Did a Helicopter ever shoot down a jet fighter?

[yasotay]

There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.

Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?

Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.

 

[marauder2048]

There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.

Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?

Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.

No offensive but...

They are easier to replace than fast jet pilots and fast jets; attrition warfare is, alas, a remorseless working of things

 

[yasotay]

There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.

Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?

Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.

No offensive but...

They are easier to replace than fast jet pilots and fast jets; attrition warfare is, alas, a remorseless working of things

I am not sure I agree. While it was certainly true in the 1960 anIt takes well over a year to train a helicopter pilot these days.

 

[marauder2048]

There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.

Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?

Mostly the helicopter pilots associated with that transaction.

No offensive but...

They are easier to replace than fast jet pilots and fast jets; attrition warfare is, alas, a remorseless working of things

I am not sure I agree. While it was certainly true in the 1960 anIt takes well over a year to train a helicopter pilot these days.

You aren't suggesting that helicopter pilots and fighter pilots are drawn from the same ASVAB percentiles?

And what do you think has happened to fighter pilot training time since the 1960's?

 

[Fluff]

There are few helicopter pilots who are going to want to tangle with a fighter. Modern systems on fighters will make it a decidedly one-sided event. While a AIM-9 off the rail of an AH-1Z could do the job, the smoke trail will give the wingman a good idea where to look.

Leaving aside the low smoke motors, who wouldn't trade a helicopter for a fast jet?

Ferrari, or Volvo Penta truck - both are very good, just not for the same job. After your post it just gets silly. Where does a brain surgeon sit, or a prime minister?

 

[greenmartian2017]

The only story I am aware of where a helicopter shot down a bomber aircraft is from the Vietnam theater.

See this recounting.

When The CIA Shot Down An AN-2 Biplane From A Huey Helicopter

Realizing that his chopper was faster than the AN-2s, Moore decided to give chase, and Woods got his AK-47 ready for combat. The Bell UH-1 Iroquois

www.warhistoryonline.com

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Removed a bunch of replies which went off the rails. The Bar is not exempt from forum rules on civility.

 

[yasotay]

I am not sure where this went but I am not implying that fighter pilots are somehow lesser aviators. I am implying that a 2020 AH-64E is far more complex than a 1969 UH-1H and that it takes several years to fully teach an Army Aviator the full complexity of their mission. Just like a fighter pilot, or a bomber pilot and a transport pilot take time. I will end with this. I am not interested in taking this thread any further from the simple question that was asked.

 

[marauder2048]

The fighter must be very careful to succeed and will find it extremely difficult to engage with Radar

Helicopters are probably within the detection envelope of most airborne look-down-shoot-down radars.
Getting active RF seekers to find them terminally is trickier. And if they are hovering it's very hard.

But many of the modern imaging infrared AAMs are data linked to the airborne radar
so the kill chain is a little easier in that regard.

 

[marauder2048]

Some more color (literally) : this is data collected from the CIWS radar of a helicopter hovering in sea clutter.
With a very high pulse-repetition frequency, you can capture "blade flashes."

But land clutter is far worse and most of the seekers out there probably don't match CIWS on the PRF front.

 

[marauder2048]

The fighter must be very careful to succeed and will find it extremely difficult to engage with Radar

Helicopters are probably within the detection envelope of most airborne look-down-shoot-down radars.
Getting active RF seekers to find them terminally is trickier. And if they are hovering it's very hard.

But many of the modern imaging infrared AAMs are data linked to the airborne radar
so the kill chain is a little easier in that regard.

I'm just going by what the people who do it say.

I found this:

J-CATCH - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks. The recurring theme from the 80's survivability studies for rotary wing was the threat from
look-down-shoot-down radar. Seems to be well justified.

AIM-7F would be iffy in this period* but the "Lima" would probably have been fine albeit at short range.

* I just read the report. Yeah. AIM-9L only at 2.3 km. That would uncomfortably close given that the report
expects that Mi-24 will be carrying SA-7 or SA-9. Did they?

 

[Dynoman]

I've always thought that it would be interesting to consider several 'low-level air superiority' squadrons of dedicated air combat helicopters that were deployed in areas where the enemy is operating air assault operations. These dedicated air combat helicopters could take out their troop carriers before they reach their LZ and engage escort helicopters or attack helicopters and CAS aircraft. These helicopters could be small with drop tanks for extended loiter time over the battlefield and then engage aerial targets of opportunity. One can dream!

 

[Archibald]

Imagine the headlines "First helicopter ace. Shot down three F-15, one F-16, and one Whartog."

 

[TsrJoe]

sweet artwork, AVPRO ?

 

[martinbayer]

sweet artwork, AVPRO ?

Yep - see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/avpro-projects.316/#post-53910

 

[marauder2048]

I've always thought that it would be interesting to consider several 'low-level air superiority' squadrons of dedicated air combat helicopters that were deployed in areas where the enemy is operating air assault operations. These dedicated air combat helicopters could take out their troop carriers before they reach their LZ and engage escort helicopters or attack helicopters and CAS aircraft. These helicopters could be small with drop tanks for extended loiter time over the battlefield and then engage aerial targets of opportunity. One can dream!

J-CATCH also needs to be read as programmatic: it's partially a position piece for the US Army to say
to the Air Force "yes, you could use fast jets in the anti-helicopter role but..."

a. it's tricky
b. outcomes are uncertain esp. if the threat helicopters are carrying SA-7 or SA-9
c. your fast jets will probably have their hands full with Frontal Aviation fast jets
d. your fast jets are already outnumbered and over-tasked

so...

Army Aviation FTW!

 

[Dynoman]

I think Hungarian 'rotary wing fighter pilots' are a future possibility . They were involved in a exercise that demonstrated the possibility of downing fixed wing aircraft over 10 years ago.

 

[Archibald]

4. It seems that bringing helis down by supersonic overflight was at least an accepted tactic for a while in the RAF

6. Luftwaffe Alpha Jet squadron war roles were anti-helicopter units, utilising the ventral gun pod. I had known this before but felt it worth pointing out

IMO something like a Super Tucano, or SABA back in the day! would be the way forward with dealing with helicopters. E.g Impala kills in Africa. Potentially this makes these types more susceptible to loss by gunship too.

4 - Reading that, I reminded something. In the Mirage IIIC-J days, a clever Israeli pilot used his Mirage delta wing vortexes to send a Mi-8 into the ground.

6 - Makes ton of sense: all three are / were trainers. Alphajet is swept wing, Impala was Aermacci 326 so straight wings, Tucano is fast turboprop.

In all three cases, trainers are arguably far more agile at subsonic speeds, than true combat fast jets.

For example, in close combat, French Alphajet pilots used to kick Mirage 2000 asses. Same for the Hawks vs the RAF fast jets - Tornado, Jaguars...

In fact the radarless jet trainers were used to train fast jets pilots to counter sneak attacks similar to the soviet jets like Mig-15/17/19/21. Who were more or less radarless, too, since their radars were pretty bad...
A startling example of this happened on May 10, 1972. While US Phantoms scored 10 victories that day, they also lost a couple of them (Roger Locher / Bob Lodge Oyster One) to a sneak MiG-19 attack... with guns. The MiG-19 radar, if it even existed, was nothing like the Phantom. No missile either. And yet, the MiG scored and the Phantom went down. Surviving Phantoms crews told that the freakkin' Mig-19 popped out of nowhere, gunned down the Phantom, and then vanished.

 

[shin_getter]

With fighter aircraft getting MTI that can track ground vehicles, I'd think ground clutter is a very unreliable means of defense. mmW radar ground attack missile that is capable of identifying ground vehicles should have no problem with helicopters either, allowing something like SPEAR-3 to run search and destroy attacks. Wide area search EO/IR systems is another way to find helicopters hiding in the bush, and with AI assisted target recognition the identification time can be quite fast. When without anti-aircraft sensors I am not sure helicopters can operate safely and independently against MALE drones with can detect and shoot first.

 

[Fluff]

I do feel there is certain amount of vote rigging going on in this thread.

Yes in the given scenario of a fighter v a helicopter, the fighter has a much higher likelihood of bringing down the chopper, than the reverse.

In an actual peer war, both parties would be concentrating on their mission, not looking for bonus points.

The fighter has a mission, navigation, RWR etc to manage. The chopper the same, plus trees to dodge, ground fire etc.

Both are going to be far more focused on their peer threats, the fighter will be looking up and around, for other fighters, not looking in ground clutter for a whirleygig to play with.

In asymmetric warfare, have at it, but if charlie is shuttling around in a Mi-8 I'd suggest the west would either strike it on the ground, or send an apache to gun it down, than send an F16 to play tag.

And I agree, if there is a specific anti-helo force, armed trainers make far more sense, than fighters, or fighter-heli's.

 

[shin_getter]

I don't think either attack helicopters or trainers are that good at denying opponent helicopter ops. They just don't have the sensors for wide area coverage or combat over match to win exchanges at lowest cost and risk.

Sensors to detect enemy helicopters at long range, weapons to have reliable standoff advantage over opponent heli-AAMs, persistence to provide around the clock coverage are combinations that shut down opponent ops hard.

With battle networks, one can link all kinds of sensor shooter combinations thus many kinds of very asymmetric counters can be pieced together based on tactical situations and specialized counter force is likely not needed as a helicopter does not have unmatched defensive characteristics (like extreme stealth, speed, etc) that demands special systems.

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget SA. Surrounding vision is limited in the most sensitive sector and the tunnel vision effect of NoE flight would probably ruin what's remaining in A2A.

 

[marauder2048]

seems that IF the ROE allowed it, the initial plan is to just take the RW out with BVRAAM missiles. If you can distinguish what's a helicopter and what isn't (granted this would be more applicable for older types, and I think an AESA or very modern RADAR unit would just about put those problems to bed now). Of course the big 'if' is the ROE allowing long range missile shots without visual confirmation.

Not clear that any BVR missile until the 90's model AMRAAMs could pick a helo out of clutter.
The fighters would need to orient themselves in such a way as to be looking "up" at the helo i.e.
the missile would not be looking down into clutter.

That means some very low-level, high speed flying and probably coming in broadside against the helo.

For infrared, unless you were able to attain the same geometry described above, you'd need LOAL
and probably an imaging infrared seeker both of which were in their infancy in this period.

I totally agree that AESAs make non-cooperative target recognition of helicopters much easer and
LOAL + datalinks + modern AAMs make helicopters a much easier nut to crack.

It's understandable why things like Commache were being looked at in the late Cold War period
since popping an RF and IR signature reduced heli out of clutter is a really tough ask even now.

 

[TomcatViP]

Just to bring some perspective:

At 10:22, Wickson, flying at 27,000 feet (8,230 m), reported a radar contact on a low-flying, slow-moving aircraft 40 miles (64 km) southeast of his current position. Wilson acknowledged Wickson's report with a "clear there" response, meaning he had no radar contacts in that area. Unknown to the two F-15 pilots, the unidentified aircraft were the two U.S. Army Black Hawks. Contrary to standard procedure, neither Tracy nor Wang spoke up at this point to request that the AWACS crew members attempt to identify the F-15s' radar contacts.[11]

Both F-15 pilots then electronically interrogated the radar target with their on-board IFF systems across two different modes (Mode I and Mode IV). Their IFF systems responded negatively to the attempt to identify the contact on Mode I. The Mode IV momentarily gave a positive response, but thereafter responded negatively and the F-15s moved to intercept the unidentified aircraft. Intermittent IFF Mode I and Mode II returns from the Black Hawks now began to show on Wilson's and other AWACS crew members' scopes and friendly helicopter symbols reappeared on Wang's scope. After closing to 20 miles (32 km) of the radar contacts, at 10:25 the F-15s again reported the contact to the AWACS and Wilson this time responded that he now had a radar contact at that reported location. Although the Black Hawk intermittent radar and now steady IFF returns on the AWACS scopes were in the same location as the unidentified contacts being tracked by the F-15s, none of the AWACS controllers advised Wickson or May that the contacts they were tracking might be friendly helicopters.[12]


An Eagle Flight Black Hawk as seen from the side

An MI-24 as seen from the side
The two F-15s now initiated a visual identification (VID) pass of the contact. The VID pass entailed violating one of OPC's rules of engagement, which prohibited fighter aircraft from operating below 10,000 feet (3,050 m) above the ground. At this time the two Black Hawks had entered a deep valley and were cruising at a speed of 130 knots (150 mph; 240 km/h) about 200 feet (60 m) above the ground. Wickson's VID pass was conducted at a speed of about 450 knots (520 mph; 830 km/h), 500 feet (150 m) above and 1,000 feet (300 m) to the left of the helicopters. At 10:28 Wickson reported "Tally two Hinds" and then passed the two Black Hawks.[13] "Hind" is the NATO designation for the Mil Mi-24 helicopter, a helicopter that the Iraqi and Syrian militaries operated and was usually configured with armament on small, side-mounted wings.[14] Wilson responded with "Copy, Hinds" and asked Wang, "Sir, are you listening to this?" Wang responded, "Affirmative" but offered no further guidance or comments.[15]

May then conducted his own VID pass about 1,500 feet (500 m) above the helicopters and reported, "Tally 2."[16] May later stated to a USAF accident investigation board that his "Tally 2" call meant that he saw two helicopters but did not mean that he was confirming Wickson's identification of them as Hinds.[17] Neither F-15 pilot had been informed that U.S. Army Black Hawks participating in OPC often carried auxiliary fuel tanks mounted on wings nor had either been instructed in the paint scheme that Iraqi Hind helicopters used, light brown and desert tan, which was different from the dark green color used by the Black Hawks. Wickson later said, "I had no doubt when I looked at him that he was a Hind ... The Black Hawk did not even cross my mind."[18]

Following their VID passes, Wickson and May circled back behind the helicopters approximately 10 miles (16 km). Because aircraft from various nations sometimes operated unannounced in the northern Iraq area, the OPC rules of engagement required the F-15 pilots to attempt to verify the nationality of the helicopters. Instead, at 10:28, Wickson notified the AWACS that he and May were "engaged" and instructed May to "arm hot."[19] At 10:30, Wickson fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile at the trail helicopter from a range of about 4 nautical miles (10 km). The missile hit and destroyed the trailing helicopter seven seconds later (36°46′N 44°05′E). In response, the lead Black Hawk, piloted by McKenna, immediately turned left and dived for lower altitude in an apparent attempt to evade the unexpected attack. About 20 seconds later, May fired an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile at the lead helicopter from a range of about 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km), hitting and shooting it down also about 1.2 miles (2 km) northeast of the trail helicopter (36°55′N 43°30′E). All 26 people on board the two Black Hawks were killed. After flying over the wreckage of the two helicopters lying burning on the ground, May radioed Wickson, "Stick a fork in them, they're done."[20]

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[marauder2048]

Any FJ guy will resist getting sucked in, and none would be going down low enough to look 'up' with the Radar.

That was precisely the recommendation that came out of J-CATCH.

It's clear the look-down-shoot-down radars of this period could regularly track helicopters at range but that the
Sparrows of the period (AIM-7E and AIM-7F) could not reliably prosecute helicopters in clutter.

Engagement was low-altitude ingress by the fast-jet to silhouette the helicopters on the horizon.
That would also help with infrared clutter for the "Limas."

 

[_Del_]

I think there's been some amusing digression from "has it happened?" To "could it happen?" to "wouldn't modern fighters would win in a pitched battle vs a helicopter?".
Has it happened? Not that I'm aware of.
Could it happen? I imagine it's entirely possible, especially in a busy threat environment where everyone (including the helicooter) is busy flying, navigating, looking for --or at -- targets, and trying not to fly into the ground. Best case scenario for the helicopter is someone flying low and fast towards their target coming up over a ridge and on to your plate so to speak.
It doesn't matter how nice your radar and processing power is if you're down in the weeds and the helicopter is behind that ridge or butte -- or if you're not radiating. Neither exactly unheard of.
The attack helicopter crew who was moments ago was busy performing some other chore suddenly finds themselves a very mobile triple-A battery. Cuts both ways, because it's just as easy for the helicopter to come around a ridge and find itself unknowingly in a very bad spot caught completely unaware.

 

[marauder2048]

A recommendation does not mean it would have happened. It is a seriously risky strategy for the FJ.

The intercept altitudes for the F-15s in the Black Hawk incident above were offset by a few hundred feet at most from
the helicopters. Practically co-altitude. And that was with a missile with specific improvements to find lows-and-slows in clutter.

Though, this wasn't strictly necessary with the improvements to Sparrow:

Bizarrely, Randy "May Day" May aka Tiger 2 in this incident who downed the lead Blackhawk with an AIM-9
had a BVR kill against an Mi-24 in GW1 with an AIM-7M. The engagement altitude was at 20,000 ft for his F-15C
vs. the Hind at 500-1000 ft.

 

[TomcatViP]

The engagement geometry was dictated by the need for visual identification. This is the only reason why both F-15 went so close to their targets...

 

[shin_getter]

Back to the original question:

Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There were even engagements between Iranian AH-1J and Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft. Using their 20 mm calibre canon, the AH-1Js scored three confirmed kills against MiG-21s, claimed a Su-20, and shared in the destruction of a MiG-23.[16]

[16] Williams, Anthony G.; Gustin, Emmanuel (2004). Flying Guns of the Modern Era. Marlborough: Crowood Press. p. 172.

Collaborated with The Iran Iraq War by Pierre Razoux which had one shoot down event (p. 250) written out
From google books:

On July 24 (1983) Saddam Hussein and Adnan Khairallah traveled to the front to personally assess the severity of the situation. The minister of defense took things in hand and directed operations. He launched a forceful counterattack with massive air force support. The Mi-24s recently delivered by the Soviet Union worked wonders as they hunted down infantrymen scattered on the surrounding mountains' arid slopes. One Mi-24 was shot down by a marauding Iranian fighter plane. A handful of Cobra helicopters also intervened to try to slow the Iraqi counterattack. One Cobra pulled off a unusual feat by using its on-board gun to shoot down a MiG-21 slowly flying over the battlefield at low altitude.

----
Don't know how reliable are those claims.

 

[shyab]

This has so gone off the rails

 

[hesham]

Here is the Arabic book in Google,which tells the whole story;

unfortunately,I couldn't reach to it in my stuff up to now.

ÃÈØÇá ÇáØíÑÇä

books.google.com.eg

 

[Lc89]

In the video game Metal gear solid (1998) a Hind D is mentioned who shot down two F16s.

Obviously this is a video game. In reality it is impossible for a Russian Hind helicopter to survive an F16 or any other modern fighter, let alone two F16s.

 

[Flanker78]

I think Hungarian 'rotary wing fighter pilots' are a future possibility . They were involved in a exercise that demonstrated the possibility of downing fixed wing aircraft over 10 years ago.

Hi Dynoman, where can I find more information on this story?

 

[Dynoman]

Flanker the story can be found here (you'll need to accept cookies and select English if necessary (written in Hungarian)).

SZOKATLAN LÉGIHARC

2008 júniusában a Louisiana Légi Nemzeti Gárda tíz F-15 Eagle vadászgépe települt a kecskeméti bázisra, hogy a Load Diffuser 2008 gyakorlat keretében két héten át közösen gyakoroljon a Magyar Honvédség repülőgépeivel és helikoptereivel. A louisianai F-15-ös pilóták rendszeresen repülnek a…

airbase.blog.hu

 

[Flanker78]

Flanker the story can be found here (you'll need to accept cookies and select English if necessary (written in Hungarian)).

SZOKATLAN LÉGIHARC

2008 júniusában a Louisiana Légi Nemzeti Gárda tíz F-15 Eagle vadászgépe települt a kecskeméti bázisra, hogy a Load Diffuser 2008 gyakorlat keretében két héten át közösen gyakoroljon a Magyar Honvédség repülőgépeivel és helikoptereivel. A louisianai F-15-ös pilóták rendszeresen repülnek a…

airbase.blog.hu

Thank you very much Dynoman!

 

[shin_getter]

Recently stumbleupon this:

 

[hesham]

Recently stumbleupon this:

Sorry for late,I am too busy,new Info,

but Egypt Air Force did first,in 1973 war.

 

[CJGibson]

Recently stumbleupon this:

Sorry for late,I am too busy,new Info,

but Egypt Air Force did first,in 1973 war.

Interesting, got any info on this? I'll need to do a rewrite.

Chris

 

[hesham]

Interesting, got any info on this? I'll need to do a rewrite.

Yes my dea Chris,

the whole story in replies # 19 and drawing in # 22.

 

[RavenOne]

There were rumours according to Hans Halberstadt's Army Aviation -(Ian Allan /Presidio Press 1990) that during Operation Prime Chance / Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf, that then secret armed OH-58D Kiowa Warrior (then renamed Ah-58D) may have used MIM-32 Stingers against IIAF fixed wing and scored. The armed Kiowa Warrior belonged to the 18th Avn (part of 82nd Airborne Division) and came in after or worked alongside the Nightstalkers A/MH-6 Little Birds and MH-60A.

cheers