"Should we get some attack helicopters?" Topic

By we I mean norway.

I was just reading on the wiki page about the subject.
And saw there was an artical about it in norwegian so checked it out, it said NATO as encurraged Norway to get some attack choppers.

And I though yeah that can be a good idea.

Norway is a long country with lots of coast(one of the longest coats in the world) we have lots of gass and oil installations in the north sea and and on the coast.

And 99% of norway is mountain.

All this is good chopper country.

Right now our military shopper are the NH90 and the Bell (don't remember which version of it)

Both of these are decent I guess as weapons platforms but still not attack choppers.

By all means, and play "Ride of the Valkyries" each time you descend upon coastal invaders or pirates and suchlike. The beefier the choppers the better, bristling with mini cannon and rockets and the works….

The NH90 is a peaple mover in the Land forces version,Always good to have when you need to insert troops to protect all those facilities.Also the NH90 can carry Anti ship missiles.There is always the Eurocopter Tiger. A good Generl purpose Bird with Lift, Air to surface and anti air would do you well..if you are set on a AH Consider the USMC Cobra AH it can do all of the above except lift and Im sure you could get it cheaper then a Apache.

I think TMP can be hostile enough with out users sending hellfires at eachother.

Everyone should have an attack helicopter.

Dear Editor should get some drone tech, to enhance the Stifle, Ignore and Dawghouse features haha. That would make us all behave. Norway would be wasting money you would only be asked to use their lethality in other countries on behalf of your pals ideas of democracy.

My favorite attack helicoper is still the Bell AH-1 Cobra. I like the design more than the Apache or Eurocopter. The marines are up to the Z Viper Cobra now.

That's a tough call, really.

Ideally, NHIndustries would crank out an attack helo using a lot of the same parts as the NH90, just like the UH1/AH1 family. But I'm not seeing that being cost-effective for Norway to fund alone.

The NH90 doesn't have an External Stores Support System like the Blackhawks, so they can't easily carry Hellfires or 70mm Hydra rockets.

If I was Norway, I'd look at both the AH1Z and the AH64, but use the same engines as the NH90 (maybe even same engines and transmission, for max parts commonality). That would result in the AH1Z having 800 more horsepower(!) and the AH64 having 400 more horsepower. And personally, I'd recommend the AH1Z because it's already 25 knots faster than an Apache with the same engines. I'm almost afraid to ask what another 800hp would do to the Zulu Cobra's performance.

Oh, and I'd get the CRV7 rockets instead of the US-made Hydras because the CRV7s have much better performance. Like being able to punch Centurion armor with the *practice* rounds, and T72 armor from any angle with the tungsten-cored AP rounds.

Another option might be the Ka50 or Mi28, as they both use engines roughly as powerful as those used in the NH90.

But I'd still lean towards the AH1Z, maybe with even longer stub wings (3-4 stations on each side) and that Piasecki 'ring-tail' tail rotor. Should result in a top speed of over 250knots.

Didn't think choppers liked mountains that much. Better get a fleet of drones, which are cheaper and more cost efficient.

I thionk the choppers would be for supporting NATO interventions and not necessarily for defence of Norway per se.

Norway shares only a small border with Russia and that's in pretty rough environment (i.e. Arctic region). I doubt that attack choppers would of much use in such an environment.

A lot of NATO forces have been reconfiguring to "intervention/counter insurgency forces."

That has meant loosing conventional assets ala ASW warships, tanks and large numbers of combat aircraft and greater emphasis on transport and attack helicopters, MRAPS, special forces, larger multipurpose ships etc.

As for what would suit Norway, given above context it's down to either Tiger or AH-64E or AH-1Z or T129. Ka50 and Mi-28 (as well as latest Mi-35) are Russian so they're out.

The best one would be AH-64E – it's large, reliable, rugged, combat proven (well at least AH-64A and D are) and fully compatible with US Army and to lesser degree Dutch and British Apaches.

The AH-64 tends to win competitions over all the other choppers (even with countries that generally don't buy US equipment).

There's a couple of exceptions:

Australia who wanted a lighter more recce orientated version (brought 22 Tigers). Had serious issues getting them into operation.

Spain – at least partially influenced by a desire to integrate further into Eurocopter (brought Tiger)

Turkey – protracted procurement process that had a lot of local manufacture requirements – chose Italian T129.

Meanwhile AH-64A/D/E has been adopted by USA, UK, Netherlands, Greece, Egypt, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan and Singapore.

Recent contracts for new AH-64E version have been for USA, Indonesia, Taiwan, Indonesia, India and Saudi Arabia. Britain has already said they will most likely obtain AH-64E, either as new build or upgrade of existing models.

As for NH90, it's a dog of a chopper. Australian versions all have numerous faults and are struggling to get to any level of capability, Germany is uncovering many faults with them and Netherlands just delayed acceptance because of numerous design defects for naval versions (some quite simple such as appropriate galvanising of components that will be exposed to salty sea air and water).

It's also heavily behind schedule – Swedes had to buy UH-60M as a stopgap. And finally it's over budget by a lot.

UH-60M or modern French Super Puma/Cougar versions (EC725 and AS532) seem a far better bet.

If I was Norway, I'd look at both the AH1Z and the AH64, but use the same engines as the NH90 (maybe even same engines and transmission, for max parts commonality).

That would be extremely costly especially as Norway would have to pay for all development. There would be no economies of scale either as it is unlikely Norway would buy more than a single squadron (12-20 aircraft).

It could also result in greater maintenance costs due to operating an "orphan" fleet. There's also invariable time delays as well as interoperability issues with allies.

The interesting thing for me, is that the French operated Tigers in Afghanistan and had a 90% operational availability. The Aussies had a very much lower figure. A mate who flew with the French AND the Aussies described two totally different maintenance approaches. The Aussies, the Brits and the US maintained their choppers using a 'book' method. 2 metres high of maintenance manuals and procedures – the French took the 'Chef' attitude – they had a short leaflet, and small numbers of really skilled maintenance chiefs who worked every hour to keep them in the air. he contrasted the approach very unfavourably to the ABU.

Conversely, the Tigers performed very badly at altitude. Some of it might have just been the Afghanistan conditions, but on days Apaches flew with full combat loads, Tigers were only carrying greatly reduced payloads. On days the Apache was only carrying a reduced load, the Tiger simply didn't leave the ground.

I'd go Apache if I was Norway. It's a very proven platform, Norway already uses Hellfires for anti-shipping applications from my understanding, and it's something that's already available at 100% ready to go out of the box, instead of still being troubleshot.

AH-1Z isn't the worst idea either, but there's not really a reason to take it over the Apache unless you're the USMC.

panzersaurkrautwerfer – really? – I wasn't there, but as I said a very close friend was operational mission observer with French and Australian forces. His view was that the French would operate on the basis of local professional advice (le Chef) – but that the other operators simply weren't game. Not a matter of incapability, it simply was contra-indicated by their manuals.

If I was Norway, I'd look at both the AH1Z and the AH64, but use the same engines as the NH90 (maybe even same engines and transmission, for max parts commonality).

That would be extremely costly especially as Norway would have to pay for all development. There would be no economies of scale either as it is unlikely Norway would buy more than a single squadron (12-20 aircraft).

It could also result in greater maintenance costs due to operating an "orphan" fleet. There's also invariable time delays as well as interoperability issues with allies.

I'm not sure how much development would be necessary, but you do have a point.

I'm not sure if the Norwegian NH90s are using the Rolls Royce engine or the high-output T700s, but if it's the T700/T6, there's no real development work at all. It's just a different model which has all the same mounting bolts. Well, it's one inch larger in diameter and 1.2 inches longer, but should still mount right up without needing new engine mounts or fairings.

The critical question is whether the transmission could handle the increased load.

I'd bet that an AH64E gets re-engined with the /T6s before too long, just for better performance.

I was part of an exercise with an American unit, and the 2e Brigade Blindée (I think that's what they were called, Leclerc's old division after being reduced to a Brigade in the post cold war draw down). Good guys, but one of the ongoing problems they had when coordinating with Americans was that their airframes just weren't designed to operate in hot and high altitude environments.

So while hypothetically the airspace was shared, and the French covered their own AO, in practice when the weather was assessed at high, they'd ground their own platforms and we'd have to flex American assets to them.

It wasn't for real, but their "chef" was quite empathetic that nothing was flying from the French FOBs until conditions were more favorable.

Conversely, having worked with the Australians, they were of the opinion the Tigers more or less came broken, or unserviceable, and had problems getting them to carry payload at sea level, which does not strike me so much as a operator issue as much as a platform problem.

It's all hearsay on my part. Could be they're the wonderchopper, but I have yet to hear as many complaints about the AH-64, AH-1, or MI-24/35/etc as the Tiger.

The Hinds really struggled in Afghanistan, too. They just weren't designed for hot/high work, and I remember seeing some show where they talked about pulling most of the armor out, and still needing to use a runway to get the Hinds airborne.

Then again, since significant parts of the US qualify for hot/high designations, it kinda makes sense for the Apache and Blackhawk to be designed for it. For example, my hometown is up at 2500 feet elevation (to the valley bottom), the local training area for the Army and Guard is over 3000ft elevation, and the mountains run up to 7000+. Current temp (today) is 93degF, expected high is ~100 or thereabouts.

Fort Irwin, CA, home of the National Training Center, is 2500+ feet, and gets even hotter.

Khusrau, Australia never deployed Tigers to Afghanistan. They only deployed CH-47 Chinooks which were from memory withdrawn in 2007.

Lion in the Stars, mounting different engines/transmission results in changes to flight profile and handling, centre of gravity etc.

Finally UH-60 isn't exactly great at hot and high which is why the CH-47 Chinook has taken over as primary aircraft in Afghanistan.

And even the CH-47s had some issues with some of the extremely high areas of Agahinstan e.g. Bagram is about 5,000 feet above sea level in which case the 2500 you quote is nothing.

But given overall size and power, CH-47 could lose a lot more and still have a lot of capacity unlike smaller UH-60.

There was problems with a lot of avionics systems not being designed for such conditions. For example early on, 160th SOAR MH-47 crews found their TFRs were at times useless cause they weren't designed with such high altitude in mind.

It's also why the new CH-47F has even further uprated engines.

And despite limitations, the Mi-24 Hind was still one of the most effective weapons in Afghanistan and was known by the Muhajadeen as ""Shaitan-Arba" (Satan's Chariot). The big killer was lack of adequate RWR and countermeasures, though these were rectified as the Stinger became prevalent.

The problem with both Western and Eastern aircraft is they were generally designed around Europe in mind.

As for the French and hot and high performance, the SA315B Lama is still one of the best performers in this environment. The Indian Army operates them in the Himalayas where virtually no other helos will go: