Why are helicopters still used in asymetric warfare?

[Ecthy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/30/afghan.copter/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6706253.stm

Another C-47 heli shot down, 7 dead. There are videos from the 80s showing Mujahedeen shooting down Russian helis, that country hasn't been heli-able since the 80s. So why are still used so widely? I understand troops have to be transported also in small units, so I guess it's more a matter of certainty of air space security, but still.

It also shows the Taliban are anything but gone. On the other hand, this occured in the south, while there haven't been many death news from North Afghanistan in a while, considering the attack on German soldiers the other day a singulary event.

So tell me all about helis in modern warfare. Can there be any certainty as to enemy abilities to hunt them down? All it requires is a missile on your shoulder. Should helis only run at night? Only in pacified areas? What other options are there to transport small groups of soldiers on spot?

[BeBMan]

Various reasons

- they look cool, and make cool noises
- what would we do with those helis instead?
- if we quit using them, it would change the asymmetrical nature of the war into a "bit more balanced warfare"


Seriously, compared to Vietnam the heli losses currently don't appear to be that high. But yeah, IIRC they were used on a much larger scale there....

[Seeker]

Why not actually start paradropping paratroops again?

I'm sure with new technology, there's all sorts of low altitude, high speed **** they could do. In 'n out, no more lollygagging transits.

I think it's a little reckless to be slowly and loudly flying around a country full of rpgs and people who hate you with nothing to protect you but a few flares. At low altitude. In the daytime.

[Harovan]

But helicopters are still good to throw commies out of them.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why not actually start paradropping paratroops again?

I'm sure with new technology, there's all sorts of low altitude, high speed **** they could do. In 'n out, no more lollygagging transits.

I think it's a little reckless to be slowly and loudly flying around a country full of rpgs and people who hate you with nothing to protect you but a few flares. At low altitude. In the daytime.

Not that I'm an military expert, but maybe because nobody has as many trained paras as you have infantry guys that can be flown around by heli....also historically some of the bigger para ops were quite a mess....

[Ecthy]

Some of you guys have some good arguments.

I wonder why you haven't posted them yet

[DAVOUT]

The use of helico should be restricted to evacuation of wounded men and emergency needs. I understood that routine transports were reorganized a few months ago after the loss of several helicos, but that was in Irak.

[SlowwHand]

B.S.

[Arrian]

Wasn't the basic calculus that 1 tank was worth something like 10 helicopters? Plus helicopters are much more mobile.

-Arrian

[Tattila the Hun]

Anyone noticed, that people die in wars? Helos or not? Lot's of APC's have been destroyed in Iraq, maybe they should be scrapped?

Maybe they get that Osprey-thingy going, or is that a Marine only thing...

[Patroklos]

Another C-47 heli shot down, 7 dead.

How is this different from a humvee being IEDed? I fail to see how the loss of a helo is some news worthy event (the death's of course are).

There are videos from the 80s showing Mujahedeen shooting down Russian helis, that country hasn't been heli-able since the 80s.

So? The insurgents have anti-tank rockets and we still use tanks. The insurgents have bullets and we still use infantry. You can't make something invulnerable, losses are to be expected.

So why are still used so widely?

Mobility mostly. They can operate in nearly any terrain, are extraordinarily flexible, and can carry devastating weapons payloads (with unique loiter capabilities as well).

so I guess it's more a matter of certainty of air space security, but still.

We have complete air superiority, this helo was brought down by ground fire. You can take down a helo with an AK-47. Hell, you could shoot down you local news chopper with a hand gun.

Can there be any certainty as to enemy abilities to hunt them down? All it requires is a missile on your shoulder.

No, like I said, you can shoot down a helo with almost anything. They are delicate machines, hardened as much as possible, but still vulnerable. You balance utility and mission support against probable losses. There are probably tens of thousands of helo flight hours logged in Afghanistan every month versus the loss of less than one helo a month. It is simply the arithmetic of war.

Why not actually start paradropping paratroops again?

I'm sure with new technology, there's all sorts of low altitude, high speed **** they could do. In 'n out, no more lollygagging transits.

You need flat, unobstructed terrain for large scale para drops. Not to many places in Afghanistan. A company of rangers with broken skulls and twisted ankles are not much use. Not to mention how do you get them out when they are done? Are we going to paradrop mail, ammunition, water, food, medical supplies? We could, most would end up in the hands of the enemy/population.

[Patroklos]

Maybe they get that Osprey-thingy going, or is that a Marine only thing...

The Navy and Airforce will have a few, but the V-22 is just as vulnerable as a helo when lifting/dropping payloads. It just goes much faster between points.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Patroklos


How is this different from a humvee being IEDed? I fail to see how the loss of a helo is some news worthy event (the death's of course are).

So? The insurgents have anti-tank rockets and we still use tanks. The insurgents have bullets and we still use infantry. You can't make something invulnerable, losses are to be expected.

The US superiority in material is such that it is true that you can spend lavishly helicos and Humvees, but that level of risk is not accepted for the soldiers (as shown by your stats); therefore, the pilot, the crew and the passengers are not to be exposed to the same level of risk that the machine. Incidentally, in tanks and generally in humvees, there are no passengers, the presence of whom in helicos demands some additional caution.

[kittenOFchaos]

When are we deploying Terminators?

[Pekka]

Well, choppers can be used effectively, very effectively, when it's just applied to what it was supposed to be doing in an attack.

In an ideal situation, the chopper, or squadron of choppers, aren't alone. They're supposed to be protected by jets. Kind of like everyone is looking out for everyone, it's a chain. The AA is looking to disrupt enemy jets so that their grunts can go and do their thing, more over they are protecting the artillery from getting pounded by air forces, so they can support the grunts by giving accurate bombings in well defined zones. This is to give the least possible response and preparation time for the enemy, and give a protective shield for your own troops to advance. So everyone is protecting each other, because alone they can't do it and would be smashed to pieces. See wars where the army is weak or not a real army. They get smashed to bits. It's a rock, paper, scissor game. You need them all.

Now, usually the only real danger the chopper faces is enemy AA or mobile troops with some AA equipment. Most likely in modern war though, it's mobile troops with missiles and ****.

What you should udnerstand is that it's a chess game. Both can be eaten alive. Choppers are calculating and prioritizing ground targets at all times. You want to be weapons cold, all kinds of scanner are at play. Your chances against a chopper, if you're down on the ground, are very slim, unless you're ambushing it on purpose. In normal situation, the chopper wins 9.5 times out of 10.

You don't deploy choppers to the front where no man has gone before, it's not exactly the perfect recon vehicle. So the strengths? A LOT of firepower. They can land anywhere. They have cameras, so they can film from a logn distance and low level. What do you think is one of the worst nightmares of a trooper or even AA? It's a chopper, long distance, behind terrain, unvisible to you, then doing the chopper pop up, which is getting up, unleashing the hell and getting back down. That's missiles coming at you with high percision and fast, and surprisingly, and you have 0 chances of retaliation. You can't pick them up with radars if they come low and using the terrain to their advantage.

You can put on a show of pain with a chopper unlike other. The reason why these choppers are getting shot down is that choppers used for transport, basically if they are unprotected and they get in a route of an ambush, it doesn't have much chances. It's like shooting a sitting duck. So why do you want to transport your troops, I don't think we even need to answer this one. Why not planes then? Well, they can't land and take off everywhere. Choppers can be deployed fast, they can get everywhere.

Plus the trade off, I mean you just use them wise strategically. If you lose a chopper, that doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. It's not like you can do war and not lose a soldier either.

Choppers are VERY useful for their mobility, their firepower and their versatile usage. Or do you pick up a wounded guy with F18?