Damn. That being said, given that Iraq should be getting new Mil-Mi 28s, shouldn't that change things? I mean, I know it gives IqAF a night-fighting capability and is a newer design compared to the Mil Mi-35s, but will it be a game-changer?
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
The only way Mi28's would be a game changer is if Russia deployed a battalions worth to Iraq, including the people and the support trains. Iraq could get 100 Mi28's tomorrow and they wouldn't have anyone to fly them, nor are they likely to for years to come.
To be frank, they will probably never have the expertise to fight with Mi28's at night even under ideal circumstances. It takes years to develop a competent Apache pilot, in a pipeline with decades of institutional knowledge and millions of hours of combat experience. I doubt the Mi28 is much different in that respect. Iraq is at least 10 years behind the power curve for a platform change, that will be a game changer for them now.
To be frank, they will probably never have the expertise to fight with Mi28's at night even under ideal circumstances. It takes years to develop a competent Apache pilot, in a pipeline with decades of institutional knowledge and millions of hours of combat experience. I doubt the Mi28 is much different in that respect. Iraq is at least 10 years behind the power curve for a platform change, that will be a game changer for them now.
What is a battalion of helicopters? I thought helos were organized into squadrons and regiments.
The Mi-35M has NVGs and thermals. The Mi-28s they're getting don't have radars. So their biggest advantage will be new missiles, larger payload, bigger cannon, and thicker armor.
The US Army does it differently, an aviation regiment can have multiple battalions (formed on different birds, apparently) and the battalions contain multiple companies of helicopters.
The number floating around the internet is 24 AH-64's per battalion.
At least, that's my understanding of it. The UK has flights, squadron, regiment.
An Apache battalion is 24 aircraft, 8 per line company. The cavalary still uses the troop and squadron organization, while a regiment is composed of multiple battalions. It takes a battalion (24) worth of aircraft to keep an aerial weapons team (AWT), a flight of 2, airborne 24/7. That's what you need for on call CAS, the sector size predicated on FARP's because you need to have good station time. The next issue is sustainability because a year of that is going to put 40,000+ flight hours on the battalion so aircraft are going to start going down for extended periods for reset (measured in months) and the people are going to need a reset as well.
Unlike a case of rifles, attack aircraft aren't something you can just give to an ally and expect them to be able to use, it takes years of training under the best of circumstances and Iraq isn't best of circumstances. No question, they can't beat IS/ISIS on their own and neither can airpower alone.
Unlike a case of rifles, attack aircraft aren't something you can just give to an ally and expect them to be able to use, it takes years of training under the best of circumstances and Iraq isn't best of circumstances. No question, they can't beat IS/ISIS on their own and neither can airpower alone.
I doubt it, more likely the Turks have been told to join the fight or don't ask for help when the inevitable happens and Turkey is fighting ISIS directly...
Possibly...Turkey did issue a statement later that essentially went "hold your horses, nothing's confirmed yet" but I can't find the link...
Just about any news report about Turkey on the internet now says there is no deal. Turkey will only join in if 'Assad must go' is included on the list of objectives.
Turkey is just being realistic. Turkey has around a million refugees now who are afraid to return to Syria as long as Assad is in power. Even if the Coalition can vet Syrian rebels to train for action against ISIS, those troops will ally against Assad first.
Personally I don't blame the Turks - unless the Turks are directly threatened; why should Turkey get directly involved and exposed itself to the risks that come with it, especially given that other countries are reluctant to commit ''boots on the ground''. If anything the Gulf Arabs who have spent billions on defence - against the Iranians off course - should be the ones to deploy a ground force to Iraq as a show of solidarity with the Iraqi government and as a token of how serious they are in defeating ISIS and not putting all their hopes on the West to sort out the problem. Then there is also the fact that Turkey has a slightly agenda : getting rid of Assad first and keeping an eye on the Kurds; rather than dealing with ISIS first.
Meanwhile - as expected - ISIS is still gaining ground despite the air strikes. A local paper here ran an article last week with the Pentagon spokesman saying the obvious: that rolling back ISIS was not as easy as it seems and that there is no reliable partner on the ground [which - had they read his comments - would have annoyed the Kurds and the Iraqi Shia militia which have been confronting ISIS and also the so called '''moderates'' we keep hearing about]. Kerry saying saving Kolbane ''was not part of the strategy'' also offered little comfort to those stuck in that town.
War against Isis: US air strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent
Robert Fisk on Isis: Propaganda war of Islamic extremists is being waged on Facebook and internet message boards, not mosques - Comment - Voices - The Independent
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDcWelC6ExU"]CrossTalk: Washington's Jihad - YouTube[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PacuLRv1Jn4"]CrossTalk: America's 30-year war - YouTube[/nomedia]
Airstrikes on Syria: Help or hindrance? - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English
Meanwhile - as expected - ISIS is still gaining ground despite the air strikes. A local paper here ran an article last week with the Pentagon spokesman saying the obvious: that rolling back ISIS was not as easy as it seems and that there is no reliable partner on the ground [which - had they read his comments - would have annoyed the Kurds and the Iraqi Shia militia which have been confronting ISIS and also the so called '''moderates'' we keep hearing about]. Kerry saying saving Kolbane ''was not part of the strategy'' also offered little comfort to those stuck in that town.
War against Isis: US air strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent
Robert Fisk on Isis: Propaganda war of Islamic extremists is being waged on Facebook and internet message boards, not mosques - Comment - Voices - The Independent
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDcWelC6ExU"]CrossTalk: Washington's Jihad - YouTube[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PacuLRv1Jn4"]CrossTalk: America's 30-year war - YouTube[/nomedia]
Airstrikes on Syria: Help or hindrance? - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English
Last edited:
i was under impression that all helicopters in modern war are vurnerable to enemy who have even minimal Air Defense (AAA or MANPADS) , let alone a fully equipped enemy with full Aerial Denial/Defense system..
I still remember vividly how the overconfident Apache helicopters get mauled in Karbala by Iraqi's AAA ambush..
i think the only way for Helo Gunship to survive modern battlefield is to fly low (NoE) and doing fast gun/rocket run... and teamwork between helicopters..
the notion that a modern force can be totally supported / supplied by air is unsustainable on a real battlefield with adequately equipped enemy. Air support is a very high luxury (cost and resources wise).. :lol3 :wah
IIRC it wasn't overconfidence which brought the Apaches into Karbala but sloppy planning. They thought their route would take them over desert areas and suddenly they faced small arms and AAA over an urban area. At least all of them came back to base.
If rocket/gun runs are always the way to go is IMHO a question of circumstances and appropiate tactics. Sometimes popping up from behind cover and loosing some Hellfires may be much more usefull.
Judging from videos the Iraqis seem to like to go in close and personal and often with several birds from the same direction. That together with them lacking missile defense systems may be a reason for them loosing their aircrafts (together with all the stuff Gremlin mentioned).
If rocket/gun runs are always the way to go is IMHO a question of circumstances and appropiate tactics. Sometimes popping up from behind cover and loosing some Hellfires may be much more usefull.
Judging from videos the Iraqis seem to like to go in close and personal and often with several birds from the same direction. That together with them lacking missile defense systems may be a reason for them loosing their aircrafts (together with all the stuff Gremlin mentioned).
''Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq '' [Gordon and Trainer] has a good description of what went wrong that night. It was a combination of various things: an alert and well trained enemy; bad luck, a request for artillery denied, etc. They were lucky not to lose more Apaches than they did; most came back damaged. The tactics the Iraqis used were also interesting, they used spotters with mobile phones to coordinate their actions; switched off the town's power grid and switched it on again to alert the gunners, forced the Apaches to fly near electric cables and targeted the weapons pylons .
The Iraqis were armed mostly with S-60s, ZSUs and older generation MANPADs. If the operational circumstances were similar and the ones doing the ambush had beam riders or more advanced IR seekers, the end result could have been very different. I think the main lesson here is that any attack helicopter - irrespective of how advanced or how well trained the crew are - if up against an alert enemy using the right tactics and who has exploited the terrain; is highly vulnerable to ground fire; even if it's from older generation stuff. It is telling however that Apaches later flew numerous deep penetration missions throughout the invasion and didn't suffer the casualties they did that night at Karbala, which incidentally was home to the Iraqi army's air defence school.
The Iraqis were armed mostly with S-60s, ZSUs and older generation MANPADs. If the operational circumstances were similar and the ones doing the ambush had beam riders or more advanced IR seekers, the end result could have been very different. I think the main lesson here is that any attack helicopter - irrespective of how advanced or how well trained the crew are - if up against an alert enemy using the right tactics and who has exploited the terrain; is highly vulnerable to ground fire; even if it's from older generation stuff. It is telling however that Apaches later flew numerous deep penetration missions throughout the invasion and didn't suffer the casualties they did that night at Karbala, which incidentally was home to the Iraqi army's air defence school.
what if in the future the US helicopters face a really competent and adequately equipped enemy force ? the experience fighting insurgents in police actions shouldnt be the barometer or benchmark for attack helo operation on modern battlefield..
my point is not limited to US helicopters but to all offensive helicopter operation in modern era with motivated and trained enemy and modern AAA/MANPADS.. even the vaunted AC130 will be at risk of shotdown and the helicopter gunships or troop carrier or medevac will be of limited use..
can a modern ground force survive the battlefield without air support ?
my point is not limited to US helicopters but to all offensive helicopter operation in modern era with motivated and trained enemy and modern AAA/MANPADS.. even the vaunted AC130 will be at risk of shotdown and the helicopter gunships or troop carrier or medevac will be of limited use..
can a modern ground force survive the battlefield without air support ?
This articles mentions a U.S. made wire-guided ATGW provided to the rebels by an Arab countrt. Have there been any reports or pics of TOW in Syria?
BBC News - Islamic State: Syria rebels warn of backlash over US air strikes
BBC News - Islamic State: Syria rebels warn of backlash over US air strikes
Absolutely not. But your earlier statements are based on assumptions that aren't correct. If you don't think Iraq had more than minimal ADA in the first or second war, you need to do some research. TTP's are based on threat. When the threat changes, the TTP's change. It's called measure, counter measure, counter counter measure and it is the nature of combat.
NOE is the very worst mode of flight, it is flown at <40 knots and makes you a target for everthing from slingshots on up. It's great for moving to a battle position when you are going to attack a large armored formation on the other side of the FEBA or phase line, otherwise it's pretty useless.
the concerned
Active Member
In Afghanistan didn't the British apaches work at heights out of reach of most AA guns and manpads.
Found a pretty neat briefing by US DoD on Operation Inherent Resolve. (Link: http://dodnews.defense.gov/Video.aspx?videoid=367516)
The briefing, IMHO, covers quite a number of key issues. I think it's worth spending some time on to get a better understanding of what's going on.
The briefing, IMHO, covers quite a number of key issues. I think it's worth spending some time on to get a better understanding of what's going on.