What's new

Can a Helicopter destroy An Aeroplane

Mercenary_ali

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
I mean a fighter plane. for instance, can Agusta A129 Mangusta destroy F-16.

This may sound ridiculous that a helicopter destroying an aeroplany but i think its possible.

Augusta::::::
Data from Augusta Westland A129 Technical Data[15]
General characteristics
Crew: 2: pilot and weapon systems officer
Length: 12.62 m (41 ft 5 in)
Rotor diameter: 11.90 m (39 ft 1 in)
Height: 3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)
Disc area: 444.9 m² (4,789 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,530 kg (5,580 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 5,100 kg (11,245 lb)
Powerplant: 2× LHTEC T800-LHT-800 turboshafts, 1,024 kW (1,373 shp) each
Propellers: five blade rotor
Performance
Maximum speed: 294 km/h (160 knots, 184 mph)
Cruise speed: 269 km/h (145 knots, 167 mph)
Range: 561 km (303 nm, 341 mi)
Ferry range: 1,000 km (540 nm, 620 mi)
Service ceiling: 6,096 m (20,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 13.97 m/s (2,750 ft/min)
Armament
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) three-barrel gatling-type cannon (500 rounds)
Rockets: 4 pods with
38× 81 mm (3.19 in) unguided rockets or
76× 70 mm (2.75 in) unguided rockets or
12.7 mm machine gun-pod
Missiles:
8× AGM-114 Hellfire, BGM-71 TOW, Hydra 70, Spike-ER or AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-tank missiles and Sura D/Snora.
4-8× AIM-92 Stinger or Mistral anti-aircraft missiles


F-16

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 49 ft 5 in (14.8 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.8 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.8 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,670 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
Powerplant: 1× F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (128.9 kN)
Performance
Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)
At altitude: Mach 2+ (1,500 mph, 2,414 km/h)
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000+ ft (18,000+ m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: approx 40 lb/ft²[132] (194.9 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095


M61A1 on display.
Armament
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan gatling gun, 515 rounds
Hardpoints: 2× wing-tip Air-to-air missile launch rails, 6× under-wing & 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of payload
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× /7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively) or
4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets) or
4× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× Zuni 127 mm rockets)
Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
2× AIM-7 Sparrow or
6× AIM-9 Sidewinder or
6× IRIS-T or
6× AIM-120 AMRAAM or
6× Python-4
Air-to-ground missiles:
6× AGM-45 Shrike or
6× AGM-65 Maverick or
4× AGM-88 HARM
Anti-ship missiles:
2× AGM-84 Harpoon or
4× AGM-119 Penguin
Bombs:
2× CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition
2× CBU-89 Gator mine
2× CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
4× GBU-10 Paveway II
6× GBU-12 Paveway II
6× Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
4× JDAM
4× Mark 84 general-purpose bombs
8× Mark 83 GP bombs
12× Mark 82 GP bombs
B61 nuclear bomb
Others:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod or
AN/ALQ-131 & AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
LANTIRN, Lockheed Martin Sniper XR & LITENING targeting pods or
up to 3× 300/330/370 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.
Avionics
AN/APG-68 radar



The cost of Augusta Helicopter is 43 Million USD!!!! and f-16 costs only 14.6 to 18 Million US dollars. So why go for a helicopter, even for Apache LOngbow which costs 18 million USD.:cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::
:pakistan:
 
. . . .
'AH-1Z Viper/AH-1 Super Cobra' and 'AH-64 Apache' can be armed with 2 AIM-9 A2A Sidewinders. So yes, there's a possibility. Low flying ground attack fighters could be easily engaged with the sidewinder.
 
.
Yes it is possible, but highly based on circumstances

and why buy Helicopter? simple.... F16 cannot hover
 
. .
Mr Ali,

We expect some intelligent articles from our posters---even though you maynot believe it---but it is a respectable site. So---please kindly post something worthwhile.

It would be great if you'd teach me something worthwhile. pls dont say that it cant be done in this forum, i can give u my email if u want.
Thanks BTW.
 
.
'AH-1Z Viper/AH-1 Super Cobra' and 'AH-64 Apache' can be armed with 2 AIM-9 A2A Sidewinders. So yes, there's a possibility. Low flying ground attack fighters could be easily engaged with the sidewinder.
Not good odds.

I mean a fighter plane. for instance, can Agusta A129 Mangusta destroy F-16.

This may sound ridiculous that a helicopter destroying an aeroplany but i think its possible.
In just about %99.999 of things in life, especially in war, speed is of the essence. There is an item called 'Line of Sight' calculation. Basically, if you ever gone skeet shooting, everytime you 'lead' a target, you are doing LoS calculation. Leading a target means you are estimating where the target MIGHT be at a future point in time and in a spatial location. The faster the target, the more difficult it is to 'lead' the target precisely because there is a greater distance between where the target is at the moment of firing the missile and where the target MIGHT be. If you are not a recreational shooter or have never hunt with a shotgun, then I suggest you read up on the subject.

Here is one for starter...

Missile guidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said...An air-air missile is conceptually no different from a shotgunner in trying to 'lead' a target, which in this case is an aircraft instead of a duck.

There are two main options for missile guidance as basically illustrated below...

f1466a0260611c07f0f7aaee8415b7b0.jpg


18c13fc21bcd492d0fc860f2e9e76867.jpg


The more advanced missile system will have a hybrid guidance system. Command guidance (CLoS) at the initial launch and the missile take over at what is commonly called 'terminal guidance' mode and the missile will employ 'Proportional Guidance' (PN) towards the target.

Command (CLoS) guidance require the launch platform to keep focus on the target for a certain amount of time, leaving it vulnerable and less able to process other targets during that time. Therefore, it is desirable to have the missile to do as much work on the target as possible, from finding the target to tracking it. The problem here is that the missile's own radar is physically smaller than the launcher's radar and would require some level of assistance from the launcher regarding target information, even with a shoulder launch Stinger, the missile must still be pointed in the direction of the target for the missile to use its own sensor, infrared or radar, to calculate its own target data.

Now that SOME basics of missile guidance is out of the way...

The difference between a duck and a jet fighter is that the duck is always unaware that it is being scheduled for destruction whereas the jet fighter will be aware of the threats and employ erratic maneuvers and countermeasures against sensors, infrared or radar. All tactics the launcher and missile must attempt to anticipate and compensate in order to increase the odds of success. I say 'increase the odds of success', not guarantee of success and that is why even in a fighter against fighter situation, surprise is preferable, see Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capability. For a slow mover like a helo, surprise is even more important against a fast mover like a jet fighter.

In a jet fighter versus jet fighter scenario, the launcher will most likely matches the target in terms of speed and maneuverability, allowing the hunter to better position his missile against the target. If the hunter cannot surprise the target with BVR capability or to somehow sneak up on the target, then speed and maneuverability are the only avenues left for the hunter to best position his missile so that it does as little LoS calculations as possible. The more LoS recalculations the launch platform and the missile has to perform, the greater the odds of a miss. That is the equivalent of the shotgunner having to constantly readjusting his aim against a maneuvering duck. No Peking Duck for dinner.

So while it is possible that a helo can shoot down a fast mover, the odds, even with a missile like a Stinger or an AIM-9, are not very good UNLESS the fast mover is caught in a surprise or a crossfire with several missiles where one missile forces the jet fighter into a flight path where another missile will have highly certain LoS calculations for a hit. The key issue for a success is to perform as few Line-of-Sight RECALCULATIONS as possible and nothing is better when the target is in a constant and predictable flight path.
 
.
Make that Proportional Navigation (PN) instead of 'Guidance'.
 
.
Stingers and Sidewinders come as an option to be loaded to combat helicopters. However, they are practically against enemy helicopters. The idea of shooting a jet fighter by a helicopter is absurd and impractical. You see, if helicopters are to be operated in a theater, and enemy jets interdiction is predicted, its the job of AIrForce to provide Top Cover over the battlefield.
 
.
absolutely - if the aircraft is on ground.
 
.
It would be great if you'd teach me something worthwhile. pls dont say that it cant be done in this forum, i can give u my email if u want.
Thanks BTW.

"The cost of Augusta Helicopter is 43 Million USD!!!! and f-16 costs only 14.6 to 18 Million US dollars. So why go for a helicopter, even for Apache LOngbow which costs 18 million USD.:"



Mr Ali,

I want to refer you back to your original statement----most of the posters have jumped on the band wagon and just starting writing without looking at the significance of the question asked.

Yes on any given day---a helicopter may shoot down a fighter aircraft----I have seen the scenarios on the discovery channel---it can happen----a helicopter flying low hiding behind trees pops up and lets loose a missile.

But that is not seemingly your primary concern----your primary question / concern is at the end of your post

" The cost of Augusta Helicopter is 43 Million USD!!!! and f-16 costs only 14.6 to 18 Million US dollars. So why go for a helicopter, even for Apache LOngbow which costs 18 million USD.: "

and that question / statement is absolutely senseless.

The purpose of the post and to start up a new thread is for the poster to post his / her input---pasting and posting 50 lines of specs for one plane and 50 lines of specs for the helicopetr does not do justice to opening up a new thread----with 2 opening lines in the begining and 2 closing lines in the end.

YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY IN YOUR POST EITHER WHY THE HELICOPETRS ARE USELESS---OR THE FIGHTER PLANES ARE USELESS

When you start up a thread---it is your job to write about your research and analysis of the situation----THE ONUS IS UPON YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE THE NECESSITY OF EITHER NO HELICOPTERS OR VICE VERSA.
 
.
I mean a fighter plane. for instance, can Agusta A129 Mangusta destroy F-16.

This may sound ridiculous that a helicopter destroying an aeroplany but i think its possible.

Yes, a SAM armed helicopter can down a fighter jet in WVR combat. It has certain manouvrability advantages over jets which it may exploit. However, jets have the advantage of having A2A radar on board and they have radar guided BVR missiles, both of which even attack helicopters generally lack So, in reality, the number of scenarios in which helicopters can effectively engage fighter jet is severely limited. The AH-1 Cobra is the only western attack helicopter with a proven air-to-air and anti-radar missile capability.
 
.
I saw a sort of documentry in which a Mil Mi-24 Hind shot down an aircraft with an Air-to-Air missile. Don't know much about that scenario but a Helicopter can shoot an Aircraft, it's not impossible, obviously the Aircraft has a clear edge over the heli but it depends also in which circumstances they are.

one question: Are Mil Mi-24 Hinds or other western Gunship Helicopters have some sort of air-to-air missiles similar to AIM-120??

The AMRAAM AIM-120 weighs 340 pounds and uses an advanced solid-fuel rocket motor to achieve a speed of Mach 4 and a range in excess of 30 miles.
so it could be a potential threat to any aircraft!

There is one question: if the world most advanced AMRAAM's have the range in excess of 30 miles then it's not really usefull to have a radar that can detect a target beyond 150 miles, obviously it's an advantage to track your enemy before it's detect you but if you can't shoot the target then you do not have a major edge over the enemy.

I'm a bit confused:confused:....maybe i'm wrong with the figures, so if any member could help and explain me a bit on the topic??...thanks!!:enjoy:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom