[Pro Patria] Does the attacking helicopter give enough bang for the buck?

[Watchman]

That F117 was shot down through the (relatively) ancient tactic of spamming every weapon you have into the sky. All the 'stealth' technology in the world isn't going to stop flak from punching holes in your aircraft, and it does not reflect poorly on the aircraft itself, despite what idiot journalists will claim.

I thought it was achieved using a funky Soviet-legacy (or Russian-provided) passive detection array thingy (which, as a kind of bonus, doesn't attract HARMs) which was able to pinpoint the jet for the AA ? Given the rank vulnerability of active radars to various unpleasant countermeasures - like radiation-homing munitions - I understand there's some intense research into those kinds of systems goin on.

[Oleander Ardens]

That F117 was shot down through the (relatively) ancient tactic of spamming every weapon you have into the sky. All the 'stealth' technology in the world isn't going to stop flak from punching holes in your aircraft, and it does not reflect poorly on the aircraft itself, despite what idiot journalists will claim.

I thought it was achieved using a funky Soviet-legacy (or Russian-provided) passive detection array thingy (which, as a kind of bonus, doesn't attract HARMs) which was able to pinpoint the jet for the AA ? Given the rank vulnerability of active radars to various unpleasant countermeasures - like radiation-homing munitions - I understand there's some intense research into those kinds of systems goin on.

The Serbs knew which corridor the F-117 would take because the pilot and the other responsibles were foolish enough to use always the same one. So they concentrated a great deal of the available detection sensors and AA along it and were able to down it with luck. So a lot of ifs envolved - nobody can make the F-117 bad because of this incident.

If attack helicopters didn't provide an adequate bang for the buck they would have been phased out decades ago. The concept of a mobile, highly maneuverable weapon platform that can operate unhindered by terrain and inclement weather and is able to eliminate virtually all enemy assets on the battlefield is awfully hard to factor out of the equation.

Their potential is truly great, as is their cost - 50.000.000$ But let as remember that the most modern attack helicopters never encountered a clever and modern airdefense. I'm convinced that skilled use of an array of modern sensors and modern AA-weapons can make life very though for any helicopter. This doesn't mean that they are futile, but that they must be used with greater care, making them less cost-effective (even if the might cause an enemy to divert money from other branches to the airdefense).

I think that in the short term the greatest asset of drones will be the ability to perfom fine recce. The high mobility of a gunship and its firepower make it an ideal strinking asset to abuse the information gathered by the drones, with less risk of getting ambushed.

OA

[Grey_Fox]

Their potential is truly great, as is their cost - 50.000.000$ But let as remember that the most modern attack helicopters never encountered a clever and modern airdefense.

Apaches were used to hit Iraq's air defense during the First Gulf War which was called Kari (Irak backwards) which was modern and very formidable and gave coalition planners kittens.

[Oleander Ardens]

Apaches were used to hit Iraq's air defense during the First Gulf War which was called Kari (Irak backwards) which was modern and very formidable and gave coalition planners kittens.

I'll look at that - but I doubt that the air defense was both modern and cleverly employed, given the track record...

Here are some interesting articles about the failed massive AH-64 deep strike against the "Medina" division. Note that almost all modern air defense sensors and weapon systems were already destroyed, with only AA-guns, RPGs small arms doing the work.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2003/1003najaf.asp

http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...sis-100207.htm

OA

[Grey_Fox]

I read both articles and that particular case you point out just sounds like poor planning and overconfidence on the part of American commanders and good tactics and preparation on the part of the Iraqis, and even then only 1 Apache out of 32 was destroyed.

Edit: Kari was actually quite effective and was able to stay active despite six weeks of arial bombardment against it.

[Oleander Ardens]

I read both articles and that particular case you point out just sounds like poor planning and overconfidence on the part of American commanders and good tactics and preparation on the part of the Iraqis, and even then only 1 Apache out of 32 was destroyed.

I didn't state it clearly, but yes poor tactics or better good tactics with poor planning made for a nasty surprise for the Apaches. The AH-64 performed quite well. Thanks to the excellent pilots, not all to good aiming and the lack of modern SAM almost all were able to come back.

Still any Apache costs a load of money and is expensive to operate. His primary weapon is also hellish costly. One could put that money to good use somewhere else. Reducing their overall number would do good.

OA

[Grey_Fox]

Reducing their overall number would do good.

That would be a rather bad idea as part of the effectiveness of the Apache as they are meant to operate en masse.

[Sarmatian]

The Serbs knew which corridor the F-117 would take because the pilot and the other responsibles were foolish enough to use always the same one.

They thought there was no point in changing corridors since the plane was invisible .

Joking aside, I believe we hit one more. Although it managed to get back to base, it was so damaged that it have never flown again.