Wait for Rich Lee to come save the day. I would question the survivability issue cause you would think it the tail rotor got hit or run into something it would cause to great of an imbalance that it wouldnt matter. What do I know?

After looking at Lu's piccy it would seem they were thinking of redundancy, what do you think?

I think the choice of 2 separate 2-bladed tail rotors is for redundancy/survivability and the choice of unequal spacing is for noise signature and transportability.

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 ...

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..............

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.

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......

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.

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?


:E :E

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??

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.

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.

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.

Sorry Rjsquirrel, forgot about the Blackhawk.........after my days.
(ORWAC 70-28) How about you........

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.

:E :E

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.

"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.

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.
:E :E

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)?

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.

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).

:E :E

These are the type of inflammatory comments that should always be supported by factual information. The US Army is an organization. An organization does not lie. People within the organization lie. Who in the US Army lied Lu? Please show me in writing where anyone has claimed that the Apache is "invulnerable" 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.

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.

:E :E

Rich,

Let me warn you of the dangerous road ahead:

step 1 - Lu makes slanderous statements that indicate that someone/something lied/cheated/misrepresented something and the whole system/group/manufacturer/regulator/governemtn is rotten/not to be trusted/on the take/stupid and only Lu through his report/fmea/fmica/analysis was able to prove it and save the world.

step 2 - Someone who actually knows what he/she is talking about, writes and disagrees

step - 3 Lu's posts get longer, windier and more convoluted.

step - 4 We yawn and flip to the next thread

Nick

PS I believe you are at step 2.

I think that Lu is already at Step 3.

But I would like to add another step in there somewhere between 3 and 4 - Rational person laughs at the escalation of outrageousness in Lu's claims, but worries about others believing/being influenced by them.

Lu: Please quote the exact part of the report (word for word please) where it mentions lies, or invulnerability to ZSU or RPGs.

Also answer the question I previously posed: what western helicopter would you have chosen?

Other rational contributers: I would be keen on discussion on the matters raised in the bottom of my last post if anyone else is intrested?
:8

Apples vs Oranges
 

My personal thought it's that the losses of more Apaches than cobras it's just because the "running fire" tactics of the marines and of course the number of sorties.
Have you seen a cobra doing a high hover attacks?
Have you seen a cobra low and slow flying over n Iraki city?
Surely you have seen an Apache doing those things.
From the images I have seen in TV Cobras were just doing close support (in the best way), coming from the back of the marines , shooting and then breaking hard.

Anyway...
I have found these images that I want to share
http://hal9000.inetstrat.com/crash/ah64.html
Looks pretty good crash resistant.

Regards.

Thanks, charlie!

Lu strikes again, not one mention of vulnerability, 23 MM and even this as the only citation about survivability:

"far superior to the Cobra in all performance dimensions, including......survivability."

So much for Lu's credibility.

RJ

When Lu stated that the US Army lied......he was being truthful in a non subtle sense. But, he is correct! To think that we were so protected from ZSU's, RPG's, ( even US Stinger's) and a load of 'off the shelf ' weaponary is ignorant and stupid. From Vietnam to Somalia and the rest since! The Army knows the vulnerability of the AH64 and every other machine that would be involved in the fight, but there is no sense in training pilots to constantly think of their equipments weakness. They'd be too scared to go to battle and understandably so. But, they are designed as a tool to prosecute a war or battle as the politicians see fit. I think Lu was touching on the morality of design and how much is really understood by the operators (Commanders, Pilots) as oppossed to inflammatory remarks!! The key to utilization and survivability of these machines is how they are tactically employed on the Battle field. Keep in mind that there are no FLOT's or FEBA's to adhere to, and that the conflict in Iraq is urban and unsuitable for Heli's for the most part! They still carry massive ordinance and can do damage....but to what effect strategically??
At the risk of having the T/R shot off or pilots killed by an AK47?
This war can only be won by the boot on the ground! At least in the urban area's of Iraq.......................and thats a whole lot of realestate for even the US Army to patrol and secure!:cool:

In an urban environment against troops wearing no uniforms it must be hard for an AH crew to engage an target from 1500ft. Maybe (my speculation) the Apache crews take larger risks because of the higher survivability of their machines. So the higher losses of Apaches are because of more AH-64 than AH-1 around and (maybe) different tactics. Does anybody know if the Army and Marines doctrines are different?



Crash review team

The team conducting the comprehensive review of all downings was headed by Col. Stephen Dwyer, a brigade commander at the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala., and it included about a dozen forensic and weapons experts, crash analysts and helicopter specialists. The team spent about four weeks in Iraq visiting each crash site, taking soil samples for forensic analysis and talking to aviators.

"They went over to look at Army aviation, make an assessment and make recommendations on how to improve it," said Lt. Col. James Bullinger, a spokesman for the Army Aviation Center.

Bullinger said that even before the team started its work, the Army was adopting lessons from Iraq, teaching pilots to fire their weapons while "running and diving," instead of hovering, when a helicopter is more vulnerable to an attack.

Senior Army commanders said the assessment team provided several valuable insights for pilots in Iraq, and for the fresh crews preparing to rotate into the country.
"This is a case of our Army coming through quickly with the right expertise at the right place," said Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division.

American intelligence analysts have said that during Saddam Hussein's rule, Iraq stockpiled at least 5,000 shoulder-fired missiles of all types, and that fewer than a third have been recovered.

From the Jan. 18, 2004 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The tactics that are used play against the weapons we face. There are three types:

Type 1 - small arms/shoulder weapons (7.62mm/.30 cal and including RPG's) - these are ineffective against helos which are operated above 800 to 1000 ft and flown at speeds above 60 to 80 knots. Employ diving fire with rockets and circling engagements with turret. Avoid low speed, low altitude. Vietnam tactics

Type 2 - Crew served automatic weapons 50 cal/12.7 and above - engage at long range, using standoff weapons. Avoid overfly at any altitude below 4000 feet, at any speed. Can be engaged from low NOE altitudes if the gun position is known and split fire engagement from simultaneous attackers can be arranged. Very difficult to engage if multiple sites having overlapping effective range and with radio link are found.

Type 3 - Shoulder fired IR missiles - Stand off and stay low. Easy to engage when site is known, very hard to know! Use background clutter and NOE tactics, which are very effective, especially if aircraft has IR supression. Avoid use of type 1 tactics, as they put you squarely within the missile's kill zone.

Iraq is confusing, as they have all 3 types in abundance, all soaked into a passive civilian populace. This is not military work, it is police work, and not for the faint of heart. Those who use diving fire techniques will avoid the small arms and die from the missiles and crew served weapons.

Dazzle them with facts and blind them with bull sh!t
 

It seems I have started a firestorm and as a result my known detractors have chimed in and used confusing facts such as I don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground and further offering that I am not to be believed..

What I stated was that the Apache was designed with a high degree of invulnerability. That is a fact.

I got the following from the Internet and it supports what I said.

"Grease filled gearboxes designed for substantial ballistic tolerance to 14.5 mm and 23-mm fire. Twin T700 engines with sufficient reserve power to limp home on one powerplant. A tailshaft designed to absorb hits and if cut by fire, not to chop the tail off. Extensive use of composite armor to absorb low caliber fire, shrapnel and spall. Seat shock absorbers and structural design to absorb extremely high sink rates. A dual redundant 3000-psi hydraulic system and a host of other less evident design features provided the AH-64A with unprecedented damage tolerance". This is also a fact.

Regarding the “Lie” if you feel that a military organization would not lie to or deceive the troops you are either in denial or, you are naïve.

As far as where the lie came from I believe it came from TRADOC Bulletin 4: Soviet ZSU-23-4: Capabilities and Countermeasures

I am checking into it to determine if this was the source.

Since it is a proven fact that the AH-64 was designed to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI or HE round (1) or, a tumbled 50 cal round (several) or a whole lot of small arms fire then what other than an RPG caused the loss of so many Apaches. The D model was supposedly more invulnerable to this threat so why were they shot down? I am just asking a question. I am not in any way addressing combat tactics other than the AH-64 was designed for direct contact with an enemy.

It seems that this thread has diverged into those of you (and you know who you are) trying to convince the other guy all about combat tactics and not discuss what strange forces downed so many Apache helicopters. And that too is a fact.

:E :E

Guess we are still waiting for this:

because you say:
but strangely do not back it up with a reference, nor do you in any way attempt to PROVE the fact, nor substantiate your claim that it is "PROVEN". Thus your arguement is comming out of your arse (or a hole in the ground if you still cant tell the difference!)

Back to the real topic of the thread now... I did not mean to infer that running fire was the same as diving fire. Diving fire makes running fire so much more accurate and allows the helicopter some protection form SA, etc as per nick's Type 1 system. Running fire can, however, be used from NOE altitudes, exposing the aircraft only to bring main armament to bear on the target or fro supression of areas. Obviously, the ability to do this is entirely predicated on the Type 2 and 3 weapons systems you are facing, and the fractured nature of the FEBA in situations such as Iraq.

BTW, does Iraq continue to have type 2 weapons systems active?

If you were a marsupial you would have your head in your pouch.
 

To: Helmet Fire.

Sometimes you get me so pissed at people from Australia that I may stop using Aussie hairspray. I really would but I am addicted to the grape smell.

Re-read your post in reference to the two quotes.

I stated the possible source for the lie bit and I stated that I am in the process of verifying the story and the source.

Regarding the bit about design invulnerability and how the design-evolved relative to ballistic tolerance I reiterated my statement and I also added a bit I gleaned from the Internet. An Australian engineer who visited the Boeing facility in Arizona authored the report it came from. I assume the report was used to justify the purchase of the Apache by the Australian MOD.

:E :E

..........and I always wondered why you smelt of grapes - I just thought it was all that good Aussie wine!! Burrrrp!

As you stated that the fact was "proven" I thought you may have some "proof". Silly me.
:ooh:

Fact of the matter is LU use's Aussie Hairspray........why......Is the Ozzie Grape a better quality for the folically challenged when applied? Back to you Lu.....;)

The truth about Aussie hair spray
 

To: Helipolarbear

Are you incinerating that I am folically challenged?

I have a full head of gray hair and that is a problem in using Aussie hairspray. Several weeks ago my wife told me that the hair on the back of my head was turning purple. I assumed it was from the hairspray. I tried washing it out but to no avail. I contacted the company on their 1-800 line and explained my problem.

The woman asked for my postal code and I gave it to her. A minute or so later she gave me the address of the place that could get the purple out of my hair.

When I arrived at the place I found it was one of those stores where you could buy the products necessary to make your own wine.

I spoke of my problem to the owner of the shop and she brought me into the back room. She put my head into some sort of a winepress and she applied pressure and I could not believe the amount of purple liquid that was coming from my hair. She provide a mirror and I found that my hair was back to gray.

She told me that this was a common problem since the introduction of Aussie hairspray. As I was walking out I asked what she did with the purple liquid and she told me that it was sent back to Australia and they used it to color their wine.


:E :E :ok:

Lu, as ever, you get a banana and a gold star for effort. You should write a short story for Rotor & Wing.........the extraordinary life of a Heli-journey-man and his favourite Aussie Hairspray! Keep them coming and bring some life to this otherwise semi-illiterate, too serious BB!! Still enjoy some of the threads, but lately.....well, there is a lot of gloom to what is a seriously funny and exciting profession and all the nutters that make it that!:ok: Any Pearls of wisdom about Helicopter sales men/women.............................nearly as bad as the Jail House Lawyers..eh?:}

Lotus Exige vs Apache...close range missile lock attempt
 

I ran upon a video capture of Top Gear, a BBC auto program. The video is of a Lotus Exige, USA version of the Elise, trying to evade missile lock from a Longbow at short range.

It's a huge file, 44.8 MB. Certainly not dial-up friendly.

Take a look.

Well, that looked like fun: I'm not sure whether I'd rather have been driving the Apache or the Lotus :ok:

I saw the article on TV last week. Could have been better if the Apache wasn't made to look silly with all that flying around looking lost.
As they said at the end, all they'd do in reality is stand-off and blow the crap out of Jeremy, or cut the car in half with the gun.( I'd rather it was his little puppy of a co-presenter though, what a suck-up).

Good bit of KAPE though.
(Keeping the Army in the Public Eye)