ATS Project: Attack Chopper

As unlikely as it sounds I have to agree with ch on most of the accounts. There are many technicalities around that could be troublesome, but since we aren't all aeronautical engineers (I'm still workin on that myself) I don't think our designs have to be flawless and superior in every way .

Anyway, my concern is still with the lower gun turret. While this is probably the better half for it to be on (since helis for the most part have to lean forward to get some good cruise/dash speed), I have to remain steadfast in the thought that it needs to be mounted on the very rear of the aircraft to give it some upper-hemisphere capability as well. Advice- mount it a la Avro Lancaster. I shall say no more.

KPI as usual comes up with his doom and gloom assestment, though as always in includes some valid questions and concerns.

Re situational awareness and target cuing. Most (all?) current generation attack helicopters have to face their adversery in the frontal arc to engage because their crew, sensors, weapons etc are all facing forward. They also have to raise most of the helicopter above the treeline to engage.

Turret mounted sensors are already popular, but (not withstanding the difficulties of reload, limitations of what can be fired from this position etc), ...

um

got to go, will continue laters.....

Planeman,

>>
KPI as usual comes up with his doom and gloom assestment, though as always in includes some valid questions and concerns.
>>

Snicker, not 'D&G' just pragmatic. If I want to hunt helicopters, all's I need is a 75,000 dollar MALI and an observer corps with cellphones. THAT is the 'threat ceiling' on how far and how much, attack helicopters deserve to be invested in on a continuing plateau'd-out technology basis. Anything which puts out that much noise, blade doppler and optical shimmer without being able to outrun even a 500 knot missile is just a mort waiting to happen as Najaf proved (once again).

>>
Re situational awareness and target cuing. Most (all?) current generation attack helicopters have to face their adversery in the frontal arc to engage because their crew, sensors, weapons etc are all facing forward. They also have to raise most of the helicopter above the treeline to engage.
>>

Which is the same as saying that just because it's 'always been done that way' that it must continue to be so. So why introduce a new model-year with a different paint scheme? You ain't Ford or Chrysler.

NOTE: Airwolf, a nominally 'advanced helicopter', had it's primary sensor apertures on the side of the aircraft. The Mi-24K Hind-G2 had a 27" big bore artillery spotting telescope looking out a modified passenger cabin door. The French Orchidee` and U.S. SOTAS systems both had their primary apertures dangling in giant canoes BELOW the helicopter.

Mast mounts and roof mounts and nose mounts for playing bobup whackamole games _are stupid_. Not simply because of the LOS problem but the fact that you are ASS-U-ME'ing that you are going to be /at range/ with a threat that can SHOOT you as much as SEE you if he half tries.

What's worse, this assumption continues to the conclusive point where he is only going to nail your butt to the ground from the point where he is himself **most vulnerable**.

On his own damn vehicle.

If I want to kill Attack Helicopters threatening my armor, I'm going to LAYER a defense composed of fixed wing, LDSD long-spear shooters. Preplanned artillery fires on every /possible/ ridgeline, treeline, outhouse and doghouse within 10,000 meters of my adjacent route pass by. UAVs and other Attack Helos as optical overwatch on those self same hides and masked approaches before and after I make my point of closest approach. And last but not least, leapfrogging MANPADS teams and maybe even preemplaced wires and mines (the 'AHM' goes back to Vietnam with the NVA putting selfmade mines in treetops likely to be swept by rotorwash people) on the routes that the /threat/ is likely to use to cross over the FLOT and get into position.

YA AIN'T NEVER GONNA GET CLOSE. Certainly not without my knowing about it.

And knowing you're there, it's 99.5% likely you will _never see_ the fires platform which kills you.

Why bother trying if you can spot _me_ from 4-5 times as far out? Why _slow to a stop_ a platform which can maintain the same picture at 250 knots that it does at 0?

That's what ALERT and AMUST were all about you know. Realtime processing of widepipe spectrum, half of which was sensor-noded offboard in a drone.

>>
Turret mounted sensors are already popular, but (not withstanding the difficulties of reload, limitations of what can be fired from this position etc), ...
>>

APY-8 Lynx operates at upwards of 30-40km. By 15km it's able to see 4" 'pixel to pixel' synthetic video MTI displacements. WHY THEN is the APG-78 labelled as a 10-12km sensor system?!? The heavier Orchidee` and similar dedicated MLRS cuing systems were effectively mini Pave Movers with multitarget sightlines on the order or 60-80km able to sort HUNDREDS of vehicle traffic signatures.

DO NOT BE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Stay in motion. Stay on the fringes of the main forces battle area. Realize that the helicopter security/screening (cav force) mission is as much about AREA SENSOR coverage swaths (like SLAR only more variable in overlap and realtime) as anything remotely related to the 'turreted targeting pod' nonsense which is essentially what the TADS and it's relatives are.

REALIZE that the biggest sensor window on your bird is not the damn nose. It's the sides of the fuselage. A fuselage which can be angled and deep-RAM'd and given a fully electronically fenestrated radome/optics cover to get _better_ LO while maintaining the largest possible radar or EO aperture diameters.

USE that enhanced sensor system to do a wideangle snapshot in radar and then zoom-in with the optics. ONLY once you've got your _total picture_ (20 target locations), send a datastream to whatever netfires launcher, high-fast-far SDB slinging UCAV, or _dumb wingman_ you have.

And let particularly the last do the terminal attack bleep with a holdful of SMACM or Dominator or some other cheapass multipass missile that can pass back closeup video. A hunting cruise missile you can afford to lose if they shoot at it. Because you can also afford to have a second shot coming up behind on a separate bearing that dives on the muzzle source or drops a smart-EFP on it.

>>
Got to go, will continue laters.....
>>

Ah shucks and here I just about had a bead on'ya...


KPl.


We lost 5,036 helos in SEA people. We 'rebuilt' at least half as many again from scraps and pieces. Killing Beanie Prop Airpower is NOT a new business. It's a booming franchise of some thirty years proven longterm success by the dumbest a-technologic forces on the planet. Something to think about when you do your Blue Thunder wannabes.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by ch1466]

I really am just not sure abou that design planeman. Not completely sure, but it seems like the rearfacing guy would probably take up more space than two people together (might not be true with fly by wire), and I really can't see an advantage to the turreted weapons (missiles can turn 180, right? I think I saw a vid or two of it, but not too sure about the hellfires and such). Really, I think something like a modernized Apache with counter-rotating blades, a 25mm Bushmaster or Minigun, somewhere to mount a few missiles and a good radar system would be perfect.

PBscientist
I was along those design lines when i drafted my modular helo (the 2 craft system is not a must, they can operate as a normal Attack helos), i just simplified it a bit a dropped one 80kg of pilot off to make room for internal missile carriage)

Drop bombs. Intimidating. Try grenades.

Seriously. An authorized drop bomb would have significant effect on the moral.

Originally posted by bothered
Try grenades.

I've just had a thought here- would it be possible to mount a high-velocity grenade launcher on a helicopter? Or heck, just a grenade-dropper. You don't need a 2200-pounder to make a crater or two. Just a lil box with maybe a dozen grenades that could drop at the press of a button (one at a time, or as many as are needed, set by the pilot) to give the chopper a lil bit more oomph for as little weight as possible.

Additional thought- The grenade launcher in the place of a gun? Not on all helis, just a few specialized ones.

Early AH-1 Cobras had an automatic grenade launcher and a mini-gun (?12.5mm?) in the nose turret but this was later replaced by the now familiar 20mm cannon. The grenade launcher had insufficient range and the minigun insufficient firepower:


Re my concept.

Originally posted by PBscientist
I really am just not sure abou that design planeman. Not completely sure, but it seems like the rearfacing guy would probably take up more space than two people together (might not be true with fly by wire), and I really can't see an advantage to the turreted weapons (missiles can turn 180, right? I think I saw a vid or two of it, but not too sure about the hellfires and such). Really, I think something like a modernized Apache with counter-rotating blades, a 25mm Bushmaster or Minigun, somewhere to mount a few missiles and a good radar system would be perfect.

Yep, two cockpits take up more volume than one, but not by a huge amount - obviously the internal layout needs to fit with the COG etc.

ALL operational attack helicopters have to point the whole aircraft towards the target - the Apache et al. The 360degree "turret" mounted missile systems, together with rear facing crew member, allow the helicopter to engage targets in any direction, taking better advantage of available cover and react much quicker to new threats/opportunities.

I've added forward facing weapons pylons as additional firepower. They are depicted with non-specific tube launched ATGWs. I've also incorporated a heavy 30mm cannon into the lower hemisphere turret replacing the two twin 23mm cannons.


It's worth noticing that the starboard tail fin has a bullet fairing on top of it - that's the datalink which plugs the helicopter into the real-time battlefield management web and allows it to interact with other aircraft, UAVs and ground forces.


Another novel feature is the new stub wings incorporate the mixed-air exhausts into the trailing edge for IR signiture suppression and to move them away from the rear crewmember's position (to reduce the issue of hot air distorting his view).

Something which isn't vissible is that I'd propose to develop a anti-radiation varient of whatever heavy anti-tank missile was employed (Hellfire or whatever) to be used in conjunction with the regular anti-tank ones - this would provide organic SEAD against localised battlefield AD systems which are normally passed over by SEAD jets - a similar concept to the "Sidearm" (modified Sidewinder) ARM carried by USMC Super-Cobras. But basing it on an anti-tank missile has several weight, compactness and commonality advantages.


The rotor top missile position would carry 6-8 LAHAT or TRIGAT anti-tank missiles (LAHAT is my first choice because it's lighter and smaller). The lower turret would have a 30mm cannon and 4 Starstreak high velocity missiles or Mistral AAMs. The wings would have 4 pylons for quadrople ATGWs or rocket pods etc.

So overall it would carry more weapons than the Apache - so it'll probably have to be bigger. Although the current graphics show the rotor based on the Eurocopter Tigre, I propose to use the rotor of the EH-101 Merlin making it a much bigger helicopter - more akin to the Rooivak.

Planeman
Why would you put dedicated AA Missiles into a combat helo, it won't do much good against fighters and ATGMs like LAHAT are more than enough to deal with other helos...

Drop any and all mini guns and go for a auto cannon 30mm on a fixed mount near the cockpit......

No NOTAR or enclosed blades go for contraprop and a ejection seat/pod

Beam riding AT missles and rear facing munitions dispensers,and dumb fire rockets

Originally posted by northwolf
Planeman
Why would you put dedicated AA Missiles into a combat helo, it won't do much good against fighters

I'll sorta agree here, but mostly not. Helicopters in a war zone are easy kills for a fighter, and are usually a pretty good waste of missiles (unless you've got a squadron armed to the teeth). Easy gun kills, though. I suspect that the turret is probably best placed on such a helicopter when one wouldn't expect it to really fighter back.

Originally posted by northwolf
Planeman
Why would you put dedicated AA Missiles into a combat helo, it won't do much good against fighters

I'll sorta agree here, but mostly not. Helicopters in a war zone are easy kills for a fighter, and are usually a pretty good waste of missiles (unless you've got a squadron armed to the teeth). Easy gun kills, though. I suspect that the turret is probably best placed on such a helicopter when one wouldn't expect it to really fight back.

Originally posted by northwolf
Planeman
Why would you put dedicated AA Missiles into a combat helo, it won't do much good against fighters and ATGMs like LAHAT are more than enough to deal with other helos...

IR missiles such as Mistral and Stinger are fire and forget which is a huge advantage compared to laser guided ATGWs. Laser guided AAMs like Startstreak are EXTREMELY fast thus mitigating that limitation. Both Mistral and Starstreak are also claimed to be effective in the air-ground role although probably less so against MBTs.

ATGWs are NOT particularly effective against non-hovering helicopters anyway whereas Mistral and Starstreak are effective against both hovering and movi ng helicopters as well as fast jets, UAVs etc.

- - - - - - - - -Range - - - Weight- - -Diameter- Length
LAHAT- - - - -13km- - - - 13kg- - - - 100mm- - ? -short?
TRIGAT-LR - -8km- - - - - 49kg- - - -150mm- - -1.5m
AT-16 Vikhr- 10km- - - - -45kg- - - -130mm- - -2.8m


[edit on 16-8-2006 by planeman]

Just as a statistic question, how many missiles (max) would your heli be able to carry, and where? Ex- 6 upper turret, 6 lower turret, 8 on stub wings....

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Just as a statistic question, how many missiles (max) would your heli be able to carry, and where? Ex- 6 upper turret, 6 lower turret, 8 on stub wings....

Typical 'heavy' fit:

8 LAHAT anti-tank missiles in rotor-top turret
8 LAHAT or other anti-tank missiles under stub wings
2 Rocket pods on wing tips
4 Startstreak high velocity missiles in lower turret
1 30mm cannon in lower turret

Ok, for comparrison, 'normal' weapons fits (not including cannon):

AH-64 Apache: 16 Hellfire missiles (or 8 Hellfire and two rocket pods)
CSH-2 Rooivalk: 16 ZT-6 Mokopa and 2 Kukri AAMs (or 8 Mokopa, 2 Kukri and two rocket pods)
Eurocopter Tiger: 8 Trigat/HOT2 missiles and two rocket pods (or 8 Trigat/HOT2 and 4 stinger or Mistral AAMs)
Mil-28 Havoc: 16 AT-14 Vikhr missiles and two rocket pods
Ka-50 Holkum: 16 AT-14 Vikhr missiles and two rocket pods

The AH-56 Cheyenne(My Best AH) had the capabilities of a WW2 Bomber, It had a Swiveling Gunner Station, Downward Firing F-104 Ejetor Seats,
Max Speed 250mph n so on, There was also a proposed Naval Variant with a rear troop compartment!

Believe it was also cancelled becouse of the USAFs Jealousy. The USAF could have kept it and used it as thier own AH and fight alongside US Army AH-64 Apaches

The AH-56 Cheyenne was even featured in this music video, Even at the end half too!
www.youtube.com...

Well, Its the Millenium now, We should replace Choppers with these

That may or may not look familiar

A quick analysis of helicopter gunship stats suggests that the NH90 is a good one to borrow the rotors and powerplant off for my concept - so it'd be quite a bit bigger and more powerful than the Apache, allowing it to carry more weapons.

Planeman
I'm a bit sceptical of the NH-90 figures, concidering that they're currently having severe issues with vibrations in drivetrain and rear boom, so the available top speed and max load may be altered...