• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Did a Helicopter ever shoot down a jet fighter?

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,348
Reaction score
496
There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.
Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?
Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.
Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?
Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.
No offensive but...

They are easier to replace than fast jet pilots and fast jets; attrition warfare is, alas, a remorseless working of things
 
Last edited:

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,348
Reaction score
496
There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.
Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?
Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.
No offensive but...

They are easier to replace than fast jet pilots and fast jets; attrition warfare is, alas, a remorseless working of things
I am not sure I agree. While it was certainly true in the 1960 anIt takes well over a year to train a helicopter pilot these days.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.
Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?
Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.
No offensive but...

They are easier to replace than fast jet pilots and fast jets; attrition warfare is, alas, a remorseless working of things
I am not sure I agree. While it was certainly true in the 1960 anIt takes well over a year to train a helicopter pilot these days.
You aren't suggesting that helicopter pilots and fighter pilots are drawn from the same ASVAB percentiles?

And what do you think has happened to fighter pilot training time since the 1960's?
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
144
There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.
Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?
Ferrari, or Volvo Penta truck - both are very good, just not for the same job. After your post it just gets silly. Where does a brain surgeon sit, or a prime minister?
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,348
Reaction score
496
I am not sure where this went but I am not implying that fighter pilots are somehow lesser aviators. I am implying that a 2020 AH-64E is far more complex than a 1969 UH-1H and that it takes several years to fully teach an Army Aviator the full complexity of their mission. Just like a fighter pilot, or a bomber pilot and a transport pilot take time. I will end with this. I am not interested in taking this thread any further from the simple question that was asked.
 

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
139
Reaction score
31
Having read about fast jet / helicopter air to air combat by the people practicing for it I am led to believe that helicopters are particularly difficult subjects for fighters to engage. The RAF SHF seem to work on trying to evade at 0 ft and if the fighter gets tunnel visioned in to coming down to the heli, the heli can out maneuver the fast jet, with the plan of wasting the jets energy and flying him in to the ground. It would be engaged with all door mounted guns (so on a Chinook up to 2 miniguns, one each side, and a machine gun on the ramp for example).

The fighter must be very careful to succeed and will find it extremely difficult to engage with Radar - so heat seeking missiles are the way forward. More often than not they get dragged down to the heli. It appears to be a very advanced skill on both sides.

I get the impression, that the speed at which fast jets can leave the engagement zone means that air-to-air armed heli's have a very very small window of opportunity for engagement.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
The fighter must be very careful to succeed and will find it extremely difficult to engage with Radar
Helicopters are probably within the detection envelope of most airborne look-down-shoot-down radars.
Getting active RF seekers to find them terminally is trickier. And if they are hovering it's very hard.

But many of the modern imaging infrared AAMs are data linked to the airborne radar
so the kill chain is a little easier in that regard.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
Some more color (literally) : this is data collected from the CIWS radar of a helicopter hovering in sea clutter.
With a very high pulse-repetition frequency, you can capture "blade flashes."

But land clutter is far worse and most of the seekers out there probably don't match CIWS on the PRF front.

ciws-helicopter-fft.png
 

Attachments

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
139
Reaction score
31
The fighter must be very careful to succeed and will find it extremely difficult to engage with Radar
Helicopters are probably within the detection envelope of most airborne look-down-shoot-down radars.
Getting active RF seekers to find them terminally is trickier. And if they are hovering it's very hard.

But many of the modern imaging infrared AAMs are data linked to the airborne radar
so the kill chain is a little easier in that regard.

I'm just going by what the people who do it say.

I found this:

 
Last edited:

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
The fighter must be very careful to succeed and will find it extremely difficult to engage with Radar
Helicopters are probably within the detection envelope of most airborne look-down-shoot-down radars.
Getting active RF seekers to find them terminally is trickier. And if they are hovering it's very hard.

But many of the modern imaging infrared AAMs are data linked to the airborne radar
so the kill chain is a little easier in that regard.

I'm just going by what the people who do it say.

I found this:

Thanks. The recurring theme from the 80's survivability studies for rotary wing was the threat from
look-down-shoot-down radar. Seems to be well justified.

AIM-7F would be iffy in this period* but the "Lima" would probably have been fine albeit at short range.

* I just read the report. Yeah. AIM-9L only at 2.3 km. That would uncomfortably close given that the report
expects that Mi-24 will be carrying SA-7 or SA-9. Did they?
 
Last edited:

Dynoman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
898
Reaction score
254
I've always thought that it would be interesting to consider several 'low-level air superiority' squadrons of dedicated air combat helicopters that were deployed in areas where the enemy is operating air assault operations. These dedicated air combat helicopters could take out their troop carriers before they reach their LZ and engage escort helicopters or attack helicopters and CAS aircraft. These helicopters could be small with drop tanks for extended loiter time over the battlefield and then engage aerial targets of opportunity. One can dream!
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,898
Reaction score
1,495
Imagine the headlines "First helicopter ace. Shot down three F-15, one F-16, and one Whartog." :eek::eek::eek:
 

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
438
Reaction score
235
sweet artwork, AVPRO ?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
I've always thought that it would be interesting to consider several 'low-level air superiority' squadrons of dedicated air combat helicopters that were deployed in areas where the enemy is operating air assault operations. These dedicated air combat helicopters could take out their troop carriers before they reach their LZ and engage escort helicopters or attack helicopters and CAS aircraft. These helicopters could be small with drop tanks for extended loiter time over the battlefield and then engage aerial targets of opportunity. One can dream!
J-CATCH also needs to be read as programmatic: it's partially a position piece for the US Army to say
to the Air Force "yes, you could use fast jets in the anti-helicopter role but..."

a. it's tricky
b. outcomes are uncertain esp. if the threat helicopters are carrying SA-7 or SA-9
c. your fast jets will probably have their hands full with Frontal Aviation fast jets
d. your fast jets are already outnumbered and over-tasked

so...

Army Aviation FTW!
 

Dynoman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
898
Reaction score
254
I think Hungarian 'rotary wing fighter pilots' are a future possibility :D. They were involved in a exercise that demonstrated the possibility of downing fixed wing aircraft over 10 years ago.
 

Attachments

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
139
Reaction score
31
Besides the J-CATCH document there are at least 2 related threads debating this subject on a particular forum (and I know we are drifting in to general FJ vs RW combat).

One of the contributors I have spoken with in person so I know they aren't bs'ing and I have been around those forums enough to know who to believe - they're in those threads so I take them at their word.

It seems that IF the ROE allowed it, the initial plan is to just take the RW out with BVRAAM missiles. If you can distinguish what's a helicopter and what isn't (granted this would be more applicable for older types, and I think an AESA or very modern RADAR unit would just about put those problems to bed now). Of course the big 'if' is the ROE allowing long range missile shots without visual confirmation.

I don't really want to link to the threads here as they weren't meant to be picked apart by others. However, there are some interesting comments back and forth on the subject:

1. If you're in a Mudhen and you had spare PGMs, you'd just put a PGM on the rotor head - carried out in the Gulf and practiced in DACT flights over the sea when the Mudhen had enough of not finding a chinook over the water

2. If you didn't have the perfect kit, you could cobble together a picture using the IR seeker at night to help you search as an ad hoc IRST, and the modern IR missiles probably wouldn't care much about IR suppression measures on helicopters

3. Success for a helicopter is measured in staying alive rather than getting kills. You need very slick CRM and Comms to fight the helicopter well - the loadies would be very busy. As ever, the element of surprise is key. The guy who shot down/disabled 3 helis in one attack in the Falklands said that the crews didn't even know he was attacking until the one brought down by his aircraft shockwave was underneath him! There were no deaths and he spoke to them.

4. It seems that bringing helis down by supersonic overflight was at least an accepted tactic for a while in the RAF

5. If you were in a Longbow Apache you could use the FCR to keep an eye on your rear, and you would try to engage with the gun as well as with all the Flechette CRV7s you had

6. Luftwaffe Alpha Jet squadron war roles were anti-helicopter units, utilising the ventral gun pod. I had known this before but felt it worth pointing out

7. There's the chance for a transport heli to land and deploy a MANPAD - this could be a helicopter crews greatest chance of a FJ kill

8. There seems to be the assumption that FJs would probably leave helis alone as not worth the effort unless they were known to be carrying HVTs / specific missions

9. Overall chance of spotting a helicopter from an FJ over land and even over sea appears low

IMO something like a Super Tucano, or SABA back in the day! would be the way forward with dealing with helicopters. E.g Impala kills in Africa. Potentially this makes these types more susceptible to loss by gunship too.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,898
Reaction score
1,495
4. It seems that bringing helis down by supersonic overflight was at least an accepted tactic for a while in the RAF

6. Luftwaffe Alpha Jet squadron war roles were anti-helicopter units, utilising the ventral gun pod. I had known this before but felt it worth pointing out

IMO something like a Super Tucano, or SABA back in the day! would be the way forward with dealing with helicopters. E.g Impala kills in Africa. Potentially this makes these types more susceptible to loss by gunship too.
4 - Reading that, I reminded something. In the Mirage IIIC-J days, a clever Israeli pilot used his Mirage delta wing vortexes to send a Mi-8 into the ground.

6 - Makes ton of sense: all three are / were trainers. Alphajet is swept wing, Impala was Aermacci 326 so straight wings, Tucano is fast turboprop.

In all three cases, trainers are arguably far more agile at subsonic speeds, than true combat fast jets.

For example, in close combat, French Alphajet pilots used to kick Mirage 2000 asses. Same for the Hawks vs the RAF fast jets - Tornado, Jaguars...

In fact the radarless jet trainers were used to train fast jets pilots to counter sneak attacks similar to the soviet jets like Mig-15/17/19/21. Who were more or less radarless, too, since their radars were pretty bad...
A startling example of this happened on May 10, 1972. While US Phantoms scored 10 victories that day, they also lost a couple of them (Roger Locher / Bob Lodge Oyster One) to a sneak MiG-19 attack... with guns. The MiG-19 radar, if it even existed, was nothing like the Phantom. No missile either. And yet, the MiG scored and the Phantom went down. Surviving Phantoms crews told that the freakkin' Mig-19 popped out of nowhere, gunned down the Phantom, and then vanished.
 
Last edited:

shin_getter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
63
With fighter aircraft getting MTI that can track ground vehicles, I'd think ground clutter is a very unreliable means of defense. mmW radar ground attack missile that is capable of identifying ground vehicles should have no problem with helicopters either, allowing something like SPEAR-3 to run search and destroy attacks. Wide area search EO/IR systems is another way to find helicopters hiding in the bush, and with AI assisted target recognition the identification time can be quite fast. When without anti-aircraft sensors I am not sure helicopters can operate safely and independently against MALE drones with can detect and shoot first.
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
144
I do feel there is certain amount of vote rigging going on in this thread.

Yes in the given scenario of a fighter v a helicopter, the fighter has a much higher likelihood of bringing down the chopper, than the reverse.

In an actual peer war, both parties would be concentrating on their mission, not looking for bonus points.

The fighter has a mission, navigation, RWR etc to manage. The chopper the same, plus trees to dodge, ground fire etc.

Both are going to be far more focused on their peer threats, the fighter will be looking up and around, for other fighters, not looking in ground clutter for a whirleygig to play with.

In asymmetric warfare, have at it, but if charlie is shuttling around in a Mi-8 I'd suggest the west would either strike it on the ground, or send an apache to gun it down, than send an F16 to play tag.

And I agree, if there is a specific anti-helo force, armed trainers make far more sense, than fighters, or fighter-heli's.
 

shin_getter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
63
I don't think either attack helicopters or trainers are that good at denying opponent helicopter ops. They just don't have the sensors for wide area coverage or combat over match to win exchanges at lowest cost and risk.

Sensors to detect enemy helicopters at long range, weapons to have reliable standoff advantage over opponent heli-AAMs, persistence to provide around the clock coverage are combinations that shut down opponent ops hard.

With battle networks, one can link all kinds of sensor shooter combinations thus many kinds of very asymmetric counters can be pieced together based on tactical situations and specialized counter force is likely not needed as a helicopter does not have unmatched defensive characteristics (like extreme stealth, speed, etc) that demands special systems.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
705
Don't forget SA. Surrounding vision is limited in the most sensitive sector and the tunnel vision effect of NoE flight would probably ruin what's remaining in A2A.
 
Last edited:

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
seems that IF the ROE allowed it, the initial plan is to just take the RW out with BVRAAM missiles. If you can distinguish what's a helicopter and what isn't (granted this would be more applicable for older types, and I think an AESA or very modern RADAR unit would just about put those problems to bed now). Of course the big 'if' is the ROE allowing long range missile shots without visual confirmation.
Not clear that any BVR missile until the 90's model AMRAAMs could pick a helo out of clutter.
The fighters would need to orient themselves in such a way as to be looking "up" at the helo i.e.
the missile would not be looking down into clutter.

That means some very low-level, high speed flying and probably coming in broadside against the helo.

For infrared, unless you were able to attain the same geometry described above, you'd need LOAL
and probably an imaging infrared seeker both of which were in their infancy in this period.

I totally agree that AESAs make non-cooperative target recognition of helicopters much easer and
LOAL + datalinks + modern AAMs make helicopters a much easier nut to crack.

It's understandable why things like Commache were being looked at in the late Cold War period
since popping an RF and IR signature reduced heli out of clutter is a really tough ask even now.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
705
Just to bring some perspective:
At 10:22, Wickson, flying at 27,000 feet (8,230 m), reported a radar contact on a low-flying, slow-moving aircraft 40 miles (64 km) southeast of his current position. Wilson acknowledged Wickson's report with a "clear there" response, meaning he had no radar contacts in that area. Unknown to the two F-15 pilots, the unidentified aircraft were the two U.S. Army Black Hawks. Contrary to standard procedure, neither Tracy nor Wang spoke up at this point to request that the AWACS crew members attempt to identify the F-15s' radar contacts.[11]

Both F-15 pilots then electronically interrogated the radar target with their on-board IFF systems across two different modes (Mode I and Mode IV). Their IFF systems responded negatively to the attempt to identify the contact on Mode I. The Mode IV momentarily gave a positive response, but thereafter responded negatively and the F-15s moved to intercept the unidentified aircraft. Intermittent IFF Mode I and Mode II returns from the Black Hawks now began to show on Wilson's and other AWACS crew members' scopes and friendly helicopter symbols reappeared on Wang's scope. After closing to 20 miles (32 km) of the radar contacts, at 10:25 the F-15s again reported the contact to the AWACS and Wilson this time responded that he now had a radar contact at that reported location. Although the Black Hawk intermittent radar and now steady IFF returns on the AWACS scopes were in the same location as the unidentified contacts being tracked by the F-15s, none of the AWACS controllers advised Wickson or May that the contacts they were tracking might be friendly helicopters.[12]


An Eagle Flight Black Hawk as seen from the side

An MI-24 as seen from the side
The two F-15s now initiated a visual identification (VID) pass of the contact. The VID pass entailed violating one of OPC's rules of engagement, which prohibited fighter aircraft from operating below 10,000 feet (3,050 m) above the ground. At this time the two Black Hawks had entered a deep valley and were cruising at a speed of 130 knots (150 mph; 240 km/h) about 200 feet (60 m) above the ground. Wickson's VID pass was conducted at a speed of about 450 knots (520 mph; 830 km/h), 500 feet (150 m) above and 1,000 feet (300 m) to the left of the helicopters. At 10:28 Wickson reported "Tally two Hinds" and then passed the two Black Hawks.[13] "Hind" is the NATO designation for the Mil Mi-24 helicopter, a helicopter that the Iraqi and Syrian militaries operated and was usually configured with armament on small, side-mounted wings.[14] Wilson responded with "Copy, Hinds" and asked Wang, "Sir, are you listening to this?" Wang responded, "Affirmative" but offered no further guidance or comments.[15]

May then conducted his own VID pass about 1,500 feet (500 m) above the helicopters and reported, "Tally 2."[16] May later stated to a USAF accident investigation board that his "Tally 2" call meant that he saw two helicopters but did not mean that he was confirming Wickson's identification of them as Hinds.[17] Neither F-15 pilot had been informed that U.S. Army Black Hawks participating in OPC often carried auxiliary fuel tanks mounted on wings nor had either been instructed in the paint scheme that Iraqi Hind helicopters used, light brown and desert tan, which was different from the dark green color used by the Black Hawks. Wickson later said, "I had no doubt when I looked at him that he was a Hind ... The Black Hawk did not even cross my mind."[18]

Following their VID passes, Wickson and May circled back behind the helicopters approximately 10 miles (16 km). Because aircraft from various nations sometimes operated unannounced in the northern Iraq area, the OPC rules of engagement required the F-15 pilots to attempt to verify the nationality of the helicopters. Instead, at 10:28, Wickson notified the AWACS that he and May were "engaged" and instructed May to "arm hot."[19] At 10:30, Wickson fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile at the trail helicopter from a range of about 4 nautical miles (10 km). The missile hit and destroyed the trailing helicopter seven seconds later (36°46′N 44°05′E). In response, the lead Black Hawk, piloted by McKenna, immediately turned left and dived for lower altitude in an apparent attempt to evade the unexpected attack. About 20 seconds later, May fired an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile at the lead helicopter from a range of about 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km), hitting and shooting it down also about 1.2 miles (2 km) northeast of the trail helicopter (36°55′N 43°30′E). All 26 people on board the two Black Hawks were killed. After flying over the wreckage of the two helicopters lying burning on the ground, May radioed Wickson, "Stick a fork in them, they're done."[20]
 
Last edited:

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
139
Reaction score
31
seems that IF the ROE allowed it, the initial plan is to just take the RW out with BVRAAM missiles. If you can distinguish what's a helicopter and what isn't (granted this would be more applicable for older types, and I think an AESA or very modern RADAR unit would just about put those problems to bed now). Of course the big 'if' is the ROE allowing long range missile shots without visual confirmation.
Not clear that any BVR missile until the 90's model AMRAAMs could pick a helo out of clutter.
The fighters would need to orient themselves in such a way as to be looking "up" at the helo i.e.
the missile would not be looking down into clutter.

That means some very low-level, high speed flying and probably coming in broadside against the helo.

For infrared, unless you were able to attain the same geometry described above, you'd need LOAL
and probably an imaging infrared seeker both of which were in their infancy in this period.

I totally agree that AESAs make non-cooperative target recognition of helicopters much easer and
LOAL + datalinks + modern AAMs make helicopters a much easier nut to crack.

It's understandable why things like Commache were being looked at in the late Cold War period
since popping an RF and IR signature reduced heli out of clutter is a really tough ask even now.

I have read an anecdote of a debrief where a Phantom put a Sparrow in to a Truck on the A1M rather than the Wessex it was supposed to be fighting which was pacing the motorway traffic (training of course).

You wouldn't get fast jet guys down in the weeds turning with helicopters unless it was absolutely necessary. Death by mistake is far too close at hand. Any FJ guy will resist getting sucked in, and none would be going down low enough to look 'up' with the Radar. It appears the systems were better than that, as were the crew skills when trained for.

We've got a lot of posts on this which is great, and the comments are wide ranging (also great!). We're discussing maybe 60 years of technology in the last 10 posts. As a result things seem a bit muddled. Todays capabilities are great but obviously we can't go back and apply them to Cold War scenarios. No one is going to send squadrons of Alpha Jets up against waves of Hinds and Hips. Same with the Point Defence Hawk idea.

If there is a scenario to answer we could discuss that specifically rather than throw around what we've found on the net! :)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
Any FJ guy will resist getting sucked in, and none would be going down low enough to look 'up' with the Radar.
That was precisely the recommendation that came out of J-CATCH.

It's clear the look-down-shoot-down radars of this period could regularly track helicopters at range but that the
Sparrows of the period (AIM-7E and AIM-7F) could not reliably prosecute helicopters in clutter.

Engagement was low-altitude ingress by the fast-jet to silhouette the helicopters on the horizon.
That would also help with infrared clutter for the "Limas."
 

coanda

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
139
Reaction score
31
Any FJ guy will resist getting sucked in, and none would be going down low enough to look 'up' with the Radar.
That was precisely the recommendation that came out of J-CATCH.

It's clear the look-down-shoot-down radars of this period could regularly track helicopters at range but that the
Sparrows of the period (AIM-7E and AIM-7F) could not reliably prosecute helicopters in clutter.

Engagement was low-altitude ingress by the fast-jet to silhouette the helicopters on the horizon.
That would also help with infrared clutter for the "Limas."
A recommendation does not mean it would have happened. It is a seriously risky strategy for the FJ. The first thing a heli crew does to evade radar is find ways to disappear in to clutter. They will be heli taxing, they will be flying at truck height, they will be navigating around buildings and they'll be doing other things too, as there are plenty of anecdotes for here and elsewhere.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
520
Reaction score
176
I think there's been some amusing digression from "has it happened?" To "could it happen?" to "wouldn't modern fighters would win in a pitched battle vs a helicopter?".
Has it happened? Not that I'm aware of.
Could it happen? I imagine it's entirely possible, especially in a busy threat environment where everyone (including the helicooter) is busy flying, navigating, looking for --or at -- targets, and trying not to fly into the ground. Best case scenario for the helicopter is someone flying low and fast towards their target coming up over a ridge and on to your plate so to speak.
It doesn't matter how nice your radar and processing power is if you're down in the weeds and the helicopter is behind that ridge or butte -- or if you're not radiating. Neither exactly unheard of.
The attack helicopter crew who was moments ago was busy performing some other chore suddenly finds themselves a very mobile triple-A battery. Cuts both ways, because it's just as easy for the helicopter to come around a ridge and find itself unknowingly in a very bad spot caught completely unaware.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
A recommendation does not mean it would have happened. It is a seriously risky strategy for the FJ.
The intercept altitudes for the F-15s in the Black Hawk incident above were offset by a few hundred feet at most from
the helicopters. Practically co-altitude. And that was with a missile with specific improvements to find lows-and-slows in clutter.

Though, this wasn't strictly necessary with the improvements to Sparrow:

Bizarrely, Randy "May Day" May aka Tiger 2 in this incident who downed the lead Blackhawk with an AIM-9
had a BVR kill against an Mi-24 in GW1 with an AIM-7M. The engagement altitude was at 20,000 ft for his F-15C
vs. the Hind at 500-1000 ft.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
705
The engagement geometry was dictated by the need for visual identification. This is the only reason why both F-15 went so close to their targets...
 

shin_getter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
63
Back to the original question:

There were even engagements between Iranian AH-1J and Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft. Using their 20 mm calibre canon, the AH-1Js scored three confirmed kills against MiG-21s, claimed a Su-20, and shared in the destruction of a MiG-23.[16]
[16] Williams, Anthony G.; Gustin, Emmanuel (2004). Flying Guns of the Modern Era. Marlborough: Crowood Press. p. 172.

Collaborated with The Iran Iraq War by Pierre Razoux which had one shoot down event (p. 250) written out
From google books:
On July 24 (1983) Saddam Hussein and Adnan Khairallah traveled to the front to personally assess the severity of the situation. The minister of defense took things in hand and directed operations. He launched a forceful counterattack with massive air force support. The Mi-24s recently delivered by the Soviet Union worked wonders as they hunted down infantrymen scattered on the surrounding mountains' arid slopes. One Mi-24 was shot down by a marauding Iranian fighter plane. A handful of Cobra helicopters also intervened to try to slow the Iraqi counterattack. One Cobra pulled off a unusual feat by using its on-board gun to shoot down a MiG-21 slowly flying over the battlefield at low altitude.
----
Don't know how reliable are those claims.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,320
Reaction score
3,222
Here is the Arabic book in Google,which tells the whole story;

unfortunately,I couldn't reach to it in my stuff up to now.

 
Top