Which Attack Helicopter is Best?

[yasin_khan]

Which one is best attack helicopter?

[P.A.F]

well out of the 3 options u have given i would say apache ;)

[yasin_khan]

I like apache too. :)

[P.A.F]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-64.htm

i also like the cobra

[WebMaster]

We need more options in there. :)

[tatra]

Its comparing apples an oranges: the Apache can't carry troops, Hind does for example.

[Pathfinder-X]

This comparison is flawed. These choppers are designed under different doctrines. Take Hind for example, the initial role was to act gunship with troop transporting ability, not a dedicated anti-armor system(Hind-A). Although later versions were modified to forfill the attack role (Hind-D). After 1980's the helo was equipped with anti-tank missile to engage heavy armor.

As for Apache, it was designed to counter massive Soviet tank assualt on Europe(Which by the way, never happened). Both Hind and Apache forfilled their role within their armedf force's doctrine. Comparing these two would be waste of time. Remember, there is no best, only platforms that suits your requirement.

[Aussie Digger]

Why not a few more options as people have suggested? There are plenty of other good Attack helo's? Including Tiger, Mangusta, Rooivalk, AH-1W/Z Cobra? My personal fav is AH-64D Apache Longbow. It is the most capable, but also the most expensive and the most maintenance intensive. Most cost effective? Tiger ARH...

[adsH]

Its comparing apples an oranges: the Apache can't carry troops, Hind does for example.

Apple and oranges may smell and taste different but both can be juiced the same way.

[Red aRRow]

Ok I have updated the poll with more choices. Enjoy.

[turin]

I' say, the Apache is the best allround-solution with emphasis on anti-tank-caps. The Mi 28 Havoc (not listed) seems to be a very capable chopper as well, very well protected.
Tiger makes a very good support chopper if fully equipped.
Would exchange the KA-50 for KA-52, I'd guess it performs a bit better with a two-seater layout.
Not sure about the Rooivalk, its data suggests a performance slightly inferior to the Tiger.
Mangusta is little bit too light IMO.

[yasin_khan]

The KA-50 is a state-of-the-art and powerful battle helicopter which is in limited service with the Russian Air Force. This aircraft is not fielded. Only a handful of prototypes exist, and it has not yet been approved for full-scale production. The Mi-28N and Kamov Ka-50 are competing to fulfil the Russian Army Aviation requirement for a night-capable anti-tank helicopter, a replacement to the Mi-24 created 25 years ago.An initial fielding plan is for 2 per year for 14 years.

[P.A.F]

apache and cobra rule :). i don't like russian coptors

[yasin_khan]

Apache and Cobra are good looking but the Russians copters are very much ugly. :D:

[P.A.F]

yeah if you talking about looks then the american coptors rule :smokingc:

[turin]

The KA-50 is a state-of-the-art and powerful battle helicopter which is in limited service with the Russian Air Force. This aircraft is not fielded. Only a handful of prototypes exist, and it has not yet been approved for full-scale production. The Mi-28N and Kamov Ka-50 are competing to fulfil the Russian Army Aviation requirement for a night-capable anti-tank helicopter, a replacement to the Mi-24 created 25 years ago.An initial fielding plan is for 2 per year for 14 years.


My latest information is that the Ka-50 is now the model for export (Turkey ordered modified Ka-50 known as "Erdokan") while a number of twelve Ka-52 is in procurement for the russian special forces. So the Ka-50 is likely to never see full scale production for the russian forces.

The Mi-28 has been selected as combat heli for the russian Air Force and up to 50 have been ordered with final delivery by 2010.

All info taken from air force technology:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka50/index.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi28/index.html

Concerning looks I'd say the Ka-50 owns them all while the Mi-28 is one of the ugliest things flying around.

[Nulla]

Australia has just ordered 22 Tigers.

[Aussie Digger]

That's right, The first Aussie Tiger will be delivered in December 2004.

[XEROX]

The Eurocoptor Tigers are good looking

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/eurocopter-tiger15.jpg

[tatra]

I'm smitten with Rooivalk in the same way I like Rooikat: a bit outside the mainstream but very good at what it was designed for.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rooivalk/images/rooivalk2.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rooikat/images/roo6.jpg

[Nulla]

That's right, The first Aussie Tiger will be delivered in December 2004.

I was always a fan of the old Huey's. The Bushrangers had style and sounded like thunder approaching. Only problem was they could only do about 90 knot's fully loaded

[yasin_khan]

Germany's Tiger helicopter is also good looking.But the most battle tested helicopter is Apache. :smokingc:

[P.A.F]

which is the italian helicoptor?

[yasin_khan]

which is the italian helicoptor?


PAF a120 MAangusta is an Italian helicopter.

[P.A.F]

i like that one to. ;)

[yasin_khan]

The A129 Mangusta,armed with anti-tank and area-suppression weapons systems, is intended primarily as an attack helicopter to be used against armored targets. The aircraft can operate during day, night, and all-weather conditions.It was succesfully employed in Somalia where it proved highly reliable and extremely flexible. Agusta developed the A129 Mangusta anti-tank helicopter, the first attack helicopter to be designed and produced wholly in Europe, which demonstrated Agusta's capacity to satisfy the most complex technical requirements. Italy is the only country with this helicopter in its inventory, with the Italian Army.

[P.A.F]

i think it's a very good coptor.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/agusta-a129-mangusta03.jpg

[yasin_khan]

ya u r right

[Mike Powell]

For me, the future battlefield is rely on Commanche for her futuristic design and efficiency.

[Pathfinder-X]

For me, the future battlefield is rely on Commanche for her futuristic design and efficiency.

For you, the future battlefield will not rely on Commanche for it has been cancelled. :D:

[armage]

:mrgreen Lol, out of all those choices only three have been battle proven (i believe correct me if wrong,if im wrong): AH 1W/AH 1Z Super Cobra- USA, AH-64 A/D Apache, and Mi24 Hind.
So we don't really know how the others are in a real battle enviroment.
Plus the Apache, Cobra, and Hind were all used agaisnt "obsolete" tanks and battle enviroment.
i say they should have a international attack heli. competition to see which is the best.

[Mike Powell]

Oh why?

[VICTORA1]

Guys,
The one I would pickup would say, " This is the attack helicopter that pakistan can get with no strings attached with all the bells and whistles in large numbers". That would be the best helicopter for pakistan.

[Aussie Digger]

I think Mangusta is a good helo too, but it has a couple of problems. 1. It's a technological orphan as Italy is the only one that operates it, and in relatively limited numbers too. Rooivalk also suffers from this problem, in South Africa.

2. The Mangusta is a very small "light" helicopter. Of the popular current attack helo's it is the smallest. This means it has a much smaller range and weapons load carrying ability than other attack helo's.

Other than those problems, I have no problem with the Mangusta and actually think it'd be a good choice for any operator, provided those 2 limitations are fully understood. On the plus side, Pakistan seems to have excellent relations with Italy (Grifen radars etc) so the logistical side of things might not be tood bad. I still think Cobra is the best option for Pakistan though. Cheers.

[muslim282]

"Lol, out of all those choices only three have been battle proven (i believe correct me if wrong,if im wrong): AH 1W/AH 1Z Super Cobra- USA, AH-64 A/D Apache, and Mi24 Hind."

Yes but you must remember the Mi24 has taken numerous casualties all around the world in various conflicts. The Apache and cobras have had alot better performances.
l think the mangustas would have done better than all of the above if they were used in the same conflict and in SIMILAR numbers.

[gf0012-aust]

Oh why?

Rumsfeld killed it off. It no longer fits into the future warfighting stance.

[gf0012-aust]

:mrgreen Lol, out of all those choices only three have been battle proven (i believe correct me if wrong,if im wrong): AH 1W/AH 1Z Super Cobra- USA, AH-64 A/D Apache, and Mi24 Hind.

The Hind had its halcyon days during afghanistan. As a tactical weapon on a modern battlefield it would be of minimal use against even a semi modern airforce. They are awful to maintain and run. I've seen some up close, and whoever flies one nowadays really deserves a medal of courage. ;)

They're big, brutal and effective against an enemy without any means of self defence - but as a contemporary weapon - nope. Stay well away unless you like seeing black bordered letters in the mailbox.

[Gremlin29]

Without question AH-64 Longbow Apache is the "best" gunship in the world bar none. I would add however that like many weapons systems it may not be the best gunship for a given entity. If funding and infrastructure are not in place the "best" anything will not be the best. Apache's require an extraordinary amount of training, cash, and infrastructure to be utilized to their full potential. Take away "some" of the necessary training (I'm talking about mission training, not aircraft qualification training) and you've got problems. That's why countries that "could" own Apache's have opted for other models. It would likewise be a waste of money to own Apache's if your armed forces aren't fully integrated to fight the air land battle with a total and complete combined arms team, something the Longbow was designed to do from day one.

As for the Russian choppers, I've always LOVED the way the Mi-24's look, they are my favorite cosmetically. But I agree with GF, I've been around and in the Mi-24 D as well as the Mi-8 Hip and like most Russian hardware are very primitive by western standards. I'm thankful that's not what we are using in the US. Also, the Mi-24's troop compartment is barely functional, the interior is tiny and most suitable for Hobbits!

[Pathfinder-X]

If we look away from the primitive avionics and weapon system on the Hind for a sec, its armour is the best amoung all attack helicopters. Some section could resist 20mm AA gun. It is nicknamed the "flying IFV"

[Gremlin29]

If we look away from the primitive avionics and weapon system on the Hind for a sec, its armour is the best amoung all attack helicopters. Some section could resist 20mm AA gun. It is nicknamed the "flying IFV"

The Hind is armored from just behind the pilots station forward and the armor is substantial but not of a sophisticated material. It looks for lack of a better description like it was put together by boiler makers! It's even got huge round head rivets all over it in that area!! The flat portion of each pilots windscreen is very very thick (around 4 inches thick) bullet proof glass as well. One things for sure, the Hind pilots don't have much to worry about as far as actually being physically hit by small arms fire. The gunners station is quite cramped, I'm 6' tall and it would be physically impossible for me to man that station. It's big and impressive but ungainly as well. I've had a few beers with the guy that flies the Hind and the Hip at the US Army Test Flight Center at Fort Rucker and he told me that it was somewhat cumbersome in anything but cruise flight. It's also got problems with Max Gross Weight in that it's not very powerful with a useful load.

[Aussie Digger]

Muslim, Italy's Mangusta's saw operational service in Somalis in the mid 90's, where they performed very well in the hot, dry and dusty conditions found therein. The Mangusta's performed a wide variety of mission types in Somalia from Recon to escort tasks and fire support tasks as well. Cheers.

[muslim282]

Thanks Aussie.
l wasn,t aware of that fact.

Another fact:- out of all the attack helicopter corpses lying around the world, the most numerous is the Mi24.
lf l was a soldier fighting on the ground l,d much rather fight an Mi24 than an apache armed with night vision and highly accurate weapon systems coupled with the longbow radar.

All helicopters no matter how well armoured still take a good pounding from heavy machine guns. Numerous apaches were damaged in iraq. These were quickly removed from the battle so as to prevent total destruction or loss.

All things considered l think the Longbow Apache is presently No.1. Mainly due to its results achieved on the battlefield.

[armage]

:? What about the Havoc? I herd somewhere it was equal to the Apache.

[gf0012-aust]

:? What about the Havoc? I herd somewhere it was equal to the Apache.

Thats a bit hard to determine when they have different mission profiles and tactical fit.

[redsoulja]

i heard that the yanks are building a new helo with tech from commanche
on another forum, ppl say its a rumour any1 got anything reliable? or is just bs?

[gf0012-aust]

i heard that the yanks are building a new helo with tech from commanche
on another forum, ppl say its a rumour any1 got anything reliable? or is just bs?

I'd be betting lots of money that it's BS. The Commanche and Crusader were pulled for a reason - and it wasn't to kickstart new vaguely similar programmes. ;)

[Gremlin29]

There's definately no "replacement" for Comanche, at least not in the immediate future. They are supposed to develop a new light/medium aircraft to replace the ancient OH-58's. If they were smart they'd go with Bell 412's instead but I doubt that will ever happen.

[redsoulja]

what about future generations of unmanned helos
would they stand any chance of taking an advantage over piloted helso????

[Gremlin29]

I think the unmanned helo's will eventually take a critical role in the future of aviation as either scouts into high threat area's or target designators in high risk area's. I don't see them taking on the role as attack ships or replacing scouts all together as they are many years away from developing any sort of simulated battlefield awareness. Unlike our fast mover cousins, tactical helicopter flight is very much a fly by the seat of your pants proposition. Controlling the aircraft is a comparitively easy function to master, developing situational awareness is not and I just don't see synthetic sensors and or intelligence being capable of replacing humans in that respect. I also firmly believe that Army Aviation needs to carefully annalyze operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where losses have been very very light compared to the number of missions and hours flown. Apaches and Blackhawks are now fairly well tested and proven platforms in combat, and so are the crews. I think the biggest pitfall is going to be the lessons learned, or in my opinion not learned. Neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan were the Army's aircraft faced with a foe of any real consequence. That's not to say it wasn't dangerous, and that the crews didn't perform well, but rather they were fighting against poorly trained, poorly equipped and equally poorly performing enemies. In othe words, duck soup. In that instance, I hope and pray that tactical doctrine doesn't change to the degree whereby we think all of our future adversaries will give such a poor accounting of themselves...in other words, overconfidence.

[Aussie Digger]

That is a real issue Gremlin and it's arguable that the US suffered from it when it went into Somalia. They started out the right way with the US Marines, but when they left and the US Army light infantry forces took over they expected to be able to sort of a decades old problem relatively easily.

Unfortunately once the real US combat power was taken away (the 20 odd thousand US Marines) the Somalian's decided they'd fight back, leading directly to the Blackhawk Down situation and the eventual US withdrawal...

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a pic of the first Australian built Tiger Armed Recon Helo taking shape... Things are looking good.

http://www.ausaviation.com.au/Online/stoppress/november04-1.jpg

[armage]

How long does it usually take to build a Tiger for Australia?
And what countries are going to use the Tiger?

[quicksilver]

I think the russian hind will still be the best for about a couple more years than the apache will take over as the best

[gf0012-aust]

I think the russian hind will still be the best for about a couple more years than the apache will take over as the best

I think you should backtrack and read Gremlins post re the Hind.

Further to that, it is slow cumbersome and not suited to modern warfare. It's had it's day as far as complex warfighting goes.

[Aussie Digger]

They started building the Tiger's in Australia (Brisbane) in 2003. The first one above along with 3 others are undergoing system testing prior to their initial flight tests. The first 4 Australian built "Aussie Tigers" should be delivered early next year. The 1st 2 Aussie Tigers (manufactured in France) are due for delivery next month...

[turin]

And what countries are going to use the Tiger?

Besides Australia Tiger is in full production for the two developer countries, France and Germany. Both are planning for a total number of 120 and receive a first batch of 80 units. It remains to be seen if the rest will be ordered as well due to financial restrictions (as usual in Germany). Spain ordered 24 units of a slightly modified design. Dont think that will be the end of the list, there is quite some export potential in this design.

[quicksilver]

I think the russian hind will still be the best for about a couple more years than the apache will take over as the best


Its size may have been a consequence of the selection of the Mi-8’s propulsion system, and may be disadvantageous in combat. Compensation comes from high speed (it is still one of the fastest assault helicopters in the world) and fighter-like agility, provided by powerful engines and rotor design. Its cabin provides room not only for eight servicemen, but also for extra ammunition and fuel. Though it may be re-loaded by crew (or by ’passengers’) in the very vicinity of combat field without returning to base.
It saw extensive service in Afghanistan and has also been exported to many countries.
Numerous modifications affect mostly armament and electronic equipment.

http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=46

[umair]

Unlike our fast mover cousins, tactical helicopter flight is very much a fly by the seat of your pants proposition. Controlling the aircraft is a comparitively easy function to master, developing situational awareness is not and I just don't see synthetic sensors and or intelligence being capable of replacing humans in that respect. I also firmly believe that Army Aviation needs to carefully annalyze operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where losses have been very very light compared to the number of missions and hours flown. Apaches and Blackhawks are now fairly well tested and proven platforms in combat, and so are the crews. I think the biggest pitfall is going to be the lessons learned, or in my opinion not learned. Neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan were the Army's aircraft faced with a foe of any real consequence. That's not to say it wasn't dangerous, and that the crews didn't perform well, but rather they were fighting against poorly trained, poorly equipped and equally poorly performing enemies. In othe words, duck soup. In that instance, I hope and pray that tactical doctrine doesn't change to the degree whereby we think all of our future adversaries will give such a poor accounting of themselves...in other words, overconfidence.


Total agreement with you'r analysis Grem.Platforms will change what really needs to happen is a constant rethinking of the tactical doctrine depending on the situation being faced.Iraq and Afghanistan relatively speaking, are IMHO little more than shooting at a target range(but then I ain't a pilot and if my army aviation uncle reads this he'll give me a huge lecture :roll ).But what if for instance you have to go up against a foe like Iran per se.It has a force of well over 200 gunships(Cobras original and reverse engineered, some Russian gunships as well?) and large quantities of armour and men to throw into the fray.What would be the tactical doctrine then and how will it evolve from lets say the the moment the first shot is fired to the last one?
Or lets say in Europe if the probable soviet invasion had turned to city by city fighting as in WWII :?:

[gf0012-aust]

Or lets say in Europe if the probable soviet invasion had turned to city by city fighting as in WWII :?:

The russian intent in an invasion of europe was to bypass towns and cities - using a landwarfare version of McArthy's island jumping. NATO wanted to pull them into towns and cities as an exercise in debilitation.

The key hubs would have been fought over - but thats all.

[Gremlin29]

The Mi 24 can't hold a title a few more years when it hasn't held the title in the first place. The AH-1 was the superior gunship until the Apache came along. Right now I'd rate the Mi 24 as being in dead last place in comparison to other dedicated gunships being made around the world. It's got a decent cruise speed but 20 or 30 knots additional airspeed doesn't really add any practical dimension to gunships, or tactical helicopter flight for that matter. And, the Mi 24 definately does not handle like a fighter. The "crew compartment" was made for Munchkins and proved to be woefully inadequate for transporting combat troops but that's a moot point since carrying troops is irrelevant to gunships. I could go on and on and on but there's no point in it really. In terms of appearance the Mi 24 is my top pick, but performance wise it's a dinosaur who's design was barely plausible 25 years ago.

umair, when I was assigned to my first unit many years ago we had plenty of Vietnam era vets still around, several of whom "tutored" me in the ways of becoming an old pilot. There's a saying, "There's bold pilots, and there's old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots" and it's quite true. Anyway, the the forms of tactical flight are 1. NOE (Nap of the Earth) 2. Terrain Flight. NOE is performed at airspeeds of less than 40 knots, and the aircraft is flown as low to the ground as possible. You go around obstructions etc the main idea being to keep the aircraft as far below the horizion as possible. Terrain flight is performed and I quote from my old FM " As fast and as low to vegetation and obstacles as conditions permit". That means your flying at cruise airspeeds and above while staying as close to the terrain as possible. You select the lowest average terrain features ie rivers, draws, valleys etc. The old Vietnam era pilots absolutely hated NOE flight for 2 reasons: 1. During NOE flight helicopters are operating in the region of flight where successful autorotations are very nearly impossible to accomplish and 2. You are low and slow, not good when there are bad guys around.

The gunships adopted the NOE mode as their standard tactical flight mode because it was easier for them to identify and neutralize targets. Much engineering went into the Apache for example so that it would be easy to hover since that was the optimal platform setup for Hellfire shots. So that's how they've been doing it for years. Old tactics for an old enemy, the US Army is setup to fight a legitmate armed force, not the rag pickers they've been engaging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The gunships therefore have been routinely low and slow in Iraq which has made them easy targets for the rebels. Finally, they have begun to see the error of their ways and the army has recognized that NOE flight should be avoided, particularly over cities. It's frustrating that it's taken them that long to officially recognize this but anyone that's served will attest that changing something like basic tactics comes about very very slowly.

[kubai02]

I voted for KA50/52 although AH64D came in very close...

The Russians have always made machines meant for the average users that's why I chose the werewolf/alligator over apache. Apache's are great machines but it requires a lot of support (material and personnel). What I liked about KA50/52 is the speed that makes it ideal for it to undertake the antihelicopter role effectively and it is the only helicopter that has a feasible ejection system in-place.

To me the Hind era has come to an end (so much so for the Cobra even though there are upgrade efforts i.e. AH1Z).

[Gremlin29]

KA 50/52 is no match at all for Apache D in the air to air arena, the Apache's radar can be dedicated to aerial threats while the KA 50 has no air to air radar capability. From an anti-armor perspective, Apache D can fire on multiple targets all the while remaining masked (hidden) from direct line of site, again something KA 50/52 are incapable of. The KA 50 is a neat machine but to me it's just like the "state of the art" Migs and Sukhoi's that never went into production and it's already a full generation behind in dedicated gunship development. When there are hundreds of KA 50's with proven combat experience they can be judged more fully. For now, they are not much more than dream machines which like all other Russian hardware of the past 20 years, a day late and a dollar short.

[Aussie Digger]

I know the answer to this. "The one on your side"... :P

[srirangan]

lol .. i second that

[Mike Powell]

Hello guys, it's been a while.

Let see, best helicopter gunship eh.

Different helicopter got their own advantage that will eventually exploit by the user during the test or better, in the combat situation. Some got better agility, some got better enviromental tolerance and some got better armor protection and e.t.c. It's only depend how well the operator use that machine.

As a Malaysian, here's my list of helicopter gunship that considered suit the Malaysia's purpose -

- Denel Rooivalk
- Agusta Mangusta
- Kamov Ka-50

The reason I choose Rooivalk and Mangusta because they're designed for harsh enviromental condition and great firepower that will or may even match the Apache's supremacy. While the Ka-50, this helicopter considered got some revolutionary system although she may not as advance as the Apache or Tiger. And with counter-rotate rotors, she's a fast climber and mover, if I'm not wrong. :)

[Awang se]

your choice mike is more like choosing the cheapest toys in the store. no radar means u have to rely on eyebals and camera. of course, MOKOPA might change that, hopefully.


petaling jaya, not far away, i work at kem sungai besi.

[SABRE]

The best would be APACHE, it can take out 20 tanks. CAMACHE is to take over Apache so thats going to be the no.1 attack helicopter with stealth body.

[Awang se]

CAMACHE? u mean COMMANCHE? i thought it was already scrapped. even if it is operational, it will be used mostly as an armed scout or as reconaissance screen for ground column. it will support AH-64, not replacing it. i believe it will replace KIOWA as a scout. it has new rotor blade design and ducted engine which making it significantly less noisy than any other helo in the world.

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry guys, Commanche has been axed. Too expensive, and not providing enough capability for the money. Just like "Crusader". The AH-64 Apache can carry a maximum of 16 Hellfire missiles. It'd be lucky to be able to "take out" 20 tanks in a single mission. It'd need a few "re-bounds"...

The Mangusta, like the Tiger, due to it's small size can only carry 8 Hellfire class missiles. These attack helo's are designed more for recon and escort tasks rather than the tank busting role of the Apache. The Mangusta and Tiger are more akin to what the Commanche's intended role was; recon and escort tasks but with an inate tank killing ability, ie: Hellfire.

The Rooivalk though it seems like a capable helo, has yet to win an overseas order and only 16 have been purchased by the South African Air Force (SAAF). The Mokopa missile is apparently roughly equivalent in capability to Hellfire, though possibly with a slightly longer range. It is a laser guided munition, not a radar guided munition, which is just as well considered the Rooivalk doesn't have a radar...

I don't know much about the KA-50, but I don't believe Russia actually uses it. I could be wrong, but I understood the Russians chose the Mil-Mi-28 in preference over it, leaving a Country in the same situation as it woulod be in if it bought the Rooivalk, ie: the operator of an "orphan" aircraft. I'd personally choose the Mangusta, Tiger or Apache depending on the requirements of the end user. At least these aircraft have relatively large (VERY large in the case of the Apache) support bases behind them...

[Temoor_A]

The AH-64 A/D Apache Assault Helo is no doubt the best of all. It's survival capabilities have been tested in Afghanistan and Iraq with massive success and very minimal loss.

It is also nicknamed as "Tank Buster"!

[ThunderBolt]

Whats the story behind WZ-10. Do they even exsit, and if they do can someone post its specifications. :confused:

[Elite Brain]

I voted for the Longbow Apache. Its a shame the COMANCHE project was axed...now that was a kick ass attack helicopter. Can we say it was the "F-22 Raptor" of all current attack helis? :p:

[driftder]

I have a look at the various helicopters discussed and will like to recommend the Mi-28 Havoc, which is a close enough comparison with the Apache-64 Longbow. The only difference between the two is the position of the radar, the Apache-64 Longbow having a mast-mounted radar post on top of the roters, thus giving better(?) 360 degree coverage whilst the Mi-28 Havoc have only frontal arc coverage.

One other point about the Mi-28 Havoc that draws my recommendation is that its not found outside the Russian inventory and that there are no(?) exports of this model, thus perhaps indicating that this is a non-export critical item?

Next is - cost. It should be cheaper then the top of the line Longbow and properly Westernised, perhaps making changes to the radar position from front to mast-mounted, the missiles (but not the gun as it's supposed to better), engines etc.

Still for a top of the line tank-busting attack helicopter, the AH-64 Longbow is the top winner for the moment - until some better comes along.

[driftder]

More to my earlier post about modifying a Russian non-export helicopter model by Westernising it. One example would be the Ka-50-2 Erdogan - more information to be found this link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-50-2.htm. A picture of the Ka-50-2 Erdogan can be found at the same link. I tried to post the picture, but the size is too big or something :confused:.

This model would be a lethal Kamov/IAI combination and would have given may be even the AH-64D Longbow a good run for its money.

[Boyle]

Yes the AH 64 has more antitank missiles bou the Eurocopter tiger has double++ the range and if the appache wanted the range they would have to have pylon munted fuel tanks meaning theyd have the same armement as the tiger the tiger also has the cost of 1/2 the Apaches price

[gf0012-aust]

Yes but you must remember the Mi24 has taken numerous casualties all around the world in various conflicts. The Apache and cobras have had alot better performances.

The HInds are actually considered to be obsolete depending on the threat matrix. The Russians have upgraded a short squadron but are phasing the bulk of them out.

The most prolific users now are in Africa. Israel has beeing providing SLEP for some of them, but most countries that are using them to be cost ineffective.

The Mil17 however is growing in popularity as a gunship even though it's of the same relative vintage and is less protected and/or capable.

[ajay_ijn]

Sorry guys, Commanche has been axed. Too expensive, and not providing enough capability for the money. Just like "Crusader". The AH-64 Apache can carry a maximum of 16 Hellfire missiles. It'd be lucky to be able to "take out" 20 tanks in a single mission. It'd need a few "re-bounds"...

The Mangusta, like the Tiger, due to it's small size can only carry 8 Hellfire class missiles. These attack helo's are designed more for recon and escort tasks rather than the tank busting role of the Apache. The Mangusta and Tiger are more akin to what the Commanche's intended role was; recon and escort tasks but with an inate tank killing ability, ie: Hellfire.

The Rooivalk though it seems like a capable helo, has yet to win an overseas order and only 16 have been purchased by the South African Air Force (SAAF). The Mokopa missile is apparently roughly equivalent in capability to Hellfire, though possibly with a slightly longer range. It is a laser guided munition, not a radar guided munition, which is just as well considered the Rooivalk doesn't have a radar...

I don't know much about the KA-50, but I don't believe Russia actually uses it. I could be wrong, but I understood the Russians chose the Mil-Mi-28 in preference over it, leaving a Country in the same situation as it woulod be in if it bought the Rooivalk, ie: the operator of an "orphan" aircraft. I'd personally choose the Mangusta, Tiger or Apache depending on the requirements of the end user. At least these aircraft have relatively large (VERY large in the case of the Apache) support bases behind them...
Ka-50 entered in russian service in 1995.
But they don't have enough money to buy more.
Only 8 Ka-50s are in russian service.
Ka-50s were offered to India,China and even Turkey.
IAI has offered some electornics and weapons to be integrated into Ka-50.
Mi-28 actually lost out the competetion with Ka-50.

[jameslee]

Apache is the best!!!
I see it directly...(not longbow)
It's excelent!!

[faheem]

I thinck that the best helicopter that has been built up till now is the American COMANCHE which is really the best and it will be given to the American army in 2009.It has many adventges like stealth , it rotors have also very low voice and it can not also be detected by heat seeking missiles due its speical systems. It can repare its systems and many many more

[aaaditya]

i beleive that(the commanche) project has been cancelled.:coffee

[gf0012-aust]

I thinck that the best helicopter that has been built up till now is the American COMANCHE which is really the best and it will be given to the American army in 2009.It has many adventges like stealth , it rotors have also very low voice and it can not also be detected by heat seeking missiles due its speical systems. It can repare its systems and many many more

commanche was cancelled last year

[ashkon]

Aussie Digger (hi i'm new to this forum) i'm just wondering why the ADF chose the Tiger over the Apache Longbow, was it because of cost reasons?

[Aussie Digger]

Yep, mainly cost, but also because of the intended role of the ARH. The Helo is to be used by the Australian army primarily for recon work. It will also provide fire support for ground forces, but recon is it's main job. The Tiger was considered better for this role, and also cheaper...

[USAF32093]

I really like the Apache. A good thing about it is that it has great weapons:bazooka