Talk:Attack helicopter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opinion or fact?

The author wrote (or transcribed),

The US Army typically uses observation helicopters (such as the OH-58 and H-6) in support of attack helicopter. But it is starting to fall out of favor as the gunships are getting as sophisticated or more than the observation helicopters deployed to support them.

The US Army went to pure, single aircraft-type units in an attempt to streamline logistics lines and reduce the amount of money each unit had to spend on its parts requirements for maintenance. It has nothing to do with a supposed preference to work that way. Although I will admit there are those uneducated (no matter how educated) within the force who may see it that way. The pure MTO&E (I-series) occurred in the early 90's. All it did was create upheaval in doctrine, and unit operations. In addition, recent documents I've viewed at the Combined Arms Research Library[1] seem to point out that the U.S. Army actually drifted away from operating that way due to a focusing on what are now seen as the more traditional Cavalry or Attack missions, since the units no longer consist of a mix of reconnaissance and attack helicopters.

In the current conflict, this has changed, and once again, you see a pairing of the two different machines because one relies on the strengths of the other and vice versa, and the missions dictate the use of those combined strengths. (Born2flie 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

MH-60 vs. armed UH-1?

How has USSOCOM "developed" a new concept of Attack helicopter over the last 20 years? They've simply mirrored earlier U.S. Army, Soviet, British, etc. efforts to provide Attack support to ground troops by arming a utility-type airframe. It works for them because it streamlines their logistics tail (including pilot qualifications). (Born2flie 12:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Vietnam and the Gunship

I flew Cobras in Vietnam for 18 months and I have no knowledge of a "flexible rapid fire 20mm cannon" I was just going to question this but I see it edited out. The only 20mm cannon I remember were wing mounted, although a 20mm turret may have been added later. Dan D. Ric 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you might be thinking of the AH-1S that had flat panel canopies and a three-barrel 20mm gun mounted where the old grenade launcher used to be.--The Founders Intent 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the updates BTW. It might be worth noting that the interim Cobra, although much modified, remains in production 40 years later. Dan D. Ric 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, reading this article again, I think "The Modern Attack Helicopter" needs to be modified to include that information. Right now, it seems very U.S.-centric and very Apache-centric in its POV, when the fact is that the current conflict has thrown the Apache's apparent reign over all attack airframes into question. It reminds me of that laughable quote from The Military Channel's show Top Ten Helicopters where one commentator claims that, "Everybody wants to fly it, even if they won't admit it." (Born2flie 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Some would argue that the Apache did exactly what it was designed to do survive under fire. To quote one of the product designers when I was given a tour (my Grandfather was a VP for McDonald Douglas) "For what it can't fly through, the pilot will likely survive the crash landing." Now since it's personal expirence, obviously I can't put such a quote in the article. PPGMD 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some would also argue that point in denial of fatalities from AH-64s being shot down. My point is that this article is about Attack Helicopters in general, not leading to an opinion that one particular helicopter is the preeminent specimen. The reader should be allowed to arrive at their own conclusions. (Born2flie 20:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Attack helicopter

If you read the list of attack helicopters, don't you think it is ironic that the US names its attack helicopters American Indian tribe names? The Indians basically got destroyed by the US and then the US names its helicopters Indian tribe names. Is that to honor the Indians or what? Good friend100 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, where to start. The US Army actually names almost all its aircraft after Native American tribes, not just attack helicopters. THe UH-72A was recently named Lakota, and a Lakota chief attended the ceremony. Hard to attend ceremonies when you're destroyed. In additon, have you thought that maybe the US Army names its aircraft that way partly as an admission that it was wrong to have treated them so badly, even though no one in the US Army was alive at that time?

Btw, do the Turks name aircraft after the Greeks they slaughtered in Asia Minor? DO the Isrealis name aircraft after the Palestinians? THe Birtish after the Celts? The French (Franks) after the Gauls? The Arabs after the original (African) Egyptians, or the Persians (pre-Iran)? I could go on. History is full of despicable invasions and conquerings of tribes and nations by others. Why not stop picking on nations that have admitted wrong-doings, and spend some time going after those that have yet to admit their past wrongs? Oh, maybe the difference is that when you pick on Americans, we either capitulate, ignore you, or laugh at you (like I'm doing now!). These other nations have a tendency to behead their critics. - BillCJ 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not anti American by the way, I'm actually pro American and I support America unlike some of my ignorant Korean friends who forget American help during the Korean War. I'm just pointing out that its pretty ironic. Why not stop assuming everything simply looking at my userpage? Good friend100 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood your tone. However, I was somewhat basing my comments on my understanding of the following:

Isn't it ironic, how, after the USA destroyed the Indians, then name their own attack helicopters Indian names? Isn't it ironic how a "Native American" helicopter, used by the United States, is used to destroy the enemy when the name of the helicopter itself was destroyed 150 years ago? Good friend100 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It just bothers me sometimes when I read helicopter names. Good friend100 12:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

- Actually the Indians are quite honored by this tradition, and attend ceremonies quite often.--The Founders Intent 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it could bother you, but remember: The people who did that to the Native Americans have been dead for over 100 years. In recognition of those mistakes, the Army now choces to honor native American tribes by naming all their aircraft after them. It may be ironic in a sense, but as I stated above, what other Army honors its former enemies this way? There may be some, but none come to mind. - BillCJ 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was simply pointing it out the irony and I was NOT trying to attack America. Sorry if you misunderstood me. Good friend100 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Noticed the similarity between edits by the editor IP4.240.246.191 and a site I found while searching for information on the Bell 47. [2] The webpage in question has a copyright posted to it, and the editor (IP 4.240.246.191) referenced published works as his source. The similarities between the webpage, the edits to this and other articles while referencing published works are sufficient enough in my mind to raise the question and spectre of plagiarism. (Born2flie 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

Here is another site[3], that appears to have utilized similar information, but appears to be original. Still, as a copyrighted source, the information should be rephrased with the facts recognizable while the language is not. I'll return to rework the Algerian section. (Born2flie 04:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

Plagiarism act of plagiarizing:

transitive verb - to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb - to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

"the information should be rephrased with the facts recognizable while the language is not"

I don't believe merely changing words will change anything. It is not only the words, but ideas that are copied.--The Founders Intent 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Right, it needs to be more than just changing a few words. But we copy ideas, points all the time. Writing something out of an article or book in our words and adding reference does that. -Fnlayson 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• If something is copied, it should be entered as a quote with reference. Writing an article from several sources of information is not plagiarism but should referenced. Agreed!--The Founders Intent 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanderpoo's Fools

Colonel Jay Vanderpool, was the chief architect of the U.S. Army Attack Helocopter. He did not invent the concept, but he was one of the poineers. The problem I have is citing the true nature of the resistance to attack helos in the 1950's-60's army. His unit was called "Vanderpool's Fools". Their was a great deal of ridicule given not just to the concept but to Col. Vanderpool. The Time-Life series "epic of flight" goes in dept, but I no longer have the books. Any web sources? The Centennial of Flight just lists a brief diescription. SOmeday I woulde to do a wiki entry on the good Col. Lyta79 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Distinguishing

This article fails to distinguish between attack helicopters and simply "armed" helicopters. AllStarZ 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

After looking at this, I have to say I think this article should be simply about "armed" helicopters, and then distinguish in the text between armed helicopters and purpose built attack helicopters. Its a common lineage, and the transport turned gunship still exists to this day even in first world armies. This would also allow incorporation of the Helicopter Bombing article. -- Thatguy96 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, started dicussion at WP:AIR about it here. -- Thatguy96 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

- Actually this is kind of a good point. The first true attack helicopter in the US Army was the AH-1 followed by the AH-64. Then you would have the Eurocopter Tiger, MI-28, KA-50, Rooivalk, etc. The UH-1 gunships, MH-60, etc are modified with weapons, just like the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Maybe the amount of information should be the deciding factor to divide them up.--The Founders Intent 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been reconsidering this and maybe it is unnecessary to segregate gunships. What really seems to be the concern is tandem cockpits vs side-by-side cockpits. Instead of saying "true attack helicopter", I probably should have said "dedicated attack helicopter". Nevertheless we do have a Gunship article and an Attack Helicopter article on Wiki. Doesn't that seem strange?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

On the last point, the Gunship page has half a sentence on helicopters - how is that strange? It's certainly not much of an overlap. - BillCJ (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Bill, I guess that fact that we have both fixed and rotary wing gunships....makes it seems strange. Seems we could separate them better some how.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern Attack Helicopter section

This section is being butchered with the need to prop up the status of Russian attack helicopters. It's obviously written with an emotional perspective; totally unnecessary. The Ka-50 wasn't even designed for the same role, much less trying to make comparisons to the AH-64D. The Mi-28 came out later than the AH-64, and incorporated some changes from lessons learned. Furthermore the Russian concept of helicopter design is completely different for the American concept. If you want to make comparisons, then start a new paragraph and don't screw up the current one about being on a linked network. The last two edits should be completely removed and a separate paragraph created. There are reason why the AH-64 is slower than originally intended. We can talk about this further, but I we should first revert the edits. Oh, and don't forget to cite your sources.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Today, the attack helicopter has been further refined, and the AH-64D Apache Longbow demonstrates many of the advanced technologies being considered for deployment on future gunships. The Russians are currently deploying the Ka-50, and Mi-28, who are roughthly equilivent though these attack aircraft are not linked into a command and control system at a level which is quite comparable to current U.S. equipment although the choppers are faster and more agile. Many students of ground attack helicopter warfare feel that this is a requirement of today's modern armies, since attack helicopters are being increasingly incorporated as part of a linked support element system by most of the armies of the world.

This whole paragraph sucks. We're talking about technologies being considered for deployment in future platforms, and simultaneously comparing American and Russian helicopters in unrelated ways. This whole paragraph needs to be rewritten and re-thoughtout. I was going to let the last editor make these changes, but if I see no move to do so, I will erase the entire paragraph. This cannot stay the way it is.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, IMHO there does need to be a section on comparative designs, but why compare only US and Soviet/Russian designs? As you pointed out, the design issue is related to use, so probably could do with some mention of the Military doctrines for which the designs were intended. There was nothing in the US inventory compatible to Mi-24, but of course the Soviet Union never really fielded anything like AH-1 either, and they had 30 years to do so. If there is a future convergence in design thinking across the World, then this is an entirely separate section from my POV.-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was discussing the comparisons in the context of the current state of the section. Absolutely should doctrines and technologies of other countries be included in a future section dedicated to such comparisons. I just don't like the mixing of subject matter within the current section. It looks absolutely awful. The section needs at lease two reversions to remove the mention of Russian helicopter performance. Then a new section to include the reverted information plus more information associated with other countries. Am I making sense? If you look at the differences between the Cheyenne and Apache, you'll get insight into speed versus survivability and sophistication. The two were very different.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that USSR and US purposes were different. Unique Soviet ideas included the dual gunship/troop movement role in the Mil-24, etc., and the anti-helicopter helicopter as in the Havoc. The US has focused much more attention on pure attack birds, from the Cobra, through cancelled projects like the Cheyenne, to the Apache (including coordinated attacks with scouts via the Longbow system)

I'd certainly consider French and multinational European doctrines and designs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Close air support

Speaking from a purely U.S. perspective, the United States Army does not refer to any support for ground troops by helicopters as CAS because of the Key West agreement. The Army refers to attack helicopter units as maneuver elements capable of independent maneuver and fires on the battlefield and support to ground troops in contact is referred to as close fire support or direct fire support. I believe the Marines do not officially refer to helicopter support of ground troops as "CAS", but instead refer to it as close in fire support (CIF). It may appear to be mostly semantics, but each one (Army and Marines) has a reason for why the helicopter support of ground troops is not referred to as CAS. I'm curious as to how the services of other countries see the difference between fixed-wing support and rotary-wing support of ground troops, and whether the term close air support should be used in this article. --Born2flie (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Attack helicopter vs Gunship

Maybe this shouldn't bother me, but for accuracy's sake I think there is a definite distinction between the two. Let me explain, I see the armed UH-1 Huey as a gunship and the AH-1 Huey Cobra as an attack helicopter. To me an attack helicopter is a dedicated platform that plays a single role, and a gunship is a modified platform that plays a single role. I would considered the armed Black Hawk to be a gunship, while an Apache is an attack helicopter. Now of course there are more examples even with fixed-wing platforms, but I'm concentrating here for now. Am I wrong? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of times, the use of terms just seems a tactic to wikilink an article, even if the term doesn't exactly fit. I'm not sure if there is an industry or military definition that breaks down gunship or attack helicopter that specifically, but I support what you have proposed, as far as for use within the Wikipedia, particularly as these terms may be used to apply to helicopters. --Born2flie (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of a edit war probably because of the use of the wrong terms in different articles:

• Gunship - Specially designed helicopter with a slim two-seat fuselage, extensive protection and wide range of armament for roles in land warfare.
• Attack aircraft - Combat aircraft, usually aeroplane but sometimes helicopter, designed for attacking surface targets of a tactical nature; mission include close air support and interdiction.

From a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There are obviously conflicting definitions out there. Holding only to one narrow definition not supported by sources isn't the way to go. SOuces supporting the Mi-24 (at least in its later versions) being called an "attack helicopter" have been added to the article. They should not be removid without a concnesus to do so. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the Mil Mi-24 meets the definition above that came from Janes aerospace dictionary. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, the Mi-24 was designed from the beginning to be armed heavily - it was never merely a troop transport. Yes, it was designed to carry troops, but that was part of its role of armed assault. That proved to be misguided, and the Hind-D was developed as a dedicated attack model, with a new tandem two-seat cockpit. Even if one wants to class the Hind-A as a "gunship", the Hind-D/E/F models are clearly attack heliciopters, though with a large compartment that can carry troops, missiles, casualties to be evacuated, and so on. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Mi-24 is nothing more than a modified. Mi-8. It does not matter how well armed it is, since the AC-130 gunship has a howitzer on board. The first definition quoted above is completely false, since an AC-130 is NOT a slim two-seater. The second definition is irrelevant since we're talking specifically about an attack helicopter. Someone may think an Mi-24 is an attack aircraft, and someone may even read about it somewhere, but only those who have worked in this field know when a term is misused. The Russians specifically and deliberately chose not to pursue the course taken by the US in developing attack helicopters like the AH-1, AH-56 and AH-64. They chose to pursue the path of modification, which is characteristic of Russia design approach during that period. Please read anything related on Wiki, and Army documents....this is the only conclusion. The Mi-24 is a gunship, and always will be a gunship. The Mi-28 and Ka-50 are attack helicopters. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You;ve yet to provied reliable sources for any of your assertions - vague comments such as "read anything related on Wiki, and Army documents" don't count. In addtion, all they will prove is what some sources say, but other sources say differnt things. Since there is no single authoritavie source on these matters, all we can do is report what they both sides say. (The US Army is authritative for itelf, but nothing else.) - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that an Mi24 is not a transport helicopter modified to assume an attack role. Who says you're to take my word for it, read the article. You just agreed with the above argument, which I just destroyed without needing a single source. Prove the thin two-seater AC-130 with a howitzer is NOT a gunship. When you do that, your definition will be correct. BTW, the Mi-24 article states that IT IS A GUNSHIP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are varying definitions of "gunship" and they often overlap with what is called an "attack helicopter". The thin two-seater AH-1G has been called both in published reliable sources, probably even by the US Army. Again, please provide sources for your assertions that the Mi-24 is not an attack helicopter. And yes, the Mi-24 is not a transport helicopter modified to assume an attack role - it's not an Mi-8 with wings - those already exist. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And the Mi-24 article also calls it an "Attack helicopter with transport capabilities" in the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what Gunship means, but it seems to be an older term. Maybe because of improvements to rockets and missiles have taken emphasis away from the gun. Anyway gunship has been used to refer to both Armed and Attack helicopters. I think Attack Helicopter means a purpose built design, and has some anti-armor capability currently. Mil designed a narrower fuselage for the Mi-24, though not slender like an AH-1, A129 or other typical examples. -fnlayson (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Then based on this premise we need to to combine all articles into one, since all are armed helicopters, and gunship is thought to be archaic. All those helicopter can attack. See how easy it is to be loose with the definitions. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 09:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And since they ae used to "fight", and are "aircraft", we should place them all under "fighter aircraft". Works for me. :) Now when you're actually ready to get over the fact we don't just accept your word for everything you say without documented proof, we can continue the discussions. Until then, I'm done discussing this with you. Any changes to the articles against consensus will be handled as appropriate under WP policy and guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Then Bill, I'll assume you'll be sorting all the conflict between the three related articles that you've created. You should look at all the conflicting comments on their associated talk pages as well. Please take care of this as soon as possible, because you're in charge of this now. What I see is a consensus in conflicting content, and not much more. Hopefully there is WP policy to guide you. Best wishes. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guiding policiesa/guidelines are WP:Verifiablity and WP:Reliable sources. That's what we'll use in sorting out the conflicting statements in the 3 articles. If you have verifiable, reliable published sources to contribute, you are as always welcome to add them. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

<deindent> I thought watching engineers argue would be more exciting? Even if we combine the Armed helicopter and Attack helicopter articles, we will have to differentiate between the two anyways. Apart from whether or not the Mi-28 is a modified Mi-8 or not, Merriam-Webster does define gunship as a modified cargo aircraft[4] (per BilCat's comment on Talk:Armed helicopter); And as a dictionary, it is fairly authoritative, especially if other dictionaries agree with it.

User:MilborneOne references Jane's Aerospace Dictionary (also on Talk:Armed helicopter), but doesn't share what the definition is and states that the AH-1 would qualify as a gunship. Considering that the AH-1G wasn't originally designed to carry a gun (rockets only, baby!), it isn't likely that someone would've confused it as a gunship early on because it didn't have one. Maybe they should've referred to it as a "rocketship" and then we'd be having an argument about helicopters versus spacecraft?

The problem occurs because marginally informed authors write about the subject of armed helicopters. They believe because an aircraft carries a gun that it should be referred to as a gunship, and by that definition, even unmodified aircraft with only defensive armament could be considered gunships. I propose we start with Merriam-Webster's definition (it actually references a year of origin), and work from there. If nothing else, propose the discussion to WP:Air and WP:MILHIST. --Born2flie (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood the Webster definition to mean helicopter or cargo aircraft, not cargo helicopter or aircraft. Also, all the sources I've seen re: the AH-1 are that it had a turret for guns and/or grenade launcher, plus the ability to carry gun pods on the stub wings, from the very beginning (see [:File:Bell 209.jpg|this photo of the prototype with a gun in the turret]]), so it and the UH-1B/C Hogs both fit the Webster definition. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

but doesn't share what the definition is see further up this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which goes back to my original point that "There are obviously conflicting definitions out there." The usual solution when dealing with conflicting reliable sources is to jsut cite them both. The definitions do overlap enough that there is common ground. It could also be indicative of usage on different sides of the Atlantic, with British usage being later, coming after the arival of the AH-1 as the culmination of the evolution of the gunship in the 60s. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

YOu are right about the conflicting definitions and I think it may be better to have just one article so the differences attack/armed/gunship could be better explained and sourced rather than having three articles all with different criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne, thanks. You didn't share it on the other discussion I was referencing, but I now know what you were referring to.

BilCat, that prototype photo also shows TOW missile mockups, the Telescopic Sight Unit (TSU) in the nose, and the M197 20mm cannon. The M197 was first installed on the AH-1J in 1969, the TOW missile system and TSU were not part of the AH-1 makeup until 1973, when the Army requested that AH-1Gs be upgraded to carry the TOW missile system.[5] Greg Goebel says that the prototype was periodically upgraded to validate configurations. So, that picture is probably ca. 1973-4, if not later. However, Goebel also states that the prototype was originally equipped with a single GAU-2B minigun, and that was the initial configuration of the AH-1G, so I stand corrected. I still like my comment about using rocketship since its primary armament was intended to be 70 mm rockets. --Born2flie (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think your right on that photo. But guns were always part of the armament in some way, as with the Bell Model 207 Sioux Scout proposal. Even earlier, the [http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bell_d-255.php Bell D-255/D-262 proposals had gun belly mount and nore turrets. (Avuastar linked for the photos, nothing else.) So while rockets were easily part of the armament, they were not ever the only part. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)The AH-1G had a 0.30 or 0.50 in machine gun on its turret from early on. I thought maybe you were referring to an earlier design. -fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, GAU-2B is 7.62 mm (approximately 0.30 in). Bill, I checked some references and you are correct, a gun of some sort was always planned. --Born2flie (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Too much focus on American models?

Reading this article I very much get the impression that it's focus is too much on the development and role of attack helicopters in the American military. To avoid bias and POV there should be sections included about other nations and militaries as well. Especially the Russian MI-24 Hind is missing which was after all, despite it's troop carrying capacity, the first Russian attack helicopter and used extensively in that role during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Perhaps it should also be mentioned that the development of attack helicopters triggered the subsequent development of shoulder-mounted Surface-to-Air-Missiles like the Stinger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.85.98 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you add the content then? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redundant content

There is no need for the Type section now that the subsequent sections exist. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kazan Ansat

I am thinking of removing it from the list it seems more in the class ofKawasaki OH-1 which are lighter scout helis.Hindustan LCH also seems to be in this class. A new page on scout helis might help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstone (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)