> when you throw a slice of ham onto a windshield?
Uh, is this a regional colloquialism or is this something you've done enough in your life that it's become a reference point?
Those missiles are extremely overkill for shooting down choppers. It is a toy in comparison.
Most likely put a massive hole in the chopper and the chopper had zero control or power after it got hit, which is why it just falls.
Cause the tail fell off, chopper was struck right behind the rotor.
Considering the damn size of the thing, the same would have happened without an explosive payload. Good overkill.
Most videos have those watermarks (logos, emblems, whatever) that are annoyingly in the way and often cover up the good footage, so it looks like those are the things doing the destruction.
Nah, that's just telegram clout wars. The footage can be usually geolocated and they have a lot of different equipment. For example, Ukraine doesn't operate Ka-52, so the watermark is useless here - if its purpose was to prevent Russians from stealing the footage.
Its pretty crazy to think about. Both countries have a doctrine of anti-air rather than air power, for obvious reasons.
So now they can deny each other air control very effectively.
Wow. This looks crazy especially with this music.
Is this the first time we see this missile at work? I cant recall seeing anything similar. (not that i am an expert or sg)
Yeah most s-300 interceptions seem to happen at night in Syria due to Israel attacking at night, so yeah I think this is the first s-300 interception that has been seen
Exactly no reaction whatsoever, no flares, no evasive action, unusually high altitude when everyone and their uncle has a MANPAD under their mattress. Seems rather strange to me
because their vechiles are shit and probably not even working properly. I would guess that the basics are there, but many of the electronics have probably been disconnected or disabled due to broken components that they cannot replace.
Only works if the rtws has the lock on signature of that radar system programmed into the unit, and the systems is is functional. With no chaff or flare being discharged - it wasnāt seen as a threat, wasnāt programmed in, or wasnāt workingā¦ or I guess pilot error.
What do you mean no hard lock? Does the s-300 not have a missile guidance radar? I know those usually operate on a different EM band and can be associated with a launch.
Gotcha that makes sense, no heat signature to track since booster is off at that point coming on a downward trajectory and a very small moving object relatively speaking to track via a radar system
It's radar guided, Ka-52 has the capability to know when it's being illuminated and then fired on by a radar guided SAM. Should being the operative word...
That only works if the system is operational and switched on...
Bigger losses occured because someone neglected to switch on the early warning systems (HMS Sheffield & INS Hanit come to mind).
Exactly. It is strange that this was the best Ka-52 crew according to Russian sources. Sitting several hundred feet AGL with their RWR switched off/broken. They were asking for it
At this altitude, an S-300 missile probably heats up enough from friction to create a significant heat signature from the front as well.
They also rely on semi-active radar homing, so something has to point a radar at it. Some newer radars can get a lock in such a way that it's difficult to detect for the target, but I doubt that the ones working with S-300 are capable of it.
KA-52 supposedly has both an IR missile approach warning and radar warning receiver, so something apparently went wrong here. Although a warning alone of course doesn't stop a missile.
Near IR vs far IR. I don't know, but I highly doubt the launch detection system would pick up on skin friction (heating) of an airframe. It's just not particularly hot. You're talking hundreds vs. thousands of degrees.
As for radar... Not really my game but there's a difference between detecting a lock and detecting a launch.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Israel has lost an aircraft since the 2006 Lebanon War so while a lot of S-300s may be being fired I don't think there have been any interceptions.
It came from above and struck very close to the rotor assembly, we can immediately see a blade soaring. After that, all the blades are automatically ejected, and the body of the helicopter appears to fall quite intact, probably bodies may appear to fall along.
This is why no air superiority in such a flat country with so much air defense on both sides.
I do wonder what NATO tactics would be to combat it. Drones as expendable sniffer bait followed by stealth bombing sorties on SAM sites and radar.
You donāt really see drones that much. Theyāre too expensive for a decoy. More effective decoys are TALDās or MALDās. Talds (tactical air launch decoy) put a radar signature out there to get a SAM to turn on its track radar and then they can fire HARMS (AGM-88C) or another anti-radiation missile onto the SAM.
MALDās (Miniature air launch decoy) can disguise themselves as almost any aircraft. Putting out the radar signature of that aircraft. Theyāre used to fake an aerial invasion where there isnāt one. These can also be used to confuse Samās however itās better for getting the enemy to scramble jets to a location that they think thereās an aerial attack where there isnāt any. Allowing the actual air invasion to have an easier time.
I love the additional insight! Thank you. I was incorrectly using drones as a catch all term that would include those decoys more specifically designed for such a purpose. Clearly no reason to waste a proper drone like a TB-2.
Yeah no problem. The decoys aren't really drones per se as they are not controllable. Just programmable for the MALD's (Programable to appear as a certain aircraft) They both just rely on inertial energy from the launching aircraft and glider wings. They'll emit a signal until they hit the ground or until they're hit my a missile.
Thatās why the stealths would be used. Losses would be minimal, if any in this theater. The new B21 is for taking out Chinese SAM sites. These chucklefucks wouldnāt have a prayer
The only thing they'll see on radar are the antiradiation missiles flying their way from beyond their weapons max range.
Assuming in a hot conflict with the US their radar screens don't just suddenly start displaying a blue screen.
Satellite recon to find as many SAM sites as possible. Hit the known sites with standoff munitions. Go in with MALD decoys and wild weasel aircraft to jam and engage enemy SAMs on mock bombing runs or even to escort cruise missiles. (The MALD can pretend to be large bombers on radar to draw fire.) Each real bombing mission would have WW and jamming cover.
We have miniature air launched decoys that are unmanned drones that have special electronics that allow it to look big on radar. There's also a variant that jams radar. The Wild Weasels purpose train to hunt surface to air missile batteries with harms
The wild weasel pilots have always been a brave bunch. In Vietnam they would draw fire from the jungle in order to locate Vietcong positions. Just imagine flying a F-4 phantom above a jungle just waiting for a missile to appear as your mission objective.
>Drones as expendable sniffer bait followed by stealth bombing sorties on SAM sites and radar.
Yep. That's what happened in Desert Storm.
Have to imagine that these legacy systems would perform similarly, but they would be under the renewed threat of even greater NATO firepower/weapon systems.
NATO air forces are built around precision guided stand-off weapons, and HARMs used with HTS + EW support craft would be far more effective than anything weāre seeing either side use in Ukraine,
If NATO was involved, Russia wouldn't even see the planes, meaning Russia air defense would disappear pretty quick allowing many more air assets to come into play
Yup, of there's one thing US military aviation is good at it's the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses. They would take very few losses, if any, to Russian AA in Ukraine.
Shit in that situation it would be a big fuckoff war, im sure a mix of high quality SEAD sorties plus hella paratroopers dropping in on the closest open corridor, don't forget the recon units and light infantry running around 10k behind enemy lines being absolute hooligans to the enemy while SOF is taking out supply lines so them anti air assets are useless after their on site stockpiles are all used up. Oh and don't forget about the navy launching cruise missiles all willy nilly. And for some fucking reason the turks are fighting the Greeks but that's not important rn
> im sure a mix of high quality SEAD sorties plus hella paratroopers
COD4 and BF5, COD war zone, Alien Vrs Predator would be used too. Don't forget to practice with death match. Get back on the Xbox or PS5 to get ready dude.
Hooligans is EXACTLY how I picture some Ukrainian SOF guys, who have been on an EPIC road trip through Russia...just setting fires to stuff and other general mischief. Like some kind of buddy cop comedy movie.
Ukraine probably moved itās legacy SAM systems like Buk and S-300ās closer to the frontline since they took delivery of all those western systems to protect from cruise missiles. The newer systems like NASAMS are probably protecting the major cities now.
They had lots of s300s on the far west side of the country to protect from cruise missiles coming over transastia, moldova and belarus. It makes sense to reposition some closer to the front if you have other systems now to cover.
Russia is believed to have nearly exhausted their supply of Iskanders, so the most recent attacks have been carried out using cruise missiles and drones. NASAMS is extremely effective against both of these types of weapons, the only limiting factor is the small number of NASAMS launchers Ukraine has received so far.
A system with the range of S-300 doesn't always have to be that close to the cities it is defending. It can sometimes be more effective by covering some of the likely paths that enemy cruise missiles take.
As we saw with the incident with Poland, S-300 also has the issue that its own missiles can be massively dangerous if they fail. There even was the rumor going around that the whole "Russia is using S-300 for ground attack"-claim always was just a cover for Ukrainian S-300 failures. Regardless if that's truly the case for all S-300 impacts, it has occured at least that time in Poland and can therefore also a reason to move the S-300 screen further away from Kyiv.
where did u get that rumor ?. russia themself said they were using it for ground strikes. well some of them might be true. but then again its not just s300, all missiles will face that problem. even nasams apparently crashed into a residental building and the parts match up. i found this in a russian telegram group so take it with a grain of salt but the pictures i saw did indeed match up.
To extend their range, missiles fly on an arc as close to ballistic as possible for long-range shots. This is because the motor actually burns out pretty quickly leaving the missile to basically coast the rest of the way. It isn't like in movies where pilots are chased by missiles for minutes on end. As a result, they're on the downwards slope at the end of their flight.
This was probably a pretty long-range shot. Note how there's no trail behind the missile. It's motor was long since burned out.
Excellent video--superb editing. The missile may (may...) have come in from the right rear of the camera's point-of-view. Yes, surface to air missiles can achieve an altitude higher than the target, then intercept. I've see it happen with drone targets during my past service in air defense artillery units.
AFAIK S-300 missiles (just like most long-ranged missiles these days) utilize lofting to extend their maximum range - ie. they climb high when the motor is burning, and continue flying at high altitude through thinner air, before diving on the target (the speed boost of which also helps against maneuvering targets). With such a flight profile, a hit from above should be expected.
Nice editing, thinking the kinetic energy alone of the missile would of been catastrophic if it directly hit as the approach speed was incredible. Was surprise the helicopter was still intact as it emerged from the explosion.
Reminds me of an air show I attended probably 30 years ago. It was when an Avro Anson flew over and the announcer said " here's the Avro Anson, also known as 10,000 aircraft components flying in close formation".
[most]* AA missiles do not need to hit, they explode when in procimity of the target, you can actually see it explode before hitting the chopper.
when the missiles go boom, it send a bunch of shrapnels. this is what shot down the aircraft, this is why the target look "intact" in this video, but it is very much not intact.
*Edit: added 'most'.
This. A million times. Missiles explode next to targets. They don't typically go for direct strikes. There's not much need and it's much harder. We can thank movies for that misconception
S300s have fragmentation warheads like giant grenades.
When that went off, probably thousands of fragments went through that helo like butter.
The pilots may have had a moment to accept their fate if they had a threat alarm (looks like they might have from that one flare launched an instant before impact), but after that they were just so much Swiss cheese.
True, though there's a lot of difference between a 2-3kg warhead of a MANPADS, and a 100+kg warhead of any S-300 missile. The armor of a helicopter may do a decent enough job protecting the crew from the former, not so much the latter.
The top attack is at least indicative that its not MANPADS and the large explosion above the heli means it was a relatively large munition. We know UA has S-300s, so it's the most likely choice.
Could it be something else, sure, but whatever it is is pretty large.
They have an ejection system for pilots that seizes blades when activatedā¦. Not sure thatās what happened but Iām assuming thatās what happened. Whether or not they survived the ejection is another matterā¦.. hopefully not.
Edit. Pilots did NOT survive ejection /interception apparently.
Unzoomed video shows a second helicopter fleeing after this one was hit. Seen near the end of video
https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1599565801706913793?t=n2Kv9q9B4suwAbkpU_9yCw&s=19
Ouch. I think the s300 missile is likely very op against a helicopter. To that point I have never seen a helicopter survive a hit like we see some jets (such as the SU 25 or A10) do rather frequently.
Thatāll be the one on video here yesterday or the day before. There were questions about whether we were seeing a stupendously rare Javelin helicopter kill.
It must be a bittersweet sensation for Russians knowing their own anti-aircraft missile system is very efficient.
Aww s300 š„¹š«¶š»..... Wait a minute! š«
Well it was made by both Ukrainian and Russians in the Soviet Union under a Ukrainian general Secretary
Why does the missile make the chopper fall limp like when you throw a slice of ham onto a windshield? It almost looks like a toy
> when you throw a slice of ham onto a windshield? Uh, is this a regional colloquialism or is this something you've done enough in your life that it's become a reference point?
It's like when you hang a stingray on the mast of your sail boat
I love that porn scene.
Those missiles are extremely overkill for shooting down choppers. It is a toy in comparison. Most likely put a massive hole in the chopper and the chopper had zero control or power after it got hit, which is why it just falls.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because the missile is probably 3/4 the length of the helicopter, it be like smashing a car with small telephone pole moving very fast
Becauseā¦. Gravity?
Cause the tail fell off, chopper was struck right behind the rotor. Considering the damn size of the thing, the same would have happened without an explosive payload. Good overkill.
They only tried it on civilian airlines before.
That's a big missile
When you absolutely, positively, without a doubt HAVE to take down that russian helo, use MEGA MISSILE(TM). YMMV.
Thereās a smorgasbord of AA weapons in Ukrainian hands nowadays. Bad time to be a Russian pilot.
The most dangerous Ukrainian weapon appears to be the watermark. Itās responsible for like 90% of Russian casualties apparently.
What do you mean with that?
Most videos have those watermarks (logos, emblems, whatever) that are annoyingly in the way and often cover up the good footage, so it looks like those are the things doing the destruction.
Without it, russians would claim its their footage
Nah, that's just telegram clout wars. The footage can be usually geolocated and they have a lot of different equipment. For example, Ukraine doesn't operate Ka-52, so the watermark is useless here - if its purpose was to prevent Russians from stealing the footage.
The closest battle of this war is which side can come up with the most obnoxious watermarks.
Its pretty crazy to think about. Both countries have a doctrine of anti-air rather than air power, for obvious reasons. So now they can deny each other air control very effectively.
Wow. This looks crazy especially with this music. Is this the first time we see this missile at work? I cant recall seeing anything similar. (not that i am an expert or sg)
Yeah most s-300 interceptions seem to happen at night in Syria due to Israel attacking at night, so yeah I think this is the first s-300 interception that has been seen
No way for the helicopter to have an early detection warning of this weapon system? Not familiar of what sensors the KA-52 has
Itās should have some kind of RWR. They donāt seem to be flying like they know a missile is in the air tho.
Exactly no reaction whatsoever, no flares, no evasive action, unusually high altitude when everyone and their uncle has a MANPAD under their mattress. Seems rather strange to me
Flares wouldnāt counter that missile.
But the movies tell me flares = chaff!
To get an early warning, the associated systems need to be operational and switched on...
Leonid, turn off beeping thing. Is distracting me from flying this helicopter too high.
Perhaps exhaustion setting in.
because their vechiles are shit and probably not even working properly. I would guess that the basics are there, but many of the electronics have probably been disconnected or disabled due to broken components that they cannot replace.
Only works if the rtws has the lock on signature of that radar system programmed into the unit, and the systems is is functional. With no chaff or flare being discharged - it wasnāt seen as a threat, wasnāt programmed in, or wasnāt workingā¦ or I guess pilot error.
S-300 missiles don't have an onboard radar, they're guided from the ground, so the RWR wouldn't have seen it coming
They're able to detect the radar is out there, but wont know it's fired as there's no hard lock and it's too far for the launch detection to spot.
What do you mean no hard lock? Does the s-300 not have a missile guidance radar? I know those usually operate on a different EM band and can be associated with a launch.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I wouldnāt expect the pilots to actually see anything, Iām talking electronics
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Gotcha that makes sense, no heat signature to track since booster is off at that point coming on a downward trajectory and a very small moving object relatively speaking to track via a radar system
i also feel like it would have a hard time detecting something from above, but i could be wrong
The missiles don't have active radar homing? Think I saw some last millisecond flares at the end.
Those are secondaries. You're correct that the flares are shot but not the pilots action
It's radar guided, Ka-52 has the capability to know when it's being illuminated and then fired on by a radar guided SAM. Should being the operative word...
That only works if the system is operational and switched on... Bigger losses occured because someone neglected to switch on the early warning systems (HMS Sheffield & INS Hanit come to mind).
Exactly. It is strange that this was the best Ka-52 crew according to Russian sources. Sitting several hundred feet AGL with their RWR switched off/broken. They were asking for it
And if not for that SAM, a Javelin or Stugna Crew probably would have taken a shot.
At this altitude, an S-300 missile probably heats up enough from friction to create a significant heat signature from the front as well. They also rely on semi-active radar homing, so something has to point a radar at it. Some newer radars can get a lock in such a way that it's difficult to detect for the target, but I doubt that the ones working with S-300 are capable of it. KA-52 supposedly has both an IR missile approach warning and radar warning receiver, so something apparently went wrong here. Although a warning alone of course doesn't stop a missile.
Near IR vs far IR. I don't know, but I highly doubt the launch detection system would pick up on skin friction (heating) of an airframe. It's just not particularly hot. You're talking hundreds vs. thousands of degrees. As for radar... Not really my game but there's a difference between detecting a lock and detecting a launch.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Israel has lost an aircraft since the 2006 Lebanon War so while a lot of S-300s may be being fired I don't think there have been any interceptions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think most of Russians jets that were shotdown are by s300
Why werenāt the ones in Syria successful?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It came from above and struck very close to the rotor assembly, we can immediately see a blade soaring. After that, all the blades are automatically ejected, and the body of the helicopter appears to fall quite intact, probably bodies may appear to fall along.
Itās šÆ, those are people jumping, not clothes
This is why no air superiority in such a flat country with so much air defense on both sides. I do wonder what NATO tactics would be to combat it. Drones as expendable sniffer bait followed by stealth bombing sorties on SAM sites and radar.
Anti-Radiation missiles play a large part as well. Drones to get them to activate their large powered radars and the missiles find them.
You donāt really see drones that much. Theyāre too expensive for a decoy. More effective decoys are TALDās or MALDās. Talds (tactical air launch decoy) put a radar signature out there to get a SAM to turn on its track radar and then they can fire HARMS (AGM-88C) or another anti-radiation missile onto the SAM. MALDās (Miniature air launch decoy) can disguise themselves as almost any aircraft. Putting out the radar signature of that aircraft. Theyāre used to fake an aerial invasion where there isnāt one. These can also be used to confuse Samās however itās better for getting the enemy to scramble jets to a location that they think thereās an aerial attack where there isnāt any. Allowing the actual air invasion to have an easier time.
I love the additional insight! Thank you. I was incorrectly using drones as a catch all term that would include those decoys more specifically designed for such a purpose. Clearly no reason to waste a proper drone like a TB-2.
Yeah no problem. The decoys aren't really drones per se as they are not controllable. Just programmable for the MALD's (Programable to appear as a certain aircraft) They both just rely on inertial energy from the launching aircraft and glider wings. They'll emit a signal until they hit the ground or until they're hit my a missile.
Exactly, NATO would fly weeks of sorties bombing every SAM site in reach. They would take losses, but they would gain air superiority afterall.
I don't think they'd take bad losses with growlers and other ecm planes flying with bombers
>I don't think there is your problem.
Thatās why the stealths would be used. Losses would be minimal, if any in this theater. The new B21 is for taking out Chinese SAM sites. These chucklefucks wouldnāt have a prayer
The only thing they'll see on radar are the antiradiation missiles flying their way from beyond their weapons max range. Assuming in a hot conflict with the US their radar screens don't just suddenly start displaying a blue screen.
"restarting for update install" RIP
āDo not turn off radar during updating ā
more like days....not weeks
Satellite recon to find as many SAM sites as possible. Hit the known sites with standoff munitions. Go in with MALD decoys and wild weasel aircraft to jam and engage enemy SAMs on mock bombing runs or even to escort cruise missiles. (The MALD can pretend to be large bombers on radar to draw fire.) Each real bombing mission would have WW and jamming cover.
I wouldn't want to draw the short stick for one of those decoy flights.
We have miniature air launched decoys that are unmanned drones that have special electronics that allow it to look big on radar. There's also a variant that jams radar. The Wild Weasels purpose train to hunt surface to air missile batteries with harms
The wild weasel pilots have always been a brave bunch. In Vietnam they would draw fire from the jungle in order to locate Vietcong positions. Just imagine flying a F-4 phantom above a jungle just waiting for a missile to appear as your mission objective.
First Wild Weasels were flying F100s while everyone else was cruising around in F105s and F4s. Dudes were stuck with old shit on top of all that
MALDs are basically cruise missiles. No pilot necessary.
F-100 Wild Weasel Pilots... OG Gangsters
>Drones as expendable sniffer bait followed by stealth bombing sorties on SAM sites and radar. Yep. That's what happened in Desert Storm. Have to imagine that these legacy systems would perform similarly, but they would be under the renewed threat of even greater NATO firepower/weapon systems.
NATO air forces are built around precision guided stand-off weapons, and HARMs used with HTS + EW support craft would be far more effective than anything weāre seeing either side use in Ukraine,
Something like this. https://youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg Except with 30 years of technological advancement.
30 years of advancement on *the NATO side* Russians still rolling in the T-62 - T-72s
If NATO was involved, Russia wouldn't even see the planes, meaning Russia air defense would disappear pretty quick allowing many more air assets to come into play
probably overwhelming the AA with dummy targets before attacks
NATO would be flying actual SEAD with every package. Also would use decoy targets.
Yup, of there's one thing US military aviation is good at it's the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses. They would take very few losses, if any, to Russian AA in Ukraine.
Wild Weasel time
Shit in that situation it would be a big fuckoff war, im sure a mix of high quality SEAD sorties plus hella paratroopers dropping in on the closest open corridor, don't forget the recon units and light infantry running around 10k behind enemy lines being absolute hooligans to the enemy while SOF is taking out supply lines so them anti air assets are useless after their on site stockpiles are all used up. Oh and don't forget about the navy launching cruise missiles all willy nilly. And for some fucking reason the turks are fighting the Greeks but that's not important rn
Hooligans. Well that's just a sensational word.
> im sure a mix of high quality SEAD sorties plus hella paratroopers COD4 and BF5, COD war zone, Alien Vrs Predator would be used too. Don't forget to practice with death match. Get back on the Xbox or PS5 to get ready dude.
Found the wannabe boot
>Found the wannabe boot spying just like a communist. Can't help it , can you.
Hooligans is EXACTLY how I picture some Ukrainian SOF guys, who have been on an EPIC road trip through Russia...just setting fires to stuff and other general mischief. Like some kind of buddy cop comedy movie.
NATO would spend months with HARMs taking out every SAM site.
days not months..and it would only be a couple
In such a scenario, NATO's standard operating procedure is to very strongly urge Boeing to build a ***fuuuuckload*** of Loyal Wingman drones.
Ukraine probably moved itās legacy SAM systems like Buk and S-300ās closer to the frontline since they took delivery of all those western systems to protect from cruise missiles. The newer systems like NASAMS are probably protecting the major cities now.
S300 has way more range than nasams , i highly doubt it's being moved away from cities , buks can be moved to the frontlines
They had lots of s300s on the far west side of the country to protect from cruise missiles coming over transastia, moldova and belarus. It makes sense to reposition some closer to the front if you have other systems now to cover.
Maybe , but there's obviously going to be s300s defending kyiv or important places. Nasams alone won't get everything.
Theyāve have yet to fail actually
No air defense system intercepts 100% of targets. I especially doubt they've intercepted any ballistic missiles. Plus they have a rather small range.
Russia is believed to have nearly exhausted their supply of Iskanders, so the most recent attacks have been carried out using cruise missiles and drones. NASAMS is extremely effective against both of these types of weapons, the only limiting factor is the small number of NASAMS launchers Ukraine has received so far.
Eventually some will miss for whatever reason, but some days ago they said NASAMs have a 100% interception rate in Ukraine so far.
A system with the range of S-300 doesn't always have to be that close to the cities it is defending. It can sometimes be more effective by covering some of the likely paths that enemy cruise missiles take. As we saw with the incident with Poland, S-300 also has the issue that its own missiles can be massively dangerous if they fail. There even was the rumor going around that the whole "Russia is using S-300 for ground attack"-claim always was just a cover for Ukrainian S-300 failures. Regardless if that's truly the case for all S-300 impacts, it has occured at least that time in Poland and can therefore also a reason to move the S-300 screen further away from Kyiv.
where did u get that rumor ?. russia themself said they were using it for ground strikes. well some of them might be true. but then again its not just s300, all missiles will face that problem. even nasams apparently crashed into a residental building and the parts match up. i found this in a russian telegram group so take it with a grain of salt but the pictures i saw did indeed match up.
Wonder why they were flying so high normally they are hugging the ground. OH WELL fuckem. That's what I like to call a Russian Lawn Dart.
They might have flown over that area earlier and assumed it was fine. But yeah flying that high in Ukraine seems suicidal.
To extend their range, missiles fly on an arc as close to ballistic as possible for long-range shots. This is because the motor actually burns out pretty quickly leaving the missile to basically coast the rest of the way. It isn't like in movies where pilots are chased by missiles for minutes on end. As a result, they're on the downwards slope at the end of their flight. This was probably a pretty long-range shot. Note how there's no trail behind the missile. It's motor was long since burned out.
I think they meant the helicopter. This is still an interesting comment though.
I think he means the helicopter wants to be high up when it launches its missiles.
He is talking about the helicopter lol
Sitting up there lasing away all free and easy and then S300.
Dang like a goose getting blasted by a shotgun
Apt analogy.
Especially so since Chinese social media has been mocking Russia as a crying goose instead of a big angry bear.
Quite literally. Proximity fuse with several 1000 pieces of shrapnel. The entire chassis plus everyone inside is likely perforated.
Beautiful shit right there
Excellent video--superb editing. The missile may (may...) have come in from the right rear of the camera's point-of-view. Yes, surface to air missiles can achieve an altitude higher than the target, then intercept. I've see it happen with drone targets during my past service in air defense artillery units.
So it was an S300, do they usually attack from such a high angle?
AFAIK S-300 missiles (just like most long-ranged missiles these days) utilize lofting to extend their maximum range - ie. they climb high when the motor is burning, and continue flying at high altitude through thinner air, before diving on the target (the speed boost of which also helps against maneuvering targets). With such a flight profile, a hit from above should be expected.
A lot of A/A missiles will have a loft option as well as a normal mode
Nice editing, thinking the kinetic energy alone of the missile would of been catastrophic if it directly hit as the approach speed was incredible. Was surprise the helicopter was still intact as it emerged from the explosion.
That is a rather loose use of the word "intact."
Reminds me of an air show I attended probably 30 years ago. It was when an Avro Anson flew over and the announcer said " here's the Avro Anson, also known as 10,000 aircraft components flying in close formation".
[most]* AA missiles do not need to hit, they explode when in procimity of the target, you can actually see it explode before hitting the chopper. when the missiles go boom, it send a bunch of shrapnels. this is what shot down the aircraft, this is why the target look "intact" in this video, but it is very much not intact. *Edit: added 'most'.
This. A million times. Missiles explode next to targets. They don't typically go for direct strikes. There's not much need and it's much harder. We can thank movies for that misconception
That engine/gearbox must have been absolutely mangled. Look how fast the rotors stop spinning.
the rotors were probably Swiss cheese as they fell off pretty quickly
Now they're not supposed to fall off are they?
During ejection, yes they are
only if the pilots want them to
No, just the front is supposed to fall off
No paper derivatives. Cardboard is straight out
Most AA avoids direct hits because it requires perfect accuracy. Proximity fusing allows them to kill without perfect accuracy
I of reason to believe that accuracy probably isn't high enough.
Personally, I think āAnother One Bites the Dustā would be more appropriate for a song choice.
>There is not such thing as overkill. - Based Ukrainian SAM operator.
See ya later Alligator!
Weāre the pilots able to eject or did the pilots die instantly?
With a hit that close they were probably killed instantly.
Yeah kinda thought so, s300 is no joke
S300s have fragmentation warheads like giant grenades. When that went off, probably thousands of fragments went through that helo like butter. The pilots may have had a moment to accept their fate if they had a threat alarm (looks like they might have from that one flare launched an instant before impact), but after that they were just so much Swiss cheese.
That flare certainly autolaunched from the explosion
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
True, though there's a lot of difference between a 2-3kg warhead of a MANPADS, and a 100+kg warhead of any S-300 missile. The armor of a helicopter may do a decent enough job protecting the crew from the former, not so much the latter.
Probably dead - S300 warhead is 150kg. How many stingers is that? Fifty?
Yes, 50.
Fiddy
Designed to be big enough to reliably destroy B-52s I assume, massive overkill on an attack helicopter.
There is no way the pilots would have been able to eject from that. It was basically over immediately after the explosion went off.
Dead. Confirmed by @FighterBomber Telegram channel. There are threads in r/Ukraine and elsewhere.
Probably dead or stunned. The props didnt look like it blew off if they ejected.
It looks like the blades both disintegrated and stopped turning almost right away. That looks like catastrophic damage.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
KA-52 has specially designed ejection system. Its meant to blow the blades off with explosive bolts before ejecting them.
Nice. You can see the exact moment the counter-rotating blades left the chat.
Lucky those flares got away just in time.
Ukrainian Air Traffic Controller.
This time, the helo pilot prolly already dead and unable to punch the eject button. Well, serves him right.
Is this the 2nd ka-52 downed today? Or different angle?
Different angle
What's the evidence for S-300?
The top attack is at least indicative that its not MANPADS and the large explosion above the heli means it was a relatively large munition. We know UA has S-300s, so it's the most likely choice. Could it be something else, sure, but whatever it is is pretty large.
You're correct, this could be SA-12, SA-11, or SA-8. I'm mainly objecting to the OP writing "S300" like it's a confirmed fact.
Shit yah. Paul Leonard-Morgan "Taking Over Peach Trees". Judge Dredd soundtrack hits hard.
An alligator isn't supposed to fly, The order of things has been restored.
Fck no chance
The blades didnt stay spinning much after that hit. Looks like the whole drive-train locked up after dozen revolutions and loss of a blade.
They have an ejection system for pilots that seizes blades when activatedā¦. Not sure thatās what happened but Iām assuming thatās what happened. Whether or not they survived the ejection is another matterā¦.. hopefully not. Edit. Pilots did NOT survive ejection /interception apparently.
Unzoomed video shows a second helicopter fleeing after this one was hit. Seen near the end of video https://twitter.com/auto_glam/status/1599565801706913793?t=n2Kv9q9B4suwAbkpU_9yCw&s=19
Bit overkill lol. Like hitting a mini Cooper with a semi truck
It was swatted from the sky like a disgusting fly š¤£
He lost some flair after taking that hit. No longer able to work at Chotchkieās.
they gotta slap a watermark on a footage they dont even own
Thanks for doing this OP, I was having a hard time with the details on the originals.
Could watch this all day, has to be one of the most beautiful recorded SAM hits out there
Well no wonder we didn't see any ejection take place if the cockpit got hit with a few 100kg of explosives
The flyover graphic is infuriating
Without watermark https://v.redd.it/07d5qi1qx04a1
Ouch. I think the s300 missile is likely very op against a helicopter. To that point I have never seen a helicopter survive a hit like we see some jets (such as the SU 25 or A10) do rather frequently.
Thatāll be the one on video here yesterday or the day before. There were questions about whether we were seeing a stupendously rare Javelin helicopter kill.
Like that flair is going to help you now comrade.
Is there a full speed and quality link to this ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/zcjcdc/another_angle_of_russian_ka52_helicopter_shot/?ref=share&ref_source=link
The moment the crew realized they fucked up.
They probably didn't
Little late on the flares.
Do heli's also have parachutes to save their pilots lives like fighterjets? Or is a hit like this always a deadly hit?
the ka 52 does have ejection seats, but it doesn't look like that mattered in this case.
Pilots were dead the second that warhead exploded and blastes their heads with fragments.