A Helicopter Fighter?

Inspired by a thread from June about an AK47-jet.

Would it be viable to design and build a helicopter that was capable of some limited air defence role? I'm not thinking of something that is designed to take on F-16s in air combat but more of a design that could...

a) be used for defence above warships, some sort of close in CAP?

and/or

b) be able to undertake a similar role over the frontline of a battlefield, possibly taking on other helicopters and ground attack aircraft

and/or

c) as a development of the earlier AK47 idea, a cheap way for a small nation to have a token air defence capability.

No idea if its even possible but something I have wonder about recently
 
I'm not an expert in helicopters, but my guess is no. Rotocraft are very limited in performance, unless you imagine some sort of convertible craft which folds its rotors or reconfigures them as fixed wings. At this point you are talking about a very complicated and advanced technology...why not go directly to VTOL airplanes like the Harrier or Yak-36 at that point.

For the limited roles you mention in (a) and (b), existing attack helicopters such as the Apache and Havoc could be configured (if they are not already) to shoot down other choppers and some low flying fixed wing planes with fire and forget missiles...but for that a guy with a stinger is just as good.

For the (c) concept, a small country would probably do better to buy a lot of old cheap subsonic advanced trainers and outfit them with new, advanced, avionics and missiles. This could be a cheap and effective token air defense force, but I'm still not sure it woudn't be better to invest in SAMs for fixed sites and shoulder-fired AA weapons for troops in the field. However, if the wars of the 1990's and 2000's have taught us anything, it is that there is no way to defend against a truly modern air force other than to field an equal number of equivalently capable aircraft piloted be equally well-trained aircrew.
 
Modern helicopters are/can be armed with adapted MANPADS. This also improves their performance as their guidance can be linked to helicopters systems.

South Africa experimented with putting IR AAM on their helicopters during 1980s. Effects were less satisfactory than desired mainly because AAM's engine damaged pylons (in fighters this is not a problem as airflow cools things down).
 
I guess you can put SAMs on anything big enough to carry them, but - why? At sea, line of sight isn't going to be that much of an issue and it's likely to be cheaper to bolt launchers to the ship and raise the antenna high enough to spot incoming threats than to put the missiles on a helo. Maybe to accompany heliborne troops over broken terrain where land-based launchers can't follow?

What would make a helicopter-launched missile significantly better than a ground-launched one?
 
a) be used for defence above warships, some sort of close in CAP?
Any kind of helicopter CAP would be a.) less effectiove than most shipborne weapons systems and b.) take up the space, money, and time that a helicopter in a different, more important role (i.e., ASW) could perform.


b) be able to undertake a similar role over the frontline of a battlefield, possibly taking on other helicopters and ground attack aircraft
Already done. The AH-64 Apache, RAH-66 Comanche (sadly cancelled), OH-58D Kiowa, and, I believe, the new design they're working on (AH-70, I think; I could be wrong) all have the capability to carry Stinger missiles. You've outlined their urpose exactly. I believe several other American helicopters also had limited air-to-air, and the cancelled AH-56 was more a ground-attack aircraft with rotors than a helicopter, and it likely had some air-to-air planned, or would have developed some quickly.

Russia has had the Mi 24 Hind and several other related helicopters. All have the ability to carry missiles and weapons of various soorts, but I'm not completely sure about their air-to-air ability.


c) as a development of the earlier AK47 idea, a cheap way for a small nation to have a token air defence capability.
The MiG 21 will be cheaper than any air defense helicopter with any chance of being fielded. It would also be availible earlier.

Helicopters aren't the best tools to use as air-to-air defense. They're slow, for one. They're airborne, two, which makes them easier to spot and hit compared to a well-camoflaged missile site. They can't carry weapons near as large as many aircraft and any fixed SAM site. The helicopter's development into a real weapon happened about the same time Russia flooded the market with cheap MiGs. All these factors, most of which can't be changed without changing the definition of helicopter, mean that it's not that great an anti-air platform.
 
What would make a helicopter-launched missile significantly better than a ground-launched one?

mating missile's guidance systems to helicopter's systems thus improving it's accuracy, detection range and so on. And helos would carry small missiles, MANPADS sized, not SAM sized. Helo's IR detectors can tell missile where target is before missile's own systems detect it
 
The main benefit I see with a Heli-Sam system is that it is mobile which is useful but so is a jet fighter or even a propeller plane with long range missiles.

Would poor nations need a good air defence and wouldn't their cold war patrons supply them with it if needed?

The only benefit I can come up with is the multi use, helicopters are useful in a number of ways outside a war (transport, rescue...) that fighters are not. But ordinary helicopters will find useful things to do in war anyway. The real trick is making them cheap and easy. What if an earlier Robinsson R44?
 
The closest to a helo fighter achieved so far is the Kamov Ka-50 Black Shark, a single-seat attack helo, with a 30mm gun which is basically fixed to fire forwards (there is limited movement, to keep it on target once aimed). See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

However, the workload for the pilot was very high, so the two-seat Ka-52 was developed from it.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Sikorsky S-67 Black Hawk (not the S-70 Blackhwak transport!) was quite similar to the Mi-24 hind. It flew only in prototype form between 1967 and 1974.

It was proposed in a variant armed with the Phantom 's radar and Sparrows.
 
Speed. It's much harder to defeat a SAM site that's moving at over 150 mph.

Is it really? The downside to the speed is that a helicopter is almost impossible to camouflage or fortify. I don't know if the payoff would be enough to justify these downsides. Maybe in mountainous terrain where they could pop up and fire, but usually?
 
Is it really? The downside to the speed is that a helicopter is almost impossible to camouflage or fortify. I don't know if the payoff would be enough to justify these downsides. Maybe in mountainous terrain where they could pop up and fire, but usually?

also, it's not a stable firing platform.

Thirdly, because it's hanging from complex rotors, carrying armour is going to be tough. It'd be a lot easier to put the same fire power, etc on a winged aircraft.
 
Basic physics is the reason why heli-interceptors never did or will take off. The best helicopters can do is about 200km/h at 10,000ft, which means their missiles must overcome major speed and hieght issues to get at your average fighter. Using a regular AAM on helicpters means they expend their rocket burn just getting to hieght and speed, leaving nothing left for pursuit and maneuvre at the end, and a SH-60 isn't the best platform for a SM-2 or Patriot.
 
Does this count?

triebg.jpg
 
I guess you can put SAMs on anything big enough to carry them, but - why? At sea, line of sight isn't going to be that much of an issue and it's likely to be cheaper to bolt launchers to the ship and raise the antenna high enough to spot incoming threats than to put the missiles on a helo. Maybe to accompany heliborne troops over broken terrain where land-based launchers can't follow?

What would make a helicopter-launched missile significantly better than a ground-launched one?

This is my thinking. Just as a great distance AAM thing.
Could be useful in large areas of rough terrain- you can't cover it all with permanent ground based systems and its too inaccessable for mobile SAMs. The helicopters can get to where its needed relatively quick and get to work.
Won't be much good for rapid reaction interception but if you're prepared for a enemy attack maybe.
 
Top