumbering cargo chopper flying slowly through mountain passes would be an RPG gunner's dream. I know they are the best way to get alot of people on the ground in one lift, but you are bound to get burned sooner or later. I think that sometimes we tend to get a little complacent, given our overwhelming superiority. If someone supplied the Taliban with portable SAMs we'd really be hurting, just like the Russians were. MH-6 max speed - 152 knots. Carrying troops externally much less. UH-60 max speed 159 knots AH-64 Max speed 159 knots CH-47 Max Speed 170 knots The Chinook its not "lumbering" by any means. It is actually very fast, and in capable hands very nimble. People often mischaracterize cargo helos as huge floating targets. They don't realise that Big Lift=Big Power=Big Speed when you are just carrying pax. The Big Iron was constantly throttling it back wait on the Snakes when we flew with them. That's correct, the Chinook has to throttle back to the AH-64's maneuvering speed when armored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:32:05 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Lots of non-aviation folks here. The reality is that weight is a killer for aircraft, especially for helicopters. Yes, there is armor around some critical areas, but in reality most of the airframe skin could be punched through by a weak kid with a screwdriver.
Every ounce of weight added to an aircraft means one less ounce of fuel, ammo, cargo or altitude capability. Exactly. Everything on an airplane or helicopter is a tradeoff. Even if you were willing to give up 100lbs of fuel to add 100lbs of armor, you'd soon find out that new armor throws off your CG and requires adding another 20lbs in the nose of the helicopter, which means you need to lose another 20lbs of fuel. Oh, and btw that extra weight in the nose reduces your directional control which means you have less ability to fly in a crosswind. Or you can increase the effectiveness of the tail rotor which takes more power from the main rotor and now you need to reduce weight again. I'm just pulling all this out of my ass but these are the sort of tradeoffs you have to deal with. For some missions, they may be worth it, but usually not. And any seemingly minor change is amplified in a situatuion like Afghanistan where you arr operating at or beyond the limits of your aircraft. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:50:11 AM EDT
[#49]
shithooks were POS forty some years ago and they are POS today
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2011 7:01:25 AM EDT
[#50]
Is this really a serious question?
Because tanks that are protected from RPGs weight 70 tons and 70 ton helicopters can't fly. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
