What's new

USA provides Afghanistan new helicopters

And yet my good Penguin, that happened :


The only chopper to land on Everest cannot have a service ceiling of 5,000m, now can it?

Or do you measure from take-off? :yay:

It is too old mate...I don't think you have in working conditions.

The broncos are kicking azz all over the place, they're still a great piece of kit.

Have fun all, Tay.
 
maxresdefault.jpg


the FN Herstal Heavy Machine Gun Pod (HMP).

Weapons option discussed in detail here;
http://www.airrecognition.com/index...craft-united-states-american-us-usn-usmc.html

And yet my good Penguin, that happened :
Under 14 CFR Part 29.1527, the Maximum operating altitude for a transport-category helicopter is:

§ 29.1527 Maximum operating altitude. The maximum altitude up to which operation is allowed, as limited by flight, structural, powerplant, functional, or equipment characteristics, must be established.

In the Everest vid, the heli flies in ground effect when landing.

The highest altitude a helicopter has ever flown, which was 40,820 feet on June 21, 1972, when Jean Boulet of France flew a single-turboshaft Aerospatiale SA 315B Lama, which had been stripped of all unnecessary equipment to reduce weight. He could have possibly gone higher, but the Lama's engine flamed out, which necessitated an autorotation to the ground and an unintentional additional record: the longest successful autorotation.

The highest altitude at which a helicopter has ever landed: 29,305 feet on top of Mount Everest, the world's highest peak. This was accomplished by Eurocopter test pilot Didier Delsalle in an unmodified, single turboshaft-engine AS350 B3 helicopter on May 14, 2005

I found this explanation informative:
A simple question with a complicated answer.

First let's talk altitude. There isn't going to be a set altitude that a helicopter can get to. There are numerous charts in helicopter performance planning manuals that allow pilots to figure out a maximum altitude. This altitude will be a function of aircraft gross weight, Mean Sea Level elevation and temperature. Engines and Rotor systems are less efficient at higher temperatures/altitude and they have work harder when the aircraft weighs more. Temperature and Altitude factored together gives you density altitude. Most aircraft's service ceilings are based on density altitude.

Second there are several maximum altitudes a helicopter pilot is going to be concerned with. The maximum altitude for level flight, the maximum for an in ground effect (IGE) hover and the maximum for an out of ground effect (OGE) hover. An IGE hover is one close to the ground usually 3-10 feet demanding on aircraft type and OGE hover requires more power and is 1.5 times the aircraft's rotor diameter or greater above the ground. As you move between the two more power is required. The power required for each of these changes for density altitude and weight. For level flight airspeed is also going to be a factor, all aircraft of a 'bucket' airspeed at the bottom of the drag curve where they are most efficient. A prudent pilot is going to figure these numbers out before they get into that phase of flight so they don't get into trouble.

Hope this helps you figure it out. For level flight most helicopters can fly up over 10000 feet MSL. Without a pressurized cabin the FAA requires oxygen for flights above 12000 MSL longer than 30 minutes and all flights above 14000 MSL. Helicopter operators at theses altitudes will carry pressurized oxygen to give their crew members so they are in compliance. There isn't much incentive to be able to cruise much higher than 12000 feet because of the cost involved. For hover the altitude it really depends on gross weight and temperature but 8000 is a good ballpark number.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-highest-altitude-an-average-helicopter-can-fly (see under Dave Blunier)
 
Last edited:
@Penguin

Colonel Qalandar Shah Qalandari, who the NYT described as "Afghanistan's most decorated pilot", was quoted as saying that the single-engined helicopter does not have the range to attack Taliban targets from its homebase at Kabul International Airport, and neither does it have the power to operate effectively in Afghanistan's 'hot and high' environment. In the summer they cannot cross the mountain ranges that encircle Kabul, he said.

Further to these complaints, Col Qalandari noted the lack of armour and sighting systems for the helicopter's machine guns as being handicaps also.

www.janes.com/article/54845/afghan-md-530f-lost-to-accident-air-force-criticises-helicopter-s-performance

The criticism is from Afghan Air Force only.They're saying that it doesn't have the ceiling.Perhaps they've that ceiling when clean.But when armed,their ceiling perhaps drop significantly.Thats why Whenever they fly to any forward bases,MI-17s carry their munitions.

Why don't you sponser them...why should we waste our tax money on them.

we??? o_Oo_O

USA is retiring their A-10s,Surely they can find suitable terms to dispatch few to Afganistan.

We're sponsoring these....

MI-35-helicopters-Kabul-India.jpg
 
@Penguin

Colonel Qalandar Shah Qalandari, who the NYT described as "Afghanistan's most decorated pilot", was quoted as saying that the single-engined helicopter does not have the range to attack Taliban targets from its homebase at Kabul International Airport, and neither does it have the power to operate effectively in Afghanistan's 'hot and high' environment. In the summer they cannot cross the mountain ranges that encircle Kabul, he said.

Further to these complaints, Col Qalandari noted the lack of armour and sighting systems for the helicopter's machine guns as being handicaps also.

www.janes.com/article/54845/afghan-md-530f-lost-to-accident-air-force-criticises-helicopter-s-performance

The criticism is from Afghan Air Force only.They're saying that it doesn't have the ceiling.Perhaps they've that ceiling when clean.But when armed,their ceiling perhaps drop significantly.Thats why Whenever they fly to any forward bases,MI-17s carry their munitions.

I know comparing specs and actually flying a machine may yield a world of difference but ... this is MI-24:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#Specifications_.28Mi-24.29

The specs compare in favor of MD-530F (be these very different machines of course)

So, that begs the question, with what chopper is the pilot comparing? What would he like to fly? Since there doesn't appear to be a significant range difference with MI-24 and MD-530F has a better ceiling 'on paper', does he have a specific other helicopter in mind?

AH-64D
AH-1W
Mi-28
Ka-50
Mi-17-1V
Mi-8
I venture a guess that the pilot in question would rather fly an AH-64D or Ka-50. But hey, who wouldn't yearn for the Ferrari Testarossa or Toyota Landcruiser while driving a Suzuki Mehran?

It is unreasonable/unrealistic to expect that kind of performance from the Little Bird. Something that it wasn't designed for cannot be considered a shortcoming of the "flying egg".

I wonder how that Afghan pilot would rate the Fennec or Gazelle, if he flew it comparatively.
 
Last edited:
Afghanistan is not particularly happy with these helos.It seems low range and service ceiling are one of the major reasons.
They may not be happy, but there is a reason for why they're receiving these helos. Afghanistan cannot afford the high cost of operation for heavier and more expensive helos.

Simply put, this transfer happened, taking Afghanistan's financial situation into consideration.

Keep in mind, Afghanistan is already over spending on its military, and that's without the massive military aid that it receives. If Afghanistan wants better air craft, it either needs to convince the US of providing more financial assistance, or better its economy.
 
I think this helicopter is good for Afghanistan as per their needs
 
No lessons learnt , PR stunts continue

this story is may be good for Power Point being presented in some US ops room , presided over by a grumpy commander , otherwise of zlich value

What is this heli coming to change that 10 billlion worth of aid , equipment and training hasn't changed ?

Afghanistan is not particularly happy with these helos.It seems low range and service ceiling are one of the major reasons.

why dont you provide LCA to afghanistan ? that will fix everything in a jiffy

#56inch
LCA-Tejas-at-International-Air-Show.jpg



#MissionDoneIndia

Tejas_aircraft_new_650.jpg
 
India will provide all mordanized Mi-35 choppers to Afghans as we get LCH and Apache. US should provide Cobras.
 
India will provide all mordanized Mi-35 choppers to Afghans as we get LCH and Apache. US should provide Cobras.

in kay sath do char chaprasi bhi bheej dena , who will do taqi before every photo opportunity :lol: as that is all the outcome will be ... photos
 
No lessons learnt , PR stunts continue

this story is may be good for Power Point being presented in some US ops room , presided over by a grumpy commander , otherwise of zlich value

What is this heli coming to change that 10 billlion worth of aid , equipment and training hasn't changed ?



why dont you provide LCA to afghanistan ? that will fix everything in a jiffy

#56inch
LCA-Tejas-at-International-Air-Show.jpg



#MissionDoneIndia

Tejas_aircraft_new_650.jpg


Looks like the due episode of LCA Vs JF-17 still haunting you.. :rofl:

They may not be happy, but there is a reason for why they're receiving these helos. Afghanistan cannot afford the high cost of operation for heavier and more expensive helos.

Simply put, this transfer happened, taking Afghanistan's financial situation into consideration.

Keep in mind, Afghanistan is already over spending on its military, and that's without the massive military aid that it receives. If Afghanistan wants better air craft, it either needs to convince the US of providing more financial assistance, or better its economy.

Frankly,I think they can afford a better attack helo with comparable or slightly more expenses on maintenance.But there are reasons why they're getting "Observation cum Attack Platform" instead of "Dedicated Attack Platform" from USA while they're operating like 100 Mi-17s and some 7 Mi-24s.That maintenance logic which you applied doesn't simply fit.

Don't worry if you provide them with this, sooner or later they may end up in our hands lol.

That is the reason why USA provides less sophisticated technology to AF for now.But frankly saying,your post is quite a cheap one.Pakistan might have excelled themselves in "Double Game",but they're digging their own graves by playing these games against opponents(friends) whom they can't afford to lose.
 
Afghans are fighting an insurgency and US and applying salt to the wounds by giving toy choppers. I mean. Look at that?
How easily it can be taken down.

If the US is serious about battling Taliban, equip ANA. You dont need to give Apache. But give them Cobra old models, atleast. Or get them second hand attack choppers from old soviets airforces. This is disappointing.
 
And yet my good Penguin, that happened :


The only chopper to land on Everest cannot have a service ceiling of 5,000m, now can it?

Or do you measure from take-off? :yay:



The broncos are kicking azz all over the place, they're still a great piece of kit.

Have fun all, Tay.
Thanks for sharing the video but it is not the same helicopter (MD530) which has been given to Afghanistan.
 
Frankly,I think they can afford a better attack helo with comparable or slightly more expenses on maintenance.But there are reasons why they're getting "Observation cum Attack Platform" instead of "Dedicated Attack Platform" from USA while they're operating like 100 Mi-17s and some 7 Mi-24s.That maintenance logic which you applied doesn't simply fit.
Having a large amount of any aircraft, and being able to deploy them are two different things. It costs money to maintain aircraft, from fuel costs, to paint jobs, to parts purchase and replacement, these things don't come free.

The biggest issue with Afghanistan is that it cannot deploy a large amount of its air craft inventory, this is why these new helos are better suited for them. Not only do they provide close air support, which Afghanistan badly needs, but they're also cheap to operate and can be easily deployed in good numbers by Afghanistan.

Keep in mind, Afghanistan already has a lot of trouble maintaining their current fleet. Not only have they had to resort to hiring mercenaries to flies their helos, but they've had to hire outside help to help maintain their current fleet. Frankly, they're already overspending on their current fleet, due to these issues, buying expensive aircraft would simply make the situation worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom