not sure but it does look great...kinda negates the need for a dedicated attack helo and adds some lost economy to your force....i don't know who makes the turret but i noticed that they're doing there best to stay away from US based tech with its weapons and electronics suite.
this is definitely aimed at an international market place that's worried about US sensitivities to its weapons usage.
You're right Sol; this looks like the "international" variant of the BattleHawk build around Israeli and French systems, as the roughly similar Arpia variant (as used by Colombia) is more of a US version, build around US systems.
For a while there was talk of a Turkish S-70 gunship version as well, that got cancelled (I think). Poland is going to produce a Black Hawk, and their plans for a light attack type, to supplement their Hinds, may add to the already many versions (soon) flying around.
yep..it looks like Sikorsky has stuck its finger in the air and figured out that with shrinking defense budgets, upgrade packages are the wave of the near future.
The UK experience from Afghanistan is that the Apache, whilst pretty awesome as they say, is very very expensive especially as it is mostly using 30mm and the CRV-7 rockets against compounds and the odd flip flop wearer
An armed utility helicopter might represent a more appropriate and cost effective solution for this type of conflict where the full blown attack helicopter capabilities aren't needed
good point TD...but let me ask everyone this (and it appears that the USMC agrees with this thinking)....
except against first rate competition...do you really need a dedicated attack helicopter?
the Marines have decreased the buy of AH-1Z's and increased the buys of UH-1Y's because the Huey gives more flexibility than the Cobra and it can provide fire support while doing it.
i think the dedicated attack helicopter has been dead for at least 30 years....think about it....we've updated attackers but the newest clean sheet design is the Eurocopter Tigre.
i think the Soviets hit the nail on the head with the Mi-24...that's the future...
It's because of the new ammuntions; guided rockets (Hellfires, SPIKEs but also APKWS) don't need *that* complex systems anymore. The old attack helicopters were build around the large and bulky TOW sight/controller system, and then the helo still had to go into AAA fire (hence the armor).
Current ranges and precision allow helos to stand-off, which make this "AUH" variant practical.
Of course, it's just time untill newer Manpads will start taking these aircraft down. And UH-60s are still vulnerable, even when (up)armored (Black Hawk Down anyone?).
no....BlackHawk down isn't a proper analogy. i love the Rangers but they were compromised from the start...the tactics employed were designed to minimize civilian casualties and the practice of flying low and slow against an armed enemy skilled with RPGs and facing numerous small arms is just plain uncalled for.
thats where they were vulnerable. at low level speed is necessary or masking. even an AH-64 would have been brought down under similar circumstances....hell even an A-10
I'll grant that the Rangers were compromised from the start (heck, that entire mission was), but point I was trying to make is that the BattleHawk is perhaps gunned-up, it's still no 'real' gunship and lacks the same speed and protection to endure in a prolonged firefight.
True, the H-60 is one mean survivable bird - one could argue it's one of THE survivable (support) helos, ever - but when loaded with these missiles and guns it will handle like a fat pig, and thus more vulnerable to ground fire; especially RPGs and DshK's.
Saw this video a few days ago, it looks very good doesn't it. Continual evolution rather than revolution, is there a lesson there perhaps?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know who makes the 20mm turret system
not sure but it does look great...kinda negates the need for a dedicated attack helo and adds some lost economy to your force....i don't know who makes the turret but i noticed that they're doing there best to stay away from US based tech with its weapons and electronics suite.
ReplyDeletethis is definitely aimed at an international market place that's worried about US sensitivities to its weapons usage.
The 20mm is from Nexter, formerly Giant Industries (French).
ReplyDeleteYou're right Sol; this looks like the "international" variant of the BattleHawk build around Israeli and French systems, as the roughly similar Arpia variant (as used by Colombia) is more of a US version, build around US systems.
ReplyDeleteFor a while there was talk of a Turkish S-70 gunship version as well, that got cancelled (I think). Poland is going to produce a Black Hawk, and their plans for a light attack type, to supplement their Hinds, may add to the already many versions (soon) flying around.
yep..it looks like Sikorsky has stuck its finger in the air and figured out that with shrinking defense budgets, upgrade packages are the wave of the near future.
ReplyDeleteThe UK experience from Afghanistan is that the Apache, whilst pretty awesome as they say, is very very expensive especially as it is mostly using 30mm and the CRV-7 rockets against compounds and the odd flip flop wearer
ReplyDeleteAn armed utility helicopter might represent a more appropriate and cost effective solution for this type of conflict where the full blown attack helicopter capabilities aren't needed
I like the idea
good point TD...but let me ask everyone this (and it appears that the USMC agrees with this thinking)....
ReplyDeleteexcept against first rate competition...do you really need a dedicated attack helicopter?
the Marines have decreased the buy of AH-1Z's and increased the buys of UH-1Y's because the Huey gives more flexibility than the Cobra and it can provide fire support while doing it.
good question, not so sure. Maybe the dedicated attack helicopter is an evolutionary dead end
ReplyDeletei think the dedicated attack helicopter has been dead for at least 30 years....think about it....we've updated attackers but the newest clean sheet design is the Eurocopter Tigre.
ReplyDeletei think the Soviets hit the nail on the head with the Mi-24...that's the future...
It's because of the new ammuntions; guided rockets (Hellfires, SPIKEs but also APKWS) don't need *that* complex systems anymore. The old attack helicopters were build around the large and bulky TOW sight/controller system, and then the helo still had to go into AAA fire (hence the armor).
ReplyDeleteCurrent ranges and precision allow helos to stand-off, which make this "AUH" variant practical.
Of course, it's just time untill newer Manpads will start taking these aircraft down. And UH-60s are still vulnerable, even when (up)armored (Black Hawk Down anyone?).
no....BlackHawk down isn't a proper analogy. i love the Rangers but they were compromised from the start...the tactics employed were designed to minimize civilian casualties and the practice of flying low and slow against an armed enemy skilled with RPGs and facing numerous small arms is just plain uncalled for.
ReplyDeletethats where they were vulnerable. at low level speed is necessary or masking. even an AH-64 would have been brought down under similar circumstances....hell even an A-10
An AH-64 perhaps, an A-10... maybe not. :)
ReplyDeleteI'll grant that the Rangers were compromised from the start (heck, that entire mission was), but point I was trying to make is that the BattleHawk is perhaps gunned-up, it's still no 'real' gunship and lacks the same speed and protection to endure in a prolonged firefight.
True, the H-60 is one mean survivable bird - one could argue it's one of THE survivable (support) helos, ever - but when loaded with these missiles and guns it will handle like a fat pig, and thus more vulnerable to ground fire; especially RPGs and DshK's.
Marcase the Seawolves would not agree. And as the "recipient" of some Sewolf cover, I would argue FOR a dedicated armed helo.
ReplyDelete