1 Howie, trust me when I tell you that these pictures are not from the incident in question (and I think the press is confusing a couple previously reported incidents and creating this out of thin air actually...)  Can you point me to the video online?  I'd like to see it and try to figure out when it's from, as I don't think it's very recent at all...

2

Private contractors are flying SeaKnight helicopters with Navy/USMC color schemes? Sounds fishy.

3 Howie,
FYI,
The Arabic scribling at the bottom of the pictures you've posted reads something like "Crusading forces rush to evacuate [a word I don't understand] by other intervening aircraft."

So yes, these are definitely from the bad guys.

The scribling in yellow at the left margin below the pair of crossed swords reads "Jaish al-Mojahedeen" which means "the army of mojadedeen" which I guess identifies the specific terrorist group claiming responsibility.
In Bluto's words "D@mn their vile souls to hell" which I guess is redundant.

4 Its a state dept mission(whatever that means SOURCE nyt "helicopter supporting State Department operations"). The vid was released recently. I downloaded it the 5th. It does match the descriptions of botht eh NYT story and the ABC story. I'm sending mike a copy. The link to the original vid is here http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=965221ca850a382338de3eedf56c931b
chopper at aboput 23 minutes or so.

5 My suspicions are 100% on the Mullahcracy of Iran supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the bastards.
I'm basing this on the fact that during the Israel Hizbullah battles of last summer, the Hizbullahi's were found in possession of such weapons and succeeded in bringing down one Israeli chopper.

Perhaps one of the readers with military experience could educate the rest of us on how effective such weapons might be against different kinds of aircraft, rotary wing attack, rotary wing tranport, fixed wing CAS, fixed wing fighter/bomber, fixed wing transport etc.

6 Smaller windows media copy of just the chopper seq that google has not processed yet.  Slow bastards. Also reports are that this was from simple heavy caliber machine gun fire.



http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=59e45014262f2add7d9de1fc2ad99adf

7 Darth Odie,
So, these guys just typed the Arabic lines on top of pictures released by the U.S. state department, did they?

8 No where are the pics from the state dept?

9 Garduneh Mehr, alot still depends on what type of weapon it was. There's a big difference between an SA-7 left over from Vietnam and an SA-18 recently purchased from Russia. SA-7s can come from just about anywhere. SA-18s can only come from a few select countries that currently purchase weapons from Russia. Unfortunately, both Iran and Syria have them. Speed and altitude of the target is probably the biggest factors in using a shoulder launched SAM. This is why helicopters are the most vulnerable, followed by slow moving fixed wings landing or taking off.

10 Darth Odie, I misunderstood you. Very sorry about that.

BohicaTwentyTwo:   Thanks for the explanation.

And the pricks running Syria and Iran need a good hard kick in the teeth especially if it's verified that they supplied the weapons which constitutes a brazen act of war against all coalition nations.

11

I don't know if it matters, but as far as targeting helicopters, the only person I ever spoke with about it was trained to use the "redeye". He explained that jets were nearly invulnerable because of the short time they remained inside your attack radius. Even with choppers they may be flying by at one or two miles a minute, so your reaction times are short. Can the target fly outside your radius before your missile gets to speed, and reaches the target? Good question.

Further, with the "redeye" at least, how a helicopter vents its exhaust plays a part in how vulnerable it is to attack. Actually this was true of jets also. Where the hot spots are, is where the missile will go, and the better view of the hot spots, the more likely the missile is to hit its target. Some soviet choppers he was trained to ID, and attack, vented their exhaust to one side, and if you weren't on that side, your chances of a hit were reduced considerably.

Lastly, he said that the missiles he was trained with had a narrow feild of sensitivity, and shooting could be tricky because the missile drops about 15 degrees from its launch angle before it achieves a direct flight path. A careless shot will take your missile outside of its field of sensitivity and it will go after the wrong target, or just fly blind until it hits something.

Suppossedly this was offset by the FC at the firing end. If I am not getting my missiles confused, the firer could point at the target, and make sure the missile was picking it up, before launching. I apologize for the uncertainty here, but I'm reaching back about 30 years or so.

Anyway he made it seem pretty obvious that you needed a clear feild of fire, and at least a few seconds to get your ducks in a row. I am not sure how SA-7 compares to that, but since they are also older missiles, it might be fairly close. I hear they are more accurate, but I beleive the warhead is the main problem with those. They get stuck in fusilages without blowing up!

As for SA-18' I'm going to guess has worked out that problem. If we are seeing choppers get hit by missiles that consistently detonate, and with sufficient force to down a large copter, they are probably SA-18's. Especially if they are being fired from urban sprawl at passing targets of opportunity. The engagment window would be small, and the missile would have to be able to 'find' it's target, if it wasn't a direct fire situation. Anyway, I'm no expert, but I thought I'd share what I THINK I know

USA, all the way!

12 It is worth mentioning that ATGW, and RPG can be used against  hovering helicopters, although this depends alot on the chopper sitting relativly still and staying within range. I doubt either is a likely culprit n these reported incidents.                 USA, all the way!

13 M.W.,
Thanks for the info.

14 Oh and I'm not sure what a security contactor is   fisked.

15 How do you not see that this makes us look like incompetent fools? We are not fighting a regional power let alone another super-power and this is the mess that has resulted... How are other countries supposed to take us seriously when we can't even keep control over a desert country the size of California that we've been bombing for 20 years? Where's the sewage treatment, electricity, running water or gasoline? Maybe we should put Rambo back inside our pants now and see what the geeks can do for awhile.

16 Weebone:


Dream on, fantasist. For every chopper downed, a hundred thousand terrorists are greased. So much for American incompetence.


Iraq is roughly the size of Arizona, and smaller than New Mexico. California is 40,000 square miles larger than Iraq. That's roughly the size of Ohio, you ignoramus. California is larger than the majority of the world's countries, by the way. It produces swinging studs like me.


The Iraqi infrastructure is far more extensive now than it was under Saddam. Using outdated lefty media lies just makes you look stupider than we already know you are.


Letting the geeks raise taxes and kiss islamopithecine ass never worked in the past. We don't need moree 911s, increased national debt and more effeminate men.


No, the men are still in charge. Executive power is vested in the President's office, not the parasites in Congress.


There's not a damn thing you can do about it.

17

Jeff, please. The men? Swinging Studs? You need analysis bro (Ted Haggard is free). Just keep repeating: it's not the size that matters. It's not the size that matters...

18 Weebone:


Why am I not surprised that you want to believe size doesn't matter?


How big is Iraq? How many terrorists have been greased by coalition soldiers. Who wields executive power in the U.S?How small is your pee-pee, anyway?


I'm a california native. What crappy little state are you from, loser? Assuming you're even an American. You write like a foreigner with a terminal case of america envy. I can make a woman cum 10 to 30 times in one session, and impregnate a woman using protection. The day you can claim the same is the day you can question my stud status.


Limpy.

19 Jeff, Maybe if you take out a banner ad on Jawa more people will get the message and stop questioning your ultra-hetero nature. 10 to 30 times? That's all? And you brag about this? What a tool.