What’s the point of ordering something for your military if it isn’t for any type of combat. There’s an old saying that “we must always keep the peace by preparing for war”. Whether you’re likely to encounter certain threat types shouldn’t as much of an issue. Of course with MANPAD’s and the like, it’s a safe bet that any type of conflict you get involved in will have some type of threat that your helicopter (or airplane) will be vulnerable to.

I agree, it’s meant to be a combat chopper, not a civilian one, so in these days it should have some kind of protection.

But regarding the Blackhawk, wasn’t its perfomance at high altitude in Afghanistan considered so low that the US forces only (or almost) operate Chinooks ?

And if your going to talk about other helis, then we’d have to throw in the NH-90 :diablo:

The main point of the thread is destroying Armoured Columns via Aerial power. What are you talking about?

Funny, I thought that the title reads “Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors”.

If you keep thinking that CAS is “destroying armoured columns”, than I think there’s no point in this discussion…

Since when can a Zulu Cobra carry 16 ATGMS + few AAMs, AFAIR at most it can carry is up to 8 ATGMs. Tiger and Mangusta are also limited to this

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/bellAH-1Z.cfm
Can’t get more official 😉

A Tiger can’t, actually.

But anyway, it’s kind of a moot point because there won´t be many ocasions when such a load will be appropriate.

You’re specifically talking about the US army which was stupidly made not to operate fixed wing aircraft. I believe it’s different in other places in the World. But in the case of US Army, they have no choice but to stick with Attack Helicopters, no matter how much better A-10s and whatever is than Attack Helicopters at destroying armoured columns.

Please enlighten me on the armies “in other places of the World” that operate fixed wing aircaft. BTW, I think that the US Army operates some SIGINT aircraft ( not sure).

MO I highly doubt any Attack Helicopter out there will be able to actually outmaneuver a MANPAD type weapon.

And you honestly believe that a light helo is so much more nimble that it will be able to outmaneuver it ?

Because they have such heavy armament? I believe survavibility is more important than how large their weapons load is. For a single Apache, I could probably buy like 5 AH-6Js.

You’re contradicting yourself, in case you haven’t noticed. So you want better survavibility, but instead you choose AH-6 over AH-64 ? :rolleyes:
Your argument would only make ( some) sense if the AH-6 was some kind of magical beast capable of outmaneuvering enemy MANPADs…

Especially if you are firing it to look for armour and you are operating with allies that use different vehicles than you do that might be the same as your opponents vehicles. Brimstone can’t tell if that BMP is Iraqi, Egyptian or captured Iraqi. Of course mistakes will always happen anyway.

Exactly my point why I wouldn’t trust much in the Brimstone as a CAS weapon. Sure, it may be excellent for interdiction…

Hawk 200s have radars. Some version of the APG-66 I think, but don’t quote me on that.

oops,my fault, you’re right

The Hawk 200 is equipped with a Northrop Grumman APG-66H multi-mode radar

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/

Anyway, the integration of the AMRAAM made lots of sense on those Harriers since they are those nations only naval aircraft.

BTW, I couldn’t agree with you more on

If Group A would get over the idiotic idea that anything associated with Pakistan has to be inferior, and Group B would get over the idiotic idea that anything associated with India has to be inferior, we’d have a much better forum.

..sigh…

ust look at the scenario. Would you want a single F-16 or a single Apache for armoured tank busting. You can arm an Apache with up to 16 Hellfires, while the F-16C/D may be armed with AshMs, AAMs, all kinds of missiles and bombs, stand off weapons, CBUs(which can do a ****load of damage, weapons like WCMD) and many others.

As always, it depends.

If you have a column of tanks in the enemy rearzone riding down a road to the battlefront, then an F-16 with WCMD or sensor-fused munitions will be the best option.

If those tanks are spread over the battlefront engaging your troops, then an Apache is much better. It is much easier to target and track various individual targets (better be moving!) on the battlefield with a near-the-earth attack chopper than with a fast jet at medium heigths.

Plus, while the f-16 might kill a bunch of tanks somewhat near each other with WCMD or similar, it will not be able to engage 16 seperate targets in a single mission ( and I´m not even talking about detecting them all).

Bulgaria is also interested, having signed recently an agreement with Gripen International:

http://www.gripen.com/5.3a1834ff204702da7fff4612.html

– All those wild claims about the dozens of NATO aircraft shot down over Yuguslavia in 1999.