PDA

View Full Version : No MiG-29s, Please



scoutsout80
03-02-2010, 11:06 AM
March 2, 2010: In late 2008, Russia offered to sell Lebanon ten MiG-29 fighters, at a "large discount" (less than $5 million each). Lebanon has since persuaded Russia to provide ten Mi-24 helicopter gunships instead, along with modern missiles to arm them. This makes much more sense for Lebanon.

The original MiG-29 offer was not as big a favor to the Lebanese as it might appear. Two months before that generous offer, all Russian MiG-29s were grounded until it could be determined if some recent crashes, and other problems, were the result of some fundamental design flaw. There had been several problems with MiG-29s earlier, although all aircraft were eventually returned to flight status. This has not helped sales, as most export customers prefer the larger Su-27 (and its derivatives like the Su-30).

The MiG-29 entered Russian service in 1983, as the answer to the American F-16. Some 1,600 MiG-29s have been produced so far, with most (about 900) exported. The biggest customer, India, received its first MiG-29s in 1986, with deliveries continuing into the 1990s.

The 22 ton aircraft is, indeed, roughly comparable to the F-16, but it depends a lot on which version of either aircraft you are talking about. Then there are the reliability problems Compared to Western aircraft, like the F-16, the MiG-29 is available for action about two thirds as often. The Lebanese knew all this, but their air force has no jet fighters at all, so ten MiG-29s was, initially, seen as a major improvement. But then someone pointed out that MiG-29s, operated by poorly trained Lebanese pilots, would not last long against the Israelis. Moreover, the other enemy, Syria, has many more aircraft, including MiG-29s flown by experienced pilots. But Mi-24 helicopters are a different matter. These have a better chance of avoiding Israeli air power, and are also more useful against domestic enemies, like the Hezbollah militia, which has been trying to take over the government and establish a religious dictatorship.

The Mi-24 is a twelve ton chopper based on the Mi-8/17 transport. The U.S. did the same thing with the AH-1, developing it from the UH-1 "Huey." But rather than adopt the two seater (one pilot behind the other), and no passengers, approach of the AH-1 and AH-64 Apache, the Mi-24 could still carry troops or cargo in the back, and was not as nimble as the AH-1. But it still got the job done when equipped with autocannon, rockets and missiles.

SMR
03-02-2010, 06:07 PM
great pic of a Mi-24 helicopter5356

ianstone
03-02-2010, 07:28 PM
In my day they were Hind chopper.A gun ship
These are rough crude and use a lot of gas per flying hour.
They are not as sophisticated as the western versions.
However they are like the RPG 7, you get in the way, it will vapourise you, make no mistake!

MickDonalds
03-02-2010, 09:45 PM
I've always had fantasies for the Mi-24 (Hind A/ Hind D). When I was little and saw Rambo III, I LOVED the design, and maneuvarability. They must just look absolutely TERRIFYING if you're on the ground and see an armed beast from the depths of hell hovering fast towards you. I wish the US had developed some kind of "Gunship" system, but I guess the Apache and Blackhawk make more sense.

nastyleg
03-03-2010, 03:33 AM
I've always had fantasies for the Mi-24 (Hind A/ Hind D). When I was little and saw Rambo III, I LOVED the design, and maneuvarability. They must just look absolutely TERRIFYING if you're on the ground and see an armed beast from the depths of hell hovering fast towards you. I wish the US had developed some kind of "Gunship" system, but I guess the Apache and Blackhawk make more sense.

The Apache was the US answer to the Hind...Apache is a beast and is better in my opinion than the Hind. Dont get me wrong the Hind is an airframe to be respected but my money is on the apache.

Arab Solidarity
03-12-2011, 05:17 PM
The Apache was the US answer to the Hind...Apache is a beast and is better in my opinion than the Hind. Dont get me wrong the Hind is an airframe to be respected but my money is on the apache.

If your money is on the Apache, then you must have a very deep pocket: It holds the record for the most expensive helicopter (about $30 million). I still prefer the "Hind" because it's ubiquitous, cheap and can carry an entire squad on board.

nastyleg
03-13-2011, 09:13 AM
If your money is on the Apache, then you must have a very deep pocket: It holds the record for the most expensive helicopter (about $30 million). I still prefer the "Hind" because it's ubiquitous, cheap and can carry an entire squad on board.

The hind is trying to do too many things at once. The apache is a very specialized platform. The hind cannot do everything spectacularly just ok. The US decided to make a specialized tansport helicopter and a specialized attack helicopter. Which it did very well. The hind has faults as does any platform. Remember you get what you pay for.