Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk

@TomS @yasotay Some of your posts in this thread mention a shift in emphasis towards Nap of the Earth and Pop Up attack tactics. Could the S-67 have effectively adapted to such tactics, or was the basic design just too poor suited to them (too big perhaps)?
 
Last edited:
@Darthtabby - That is a wonderful question. My thoughts are that by the time the S-67 was flying the U.S.Army had decided that the large high speed helicopter was both redundant and too costly for a post-Vietnam force that was strapped for cash. With war in Europe believed to be the central challenge the U.S.Army was more than happy to go the less expensive route with modified AH-1 with the TOW system. Analysis of the day made two points against helicopters like the S-67. First it was believed that even with good tacticss the attrition rate in a large NATO/WARPAC conflict would have been very high, so the expense of a new high-tech helicopter was not a good investment for a cash poor Army. Second speed and longer range was deemed less important in the more constrained environment of Central Europe. Had the Pacific theater remained the most expected area conflict the S-67 might well have been produced in numbers.
To your central question, one of the benefits of the AH-1 was its very small size, especially from a frontal aspect. It was almost invisible at 3 kilometers, when shooting between the trees and from behind buildings. A much larger and heavier S-67 would have had a much greater signature and not have been able to avail itself of some of the very tight firing postions that Cobra pilots cherished.
A grand discussion could be had about a AGM-114 Hellfire equipped S-67 vice AH-64A. But the Apache was designed from the beginning to live and fight in the heavy mech battlefield expected in the Cold War.
 
Darthtabby said:
@TomS @yasotay Some of your posts in this thread mention a shift in emphasis towards Nap of the Earth and Pop Up attack tactics. Could the S-67 have effectively adapted to such tactics, or was the basic design just too poor suited to them (too big perhaps)?
Click to expand...
I don't think any of the AAFSS competitors were deficient in a way that made them unsuitable for the mission the Army was looking for. Is size a detriment? Yes but only if you dictate optical observation as a threat. The Soviet Army fielded hundreds of SHORAD radar types that could cue Strelas onto a S-67 equally good as an Apache. But in what time period? 1980s and the size gap doesn't factor in much. 1970s and you have poorly equipped regiments whose forward alert element is a BRDM with binos and radios to draw a vector.

Definitely the Apache had the upper hand if you start comparing things like flight characteristics in hover and transition phase, and in extreme low level. It possesses a very nimble airframe. But is it worth the tradeoffs and the fact that AAFSS is already paid for, somewhat? I'd say, if the Army invented NLOS missiles some 20 years earlier (which is really not out of hand) there is a strong argument for a heavy, well armoured munition truck with loads of fuel and power. Of course under the premise that the Army could afford those types.
 
Thanks for the info. One of the things that seems particularly notable about the S-67 to me is how large its main rotor is compared to other attack helicopters. I could imagine that making it difficult for it to get down in the clutter to the same degree that smaller attack helicopters could.
 
Darthtabby said:
Thanks for the info. One of the things that seems particularly notable about the S-67 to me is how large its main rotor is compared to other attack helicopters. I could imagine that making it difficult for it to get down in the clutter to the same degree that smaller attack helicopters could.
Click to expand...
Comes from the H-3 dynamic systems. I don't think the Jolly Green Giants ever had much trouble working down in the weeds in Vietnam when they were doing CSAR.



jsport said:
Wow, wasn't paying attention to all the radars..an air superiority or SEAD craft?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if that's 3x radar antennas or just 1 antenna and the rest of the electronics located all the way back there. If it's the F-4 systems (those were APQ-120, not ASQ-120), pretty much the entire radar box is attached to the back side of the antenna bulkhead.

Assuming that it is a set of 3x APQ-120s tied together, the two on the side of the airframe would have to be offset somewhat. The radar system on the F-4E completely fills the nose from the front of the canopy to the base of the radome, and the narrow fuselage is barely long enough for one set of APQ-120 radar black boxes.

And I'm actually thinking Navy antiship-missile killer for the mission. There were quite a few concept pictures of Seasprites etc armed with a couple of Sparrows at the time the S-67 was being considered.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom