Helicopter Survivability

One of the evils Marxist’ weltanschauung inflicted upon the world during the Cold War was giving medival bushwarriors the means to inflict damage on (Western) high-tech troops. That was different before WW2, when up-to-date weapons were not given to knuckledraggers. Anyway, fast forward to the topic.

Of course some talented folks managed to down helicopters before, employing machine guns, RPGs, even land mines. Back in Vietnam more than 40% of deployed U.S. helicopters were lost.

But with MANPADS proliferation the helicopter mission itself seems to be in danger. In a “real” war losses might be justifiable by mission goals. In prolonged colonial wars attrition becomes an issue. At some point the financial (and personnel) losses simply are not worth it. In Iraq the U.S. losses are nowhere near that point, but it’s annoying and with the heavy reliance of Western infantry on short-range air transport (= helicopters) and tactical support by helicopters the situation in a “real” war could become difficult fast.
I guess the next stage in the guerilla anti-helicopter warfare is the autonomous MANPADS launcher. 360° IIR-seeker on a rooftop with a WLAN link (or whatever) to a few camouflaged vertical launcher tubes. That littered across an urban area. Makes no-fly zone.

Q what to do?
# Adapt tactics? To a certain degree yes. Like never fly alone. If available use escorts. Don’t hover. Fly faster and higher (doesn’t help when need to go into a LZ). Fly at night if possible (doesn’t really help, enemy can get IR or NV equipment). Or adapt infantry tactics to make them less depending on air support.

# Technical countermeasures? Equip all helicopters with complete ECM suits, even including anti-missile lasers (not the destructive kind, just to blind the seeker). Becomes expensive very fast. Since a certain volume is needed, that pretty much rules out the use of small helicopters. Helps only till somebody comes up with a new weapon.

# What about constructive changes? Cold War machines like the AH-64 and AH-1 are mostly built with AAA in mind, not missiles. To “swallow” MANPADS hits more airframe volume used for a two-shell concept could be a way.

# Or what about autogyro configurations? Return of the Sikorsky DARPA/USN X-wing rigid rotor concepts. If you can’t really hover anyway cause you’re too vulnerable against MANPADS, then why not go for an autogyro instead? And be really fast and fly high.

One thing is sure. Nobody can go into a bushwar with a 100 mio USD machine like the V-22, or a 40 mio USD machine like the Longbow. Loosing even just one of those per month (and that is nothing) in a multi-year colonial campaign akin to the Mesopotamian war is unacceptable.

Thoughts?