Why not convert more Chinooks into heavy gunships? Replace

>>31767112

Because Chinooks are far more useful as a cargo helicopters.

>>31767112
Because while this is cool and it would indeed be awesome to have two of these things get into a pirate-ship style broadside fight in mid-air, we already have helicopters that do everything this could do, except better and while risking fewer crew.

>>31767112
they are big targets

>>31767112
We already have more serviceable gunships than we know what to do with.

>>31767112

Because there would be no point.

>>31767112
They are easy to shoot down

That being said, there has been work put into having more armaments mounted on V-22 beyond the IDWS they already have. Could be cool.

>>31767130
To expand on this those two rotating blades are really fantastic for lifting since they both counter each other torque and don't need a tail rotor. You have 100% of engine power going to lifting instead of 70-80% in other helicopters with tail rotors.

>>31767112
Because he have an insane number of dedicated gunships between the AH-1 and AH-64 and they (particularly the AH-64) will get replaced by tiltrotor platforms in all likelihood.

>>31767152
This.
Turn a V-22 version into dedicated gunship.
Really exploit what tilt rotor has to offer.

>>31767130
This. We've got plenty of Apaches to provide fire support. Chinooks are best for moving people and cargo.

>>31767252

>Turn a V-22 version into dedicated gunship.

Still not a good idea. The V-22 works best as a cargo/transport craft. It would not make a very good weapons platform.

File: CNCG_Assault_Chinook_R.png (222KB, 1110x478px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1110x478px

>>31767112
Yeah, build a bunker in it, fill it with six tpg troops, but make sure to get the gattling uprade first.

>>31767354
Was just playing this game a few weeks ago, a whole fleet of those really fucks shit up

File: boeing-347[1].jpg (44KB, 692x353px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 692x353px

All Chinooks should be converted to the BV-347 configuration.

>more powerful turboshaft engines
>4 blades per rotor instead of 3
>blades are longer
>lengthened airframe
>tilt wings for faster level flight with less stress on rotors.

The ACH-47 was actually quite effective, but it was before we really had any dedicated attack helicopters.

However, it was up-armored.

Give them side auto cannon turrets in 20mm-40mm like the Rhodesians did and use them for CAS for the keks

>>31767327
Why?
The C-130 is a great cargo plane. does not make the AC-130 less good in what it does.

>>31767327
PAYLOAD
A
Y
L
O
A
D

They tried it in Vietnam. Didn't work so well for a number of reasons. Apparently they don't make a very stable weapons platform and they couldn't hit anything, IIRC.

File: 34c5bf65d0dfd7036b405e630056b2ce.jpg (40KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 564x423px

>>31767327
>The UH-60 works best as a cargo/transport craft. It would not make a very good weapons platform.

File: mi8.jpg (76KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x534px

>>31767327
>The Mi-8 works best as a cargo/transport craft. It would not make a very good weapons platform.

What would make the Chinook reliable

>Pylons for mounting 2 Hydra 70 pods each, and 1 4-missile Hellfire rack.
>Trade the Ma Deuces for 20mm cannons.
>UPARMOR IT.
>Replace the AGL with a 30mm cannon.

>>31767132
I'm sure you stuff enough spoofing gear into one of these to make it a suitable warmachine.
I mean, Chinooks are fast as hell (seriously, even nowadays, they're still up there) and can hoist over ten tons into the air and still haul ass with the best of them.

A Chinook may not be ideal as a gunship as is, but the design is sound and a dedicated shit-wrecker based around the design ought to be entirely doable.

>>31767988
>trying to control that fucker in DCS
I still have nightmares.

File: Chinook-HC4_ZA718-BN.jpg (2MB, 2616x3488px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2616x3488px

>>31767326
One problem with Apache supporting Chinook is that the Chinook has to slow down in order for the gunship to keep up.

>>31768054
Gunships are obsolete in any situation where the enemy has at least manpads, let alone an air force. For situations that requires the putative fire power, modern jets can deliver the same punch with much less risk to the pilots. For loitering, modern drones can do the same. Gunships are now niche weapons with ever shrinking roles.

File: tumblr_n8i35qhe9n1txx6x7o7_500.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>31767252
There's nowhere other than the tail ramp for weapons on V22.
VTOL AC130s is the way to go.

>>31768107
Clearing LZs and providing CAS on demand.

>>31767964
Well it doesn't. Just in that picture it has 1/4 of the missile payload of the Apache, and its gun doesn't have the field of fire of the Apache, or the targeting capabilities.

It also doesn't have the same sensors or survivability of the AH64.

>>31767964
>>31767988

I'm not sure why either of these would be considered good weapons platforms. I mean, if you literally had nothing else for CAS, they'd be okay kinda but compared to a real attack chopper (AH-64 or Mi-28) either aircraft would be a very poor substitute.

>>31768137
Literally any bomb truck of a jet can do this better and safer.

>>31768107
Not really. A jet can't escort convoys or other helicopters, or use guns effectively. Helos also have longer loiter times and can provide on call anti-armor capabilities. They can also be used in a scouting capability using their FLIR.

File: AH_60_Israel_2.jpg (240KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 900x600px

>>31768169
Bignoses have that covered.
https://youtu.be/pGuds5-fSTc?t=12

>>31768215
...Anyone who has armour also has manpads.

Any helo in an environment with manpads is a dead helo. Are there not enough shootdown videos from Syria yet?

>>31768215

There is also the simple fact that jets tend to have more important things to do than babysit ground troops.

File: 160928-M-VO695-0143.jpg (224KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1600x1067px

>>31768246

>Are there not enough shootdown videos from Syria yet?

Lol, so one Turkish chopper getting killed by Kurds means that all helicopters are useless?

>>31768274
Lol, so modern russian gunships eating shit from kurdish manpads is irrelevant?

>>31768249
>>31768246
>>31768215
>muh airforce
>muh jets
It takes more than a few flybys to win a war, kiddo. Hell, it takes more than that to win anything bigger than a skirmish.

>>31768217
How many of those do we have in inventory as opposed to the standard UH60? Why bother when we have thousands of AH64s?
>>31768246
>Anyone who has soldiers has rifles, any soldier in an environment with guns is a dead soldier.
Counter measures exist, and obviously you try to kill the AA assets of the opposing side. My point is that soldiers don't carry Hellfires and gunships provide heavy fire support.
>>31768249
>There is also the simple fact that jets tend to have more important things to do than babysit ground troops.
Yup.

>>31768298
Why are you replying to me? I specifically said that attack helos can do things jets cannot.

>>31768306
Huh, I thought I wrote a response.
Maybe I have a brain tumor?

Anyway, scouting duties will probably go to drones in the future, so what can be done to lessen the threat of manpads to a manned attack helicopter?

>>31768379
>scouting duties will probably go to drones in the future
Probably, but drones are even less survivable in hostile airspace than a gunship. For the time being I think gunships are still relevant.

File: AH-64.png (97KB, 255x632px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 255x632px

>>31767112

Daily reminder.

A large group of AH-64's was unable to defeat an Iraqi armor division during the 2003 war. The Iraqis had 23mm and 57mm anti-aircraft guns, and in addition, regular AKM rifle rounds proofed surprisingly effective.

>Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes; one Apache even took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was deemed fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

Anybody who still believes that Apaches will be survivable against Russian armor is kidding themselves. A Russian armor division would be protected by far more effective AA weapons than what the Iraqis had.

File: StrawMan2.jpg (91KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x450px

>>31768474
No one here is saying to send them against a supported armor division alone.

>>31767159
>except that two smaller rotors are less effective than a single rotor
>except that the rear rotor is working in the forward rotor's downwash
Never change, /k/

>>31767136
For u

>>31768124
>VTOL
that's just rocket-assist.

File: osprey-2.jpg (139KB, 1600x815px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1600x815px

>>31768575
It's also a damn sight more practical than making a V-22 gunship :)
The only way that is going to work is with a Huey to Cobra redesign.

>>31767112
fuck that man, load 5 engineers in, queue up an AGT or an Obelisk, engy capture one of his buildings and plop down your defense, quickly followed by barracks/hand.
If you're a real sack of shit replace one of the engineers with a commando, you sack of shit.

>>31768197
because miniguns

File: Erection.jpg (30KB, 600x199px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x199px

>>31768732
>The only way that is going to work is with a Huey to Cobra redesign.

File: 1441992884878.jpg (128KB, 820x960px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 820x960px

>>31768060
Even after reading the manual, knowing what each lever does, you find out very quickly why it is a 3 man crew.

File: v-22-escort-image39.jpg (51KB, 800x565px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x565px

>>31768732
I saw that suggestion the other day and was gonna mention it until I saw that you did.

Apparently Bell actually had the same idea almost 20 years ago, but based on the proposed 609 civvy/VIP tiltrotor transport instead of the much larger Osprey. Looks sexy as fuck.

>>31768098
send the gunships in ahead of the chinook, problem solved.

>>31767964
>Fixed .50
>4 Hellfires

Come on anon.

File: bellagusta_ba609_aldobidini.jpg (85KB, 950x652px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 950x652px

>>31773055
And here's a normal 609, by the way. Seems to me like you could make a pretty credible gunship out of the thing without surgery as major as the previous Bell concept.

Also, I didn't even realize until just now that this thing was happening. I remember having it in Flightsim 98 or something, and thought it was a paper plane, but I guess they've built several prototypes and are actually getting pretty close to production.

>>31768497
That's what they were made for. Stopping Russian storming across Europe

>>31767112
We already have plenty of gunships in service
It wouldn't make sense to spend the money

>AC-130
>AH-64 Apache
>AH-1 Cobra
>A-10 Thunderbolt II

Best to keep the Chinook in its role of cargo carrier/troop transport

>>31768474
This is a good example of a situation where I think a tiltrotor gunship would be awesome, by the way. They have the speed and altitude to keep out of AA gun range and the payload to carry a decent number of full size ATGMs and bombs instead of little short range helo ones, and then can transition into low and slow mode and use turrets and rockets to engage soft targets.

>>31773099
They were made for killing tanks in the Fulda Gap as part of a combined arms attack

They would be supported by Abrams tanks, infantry soldiers, and A10s

>>31768559
Supreme kek

gunships are a meme

Just bring more tanks on the ground
It doesn't work against any foe other than goatfarming sand nigs.

Why pay hundreds of millions for these shitty gunships that are useless in a real fight?

>>31773322
You're fucking retarded.

We did it in nam. Heavy as fuck and fired a whole shit load ammo while burning a shit load of fuel. Ended up costing like 100,000 per flight or some shit back when cost mattered.

File: scientific american.png (361KB, 400x528px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 400x528px

>>31768474
>Iraq lost 18 vehicles
>America lost 4.

>>31768474

>18 losses vs 4

>AMERICA LOOSES

??????????????

>>31773150
They were made because the army wanted organic air support and weren't allowed any real aircraft of their own.

>>31767491
like in CoD 4 lel

>>31768280
Wasn't that a Turkish AH-1?

>>31773069
I think that's a 30mm but your point is still correct that its inadequate. >>31773099
Waht is cumbined arms????

>>31774094
Thats asinine, as armed attack helicopters have existed about as long as helicopters have.

File: 14424889972683.jpg (168KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1280x800px

>>31768280

Manpads take out helicopters, so what are you trying to say exactly?

Point here is, that if anything's gonna take a hit and make it, it'll probably be slavshit, since they love putting armor on their helis.

I mean, when AKs fuck up your main gunship, that's pretty embarrassing. And what about that time some farmer took out an Apache with a shotgun?

File: 1457717886850.jpg (27KB, 446x446px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 446x446px

>>31773150

> tanks

hypothetical RU armor division definitely has atgm.

> infantry

..

> a-10

manpad fodder

>>31774342
>And what about that time some farmer took out an Apache with a shotgun?
Wasn't that an old strela?

>>31774342
>aks fuck up apaches

Fell for the meme. Barring golden bb scenarios, its 100% false.

Reminder that apache is armored to resist 20mm.

File: 14558194722390.jpg (3MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4256x2832px

>>31767112

America it's ok that you never built something as perfect as the Hind and bastardizing chinooks won't help that.

>>31767112

Chinooks have a paper-thin monocoque which wouldn't stop a .22; you might as well be standing on an open field on it.

>>31768474

Iraq won that one because even with the tanks lost it cost the US more in repairs.

>>31774411

>Trained crew and equipment both make it home to fight again

>Tanks, AA, and crew totally dead

>>31768197
Part of the idea is they are indigenous to your assault battalions. This means they fly with the cargo versions all the time and the assault battalion doesn't have to rely on a separate unit for support/escort.

Another benefit is you have a line of Blackhawks trucking along, an aloha snackbars an RPG at them thinking there's no escort (because you're not gonna be able to distinguish the armament from several km away with a bare eye on a helo moving 200kph), and then the whole area gets its shit pushed in.

>>31773143
>they have the speed and altitude to stay out of AA gun range
57mm AA guns have a range of around 4 miles. A V-22 or literally any other non-pressurized airframe has a max working altitude of around 22,000ft if everybody's equipped with the Air Warrior Breathing System or around 17,500ft if they're not.

This means that pretty much anywhere other than Death Valley or New Orleans, the tiltrotors will be well within range of the 57mm cannons

>>31774069
That's slavaboos for you.

>>31774355
Crew compartment is.

Rotors/engine/tailboom/tail rotors are not. Granted same holds true for the Hind and Krokodil tho.

>>31774069
>hurr Amerilard, if it isn't a flawless victory then it isn't a victory!
>hurr Amerilard, the missile you used to blow up our tanks cost more than the tanks you blew up, so you lose!
I really do not understand this mentality. It wasn't even a pyrrhic victory, we just flat out won.

>>31768474
THe US lost less, sure they were damaged but they still made it home. Taking damage is something thats gonna happen so it doesnt reduce a victory because "lol you got hit so doesnt count"

>>31774397
So perfect it cant be a gunship and carry crew.
So perfect it needsa runway to take off.

Sounds like a real dream. I dont hate the hind but faboys need to fuck off.

>>31774605

>Taking damage is something thats gonna happen so it doesnt reduce a victory because "lol you got hit so doesnt count"

Limping home after failing your objectives isn't winning kiddo.

>>31774553

>It wasn't even a pyrrhic victory, we just flat out won.

Ugh......no. The Iraqis successfully repelled the helicopter attack while taking few casualties themselves. They objectively won the engagement.

>>31774650
>only Iraqi victory of the conflict
>mission launched with sketchy intelligence, in a poor environment, and with no support
>American forces managed to destroy a little more than a tenth of enemy forces
>Iraqi forces manage to destroy a little more than a tenth of enemy forces
>3rd Infantry division ready to fight again in six weeks
>2nd Armored Brigade, Medina Division wiped ten days later during the Battle of Kut

It's like a cupcake team pulling off 7-6 win against the division champs only to lose 3-84 with all players suffering career ending injuries a week later. The actual moral of the story is don't send out helicopters without proper intelligence and support.

File: 9437869f4d61648b9920b6da2710a06d.jpg (1MB, 4214x2652px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4214x2652px

>>31774618
>So perfect it needs a runway to take off.
Rolling takeoffs allow for more weight and burn less gas.
Ask these guys.

File: 1473615214747.jpg (142KB, 1024x720px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x720px

>>31774796

>only Iraqi victory of the conflict

So you're admitting that it was in fact a victory, that's the only part that matters. I'm not arguing that the Iraqis won the war, I'm just pointing out that the AH-64 failed to accomplish its core mission.

>>31768474
>31 apaches went out
>29 returned
>28 of those suffered serious damage
>6 engines damaged beyond repair
>5 driveshafts damaged beyond repair
>still made it back to base

Pretty sure they proved themselves.

>>31774806
There's a big difference between
>hey this is a good idea, it saves gas!
and
>this is literally the only way we can do it

>>31767112
Serviceable is about all shithools are, God love them.

>>31767964

Is the DAP still a thing?Or it just for show and they are proposing it again to indigenous nations?

For what I remember only SOAR used ESSS with weapon systems on it,mostly were UH-60L with flir and defense upgrades plus the aiming system for the 30mm gun,nevertheless they barely used Hellfires and went in with 70mm rockets instead

>>31767252
>Really exploit what tilt rotor has to offer.
What a tiltrotor has to offer is better efficiency over long distances, plus all the convenience of a v/stol. Tiltrotor cargo/troop transport a best. For actual gunship work, not so much.

>>31773069
I know, that sounds like a Kiowa load...

>>31774472
>Part of the idea is they are indigenous to your assault battalions. This means they fly with the cargo versions all the time and the assault battalion doesn't have to rely on a separate unit for support/escort.
Right, so if your entire doctrine is based on the fact that you have shit comms and shit coordination, yes, organic CAS is probably something you should have.

>Another benefit is you have a line of Blackhawks trucking along, an aloha snackbars an RPG at them thinking there's no escort (because you're not gonna be able to distinguish the armament from several km away with a bare eye on a helo moving 200kph), and then the whole area gets its shit pushed in.

On the other hand, if you have the comms and coordination to fight combined arms battles, that snackbar is probably going to get droned by escorts he never saw coming, and the whole area is going to get its shit pushed in regardless.

>>31768474
>>>31767112 (OP)
>Daily reminder.
>A large group of AH-64's was unable to defeat an Iraqi armor division during the 2003 war. The Iraqis had 23mm and 57mm anti-aircraft guns, and in addition, regular AKM rifle rounds proofed surprisingly effective.
>>Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes; one Apache even took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was deemed fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
>Anybody who still believes that Apaches will be survivable against Russian armor is kidding themselves. A Russian armor division would be protected by far more effective AA weapons than what the Iraqis had.


Completely misrepresentation if what happened. It wasn't like it was an open space and their AA out ranged them. They were in the middle of a city, which forced the Apaches to come closer because of poor sight lines. Much of the time the Apaches didn't fire back because they were concerned about collateral damage. a bunch of the enemy tanks they were sent to kill weren't on the battlefield, the Iraqis had advanced warning and a 3 hour window to prepare their air defense after the SEAD aircraft left. Iraq's had every possible advantage and still barely managed to shoot down one gunship. All this demonstrates is that if you employ your command outside of its capabilities you can expect poor results.

>>31774849
Yeah, it's 'core mission' in the worst possible circumstances. Iraqi's had ever possible advantage and still barely edged out by surviving.

>>31774806
Imagine a time and place where rolling takeoffs can't be done.