Attack helicopters-Are they still useful?

SampanViking · Jun 25, 2006

The original purpose of the Attack Helicopter was to provide a rapid and effective response to massive Armoured Assaults. They would respond quickly to news of an attack, deploy to the rear of friendly positions and destroy a lot of oncoming armour. Once the attack was blunted they could flyoff - re arm and re-fuel and redeploy to the next hot spot on the front.

The word attack is used to differentiate them from reconaisence or transport helicopters.

What they are not are Assault Helicopters, which is why they were deployed to Albania, but never sent across the border into Serbia.

I see tham as a Counter Insurgency Systems and Close Support for Traditional Heavy Infantry and Armoured Formations. I cannot see that changing much in the forseeable future.

isthvan · Jun 25, 2006

SampanViking said:
The original purpose of the Attack Helicopter was to provide a rapid and effective response to massive Armoured Assaults. They would respond quickly to news of an attack, deploy to the rear of friendly positions and destroy a lot of oncoming armour. Once the attack was blunted they could flyoff - re arm and re-fuel and redeploy to the next hot spot on the front.

The word attack is used to differentiate them from reconaisence or transport helicopters.

What they are not are Assault Helicopters, which is why they were deployed to Albania, but never sent across the border into Serbia.

I see tham as a Counter Insurgency Systems and Close Support for Traditional Heavy Infantry and Armoured Formations. I cannot see that changing much in the forseeable future.

Well not quite... Attack helicopters were designed to protect transport helicopters and to provide CAS in landing zone area... At that time anti-tank role was still secondary... Today things are more or less the same; whit no real tank opposition precise CAS is again main role of attack helicopters and that will not be changed in foreseeable future.
Attack helicopters will always play important role in modern combat and whit right tactics they are still weary intimidating opponents; you must remember that while you may get chance to shoot down attack helicopter whit your RPG helicopter can carry weapons that are more precise, more deadly and have longer range then any weapon infantry uses...

PakTopGun · Jun 25, 2006

MrClean said:
Well, in any of these hypothetical situations where big countries with big militaries go at it, such as the ones you mentioned, I think that the attack helicopter's role would still be very important, if not more because on the modern tank battlefield, the scariest thing you can encounter is an attack helicopter, which really isn't an encounter unless you classify it as being hit with a hellfire from beyond visual range. As for enemy air power, in any of the situations you mentioned, the air forces of each military would be too busy dealing with eachother. I don't think that one of the main priorities of the fighters and fighter bombers would be to take out attack helicopters. Again that is just my opinion on a hypothetical situation.

How about the AH-1 ZULU? Just as fancy as an Apache, just won't crash after it get's some dirt in it's engines.

[qimg]http://www.bluejacket.com/usmc/images/ah1z_usmc.jpg[/qimg]

I too am a great fan of the Ah-1 Zulu, the cobra is time tested platform which can offer considerably support to ground forces, plus its small size & EW package makes it quite difficult to visualize and track down(with SAM's).
Helicopters are still very much here to stay as they will help relieve pressure on the airforce in light/medium arms encounter allowing the airforce to focus on more 'heavy targets'. And in any firefight, the presence of these 'hovering' aircraft are often critical as they offer considerable firepower directed where it is most needed especially when the situation is fast changing

adeptitus · Jun 26, 2006

My $0.02

An attack helicopter is much faster than a tank, and can be quickly deployed over almost any terrain to attack the enemy. Armed with weapons such as the AGM-114L "fire and forget" ATGM, you can do a lot of damage to ground armor without exposing yourself for too long.

However most helicopters are still deployed from fixed air bases. They're expensive and require a lot of resources. This leaves an area where armed UAV's come in. Ground units have traditionally been limited to ground-base vehicles and weapons, but there's no reason why you cannot have vehicle-launched UAV's. An armed UAV can be sent over vast distance and attack enemy targets, and the launch platform/vehicle can move with your units.

Finn McCool · Jun 26, 2006

Just to open up a new area of discussion, why have helicopters never really been utilized in a anti-ship role. Of course, the world's navies have made ample use of choppers for SAR and Anti-sub warfare, but we've never seen any helicopter designed for anti ship warfare. For a developing navy like the PLAN, a chopper that can take off from a DDG (no carrier needed) and fire a few missles at a target from a different direction than the ship can would be a nice thing to have. Of course, at sea a helicopter does not have terrain features, ground heat, and other things like that to protect it.

eecsmaster · Jun 26, 2006

I think all shipborne helos have the capability of using torpedos. But here is a question, why use helocopters for anti ship roles when a ship can do it better and cheaper? When you take into the amount of space and maintainence a helo takes up on a sea platform, you'll find a missile much more accomodating.

netspider · Jun 26, 2006

Finn McCool said:
Just to open up a new area of discussion, why have helicopters never really been utilized in a anti-ship role. Of course, the world's navies have made ample use of choppers for SAR and Anti-sub warfare, but we've never seen any helicopter designed for anti ship warfare. For a developing navy like the PLAN, a chopper that can take off from a DDG (no carrier needed) and fire a few missles at a target from a different direction than the ship can would be a nice thing to have. Of course, at sea a helicopter does not have terrain features, ground heat, and other things like that to protect it.

One simple reason I can give is those anti-ship missiles are heavy and big. The American Harpoon weights at least half ton (500KG), while Chinese C-80X usually weights near one ton, and Russian missiles weight from 2 ton to 4 tons. This does not count the weight and size of the launch device (canister, etc).

Then let's look at how much weight a helo can lift. The maximum payload of Mi-17 is only 4 ton, a UH-60 can only lift about 3.5 ton payload. Remember these are utility helos, they can carry more stuff than those attack helos. For the ship attack role, those helos will have to be modified to carry additional radars and those things, those will add weights as well. Given all these weight, I would expect an UH-60 type of helo can only carry at most two harpoons, and it would be hardly manuervable.

Kampfwagen · Jun 26, 2006

netspider said:
In that event as depicted in movie "Black Hawk Down", two helos
lost due to RPG fire, which is unguided weapon. It is just so easy to shot down a helo if appropriate weapon is used. Unfortunately, this type of weapons is so precious to those poor insurgents.

Those UH-60 helicopters were in a situation that normaly would not permit helicopter flight. One was esentaly hit from behind, almost point blank, by a Milita-man using an RPG on the roof of a building. This is almost more likely to be a situation of luck over skill.

And if I had to pick an attack heilo?

I would say a Hind D or a Super Cobra. Unless I am in a woodland area, where it would be either a Hind D or an AH-64 Longbow.

isthvan · Jun 27, 2006

Finn McCool said:
Just to open up a new area of discussion, why have helicopters never really been utilized in a anti-ship role. Of course, the world's navies have made ample use of choppers for SAR and Anti-sub warfare, but we've never seen any helicopter designed for anti ship warfare. For a developing navy like the PLAN, a chopper that can take off from a DDG (no carrier needed) and fire a few missles at a target from a different direction than the ship can would be a nice thing to have. Of course, at sea a helicopter does not have terrain features, ground heat, and other things like that to protect it.

Well some naval helicopters have anti-ship role. Helicopters as S-70b Seahawk or Super Lynx can carry Penguin or Sea Skua missiles for attacks on smaller, faster ships like FAC, patrol ships and smaller corvettes. USN also used OH-58D helicopters in Persian Gulf during 1980s for attacks against smaller gunboats…
Missiles like Penguin can also be used against bigger ships and while they wouldn’t sink them they could make considerable damage. Basically they are useful against any ship without medium range air defenses…
Like netspider said they can’t use larger missiles because weight and dimension restrictions, but that’s were airplanes step in…

Kampfwagen said:
Those UH-60 helicopters were in a situation that normaly would not permit helicopter flight. One was esentaly hit from behind, almost point blank, by a Milita-man using an RPG on the roof of a building. This is almost more likely to be a situation of luck over skill.

You are quite right; hitting moving helicopter whit RPG is damn hard especially if they have protection… Operation in Mogadishu could have quite different outcome if they had attack helicopter and AC-130 cover like they requested before operation…

The_Zergling · Jun 27, 2006

isthvan said:
You are quite right; hitting moving helicopter whit RPG is damn hard especially if they have protection… Operation in Mogadishu could have quite different outcome if they had attack helicopter and AC-130 cover like they requested before operation…

The outcome would have been different if AC-130s had been requested, however whether or not the results would be favorable remains to be seen. Chances are the AC-130s would have had an even harder time picking off targets with accuracy without causing horrendous collateral damage, (and probably alienating the US forever in Somalia) so in that case it's hard to say whether or not it was a good choice to use attack helicopters over gunships.

Still, I'd say helicopters are still useful in modern warfare, if just for quick response or troop insertion.

Attack helicopters-Are they still useful?

SampanViking

The Capitalist

isthvan

Tailgunner

PakTopGun

New Member

adeptitus

Captain

Finn McCool

Captain

eecsmaster

Junior Member

netspider

New Member

Kampfwagen

Junior Member

isthvan

Tailgunner

The_Zergling

Junior Member