First no problems though actually should be more aggressive when jets are in the area. Second they are pretty much standard issue now and in the past for many countries. You must remember the primary purpose of the attack helo is to protect and provide ground support for the troops. The protect part you can attach that descriptive to mean against helos and jets. I hear the the smirks from some corners
. I honestly wasn't familiar with what group performed the actual test however, I had heard (Or better, came across it quite awhile back...) Operation J-CATCH
and now know it was conducted by the USA 20th Special Operations Squadron
which was disbanded at some point but has been reactivated. It should be noted J-CATCH wasn't the first nor the last test conducted, however it was the first in-depth
test conducted in yes January 1978. So for your further reading entertainment I give you the following...
From ref. 2...
"In January 1978, the 20th became involved in a program called J-CATCH. J-CATCH, for "Joint Countering Attack Helicopters", was to develop tactics to counter a growing threat from attack helicopters. Concern over the increased helicopter firepower and numbers in potential adversary nations led Tactical Air Command to outfit 20th UH-1Ns and CH-3Es as aggressors, creating a force that simulated Soviet attack helicopter capabilities and tactics. Scenarios included helicopter-to-helicopter tactics, and helicopter-to-fighter tactics. The J-CATCH helicopters were painted with special camouflage schemes and configured with Mini-TAT chain guns mounted under the fuselage, which were aimed by the co-pilot's hand controlled sight. The weapon system was loaned to the Air Force by the Canadian government. The 20th's aggressor force was known as "Red Force" and adopted a red scarf, which is still worn by the unit today. The red star on the unit patch today is a reminder of the J-CATCH mission, which successfully concluded in 1979."
"The 20th remained busy with J-CATCH in 1979. They also experienced problems with the weapons system on the CH-3E. Spent brass from the guns was ejected overboard, where it entered the aircraft's slipstream. The slipstream carried the brass into the tail rotor, causing damage to tail blades. The 1st SOW developed a solution and implemented it, preventing damage to aircraft and possible loss of aircraft and lives."
From ref. 3 read the weapons section you'll see a standard fighter mounted AA missile is part of it's inventory and the "bold
" I added...
"The Longbow Apache carries the combination of armaments chosen for the particular mission. In the close support role, the helicopter carries 16 Hellfire missiles on four four-rail launchers and four air-to-air missiles
Unit history ref. 3 covers the mission in more depth...
Finally from the USA...
In Phase I/II is when the 5:1 kill ratio was established with the helos using just the onboard MG's
. The lessons learned from this were applied in the latter phases but, in terms of the improved fighter tactics you'll have to agree the kill ratios really aren't that good as noted in the below ref. from the USA
and it notes the fact at no time were the helos armed with any AA missiles (And you need to read the assessment of if they had been.). This is a good read and the helicopters used then would be no match against today's helo. And as the APACHE background ref. above shows, the USA learned from this document when the APACHE D
was fielded in 1989.
If you want to skip the preliminaries go to PDF Pg. 25 of 61
/or Pg. 17
of this document. With the advanced AA weapons, FCS/radars, IR protection, maneuverability/speed and improved defensive systems, I would think the odds would favor the helo especially against most
ground attack aircraft in particular. Anyway...
Finally a newer source but more a USA FM, in particular FM1-112 ATTACK HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
for this discussion see PDF Pg. 258
/or Pg. F-12
of this document.
The ground attack variations diagrams follow the pages above. It covers multiple and paired attack
ops against tanks. This kind've covers an older topic of if you will, to mimic real life ops more closely we should have to buy them in pairs
then we could eliminate those single AH slots from the most advanced countries i.e. U.S., UK, Russia, Germany etc. etc. Though I suspect this might be a PITA to do, I don't know? And remember I'm a strong advocate for these in the game and before I get "trounced
" by the reading audience, I normally will buy a pair and make them a part of my "core" unit as soon as possible
Improved AIM-92/ATAS test from 2011.