The New York Times seems to be concerned about how "risky" these attack missions will be. Well, duh. Of course they'll be risky! You can't fight an effective campaign if all you're interested in is playing it safe.

An exerpt: "Launching helicopter gunships into the battle will be risky. Afghan guerrilla fighters armed with Stinger missiles repeatedly shot down Soviet helicopters when they flew below 10,000 feet in the war there in the 1980's."

Yes, I've seen the footage that shows what happened when a Stinger hit an Mi-24 Hind helicopter. The Hind's engine exhaust was right below the transmission housing to the main rotor. When hit, the Hind pitched up violently and literally broke in half. If you look at the 3-view drawings at the bottom of the article I provided, the Hind's exhaust is that dark spot at the top of the fuselage just in front of the main rotor. That's a vulnerable position because it means that a heat seeking missile will be drawn towards critical structural and transmission components.

However, American AH-64 Apache and UH-60/MH-60 Blackhawk helicopters employ IR shielding and exhaust diffusion that makes it a lot harder to get an IR lock on them. This is especially true for the Pave Hawk versions of the Blackhawk. This IR suppression wasn't built into older helicopters like the Marine Corps CH-46 Sea Knight or the Army CH-47 Chinook. It's possible IR suppression might not be built into the Marine Corps' AH-1W Super Cobra but I suspect it's there.

Note: You might not be able to directly link to this article unless you've registered to read NYT material. The registration is free.