+19

Cucumber Khan

max steel

Mindstorm

Sujoy

Asf

RTN

Geronimo

mutantsushi

magnumcromagnon

BlackArrow

Vann7

KomissarBojanchev

medo

TR1

GarryB

collegeboy16

calripson

Werewolf

flamming_python

23 posters

Go to page :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Attack Helicopters combat survivability

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°76

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

GarryB Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:52 am

The USSR reacted to the Apache AH 64A by designing the SA 19 Grison which can increase the effective range of defensive fire & react quickly enough to kill the AH 64A before it can complete it's anti missile engagement cycle. The SA 19 achieved this by combining 30mm SPAAG and missile system using a radar package similar to the SA 15 but armed with very high speed 2 staged tube launched missiles .

The Tunguska system was developed to combine the missiles and gun of previous generations systems to reduce likely future costs of systems.

Very simply the Shilka had an expensive radar and fairly basic optics, while the SA-9/-13 had fairly basic optics... in the case of the latter a small ranging only radar, and passive sensors to detect radio altimeters and other electronic emissions from manned aircraft and guided missiles.

The Tunguska increased the number of ready to fire missiles of more than double range, and added longer range harder hitting cannon with a higher rate of fire than the Shilka. It was intended for use against the Apache and the A-10.

The radar package of Tunguska is far superior to the system on Shilka but it is no where near as good as the system on the SA-15 TOR.

However, with the advent of the Apache AH 64D Longbow this threat from the SA 19 has been neutralized to a large extent.

Not really. The Tunguska in the 1980s had a range of 8km with missiles but from the 90s when the D model Apache was in service it had 10km range upgraded missiles that still outrange MMW Hellfire. More critically the TOR SAM can actually engage individual Hellfires in flight.

The new system will have a range of 20km or more.

The AH 64D combined a mast mounted millimetric wave band search and engagement radar with the ‘fire-and-forget’ millimetric band active radar seekered equipped Hellfire variant.

You have to be able to get a proper lock on the target to achieve fire and forget capability and with the widespread use of a Nakidka type camouflage that might become an issue.

A passive precision radio-frequency interferometer was added to permit the system to sniff out the emissions of the SA-8, SA-13, SA-15 and SA-19 search radars.

SA-13 had all sorts of sensor boxes mounted on it to detect threats including MMW radars.

Most ELINT systems will have the same and will pass on detected threats to the IADS.

The Longbow Apache could remain behind cover, raising only the mast mounted sensor package to search for targets, only popping up for a few seconds to fire a salvo of Hellfires at a detected target

There is cover and there is concealment. Looking over the lip of a hill could be considered cover but if the IADS detects that MMW radar scan it could pass that data to nearby armoured units... even a T-90 could detect the IR plume of a helicopter sitting behind a hill crest and fire an ANIET HE shell to explode above the hovering helo.

If it is hovering behind a tree then an APFSDS round will easily travel through the tree and do serious damage to anything behind...

The Attack Helo was the queen of the battlefield before tanks got auto target trackers, modern ballistic computers and long range thermal sights... and excellent communications and datalink capability. Now it has to be used very carefully... hovering behind a hill top looking for enemy air defences and a light team with a Metis-M1 ATGM could fire at you from behind and really ruin your day.

What I was referring to is the ability of the AH 64D Longbow to avoid threats from missiles like the SA 19

How does Apache avoid SA-19?

Its current in service model has a range of 10km and a flight speed of well over mach 3 which is 3 times faster than Hellfire in any model.

For the Tunguska sitting still and scanning for targets with its thermal sight with its CM wave and MMW radar passively listening for threats suggests if anything the Tunguska will detect the Apache first, can engage first and is most likely to win.

For the Apache it might detect the radar emissions of one Tunguska but what about the other 5 vehicles in the battery? In optical guided mode there is nothing for the Apache to jam and no DIRCM target. Just a very fast approaching missile...

Asf

Asf: Posts : 471
Points : 488
Join date : 2014-03-27

Post n°77

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Asf Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:44 pm

The Longbow Apache could remain behind cover, raising only the mast mounted sensor package to search for targets, only popping up for a few seconds to fire a salvo of Hellfires at a detected target

Thank God, Tunguska's missiles have proximity detonators

medo

medo: Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°78

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

medo Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:04 pm

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:I tend to think this new missile will be using a new QWIP sensor chip like the new model Catherine XP third generation thermal imager now produced in Russia.

The USSR reacted to the Apache AH 64A by designing the SA 19 Grison which can increase the effective range of defensive fire & react quickly enough to kill the AH 64A before it can complete it's anti missile engagement cycle. The SA 19 achieved this by combining 30mm SPAAG and missile system using a radar package similar to the SA 15 but armed with very high speed 2 staged tube launched missiles .

However, with the advent of the Apache AH 64D Longbow this threat from the SA 19 has been neutralized to a large extent. The AH 64D combined a mast mounted millimetric wave band search and engagement radar with the ‘fire-and-forget’ millimetric band active radar seekered equipped Hellfire variant. A passive precision radio-frequency interferometer was added to permit the system to sniff out the emissions of the SA-8, SA-13, SA-15 and SA-19 search radars. The Longbow Apache could remain behind cover, raising only the mast mounted sensor package to search for targets, only popping up for a few seconds to fire a salvo of Hellfires at a detected target

Tunguska is now an old complex (30 years old) and sooner or later it will be replaced by tracked Pantsir. But at the end of the story, helicopters are one of the reason to create BMPT. AD complexes as Tor, Tunguska, Pantsir, etc, are usually few kilometers behind the tanks, so usually they very difficultly fire on low hovering helicopters, if they don't want to kill their own troop in front of them. Tanks got ATGMs and HE shells to fire on helicopters. BMPs could also fire on them with guns and ATGMs as well as ATGM complexes as Kornet and Krizanthema. But BMPT is in the same line as tanks and with the same armor. It have 30 mm guns with higher elevation than tanks and if they equip them with Kornet-D missiles, it will have very long hand against helicopters. Connected with IADS and C4I, BMPT could be well aware of AH-64D behind the mask and fire on it with guns through the mask or with ATGM with thermobaric warhead. BMPT will be far closer to Apache than Tunguska and far more dangerous. It doesn't have radar, but have very high placed EO device for commander.

Sujoy

Sujoy: Posts : 2310
Points : 2470
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत

Post n°79

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Sujoy Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:56 pm

medo wrote:BMPT will be far closer to Apache than Tunguska and far more dangerous. It doesn't have radar, but have very high placed EO device for commander.

Actually the Apache's first line of defense against attack is keeping out of range of enemy missiles , anti aircraft artillery. However, an Apache tasked to perform a deep penetration operation is an attractive target for an S-300PMU or S-300V .

To avoid this helos like the Apache follow a nap of the earth flight and terrain masking as this denies line of sight tracking and weapon aiming or guidance.

Radar guided SAMs and Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon will continue to present a serious threat to the Apache AH64 D Longbow.

RTN

RTN: Posts : 742
Points : 719
Join date : 2014-03-24
Location : Fairfield, CT

Post n°80

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

RTN Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:20 pm

Asf wrote:Thank God, Tunguska's missiles have proximity detonators

Proximity detonation will not destroy the AH 64D . The AH 64 D has high ballistic tolerance. The tailshaft is designed to absorb hits and if cut by ﬁre, not to chop the tail off - however ,a direct RPG hit will cause significant damage.

That being said ,existing radar based MAWS technology could be adapted to deal with RPGs as well .

Sujoy wrote:Radar guided SAMs and Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon will continue to present a serious threat to the Apache AH64 D Longbow.

This is not a AH64 D specific problem .

The Mi 28 , Eurocopter Tiger among others also have to face this challenge .

This is why modern day attack helos have a sophisticated Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP) .

The Ah 64D was able to drastically reduce direct missile hits in Af-Pak by combining

(1) the ITT AN/ALQ 211 Suite of RF countermeasures comprising a lamp or laser directed IR jammer,

(2) an ALE-47 dispenser and an AAR-57 passive UV Common

(3) Missile Warning System,

(4) pulse doppler and continuous wave warning receiver ,

(5) a pulse and continuous wave jammer & RF expendable jammers

I am therefore venturing to guess that RPGs will pose a bigger challenge to the Ah 64D than the Verba MANPAD

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°81

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

magnumcromagnon Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:34 pm

RTN wrote:

Asf wrote:Thank God, Tunguska's missiles have proximity detonators

Proximity detonation will not destroy the AH 64D . The AH 64 D has high ballistic tolerance. The tailshaft is designed to absorb hits and if cut by ﬁre, not to chop the tail off - however ,a direct RPG hit will cause significant damage.

High ballistic tolerance? There's been at least one documented case of a 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an AK-47 and penetrating Apache window glass and hitting one of the pilots in the throat which occurred in Iraq:

"...King and Tomblin's Apache was hit by a burst of AK-47 fire which penetrated the cockpit and struck the former in the throat as he was calling out fires..."

http://tinyurl.com/nr592np

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°82

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Werewolf Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:49 pm

RTN wrote:

Proximity detonation will not destroy the AH 64D . The AH 64 D has high ballistic tolerance. The tailshaft is designed to absorb hits and if cut by ﬁre, not to chop the tail off - however ,a direct RPG hit will cause significant damage.

That being said ,existing radar based MAWS technology could be adapted to deal with RPGs as well .

What a nonsense.

Proximity detonation is exactly what the absolute majority of ATAM's,SAMs and MANPADS use and they use proximity fuzes because they use continous rod to penetrate aircrafts, but in comperision with GarryB's example, a usual MANPAD uses 3 times less explosive than 125mm HE-Frag grenade contains.

Also the tail is not designed to absorb anything, they usually have very skinny GFK which can stop 12.7mm at most and are only structural reinforced at the tail (after section).

Direct RPG hit would cause in 90% of the time less damage than a MANPAD or a 125mm HE-frag. RPG's are shaped charges that pierce holes through and as long they do not directly hit with the jetstream fuel tanks, engines, rotors, flightcontrol or pilot it will have much lower result than proximity fuzed weapons.

RTN wrote:This is not a AH64 D specific problem .

The Mi 28 , Eurocopter Tiger among others also have to face this challenge .

This is why modern day attack helos have a sophisticated Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP) .

The Ah 64D was able to drastically reduce direct missile hits in Af-Pak by combining

(1) the ITT AN/ALQ 211 Suite of RF countermeasures comprising a lamp or laser directed IR jammer,

(2) an ALE-47 dispenser and an AAR-57 passive UV Common

(3) Missile Warning System,

(4) pulse doppler and continuous wave warning receiver ,

(5) a pulse and continuous wave jammer & RF expendable jammers

And only Radar Warning Reciever and Laser Warning Reciever are standard sensoric on Apaches, everything else are only 1 of 4 Apaches (D) of RF squadrons which are less than 130 in total, while AH-1Z,Tiger,KA-50/52, Mi-28N and WZ-10 have standardized full spectrum sensoric and only Ka-52 has standardized DIRCM and jamming pods while no other helicopter has such an defensive suite.

RTN wrote:I am therefore venturing to guess that RPGs will pose a bigger challenge to the Ah 64D than the Verba MANPAD

That is the most ridiculous claim you have made.

RPG's are easy to counter, they are selfdetonating at about 1km flight, so fly high enough and it will be physically not even be possible to be hit by a RPG's the other part is only during NoE flights are RPG's even considered as a threat.

It's like saying a sniper rifle is more effective in bird hunt than a shotgun.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°83

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Mindstorm Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:26 pm

RTN wrote:The USSR reacted to the Apache AH 64A by designing the SA 19 Grison

Obviously not, 2К22 was conceived to consistentl destroy NATO lw altitude CAS aircraft , in particular A-10- and to provide highly mobile anti PGM defense to first and second echelon Army divisions.

AH-64A would have had a very very hard time even only against not downgraded 9К33, as proved by the staggering results of Victor Strike 2000 exercise against Polish AD brigade that, with merely few batteries of 9К33 in a density of 1:6 in comparison to what NATO should have confronted against URSS in the....end of '70 years , have literally trashed an entire US Army AH-64 regiment with only two losses.

This is what i wrote on this oftenly mistyfied subject :

Mindstorm wrote:Practically all version of AGM-114 -except the AGM-114L- employ this kind of missile guidance -semi active laser guidance- (immensely more fragile , easy to detect and easy to break in respect to domestic coded beam riding ) and this bulk of Hellfire was ,incidentally , not only by very far the most employed in pasted conflict by US Army ,including anti-armor operations, but also the unique with still orders by part of US Army up to 2014 Wink

Even more also the unique version with limited real "fire and forget" capabilities , the AGM-114-L, would still leave the carrying helicopter equally vulnerable against any relatively well equipped enemy (even only to domestic '80 years !).
The reason is that the unique AGM-114-L's modality of engagement showing a true "fire and forget" capability is the LOBL/LOBL-I (both representing, by a wide edge, the selection most commonly chosen by AH-64D crew in US Army training against relatively strong OPFOR) which can be realized only at very short range against enemy vehicles because the missile's MMW seeker for unavoidable power aperture reason has only very limited discriminating range of acquisition of target in high clutter such as mobile APCs, IFVs and MBTs -within 2,7-3 km -

The long range fire and forget mode - LOAL - (up to 7,5-8 km in good environmental scattering conditions) can be realized only against motionless targets (such as bunkers ,buildings, machine gun nests refueling vehicles etc..) and only after that the AN-APG-78 FCS has transferred to the missile enough data to allow independent acquisition by part of the missile seeker at the intended point and anyhow with markedly reduced Phit even against those motionless targets !

In substance an AH-64D ,even wanting to employ the unique AGM-114's model with some kind of "fire and forget" capabilities ,against an enemy equipped at domestic '80s standard would be very likely destroyed NOT by S-300V, Tunguska-M1, Thor-M1, IGLA etc... but more simply by 30 mm AP auto-cannon, fuse programmed HE-Frag rounds and gun launched missiles (all not matching well with integrity of helicopter's hull, cabin and rotor blades Laughing) by part of the same vehicles it would have intended to attack, all enjoying a substantial range of engagement advantage over AGM-114L's LOBL-I engagement mode.

medo

medo: Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°84

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

medo Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:23 pm

Apache and all other helicopters are meant for CAS in the battlefield. Helicopters will very difficultly come near the front line unnoticed. There are many different radars, SAMs, UAVs, visual observers, recce teams, AWACS behind the line etc. Success of helicopters will depend on tactics as well as on target delivery, that they could engage them from max. distance. MANPADs are AD weapons of infantry and infantry could be in expected as well as in unexpected places, so it is not wise for helicopters to hover too long behind an object. Bigger SAMs are more connected with armored vehicles and tanks.

BMPs usually drive behind tanks and carry infantry and with their firepower they support their own infantry in battlefield. BMPT doesn't have infantry, so they don't need to support them and they drive in the same line as tanks. BMPT use laser guided ATGMs (Ataka) and doesn't have radar. Helicopter could be warmed by LWR and MAWS, that laser guided missile fly against it, but it doesn't have any other counter measure than to fly out of its range. Modern ATGMs like Kornet, Vikhr, Ataka and Krizanthema are wireless and very fast and by speed comparable with some older MANPADs (Strela-2, Blowpipe, RBS-70), what make them very effective against helicopters and UAVs.

RTN

RTN: Posts : 742
Points : 719
Join date : 2014-03-24
Location : Fairfield, CT

Post n°85

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

RTN Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:43 pm

Mindstorm wrote:Obviously not, 2К22 was conceived to consistentl destroy NATO lw altitude CAS aircraft , in particular A-10- and to provide highly mobile anti PGM defense to first and second echelon Army divisions.

Yes and that includes helos as well . What you can suggest is that SA 15 could have also intercepted the AH 64 A .

Mindstorm wrote:Practically all version of AGM-114 -except the AGM-114L- employ this kind of missile guidance -semi active laser guidance- (immensely more fragile , easy to detect and easy to break in respect to domestic coded beam riding ) and this bulk of Hellfire was ,incidentally , not only by very far the most employed in pasted conflict by US Army ,including anti-armor operations, but also the unique with still orders by part of US Army up to 2014

But I never said that the Hellfire was a game changer . That's a different topic & am not digressing from the point .

I was only referring to the fact that the AH 64D Longbow is better protected against MANPADS than it's predecessors . It can do very little if hit by an RPG but then that can be said about all the current attack helos like Mi 28 or Eurocopter Tiger.

medo

medo: Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°86

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

medo Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:55 pm

RTN wrote:I was only referring to the fact that the AH 64D Longbow is better protected against MANPADS than it's predecessors . It can do very little if hit by an RPG but then that can be said about all the current attack helos like Mi 28 or Eurocopter Tiger.

AH-64D protection against MANPADs is nothing more than IR jammer and flares. It have newer and better IR jammer than predecessors, but not something other helicopters doesn't have.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°87

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Werewolf Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:57 am

RTN wrote:
I was only referring to the fact that the AH 64D Longbow is better protected against MANPADS than it's predecessors . It can do very little if hit by an RPG but then that can be said about all the current attack helos like Mi 28 or Eurocopter Tiger.

AH-64D is no different than AH-64A when we let it fly in enemy territory filled with MANPADS. Not a single AH-64 regardless of its model, not even AH-64E, has standardized MAWS (Missile Approach Warning Sensors), only RF squadrons which make 1/4th of the total deployed Apaches for RF squadrons that participated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only current Apache user with standardized MAWS and that only because they have low number of Apaches are Neatherland. Not even the Israeli Apaches are standardized with MAWS sensores and Israel is rather prone to install defensive sensorics and protection to all their vehicles.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°88

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

GarryB Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:05 am

But at the end of the story, helicopters are one of the reason to create BMPT.

Not really... BMPT would not be that effective at more than about 3km range against air targets and its gun mix of AP and HE rounds only means only the HE rounds would be very effective against aerial targets... and the incredibly low rate of fire along with the limited on board supply of 30mm ammo means air defence is a very secondary feature.

AD complexes as Tor, Tunguska, Pantsir, etc, are usually few kilometers behind the tanks, so usually they very difficultly fire on low hovering helicopters, if they don't want to kill their own troop in front of them.

The vast majority of targets will be engaged with missiles and operating a few kms behind the tanks means the 1km dead zone around the air defence vehicles is not so relevant as they will be defending vehicles operating inside their engagement zone.

With modern fire control systems and guided gun launched missiles and excellent long range optics most helos would actually be under serious threat from tanks as well as air defence vehicles.

Connected with IADS and C4I, BMPT could be well aware of AH-64D

All vehicles in the battlespace will have a view of the battlefield and if an AH-64D apache is flying around it just needs to be detected and tracked by one air defence asset and it will appear on all the threat maps so BMPs perhaps with 57mm laser guided shells and all other vehicles will see it.

BMPT will be far closer to Apache than Tunguska and far more dangerous.

Kornets take 3 seconds to cover 1km... even the old model Sa-19s take less that 10 seconds to travel 8km and with a rather better optimised payload.

To avoid this helos like the Apache follow a nap of the earth flight and terrain masking as this denies line of sight tracking and weapon aiming or guidance.

Quite true, though the fact that the US standard short range SAMs are Chapparal and Stinger.... both with less than 6km range, while Soviet/Russian short range SAMs include SA-13, SA-8, Sa-19, SA-22, TOR... of which only SA-13 lacks the range of Hellfire... which is not to say it is vulnerable. Careful positioning of the system so that the likely direction the Apache will come from will mean the SA-13 is completely covered by a building or trees but that when the Apache is exposed to SA-13 fire (and vice versa) the distance is much shorter and gives the SA-13 no disadvantage... it is called an ambush and is much easier with ground forces than with aircraft.

Proximity detonation will not destroy the AH 64D

Small arms fire has proven able to bring down an Apache.. the HE power of the SA-19 is enormous compared with an RPG... it would likely blow off the main rotor blades.

That being said ,existing radar based MAWS technology could be adapted to deal with RPGs as well .

No it couldn't. An RPG moves at about 375m/s... and to track a target as small as an RPG that will be fired from the ground for any useful period of time... say 10 seconds would mean you are emitting a very powerful signal that could be used to track and engage you. A helicopter pilot would need an absolute minimum of 5 seconds warning of an incoming threat and even then he would need precise information on what manouver to perform... warning of an incoming threat is not enough... just a warning might lead to the pilot turning or changing course and actually flying into an RPG that was going to miss anyway.

This is not a AH64 D specific problem .

The Mi 28 , Eurocopter Tiger among others also have to face this challenge .

Staying low and hiding behind cover protect all helos from threats, but the Mi-28N can fire on a Chapparal or a Stinger knowing their 8km range Ataka-M missiles put them outside the effective range of the threat. The AH64D Apache pilot has 8km range Hellfires to use against Tunguska with 10km range missiles, or Pantsir with 12km range missiles, or TOR with 12km range missiles... or new models with 20km range missiles.

Used properly the Apache is a very effective attack helo, but it has not rendered Soviet air defence systems of the 1980s obsolete yet and this MANPAD will be useful against it too.

The Ah 64D was able to drastically reduce direct missile hits in Af-Pak by combining

(1) the ITT AN/ALQ 211 Suite of RF countermeasures comprising a lamp or laser directed IR jammer,

(2) an ALE-47 dispenser and an AAR-57 passive UV Common

(3) Missile Warning System,

(4) pulse doppler and continuous wave warning receiver ,

(5) a pulse and continuous wave jammer & RF expendable jammers

the Apache never faced anything approaching the performance of Tunguska in Iraq or Afghanistan... of the 5 items you listed none of them would stop a SA-19 from 1985 let alone anything newer.

I am therefore venturing to guess that RPGs will pose a bigger challenge to the Ah 64D than the Verba MANPAD

I totally agree... simply because there are so many RPGs out there and the obvious fact that the US wont deploy the Apache anywhere where modern MANPADs might be operating... ie KOSOVO et al. Which is perfectly sensible for them to do BTW.

Direct RPG hit would cause in 90% of the time less damage than a MANPAD or a 125mm HE-frag. RPG's are shaped charges that pierce holes through and as long they do not directly hit with the jetstream fuel tanks, engines, rotors, flightcontrol or pilot it will have much lower result than proximity fuzed weapons.

Very true. RPGs are designed for penetration and the most widely deployed ones are HEAT and are designed to penetrate armour in the forward sector.

Further the tactics used for RPG attack involve positioning lots of RPG launchers approximately 950m from where the aircraft are expected because the chance of a direct hit is incredibly low they rely on an air burst where its self destruct fuse sets off the warhead in the hope that fragments might hit the helo.

Manpads on the other hand are likely to actually make contact with the target while 125mm shells carry rather more HE, and SA-19 has both features.

the other part is only during NoE flights are RPG's even considered as a threat.

For a while RPGs were very effective because the western habit of hovering to launch attacks from helicopters.... hovering behind a tree does not hide you from threats behind you or to one side or the other. Obvious tactics is to look around your main base for potential attack points suitable for helos to hide behind cover and then pop up to launch an attack. Send a few men to hide near these points and give them plenty of rockets... not that hard really.

the Soviet and Russian tactic of diving on the target improves accuracy and reduces vulnerability to small arms fire and RPGs... just keep moving and the chance of getting a hit dramatically reduces.

For the Soviets in Afghanistan the only time their helos were vulnerable to RPGs was landing troops or taking off with troops... the main victim of RPGs in Afghanistan for the Soviets will the Mi-8... but they soon learned tactics to reduce their vulnerability.

RTN

RTN: Posts : 742
Points : 719
Join date : 2014-03-24
Location : Fairfield, CT

Post n°89

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

RTN Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:38 am

GarryB wrote:of the 5 items you listed none of them would stop a SA-19 from 1985 let alone anything newer.

I didn't say they will act as standalone units . I said these 5 units will be used against an in coming missile . Most of the apaches that carried out operation in Af Pak were armed with all these 5 units .

GarryB wrote:the Apache never faced anything approaching the performance of Tunguska in Iraq or Afghanistan

The AH64D encountered Pakistani FK 1000 in the Af Pak region . And as you would recall the FK 1000 is a Chinese copy of the Pantsir S 1 .

GarryB wrote:Staying low and hiding behind cover protect all helos from threats, but the Mi-28N can fire on a Chapparal or a Stinger knowing their 8km range Ataka-M missiles put them outside the effective range of the threat. The AH64D Apache pilot has 8km range Hellfires to use against Tunguska with 10km range missiles, or Pantsir with 12km range missiles, or TOR with 12km range missiles... or new models with 20km range missiles.

GarryB , do not take this for rudeness but just like a number of individuals worldwide your vision has been clouded by the PR machinery of various Defense Vendors . And I ain't saying it's your fault . I too have been affected by this relentless publicity in the past . These Defense OEMs uses popular media to cook up stuff and yet fool impressionable folks that just because they repeat a lie a hundred times, the lie is truth.

The only difference between the AH 64D and the Mi 28 is this . One is American the other is Russian . PERIOD .The rest is basically PR stuff that Boeing , Lockheed sells here in the US and their counterparts do the same in Russia .

Protecting helos ( like Mi 28 or AH 64D) against the shoulder-fired threat is less an exercise in technology than economics: probability and expected-utility. You can't protect every aircraft against every MANPADS (not to mention other threats) in every circumstance. Understanding that specific countermeasures or modes of operation are effective against a finite range of threats, how do you pick the right one for the right platform?

For US aircraft, in most instances, each has a classified System Threat Assessment Report (STAR), listing and prioritizing the most likely threats to be faced. CM techniques are developed and specified based on these threat lists.The seekers of most IR-guided missiles operate in the middle-IR range (3 µ to 6 µ), which is where hot targets emit most of their radiation.

The most concern is with those new or upgraded missiles that have detector response in the mid-wave portion of the IR spectrum and that have been given CCM capability.Mid-wave IR response provides all-aspect capability, because the seeker doesn't have to rely on the hot tail pipe but can see adequate signature from the plume and often from the body. These latter signature sources are more difficult to mask with decoys than were the hot-tailpipe sources that earlier- generation threat missiles exploited.

Warning receivers are definitely the weak link . Because it uses passive IR target acquisition and guidance, a MANPADS missile has left the launch tube before the pilot in the Mi 28 even has a chance to notice that he is under attack. And more often than not, his eyes will be elsewhere when the rocket motor ignites and the SAM begins its assent. Hence the importance of the MAWS in keeping a lookout. Most missile-warning systems use either an IR or an ultraviolet (UV) sensor. UV sensors have limitations with high levels of ozone in the atmosphere, particularly prevalent in urban environments and daylight operations, as ozone levels increase with air pollution and sunlight.

With IR sensors, sensitivity is not a problem. The difficulty is dealing with a large amount of IR data. Strong background emissions have the potential to saturate detector elements and, even under the best of circumstances, will produce a large increase in detector "noise." Plus, too many things look like a missile, particularly in industrial areas. Furthermore, the problem of passively detecting, identifying, and accurately tracking a small IR/UV source against a highly variable background is not a trivial one to solve, for the makers of the Mi 28 either in terms of hardware or software.This raises the false-alarm problem.

The false-alarm problem plays havoc with efforts to make IR countermeasures suites more effective. Pulse-Doppler radar is effective for detecting approaching missiles, although a continuously radiating set becomes a beacon to any radar receiver in range.

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur

Post n°90

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

collegeboy16 Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:28 pm

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:the Apache never faced anything approaching the performance of Tunguska in Iraq or Afghanistan

The AH64D encountered Pakistani FK 1000 in the Af Pak region . And as you would recall the FK 1000 is a Chinese copy of the Pantsir S 1 .

No, its more like a copy of Tunguska.

medo

medo: Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°91

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

medo Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:10 pm

GarryB wrote:Not really... BMPT would not be that effective at more than about 3km range against air targets and its gun mix of AP and HE rounds only means only the HE rounds would be very effective against aerial targets... and the incredibly low rate of fire along with the limited on board supply of 30mm ammo means air defence is a very secondary feature.

BMPT doesn't have only guns, although they are very effective, but also laser guided ATGMs. They will be mostly used against low flying UAVs and helicopters and in self defense against armored vehicles.

RTN wrote:The AH64D encountered Pakistani FK 1000 in the Af Pak region . And as you would recall the FK 1000 is a Chinese copy of the Pantsir S 1 .

FK-1000 is not Pantsir-S1 copy, but complex similar to Pantsir. It have tracking radar from Tor. Pakistan doesn't have any FK-1000.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°92

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

GarryB Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:05 pm

The only difference between the AH 64D and the Mi 28 is this . One is American the other is Russian . PERIOD .The rest is basically PR stuff that Boeing , Lockheed sells here in the US and their counterparts do the same in Russia .

Rubbish.

Mi-28 is based on years of experience in combat. Ah-64 is something else.

I have for years defended the tiny windows on the Mi-28 against US strong members on various forums. Footage of 14.5mm cannons placed 5m from the cockpit and fired directly at the windows show no penetrations.

Claims of a lack of visibility from the small but very well protected canopies can be judged to negate the situational awareness for the pilot and gunner, yet the optical system for the pilot clearly has stereoscopic view ports on the operational models meaning a virtual view of the battlefield from the lower nose of the aircraft should be standard on the operational aircraft eventually.

Equally DIRCMS systems have been seen on Ka-52 and will be fitted to Mi-28 making optically guided anti aircraft missiles ineffective.

The AH64D encountered Pakistani FK 1000 in the Af Pak region . And as you would recall the FK 1000 is a Chinese copy of the Pantsir S 1

Hahahaha... that is very funny... a bit like saying AH-64 is protected from R-77 because Japan has AMRAAM and hasn't shot down any US AH-64s.

Why would Pakistani SAMs be a threat to US aircraft? ironically US drones are a serious threat to Pakistan, but they are operated by the CIA mostly.

Excellent, I hope they integrate them with Barnaul-T complex into IADS.

Verba is new enough to likely be designed to be integrated into IADS like Barnaul-T.

medo

medo: Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°93

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

medo Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:00 pm

GarryB wrote:Verba is new enough to likely be designed to be integrated into IADS like Barnaul-T.

I have no doubts about Verba itself, but I hope, that units, which receive Verba also receive Barnaul-T complex to fully integrate them in IADS. Also other units with Igla-S and Igla should receive Barnauls-T to improve their capabilities. There was not much news about them after the first complexes received in Caucasus.

BlackArrow

BlackArrow: Posts : 155
Points : 133
Join date : 2013-05-17

Post n°94

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

BlackArrow Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:22 am

magnumcromagnon wrote:

High ballistic tolerance? There's been at least one documented case of a 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an AK-47 and penetrating Apache window glass and hitting one of the pilots in the throat which occurred in Iraq:

"...King and Tomblin's Apache was hit by a burst of AK-47 fire which penetrated the cockpit and struck the former in the throat as he was calling out fires..."

http://tinyurl.com/nr592np

The glass window panels of the AH-64 were never designed to withstand 7.62 mm rounds in the first place - the glass is only supposed to have the minimum ballistic protection - and why shouldn't it be enough? How many AH-64s were shot down with small arms fire anyway?

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°95

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Werewolf Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:50 am

BlackArrow wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

High ballistic tolerance? There's been at least one documented case of a 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an AK-47 and penetrating Apache window glass and hitting one of the pilots in the throat which occurred in Iraq:

"...King and Tomblin's Apache was hit by a burst of AK-47 fire which penetrated the cockpit and struck the former in the throat as he was calling out fires..."

http://tinyurl.com/nr592np

The glass window panels of the AH-64 were never designed to withstand 7.62 mm rounds in the first place - the glass is only supposed to have the minimum ballistic protection - and why shouldn't it be enough? How many AH-64s were shot down with small arms fire anyway?

And that is a big flaw for crew protection. Having "some ballistic protection" which can not stop anti aircraft or combat relative calibres such as 7.62mm is a waste of weight. It is like in the case of LCH which has suppossedly some "light transparency armor" of light weight too. Putting some BP glass against pistol calibres on aircraft is just waste of weight and money, no one is going to shot over 1km+ with pistols on aircrafts, if it is not some BP glass that at least can stop 7.62mm it is just dead weight.

There are actually quite a few accidents of Apaches getting knocked out by small arms fire, the reports often just say were "shot down" without specifics but at least 4 Apaches were shot down in OIF with small arms fire.
No recent reports found which specify more on it, most "reports" just say shot down and that is pretty vague.
The point is why not putting at least for frontal windscreen BP glass that can stop 12.7mm or at least 7.62mm, it will surely not downgrade the helicopter.

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°96

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

magnumcromagnon Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:33 pm

BlackArrow wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

High ballistic tolerance? There's been at least one documented case of a 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an AK-47 and penetrating Apache window glass and hitting one of the pilots in the throat which occurred in Iraq:

"...King and Tomblin's Apache was hit by a burst of AK-47 fire which penetrated the cockpit and struck the former in the throat as he was calling out fires..."

http://tinyurl.com/nr592np

The glass window panels of the AH-64 were never designed to withstand 7.62 mm rounds in the first place - the glass is only supposed to have the minimum ballistic protection - and why shouldn't it be enough? How many AH-64s were shot down with small arms fire anyway?

What a ridiculous excuse, the Apache helicopters are CAS aircraft, for them 'not' to have BP glass is like having a tracked MBT that lacks cross-country ability...that's a major contradiction of it's purpose either way you slice it.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°97

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Werewolf Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:56 pm

magnumcromagnon wrote:
What a ridiculous excuse, the Apache helicopters are CAS aircraft, for them 'not' to have BP glass is like having a tracked MBT that lacks cross-country ability...that's a major contradiction of it's purpose either way you slice it.

I aggree that at least the frontal windshield should be BP glass since it ranges in operations like Escort and Close Air Support between 700m and 400m from its target, well within effective weapon range of small arms and at such ranges it is very well visible with naked eye, so the necessity for BP glass is there, it is out of question that that would be appreciated by the pilots.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°98

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

GarryB Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:08 am

The curved canopy of the Hind was not bullet proof but the flat front windshield was able to stop 23mm cannon rounds.

The all round protection on the Mi-28 is a response to fighting in Afghanistan with riflemen firing from the side from mountains with simple rifles, or indeed heavy calibre 12.7mm HMG calibre rifles supplied by the CIA.

Knowing how thin the canopies are on the Apache even an SVD will do.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°99

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Werewolf Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:30 am

Knowing how thin the canopies are on the Apache even an SVD will do.

A screw driver will do for the canopy sides and for the front side you will need more like a pistol maybe a M4.

max steel

max steel: Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole

Post n°100

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

max steel Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:30 pm

can we target Ka-52 and Mi-28 with American stinger manpads ?

Same goes for Apache 64D and Chinooks can they defend themselves against Verba , Igla manpads ?

Russia Defence Forum

Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Re: Attack Helicopters combat survivability

Similar topics

Similar topics