What is your preferred combat helicopter and why??

[Manawar]

Ah-64A Apache hands down! Why ? Because is pwns everything else :)

[Sundowner.pl]

@Malleus - Exactly, but in high&hot situations like, let say Afghanistan ( ;) ) if you want to land somewhere to drop/pick up troops, rearm, refuel etc, while slowing down, you will experience huge lift loss, as the wings do not generate any, but disturb the MR air flow, and actually you don't have as much lift in hover as Mi-8, while being 1.5 ton heavier (!)... the same problem have the V-22 Osprey. Then you can't fly rearward too fast, that also limits your downwind flight envelope, and you can forget about doing maneuvers like "rearward departure" that S-70 and AH-64 do so gracefully.

[arneh]

It is not a fact, and it may be far from truth, but there is almost two years of difference after Sikorsky started working on S-66 and S-67 (1964)

 

The S-66 was designed in 1964, and although the S-67 share many similarities, it's not very similar to the Mi-24. The S-66 did not have a troop compartment, and it had a tail rotor which swiveled and turned into a pusher-prop at high speed. It was a competitor to the AH-56, and like it built for high speed, not as an armed troop gunship like the Mi-24.

 

Both were build on exactly the same concept - use as much parts from existing transport helicopter as possible, build a narrow fuselage, with tandem cockpit and area for small number of troops, and have wings for unloading the main rotor in forward flight, and armament.

 

Narrow fuselage, tandem cockpit, wings and armament describe pretty much every attack helicopter made :) (and the Mi-24 wasn't a tandem seat until the D-model) A gunship with a troop compartment is really the only unique thing these helicopters have in common, but to say the Mi-24 was a rip-off because of that is pushing it very far IMO.

 

At least Americans got their self into an conflict where concepts of true attack helicopters (Cobras) and gunships (Huey's and everything else that could carry rockets and machine guns) were tested[...]. Unfortunately the Soviets couldn't at the time test their concepts

 

I think most would agree that it was fortunate the Soviets weren't involved in more conflicts ;)

 

 

The only time when they could prove their worth were Iraq - Iran conflict, where the Hinds and SeaCobras fought each other

 

Air-to-air wasn't a role neither helicopter was designed for, so it's not very relevant as a comparison for their main roles.

 

And I think it's generally agreed that the Mi-24 did well in Afghanistan as well. It was certainly one of the most feared weapons by the Mujahedin.

 

Not really my favored... it is really low on my list.

 

Yes, that I've understood :)

But it was a capable helicopter in its day, it just hasn't been kept up to date, and hence its 30-year-old technology cannot compete with modern helicopters. But it's still useful in low-intensity conflicts.

[Mugatu]

mmm when did the Apache go into production? 1981 and when was it designed a long long time ago :)

[arneh]

mmm when did the Apache go into production? 1981 and when was it designed a long long time ago :)

 

Maiden flight in 1975. But most of the ones still in use are AH-64Ds, which is a major upgrade and first flew in the mid 90s.

[nscode]

That troop carrying thing on an attack helicopter is so stupid.. I mean, when would anyone need an attack helicopter to transport people. That's as foolish as someone saying helicopters need tail rotors to fly ;)

 

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=apache+rescue&sitesearch=

[Sundowner.pl]

Attack helicopter is for attacking, transport helicopter is for transporting... multipurpose helicopter is a decoy :smilewink:

[Dvst]

Yeah sure mate....

That's exactly why the Hind is such an unpopular and underperforming design...

[Sundowner.pl]

Unfortunately your sarcastic in nature comment may be true :smilewink:

 

Just think about it. In Warsaw Pact and country's sponsored by it, you couldn't get any other attack helicopter, that means after the fall of Berlin wall, there are many users out there, but changing it to other helicopter, means spending a lot of money! Modern attack helicopter costs 18-26 mln USD, twice more for training of flight and ground crew, spares, armament, tools, maintenance facilities, etc. If someone is using say 30 helicopters it is way cheaper to replace the older with newer ones, or modernize all, no matter what the helicopter is (Cobra or Hind). That's why Iran is still using Cobras, not Hinds !

 

The second thing is the ease of procurement, it is tough to get an AH-1 for a PMC or some rouge state, but there are many Hinds out there, literally laying around, and if you can't buy them directly from Russian government, there are many civilian corporations that deal with selling them. It is also easier and way cheaper to buy Russian (actually Soviet ;) ) ammunition.

 

There is also the thing of paying debts, that Russia prefer to give somebody military equipment than money - Czech got their Mi-35 that way.

 

Most operators fly Hinds not because they are "soo good" but because they don't have a choice. Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary - they would be long flying Apaches or Tigers if the could afford it !

[Malleus]

Sundowner, slow down, you're making a lot of Hind fans depressed here. :)

 

Besides, the Mi-24 is as much a worthy candidate for a preferred combat helicopter as the Ka-50 (the DCS version, at least - I noticed a lot of people became fans of the heli already :) ). One could argue about them being good designs or not, but both are important pieces of (heli) history. ;)

[CYGAN apa.sq]

That's right .Maybe hind is not good as many people think and how should be (good) but it's still usefull helicopter .The same way thinking Apache and tiger is not best option of combat helo.Usefull depend on task and version of hind.

[Prophet]

I would go with the AH-64D Longbow.

 

I dont think there is any other helicopter that can match its munition delivery capabilities. Especially when you consider multiple helos working in a group.

[Avimimus]

Sundowner, slow down, you're making a lot of Hind fans depressed here. :)

 

I'm undaunted. The Hind has a similar, and in some cases superior combat capability when compared to the Cobra. While being a bit less maneuverable, it was capable of acting in the roles it was assigned to and it also has the capability to act as a transport if there is a need (which gives the force flexibility).

 

The reason why a dedicated combat helicopter wasn't developed in the Soviet Union was largely due to tactical doctrine. The effectiveness of the AH-64 in a hot war is strongly in doubt (at least the losses/tanks destroyed ratios that were proposed to justify its cost). The Mi-28 and Ka-50 were only developed in anticipation of good targeting avionics and night attack capability (that latter still isn't fully developed).

 

Furthermore, if you are a small country you are going to be flying you're hind force all the time (acting as transport and patrol aircraft or making repeated sorties against guerrillas etc.)

 

The reason why countries are buying new ones isn't because they have spares so much as because they have used up all of their examples. If you can only afford a dozen helicopters you want them to be multi-purpose and a design you are familiar with.

 

So, yes, the Hind isn't an Apache. But then again, the Apache isn't a Hind...

[eurofor]

I would go with the AH-64D Longbow.

 

I dont think there is any other helicopter that can match its munition delivery capabilities. Especially when you consider multiple helos working in a group.

I don't mean to get into a "my helicopter is teh better" argument but the Apache is definitely not high up above all else. A quick armament comparison with the Tiger shows that it can carry pretty much everything the Apache can and other AG missilies such as the Trigat (though that one is not available until 2010).

[AlphaOneSix]

A quick armament comparison with the Tiger shows that it can carry pretty much everything the Apache can

 

Except the Apache can carry more of it. I'm not trashing the Tiger, it's very nice and I like it a lot, but it's a lighter helicopter than the Apache, both in actual weight (about half) and how much armament it can carry at once. That doesn't mean once is better or worse than the other, it just means it's different.

 

But for simplicity's sake, all Americans must be Apache fans, all Western Europeans must be Tiger fans, and all East Europeans and Russians must be Hind fans. Anyone else is allowed to choose freely. ;)

[GGTharos]

Addendum: South Africans must be Rooivalk fans. ;)

[Rhino4]

What about an american that prefers the ka-50? Does that make me a traitor?

[Mugatu]

^^^

 

No just sillly :P

[LastRifleRound]

I have to go AH-64A all the way on account of history.

 

The Apache is in doubt in a hot war? Consider this. In Gulf War I Iraq had one of the most complex and layered air defense and GCI systems in the world. The very first strike launched on that network was from Apache helicopters, annihilating an EW site guarding a gigantic swath of airspace. It didn't just prove itself in a hot war in a land with almost no natural cover, it actually STARTED the war.

 

It just proves that good equipment+good personnel+ingenuity in battle planning=success

 

I don't think anyone could doubt the effectiveness of the Hind in it's first battle experiences (Afghanistan). Until the advent of the Stinger missile, they were arguably one of the most feared weapons platforms in the Soviet army, earning the nickname "The Devil's Cross" by the mujahadeen.

[AlphaOneSix]

In Gulf War I Iraq had one of the most complex and layered air defense and GCI systems in the world.

 

good equipment+good personnel+ingenuity in battle planning=success

 

Not to take away too much here, but while the Iraqi air defense network was pretty good (good equipment), it turned out that the Iraqi defenders themselves were absolutely horrid (untrained personnel, and an environment that destroyed any possibility for ingenuity in battle).

[Dudikoff]

Most operators fly Hinds not because they are "soo good" but because they don't have a choice. Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary - they would be long flying Apaches or Tigers if the could afford it !

 

I would say it is not necessarily so. Apache and Tiger are first and foremost designed as anti-tank helicopters, but the days of big tank armies are gone. The current reality are the small local conflicts with no clearly defined enemy (insurgents), rules of engagement, etc. I see a need for a versatile armoured platform for patrols, combat air support and the likes. If it can carry some special forces troops with it, even better.

 

The Tiger seems rather vulnerable to small arms fire and thus unsuited for daytime operations of this kind. The Apache faires somewhat better. But I wouldn't want my very expensive helicopter which can destroy tanks from half a dozen kms away rust in some hangar because I'm afraid some "peasant armed with an AK" might make holes in it or at least its state-of-the-art equipment :)

[eurofor]

(...)

The Tiger seems rather vulnerable to small arms fire

(...)

What facts are you basing that statement on? 23mm autocannon is not really close to small arms fire.

[AlphaOneSix]

What facts are you basing that statement on? 23mm autocannon is not really close to small arms fire.

 

Exactly which parts of the Tiger are impervious to 23mm fire? Wait, don't answer that. I'll just say right now that any helicopter can be dropped by a single AK round, if it hits the right place. Some are more vulnerable than others, but all are vulnerable. Period.

[mvsgas]

Exactly which parts of the Tiger are impervious to 23mm fire? Wait, don't answer that. I'll just say right now that any helicopter can be dropped by a single AK round, if it hits the right place. Some are more vulnerable than others, but all are vulnerable. Period.

I think we should all agree with you, No mater how reliable an aircraft may be they are all vulnerable, in some way or another to many different weapons systems the opposing forces might have. I bet I can crash a SU-25 with a screw left in the right place :D

[Zulu]

Addendum: South Africans must be Rooivalk fans. ;)

 

 

I definitly agree Rooivalk all the Way :D