It’s very unlikely the drone hit the Apache on purpose. Why ? Because these drones are not guided remotely by an operator once they are launched. They are akin to cruise missiles. There is experimentation in Russia for drones with anti-air missiles but that’s very much an exception.
So the most likely scenarios are :
The Apache tried to down the drone and either collided or was hit by debris of the drone.
The Apache was very unlucky and got hit by the drone cruising to its programmed destination.
Either way, it is very unlikely the Iranian drone was remotely guided to hit the Apache.
Furthermore this was in the middle of the night making it difficult for an Apache to avoid collision. They were using NVG to navigate at that time of the day in this region. Also the pilots managed to ditch in the Detroit of Ormuz without getting very injured, since there isn’t an ejection seat on Apache that means their helicopter was not heavily damaged by the drone hit. If the military payload had really exploded on hit, the Apache would have been much more damaged and would be unlikely to protect the pilots and let them ditch in the sea and escape.
The rescue mission was done by an unmanned sea drone which indicates that the US army wasn’t confident in sending airplanes or other helicopters to the rescue zone. So it is possible that there was risks for Iranian anti-air to shoot down an air rescue mission.
So no, it’s most likely not cope. If you look on the shaheed drone specs, it is not designed to destroy aircraft and are akin to “dumb and slow cruise missiles”.
I’m no expert in weaponry but if anyone is interested I based this comment on this video :
What if it happened somewhere Iranians could guess there could be US helicopters around and they sent dozens of drones? After all those helicopters fly at somehow predictable altitudes.
It happened in the Detroit of Ormuz so both side expected enemy presence there.
But honestly why would the Iranians use such an inadequate type of weapons to shoot down an apache ?
It would be like using a machinegun to kill a fly.
Or using an artillery barrage to shoot a plane.
The video I used as a source mentionned the crash of an Ukrainian MIG in the conflict with Russia that got damaged by the “frag” projected by the Shaheed drone he had destroyed. So there is precedent of airplanes going down while attempting to intercept and destroy slow moving drones.
The same thing could happen to an Apache attempting a drone intercept in pitch black night.
The shaheed drone are supposed to be cheap alternatives to cruise missiles and fatigue your enemy in forcing him to use expensive equipment to intercept or accept casualties on the ground. They are not an effective anti-air weapon.
This is the fog of war. Nothing is certain, all I can tell is what people with experience on that kind of mission and weaponry think is likely or unlikely.
At the very least, it seems a purposeful hit by the Iranian drone is one of the least likely scenarios according to publicly available informations.
Was it a confirmed direct hit? Might have been that the Apache was on drone defense duty and the Shahed shrapnel after interception got an lucky/unlucky hit - that’s actually much more likely than succeeding in hitting an Apache with an Shahed on purpose. Shaheds are pretty bad at hitting fast moving targets - they mainly get preprogrammed paths to follow. There are remote control variants in Russia to enable live tracking of faster targets, but even then an Apache has a huge maneuverability advantage, and Shaheds are slow in comparison to most anti-air missiles.
With drones everywhere an accident is going to happen once in a while. Pilots can make mistakes, equipment fails, or sometimes shit just happens. It’s not that crazy.
A drone hitting a helicopter by chance is so astronomically unlikely its not even worth considering. If it was there then it was trying to hit the helicopter. Its not like a road where there is a shared path, its the fucking air where there are practically infinite paths for a drone to take.
You’re making it sound like they are in completely arbitrary positions around the region, but if they are both in the vicinity of targets, like the helicopter is meant to defend, and the drone is meant to attack, then the chances go up significantly.
Such cope. Of course a shahed drone flew right into a helicopter “by chance”…
It’s very unlikely the drone hit the Apache on purpose. Why ? Because these drones are not guided remotely by an operator once they are launched. They are akin to cruise missiles. There is experimentation in Russia for drones with anti-air missiles but that’s very much an exception.
So the most likely scenarios are :
Either way, it is very unlikely the Iranian drone was remotely guided to hit the Apache.
Furthermore this was in the middle of the night making it difficult for an Apache to avoid collision. They were using NVG to navigate at that time of the day in this region. Also the pilots managed to ditch in the Detroit of Ormuz without getting very injured, since there isn’t an ejection seat on Apache that means their helicopter was not heavily damaged by the drone hit. If the military payload had really exploded on hit, the Apache would have been much more damaged and would be unlikely to protect the pilots and let them ditch in the sea and escape.
The rescue mission was done by an unmanned sea drone which indicates that the US army wasn’t confident in sending airplanes or other helicopters to the rescue zone. So it is possible that there was risks for Iranian anti-air to shoot down an air rescue mission.
So no, it’s most likely not cope. If you look on the shaheed drone specs, it is not designed to destroy aircraft and are akin to “dumb and slow cruise missiles”.
I’m no expert in weaponry but if anyone is interested I based this comment on this video :
https://youtu.be/LdWiFQ7Djqw
(Only in french as far as i can tell, sorry)
It’s from Ate Chuet, a retired french army jet pilot that did missions in this area and has experience shooting down shaheed drones.
Yep. To attempt to tl:dr;
Shaheds are more like cheap, slow, cruise missiles, tomahawks.
They’re meant for attacking stationary or very nearly stationary targets, on the ground.
Not interception of in flight aircraft.
Its… possible that this was essentially an ATC vectoring failure … because there is no monolithic ATC in an active war zone.
This is a great write up, thank you.
What if it happened somewhere Iranians could guess there could be US helicopters around and they sent dozens of drones? After all those helicopters fly at somehow predictable altitudes.
It happened in the Detroit of Ormuz so both side expected enemy presence there.
But honestly why would the Iranians use such an inadequate type of weapons to shoot down an apache ?
It would be like using a machinegun to kill a fly. Or using an artillery barrage to shoot a plane.
The video I used as a source mentionned the crash of an Ukrainian MIG in the conflict with Russia that got damaged by the “frag” projected by the Shaheed drone he had destroyed. So there is precedent of airplanes going down while attempting to intercept and destroy slow moving drones.
The same thing could happen to an Apache attempting a drone intercept in pitch black night.
The shaheed drone are supposed to be cheap alternatives to cruise missiles and fatigue your enemy in forcing him to use expensive equipment to intercept or accept casualties on the ground. They are not an effective anti-air weapon.
The points you raise being even more questions than answers.
This is the fog of war. Nothing is certain, all I can tell is what people with experience on that kind of mission and weaponry think is likely or unlikely.
At the very least, it seems a purposeful hit by the Iranian drone is one of the least likely scenarios according to publicly available informations.
Was it a confirmed direct hit? Might have been that the Apache was on drone defense duty and the Shahed shrapnel after interception got an lucky/unlucky hit - that’s actually much more likely than succeeding in hitting an Apache with an Shahed on purpose. Shaheds are pretty bad at hitting fast moving targets - they mainly get preprogrammed paths to follow. There are remote control variants in Russia to enable live tracking of faster targets, but even then an Apache has a huge maneuverability advantage, and Shaheds are slow in comparison to most anti-air missiles.
Its an even worse look for the US if shrapnel was enough to down the thing…
Iran will just build catapults to throw rocks at their helis from now on if thats enough lmao
No it’s not. Nothing is invincible. Doesn’t matter how much armour you put on a helicopter or a jet, there will be weak spots (rotors, intakes, etc).
Loosing a single helicopter in a fluke is not a bad look. If it happens frequently that’s a different story.
Trebuchets maybe
With drones everywhere an accident is going to happen once in a while. Pilots can make mistakes, equipment fails, or sometimes shit just happens. It’s not that crazy.
A drone hitting a helicopter by chance is so astronomically unlikely its not even worth considering. If it was there then it was trying to hit the helicopter. Its not like a road where there is a shared path, its the fucking air where there are practically infinite paths for a drone to take.
You’re making it sound like they are in completely arbitrary positions around the region, but if they are both in the vicinity of targets, like the helicopter is meant to defend, and the drone is meant to attack, then the chances go up significantly.