Jump to content

Helicopter VS Jets


GoosemanF7

Recommended Posts

I just stumbled upon this wikipedia entry and was baffled how effective Helos seem to be against Jets.

With the new Ka-50 update coming this year maybe multiplayer isnt as bad as i thought driving Helos.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

 

Also i remember years ago when starting DCS A-10C i was shot down by Mi24s several times.

I always thought it was because the AI is much to accurate, but looks like it is closer to the real thing than i thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article.

A couple of points worth considering:

- the jets weren’t allowed initially to use bvr. Once Aim7 sparrows we’re allowed, that very much changed the situation. Imagine what an aim120 would make of a chopper

- choppers are VERY difficult to make stealthy as the rotating blades have huge radar cross sections. In short, at any altitude and against an enemy with radars is going to result in a very bad day for a chopper.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article.

A couple of points worth considering:

- the jets weren’t allowed initially to use bvr. Once Aim7 sparrows we’re allowed, that very much changed the situation. Imagine what an aim120 would make of a chopper

- choppers are VERY difficult to make stealthy as the rotating blades have huge radar cross sections. In short, at any altitude and against an enemy with radars is going to result in a very bad day for a chopper.

 

yes, but when the F-15s where allowed to use Sparrows the kill ratio went to 2.9/1.

That is still worse than 5/1 in favor of the Helos when using guns only.

To me this means Helos can be very dangerous given the right terrain (canyons, caucasus etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you’re reading the F15 bvr stats the wrong way round. I believe that they mean 2.9:1 in favour of the F15s. Even then, better than you might expect

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah.. but right now in DCS rotor blades radar return seems not simulated...at least i have huge troubles radar-finding or locking the helicopters with a plane...

 

I always thought that was more because of radar ground return than anything. I find them much easier to lock when down low.

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them (no Christian Eagle or Yak)

System - i7-12700K, 64Gig DDR4 3200 RAM, RTX-3080, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for a helo to threaten a jet, the jet first has to do something very stupid, like trying to ''dogfight'' it. In normal ops, a jet will simply kill it with a missile from several to many miles away, if forced to use guns, the same danger applies with helos that applies with EVERYTHING with a gun : don't run right down his throat where you're an easy target. Whether it's a helo or a BMP or a tank, flying in a straight line directly at him is inviting a 30mm or SABOT. If I had to fight a helo guns only and was worried he was a threat, I'd just dive on him. There's no reason a helo should ever have the upper hand if you don't help him along.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah attacking an armed helo with guns from a fast jet is pretty difficult and not that great an idea usually. If you use a missile though and attack from a normal position (way higher and faster), you're basically invulnerable. They must have put some major engagement restrictions on the jets in those exercises for the choppers to come out on top so often (like maybe extending and disengaging was not an option until one or the other was "dead"). I think an A10 would be pretty vulnerable to engaging a chopper though since it can get pretty slow and makes itself vulnerable to the whirly birds guided missiles and guns for more than a couple seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah attacking an armed helo with guns from a fast jet is pretty difficult and not that great an idea usually. If you use a missile though and attack from a normal position (way higher and faster), you're basically invulnerable. They must have put some major engagement restrictions on the jets in those exercises for the choppers to come out on top so often (like maybe extending and disengaging was not an option until one or the other was "dead"). I think an A10 would be pretty vulnerable to engaging a chopper though since it can get pretty slow and makes itself vulnerable to the whirly birds guided missiles and guns for more than a couple seconds.

 

Based on a cursory reading of the exercise, yes, they were forced to make visual ID before engaging, a situation unlikely to exist in a real war with Russia/China. They specifically mention the F-15s locking them up at 64kms, but not being allowed to engage until less than 10km. In other words, in DCS, unsaddled by bs RoEs, you'd eat a AMRAAM ten minutes before you knew there was a fighter in the AO.

 

That ''study'' was extremely skewed and boils down to ''hey, it turns out if you deliberately give the helo a fighting chance and let him take the first shot, he can very possibly kill you!''. The later phases of the exercise became increasingly less ''stupidly restrictive'' and the helicopter life expectancy declined rapidly as a result.

 

Ultimately a helo in this condition is no different than a fast SPAAG or MANPAD: if you don't see it and fly right over the top of it at low altitude, you will probably have a very bad experience. If on the other hand you're alert and detect him before entering his killzone, he's toast and not much he can do about it.

 

In some ways I would expect a helo to be easier to spot than either a SPAAG or MANPAD as he'll be clear of cover and probably moving relatively fast. A helo hovering behind a treeline isn't a threat too much, as he's surrendered any form of initiative in the hope you blunder on top of him.

 

Helos are something that operate in a relatively secure environment (as far as aerial supremacy goes). A large, easily detected target with minimal ability to defend itself except at point blank range cannot be otherwise. It's worth remembering even if Sidewinder armed, a helo will not have NEARLY the range of a fixed wing fighter similiarly armed. 9mi in a F-15 will probably be 4-5mi for the helo.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is always the best place to start your search! Right?

yes, but when the F-15s where allowed to use Sparrows the kill ratio went to 2.9/1.

That is still worse than 5/1 in favor of the Helos when using guns only.

To me this means Helos can be very dangerous given the right terrain (canyons, caucasus etc.)

Gooseman, Is that 2.9/1 KDR for the Sparrow or the F-15?
Edited by =JUICE=

"There are only two types of aircraft, Fighters and Targets." Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From personal experience...

 

Stovies are intrinsically ego driven and look down their noses at anything that isn't a fast jet. So their instinct is to go for a guns kill.

 

Chopper pilots are intrinsically dirty fighters. And we instinctively go for...terrain kills. Saves the government the cost of a missile and the other guy is just as dead.

 

Coax a fast jet in tight and you will almost always run him into the cumulo-granite.

 

Plus nap-of-the-earth flight makes you a difficult target to lock with BVR weapons as you can be slow enough to get lost in the ground clutter. And when that jet pilot dives on you he still needs to pull up... Or eject.

 

I can't say where we did it for another few years, but we got our kill ratio up to better than 3:1 in our favour against fast jets and we did not have guided missiles.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Wildcards BlackJack_sml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is always the best place to start your search! Right?

Gooseman, Is that 2.9/1 KDR for the Sparrow or the F-15?

 

Let me enlight you.

Before talking about something you should always read everything. Not only the fun stuff and then stop when you feel your first thought has been validated.

At the bottom of every wikipedia entry there is something called "notes".

Maybe you should take a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways I would expect a helo to be easier to spot than either a SPAAG or MANPAD as he'll be clear of cover and probably moving relatively fast. A helo hovering behind a treeline isn't a threat too much, as he's surrendered any form of initiative in the hope you blunder on top of him.

 

If you read the report in total you will find that most of the initial 5/1 ratio kills were without the jets even noticing that they are being shot at.

The pilots got informed about being shot down during debrief.

It seems like spotting a Helo is not as easy as it seems (given the right terrain of course).

 

Still, you are right.

When you know its there, a Jet-pilot ca decide where and when to fight and shoot a Helo down with ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you know its there, a Jet-pilot ca decide where and when to fight and shoot a Helo down with ease.

 

Not with ease. Not at all. And if the helo has half decent A2A capability (even a .50 cal or a minigun) then the jet jockey has the opportunity to be in a lot of trouble really quickly...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Wildcards BlackJack_sml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the initial article, look at the dates.

 

At that stage visual ID before engaging was still a mandated strategy after the number of blue-on-blues in Vietnam. Then you'd get one F4 blasting past the bogey in Zone 5 for a snap ID and calling the shot for his wingman who would be 20 miles or so out and with a radar lock already.

 

Also of course radar and missile technology have massively improved since then. But fighter pilot psychology hasn't. In fact I'd respectfully suggest that average USAF jet jockey is now more gung-ho than his Vietnam era equivalent. So the chances of getting sucked into a knife fight with a nasty helicopter pilot with nothing to lose are significantly higher...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Wildcards BlackJack_sml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the report in total you will find that most of the initial 5/1 ratio kills were without the jets even noticing that they are being shot at.

The pilots got informed about being shot down during debrief.

It seems like spotting a Helo is not as easy as it seems (given the right terrain of course).

 

Still, you are right.

When you know its there, a Jet-pilot ca decide where and when to fight and shoot a Helo down with ease.

 

In order for a helo to ever get a shot the pilot has to be on the deck, whether he's using missiles or guns, whether the jet knows he's there or not. F-15s etc will typically not be on the deck.

 

The exercise was heavily slanted in the helo's favor by definition, or the helo and jet would have never engaged in the first place, excepting the A-10 and lesser extent the A-7. And again, they were detecting the helos at range and were forbidden to engage until close in.

 

Also, what defines a ''gun kill''? In exercises, simply bringing the reticle around and pulling the trigger over the target is usually sufficient. That's not quite the same as a true kill, which requires you actually hit the target with a projectile.

 

I read enough of the wikipedia article (you don't think the real exercise was just a few blurbs, do you? This is a simplified summary, why people tend to take issue with wiki links, because it leaves out a looot of info) to understand, based on the info provided, the exercise had distorted results.

 

The first phases are completely irrelevant, they were heavily restricted RoEs, unrealistic, and that's where all the ''high kill counts'' come from. The later phases, where the pilots weren't being intentionally hobbled by their CO's bs RoEs were much more indiciative of what actual combat might look like.

 

 

 

 

''Stovies are intrinsically ego driven and look down their noses at anything that isn't a fast jet. So their instinct is to go for a guns kill.''

 

This is just nonsense. Personal experience based on what? The behavior of idiot DCS pilots? Because there have only been a few examples of jet on helo ''combat'', and one of them used a LGB.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''Stovies are intrinsically ego driven and look down their noses at anything that isn't a fast jet. So their instinct is to go for a guns kill.''

 

This is just nonsense. Personal experience based on what? The behavior of idiot DCS pilots? Because there have only been a few examples of jet on helo ''combat'', and one of them used a LGB.

 

Errr, no.

 

Personal experience based on about 7,000 hours of military helicopter flying in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines followed by consultancy for different manufacturers, integration programmes following German re-unification and competitive flyoffs (including DAC sorties against fixed wing adversaries).

 

Many of my best friends are former fast jet drivers and they'd agree with my statement as well.

 

And in recent years the most notable fast jet vs helo engagement was indeed BVR. It was also a very messy blue on blue... So I think you'll find RoE will require positive visual ID as well as a go clearance from command.Which puts us right back at the helo having, if not an advantage then significantly less disadvantage.


Edited by Blackjack_UK

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Wildcards BlackJack_sml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the initial article, look at the dates.

 

At that stage visual ID before engaging was still a mandated strategy after the number of blue-on-blues in Vietnam. Then you'd get one F4 blasting past the bogey in Zone 5 for a snap ID and calling the shot for his wingman who would be 20 miles or so out and with a radar lock already.

 

Also of course radar and missile technology have massively improved since then. But fighter pilot psychology hasn't. In fact I'd respectfully suggest that average USAF jet jockey is now more gung-ho than his Vietnam era equivalent. So the chances of getting sucked into a knife fight with a nasty helicopter pilot with nothing to lose are significantly higher...

 

You may feel disdain for them or find them arrogant (we all do and they all

Are), there is a reason for that arrogance. They are almost all to a man, consumate professionals who take their profession serious. I’ve never met an aviator who would pass an easy missile kill so that he could kill with guns just because it’s cooler. Every aviator I’ve worked with knows he is better than you. He will show you by killing you as easily, quickly and efficiently as he can. They ARENT going to attack a helo with cannon instead of a missile out of arrogance. That something people want to believe....that their perceived arrogance is something other than a total and complete confidence that comes from years of professional training and study and the knowledge - not that I’m better than you- but “I can kill you before you kill me”.

 

So respectfully, I disagree with your assessment of aviators and fast jet pilots as being so arrogant as to forego missles and try cannon merely to stroke their ego. They are every bit as good as they think they are and they KNOW they have nothing to prove to anyone....including mud movers and slow movers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably wouldn’t even bother to paint a helo under the canopy because shooting down a near stationary (relative) target is hardly something they would brag about....even if it was with guns. Not trying to be a jerk here....I just kind of resent the insinuation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was kind of my point, too with that part of my comment. What few examples of jet on helo violence have occurred, most/all were not gun runs, including the mentioned Blue on Blue. And again, avreference to self imposed RoEs that would most likely NOT be in effect in a large scale war with another major power.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen (assuming - please forgive me if I'm incorrect in that)

 

First of all, Mikeck, I appreciate the compliment and recognition. For a living I spent quite a few years driving 10 tons of helicopter with a dozen Royal Marines in the back at or below treetop height in all weathers, often operating from small moving decks. We absolutely knew that we were the very best at what we did, even if the stovies thought different. We also frequently operated single pilot so no support for navigation - we had to aviate, navigate and communicate...

 

I'm not actually denigrating my former colleagues on fixed wing ops. I was always happy to have RAF and RN fast mover support, partly because in a helicopter you *are* very vulnerable and secondly because I was always confident that their recognition skills were very good and I was unlikely to be on the wrong end of a Sidewinder or burst of 30mm. To be honest, that wasn't always the case with some of our NATO colleagues whose presence often made our perceived threat level ratchet way up.

 

I appreciate that exercises are way different to actual combat, no matter how close the rules make them. But exercises consistently showed that fighter pilots would adhere to the RoE, which required a visual ident (good) but then fail to extend and engage with a standoff weapon, but instead attempt a gun pass (not good). They would consistently fail to correctly interpret the helicopter movement, and would consistently overcommit and be unable to recover before hitting the (exercise) ground. Because helicopters can change height rapidly *without* changing attitude. So that was a tactic we would use.

 

In all my operational flying the RoE were broadly the same, and the chain of command to get authorisation to shoot, other than in the Falklands, was lengthy and painfully slow. God alone knows how frustrating it must be for a fast jet pilot to watch his advantage being eroded by the second as he waits for permission to engage. He's still boring in on the target, he's got lock, he's waiting...waiting...waiting...OK, clear to-nuts, inside minimum engagement range, switch to guns and continue...missed, turn and descend, Christ he's lower than BANG!

 

You can see it, can't you?

 

One last point for Zhukov. You're right about the stats on jet to helo combat. Except for one important point. You're talking only about successful jet vs helicopter engagements. Because they're the ones that get reported.

 

In the Falklands there were quite a few unsuccessful jet vs helo engagements - Argentine Mirages and Skyhawks against our Wessexes and Gazelles. While we weren't blasé about it, we also weren't that worried because we could dodge them most of the time. But the Pucara scared the crap out of us because it was nearly as slow and agile as us. And it had a couple of big cannon in the nose. We never came up against them because our fast jet pals took them out on the ground...

 

Of course we're also looking at different scenarios. If we're talking IRL then the chance of full scale conflict with another sovereign state remains mercifully small. More likely by far to be up against insurgent or non nation-state forces (like Daesh) with little aviation capability or limited conflict with nation states like, say, Iran whose air defence capability is likely to be seriously degraded by first strike Wild Weasel and standoff attacks. And that's when those RoE will be more rigorously enforced because there may be a UN mandate to satisfy. (Ask anyone who did ops in The Balkans for example).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Wildcards BlackJack_sml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Yellowgixxer My experience has been from the helicopters point of view, one of my many hats was as an ACTI (aviation combat tactics instructor). I've set up and taught many courses turning very good Army helicopter pilots into proficient helicopter fighters (there's a big difference).

 

Day one is to get into their heads that helicopters never go hunting for fast jets, we're generally doing something important in support of others and will only fight if we have to as it detracts from the thing we're trying to do. Jets on the other hand may indeed be looking for us as something on their list of priorities.

 

Our mantra was to 'Avoid, Evade, Threaten, Kill' when jets were about.

 

If we see the jet first, then avoid if at all possible, get into hard cover, shadow etc before it sees us, keep the jet padlocked until it passes. If it turns in on us, then evade with manoeuvres and find cover. If it persists with an attack then adopt a positive counter attacking stance, ie use the weapons to put it off, and if it is still coming use the weapons to kill.

 

Like jets, helicopters would not be used singularly, but as a section, and would fight as such. Most jet v helicopter engagements would be visual, not sure most jets would fly around at high level using active radar and advertising their presence on RWR to everyone on the battlefield.

 

I arranged fighter affiliation against Harriers and the outcome was often frustration of the harrier attacks as they were drawn into a tight low gun fight. The clever ones would disengage to a safe distance and have one go high to spot us and line the other up for a run if we were stupid enough to break cover before they went bingo fuel. Poor weather was our greatest weapon, flying a Lynx at 50 feet agl at 100kts in one mile visibility with 200' cloud base isn't a problem, try that at 350 kts in a harrier while looking for a lynx and trying to avoid the next set of wires or ground fire and you'd soon decide we're not worth the risk.

 

Properly trained helicopter crews are constantly alert for the threat, using terrain masking on route, using allocated section scanning and reporting, trained section manoeuvre drills without hesitation when ordered, and of course using AWACs and ISTAR where available.

 

As a footnote 2 scout helicopters were downed by Pucara in the Falklands war, one shot down with canon fire, the other over torqued and crashed trying to evade the cannon fire. Unfortunately the Falklands had neither hard cover or trees to hide behind!


Edited by Oldahpilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

As a footnote 2 scout helicopters were downed by Pucara in the Falklands war, one shot down with canon fire, the other over torqued and crashed trying to evade the cannon fire. Unfortunately the Falklands had neither hard cover or trees to hide behind!

 

Jeez. How could I forget the Scout? Especially from my own unit. (Must be getting old) But 2? I thought we lost 1 Scout to the Pucara (probably), 1 Gazelle to an own goal (Sea Dart from a Type 42) and 2 Gazelles to ground fire... Willing to be proven wrong (And digging through memory, did we ditch a Scout after a tech failure? But recovered it and the crew fine?)


Edited by Blackjack_UK
Corrected myself.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Wildcards BlackJack_sml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yellowgixxer, I apologize that I came off argumentative or like I was picking a fight. I’ve known only a few helo pilots (one AH-1T and the other a UH-60) and both were very professional. I have no idea how much skill it takes to keep a helo airborne, let alone make it do what you want. My comment was meant to rebut what I felt to be a feeling that fast mover aviators would take additional risk (of death and damage to aircraft) and make something harder than it has to be (by foregoing missles for Cannon) only for the purpose of proving something.

 

If that was not your feeling, then I misunderstood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...