Apache down, Cobra not
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache down, Cobra not
I ask myself why we see so much Apaches going down in Iraq and no Cobras.
Reasons I found are that there are more Apaches than Cobras around, the mission profiles seem to be different, and tactics from Army and Marines are different.
Maybe the one or the other has some more detailed information to add and we can discuss this interesting topic.
Regards ...
Reasons I found are that there are more Apaches than Cobras around, the mission profiles seem to be different, and tactics from Army and Marines are different.
Maybe the one or the other has some more detailed information to add and we can discuss this interesting topic.
Regards ...
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also consider the Army has no Cobras there, its just the Marine TwinPack ( A Very Good Machine) I dont know if the Army has any Cobra units left. Other Countries are still using the Mod (S) etc
As always the Army outnumbers the Marine Corps, cant say they outfight them.
Standing by for Incoming..............
As always the Army outnumbers the Marine Corps, cant say they outfight them.
Standing by for Incoming..............
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
One of my Israeli Air Force Apache pilot friends said that early on, they learned that it was much safer and just as effective to operate at 3000 ft AGL. Sensors and weapons worked just as well at that height and they were out of range of small arms fire and had more warning of any approaching hand-launched weapons as well.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobras there last year
When I was deployed to the Gulf last year I saw quite a few Cobras at Ali Al Salem Air Base and also at Kuwait International Airport, I've got a couple of photos but the quality isn't very good.
I have no idea if these were Army or Marine machines, there were plenty of personnel from both organisations based at both locations - met some very interesting people.
IIRC there were about 20 or so Cobras at Ali Al Salem, but I didn't see any Apaches - they may have been further North. There were a few BlackHawk types around, had a chat with a HEMS pilot who flew a BlackHawk (variant), he was a reservist just like me - although we don't get to fly at the weekends
Obviously a year on those machines could be anywhere......
I have no idea if these were Army or Marine machines, there were plenty of personnel from both organisations based at both locations - met some very interesting people.
IIRC there were about 20 or so Cobras at Ali Al Salem, but I didn't see any Apaches - they may have been further North. There were a few BlackHawk types around, had a chat with a HEMS pilot who flew a BlackHawk (variant), he was a reservist just like me - although we don't get to fly at the weekends
Obviously a year on those machines could be anywhere......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You approach this question from the wrong point-of-view. From the Iraqi point of view it would be "why have I lost so many of my countrymen, tanks, air defense, and artillery to the Apache in comparison to the Cobra? The answer to your question will be self-evident.
Marine or Army aviator, Cobra or Apache, all will bring the fight to the enemy with equal zeal and intensity.
As for the last, third hand information (unconfirmed)...they were called in after a mission, responding to a convoy that had been ambushed and about to be overrun. They provided close cover until wounded could be evacuated before they were shot down. They stayed to fight. Both are said to be recommended for the DFC.
Marine or Army aviator, Cobra or Apache, all will bring the fight to the enemy with equal zeal and intensity.
As for the last, third hand information (unconfirmed)...they were called in after a mission, responding to a convoy that had been ambushed and about to be overrun. They provided close cover until wounded could be evacuated before they were shot down. They stayed to fight. Both are said to be recommended for the DFC.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the Army paid for and what they got are two different things.
The Apache as originally conceived and eventually built was to fight a down and dirty war starting at the Fulda Gap and ending up in the plains of Spain. At this point the army was to be dug in and starting to fight back. In order to meet this requirement the Apache was to be crash worthy to about 14 Gs and it was to be impervious to all small arms ammunition, a tumbled 50 cal. round and a 23 mm HEI hit in the rotor system, the main gear box and the intermediate and tail rotor gear boxes as well as one engine. This included a HEI round into either the gunners or pilots’ compartments. In the first two uses of the Apache in combat the first in Panama and the second in Gulf War 1 it did not perform in that capacity instead, it was used as a stand-off weapons system. In Gulf War II it was used as a standoff weapons platform during actual combat but in the present application it is being used in close in combat and it has proven to be very vulnerable to small arms ammunition as well as RPGs. It is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get.
Do I hear Rich Lee getting into the saddle?
Do I hear Rich Lee getting into the saddle?
Last edited by Lu Zuckerman; 17th Apr 2004 at 15:35.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich Lee writes:"Both are said to be recommended for the DFC."
I would kick that up to at least a Silver Star....
For those who cant tell the difference, the Navy and Marine Corps traditionally fly twin engine aircraft as they are overwater a lot. All Army stuff up to the Chinook are single engine..... Thus the Cobra in the Marine Corps has a big back end from the two engines, versus the single pipe out the rear. I also see that the Navy/Marine Corps are going to a four bladed version of the Cobra and also using a souped up 412. Both great machines.
Right Lu??
I would kick that up to at least a Silver Star....
For those who cant tell the difference, the Navy and Marine Corps traditionally fly twin engine aircraft as they are overwater a lot. All Army stuff up to the Chinook are single engine..... Thus the Cobra in the Marine Corps has a big back end from the two engines, versus the single pipe out the rear. I also see that the Navy/Marine Corps are going to a four bladed version of the Cobra and also using a souped up 412. Both great machines.
Right Lu??
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the implication that comparitive losses in Iraq reflect some glory on the Cobra is ridiculous.
The Army has hundreds more aircraft, and thousands more troops, in Iraq and everywhere. The losses reflect that, and little else.
The current Marine Cobras (the W) are retreaded designs, updated of course, but still fairly poor imitations of modern aircraft. The Apache is considerably tougher, and much better equipped, by all accounts (except Bell's). In a system by system match, the cobra falls far short, but is used by the Marines because it is not an Apache, as the Marines are paranoid about buying anything that the Army has, lest Congress question why we need a Marine Corps.
The UH-1Y is an example. Having rejected the Black Hawk, the Marines built an entirely new aircraft (rumor has it everything had to be redesigned, in spite of the optimistic "upgrade" plans that Bell sold.) This new aircraft will sell for more than a Black Hawk, but carries less than 2/3 the troops, and has about 15 knots less cruise speed, and a hundred miles less range. When the actual performance is published, we will see what a flop it is.
The AH-1Z will be in similar stead, compared to Apache.
Regarding any comparison between weapon systems and their use in Iraq, take care. Iraq is now an occupation, and the urban situations are actually police duties, trying to quell rioters and insurgents in civilian populated areas. The military is left, yet again holding the bag for failed political leaders. Short of sterilizing the entire area, there is no military solution, no tactic and no miracle weapon system that will cure the ill. And no lesson about military hardware that can be drawn from the situation.
This forum is not a political one, but the lessons of Iraq do not concern tactics or equipment, they are all political, ppruners.
B. Sousa is dead wrong, the Active Army has no single engine helos except the H-58 and H-6, and it has few of them. The US Army is the largest helicopter organization in the world, with about 5,000 helicopters, including 1500 Black Hawks, 800 Apaches and an assortment of other helos in the hundreds each. The USMC has a few hundred rotorcraft of all types.
The Army has hundreds more aircraft, and thousands more troops, in Iraq and everywhere. The losses reflect that, and little else.
The current Marine Cobras (the W) are retreaded designs, updated of course, but still fairly poor imitations of modern aircraft. The Apache is considerably tougher, and much better equipped, by all accounts (except Bell's). In a system by system match, the cobra falls far short, but is used by the Marines because it is not an Apache, as the Marines are paranoid about buying anything that the Army has, lest Congress question why we need a Marine Corps.
The UH-1Y is an example. Having rejected the Black Hawk, the Marines built an entirely new aircraft (rumor has it everything had to be redesigned, in spite of the optimistic "upgrade" plans that Bell sold.) This new aircraft will sell for more than a Black Hawk, but carries less than 2/3 the troops, and has about 15 knots less cruise speed, and a hundred miles less range. When the actual performance is published, we will see what a flop it is.
The AH-1Z will be in similar stead, compared to Apache.
Regarding any comparison between weapon systems and their use in Iraq, take care. Iraq is now an occupation, and the urban situations are actually police duties, trying to quell rioters and insurgents in civilian populated areas. The military is left, yet again holding the bag for failed political leaders. Short of sterilizing the entire area, there is no military solution, no tactic and no miracle weapon system that will cure the ill. And no lesson about military hardware that can be drawn from the situation.
This forum is not a political one, but the lessons of Iraq do not concern tactics or equipment, they are all political, ppruners.
B. Sousa is dead wrong, the Active Army has no single engine helos except the H-58 and H-6, and it has few of them. The US Army is the largest helicopter organization in the world, with about 5,000 helicopters, including 1500 Black Hawks, 800 Apaches and an assortment of other helos in the hundreds each. The USMC has a few hundred rotorcraft of all types.
Lu,
Even the M-1 Abrams tank is now vulnerable to RPG's....read up on the duplex war head capable of defeating any known armor...thus there is no...repeat no...helicopter that is capable of withstanding an RPG hit.
Even the M-1 Abrams tank is now vulnerable to RPG's....read up on the duplex war head capable of defeating any known armor...thus there is no...repeat no...helicopter that is capable of withstanding an RPG hit.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different perspective.
To: Rich Lee
I do not question the lethality of the Apache. In the view of lethality it is second to none if you don’t consider the A-10 or the C-130 gunship. The point I was making deals with the survivability of the helicopter.
A great deal of effort went into the vulnerability analysis. This consisted of the use of ballistic armor on either side of the pilots, the use of transparent armor between the gunner and the pilot, the use of ballistic armor around the servo systems and the use of “armor “”between the engines.
The main transmission was designed for 30 minutes of flight without any oil in the sump, the use of viscous lubricant in the intermediate and tail rotor gearboxes.
The analysis also consisted of using non-essential components to mask the entry of small arms fire from the ground into the cockpit area.
The main weapon that the Soviet bloc would use against the Apache was the ZSU-23-4 so the Apache had to be invulnerable to one hit of a high explosive incendiary round in one of several places on the helicopter. The ZSU-23-4 shoots around 1200 rounds per minute so if one round hit the Apache it would surely be hit with 20 or more rounds including HEI rounds.
The vulnerability analysis included in the study of the ballistics of small arms ammunition, the effects of being hit by a tumbling 50 cal round fired from a specific distance and the HEI round.
Tests were run to verify that the helicopter could survive in an intensive ballistic arena and I believe the tests, which did not reflect dynamic loading of the elements under test, were successful. I made my comments based on the design requirements specified by the army and, in the fact that small arms rounds downed many of the Apaches.
Oh yes, regarding the ballistic armor that was just inside the skin of the Apache and used to protect the pilots we had a guy in our department that had a hobby of loading his own ammunition. He borrowed a section of the armor and used it as a target at 100 yards. He brought the armor back the following Monday with a hole in it. The armor did not distend in order to absorb the ballistic energy.
Please note that my comments are based on what was during the design phase and some things may have changed.
I do not question the lethality of the Apache. In the view of lethality it is second to none if you don’t consider the A-10 or the C-130 gunship. The point I was making deals with the survivability of the helicopter.
A great deal of effort went into the vulnerability analysis. This consisted of the use of ballistic armor on either side of the pilots, the use of transparent armor between the gunner and the pilot, the use of ballistic armor around the servo systems and the use of “armor “”between the engines.
The main transmission was designed for 30 minutes of flight without any oil in the sump, the use of viscous lubricant in the intermediate and tail rotor gearboxes.
The analysis also consisted of using non-essential components to mask the entry of small arms fire from the ground into the cockpit area.
The main weapon that the Soviet bloc would use against the Apache was the ZSU-23-4 so the Apache had to be invulnerable to one hit of a high explosive incendiary round in one of several places on the helicopter. The ZSU-23-4 shoots around 1200 rounds per minute so if one round hit the Apache it would surely be hit with 20 or more rounds including HEI rounds.
The vulnerability analysis included in the study of the ballistics of small arms ammunition, the effects of being hit by a tumbling 50 cal round fired from a specific distance and the HEI round.
Tests were run to verify that the helicopter could survive in an intensive ballistic arena and I believe the tests, which did not reflect dynamic loading of the elements under test, were successful. I made my comments based on the design requirements specified by the army and, in the fact that small arms rounds downed many of the Apaches.
Oh yes, regarding the ballistic armor that was just inside the skin of the Apache and used to protect the pilots we had a guy in our department that had a hobby of loading his own ammunition. He borrowed a section of the armor and used it as a target at 100 yards. He brought the armor back the following Monday with a hole in it. The armor did not distend in order to absorb the ballistic energy.
Please note that my comments are based on what was during the design phase and some things may have changed.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu,
All the analysis in the world does not make armor stop what it can't stop. Except for the big Russian machines (Mi-28 and KA-50) the Apache is a lot tougher than anyone else out there. Furthermore, the fact that Apaches and Black Hawks are being downed by RPG's says a lot for the US Army requirements. NOTHING FLYING can withstand an RPG hit in a critical area.
As rjsquerril said above, the lessons of Iraq have little to do with how helos are made, and a lot with how they are being used.
All the analysis in the world does not make armor stop what it can't stop. Except for the big Russian machines (Mi-28 and KA-50) the Apache is a lot tougher than anyone else out there. Furthermore, the fact that Apaches and Black Hawks are being downed by RPG's says a lot for the US Army requirements. NOTHING FLYING can withstand an RPG hit in a critical area.
As rjsquerril said above, the lessons of Iraq have little to do with how helos are made, and a lot with how they are being used.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We will all die one day. Nothing will change. If by Apache or by cardiac arrest, I prefer Apache" Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi (deceased)
Lu,
You are an engineer held in high esteem in this forum. Your comments and conclusions should always be based on sound and verifiable engineering or scientific principles. Where are the data to support your conclusions that the Apache is "very vulnerable to small arms ammunition as well as RPGs" and "is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get"?
What research have you conducted? Do you know how many Apache pilots have lost their lives or have been wounded as a result of ground fire? Can you tell me how many Apaches have been downed to ground fire and to which types of ground fire? Do you know what Apache componants have been damaged by ground fire? How does the Apache compare to other attack helicopters?
You wrote in part "small arms rounds downed many of the Apaches" How many is 'many'? Where? When? Where are the data?
The Vietnam Helicopter Pilot's Association has conducted studies that show the approximate number of helicopters destroyed in the Vietnam War was 5,086 out of the total sent there of 11,827. The ratio of helicoper loses to helicopters in theatre in Iraq are a fraction of that. Why? They are more survivable. All current designs are more survivable.
Your arguments remind me of the people I hear who say that the world is a more dangerous place. The evidence is otherwise because the risk of death from all causes is less now than at any other time in history. How do I know? I know simply because life expectancy is longer.
Lu,
You are an engineer held in high esteem in this forum. Your comments and conclusions should always be based on sound and verifiable engineering or scientific principles. Where are the data to support your conclusions that the Apache is "very vulnerable to small arms ammunition as well as RPGs" and "is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get"?
What research have you conducted? Do you know how many Apache pilots have lost their lives or have been wounded as a result of ground fire? Can you tell me how many Apaches have been downed to ground fire and to which types of ground fire? Do you know what Apache componants have been damaged by ground fire? How does the Apache compare to other attack helicopters?
You wrote in part "small arms rounds downed many of the Apaches" How many is 'many'? Where? When? Where are the data?
The Vietnam Helicopter Pilot's Association has conducted studies that show the approximate number of helicopters destroyed in the Vietnam War was 5,086 out of the total sent there of 11,827. The ratio of helicoper loses to helicopters in theatre in Iraq are a fraction of that. Why? They are more survivable. All current designs are more survivable.
Your arguments remind me of the people I hear who say that the world is a more dangerous place. The evidence is otherwise because the risk of death from all causes is less now than at any other time in history. How do I know? I know simply because life expectancy is longer.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is just a point of view.
To: Rich Lee
First of all I should never have even referenced RPGs. Just forget about that part. The same for Nick Lappos. My comments about the design for invulnerability are based on my participation on the Apache program when Hughes was bidding on the contract. I set up the design for maintainability program and I had to work hand in glove with the vulnerability group so whatever comments I made about ballistic vulnerability are based on that background. We suggested the application of removable armor plating much like that used on the Douglas B-26. By using this type of armor they could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel costs since the armor could be removed making the helicopter lighter by several hundred pounds during peacetime operations. The ballistic armor design chosen was several ballistic panels mounted on springs. If the ballistic armor were compromised it would be displaced on the springs impacting on electrical components as well as the engine condition levers (left side) and on the right side the panels could cause major problems with electrical components.
You are privy to a hell of a lot more of information than me relative to combat damage and the result of that damage. Like a lot of guys on these forums I have to rely on CNN or some of the other channels. They say that ground fire downed the Apaches as well as the Blackhawks and OH-58s. I have to go with that information and compare that with what I already know and any comments I make are based on what I know and what I am told.
That is why I stated that the Army paid for a high level of invulnerability and the downing of the Apaches by ground fire (CNNs words) indicates that the Army did not get what they paid for.
Hopefully this does not result in a pissing contest.
If you are interested in what the program was like at the beginning please feel free to PM me.
First of all I should never have even referenced RPGs. Just forget about that part. The same for Nick Lappos. My comments about the design for invulnerability are based on my participation on the Apache program when Hughes was bidding on the contract. I set up the design for maintainability program and I had to work hand in glove with the vulnerability group so whatever comments I made about ballistic vulnerability are based on that background. We suggested the application of removable armor plating much like that used on the Douglas B-26. By using this type of armor they could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel costs since the armor could be removed making the helicopter lighter by several hundred pounds during peacetime operations. The ballistic armor design chosen was several ballistic panels mounted on springs. If the ballistic armor were compromised it would be displaced on the springs impacting on electrical components as well as the engine condition levers (left side) and on the right side the panels could cause major problems with electrical components.
You are privy to a hell of a lot more of information than me relative to combat damage and the result of that damage. Like a lot of guys on these forums I have to rely on CNN or some of the other channels. They say that ground fire downed the Apaches as well as the Blackhawks and OH-58s. I have to go with that information and compare that with what I already know and any comments I make are based on what I know and what I am told.
That is why I stated that the Army paid for a high level of invulnerability and the downing of the Apaches by ground fire (CNNs words) indicates that the Army did not get what they paid for.
Hopefully this does not result in a pissing contest.
If you are interested in what the program was like at the beginning please feel free to PM me.
Lu the Helicopter Gunship tactics expert, I am very intrested in your descriptions of the ballistic testing for the AH-64 because they provide insight, and are made by someone with a solid background in the subject matter who was actually there, and I would love to hear more about that. I am also intrested in your comments on gunship tactics but from an entirely different perspective - humour! Because they are not insightful, and they are not made by someone with a background in the subject matter, and because, lets face it, they ARE funny!
I particularly enjoyed:
which I think means: "I'm sorry guys, you are right of course, and the RPG bit was a bit over the top - forgive me" Perhaps you could add you ZSU 234 comments to that too! I dont know of ANYTHING flying that would survive a direct engagement by one of those bad boys. The ZSU is a very good reason for one of the Apache's other attributes Lu: weapon system standoff or overlap. Perhaps you have heard of it?
As for the conjecture about more survivability, I would ask everyone to choose what western helicopter they choose if they had to fly through a combat area infested with SA and RPGs.
How many choose anything other than the Apache?
I thought so.
There is however, some useful discussion about this topic to be had. As alluded to in the previous comments: are the weapon systems of the Apache accurately matched to these specific engagement scenarios, or are they being used because they are the most appropriate and available asset? For example - would the Apache have been a better platform for the engagements of Somalia where the Little birds went to work? Are the Iraqi engagements reminiscent of Somali?
There has been some renewed debate in Australia upon the eve of introduction of the Tiger that the team running fire tactics used for close-quater infantry support by the retiring UH-1 are not yet obsolete, but may in fact be the most appropriate engagenment tactic. It is recognised that running fire application in teams is a far more complex system to train for, use, and more importantly, to control during engagements in terms of weapon arcs and avoiding fratricide. in contrast, the new trend was to rely on standoff overlap, and fire from easily controlled fixed firing points - a la the Apache. Despite this complexity, the "Vietnam style" running fire is still practiced by Marine Cobras specifically because of the effort to reduce aircraft vulnerability, and there is some speculation as to the contribution this tactic has made to any reduction in shoot downs of Cobras. Perhaps it is just that the nature of the Iraqi conflict has produced no fixed fighting fronts, and thus no areas in which gunships can safely adopt fixed firing points. Sounds a bit Vietnam/Somalia like doesn't it?
Or was it the weapons system (cannon types, rounds used, rocket warhead selection, etc)?
I particularly enjoyed:
First of all I should never have even referenced RPGs. Just forget about that part.
As for the conjecture about more survivability, I would ask everyone to choose what western helicopter they choose if they had to fly through a combat area infested with SA and RPGs.
How many choose anything other than the Apache?
I thought so.
There is however, some useful discussion about this topic to be had. As alluded to in the previous comments: are the weapon systems of the Apache accurately matched to these specific engagement scenarios, or are they being used because they are the most appropriate and available asset? For example - would the Apache have been a better platform for the engagements of Somalia where the Little birds went to work? Are the Iraqi engagements reminiscent of Somali?
There has been some renewed debate in Australia upon the eve of introduction of the Tiger that the team running fire tactics used for close-quater infantry support by the retiring UH-1 are not yet obsolete, but may in fact be the most appropriate engagenment tactic. It is recognised that running fire application in teams is a far more complex system to train for, use, and more importantly, to control during engagements in terms of weapon arcs and avoiding fratricide. in contrast, the new trend was to rely on standoff overlap, and fire from easily controlled fixed firing points - a la the Apache. Despite this complexity, the "Vietnam style" running fire is still practiced by Marine Cobras specifically because of the effort to reduce aircraft vulnerability, and there is some speculation as to the contribution this tactic has made to any reduction in shoot downs of Cobras. Perhaps it is just that the nature of the Iraqi conflict has produced no fixed fighting fronts, and thus no areas in which gunships can safely adopt fixed firing points. Sounds a bit Vietnam/Somalia like doesn't it?
Or was it the weapons system (cannon types, rounds used, rocket warhead selection, etc)?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that too many people are looking to criticize models of aircraft in an effort to explain combat losses.
The losses of aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan have been due to the fact that there are actual wars going on in those places.
Our attack helicopter pilots, Marine and Army, are getting down and dirty with the enemy so that they can do their jobs- supporting our troops on the ground and winning the battles.
Differences in numbers of losses are most probably not due to aircraft design or tactics- more likely to numbers of aircraft involved and the flow of the specific battles fought.
We may be better off asking why, when much of the combat is at close quarters in urban areas, combat losses in attack helicoters have been so low. Perhaps a combination of capable airframes and well trained pilots?
I do take exception, however, as a former Marine AH-1W pilot and a current Bell pilot on the AH-1Z/UH-1Y program to rjsquirrel's comments above.
The Marine Corps chose the UH-1Y and AH-1Z based on avareity of reasons, including commonality of components, mission flexibility, and performance. Both aircraft are designed to the Marine Corps' requirements for their missions. And when the official performance numbers are published, you can see the error of assumptions of capability.
The Marines did not say that the Apache or Blackhawk were bad aircraft. They just chose different aircraft, in their opinion better suited to their mission. (And had they gone with an H-60, it would have more closely resembled the Navy version H-60S.) Anyone who would believe that the Marines would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an aviation program to just be different from the Army is missing the point. Flying the same aircraft as the Army would certainly not make anyone question whether the Marine Corps needs to exist. From that reasoning, the Marines would not be using the M-16 or flying the F-18 or using M1 tanks.
The Marines will do their unique mission using whatever tools they need to do the job- just as the Army will do for their missions.
The losses of aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan have been due to the fact that there are actual wars going on in those places.
Our attack helicopter pilots, Marine and Army, are getting down and dirty with the enemy so that they can do their jobs- supporting our troops on the ground and winning the battles.
Differences in numbers of losses are most probably not due to aircraft design or tactics- more likely to numbers of aircraft involved and the flow of the specific battles fought.
We may be better off asking why, when much of the combat is at close quarters in urban areas, combat losses in attack helicoters have been so low. Perhaps a combination of capable airframes and well trained pilots?
I do take exception, however, as a former Marine AH-1W pilot and a current Bell pilot on the AH-1Z/UH-1Y program to rjsquirrel's comments above.
The Marine Corps chose the UH-1Y and AH-1Z based on avareity of reasons, including commonality of components, mission flexibility, and performance. Both aircraft are designed to the Marine Corps' requirements for their missions. And when the official performance numbers are published, you can see the error of assumptions of capability.
The Marines did not say that the Apache or Blackhawk were bad aircraft. They just chose different aircraft, in their opinion better suited to their mission. (And had they gone with an H-60, it would have more closely resembled the Navy version H-60S.) Anyone who would believe that the Marines would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an aviation program to just be different from the Army is missing the point. Flying the same aircraft as the Army would certainly not make anyone question whether the Marine Corps needs to exist. From that reasoning, the Marines would not be using the M-16 or flying the F-18 or using M1 tanks.
The Marines will do their unique mission using whatever tools they need to do the job- just as the Army will do for their missions.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My My aren't you being critical
To: helmet fire
If you want to make light of what I said that's OK and I do not claim to have an engineering background to perform ballistics design tollerance. However I worked very closely with those engineers that had that capability.
They performed analyses to determine the impact energy of small arms ammunition fired within a specific distance and from various directions. They performed further analyses to determine the impact energy of a tumbled 50 cal. round fired from a specific distance and various directions. From that they were able to design ballistic armor to protect the pilot and gunner.
The also performed analyses regarding the explosive energy released by a 23 mm round as well as a HEI round and from that they designed the transparent armor separating the pilot and the gunner and they also fed this information into the design of the main and other transmissions, the rotorheads and the rotor blades.
After the design was completed they performed live firing exercizes shooting the respective rounds into the respective structures. I do not believe that the components were dynamically loaded so there is a possibility that the respective tests were not truly valid. However the Army accepted the findings.
Here is something that should raise the hackles of a lot of the guys on this forum:
The US Army lied to the pilots of the Apache relative to its’ invulnerability to the ZSU 23-4 weapons system. This was the primary weapon that would be used against the Apache if it were to attack a group of Warsaw Pact tanks.
This weapon was also being supplied to all of the governments that were in league with the Warsaw Pact. The U S Army commissioned a study by a so-called ”Think Tank” to study the effectiveness of the ZSU 23-4 against the Apache. It was their considered opinion that the ZSU 23-4 was inaccurate, It had a low degree of reliability and that if the ZSU 23 did hit the Apache with one round, the pilot would have sufficient time to evade any further hits by dropping below the tree line. The uninitiated reader should understand that the ZSU 23-4 has a rate of fire of 1200 rounds per minute and that if one bullet hit its’ mark, there would be forty or fifty rounds right behind the first round.
When the I was on contract with Agusta helicopters I took a two-week holiday in Yugoslavia. While there, I watched a T V program, which was describing the weaponry of the Warsaw Pact. One of the weapons demonstrated was the ZSU 23-4. In the demonstration the weapon was pointed on a line parallel to a stand of trees. A helicopter popped up from behind the trees and in an instant the weapon acquired the helicopter and was pointed directly at it. The helicopter then dropped below the treetops and at that time the gun was turned off. The helicopter was allowed to fly away and the gun was turned on. It immediately started to fire and it swept an arc approximately 30 to 45 degrees on either side of center. The trees started to explode. It looked like there were hundreds of chain saw wielding loggers in the tree stand felling trees as fast as they could. It appeared to me that if a hail of 23mm bullets didn’t hit the helicopter, a falling tree would destroy it.
The only point of my post was to show that although the Apache was designed with a high level of ballistic tollerance it was brought down by small arms fire. (According to CNN).
If you want to make light of what I said that's OK and I do not claim to have an engineering background to perform ballistics design tollerance. However I worked very closely with those engineers that had that capability.
They performed analyses to determine the impact energy of small arms ammunition fired within a specific distance and from various directions. They performed further analyses to determine the impact energy of a tumbled 50 cal. round fired from a specific distance and various directions. From that they were able to design ballistic armor to protect the pilot and gunner.
The also performed analyses regarding the explosive energy released by a 23 mm round as well as a HEI round and from that they designed the transparent armor separating the pilot and the gunner and they also fed this information into the design of the main and other transmissions, the rotorheads and the rotor blades.
After the design was completed they performed live firing exercizes shooting the respective rounds into the respective structures. I do not believe that the components were dynamically loaded so there is a possibility that the respective tests were not truly valid. However the Army accepted the findings.
Here is something that should raise the hackles of a lot of the guys on this forum:
The US Army lied to the pilots of the Apache relative to its’ invulnerability to the ZSU 23-4 weapons system. This was the primary weapon that would be used against the Apache if it were to attack a group of Warsaw Pact tanks.
This weapon was also being supplied to all of the governments that were in league with the Warsaw Pact. The U S Army commissioned a study by a so-called ”Think Tank” to study the effectiveness of the ZSU 23-4 against the Apache. It was their considered opinion that the ZSU 23-4 was inaccurate, It had a low degree of reliability and that if the ZSU 23 did hit the Apache with one round, the pilot would have sufficient time to evade any further hits by dropping below the tree line. The uninitiated reader should understand that the ZSU 23-4 has a rate of fire of 1200 rounds per minute and that if one bullet hit its’ mark, there would be forty or fifty rounds right behind the first round.
When the I was on contract with Agusta helicopters I took a two-week holiday in Yugoslavia. While there, I watched a T V program, which was describing the weaponry of the Warsaw Pact. One of the weapons demonstrated was the ZSU 23-4. In the demonstration the weapon was pointed on a line parallel to a stand of trees. A helicopter popped up from behind the trees and in an instant the weapon acquired the helicopter and was pointed directly at it. The helicopter then dropped below the treetops and at that time the gun was turned off. The helicopter was allowed to fly away and the gun was turned on. It immediately started to fire and it swept an arc approximately 30 to 45 degrees on either side of center. The trees started to explode. It looked like there were hundreds of chain saw wielding loggers in the tree stand felling trees as fast as they could. It appeared to me that if a hail of 23mm bullets didn’t hit the helicopter, a falling tree would destroy it.
The only point of my post was to show that although the Apache was designed with a high level of ballistic tollerance it was brought down by small arms fire. (According to CNN).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Army lied to the pilots of the Apache relative to its’ invulnerability to the ZSU 23-4 weapons system.
Should you choose to believe everything CNN or 60 minutes claims, that is certainly your right. To use that information as the basis of an opinion regarding the overall ballistic tolerance capability of an aircraft, without detailed knowledge of the incident or supporting evidence is something I do not expect from an educated gentleman with your knowledge and engineering background.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The source.
To: Rich Lee
The lie alluded to in my post was relayed to me by one of the authors
of a Government Accounting Office report titled:
APACHE HELICOPTER
Serious Logistical Support Problems Must Be Solved to Realize Combat Potential
This report was published in September of 1990 and although some of the problems have been solved many have not.
The report has a number: GAO/NSIAD-90-294
Inside on the first page it is titled:
National Security and International Affairs Division and numbered B-238876
If you haven't already read it I would strongly suggest that you do.
I can't say exactly who it was that lied but I would seriously suggest you look at the individuals responsible to get more pilots to fly the Apache.
I don't know if it is classified but just how many were downed by small arms fire. The RPGs notwithstanding several Apaches have been lost and the enemy on the ground does not have heavy weapons like the ZSU-23-4 nor do they have heavy machine guns.
At least not according to CNN.
The lie alluded to in my post was relayed to me by one of the authors
of a Government Accounting Office report titled:
APACHE HELICOPTER
Serious Logistical Support Problems Must Be Solved to Realize Combat Potential
This report was published in September of 1990 and although some of the problems have been solved many have not.
The report has a number: GAO/NSIAD-90-294
Inside on the first page it is titled:
National Security and International Affairs Division and numbered B-238876
If you haven't already read it I would strongly suggest that you do.
I can't say exactly who it was that lied but I would seriously suggest you look at the individuals responsible to get more pilots to fly the Apache.
I don't know if it is classified but just how many were downed by small arms fire. The RPGs notwithstanding several Apaches have been lost and the enemy on the ground does not have heavy weapons like the ZSU-23-4 nor do they have heavy machine guns.
At least not according to CNN.