MI24 Russian helicopter Vs SA-7b Missile Video

[C601]

Interesting Video........

I was very surprised to see that Hind looked to be about 5km away, a fairly long range for this type of missile. I counted about 9 seconds between booster charge and detonation, so with an average speed of 500 m/s, that would put the target at about 4.5km... that is very impressive, I thought this missile only had a range of 4km.

The pilot also did a good job of controlling it, as the Hind is too heavy to hover and requires translation lift from forward momentum to fly. It looks like he still had power as the heli didn't autorotate.

Here is the Video link

http://media.santoalt.com/101/101104/anti-aircraft.wmv

 

[Corona]

Man, that's a tough bird for a helo- it stayed in one piece!

 

[Vavso]

disturbing video

listening to "allah akbar' from what appears to be pre-taliban afghanis who shot down a russian helo . Just hearing that reminded me of the beheading video I saw I think those people are vile filth . I now kinda wish Russia kicked there butts Vavso

 

[be76pilot]

I sure hope that no terrorist ever gets the chance to do this to an airliner in the U.S. It would be so easy at most of our big airports. We could sure create alot of jobs by strengthening our perimeter airport security at all major airports, but that will probably never happen. It is up to the plane spotters to look out for suspicious behaviour! Seriously, this could be a real problem.... Allah, go to hell. End of rant about airport security.

 

[EagleRJ]

I've seen this video before, and it looks too high-quality to have been shot during the Afghan War. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan when- late '80s? There were camcorders back then, but they didn't produce a picture this good. Only professional Betacams did.
These could be Chechans shooting at a Russian helicopter within the last few years (it's a Mi-8 troop carrier, not a Mi-24 Hind).

I sure hope that no terrorist ever gets the chance to do this to an airliner in the U.S. It would be so easy at most of our big airports. We could sure create alot of jobs by strengthening our perimeter airport security at all major airports, but that will probably never happen. It is up to the plane spotters to look out for suspicious behaviour! Seriously, this could be a real problem.... Allah, go to hell. End of rant about airport security.

be76pilot, despite the irony in the first sentance of your post, you are mistaken about the vulnerability of our airports. You don't need to stand at the airport fence to be in range with a shoulder-fired missile. Considering the climb and descent profiles of most airliners, the threat area can be considered a 40 or 50 nm radius around the airport.

Posting dedicated lookouts to spot terrorists wouldn't work, and on-board countermeasures work, but are problematic. The easiest defence against this threat is targeting those individuals who would attempt it.

 

[Corona]

EagleRJ, I first thought it was an Mi-8 too, but I believe there are actually two helicopters. I had to watch it a couple times, but I do think the second is a Mi24. I don't think an Mi-8 would have survived that hit. I've seen both helos up close, and the -24 is built like a brick shythouse.

 

[EagleRJ]

EagleRJ, I first thought it was an Mi-8 too, but I believe there are actually two helicopters. I had to watch it a couple times, but I do think the second is a Mi24. I don't think an Mi-8 would have survived that hit. I've seen both helos up close, and the -24 is built like a brick shythouse.

You could be right- it's hard to tell for sure from the tape. The Mi-8 and Mi-24 have similar profiles, even though the Mi-8 is a lot bigger.

It's hard to tell with the editing, but it appears that there is a first flight of a Mi-8 escorted by a Mi-24, and later, there is another helicopter flying alone. The Mi-8 is the more vulnerable target, but shooting at the first one would be a mistake. That Mi-24 would have come and f**ked them up!

 

[chperplt]

There were two different aircraft in the video.. The first aircraft, which was much higher, was a MI-8.. The second aircraft that flew much lower, was the MI-24.

The 24 is built like a truck. I've had the opportunity to see them both up close in a past life.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

it's the chechens, very distinct dialect

 

[mattpilot]

Interesting Video........

I was very surprised to see that Hind looked to be about 5km away, a fairly long range for this type of missile. I counted about 9 seconds between booster charge and detonation, so with an average speed of 500 m/s, that would put the target at about 4.5km... that is very impressive, I thought this missile only had a range of 4km.

I used a stopwatch and came up with a few miliseconds shy of 7sec. So in my opinion, its only 3.3km away.



But those 'rebels' sure get excited about shooting one down

 

[EagleRJ]

The SA-7 tops out at around 500 m/s terminal speed, but this appears to be the improved SA-16, which reaches Mach 2+ (750 m/s or so). Its advertised range is 5000 meters (a little over three miles).

 

[mattpilot]

agreed - most definitly a Sa-16

 

[turpentyine]

lol those chechen **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**s sound like a bunch of degenarate monkeys screaming alah akbar over and over

 

[dtoften]

Doesn't these missles require a liquid nitrogen canister to remain effective? I hear the SA-7 liquid nitrogen is only good for 1 year. So, any missles sitting around for years are still effective but only at a reduced range and only rear engine shot. Any know any thing about this?

 

[EagleRJ]

Doesn't these missles require a liquid nitrogen canister to remain effective? I hear the SA-7 liquid nitrogen is only good for 1 year. So, any missles sitting around for years are still effective but only at a reduced range and only rear engine shot. Any know any thing about this?

You're right that there is a cooling "battery" required and it has a shelf life, but I don't know what it is. I doubt if any missile uses liquid nitrogen. It would be too hard to store it for months on end without it boiling off.
The Stinger uses a thermal battery that IIRC uses metallic sodium to cool the missile's seeker head. Once you screw the battery in, it gets hot and the seeker gets cold and you have a certain amount of time to take the shot before you need another battery.

The shelf life of certain componants were one way to control the service life of MANPADS- both the Stingers we provided the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and the various Soviet systems that have been sold/stolen over the years. Terrorists are a resourceful bunch, though, and I'd expect them to find ways to work around componants that are no longer functional.

 

[dtfl]

It is a 16. I have seen many an SA7 and something didnt look right so I did some research - 16. As far as shelf life of SA7? A LOT longer than you think....trust me