RPG vs. Helos

[okopanja]

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not if there's any wind, but that's just because they're finned, so they tend to weathervane into the wind. This doesn't help accuracy, particularly if you're accustomed to how windage works for bullets. As I said, it takes a lot of experience eyeballing things to hit anything useful at long range. The scope is useful, but this is not a precision weapon. It can go surprisingly far out and still do damage, though.

Either way, against helos, it should only be viable at iron sight ranges unless it's a hovering target with well known range, because then you can use the scope to place the shot.

You would need more shooters to stack probabilities for longer distances...

Edited June 20, 2023 by okopanja

[BIGNEWY]

we do already have a report open for RPG effectiveness against air targets especially at longer ranges, also the RPG round does seem to be to fast currently.

thanks 

[Fynek]

On 6/19/2023 at 10:54 AM, okopanja said:

Actually, if you recall the events in USA's experience in Somalia, not one but two Black Hawks got downed by RPG-7. These weapons can be reloaded fast, have been made to target tanks and non-moving or slow moving targets should not be an issue for shooter who shoot 3-5 rounds before.

Regarding the future of gunships (don't get this wrong, k-52s are doing really great atm): they are singing their swan's song for several reasons:

1. modern battlefield is over-saturated with threats that can take them even on longer distances
2. there are cheaper and more effective alternatives:
   1. larger drones able to launch guided missiles
   2. drones capable of carrier 1 or more cumulative mines
   3. loitering ammunition capable of striking as far as 40-70km away

That said the helicopters will remain:

1. to transport and do med missions
2. for cases where opponent is simply too weak
3. for cases where they themselves are equipped with weapons that does not require line-of-sight.

I agree with you, however there is a system called BKO President-S that is designed to give more protection against manpads threats. Future evolutions of such a system could perhaps prolong the use of helicopters as frontline gunship units.    

[okopanja]

26 minutes ago, Fynek said:

I agree with you, however there is a system called BKO President-S that is designed to give more protection against manpads threats. Future evolutions of such a system could perhaps prolong the use of helicopters as frontline gunship units.    

I am aware of it, but evem then, gunship's job is given tp something else.

Cheaper and more effective.

Evolution will stop there.

[Dragon1-1]

Highly unlikely. Helicopters don't have to be vulnerable to MANPADS, and there's plenty of technologies to that effect. Their role might change, but they're not going away. In particular, you just can't beat a helo at FARP ops, not even jet VTOLs give you that capacity. You can land a helo on any old piece of ground as long as it's suitably flat. Not going to be able to do that with an F-35B, which needs a surface that will withstand jetwash. 

One possible thing that might happen is replacement of helo gunships with tiltrotor VTOLs like the Valor. They combine all the advantages of a helo with extended cruising range of fixed wing. Of course, they'd have to sort out their reliability in order to do that.

[Fynek]

I think that he was probably referring to the recent developments in drone technology/AI. Eventually you could have large UAV helicopter drones carrying the same firing solutions and perform a similar job than combat helicopters without having to risk pilot's lives and spend the money to train them.

This said, you can potentially jam drones, not a pilot's brain so we will see.  

Edited July 14, 2023 by Fynek

[okopanja]

10 minutes ago, Fynek said:

I think that he was probably referring to the recent developments in drone technology/AI. Eventually you could have large UAV helicopter drones carrying the same firing solutions and perform a similar job than combat helicopters without having to risk pilot's lives and spend the money to train them.

This said, you can potentially jam drones, not a pilot's brain so we will see.  

 

correct, the need for helicopters will remain in transport role and expand. Helicopter gunships will have to seek the secondary/reserve role with mandatory ability to hit targets out of line-of-sight, hidden behind obstacles. This will lead to at least 2 things which we already see presently in modern day with some helicopters.

- fire and forget, based on information obtained directly or by 3rd party

- man-in-the-loop systems, e.g. fiber optic transported feedback.

11 minutes ago, Fynek said:

This said, you can potentially jam drones, not a pilot's brain so we will see.  

Jamming is already a reality. In present conflict the effect are already visible. However the jamming at the moment is not in such condition to be deployed on tactical level. The devices are still comparatively large and expensive. On the other side drones have approached the level where each squad has them today. Tomorrow each soldier will have at least one.

 

[Wdigman]

WOLVERINES!

 

https://makeagif.com/gif/red-dawn-89-movie-clip-roberts-last-stand-1984-hd-_fqWpF

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

correct, the need for helicopters will remain in transport role and expand.

If we're going all drone, why not replace transport helos first? You get more payload space for your buck, and the job is ultimately simpler than fighting. I'd say, we'll sooner see transport aviation be handled by drones. Of course, transport helos do tend to remain in service longer, so manned designs will probably continue out of sheer inertia, especially for flying people around, but things like dropping supplies in combat zones or simply hauling cargo could be much cheaper and safer with an unmanned system.

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

The devices are still comparatively large and expensive. 

Yes, but they also have a lot of range and power.  If every soldier has a drone, then jamming all UAV control signals over a large area would become a useful thing to do. There's simply no way a handheld control set can overpower a trailer-mounted jammer. It's all about how much power you can feed to a transmitter.

Also note, the nature of recent warfare has been such that tactical drone jamming has not, so far, been a priority for foremost tech developers. They've been used against insurgents, who do not have capability to develop jammers, and against Russia, which has its collective head stuck too far up its collective backside to develop and deploy them. There are tactical-level devices for jamming IEDs that US developed for use in Iraq and Afghan. These could likely be adopted to jam remotely piloted UAVs. Iranians have already jammed and stole an RQ-170, too. They will likely make further advances in the field, as their most likely opponents like drones a lot, and they're themselves no slouch in the field, so they understand their importance.

In fact, wave propagation physics make for a dim outlook for the drones in the electronic fight. To be useful, a combat drone will generally be closer to the target than to its control station. Radio signals attenuate with the square of the distance from the emitter, meaning that a jammer will always require less power to match the control signal strength. Jamming effectiveness is a much more complex thing than that, of course, but IMO, manned aircraft will always have a place simply because in a peer conflict, jamming will make UAVs unreliable. An F-35 will still be able to do its job without radar or communications, thanks to pilot's eyeballs and brain. It may even be able to maintain control of its "Loyal Wingman" drones as long as they stay close. A remotely piloted drone will, in such situation, have to abort and RTB, at best.