Yemeni Conflict: News

Seriously Panzir-S1 has far better capabilities to shoot down Tochkas and not to mention old Scuds than the US work and experience in this technology concentrating over 30 years of a total "success" story. They had less than 8% interception probability in Iraq war with Patriots today with 3 upgrades to PAC-3 which was again used just like during Iraq war to be an Anti Ballistic highly capable SAM almost a TABM and they still can't achieve a modest interception rate.

Well lets be fair... the Patriots used in Desert Storm were Pac-2 patriots that never claimed to have any ABM capability. It was comparisons with S-300 where claims Patriot was a superior system that led some to believe Patriot might have some ABM capability, but that was never part of the design of the system.

Conversely the PAC-3 Patriot is custom designed for ABM and ATBM use at the expense of normal anti aircraft capability and it seems to struggle with that requirement.

It isn't even rated Screwdriver Safe. If you sit in an Apache Helicopter, standing on the ground, someone runs at you with a machette i would be scared in that thing. On the other hand i would laugh at him if it was a Mi-28/24.

To be fair the Mi-24 only has front armoured windscreens... the curved canopies are not armoured and could be penetrated with small arms fire... the front windscreens would stop 23mm cannon shells.

AH-64 was designed with a wrong philosophy in mind - the designers wanted a helo for pretty much one role - to attack Soviet tank columns during a NATO-WARPAC war. Well, presence of short range AD systems (Shilkas, Strelas and Tunguskas) would assure that any Apache that gets into proximity of Soviet units quickly turns into Swiss cheese. The role of Ah-64 cannot be fulfilled except in some ideal conditions of total air superiority.

Its primary role was to blunt an armoured attack and the first part of this mission would be to deal with the very heavy air defence forces of the Soviet Army... in this mission they would also clear the way for other aircraft to do the same and of course there would be dedicated SEAD aircraft also working over the air defence network.

In the low intensity conflict they are excellent and precision weapons that can take out a specific room of a building... to do the same job with artillery would generally mean destroying the city block with a barrage of rockets.

in a high intensity conflict they would be in serious danger... but then in a high intensity conflict all platforms would be in serious danger too.

The main problem for the Apache is that Soviet air defences expanded in range faster than the Apaches primary weapon has increased in range... Tunguska-M1 already in service can kill rapidly 10km range targets and defend itself from any missiles the target might launch.

The Apache is however a very capable system that has plenty of uses that make it a valuable aircraft and when used with other assets like the A-10 can be devastating.

Mi-24 is a way better construction because it's an attack helicopter and a transport one at the same time.

Mi-24 is not so much an attack helo as an assault helo.... inserting small armed teams or extracting small armed teams is its forte, its upgrade with night vision optics and components from the Mi28N have improved performance greatly.

AH-64 is bad design ...

Mi-24 is all good & perfect

ok enough BS ?

I actually like the Apache... it is very high maintainence, but it is also a very capable combat proven aircraft. The hind is also a good aircraft, but certainly not perfect either.

But what about Mi-28? It's pretty much same thing as AH-64 when it comes to philosophy. Except Mi-28 is better in many ways (weapon station, safety, reliability)
AH-64 is not bad, AH-64E for example looks sweet, especially interested in ability to link up to UAVs.

ZALA have a video with a large box mounted on the outer wing pylon of a Ka-52 that drops UAVs that are rectangular flying wings... the box looks like it might carry 4-6 UAVs that can be released in flight to scout ahead in dangerous conditions...

I have also seen footage of 14.5mm HMGs mounted to the side of an Mi-28 cockpit window and fired with no penetration of the transparency...

The Mi-28N has the advantage of very cheap, though very capable and fast guided missiles in greater numbers plus rockets and a rather more powerful cannon. One of the reported improvements in the Mi-28M is the cannon ammo is stored internally making a more aerodynamic gun mount and more ready to fire ammo.

GarryB wrote:
Well lets be fair... the Patriots used in Desert Storm were Pac-2 patriots that never claimed to have any ABM capability. It was comparisons with S-300 where claims Patriot was a superior system that led some to believe Patriot might have some ABM capability, but that was never part of the design of the system.

Conversely the PAC-3 Patriot is custom designed for ABM and ATBM use at the expense of normal anti aircraft capability and it seems to struggle with that requirement.

Actually for propaganda purposes the empire has propagated it to be the ultimate mobile Anti Ballistic Missile System.

IIRC the ape bush was even propagating it infront of TV to be so damn accurate over something like 97%, of course that "person" has a really high authority especially when it is about anything else but looking stupid infront of camera, nobody excelled at this but him but maybe rivalled by Sackarschwilli Tie eater.

GarryB wrote:
To be fair the Mi-24 only has front armoured windscreens... the curved canopies are not armoured and could be penetrated with small arms fire... the front windscreens would stop 23mm cannon shells.

Yes, but to have at least front bulletproof glass reduces the risk of getting an injured or killed pilot/WSO greatly. I doubt the windscreen will hold 23mm HE-Frag rounds, but i would feel totally safe someone shooting entire magazine of AK's or trying to shoot DShK at it. One Mi-24P withstood 11 12.7 DShK rounds to WSO's front BP glass, i would say that is impressive.

GarryB wrote:
Mi-24 is not so much an attack helo as an assault helo.... inserting small armed teams or extracting small armed teams is its forte, its upgrade with night vision optics and components from the Mi28N have improved performance greatly.

The Mi-24 is an attack helicopter in its concept, its duty it was designed to fullfil and its capabilities just with additional capability, other than that it comes in strike performance against fortifications and defensive constructed complexes or formations with near high lethality as Su-25/A-10, other attack helicopters usually meat only requirements in their precision guidance not in their hit and run capabilities, here the Hind is superior.

GarryB wrote:
I actually like the Apache... it is very high maintainence, but it is also a very capable combat proven aircraft. The hind is also a good aircraft, but certainly not perfect either.

The Apache is a great Attack helicopter but i have very big problems with anyone that tries to label something as "combat proven" since any such labels that have the goal to somehow give warmachines something special status due some combat involvement with insurgents and some involvement against inferior militaries without the capability to fight their enemy, that is a definition of false labeling. Combat proven can only be labeled for systems/complexes of weapons and their plattforms that achieve actual success for their roles against the opponent countries they were designed for. US designed Apache against Soviet ground forces, it never saw warfare against Soviets, they screwed up entirely against Serbia which had nowhere near the capability of Soviet Union or Russia. Defacto the label "combat proven" for Abrams or Apache is useless, killing inferior armies nothing there can be labelled combat proven, "proven to do the job modest or with inferior results than initially expected" label would meet the definition and reality much better.

Yet you yourself are touting Mi-24's performance against insurgents with 12.7 MG, it also not having faced NATO head on.
Clearly this discussion doesn't belong in "Yemeni Conflict News" thread, so please take it somewhere else if you're so interested.

mutantsushi wrote:Yet you yourself are touting Mi-24's performance against insurgents with 12.7 MG, it also not having faced NATO head on.
Clearly this discussion doesn't belong in "Yemeni Conflict News" thread, so please take it somewhere else if you're so interested.

No and the Mi-24saw far more than the Apache has ever seen. It has faced weapons the Apache would fall apart. It was hit by far leathier rounds than 12.7mm, CIA supplied Talibans with ZSU-23-2, old WW2 37mm Anti Aircraft FlaK guns which also with 3 engagements hit Hinds and it survived twice, which was usually unexpected to see such abuse without destruction of it. MK-19 Grenadelaunchers were used just like RPG's in NoE flights of Hinds against them, few were destroyed some survived barrages of 40mm HE-Frag rounds, with entirely ripped open side of the cargo room and stubbed wing. They faced Shilka's, ZSU-23-2 in Chechnya, they faced AH-1J, F-4,F-86 in Iraq-Iran, Nicaragua, Peru, several african conflicts, which was mainly insurgent fighting, anyways defacto it isn't combat proven, but it has seen Air Defense systems beyond the capability of US, while still sustaining progress in war, the personal they fought were also on Russia's/Soviet level of capability in Chechnya, that is nothing the US has ever seen with their Apache and pilots.

Hachimoto wrote:

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:AH-64 was designed with a wrong philosophy in mind - the designers wanted a helo for pretty much one role - to attack Soviet tank columns during a NATO-WARPAC war. Well, presence of short range AD systems (Shilkas, Strelas and Tunguskas) would assure that any Apache that gets into proximity of Soviet units quickly turns into Swiss cheese. The role of Ah-64 cannot be fulfilled except in some ideal conditions of total air superiority.

Mi-24 is a way better construction because it's an attack helicopter and a transport one at the same time.

AH-64 is bad design ...

Mi-24 is all good & perfect

ok enough BS ?

Nothing is/can be perfect, but you just talked common knowledge.... now let us hear your BS?

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1478129.html

Nothing new in Yemen. Houtis are keep beating Saudi coalition armies.

I am contemplating ideas on how to counter the Saudi naval blockade - any ideas?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I am contemplating ideas on how to counter the Saudi naval blockade - any ideas?

Give Fateh missiles to the Houthis.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I am contemplating ideas on how to counter the Saudi naval blockade - any ideas?

The ocean is big. A few ships cannot blockade. Heck, even Napoleon was not able to blockade Britain.

Houthis don't have access to the southern coastline of Yemen - Gulf coalition has to block a narrow strait - maybe 20-something kilometers. It can easily be done with a few frigates and corvettes.

Nevertheless, using Russians vessels seems appealing.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Houthis don't have access to the southern coastline of Yemen - Gulf coalition has to block a narrow strait - maybe 20-something kilometers. It can easily be done with a few frigates and corvettes.

Nevertheless, using Russians vessels seems appealing.

They can sail from Lebanon or Syria to North Yemen. Not a problem.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I am contemplating ideas on how to counter the Saudi naval blockade - any ideas?

Divers from a fishing boat....
Mines dropped from fishing boat....
Kornets fired from fishing boat...

However, even if a warship is sunk, the blockade can be still applied via air force.

http://lostarmour.info/yemen/
No update beyond 01.09 but still highly recommended.

First Leclerc damaged, hit a mine. The track and a wheel was destroyed.

more saudi losses.

i wonder how many armoured vehicles Saudi Arabia already lost

Arctic_Fox wrote:more saudi losses.

i wonder how many armoured vehicles Saudi Arabia already lost

Cracked that thing open like a piñata

Do Saudis have anything even resembling a plan here? They might as well blown that APC up themselves instead of parking it in that choke-point disguised as a street...

I guess money really can't buy everything.

Another day in the Yemen war...
Another Saudi post captured (in Saudi territory)...
A few more Bradleys (and other vehicles) bite the dust...

TheArmenian wrote:Another day in the Yemen war...
Another Saudi post captured (in Saudi territory)...
A few more Bradleys (and other vehicles) bite the dust...

That video seems to repeat a lot of what was in the one a couple of posts up. Most of the explosions seem to be on abandoned vehicles, at least there is no movement or soldiers around them. Strange but then I can't read the words.

Saud arab need drop US tech. the street fight need reative armor remote gun the aps.

Need buy the Ru!