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

[Oleander Ardens]

The current generation of attack helicopter was designed with one goal in mind - killing tanks. The inhaerent great mobility allows for a fast concentration in time and space combining their already tremendous anti-armor capabilities to a gigant death trap for any massive tank thurst. Or at least so in theory.

This potential comes with a high price tag: An Apache D costs over 50,000,000$
an Eurocopter not much less. It's speed and anti-tank abilites don't count as much in low intensity warfare and gunships are quite fragile - heavy machineguns and RPG can down one. ATGM can also be employed against them and proper AAA or G2A missiles are a terrible thread. Note that Apaches were not employed against Serbia because their mobile airdefences could not be destroyed by NATO.

The abilites of the artillery and mortar are frog-leaping thanks to new designs and new smart rounds and come at a fraction of the cost of a gunship. Self-propelled Artillery can reach with new 155mm ammunition out up to 60km and deliver in this radius fast and deadly and relatively cheap firesupport. Distan targets can be dealt with the existing multirole combat aircraft. So wouldn't it be better to downsize existing fleets or to purchase smaller numbers? Or should small to medium countries simply avoid this tools and get other ones?

OA

[Husar]

an Eurocopter not much less. It's speed and anti-tank abilites don't count as much in low intensity warfare and gunships are quite fragile - heavy machineguns and RPG can down one. ATGM can also be employed against them and proper AAA or G2A missiles are a terrible thread. Note that Apaches were not employed against Serbia because their mobile airdefences could not be destroyed by NATO.

The Tiger has an automatic countermeasure system against missiles. Last I heard there was a bug so afterburners could trigger it as well, but generally this sounds like a nice idea against shoulder launched missiles. You're still left with machineguns etc, but the bigger ones are similar to tanks and should thus be destroyed by the helicopter in the same way it destroys tanks, only with a bit more care and maybe distance, most AA guns don't have the same range as anti-tank missiles do. And if they do, I'd say some upgraded missiles are in order. Of course in jungles or forests, the AA can hide from long range detection but depending on the situation it won't see the helicopter either.
And then there are cities, which are not really the terrain of helicopters I'd say, but still better than using artillery if you don't want to kill civilians.

[Vladimir]

AAA and SAMs aren’t effective as you might think vs. the Longbow. Those helicopters are actually quite durable and are only brought down by massive amounts of concentrated firepower. That’s the tactic that brought down the Apaches in Iraq.

The Longbow Apache doesn’t even need to have a line of sight to the target. Working in pairs or with a Kiowa light helicopter it can launch a hellfire in the general direction of the target which is steered back on course by its guidance system.

As to their effectiveness in urban environments, the IDF has shown just how effective they can be. A helicopter’s superior maneuverability and ability to hover make it an ideal hunter in the city. It just needs to have a target designated and can take it out with better precision than a jet.

[Grey_Fox]

Attack helicopters are excellent for combat in wooded areas. The reason they weren't used in Serbia was not because they were ineffective but because Clinton didn't want another Mogadishu - the only bombings done were from 30,000 feet and the Serbians in Kosovo lost only 30 vehicles to it.

It is in the desert that the attack helicopter suffers as it cannot pop out from behind woods and the like as they can in Europe.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'd say the choppers are useful for tank vs tank battles. They're a more mobile strategic reserve than tanks, so you can place one large reserve to share between 5-10 larger sized tank formations or even more, then send them in where the odds need to be evened up. You'll probably lose a few choppers in such a battle, but the damage you can inflict with it is certainly worth it in such a case, and the pilots comparatively easy to recover if you gained a decisive tank battle victory on the ground thanks to it, and are able to claim the ground of the opponent shortly after the battle. I can imagine attack coppers being very useful in the next even odds war. Since ww2 we haven't really had any such war, just guerilla vs occupying force, which follow entirely different rules. In such wars, the attack choppers are probably of little worth, especially if the opponent has decent anti-aircraft defenses.

In short, the attack chopper can do for tank battles what the stukas did to tank battles in ww2, but the choppers are more manouverable than the stukas which gives them an even greater advantage. In guerilla vs occupying force wars, the inevitably high risk of losing a few choppers in each such manouver means it isn't worth the cost to use them.

[Somebody Else]

Simple... choppers are cool. They stay. Just like fast jets.

If we wanted a cost-effective way of fighting the wars we have, we'd probably be better off with hordes of light-role infantry...

[Oleander Ardens]

AAA and SAMs aren’t effective as you might think vs. the Longbow. Those helicopters are actually quite durable and are only brought down by massive amounts of concentrated firepower. That’s the tactic that brought down the Apaches in Iraq.

It depends on the AAA and the SAM. Everything upwards 20mm wil make short work of the Apache - and every other gunship and a modern SAM has a huge chance to down one. Of course it is a question of Recce and Tacitcs, a well trained wing of helis can stalk with surprising effectivness in complex territory. But in the same complex battlespace cheap AA can hide quite easily and stands a excellent chance to down the bugger.

The reason they weren't used in Serbia was not because they were ineffective but because Clinton didn't want another Mogadishu - the only bombings done were from 30,000 feet and the Serbians in Kosovo lost only 30 vehicles to it.

Although the decision was influenced by political calculations NATO was also very uneasy that it couldn't destroy the mobile AA batteries of Serbia. Fine camo and brief exposure - scan and scoot - enabled them to get out HARM's way while still posing a huge threat to the NATO airforce. Couple that with the AAA and the good, scattered serbian airsurvaillance. I would not have bet my money on the Apache, no sire, no way - given that the very same tools were able - with luck and skill - to shoot down a F-117...

Cheers
OA

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Primarily anti-tank helicopters like the Apache may not be all that effective in low-intensity warfare for their price tag, but they are extremely effective and a more durable helicopter designed specifically for low-intensity conflicts, preferably with the ability to carry a squad of infantry, could be a tremendous asset in that kind of a fight. That and in conventional warfare gunships are invaluable tools due to their ability to get in close to the fighting, stay in the area a long time, put down lots of firepower, and when needed hide behind relatively small pieces of cover.

[Somebody Else]

Some people use helicopters, some don't...

The plan for Operation Arezzo was cleverly contrived. While Americans count on helicopter support for deliberate high-intensity combat here, the Brits were going into extremely hostile terrain, outnumbered, without helicopter support, relying instead upon timing, terrain, maneuverability, firepower, and sheer audacity.

from http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...#comment-18339

To be fair, I doubt it's by choice, some armed forces just don't seem to have the budget these days.

[Watchman]

Mentioning the Brist immediately reminded me of Harriers and similar VTOL jets. Those can also do a decent show as gunships, can't they ? Cost like the dickies of course.

[Husar]

Mentioning the Brist immediately reminded me of Harriers and similar VTOL jets. Those can also do a decent show as gunships, can't they ? Cost like the dickies of course.

I think a Harrier pilot has more problems to see the terrain below and cannot swing the cannon around. I'd say a harrier is better for strafing runs, the hovering is mostly useful to use shorter runways, but when hovering above a fight, a helicopter can react faster and more reliable, especially with the gund tied to the helmet, which means what you look at, you can also shoot at. The guns of a Harrier are fixed forwardso if you want to shoot downward you almost ineviably gain speed, or you just bomb the place to hell, but there are planes which can do that better than a hovering Harrier.

[Spino]

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.

The attack helicopter's biggest challenge for the next 100 years is to proving how much longer it can remain a viable platform in the face of remotely controlled or autonomous drones which are cheaper and by nature of their pilotless design, can operate for much longer periods of time and do not put their human operators at risk.

The cancellation of the Commanche program is a pretty good sign of things to come. That bird was in development for an awfully long time and seemed like a perfect fit for a state of the art 21st century army; stealthy, fast, quiet and well armed. The cancellation of the Commanche program made it painfully obvious the US military believes drones are the future of reconaissance and light support work.

The Achilles heel to drones (especially the current generation) is that there is always the chance that the remotely piloted ones can be rendered ineffective through jamming or through the elimination of the satellites that link them it their controllers. Autonomous drones are another story but the idea of letting them operate completely independent once cut off from their operators is a bit worrisome. AI programming is a tricky business. Despite the costs involved it is much easier to design a human operated system and train humans to operate it than it is to create a fully autonomous system that can do the same job and deal with the same myriad of situations. Not that it can't be done but AI R&D requires a ton of time, development and testing.

As to the elimination of dedicated attack helicopters that would be extremely foolish as it is based on the assumption that there will never be another conventional conflict which would require such an asset. Every conflict the US has fought since the Vietnam War has proven the worth of attack helicopters; they clearly perform just as well in low intensity conflicts as they do in 'high' intensity, conventional ones.

[Vladimir]

They...KILLED...my Commanche?

[Grey_Fox]

I would not have bet my money on the Apache, no sire, no way - given that the very same tools were able - with luck and skill - to shoot down a F-117...

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.

[Husar]

They...KILLED...my Commanche?

Yes, some time ago already.
It was going to be such a cool helicopter...

[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

[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.

[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.

[Oleander Ardens]

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

..to operate en masse against massed enemy tank formations, I might add.

Nowadays they usually work in pairs, especially in CAS. Fewer numbers needed, and more money for other stuff, sounds reasonable to me.

OA

[Grey_Fox]

Until the next big war that is.

[Vladimir]

Until the next big war that is.

Haven't you heard? The Soviet Union has been defeated and it's time to enjoy the peace dividend. Oh happy day! The end of war is here.

[Grey_Fox]

We've achieved peace in our time

[Oleander Ardens]

Wasn't it the end of history? BTW I wonder which enemy is able to challenge in a conventional war the USA or the EU?

Massive use of helis is only reasonable against massed armor. Period. Even if you greatly reduce their numbers they are still able to blunt a massive tank attack. Nobody comes near to even a quarter of the Soviet might in tanks and artillery. But if you mass them without rhyme or reason you rip the money from more important projects. Simple as that.

OA

[Lord Winter]

Haven't you heard? The Soviet Union has been defeated and it's time to enjoy the peace dividend. Oh happy day! The end of war is here.

Thats what France thought in the 1930's.


Besides I don't think we've seen the end of 3gw. State to state war will always be the primary cause.

[Vladimir]

Wasn't it the end of history? BTW I wonder which enemy is able to challenge in a conventional war the USA or the EU?

Massive use of helis is only reasonable against massed armor. Period. Even if you greatly reduce their numbers they are still able to blunt a massive tank attack. Nobody comes near to even a quarter of the Soviet might in tanks and artillery. But if you mass them without rhyme or reason you rip the money from more important projects. Simple as that.

OA

China would be the worst threat but I doubt helicopters can do much against human wave attacks. Besides, China has too much invested in peace I think.

The Russians are heading towards domestic and economic trouble to they could mature into a theat. How many times have they been beaten down only to emerge stronger? They may have the armor but they also are still developing good SAMs which the older helos won't be able to defend against.