Best Helicopters

Moloch

I disagree...

MI-24 were shot down in droves during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. It can withstand small arms fire and 20mm hits but extremely vulnerable to heat seekers. So vulnerable that the Soviets MI-24 was used a missile lure to shield transport aircraft.

It also lacks a decent AtA capability. The Iraqis lost several to Cobra J's and SeaCobras in their war with Iran.

Mi-24 are reliable but they are vulnerable. Excluding US choppers I like the Italian Mongoose or the SA Rooivalk.

For Utility choppers...UH-1 Iraqouis

I`ve heard the MI-24 called a "flying tank" many times. In 1988 I was involved in the recovery of one in Africa. The only damage to it was one hit to an engine from small arms fire. The pilot was able to land it though. I was surprised that this is all it took to bring it down.
 
It may not have been maintained all that well either. That could have something to do with it as well, along as when it was hit it could have experienced other mechanical problems, then again it may be what you said, a miracle shot.
 
Uhmm, is there any sources backing the claimed importance of the larger heatsignature? And it effect on the overall performance?

Pretty much any shoulderfired SAM today have got head on lock capabilities and very delicate heatseekers.
I doubt a few degrees in heatsignature will make that much of a difference.
I submit that any Helo would get slaughtered in a SAM dense inviroment.

As for the Mi-24,s getting shot down in droves.. Anyone remembers the Apache ambush in Iraq?
They were getting shot up like nobudys buisnes during a nightinfiltration raid to AKAN and HMG fire.
You can hit anything with one round and take it down.
What matters is where that round hits.

Blackhawks can be downed with a touch of an unexploded RPG and so on and forth.

IMO, the MI-24 has done very good service when used as it was supposed to.
The ability to ferry in troops and then turn into a gunship to provide support is a rather important feature in my book.
As we all know, the first ten minutes after incursion into an LZ are the most critical time around.
Having heavy weapons support then and there are invaluable.

//KJ.
 
Uhmm, is there any sources backing the claimed importance of the larger heatsignature? And it effect on the overall performance?

Pretty much any shoulderfired SAM today have got head on lock capabilities and very delicate heatseekers.
I doubt a few degrees in heatsignature will make that much of a difference.
I submit that any Helo would get slaughtered in a SAM dense inviroment.

As for the Mi-24,s getting shot down in droves.. Anyone remembers the Apache ambush in Iraq?
They were getting shot up like nobudys buisnes during a nightinfiltration raid to AKAN and HMG fire.
You can hit anything with one round and take it down.
What matters is where that round hits.

Blackhawks can be downed with a touch of an unexploded RPG and so on and forth.

IMO, the MI-24 has done very good service when used as it was supposed to.
The ability to ferry in troops and then turn into a gunship to provide support is a rather important feature in my book.
As we all know, the first ten minutes after incursion into an LZ are the most critical time around.
Having heavy weapons support then and there are invaluable.

//KJ.

About the "Heat signature" issue, I never made a claim that the signature effected its performance, only that it made it more susceptible to heat-seekers. The war in Afghanistan showed how dangerous MANPADS could be to helicopters. Although there were manpads earlier than the FIM-92, (like the SA-7 and Rockeye) they were crude compared to the Stinger. The MI-8 and MI-24 had the misfortune of being the prime target of the worlds first truly effective shoulder fired SAM and since the MI-24 were unprepared to deal with the threat they suffered heavy losses as a result. The MI-24 wasn't a bad design, it would have been a fantastic tool in Vietnam or Korea. But by its true trial by fire (Afghanistan) it was outdated.

The AH-64 was designed 8 years after the MI-24 specifically with MANPADS in mind (lessons learned from Vietnam). This is reflected in the design, AH-64 carried flares dispensers, integrated thermal suppressors and as I mentioned pointed the engine exhausts upwards. Later variants of the MI-24 added these systems, though heat seekers still remained a problem.

I grant you that any system can be vulnerable to anything given the circumstances, but I think that the fact that the MI-24 is currently being replaced with MI-28 and KA-50s while the AH-64 is still in front-line service speaks as to which chopper design had the greater life longevity.

You make a point about the ability to both carry troops and support them, but I believe the Russians consider the concept idea of a hybrid transport-gunship to be a failure. They have abandoned the idea, as their latest gunships like the Havoc, Hokum, and Black Shark have all been purpose built gunships, as well as their newer dedicated transport helicopters.
 
Last edited:
About the "Heat signature" issue, I never made a claim that the signature effected its performance, only that it made it more susceptible to heat-seekers. The war in Afghanistan showed how dangerous MANPADS could be to helicopters. Although there were manpads earlier than the FIM-92, (like the SA-7 and Rockeye) they were crude compared to the Stinger. The MI-8 and MI-24 had the misfortune of being the prime target of the worlds first truly effective shoulder fired SAM and since the MI-24 were unprepared to deal with the threat they suffered heavy losses as a result. The MI-24 wasn't a bad design, it would have been a fantastic tool in Vietnam or Korea. But by its true trial by fire (Afghanistan) it was outdated.

The AH-64 was designed 8 years after the MI-24 specifically with MANPADS in mind (lessons learned from Vietnam). This is reflected in the design, AH-64 carried flares dispensers, integrated thermal suppressors and as I mentioned pointed the engine exhausts upwards. Later variants of the MI-24 added these systems, though heat seekers still remained a problem.

I grant you that any system can be vulnerable to anything given the circumstances, but I think that the fact that the MI-24 is currently being replaced with MI-28 and KA-50s while the AH-64 is still in front-line service speaks as to which chopper design had the greater life longevity.

You make a point about the ability to both carry troops and support them, but I believe the Russians consider the concept idea of a hybrid transport-gunship to be a failure. They have abandoned the idea, as their latest gunships like the Havoc, Hokum, and Black Shark have all been purpose built gunships, as well as their newer dedicated transport helicopters.

Not that strange that MI-24 early models weren´t prepared to meet Stingers.
Nothing during that timeframe were.
The aircraft is older than the Apache but are just now being phased out.
Apache would have been if the Comanche had worked out and not turned rediculously expensive.

You adapt your new aircraft to be able to defeat the enemy,s known and guesstimated capabilities during it´s servicelife.
When MI-24 were on the drawingboard the Stinger wasn´t.
(First one fired in anger scoring a hit were in The Falklands by the twentytwo boys).

The Apache might be almost bulletproof, but when subjected to an oldschool ambush in the air over Iraq the thing proved that HMG and AKAN fire are dangerous enough for Helos even today (as were also proved in Sammyland by the Hawks).
Thus I do NOT agree with your assesment that you can draw the conclusion wich is the better aircraft from that the Apache are still on the frontlines.
It should be for another 8 years to compare to the Hind.

Point taken that the Russians felt the combined transport/gunship concept where faulty, but I think the concept is faulty with Russian doctrine and tactics.
The Russian tends to see combat as a numbers game at a higher grade then western forces.
Thus they might have deemed the ferrying capabilities of the Hind unsatisfactory.
Western SF teams does not have that problem on patrol level.
(Where the heavyweapons capability would count the most after incursions).


In conclusion.
Nothing strange about you changing out your airfleet after a period of years, everyone does that.
IMHO the Russians got it right when it comes to Helos, the problem were more doctrine and TTP,s.

//KJ.
 
Rah-66 Comanche is almost certainly the most advanced helicopter on the battlefield today, although it is obviously terrible at carrying troops (simply because its an attack helicopter) and it doesn't have as much payload as an AH-64 apache, but this is because that the main objective of this aircraft is one thing: Stealth! It has features such as fold in wheels and fold in weapon docks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing/Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche

us-RAH66-Comanche-25.jpg
 
It's not on the battlefield today, and most likely never will be, the U.S. Army has pretty much paused the whole program and opted for just upgrading existing Apaches. The RAH 66 will most likely never serve in combat, let alone serve at all.
 
its so strange...but i just have to speak my peace about helicopters, the technological advances to protect them from antipated battlefield weapons...and what can actually take one down.

No matter how good the technology developed to actually offset the technological advantage of a defense... when all else fails sometimes the old ways work best of all.

For an example: during the Viet Nam war, when the US forces were being placed in an air mobile war footing, it was strange how the vietanese forces always looked for a simple and pragmatic way of dealing with the situation.

During one patrol sweep, a US military force actually found a giant cross bow, with steel rebar rods to be used as bolts, posistioned near what appeared to be a current helicopter air path commonly used by US forces. It wasnt that the device was ever noted to be sucessful in actually downing a helicopter: what was more notable that the Viet nam forces had reconised that it might be a sure way of nailing a helicopter was a bolt through the blades of the current design of the helicopter. Folks, you even bend the blades on a two rotor helicopter...and it sets up a vibration and possible catostrophic failure of the system that if nothing else required a team of mechanics to sweat and curse the repair and testing of the repair that would remove a helicopter from service.

technology my hot buttered tail bone. there aint no such thing as an ignorant enemy, only ignorant dreamers. or somthing to that effect.

bring on the hot flame blasts ...:shock:
 
Honestly I don't think you could have said it better, looking at the nature of a helicopter's work, they are hanging thumping targets anywhere they go, you can invest in protecting them to a degree, but in this prime example of firepower racing against protection, firepower has the advantage.
 
Yesterday i've watched Rambo III and finaly figured it out...

films-12.jpg

Spoiler: French-made SA 330 Puma as Mi-24.
 
I think helicopters are pretty useless in today's battlefields as they are easily vulnerable and slow. Yet when it comes to heavy missiles, repeated gunfire and loud military sounds, the helicopters are the best. It's just that they seem so much vulnerable
 
Well the concept of vertical envelopment is still very useful at moving troops rapidly to one position from another, anything from ship to shore operations, to rapid insertion, or moving fighting forces to and adversaries rear.
 
That's why I hate Hollywood, good job yes, but sometimes movies are just a Little to hard to do well, specially when you need advance military technology, now where can you just borrow that on a whim?

If you are going to do it, then go do it right.
 
Back
Top