"Islamic State has a guide to shoot down Apache ..." Topic

…helicopters with MANPADS.

"Earlier this month the Pentagon entered a new phase of its air campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State when it announced that AH-64 Apache helicopters would assist beleaguered Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces. Almost simultaneously on Twitter, the Islamic State released a how-to guide on how to shoot down the heavily armed aircraft with a man portable air defense system or MANPADS.

The Apache first entered service in 1986 and has undergone various iterations since. Its main armaments consist of a 30mm cannon and it can carry an assortment of missiles, including the vaunted Hellfire.

The Islamic State, seemingly well aware of the aircraft's capabilities, notes in its guide that the Apache's pilot and gunner are well protected from ground fire and shrapnel with reinforced armor plating. The best way to shoot down the helicopter, the guide says, is with advanced MANPADS like the American FIM-92 Stinger and the Russian SA-16 and SA-18…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Again … no surprise, many in the ISIS ranks are former Iraqi Sunni military … so they have had training, etc. … That being said, in Gulf War 2, a number of AH-64s were damaged but only one did a controlled crash landing …

In addition to 1 listed above by Legion 4, at least 9 other AH-64 Apaches are confirmed shot down over Iraq during insurgency phase

13/01/04
11/04/04
27/06/05 (confirmed MANPAD)
16/01/06
1/04/06
13/07/06
28/01/07
2/02/07
31/07/07

Wiki claims 12 shot down. 4 additional were destroyed by mortar fire while on ground.

None have been shotdown over Afghanistan though the Taliban did manage to shoot down a USMC AH-1W on 22/07/10.

According to Wiki total AH-64 losses in Iraq/Afghanistan amount to 45 airframes of which 16 are attributable to enemy action. Numerous others were damaged.

The Syrians and Iraqis have lost numerous aircraft to MANPADS and AAA since the fighting in Syria started. The latest confirmed casualty was a Iraqi Mi-35 Hind on 3/10/14.

The insurgents have apparently got a hold of more advanced Chinese MANPADS courtesy of Saudi Arabia.

According to Wiki total AH-64 losses in Iraq/Afghanistan amount to 45 airframes of which 16 are attributable to enemy action. Numerous others were damaged.

At least with that count, the question is how many were actually shot down while in flight, how many continued flying back to the FOB where they were written off as too damaged to repair, and how many were irreparably damaged from base assaults?

They're shoot downs. In several instances crew were killed (at least 14 from a cursory glance at the list – that implies 7 aircraft crashed straight away whilst in flight).

The wiki link cites sources and has brief descriptions of events. You can go through them if you like,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War

There's also a list for Afghanistan:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#Summary_per_type

Total military aircraft lost in crashes/shootdowns in Afghanistan/Iraq are quoted as 329 aircraft of all types, including a total of 84 lost to enemy action and 2 to friendly fire.

It does not appear to list all losses from write offs of aircraft damaged -e.g. an RAF Bae-125 that was so heavily damaged in a hailstorm in Afghanistan it was written off. Serial is ZD704.

aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20130423-0

Thanks for that informative intel Thomas. Being a former member of the 101, I know that choppers of all types can be vulnerable to SA and AAA fires of all types. That is why as I said on another thread, that we use SEADS, however as I noted on that post, again there are no guarantees in combat.

… … If you suppress [SEADS] the air routes with FA and/or CAS that the gunships are going to use. Along with likely/suspected MANPADS locations … it may reduce the risk … And MANPADS as well as any other ADA system does not do well against Ham & Eggs [ie.: HE]. And I'm sure MANPADS were also a consideration when the US did the raid in Syria. Unless things have greatly changed since I was an Air Ops Officer in the 101 '81-'83 ? SEADS is a good idea/tactic … SEADS = Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Systems. Which includes MANPADS. Again on likely or known ADA. Does it mean you will take out everything they have ? No, but hopefully it will at least keep their heads down … There few guarantees in warfare …

Likely/suspected MANPADS locations"

That's like saying "suspected AK-47/RPG locations."

You're talking about man portable weapon systems not big massive radar guided systems that take up lots of real estate and need lots infrastructure.

And even if it a MANPADS is based on a vehicle ala the old SA-9 Gaskin, SEAD/DEAD is ineffective.

SEAD/DEAD is against radars and radar guided weapons. MANPADS are generally infrared guided – there's no radar emission to lock for SEAD/DEAD units to lock on to.

And as has been proven over Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and elsewhere, even salvos of RPGs are lethal to helicopters.

No SEADS includes suspected/likely enemy positions. If the flight routes fly over or near villages, copses of trees, etc. those can be targeted by FA, etc. … It all depends on ROE, the situations, etc. … And yes, we all know RPGs can be deadly to choppers … That's why a prudient move is to target those certain locations I mentioned and others … Thomas with all due respect, you have never been a Grunt. We have to think at all threat levels … MGs, RPGs, MANPADS, etc. all can shoot you down … We fly Contour and NOE as well … making larger ADA system less effective, but these flight techiques could make you vulnerable to lower tech weapons and ADA. However, flying using terrain masking, speed, etc., makes targeting us more difficult. Especially after FA, Fast Movers, etc. just turned the house or trees you were hidding into rubble. If you ever have tried to shoot a low fast moving object using terrain, etc. … it's harder than you think. But … Again … No Guarantees …

Just another reason to use A-10's instead.

Back when I was an air ops officer, A-10s and AH-1s flew JAAT missions, Joint Air Attack Team … with both working closely together. SEADS would still be used … I've had an A-10 fly by me while I was on the bed of a truck and the pilot waved at me … They can fly contour just like a chopper …

No SEADS includes suspected/likely enemy positions. If the flight routes fly over or near villages, copses of trees, etc. those can be targeted by FA, etc

….Especially after FA, Fast Movers, etc. just turned the house or trees you were hidding into rubble. If

Bombing suspected enemy positions to take out MANPADS/AAA makes the attack chopper sorties somewhat irrelevant as their targets have just been annihilated by a fast mover.

I agree with all your other points.

My main point was the AH-64 has suffered casualties in Iraq before. It's a risky place and there was quite a few functioning MANPADS left unlike in Afghanistan. And since Syria turned hot, there's been an influx of even more including more advanced Chinese types.

The current situation is even more risky in that the troops the AH-64 is supporting are not exactly competent. That means poor intel, poor coordination etc. It opens up to miscommunication and potentially puts Apaches at risk ("we thought there were friendlies here, turns out it's all IS").

Bombing suspected enemy positions to take out MANPADS/AAA makes the attack chopper sorties somewhat irrelevant as their targets have just been annihilated by a fast mover.

No again you missed my point, I'm talking about SEADS along the choppers' flight routes. The flight route is on the way to an objective or target … The standard scenario for SEADS along flight paths is … Gunships may be just part of the assault package. With CAV Gunships and Loachs leading the serials of lift ships carrying Grunts. With Attack Gunships flying flank security/support. And in many cases CAS is used on the objective before the birds get there. Now if the mission calls for just Attack Birds like AH-64s going after a target like an armored or mech formation, SEADS still applies. I'm sure you remember Thomas the 30-36 AH-64 unit from the 1st Cav going after an Iraqi Mech Bn or Bde in the beginning of GWII. Most of those birds were mauled. Taking alot of damage but only one was shot down[crew recovered], IIRC … I think that is a good example of SEADS not being properly used or not used at all … Maybe ROE/fear of collateral damage was in play ? But again no guarantees. As far as US Apaches supporting the Iraqi Army … the US SF and chopper aviators know SEADS as do the USAF and USN Fast Mover pilots … with proper coordination it still can be done …

No again you missed my point, I'm talking about SEADS along the choppers' flight routes. The flight route is on the way to an objective or target … The standard scenario for SEADS along flight paths is …

So you use fast jets to bomb suspected MANPADS sites so the AH-64 can do a raid? Sorry but that's absurd.

It's more efficient to use a single fast jet to just bomb the target than multiple fast jets doing "SEAD" so the AH-64s can strike.

And it's impossible to suppress MANPADS. It's impossible to level every single house, shrub etc.

After all you're dealing with this:

And not this:

The massive AH-64 strike in Iraq was acknowledged by the DoD to be a tactical error. The conclusions were that attack helicopters are not a substitute for fast jets in strike role and that attack helicopters were to go back to supporting ground troops as primary role.

Indeed in the Karbala raid, a few F-16s or A-10s would've done the mission without any losses at all – fast jets are far less susceptible to MANPADS and AAA than helicopters, provided they had decent intel in the first place.

And as stated SEAD is usually aimed at radar guided systems which are far more easily suppressed than infra red guided weapons, especially man portable infra red guided weapons that could be issued down to squad level.

Oh and Iraqi MANPADS or any SAMs weren't present much at Karbala – it was mainly AA guns and small arms (one crew man was wounded by Ak fire).

Try that kind of stunt against a Russian or Chinese unit with MANPADS and the aircraft loss ratio will skyrocket. Indeed the Russian infantry seem to be issued MANPADS en masse and in Georgia they shot down several of their own aircraft (Su-25s) due to trigger happy infantry.

So you use fast jets to bomb suspected MANPADS sites so the AH-64 can do a raid? Sorry but that's absurd.

It's more efficient to use a single fast jet to just bomb the target than multiple fast jets doing "SEAD" so the AH-64s can strike.

And it's impossible to suppress MANPADS. It's impossible to level every single house, shrub

Please don't try to make me look stupid, I know the difference between MANPADS and other ADA/AAA. We were trained in ID'ing all weapons systems. And Sorry Thomas, that's one way is can been done. CAS using SEADS on chopper air routes. Many time SEADS is done with FA too. And many times, there are fewer CAS assets than AH-64s … So it's prudent to use the CAS on SEADS and let the Gunships go after the armor units. And yes, it is hard to suppress all the MANPADS, like I said, there are no guarantees. And I know at Karbala there were more AAA guns than MANPADS. And yes, it was a mistake the way the AH-64s were used. But again, HE does not care … it destroys either MANPADS or AAA equally. As an Air Ops Officer, I had to plan the SEADS along with FA FISTs and if available Fast Mover TACPs. CAS is always not available or in the numbers required. Yes, it would be nice to bomb all the armor and mech units with CAS. But that is always not the option. The Army flies Helos not Fast Movers. And also as an Air Ops Officer, I was trained to call-in CAS as well … But again it's not always available or in the numbers required. And we know air strikes can't win the war on the ground alone. CAS in support of ground forces is how it's done. And yes, AH-64s are considered manuever forces along with tanks and infantry. Choppers can do things that Fast Movers can't … Like hover behind cover and pop-up to engage moving targets like tanks. And if you remember, US ARMY AH-64s lead by USAF Pavelow CH-53s, cleared the air routes for the USAF strike packages at the start of GW1. By taking out Saddam's intergrated Soviet ADA sites/systems … That's just the way is done …

TH has made excellent points.

Yes, he has made some good points. However, calling in CAS to support ground ops is how it generally works. If the ground commander needs CAS for SEADS along flight routes, on possible ADA/AAA/MANPADS locations. It is like any other mission called-in in support of ground forces … Again, if CAS could do it all, then it wouldn't matter if the Kurds or Iraqis, etc. fought ISIS on the ground. We'd just use massive CAS and send them all to Allah. And be in the O-Club in time for Happy Hour.

My issue is this is not a conventional war.

There are no possible ADA/AAA/MANPADs locations – IS doesnt have an IADS.

There's in fact poor intel provided by a ragtag group of rubbish FSA, Iraqi Army and semi capable Kurds who are fighting an equally ragtag but more determined force of unknown capability.

How does the US know which group of fundamentalists got their hands on AAA or MANPADS. They're struggling to even differentiate between FSA and AQ/IS camps, let alone working out which jihadi looted himself a MANPAD and which one got gifted one from the Saudis and which don't have anything other than usual AK-47/RPG combo.

It's the same as 2003-2011 when 12 AH-64s were shot down and numerous others damaged.

Yes, but Thomas regardless whether conventional or COIN. As a ground commander I can still request CAS for whatever the mission … Preping an enemy postition before an attack, calling in when taking heavy fire, observing enemy troop movements or SEADS along Chopper flight routes, etc. … Along with Tanks and Infantry, Gunships are considered [ground] manuever units. So a SEADS mission is really just another CAS mission. And a tool in the Ground Commanders' kit. I know you were never a ground commander nor was tuscaloosa [Army Intel Officer, IIRC]. Besides accomplishing the mission, a commander, and just as importantly, has to bring all his troops back home … Thomas you have a tendancy to look at aircraft from a more stategic level as opposed to a tactical standpoint, IMO. And note, ISIS has AT weapons also so we can't attempt to suppress those either ? Or just let them shoot holes is our AFVs … I'm not only a trained Infantry Officer but a grad of USAF Air/Ground Operations School with a lot of time on ops with 4 Infantry Bns worldwide … I'd like to think I knew my craft … much better, with all due respect, than someone who just reads about it or has never commanded manuever units on the ground … To quote,

Sorry but that's absurd.

SEAD is not necessarily just another CAS mission,.

Taking out C3 facilities such as radar, communication bases, or known SAM sites is not CAS – it's strike/interdiction.

Smashing localised AD in support of ground troops is also interdiction but I can see it being classed as CAS if CAS means direct support of ground troops.

Also you keep referring to "our troops." There are no US ground troops in Iraq other than some special forces advisers who can't be everywhere. There are none in Syria (that we know of).

The troops there are Iraqi army, Syrian army, Shia and Sunni militias, FSA, and Kurds of various political dispositions.

I don't see how you can assume these "units" will operate in the same way as US forces with disparate training (or lack thereof), different resources (e.g. radios) and even different loyalties.

And bare in mind the issue is shooting down of AH-64s which the Iraqis proved they could do on 12 different occassions in 2003-11

Thomas you have a tendancy to look at aircraft from a more stategic level as opposed to a tactical standpoint, IMO

True, I find strategy more interesting than tactics.

Though in this case I'm looking at the current operations in Iraq/Syria.

The situation is so intel poor that many jets are returning with full ordnance due to lack of targets. Despite a large amount of air assets being deployed, very often the day's results are "3 Humvees and a mortar being destroyed".

As of 5/11/14 a grand total of 437 air strikes have been launched by allied forces in both Iraq and Syria. A lot of have been against oil wells and random buildings. Now the Syrians managed 200 strike sorties in 36 hours!

And yet IS continues to plow on through FSA, Kurdish and Iraqi and Syrian government forces or are at least maintaining their positions.

It would appear that the issue is lack of intelligence and coordination between allied air forces and all the different allied ground forces.

Secondlly it's clear the allied air forces have restrictive ROE to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq. Indeed the first RAAF strikes were stopped due to risk to civilians.

So again, how is the US going to ensure all that SEAD of suspected sites is going to happen, when even the Iraqis and Syrians don't know what's happening on the ground (and the US won't even talk to the Syrians) and their ROE means they have to be wary of civilian casualties?

I understand your comments here … And your comments are geared more toward the current situation in Iraq and Syria …

SEAD is not necessarily just another CAS mission,.

Taking out C3 facilities such as radar, communication bases, or known SAM sites is not CAS – it's strike/interdiction.

Smashing localised AD in support of ground troops is also interdiction but I can see it being classed as CAS if CAS means direct support of ground troops.

You are talking semantics, as long as an air mission provides close support to ground troops, it is generally called – CAS. As I said, if you remember, US ARMY AH-64s lead by USAF Pavelow CH-53s, cleared the air routes for the USAF strike packages at the start of GW1. By taking out Saddam's intergrated Soviet ADA sites/systems …, yes, that is a Strike … Not CAS …

Also you keep referring to "our troops." There are no US ground troops in Iraq other than some special forces advisers who can't be everywhere. There are none in Syria (that we know of).

Yes, Special Forces are "Our Troops", US, UK, etc. and they can 't be everywhere. However, they will probably be the guys on the ground calling-in the Gunships. I saw a youTube piece of US SF calling-in Gunships on ISIS positions at night. It shows how that works. I can't find it now.

Secondlly it's clear the allied air forces have restrictive ROE to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq. Indeed the first RAAF strikes were stopped due to risk to civilians.

Yes, if you reread my posts I mentioned based on ROE and fear of collateral damage.

I don't see how you can assume these "units" will operate in the same way as US forces with disparate training (or lack thereof), different resources (e.g. radios) and even different loyalties.

I don't assume, that's why I believe those gunships will only be used where US SF or other NATO, etc. type forces can control/coordinate the attacks … For example, in Vietnam at times US FOs were attached to ARVN and ROK units for just that reason. One of my instructors when I was a cadet, was with a ROK unit as an FO.

So again, how is the US going to ensure all that SEAD of suspected sites is going to happen,

It won't, as I said there is no guarantees in combat generally. And IMO, those AH-64s will only be used when US or NATO SF are on the ground as FO/FACs …

And bare in mind the issue is shooting down of AH-64s which the Iraqis proved they could do on 12 different occassions in 2003-11

Again … there are very few to no guarantees … sadly in some cases …

And IMO, those AH-64s will only be used when US or NATO SF are on the ground as FO/FACs …

As you said: no guarantees.

Especially when the situation on the ground is confused. The spec ops might be doing their job but are they to know that the Iraqi unit guarding their flank hasn't just disappeared or the militia unit has changed sides?

My point is, there's considerable risk here and more than usual as the local forces aren't the same quality as the US in terms of training, procedures, equipment or loyalty.

Hopefully no Apaches will be shot down. But somehow assuming near invincibility of US equipment and US tactics (as you did initially with only 1 lost claim) is dangerous and I am sure the guys on the ground are very aware of the limitations of both.

I agree … and the situation on the ground in the entire region is very confused. And I too hope no AH-64s will be shot down or any other aircraft for that matter. And believe me, after being the guy on the ground on more than one occassion … I know that "assuming near invincibility of US equipment and US tactics " is no guarantee. As LT's in the 101, we used to say never put a helicopter anywhere you wouldn't put a truck … But we still can't be too afraid to use proper weapons and tactics to get the job done. But always be circumspect, look for other courses of actions, options etc. … We know how effective modern AA and AT weapons can be, so we modify and adapt our tactics and operations so we still can be effective … But again … make sure your Soldier Group Life Insurance updated … keep your head down, when you can and when in doubt call-in mortars, FA, CAS, etc. …

as you did initially with only 1 lost claim

That was during the intial conventional operations in the early days of the war. As time goes on, every time you take to the air, cross the LD/LC, run a patrol, etc. … just the law of averages says you will most likely take some losses … even if you know those chances may be extreme at times. S happens …