Iraqis bring down Apache (new)- Iraqi resistance?

[Vympel]

US loses two aircraft over Iraq


Helicopters constantly back up ground operations in Iraq
The Pentagon has announced the loss of an Apache combat helicopter over western Iraq, saying it was apparently downed by hostile fire.
An F-16 warplane also crashed south-west of Baghdad with the cause of the accident still under investigation.

The two-member crew of the helicopter and the F-16's pilot were not injured and were rescued by coalition forces, US Central Command reported.

American forces carried out raids targeting elements loyal to Saddam Hussein's ousted regime on Thursday while reports have been coming in of violent clashes in the northern city of Mosul.

Pay protest

Unconfirmed reports say a number of people may have been killed or wounded as hundreds of Iraqi ex-soldiers demanding their army pay clashed with police guarding Mosul's administrative buildings.

Witnesses who spoke to AFP news agency said that US helicopters circled above the city as the soldiers traded fire with the police.

The unrest apparently erupted after the local government began paying April salaries to civil servants but refused to pay ex-members of the Iraqi forces.

On the loss of its helicopter west of Baghdad, the Pentagon said two other Apaches had engaged "irregular forces" in the crash area.

They said the F-16 crashed at 0630 local time (0230 GMT).

"The cause of the incident is unknown at this time and will be investigated," Central Command said.

During the war, the Iraqis constructed a few quite clever ambushes for roaming helicopters- usually involving placing a choice target like a tank in an appropriate place, waiting for the helicopter to come near enough, and then letting off a barrage of practically everything- small arms, RPGs, AA fire, and even mortar fire.

Who are these Iraqi irregulars? Ba'athists? Shi'ites? Disgruntled soldiers?

[HemlockGrey]

The loss of one helicopter out of what must be several hundred deployed does not strike me as the effect a terribly determined resistance should have.

[Vympel]

The loss of one helicopter out of what must be several hundred deployed does not strike me as the effect a terribly determined resistance should have.

How bout on average death of one soldier per day to hostile fire in Iraq then?

What would you see a 'terribly determined' resistance to be capable of doing? It's pretty hard to shoot a helicopter down you know. Either you get lucky, or you have MANPADS. Either requires big steel balls.

EDIT: I also read another article that reported these charachters were using colored flares to coordinate their attacks on columns at night in urban areas- color coding according to how soft the target was (HMMWVs? Good. Bradleys? Bad.)- as well as showing good discipline and knowing when to retreat- there was a close call where a flurry of RPGs was fired into a barracks- the Army soldier on the seen said they must've known where the soldiers were sleeping (i.e. they had spies) because the rest of the place was largely empty, IIRC, and that the RPG shot grouping was extremely tight- it was pure providence that a few of them weren't killed.

[Sea Skimmer]

The incident occurred in an area that has been Saddams main support base for a couple decades. Still it could by any one of them. Several Iraqi army units disintegrated without a fight in the area as well.

[Uther]

I believe there have been about 10 combat deaths since "major combat" ended in Iraq, which is fewer than one per day.

There have been about 30 due to accidents, however, which obviously increases the death/day ratio.

[kojikun]

1 death a day is fucking lucky. it appears killing iraqis is a safer thing to do then drive.

[Rubberanvil]

It's pretty hard to shoot a helicopter down you know. Either you get lucky, or you have MANPADS. Either requires big steel balls.

Yet it is still easier than you think, Apaches aren't as well armored as the Russian Hinds so any smallarms fire is a serious risk to it. Plus it seems the Iraqis actually studied the anti-helo methods used by the Viet Cong and the Afghans.

BTW where the hell was US ground support during the raid?

[weemadando]

It's pretty hard to shoot a helicopter down you know. Either you get lucky, or you have MANPADS. Either requires big steel balls.

Yet it is still easier than you think, Apaches aren't as well armored as the Russian Hinds so any smallarms fire is a serious risk to it. Plus it seems the Iraqis actually studied the anti-helo methods used by the Viet Cong and the Afghans.

Apache's are reasonably hard to bring down unless you have some serious arsenal on your side. But occassionally they do fall out of the air without any external assistance. Either way however, the fact remains that Iraqis have been able to REPEATEDLY down Apaches. This shows that the American pilots and commanders aren't learning from their mistakes, or the Iraqi's are WAY better than you people give them credit for.

BTW where the hell was US ground support during the raid?

Probably around, but the entire point of the type of ambush used is to sucker the helicopter out of formation/away from ground forces by presenting it with a BIG-SHINY-TARGET (tm) and then hitting it. Be glad that the raid column itself wasn't hit by a coordinated strike once the air-cover was scattered.

[Axis Kast]

This shows that the American pilots and commanders aren't learning from their mistakes, or the Iraqi's are WAY better than you people give them credit for.

It's difficult to "learn from their mistakes" when the Apaches encounter this kind of resistance naturally. It's not so much tactical blunders as it is statistics. Once in a while, man-portable weapons will "bring down" high-technology aircraft. There's been some talk about reducing the role of helicopters in favor of higher-flying, fixed-wing air support anyway.

Any guerilla resistance would be partially effective in this kind of situation. It's very difficult to coordinate defense in the kind of society that's evolved in Iraq since Saddam fell. We'll slowly "get better" at determining how best to improve security for American troops, but casualties are still a given.

[Sea Skimmer]

The US lost over 4000 helicopters in Vietnam, more then half of which went down to enemy fire or got blown up on the ground, and that was against guerrilla and regular forces which did not have any form MANPADS sam system, the SA-7 only saw action in noteworthy numbers in 1972 by which time few US helicopters where still in the country. The lose of what is it now, three Apaches? Really is no big deal. Attacking soft targets requires you be low and close. While the Apache is quite well protected, most everything can take 7.62 fire and most areas have protection against 12.7 and 14.5mm AP fire and 23mm HE, some things will remain venerable. The tail rotor is the biggest; you simply can't armor it heavily.

Russia found the only way to get around all this was to [1] fit a huge gun so you could stand off further, [2] delete the tail rotor and [3] use huge rockets. The first two resulted in the Ka-50. However even 100mm rockets wont keep you out of range and excessive losses over Chechnya resulted in them using 240mm rockets designed for ground use. But the problem is that you can only carry perhaps a half dozen of them.

[Vympel]

Russia found the only way to get around all this was to [1] fit a huge gun so you could stand off further, [2] delete the tail rotor and [3] use huge rockets. The first two resulted in the Ka-50. However even 100mm rockets wont keep you out of range and excessive losses over Chechnya resulted in them using 240mm rockets designed for ground use. But the problem is that you can only carry perhaps a half dozen of them.

The single S-24 rockets are standard armament on fixed wing Russian aircraft- developed way back in 1960 for use by the Su-7 FITTER. They were afraid that the powerful blast from the rocket motor of the S-24 might stall the engines of a chopper firing them- such fears turned out to be unfounded though. Half dozen would be the absolute maximum if we're talking about a standard HIND hardpoint layout- assuming the ATGM endplates can mount them.

There's been talk of totally abandoning the choppers going on a 'free hunt' paradigm altogether and just using them for close support of ground troops/ escorting convoys etc.

[Sea Skimmer]

The single S-24 rockets are standard armament on fixed wing Russian aircraft- they were afraid that the powerful blast from the rocket motor of the S-24 might stall the engines- such fears turned out to be unfounded though. Half dozen would be the absolute maximum if we're talking about a standard HIND hardpoint layout- assuming the ATGM endplates can mount them.

Thought it was surplus BM-24 rounds?

There's been talk of totally abandoning the choppers going on a 'free hunt' paradigm altogether and just using them for close support of ground troops/ escorting convoys etc.

PGM's and tactical rockets have removed most of the utility for helicopter deep strikes, and search and destroy missions with no firm objective where proven stupid long ago.

[TrailerParkJawa]

While it sucks for the Army and the American citizens that we lost another Apache, it does not mean the Army is doing something stupid. Hell , two Apaches and no Cobra's lost to enemy fire in both Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty good IMO.

Helicopters are vunlerable aircraft, they can and will get shot down easier that a fixed wing aircraft. Thats life in combat. I think the fly boys are doing okay.

[weemadando]

This shows that the American pilots and commanders aren't learning from their mistakes, or the Iraqi's are WAY better than you people give them credit for.

It's difficult to "learn from their mistakes" when the Apaches encounter this kind of resistance naturally. It's not so much tactical blunders as it is statistics. Once in a while, man-portable weapons will "bring down" high-technology aircraft. There's been some talk about reducing the role of helicopters in favor of higher-flying, fixed-wing air support anyway.

Any guerilla resistance would be partially effective in this kind of situation. It's very difficult to coordinate defense in the kind of society that's evolved in Iraq since Saddam fell. We'll slowly "get better" at determining how best to improve security for American troops, but casualties are still a given.

My point is that on all the occassions that an Apache has been lost in Iraq the same technique has been used against them. Surely by now they would be thinking "man, that tank there is looking a bit too convenient..."

[Axis Kast]

My point is that on all the occassions that an Apache has been lost in Iraq the same technique has been used against them. Surely by now they would be thinking "man, that tank there is looking a bit too convenient..."

From what I've read, they run into lose/lose situations. In general, it's on an escort of road-bound patrols. Then they light up a tank or something in the distance. Can't leave it sitting there. Even caution can only go so far. Some weapons systems can't reach all that far out by comparison.

[Sarevok]

Apache's are reasonably hard to bring down unless you have some serious arsenal on your side. But occassionally they do fall out of the air without any external assistance. Either way however, the fact remains that Iraqis have been able to REPEATEDLY down Apaches. This shows that the American pilots and commanders aren't learning from their mistakes, or the Iraqi's are WAY better than you people give them credit for.

I agree. The Apache is the most powerful attack helicopter in the world. Even Commanche which is slated to replace the apache lacks behind in certain areas.

The new AH-64D model Longbow Apache is actualy superior to Commanche in all areas except stealth. Ah-64D gets its name from the advanced mast mounted milimeter wave radar that is so sensitive that it tell the difference between two types of tanks or veichles. The FLIR and PNVS is basicaly same as the old units on the AH-64A with the exception of some computer upgrades for superior targetting and fire control capabilitites.

Apaches are also very tough. The main rotor and vital areas can withstand shots from 23 mm cannons and even the less defended areas are quite impervious even to 12.7 mm MG fire. This makes me wonder how could the Iraqis bring down such a advanced flying machines. The more advanced D model was the first to be shot down and now an A model has been brought down.

There are two theories.

1. The Iraqis are getting smarter
2. The American military is no longer as powerful as it used to be.

I believe both is true. The Iraqis are definately much more intelligent this time than 1991. They did not repeat the mistake of engaging the superior Americans headon. This time they resorted to guerilla warfare which in time would prove fatal for the Americans. We have already seen Americans dying every day in Iraq.

The Americans too no longer maintain the edge they once had. Most of their hardware old by now, their primary fighting units were designed during the late 70s to the 80s. The defense budget reductions after the cold war meant that US military can no longer improve itself at the rate it once did.

[Rubberanvil]

I agree. The Apache is the most powerful attack helicopter in the world. Even Commanche which is slated to replace the apache lacks behind in certain areas.
[/quote]IIRC the Commanches were to replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior not the Apache Longbow.

[Vympel]

I agree. The Apache is the most powerful attack helicopter in the world. Even Commanche which is slated to replace the apache lacks behind in certain areas.

The new AH-64D model Longbow Apache is actualy superior to Commanche in all areas except stealth. Ah-64D gets its name from the advanced mast mounted milimeter wave radar that is so sensitive that it tell the difference between two types of tanks or veichles.

The Commanche also uses the Longbow mast-mounted radar.

The FLIR and PNVS is basicaly same as the old units on the AH-64A with the exception of some computer upgrades for superior targetting and fire control capabilitites.

Of course, the Commanche has a superior sensor system.

Apaches are also very tough. The main rotor and vital areas can withstand shots from 23 mm cannons and even the less defended areas are quite impervious even to 12.7 mm MG fire. This makes me wonder how could the Iraqis bring down such a advanced flying machines. The more advanced D model was the first to be shot down and now an A model has been brought down.

Helicopters will always be fragile machines- especially conventional models, whoose vulnerability is always the tail rotor. An appropriate mass of small arms fire will down any conventional helicopter, the ability to survive a few hits in critical areas is largely academic. Even the monstrous Mi-24 HIND, which is more heavily armored than Apache, can be brought down by small arms fire in the right place (as always, the tail rotor). Hence: Ka-50.

There are two theories.

1. The Iraqis are getting smarter
2. The American military is no longer as powerful as it used to be.

I believe both is true. The Iraqis are definately much more intelligent this time than 1991. They did not repeat the mistake of engaging the superior Americans headon. This time they resorted to guerilla warfare which in time would prove fatal for the Americans. We have already seen Americans dying every day in Iraq.

The Americans too no longer maintain the edge they once had. Most of their hardware old by now, their primary fighting units were designed during the late 70s to the 80s. The defense budget reductions after the cold war meant that US military can no longer improve itself at the rate it once did.

I disagree. The Iraqis are smarter, but the American military is definitely more powerful now than in 1991. Their weapons and capabilities are unmatched by any adversary- noone employs so many lethal systems, from the UAV fleet, to GPS guided munitions, to superior night vision equipment, digital communications, etc etc.

[HemlockGrey]

We have already seen Americans dying every day in Iraq.

Well, if the mentioned figures are true, more Americans die every day in America than they do in Iraq.

[Sea Skimmer]

I agree. The Apache is the most powerful attack helicopter in the world. Even Commanche which is slated to replace the apache lacks behind in certain areas.

Only if you want to kill armor, and only in max armament respectively

The new AH-64D model Longbow Apache is actualy superior to Commanche in all areas except stealth.

Quite wrong

Ah-64D gets its name from the advanced mast mounted milimeter wave radar that is so sensitive that it tell the difference between two types of tanks or veichles.

Five types actually and RAH-66 uses the same radar, only more of them will have it. Only 1/3 of AH-64D's actually have Longbow radar. The rest just have data links.

The FLIR and PNVS is basicaly same as the old units on the AH-64A with the exception of some computer upgrades for superior targetting and fire control capabilitites.

Which is why Commanche, with systems designed over a decade later is better off in both departments.

[MKSheppard]

Only if you want to kill armor, and only in max armament respectively

I'd rather carry a massive warload than be a quiet stealthy craft that
has to keep going back for resupply...

[Sea Skimmer]

I'd rather carry a massive warload than be a quiet stealthy craft that
has to keep going back for resupply...

I'd rather have both, and a huge UCAV fleet with Predator B's, and a couple B-52's circling with the ]WCMD in case something really big shows up. Hun, sounds like the US military..

However pound for pound RAH-66 is the most heavily armed helicopter in the world and can carry a quite large warload using its stub wings, upto 14 Hellfires which is only two short of sixteen of the Apache. But really, without the Soviet tank fleet to shoot out when you going to find enough targets for them all? Most of the time Apaches fly with only eight Hellfires and 38 rockets.

Anyway its prime mission is scouting, so that all those Apaches can actually fire there Hellfire's from seven kilometers like there suppose to. For that stealth is very useful, and even with only internal weapons leave it far better armed them the OH-58 it's replacing.

[Vympel]

However pound for pound RAH-66 is the most heavily armed helicopter in the world and can carry a quite large warload using its stub wings, upto 14 Hellfires which is only two short of sixteen of the Apache. But really, without the Soviet tank fleet to shoot out when you going to find enough targets for them all? Most of the time Apaches fly with only eight Hellfires and 38 rockets.

Most heavily armed helicopter in the world? The Mi-28N carries 16 Ataka-V ATGMs and 40 S-8 80mm rockets in a pair of B-8V20A pods as standard, as well as the 2A42 30mm cannon.

Unless by 'pound for pound' you mean in it's weight class.

[Rubberanvil]

Vympel, everyone here (execpt for you and me) likes to forget about the Russian hardware.

[Sea Skimmer]

Unless by 'pound for pound' you mean in it's weight class.

That is what people generally mean when they say pound for pound.