Fatman17
Moderator
Pakistan position doesn't change viz India and its IBGs. Certainly they (armed helicopters) will be deployed in a defensive posture to stop the advance of the Indian armour.
Z-20 utility/transport, naval helicopter & Z-21 heavy attack helicopter - News and Discussions
- Thread starter Hendarto
- Start date
Hakikat ve Hikmet
VIP Member
The Turkish projected solutions for 10-ton ATAK-2 against the aforementioned vulnaribilities:
- Advanced radars, EW, EA, and laser based protections against MANPADs
- A2A missiles like Sungur etc.
- A2G missiles with 20km range
- Etc.
ATAK-2 taarruz helikopterine ROKETSAN'dan görüş ötesi füze!
CNN Turk’te soruları yanıtlayan TUSAŞ Genel Müdürü Prof. Dr. Temel Kotil, ATAK-2 helikopteri hakkında açıklamalarda bulundu.
www.defenceturk.net
Last edited:
j_hungary
Professional
Probably not DAP (You are going to need PAVE system or any ITN ground hugging software to do that, well you also going to need highly trained pilot like we have in the 160 SOAR)
More likely than not this is a "Hellfire" firing version of Z-20 ground attack helicopter, closer to Huey Gunship than Blackhawk DAP.
Oscar
Moderator
Not sure what’s onboard that thing but you need a LOT of hours doing nothing but NAP to be even close to what the 160 SOAR are.
Ive seen these guys go over a lake and the troops on board could dip their feet and make waves.
j_hungary
Professional
Had a chance to go up on a MH-60 DAP when I was in Afghanistan, the catch is, I have to ride shotgun (as a door gunner) as there are no troop compartment, as it was loaded with equipment and extra munition for the chain gun, well, probably should have got on it and see how those 160SOAR guy flew, but I was too chicken to work as a door gunner so I didn't get on.
What I heard it these people are crazy; they flew fast hugging ground and flew between building.
Harbyharb
Registered Member
While I agree that the high cost (not just upfront cost, but also the cost of upkeep and service) of dedicated attack helicopters, and their significant losses in the Russo-Ukraine war have exposed some concerns regarding the cost-effectiveness of dedicated attack helicopter gunships, I don't think this is the primary reason why the US cancelled the FARA program, nor should it be taken as a suggestion for all powers of different circumstances to abandon their plan for future gunship procurement/development.
The often touted myth that MALE drones + loitering munition can replace attack gunships is innately flawed. Despite the losses of attack helicopters, they are still heavily used especially by the Russian armed forces, with production still going strong. The same cannot be said for MALE drones like the TB-2, which have enjoyed great success during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, have gone all but extinct. MALE drones are specifically designed to exploit the relatively limited range of MANPAD and outdated SHORAD systems and have proven themselves just as helpless, if not more, against a proper military with comprehensive accompanying AA coverage.
The only way that a weapon could replace helicopter gunships is by occupying the same niche with greater effectiveness, and so far that weapon has yet to emerge. Gunships still enjoy the greatest flexibility as they can more easily exploit terrain and treelines, are great platforms for stand-off weaponry as they can easily maintain stand-off range with a much larger window of opportunity than fixed-wing, and deliver the greatest amount of firepower with the smallest opportunity cost, able to engage and impede much larger forces per encounter compared to loitering munition.
It's worth noting that Russian helicopters are severely lagging behind in situational awareness and engagement options due to inferior radar/optics (Ka-52's export statistics are not pretty...), a complete lack of long-ranged standoff options prior to the introduction of Izdeliye 305 ATGM, left alone NLOS ordnance, and it wouldn't be far-fetched to attribute their high loss rates to these reasons. On the flip side, situational awareness, advanced sensors, and stand-off capability are precisely the emphasis of Z-10ME in recent displays either on Zhuhai airshows or Singapore defence expos, which in my book makes them much more future-proof than say, Mi-28NM or Ka-52.
The US cancelled their FARA program primarily because they are re-gearing themselves for conflict in the South China Sea, where their primary struggle is the lack of infrastructure (bases, airfields) and thus resistance to suppression within PLA's A2/AD sphere, and a lack of long-ranged platforms to conduct efficient stand-off strikes facing the increasing comprehensive ISR capability of the PLA in the west pacific - challenges that attack gunships would not help against.
Harbyharb
Registered Member
The specific variant they've shown does not have any TERCOM sensors and is speculated to be a fire support variant in league with transport units within PLA's airborne assault elements.
There are armed Z-20 variants that do have what seems like TERCOM equipment though, namely the Z-20J serving with the PLA Marine force, with stub wings and form-fitting antenna. They don't seem to be interested in the idea of helicopter door guns though, with few experiments here and there, mostly very much improvised mounts bolted directly in the door that get in the way with narrow-angle of traverse. What can I say, they weren't there in 'nam and they haven't learned their hard lessons yet.
It does have more potential though. The black hawk is probably more built for the typical stature of soldiers in the 70s and it's getting pretty cramped to be honest, and while the Z-20 seems to have a similar silhouette, it is quite a bit larger especially vertically.
j_hungary
Professional
Are we talking about Direct Action Penetrator? Terrain Control is common in helicopter. Every UH-60M/L have them. Flying low is the key survivability for Helicopter. DAP however, need more than just that, while I can't tell you what the requirement or what it was stuffed in the troop bay, the key technology for it I am pretty sure the Chinese still does not have it. I will just leave it at that.
On the other hand, whether or not assault version of utilities helo have a market or use, that's a very subjective argument, I personally see that it wasn't that useful, because you probably aren't going to survive in an air assault if you need Hellfire support. Air Assault is a very narrow concept, which mostly dictated by speed. I would much rather get insert undisturbed than going in with a pair of Blackhawk missile blazing. But it may be different if you ask a different person.
On the other hand, I would argue the reason why the Blackhawk is a successful platform is not because it's ability to transport troop from A to B. Different variant of Blackhawk was done because of the adaptability of the Airframe, it can be used as a DAP, an ISTAR ship, a TACCOM ship, a gunship, and anti-sub/anti-ship platform, an electronic attack chopper, and of course it can carry 11 fully armed dude in battle. Whether or not the Chinese Blackhawk were any good, well, that remained to be seen.
Last edited:
Harbyharb
Registered Member
I do not have a lot of personal experiences with Blackhawks, and the only ones I engaged with are the variants that served under the National Guard (likely the L variant now that I recall), but I do spend a lot of time sifting through Chinese publications to keep track of their advancements and tactics.
By TERCOM I did not mean just terrain control, I meant live terrain mapping radars as form-fitting SAR arrays, the system is designed to provide live terrain radar imaging and enable all-weather surface skim sorties, I'm not sure if that's what the DAP have but from what I gathered the systems are comparable. Again, Z-20 is a much newer platform (actually fly-by-wire for starters) so technology is not too much of an issue.
In terms of Air Assault tactics, the PLA have a very very different idea of what an Air Assault operation should be or what purpose it serves. For starters, the PLA's air assault units aren't part of a JSOC-equivalent but are considered integrated combat brigades under group army templates, and are thus expected to participate in field manoeuvre warfare and the ultimate goal of the operation not necessarily centered around the air assault unit itself engaging an enemy or holding a critical terrain, but rather conducting any operation through the air. I won't bore you with too much detail but a good example they entailed in their field manual that left me a deep impression is how the air assault unit was used to deploy a portable counter-battery radar team atop difficult terrain behind enemy lines to support a MLRS unit in counter-battery operation during an exercise in 2018.
And yes, I fully agree that the true power behind a medium-lift utility helicopter platform is adaptability. That is indeed yet to be fully explored with the Z-20 with only a handful of variants to be seen so far. We shall see where they go from here.
j_hungary
Professional
As I said, I cannot tell you what was inside a DAP, but I can tell you I am not talking about Radar Mapping and terrain hugging or NAV stuff like that, and those FLIR/Sensor won't take up an entire troop cabin. I can probably only tell you that much.
Air Assault is a dedicated air operation that have a specific goal, soldier are trained to a standard to perform those function, be it fast-roping or soft infiltration. Otherwise, you are talking about Air Mobile (Or Air Mobility) which basically is you put a group of General-Purpose infantries on a helicopter and transporting them from A to B. Air Assault is directed at specific target, much like an airborne operation, air mobile is with a general goal, like the difference between Motorised Infantry and Mechanised Infantry unit. One is for you to transport a bunch of soldiers in a truck, the other is a core of combine arms assault.
Harbyharb
Registered Member
Thank you for your input. I won't inquire more than what you are comfortable to share.
I am aware of the American definition and difference between Air Mobile and Air Assault. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the Chinese air assault Brigades, while still able to act independently as an integrated unit between its own company elements, gunships transports infantry etc, are more often expected to act as an element within a larger combined arms operation with other units under the same group army.
Sorry if I'm being vague, it's nearing 3 am and I'm getting very drowsy.
j_hungary
Professional
Well, this is not an American or Chinese definition of Air Assault, and US don't just have SpecOp ready Air Assault Brigade, the entire 101st Division was an Air Assault Division.
Again, the different between Air Assault and Air Mobile is mission specific, an assault is a standalone operation that you have something you want to achieve. In Ia Drang Valley, that is a recon in force of enemy concentration for the 1st Air Cav. In Hamburger Hill, the mission is for the 101 to take control of Hill 937 as a blocking position and also cut off the Vietcong operation into Laos. With a specific goal and specific way of fighting.
On the other hand, any troop can be air mobile, all you need to do is to divide the troop up and put them on a chopper, you can use it to conduct operation, you can use it to support larger unit, aka general soldiering, in fact, there are an aviation element with each of the US army division. But those aren't the task and objective for an Air Assault operation.
If they are just operating within a larger element, then you are talking about the definition of Air Mobile, regardless of what it was called (I mean the 101 is still being called an "Airborne" division even tho they are Air Assault and none (or almost none of them) are Airborne qualified.)
Last edited:
Harbyharb
Registered Member
Is there any good publication that you would recommend for me to read more about US air assault unit structure, history, and tactics? It is an area that I find myself to be very ignorant of.
And yes, in comparison with your description, it seems that the Chinese are still undergoing their own trial and error in trying to figure out what air assault means to them. Their air assault units are indeed distinct from their army aviation units, and compared to your description, I'd say they are air mobile units that utilize uniquely specialized gear from light assault vehicles and self-propelled fire support vehicles as well as training (I presume), to do "general soldiering" by specifically exploiting aerial mobility.
