Western version of a Mil-24 'Hind' gunship based on Puma or 'SeaKing helicopters?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

​

What if Western nations saw the Mil -24 'Hind' and decided to developed their own versions of the concept in response using either Puma or SeaKing helicopters?

The image top is what a possible Puma based gunship would look like (taken from the movies Rambo II & Rambo III)

​

The lower image illustrates a possible SeaKing based version (taken from the movie Red Scorpion)

Would these concepts work especially in NATO doctrine?
Would this concept work?
What other helicopters could be converted to this role?

Much obliged!

 

[DougM]

I guess the question is … Why? Transport helicopters and gunships such as Apache work very well so what does this give you that those don’t?

 

[Father Maryland]

I kind of wonder how a gunship version of the Super Frelon would look like. Or a larger MI-24 the size of a MI-26. Perhaps a MI-26 designed to allow it to be used as a cruise missile/anti ship missile launcher the same way the Frelon was.

 

[Alanith]

If you desperately need a Hind Gunship/Transport hybrid... why not just develop a purpose built one from scratch instead of modifying an existing design to such a degree that it might as well be a brand new aircraft anyways.

 

[jsb]

If you desperately need a Hind Gunship/Transport hybrid... why not just develop a purpose built one from scratch instead of modifying an existing design to such a degree that it might as well be a brand new aircraft anyways.

Would using the same engine/gearbox/rotors not save a lot in development and support costs even if you have a different fuselage like Bell AH-1 Cobra from the Bell UH-1 Iroquois?

What about a Westland Lynx gunship version?

 

[Workable Goblin]

If you desperately need a Hind Gunship/Transport hybrid... why not just develop a purpose built one from scratch instead of modifying an existing design to such a degree that it might as well be a brand new aircraft anyways.

Apparently, though, real life agrees with jsb, because the actual S-67, Sikorsky's proposal for an attack helicopter that could also carry up to 8 troops was...based on the S-61. That is, the Sea King (the S-61 was merely the civilian version of the Sea King). Of course, the S-67 looked almost nothing like the S-61, but then the Mi-24 didn't look much like the Mi-8, either.

The easiest and most straightforward way to achieve this challenge, then, would be for the Army to adopt the S-67 instead of the AH-64 (to which it was essentially a competitor) in the 1970s, though it's not precisely easy to achieve this or to see how to achieve it. Still, it was definitely the closest any non-Soviet country came to building an "Mi-24" equivalent.

(Note that this would not be "in response to" the Mi-24, since the S-67 and Mi-24 were developed essentially simultaneously and independently. Nevertheless, it would get a Western Mi-24-like helicopter in service)

 

[DougM]

But you are all ignoring the big question of WHY? What does a gunship/transport do that separate gunship and transport don’t do better?

 

[Bougnas]

There was a concept for an attack heli based on the SA 330 using the same swiveling tail rotor concept as the S-61F. Can't carry troops but still kinda fits the bill.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

But you are all ignoring the big question of WHY?

if a nation can only afford one air frame, then i think that it might have some value in being able to convert some of the units into gunships and others into transports.
however it's my understanding that doctrine keeps the gunships in the air while the transports land, so there's reason to have anything trying to fill both roles at the same time

 

[DougM]

Yes it may be cheeper to operate a combo in that you only have one type of helicopter but you also have a bad transport and a bad gun ship. And nothing is as expensive as having the second best army in a two country war

 

[marathag]

I guess the question is … Why? Transport helicopters and gunships such as Apache work very well so what does this give you that those don’t?

S-67 could have been in service in the '70s, than waiting til the mid '80s for the AH-64 to show. It's a better gunship than the AH-1 Cobra, that wouldn't come close to doing what the S-67 could have until 1976, while being slower, less warload and less survivable

 

[cjc]

But you are all ignoring the big question of WHY? What does a gunship/transport do that separate gunship and transport don’t do better?

Simplifies logistics during a assault as well (which is why russia still has them and a lot of other poor countries do to) when the helicopter can attack the landing zone, land and unloade troops, then continue to provide support makes planning and supplying heliborn assaults much simpler, not much of a issue for the us most if then time (although the iranian hostage crisis would have had a much different outcome if the us had a MI-24 equivalent).

 

[AdA]

The two most practical advantages are the possibility to use attack helicopters to evacuate people and being able to carry extra missiles/ rockets and self reload. It's also useful for the helicopters to be able to take some of their support kit with them when they deploy to unprepared positions.
For the "fire rockets first/unload troops later" armed version of transport helicopters are probably a better bet.
The Hind was one of the fastest helicopters in the world when it was introduced, and had a reputation for agility, so the extra room didn't hurt it.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Simplifies logistics during a assault as well (which is why russia still has them and a lot of other poor countries do to) when the helicopter can attack the landing zone, land and unloade troops, then continue to provide support makes planning and supplying heliborn assaults much simpler, not much of a issue for the us most if then time (although the iranian hostage crisis would have had a much different outcome if the us had a MI-24 equivalent).

The point of having separate gunships and transports is that the transports can drop their troops and head back to pick up the second wave while the gunships continue to support the LZ. Air assault operations are usually planned to include three or four waves of transports.

 

[DougM]

So maybe we should build fighter plans with cargo bays? The logic is similar. Don’t get me wrong I understand how smaller counties could use the cost savings but you can’t make as good of a transport or Gunship as you could separately.
BTW we had the Cobra in the 70s.

 

[alspug]

What is interesting is the concept of using the engine and rotor of the Sea King as a basis for a smaller more narrow fuselage with outrigger wings to carry munitions similar in concept to a MI-24. With every bit of weight reduction caused by smaller fuselage you increase payload capacity that was already significant. So by going to a pilot gunner stepped cockpit you get a narrower profile. If the Outriggers are built similar to the Mi-24 you get additional lift as well. With the ability to lift over 6,000lbs on a sling load you can easily translate that to a decent weapon load. If Tow is used (consider this an early 70's British attempt) you get possibly 8 TOW and 76 SNEB rockets. The most likely cannon the British would use in this era is the Rarden cannon which would be interesting, (the caveat is a belt feed mechanism as the clips would be a problem) The Aden 30mm is the other option and would give similar performance to the Apache 30 mm Chain gun due to same cartridge dimensions the Rarden would be nearly the same as the GAU-8 in performance. .

 

[marathag]

So maybe we should build fighter plans with cargo bays? The logic is similar.

Coming from this,
not a jet fighter.
Can still transport, if needed, after doing fire support

The Hind adds survivability to the gunship that could also transport, rather than having a dedicated transport and attack versions

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There's also the fact that having one machine that can do both jobs saves the cost of buying two dedicated aircraft. While the combined aircraft may be more expensive than either of the dedicated aircraft it is unlikely to be more expensive than cost of buying both types.

 

[lhagambia]

The Sikorski S-67 Blackhawk was based on the Sea King and even had a cabin for soldiers like the Hind. It would have been amazing but no one wanted to buy it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-67_Blackhawk

 

[PMN1]

Apparently, though, real life agrees with jsb, because the actual S-67, Sikorsky's proposal for an attack helicopter that could also carry up to 8 troops was...based on the S-61. That is, the Sea King (the S-61 was merely the civilian version of the Sea King). Of course, the S-67 looked almost nothing like the S-61, but then the Mi-24 didn't look much like the Mi-8, either.

Looks cosy