Airmobile

[Delta228]

OK, this isn't strictly a game question, but what role does the transport helicopter play in modern warfare. I don't mean the obvious role of simply getting soldiers from point A to point B, but to what extent do modern military helicopters transport men under fire, land, dismount the troops, and take off again while providing covering fire with their weapons.

I'll try to phrase my question more clearly:

Do helicopters land troops (average ground ponders, excluding special forces) onto the battlefield under fire on the modern battlefield, much like the Airmobile divisions of the Vietnam War (think "We Were Soldiers")? On the CMSF battlefield, would troops be regularly ferried in and out of battle on helicopters?

Any and all input would be appreciated.

[purpheart23]

Very rarely. It's all in the name. Transport helicopter. In the modern battlefield a transport helicopter flying low over a battlefield would be easy meat for anybody with a decent weapon standing around. Troops are regularly Air Assaulted in Iraq as a means of transportation(or were anyways). You would obviously never purposely land a bunch of infantrymen, sf, etc etc under fire. Bad juju. To think of men being ferried around the battlefield in a set piece engagement you need look no further than desert storm where the largest ever air assault mission was flown. To make a long story short, the strategic and tactical circumstances would have to be taken into account before proceeding with anykind of "airmobile" operation.

[Delta228]

So the use of helicopters as a means of directly inserting and removing troops from combat is almost exclusively used by the special forces?

[purpheart23]

No. We have a whole division(101st Airborne) designated as an air assault division. That's right around twenty thousand soldiers for airlift. Four combat brigades with three infantry battalions and artillery battalion and if I'm not mistaken a special troops battalion. Regular infantrymen are transported quite regularly in helicopters. I hope this clears things up a bit. Sorry if my last post was confusing.

[cmfan]

Air assault, at least these days tends to emphasize the concept of "air mobility" rather than that of assault. The idea is vertical envelopment: move your troops around/over the enemy in order to secure a position from which to fight. Given the proliferation of shoulder fired SAMs, etc. I think its extremely risky to send helicopters into a hot LZ. It's probably still done, but only if it can't be avoided.

It's like WWII style amphibious and airborne assaults. We could probably still do them, but its unlikely you'll ever see them done at the scale and intensity of that era for a variety of reasons.

[purpheart23]

Right like when route tampa is black and you really need to execute that pesky raid.

[Dietrich]

In the modern battlefield a transport helicopter flying low over a battlefield would be easy meat for anybody with a decent weapon standing around.

Given the proliferation of shoulder fired SAMs, etc. I think its extremely risky to send helicopters into a hot LZ.

Would not this apply similarly to attack helicopters? I've read about Apaches and Cobras and such being damaged (and even brought down) by RPG and 12.7mm MG fire, especially in Afghanistan.

That being the case, why is targeting (by Red forces) of enemy air assests disallowed? The historicomilitary context of CMSF means that any significant surface-to-air assets (i.e., things that would be a threat to A-10s, F-15s, etc.) would have been targeted at the very beginning of the campaign and thus already taken out. Also, helos are the only Blue air assests that fly slow enough (and don't fly too high) to be effectively targeted by MGs and RPGs. But why is it that Red can't even target helos (let alone hit them)?

However, I do understand: If helos could be targeted, they could be shot down (the CMx1 'explosion in the sky' is much too much an abstraction for CMSF), which means the helos would need to be 3D-modeled, which means opening a can of worms in terms of coding and such. *sigh*

[dan/california]

"Would not this apply similarly to attack helicopters? I've read about Apaches and Cobras and such being damaged (and even brought down) by RPG and 12.7mm MG fire, especially in Afghanistan."

You haven't noticed any drone manufacturers complaining the recession have you? You just cited the reason why. Helicopter jobs are becoming drone jobs for this exact reason.

[purpheart23]

Right, the thing about modern attack helicopters is they don't have to loiter in the immediate area to provide fire for the men on the ground. The Apache has a very powerful sensor suite mounted right in the nose that would allow it to stand off several kilometers and deliver it's payloads.

[cmfan]

The Long Bow version of the Apache has a mast mounted millimeter wave radar that gives it even more stand off distance. Additionally attack helicopters like the Apache are armored so while they may not be able to survive a SAM they could probably do well against heavy machine gun fire.

Kiowa Scout helicopters also provide further stand off options but I get a feeling these guys are reaching the end of their service life and survivability might be an increasing issue.

Add to this the fact that a Black Hawk carrying troops has no armor, very little by the way of weapons compared to the Apache and has to fly through enemy territory or very close to it to get troops beyond the front lines.

Taking out vehicle mounted SAMs are probably a high priority in the modern battlefield, but a guy with a should fired version could hide just as easily as one with an RPG.

[Delta228]

Thanks for the imput guys. I watched Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers the other day, so that made me think about the popularity of helicopter insertion to hot LZs.

[Apocal]

Don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure using the LB radar for CAS is a no-no.

[akd]

Don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure using the LB radar for CAS is a no-no.

In fact, I believe it has been removed from many Longbows overseas.

[cmfan]

Sorry guys. The LB was barely coming into service when I left the Army and I just heard the party line when it was talked about: e.g. identify enemy vehicles via high resolution radar from extreme range allowing for coordinated engagements between multiple Apaches.

Have there been a lot blue on blue incidents involving it since its deployment? Or does it cause some other problems in CAS roles?

[Apocal]

Have there been a lot blue on blue incidents involving it since its deployment?

None I've heard of.

Or does it cause some other problems in CAS roles?

It's impossible to PID your target or anything potentially in the danger area. And things like smoke, tracers, man-prominent terrain features, lasers and GPS coords don't show up on it.

[Flanker15]

Thanks for the imput guys. I watched Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers the other day, so that made me think about the popularity of helicopter insertion to hot LZs.

The events that BHD are based on are probably the main reason helicopters aren't used to drop infantry in hostile areas anymore. A Blackhawk hovering at low altitude just needs someone with a rocket launcher or machine gun to be destroyed (any weapon really, they're a sitting duck when they stop moving).

Then there's the wonderful problem that if the infantry somehow survive the drop, they're standing in plain sight away from any cover. That sounds fun!

In Vietnam the helicopter insertion was still some what novel so the US spammed it, they probably lost 1 or more helicopters in evey insertion. Those losses were probably considered "acceptable" in those days though.

As for things in CMSF:

You won't see transport helicopters for the above reasons, attack helicopters can fire their weapons several map lengths away so the work to model them is un-called for. Area SAMs are considered to be destroyed already in the senario so the aircraft won't be shot down, Shilkas and other AA might show up if we're lucky but probably just for anti-ground (the aircraft weapons out range them anyway except the chopper guns).

[Falconander]

Even after Black Hawk Down, you are still going to have use of Airborne and Air Assault missions. Even is being dropped into a hot LZ isn't ideal, neither was the 'drive' out. I'd take a covert flight in any day over driving through a maze of streets or walking several miles through hostile city streets.

Fast roping in is one way but think of the paratroopers in WWII. Many of them did not land in ideal formation/location but the quick insertion was needed.

Air Assault and Airborne ops will always be part of the mission. Different locations/terrain/objectives require different tactics.

Snatch and grab ops are just one example.

How about Afghanistan mountains? I'll take the Chinook to the top any day over the walk.

[Dietrich]

How about Afghanistan mountains? I'll take the Chinook to the top any day over the walk.

My research indicates that SOF operators in Afghanistan tend to prefer 'technical'-style pickups (for example, a Toyota Tacoma with an M2 or M240 mounted above and behind the cab) rather than HMMWVs because HMMWVs are too wide to consistently handle the narrow mountain roads (where such even exist), and the MRAP has too high a center of gravity for safely operating in such rugged, steep terrain.

[Apocal]

The events that BHD are based on are probably the main reason helicopters aren't used to drop infantry in hostile areas anymore. A Blackhawk hovering at low altitude just needs someone with a rocket launcher or machine gun to be destroyed (any weapon really, they're a sitting duck when they stop moving).

Then there's the wonderful problem that if the infantry somehow survive the drop, they're standing in plain sight away from any cover. That sounds fun!

We still do air assaults into contested areas. We try to execute in such a way that the disadvantages you put forward are minimized, but obviously the enemy gets a vote as well. Just look at Operation Anaconda in 2002 or the massed helo raid we tried against Iraq in 2003.

In Vietnam the helicopter insertion was still some what novel so the US spammed it, they probably lost 1 or more helicopters in evey insertion.

The US lost 3035 Hueys during the Vietnam war, approximately half were due to non-combat accidents. In that same timespan, they flew over seven million flight hours. Assuming an average sortie time of two hours, thats under one loss every thousand sorties.

Those losses were probably considered "acceptable" in those days though.

They were... controversial. After Vietnam a lot of people pointed to the helicopters relative vulnerability and loss rate as a demonstration of "if the Vietnamese could do that, imagine what the Soviets are going to do to them!" Other people pointed out that fixed wing aircraft suffered similar rates of loss and the controversy continued until the Reagan years and we could afford both significant amounts of Army rotary wing and Air Force fixed wing assets.

You won't see transport helicopters for the above reasons, attack helicopters can fire their weapons several map lengths away so the work to model them is un-called for. Area SAMs are considered to be destroyed already in the senario so the aircraft won't be shot down, Shilkas and other AA might show up if we're lucky but probably just for anti-ground (the aircraft weapons out range them anyway except the chopper guns).

Agreed.

[Flanker15]

How close do you think they'd allow a helicopter to insert infantry to known enemy posistion today? 100m? 500m?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

How close do you think they'd allow a helicopter to insert infantry to known enemy posistion today? 100m? 500m?

At least 500 m. Probably more like 1 km. Of course, this is all my opinion, I have no hard data to back this up.

[meade95]

How close do you think they'd allow a helicopter to insert infantry to known enemy posistion today? 100m? 500m?

Depends on the OP & the risk/rewards -

The Anaconda Op mentioned above - The original SEAL element wanted to be dropped in 3000m (below) where they were being tasked to secure - However, Mr.Murphy came along with delays, helo troubles, bad Intel (not passed along Intel) and they were put right in ontop of the enemy -

At the same time, if it is a snatch and grab / HVT Op - (a la, the recent one, leaked, over the Syrian border) those helo's came in right ontop of that village and the other just outside (within the 100m).

Then again, those are both more SOF type operations.

Even still, it likely all depends on the OP and what is being asked of / tasked.

We were using air-assault Ops to great advantage in Anbar with stopping IEDs back in 06.

[Delta228]

Ok so, basically, air assault is still a viable option for an operation, but due to the large number of cheap, easily acquired shoulder mounted AA weapons, it is extremely risky for helicopters to fly en mass into a hot LZ.

Thanks for all you're input guys.

[Apocal]

Even still, it likely all depends on the OP and what is being asked of / tasked.

Indeed. METT-C more than anything else should dictate your SOPs and any concept of operations you'll think of. Unfortunately, many (most?) CM scenarios are painfully short on actionable intel, probably in the interest of game balance.

We were using air-assault Ops to great advantage in Anbar with stopping IEDs back in 06.

The aeroscouts? You have any good unclass sources regarding those operations? Probably not much out there, but I figure it can't hurt to ask.

[Falconander]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/rooftop.asp

Terrain dictates everything and when there is no road or other viable alternative, helo operations are going to be used.

Quick insertion/extraction is the role of helicopters. When permitting, off target for the walk in to obviously keep them safe but there will be many times to come when they are going to have to be danger close.

I still love this picture.