BF2S Forums Planes or Helicopters?

The military channel says it might be helicopters. At least for the U.S. side. The Army's Apache and the USMC's Cobra helicopter forces can do a ton of damage. Just imagine if there's 16 up at a time against a full armored brigade. The armor would be no match because the helos can attack from a distance. 16 times let's say 4 hellfires a piece, thats 64 missiles, and I'm sure they have high enough of an accuracy. Very, very effective as compared to fast movers that require multiple go arounds to take out a couple of targets. Every second counts in combat.

Planes.

As weapons get more and more accurate, and as war gets faster and faster, there will be more of a need for weapons systems that can get in and out of a combat zone fast.  Planes are fast becoming little more than weapons deployment vehicles, so i find it doubtful that in the future the planes will even be piloted.  Hybrid helijets will never be able to compete with planes because of the added complications from the mechanical components which are invariably involved in such a system, along with the lack of maximum flight velocity.  In a world where the bombs find their own targets, planes own the sky. 

On a sub note, for the gunships, what could possibly happen in the next 130 years to make us drop the "fire and forget" capabilities on tv missiles for a remote guided approach.  That part of the gunship really surprises and annoys me.  What's better about forcing the gunner to waste valuable gunning time because hes guiding a nearly unmaneuverable missile into a target than letting the missile worry about that while the gunner scores kills with the primary weapon?

nonexistentusmc wrote:

The military channel says it might be helicopters. At least for the U.S. side. The Army's Apache and the USMC's Cobra helicopter forces can do a ton of damage. Just imagine if there's 16 up at a time against a full armored brigade. The armor would be no match because the helos can attack from a distance. 16 times let's say 4 hellfires a piece, thats 64 missiles, and I'm sure they have high enough of an accuracy. Very, very effective as compared to fast movers that require multiple go arounds to take out a couple of targets. Every second counts in combat.

The U.S. has a weapons system deployed bu aircraft that  can kill up to 64 different targets from ONE bomb.
However there will continue to be a mix of the two, each has advantages, and each has disadvantages.

Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-09 22:35:37)

Both.
As wars get more fierce, planes will have to be used for large area destruction, while helos for a single target, like a tank. They will have to team up. Planes will soon be able to fly without a pilot, making them cheaper to produce, and making it safer for everybody. Plus, they can be mass produced in sheer numbers to counter against SAMs and other jets, while other jets can be more powerful and effectively counter missles by itself using advanced counter measurments. So, planes first crap on the main threats like missles, AA vehicles, other jets, bases a bit of armours and stuff, and the helis come for remaining vehicles. Bombers and tankbusters like A-10 though, may eventually replace helicopters because they can carry more ammo, and the weapons can usually attack more than one target. There are already bombs that can take out more than 60 targets with one bomb, like nlsme said. However, in urban warfare, helicopters would be use more frequently than planes due to its smaller but precise area of destruction, and that it won't kill as much civilians like planes.

Last edited by thtthht (2007-01-09 22:57:01)

None of the above. Orbital weapons platforms. Ones that shift in and out of real space would be nice. Too bad we have to think about how we'll fight one another in the future. I hope the human race can mature a bit before we spread out into the solar system.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-09 23:19:45)

Spark wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

None of the above. Orbital weapons platforms. Ones that shift in and out of real space would be nice. Too bad we have to think about how we'll fight one another in the future. I hope the human race can mature a bit before we spread out into the solar system.

But they might mave a bit of trouble against well-concealed fast moving targets...

Concealment may be a bit difficult by that point. If you really had to, you could just launch a bunch of sand at speeds just below that of light in a wide pattern.

But fast moving targets? What about accuracy? There are far too many variables in aiming such a thing - it's not like a satellite (even satellite's take several minutes to position yourselves, far too long). You need to be able to spot a target then fire within a second or too - can it maneuver that fast? A helicopter can.

Spark wrote:

But fast moving targets? What about accuracy? There are far too many variables in aiming such a thing - it's not like a satellite (even satellite's take several minutes to position yourselves, far too long). You need to be able to spot a target then fire within a second or too - can it maneuver that fast? A helicopter can.

The entire satellite doesn't have to move. That's what turrets are for. Of course, we're talking about computers handling targeting and evasion.

Spark wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

UAVs with hellfire missiles. And helis for rescue and extraction.
Any maned fighting aircraft will be obsolete in the not so distant future.

I never said they had to be manned. UAV's would come under planes, I assume.

But one thing interests me - the fact that most people have said helijets. There's no way they would beat a jet or a heli in a 1-on-1 fight, right?

Atm the most well know UAVs are planes, but there are also heli type UAVs. I really think it depends on what you want to achieve with the war. Planes are better for destruction, while helis can be used as support to ground troops in an occupation. Both have different roles and neither can be done without.

If anything planes can be replaced by SCUD and Tomahawk cruise missiles, while the role of the helicopter can not be replaced by anything (that I can think of). But again it will have to do with the aim and situation of the war.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Spark wrote:

But unless you're talking laser cannons it's going to be very hard to hit an erratically moving motorbike. It would take at least 10 seconds (even that's a ridiculous figure) for any projectile to hit the target, which is a tad too long unless the target is still (in which case you wouldn't use such an advanced weapon to take it out, just use a tank or a bomber or something) or you use a nuke (which wouldn't be a great idea to take out a guy on a bike).

Plus OWP's (which is what i'll call them) can't do insertions. Planes can to an extent, heli's are the best.

A low-orbit platform with a computer-guided 'precognitive' targeting system launching projectiles at super-fast velocities could hit it. If you cause the 'bike' to wreck, you don't need a direct hit.

So your talking... 15km up, firing projectiles at, say, 5km/sec? That's a very low orbit. The problem then is that you would need thousands to cover the territory you need, or waste countless hours maneuvering them in position. Then you're stuck between wasting time or wasting money, both of which aren't good scenarios.

Much easier, quicker and cheaper to get helicopters/jets to do a recon, and call in a tactical bombing run if required.

Not practical.

You're talking about using a multibillion dollar weapons platform to attack targets which can be easily attacked by conventional aircraft.

By 2142, sticks and stones could be the weapon of choice.