Question? Anyone having more info on this: US Army choppers beat US Air Force fighters in an exercise?

muck

Mi Field Marshall
MI.Net Member
TheMess.Net
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
3,850
Points
234
Germany
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Anyone's got a more detailed report? I can see how a modern attack helicopter could down a plane; a stinger missile is a stinger missile no matter the launch platform. They might even be able to score cannon hits on a subsonic plane, the heck do I know.

But that weird-ass host suggests US Army helicopters soundly beat like every plane in the Air Force's inventory – including the F-15 – in war games once. So soundly, in fact, that the Air Force didn't even know what'd hit 'em.

Did that happen for real? And if it'd happened, how come we don't all use helicopters in an air defence role?
 
AH64 can carry Sidewinders and Stingers.
The AH-64DJP (the Japanese variant of the AH-64D) can be equipped with Stingers.

In the past two Israeli Ah-64 scored air-to-air kills (against a civilian Cesna 512, and against an Iranian drone).

The MH-60L DAP is a variant of the UH-60 used by the 160th SOAR, it can be equipped with Stingers.

Ah-1J/W/Z can carry Sidewinders.
 
RW regularly practice fighter exfil. Moose hates you may know more, but I'm not sure that teeny weeny airlines did it or if it was just the real helos in the Air Force.
 
AH64 can carry Sidewinders and Stingers.
The AH-64DJP (the Japanese variant of the AH-64D) can be equipped with Stingers.

In the past two Israeli Ah-64 scored air-to-air kills (against a civilian Cesna 512, and against an Iranian drone).

The MH-60L DAP is a variant of the UH-60 used by the 160th SOAR, it can be equipped with Stingers.

Ah-1J/W/Z can carry Sidewinders.

That's all fine and dandy - but there's a vast difference between manoeuvering a chopper behind a Cessna and firing a Sidewinder at it, and shooting down the most advanced air superiority fighter of its time. And not just once, but consistently and in a replicable manner.

Just to make it abundantly clear, all the reports on that exercise in '79 suggest that helicopters are more effective in an air defence role than Patriot, Nike and co.
Heck, if you look at the stats coming out of exercises like 'Red Flag', you might even be led to believe that helicopters do a better job shooting down fighter jets than actual fighter jets.

I just can't get over this!
 
I'm feeling pretty similar over here @muck. You sent me down a bit of a research rabbit hole with this. Looks like the exercise quickly changed the established doctrine to avoid helos at all costs when at low altitudes and close range.
 
I'd suggest that's its the kind of thing you can do ... once. After that then (as DC points out) doctrine evolves and now you take out copters beyond the range of their Stingers/Sidewinders. Speed has certain advantages over the ability to turn on a dime.
 
I'd suggest that's its the kind of thing you can do ... once. After that then (as DC points out) doctrine evolves and now you take out copters beyond the range of their Stingers/Sidewinders. Speed has certain advantages over the ability to turn on a dime.
Stingers/Sidewinders!? Pssssh, hold my beer.


+


Your move jet plane.
 
Mounts: nope. Guidance - inertial then semi active. So you'll need something to set the initial location. Will this be coming from the helicopters own radar system (nope). And I doubt you'll be able to acheive the minimum launch speed either.
 
You're no fun @TheKiwi. I gave you a heavy-lift helo so you can stick whatever radar and required systems for your whirly-bird based jet-killing needs.
 
Much easier just to stick an S-300 or S-400 in a nice cammo'd area and wait for the F-15's to pass overhead.
 
Much easier just to stick an S-300 or S-400 in a nice cammo'd area and wait for the F-15's to pass overhead.
Fine, but I'm going to put my S-300 on an armored train.

Back on topic:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
In the early 1970s, the USAF tested air-launching a Minuteman 1b ICBM from a C-5A Galaxy transport aircraft. On 24 October 1974, the Space and Missile Systems Organization successfully conducted an Air Mobile Feasibility test where a C-5A Galaxy aircraft air-dropped the 86,000-pound missile from 20,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean. The missile fell to 8,000 feet before its rocket engine fired. The 10-second engine burn carried the missile to 20,000 feet again before it dropped into the ocean. The test proved the feasibility of launching an intercontinental ballistic missile from the air. Operational deployment was discarded due to engineering and security difficulties, though the capability was used as a negotiating point in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.

It can be done @TheKiwi Just some minor tweaks and bottomless government dollars needed.

 
Well I wouldn't go so far as to say this is a viable general tactic. But most AHs are equipped with stinger like weapons such as the Apache and Tiger. The AH has the advantage of being slow and low and modern types have efficient sensors mounted enabling them to hide in ground clutter and using the terrain to mask its signatures. A difficult target for high speed jet fighters. I would use slower ground attack fighters to deal with them. Anyway, constantly curving around in the effective range of light ad weapons with your 100 mill. AD fighter is not encouraged I might believe. Also today's look down shoot down capabilities might be far better than back then.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
6
Views
3K
battleshipbob
B
Back
Top