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?:}

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!

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.


:E :E

Helmet Fire -

A Whiskey Cobra force-landed near Fallujah last Tuesday after taking ground fire. Both pilots were rescued.

I/C

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 ?

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.

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!)