Swedish Trails of AH-64A vs. Mi-28A

[EvilBivol-1]

The AH-64A Apache - A Swedish perspective

 

Since 1988 the Swedish army has

operated two companies of what it

refers to as 'anti-tank' helicopters - 20

MBB BO 105CBs (local designation

Hkp 9A) equipped with the Emerson

Heli-TOW system. In March 1995 the

Chief of the Army requested the

Director of Army Aviation to undertake

a technical demonstration programme

of a dedicated attack helicopter. In

1996 Sweden was facing a major

defence review and the army felt the

time was at hand to evaluate its

requirement for, and the benefits of, a

modern multi-role attack helicopter.

A list of potential types was drawn

up for evaluation, including the MDH

AH-64A Apache, Bell AH-1W Super

Cobra, Agusta A 129 Mangusta,

Eurocopter Tiger, Atlas/Denel CSH-2

Rooivalk, Mil Mi-28 'Havoc' and Kamov

Ka-50 'Hokum'. The primary purpose of

the evaluation was to determine how

aircraft would perform in a Swedish

environment, so the army insisted that

its pilots be trained to fly each type

under evaluation, and act as systems

operators/gunners. Aircraft had to be

available for evaluation in mid-1995,

undertake live weapons firings and

require a minimum of operating/

support costs. The choice was

narrowed to the AH-64A and Mi-28.

The Swedes recognised that one was a

mature system and the other still in the

early stages of development, but were

interested in examining the two

completely different design

philosophies and doctrines behind the

Apache and the 'Havoc'.

Planning for the four-week

evaluation began in April/May 1995.

Upon arrival in Sweden the aircraft

would self-deploy to the Northern

Military District to undertake tactical

missions and live-firing exercises. This

would be followed by air-to-air target

firing and tactical missions in the

Central and Southern Military Districts.

As a result, each aircraft would be

exposed to the full range of Swedish

geography and climate.

The Swedish Defence Material

Administration (FMV) and the United

States Army Security Command, with

the support of the Swedish Army

Aviation Centre and McDonnell

Douglas Helicopters, agreed to supply

two USAREUR AH-64As, then

stationed in Hanau. A Swedish crew

was trained by MDH at Mesa to fly the

Apache and operate its systems. A

team of Swedish tactical advisors

travelled to Ft Rucker to undertake

detailed mission planning. The two

Apaches (86-9029/86-9033) were flown

from Germany by a mixed US/Swedish

crew, arriving at the 2nd Army Aviation

Battalion in Linkoping on 12 August

1995.

The Apaches were scheduled to

undertake a range of tactical scenarios,

including operational redeployment

between military districts, avoiding

enemy fighter aircraft, engagement of

enveloping forces, deep strike

operations, operations in the Swedish

archipelago, engagement of enemy air

assault forces, delaying operations

against mechanised forces, and

supporting attacking armoured forces.

Swedish terrain, tactics and military

posture mean that standard US

operational procedures, such as artillery

and air support, were impossible. The

Swedes learned that the Apache had

the flexibility to operate throughout the

country and could be redeployed over

substantial distances while still carrying

an effective weapons load. Even

without the use of EW systems, the

Apaches avoided the JA 37 Viggens of

F21 Wing, which were hunting them

during their redeployments. In the

event, missions were not flown at

night, although the Swedes recognise

that night operations are preferable,

indeed essential, in their Arctic

environments (in northern Sweden six

months of the year are spent in almost

permanent darkness). The autonomous

nature of AH-64A operations stretched

Sweden's (substantial) C3 network and

highlighted the need for an improved

communications fit on the aircraft. The

Apache's radios are not compatible

with Swedish radio systems. Two days

of maritime operations with navy and

marine units in the archipelago proved

that the Apache was very vulnerable on

the outer coastline and needed the

shelter of the inner archipelago to

protect it from hostile fire. However,

the Marines were impressed by the

AH-64A and thought that the Apache

could play an important role in

supporting (or repelling) amphibious

attacks. Furthermore, the Hellfire

missile (Rb 17) is already in service as a

coastal defence weapon in Sweden

and is compatible with the Apache's

own weapons.

During a simulated air drop by an air

force Hercules, the Apaches 'shot

down' the aircraft using Hellfire. During

anti-armour missions the Apache

proved to be far superior to Sweden's

existing Hkp 9As. Air-to-air trials were

conducted against towed targets at the

Swedish Anti-Aircraft School, Vaddo.

The targets were 'cold' (with no IR

signature, perhaps not the most

realistic simulation) and the FLIR and

DVO were unable to acquire them

within the prevailing safety limits.

When the gun did lock-up a target the

autotracking system failed and no

direct hits were ever made on any

target. Live-firing trials were limited to

the Apache's rocket system, as

Sweden already has the Hellfire in

service (as a coastal defence missile)

and is familiar with its performance.

There were also cost and safety factors

in this decision. A manual rocket firing

was made and the rockets missed the

target area by several hundred meters.

A total of 99 hours was flown by the

two aircraft during the four-week

evaluation. During that time, there

were periods when one or both AH-64As

were unserviceable. The Apaches

suffered from software problems in the

FCC and badly maintained rocket pods;

an APU clutch had to be changed, a TV

camera had to be replaced, a laser unit

had to be replaced, several bulbs had

to be changed, one gun suffered a

hardware failure and rotors needed

repairing. As a result, five of the

planned 20 missions were cancelled

due to technical problems. Additional

missions were also cancelled to allow

ground crews more time to prepare for

weapons tests. The Apache's

navigation and fire control systems

suffered several problems. Co-ordinates

in latitudes higher than 65°N could not

be entered and, as a result, planned

night attack missions were not flown.

A single Mi-28 was supplied by

Rosvoorouzhenie to the FMV under a

contract signed in August 1995. The

evaluation helicopter (Mi-28 prototype

042) was airlifted by II-76 to Lulea on

7 October 1995. Using Mi-24s and

Mi-28s in Moscow, the Swedes had

trained one test pilot and two service

pilots to fly the Mi-28. Swedish

personnel ultimately flew as weapons

systems operators during the

evaluation, and not as command pilots

(the Mi-28 does not have dual controls).

Since the Russian pilot was not a fluent

English speaker, all operational

missions were tightly pre-briefed and

flown with a translator airborne in

another aircraft. The Mi-28 flew a

number of tactical missions that

mirrored the Apache programme. The

Swedish evaluation found that the

sighting system worked well and was

easy to use, even in the hands of an

inexperienced crew. The Mi-28 was

rated as highly survivable, with good

ballistic protection for the crew and

with an extensive onboard RWR and

ECM system. The MMI (Man Machine

Interface/ergonomics) of the Mi-28 was

generally good and will be improved.

The aircraft handled well, although

crews had some reservations about

their early production standard aircraft

in this area. Current production Mi-28s

are completely lacking in any nightfighting

capability. Mil is working to

remedy this problem with the much

improved Mi-28N, which has been

compared (perhaps over-optimistically)

to the AH-64D.

 

The official Swedish Army Aviation

Centre report on the evaluation stated

that the Mi-28's weapons accuracy

was "good and astonishingly

repeatable," particularly taking into

account the range of firing parameters

and poor weather conditions. Both

9M1154Shturmand 9M120 Ataka

guided missiles were fired against

stationary targets (to a maximum range

of 4680 m/15,354 ft, with the Mi-28

flying at 200 km/h, 124 mph IAS), with

1-m (3.3-ft) accuracy. Rockets were

found to be accurate up to a range of

4000m (13,123ft), with 35 hits

registered from 40 firings. Four

unexploded rockets were later found

and questions were raised about the

production quality and safety standards

of Russian ammunition. Gun firings

were unsuccessful due to bad

boresighting.

The Mi-28 was flown for a total of

30 hours, never failed to undertake a

mission, and experienced the minimum

of technical snags. On one occasion an

engine automatically throttled back

The AH-64A maintained its

reputation as an complex and

effective aircraft during the

Swedish army aviation evaluation.

after plume ingestion from a rocket

firing. This was a safety measure which

performed as expected, and the aircraft

was ready for flight within an hour, to

resume firing tests. The aircraft also

experienced a failure of the flare

dispenser. The Swedish opinion of the

Mi-28 was that it was a robust and

reliable helicopter well-suited to field

conditions. Reservations were

expressed about the classification and

standards of its electrical system and

some design features. Integration of

the required modern avionics would

require additional electronic shielding

and filtering. Availability of the

necessary specifications, airworthiness

certification, technical manuals and

maintenance documentation was an

unknown.

The evaluation of the AH-64A

concluded that it was a highly-complex

aircraft, requiring a well-trained and

co-ordinated crew. Successful missions

demanded an intensive level of mission

planning. Its onboard systems allowed

detection of targets, by day and night,

at ranges meeting all Swedish

requirements. A large proportion of

Swedish wartime personnel are drawn

from a (trained) conscript force, who

were deemed to be capable of

supporting Apache operations. The

attack helicopter demonstration

programme to date has provided much

first-hand experience and broadened

the Swedish understanding of modern

attack helicopter operations. The

programme will continue through to

1999/2000, with a view to presenting a

final proposal, prior to the next major

Parliamentary defence review in 2001.

An AH-64D Longbow Apache

evaluation will take place during that

timeframe. A Eurocopter Tiger

evaluation was scheduled for February

1997. Robert Hewson

[Mugatu]

Thanks ... where's the next part GO Tiger :P

[X-man]

Very interesting read! I never knew we even considered buying advanced attack helicopters :) However, due to cuts in our military funding, Im guessing we'll stick with our Bo105 to do our Anti-tank role some time to come.

Edited February 13, 2009 by X-man

[shaggy]

very interesting article ! I think that our MBB helicopters will slowly retire to an medevac and scout role, and they will start to use our new HKP 15 "Agusta A109" helicopters as ground attack. And as X-man ses the military founding in sweden is crap basiclly. So unless we start to sell some gripens we wont get any new material. I have contacts saying that the SAF only fly 1000 hours with each gripen airframe when they are intended to do 3000. So after 1000 hours they just get a new one. talk about a waste :( ....... If you have the second part of this article it would be appreciated :)

[GGTharos]

I'm surprised the 64A was being offered as competition. It's a hangar queen.

[shaggy]

I'm surprised the 64A was being offered as competition. It's a hangar queen.

 

Yeah that american hardware fights well in deserts and summer forests, but it couldent stand a swedish winter up in the far north. Russian choppers would though as proven in the article. Robust war hardware. Not fragile electronics wich need highly trained crews.

[GGTharos]

No, that's not the problem. The US Army isn't even using -A's any more, IIRC. They should have offered -D's.

[RedTiger]

I'm surprised the 64A was being offered as competition. It's a hangar queen.

 

What about the A model vs. the D makes it a hangar queen? My idea of a hangar queen, BTW, is one particular aircraft (not one type, mind you, just one particular aircraft in a squadron full of the same type) that is finicky and breaks down much more then the others. Maybe because its old?

 

Come to think of it, yeah, why offer them As? Imagine offering someone F-16As instead of the newest block of Cs and Ds. Who would seriously consider that offer?

Edited February 13, 2009 by RedTiger

[Zembla]

Those who lived 14 years ago? :p

 

When did Longbow or D's enter US Army service? At the beginning of the article the timeframe is listed as 1995. I'd imagine A types would be most common then?

 

Then again, I could be dead wrong, considering The Netherlands around that time also purchased their AH-64D 's.

 

-Z

[GGTharos]

Ah, my bad for not checking dates if this is the case.

 

As for the 64A being a hangar queen - the electronics used to break a lot from vibration etc, just as one example that I recall. I can only assume the D fixed a lot of this.