A-10C Thunderbolt II

[Waylander]

@Chrom
What is your problem with hovering in a scenario where the red hordes are marching through western germany?
This may be the only way to survive.
As it has been already mentioned it was not just helicopters hovering and firing.
Approach the point of fire via a concealed route below tree line.
Let something like your Kiowa scout, Bo-105 scout or ground assets in contact with you find a good spot to hit the enemy columns (the Longbow upgrade added a huge amount of tracking capabilities for this role).
Get up a little bit above tree line and fire your ATGMs as fast as possible and from as far away as possible (4km+) and then return to the refuel and rearm point via another concealed route.
This is nearly the only way to avoid as much enemy air defence assets as possible.
The concealed approach over own territory helps to protect against enemy long range SAMs/radars and against enemy fighters.
That you pop up nearly above your own enemy lines and just barely above tree level helps against close range air defence systems directly attached to the enemy formations while the range of your ATGMs makes it possible to outrange systems like the Shilka.
It is not like you make it out. They are not popping up nearly directly in front of the enemy formations right above enemy territory.

What would be the alternative? Doing strike runs against enemy columns?
You propose strikes by fixed wing assets can get alot uglier because these strike aircrafts are often enough much more exposed to enemy air defence asstes of all kind than a helicopter which uses all kinds of terrain to avoid these assets.

 

[Chrom]

@Chrom
What is your problem with hovering in a scenario where the red hordes are marching through western germany?
This may be the only way to survive.
As it has been already mentioned it was not just helicopters hovering and firing.
Approach the point of fire via a concealed route below tree line.

And then they get ambushed by enemy flanks guards... because they failed to notice 1-2 BMP's or just a soldier squad with ATGM's, MADPADS.. Simply put, in such rapidly changed situation it would be very, very dangerous to rely on concealment approach.

Compare it with more common aviation or helo tactic - quick sweep, attack, quick disengage before enemy can target. All this while flying as fast as possible. For this tactic several BMP's or ATGM's are much, much less dangerous. Even MANPADS require up to several minutes preparation - which would be enough against hovering helos, but not sufficient against quickly moved air targets.

Still, even that approach wouldnt be very efficient against later 70x- early 80x common "Red horde" offensive group. All these mobile SAM's and AAA, being integral part of tank/rifle regiments, will give good enough protection.

Let something like your Kiowa scout, Bo-105 scout or ground assets in contact with you find a good spot to hit the enemy columns (the Longbow upgrade added a huge amount of tracking capabilities for this role).
Get up a little bit above tree line and fire your ATGMs as fast as possible and from as far away as possible (4km+) and then return to the refuel and rearm point via another concealed route.

As i said, this maneuver will still require much more time than quick attack on the run, and while hovering helo will present much easer target for anything including even small arms and artillery. Btw, this also includes tanks main gun! Remember, a large part of soviet tank ammo load was HE ammo!

This is nearly the only way to avoid as much enemy air defence assets as possible.

But this will expose helos to everything else, while still not completely hiding it from AD assets.

The concealed approach over own territory helps to protect against enemy long range SAMs/radars and against enemy fighters.

This is not the main question here. Concealed approach can be also well used by every other aircrafts or helo - it is not exclusive to hovering attack helo

That you pop up nearly above your own enemy lines and just barely above tree level helps against close range air defence systems directly attached to the enemy formations while the range of your ATGMs makes it possible to outrange systems like the Shilka.

The problem is, such tactic is very heavy reliant on terrain, and enemy would be also very well aware of such possibility. Even 1 small forward enemy group near such lucrative attack point will result in heavy causalities among very expensive helos. Hell, even just an hidden enemy scout 10km away from this hovering point (or even from a way to this hovering point) can ruin a day for such helo wing. I stress it again, still hovering helo is a dream target for anyone, including for these who wouldnt even think about attacking moving helo in other case.

It is not like you make it out. They are not popping up nearly directly in front of the enemy formations right above enemy territory.

Doesnt matter in the slightest if they pop in front, sides or behind main formation.

What would be the alternative? Doing strike runs against enemy columns?
You propose strikes by fixed wing assets can get alot uglier because these strike aircrafts are often enough much more exposed to enemy air defence asstes of all kind than a helicopter which uses all kinds of terrain to avoid these assets.

My proposal is dont use hovering tactic against half-competent enemy. Use helos with "quick shoot on the run" tactic, use low-level fixed wing aircrafts like A-10.

P.S. Btw, if enemy control airspace up to high alt (with SAM's or whatever) - and this seems to be implication of your wish to avoid using high-alt bombers and hiding from enemy aviation - then using helos for attack is even more suicide. Even more so hovering helos, which require more time to setup attack than other helos and fixed wing aircrafts.

 

[kato]

P.S. Btw, if enemy control airspace up to high alt (with SAM's or whatever)

In the Cold War scenario in Germany, neither side would have really controlled the air.
Both sides would focus on keeping air superiority - primarily through SAM belts - over their own area, while attempting to reduce hostile air forces through targeted destruction of infrastructure, especially airfields, with heavy escort forces.

All USAFE A-10 were for such reasons held in the second wave in the UK btw (10th TFW, 81st TFW), with the only other units there being the bombers (F-111E/F). The 17th AF HQ in Germany had ~100 F-15C, ~200 F-16 and a considerable number of EW and SEAD aircraft (EF-111A, EC-130H, F-4G). Not assets meant for CAS.
The RAF would have had some 30 Harriers for CAS in Germany, along with ~100 Tornados for strike missions and ~25 Phantoms for intercepts.
Germany itself had some 100 Alpha Jets for CAS, although these were stationed such that they would protect the flanks against breakthroughs (the RAF Harriers filled much the same role for the center).
The Tornados, armed with MW1 or JP223, would perform anti-tank strike missions, nothing you'd want to be close to.

The fixed SAM belts however meant that these almost entirely weren't really all that capable at intercepting at low altitude. Even dedicated heavier low-altitude SAMs such as 2K12 Kub had a minimum altitude of 50m, and attack helos were meant to specifically stay below that. Other systems (9K31, 9K33, 9K33M) had other problems that could be exploited, especially in the to be expected ECM-heavy environment.

Besides which you wouldn't have a single attack helo attacking. Or a pair. Think squadrons and entire wings attacking over the whole front. With typical maintenance numbers, there'd be roughly 25% of the entire attack helo fleet attacking along a 1400 km long front.
This fleet would have consisted of some 650 attack helos (~200 AH-1, ~200 PAH-1, ~150 AH64, ~50 Gazelle HOT, ~50 Lynx TOW) and some 400 further armed scout helos (such as OH-58A/C/D).

 

[Chrom]

The fixed SAM belts however meant that these almost entirely weren't really all that capable at intercepting at low altitude. Even dedicated heavier low-altitude SAMs such as 2K12 Kub had a minimum altitude of 50m, and attack helos were meant to specifically stay below that. Other systems (9K31, 9K33, 9K33M) had other problems that could be exploited, especially in the to be expected ECM-heavy environment.

Remember, low-level approach is NOT exclusive to hovering helos. Any other helo can do it just as well.

Kub in optical mode can engage targets as low as 25m.

Also, in early 80x Buk-M was already fielded, which had no problems to engage low-flying targets. Tunguska, which is even more mobile and dangerous for helicopters and low-alt aircrafts, was fielded in later 80x - but this still proves my point what by 80x the concept of hovering helo (and even any other helo) against "red tank hordes" was not very successful .

But this is not my original point. I was specifically skeptical about hovering attack mode, as in my view this expose helos to more danger, regardless of SAM's presence or absence.


As for ECM-heavy environment...

First, this goes both ways. Second, at least new Buk and Tunguska had adequate (by that time) anti-ecm and anti-radar missile protection. I dont think it would be easy job to affect them at such close range.

 

[kato]

Kub in optical mode can engage targets as low as 25m.

Light Attack Helos meant for European battlefields hovered around far below that. That's why 9K33M was fielded, to lower the engagement zone down to 10m altitude.

Also, in early 80x Buk-M was already fielded, which had no problems to engage low-flying targets. Tunguska, which is even more mobile and dangerous for helicopters and low-alt aircrafts, was fielded in later 80x

9K37 was fielded first in 1979, 9K37M in 1984. Both had a minimum intercept altitude of 30m.
9K22 combined SAMs with ADA for specifically that reason, getting below that magic 25-30m engagement line. However, the original 9K22 was only produced in a LRIP run, and replaced by 2K22M which due to some problems wasn't introduced before 1990 (though technically it was ready by 1986-1988).
Neither 9K37 nor 9K22 were exactly widespread on the European battlefield, especially as the Soviets didn't hand these down.

Remember, low-level approach is NOT exclusive to hovering helos. Any other helo can do it just as well.
[...]
But this is not my original point. I was specifically skeptical about hovering attack mode, as in my view this expose helos to more danger, regardless of SAM's presence or absence.

Sure, but a non-hovering helo will automatically spend far more time in the LOS of hostile anti-aircraft systems. That's what the primary point is - not just keeping below the radar, but also plainly keeping out of sight.

In a ECM environment, most AA against helos would rely on passive IR seeker missiles, command guidance, laser beam-riding, IR/EO on about anything else. Passive IR seekers have a number of problems, especially in a heat-source-rich environment, and the rest would be a case of dodging it.

Most AA engagement systems have reaction times between 8 and 15 seconds minimum, missile systems often more. Enough time for the sweep-up-fire-sweep-down routine. A handful close-in range systems were a lot faster, but that's why you'd do this at long range. Same on the Western side btw, Germany built Gepard and Roland exactly to have something with combined radar and IR sensors, and very low reaction times.

Approaching low but keeping in sight of sensors will always give your enemy more time to react, no matter how much you hug the terrain.

 

[Waylander]

And then they get ambushed by enemy flanks guards... because they failed to notice 1-2 BMP's or just a soldier squad with ATGM's, MADPADS.. Simply put, in such rapidly changed situation it would be very, very dangerous to rely on concealment approach.

Compare it with more common aviation or helo tactic - quick sweep, attack, quick disengage before enemy can target. All this while flying as fast as possible. For this tactic several BMP's or ATGM's are much, much less dangerous. Even MANPADS require up to several minutes preparation - which would be enough against hovering helos, but not sufficient against quickly moved air targets.

Still, even that approach wouldnt be very efficient against later 70x- early 80x common "Red horde" offensive group. All these mobile SAM's and AAA, being integral part of tank/rifle regiments, will give good enough protection.

You don't get the idea behind the used tactics.
As Kato already said all these movements are done to stay out of enemy radar and LOS detection for as long as possible.
Because of that you approach the forward line of defense via a concealed route over own territory. This minimizes the chance to get shot at by unsuspected enemy forces like the mentioned BMP, MBT, MANPAD team, etc. And I am talking about being so low that I have no problems touching the helicopter out of the tank hatch.
Because of that you just pop up barely above tree line when you have your target data.
Because of that your scouts do most of the searching for as long as possible.
Because of that one tries to fire the helo mounted ATGMs from outside the range of systems like Shilka, tank mainguns, etc. (4km+)

All this is done to minimize the engagement time of the enemy and to minimize the amount of systems he can bring to bear against your helos.
I never stated that Helos wouldn't take casualties. They would like everyone else. But a Helo doing a fast attack run onto a mechanized rifle regiment exposes it for a much longer time to everything from Tunguskas to AK-74s.

And your proposed ATGM teams and BMPs are not going to throw out the same amount of AT-missile fire like for example a pair of Apaches. Not even close to that and not over the same distance.

As i said, this maneuver will still require much more time than quick attack on the run, and while hovering helo will present much easer target for anything including even small arms and artillery. Btw, this also includes tanks main gun! Remember, a large part of soviet tank ammo load was HE ammo!

Why would it? A Kiowa only exposes it's mast mounted sensors and a Bo also just the top of the cabin. The whole process of popping up, firing the ATGMs as fast as possible against already designated targets and getting down is much faster than every attack run one could do against an enemy column.
And the range of the ATGMs makes sure that the helos stay out of the range of much more systems including your mentioned main guns and small arms. This is not the case for an attack run.

This is not the main question here. Concealed approach can be also well used by every other aircrafts or helo - it is not exclusive to hovering attack helo

Quote:

The way it is done by NATO AT-helicopters is exclusive to this tactic. For sure one can do it with every helicopter but as soon as one crosses the forward line of defense and especially when it starts it's attack run onto the enemy formation it is much much more exposed to any kind of AA asset. There will be so much metal in the air over a motorised rifle regiment that even without specialized AA-assets a helo doing a run is going to have a tough time.

The problem is, such tactic is very heavy reliant on terrain, and enemy would be also very well aware of such possibility. Even 1 small forward enemy group near such lucrative attack point will result in heavy causalities among very expensive helos. Hell, even just an hidden enemy scout 10km away from this hovering point (or even from a way to this hovering point) can ruin a day for such helo wing. I stress it again, still hovering helo is a dream target for anyone, including for these who wouldnt even think about attacking moving helo in other case.

And again, because of that one tries to stay above ones own territory for as long as possible. In the ideal situation for the whole attack. YOur idea on the other side brings the helos into enemy territory and maximizes the threats you just mentioned.
And what kind of scout with enough firepower is going to be on the route of the helos when this route is over ones own territory. If there is an enemy BMP platoon behind your lines without you knowing it you have much bigger problems than the survival of your helos.

Doesnt matter in the slightest if they pop in front, sides or behind main formation.

What kind of statement is that? As if it doesn't matter if you pop up above ones own lines or if one has to sneak through enemy territory to get some side shots against the enemy formation. The chance that there are no enemy forces close to your side or right in front of you is much bigger if one pops up above ones own line.

My proposal is dont use hovering tactic against half-competent enemy. Use helos with "quick shoot on the run" tactic, use low-level fixed wing aircrafts like A-10.

P.S. Btw, if enemy control airspace up to high alt (with SAM's or whatever) - and this seems to be implication of your wish to avoid using high-alt bombers and hiding from enemy aviation - then using helos for attack is even more suicide. Even more so hovering helos, which require more time to setup attack than other helos and fixed wing aircrafts.

Kato already explained it. Every low flying aircraft is always going to be much more exposed to enemy AD assets than a helicopter doing a low level (6 meters above ground) approach and it is also going to be exposed to much more ground fire during it's attack run.

 

[kato]

Additionally, helos would have primarily been used to reinforce own (counter-) thrusts on the ground, or to prevent own forces from being overrun. If there are no friendly forces nearby, there's no reason not to just have your artillery - or aircraft with cluster AT bombs - execute a strike along the lines of "fire quadrant, 500x500, go".

In an ideal combined-arms situation in such a thrust, the helo would execute its missile strikes from just behind your own lines, overfiring own forces to provide additional firepower to the front line before hostile forces come into weapon range with own forces.

The approach-low, attack-directly-and-fast, get-away-as-fast-as-possible isn't a tactic suitable for helos, but is worthwhile if the potential damage is worth the risk. A Tornado with twin JP223, a MW1 dispenser or a B61 will use such a tactic, supported by heavy ECM and jamming. However, in that case, you're not aiming at taking out a platoon of tanks or two, but you're aiming at taking out the entire regiment at once in this single strike, which would definitely be worth risking the aircraft (... unless there's a Lance or Pluton battery within range).

 

[Waylander]

That's what I wrote earlier in one of my posts.
The Helos blunt the enemy fomrations before the actual ground engagement begins, reinforce weakpoints or soften up enemy positions before a counterattack.

This picture shows our PAHs doing a prepatory strike while the tank platoon is ready to come out of cover and make itself wide for the attack.