Theoretical entry to the destruction of apache (and other antipersonal mass destruction helicopters)

I saw a short documentary on apache helicopters, there sure is a production line that suggests significant losses, in that sense my ideas may add nothing to existing expertise i have no knowledge of.

The apache is a volatile tool of destruction, under normal circumstances and with basic arms hardly anything can be done to counter them, let alone counter them efficiently.

Under almost any circumstances the apache helicopter will have significant informations of all potential targets within reach of it's armament. Ambushing them is probably not rili possible, (except under singular circumstances, wich include camouflage, surprise attack and single helicopters, (or perhaps pairs).

Except in very complex battlefieldsituations, something that hardly occurs these days, the mere options of detection make anything but a surprise attack unfeasible.

probably any attack will provoke a represaille, and in that sense there probably are no methods to negotiate apache helicopters or their close relatives, except in very mountaneous terrain, with advanced missiles, like stingers, by surprise, so from a camouflaged position,
very hard to do because next to bodyheat a lot of the militairy informations would refer to armaments, weapons.

I figure that the only situations in wich apaches can be really brought down somewhat effectively is in organised conflict, in confused battles, with at least sufficient airdefence to limit the helicopters operational freedom, (a limitation of their movement by like 20% of the airspace (and related landareas) may be enuf to
start fighting them.

Basically you would try to fight them from the periphery of your forces, yet it is equally attractive to lure single examples deeper into lightly occupied terrain.

I think in an assymetric struggle like any that fights apaches would be, it is very hard to attack even 2 helicopters at once, that being teh case tehy will usually operate in small groups i think. 2 of them already is a huge force to reckon,
unless you would strike first and fast, so i assume 3 is their usual basic combat formation.

That means that their offensive capacity's are most only limited to munitions and it's of great interest to find ways to deal with them peripherially (or unexpected).

I am under the impression that the best way to cope with them would be to use special weaponry and munitions.

advanced mancarried missiles are the only tool available i would think in the current arsenals that forms any threat as it is. ofcourse heavy to very heavy airdefense or jets may keep them away, concentrations of such airdefence can only incidentally be achieved, and thinking airpower other then nato would be superior in the medium term of any small or great conflict is more stupid then wishfull thinking.

The only two such options would be when all non-nato nations would fights all nato nations, and when us would engage in wars with the greatest other nations and unions,
so when it would loose european support from the nato.

the latter sceme is not as completely implausible as the first , but certainly not europe nor the us have an interest in that wich makes it remarkably improbable as well.

So the more probably combat operations of apaches to come, will probably be against
firstly single targets and small lightly armed formations, like in afghanistan
and gaza, and perhaps but i hope not , against bigger armys that could set up something of a defense in depth. These army's would probably under great pressure considering numbers in nato inventory.

It is quite obvious any more solid and indepth defence would be served by a peripherial perimeter that would cope with apaches. They have a great firerate, heavy weapons, a lot of munitions and advanced sensors and obervation tools, the sooner you'd stop them the better.

So let's get technical. In principle any weapon invented or adapted to peripherial defence could be usefull in ambush, however you would still need single, low flying helicopters to do something. chances appear somewhat slim, detection, arms control, infiltration etc. remain not much hidden to big brother.

Helicoptercrews would definetly get nervous of camouflaged personel and they are optimally equiped to deal with it.
Only in situations where the bloodlet of infantry is the ap. secondary task such camouflaged personel might get a shot in. if they have the weapon...

apart from it's miraculously reinforced transmission, that turns it into so to see the best aerial firing platform available, (very stable so very accurate) the whole thing is build to specifications, these would be generally available in the public domain i think, however i have read seen them a couple of times long ago, and i see no need for me personally to know this very precisely, so i might be a few mm or even more off in some calculations.

k so there goes, it must be theoretically possible to neutralise an ap. witha usual bullet, however such could only happen through the extremest of coincedences, seperation of 2 identical wires in the tail, or a lucky hit on some of the detail of the rotorconstruction weakest points , it may be possible to ignite the rocketmunitions it carries. Perhaps it's also possible by luck to damage a radar or something like that.

I think the glass can stand 2 cm machinegun rounds, and isnt penetrated by light grenades, the iron cage is still much stronger, grenades under 4cm probably dont get through. The tail appears slightly weaker, yet the most of the length is uninterupted, and systems and strengths would be redundant, the points where the tail
would be most vulnerable (besides the tailrotor that is allways a vulnerable point to some extend (5 cm should do the trick) 4cm has a chance i think,

I know this is not much help, since it's beyond the limits of targetting really, yet i first have to describe the structural quality's of the thing before i can show where what remains to be exploited as weaknesses could be.
(rotors are relatively easy to finetarget electronically i think).

For all i know they tried to make the back rotor of the ap.s extremely strong, it having allways been the weakest spot of helicopters, albeit one hard to target.

Unless we are sure our rounds will penetrate the skin and do sufficient damage to structurally impair 75% failure, the tail would hold, so the next points to aim for are not at the end f the tail but where the first servicing ports are in the rump.

There is more change to compromise the electronical and others at such places then in the mere tail itself, the monoqoque has only few exit and entry points for cabling and wires and tehse are well protected, however every major component of the helicopter is most bulnerable at such points, so when the rounds suffice it is possibly usefull to aim just outside the cage, and just outside components, )for example some 20 cn under the the point the rotor enters the skin the machine suggests
some conenctions, some 40 cm deeper again it appears to have some connections, etc.
So the main wiring is very well protected, and its probably better to try to neutralise components of the machine.

in no case the sheer metal parts of the thing need to be targetted, parts of the rotor close to the centre of it can stand much bigger shells then 5 cm (perhaps even more then 8 with inicidental hits), targetting that is in most cases useless.

Perhaps the lateral construct on it is more vulnerable then has been admitted, it sure looks like you wouldn't need 8cm to break it.(that small spider around the top-centre). You would still need a lucky hit, it wouldn't break by a simple hit on the shoulder i think.

So what remains to be seen is what are the weakest spots, connections, exterior munitions (i can think of munition countering munitions) , windows, (i think there is some chance they are one of the weaker points, yet they are pretty tough)
Also i think there are still stronger backup windows even when they reinforced the windows after the first versions. Apparently they fear a weapon that would exclusively or efficiently target the windows, not so strange where they are almost twice as weak as the rotor parts, repeated hits on single windows would cause it to break and let subsequent muntions enter the compartment, it is quite possible, that with generic and unsophisticated weaponry they are the best place to aim. However i am curious to the result of hits on the munitions, as they would at least also cripple it's tremendous capacity's of targetted destruction. For example some mobilised AA may be able to counter ap.s , without their missiles.

(the cannon it carries however destroys tanks so i don't think it's really worth trying.) In any case it's doubtfull that even discharging the munitions would persee be lethal to the helicopter, ofcourse really igniting its munitions would actually destroy it. ok i guess my antirotor bullets might just work here as well..

because, i found out one more weaker spot on the aps. the rotors.

2 man can carry one such rotor, wich goes to say that the titanium cover is relatively thin. i think i have seen heli's with damaged rotors tho, and as long as they don't break it doesn't matter a bit, so we have to break them.

Like the tail of the helicopter the weakest spot of the rotor is not close to where it attackes, yet its not halway the rotors either, ut depends teh precise construction of the rotor when it uses no glove the weaker spot could be between 50cm (bit more) - 1m of the center, when it does use some extended kind of sock it is more probably between 80cm and 1.40. Anyhow the point where the reinforced part thins to usual armour property of the whole rotor is the best place to break it.

yet with usual guns not much happens, titanium being harder then iron or steel, at huge speed, just reflects most of the metal that hits it.

so the firing system to achieve this should probably be dedicated (aiming electronically at that property of the rotors circle) like i said, such a system would function and be scary, it would not be sufficient with usual munitions.

Lucky for this planet they have me, and i just invented the tungsten tipped hollow charge composite destructor round. (perhaps its even possible to use agressive fluids like toluene for the 'hollow' charge.)

The point being, a: we have to penetrate the titanium. tungsten tipped should achieve that, b: with penetrating into the rotor 'composite honeyrate layer'
a hollow charge with properties that for example melt or disintegrate the composite content of the rotor (perhaps aluminium it worked against some tanks) or it's tungsten all the way and actually one could apply their own D>I>M>E. munitions concept to rotors. I am not quite sure, and i don't want to improve on the rotors.
however if they improve on them, there is no other option then to use similar materials like eg. industrial diamant or what they will start using when they also think of it, and if they don't use it yet. (its bad for the environment)

It does matter since i think a more complex composit might have you want to fire a more complicated, multiaction charge and i wasn't inventing that. however it shud be possible if one uses films or in another way, films ofcourse work best.in the very far future all charges will be composites constructed partly through films, logically.

I am not sure, can they nanotube the whole thing for the price it takes (63k)?
i don't think so, but it cud be they have special deliverys, i saw tennisrackets with nanotubes that hardly costed anything extra.

so my first guess would be to enforce the tungsten with nanotubes and still try to destroy teh composite by heat or chemical reaction.

Assuming we can create such charges, how will we create a sufficiently effective targeting system. Ofcourse we need a digitalised fire system, the optimal would be a completely robotic hmg, or perhaps a high firerate machine cannon. it would then target at the rotor on a set and specific distance form the center (eg. 90 cm would probably work but if closer to the centre the structure is equally strong closer to the centre is better,

next we could calibrate the fire to the rotors rotations, to maximise the nr of hits.
(note from the ground it's usually much easier to have a line of fire to the main rotor then to the tale one)in that way perhaps even a 1.5cm mg could down any chopper in 20 shots.

okay so much for the conventional tools, we could ofcourse defeat the enemy by it's own means and use drones instead.

okay so drones against helicopters,
impact drones an impact drone would chase a helicopter, or even wait for it to position itself and then charge it, and try to destroy it by the means of its impact,
Allthough a good chasing drone could destroy a helicopter in that way, teh drone would be little but a ameliorated rocket, and as such have less effect on the helicopter then repeated hits with hi-energy rounds, simpler rockets or...

the utterly annoying drone, different from the impact drone the annoyance drone doesnt aim to destroy the helicopter on impact but after impacts, for example molten metals that alloy with exterior moving parts, variety's of "paint bombs" (that could for example enlarge the radar shadow, or restrict the weapons in their accuracy.

Some of these could be promising, but most of them would probably result in mobility kills only.

Then there is the drone aerial combat vehicle, any kind of drone that tries to hit its target with submunitions would be that. I think this is also promising,
but its costy and for now the target it would provide the nato is to big.

then it's better to use smaller radio controlled vehicles or homing drones, as these would be much more costefficient.

For drones ofcourse it is imperial to think of sound attack methods, you don't want to loose a couple 100 dollar drone for nothing.

Fortunately helicopters are not build to defend against drones, the cannon can hardly be expected to engage multiple small targets at high speed on very different angles, assuming a slightly sub sound drone for example, even an apache would not turn fast enough to destroy multiples of them when they would angle in from behind.
It could have a tough time with one if the drone habitually manouvers.
(flys (some 20 cm) irregulary)

There is probably a lower limit to when the rockets the ap. carry's can catch teh drone. against this its either perhaps an option to use dummy drones, to use drones that cost much less then these rockets, or to build a speedier drone.

since the drones only need to home in once, certainly attacks with several drones would destroy helicopters, the anti airmissile the heli fires should be somewhat luckily aimed to engage a system that locks in at a speed comparable to it's.

oh well i guess just hate helicopters, i do, tehy are the typical sluaghter tool kind of weapon, the killing endless numbers of innocents and defenceless indiscriminately, and surpress any kind of resistance kind of weapon.
repressive weapons for "crowd control".

the uncommited suicide

Is one a martyr for being sentenced to 40 years of prison.. it seems so.
For my readers in the far future, today a mosque had been violently evicted, called: "the red mosque's" of all names. Since red is about the only word that worldwidely refers to social politics, a shocking affair indeed.

Wavering through the sub-lated rejects, i struck upon Ramzi Mohammed again.
I must say i have his name seen noticed before, and a picture of his and his best friend among the couple. Actually looking quite much as if they had just been interred after a narrow escape from some warscape, and deeply frustrated over the distrustfull nature of yurpkind respectively.

Relating the so much mentioned name to the bombings that really happened in london however, i thought the guys were dead.
Succesfull suicides so to say, and obviously deeply rooted in the ghosts worlds.

That Ramzi is a splendid thinker.. thanks, i apreciate usefull strategic thought.
I am fascinated. oh sorry i forgot to mention he is actually alive and apparently sentenced for being able to light a campfire in a suicide bomb, something different perhaps (although recently it showed he is by far not the only one in lighting campfires in suicide bombs).

I have doubts at large about the the real contexts of terror attacks,
i suppose that all varietys of involvement are well imaginable, since most explainable options remain obscure, and that does not very much neccesarily extend to
only western examples. Can't say i have not been inventive in trying to figure out de-escalating models of violence myself.

That is why it is so much in the open and with me i suppose.

What the red mosque concerned; I generally base my political opinions on civil libertys. A nation can then only have one singular authority for extraction of justice. Any other model fails, and federalist structures again and again proof that this specific tool ,the tool of justice , is generally helped by overview on the scale of internationally applied authority. And that there is procedural functionality and applicable benefit in coordination.

That every country benefits when a singularised militairy dictator leaves is another thing to keep in mind. In the de-escalating model, i fear the militairy, and then largely me, because the militairy is far more workable then private security,
sees no exact replacement for musharraf, plus he is quitte good for his job as president.

provided he remains on speaking terms internationally as well, wich definetly includes attention (or the fake of that) to human rights, and nationally, mostly by showing a constraint in violence ofcourse .

In the situations that have started through the war in afghanistan as well as showing the militairy he is respecting the value of human life. In the first place of pakistanis, M. does have a strong position now. For emancipating pakistan from the colonialist past and contribute what he can to a new and post imperialist era.

There is so much that matters, it is really so that to remain to the integrity of Islam; pakistan is a strongpoint. To remain strong, why would a good strategist want to be profiled as a weak or halfwit ruler. The only thing we really need is his integrity.

No capable governor of a country would let people without the opportunity to experiment and try, the story is they had some, and no legal ruler can allow his country to be ruled by sharia laws, since that is not internationally and presumably then ethically acceptable.
Musharraf being hardly a legal ruler as a militairy 'dictator'(4) btw.


Any emancipation of pakistani people will come through their ability to work with their selfdefinition of human rights. Since that is the universal standard to progress it must be the direction of our emancipation.(It is also the direction of our army's, any.)

You can work on the quality of human rights, perceivably improving them, so, positively adding recognised rights or aspects, but you can't work without or around them. In that we respect a slight room for experimentation as well, ofcourse, and it all to often gets abused i would say.

So it's of the table.
Are sharia acording to human rights? if yes, there is no need for controversy , Because the law covers and politics will be willing to cover the subject.
If no. It cannot be. Not sharia even or any martial law, if it is "not according to human rights".
(ofcourse i can see perceivable benefits of the sharia systems as well)

Find only sharia that is according to human rights (dignity etc. apparently still included) , and there will hardly be a problem, anyhow the concept or case will be known in legislation and certainly in international jurisprudence.

This means one can start an unlimited nr. of buro's to bring such an issue to representation in any politics, and perhaps more importantly to perfectly research and integrate that on the international level, as long as you adhere to these principles of human rights.

That is everywhere, Netherlands also knows her dogmatists that refuse this and don't do that.
Sometimes we let them, but if it gets dangerous, they have no justicial means very much, to get more out of it , then adaptive measures or a more patient then general treatment.

As long as the issue remains controversial (usually on the hobby-chicken flue level)
smaller quantitys of the issue tend to remain unsolved too, basically because there is really not much need to worry.

Painfully i must admit i am rather much at the base of a shitload of the current human rights concepts and whatever else in de-escalating models profile,
up to these wusname? These thingy's with the extra motor and the decent MG in the nose. Quitte a few rockets went on and i think the bomb layout is even slightly
nostalgic. I'm still embarrased over the slow speed but apparently it works, and it's 25 years old, so what should i think?(warthog)

These were largely designed to use against armour concentrations, and motorised armys
anyhow, but the guns were a succes. It also worked against planes and incoming missiles. It's quitte much a basic layout to incoming militairy dangers of that time,
it carries rockets originally mostly to counter the then abundant missile systems.

I evolved a habit of not mentioning any possible improvements for militairy gear aloud, i tend to immediatly forget them, but i bet they have quitte a huge stock of anti-armour bombs for the thing by now.
Eg. like twice what u need to whipe out any mechanised part of an army in the world.

Anyhow. I don't know what is up to that, although these bombs are useless.


Otoh. the apache i didn't like it, although it featured the same gun.

Helicopters facilitate shooting on infantry (or civilians), or maybe only that i had had helicopters hoovering over me by then, it is very intimidating. For me it is easy to realise what chance a human stands against an apache helicopter(3), there is so abouts 0% chance to even accidentally survive if it happens to aim for personel.

Such is my most particular kind of reason's to confront the attack on the mosque this way. Doing much about it, is 30-40 years late.

That's why i often consider writing science fiction storys.
Lift the imagination to another more practical level of applicated science.

Although now again my mind spins over improving the firerate of machinegunned devices. Accuracy is mostly a composite of the material in the util, it's efficiency is in updating the machinery concepts. The rest is only data. Some servomotor stuf.

I consider these goalkeeperlike concepts really succesfull since they stand a decent chance against air to surface missiles (never heard it failed) , and thus also are able to shoot down every other missiles within efficient reach of a similar weaponplatform. Unfortunately that is so encouraging i have a hard time not improving on the concept.

actually i wonder if similar things that would effectively range 15 miles exist yet, not to bad... although it is not really easy to target into the stratosphere.
I wonder if they know how to make barrels for that though. spose 7 miles would be barrel-limit now.

nah, guns, are not nice stuf.

Musharraf, being a militairy person, probably knows even better how utterly futile militairy resistance against the courses of this planet remains.

He doesn't seem to have very agressive intentions. Although the general show of arms is quitte solid, and then moreless defensively, the material is somewhat obsolete even in 1995(its over 30-35 years design) for european standards. Well right is he, in any case armour would be a sitting duck.
Armour are considered viable targets, viable victims. (for warthogs and other gear(1))

That besides, like i said before, Pakistan's is the only attitude that guarantees the arab world their own atomic bomb. Showing not to lack any dignity to cope with that internationally unfortunate situation. And still hold your head high.
Pakistan may feel the most embarrased nation on the planet, but it shows they have been holding their heads up, in strange ways.

Anyhow to know the arab world has an atomic bomb if needed and won't use it with egoist or greedy intend is the better guarantee for safety i see in that.

I have been watching tv rather deliberately yesterday, and i must say the atmosphere is weary to say the least.

I think it is relevant to see how very deeply pakistani this affair is, and partly has become, there is absolutely no relevance to lay any links to the international situation.
Ofcourse everything is interrelated, but this has really little to do with international threats, and very much with pakistan coping with a harsh and unasked for situation. In wich many sides face blame but from the international perspective only the future can bring a great relief, while it is not very hard to make things worse.

I don't know how correct my insight into that situation is, i must say it is nice to have been inspired by looking at the living faces of muktar and ramzi.
I think i honour ghazi as much as i can without loosing my own, in that.

(pause in the writing cus i slept)

And that is a fearsome thought. Ah the newest outlet confirms these guys had been making duds.I beg your pardon, but things that don't explode make me thinking.
mh, using h2o2 and flour, must be an internet receipt.
Didn't know 'al quade' inspired "and controlled" actions needed these.

Anyhow the whole name al quaida is thoroughly subjective, it is very hard to imagine
that a "radical" muslim group called al quada would have much to do with burkas
for example. It could be local resistance or post-modernists judging from the word.
a fundamentalist moslim group calling herself al quada is in the light of asimovs books about "the foundation" hardly plausible. But that is me. I also manage to "misunderstand" taliban for populace.

gl for now. i'll write again soon. I have an evergrowing list of subjects as long as i keep paying attention to what happens. Sorry if i am chaotically.

I'm still staring at the draft and a revision of the procedure is announces, what to think of that? I love this planet.


(1)Went like: yes, it needs double controls, yes, it needs mechanical controls, yes, it needs that armour, yes i want it to have 2 motors, it should have a small silhouet, etc.
The plane also basicly implements sovjet material structural strength together with advanced armour technology that was more western and thoroughly protects the pilot. (I was quite impressed how they did that one, i had never expected it to turn up in 1 piece, the thing is anyhow a miracle, since it is capable to cope with a build up of armour even the sovjet union could not achieve it basically beats evrything else by miles..) I must assume some slip of my tongues resulted in the firecontrol oriented 4 wheeled (i surprised) firing platforms(2) as well, but they are hardly as succesfull since the applications for deadly quick artillery are rare in de-escalating models.
They are also small benefit against thinly spread infanteristish forces in heavily accented terrain (like afghanistan resistance areas must be).
However if someone would decide to set up an attacking or defending army column they may still be usefull.

(2) Mh, must be why NL wants to dump these howitzers perhaps. These vehicles have a similar range , and you might mount them inside compounds.
Personally i think for sustained fire from fixed or defensive positions motorised howitsers are cheaper and more effective as long as you have aircontrol, but we would not need quite as many. The new thing (another one of the weaponplatform model)
would also take care of some airdefence, and howitsers would be a sitting duck, ofcourse.

(3) not much more then a 7 person warthog under rotors. With armour very much geared to operational crew, wich is elegant. But i haven't been paying much attention.
I would still think it is possible to gain a tactical advantage through exploiting the assymetrical layout, or basically involve it with more (2 times eg) guided missiles then it numerically carries. Provided a 50% succes rate on such singled out apaches (..) , it would easily pay after an attack or 2.

Still you loose 20-50 firecrews. Although beating a group of them would coordinately promise somewhat better odds. you would have to attack them in a lineair aproach formation though, i assume they go with 3 only when it gets serious,
dunno quite what to do about 3 in a triangle with say only 70 missile launchers, unless they are the very most advanced wich would up the chance of a hit from at most like 5% to perhaps 10-30%, (i can think of cheap systems that would score better in single assaults though, i must assume the western missiles recognise the apache, a rather easy feat..)

(4) I think it is very, very, hard to define who actually is or is not a dictator(i) so i maintain a theoretical concept of the concept, in wich roulation of legislative functions prevents the existence.
(i) I do actually consider every prolonged individualised presidency, dictatorship,
4-5 years(ii) and done. If your country cannot live up to that ceremony something is wrong, from wich follows the state is to authorical to be completely healthy.
(ii) I also like 1-term presidents way more usually. Most people serve best in their last period. Ban ki moon is brave there by trying to serve early.