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…

CAS is also commonly used term to describe destroying tanks/armoured columns and whatever.

The Title says Attack Helicopters vs Low Level CAS Aircraft(another word Low Level Interdictors) vs Medium/High Altitude Interdictors. Aircraft like the Su-39 and A-10 fall under the Low Level CAS Aircraft, while everything else I’ve been talking about falls under Medium/High Level Interdictors.

SEAD work with an AJT? I don’t know of any that are good SEAD platforms….

At least the Apache and Cobra can carry the AGM-122 for smaller SEAD targets. Of course the primary mission when you’re supporting ground forces isn’t taking out targets that don’t even shoot at your boys on the ground. That’s why you have aircraft like Tornado ECR and EA-6B Prowler.

Rather limited SEAD, but I am sure they could be armed with some ARMs and other goodies to be able to do this. You’re right, it will obviously never be good as a Tornado ECR or anything like that, but it will do a decent job!

You do realize that 50-km is only about 30 miles or so. Not very far even for an attack helicopter. Even when at cruising speed it won’t take long to get there. A jet won’t be able to get there much faster than that I assure you.

An Apache fully loaded can cruise, at what max speed of what 250km/h? A fully loaded aircraft like the F-16C/D with 2 CBUs, 20 SDBs and 2 AIM-9X will be going 900km/h and it can hit supersonic if it wants to(will be hard)

You also do realize that armies can be escorted by mobile AAA guns and missile systems that can engage aircraft at medium altitude right? Just because the vast majority of air defenses that are mobile are smaller, shorter-ranged systems doesn’t mean that they don’t have stuff that can hit you at higher altitudes. And as we’ve discussed before, altitude isn’t always an advantage. In fact, as we’ve pointed out for certain missions its a disadvantage.

How many armies actually have modern medium-high altitude SAMs protecting their ARMOURED columns? (AAA is low level). Pantsir S1 at most can get up to 10kms of altitude, which imo is the best SAM to protect armoured columns in the World.

So what’s your point? UAV’s can operate alongside helos just as they can aircraft. They certainly can’t replace either an attack aircraft or a helo at this point in time so I’m totally missing the point of that statement.

Yes, but the point is that they can support medium/high altitude assets thereby really nulling a Helicopter’s advantage to find targets much better. It probably still can if it’s MUCH closer but that would make it vulnerable to low level trashfire if it got too close.

I was referring to the Apache’s less than stellar maintenance/serviceability record. I know for one that the Cobra in particular is much more well behaved in that department, and I can assume the Havoc isn’t too bad either if all of the hoopla I’ve heard about it around here before is true.

I highly doubt Mi-28N is any easier to maintain than an Apache, it’s a beast. The Cobra is probably, but not by a big degree. Does Cobra have any radar or any sort like the Arbalet/Longbow.

Again, you’re missing my point. Generally speaking the mission of an attack helicopter is to operate in support of ground forces. I’m not saying that to use them you have to have ground forces, but to simply send out attack helos on interdiction missions would seem rather redundant when you have fast-movers that can do that. That being said, you can’t always support a ground forces as effectively with a fast-mover as you can with a helo. I don’t think you seem to grasp what we are saying here. In short, you seem to think that jets can do the same job as an attack helicopter and much more effectively, and while there are missions they do better than helos, the reverse is always true. There are simply missions where you cannot replace the attack helicopter. It is essential. And putting in lightly armed AH-6’s as an alternative is simply not going to fly. And in case you haven’t noticed no army I’ve yet seen is content on this little “well it’s cheaper so it must be better” argument you seem to love. You can’t put an AH-6 in the mission of an AH-64. It simply cannot get the job done. It’s more vulnerable, less well armed, and certainly no faster. Agility as you pointed out only goes some way in the case of helicopters.

The fast movers can do all the jobs of Attack Helicopters except escorting transports, but the Attack Helicopters cannot do all the other things. My point regarding smaller and lighter Attack Helicopters, is NOT that they are better than bigger ones in any way, but that they are suitable enough for the job of protecting and escorting transports. When you face bunch of small fire when you are escorting transports, ATGMs might not be needed, and a smaller Ah-6J with a rocket and machine gun pod will probably do fine. And for the same cost of an Attack Helicopter, many more could be bought. I don’t think theres a need though, but it will do the job.

It’s ideal for lower intensity operations as such with special forces perhaps, but not for protecting armored units and large numbers of troops.

Protecting armoured units and troops from enemy armoured columns? my fast movers will do this job. The Little Bird’s job is simply to escort the Attack Helicopters.

Remember Somalia, it was the Little Birds escorting UH-60s onto ****load of Small Arms fire. There were no need for bigger Attack Helicopters there. If the problems of tanks existed, a few F-16s could be called in to do the job much easier, instead of calling in slower and less capable Apaches.

And as you even admitted the AH-6 type aircraft can’t deal with large armored targets, so you want your fixed-wing boys to do it. Well, why not skip that step and have a Vikhr-equipped Havoc or Hellfire toting Cobra do the same job?

Because imo the other option is much cheaper.

Look at this scenario.
Would your military have(you also have 5 Uh-60s to escort)
(lets say each F-16C/D, Apache costs 50mn, the AH-6J costs 5mn)
1) 10 F-16C/Ds(AF), 5 AH-6Js, 5 Predators=550mn
Reserve 7 F-16C/Ds for Air Superiority, 3 for Interdiction + Helicopter Hunting on enemy, The AH-6Js for escorting Uh-60s, and the 5 Predators each at 5 mn for recoinassance and such.
2) 5 F-16C/Ds, 6 Apaches/8 Cobras(lets just say)=550mn
5 F-16C/Ds for all the Work for Air Superiority which I am gona need everyone of them + i’ll be at a disadvantage, I got 6 Apaches for CAS + for escort or if it makes you feel better 8 Cobras then. I have to reserve some for CAS and some for escort.

So why use figher bombers? if you plan to fly out of harms way why not use B-52s or Tu-22M3s at 15,000m with GPS/INS/GLONASS guided bombs… the troops on the ground could radio coordinates up and they could just punch in the numbers and release the weapons… they could loiter for hours and carry tons of weapons of all different sizes for different targets.

Bombers, Fighter, anything fixed wing flying at a medium/high level.

MANPADs are still not that widely spread in third world countries… those countries that do have plenty of MANPADs also generally have plenty of AT weapons which means that the fight will be costly whether you bomb from 10,000m or 10m.

That 3rd World arguement doesnt help you. There are many countries out there that have plenty of MANPADS and low level trashfire, and Attack Helicopters out there are not going to survive it. Whats AT?

If you want a full load of troops I think you will find the payload of most helos drops to equating to a few door guns. In any case gunships are not cheaper but are much wiser… there is no more point sending in unsupported transports to save a little money on gunships as there is sending in B-52s without any support against an enemy with operational fighters… to save money.

But a Mi-17 with 2-4 rocket pods and machine gun pods are not a bad think, they may not be able to maneuver, but they sure got armour and can defend themselves against small arms fire. As someone said, Mi-8s did pretty well in kargil until MANPADS were around, but even if they had some Mi-24s back then or Apaches or Cobras, they would’ve also gone down because of MANPADS.

But is it going to be able to perform the roles a gunship performs as well as a helo can? I doubt it. No armour, less equipment and weapons than an Su-25 or A-10… so what if it doesn’t cost as much as an Apache… buy a Havoc or Cobra if that is your problem.

Like I said, an L-159B at medium level is not going to need any heavy armoured because it’s not going down low like an Su-25 or A-10. As for performing as well as an Apache, for a single Apache, I can probably get 2 L-159As. Depends what roles, IMO in terms of destroying armoured columns and such, it will be able to do this much better, and not only that but the Army can also use it to do other missions, such as perform strkes on enemy airfields, bases, command depots, and etc, and far away, something an Apache cannot do because it’s just not as versatile, cannot carry the weapons an L-159A can, etc

But is it going to be able to perform the roles a gunship performs as well as a helo can? I doubt it. No armour, less equipment and weapons than an Su-25 or A-10… so what if it doesn’t cost as much as an Apache… buy a Havoc or Cobra if that is your problem.

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

Who said anything about helos operating behind enemy lines? Helos weren’t used because ground troops were not used… they didn’t have anyone to support.
The only helo I have ever heard of that was purposely designed to go behind enemy lines in an anti tank role was the now cancelled Commanche.

EXACTLY, while fast mover like F-16C/D can do 10 more things than a Attack Helo can do, and I’d bet if the Serbs went out in open and grouped up to charge somewhere, they’d have been decimated by aircraft like F-16C/Ds, not Apaches.

They didn’t send in anything at low level except UAVs. If they had ground troops then they most likely would have used the helos.

I am not only talking about just low, I am talking about ANYTHING over Serbia. AFAIR the only things flying over Serbia were fast movers, UAVs and other goodies, no Attack Helicopters seen anywhere.

In the BBC doco about Kosovo called “Moral Combat” pilots mentioned spotting targets was almost impossible due to terrain, natural cover, serbian tactics and the weather. Quite a few pilots mentioned they would fly to engage a specific identified target but when they got there it was obscured by cloud or they couldn’t positively identify the target and they dropped their ordinance at a designated dumping area and went home. I assume mission planning for fuel use allowed a little leeway but when not dropping their bombs their remaining fuel would have been marginal to make it back to base so they dumped their weapons.

They couldnt find anything ANYTIME, during nice or bad weather, like I said the Serbian Army went into hiding, and there was nothing that could find it, JSTARs, UAVs, Satellites or anything. But if they happend to regroup to be effective against another army, they’d have been totally destroyed by NATO fast movers.

And how much better protected is an AH-6J over an AH-64? How much rifle calibre fire can an AH-6 take? 6 AH-6s are unlikely to offer the same suppression fire as one AH-64 yet rifle calibre rounds will probably bring down more than half of your AH-6s and kill their crew… did you really save some money?

Look at my scenario, you once again completely miss my point.

Sometimes the target needs cannon rounds or ATGMs or rockets in a bunker within a dozen metres of a friendly unit… do that with a LGB from 10,000m.

True, I think an AH-6J can do this job.

Except that without Af help they will be pretty vulnerable to the enemies AF won’t they? If they have to carry their own jamming pods, AAMs, not to mention external fuel tanks for extra range and of course targetting pods like SAPSAN-E or whatever then there will not be much room left for weapons.

For an Interdiction mission, I don’t need a fuel tank on an L-159A compared to an Apache, jamming pod for what? I think my AF will assume that job of Air Defense to counter my enemy’s AF. An L-159A has 7 hardpoints, 2 SRAAMs on Wingtips, maybe a single LITENING underfuselage if you dont have UAV support and you still got what 4 hardpoints left for 12 Brimstones. For a single Apache, I can get a second L-159A, which in turn can be armed with also 2 wingtip AAMs, and 2 SFWs and what 9 Brimstones.

Unarmoured AH-6s will be as vulnerable as the transports… it isn’t cheaper if you lose them.

Against small arms fire, the AH-6J will not do so bad, and an armed transport with plenty of rockets and machine guns like the Mi-17 is not going to be any less capable of surpressing small arms fire.

If you are going to have UAVs why bother with L-159s?

There arent any UCAVs out there that can be instantly purchased like the Predator B, many like X-45/47 and others have a while to go.

From what he wrote I’d guess the servicability issues that stopped the Apaches from flying wouldn’t ahve stopped Havocs or Cobras flying as they don’t seem to have serviceability problems.

Apaches are just more expensive to buy, and more expensive to maintain than Cobras.

But as you have said in THAT role a medium altitude fighter bomber is safer and cheaper overall.

And whats your point

If you are using them to support and opposed heli landing then that single shot up cobra or Apache you can use again

Your arguements are sometimes full of holes Garry.

Further to this point… if the enemy is Russia then 100km behind their lines there ar S-300s protecting command and control bases and other important things like forward frontal aviation air bases… with the current missiles with 200km range flying at 10,000m would actually be quite dangerous.

Yes IF the enemy is Russia. How many armoured columns out there would have that kind of support. I’d rather be flying at higher altitude facing S-300s than flying low onto armoured columns facing who knows how much AAA, MANPADS, small arms fire, SHORADS

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

That statement included all Attack Helicopters, Helicopters in general.

And what armies are you thinking of that operate fast-jets and attack helicopters? I can’t think of many. The helicopter is a solution that’s perfect for an army because it can operate with them at forward bases, and it’s always available for support. Pulling away F-16’s or Mirage 2000’s to do some CAS duty is keeping them from performing other missions that they are more suited for performing, such as CAP’s or deep interdiction.

AJTs and Turboprops can also operate from forward short and unprepared airbases, and much farther away too. Not only can you use them for this type of interdiction on armoured columns, but you can even send them to bomb enemy fixed installations, do some SEAD work possibly and such, thats in case your AF cannot help you.

There are certain missions that the L-159 and its counterparts simply cannot perform

One thing I really see that they cannot do is escort other transport helicopter. In that case, I can arm them for SELF-DEFENCE or even buy some lighter attack helicopters like the AH-6J.

They can’t quickly engage multiple targets that attack helos can as others have pointed out.

Maybe soo, but multiple engagement isnt everything. Besides, I can get like 2-3 L-159As for a single Apache

They can’t remain forward based with the Army thus making them available for incredibly fast response.

They can operate I think from unprepared airfields. I can easily afford to have a L-159A operate 300kms away, and it will get there faster and haul a bigger load than an Apache operating 50kms away from the battlefield. Not only that but I can get it to do many other missions, and it will be hovering over teh battlefield for a much longer time.

They certainly can’t take the beating that an Apache can take.

Neither can the turboprops, but I don’t plan on them to take a beating because I will keep them at a medium altitude.

Their higher speeds mean they are less likely to find all threatening targets in the required amount of time.

True, and lower flying Apaches will have a much easier time than a single L-159A, but dont forget UAVs and such which are cheap and can loiter for a long time.

If I’m not mistaken the only attack helos they were thinking about bringing into theater were Apaches, and they had some serviceability issues early on which meant they ultimately didn’t see action. Had Cobras or Havocs been in their place it might have been different.

How would it have been different with Cobras and Havos?

You also have to remember that no ground forces were comitted to Allied Force, which means that in many cases the attack helicopter would have been a rather redundant weapons system to use. However, in some cases helos have been used in rather unorthodox missions, and successfully I might add. The prime example I can think of is when U.S. Army Apaches were used to take out Iraqi early-warning radar posts on the first night of the Gulf War.

Is the Apache that much dependable on ground forces? I believe it can operate independantly and such, it can designate and find it’s own targets without anything else I believe.

To answer your question yes. A Cobra spraying 20-mm shells everywhere along with 70-mm Hydra rockets is a much more effective small-arms suppression platform than a Little Bird with four Hellfires or a Bo-105 with six HOT missiles.

It’s easy to arm a Bo-105 or Little Bird with Rockets or Machine guns, but I was specifically talking about ATGMs. I can have an AH-6J armed with 4 SPIKE-ERs on one side, and what a single machine gun or rocket pod on the other, or the whole thing with rockets/machine guns. Depends on a mission. And probably for a single Cobra or Apache, I can once again get 2-3 AH-6Js.

But you say the AH-6 can have rockets and machine guns too? Okay, how about two 7-shot rocket pods and two miniguns. That’s nice, but does it compare well to the hard-hitting 20-mm rounds (effective against personnel as well as certain types of vehicles) and 70-mm rockets (maximum of 76 in the case of the Cobra or Apache….or 80 in the case of the Havoc) or a Zulu Cobra? Gee, it’s hard to make a decision. Helos like Little Bird and Kiowa Warrior are intended as lightly armed scout helos that have the option to engage a limited number of targets if necessary. Generally speaking they are used to seek out targets for Cobras or Apaches to hit. They aren’t intended to escort heavily laden Hips or Blackhawks into a hot LZ.

I never matched them in firepower, I just said what the Little Bird can carry might be enough to tackle organic targets. I dont intend it to actually tackle large armoured columns, I’d rather have my fixed wing aircraft do that.

Yet again your argument is full of holes. First off to nitpick the Zulu Cobra can carry up to 16 anti-armor missiles plus a pair of self defense AAM’s and the 20-mm gun. You can alternate with weapons such as AGM-65 (theoretically available for both Apache and Cobra), and I believe the Mi-28 and Ka-50/52 can carry the Kh-25, or rocket pods.

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

I don’t care what type of targeting pod you put on a fast-jet, it isn’t going to be able to spot and attack multiple targets with the kind of accuracy of a helicopter. You have to remember that helos like the Cobra for example are looking at targets sometimes from an almost eye-to-eye level (i.e. very low at times), so they get a better 3D-type vantage point allowing them to tell where vehicles for example are located as compared to things around them. An F-16 at 7,000 feet may be able to see that T-80, but often times things are easier to hide when they are being looked at from a higher vantage (i.e. more 2D-like) vantage point. Helicopters get down and in your face at times (at least systems like the MMS on the OH-58 and other similar systems fitted to attack helos allow the crew to see targets at ranges of many miles without the enemy knowing they are there). In short the targeting systems on modern attack helos are just as good as the equivalent systems on fast-jets, but with the added advantage of being used on a much more eye-to-eye level with the enemy.

I agreed with the fact that Attack Helicopters can spot everything much easier because they are much closer, but if you’re planning to actually stay out of enemy’s reach like the idea of medium altitude aircraft, then an Apache would have to be some 8-10kms away, and it is not going to have a much easier time spotting enemy armoured columns than say something cruising right above the target at an altitude of 5-10-15kms.

The point is to stay out of enemy’s scope, which is what medium level aircraft would do.

Arming Blackhawks? Already been done. There’s a helicopter called the Huey and they armed them during the Vietnam War. They were good gunships, but made somewhat slower by extra weapons. Blackhawks and other such helos are no exception, and when laden full of troops plus weapons you can imagine that manuvering isn’t much of an option. And that’s exactly what you will have to do to bring some of your weapons to bear against something that is shooting at you. With a load of people on board that won’t be easy.

For a armed transport helicopter, it’s main problem in this case will be mostly from small arms fire, MANPADS and RPGs. IMO I highly doubt any Attack Helicopter out there will be able to actually outmaneuver a MANPAD type weapon.

Assault helos still need gunship escorts at times. Fast-movers simply can’t do this.

I agreed, but imo either armed transports or really light attack helicopters are a much cheaper and wiser solution.

Smaller helos? They may be quite agile, but they have virtually no armor plus a much smaller warload. Would you be comfy with a Little Bird and a pair of rocket pods or a King Cobra with 8 Hellfires, two rocket pods, and a 20-mm gun?

It’s not so much of the warload, but an AH-6J with 8 SPIKE-ERs is no joke. Hell even with rockets and machine guns this little thing could be a killer against organic type of targets. It depends on what I would put it up against.

And the Air Force can be made to support the Army by purposely leaving out a few extra planes for when the Army needs it? That’s simply not how things are run. Granted, one of the main missions of the USAF for example is supporting our boys on the ground, but wars tend to be won in phases, and certain phases require using all avaiable air resources for strategic targets, or larger tactical targets, not close air support whenever the Army comes calling. That’s where the Havoc, Cobra, and Apache come in. They are there and ready at any time because that is one of their primary missions.

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.

Your arguement ignores real world experience… don’t you think the bean counters suggested the airforce and army work together and airforce planes be used to help the army? Wonder why the British and US and Soviets were all so loose with their funding having seperate army controlled helos and light attack aircraft…
If you would like it spelled out… how about we look at what you just said exactly. You don’t see a problem why the AF could be made to spare a few of Their aircraft from medium level on enemy armoured columns… First of all how do you suggest the Army could Make the airforce do anything? The Army has no seniority over the AF in any armed forces I know of. Second if the enemy armour is in columns then the Airforce would be attacking it anyway with strike aircraft. Why would the Army have anything to do with that?

BTW are you sure that column is the enemy? Who is more likely to know where friendly units are at any one time… the airforce or the army?

if this is the case, then an Army can purchase it’s own fixed wing assets. For example, I’d rather take a 15mn L-159A over any Attack Helicopter out there. Arm it with whatever you like, and it’s going to be able to perform more missions than any other Attack Helicopter.

Landmines and possibly Tactical nuclear weapons but what is your point?

We’re talking about aerial power. We’re comparing Attack helicopters vs low level CAS aircraft vs medium/high level interdictors.

As a Serb you should know better. How many tractors did NATO hit because it couldn’t see the targets properly from medium altitude? They had F-16C/Ds with all sorts of wonderful pods and FLIR… didn’t seem to help that much.

How many Apaches or Cobras were sent in there? None at ALL. Not only these Attack Helicopters are not as versatile as these multirole fighters and simply do not have a range or endurance nor are designed to operate behind enemy lines, they simply were not suited to do this type of thing. Do you think NATO would’ve ever sent Apaches or Cobras or whatever flying low into Serbia like they did with fighters? They sure didnt.

And how many aircraft in Kosovo ditched their weapon load because they couldn’t find any targets? When was the last time a helo did that?

They ditched their load?

So when the Mi-8 or Blackhawk come in to hover and all of a sudden heavy small arms and HMG fire starts coming in what exactly is the agile MD-500 with 6 long range anti tank missiles going to do? Go away and look for some tanks? A Hind gunner would locate the source of the fire and hose it with 57mm or 80mm rockets and then 50 cal rounds at 5,000rpm, and perhaps the gunners in the door to the cabin would add some 50 cal HMG fire to that as well. Thin skinned BO-105s would not scare me in the slightest but a Hind or a Havoc or an Apache with 70mm rockets and 30mm cannon rounds or a Cobra with 20mm cannon rounds and 70mm rockets might make me want to put my head down and stop firing.

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.

waht if your airforce/army is not controllung the engagement like the allies did in the Iraq wars. What if you have to fight enemy troops and support your troops while yoir airfroces is till pressed fighting the airwar. While the airforce is still bussy to win air dominance or worse tight up defending your nations strategic targets. Do you believe that a number of planes will sit at their bases waiting for a CAs mission, while these bases need to be defend against enemy attacks ?? I don´t think so.

If they are made that way, then they can. However like I said in case of US, it simply is not gona work.

Ok

So the Advantages mentioned by other people
1)An aircraft like the Apache or Mi-28N can carry up to 16 ATGMs + rockets/machine guns, more than any other fixed wing aircraft
>IMO this is not such a big advantage, because anaircraft like the EF2000 can haul up to 18 Brimstones, and probably be wired for even more, an aircraft like the Super Tucano with a 5 times cheaper cost can haul a pretty big load. An F-16 or any other Western aircraft in the future will be able to carry lots of SDBs and such(up to 4 on a rack). Mi-28N and Apache can carry a wider load than any other Attack Helicopter, for ex the Mangusta, Tiger and Cobra can lift only 8 ATGMs
2)They can operate from anywhere
>True, but the range, payload, endurance and speed makes the fixed wing aircraft just as fast to be on the battlefield, and not only that but they dont operate so close to the battlefield which might expose them to enemy artillery and such.
3)They can find and target enemy targets much better than anything at medium level
>True, except that loitering UAVs from any level can do this pretty well too, even a fighter/JT from a medium level with a pod like LITENING/SAPSAN can do this pretty well.
4)They are needed to escort transports
>Yes, but transports today like the UH-60, Mi-8, Dhruv and many others can be armed with rockets, machine guns and lots of other things. Like I said, a substitute to larger and expensive Attack Helicopters would be smaller and lighter ones like the AH-6J, BO 105, Fennec, Gazelle, Dhruv and whatever.
5)They are always there for the army when the Airforce is not available to send planes
>This can be fixed within any organization, An AF can be made to reserve a few aircraft for the Interdiction role for any Army. It’s a simple problem that can be fixed imo

What did I miss?

But why bother with Turboprops at all? Modern MANPADs like Igla-S can destroy prop driven aircraft as well as UAVs and Cruise missiles and many other types of aircraft. You need to have air superiority anyway to use CAS or prop driven aircraft so why not use medium flying F-16s or Mig-29M2s with TV, laser, and GPS/INS/Glonass guided munitions?

Wow I am surprised noone is listening

I am not talking about anything at low level like Attack Helicopters(ex Mi-28N, Apache) or CAS aircraft(ex Su-25, A-10), I have continously said everything from a medium level, multirole fighters(ex Mig-29M, F-16C/D), JTs(ex Yak-130, Hawk) or turbo props(ex Super Tucano, PC-21).

IMO any of these platforms, armed with stuff like LITENING/SAPSAN, weapons like LGBs(could be designated from aerial platforms or ground forces), TV guided munitions, ATGMs able to be fired from medium altitude like Hermes or Brimstone, weapons like SDB, JDAM and whatever could all be used in this role.

You could have a single fighter armed with something like a LITENING/SAPSAN pod continously scanning for targes, or even better a higher endurance UAV continously flying over the battlefield providing surveillance and targeting.

For interdiction missions then Medium range SAMs make non stealthy medium altitude flight VERY dangerous.

Of course, but it’s a lot safer than going down into massive AAA, MANPADS and SHORADS.

I also noticed another thing. Like I said I do not think Attack Helicopters are useless because for many of the reasons you guys have said, but I just think medium/high level interdictors are much better and more effective. Many armies will want to have their own Attack Helicopters in order not to completely rely on the Airforce. I think a smaller and lighter attack Helicopter could very well satisfy this requirement, and not only this but escort of other helicopter transports and for COIN. A smaller Attack Helicopter like the MD500/AH-6J, Fennec, armed with something like rockets, machine guns and even ATGMs. I’ve seen the little MD500 armed with 8 SPIKE-ERs. These lighter attack helicopters are cheap, fast, agile and such.