F18 vs AH-64

[FlyingPika]

I was studying and i geard this chopper fly over head and it got me thinking, would a modern day fighter plane beat a modern day chopper eg..

a F-18 hornet vs an AH-64 apache. Who do you reacon would come off second best???

And what enviroments do u suppose which one would excel in.

Like obviously in an urban enviroment the apache has got an adv, as opposed to say an open desert terrain.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Unless the hornet pilot was an idiot I don't think the apache even has a chance. IT's got tons mopre advantages....teh apache has a chain gun and @least 2 sidewinders as wel as hellfires. As long as the hornet stays high up and uses dive attacks it will be fine.

[flyboy]

Isn't this like asking, "Which tastes better: an apple, or an orange?"

[ewilen]

Shin is right if you're asking about a 1-1 fight. The Apache would be a sitting duck against almost any modern fighter jet.

As for doing the job the Apache is designed for, i.e., ground attack...I'd still take a Hornet in a high-threat environment. Just look at how badly the Apaches suffered when they assaulted Iraqi ground forces south of Baghdad. Helicopters are probably okay for anti-guerilla operations where you don't know exactly where the enemy is and you want to patrol around looking for him. However, the Black Hawk is probably more suited to this role, and the Marines, who fight on the ground but have access to both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, use the Cobra, not the Apache, along with the Hornet and the Harrier jump jet. The Army is forced by law to rely on the Air Force for fixed-wing support, so although they'd probably like to fly A-10's in a tank-buster role against massed enemy forces (and probably wouldn't mind getting their hands on some AC-130's), they're stuck with Apaches.

[David Hingtgen]

F-15's have bombed choppers in mid-air, I bet a Super Hornet could too. Though an Apache's a lot faster than most choppers.

[Apollo Leader]

Apaches can carry Stingers or even Sidewinders on their wingtips so they do have the ability to fend off against other aircraft, though their best chances would be against other helicopters or slow moving jets like a Su-25.

[hellohikaru]

Apaches normally carry 4 Stingers...i almost never seen any pic of the paches carrying Sidewinders operationally although the army do have the Sidearm at one stage.

OTOH There are tons of pics of USMC Cobras carrying AIM-9L on their stub pylons.

The fragile helicopters are extremely vulnerable and normally operate in areas where top cover from other fighters exist.

Furthermore helicopters with door gunners cannot fire through the rotor blades so the fighter can use that to their advantage.

One more thing...a high speed fighter can tip a low flying helicopter over and cause them to crash. The Royal Navy did this on a least one occasion during Operation Corporate.

I say a fighter launching a salvo of high velocity rockets should make short work of any chopper. That is if the fighter can detect the chopper in the first place.

[David Hingtgen]

Few things show up on radar better than spinning jet engine blades. I'd imagine a helicopter's rotor would be the same. But staying low to the ground is a big help, fighter radars always have problems with picking up stuff low to the ground.

[Phyrox]

well, I am not the most well-read on this topic, but I'll add what I can recall off the top of my head:

there were studies done (during 1st or 2nd generation of real rotary wing...so fixed wing still mostly used guns) that indicated that if the helo pilot was very capable, and had a good machine that it made attack by fixed-wing fighters fairly ineffective. if I remember correctly, the study also indicated that the fighter had very little to fear from the helo as well (even assuming one had respectable armament...which of course wasn't the case at the point of these studies).

I recall reading about a case where an Iraqi Mi-24 claimed a victory over an Iranian F-4...but it was based on luck and had nothing to do with any intrinsic advantages or disadvantages of rotary-wing vs. fixed-wing aircraft (the "hind" pilot saw the "phantom" first and pointed his nose in the right direction and let fly with all the 57mm rockets on board). I have read this in more than one source, but am still not 100% sure as I have never seen it in any unimpeachable sources.

All in all, I would imagine that the situation hasn't changed too much since that initial study was done. Technology has progressed a great deal as far as weapons and detection systems, but I still think that given any sort of actual terrain and a good aware pilot, a helo could concievably avoid being shot down long enough for it not to be worth the effort...

[hellohikaru]

It takes a lot of skills and luck to shot down a fast flying fighter with unguided rockets.

Firebirds make it look just too easy, rockets just don't have much range and will fall as they run out of energy.

I think helicopters can be too vulnerable to operate in a high threat enviroment so the Army can its Comanche and resort to the drones instead.

[eugimon]

given the remarkable success of the A-10 as a tank buster... just how usefull are apaches anyways?

I'm wondering if the attack helicopter is going the way of the dodo...

[Lynx7725]

There was an article somewhere on the web describing the abject failure of the mass attack chopper formations in the early days of the Gulf War II. Apparently, the attack chopper didn't perform as expected when used in airspace where air superiority is not constant, and were quickly withdrawn to safer areas.

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in the other Vs. thread?

[Macross_Fanboy]

Well....in Ace Combat 4 I got shot down by an Apache while in an F-22.

[hellohikaru]

One of the doctrine used during the Cold War suggested that A-10 Warthogs be used to engage and destroy the air defence systems then let the choppers attack the armured vehicles.

All this i assume with some level of air superiority and AWACS support

[Warmaker]

Hornet vs Apache?

I don't care, as long as they're on my side. As a matter 'o fact, any advanced gear either in the US or our Allies' TOE, and not for any opponents.

[ewilen]

One of the doctrine used during the Cold War suggested that A-10 Warthogs be used to engage and destroy the air defence systems then let the choppers attack the armured vehicles.

All this i assume with some level of air superiority and AWACS support

Sounds like somebody trying desperately to find some justification for using AH-64s.

We had air supremacy in GWII, and the Apaches still got shot up.

Yes, if the Army doesn't get to fly their own A-10s and/or isn't satisfied with the Air Force's handling of the close support and interdiction missions, the Army should invest heavily in UCAVs.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/taifun/

[hellohikaru]

The Apaches got shot up because they were taken by surprised. Air superiority alone cannot prevent insurgents hidding inside foxholes from taking potshots at unsuspecting apaches.

Perhaps they should have use the helos to support the advancement of the ground forces instead of going out in front to destroy the republican guard. The helos should stay within the frontlines of battle.

But i agree UAVs are suitable for the task because they are expendable and cheaper.

Edited October 14, 2004 by hellohikaru

[Godzilla]

There was an article somewhere on the web describing the abject failure of the mass attack chopper formations in the early days of the Gulf War II. Apparently, the attack chopper didn't perform as expected when used in airspace where air superiority is not constant, and were quickly withdrawn to safer areas.

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in the other Vs. thread?

The Apaches encoutered a hail of fire during one battle in northern Iraq in Gulf War II. A lot of them were taking flak but they all survived. You tell me if you can fly anything through any hail of flak. The apache took damage and survived as designed. Look at the 60 minutes interview with the Apache pilot. He said flak was everywhere. The only thing to do would be to carpet bomb the place from above to avoid causalties. The Apaches operated in Operation Just Cause in the panama campaign. That environment was not air superiority and we still got Norega. Apaches operated in Kosovo and the first Gulf war. In fact, the Apaches were used to knock out the radar stations in Iraq in the opening moments of the Gulf War I air campaign.

The Apache is one of the best ground attack helicopter in the world. Sure it has it problems but what system doesnt?

Theoretically you could arm the Apache with 20 stingers (2 on the wing tip, 4 on outer pylon and 4 on inner pylon), but why? Supposedly, doctrine calls for Air Force to have air superiority and the ground forces can pound what's left.

As for the "what if" scenario? It all depends on the scenario itself and the equipment used. If the Apache is the Longbow series and has the theoretical 20 stingers in a field with a lot of cover, the Longbow can pop up to fire quickly and then pop down. Remember, the stingers can be fired to intercept at any angle. Stingers can even track the heat of the sun glint of the canopy (So says the Tom Clancy's Armored Cav book.) The sidewinder needs to targeted from rear to track the heat from the exhaust. (unless that has been changed. I am not up on the military technology anymore) The Apache has the "black hole" to mask its heat from the engine exhaust). The Hornet needs to scour the ground at high speeds to look for it's target. Surprise will be on the Apache's side since like all SAM vehicles can lie and wait.

In a straight out dog fight in open space? The Apache will lose. In the movie, Firebirds, the jets should have whacked the Apaches with missiles (then again, since when does the druglords get jet fighters?) in the first pass because the Apache can sit and aim while the jet flies overhead and turn to make another pass.

But why this "what if vs"? The only other country using Apaches is Israel. Hornets are used by the United States (USN, and USMC specifically) Canada, and Australia. What is the likelyhood that these countries will go to war with Israel? And the Apache's main role is ground attack. The Hornet is multi-role.

[hellohikaru]

Later model Sidewinders(9L, M, X, P4) have full all aspect engagement capabilities. The reason why the Army uses Stingers is becaused the Stinger has a much smaller minimum range and being a smaller weapon more of them could be carried.

Apaches are also operated by the British Army, the Netherlands, Singapore, and in the future Japan. I might have missed some.

Australia and Canada do not have any Apaches.

[ewilen]

The Apaches got shot up because they were taken by surprised. Air superiority alone cannot prevent insurgents hidding inside foxholes from taking potshots at unsuspecting apaches.

If you're talking about the same incident I am, they weren't insurgents--it was the Iraqi army sitting in front of Baghdad. I don't have details of the defensive tactics used, but I consider it strange that a group of Apaches sent in to wipe out a large formation would be surprised at being shot at.

[ewilen]

The Apaches encoutered a hail of fire during one battle in northern Iraq in Gulf War II.  A lot of them were taking flak but they all survived.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2003/0903grinder.asp

It was at this point that the Army blundered. It decided to use some 30 of its AH-64 Apache helicopters to attack the Republican Guard. It didn’t work. Instead, the Apaches “came under intense enemy fire,” said Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, V Corps commander, and had to retreat. Many of the aircraft were severely damaged.

It was left to fixed-wing aircraft to complete the destruction of the Republican Guard.

You tell me if you can fly anything through any hail of flak. The apache took damage and survived as designed.

I wonder how long it took to get them back in operational condition. Compare survivability of the A-10 (or even Hornet or Falcon).

Apaches operated in Kosovo

The Apache was a joke in Kosovo--sent to the area, but never used in combat, probably due to fears of losses. Nevertheless, several were lost in various ways. (A satirical look: [edit: satirical look removed because it's not as funny as it seemed at first glance] )

The Apache is one of the best ground attack helicopter in the world.

The Constitution, sitting in Boston harbor, is the best square-rigged frigate in the world. I wouldn't depend on it to defend the seas in this day and age. It doesn't matter how the AH-64 compares to other helicopters. What matters is how it performs its mission. For the job it's supposed to do, it is eclipsed (largely if not entirely) by other weapons systems.

Edited October 14, 2004 by ewilen

[buddhafabio]

F-15's have bombed choppers in mid-air, I bet a Super Hornet could too. Though an Apache's a lot faster than most choppers.

in the first gulf war, an A-10 scored an air to air kill when a chopper that it was bombing took off.

[Coota0]

Part of the probelm to is that Chopper pilots are taught to hit ground targets, to hid in holes and make things far away blow up Attack/ Fighter pilots learn at least at some basic level to engage enemy aircraft.

IMO if a Chopper runs into an A2A engagement the pilot is better off looking for a good hiding spot than trying to engage.

[Godzilla]

Hey ewilen,

Is there anything you can find on the Operation Just Cause? I know the Apaches were used.

As to the 30 Apaches being used in tha battle, did they say there were longbows?

[Mislovrit]

Hey ewilen,

Is there anything you can find on the Operation Just Cause? I know the Apaches were used.

As to the 30 Apaches being used in tha battle, did they say there were longbows?

I don't recalled the Longbows being in service yet when OJC happened..

[hellohikaru]

The Apaches got shot up because they were taken by surprised. Air superiority alone cannot prevent insurgents hidding inside foxholes from taking potshots at unsuspecting apaches.

If you're talking about the same incident I am, they weren't insurgents--it was the Iraqi army sitting in front of Baghdad. I don't have details of the defensive tactics used, but I consider it strange that a group of Apaches sent in to wipe out a large formation would be surprised at being shot at.

I stand corrected.

Still i feel the Apache is too expensive to perform the job for what its worth. Upgraded Whiskey Cobras might have been cheaper and just as effective. Sand ingestion was a problem in the desert but the Cobras were marinized and had no problem with corrosion. Not sure if the Apache had this treatment.

btw can the Longbow radar detect infantrymen ?

I heard it can classify contacts by type whether its a tank, IFV, AAA or SAM.

Edited October 15, 2004 by hellohikaru

[Mislovrit]

Still i feel the Apache is too expensive to perform the job for what its worth.

It is still the best attack copter in service and the U.S. Army isn't going back to Cobras it had long ago pawned off to the Marines.

Upgraded Whiskey Cobras might have been cheaper and just as effective.

They wouldn't have fare any better if they were sent on that attack run that was posted earlier. The mission was a *&^-up not the pilots or their Longbows.

Sand ingestion was a problem in the desert but the Cobras were marinized and had no problem with corrosion. Not sure if the Apache had this treatment.

After the experience in DS they should have it.

btw can the Longbow radar detect infantrymen ?

I heard it can classify contacts by type whether its a tank, IFV, AAA or SAM.

Iirc Longbows use FLIR instead of RADAR to targets infantrymen. Edited October 15, 2004 by Mislovrit

[Coota0]

Still i feel the Apache is too expensive to perform the job for what its worth. Upgraded Whiskey Cobras might have been cheaper and just as effective.

Perhaps you're referring to the AH-1Z?

[Lynx7725]

There was an article somewhere on the web describing the abject failure of the mass attack chopper formations in the early days of the Gulf War II. ...

The Apaches encoutered a hail of fire during one battle in northern Iraq in Gulf War II. A lot of them were taking flak but they all survived. You tell me if you can fly anything through any hail of flak.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I just pointed out that there was this operational failure, I haven't given my opinion either way.

Fact is, I think there is a role for choppers in the armed forces. It's already an invaluable tool when it is a battle taxi. The ability to lay down precision firepower is very very important in CAS (to avoid blue-on-blue, for one), and choppers can do that very well.

Problem is, nowadays precision-guided munitions are getting better all the time. The niche position of the attack chopper is getting eroded by a high-flying plane (or drone!) dumping a laser-guided anti-tank missile into the top of the target tank.

Is this a good or bad thing? Can't really say, but you've got to keep the bigger picture in mind. Dropping a precision-guided munition from a drone up high is generally cheaper, safer (for the bomber, not the bombee) and in all probability faster -- you can have more drones per buck, so you can have more of them on time on target.

On the flip side, there are a lot more dependencies (i.e. things that can go wrong) in such a remote-precision-bombing model. Also, a human sitting behind the canopy of a attack chopper tends to be able to make snap decisions based on situational factors, snap decisions that can save lives.. so it's really a tossup, with the drone getting the advantage due to the safety factor.

My opinion is that the attack chopper community probably need to do a lot more to redefine its niche in order to stay viable.. there is definitely a place for the attack chopper in the modern battlefield, but there is a real need to move things along to achieve it.

[Coota0]

Attack Choppers will stick around at least in the U.S. Army because the Army isn't allowed to have fixed wing attack aircraft, so if the Army wants its own air force on call soley for the Army they'll be using attack choppers.

[Mislovrit]

Attack drones is a grey area with who should have control over them USAF or the U.S. Army.

[Vinnie]

Well being at Mother Rucker (Ft. Rucker, AL) and a VFR rated Army Helicopter pilot (currently in instrument phase of IERW) I feel the need to jump in on this thread.

Just for clarification, I'll use Apache and Longbow interchangeably. I believe all Active Army 64s have converted to the delta or Longbow model, while guard fly the Alpha models.

The attack helicopter is still an important part of the modern battlefield, and it's advantage over the Hornet is it's ability to stay on station for a far longer time period and be able to see things that the Hornet pilot would not. I know ground commanders appreciate having this set of eyes in the sky and the REALLY close air support they provide. While UAV technology hasn't matured enough yet, I do believe we will see larger models replacing the 64Ds as missile slingers.

As for the Apaches, we call them tarmac ornaments. Those guys can beat their chests all they want, but it's the 58D's running guns in OIF. Some of it's doctrine some of it's airframe, but the 64Ds aren't getting the job done as well. Of course right now the Army is searching for a replacement to the 58Ds and the UH-1W and the AH-6 look like promising candidates. The Longbow drivers will tell you otherwise I'm sure.

I do have to agree that the AH-1Z is a better aircraft for the job of scout and attack helicopter. But that just goes back to inter-service politics. I mean it's the same reason the Marines are blindly clinging to the MV-22. Sure the UH-60L or MH-47G could get the same job done for cheaper, but that's an Army thing.

Now back to the original question of AH-64 vs the F-18. The F-18 will win hands down in a straight dogfight. However if you want to ask who's the better pilot, that will have to go to the Apache driver. Fixed wing flight is cake, carrier landings are just ILS approaches, flight at anything more than 100ft AGL is nothing. Flying NOE, in an aircraft that by nature wants to fall from the sky, exposed to small arms fire, with one eye closed, and having to hover every now and then: that's skill baby.

[nucleartiger]

Now back to the original question of AH-64 vs the F-18. The F-18 will win hands down in a straight dogfight. However if you want to ask who's the better pilot, that will have to go to the Apache driver. Fixed wing flight is cake, carrier landings are just ILS approaches, flight at anything more than 100ft AGL is nothing. Flying NOE, in an aircraft that by nature wants to fall from the sky, exposed to small arms fire, with one eye closed, and having to hover every now and then: that's skill baby.

AGREED!

[Druna Skass]

Instead of being compared to the Hornet, how does the Apache compare to the Harrier?

[hellohikaru]

For all the advantage Harrier's got i am sure the Marine guys wish they had Cobra Rattlers instead.

Fully armoured unlike the Harrier plus a gunner to chase those pesky fighter away.

Edited October 18, 2004 by hellohikaru