via Fox News.
BAGHDAD – Islamic State group militants armed with a rocket launcher shot down an Iraqi military attack helicopter Friday in the country's north, authorities said, highlighting their ability attack aircraft as a U.S.-led coalition expands its efforts to combat the extremists.Well that didn't last long.
Fighters downed the Mi-35 helicopter between the towns of Beiji and al-Senniyah in northern Iraq, an official with the Iraqi Defense Ministry said. An official with the Iraqi air force corroborated the information, saying the helicopter's pilot and co-pilot were killed in the crash.
They just got the darn things and now ISIS is able to take them with (from all indications) RPGs.
Quite honestly the question that no one is asking is this. Are attack helicopters still viable on the modern battlefield? As much as I hate the USAF's stance on the A-10 is it possible that they are right?
It probably has more to do with poor training of the Iraqi Air Force than the competence of the platform in question.
ReplyDeleteQuestions abound!
ReplyDelete1. What was the engagement altitude? Nape of the earth would make any RPG suspected. Above the 900 mt range of an RPG? if so was it a MANPAD?
2. Was the altitude above the range of a MANPAD? if so was it a SAM of the HAWK variety?
3. What was this chopper doing flying at Alt low enough to be engaged by an RPG?
4. If this chopper was at extreme maximum altitude in an area of missile engagements why was it not spitting out chaff and flares?
The speed and defensive array of the A-10 is much more sophisticated than an Mi 35.
Yet even they are not immune, nor is an F-16 High speed low drag high altitude striker.
With a system such as the Buc, even the B-1 and B-2 are dead meat.
So is it ultimately "Boots on the ground" time?
As megawobblehead stated: CYA for bad maintenance by calling an accidental crash a shoot down?
Pilot error cover up for over torquing a rotor?
CFG by a distracted snackbarin' Pilot?
Just plain bad luck.
"Are attack helicopters still viable on the modern battlefield?
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hate the USAF's stance on the A-10 is it possible that they are right? "
It always depends what kind of types of MANPADS the opponent has ?
The US enjoyed the luxury that during OIF and Afghanistan the opponents did not have MANPADS in quality and quantity .
MANPADS do not get that much attention say like a BUK, S-300, S-400 system for example,
But they're engagement envelope is also rapidly evolving , take for example the french Mistral system , it has a range of more than 5 km, and that was in the late 80ties.
The new Russian Verba MANPADS has a stated max. engagement attitude of 4500 m .
So i would not be surprised if they come up with a MANPADS that has a range of 8-10 km and an altitude of more than 5-6 km in the next years, say for example .. hmmm , china .
And the deserts of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan are one thing , having an opponent hiding in woodland and jungle with modern MANPADS is another thing, remember the Kosovo campaign and take a look at what is happening in Ukraine now.
http://www.armamentresearch.com/9k333-verba-manpads-now-in-service-with-russian-military/
ReplyDeleteThe A-10 is much faster than a helicopter and does not hover. Iraqi pilots like to hover and launch rockets at their target, which makes their own helicopter an easy target. Additionally, the Iraqis don't have good situational awareness, as we can see by them losing a helicopter in the fight for Mosul because it ran out of fuel
ReplyDeleteUS and alies lost something like 125 helicopters in Afghanistan only 27 to enemy fire ,135 in Iraq 47 to enemy fire so loss of a single Hind in combat is no big deal. Mi 35 units are probably dishing out more pain on the ISIS that rest of Iraqi army combined. From vids on the you tube Mi35 pilots seem to be near suicidal in their attack runs ,which consist of a diving attack no mater if the use guns,rockets or guided missiles in any case the attack profile exposes them more than tactics favored by Apache pilots of long range stand off engagments.
ReplyDeleteAs for A-10 only one was lost in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan , far more fighters were lost ,it also shows that in Afganistan MANPADs are nonexistant as there are no fixed wing losses outside those Harriers destroyed in a raid on the airbase.
The A10 also destroyed far more bad guys to put it blundly and simplistically. BY FAR!
DeleteThe Mi-24/35 uses in general "airplane" attack maeauvers.
ReplyDeleteThat's they're tactic. That's how they train.
The Ukraine loyalists have lost 5 SU25s in the east. I don't see why the A10 would fare better.
ReplyDeleteHelicopters are far more vulnerable.
Poorly piloted and employed Iraqi ones more so than western ones.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA-10 engines are designed to take hits from MANPADS - that's why the are mounted on pylons, external of the fuselage. SU-25 engines are mounted in greater proximity to other systems that dislike damage.
DeleteIn the hands of the Ukrainians, that is not a statement against the SU25 in my opinion.
Deleteand compared to what exactly?
What would fare better than SU25s in this particular instance? surely not attack helicopters! surely not multi-role fighters.
After losing several Su-25s in Af'stan to Stingers, the Soviets added flare dispensers and stuck an armor plate between the engines, and after that no more losses.
DeleteThe Apache does outstanding at night-time vs. this kind of threat.
ReplyDeleteAs TrT already mentioned the Su-25 fared pretty badly in Eastern Ukraine against a modern threat. I definitely think the A-10 is still potent on the battlefield but against an adversary armed with modern tactical SAMs a serious SEAD/DEAD effort would have to be undertaken before the A-10 could be utilized effectively.
ReplyDeleteits all about tactics and not just weapon platform.. how do you execute your attack run in such way thats hard for thr enemy to target your aircraft with MANPADS.. these gunships standard tactics would be multiple gunship covering each other from such threat. Any helicopter no matter how modern will get shot down if they got lazy and lax on tactic department..
ReplyDeletefor a sobering reference, look at the massive helo casualties in a single campaign of Lam Son 719 where more than 300+ helicopters destroyed and. over 700+ damaged. All from enemy AAA gun and not from MANPADS. Against a real enemy amply supplied with Aerial Denial weapons, it will be suicide to run regular helo insertion, medevac and gunships or even UAV/ISR platform over the Warzone.
as for A10 survivability in modern warfare, i wouldnt bet on it.. COIN yes, real war no..
The point of this is that attack helicopters are fundamentally flawed when compared, to say, dedicated close support aircraft like the SU25 and A10. Ones that are especially high tech and delicate like the Apache are even more flawed than the particularly robust Mi35.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question about viability, Im not sure that I can say that they are. They have proven to be extraordinarily vulnerable to concentrated ground fire, even against the incompetent and poorly equipped Iraqi army in 03, nevermind determined and trained advesaries well drilled in anti-aircraft fires.
Dedicated close air support craft are far superior honestly, and it is a magnificent flaw in thinking to actually believe that fast, multi-purpose and fighter aircraft can replace the likes of the SU25 and A10 (and its fucking asinine to suggest the F35 can do the job). An armed force with a large fleet of dedicated close support aircraft aren't missing out much by having limited numbers of attack helicopters.
The detractors of the A10 believe they are ineffective against modern opponents. I say they are wrong on so many levels. After all, if the A10 is especially vulnerable, what does that make other favorites like Apaches and other aircraft? furthermore, its almost like the A10s detractors ignore the invaluable support of EW assets.
defenseissues.wordpress.com addresses these arguments far more elaborately than I can.
Wreckage of Iraq Army Aviation Mil Mi-35 Hind attack helicopter reportedly downed near Beiji 03 October 2014.
ReplyDeletehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzH21QbCIAEbg9P.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzH21EtCAAAk4B7.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzH21aVCUAAAT20.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzH21OQCcAAUTA4.jpg