why there is no air to air missiles?

[GGTharos]

Yeah Nutkin, those missiles have been tested on the Ka-50, but they are not used operationally and are not integrated as an option on the operational craft.

 

This is speculation. We don't even know that they've been tested, only that they have been proposed. I have pictures of an AH-64 actually launching a live AIM-9, no such pictures of the Ka-50 exist, not even captive carry ... just dummy missiles.

[EtherealN]

Ah, my bad, I had somehow gotten the idea that they had been tested.

[Cola]

Dunno how reliable it is, but Modern Fighting Helicopters (by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick) lists 'R-60 dogfight missile' and 'R-73 heavy AAM' as pylon mounted weapons...?

[EtherealN]

Do they give sources for that?

 

Since ED has had access to both Kamov and russian army aviation pilots it would take some strong sources to "trump" what ED says is their information.

[Cola]

No, couldn't find any list of sources. It definately contains proposed and experimental weapons for other helicopters. (Penguin missile for Apache, etc)

[Shaman]

I have a question. Were there any trials of attack helicopter vs. small and micro UAV? These small remotely controlled flying vehicles may be actually dangerous to helicopters and used as a weapon.

[Zembla]

Well in some cases helicopters were proposed as an AA platform against slow flying planes à la Cessna. If I recall correctly that is.

 

-Z

[Speed_2]

Well in some cases helicopters were proposed as an AA platform against slow flying planes à la Cessna. If I recall correctly that is.

 

-Z

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-30-2000/0001230747&EDATE=

Key quote:

""Italy's selection of the improved ATAL and Stinger block I makes the A129 combat helicopter formidable in self-protection and air-to-air combat," said Louise Francesconi, vice president and general manager of Raytheon Electronic Systems' Missile Systems business unit in Tucson, Ariz. "Armed helicopters encountering hostile rotary and fixed-wing aircraft is a certainty. In addition, combat helicopters must be prepared to engage UAVs and other aerial reconnaissance aircraft to foil critical battlefield intelligence efforts. The A129 equipped with Stinger will excel in these missions."

 

 

More from Raytheon about air to air Stinger:

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_atastinger_datashee.pdf

 

So obviously, armies see attack helicopters armed with AAMs necessary enough to develop the ability, even if no conflicts where AAMs could possibly be useful on helos has occured recently. Speaking of AAMs, four Stingers only weigh 60kg TOTAL, so even if you also have to carry like another 40kg of support hardware, that's only 100kg to give yourself a potent AAM threat.

 

The point about UAVs is a VERY good one. The US has armed Predators with Stingers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8).

[159th_Viper]

The point about UAVs is a VERY good one......

 

Indeed!

 

What chance has a Helo got against a Reaper with attendant Radar and Sensors armed with AAM's? Oblivious Death from Above..........

 

Honestly, AAM's on a Helo will server one purpose only, and that's to Boost the confidence of the Pilot - Chances of a successfull deployment of said AAM's are in all probability Inverse to his chances of Survival.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The point about UAVs is a VERY good one. The US has armed Predators with Stingers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8).

48 seconds into a footage is a Predator shut down over Yugoslavia.

[Speed_2]

Indeed!

Chances of a successfull deployment of said AAM's are in all probability Inverse to his chances of Survival.

Undoubtably, just as the chances that any pilot will be shot down increcases when more enemy targets are flying around. But at least, if the chopper is carrying AAMs, it might have more of a chance if attacked. IRL, most aircraft shot down never even see their attacker, so that little fact does somewhat decrease the chance that a helo will be able to use its AAMs in self defense.

 

Still, the possibility of a chopper being able to defend itself exists, and the fact is, if a AAM-armed helo spots an enemy air target first, AAMs would give it a good chance at taking a potshot at it. Again, this can be compared to the first airplanes in WWI. At first, they may have just waved at each other, but when you're fighting a war (intelligently), you're going to take EVERY CHANCE YOU CAN GET to deal your enemy a blow. Thus, airplanes began to carry up guns, and fighters were designed.

 

I see it as very unlikely that choppers would not be armed with LIGHTWEIGHT AAMs (Stingers, SA-18s, etc) if they kept seeing enemy aircraft that they could take a cheap shot at if they only were carrying an air to air missile. Those who deny this must ponder why the air to air Stinger, for example, exists, and why trials have been carried out with fitting Stingers to choppers. Obviously, many people in armies across the world believe that AAMs on helicopters have enough utility to make developing the capability worthwhile.

 

Thanks GGTharos for the information that we don't even know for sure whether the Ka-50 has even been tested with AAMs. That would definately decrease any possibility there might be that under some theoretical circumstance, the Ka-50 actually would receive an AAM loadout. Yes, I agree, the decision to not include AAMs in DCS BS was the right one. In fact, I never believed otherwise except under the circumstances of a long campaign where enemy helos were frequently encountered, which seems to be a norm in many of the DCS missions I have flown. But- if the Ka-50 really HASN'T had an AAM capability even tested for it, any conflict it finds itself in is more than likely going to be either too short for a retrofit to be made, or see all the Ka-50s shot down.

 

Something else I didn't consider- say that a war really did develop between Russia and another side that also deployed attack helicopters- the Ka-50 is so few in number, I would suppose that the first priority on helo-carried AAMs (should they decide they need them) would be arming the much more numerious Mi-24s and 28s.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Speed_2

[EtherealN]

Well, I wouldn't say that the Ka-50 would necessarily end up shot down (the either too short conflict or shot down). Rather, they would be tasked with missions where they think it's capabilities are sufficient to ensure reasonable survival odds and - if they decide they need helos in areas where there'll be helo-vs-helo encounters they'll either have CAP on hand or use such helos as have the AAM's.

 

One point though: the Ka-50 can engage air threats with it's cannon at pretty impressive ranges, although this does require a laser ranging and therefore will set off the target's LWR. But the capability for "pot-shots" on targets of opportunity is already there. Janes lists the 92B/C as having an effective range of 4.8km, although I did find other sources stating 8km. If the lesser is true, it does outrange the Ka-50's cannon, but not by a really massive amount.

 

So I remain unconvinced that those missiles would confer it with all that much of an added advantage. I found numbers stating around 5km on the SA-18, which is also better than the cannon, but is it superior enough to merit the conversion work? Especially considering that the Ka-50 doesn't have any easily accessible extra hardpoints - you'd either have to hog hardpoints that would have carried munitions for your primary role which would decrease your ability to fulfill your objective, or have to rebuild the helicopter a bit (f.ex through moving the flare dispensers and installing wingtip hardpoints).

 

I dunno, I don't see enough of an advantage to merit that. Easier to take it into consideration on choppers that are undergoing active development like the Mi-28, Ka-52 and so on, but in the case of the 50... Not likely, even in the case of a protracted war. (As I said - in the latter case they'd probably just decide more carefully on where to use it.)

[GGTharos]

One point though: the Ka-50 can engage air threats with it's cannon at pretty impressive ranges, although this does require a laser ranging and therefore will set off the target's LWR. But the capability for "pot-shots" on targets of opportunity is already there. Janes lists the 92B/C as having an effective range of 4.8km, although I did find other sources stating 8km. If the lesser is true, it does outrange the Ka-50's cannon, but not by a really massive amount.

 

The stinger's engagement range is as short as your LOS, and as long as ... that's classified - but I'm aware of engagements (not shooting) beginning at 9km with stinger. Each generation gets slightly longer legs as well usually - however, you must also consider the target's IR signature. Against helicopters, the Stinger is best used by shooting it into their sides, though there have been examples of rear and forward quarter engagements.

 

Lastly, while the gun is great and all, good luck spotting the guy with the stinger and doing all your lasing, aiming and shooting before he takes the shot at you and takes a hike.

 

I dunno, I don't see enough of an advantage to merit that. Easier to take it into consideration on choppers that are undergoing active development like the Mi-28, Ka-52 and so on, but in the case of the 50... Not likely, even in the case of a protracted war. (As I said - in the latter case they'd probably just decide more carefully on where to use it.)

 

Exactly correct. The Ka-50 is an 80's heli with a modernized navigation system. There are some 20 aircraft in service that will likely NEVER see any sort of upgrade for one simple reason: They're not good enough, and no one wants a one-man chopper. Their replacement, which MAY get AAMs, is the Ka-52.

 

The Ka-50 is almost strictly for counter-insurgency type ops where it can do well, and especially well in the mountains where single-rotor helis don't do as well.

[EtherealN]

Lastly, while the gun is great and all, good luck spotting the guy with the stinger and doing all your lasing, aiming and shooting before he takes the shot at you and takes a hike.

 

Yeah, what I mean with the gun is that it is an option for taking "potshots" on enemy helos that you encounter. I got the gist from Speed_2 that he pretty much considered the aircraft to be without that capability because gaining that capability was one of the things he saw as a positive thing with integrating AAMs on it.

 

Catching infantrymen with stingers in woods or sneaking around buildings and engaging them before they engage you is a whole other thing though, as is engaging another helo that has already commenced engaging you. In both those cases you might engage them - IF you survive through your evasives and spot them afterwards, but then again you'd have to have a good reason for re-entering that area that goes beyond exacting revenge. :P

[Hunt3r.j2]

The AH-1Z and AH-64 are cleared to carry AIM-9 Sidewinders.

 

They are only for self defense, and really only if they run into enemy helos.

 

If you're operating helos when enemy jets are in the area, you might want to reconsider a job change.

 

Yes, you can equip them, but the question is why would you for a chance encounter by other helos. If you keep fighters in the area, there's no point at all.

[AlphaOneSix]

The AH-1Z and AH-64 are cleared to carry AIM-9 Sidewinders.

 

AH-64D? Maybe (I'll have to ask some of my coworkers for specifics).

 

AH-64A? No way.

[GGTharos]

The AH-1Z and AH-64 are cleared to carry AIM-9 Sidewinders.

 

The AH-1Z CARRIES sidewinders. The AH-64 (whatever version) was TESTED with Sidewinders and they were rejected as a useful weapon within the context of that helicopter's mission. The AH-64 then saw development of ATAS, which was also rejected, at least AFAIK. A16 knows better though.

 

They are only for self defense, and really only if they run into enemy helos.

The AH-1Z carries AIM-9's to defend S&R and other types of missions like this from air to air threats. ANY air to air threats.

 

This thread has a lot of correct information that leads to a lot of confusion.

 

First and foremost, let's say this: Can a helicopter perform in Air to Air? The answer is yes. The AH-1Z doing its escort missions is an example of this. It is expected to fend off anything attacking the CSR chopper, or itself. It is not well equipped against a real fighter, but them's the breaks. What is the deal here? The AH-1Z is both equipped for air to air in terms of weapons, sensors and avionics, and the pilots receive actual A2A training for their helicopter.

 

There are a lot of helicopters that do not equip air to air weapons (moderns ones are starting to sport them more and more, however) and their crews likewise do not get A2A training. It is simply well outside the context of their mission. More and more modern helis are now starting to carry A2A weapons, but those tend to still be purely for self-defense and A2A training is likely scarce, because their primary mission is STILL tank busting or CAS, and not any way, shape or form of A2A. Likewise their predicted target list is probably narrow. Currently, to my knowledge, only a single helicopter is equipped, and its crew trained for A2A: The Marine AH-1.

Edited October 11, 2009 by GGTharos

[Hunt3r.j2]

AH-64D? Maybe (I'll have to ask some of my coworkers for specifics).

 

AH-64A? No way.

AH-1Z is cleared for the AIM-9 Sidewinder, AH-64D is cleared for at least the AIM-92 Stinger.

 

http://www.enemyforces.net/helicopters/ah64_apache.htm

 

IIRC that should be correct.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Hunt3r.j2

[GGTharos]

Why should it be correct?

 

Here's the official brochure:

 

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/docs/AH-64D_overview.pdf

 

Not 'just some site on the internet' ;)

 

Better yet, look here:

 

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/ah64tech.htm

 

Look carefully at the differences between D and D Longbow, and you'll start seeing why a pair of 200lbs sidewinders is not such a great idea at all.

Edited October 11, 2009 by GGTharos

[Hunt3r.j2]

Why should it be correct?

 

Here's the official brochure:

 

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/docs/AH-64D_overview.pdf

 

Not 'just some site on the internet' ;)

 

Better yet, look here:

 

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/ah64tech.htm

 

Look carefully at the differences between D and D Longbow, and you'll start seeing why a pair of 200lbs sidewinders is not such a great idea at all.

 

I see you make sacrifices in speed and rate of climb, but it's kind of obvious that this happens.

 

I think that Apaches or Cobras with AA missiles goes against their role though.

 

Maybe not the Cobra, which is an escort helo, but the Apache is in the wrong role to get Stingers or Sidewinders.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Hunt3r.j2

[GGTharos]

You are quite right - they are unlikely to use the AAMs in combat, and sacrifice a lot of maneuverability and range/endurance just to carry them. Even if it's just ATAS, it just adds that much more inventory/maintenance/whatever else trouble and it is simply not very cost-effective.

 

The Cobra has a mission that requires this capability which changes things. Now if they were to stick a 9X on it that would be scary ...

[Hunt3r.j2]

You are quite right - they are unlikely to use the AAMs in combat, and sacrifice a lot of maneuverability and range/endurance just to carry them. Even if it's just ATAS, it just adds that much more inventory/maintenance/whatever else trouble and it is simply not very cost-effective.

 

The Cobra has a mission that requires this capability which changes things. Now if they were to stick a 9X on it that would be scary ...

Suppose we have Block III Apache AH-64Ds. In a hypothetical situation, where the army needed escorts for their Black Hawks or Chinooks, wouldn't the Apaches get AIM-9s or AIM-92s?

[GGTharos]

They would call the air force.

 

Here's the thing - the Army isn't likely to find itself doing a deep penetration mission (AFAIK) like the USAF and NAVY do with their own branches of special forces. The USAF provides top cover for these helis, while the NAVY provides Marine Cobra plus top cover (where possible) as escort.

 

This is my understanding of how things work anyway.

[Hunt3r.j2]

They would call the air force.

 

Here's the thing - the Army isn't likely to find itself doing a deep penetration mission (AFAIK) like the USAF and NAVY do with their own branches of special forces. The USAF provides top cover for these helis, while the NAVY provides Marine Cobra plus top cover (where possible) as escort.

 

This is my understanding of how things work anyway.

Wouldn't you use the Apaches to escort a helo that is going to the front lines though?

 

Hot LZ=dead chopper.

[EtherealN]

Or... you use the USAF. :P