Apache strike tactics?

[Mr_sukebe]

I'm currently reading a book written about RAF Apaches being used in Libya.

What I've been a bit confused about are their attack methods.  The book talks about them driving in towards the target during their attacks.

The reason that confuses me is that it doesn't seem that sensible, as that means reducing the range between the target and the Apache, thus negating some of the benefits of the range of the Hellfires and potentially putting the Apache of more risk of return fire.  Some of the Apache pilots had many hours of flight time in Afghanistan prior to Libya, so it's not that they were inexperienced in combat.

Any thoughts on this?

A few ideas/options sprung to mind:

• Possibly disinformation on actual tactics used.  Doesn't seem likely
• Their previous experience has shown that it's safer to be moving at 100knots, than in a stationary hover.  This seems more plausible, as in say Afghanistan, you'd never know whether there was a chap just about to jump out of a bush with a Stinger/SA18 launcher.  However, some of the engagements in Libya were very close to the sea, thus allowing a hover say 4 miles out from the beach

[Coota0]

Hovering gets you killed. By flying towards the target you continue to maintain some movement to make targeting you harder and you maintain airspeed to provide for your own maneuverability to escape after you have made your attack. If someone else is providing your laser you may be able to use terrain to your advantage to hide, but if you are self designating you have to expose yourself to enemy fire to target and maintain your laser.

[Dragon1-1]

I also suspect they didn't hover over the sea because there was a chance that the rebels did have something that could reach the Apache, being hit in such a hover basically ensures you end up in the drink, 4 miles from shore. Even if you survive hitting the water, you have to get out of the helo without drowning, which isn't trivial and I suspect crews weren't looking forward to trying. Plus, moving forward gets you better accuracy. Hellfires don't have a very large warhead even in antipersonnel versions, and rockets from a hover are less accurate due to being in the rotor wash, besides the normal difficulty of keeping the ship perfectly steady. They're also notoriously inaccurate even when fired from fixed wing aircraft. So, you make a better use of your firepower if you keep moving and do quick passes.

[Iron Sights]

Firing on the move is no different then cranking when you are flying a fighter. You fire and try to make yourself hard to hit. Now the radar guided hellfire will make a difference as well. Because it would be fire and forget. 

[Dragon1-1]

Not just fire and forget, but you could fire it without ever seeing your target, meaning the target will never see you. The radar is mounted on top of the rotor for this exact reason, you could hover behind terrain with just the radar poking up above, launching Hellfires using a loft profile. That's what the original idea behind the Longbow radar.

[James DeSouza]

Were they definitely hellfire attacks?  I know rocket runs are done in a dive because it allows the nose to be more stable.