Lu,
There are so many errors of history, non-sequiturs, and invalid conclusions based on false premise in your comments; I am unable to respond in any meaningful manner on a point-by-point basis.
I do not know on what information you based your comment that “it is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get”, but I disagree.
The AH-64 A and D have proven robust and capable multi-role designs. Our enemies report that it is one of the most feared and lethal weapons on the battlefield. Our battlefield commanders report that it is a valued and effective maneuver asset. As the tactics and training evolve for each new tactical situation, the AH-64 has proven again and again to be highly adaptive and always deadly.
It is not indestructible; no helicopter is, none ever will be, but it does a better job of protecting the crew than any attack helicopter in service to date. The Apache has proven it can sustain a great deal of damage to enemy ground fire and continue to fight. Don’t take my word for it, ask the crews.
I make no claim that the AH-64 is the best Army aircraft for all attack roles. For instance, large numbers of fast and highly maneuverable AH-6 type aircraft engaging in 'swarms' have proven very effective in the urban close support role.
Were one to follow your reasoning, that the Apache is being used for roles it was not designed for, then the Army is getting more than it paid for.