And how much would a ALX cost that is given an avionics fit comarable to an AH-64D. MW radar, FLIR, laser targeting system, IR jammer, radar jammer, hardpoints to carry 16 hellfires, ….

It doesnt need a radar, or a laser targeting system if its gona be supported by other platforms, or an IR jammer if its gona be at medium level, it cannot use hellfires at a medium level(it would have to go down low, so other weapons will be needed). It already has FLIR. So basically all you need is a radar jammer and new weapons integrated. But if you dont have anything to support it, then yes you may need a laser designator and/or a podded radar.

I still highly doubt this would raise ALX’s price past 50mn from 5-5.5mn

It is still a laser seeking weapon and needs laser target markers… I really think that it would be better used by helicopters that could be coordinating their fire with friendly tanks on the front line… with the tanks marking targets and not having to use their own ammo, or light UAVs with laser target markers buzzing around looking for targets when the enemy ground force is a bit strong.

Janes has also said there is going to be a MMW and passive guided ones, I think TV too, not sure. Though I dont see why not the ground forces could also coordinate themselves with fixed wing aircraft like fighters, AJTs or turbo props.

Regarding Brimstone, we really don’t know how effective that will be yet (the same could of course be said for Hermes too), but its ability to detect and identify targets has yet to be proven in combat against an enemy that actually doesn’t want to get hit by a missile. There are camouflage techniques that might render Brimstone less useful.

True

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.

If you know where your enemy is and if it doesnt mix with your own, then I don’t think it’s hard to know.

This seems to be a rather redundant argument. As others have stated the system types listed have various capabilities that the others do not. Srbin, you seem to be adament about attack helicopters not being any good, but it seems no one in the military organizations around the world seems to agree with you. You simply cannot change the fact that helicopters offer a fast forward-based response that land-based (or carrier-based) aircraft (aside from the Harrier of course) cannot match. Helicopters are also a much better anti-tank platform than fixed-wing jets like an F-15E. Sure, an F-15 can drop a JDAM and hit one or maybe two tanks with collateral damage, but when you have a Cobra or Apache with at least 8 Hellfires, that’s an entire column of tanks taken out within seconds. Also, as others have pointed out (I’ve pointed this out before, but no one seemed to listen), it was tactics that hurt the Apache force in OIF, not the helicopter itself. If you look at the statistics, Marine Corps Super Cobras fared much better and still proved to be very deadly to insurgent forces. Heck, the Israeli’s have used Apaches and Cobras in an urban warfare environment for years, and they haven’t suffered the losses that the U.S. Army did. Why? Because they used the right tactics.

As far as multi-role fighters are concerned yes they are supremly capable of raining down destruction, and they can do it very accurately whether it’s a JDAM from a USAF F-15, a Paveway from a Turkish F-4, or a WCMD from a USN F/A-18, and overall they will do a much larger share of the ground-pounding. Their attacks are geared more towards larger concentrations of targets on both the strategic and tactical levels. Helicopters and planes like the Su-25 are still much more effective at supporting the ground forces, when the going gets tough.

yes but their advantage to operate from anywhere is not that great, because fixed wing aircraft like the Turbo Props(can operate from unprepared airfields), AJTs(from semi/unprepared) and fighters(usually from prepapred airfields) have a much longer range, are faster and usually have much higher endurance that they can be flying from an airfield some 300kms and they will probably get there faster than an Attack Helicopter flying 50kms away from the battlefield, and they will be able to loiter much longer and haul a bigger load. Not only that, but an Attack Helicopter operating so closely to the battlefield is rather vulnerable to a lot of things, for example artillery.

As for Apache or Mi-28N having a load of some 16 Hellfires of Vikhrs, imo this may be quite a large load, but I’d rather take an F-16C/D armed with some 6 500lb JDAMs flying at a medium altitude. It may not pack as much punch, but I sure will have it out of harms way, and not only that but I can make my F-16s do many other things.

See the thing with Attack Helicopters is
-They operate at a lower level, much like other low level CAS aircraft, they become exposed to many SHORADS, AAA and MANPADS which are very lethal today
-They may be able to operate from anywhere, but that advantage is rather limited because fixed wing aircraft have much longer endurance, range, payload and such. This advantage only counts on ships, but for example they usually operate from Aircraft Carriers right? and Fixed Wing aircraft can be operated from here
-Attack Helicopters are SO role restricted and not very cost effective. An Apache compared to an F-16, can only do CAS and COIN pretty much, while an aircraft like the F-16C/D for the SAME cost can do so many more things, and much better imo.

I don’t think Attack Helicopters are useless in any way, but they just are not very good imo.

Just 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.

Like I said, I dont think Attack Helicopters are useless, but when compared to other platforms they are much better.

I also like the idea of aircraft in the class of planes like the ALX and PC-21. They are relatively cheap to operate, don’t require much in the way of a prepared runway, they can carry a large variety of weapon types (at least the ALX can), they are much faster than helicopters as well as being more agile, and (at least in the case of the ALX) they can operate in night conditions just as effectively as an Apache, and they aren’t as noisy as the AH-64 to boot. I guarentee you that an ALX with GBU-12’s and the crew having NVG’s is going to be a very effective attacker. Flying at night eliminates most small-arms as well as some portion of the MANPAD’s threat. Aircraft like the ALX already have a very low heat signature. And I believe they can be fitted with chaff/flare dispensers as well. Granted, I wouldn’t take an ALX into enemy territory defended by SA-6’s’s, Hawk’s, or S-300’s, but I think in lower intensity conflicts if you use it correctly an aircraft in that class can be quite effective. Clearly the Brazilians see some promise in it, and I like that idea. Armed with MAA-1 Piranha’s, the ALX is also quite a potent helicopter killer. Would be an ideal aircraft to disrupt enemy helicopter assault operations.

I dont think these little turbo props can pack as much of a punch as an Apache with 16 hellfires or Mi-28N with 16 Vikhrs, but these little turbo props costs like 5-10mn at most, while an Apache costs 4-5 times more.

Of course, the Super Tucano has 5 hardpoints and a payload of 1500kg. I could fit it with Brimstones, JDAMs, Hermes, Nimrod, SDB, CBUs such as WCMD or SPBE-D and whatever, and they can pack quite a punch. They can find and destroy targets via FLIR, other Airborne Recoinassance platforms such as for ex JSTARS(unlikely) or UAVs, other fighters, pods such as SAPSAN or LITENING and such. I would not send it low altitude.