AH-64 Apache
I renew this thread for three reasons:
1. I have heard unconfirmed reports of the first Marine Corps Cobra being shotdown in Iraq. Anyone have any info on this?
2. The recent drunken discussions at the Oz Huey Funship retirement involved the perceptions of hover fire V running fire.
3. Lu has yet to provide ANY back up to his claims when he was challenged MONTHS ago to:
And Lu, I recently saw you on an aviation crash program - nice presentation indeed!
1. I have heard unconfirmed reports of the first Marine Corps Cobra being shotdown in Iraq. Anyone have any info on this?
2. The recent drunken discussions at the Oz Huey Funship retirement involved the perceptions of hover fire V running fire.
3. Lu has yet to provide ANY back up to his claims when he was challenged MONTHS ago to:
Lu: Please quote the exact part of the report (word for word please) where it mentions lies, or invulnerability to ZSU or RPGs.
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
I really did check into the lie bit.
To: helmet fire
I contacted the Training and Documentation Command (TRADOC) of the US Army. They provided a condensed version of a report dealing with the ZSU-23-4 weapons system but it applied to the Cobra and not the Apache and it did not deal with any lies told to Apache pilots regarding the capabilities of the ZSU-23-4. In all sincerity I did see the article in which the US Army downplayed the capabilities of the weapons system and how it would be ineffective against the Apache. I just was unable to locate it.
I recovered this from my word file and although there is no attribution the facts in the two paragraphs accurately reflect the original article.
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.
The original article did not address invulnerability to RPGs nor were RPGs even addressed in the design specs for the Apache.
The original Apache invulnerability specification addressed tumbled rounds of various caliber’s (7.62 and 50 Cal.) and the engines, the transmission, rotorhead, rotorblades and the intermediate and tail boxes as well as the tail rotor had to be invulnerable to a single hit by a 23mm HEI round. The pilots and gunners compartments had to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI round in that if one compartment were hit the other would still function. The two compartments were separated by transparent armor (Polycarbonate plastic).
Hopefully this is satisfactory.
I contacted the Training and Documentation Command (TRADOC) of the US Army. They provided a condensed version of a report dealing with the ZSU-23-4 weapons system but it applied to the Cobra and not the Apache and it did not deal with any lies told to Apache pilots regarding the capabilities of the ZSU-23-4. In all sincerity I did see the article in which the US Army downplayed the capabilities of the weapons system and how it would be ineffective against the Apache. I just was unable to locate it.
I recovered this from my word file and although there is no attribution the facts in the two paragraphs accurately reflect the original article.
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.
The original article did not address invulnerability to RPGs nor were RPGs even addressed in the design specs for the Apache.
The original Apache invulnerability specification addressed tumbled rounds of various caliber’s (7.62 and 50 Cal.) and the engines, the transmission, rotorhead, rotorblades and the intermediate and tail boxes as well as the tail rotor had to be invulnerable to a single hit by a 23mm HEI round. The pilots and gunners compartments had to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI round in that if one compartment were hit the other would still function. The two compartments were separated by transparent armor (Polycarbonate plastic).
Hopefully this is satisfactory.
A thought occurred to me this morning. Coincidentally, this thread's been resurrected, so I'll ask it. The Israelis would appear to be operating in a remarkably similar environment to the US forces, attacking targets in built-up areas, yet they don't appear to have the same loss rate as the Americans. Why would that be ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We learned from Shawn Coyle that the Israeli Gunships operate at 3000 ft AGL. At this altitude they are out of range of small-arms-fire. In Iraq the Gunships have to fear MANPAD's (man-portable air defense systems). That's why they stay low and expose themselves to gunfire what their armor holds off in the most cases.
This is my own interpretation. So if you know better, please let me know.
This is my own interpretation. So if you know better, please let me know.
Ah. I'd forgotten that post. Why don't the Americans take a leaf out of the Israeli book, then ? (Or is there a post on that somewhere back there ? I'll have to go back and read 'em all again!)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is a post. It was the one I posted before.
I tried to tell you that the Palestinensians have no MANPAD's. That's why the Israeli Gunships can operate at an altitude where they don't expose themselves to gunfire. I don't believe that it is an advantage regarding a MANPAD threat, to fly at 3000 ft because of the reaction time for counter measures. The important thing for the safety for an helicopter is the cone of threat. The higher the helicopter, the larger the area at the ground from where the helicopter can be shot. A low and fast flying helicopter is a hard target for a missile. Everybody who operated a Stinger knows that.
I tried to tell you that the Palestinensians have no MANPAD's. That's why the Israeli Gunships can operate at an altitude where they don't expose themselves to gunfire. I don't believe that it is an advantage regarding a MANPAD threat, to fly at 3000 ft because of the reaction time for counter measures. The important thing for the safety for an helicopter is the cone of threat. The higher the helicopter, the larger the area at the ground from where the helicopter can be shot. A low and fast flying helicopter is a hard target for a missile. Everybody who operated a Stinger knows that.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
More info from a source recently returned from the theater...
His comment was that the Army were entirely too predictable. They flew along the same routes at 500' agl, in tight formation a lot of the time.
He cited several examples of Army helicopters that had been shot down where they had been flying and turning over the same point on the ground for several days.
Navy and Marine helicopters were grounded if their countermeasures were unserviceable, where many Army helicopters didn't even have countermeasures...
Evidently the Army general in charge of aviation wouldn't let his people fly below 500' because he was certain he would lose more to flying into the ground than to enemy fire.
This particular individual said they never went above 50' agl unless it was to cross power lines....
Hope that helps return this to the subject at hand.
His comment was that the Army were entirely too predictable. They flew along the same routes at 500' agl, in tight formation a lot of the time.
He cited several examples of Army helicopters that had been shot down where they had been flying and turning over the same point on the ground for several days.
Navy and Marine helicopters were grounded if their countermeasures were unserviceable, where many Army helicopters didn't even have countermeasures...
Evidently the Army general in charge of aviation wouldn't let his people fly below 500' because he was certain he would lose more to flying into the ground than to enemy fire.
This particular individual said they never went above 50' agl unless it was to cross power lines....
Hope that helps return this to the subject at hand.
Lu, I guess you are going to go off the grapes again....
To paraphrase your post then you could have said:
"I found no supporting evidence for my claim that the US Army lied to it's Apache pilots about invunerability and therefore withdraw it unconditionally. Although the Apache was designed to be ballistically tolerant, no one in their right mind would believe it would survive a ZSU-234 engagement".
BTW, the word "invulnerability", is that USA speak for "not vulnerable" or "survivability"?
Robbo and hotzen go back a page and review Nick's three types of weapon environments. That may add to your comments.
Shawn, are you saying that the US Army aviators have been ordered to fly above 500 ft AGL? I guess that MANPADS are not considered a threat then. I have always tried to avoid the small arms envelope - fly 50 ft or less, or NB 2000ft unless you absolutely have to. At 500 ft, they are smack bang in the least survivable height band for SA - sounds like Somalia where they were apparently shot down from 300 ish ft.
To paraphrase your post then you could have said:
"I found no supporting evidence for my claim that the US Army lied to it's Apache pilots about invunerability and therefore withdraw it unconditionally. Although the Apache was designed to be ballistically tolerant, no one in their right mind would believe it would survive a ZSU-234 engagement".
BTW, the word "invulnerability", is that USA speak for "not vulnerable" or "survivability"?
Robbo and hotzen go back a page and review Nick's three types of weapon environments. That may add to your comments.
Shawn, are you saying that the US Army aviators have been ordered to fly above 500 ft AGL? I guess that MANPADS are not considered a threat then. I have always tried to avoid the small arms envelope - fly 50 ft or less, or NB 2000ft unless you absolutely have to. At 500 ft, they are smack bang in the least survivable height band for SA - sounds like Somalia where they were apparently shot down from 300 ish ft.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't know whether they were 'ordered to' fly above 500' AGL. My source said that they flew at 500' and not lower. And he did make the comparison to Somalia.
Shawn,
In Somalia, after the Bad Day event, the US Army put in place a VFR airway setup around Moga. We inherited that routine and it made me wonder then why such things happen. Knowing the Army mentality...it does not surprise me that similar things happened in Iraq. The key is in making one self "unpredictable" as possible. If I wish to mug you...all you have to do is follow the same path at the same time at the same height at the same speed......and WHAM! GOTCHA!
Using Hover fire techniques in the open desert or an urban area that is not divided by a MLR with opposing forces nicely divided between over there and right here....just sets the guys up for trouble. In Somalia, Task Force Ranger became predictable and used the same tactics repeatedly. Then to do it in the daylight to boot....just begged for trouble.
My hat is off to the courage those guys demonstrated during that fight....but I would suggest it could have been avoided by use of different tactics. Critiques of that action confirm that.
In Somalia, after the Bad Day event, the US Army put in place a VFR airway setup around Moga. We inherited that routine and it made me wonder then why such things happen. Knowing the Army mentality...it does not surprise me that similar things happened in Iraq. The key is in making one self "unpredictable" as possible. If I wish to mug you...all you have to do is follow the same path at the same time at the same height at the same speed......and WHAM! GOTCHA!
Using Hover fire techniques in the open desert or an urban area that is not divided by a MLR with opposing forces nicely divided between over there and right here....just sets the guys up for trouble. In Somalia, Task Force Ranger became predictable and used the same tactics repeatedly. Then to do it in the daylight to boot....just begged for trouble.
My hat is off to the courage those guys demonstrated during that fight....but I would suggest it could have been avoided by use of different tactics. Critiques of that action confirm that.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I find it interesting that Marine officers are almost required to read Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'. I have yet to hear an Army person quoting it.
They may know how many rivets there are in the tailboom, however...
They may know how many rivets there are in the tailboom, however...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache pilots required?
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE News Release (146/2004) issued by the Government News Network on 14 October 2004
Initial Operating Capability (IOC) has been declared for the Army’s new generation of Attack Helicopter. The Apache AH Mk1 will be the cornerstone of the Armed Forces’ new Joint Helicopter Command and is considered one of the most significant weapons’ systems to enter service with the British Army since the tank in 1916.
IOC is a significant step towards the platform reaching full operating capability.
Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said:
“I am delighted that IOC has been declared for the new Apache Attack Helicopter. This is a considerable achievement and evidence of how equipment projects are benefiting from the principles of Smart Acquisition.
ache is a hugely flexible and formidable fighting platform which will form part of 16 Air Assault Brigade and support 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. It can be armed with a variety of weapons including Hellfire missiles, CRV7 rockets and 30mm cannon rounds, and with its on-board surveillance and target acquisition systems the Apache provides a major increase in capability over its predecessor.”
Note to Editors
1. The Army’s requirement for an Attack Helicopter (AH), was endorsed in June 1991. This identified the need for an Attack Helicopter with long range anti-tank capability to replace its Lynx/TOW helicopters. Following a competitive tendering exercise, the contract was awarded to WHL in March 1996 and a separate contract for the supply of munitions was placed with Hunting Engineering Ltd.
2. In July 1998, the Strategic Defence Review quoted the Attack Helicopter as an example of the new equipment entering service in the next few years which would greatly improve our ability to conduct the hard hitting, mobile land operations of the future.
3. A Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract for the provision of the WAH-64 training services was awarded to ATIL in July 1998, following a detailed analysis of the increased cost effectiveness of the PFI solution over the conventional procurement and operation of training equipment.
4. The aircraft is based on the AH-64D Apache Longbow, which entered service with the US Army in 1998. Key differences between the WAH-64 and the US AH-64D are the Rolls Royce Turbomeca (RTM) 322 engines and the Defensive Aids Suite (HIDAS) that will be fitted to WAH-64.
5. Current plans see AH capability growth being delivered in a stepped manner, culminating in Full Operating Capability (FOC) in 2007, when 3 AAC Regiments will be operational.
6. Created as part of the Strategic Defence Review, Joint Helicopter Command will focus the joint capabilities of the three Services and enhance the operational effectiveness of the battlefield helicopter.
IOC is a significant step towards the platform reaching full operating capability.
Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said:
“I am delighted that IOC has been declared for the new Apache Attack Helicopter. This is a considerable achievement and evidence of how equipment projects are benefiting from the principles of Smart Acquisition.
ache is a hugely flexible and formidable fighting platform which will form part of 16 Air Assault Brigade and support 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. It can be armed with a variety of weapons including Hellfire missiles, CRV7 rockets and 30mm cannon rounds, and with its on-board surveillance and target acquisition systems the Apache provides a major increase in capability over its predecessor.”
Note to Editors
1. The Army’s requirement for an Attack Helicopter (AH), was endorsed in June 1991. This identified the need for an Attack Helicopter with long range anti-tank capability to replace its Lynx/TOW helicopters. Following a competitive tendering exercise, the contract was awarded to WHL in March 1996 and a separate contract for the supply of munitions was placed with Hunting Engineering Ltd.
2. In July 1998, the Strategic Defence Review quoted the Attack Helicopter as an example of the new equipment entering service in the next few years which would greatly improve our ability to conduct the hard hitting, mobile land operations of the future.
3. A Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract for the provision of the WAH-64 training services was awarded to ATIL in July 1998, following a detailed analysis of the increased cost effectiveness of the PFI solution over the conventional procurement and operation of training equipment.
4. The aircraft is based on the AH-64D Apache Longbow, which entered service with the US Army in 1998. Key differences between the WAH-64 and the US AH-64D are the Rolls Royce Turbomeca (RTM) 322 engines and the Defensive Aids Suite (HIDAS) that will be fitted to WAH-64.
5. Current plans see AH capability growth being delivered in a stepped manner, culminating in Full Operating Capability (FOC) in 2007, when 3 AAC Regiments will be operational.
6. Created as part of the Strategic Defence Review, Joint Helicopter Command will focus the joint capabilities of the three Services and enhance the operational effectiveness of the battlefield helicopter.
Has it actually got RF Hellfire yet or are they bridging the gap between desired capability and actual capability with spin?
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A brace of these big ugly birds seen today flying over the lower Pennie hills North East of Manchester, heading out over the Rossendale Valley. What a sight, although now a little worried due possible terrorist action in the hills!
Vfr
Vfr
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache pilots required?
Press report
The UK's first Apache Attack Helicopter regiment is fully operational, following the successful completion of Exercise Eagles Strike today.
9 Regiment Army Air Corps, part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, has been fully trained, tested and exercised as the lead Apache Helicopter Regiment and is now available for operations.
The Regiment Army Air Corps based in Dishforth, Yorkshire, and is the first front-line unit to take delivery of the Apache Attack Helicopter Mk1.
Brigade Commander, Brig Ed Butler, added: "As the modern battlefield becomes more complex, dispersed and technical, we need to evolve our military capability correspondingly.
"The Apache Attack Helicopter will give the British Army a genuine advantage over contemporary and future adversaries in the battlefield air space."
At the conclusion of Exercise Eagles Strike the MOD announced the award of two new contracts worth over £300 million to AgustaWestland that will significantly enhance the Apache Mk1's night vision capability and provide a new four year support solution for the helicopter.
The MOD has entered into a £194m contract with Westland Helicopters to provide Modernised Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/Pilots Night Vision Sensors (M-TADS).
The MOD has also awarded a £115m contract to AgustaWestland to provide essential logistics support to the Apache.
The Apache Mk1 is based on the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow. The prime contract was placed with AgustaWestland for the supply of 67 aircraft and all role and support equipment built to UK requirements.
The Mk1 replaces the Lynx/TOW helicopters and will be the key equipment within the Army's new air manoeuvre formation.
The Apache Attack Helicopter can be armed with a variety of weapons including Hellfire missiles, CRV-7 Rockets and 30mm canon rounds.
First Apache Attack Helicopter Regiment Fully Operational
The UK's first Apache Attack Helicopter regiment is fully operational, following the successful completion of Exercise Eagles Strike today.
9 Regiment Army Air Corps, part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, has been fully trained, tested and exercised as the lead Apache Helicopter Regiment and is now available for operations.
The Regiment Army Air Corps based in Dishforth, Yorkshire, and is the first front-line unit to take delivery of the Apache Attack Helicopter Mk1.
Brigade Commander, Brig Ed Butler, added: "As the modern battlefield becomes more complex, dispersed and technical, we need to evolve our military capability correspondingly.
"The Apache Attack Helicopter will give the British Army a genuine advantage over contemporary and future adversaries in the battlefield air space."
At the conclusion of Exercise Eagles Strike the MOD announced the award of two new contracts worth over £300 million to AgustaWestland that will significantly enhance the Apache Mk1's night vision capability and provide a new four year support solution for the helicopter.
The MOD has entered into a £194m contract with Westland Helicopters to provide Modernised Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/Pilots Night Vision Sensors (M-TADS).
The MOD has also awarded a £115m contract to AgustaWestland to provide essential logistics support to the Apache.
The Apache Mk1 is based on the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow. The prime contract was placed with AgustaWestland for the supply of 67 aircraft and all role and support equipment built to UK requirements.
The Mk1 replaces the Lynx/TOW helicopters and will be the key equipment within the Army's new air manoeuvre formation.
The Apache Attack Helicopter can be armed with a variety of weapons including Hellfire missiles, CRV-7 Rockets and 30mm canon rounds.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst driving up the M40 on Thursday I saw 4 of these flying over at about 100ft agl
What an awe enspiring sight. I was lucky enough to sit in one at shawbury last year, but to see 4 together in formation was pretty good.
Jonp
What an awe enspiring sight. I was lucky enough to sit in one at shawbury last year, but to see 4 together in formation was pretty good.
Jonp