Attack Helicopters

**GGTharos** · 01 Jun 07, 00:48

Originally Posted by Garry

TWO PASSES against slow target!!! I guess the Kamov guys were right in their evaluation of A-10.... without stabilized targeting system its gun is good only against slow onground targets like a tank.... it is definitelly not a A2A platform!!!

The A-10 is a pretty stable gunnery platform. The problem is one of training, not of equipment - in -this- particular case.

Hei GGTharos, seems like you were right on the radar on Ka-50 on the picture... In one Russian forum the guy who participated it tests stated that it was a mock up radar on that particular foto.... the empty body of the radar made for flight testing. However, it was tested with functioning radar......

Correct. But it won't receive one, IIRC. The Ka-50 isn't equipped for combat in the same style as the apache or mi-28. It's more equipped to deal with things at long ranges in the plains of europe, IIRC, and the targetting equipment, as well as the missiles and guidace type used make thing painfully obvious.

It might be a bit sad - in terms of airframe the Ka-50 is somethingdifferent, but its avionics have significantly lagged behind, making it useful mostly in the situation mentioned, or in limited conflicts (ie. blowing up rebel camps in mountains etc)

**Injecteer** · 01 Jun 07, 10:44

I would'n say, that Ka50's avionics is inferior to Apache/Mi28, it's just different, it has different goals to achieve. That is proven by the fact, that in the 'good'ol days' the Kamov Bureau won the tender for an attack helo in Russia, despite being single-seated, against a traditionally built double-seater Mi28.

That means, that the avionics in Ka50 almost replaces a co-pilot, and this is something, that no other helo in the world has. That makes it pretty difficuilt to assess the effectivness of Ka50's systems.

**Garry** · 01 Jun 07, 10:59

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Garry,

Could you post the complete references for this book (title, author, publisher,...), please ? I'd like to try and get hold of a copy.

Let me brose in my folders. I think I have downloaded it sometime back... for now I can just give you this reference

Потери вооруженных сил СССР в войнах, боевых действиях и военных конфликтах: Стат. исследование / Под ред. к.в.н. генерал-полковника Г. Ф. Кривошеина \М.: Воениздат, 1993 г.

Read also this forum... pilots from Afghanistan are counting there their lost comrades trying to make a correct memory of their lost friends
á÷éáãéïîîùê æïòõí ÎÁ AVIA.RU - ÎÁÛÉ ÐÏÔÅÒÉ × áÆÇÁÎÅ

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Garry,

May I ask where you got your figures from for the Stinger ?

Open sources in the US generally suggest that :

1. a total of approx. 900-1,200 Stinger missiles were shipped for delivery to the mujaheedins, together with about 250 gripstocks.

2. Pakistan reportedly withheld approx. 200 of these missiles for its own usage (the so-called *missile tax*).

3. The mujaheedins fired about 340 Stingers against both Soviet and Communist Afghans jets and helos between 1986 and 1989.

4. The mujaheedins scored about 269 kills with Stingers during the entire war.

I read some russian forum where former Afghanistan pilots stated that Stinger was a potent threat but most threat was DShK 12.7mm. Luckilly Stinger WAS PLAGUED with mallfuctions... it required too much of maintenance to be used by mujaheedins in mountains.

Soviet engineers analysed why some of the Stingers did not score a kill while hitting an aicraft and resoluted that weapon was plagued with mallfuctioning detonator in the warhead.... it either did not expload or exploaded improperly.

The problem with coolant was another major reason why Stingers did not target properly..... and finally - its battery was not enduring.

I have little idea of how many Stingers were actually shipped... I may guess that Soviet pilots designated every missile as Stinger while there was significant number of Blowpipes and Strela. In general there were around 300 Blowpipes and few hundred Strela missiles in possesion of mojaheedins being sourced from Egypt, China, African states and Afghani government forces. So.... there were much more than just Stingers... And besides that USA has delivered a number of FIM-43 Redeye in 1984.... these scored some kills as well.

As for the 269 kills - they overestimated kills to get more credits. For example the widelly stated case when massive use of Stinger has destroyed few helicopters in Kuduz was overstated. Only 3 Mi-8 helicopters were downed out of 8 attacked while mojaheedins reported destroying all 8.... hence I would rather take soviet statistics.... it was much better documented.

Bottom line - Soviets lost 333 helicopters and around 117 fixed wing...

**Garry** · 01 Jun 07, 11:28

I hope this will illustrate that Stingers were a threat but manageble.. Hence not every "kill" reported by mojaheedins lead to loss of an aircraft

This I copied from the forum where Soviet pilots stated about their experience in Afghanistan...

Mi-24B of V.A. Khabarin was attacked on 16.04.1987. Direct hit by FIM-92A into armor plate of the engine - the cover is blownout. Two more missiles missed. Later the final FIM-92B hit the same engine and ignated fire. The Kaptain Erofeev has switched engine off and rotorcraft has returned to base.

Ми-24В 16. 04.1987г.Прямое попадание 'FIM-92A' в броню двигателя Ми-24В А. Хабарина снесло бронекапот. Две следующие ЗУР промахнулись, но, более мощная 'FIM-92B' разворотила двигатель, вызвав пожар. Однако, двигатель был сразу же отключён капитаном Ерофеевым, сигнатура пропала и вертолёт успешно возвратился на базу.

23.06.1984. Mi-24B of Captain V.Smirnov was attacked by 12 FIM-92 missiles and 4 of them hit the rotorcraft. One hit into the wing but did not blow up, one penetrated the hull but did not blew up, third blew directly into armored plate of the engine without significant damage, but last forth hit in rear part of the hull blowing up the tank and igniting fire behind the rotorcraft. Smirnov has avoided 7 FIM-92 using termal flares. His helicopter returned to base and was returned to service.

Ми-24В 23.06.1984г. Ми-24В капитана В. Смирнова подвергся обстрелу 12 'Red Eye', 4 ЗУР попали - одна врезалась в крыло и не разорвалась, одна пробила брешь в ЭВУ, третья разорвалась на бронеплите двигателя, не причинив ему вреда, четвёртая разорвалась у кормы, вызвав утечку топлива и пожар за пределами машины. Вслед машине Смирнова было пущено ещё 7 'Red Eye', но пилот применил термоловушки и все ЗУР ушли 'в молоко'. Вертолёт был возвращён в строй.

Mi-24V of Major Kabrenko was attacked by 5 Stingers on 12.08.1986. First Stinger penetrated fuel tank but did not explode though ignited fire of leaking fuel which followed the rotorcraft. 4 more Stingers missed rotorcraft due to hiting that fire. Helicopter was damaged by fragments of those missiles. Kabrenko returned to base.

Ми-24В 12.08. 1986г. Первая ЗУР пробила топливный бак Ми-24В майора Кабренко, в результате чего, получилась крупная воспламенённая утечка, выглядевшая как факел, тянущийся за вертолётом, пущенные следом 4 'Стингера' разорвались в огненной струе текущего топлива, кое-где пробив обшивку своими ГПЭ. Вертолёт вернулся на базу.

á÷éáãéïîîùê æïòõí ÎÁ AVIA.RU - ÎÁÛÉ ÐÏÔÅÒÉ × áÆÇÁÎÅ

ps. Another interesting case from there.... attack of Iranian F-4 on Soviet Mi-8... two helos destroyed.

The case was with two F-4, when helicopters dropped troops on Iranian territory instead of mojaheedin base Rabati-Jali due to navigation error on 5 April, 1982. Two F-4 attacked those helicopters and destroyed them (they were abandonned). They they start attacking An-30 with troops. The two MiG-23 came into the fight and F-4 disengaged.

Инцидент с F-4, это когда вертолетный десант высадили из-за навигационной ошибки 5 апреля 1982г на территории Ирана вместо душманской базы Рабати-Джали. В результате последовательного удара двух пар F-4 на земле были повреждены несколько вертолетов (два Ми-8 пришлось бросить), начали "пресовать" круживший рядом Ан-30, в этот момент подошла пара МиГ-23 "разрядив" напряженную обстановку

**GGTharos** · 01 Jun 07, 23:57

Originally Posted by Injecteer

I would'n say, that Ka50's avionics is inferior to Apache/Mi28, it's just different, it has different goals to achieve. That is proven by the fact, that in the 'good'ol days' the Kamov Bureau won the tender for an attack helo in Russia, despite being single-seated, against a traditionally built double-seater Mi28.

Just because Kamov won doesn't mean the avionics weren't inferior. They were back then, and they still are now. While there's some modernization of the navigation systems happening, the heli is still, as is now, plagued with much higher pilot workload than the Ah-64 for example.

That means, that the avionics in Ka50 almost replaces a co-pilot, and this is something, that no other helo in the world has. That makes it pretty difficuilt to assess the effectivness of Ka50's systems.

These avionics replace nothing. They infact add to the workload as the pilot is now forced to look down to observe the FCS scans, look at nav data, and other things - in this time he's not looking out to check for pop-up threats, or wether the ground's coming at him.

**hello** · 02 Jun 07, 20:42

Originally Posted by GGTharos

You're pretty right against fighters with guns and heaters though! Helis are tough targets (but that may be changing with the introduction of FPA-based seekers now) if they play their cards right.

As for helis being fitted with A2A weapons: The Marine Cobra (AH-1Z or W? I forget which) is cleared for and flies with AIM-9's.

AH-64's were cleared for Stinger stacks, IIRC, and Ka-50's for Igla-V stacks, but neither helicopter uses them operationally - my guess is they're not expected to use them at all (you can't -really- do more than get a lucky shot against a fighter, and against a heli you may as well just use the onboard payload - ie. hellfires). I don't know the official rationale for this though, it's just my guess.

The Marine Cobra's have a slightly different mandate when escorting rescue choppers, I'd imagine they're expected to defend those against other helis as well as low flying attack aircraft, as opposed to avoid them which is what Army helis are supposed to do, IIRC - so it may not be a matter of effectiveness at all.

Both the AH-1W and Z use AIM-9s. If AH-64s armed with ground attack payloads were to encounter and attack enemy helis, their best bet would be to use the Hydra-70 rockets, since the gun is inaccurate and Hellfires aren't meant for the job.

IMO, the AH-1Z "Viper" is the best air to air helicopter. It can carry a maximum of 6 AIM-9L/Ms + 750 rounds of 20mm, to deliver the greatest air-to-air punch of any attack helicopter, followed by the Ka 50's 2 AA-11s + 500 rounds of 30mm. It would be interesting for a duel to occur between the Viper and Black Shark. The new Z ought to have higher speed, a slightly higher climb rate, a slightly lower ceiling, and less maneuverability than the Ka 50, judging by it's improvements over the W. I don't know it's exact stats.

Marine AH-1s would not only have to protect rescue and transport helis from low-flying enemy copters, but also defend ground forces from enemy attack choppers flying nap-of-the-earth.

**GGTharos** · 02 Jun 07, 21:47

Originally Posted by hello

Both the AH-1W and Z use AIM-9s. If AH-64s armed with ground attack payloads were to encounter and attack enemy helis, their best bet would be to use the Hydra-70 rockets, since the gun is inaccurate and Hellfires aren't meant for the job.

Their best bet is to use the least accurate and flexible weapon onboard?
The gun is excellent for anti-heli ops, FAR move accurate -and- agile. It points where the pilot looks, and the pilot's somewhat likely to be looking at the enemy chopper.

The hellfire has longer range and is quite agile, certainly capable of hitting a helicopter since it can hit something as small as a moving car, and TOWs have been demonstrated in anti-heli use also. There would be some restrictions to such a feat, but it's all /definitely/ better than hydras.

IMO, the AH-1Z "Viper" is the best air to air helicopter. It can carry a maximum of 6 AIM-9L/Ms + 750 rounds of 20mm, to deliver the greatest air-to-air punch of any attack helicopter, followed by the Ka 50's 2 AA-11s + 500 rounds of 30mm. It would be interesting for a duel to occur between the Viper and Black Shark. The new Z ought to have higher speed, a slightly higher climb rate, a slightly lower ceiling, and less maneuverability than the Ka 50, judging by it's improvements over the W. I don't know it's exact stats.

Marine AH-1s would not only have to protect rescue and transport helis from low-flying enemy copters, but also defend ground forces from enemy attack choppers flying nap-of-the-earth.

The Ka-50 isn't getting any AA-11's. Wasted payload space and weight. A mechanism to take advantage of the AA-11's wide gimbals does not exist onboard the Ka-50 IIRC, and Russia hasn't done more than to bother testing R-60's (AA-8) inboard Mi-24s. If the Ka-50 gets anything, it'll be IGLA-V stacks, which make a heckuvalot more sense than the big, head AA-11's that are meant to be used at higher altitudes and in rather different combat situations.

As far as matching the Ka-50 in 'stats' ... nothing can, really - it climbs faster, higher, and so on and so forth. But that in and ofitself means zip squat and zilch unless you're close in, and if you are, the semi-fixed gun on the Ka-50 in conjunction with the lack of a 'look and shoot' system as implemented in the western helis puts it as a pretty big disadvantage if it doesn't get first shot.

**hello** · 03 Jun 07, 08:57

Originally Posted by GGTharos

Their best bet is to use the least accurate and flexible weapon onboard?
The gun is excellent for anti-heli ops, FAR move accurate -and- agile. It points where the pilot looks, and the pilot's somewhat likely to be looking at the enemy chopper.

The hellfire has longer range and is quite agile, certainly capable of hitting a helicopter since it can hit something as small as a moving car, and TOWs have been demonstrated in anti-heli use also. There would be some restrictions to such a feat, but it's all /definitely/ better than hydras.

The Ka-50 isn't getting any AA-11's. Wasted payload space and weight. A mechanism to take advantage of the AA-11's wide gimbals does not exist onboard the Ka-50 IIRC, and Russia hasn't done more than to bother testing R-60's (AA-8) inboard Mi-24s. If the Ka-50 gets anything, it'll be IGLA-V stacks, which make a heckuvalot more sense than the big, head AA-11's that are meant to be used at higher altitudes and in rather different combat situations.

As far as matching the Ka-50 in 'stats' ... nothing can, really - it climbs faster, higher, and so on and so forth. But that in and ofitself means zip squat and zilch unless you're close in, and if you are, the semi-fixed gun on the Ka-50 in conjunction with the lack of a 'look and shoot' system as implemented in the western helis puts it as a pretty big disadvantage if it doesn't get first shot.

The 'stats' say that the Ka 50 is better in performance than the AH-1W, but not by that much. With the kind of improvements the AH-1Z has over the W, theoretically, it should close that gap. However, I can't find any real stats for the AH-1Z and thus have to rely on theory. Anyway, if the Ka 50 isn't going to carry AA-11s, then there is really no rotorcraft able to match the Z in air to air.

Here are the AH-1W's stats: Army Technology, Wikipedia.
Here are the Ka 50's stats: Army Technology.
Here is a page on the AH-1Z: Globalsecurity.

The AH-1 pilots are actually trained for air combat, in anti-helicopter offensive counter-air missions, and also in limited fleet defense against fixed-wing aircraft!

Link to article. However, this article is 15 years old.

The Apache's swivel turret is supposed to shoot inaccurately in order to cover the area around the target with fire. What use will that be of against a maneuvering helicopter? Hydras can make a good surprise attack weapon provided the target doesn't see the Apache. Hellfires would better be used against the primary objective - ground targets.

**GGTharos** · 03 Jun 07, 17:54

Originally Posted by hello

The 'stats' say that the Ka 50 is better in performance than the AH-1W, but not by that much. With the kind of improvements the AH-1Z has over the W, theoretically, it should close that gap. However, I can't find any real stats for the AH-1Z and thus have to rely on theory.

The AH-1 will /never/ match the Ka-50 in climbing ability, or speed, unless their never-exceed-speed is close which is a different thing alltogther.
Never

Why? Because a single rotor heli loses too much lifting power to various things compared to a twin-rotor.
That is reflected in those stats, which you apparently did not compare properly. The Ah-1Z has a rate of climb of 7.7m/s at HALF the altitude that the Ka-50 gets 10m/s.

Anyway, if the Ka 50 isn't going to carry AA-11s, then there is really no rotorcraft able to match the Z in air to air.

That is certainly incorrect. In heli-heli combat, the IGLA-V or Stinger stack would work very nicely. Those weapons are designed to hit targets as far as 6km (or farther, depending on the target) away when starting from zero speed and altitude.

The sidewinder is designed to be thrown at other aicraft with some starting speed that is generally higher than 120kts, and at higher altitudes - it is draggier than a stinger/igla, and that makes a difference at low altitude.

It -is- probably faster, and it does have a proximity fuze which may in fact work against it at low altitudes. It is a more useful missile against fixed wing aircraft than stinger, having a prox fuze and bigger warhead.

In other words, the AH-1Z's AA role is -very- specialized and this is the primary reason why you don't see other helis armed with AA weapons.

The AH-1 pilots are actually trained for air combat, in anti-helicopter offensive counter-air missions, and also in limited fleet defense against fixed-wing aircraft!

And this is what makes all the difference

The Apache's swivel turret is supposed to shoot inaccurately in order to cover the area around the target with fire. What use will that be of against a maneuvering helicopter?

Plenty useful. They can accurately hit personnel from 1km away, what's the problem with hitting the broad side of a barn that's a helicopter? It's not like the M61, for example, does much better.

Hydras can make a good surprise attack weapon provided the target doesn't see the Apache. Hellfires would better be used against the primary objective - ground targets.

No, hydras, are an /aweful/ weapon, essentially useless against an airborne target unless you're pretty close. They are true strafing weapon with a very wide dispersion on /purpose/ so you can strike a good area when using them. They require you to slow down, aim properly so that yaw effects don't cause them to go somewhere completely different.
Hellfires are better use on any single vehicle be it armor or helicopter, that you need to take out. If I was in the heli, I wouldn't be worrying about taking out one less tank or APC if I saw a heli in my way - I'd use the damned missile! That's one less helico that can make a mess of my buddies on the ground!
Taking -that- guy out -and- some enemy tanks lets by guys deal with the one I didn't hit rather more easily.

**Garry** · 05 Jun 07, 13:58

Ka-50/52 was designed to fight helos and subsonic CAS. However it was not completed and its weapons are not best. As far as training.... Torzhok Helicopter center designed a special instructions on use of Ka-50/52 in air to air cases. This includes a manual how to hide from fighters behind natural barries - houses, hills, forests on the low altitudes and how to attack enemy helicopters and subsonic fixed wing CAS. They did actual firing from Ka-50/52 on target drones - one of the exersises was using its gun in CIWS-like method against incoming missiles.

Unlike any other helicopter Ka-50/52 has a gun system which is installed at the center of mass - recoil does not move its nose up like it happens with Appach and Mi-28.... This yields unprecedented precision in a sustained fire, while those which have nose gun have precision only for first couple of shells...

**GGTharos** · 06 Jun 07, 00:13

Originally Posted by Garry

Ka-50/52 was designed to fight helos and subsonic CAS.

This statement is absolutely, totally, and fundamentally wrong Garry.
The Ka-50 was designed to destroy enemy armor, and the Ka-52 was designed to lead packs of Ka-50's.
They -can- engage helos and *very* slow head-on/tail-on low'flying CAS, but 'designed for' is utterly wrong.

However it was not completed and its weapons are not best.

Because they're meant for blowing up tanks and infantry.

As far as training.... Torzhok Helicopter center designed a special instructions on use of Ka-50/52 in air to air cases. This includes a manual how to hide from fighters behind natural barries - houses, hills, forests on the low altitudes and how to attack enemy helicopters and subsonic fixed wing CAS. They did actual firing from Ka-50/52 on target drones - one of the exersises was using its gun in CIWS-like method against incoming missiles.

Basically nothing different from what an AH-1 of -64 would do ... nothing.

Unlike any other helicopter Ka-50/52 has a gun system which is installed at the center of mass - recoil does not move its nose up like it happens with Appach and Mi-28.... This yields unprecedented precision in a sustained fire, while those which have nose gun have precision only for first couple of shells...

No, but it does yaw the nose a little. And if you're flying a chopper and maneuvering, are you really going to worry about 1 MOA more less dispersion from a shopper that essentially has to point its nose at you to fire, or are you going to worry about the one that sprays a little more, but can keep shooting you *throughout* the fight?
I think this 'accuracy' thing is way WAY misunderstood. At less than 1000m it'll hit you just like the other gun, period.

**~~Shipwreck~~** · 13 Jun 07, 17:19

Originally Posted by Garry

Let me brose in my folders. I think I have downloaded it sometime back... for now I can just give you this reference

Потери вооруженных сил СССР в войнах, боевых действиях и военных конфликтах: Стат. исследование / Под ред. к.в.н. генерал-полковника Г. Ф. Кривошеина \М.: Воениздат, 1993 г.

Garry,

Thanks for the reference. I'll try and get hold of a copy of it. Meanwhile, if you can find yours in your folders, I'm interested.

Originally Posted by Garry

As for the 269 kills - they overestimated kills to get more credits. For example the widelly stated case when massive use of Stinger has destroyed few helicopters in Kuduz was overstated. Only 3 Mi-8 helicopters were downed out of 8 attacked while mojaheedins reported destroying all 8.... hence I would rather take soviet statistics.... it was much better documented.

Stinger's kill ratio in Afghanistan remains a controversial subject and it's true that some early analysis from either DoD or ISI greatly overestimated Soviet and Afghan losses.

While not perfect, the analysis conducted by the US Army in 1989 which came up with the 269 kills in about 340 engagements was based on a reasonably rigorous methodology.

Though I cannot comment any further on this particular study, the US Army figure of 269 kills is not necessarily out of line with the Soviet statistics (310 helos and planes lost from 1986 through 1988 for both the Soviet and Afghan governmental forces).

**Garry** · 14 Jun 07, 14:40

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Garry,

Thanks for the reference. I'll try and get hold of a copy of it. Meanwhile, if you can find yours in your folders, I'm interested.

Sorry Shipwreck, I did not find it in loads of trash accumulated in my computer

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Stinger's kill ratio in Afghanistan remains a controversial subject and it's true that some early analysis from either DoD or ISI greatly overestimated Soviet and Afghan losses.

While not perfect, the analysis conducted by the US Army in 1989 which came up with the 269 kills in about 340 engagements was based on a reasonably rigorous methodology.

Though I cannot comment any further on this particular study, the US Army figure of 269 kills is not necessarily out of line with the Soviet statistics (310 helos and planes lost from 1986 through 1988 for both the Soviet and Afghan governmental forces).

I just meant that in general Soviet statistics was much more reliable source than mojahideen reports. Total aircraft losses over 1979-89 were only 333 helo + 117 fixed wing = 450, and this includes BOTH combat and non-combat losses. So loosing 269 in just 3 years 1986-88 is quite high.... meaning that more than half aircraft was killed in that period and by stingers... Hence this two statements look contradictory to each other... so at least one of the them must be FAR from reality. My PERSONAL view is that Soviet statistics is closer to reality than 269 figure..... but we shall never know for sure.

Many combat losses were ON GROUND, due to rocket bombardment of airfields.... around 30% were non-combat losses.... but major reason reported was - 12.7mm + RPG (landing+take off). It was surprising that stingers+strela+redeye were having very HIGH toll - more than HALF of the fixed wing aircraft.... and if we deduct combat losses on the ground due to rocket bombardment then majority of soviet fixed wing were shot down by Portable Missiles... Paradox. what do you think?

**Terran empire** · 14 Jun 07, 21:41

Proven kills goes to Apache along with capabilities

**~~Shipwreck~~** · 16 Jun 07, 22:43

Originally Posted by Garry

I just meant that in general Soviet statistics was much more reliable source than mojahideen reports. Total aircraft losses over 1979-89 were only 333 helo + 117 fixed wing = 450, and this includes BOTH combat and non-combat losses. So loosing 269 in just 3 years 1986-88 is quite high.... meaning that more than half aircraft was killed in that period and by stingers... Hence this two statements look contradictory to each other...

(snip)

Paradox. what do you think?

Garry,

One must also factor DRAAF (i.e. Afghan governmental forces) losses into the equation.

Like I said earlier, the US Army figure of 269 kills is not necessarily out of line with the Soviet statistics (310 helos and planes lost from 1986 through 1988 for both the Soviet and Afghan governmental forces).

View Poll Results: Best Attack Helecopter

Thread: Attack Helicopters

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

How China Loses The Coming Space War

Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death

2003 Navy Global Conops

Golden age for mercenaries

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions