Your video, 360° Video Inside US Attack Helicopter Cockpit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Quite a lot of nations have old soviet Shilka's which do those supercomputer calculations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UnealTR-Y
You get within 1.5 miles of this thing, and it chews up anything that isn't jinking.
There are also variants of this thing which have missiles, and they can even shoot down other missiles to protect itself.
For those it's better to fire helicopter missiles from a low angle. Or bomb them from up very high.

Helicopters are less vulnerable because often they can fire without revealing their position. Modern missiles can be fired from as around 8km away. And they'll fire them while hovering low enough that their radar signatures can't be distinguished from the ground and surroundings. And since they are always facing the enemy their heat signature from the engines is facing away as well. (unlike a warthog that will show it's engines to the enemy as it flies up and away after an attack). Most attack helicopters have some kind of armour as well. At least in the pilot and critical sections.
Oh yes, and something really cool - the new Apache Longbow's can fire missiles that go around terrain to hit their targets! Super cool

They absolutely have disadvantages, but any decent pilot will fly their aircraft to it's advantages

I both agree and disagree.
Cops should try do de-escalate when possible, but also should not allow felonies to continue unabated and/or felons to just walk away from the violent crimes they just committed in front of officers, as they did.

Like you said, if Wesley Snipes had called out the crips and bloods (not to be racist, it's an extreme example) to protect his right to not pay taxes, the cops would almost certainly NOT have 'backed off'...I would like equal treatment across the board. They didn't back down in Waco, or Boston, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....why start now to 'save lives', especially the lives of admitted traitors to the USA? (if you proclaim your readiness and willingness to fight an armed battle against the federal government that you publicly denounce, and ask others to join your armed insurgency, you ARE a traitor to the USA, period, in my opinion...look up "the whiskey rebellion" for historical context.)
EDIT: I think they should have called the national guard to restore order, since the local officers were so outmatched. A couple of heavy armored vehicles and a few hundred machine guns and/or a few attack helicopters buzzing about would have made them think twice about advancing, unlike the smattering of officers with pistols that backed away and allowed the theft (and killing) of confiscated cattle.

Some human lives need to end. :-) In this situation it's not about putting one person away, it's about upholding the rule of law, which is being publicly broken not only by one jackhole, but by all the armed 'terrorists' that have proclaimed 'war' on the federal government with him, and therefore on the USA.

It does 'blow a hole' in that 'tyrannical state' argument, but that argument was so full of holes to begin with it didn't need another to prove it wrong. He doesn't even believe in the federal 'state', so how can it be tyrannical? :-)

I'm also certain this isn't over, the first time he or his wife go to town without their private army they'll likely be going to the pokey. I also assume their accounts have been frozen (I hope so anyway) and the title to their family land has a federal lien on it. I also hope all federal welfare support for his family has dried up, along with his mail service and any other federal program(s) they take advantage of. He has no right to federal services, he's a tax cheat and felon.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Russian-attack-helicopter-Kamov-Ka-52-at-MAKS-2011-airshow

Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopter capabilities has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Russian attack helicopter Kamov Ka-52 at MAKS 2011 airshow has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Ka-50-Black-Shark-Russian-single-seat-attack-helicopter

Russian attack helicopter Kamov Ka-52 at MAKS 2011 airshow has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Ka-50 Black Shark - Russian single-seat attack helicopter has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.

Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.

As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.

Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.

Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

</rant>


>> ^bcglorf:

>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

>> ^srd:

For those of us that haven't played starcraft 2 yet, what just happened?


Excellent question. I haven't played the sequel either, but I did play the original. Here's my take: The Terran player debo uses a single Banshee (the flying/cloaking attack helicopter thing) to bypass any frontal defenses of the Protoss player in order to directly attack the player's drones in the back of the player's main base. Consider these drones to be the army's worker bees, collecting resources (crystal and vespene gas) in order to fuel the player's war economy. A direct hit on those drones cripples the Protoss player's economy by slowing/stopping resource income and forces the player to react. Worse yet, whatever attack units the Protoss player has already built in the early game are powerless against the Banshee because the Banshee can cloak and avoid detection.

Thus, not only is the Protoss player collecting income at a slower rate than the other players, but the Protoss player is now also forced to spend additional money to rebuild drones and to build Observer units that can reveal the cloaked Banshee which would allow the already-built Protoss attack units (who are lingering by the resources in the back of the base) to open fire. The Banshee continues to harass those units while Observers are built.

Meanwhile, debo's masterstroke is to send conventional infantry units through the front door of the base while the Protoss units are amassed in the back trying to locate and remove the harassing Banshee. This is a tactical win in terms of superior positioning, where the general infantry are guaranteed to do significant damage on the base's main buildings before being possibly defeated by the returning Protoss units, but also a strategic/macro/'long-view' gaming accomplishment by having forced the Protoss player to deplete his slowed economy on non-fighting Observer units due to a single Banshee, which opened the economical and physical door for the conventional frontal attack that the player is ill-equipped to handle.

TL;DR SEVEN KILLS, N*GGA, EIGHT KILLS, N*GGA

I'm still with the protester here. The Attack helicopter might have gotten that one speeder but it cost the government more than $15 million....
By my simple calculations (leaving a few things out)

$250.00 (Speeding Ticket Income)
- [ $15,000,000(Helo) + $500,000(Tomahawk Missile)]
-------------------------------------------------------
(15,499,750) Government Loss

...they are going to have to catch a LOT more speeders.

>> ^acidSpine:
Was that meant to be an army? Where are the Apache attack helicopters the tanks, fighter jets, the warships the nukes?
I don't doubt your fear is real but Israel is only nibbling at the crust of an enormous turd pie so please don't assume the moral high ground because your troops aren't suicide bombers

I fail to see your point. I don't see the Taliban using fighter jets, yet that's ok?

Was that meant to be an army? Where are the Apache attack helicopters the tanks, fighter jets, the warships the nukes?

I don't doubt your fear is real but Israel is only nibbling at the crust of an enormous turd pie so please don't assume the moral high ground because your troops aren't suicide bombers