Helicopter Gunships

Says it all really.

After all, say whatever you want about the machine (be it how ugly it looks or how difficult it is to fly), you can't go wrong with 32 hellfire missiles.

That can only carry 8 though....

All depends on it's loadout I think.

But anyway, thanks for the call; I was mistaken, that's 16 Hellfire missiles and two pods of 19 of something else (probably rockets), plus the automatic cannon.

Looks like it only has it's default loadout of 2 M261 rocket pods and 2 Hellfire missle mounts in that photo, but yeah, it can have up to 4 Hellfire mounts for 16 Hellfires and 4 pods for a total of 76 rockets.

I like the Comanche design better...

Yeah, it rocked, all stealth like, to bad it was canned.

It was canned? I thought it went into production for a limited number...

The U.S needs to change its current gunship--how old is the AH-64 Apache?

the Comanche was a recon bird,it was dropped because it was cheaper and safer to use a UAV,especially as they can now carry as many missiles as the comanche could.

Ye.

And the Apache is constantly being undated.

The AH-64 Longbow Apache has 4 mounts total, 2 on each wings.
so the loadout isn't set. you can carry dump fire rockets on all of them, or attach 4 hellfire racks.

In addition: on the tip of the wing, you can mount active ECM pods, small extra fuel pods, or you can mount stinger missles incase there is a enemy aircraft threat to contend with.

At lease, thats what I know about the longbow.

I have to agree that the RAH-66 Comanche looked way better as it is a stealth chopper. sadly, the project was indeed canned.

If I am every going to get my helo Flying license, then I sure as hell will try to get a civilian spected Comanche, because just the air frame makes me go wild

Constantly being undated...

I can see the countermeasures for the gunship building up. The Cobra Gunship has been updated often, but not the Apache; sad.


Someday, mankind will create a weapon so destructive they will abandon war forever.

Updated*

My bad.

And you're probably right, but thats quite a while away.

For OpSec reasons, I should probably stay outta this one, since I hold this MOS.

I will however say that, in terms of recent updating for the Apache... this is accurate. It's not as outdated as some might think (well, the version I can work on is... not the D model, though).

I kept on wondering why they always put a 'A' or a 'B' or a 'C' or a 'D' at the back of an updated vehicle...

...can't they abandon that thing and create a new one instead?

Panzer IV wrote:The U.S needs to change its current gunship--how old is the AH-64 Apache?

The KC-135 is fifty one years old, and will probably get replaced in a little over a decade. The C-130 design is fifty two years old, it might be replaced in the next two decades. The B-52 is a little older at fifty three, god knows when they'll can it. The AH-64 Apache is barely twenty three! The average Airframe in the USAF is older then the people who work it. Now granted things like attack helicopters, and fighters have shorter life cycles. Still I don't think the Apache needs to be replaced any time soon. It might be nice, but not necessary. Components get updated, worn parts get replaced, the Airframe stays lethal.

Panzer IV wrote:I kept on wondering why they always put a 'A' or a 'B' or a 'C' or a 'D' at the back of an updated vehicle...

...can't they abandon that thing and create a new one instead?

The only military aircraft that haven't been updated are the ones that are brand spanking new. The development for a new aircraft normally takes at least a decade, if not two, and costs billions. Upgrades in comparision maybe take a year, or two to develop at a fraction of the cost. What improvements do you really get from a new airframe? It's faster? Well why don't you just throw a new engine into your older airframe. It's got better electronics? It's pretty cheap in comparison to modernize the electronics in your current. The airframe matters, but not as much as what's inside of the airframe. Updating allows your force to stay more modern, for less money. It's fairly standard operating procedure for Military Air Forces.

Panzer IV wrote:Someday, mankind will create a weapon so destructive they will abandon war forever.

You are a lovely little optimist aren't you? More likely that weapon will be destroy us as a species when some idiot uses it.

@Wilema

at your last remark. Sounds like Terminator to me :p

But that do make sense why the Apache could stay in service...what was its first flight? 1972? A decade is long enough...

yeah, you got a point Wil-sen. But I do wish to see further progress of military technology--something fresh or new from the ordinary

the MI-24 nato codename HIND

Country of Origin	Russia
Builder	MIL
Date of Introduction	1976 (HIND D)
Role	Assault, gunship, antitank
Similar Aircraft	AH-1 Cobra (all models), UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache, Mangusta A129
Blades	Main rotor: 5 Tail rotor: 3
Rotor diameter	Main Rotor : 17.3 meters Tail Rotor: 3.9 meters
Wing span	6.5 meters
Length	Length : 21.6 m (rotors turning) Length : 17.5 m (fuselage)
Height	13 ft., 11 in. 6.5 meters (gear extended)
Cargo Compartment Dimensions	Floor Length: 2.5 meters Width: 1.5 meters Height: 1.2 meters
Weight	Maximum Gross: 11,500 kg Normal Takeoff: 11,100 kg Empty: 8,500 kg
Fuel	Internal: 1,840 liters Internal Aux Tank (in cabin): 1,227 liters External Fuel Tank: 500 liters ea.
Engine	2 x 2,200 shp Isotov TV-3-117 turbines
Maximum speed	168 mph / 335 km/h
Cruising speed	295 km/h
Range	Normal Load: 450 km With Aux Fuel: 950 km
Service Ceiling	4,500 meters
Hover	out of ground effect: 1,500 meters in ground effect : 2,200 meters
Vertical Climb Rate	15 m/s
Max “G” Force	1.75 g
Standard Payload	Internal load: 8 combat troops or 4 litters External weapons load: 1,500 kg External load (no weapons): 2,500 kg
Armament	12.7-mm 4x Barrel Machinegun, YaKB-12.7: Range (m): (practical) 1,500 Elevation/Traverse: 20° up to 60° down/ 120° Ammo Type: HEFI, APT, Duplex, DuplexT Rate of Fire (rpm): up to 4,500 (pilot selectable) 30-mm Twin Barrel Cannon, GSh-30K: Range (m): (practical) 4,000 Elevation/Traverse: None (rigidly mounted) Ammo Type: HEFI, HEI, APT, APE, CC Rate of Fire (rpm): 300, or 2,000 to 2,600 750 - 1x twin 30-mm gun, or 1,470 - 12.7-mm 4 barrel turret gun 2-12 - AT-2C or AT-6C Spiral ATGMs 2-4 - 80-mm S-8 rocket pods (20 ea.) 2-4 - 57-mm S-5 rocket pods (32 ea.) 940 - GSh-23L twin 23-mm MG pods 4 - 250-kg bombs FAB-250 2 - 500-kg bombs 500 liters External fuel tanks Most Probable Armament HIND D: Turret-mounted 4-barrel 12.7-mm Gatling type machinegun, 57-mm rockets, AT-2C/ SWATTER ATGMs. HIND E: Turret-mounted 4-barrel 12.7-mm Gatling type machinegun or twin barrel 23-mm turret gun, 57-mm rockets, AT-6C/ SPIRAL ATGMs. HIND F: Fixed 30-mm twin gun on the right fuselage side, 57-mm rockets, AT-6C/ SPIRAL ATGMs. Loaded combat troops can fire personal weapons through cabin windows.
Sensors	FLIR, RWR, laser designator
AVIONICS	The ATGM targeting system uses a low-level light TV, a laser designator, FLIR, air data sensor, and a missile guidance transmitter. HIND D versions are primarily daytime aircraft only. Some HIND E and Mi-35 series export versions have upgraded night and weather capabilities, better avionics, weather radar, autopilot, HUD, GPS, NVG compatibility, more armor, and an increased weapons load provided by the French company Sextant Avionique.
Survivability	Main and tail rotors electrically deiced. Infrared signature suppressors can be mounted on engine exhausts. Radar warning receivers, IFF, Infrared jammer, rotor brake, chaff and flares. Armored cockpit.
Crew	Two (pilots in tandem cockpits)
Cost
User Countries	At least 34 countries -- Armenia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cambodia, CIS, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Slovakia, South Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, Vietnam

Say, Didn't the Hind have a version that carried the minigun under neath the gunner as a turret?

All I know is the Afghanis blew a shitload of 'em outta the sky in the 80s... with American stingers, usually...

Didn't the Hind have problems of cutting off it's own tail if flown improperly?

That's a hell of a design flaw if that's true. I've seen videos of helicopters taking out there own refueling probe, but never there own tail rotor.

I haven't heard of that problem with the Hind. The KA-50 Hokum ended up getting a design change after one was lost due to it's contra rotating rotors making contact during a manuever though.

As for the Hind's gun -Hind A has a forward mounted heavy machine gun. Hind D, the first one with the twin bubble cockpits, had a 12.7mm gattling gun in a turret. Later, attempts were made to put a heavier gun in the turret (I think some were made with a 23mm), however, that had some issues, so variants with a twin 30mm cannon mounted on the side were made. BTW, the twin 30mm on those things has a very high rate of fire.

Mmm...Hinds...Good chopper.

"We don't fear the Russians, but we fear their helicopters." ~ Afgahi guerrilla discussing the Hind.

In its defense against the massive amounts shot down in afgahistan, all helicopters are extremely weak against ground to air missles. They are simply too slow to dodge. The US has had the same problem (though to a far lesser degree, due to the fact that we pretty much make the best anti-aircraft missles) in Irag.

~ Macavity

The way I see it, most things Russian are made crude, utilitarian, and cheap. About the only really nice, stylish, looking equipment they've made is some of their fighter planes and Petrushka

french built Tiger






Fuel CapacityPerformanceWeapons

Length	14m
Height	3.81m
Wingspan	13m
Design Mission Weight	5,400kg
Alternate Gross Weight	6,000kg
Maximum Internal Fuel	1,020kg
Maximum Internal and External Fuel	1,575kg
Hover Out of Ground Effect	Multi-role version - 3,200m Combat support version - 3,500m
Vertical Rate of Climb	Multi-role version - 5.2m/sec Combat support version - 6.4m/sec
Maximum Rate of Climb	Multi-role version - 10.7m/sec Combat support version - 11.5m/sec
Flight Speed, Armed	Multi-role version - 145kt Combat support version - 155kt
Cruise Speed	124kt
Design Limit Speed	Multi-role version - 161kt Combat support system - 174kt
Maximum Range, Internal Fuel	800km
Mission Endurance	2 hours 50 minutes
Maximum Endurance, Internal Fuel	3 hours 25 minutes
Agility	40º angle of yaw after first second
Trigat Missile Range	500m to 5km
Maximum Air-to-Air Missile Range	Over 5km autonomously
Target Identification and Engagement	5km

built for the Vietnam war and abandoned after it the arned chinooks known as guns a-go-go !

Originally designated the 53rd Aviation Detachment, and nicknamed "Guns-A-Go-Go" or "Go-Go Birds", this "test" unit of three Armed/Armored CH-47 Chinooks (#64-13149 nicknamed "EASY MONEY", #64-13151 nicknamed "STUMP JUMPER", and #64-13154 nicknamed "BIRTH CONTROL" *the first A/ACH-47A built, #64-13145 remained in the states for further testing at Edwards AFB*) were deployed TDY for six months to Vietnam, 3 months at Vung Tau, and three months at An Khe. During their evaluation period, the ACH-47's destroyed every assigned target they engaged.

Yeah I'm not surprised. A dedicated attack helicopter would be harder to hit, and bring similar fire power to the fight.

Anyway I like the French Tiger. I just things it's kind of wonky where they put the FLIR/TV camera turret. It makes a certain amount of sense, putting it up so high allows you to look over what ever your using as cover. Still I would imagine that it must limit the field of view pretty bad too.

rusty-spring wrote:The way I see it, most things Russian are made crude, utilitarian, and cheap.

What's wrong with crude, utilitarian, and cheap? If it gets the job done, then its good. o.O It fits the Russian military strategy (at least the one of the past 300 years) to the T. And its effective. o.O Plus for being crude, utilitarian, and cheap, they make great equipment. *Remembers the T-34 with fondness* *Sighs* I love Russian military equipment.

That 'crude, utilarian and cheap' statement is exactly why so many have been caught off-guard in a fight. Russian military equipment is, in actual fact, rugged, quality stuff.

Nachtsider wrote:That 'crude, utilarian and cheap' statement is exactly why so many have been caught off-guard in a fight. Russian military equipment is, in actual fact, rugged, quality stuff.

You're both wrong, they are all of the above, take the AK for example.

Well, better half right than completely wrong...

All I know is what all pilots say about their crafts:
An airplane is pushed through the air, where the air gracefully flows over and under the wings to provide lift.
A helicopter beats the air into sumission for it to provide lift!

so, for anyone who has read the Wheel of Time series of novels, that little phrase translates to:
airplanes=female side of the Power (Saidar)
helicopters=male side of the Power (Saidin)

...not sure why I made that correlation, but I think it's gonna stick with me for the rest of my life now...

You know there was one time at Ft. Eustis I had to do an accident report for an MP. Some other MPs eventually came around to 'help' him out, and by help I mean BS since they where bored. Anyway the first one suddenly gets this strange look on his face. His MP buddy comments, 'I know that face, what?' To which the first MP replies, "You know I just realized you can't spell Tacoma without Taco."

You like that guy LoC, only your also a gigantic nerd. I'm seriously impressed.

MI-28 Havoc the Russian equivalent of the Apache
The Havoc's laser designator is housed beneath the helciopter's nose. The improved MI-28N has additonal radar/flir/low-light video sensors in a mast-mounted dome above the rotors.

Crew	2 - With Pilot seated above and behind Gunner
Engines	2× Klimov TV3-117VMA 1,950 horsepower
Dimensions	L - 17.01 m W (rotor span) - 17.20 m H - 3.82 m
Weights	5,910 kg (empty) 11500 kg (max takeoff)
Max Speed	324 kph
Range	460 km
Armament	30 mm NPPU-28 (300 rounds) 80mm/130mm unguided rockets up to 16 AT-6 anti-tank missiles various cannon/machine gun pods AA-11/ SA-16 air-to-air missiles
Avionics	FLIR Microwave Radar Narrow-field Video Laser Designator Infra-red jammers Radar warning receivers Laser warning receivers

Awinnell wrote:MI-28 Havoc

Why do I look at that thing and think if the front radar cone was painted red it should be renamed "The Rudolph"

Either way it's ugly as sin. Though lots of big hitters are fugly. Now the Comanche...THAT'S a sexy helicopter (Though it's not really a gunship... )



*sniff* RIP Comanche...we hardly knew you.

*sniff* RIP Comanche...we hardly knew you.

...At least its in service in Command and Conquer Generals as an excellent gunship

The way I see it, most things Russian are made crude, utilitarian, cheap, rugged, quality stuff.

And easy to clean too! The Russians applied this way of technology since...was it the Civil War or World War II? I heard that during World War II, once a Russian T-35/76 rolled out of the factory there's ALWAYS a crew of 5 ready to man it. It rolled fresh into combat. Same goes for the Yak-9 fighter. There's always a pilot waiting at the gates as the plane rolls out--the IL-2 has a gunner ready.

Russian military equipments were rugged, cheap, crude, utilitarian, but has all-round good quality and gets the job done. Seen how they clean AK-47? Guerrillas only need to tie their shoe lace into a knot and slide it through the barrel to clean the mud and dirt--now that's efficient!