TWA772LR wrote:

johns624 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Their air forces--yes. Their navies--maybe. Their armies--probably not.

Too late to edit, so here it is...
air forces---yes. navies...probably. armies---maybe. The inclusion of Sweden and Finland added a bunch of MBTs, which many EU militaries have let dwindle.

Not to mention the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France. Granted they absolutely are dwarfed by Russias arsenal, but I would suspect a lot of those Russian warheads aren't functional/expired. Non-US NATO could make it to Moscow in a huge concerted effort, but the Pacific is where they have a hard time with Russia. Russia would probably send the Lacific fleet through the Arctic (shortest route) but would be bound by ice breakers.

RJMAZ wrote:

Do you remember the Vietnam war? This helps put things into perspective.

According to the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association, a total of 11,846 helicopters were shot down or crashed during the war....

https://www.vietnamwar50th.com/educatio ... f_june_13/

RJMAZ wrote:

No manpads and not a "near peer" yet 11,846 helicopters shot down..

RJMAZ wrote:

The attack helicopter is fast becoming the most survivable platform on the battlefield which is why the US is investing so much money.

par13del wrote:

Helicopters performed badly or those responsible for planning the missions did not coordinate properly?

par13del wrote:

Helicopters performed badly or those responsible for planning the missions did not coordinate properly? Based on the damage to the helicopters their survivability was pretty good.

rheinwaldner wrote:

In Iraq almost 6 times more rotary wing aircraft were lost than fixed wing aircraft. And they delivered probably magnitude of orders less ordnance.

rheinwaldner wrote:

par13del wrote:

Helicopters performed badly or those responsible for planning the missions did not coordinate properly?

I don't know. Personally I would just not feel comfortable entering areas where people are shooting while being 100% dependent that nothing touches the vulnerable mechanism of my rotorhead...

In Iraq almost 6 times more rotary wing aircraft were lost than fixed wing aircraft. And they delivered probably magnitude of orders less ordnance.

RJMAZ wrote:

What a ridiculous statement.

So can a F-15 land on a roof and drop off 10 soldiers?

rheinwaldner wrote:

Helicopters will always be fragile and have gigantic radar signatures. Therefore your statement, that they are the most surviveable platform on the battlefield imho does not hold water.

rheinwaldner wrote:

[...]
Helicopters will always be fragile and have gigantic radar signatures. Therefore your statement, that they are the most surviveable platform on the battlefield imho does not hold water.

RJMAZ wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

Helicopters will always be fragile and have gigantic radar signatures. Therefore your statement, that they are the most surviveable platform on the battlefield imho does not hold water.

Notice the thread title: "Attack Helicopters"

The Apache is not fragile it could take more bullets than any fixed wing aircraft besides an A-10. So out of the thousands of flying things in the world the Apache is number 2 least fragile. So you calling all helicopters fragile is 100% incorrect.

The Apache is invisible to ground based radar as the radar is line of sight. Someone who watched the latest Maverick movie could tell you that. So saying it has gigantic radar signature is 100% incorrect.

The Apache is the most survivable platform on the battlefield besides the F-35.

RJMAZ wrote:

Eastern Europe makes the attack helicopter planning very easy with the hills and valleys to hide between.

RJMAZ wrote:

The Apache is not fragile it could take more bullets than any fixed wing aircraft besides an A-10.

petertenthije wrote:

Yet Russian helicopters are shot down in droves. I don't think an Apache is more bullet proof then, say, a Mi-24 or Mi-28.

petertenthije wrote:

I am sure the numerous Russian and Ukrainian pilots will be relieved to know that, had they been shot at with a gun instead of a ManPad, they would have been just fine.

RJMAZ wrote:

The Apache is not fragile it could take more bullets than any fixed wing aircraft besides an A-10. So out of the thousands of flying things in the world the Apache is number 2 least fragile. So you calling all helicopters fragile is 100% incorrect.

The Apache is invisible to ground based radar as the radar is line of sight. Someone who watched the latest Maverick movie could tell you that. So saying it has gigantic radar signature is 100% incorrect.

The Apache is the most survivable platform on the battlefield besides the F-35.

RJMAZ wrote:

1) They are flying very high
2) They have no terrain following radar to fly nap of the earth.

rheinwaldner wrote:

[...]
Here helicopters are flying ultra low over a motorway hoping, the clutter from the moving cars would cover the echos from their helicopter.
[...]

par13del wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

You say that the Karbala operation was a single mishap. Can you tell about a single succesful operation of attack helicopters over urban areas? Among the reason why they failed, was "because the fighter bombers had left the area", which means that helicopters on their own are vulnerable.

The number of military vehicles that on their own are NOT vulnerable is probably limited to submarines in my opinion, everything else needs some form of support from situation awareness, distraction to actual cover.

rheinwaldner wrote:

This is 100% just your unproven opinion. You should label it as such.

All helicopters are more or less fragile. The struts and joints in a rotorhead are all single points of failure.

I was an Apache powertrain and rotor mechanic in the Army National Guard. I can tell you that it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, for the following reasons:

The main rotor blades are designed to take 20 mm anti-aircraft rounds, and remain intact.
The main transmission, nose gearboxes, and tail rotor gearbox all have oil wicks, that are designed to keep them running even without any oil for 45 minutes.
The engines are protected by kevlar panels.
The pilot is protected by armor.
Aside from being built like a tank, what do you think the Apache crew would do, if fired upon by small arms? I guarantee that they wouldn't just sit there and take it, they would unleash that monster on the shooters! It would be like having a dragon coming after you.

RJMAZ wrote:

The Apache is not fragile it could take more bullets than any fixed wing aircraft besides an A-10. So out of the thousands of flying things in the world the Apache is number 2 least fragile.

RJMAZ wrote:

3) They have no missile detection systems.
4) They deploy no countermeasures.

RJMAZ wrote:

[...]
https://www.quora.com/Can-small-arms-M1 ... helicopter
[...]

kitplane01 wrote:

I find this very hard to believe.

An F-15E has about 3x as much structure (empty weight). An AC-130 has about 7x as much structure (but it's OK if you didn't consider that oddball aircraft). Even an Mi-24 is a bigger helicopter, with armor.

Can you offer a citation please?

(Yes, I know structural weight is not everything.)

The Apache is heavily armored on all sides. Some areas are also surrounded by Kevlar soft armor for extra protection. The cockpit is protected by layers of reinforced armor and bulletproof glass. According to Boeing, every part of the helicopter can survive 12.7-mm rounds, and vital engine and rotor components can withstand 23-mm fire.

kitplane01 wrote:

Wikipedia says the missile detection systems were installed on Mi-24s during the Afghanistn wars in the 1980s, in reaction to the US supplied Stinger missiles. Both Wikipedia, and airforce-technology.com say it has flares. You can find a picture of the flare dispenser for the Mi-24 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ensers.jpg

Hard to know what was happenning in the video? Bad training or equipment failure or ...

In RJMAZ's opinion wrote:

The main rotor blades are designed to take 20 mm anti-aircraft rounds, and remain intact.
The main transmission, nose gearboxes, and tail rotor gearbox all have oil wicks, that are designed to keep them running even without any oil for 45 minutes.
The engines are protected by kevlar panels.
The pilot is protected by armor.

In William Sayers' opinion wrote:

you can definitely shoot down an Apache with small arms fire. It’s been done on other occasions, as well. It’s not because the Apache isn’t well configured and armored for combat, it’s that it is simply impossible to armor any aircraft sufficiently well to stand up to serious hits by enemy fire. This is the mistake that A-10 fanboys make. They assume that its very skin is armored. Trust me, it’s made of very thin aluminum. Only the vitals can be armored, and often, only from some aspects. Nothing gets covered completely in armor, not even the A-10’s vaunted cockpit “bathtub.” Usually, aircraft armor schemes are about putting a small piece of armor plate in position to intercept bullets/fragments coming from the most likely direction of threat. Bottom-line, bullets, shells, and fragments can often enter the structure from the opposite side of armor plating, and still take out a vital component.

The Apache is doubly cursed in this regard.

First, a helicopter will always require more power per unit of airframe mass, because of its aerodynamics vice those of a conventional airplane (wings are a really awesome cheat). Therefore, what armor it can carry will always be proportionally less that what a similarly -sized airplane could carry. If you look at the cockpit armor scheme in the Apache Technical Manual, you will quickly discover that while the crew has plates in strategic areas, they are by no means sealed in with total coverage. And certainly not for something bigger than 7.62x39mm. As for the canopy, well…fuggeddaboudit.

Second, the Apache goes into combat low and slow. Which means it’s a vastly easier target to hit than a jet moving two or three hundred knots faster and at higher altitude, even while flying at the jet’s idea of low. It’s historically been difficult to hit airplanes moving at speed, that’s why God invented surface-to-air missiles. Helicopters, on the other hand, get hit by RPGs. RPGs, for cryin’ out loud! If you can hit a helicopter with an RPG, you can certainly hit it with small arms and machine gun fire. Put enough bullets into a helicopter, and you’re guaranteed to eventually hit something it can’t fly without.

Some folks have remarked that the Apache’s weapons systems easily out range and are more lethal than infantry weapons. But this assumes that combat always occurs as a linear affair with combat always beginning at extreme range, and with the enemy always identifiable. Nothing could be further from the reality. Particularly when the tree you pick to hide your Apache behind happens to have an armed infantryman hiding under it.

The proof, however, is in the combat record, and the fact is, common infantry weapons have brought down Apaches, and will continue to do so if the helicopters get sloppy in their tactics.
William Sayers
https://www.quora.com/Can-small-arms-M1 ... helicopter

RJMAZ wrote:

So you are saying the A380 is the most heavily armoured aircraft because it has the most structure?

No other western aircraft can survive 12.7mm round all over the aircraft. Google has dozens of hits describing the armour on the Apache.

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding the 20mm protection of the AH-64, I'm pretty sure that this only applies to pure HE(I) rounds. Even small missiles will carry at least 10-50 times as much explosive mass, and most modern anti-aircraft shells include armor-piercing subprojectiles or are (semi-) armor-piercing themselves.

RJMAZ wrote:

So William Sayers confirms everything I said. I never said the Apache is invincible to enemy fire.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I find this very hard to believe.

An F-15E has about 3x as much structure (empty weight). An AC-130 has about 7x as much structure (but it's OK if you didn't consider that oddball aircraft). Even an Mi-24 is a bigger helicopter, with armor.

Can you offer a citation please?

(Yes, I know structural weight is not everything.)

So you are saying the A380 is the most heavily armoured aircraft because it has the most structure?

I find this very hard to believe. A citation won't help if you genuinely believe that.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Wikipedia says the missile detection systems were installed on Mi-24s during the Afghanistn wars in the 1980s, in reaction to the US supplied Stinger missiles. Both Wikipedia, and airforce-technology.com say it has flares. You can find a picture of the flare dispenser for the Mi-24 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ensers.jpg

Hard to know what was happenning in the video? Bad training or equipment failure or ...

There are a dozen Russian helicopter shoot down videos on YouTube. No Maneuvering. No flares deployed. No missile detection system.

Yes it might be bad training or equipment failure. Or maybe I am right.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

johns624 wrote:

The British Empire put its money into the Royal Navy.

True, but even at Trafalger it was at a pretty serious numerical disadvantage.

My argument is the entire “peer” or “non-peer” idea is false because a lot more dictates combat outcomes than counting technology. And all of it is very hard to assess prior to the balloon goes up, which is why the balloon goes up-each side misjudges their opponents

RJMAZ wrote:

Notice the thread title: "Attack Helicopters"

The Apache is not fragile it could take more bullets than any fixed wing aircraft besides an A-10. So out of the thousands of flying things in the world the Apache is number 2 least fragile. So you calling all helicopters fragile is 100% incorrect.

The Apache is invisible to ground based radar as the radar is line of sight. Someone who watched the latest Maverick movie could tell you that. So saying it has gigantic radar signature is 100% incorrect.

The Apache is the most survivable platform on the battlefield besides the F-35.