T-129 Atak & Turkish Attack Helicopter Programs

[Audio]

Nobody said Apache can only fight tanks. Apache was optimized to fight tanks.

You are saying because it has a higher price (aquisition and running costs) it is technically outdated. Totally disregarding what that higher price brings.

T129 can do anything that AH64 does except tank hunting.

T-129 can hunt tanks as well. It's predecessor (A-129) was based around this principle primarily. Earlier versions did not have a gun initially. Only 2 TOW racks and unguided missiles.

Standard config. of the time:

What it cannot do, is bring so much weapons to the fight (highlighted with the ability to carry only 12 UMTAS missiles by the T-129 as opposed to 16 Hellfire's on the Apache) and it most likely cannot offer the same protection as well.


AW 129 AW129 Multi-Role Combat Helicopter - Army Technology

The airframe provides ballistic protection against 12.7mm armour-piercing rounds. The engines are armour protected. The main rotor has ballistic tolerance against 12.7mm rounds.

Ah-64 HowStuffWorks "Apache Armor"

every part of the helicopter can survive 12.7-mm rounds, and vital engine and rotor components can withstand 23-mm fire.

And yes it includes MMW radar:
Meteksan Savunma - MILDAR

On the lab table.

It CAN yes, but it can't carry 16x ATGMs or that gigantic 30mm ammo box... that's it.

Do we need that much weapons on T129? hell no, we'll have UCAVs and AC-235 fixed wing gunships to do the same job.

Again your mantra of every war in the future will be fought against an ill equipped adversary. In any conventional war flying transports with cannons and UAV's will be toast and their role greatly diminished. The micro UAV's on squad level would be the only ones safe.
Let's face it, a prop wont be ably to out maneuver a missile, be it AAM or SAM and neither will the prop UAV.

 

[Aegis DDG]

@LegionnairE is correct. The use of AH-64 (and the latter variant 'AH-64D') is outdated with the increase of Assymitriacal warfare and there has been an emphasis on lighter Attack helicopter to prevent damage from 20mm DsK and RG-7/30. Heavy amour is useful in large scale combats but in an insurgency it can be an liability! The T-129 can have multiple roles, from attacking tank/amour coloums in an conventional battlefield to suppressing terror groups in deep valleys and it's possible to convert it to an Naval helo on LPD's.

 

[Mosamania]

Nobody said Apache can only fight tanks. Apache was optimized to fight tanks. T129 can do anything that AH64 does with the same excellence, except tank hunting. And yes it includes MMW radar:
Meteksan Savunma - MILDAR

Look I didn't want to get into further debate here but here goes.

Apache has and is currently showing its merit in the battlefield. Even in the anti-Personnal field there are many videos of it taking out entire groups and clusters of enemies with impunity. The same class of helicopter the T-129 is the Cobra amd Super Conra helicopters, they are also doing their share of a$$ kicking in the battlefield.

The light attack helicopters does the same job as the Apache but does it cheaply as well, doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the LHs win the price tag round. The LH capability compared to the HH in the anti-Personnal round go equally between the two. Even though the Apache has a bigger kill count than the Cobras deployed.

Range goes to the LH but service ceiling, rate of climb, payload and maneuverablity goes to the HH. Other factors are too close to count.

Avionics, target detection, situational awareness, C4I capability goes to the HH by a long shot compared to the LH.

Loiter time for CAS goes to the HH in comparison to the LH giving it a longer time to stay in the air and hunt for targets compared to the LH.

So all in all, these are the facts we know, what suits what army better is totally up to the army to decide which copter works best in regards to its needs, it's threats, its budget and its operational capabilities.

@LegionnairE is correct. The use of AH-64 (and the latter variant 'AH-64D') is outdated with the increase of Assymitriacal warfare and there has been an emphasis on lighter Attack helicopter to prevent damage from 20mm DsK and RG-7/30. Heavy amour is useful in large scale combats but in an insurgency it can be an liability! The T-129 can have multiple roles, from attacking tank/amour coloums in an conventional battlefield to suppressing terror groups in deep valleys and it's possible to convert it to an Naval helo on LPD's.

Not to mention it may be fielded in a bigger number than A heavier helicopter. Which is also a huge factor on itself.

 

[Audio]

@LegionnairE is correct. The use of AH-64 (and the latter variant 'AH-64D') is outdated with the increase of Assymitriacal warfare and there has been an emphasis on lighter Attack helicopter to prevent damage from 20mm DsK and RG-7/30. Heavy amour is useful in large scale combats but in an insurgency it can be an liability! The T-129 can have multiple roles, from attacking tank/amour coloums in an conventional battlefield to suppressing terror groups in deep valleys and it's possible to convert it to an Naval helo on LPD's.

When you have nothing good to say it is best to not speak at all.

But just out of joke, what makes you think Apache cannot do multiple roles?

 

[Aegis DDG]

When I mean AH-64 is outdated, I did not mean technologically. It's doctrine of primary tank hunting in large conventional battles is outdated. The AH-64 is an advance helos and is the best attack helicopter in the world, but the T-129 represents the future of attack helicopters. 16 Hellfire missiles and unguided hydras are an overkill. Imagine an armored division has manpads and portable SAM sites, which Airframe is likely to survive? The heavy AH-64 or the more nimble T-129?

 

[ANPP]

It CAN yes, but it can't carry 16x ATGMs or that gigantic 30mm ammo box... that's it.

Do we need that much weapons on T129? hell no, we'll have UCAVs and AC-235 fixed wing gunships to do the same job.

8 missiles are sufficient for anti tank role. You dont have any enemy who has so much large tank fleet.
There is no profit of 30mm gun in heli. Why you dont ask them that how many time they use 30mm gun against heavy armor. & T129 gun is enough for IFVs,APCs & infantry.

 

[Aegis DDG]

When you have nothing good to say it is best to not speak at all.

But just out of joke, what makes you think Apache cannot do multiple roles?

An naval T-129 is more effective than an naval Apache. AH-64 takes to much volume in the LDP and uses far more fuel. It is not economical!

 

[Aegis DDG]

@Mosamania Yes, it far easier to field large numbers on T-129. Like you said, attack helicopters are like cavalry. Heavy cavalry can be useful in large armies but can be bogged in certain environments (like European crusaders cavarly being defeated in the Battle of Hattin), while light cavalry can be useful in both large scale battles (Battle Yurmork) and skirmishes.

8 missiles are sufficient for anti tank role. You dont have any enemy who has so much large tank fleet.
There is no profit of 30mm gun in heli. Why you dont ask them that how many time they use 30mm gun against heavy armor. & T129 gun is enough for IFVs,APCs & infantry.

If you think T-129 can only carry Cirit 70mm laser guided rockets then that shows how limited your knowledge on Turkish defense industry is. Ever heard of UMTAS ATM? It's role is similar to the Israeli spike missile.

 

[LegionnairE]

You are saying because it has a higher price (aquisition and running costs) it is technically outdated. Totally disregarding what that higher price brings.

Not just costs, being a bigger, heavier helicopter has other disadvantages being a big-azz less-maneuverable target for example.

(highlighted with the ability to carry only 12 UMTAS missiles by the T-129 as opposed to 16 Hellfire's on the Apache) and it most likely cannot offer the same protection as well.

I don't think the x12 asymmetrically loaded UMTAS config will ever be used. x8 UMTAS 2x 70mm pods and 2x sidewinders is the most probable standard configuration I predict.

Again your mantra of every war in the future will be fought against an ill equipped adversary. In any conventional war flying transports with cannons and UAV's will be toast and their role greatly diminished. The micro UAV's on squad level would be the only ones safe.
Let's face it, a prop wont be ably to out maneuver a missile, be it AAM or SAM and neither will the prop UAV.

Pardon me but neither will attack helicopters, our best armed adversaries are Russia and Israel. It doesn't get any worse than that.

A10 Thunderbolt II, AC130 Spectre/Spooky, AH64 Apache and MQ1 Predator is what US Armed Forces used for a long time and ANKA-TP, T129 and AC-235 will be what Turkish Armed Forces use in the coming 10 years. These aircraft are supposed to preform CAS and COIN missions, that's what they do. Nobody expects them to outrun SAMs

8 missiles are sufficient for anti tank role. You dont have any enemy who has so much large tank fleet.
There is no profit of 30mm gun in heli. Why you dont ask them that how many time they use 30mm gun against heavy armor. & T129 gun is enough for IFVs,APCs & infantry.

That's what I'm saying, If 20mm M197 doesn't cut it we have cirits for even heavier targets we have UMTAS family of ATGMs. We can do anything an attack helicopter can with T129.

Backtracking from "cannot do multiple" to "not economical"? Or is it, it "cannot do multiple" because it is not "economical"?
Who are you to say what is an economical red line. I bet if it was you going into battle in one of those you would want to be in the most protected possible. But since armchair generals dont travel to the battlefield often...

Do you have to make it personal each time you lose an objective argument?

 

[Audio]

An naval T-129 is more effective than an naval Apache. AH-64 takes to much volume in the LDP and uses far more fuel. It is not economical!

Backtracking from "cannot do multiple" to "not economical"? Or is it, it "cannot do multiple" because it is not "economical"?
Who are you to say what is an economical red line. I bet if it was you going into battle in one of those you would want to be in the most protected possible. But since armchair generals dont travel to the battlefield often......

 

[Audio]

Not just costs, being a bigger, heavier helicopter has other disadvantages.

You only see disadvantages. Like you only see one type of conflict in the future. You called me a visionary earlier in the thread. Allow me to return the courtesy.....

Pardon me but neither will attack helicopters, our best armed adversaries are Russia and Israel. It doesn't get any worse than that.

A10 Thunderbolt II, AC130 Spectre/Spooky, AH64 Apache and MQ1 Predator is what US Armed Forces used for a long time and ANKA-TP, T129 and AC-235 will be what Turkish Armed Forces use in the coming 10 years. These aircraft are supposed to preform CAS and COIN missions, that's what they do. Nobody expects them to outrun SAMs

Apache and A-10 have been both designed to take battlefield damage, considerable amounts of it too......the AC-130 and the Predator have never been used vs anything that isn't guys with AK's. Saddest thing is you are throwing away your common sense out of (nationalistic) pride.

That's what I'm saying, If 20mm M197 doesn't cut it we have cirits for even heavier targets we have UMTAS family of ATGMs. We can do anything an attack helicopter can with T129.

Except you cannot do it for the same amount of time, being protected to the same level, less C4I abilities etc....

Why don't you accept the fact that for a considerably lesser price then the Apache you did not get 100% Apache capabilities. And this is not limited only to the anti tank segment.....It is quite logical, that if you pay less then you have less. Is it not?

You talk about economics of war, did you maybe make some calculation how costly a attack helicopter pilot and gunner are? Nevermind the fact you completely disregard soldiers' lives by not even ackowledging the protection argument.
Less C&C Generals, more common sense.....RL soldiers dont come from a place called barracks and they don't cost 200$ each.....

 

[Aegis DDG]

You only see disadvantages. Like you only see one type of conflict in the future. You called me a visionary earlier in the thread. Allow me to return the courtesy.....



Apache and A-10 have been both designed to take battlefield damage, considerable amounts of it too......the AC-130 and the Predator have never been used vs anything that isn't guys with AK's. You are clueless. Saddest thing is you are throwing away your common sense out of (nationalistic) pride.



Except you cannot do it for the same amount of time, being protected to the same level, less C4I abilities etc....

AC-130 played an large part in providing CAS for the coalition troops in the first Gulf-war and destroyed an amoured brigade that made an incursion to the SA border regions. And C4I is an system of battlefield communication/management/heirachy, not an military hardware that has to be inserted into an weapon system.

 

[LegionnairE]

You only see disadvantages. Like you only see one type of conflict in the future. You called me a visionary earlier in the thread. Allow me to return the courtesy...

Okay, we order some Apaches if we face blitzkrieg in the future are we good now?

Apache and A-10 have been both designed to take battlefield damage, considerable amounts of it too......the AC-130 and the Predator have never been used vs anything that isn't guys with AK's.

So what? Damn sure AC130 can withstand a considerable amount of damage and Predator is expendable

Except you cannot do it for the same amount of time, being protected to the same level, less C4I abilities etc...

Okay, If M197 isn't fast enough it's a gatling gun i might add the operator has the freedom to fire a cirit or an UMTAS

Why don't you accept the fact that for a considerably lesser price then the Apache you did not get 100% Apache capabilities. And this is not limited only to the anti tank segment...

Oh this is only limited to anti-tank segment

It is quite logical, that if you pay less then you have less. Is it not?

Nope, it isn't. There are cheaper ways to get what you need. China runs a whole economy based on this philosophy

Less C&C Generals, more common sense.....RL soldiers dont come from a place called barracks and they don't cost 200$ each.....

USMC pilots cost less than US Army pilots by this stupid logic, I think AH-1Z is perfect btw. Marines know what they are doing as usual.

 

[Audio]

AC-130 played an large part in providing CAS for the coalition troops in the first Gulf-war and destroyed an amoured brigade that made an incursion to the SA border regions.

Now, tell me, what was happening prior to the land attack in whose support the AC was flying CAS? Was it maybe a few months of aerial bombardment specifically targetting air defense and neutralizing Iraqi AF?

C4I is an system of battlefield communication/management/heirachy, not an military hardware that has to be inserted into an weapon system.

Yes, with that i meant less potential for C4I abilities like networking, UAV control, LINK 16.....the T-129 is already cramped inside as it is, you can check this yourself by looking at the ammo feed "channel" on the outside of the cockpit. The reason it is outside is that it has no more room inside.

 

[Audio]

So what? Damn sure AC130 can withstand a considerable amount of damage and Predator is expendable

It's a prop. When it gets into trouble vs an anti air battery it cannot run, the missiles will lock onto engines and i'd like to see it survive then. Similarly against a fighter, or even a bomb truck it would be helpless.
MQ-1 price is ~ 4 million $ a piece. You were advocating economics two posts earlier? What happened to it?

Oh this is only limited to anti-tank segment

So, a group of insurgent hole up somewhere, they have an old russian 23mm AA cannon. In flies the T-129, the insurgents target the engine, the armoring doesnt hold, the engine gets hit and disabled, in short they bring it down.
In comes the Apache, the added protection ensures it escapes the kill zone and goes out of range to use Hellfire's or 70mm guided rockets like Cirit and the ones i quoted earlier.

This simple example proves your point invalid.

Nope, it isn't. There are cheaper ways to get what you need. China runs a whole economy based on this philosophy

?

------------------------

All this said, i am not trying to take away anything from the T-129, indeed it's "parent" helicopter, the A-129 already saw action in Somalia, ~ 12 were in Afghanistan.

http://my.agustawestland.com/content/afghan-mangustas

But i am trying to tell to you that there is no such thing in life where you get same bang for less buck.
Stuff operate more frequently around the principle of the more you put in (buck), the more you get in return (bang).