Attack helicopters-Are they still useful?

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.

Click to expand...

To best of my knowledge, the British RN is the only force that has used helicopter launched anti-ship missiles extensively in war.

During the Falklands war, RN Lynx helicopters launched 8 Sea Skua anti-ship missiles, and claimed 100% hit rate, damaging 1 ARA ship and sinking 2. Later, during the first Gulf War, the RN launched 12 Sea Skua missiles, again with 100% claimed hit rate.

There was another incident during the Falklands war, where RN helicopters dropped torpedos and forced the ARA Santa Fe submarine to surface. So technically the sub was a "surface target' when it was attacked by RN Westland Wasp helicopters with 9 AS.12 missiles. The sub was severely damaged and abandoned.

netspider said:

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.

Click to expand...

I read that the Westland Sea King helicopter can use Sea Eagle anti-ship missile, that one has 230kg warhead. Though I don't think it's in service anymore.

I have a feeling that the Wz-10 is not going to be anything better than satisfactory. It just looks too...light. Not like the AH-64 or the Mi-24. Of course, this goves it more stealth. But it just doesn't seem substantial enough. Like on hit from a 20mm or something would send it crashing very quickly. Besides, like I say with so many new PLA technologies, the PLA has no experience operating them and has to develop a corps of pilots, support staff, etc. from scratch. But the simple fact that China, a rising military power, is developing a brand new attack helicopter from scratch, even when it has many other areas of its military that it needs to devote resources to as well, shows that attack heilcopters are still useful.

If I am right, the C-701 was also to be accepted as part of what China's AHs could carry. The C-701 is similar in dimensions as the Sea Skua and Penguin. Since the C-701 was designed as a MP missile (And at first as a ASM) China should have no problem making its own AH-ASM.

Now does anyone think an AH would need something like this?


I like the Blackshark and the Zulu.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/attack-helicopters-they-still-usef

In relationship to China and in general, what are your opinions of the value of dedicated attack helicopters such as the Mi28, Ka50, AH64, AH1, Tiger etc?

I personally do not see much value in such dedicated attack helicopters as I have reservations about their cost effectiveness. The only real success of dedicated attack helicopters in the first gulf war where 200+ AH64 destroyed 500+ Iraqis tanks, however subsequent conflicts have shown that they are especially vulnerable against dug in infantry with flak weapon, MANPADs and even heavy machine guns.

I feel that strike aircraft will be more cost efficient in the attack role, with much better fuel economy, larger strike payload, longer loitering time, easier maintenance and cheaper unit price.

The ability to operate anywhere and hover ability, does it justify the deployment of attack helicopters? It does for gunships and assault carriers, but I think it is wasted, except in a all out war which most if not all of your airfields are destroyed.

So country with large armored formations around china is: Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Against Russia, I seriously question if there is sufficient range, against North Korea, India and Pakistan, I will question the altitude mountainous landscape issue and fuel consumption for logistical supply.

Against Taiwan, China has strike aircraft within range on an unsinkable aircraft carrier called dry land. I really does not see the reason to pursue dedicated attack helicopters, your comments?

Re: The Value of Dedicated Attack Helicopters

I had many of the same questions. Check out the thread that resulted:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/attack-helicopters-they-still-useful-1564.html

I think the consensus that resulted is that attack helis aren't as vulnerable as some think they are.

Threads merged

Thanks for finding that Finn. I knew we had a similar thread a few years ago but I could not find it.. Thanks!

I do believe in current war efforst like COIN in A-stan, an attack helo is a immensely important asset.
Once it is on station, it is extremely flexible in it's response. An attack plane has to locate a target location, fly out to a certain rollin point and than commense an attack from a certain heading, etc. Many of the jet powered planes today are also actually considered to be too fast for effective COIN ops.
An attack helo can move to a place just outside a percieved thread range and then attack very effectively. E.g. by simply moving it's gun turret and howling 30mm HE rounds on target.
Furthermore, with the advent of laser guidance kits for 2.75" Hydra rockets, attack helos can carry a large amount of precision, low yield, fire power.
In conventional, big scale armor wars, I think modern attack helos can also remain very effective for years to come.
With DIRCM (=Directed Infra Red Couter Meassure; a laser mounted on an aircraft that simply blinds the IR seeker) a potentially important guard against MANPADs is becoming operational in the near future.

looking at attack helo's like the Apache I see only three issues that really hold them back and make me question there use in the Future. Speed, range and Altitude when compared too say the A10

There are actually a few aircraft that can fill the roll of the attack helicopters (for the budget conscious air force) turbo prop aircraft such as the IA-58B Pucara or the Brazilian Tucano have been employed successfully against hard and soft targets in past conflicts. Granted, these aircraft do not have the “pop up” capability of helicopters, but they are cheaper to construct, purchase and maintain than their rotary wing counter parts.
They are especially useful in low intensity brush wars and anti drug operations.

Today, the attack helicopter has been further refined, and the AH-64D Apache Longbow demonstrates many of the advanced technologies being considered for deployment on future gunships. The Russians are currently deploying the Ka-50, and Mi-28, which are roughly equivalent though these attack aircraft are not linked into a command and control system at a level which is quite comparable to current U.S. equipment. Many students of ground attack helicopter warfare feel that linking into a network is a requirement of today's modern armies, since attack helicopters are being increasingly incorporated as part of a linked support element system by most of the armies of the world.

DO NOT COPY AND PASTE ARTICLES WITHOUT GIVING THE AUTHOR CREDIT> HE STOLE THE ABOVE FROM WIKI>>



bd popeye super moderator