Indian Military Helicopters

[deejay]

How many known instances of Helicopters getting shot down by fighters or other helicopters?

[JayS]

Rhetorical question: Why do air defence aircraft need kick ass radars if a helo with an AAM can simply hover around taking down other aircraft?

I mean if I get into story writing I will speak of a massive Paki tank thrust with 6 AH1s supportintgthe attack and taking down all opposing aircraft because djinn vision will do the trick. No?

Heli ATAMs are not for taking down aircrafts. Rather for other helis and UAVs. If an aircraft comes in the skies above, the helis would have to run for cover in all probability. The ATAMs of 7-8km range won't be even reaching aircrafts flying at medium altitude.

[JayS]

How many known instances of Helicopters getting shot down by fighters or other helicopters?

Good point.

[Singha]

a few iraqi helis were shot down by fighters in ODS. none that i read of for heli vs heli.

a typical low end subsonic fighter like L39 or Hawk will still release its AAM at a speed 300-500km faster than a heli and from a greater height. even the same AAM will perform much better from a fighter. it will also turn and run much faster from any threat.

[Karthik S]

Wasn't there a rare case of an F-15E dropping JDAM on an Iraqi helicopter that was in the air.

[Singha]

i think it was a LGB but you are right . rare thing because he was probably just experimenting and per SOP should have used a missile or cannon.

[shiv]

Rhetorical question: Why do air defence aircraft need kick ass radars if a helo with an AAM can simply hover around taking down other aircraft?

I mean if I get into story writing I will speak of a massive Paki tank thrust with 6 AH1s supportintgthe attack and taking down all opposing aircraft because djinn vision will do the trick. No?

Heli ATAMs are not for taking down aircrafts. Rather for other helis and UAVs. If an aircraft comes in the skies above, the helis would have to run for cover in all probability. The ATAMs of 7-8km range won't be even reaching aircrafts flying at medium altitude.

Yes.
So:
1. AIM 9 is probably the most expensive of the lot
2. If accurate identification is needed for a positive UAV identification - the Americans will probably have an AWACS nearby to do that job. For visual Paki identification the helo will have to get close - in the absence of AWACS/other help
3. For close range shoot down after visual identification AIM9 is overkill

[shiv]

Wasn't there a rare case of an F-15E dropping JDAM on an Iraqi helicopter that was in the air.

Utter waste. They could have equipped a suitably shaped rock with winglets to be guided by a guidance kit.

[nam]

IIR AAM on a helicopter are probably used to shoot down Manpads. Integrate it with MAWS and you have a neat little system.

Just like the ones on jets are used to target in-coming SAM.

[Bala Vignesh]

"With close to 200 choppers planned, why would IA want 200-300 light tanks? when attack helicopters will be better than tank anyday in killing another tank."

Because Air Power cannot occupy ground won. Infantry will. And Infantry will need fire support/Armour on the ready.

Replied here.

[JayS]

IIR AAM on a helicopter are probably used to shoot down Manpads. Integrate it with MAWS and you have a neat little system.

Just like the ones on jets are used to target in-coming SAM.

Really..? Never heard of pilots trying to shoot down SAM missiles or AAM shot at them..

[JayS]

Heli ATAMs are not for taking down aircrafts. Rather for other helis and UAVs. If an aircraft comes in the skies above, the helis would have to run for cover in all probability. The ATAMs of 7-8km range won't be even reaching aircrafts flying at medium altitude.

Yes.
So:
1. AIM 9 is probably the most expensive of the lot
2. If accurate identification is needed for a positive UAV identification - the Americans will probably have an AWACS nearby to do that job. For visual Paki identification the helo will have to get close - in the absence of AWACS/other help
3. For close range shoot down after visual identification AIM9 is overkill

They might have integrated AIM 9 because its readily available, rather than making a new ATAM. I don't know much but I have not seen US ATAM so far. Maybe AIM 9 is cheaper and easier to put on helis for Amirkhan. Money is not an issue anyway. As such use of ATAM from helis seem very limited. Deejay's surprise of hearing of ATAM on Rudra says a lot.

[brar_w]

Target sets have evolved with multi class UAVs with the smaller ones posing the biggest threats in terms of optimizing intercepts, cost and quantity wise. Unless you have massive ground troop presence and largely have a flat terrain there is really no such thing as air-superiority (on account of your air forces) below 1000-1500 feet with these really small sub $20K UAVs. That target set does not need a layer of Aim-9X on a helicopter but rather a Mistral type or stinger with prox. fuse weapon much like those attempting to knock those out from the ground. In fact what the target set really needs is a non kinetic kill sollution through either jamming or directed energy. Any predator/reaper class UAS will justify a more expensive ground launch interceptor or calling in a fast jet intercept. It will also be picked up from afar via long range ground or air based surveillance since it too has to avoid the MANPAD threat and maintain a decent altitude.

[Rakesh]

An instructor's Message to his Pupil
http://kaypius.com/2017/09/05/an-instru ... his-pupil/

[Rakesh]

Engine failure on helicopters
http://kaypius.com/2017/06/04/engine-fa ... e-failure/

[Rakesh]

Helicopter Launch & Recovery Methodogies – Offshore Versus Navy
http://kaypius.com/2017/03/18/helicopte ... rsus-navy/

[tandav]

My understanding is that the simple expedient of a fighter / Thawk type A/C zooming close over a Heli will cause the Helicopter irrecoverable loss of control due to wake vortex, especially if the Heli is close of terrain.

[JayS]

My understanding is that the simple expedient of a fighter / Thawk type A/C zooming close over a Heli will cause the Helicopter irrecoverable loss of control due to wake vortex, especially if the Heli is close of terrain.

LOL. Maybe in Rambo movie, if Rambo was a Pilot. For vortex to affect Helis the jet will have to fly rather closely and below the heli (remember for IFR jets fly slightly below the Tanker). No pilot in his right mind will try this and endanger him and his jet for stupid-ass stunt like that.

[tandav]

My understanding is that the simple expedient of a fighter / Thawk type A/C zooming close over a Heli will cause the Helicopter irrecoverable loss of control due to wake vortex, especially if the Heli is close of terrain.

LOL. Maybe in Rambo movie, if Rambo was a Pilot. For vortex to affect Helis the jet will have to fly rather closely and below the heli (remember for IFR jets fly slightly below the Tanker). No pilot in his right mind will try this and endanger him and his jet for stupid-ass stunt like that.

FYI

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... er-crashes
Eurocopter Deutschland EC 135 P2, Oxon Hill, Md., Jan. 10, 2005–The Air Methods LifeNet flight crashed into the Potomac River, killing the commercial pilot and flight medic and seriously injuring the flight nurse. The helicopter left Washington Hospital Center and followed the Washington, D.C. Helicopter Routes Chart over the Potomac River at 200 feet toward the Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac. The flight nurse noticed an airplane descending toward Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and wondered if there would be a conflict or a wake-turbulence hazard. As the helicopter approached the bridge, the pilot maneuvered to cross over the mid-span of the bridge. The flight nurse did not remember striking anything, “but my initial reaction was that we must have hit something.” No structural damage or obvious aircraft strike indications were found on the five construction cranes near the bridge, and the projected track of the helicopter was about 300 feet from the nearest crane. The helicopter came to rest in the Potomac River about 0.5 miles south of the bridge.

Also a video of a crash of Robin DR4 due to wake turbulence of an AN-2

[tsarkar]

Does the Cobra which Pakis operate comes with AAM or this could give our helicopters the ability to take them down along with UAV's pretty easily.

at present no. they might buy some wz or aw129 helis soon which might have. note these are mostly self defence weapons which must be launched LOBL because helis have no radar to find and designate targets. the odd chance to bag a costly UAV could be there. reapers and eitan types are not cheap but mostly they will fly way higher than helis and be outside the vertical scan zone of a AAM.

Helicopters can guide AAMs in three ways -

1. The helicopter can identify the target using thermal imager from Compass EO sight and cue Mistral. This is LOBL. BTW Elbit uses Rudra as its advertisement http://elbitsystems.com/product/stabilized-payloads-3/

2. The helicopter can use missile-as-a-sensor. This means if missile seeker detects the target while still in pylon, then a tone is emitted indicating missile seeker is locked on. Missile-as-a-sensor concept is heavily used by Pakistan to arm their FT-5/F-6/Sabre with Sidewinders. These aircraft have no radar or EO sight. Similarly, Hawk trainers too have no radar or EO sight and use missile-as-a-sensor concept. This too is LOBL.

3. The third option is launch missile at the general direction of target within the FoV of missile seeker hoping missile picks up the target. This is LOAL. Again, Pakistani Sabres/F-6 used this concept in 1971

[tsarkar]

How many known instances of Helicopters getting shot down by fighters or other helicopters?

In the Iran Iraq war, AH-1 vs Mi-8/35 was a regular phenomenon.

The Shah of Iran set up aviation manufacture facilities since 1930s and in 60's-70s Bell set up a factory to manufacture UH-1 & AH-1. After the revolution, Italian Augusta supported them. They also purchased large numbers of UH-1, AH-1 & Chinooks from US.

Saddam purchased large numbers of Mi-8/17/25/35 and French Gazelle armed with HOT missiles

Typically one country's helicopters covering their armoured assault would come in conflict with opponent country's helicopters trying to blunt the assault. Mostly they used cannons and there were quite a few dogfights and shootdowns. ATGMs were ineffectively in A2A role.

There was a gentleman Tom Cooper who researched extensively interviewing ex-pilots from both sides and published in his website called acig.org - now shut down.

Other H vs H was in Lebanon 1982, Syrian Gazelles and Mi-25/35 against Israeli AH-1.

[tsarkar]

They might have integrated AIM 9 because its readily available, rather than making a new ATAM. I don't know much but I have not seen US ATAM so far. Maybe AIM 9 is cheaper and easier to put on helis for Amirkhan. Money is not an issue anyway. As such use of ATAM from helis seem very limited. Deejay's surprise of hearing of ATAM on Rudra says a lot.

The AH-1Z was a USMC requirement that wanted twin engines (the J, T, W & Z versions) instead of single engine Army AH-1S

USMC AH-1 covered beach landings and they expected enemy fighters to counter. Curious, since USMC also had Harriers, F-4 & F/A-18 for top cover.

So along with twin engines, Sidewinder on USMC AH-1 was a requirement from day 1 for self defence against opposing enemy aircraft. Here is original AH-1J firing Sidewinders.

Pakistan always had AH-1, so AH-1Z was natural progression. Sidewinder was bonus



It all depends on requirements - if self defence is required against fighters, use Sidewinder. If against other helicopters and UAVs, use Stingers and Mistrals.

It was indeed curious to find Stingers in the DSCA notice for India Apaches, or ATAM Mistrals for Rudra & LCH having priority & procured before ATGMs. And now Pakistani AH-1Z with Sidewinders.

Guess both sides are taking the A2A roles of helicopters very seriously.

[JayS]

LOL. Maybe in Rambo movie, if Rambo was a Pilot. For vortex to affect Helis the jet will have to fly rather closely and below the heli (remember for IFR jets fly slightly below the Tanker). No pilot in his right mind will try this and endanger him and his jet for stupid-ass stunt like that.

FYI

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... er-crashes
Eurocopter Deutschland EC 135 P2, Oxon Hill, Md., Jan. 10, 2005–The Air Methods LifeNet flight crashed into the Potomac River, killing the commercial pilot and flight medic and seriously injuring the flight nurse. The helicopter left Washington Hospital Center and followed the Washington, D.C. Helicopter Routes Chart over the Potomac River at 200 feet toward the Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac. The flight nurse noticed an airplane descending toward Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and wondered if there would be a conflict or a wake-turbulence hazard. As the helicopter approached the bridge, the pilot maneuvered to cross over the mid-span of the bridge. The flight nurse did not remember striking anything, “but my initial reaction was that we must have hit something.” No structural damage or obvious aircraft strike indications were found on the five construction cranes near the bridge, and the projected track of the helicopter was about 300 feet from the nearest crane. The helicopter came to rest in the Potomac River about 0.5 miles south of the bridge.

Also a video of a crash of Robin DR4 due to wake turbulence of an AN-2

Ohh, I understood you the first time. This is Aerodynamics 101. And freak accidents do happen. I did not counter that. But recreating this for precise intended effect is another thing.

[tsarkar]

Rhetorical question: Why do air defence aircraft need kick ass radars if a helo with an AAM can simply hover around taking down other aircraft?

I mean if I get into story writing I will speak of a massive Paki tank thrust with 6 AH1s supportintgthe attack and taking down all opposing aircraft because djinn vision will do the trick. No?

You need radars for relatively longer range targeting. For relatively shorter range work, one can use missile-as-a-sensor as explained above.

The Pakistanis brought loads of Sidewinders and armed their F-7/F-6 and even FT-5 (used as advanced jet trainer) with Sidewinders. None of these aircraft have radars. You'll find loads of photos of these PAF aircraft on the internet armed with Sidewinders.

Similarly, Pakistanis do not any High Accuracy Direction Finding equipment for SEAD. They purchased Brazilian Anti Radiation Missiles and again use missile-as-a-sensor. If the missile seeker picks up an Indian radar emission, they launch the missile.

Needless to say, these modes expend missile life. If the missile seeker is switched on in flight and they find nothing, then single use battery and coolant is expended and missile wasted. However, Pakistanis always had loads of free Sidewinders from US.

[nam]

IIR AAM on a helicopter are probably used to shoot down Manpads. Integrate it with MAWS and you have a neat little system.

Just like the ones on jets are used to target in-coming SAM.

Really..? Never heard of pilots trying to shoot down SAM missiles or AAM shot at them..

I happen to read about this long while back, but cannot locate the source now.

Here is one test done by US with Aim-9X, which is public. Was done in 2007.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_jet_ ... s_999.html

A US F-16 fighter used an air-to-air missile to destroy a sounding rocket in its boost phase for the first time this week in a test of a new missile defense concept

So Aim9X can shoot down missile.

[nam]

The Pakistanis brought loads of Sidewinders and armed their F-7/F-6 and even FT-5 (used as advanced jet trainer) with Sidewinders. None of these aircraft have radars. You'll find loads of photos of these PAF aircraft on the internet armed with Sidewinders.

It must have been wtf movement for Pakis, on learning Aim-9x likes Russian flares in Syria.

[shiv]

My understanding is that the simple expedient of a fighter / Thawk type A/C zooming close over a Heli will cause the Helicopter irrecoverable loss of control due to wake vortex, especially if the Heli is close of terrain.

I have a problem with the words "will cause". There can be no such guarantee. A more sure fire method would be for the fighter to simply collide with the helicopter, but that would bring down the fighter also. No gain without pain.

[chola]

Rhetorical question: Why do air defence aircraft need kick ass radars if a helo with an AAM can simply hover around taking down other aircraft?

I mean if I get into story writing I will speak of a massive Paki tank thrust with 6 AH1s supportintgthe attack and taking down all opposing aircraft because djinn vision will do the trick. No?

You need radars for relatively longer range targeting. For relatively shorter range work, one can use missile-as-a-sensor as explained above.

The Pakistanis brought loads of Sidewinders and armed their F-7/F-6 and even FT-5 (used as advanced jet trainer) with Sidewinders. None of these aircraft have radars. You'll find loads of photos of these PAF aircraft on the internet armed with Sidewinders.

Similarly, Pakistanis do not any High Accuracy Direction Finding equipment for SEAD. They purchased Brazilian Anti Radiation Missiles and again use missile-as-a-sensor. If the missile seeker picks up an Indian radar emission, they launch the missile.

Needless to say, these modes expend missile life. If the missile seeker is switched on in flight and they find nothing, then single use battery and coolant is expended and missile wasted. However, Pakistanis always had loads of free Sidewinders from US.

The original Sidewinders were used without radar on Sabres and A-4s among others. Pilots knew they locked on by sound (the high-pitched insistent whine of an AIM-9 that acquired prey was made famous by Hollywood and American documentaries.)

Radar was used by the F-4 in Vietnam solely for the AIM-7 Sparrow but after the war, new Sidewinder variants could slaved to the radar to acquire targets outside the infrared detection range of the missile.

[shiv]

It all depends on requirements - if self defence is required against fighters, use Sidewinder. If against other helicopters and UAVs, use Stingers and Mistrals.

How would the helo detect a fighter?

[shiv]

Rhetorical question: Why do air defence aircraft need kick ass radars if a helo with an AAM can simply hover around taking down other aircraft?

I mean if I get into story writing I will speak of a massive Paki tank thrust with 6 AH1s supportintgthe attack and taking down all opposing aircraft because djinn vision will do the trick. No?

You need radars for relatively longer range targeting. For relatively shorter range work, one can use missile-as-a-sensor as explained above.

The Pakistanis brought loads of Sidewinders and armed their F-7/F-6 and even FT-5 (used as advanced jet trainer) with Sidewinders. None of these aircraft have radars. You'll find loads of photos of these PAF aircraft on the internet armed with Sidewinders.

Similarly, Pakistanis do not any High Accuracy Direction Finding equipment for SEAD. They purchased Brazilian Anti Radiation Missiles and again use missile-as-a-sensor. If the missile seeker picks up an Indian radar emission, they launch the missile.

Needless to say, these modes expend missile life. If the missile seeker is switched on in flight and they find nothing, then single use battery and coolant is expended and missile wasted. However, Pakistanis always had loads of free Sidewinders from US.

The thing is that Sidewinders are called close combat missiles or WVRAAMs precisely because, under ideal circumstances a target must be identified before shooting. Such identification could be visual or via an AWACS or other vectoring system. Shooting blindly at "something hot" that makes the mijjile whistle sounds like a formula for wasting a lot of missiles.

[Aditya_V]

[
Helicopters can guide AAMs in three ways -

1. The helicopter can identify the target using thermal imager from Compass EO sight and cue Mistral. This is LOBL. BTW Elbit uses Rudra as its advertisement http://elbitsystems.com/product/stabilized-payloads-3/

2. The helicopter can use missile-as-a-sensor. This means if missile seeker detects the target while still in pylon, then a tone is emitted indicating missile seeker is locked on. Missile-as-a-sensor concept is heavily used by Pakistan to arm their FT-5/F-6/Sabre with Sidewinders. These aircraft have no radar or EO sight. Similarly, Hawk trainers too have no radar or EO sight and use missile-as-a-sensor concept. This too is LOBL.

3. The third option is launch missile at the general direction of target within the FoV of missile seeker hoping missile picks up the target. This is LOAL. Again, Pakistani Sabres/F-6 used this concept in 1971

Option 2 once you start cooling the Seeker, it gets used only once, even the JF-17's only video I could of it launching an AAM hit a target 1/2 Km indicating it was option 2.

Option 3 is ridiculous, even if you want to launch it you need to give sometime for the seeker to activate and then launch, off course this mode you can easily bring down your own wingman in a turning fight, anther achievement for Fizzile ya F-16.

[JayS]

Really..? Never heard of pilots trying to shoot down SAM missiles or AAM shot at them..

I happen to read about this long while back, but cannot locate the source now.

Here is one test done by US with Aim-9X, which is public. Was done in 2007.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_jet_ ... s_999.html

A US F-16 fighter used an air-to-air missile to destroy a sounding rocket in its boost phase for the first time this week in a test of a new missile defense concept

So Aim9X can shoot down missile.

You made it sound like its a regular SOP. The example you gave is for shooting down a sounding rocket in boost phase in a test. That's not same as a manoeuvring SAM or MANPAD. Once I read about an F16 guy using sonic boom in Iraq war like a bomb. But that doesn't make sonic boom a weapon. In theory many things are possible and many things are tested as well. But in real life only small amount of those are adapted. so lets stick to proven methods and SOPs. IMO a real counter for AAM or SAMs is energy weapon. Again its in prototype stages, I think it will come in perhaps 2 decades.

[Zynda]

To add to hakeem's question...what is typical detection range of an aircraft by on-board helicopter systems? Does Longbow radar have an Air-air detection mode? Else, most helicopters have to detect aircrafts using on-board IR/Thermal systems? More questions...if using Missile sensors for target acquisition, can IFF system be enforced? Also does the missile sensor provide any kind of imaging capability to the co-pilot so that they can make sure that target is genuine & not friendly or erroneous?

[Manish_P]

At the risk of being OT, posting here

J-CATCH - Joint US Army-US Air Force experiment in dissimilar air combat between jet fighters and attack helicopters

To the surprise of many involved in the program, the helicopters proved extremely dangerous to the fighters when they were properly employed, racking up a 5-to-1 kill ratio over the fighters when fighting at close ranges with guns. The lesson was that fixed-wing aircraft should not attack helicopters except at long range and/or high altitudes with long range missiles.

The official report (link here) mentions that this proved not as easy as expected, especially if the helicopters would be flying low and slow and due to ROE specifying visual identification before engagement. Even after visual confirmation there were difficulties in the AIM-7 getting a quick lock due to ground clutter made worse if the target did hard manouvering. The best weapon recommended was the AIM-9L

No doubt many decades have passed since this exercise and the Radars and missiles have progressed a lot to turn the balance decisively in favor of the fixed wing jets.

[Aditya_V]

From MBDA site

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mistral-atam/

The system is based on two launchers, each bearing two missiles and can be connected to the helicopter’s combat system, when mounted on combat helicopters, or through simplified control equipment if installed on multi-purpose helicopters.

Weight : 18.7 kg
Length : 1.86 m
Diameter : 90 mm
Maximum intercept range : 6.5 km
Minimum intercept range : 500 m

MISTRAL ATAM ensures a large off-boresight capability, together with the ability to aim the missile seeker very precisely at a given target.

The missile has a shaped trajectory in order to intercept targets top-down or at long range, the crew can also select the proximity fuze mode.

MISTRAL ATAM is currently the only helicopter mounted air-to-air missile in full operational service.

MISTRAL ATAM is operated by the French Army Aviation on the Gazelle and is also in service on the Tiger attack helicopter. Integration onto India’s HAL Rudra helicopter is underway.

It would seem while experiments have been tried I dont think the Cobras have been integrated with side winders, from the pics it seems Mistral has an IR seeker and not an IIR seeker.

[Aditya_V]

From an online forum, dont know if this guy US miltary

https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topi ... ded-to-a2/The Bell AH-1Z is built to meet the expeditionary requirements of the United States Marine Corps. With virtually identical front and rear glass cockpits, fully integrated weapons, avionics and communications systems, the marinized Bell AH-1Z flies with the most advanced aircraft weapons and survivability equipment in the world. The Zulu is the only attack helicopter in the world with a fully-integrated air-to-air missile capability. Target identification is crucial in the modern battlefield. The Bell AH-1Z’s Target Sight System provides the longest range and highest accuracy of any helicopter sight in the world.

About the sidewinders, the HWM AH64A was designed in 4 Versions (4 Hydra 70, 4 Hellfire pods, 2 Hellfire pods + 2 Hydra and 2 Helfire + 2 sidewinder). BUT due to technical reasons the sidewinder version was deprectaed, although as a user you can unlock it, still it is problematic. If you have messed with the configs from the ArmA1 release and change the scope from private to public in that class then, that sidewinders you're seeing are a normal result.
Just wait a bit, and you'll get the ArmA2 version no need to hurry.

From the BELL website seems only the Zulu variant will have sidewinder capability

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/military/bell-ah-1z

The Bell AH-1Z is built to meet the expeditionary requirements of the United States Marine Corps. With virtually identical front and rear glass cockpits, fully integrated weapons, avionics and communications systems, the marinized Bell AH-1Z flies with the most advanced aircraft weapons and survivability equipment in the world. The Zulu is the only attack helicopter in the world with a fully-integrated air-to-air missile capability. Target identification is crucial in the modern battlefield. The Bell AH-1Z’s Target Sight System provides the longest range and highest accuracy of any helicopter sight in the world.

Hmm so the Aim9L can be fired from the AH-1Z versions Pakistan will be getting, could present a danger to our Fixed wing and helicopter fleet.

[tandav]

My understanding is that the simple expedient of a fighter / Thawk type A/C zooming close over a Heli will cause the Helicopter irrecoverable loss of control due to wake vortex, especially if the Heli is close of terrain.

I have a problem with the words "will cause". There can be no such guarantee. A more sure fire method would be for the fighter to simply collide with the helicopter, but that would bring down the fighter also. No gain without pain.

My post is kind off topic but will close with this and say no more: Some smart air warrior will write a textbook on : "Weaponizing Wake Vortexes for Aerial Combat".

A high energy flying object sheds quite a significant amount of energy in its Vortexes and these vortexes interact with other flying objects negatively. Needless to say if the transmitted energy is high enough compared to the target aircraft energy state it can cause loss of control and significant damage to the structural integrity of the affected aircraft. Vortexes therefore can cause very high probability of catastrophic/irrecoverable loss of positional and directional authority, if not by crashing, the vortex interaction frequently causes a complete writeoff of the affected aircraft. I guarantee that an unarmed Hawk type Trainer in the hands of a trained pilot can safely crash a Eitan / Predator type UAV and light A/C or Helos without committing suicide by way of crashing, no guns, no missiles, no stress on Hawk airframe. The Hawk just needs to know where to put his high energy Vortex.

[brar_w]

So Aim9X can shoot down missile.

The NCADE was very different from a regular Aim-9X with the eventual missile configuration featuring a totally different concept. You aren't going to be hunting any missiles down with the Aim-9X unless one happens to literally fly next to you given the envelope of the weapon. Once the basic configuration proved the seeker concept against the threat, the NCADE would have used an AMRAAM SRM, coupled with a liquid fueled DACS system, electronics upgrade and the Aim-9X seeker. It would have also removed the warhead and benefited from the longer range on account of that.

[shiv]

I guarantee that an unarmed Hawk type Trainer in the hands of a trained pilot can safely crash a Eitan / Predator type UAV and light A/C or Helos without committing suicide by way of crashing, no guns, no missiles, no stress on Hawk airframe. The Hawk just needs to know where to put his high energy Vortex.

If I bet on this I am sure you will win the bet on a fusillade of aerodynamics and I will be left with a lot of intake and exhaust holes to add to my existing afterburner

But that is not the point. What would be ideal kill situations for Hawk trainer to kill a Cobra helo in real life. I am asking about what you have dismissed in one short sentence. I presume you mean a pilot needs to do something by this sentence and the questions follow:

The Hawk just needs to know where to put his high energy Vortex

For example if the helo is flying nap of earth (30 meters) though undulating low hill/ mountain terrain(Afghanistan/Kashmir), what would the Hawk pilot have to do to ensure one pass one kill so the helo pilot is not warned? What sort of altitude should he start at if he must dive down, what airspeed should he reach as he approaches the helo to guarantee its instability after he passes and what are the altitude requirements if he must pull out of a dive, and if he must dive and pull out of a dive what air temperature and air density ( a function of altitude) are allowable? What is the minimum distance he must pass the helo. Can he do it from above, or below or from the side?

Or should the Hawk pilot wait for flat ground where the hello is flying level, start from behind and the fly past the helo to ensure that de destabilizes it? What are the wind requirements? What if there are cross winds - would that affect the distance at which he needs to pass the helo and still not collide with it?

Or should he simply line up behind and pump a few cannon shells into the helo - an act that he would have practised dozens of time unlike placing musharraf hawa somewhere?

I would find some details about these far more convincing than a lecture on vortices. I get too many aerodynamics lectures on BRF and I have been here too long to be impressed. There is one BRFite who is actually a prof and throws books at people and can throw equations as well so lectures don't put me off. I am the pesky student who knows nothing, understands nothing but keeps asking pesky questions

[deejay]

Shiv ji, tension not. IAF had tried in early 2000s and I am sure they will have tried even later helicopter vs fighters. To be sure helicopters never got a kill but the fighters did not have it easy either. Short of discussing tactics, of a helicopter spots a fighter then all it needs to do is to turn into a fighter. And yes low and slow are the helicopters best defence against aerial threats. Since these were tried at TACDE one can work with the fact that some pretty experienced crew were fielded from both sides.
Oh yes, Su 30 guys with their BVRs claimed a kill every time.