Missile and other stuff effectivness

[BlackScorpion 0]

Yeah, I had a small argue with my friend, about how easy/hard it is to drop e.g. a chopper with RGP or Stinger.

Things we argued:

-power of RGP's and Stingers, do some choppers have enough armor to withstand the impact

-possiblities of the pilot to avoid being hit, countermeasures and actually fly so that missile wont hit

-luck, pilot experience

-ability to turn the best armor towards the threat

-warning systems, is pilot even able to notice threat in time

-distance (close range, few hundred meters)

Any help? I'm sure you know these things better than we do.

[Apollo 0]

i'm not an expert on millitary matters ,but i can figure out some of these questions.

First of all except for the gunship's helicopters barely have armor (if any) and probably would crash under any such rockets as rpg's and Stinger's if hit ,i do not now how much a gunship like AH64 can take but i do know that most transport heli's like mi17 ,chinook or blackhawk are easy to down with rpg's and stinger's. (given distance)

yes distance will make a important difference afcourse ,most heli's these days are downed when trying to land or hovering close above the ground ,thzey are easy t shoot then even with RPg's and they havn't got time to react.When shooting at such a hel at long distance's surely the countermeasure's will make a possible difference.In the same sense Speed will do a lot to avoid being hit by rpg's ,even if you fly low.

Luck? Well if youre enemy is dumb enough to not arm the missile ,or to shoot a stinger while youre between him and the sun ,for the rest luck is luck and not easy to predict.

I do not think there is such a thing as best armor on a transport heli.

Warning systems will help afcourse given a good distance from the rocket start point ,it gives the pilot the time to get speed and deploy countermeasures i figure.

Afcourse distance will be the greatest factor ,the further the target ,the harder to hit it ,deffinatly for rpg's afcourse.

Most downing of helicopters in recent time's where mainly done by terrorists or insurgents at moments that they could shoot the helicopter at very close distance ,like shooting heli's at airfields or when they are used of insertion/extraction of hostile urban area's. (like in Blackhawk down)

Kill's of helicopters at long distance's are far few.

[red oct 2]

First of all except for the gunship's helicopters barely have armor (if any) and probably would crash under any such rockets as rpg's and Stinger's if hit ,i do not now how much a gunship like AH64 can take but i do know that most transport heli's like mi17 ,chinook or blackhawk are easy to down with rpg's and stinger's. (given distance)

a RPG would probaly bring a Black hawk down, but something large like a Chinook would be different. there was a couple cases were a Chinook was struck by a RPG in Afghanistan and both made it back to safty. now something like a Stinger would have little trouble shooting down a Chinook or a Hind.

[nSe7eN 0]

First of all except for the gunship's helicopters barely have armor (if any) and probably would crash under any such rockets as rpg's and Stinger's if hit ,i do not now how much a gunship like AH64 can take but i do know that most transport heli's like mi17 ,chinook or blackhawk are easy to down with rpg's and stinger's. (given distance)

a RPG would probaly bring a Black hawk down, but something large like a Chinook would be different. there was a couple cases were a Chinook was struck by a RPG in Afghanistan and both made it back to safty. now something like a Stinger would have little trouble shooting down a Chinook or a Hind.

Stinger missile can easily brings an MI-24 down, according to the CIA in some article I read every 5 stinger missiles was hunting down 3-4 of those soviet gunships in Afghanistan during the soviet invasion, the CIA supplied the afghani militants as they used to call them with hundreds of those missiles!

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]a RPG would probaly bring a Black hawk down, but something large like a Chinook would be different. there was a couple cases were a Chinook was struck by a RPG in Afghanistan and both made it back to safty. now something like a Stinger would have little trouble shooting down a Chinook or a Hind.

I figure youre right ,with a few exceptions ,i think that a Chinook hit at it's rotor by an Rpg would still crash ,but the rest of it's body is probably strong enough to withstand such a blow.  

Ah well ,the thing with helicopters is that due to their nature as airship's they usually will have very few armor ,because they are build to be light as to be able to fly and be agile in the air and able to carry a sufficiant payload ,by norm any airship will be build by light materials because any airship has a limited weight lifting capacity ,and usually what they spare out in weight in the plane/helicopter itself can then be used for other thing's like arnement or passenger's ,or not used to preserve agility.

From an designer point of view ,with full conventional warfare in mind ,i think it's also unneffeciant to give gunship's much armor ,as usually they are prey's for enemy jet's anyway ,heli's are most often used for ground support covered by air supperiority and therefore i would say firepower is for them most needed.

A Plane like an A10 basicly is able to carry more armor because it has an jet engine that allows the plane to have more lift ,so it's not comparable to heli's.

And notice that while an Stinger is known to be a highly effeciant weapon against heli's ,it's basicly crap to kill armored ground vehicle's with.A question i would like to ask is if a Stinger would be actually able to take out vehicle's like HMWWV or BRDM ,and by take out i mean also kill the crew inside ,not just imobilize it.And if it could kill that ,if it could do the same on light APC's. (like an M13)

[jakerod 254]

I don't know if you remember this but there was a Chinook taken out in Iraq by some type of heat-seeking missile which I think was a Strela. Basically they fired from so close and the chinook was so low that the counter-measures didn't have enough time to deploy and it was taken out.

[Ares1978 0]

RPGs, unlike Stingers, use shaped charge warheads. They produce a very limited explosion and almost no fragments. The Stinger (and other in its class) works exactly the other way around.

In fact, the lighter the target is armored and the more space there is inside it, the less damage an RPG will cause when it penetrates. The worst targets for an RPG would be helicopters, especially transport helicopters with lots of "empty space" and little armor.

You can protect a helicopter against either one, but not both.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]In fact, the lighter the target is armored and the more space there is inside it, the less damage an RPG will cause when it penetrates. The worst targets for an RPG would be helicopters, especially transport helicopters with lots of "empty space" and little armor.

Then again ,i figure the spot of inpact would also be important in the equation. If you are going to hit an heli with an rpg then probably youre prety damn close to this target heli and the heli itself is flying real slow or is hovering.IMO if youre albeit able to hit an helicopter in air with an Rpg then you probably are also in the position to aim that rpg to a particular spot of the heli ,depending on the type of heli.Now heli's like Mi17's and Chinooks don't really have a low profile.

So i would think that part's like the pilot canopy ,the rotor engine or the tail are excelent target's to aim at to down a helicopter for ex. ,The rpg would probably cause more dammage there since it's dense and has critical parts.

Though a helicopter tail or rotor engine would be harder to hit ,the pilot canopy is probably the best area to shoot and Rpg ,not only because of it's easier to hit due to it's size ,but also because when for ex. trying to down a heli near an airfield youre likely going to place yourself on a spot near the airstrip on the path of a landing helicopter ,thus usually youle be facing the pilot side when the heli is coming.

In any case ,i guess it has been proven that rpg's can be very dangerous for low flying or hovering helicopters.

Btw can i add some questions to this topic ,im not an army expert myself so there always thing's to learn here.

I would like to ask what the effect would be of various tank rounds on helicopters in real life ,or even AT rounds ,though i doubt that such things probabl arn't going to happen much in real combat ,i'm just curious.

[Ares1978 0]

Naturally the spot of impact is important, but for the last 40 years, helicopters have been designed with ground fire in mind and hitting something important from below, has been made as difficult as possible.

I disagree with one thing, though. An RPG is not a very accurate weapon, you can always try to hit the turret of a tank, but I doubt that you can hit the weak spots of a helicopter intentionally. A bigger target is of course easier to hit, but as far as vital systems go, not many have the knowledge and the skills to hit it with an RPG.

Personally, I'd invest in a good 12.7mm (or 14.5mm) machinegun, if I wanted to down enemy helicopters at close range. Of course, mobility would be a problem.

[Leveler 0]

The best way would be to use a portable heat seeker and get the helicopter unaware. You can dissapear after one good shot. I remember seeing a video of chechen rebels killing a russian gunship; they waited for the first of the team to come and dissapear and they shot the second just as it was moving away from them and about to dissapear, facing to another direction. Anything else is for infantry a solution of necessity. Heavy machine guns need a good gunner, a prepared position and extensive fire, you wont live through a single ecounter. RPGs have very low range, are slow and due to their warheads do very little damage unless they hit a critical component. Americans underestimated them and learned in the hard way that at close range and against hovering helicopters they are not harmless.

[Ares1978 0]

That's an exaggeration. At close range, a heavy machinegun is unsurpassed. Of course a good gunner makes it more effective, but no helicopter pilot is prepared to let his bird get hit, and that limits their effectiveness. Even small arms fire have dropped helicopters in Iraq, and in previous wars, most helicopters have been shot down with rifles. Modern helicopters tolerate a lot, but they are not invulnerable.

The objective is not as much to destroy the helicopter, as it is to force it to withdraw from the fight. Relatively easy with a machinegun, very difficult with a couple of shoulder-launched missiles that are easy to fool and anti-tank rockets with a range of a couple hundred meters.

[Leveler 0]

If by this argument you mean a well armed helicopter against a small team of soldiers then the portable air to air missiles are ideal. They are easy to carry, have a long range and allow hit and run with a very good chance to kill the helicopter. HMG's are heavy, difficult to carry and need a little time to set up and unless in closer ranges they have a lower chance to kill. Against armored gunships they are not very effective and need extensive fire to kill, not too much but enough to spot and blast you. Heavy machine guns on a tank or APC are a different matter though. IR missiles cannot be spoofed effectively unless you see them coming. As for the helicopters going down in Iraq, I hope you are not talking about that farmer with the enfield killing an apatche

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]IR missiles cannot be spoofed effectively unless you see them coming.

Wrong. IR Missiles can be spoofed in many ways.

For example by surpressing the infrared signature, infrared jamming and infrared flares (decoys).

ALQ-144 infrared jammer on Apache

[bucket man 2]

RPG's, especially RPG-7 has many, many types of warheads. Fragmantation, AT, Thermobaric...

So the claim that ALL RPG's use shaped warheads is false especially when RPG-7 is by far the most common RPG in the world and basically any battlefield has them in large amounts these days.

Hitting a chopper with RPG is practically imbossible. In Mogadishu RPG's that were used to down black hawks were RPG-7's with fragmentation warheads. The warheads were also modified to self destruct after 300-400 meters from the launcher. Normally the self destruct goes off after 900 meters. This allowed somalis to fire and not need to hit the chopper because if the warhead self destructed near the chopper the fragments would damage it. Afgans used the same method agains soviet choppers.

Manpad launchers like SA-7 are highly unreliable but if they hit it usually means the chopper is going down. Be it Apache or Hind it will not fly to the base after direct hit from a manpad. Manpads like SA-18 and Stinger are more reliable and way more dangerous to choppers.

I dont know why but is this because Stinger and SA-18 use IR guidance system and older ones are heatseeking?

Heatseeking is I believe more dangerous in a way that the pilot wont know its coming unless he sees it?

[Tovarish 0]

IR guidance system and older ones are heatseeking?

Heatseeking is I believe more dangerous in a way that the pilot wont know its coming unless he sees it?

IR = Heatseeking and Heatseeking = IR.

[FireflyPL 0]

I dont know why but is this because Stinger and SA-18 use IR guidance system and older ones are heatseeking?  

Stinger and Igla are using twocoloured ( ? I m not sure if it is right english word for this) warheads equiped with IR (infra-red, heatseeking) and UV (Ultra-Violet) seeking. That's why they are more effective and more resistant to counter measures.

[bucket man 2]

Ok thanks for correcting my false info.

You learn something new every day!

[Leveler 0]

Wrong. IR Missiles can be spoofed in many ways.

For example by surpressing the infrared signature, infrared jamming and infrared flares (decoys).

[im]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/countermeasures/alq144.jpg[/img]

ALQ-144 infrared jammer on Apache

How effective are those? I though they were a last ditch attempt anyway. Until they install missile tracking radar like in the Typhoon, spoofing will be difficult and missiles dangerous. The statistics in Desert Storm and Chechnya prove it: almost half of the helicopters killed were from IR portables.

[Placebo 29]

Leveler remove image tags when quoting please

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]How effective are those? I though they were a last ditch attempt anyway.

Pretty effective, the ALQ-144 family is used on EH-1H, EH-1X, EH-60A, MH-60K, UH-60A, AH-1F, AH-64A, OV-1D, RV-1D, OH-58D.

The "disco ball" diverts the heat signature to confuse the missile guidance system. In combination with low reflective paint and engine exhaust suppressors it seems to work pretty well.

If you combine jamming, surpressing and active countermeasures you have a good chance to avoid an IR missile hit.

[Jinef 2]

-power of RGP's and Stingers, do some choppers have enough armor to withstand the impact

-possiblities of the pilot to avoid being hit, countermeasures and actually fly so that missile wont hit

-luck, pilot experience

-ability to turn the best armor towards the threat

-warning systems, is pilot even able to notice threat in time

-distance (close range, few hundred meters)

Ok i'm going to add my knowledge.

The first rule of flying in a combat zone is don't get shot at. Best thing to do about guided missiles and RPGs is not to be shot at by them, if you follow this guideline carefully you have like a 70% increase in survival.

Now in reply to your questions -

Armor: No helicopter has the armor to withstand an anti tank projectile or guided missile. Helicopters have to be light to fly, so the only armor put on will be protection from small arms to keep the crew and cargo safe. The best armor found on helicopters is on the Russian aircraft, it can withstand 12.7mm I believe.

Now what people said about chinooks making it home after being hit by RPGs - that's not armor. It's pure luck. They were lucky that the damage did not extend to the crew or vital flying components. In the best case scenario it rips a large hole in the bottom or the side and the bitch is even harder to fly than before but that's it. The chinook's vital elements run along the top of the fuselage, if they are unharmed and the cockpit isn't covered in blood then it's going to fly. If it was a small aircraft then something vital would most certainly have been hit.

The only other thing is the fuel tanks, however if one was hit they could seal it off and run off the other, this isn't hollywood where you drop a match into a barrel of crude and the thing goes up like july 4th, JP-4 or Kerosene as we call it is quite stable and will not ignite with a piece of shrapnel passing through. No fireballs sorry.

Avoiding being hit: Yes this is the best method obviously.

Pilots can fly low to use the terrain to mask their movement from known positions of radars. They can also fly close to the ground and change direction and altitude so that infantry with MANPAD cannot aquire easily.

Countermeasures: People covered all the fancy shit before like the IR jammers, they haven't been combat tested yet but here's some food for thought : For them to work in a multitude of environments, different temperatures, have the right sensitivity and have a pilot to trust them enough to fly steady so they can track the missile and block it .... is *quite* unlikely. It's lucky the US hasn't gone up against MANPADS yet, considering they haven't actually fought against a modern military for 60 years.

Jinking and Diving - Really depends on the aircraft's capability to do that, and the aspect of the missile, the time before the missile hits and the guidance of the missile.

E.g. A IR missile is fired rear aspect at a medium transport from 2.6 kms. The loadmaster is looking out to the side and catches the flash of the launch in his peripheral vision (we are bordering on the very lucky now), he shouts "Missile 6 o,clock low". The pilot shits his pants and slams his hand to the left and pulls back. The co pilot is busy pouring out chaff and flares. The result is - the missile is looking at your signature, the signature then drops down and a much brighter signature is left where you were, so it just carries on towards the flare while the helicopter almost rips itself apart in a absolutely heart stopping dive.

That was a very lucky scenario, as you have around 5-6 seconds max from launch to impact over 2.6 km with an average MANPAD, in that 5-6 seconds the loadmaster could be checking engine oil pressure, torque levels, adjusting his harness, sipping some tea or just looking forward instead of to the side.

Most of the time - you are fucked unless you can spot the missile as it's launched. Now if you've flown a helicopter you will find the last thing you are doing it looking around for little bits of white smoke. Pilot experience comes into the first factor, not flying in places where he can shot. At least fixed wing aircraft can go up, 1.5 kms up and you are safe, that's only 4500 feet before you are out of MANPAD reach.

So, knowing what your enemy has is quite essential, that's why Blackhawks fly over Iraq at 1500 feet, just out of the range of RPGs, if the Iraqis had MANPAD then the blackhawks wouldn't fly at that height, sitting ducks. They would have to risk small arms fire and RPG when flying low, not a fun prospect. Most likely it would be like the Russians in Chechnya, the rebels having great fun praising Allah with the aircraft raining out of the sky like meteors.

If only Saddam had some brains and brought MANPAD and some AT-16 Saggers instead of all the WMD off the US

Ok... what's next ...

Ability to turn best armor towards threat ... hummm explained this in armor part, there is no armor.

Next ...

Warning Systems: Well basically it's like this -

Active Radar missiles are the easy ones - You get illuminated by the radar on the launcher, then the radar locks on you (In the films you always get a long beeeeep, not true, you don't know whether he has launched already or he is still scanning, you just know that radar energy is bouncing off your aircraft) and the launcher fires a missile or five, depending on how zealous the commander is. Again in the movies you see a little cross coming towards your aircraft on your little screen - again not true. You know it's a radar missile so terrain in between you and the missile and it's launcher is ideal, at this time you don't know whether it's a semi active missile, a fully active missile, or a fully active which then switches to IR ... so bottom line is you chuck chaff and flares out like a man possesed as you scan the ground looking for a hole to stick your helicopter in.

Semi Active Missiles - From your point of view it's the same as a fully active missile, however some slight differences - the radar and launcher will launch the missile like an active, then the radar will shut off to avoid being smacked up like a bitch from a radar energy seeking missile, now the mind games begin ... hmmm is he turning off so i can get closer to a friend of his, he isn't guiding a missile in ..., it could be a semi active, in which case I have a missile tracking me now. Then the missile itself lights you up and you have 4 seconds to react.

IR - Most used in MANPADS, there is no system active to detect their launch unless in optimal conditions, so basically you need to see it before it kills you, rather like fighting with a scorpion in a pitch black room armed with a spoon.

Distance is important -

If it's close then you have only a second or two before you meet your creator, if it's far you have a few more seconds and if you're lucky you may see it and if your really really really lucky you may actually evade it.

Umm this is all I can be bothered to say, I suppose it's better reading a big long post with almost everything answered than reading 40 posts that just state exceptions to the rule.

[Leveler 0]

Stinger and Igla are using twocoloured ( ? I m not sure if it is right english word for this) warheads equiped with IR (infra-red, heatseeking) and UV (Ultra-Violet) seeking. That's why they are more effective and more resistant to counter measures.

IR missiles can detect UV radiation? There is a differential between the helicopter and the environment in UV? I have never heard of that, are you sure it is not two different IR frequencies? If you are correct could you provide some info, I am curious about that.

[FireflyPL 0]

Stinger and Igla are using twocoloured ( ? I m not sure if it is right english word for this) warheads equiped with IR (infra-red, heatseeking) and UV (Ultra-Violet) seeking. That's why they are more effective and more resistant to counter measures.

IR missiles can detect UV radiation?  There is a differential between the helicopter and the environment in UV?  I have never heard of that, are you sure it is not two different IR frequencies?  If you are correct could you provide some info, I am curious about that.

Yes I m sure. I read about it in University of Warsaw's MA Jan Bury's article (oct 2004) about 2nd generation and future of MANPADS. Unfortunatelly article is in polish, so I'm not able to translate you technical stuff . Try to visit Raytheon web site for some info.

In this article, author gives several MANPADS first rocket hit probability in percent:

Striela 2M - 22-25%

9K38 Igla - 45-65%

Stinger - 60-80%

Grom - 50-70%

RBS70 - 94%

[Daddl 10]

IR missiles can detect UV radiation? There is a differential between the helicopter and the environment in UV? I have never heard of that, are you sure it is not two different IR frequencies? If you are correct could you provide some info, I am curious about that.

uhm, IR is a band of wavelength ranging from 0.7 micrometers (near infrared) to 1 milimeter (far infrared) wave lengths, while ultraviolet light covers the spectrum directly below 0.4 micrometers wavelength. Between 0.4 micrometers and 0.7 micrometers wavelength is the visible light. Different bands from the IR spectrum or the UV spectrum let you see different things. For example the termal infrared is just a small part of the whole infrared spectrum (between 3 and 15 micrometers wavelength).

A thermal sensor can be fooled by flares - the UV sensor can't. Heat sources simply aren't visible to it as their temperatur would have to be thousands of degrees to radiate significantly (i.e. enough to lure the sensor from it's original target) in the UV bands. Why anyone would use UV for a sensor is beyond me though (too much atmospheric noise) - an optical sensor should be much more efficient, especially when combined with near and thermal infrared.

[FireflyPL 0]

I think this is two sensor warhead as those missiles have IR/UV seeking, but imo, the UV can be auxiliary sensor when IR is getting multipple targets like flares, then it may swich or compare target with UV sensor. Anyway, RBS70 is optical and most effective MANPADS.