Defeating helicopters with available tech

can't you shoot flak at them?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x575, 294.88K)

See vid related.
Around 20 minutes, the helicopter camera is fully zoomed in. I do not know how much that distance is, but it is surely more than 800m Effective firing range for the m14 . Unless the helicopter is hovering overhead, I do not think it will be enough. This is also a civilian helicopter, I presume the police carry higher grade cameras.
Read:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_infrared

I think that's honestly preferable, to make helicopters something you don't face off against.
Making them a non issue until their lack of fuel sources defeats them.

So, if we don't have access to anti-aircraft weapons, and the helicopter flies at altitudes too high for small arms to effectively hit, then the solution might be drones.

Ram them into the heli, or go full autism and turn them into explosives.

The average does not have the capability to produce something that shoots flak, I do not think atleast. Maybe a tube aiming at the helicopter, shooting various rockets with timed fuses for different altitudes could be used. Rocket candy is not hard to make.

That is a good idea, but I assume the enemy would just immediately retaliate by using jammers. If you can make the drone autonomous to where it only relies on it's sensors to fly into the helicopter, you will solution to the jammer problem,

A turret with a gun mounted will also work.
If the unit is cheap enough, you can just pop it down somewhere to harass the enemy surveillance helicopters, and force either their infantry to move in to deal with it or use an expensive missile to take it out.

The military was unto this idea 70 years ago. Mimicking what they had should not be too hard.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (1280x960 46.79 KB, 363.18K)

Just tie a dozen of them to a net, add explosives and send in the general direction of the enemy. If the net gets caught it'll take the drones with it and it all works even if some of them get shot down.

Can't get shot down by a helicopter if you're the one flying it

Attached: ollesafeee[1].jpg (800x450, 37.17K)

This is what everyone did during the Arab spring and the following rejection of Mr. Time person of the year Muslim brotherhood president in Egypt.

Attached: e26_83488484.jpg (1247x821, 567.5K)

Don't forget the car windows.

Since a helicopter is subsonic, why can't you use acoustic homing?

I remember this chase, I think the camera guy says hes at like 6 -7 miles away. News companies assist with chases like that so their equipment is similar to Police shit.

The laser light show was trying to get the chopper to crash on purpose?

Lol put tannerite on a Drone and fly it above the blades

Attached: k - SAM.png (1175x451, 117.81K)

You shoot them. HMGs can fire well up to 2000m, get anything remotely high cal and shoot it at them.
In the modern battlespace, helicopters have little combat role. Their role is primarily reserved for recon and rapid troop transport, the former of which is more of a thing reserved for conventional warfare, rather than the asymmetric warfare of today.
What the Canuck above posted is also somewhat relevant, as due to widespread hobbyist electronics anyone who put their mind to it could no doubt build a basic MANPADS. I think I remember reading something about ISIS building something of the sort when they were at their peak.

Even if you couldn't cobble together an IR seeker (which is straightforward in concept if not in execution), what about massed "dumb" rockets with either a range or altitude-based fuse?

Jerry rigging AA sights onto any big boy round, think 8mm, .30-06 for example and it shouldn't be too much of a challenge especially if its slow moving Hell, 7.7 Arisaka's came with an AA sight on them. On the topic of MANPAD's as the cap I provided, it shouldn't be too hard to do them given a basic rocket launcher set up is less than 40 dollars of shit, I'd convert my bazooka over to something that theoretically heat seek but the 2" tube I'm using just dosen't afford me the lovely space needed.

I wouldn't bother with a range/altitude fuse, I'd go for something a little more man controllable like a remote of some sort think a prepaid phone.

Attached: german laser leopard.jpg (800x752 702.6 KB, 86.89K)

Nevermind the filenames, I am a colossal faggot and as such I suck cocks.

Attached: 1394157462806.jpg (1200x1803, 586.63K)

Maybe even attach a rocket to the drone to make it go further.

Buy a huge fucking Rubin and mount it on pickup truck

Attached: Self-propelled_laser_system_1K17_Szhatie.jpg (2250x1425, 2.02M)

The military got rid of him iirc. They had the support of the soldiers I believe m

You'd overheat too fast. The best bet is having a long space blanket and plank walking around

Just pick up a powerful rifle and shoot in the correct place or try to kill the pilot

You aren't going to shoot down a heli with basic small arms shit, at least not if it knows about you, since the moment it does, it picks up altitude to get out of range. If it was possible to down a heli with basic shit, you can bet sandniggers would have already figured it out and utilised it.

Good luck actually hitting with it before the asshole in the cabin opens fire on your dumb, flashy ass. This shit is only effective when used by civilians who the pilots are forbidden from killing.

What you CAN do, however, is render the heli useless by entering a forest, at which point it's blind and can't do shit.

You just need a really big laser pointer.

The Kurds have shot down multiple Turkish helicopters using just their PKPs

Just cap the supply lines of the enemy.

gonna need some source on that part, since as far as I know, Kurds use MANPADS to shoot down enemy helis. Then again, it's not as though it's impossible to shoot down a heli if it maintains low altitude, but for that the pilot must not know about you or be retarded, which is highly situational and is not going to help you in most cases.

Such toys have minimal range when it comes to actually setting things on fire (else you could just phase out anti-air missiles entirely in favour of lasers – they'd shoot down any aircraft at the speed of light and no flares or maneuvering would help them) and just being more intensive doesn't help you that much – consider how small the heli is gonna be when high enough, and consider you'll be under fire.

Yeah, unless it has FLIR, like every military, coast guard, police and news helicopter does

except FLIR does not actually penetrate heavy foliage, so unless you're making your escape in winter, the forest canopy is gonna hide you from it

Garage made Fliegerfaust.

The only reason blinding lasers aren't used in warfare is because of international laws, but guerilla warfare is 'illegal' by default.

You don't. You destroy or capture all refueling points (or better yet, destroy ways to bring in fuel) within operating distance.

You have to break the helicopter into the different parts that give it the danger. Helicopter, pilot and logistics. If one of these is missing the helicopter itself will not be a threat. If you are not able to down enemy helicopters through AA you might focus your efforts on ambushing supply convois and forcing them to waste their remaining fuel in long flight missions.

Hey, he passed me before the news helicopter got there.

The news heli was the only heli in range to see it, and it almost lost it. One of the police helicopters was out of range, trying to catch up, while the other ran out of fuel and had to RTB.

Maybe in Czechlandia, Europe, but it sure as hell isn't thick enough in the hill country of Texas.

You have to remember that Turks are barely human so this tactic might not be effective on other countries helicopters.

While blinding weapons are banned via the Hague convention, no one who actually fights in wars has signed that piece of toilet paper. The real reason why they are not used is because they are expensive, delicate, take a lot of energy to use, and make you a giant glowing target for anyone who wasn't blinded by it. This is the same reason why blinding searchlight tanks used by the soviets in ww2 never worked out. Plus if you identify an enemy and can point a turret at them, it would be more useful to shoot them with a cannon than blind them with a laser. Also partisans are a war crime. Uniform guerrillas are not.

Attached: Brightidea.PNG (209x369, 41.59K)

Video recognition has gotten good enough today that a dedicated autist could likely program a video-guided missile, one that is targeting the actual image of the helicopter rather than a signature. It wouldn't even have to be a large missile, just a rack of 3' rockets either pdfrelated or liquid fueled (amateur rocket forums have recipes).
If anybody's good with either machine learning, or neural networks, or vector analysis programming

youtube.com/watch?v=QPgqfnKG_T4
Vidrelated is the guy who build a squirrel-shooter with Python and some servos, you could use similar ideas to ID helos and launch and guide the missiles. Only thing is that it'd have to be on-board, which ups the cost but Raspberry Pi's and arduino's aren't expensive really. We're talking a small shaped charge on as the payload, maybe like a 16oz EPF on top of a 2-stage, each 3 engine stage using G79-0T or something.
youtube.com/watch?v=MHNgRbmhbeI
Vidrelated is a good video of a single stage single engine G77 rocket.
youtube.com/watch?v=YOz-HTimVfs
Vidrelated is a multi-stage, engine-cluster rocket using 40n.s. engines (F's, probably).

Total per rocket: $

Just do what the IRA did and launch a propane tank full of RDX at it when it's at the landing pad. Way cheaper. Take down a couple of them and it'll get too expensive to keep up the effort.

lmfao two kinds of people.

But seriously if you could have video-guided rockets, you could have them planted in sleeper boxes around your AO activated by the sound of helicopters, aim at the sound, and launch.

Attached: 6784948daa5b5ac3b54c025d44c2e48c0ebc1c346cf1b2d0f21df6a26193a883.jpg (248x189, 14.86K)

The Jap's MANPADS already work on machine vision to supplement its IR seeking to deal with countermeasures. Though liquid rocket fuel is a massive hassle and is NEVER cost effective to store and use on anything but a space rocket that needs variable thrust.

The US is to big for helicopters. see this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Frein
1000 officers, 4 helicopters with thermal imaging, tracking dogs, Lenco BearCat's, etc. Who would win, 1 sneaky boi in the woods on the run or 1000 officers equipped with dogs, heli, and armored vehicles? All it takes is some woods lmao 45 days it took him. 45 days.

Shoot them when they're parked

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (864x1080, 2.06M)

programming a neural net to recognize a helicopter and programming it to link this recognition with the rocket's current position and correct its course are two insanely different things. Flight control is hard enough on Cessnas.

Rambo was a documentary?

I'm sure I'm grossly oversimplifying this, but with a sufficiently large relative velocity couldn't you just tell it to keep the target in the center of its field of vision?

A Cessna isn't programmed to crash. The basic missile guidance algorithm was solved decades ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

Nah, assuming the camera is mounted properly you just have to get an X and Y change and get the flaps to adjust the rocket to center the previously established recognized helicopter in the camera. Whether you use neural nets or simple image recognition, once it's recognized then I'd think it's easy to code the flight path. The recognition is the hard part?
you'd be right, but if it can recognize what a helicopter is, and where it is on the screen, you could use that information to adjust flight I'd presume. Might have to be a decent resolution/framerate to do it but we're not trying to control a Cessna, we're going full suicide 1-shot 1-way 1-stop. You've got 2 axis of control on a rocket, shouldn't be too difficult logically, though the code might take a while to write.

that's what I'm thinking, you just have to make sure it has sufficiently large relative velocity.

Another issue I see is payload management, AH-64's and other military helicopters and even civilian choppers are rife with redundancies, so as long as you're just trying to scare it off (and they do get easily scared) you could just use a small EFP or even a reloaded 40mm HE round, but to get a guarantee on the target you'd have to upscale the whole thing.
But they scare easily so maybe I shouldn't worry about it.
sage for doublepost

Recognition is the easy part. Aerospace math is incredibly hard, especially for rockets. The control surfaces are small and have to be precisely shaped and calibrated. The rocket itself has to be perfectly balanced for the "model" the code is using as well. I'm sure it could be done, but like I and said just shoot it when it's parked.

You need either multiple rockets or precise canards to steer a rocket. Ideally both. I'm sure you could make a cheaper, effective missile along those lines, especially if it was designed as a guerilla helper not a 45,000 feet B52 interceptor, but there's no fucking way it's gonna cost $250

oh and as an aside there's infinitely more controls than 2 axis on rockets, there's pitch, roll, yaw, thrust, and a changing center of gravity every millisecond as fuel depletes. It's not "send X missile to Y place". How does the missile calculate what flight path to take by image recognition alone? It needs distance, size, and if it's tracking it needs to be able to acquire this info on it's own. It is so insanely mathematically complicated that unless you're an Uncle Terry level intellect or a PhD candidate at MIT/Stanford I wouldn't even recommend wasting your time trying, unless it's as an exercise to improve your aeronautical and technical knowledge which I would wholeheartedly encourage.

While I am in no way saying Aerospace math is easy, a number of model rocket clubs have developed automated ways to keep their rockets vertical, pointed towards "UP", I wonder how much more difficult it would be to code it to point at "Helicopter".
You are correct, it'd be easier to blow it up on the pad but that's not always an option.

Well, again, we're not designing a rocket to go to space, just to keep the target in the center of the camera until it runs into it. Small enough rockets like those in the video can reach 2,000ft with simple wooden fins. It would need no more information than to keep the Helicopter centered in the camera's view, if the camera was zeroed properly.
And I may just be incredibly naive, I am willing to admit that, but it is as fun conversation.

Also, for kicks and giggles, here's a 2,000lbs of thrust sugar rocket that hit 28,000ft and the damned thing weighs 100lbs!

You're not understanding the main point. Ballistics keeps things with thrust in flight. That's not hard. Just shoot a bullet at a high angle. What's hard is to control something and changing its vector, sometimes hundreds of times a second. That's not a hyperbole for the potential amount of corrections a rocket might make just to stay stable let alone move its vector.

The jump between "go up" and "go towards helicopter" is the level difference between "go forwards" and "drive to McDonalds on 1st Ave in Detroit, then drive to Kansas City, then drive back but skip the tolls" for a car. Any servo can "step on the gas" so to speak. Guiding and launching are two utterly different things. There's a reason cruise missiles cost millions of dollars for an aluminum tube and a metal bell filled with hydrogen and explosives. (And it's not just the defense contractors being Israeli owned *cough cough*)

Yeah, that. Even if you're just using PID controllers for pitch/roll/yaw, you still need to calibrate the thing, which would require either trial-and-error by way of successive launches and recoveries or else suspending it by the center-of-mass in a wind tunnel. And if you're using canards for attitude control, won't the force scale with airspeed? Still, it wouldn't be unreasonable to get it "close enough for practical purposes".

On a solid fuel rocket?

Or thrust vectoring, if you want to be really high-tech. I've seen some ameteur attempts with deflector vanes in the exhaust stream, but I don't see where it has any utility (for the complexity) over some tail fins and servo motors.

ok fuck rockets stick with the plan in

if youre far enough away, what about strapping an rc setup to a rocket? nobody said they had to be completely automated, and a primitive TOW/R missile shouldnt be too hard to make. the only difficulty would be keeping it stable on its axis, though gyro stabilizers arent exactly unavailable. course, then youre down a couple hundred dollars worth of gear, but those idiots are down a few million.

now this is a prototype, and they havent taken it any further that im aware of, but it could be done.

sage because im being a pedantic cunt, ballistics keep things with VELOCITY in flight, whether that velocity is currently being imparted via rocket, or has already been imparted like a bullet.

what that video shows is relatively simple and easy to program compared to a guided rocket, the actuators move the fins at a prescribed degree based off a single input from a sensor(per axis) that detects when its vertical.

it would be interesting to see if you could take that same rocket and program it to respond to a thermal camera(not cheap by the way), and the trial and error trying to tune the rocket would be crazy expensive because you wouldnt be recovering any of the rockets in your tests.

The most cost effective way would be to attack the choppers while they are parked like others have said

the more cost effective and probably easier to program would be to train a quadcopter to chase the helicopters heat signature until it crashes into it. that of course is if quadcopters can even fly that high, im not sure what their maximum altitude is capable of because remote control ones are limited to 1500ft or so. Once the first helicopter gets hit that they will know to fly higher than 10,000 feet when they see you launch a drone,

There's a module for arduino for like 40$

Defeat fighter jets by tying a drill bit to a party balloon and floating it over the runway.

Strelok pls.

i should have made it clear, i meant have that arduino set-up to keep the rocket steady on its axis, while still allowing control inputs so you can fly it into your target. then for testing, just have a simulated payload, and stick a parachute into it that you can pop once the fuel runs out for testing.

these can't carry as much shit tho

How much C4 would one drone need to at least force a helicopter out of action by ramming into it and exploding?

You all seem to forgot the obvious answer.

None.
All you'd need to do is fly the drone into the blades, or if you want to get creative have the drone carry a very long ribbon or net and come in above the copter to tangle shit up. There's only a slim possibility of it even doing anything, but any pilot with brain cells is going to fuck off real quick.

But before you get any spicy ideas, here's an interesting story of a guy that lost sight of his drone, which ended up eventually impacting a blackhawk (which was fine, basically)
aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/december/14/drone-far-beyond-sight-during-black-hawk-collision

That would have zero effect. Modern helicopter blades can be shredded by machine gun fire and still work, cutting through a drone or bird would be simple.

True, helicopter blades are tough as all hell and aren't going to shatter easily.
You could, however, put a small explosive on the drone and it might scare them off. Helicopters are easily scared, even military ones but especially police and news choppers. Just the threat of a small drone-borne explosive might be enough to chase off some of them.
(kek'd)
Based Hungarian shitposter.

No, but they could be modefiled to carry a payload.

I don't think a small throwaway drone made out of styrofoam and plastic would do much to the blades of a modern day military helicopter.
Having it not explode could also lead to it leaving fairly recognizable traces of drone wreckage behind, whereas a small flying wing suicide drone loaded with a bit of C4 or some other explosive guided by a simple heatseeker would be more apt crash itself and occasionally its target with no survivors.
It'd also attract much less attention compared to a conventional MANPAD.

A drone with a bola dangling under it.

Attached: bola.jpg (800x800, 60.15K)

Train geese to fly towards helicopters when they see them. It will be like when Cactus 1549 hit them birds and the engines went out.

Attached: CskmQStVIAA6zeM.jpg (1200x675, 63.97K)

What about using webm related? Burgers can legally own these, right?
The average Zig Forumsommando should be a good enough shooter to hit a helicopter at 800m with these.

Attached: 14.5mm.webm (846x486, 311.11K)

Attached: picrelated.jpg (1800x1205, 419.31K)

If you have 12.7mm (50 BMG) Armor Piercing Incendiary you can just shoot the fuel cart while they gas up the bird. That'll douse the entire bird in fuel with the explosion, kill the pilots while they burn and kill some of the crew. No one will even wanna go NEAR a helicopter, let alone fly one after that.

You're getting closer, but yeah thrust vectoring is essentially out due to cost (unless you can improve on that? that'd either cut costs or increase accuracy for the same price) but solid fuel rockets either need to be aimed like bullets or artillery then lit (so they have a constant ballistic coefficient and predictable path) or they need to be able to target track. Target tracking is the hard part because your fixed fin rocket now needs to have servos, changing ballistic coefficients, changing air densities as it climbs, corrections for wind, etc. I'm sure the cost has dropped since the 80's to do it, but it's still insanely complicated. I'm sure if you had the right background you could spend $100,000 worth of time coding said guidance into the rocket, and then just copy and paste the firmware onto $2500 rockets, but the ability to do so is the hard part. If a guerilla movement is lucky enough to have a defense contractor with that knowledge among them, great! If not you'll be blast fueling crews and parked birds with a .50cal.

If you shoot out the engine and rotor connection that's the your best bet depending on how good a shot your team is. They won't let a bird with a shot out spindle go up. The fuel tanks are self-sealing too so don't bother with em. Engines and rotor spindles (top and rear)

Attached: 1543190678551.jpg (1920x1080, 344.36K)

Actually just a simple paint package would do, it doesn't need to be a bomb. Most helicopters can't land on instruments only, covering the cockpit in paint is basically a death sentence, they have to autorotate down which means broken backs and months of repairs for the chopper.

Show us where to shoot it uncle strelok

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-657-6304-24,_Luftwaffe,_Modelle_eines_Bombers_und_Jägers.jpg (1200x675 38.16 KB, 81.24K)

The future of warfare unveiled!

Attached: 95f0d2ce0b7ff7322b0ce4a57c2975d3c24d0cc410d86ec822bac993b2795dd7.jpg (478x417, 27.98K)

Attached: 895ed04b414bd337cb87873cab3267b75ed783eb0816079fed086c77e8a10cd9.jpg (1200x675, 214.47K)

If you have 5 shots put 3 in the engine and 2 into the transmission and rotor spindle. If you have 10 shots put 3 in the engine, 3 in the transmission/spindle and the rest into the IR tracking pod/sensor pod on top of the rotors. They engines on an Apache unbolt so it's a bitch of a job, but not totally impossible to replace. They can run on one engine too so wreck the engine and the transmission, then blind them by blowing the sensor pods apart. The sensor pods cost almost as much as the engine, but they detach for a quick swap. The transmission does not and will ground the bird.

Same with a Blackhawk, transmission first to ground it, then engines to increase the time and cost of repairs. Then expensive doohickys on the outside of the bird.

The easiest way is to just shoot the missiles if they're dumb enough to load them and arm them on the tarmac. Hellfires have their warhead just behind the first set of of fins. Wait for the fuel crew to start gassing the bird up, let em load the missiles, then shoot the missiles so the the fuel line ruptures and sprays gas all over the crew fueling and the pilots, if the initial explosion doesn't cack them all to begin with.

This info is, of course, for the purpose of KILLING INVADING CHINESE SOLDIERS WHO HAVE CAPTURED U.S. EQUIPMENT *COUGH COUGH COUGH* and I'm not just saying that as a disclaimer, U.S. crews usually AREN'T stupid enough to do any of the things I said above, they wouldn't re-arm it and gas it at the same time, or leave it lying around with missiles plugged into it.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x889 49.29 KB, 1.21M)

Attached: 3ef52aeaaa10430a9acbed9a18c583d9b63a29ea5329c1d06e857884660232da.jpg (1200x675 68.46 KB, 133.36K)

You're overcomplicating things. Is pic related capable of complex aerodynamic and ballistic calculations? Fuck no. But it was more than sufficient to regularly intercept everything from Hueys to Phantoms.

Attached: AA-2_seeker[1].jpg (1790x2640, 1.67M)

Sidewinders and AA2's have complicated avionics and cost $85,000 each.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x628, 467.75K)

$85,000 in govbucks equates to around $14.99

I have 0 argument against that. The components he linked, the servos in the rocket and the aluminum tube and fuel probably cost $2000 max. The expense comes from programming them to seek heat or the shape of helicopters. Maybe the heat sensor cost an extra $500 on top of that. But the point is getting cheap components to function in that way is institutionally expensive. Training someone in aerospace/mechanical/electrical engineering, fabrication, etc costs a shitload more than the missile itself. Look how much assholes who build websites charge, then scale it up by a billion by the time those guys have to jump through the technical (and legal, security clearances) hoops.

...

True, which is why a grassroots 'fuck you' movement might be able to fund it. It might cost $1,000 per rocket (according to basic sugar-rocket costs plus avionics), so that's just raw materials. Add to that machining costs and assembling etc…. still, I'm interested in how difficult it actually is to guide a rocket in a self-aimed TGM-style movement. Will do more research.