Which Attack Helicopter is Best?

Which is Best?


  • Total voters
    61
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Muslim, Italy's Mangusta's saw operational service in Somalis in the mid 90's, where they performed very well in the hot, dry and dusty conditions found therein. The Mangusta's performed a wide variety of mission types in Somalia from Recon to escort tasks and fire support tasks as well. Cheers.
 

muslim282

New Member
Thanks Aussie.
l wasn,t aware of that fact.

Another fact:- out of all the attack helicopter corpses lying around the world, the most numerous is the Mi24.
lf l was a soldier fighting on the ground l,d much rather fight an Mi24 than an apache armed with night vision and highly accurate weapon systems coupled with the longbow radar.

All helicopters no matter how well armoured still take a good pounding from heavy machine guns. Numerous apaches were damaged in iraq. These were quickly removed from the battle so as to prevent total destruction or loss.

All things considered l think the Longbow Apache is presently No.1. Mainly due to its results achieved on the battlefield.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
armage said:
:? What about the Havoc? I herd somewhere it was equal to the Apache.
Thats a bit hard to determine when they have different mission profiles and tactical fit.
 

redsoulja

New Member
i heard that the yanks are building a new helo with tech from commanche
on another forum, ppl say its a rumour any1 got anything reliable? or is just bs?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
redsoulja said:
i heard that the yanks are building a new helo with tech from commanche
on another forum, ppl say its a rumour any1 got anything reliable? or is just bs?
I'd be betting lots of money that it's BS. The Commanche and Crusader were pulled for a reason - and it wasn't to kickstart new vaguely similar programmes. ;)
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There's definately no "replacement" for Comanche, at least not in the immediate future. They are supposed to develop a new light/medium aircraft to replace the ancient OH-58's. If they were smart they'd go with Bell 412's instead but I doubt that will ever happen.
 

redsoulja

New Member
what about future generations of unmanned helos
would they stand any chance of taking an advantage over piloted helso????
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think the unmanned helo's will eventually take a critical role in the future of aviation as either scouts into high threat area's or target designators in high risk area's. I don't see them taking on the role as attack ships or replacing scouts all together as they are many years away from developing any sort of simulated battlefield awareness. Unlike our fast mover cousins, tactical helicopter flight is very much a fly by the seat of your pants proposition. Controlling the aircraft is a comparitively easy function to master, developing situational awareness is not and I just don't see synthetic sensors and or intelligence being capable of replacing humans in that respect. I also firmly believe that Army Aviation needs to carefully annalyze operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where losses have been very very light compared to the number of missions and hours flown. Apaches and Blackhawks are now fairly well tested and proven platforms in combat, and so are the crews. I think the biggest pitfall is going to be the lessons learned, or in my opinion not learned. Neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan were the Army's aircraft faced with a foe of any real consequence. That's not to say it wasn't dangerous, and that the crews didn't perform well, but rather they were fighting against poorly trained, poorly equipped and equally poorly performing enemies. In othe words, duck soup. In that instance, I hope and pray that tactical doctrine doesn't change to the degree whereby we think all of our future adversaries will give such a poor accounting of themselves...in other words, overconfidence.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
That is a real issue Gremlin and it's arguable that the US suffered from it when it went into Somalia. They started out the right way with the US Marines, but when they left and the US Army light infantry forces took over they expected to be able to sort of a decades old problem relatively easily.

Unfortunately once the real US combat power was taken away (the 20 odd thousand US Marines) the Somalian's decided they'd fight back, leading directly to the Blackhawk Down situation and the eventual US withdrawal...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Here's a pic of the first Australian built Tiger Armed Recon Helo taking shape... Things are looking good.

 

armage

New Member
How long does it usually take to build a Tiger for Australia?
And what countries are going to use the Tiger?
 

quicksilver

New Member
I think the russian hind will still be the best for about a couple more years than the apache will take over as the best
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
quicksilver said:
I think the russian hind will still be the best for about a couple more years than the apache will take over as the best
I think you should backtrack and read Gremlins post re the Hind.

Further to that, it is slow cumbersome and not suited to modern warfare. It's had it's day as far as complex warfighting goes.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
They started building the Tiger's in Australia (Brisbane) in 2003. The first one above along with 3 others are undergoing system testing prior to their initial flight tests. The first 4 Australian built "Aussie Tigers" should be delivered early next year. The 1st 2 Aussie Tigers (manufactured in France) are due for delivery next month...
 

turin

New Member
And what countries are going to use the Tiger?
Besides Australia Tiger is in full production for the two developer countries, France and Germany. Both are planning for a total number of 120 and receive a first batch of 80 units. It remains to be seen if the rest will be ordered as well due to financial restrictions (as usual in Germany). Spain ordered 24 units of a slightly modified design. Dont think that will be the end of the list, there is quite some export potential in this design.
 

quicksilver

New Member
quicksilver said:
I think the russian hind will still be the best for about a couple more years than the apache will take over as the best

Its size may have been a consequence of the selection of the Mi-8’s propulsion system, and may be disadvantageous in combat. Compensation comes from high speed (it is still one of the fastest assault helicopters in the world) and fighter-like agility, provided by powerful engines and rotor design. Its cabin provides room not only for eight servicemen, but also for extra ammunition and fuel. Though it may be re-loaded by crew (or by ’passengers’) in the very vicinity of combat field without returning to base.
It saw extensive service in Afghanistan and has also been exported to many countries.
Numerous modifications affect mostly armament and electronic equipment.

http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=46
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
Unlike our fast mover cousins, tactical helicopter flight is very much a fly by the seat of your pants proposition. Controlling the aircraft is a comparitively easy function to master, developing situational awareness is not and I just don't see synthetic sensors and or intelligence being capable of replacing humans in that respect. I also firmly believe that Army Aviation needs to carefully annalyze operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where losses have been very very light compared to the number of missions and hours flown. Apaches and Blackhawks are now fairly well tested and proven platforms in combat, and so are the crews. I think the biggest pitfall is going to be the lessons learned, or in my opinion not learned. Neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan were the Army's aircraft faced with a foe of any real consequence. That's not to say it wasn't dangerous, and that the crews didn't perform well, but rather they were fighting against poorly trained, poorly equipped and equally poorly performing enemies. In othe words, duck soup. In that instance, I hope and pray that tactical doctrine doesn't change to the degree whereby we think all of our future adversaries will give such a poor accounting of themselves...in other words, overconfidence.
Total agreement with you'r analysis Grem.Platforms will change what really needs to happen is a constant rethinking of the tactical doctrine depending on the situation being faced.Iraq and Afghanistan relatively speaking, are IMHO little more than shooting at a target range(but then I ain't a pilot and if my army aviation uncle reads this he'll give me a huge lecture :roll ).But what if for instance you have to go up against a foe like Iran per se.It has a force of well over 200 gunships(Cobras original and reverse engineered, some Russian gunships as well?) and large quantities of armour and men to throw into the fray.What would be the tactical doctrine then and how will it evolve from lets say the the moment the first shot is fired to the last one?
Or lets say in Europe if the probable soviet invasion had turned to city by city fighting as in WWII :?:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
umair said:
Or lets say in Europe if the probable soviet invasion had turned to city by city fighting as in WWII :?:
The russian intent in an invasion of europe was to bypass towns and cities - using a landwarfare version of McArthy's island jumping. NATO wanted to pull them into towns and cities as an exercise in debilitation.

The key hubs would have been fought over - but thats all.
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Mi 24 can't hold a title a few more years when it hasn't held the title in the first place. The AH-1 was the superior gunship until the Apache came along. Right now I'd rate the Mi 24 as being in dead last place in comparison to other dedicated gunships being made around the world. It's got a decent cruise speed but 20 or 30 knots additional airspeed doesn't really add any practical dimension to gunships, or tactical helicopter flight for that matter. And, the Mi 24 definately does not handle like a fighter. The "crew compartment" was made for Munchkins and proved to be woefully inadequate for transporting combat troops but that's a moot point since carrying troops is irrelevant to gunships. I could go on and on and on but there's no point in it really. In terms of appearance the Mi 24 is my top pick, but performance wise it's a dinosaur who's design was barely plausible 25 years ago.

umair, when I was assigned to my first unit many years ago we had plenty of Vietnam era vets still around, several of whom "tutored" me in the ways of becoming an old pilot. There's a saying, "There's bold pilots, and there's old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots" and it's quite true. Anyway, the the forms of tactical flight are 1. NOE (Nap of the Earth) 2. Terrain Flight. NOE is performed at airspeeds of less than 40 knots, and the aircraft is flown as low to the ground as possible. You go around obstructions etc the main idea being to keep the aircraft as far below the horizion as possible. Terrain flight is performed and I quote from my old FM " As fast and as low to vegetation and obstacles as conditions permit". That means your flying at cruise airspeeds and above while staying as close to the terrain as possible. You select the lowest average terrain features ie rivers, draws, valleys etc. The old Vietnam era pilots absolutely hated NOE flight for 2 reasons: 1. During NOE flight helicopters are operating in the region of flight where successful autorotations are very nearly impossible to accomplish and 2. You are low and slow, not good when there are bad guys around.

The gunships adopted the NOE mode as their standard tactical flight mode because it was easier for them to identify and neutralize targets. Much engineering went into the Apache for example so that it would be easy to hover since that was the optimal platform setup for Hellfire shots. So that's how they've been doing it for years. Old tactics for an old enemy, the US Army is setup to fight a legitmate armed force, not the rag pickers they've been engaging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The gunships therefore have been routinely low and slow in Iraq which has made them easy targets for the rebels. Finally, they have begun to see the error of their ways and the army has recognized that NOE flight should be avoided, particularly over cities. It's frustrating that it's taken them that long to officially recognize this but anyone that's served will attest that changing something like basic tactics comes about very very slowly.
 
Top