Is a dedicated helicopter-destroyer a feasible idea?

adeptitus said:

The best anti-helicopter weapon is your air force fixed wing aircraft, flying at up to Mach 2 with BVR missiles. A fighter jet will out-fly and out-shoot attack helocopters by a wide margain.

Attack helicopters are more useful in hitting enemy armor and other ground-targets. The short-range AAM's they carry are just for last-ditch self defense. Against an enemy fighter jet with long-range missiles, you're better off taking evasive action.

Click to expand...

Supersonic fighters are effective against helicopters, but they are expensive, and few of them.
You can use against helicopters and ground attack aircraft are cheaper. Stormtroopers are military burden is not conceding on weight fighters, and even surpassing them. For attack helicopters, high speed is not needed, the speed and maneuverability of the jet in any case higher than that of the helicopter. Range aircraft missiles in any case exceed the helicopter. This allows the storming as effectively destroy the helicopter without incurring the risk of being shot down.
Fighters are best suited for combat aircraft break defense is particularly important sites, that's their main purpose.
Against helicopters, so it is possible to use light aircraft. They are very cheap, but can carry quite a serious weapon, helicopter missiles air to air - Stinger, Strela, Igla, and the like, heavy machine guns. Unguided missiles, which can also be effective at close range.
The speed of light aircraft are comparable to helicopters - 200, 300, kilometers per hour. But they are much cheaper than helicopters. The helicopter is 25, 30, of millions of dollars, and a light aircraft with 10, 30, of thousands of dollars, as a good bike, or the average car. A thousand times cheaper than a helicopter.
Light aircraft can not carry armor, and weapons against vulnerable helicopters. But they can maneuver better than helicopters leaving from the rockets and shells at a great distance. And their low cost allows you to sacrifice them without regret. One set of missiles for light aircraft is comparable in price to himself. Therefore, attacking helicopters, light aircraft pilots can produce rockets and jump from the aircraft earlier than the helicopter rocket will reach them. Light aircraft also have an advantage against the helicopter with heat-seeking missiles, they are agile and their engines emit little heat.
The cheapness of light aircraft allows them in large quantities, if aircraft will be ten times more than the helicopters, the helicopters will not stand a chance. And the cost of aircraft is much lower. This is quite an effective weapon of the ratio cost - effectiveness, despite the foreign frivolity.
Light aircraft can also support ground forces with air and take part in the storming of the enemy's ground forces, playing the role of a kind - "the Air Corps." Attack of the large number of light aircraft makes impotent any anti-aircraft defenses. Flying up like a flock of mosquitoes, they can destroy anti-aircraft guns and cause serious damage to enemy troops, the loss of a few dozen cars in the massive raid does not play a great value. If a light aircraft will attack with helicopters, they will divert a major fire of the enemy and fight with antiaircraft guns, thereby increasing the survivability of expensive helicopters.
The advantages of light aircraft can carry more, and what they can produce in large quantities in Automotive Technology-based, common in China. The ability to quickly replenish lost in the technique of one of the decisive factors in the long war. A war with China, Blitz Krieg is unlikely to even such a strong country like the U.S..
Since helicopters can combat drones. They are more expensive than light aircraft and have less lifting capacity. But the drones are considered one of the most promising weapons.
Against groups of helicopters can use managed fragmentation bombs, dropped from bombers, from a great height. Such weapons were in service with the Soviet Union, against the likely long-range bombers attack Nato. Guided bombs cheaper rockets, and, unlike missiles they are low altitude flying target does not affect their accuracy.

Sorry to inform you Culibin777 but in real life training out in the desert north of Yuma Arizona, actual fighter aircraft engage actual Marine Corps helos in dissimilar air combat maneuvers, and an awful lot of fighter pilots have their ego's deflated by the rotorheads. It has nothing to do with fighters being saved for high value targets and all the other stuff you mention, and everything to do with the inability of fighters to slow down enough to engage a helo at the altitudes helos like to fly at.
Likewise, a modern look down shoot down pulse doppler radar will not acquire a low slow flying helicopter. Insufficient doppler return. Sure, you conceivably could set the sensitivity of the fighter's radar low enough to acquire a low slow flying helo, but then you start to pick up faster moving ground vehicles. This is real life. Nothing with stiff wings (except maybe a Pilatus Porter) can turn inside a well flown helicopter, they cannot get as slow, and as soon as the suck and blow jet over shoots the helo and goes high in a yo-yo to take another look, the helo has executed a smart turn and is beating feet the opposite direction , or has found a clearing and landed (a valid tactic). Don't naturally assume the jet jock has the advantage in this engagement. Certainly the helo won't threaten the fighter, but the helo stands a better chance of getting away than the jet does of shooting the helo down. Do you think we never train this way?

Ambivalent said:

Sorry to inform you Culibin777 but in real life training out in the desert north of Yuma Arizona, actual fighter aircraft engage actual Marine Corps helos in dissimilar air combat maneuvers, and an awful lot of fighter pilots have their ego's deflated by the rotorheads. It has nothing to do with fighters being saved for high value targets and all the other stuff you mention, and everything to do with the inability of fighters to slow down enough to engage a helo at the altitudes helos like to fly at.
Likewise, a modern look down shoot down pulse doppler radar will not acquire a low slow flying helicopter. Insufficient doppler return. Sure, you conceivably could set the sensitivity of the fighter's radar low enough to acquire a low slow flying helo, but then you start to pick up faster moving ground vehicles. This is real life. Nothing with stiff wings (except maybe a Pilatus Porter) can turn inside a well flown helicopter, they cannot get as slow, and as soon as the suck and blow jet over shoots the helo and goes high in a yo-yo to take another look, the helo has executed a smart turn and is beating feet the opposite direction , or has found a clearing and landed (a valid tactic). Don't naturally assume the jet jock has the advantage in this engagement. Certainly the helo won't threaten the fighter, but the helo stands a better chance of getting away than the jet does of shooting the helo down. Do you think we never train this way?

Click to expand...

Fighters shot down helicopters, missiles with radar guidance systems, designed to combat aircraft. At low altitude radar missiles make strong glitches. This is one of the problems of struggle against the fighter helicopters.
But as I wrote earlier fighters expensive cars, and the army are not many, and in the case of large-scale war fighters will be busy fighting with the aircraft, destroying radar and ships.
Since helicopters can fight a more cheap and common assault aircraft. And attack aircraft missiles have optical guidance systems, missile attack aircraft designed primarily for combat ground targets, but they can shoot down, and helicopters.
For remote-controlled missile assault aircraft low altitude is not an obstacle. Rockets controlled by operators in the cabin can not take away from the goal interference.
Assault aircraft can destroy the group of helicopters, but the army of NATO ground attack is not enough. NATO holds the doctrine of local wars, so thaw preference for a more versatile helicopters, though they are more expensive, and the fire power they have less. The only NATO attack "A - 10" Thunderbolt ", the NATO armies is uncommon, so there is no data on the battle ground attack against the helicopter.
Army of China, as well as the Soviet Union designed to krupnomastabnuyu war, China is not involved in the control of a large number of banana republics around the world such as NATO. But adheres to the doctrine of defense against NATO.
In the war against NATO is more advantageous for China to oppose NATO helicopters, assault planes, than the fighters, who are already enough helicopters work.
Do stormtroopers have no problem with the fight against low-flying targets.
Bombardment Groups helicopters from a great height, controlled fragmentation or cluster bombs as well has no problems associated with radar guidance. Guided bombs are induced distance, the visual image of the bomber, they generally do not care how high the goal. Bombs falling from the stratosphere develop supersonic speed in the fall, and they are quite fast and maneuverable, so slow down flying targets such as bombers or helicopters.

Another possible method of dealing with the helicopters when they flies to the ground band of troops for the attack, it is aerial reconnaissance and specifying targets for anti-aircraft missiles from small helicopters patrolling the air space above an accumulation of forces.
This allows us to notice the approach of helicopters during reaching is the goal, and deprives them of the surprise factor. Allows you to destroy the helicopter behind the natural barriers.
Helicopters for targeting anti-aircraft fire control of the land is cheaper than an air shock group designed to combat helicopters, and they can accompany the group of armies on the march and to patrol the airspace.
Targeting helicopter can fly at some distance from anti-aircraft guns, which makes it immune to return fire attack helicopters.
Russian helicopter K - 50, Black Shark, is the fire control system, which allows track targets under attack from other carriers.
Such a system allows you to control anti-aircraft fire combines helicopter spotters and anti-aircraft guns in single attack complexes.
This principle of fire control can be used as well, and to attack ground targets located beyond the natural barriers.

You know, on the NATO side at least, A-10s are with basicly every CSAR package. Not only to hold off any ground forces that approach a downed pilot for example, but also to fight off hostile helicopters that might try to thwart the rescue attempt. Precisely for an A-10s ability to fly rather slow.
Fast jets indeed do have cerain difficulties against helos. But then again, the combo in such a package is at least enough to hold off a hostile helo from the site of the rescue for the time required.

Scratch said:

You know, on the NATO side at least, A-10s are with basicly every CSAR package. Not only to hold off any ground forces that approach a downed pilot for example, but also to fight off hostile helicopters that might try to thwart the rescue attempt. Precisely for an A-10s ability to fly rather slow.
Fast jets indeed do have cerain difficulties against helos. But then again, the combo in such a package is at least enough to hold off a hostile helo from the site of the rescue for the time required.

Click to expand...

An A-10 or Su-25 is a much bigger problem for a helicopter than an SU-30. Even an old OV-10 Bronco or the modern Tucano would be more of a problem for the helo than a supersonic fighter.
Still, a helo operating in difilade, navigating slowly behind trees and terrain, will be difficult for an airplane to find and engage. It isn't visible unless you are directly over it (or you're on the ground and see it), and it will not be picked up by a pulse doppler radar. In NATO, our Army helo battalions have SOP's not to fly above 50 ft agl.

@_@ I thought I read the same post 3 times in this thread today.

How about Light Attacker aircraft like the armed version of Yak-130/131? It has a lower stall speed than the A-10 (165 km/h vs. 220 km/h), 30mm cannon, radar and missiles:


But the idea of having a wing of light attack aircraft for anti-helicopter missions would seem silly, the small aircraft would be easy prey for bigger fighters.

A well equiped Yak-130 would be another option for that task, besides a Warthog or Frogfoot. I guess a really good tool to help find these choppers would be an IRST, modern sensors are pretty good at locating even small temp differences. Of course a helo can still hide. But then again the question is what the tactical aim is. If my task is to protect a CSAR pickup site, or friendly ground formations, I just more or less have to watch that position, and an intruder will become fairly visible. If I'm trying to hunt down a specific helo in transit that's carrying a VIP, finding that helo in the open and on the move is a lot more difficult.
I also believe having a dedicated SQ or wing of light fighters with the primary job of fighting helos is a bad idea. However, dedicated, rather slow ground attackers for CAS and similar stuff have their use. And these planes can then also take the role of helo hunters. Of course these are easier targets for hostile fighters. But that's why one will have his own fighter sweep / fighter cover in such a package, to hold of opposing planes and establish at least local air superiority.

adeptitus said:

@_@ I thought I read the same post 3 times in this thread today.

How about Light Attacker aircraft like the armed version of Yak-130/131? It has a lower stall speed than the A-10 (165 km/h vs. 220 km/h), 30mm cannon, radar and missiles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But the idea of having a wing of light attack aircraft for anti-helicopter missions would seem silly, the small aircraft would be easy prey for bigger fighters.

Click to expand...

Educational and training aircraft converted into light attack aircraft, or light ground attack aircraft modifications, almost as effective to attack the helicopters. They have less armor than the heavy ground attack, but the armament and maneuverability, they are not inferior to severe storming. The attack on the helicopters, armor does not matter much, armed with powerful cannons and helicopters, missiles, on which aircraft armor protects little. Stormtrooper armor was designed for protection against small arms and light field anti-aircraft guns, which fire during an attack by attack aircraft from different directions, and from them difficult to dodge.
The attack on the helicopter pilot saw his opponent, and may shy away from return fire. To attack helicopters maneuverability is more useful than heavy armor. However, light attack aircraft and less severe in case of war, you can use educational training aircraft.

Aircraft small aircraft with piston engines are vulnerable against the attack helicopters, but they win on the value ratio - efficiency.

Culibin777 said:

Educational and training aircraft converted into light attack aircraft, or light ground attack aircraft modifications, almost as effective to attack the helicopters. They have less armor than the heavy ground attack, but the armament and maneuverability, they are not inferior to severe storming. The attack on the helicopters, armor does not matter much, armed with powerful cannons and helicopters, missiles, on which aircraft armor protects little. Stormtrooper armor was designed for protection against small arms and light field anti-aircraft guns, which fire during an attack by attack aircraft from different directions, and from them difficult to dodge.
The attack on the helicopter pilot saw his opponent, and may shy away from return fire. To attack helicopters maneuverability is more useful than heavy armor. However, light attack aircraft and less severe in case of war, you can use educational training aircraft.

Aircraft small aircraft with piston engines are vulnerable against the attack helicopters, but they win on the value ratio - efficiency.

Click to expand...

Ever hear of something called the Piper Enforcer?

Against helicopters, fast movers have very small attack window to make an effective attack run, though would usually be enough to scare off the formation, force them to abort the mission.
Just like forcing bombers to eject their bombs before they reach their targets, it's not always about taking physical kills, make them fail to perform their missions already so.
in the last 20 years USAF have been more than once want to ditch the A-10 but in the end keeping it, because A-10 is fast enough to get to the scene, yet slow enough to effectively engage ground and low-flying targets.
And if you want to engage transport helicopters, UAVs with laser beam-riding Hellfire can do as well, "paint" them when at hover, perfect ambush...of course for the foreseeable future only US can do such thing, China's aviation companies showcased something like that in Zhuhai this month, but UAV still new to PLA overall, adopt UAV as attack platform takes time.