Getting intimate close air support in perspective
Hello Doors Off. I am not with your SLB jargon and there is more emotive stuff than fact in your post #164.
There is abundant video footage of Kiowa versions being operated successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A Huey II Bushranger version could hover in ground effect at maximum operating gross weight (10,500 pounds internal load) at about 12,000 feet in ISA +20C conditions. That is published performance data direct from Bell Helicopter and not from 'glossy brochures'. If you wish to compare performance of other types for IGE hover at MOGW, then you need to get their manufacturer figures for the same ISA conditions.
USMC UH-1Y Venom (Super Huey) are operating in Afghanistan and Hellfire is an optional fit, also easily adapted to Huey II; but really only justifiable for high value targets, not knocking over a few doped-up Taliban. I believe each Hellfire round costs upwards of $75,000!
The French Tigers operating out of Kandahar (6,500 feet AMSL) are restricted to 18 rockets and about 250 rounds of 30mm HE, but nothing seen publicly whether they have also had to reduce fuel loading. A Huey II Bushranger with full fuel would carry 9,000 rounds for 2 miniguns, 500 rounds of 20mm HE for 2 cannons, 3,000 rounds of 7.62mm for 4 doorguns, with refuel/rearm turnaround of 15 minutes.
Off-boresight shooting is not on for intimate close air support; just too dangerous in close quarters engagements like when the guys on the ground are brawling within cricket pitch proximity. That scenario might sometimes require a utility helo hovering over friendlies gun muzzles when they are pinned down and cannot move so you can drop ammunition right where they need it and then winch out their casualties (while the ongoing din of battle I assure you is very noisy). Gunship suppression with HE cannon is unsuited to such situations due to HE fragmentation safety distances, but accurate high density minigun suppression from fixed forward firing weaponry does the very close quarters job best, including in jungle.
Bushranger operations during the Vietnam War were conducted in a mix of jungle, swamp, wide-open rice padi, urban areas and rocky mountains; not too unlike what might be encountered in our neighbouring regional tropical archipelago. Iroquois ground-fire hit statistics were US Army 1 in 1,147 and RAAF 1 in 9,512 sorties and shoot down statistics were US Army 1 in 13,461 and RAAF 1 in 79,270 sorties (more prudent operating practices). Adequately supporting the guys on the ground in those environs meant being prepared to get eyeball to eyeball with the opposition at firing ranges from about 700 metres down to maybe 100 metres (in pressing situations) before breakaway, as the essential accuracy is not achievable with longer range shooting. Maybe those who feel a bit timid regarding close quarters gunship operations should perhaps think about another job.
You are way off track DO regarding Iroquois prang survivability. The semi-monocoque fuselage construction is strong and contains the crew pretty well when other bits might be shed. The crew sustained only minor injuries in this operational accident.
But reality is, best usage will have to be figured out for Tiger, MRH90, LPD as the politicians are unlikely to flog them off to offset hugely reckless defence spending.
Project Air 87 acquired the Tiger '... to replace the capability currently represented by the Bell 206B-1 (Kiowa) and UH1-H (Iroquois) gunship helicopters with a new reconnaissance and fire support capability for the land force early in the next century.' Tiger will of course have some different attributes, but it clearly will not adequately replace either of the mentioned capabilities.
A retiring engineer/pilot colleague from fighter days has managed airworthiness oversight of the Tiger and mentions some good and deficient features. The manufacturer has apparently taken weight-saving shortcuts in airframe design leading to some weaknesses (also evident in MRH90) which will likely show up downstream.
It seems improved engines are in mind for Tiger, but whether the taxpayer gets slugged again remains to be seen. The high recoil 30mm cannon, which will pound the airframe and also has a restrictive cooling cycle, was rejected by the Germans pending development of their own low recoil weapon. I would substitute a low recoil 20mm weapon (as in the NC621 pod), also fit NC621 20mm pods and/or minigun pods (as appropriate) in lieu of rockets. The aircraft would then have more suitable firepower and essential gun redundancy, going some way toward substituting for the forfeited Bushranger gunship capability; but still not comparable with a Huey II Bushranger version for effective intimate close air support.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 23rd Feb 2011 at 21:52.