What is your preferred combat helicopter and why??

[Sundowner.pl]

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 :)

The Apache, Cobra, Tiger, Mongoose, Roivalk, and Havok, are "best bang for buck" where it comes to having something that will work both in classical and anti-insurgents warfare.

 

Sorry but helicopters like Hind, AH-Lynx, Ka-50 etc. won't cut it. Carrying troops in expensive helicopter that an attack helicopter is - is simply silly. Attack helicopter should be staying away from positions where it can be fired at - hard lesson that US Army had in Iraq. It should be in constant movement, not stopping for troops deployment - thats where you're sending less expensive aircrafts.

 

If you want an attack platform for anti-insurgent warfare, than the Hind is wrong choice. Actually what you need is an gunship, designed similarly to the AC-130U: Big gun - 30, or 40mm with programmable ammunition, plus some rockets and missiles. MH-60L + RAMICS would do the job. Hind would not.

[Prophet]

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).

 

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.

 

There is a difference between just being able to carry the weapon, and the capability to deliver it.

 

A pack of Longbows is by far the most deadly of attack helos. There are other manufacturers who try to replicate what the Longbow radar can do, but as far as I know, no production helo can.

[Rhino4]

Sorry but helicopters like Hind, AH-Lynx, Ka-50 etc. won't cut it. Carrying troops in expensive helicopter that an attack helicopter is - is simply silly. Attack helicopter should be staying away from positions where it can be fired at - hard lesson that US Army had in Iraq. It should be in constant movement, not stopping for troops deployment - thats where you're sending less expensive aircrafts.

 

Did I miss something? Are you implying that the ka-50 can carry troops? :wassat:

 

...Because it can't.

 

....You know that.

 

.....You do don't you? :glare:

 

........Because if you don't then you're in the wrong forum, dude...

[eurofor]

There is a difference between just being able to carry the weapon, and the capability to deliver it.

 

A pack of Longbows is by far the most deadly of attack helos. There are other manufacturers who try to replicate what the Longbow radar can do, but as far as I know, no production helo can.

I didn't say one helicopter was better than the other. Just that the Apache isn't so much better than all others that you made it sound like.

[nscode]

Sundowner.pl, do you know that there is a reconnaissance version of the hind that still caries all the weapons, but has no way of firing any of them? Now, why do you think that is? :)

[Sundowner.pl]

Did I miss something? Are you implying that the ka-50 can carry troops? :wassat:

 

...Because it can't.

 

....You know that.

 

.....You do don't you? :glare:

 

........Because if you don't then you're in the wrong forum, dude...

Are you insulting me ? ;) Where did I wrote that Ka-50 can carry troops ? I only said that Hokum, just like Hind, and AH.7 is a bad choice for anti insurgent warfare attack/CAS helicopter.

 

What an good anti-insurgence helicopter should have is an good capability to suppress or kill small pop-up targets. Hokum can't do that, it needs other helicopter to find those targets for it, because one man can't fly helicopter and look for people. Tanks - yeah, people - not really.

Even with two person crew of the experimental Ka-52 it still have long response time, because it don't have a turret with enough coverage to point the gun and fire it at target before it goes out of sight.

 

AH.7 and other Lynxes, also lac that capability, although maned with snipers, have some success in Iraq, but that's makeshift solution, and have very limited capability. Helicopter have to fly slow and low making itself a perfect target, not only for MANPADs, but also small arms fire, and non-guided RPGs.

 

The Hind... most of them have low firepower of the main gun, or it is fixed, needing more maneuvering than the Ka-50. Only the Mi-24VP, Mi-24VM, Mi-35M and South African Super Hind, have enough firepower and ability do direct it where is needed - they have dual 23mm cannon turret, or singular 20mm cannon turret. Although the accuracy of such equipped Mi-24s (not Super Hinds) may be insufficient.

 

Than there goes the survivability. As most of them are not armored enough, because the overall design concept make them huge, and heavy - there is not much power left for carrying armor (1.5 ton less than Mi-8 !), so small arms fire may be dangerous. Than in case of shooting the helicopter down, or by simple mechanical failure, the crash is very dangerous for the crew, as there are no crash worthy seats, nor the airframe construction is designed to absorb at least small portion of the impact force. The whole airframe because of its size and design is not very rigid, so it will shred itself to pieces with slight ground resonance or contacting ground with forward speed. And there is that heavy power system that will go straight into the crew compartment.

 

Maybe Kusch have pictures from something like decade ago crash of one of Polish Mi-24s at one of our ranges... not a pretty sight.

[Kusch]

I have the pictures, but I don't agree with Sundowner who - as usual - overdosed his medications :D

 

 

[Feuerfalke]

sundowner, that perspective is right only when looking at it from a classic doctrine. Considering the special-ops teams usually have only a few members, it's not like every insurgent-operations needs a BlackHawk, Huey or Kiowa. And all of those lightly armored transport-helos have failed a lot worse than Apaches for example, to fullfill missions in a small-arms defended area.

 

The Hind is made from direct combat experience in Afghanistan, the Apache is rather a platform to deliver modern weapons. Completely different doctrine and mission parameters, but it's not easy saying this is better than that.

 

And modern fighting equipment should not carry troops?

I doubt that. Just look at the Israeli Merkava as one of the most advanced and successful tanks, that saw battle. It also has the capability to transport personnel and it was designed with the direct support of tank-crews and soldiers from the field. You can't just say the M1A2 is better, either. While it might be more advanced in several regards, it definitely sucks in Short-Range battles and urban territories, where the advanced targeting equipment and high speed are useless.

[Malleus]

As most of them are not armored enough, because the overall design concept make them huge, and heavy - there is not much power left for carrying armor (1.5 ton less than Mi-8 !), so small arms fire may be dangerous.

 

Yeah, sure. That's why they called it the 'flying tank'.:noexpression:

[Sundowner.pl]

@Malleus

Flying tank my <edited>, The only true Armor on that helicopter are the front windshields, if you fire at ti from sides, bellow or back, you have good chance of hitting something important.

 

@Feuerfalke

Afghanistan was 20 years after introduction of Hind, it didn't change much. The true doctrine that Hind was designed to fight in, was all about throwing high number of helicopters, flying at high speed over battlefield, laying wall of hell fire over enemy units. It was a flying Katiusha, just like Su-25 - only it could land closer to front line for rearming.

 

There were no lessons learned after Afghanistan, propaganda said it was doing perfect, the modifications done during the war - mounting flare dispensers and exhaust coolers, were considerate perfect... Well nothing could be further from the truth, as Americans were actually learning from that conflict, especially when it come to Stinger missiles, which very quickly became smarter - not so easy to fool by flares, and sensitive enough to still home on even modified soviet helicopters. And Soviet design of having engines exhaust directly near main gearbox, just under rotor head, was actually tragic, missile hit almost always resulted in total loss of the machine - too many, too important elements in one place.

 

The Kiowa, Blackhawk, Huey you mentioned... you know those helicopters are small, all of them are smaller than the Hind == harder to hit, while the Blackhawk and Huey carry more troops. Blackhawk design is far more superior to the hind where it comes to surviving hits, and crashes. The losses were experienced only because they were doing what you want the Hind to do - stay stationary for a period of time - long enough to load/unload troops. Can you spell "Bullet magnet" ? :smartass:

 

Poland had 6 Mi-24 in Iraq, one crashed at takeoff, and one already was fired upon by small arms fire, that forced it to emergency landing. Flying tank my <edited>, that was an 7.62x54mm PKM! Apparently Iraqi insurgents didn't got the memo about Mi-24 being armored :smilewink:

 

I don't know why you put tanks in here, especially Merkava. That tank was designed for desert warfare, very heavy armor, engine compartment up front, turret shifted back - that design allowed to have an emergency exit in the rear of the tank. the "troop transport capability" is really nonexistent in that tank, because those troop will have to go to that small, claustrophobic corridor between the turret basked and the emergency exit at the back. Two soldiers max, kneeling, it wont even fit a stretcher! And you can't simply compare it to M1A2, or Leo2, as the Merkava was designed to fight on the desert, while both Leo2 and Abrams to fight in western Europe. If you outflank that Israeli tank - its crew have not much chance getting out of it alive.

[TheMoose]

Bell 47: I know this bird isn’t much to look at, but once you ride in one. Myself, long time ago at the age of 9 years old. WOW. It would have impressed the hell of ya. Myself I call it the bubble copter, where your feet lays, man you see underneath lol. Seeing your house from high altitude at that age, would and will impress you. An experience that I will never forget…:D One Bell 47...

 

 

 

 

 

Punny as it might have seemed, this bird contribution, especially as a medic evac, took it's place in history…

[CYGAN apa.sq]

I have the pictures, but I don't agree with Sundowner who - as usual - overdosed his medications

Kusch ,that's photo is no good example becouse if flying like that all time :

you have big chance crash like in your photo - ALWAYS and special security systems is useless Sundowner no matter which one helo you fly.I tell more ,

during this flight was two pilots ,crew chief and 5 people on board ......two people down -crew chief and one soldier in cargo (hit the head becouse don't have helmet) rest still alive without complicate casualties.

About armor .... hind is flying tank but this don't mean that he is bulletproof at all.Example:

One bullet hit oil pipe makeing leak oil ...10 min engine working without oil enought time before that crew was land for safety.

Thats was one bullet but was unlucky sytuation :from 4 o'clock low.

For end :

Hit the ground from about 10m ....everyone survive,not so bad.

My conclusion - hind meaby not super weapon but still usefull (and my prefered).

About crasch ..... depend on sytuation , remember that.

[Sundowner.pl]

The crash Kusch linked was indeed caused by hitting a truck with main rotor in banked turn. Cygan, remember, that there were little casualty because it all happened meters from medic station, lots of people were there and pulled everyone from the wreckage while the engines were still running. If it happened in combat area, those people wouldn't had much chance and would probably burned in that wreckage.

 

I'm not bashing people for liking that helicopter, if you say that you like it looks, and the atmosphere it had around it, thats great, heck its my mom favored chopper (!). But if you say it is best for today's battlefield, than my friend, you are far from the truth. And as tolerant person, I will stomp you until you agree with me :D

[CYGAN apa.sq]

Yes i forgot tell about hit rotor blades to roof of track as reason of crash.

Sun my friend ...did i ever tell or use word "best" i say usefull .

I agree with you that hind in version D or W in polnish army aviation is not enought .

If we want compare hind on present battelfield we must talking about his new versions unfortunately not used in battle.

Other way remember that tiger or apache have own disadvetage.

[Sundowner.pl]

That second part of my post was directed to every one, other than you ;)

 

As far the "new" Hinds, well the only reasonable are the Mi-35M and Super Hinds. Although the '35M even having more power, carries less ordinance, and have lower speed, and its turret still covers only 1/3rd of what a turret of true attack helicopters can cover (Mi-28, Tiger, Cobra, Apache etc.). The Super Hind on the other hand have very capable turret, that might be a real pain in butt especially during aerial fight (high bullet speed), but both still have the major disadvantages in crash worthiness, and having stacked major components in one place, that is very juicy for all G-A and A-A weapons (geometrical position, heat and radar return will drive everything to hit where the main gearbox is located).

 

Every design is flawed, every helicopter can be downed by lucky AK shot, but I can't find one advantage over the Tiger, except of the price tag. And for the record - I don't like the Tiger ;)

[Dudikoff]

Every design is flawed, every helicopter can be downed by lucky AK shot, but I can't find one advantage over the Tiger, except of the price tag. And for the record - I don't like the Tiger ;)

 

I can find another. The bulletproof glass in the cockpit. Most modern attack helicopters seem to lack those (since they are built to fight tanks from extreme distances). Few lucky AK shots breaking my cockpit glass (not to mention chipping the paint of my shiny pilot helmet) would be most annoying, if not even hazardous to health.

[Sundowner.pl]

The only "bulletproof" glass panels present, are the front one's. And they protect up to .50 cal, so not much difference there. It's the same as Cobra, Tiger, Mongoose and Roivalk. Actually Ka-50, Mi-28 and Apache (in case of pilot only) might be better protected.

[- Piloto da Morte -]

This is new for me, I did not know that attack helicopter have bulletproof cockpit :)

[arneh]

The only "bulletproof" glass panels present, are the front one's. And they protect up to .50 cal, so not much difference there. It's the same as Cobra, Tiger, Mongoose and Roivalk.

 

No Cobra have any armored glass and rely on bulletproof vests and armored seats for pilot protection. And not so sure about those other helicopters you mention in the same breath either, but please provide documentation if you have any.

 

About Cobra protection:

The two crew members sat in armored seats with side panels that could be pulled up in a pinch for more protection, and an armored nose plate was fitted to shield the gunner. Although the Model 209 demonstrator had been fitted with armor glass, it was judged too heavy, and no production AH-1 would ever be rolled out with armor glass.

[Sundowner.pl]

Yes, I was a bit quick to throw Cobra in there, was I ? :) No "curved canopy" cobras were ever "bulletproof" (not BB guns, but AK rounds and up ;) ), although I heard the flat canopied AH-1F/P/S had strengthened windshield - the front panel - that it could stop 7.62 rounds, "or even" .50 cal at low angles, but I haven't found any proof to that. Flight Manual for AH-1F is silent where it comes to armor.

 

The windshields on Tiger suppose to be "bulletproof", although, they don't seem to be thicker than an inch, and taking that the helicopter is French in design I suspect the real armor to be somewhere in the back ;)

 

Anyway, I can say that the glass on my Timex wrist watch is bullet proof, and can withstand a 30mm hit... writhing in small sized letters, that it have to be hit at 1 degree angle and from 5000 yards away :P

[arneh]

Yes, I was a bit quick to throw Cobra in there, was I ? :) No "curved canopy" cobras were ever "bulletproof" (not BB guns, but AK rounds and up ;) ), although I heard the flat canopied AH-1F/P/S had strengthened windshield - the front panel - that it could stop 7.62 rounds, "or even" .50 cal at low angles, but I haven't found any proof to that.

 

From the same website I linked to the last time:

100 AH-1P TOWCobras were built and delivered to the Army in 1977 and 1978. They featured [...] a distinctive new "flat plate" canopy. Although the new canopy gave the Cobra a more businesslike "flying tank" look, the change was made to reduce the glint off the window glass and did not include armor glass.

 

 

So no, they were not armored, and unlikely to be any more bulletproof than the old canopy.

 

And from what I can find about the Augusta A129 in the Illustrated History of Helicopters, which goes on for half a page about the survivability of the A129, only has this to say about the cockpit-protection:

Tandem seating for the pilot and weapons operator provides excellent visibility in all directions. The pilot sits behind and above the weapons operator, and both are surrounded by armored panels and protected by Martin-Baker armored seats.

 

I would think they would mention it if the glass was armored. And I cannot find any information about the Tiger's glass being armored either. So I'm very interested in any documentation you have to the contrary.

 

As for the Hind it's easy to find information:

The Hind-D featured a completely revised forward fuselage arrangement that reduced the crew from three to two and featured separate, heavily armored cockpits with thick armor-glass canopies.

 

And for the Mi-28 I found that even the side windows are supposed to be able to withstand .50 cal projectiles.

 

In general, "bulletproof" glass needs to be very tick, and with such thick glass it has to be flat (or very close to flat), otherwise the light refraction is going to create too much distortion when looking through it. In addition, having such thick glass is heavy, and as a result such windows are usually small. So any canopy which has big rounded glass is very unlikely to have bulletproof glass. Like e.g. the Cobra, A129, Tiger or Rooivalk. So until I see any documentation to the contrary I'll assume they don't have it.

[Pilotasso]

MD-500

 

Its light and manueverable, no fancy weapons or heavy armor. Just Skill. :)

[Zulu]

 

 

In general, "bulletproof" glass needs to be very tick, and with such tick glass it has to be flat (or very close to flat), otherwise the light refraction is going to create too much distortion when looking through it. In addition, having such tick glass is heavy, and as a result such windows are usually small. So any canopy which has big rounded glass is very unlikely to have bulletproof glass. Like e.g. the Cobra, A129, Tiger or Rooivalk. So until I see any documentation to the contrary I'll assume they don't have it.

 

Well the rooivelk is able to shrug off some AK rounds it will never stand up to anything higher but has Armoured seats and Rotor blades like most Attack helicopters

[Blaze1]

It would have to be between the Ka-50 and the AH-64D Longbow. I am very happy with the choice of the Black Shark (Longbow is out of the question at the moment anyway). I love the fact that the Ka-50 brings the mix of hi-tech avionics with the ABRIS as well as the mechanical analogue gauges in the most aggressive looking airframe.

With the Longbow you get in my opinion the most capable attack helicopter in the world as well as a very advanced avionics sensor suite which would be alot of fun to play with. The Longbow would also bring twin cockpits into the mix.

 

Blaze1

[adislash]

AH64D-I