SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?

15993 views
131 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Friday, February 18, 2005 1:12 PM
Money was also a factor in the USMC decision to stick with the Cobra(cost of new aircraft). The Apache is more expensive then the Cobra including updating Cobra's to Z models. Congress has dictated that any new attack helo's must be for both the Army and the Marines(next generation)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 1:24 PM
1) the apache is a piece of crap. it's a maintenance pig with more down time than up time
2) it's was an unproven design... the cobra worked fine.... ("radical change is bad" thinking)
3) ship-borne stability is greater with skids than the wheel config on the apache
4) we don't use our helos like the army does, so we don't need or want the "flying tank" idea the army does.... notice how slow the army is to flex in a different style of combat and note how many apaches get downed in the process.
5) the cobra was/is cheaper.... upgrading/SLEP'ing cobras is cheaper than buying new aircraft.

/jarhead
//not a skid guy, but have several buddies who are
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Friday, February 18, 2005 2:00 PM
I don't know much about doing maintenance on Apaches, so I can't comment there, but I think that the cost factor was the deciding one. Also, back when the design was first being considered, the Apache was still a relatively unproven design. Bell's Cobra was already a war veteran and you knew what you were getting with it. Also, to a lesser extent, the size issue. The major mode of transportation for Marine forces is by ship. Onboard ship, space is at a premium, especially on the flight deck and hangar deck. Saying that the Apache is "only" 6 feet longer kind of makes a big difference when you multiply that by anywhere from 6 to 10 aircraft. Also, the Apache is a heck of a lot wider, and it's a lot more conveinent to stow the Cobra's two blades in a fore/aft position rather than trying to fold multiple blades all the time.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Central Illinois
Posted by rockythegoat on Friday, February 18, 2005 2:56 PM
The following is from Cobrahistorian in ref my question. I had orignally posted my question on another thread but I didn't want to hijack it. Cobra replied, while I was edited my reply out and starting this thread.

QUOTE:
Rocky,

It isn't just the additional 6 feet in length, although that did have some impact. The Apache is significantly wider than the Cobra and weighs considerably more as well. Through the years, the AH-1 has maintained that same basic slim head-on view, making it a relatively small target. With an Apache coming at you, you're usually well aware of it, even if you are quaking in your boots!

The Marines also insisted on retaining the TOW capability, something that the Army wanted nothing to do with once the Apache was chosen. That's one reason our Marine Corps brethren try to say the Cobra is a "more capable" platform. It still has to hover to taxi....

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Friday, February 18, 2005 3:08 PM
Has the USMC totally replaced TOW with Hellfire?
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Friday, February 18, 2005 4:13 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Trigger74

Has the USMC totally replaced TOW with Hellfire?

No, TOW-2A's are still extensively used by USMC AH-1Ws. Our typical loadout in OIF 1 was four TOWs on the #1 side, and 4 Hellfires on the #2 side.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 6:14 PM
It took the Marine Corps some reluctance to adopt the Cobra during Vietnam, but once Marines get a hold of something it's hard to change their mind. Big Smile [:D] Cost and dimensions were a big factor and six feet, plus extra weight, does make a lot of difference in the deck multiple on a ship (number of aircraft that can safely operate off a ship). The AH-1Z doesn't have TOW capability (initial outfitting) but that doesn't mean it won't change. The Marines are bringing back the M-72 LAAWs for urban combat due to the AT-4 is limiting in some aspects.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Friday, February 18, 2005 6:31 PM
Matt,

Firstly, the Apache is not a piece of crap. The A model is the most capable attack helicopter in the world, hands down. As for Army doctrine, I totally agree with you on that. It has taken the Army 30 years to get back to the tactics and doctrine developed in Vietnam and away from the myopic "tank killer" role that the Apache was originally intended for.

The Apaches in ODS, OEF and OIF maintained close to 90% mission readiness rates throughout the campaigns and were in the thick of the fight for a majority of the combat for all three.

As for those helicopters that have been shot down, there have been more AH-1Ws shot down than there have been Apaches in all three operations. In ODS, one Apache from the 101st was shot down. In OEF, none have been shot down, although several were unflyable after landing at their FARPs during Operation Anaconda. And in OIF, three have been shot down (one from the 1-101st and two from the 1-227th, one each tour), all after taking an incredible amount of punishment. The Apache remains the safest helicopter to fly in combat, and only ONE aircrew has ever been killed in combat while flying the AH-64.

I'm not getting down on the Cobra. I love the bird and wish the Army would bring it back in the armed scout role. But for pure attack and close air support, the Apache is the way to go.
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: California
Posted by Heloguy on Friday, February 18, 2005 7:16 PM
There are many in the Chain-of-Command over at Bell (past and present) that are former marine helicopter drivers. They flew the cobra's and the 212's with proven competency, and the Corps has to make due with such a smaller budget. It's funny, a Major told me a few months ago regarding the upcomming implementation of the Yankee version of the Huey. It is a completely redesigned aircraft, however, it still appears to have the same general airframe, with four rotors on the main and tail of course. But, the only thing that is the same from the N model is the ID plate and a crossbeam just behind the pilot and co-pilot. That is one of those ways the Corps has to get away with a "new" aircraft. Congress just cringes at the thought of funds for a "new" aircraft. But, just tell them that it is an "upgraded" version of an existing design and they green light the funds. Oh and by the way, I'd much rather be flying a semi-rigid rotor system in the event of a low altitude, low airspeed, engine failure.
"You scratched my anchor!"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 8:03 PM

I hate to do this but in OEF the info provided above is wrong. One of our pilots brother flys the apache and he is in germany clinging to life. I cannot say which "unit" or where it happened but there is more aviation units than just the 101st. I'm sure you are all aware of that. I work side by side with the men who crew and fly these birds and they have a much more realistic view of the apache than the typical amchair pilot. Sure.. its a great aircraft with tremendous success. Sure it does its job very well. It is not flawless by any means and is very sensitive in regards to weight and mechanics. The 64 has has more training/mechanical downs than I care to talk about. Most of which the crew does not fair too well. I'm not flaming nor am I standing on a soapbox.. I am simply expressing my opinon from what I see and hear in the field. These aircraft are amazing to be sure... just not flawless. Don't let books, documentary's or the military channel fool you. The 64 can bite the crew just as fast as it can take out an enemy tank. If you think any publication is going be unbias you are just plain wrong. The military is not quick to advertise its errors in descion making or equipment errors I will leave it at that.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2005 9:31 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Cobrahistorian

Matt,
The Apaches in ODS, OEF and OIF maintained close to 90% mission readiness rates throughout the campaigns and were in the thick of the fight for a majority of the combat for all three.


sorry, but wherever you got that number is beyond me, because it is far from the truth.....the apache has been a maintenance nightmare since it's introduction and it's been a major point of contention in every conflict it's been involved in (Granada, GW1, Bosnia, OIF, OEF).

and if you'd like some comparison between a snake and an apache... here, straight from a guy I know who flies skids

"Ok yes there is a Bell Mafia or wellfare whatever you want to call it and yes a lot of former Coloners and Generals now work for them (great 60 minutes investigation) and yes that is the reason we have among other things the osprey and yankee model huey vice buying the 60 and replacing them both.
The apache however is a great platform for fighting off the great comunist hoard at the the Fulda Gap but really hasnt evolved beyond that whereas the Cobra for all it faults started life as a counter-insurgency platform and grew into having an anti-armor capability (kinda what we are doing now). It is small good for both survivability and shipboard use. It is realatively simple-easy to maintain and surprisingly survivable-see some pictures from the most recent adventure. Basically almost anything the Apache can do a Cobra can do (it might take more pilot workload) at almost half the cost. I had a chance to talk to and train with some Apache guys and it is a surprisingly unmanueverable helicopter and all its systems are limited to weapon employment from a hover (not real survivable). The Zulu will adress the only real shortcomings we have (old FLIR and no negative G's as well as help with ergonomics and cockpit layout)"
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Saturday, February 19, 2005 12:44 AM
Ewwww. I just came back to this post to check out what the new replies were, and I don't like what I stepped in. Every aircraft has it's high and low points. Apache guys will love the Apache and Cobra guys will love the Cobra. And they will both highlight the lackluster points of their rival. I'll refrain from any more Apache-bashing and leave it at thatSmile [:)]. Now let's all head down to the club for a beer.........
Last time I checked, we were using BOTH of these birds to blow up our enemy in extraordinary fashion, and that is all that matters! Thumbs Up [tup] Semper Fi.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 19, 2005 2:07 AM
Rounds on target: check...BDA: bad guys dead...Mission: Accomplished, let's do it again and go home...
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:24 AM
Hold on, hold on, hold on.

I was not bashing the Cobra and putting the Apache up on a pedestal.

Firstly, as a historian who has studied both types in depth, I recognize the advantages and shortcomings of both types. I certainly am familiar with the multiude of training mishaps with the Apache and its resistance to desert adaptation, as I am familiar with its operational limitations. In the same vein, I am very familiar with the Cobra's limitations and freely agree that the Marine Corps has a lot to teach the Army about close air support ops.

As for the operational readiness numbers, as for combat ops. those are accurate. Pre-combat, they have certainly been subject to numerous groundings, maintenance issues, etc, but IN-THEATER, they have performed at the highest levels.
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Saturday, February 19, 2005 10:02 AM
Both are good birds, now it's time for a few cold one's
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 19, 2005 10:15 AM
Ahhh Gdad.. you are always a refreshing voice of reason.

If i need to make myself clear.. I was not trying to "start" anything just simply relaying what I hear on a day to day basis from the hanger to you all!!

Cobrahist,
Don't take any offence please. I have been talking to you for ages so you should know its nothing personal.
As for the helo's... both are great, both do thier job well.. one is just a hell of a lot more cost effective. Each has its own set of limitations and issues.
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Österreich
Posted by 44Mac on Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:15 AM
The Corps has always been the "red headed stepchild" of the DOD budget battles and that has alot to do with what they aquire. Wonder how much they´ve spent on the Osprey? I tend to agree with the idea of Blackhawks instead of Ospreys `n Hueys. A common platform shared by all services makes things less complicated, at least from the training and logistics sides of the house. The Apache is definitly an impressive machine. I once watched em poping up from behind treelines from waaay back to engadge targets designated bv a OH58 with a mast sight. Gave me a whole new understanding of the word bullseye! Still, I agree with sticking with the Cobra, if it ain´t broke don´t fix it! And then there´s this. I haven´t built or owned a helo kit since i was about 10 but recently I went and bought the Italeri 1/35 Whiskey Cobra because simply put, It´s the SEXIEST FREAKIN HELO I´ve ever seen! As an aside to that, has anyone else noticed that on one side of the box it lists the scale as 1/24? I´m with Snake, let´s gotothaclub! Who´s ringin the bell this time?

Strike the tents...

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:04 PM
The Marine's have already had the battle over Blackhawks vs HUEY's, the HUEY's won. Ever aircraft has good and bad points and different service's have different needs. While it is sometimes best for all service's to share the same aircraft it doesn't always work in practice.
In the future when new helo's are needed, let the troops that will fly them and maintain them(and use them for support) voice thier opinions and concerns to the designer's not the Generals and politians.
Cold brew time(your own choice of course)
Member been there, done that, got the t-shirt club
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: California
Posted by Heloguy on Sunday, February 20, 2005 3:54 PM
Man, I just wanted to know how to make my weathering more realisticBoohoo [BH]
"You scratched my anchor!"
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Georgia
Posted by Screaminhelo on Sunday, February 20, 2005 4:06 PM
Hey guys, why don't we get an Apache and a Cobra, dump them both in a big box, shake thoroughly and see what we end up with?

Mac

Mac

I Didn't do it!!!

  • Member since
    November 2004
Posted by DPD1 on Sunday, February 20, 2005 5:08 PM

sorry, but wherever you got that number is beyond me, because it is far from the truth.....the apache has been a maintenance nightmare since it's introduction and it's been a major point of contention in every conflict it's been involved in (Granada, GW1, Bosnia, OIF, OEF).

and if you'd like some comparison between a snake and an apache... here, straight from a guy I know who flies skids

"Ok yes there is a Bell Mafia or wellfare whatever you want to call it and yes a lot of former Coloners and Generals now work for them (great 60 minutes investigation) and yes that is the reason we have among other things the osprey and yankee model huey vice buying the 60 and replacing them both.
The apache however is a great platform for fighting off the great comunist hoard at the the Fulda Gap but really hasnt evolved beyond that whereas the Cobra for all it faults started life as a counter-insurgency platform and grew into having an anti-armor capability (kinda what we are doing now). It is small good for both survivability and shipboard use. It is realatively simple-easy to maintain and surprisingly survivable-see some pictures from the most recent adventure. Basically almost anything the Apache can do a Cobra can do (it might take more pilot workload) at almost half the cost. I had a chance to talk to and train with some Apache guys and it is a surprisingly unmanueverable helicopter and all its systems are limited to weapon employment from a hover (not real survivable). The Zulu will adress the only real shortcomings we have (old FLIR and no negative G's as well as help with ergonomics and cockpit layout)"



Though I am also an "armchair" pilot, as described earlier... I do have some time in helos, and think I have a pretty good understanding of their role in battle. I have to agree with most of this... In my mind, the helicopter is always going to be a nice big juicy target for the enemy, in any kind of close in mixed up battle. In other words, something other than the atypical red vs blue, front to front, European style war against the Soviets... Which is what the Apache was built for, and also what they still show in military PR to this day... A nice pretty row of Apaches all lined up behind trees, waiting patiently while everybody pushes the right buttons. But today? Fly the 64, or any helicopter (including the 66), in an insurgence type of close in action, and they are going to get shot at... No matter how many fancy black boxes are stowed onboard. I have great respect for the pilots that I see on the news each night, hovering over those cities with a big fat target on their side. I personally don't know if I'd have the nerve to do it day in and day out. So with all that in mind... What's the point of having all the fancy hardware onboard for two or three times the price? I would want something that does the job, can move around good, and is dependable... And dependable means, less stuff to break... The less the better.

Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understood it was that the flight in OIF that included the two 64 Pilots that became prisoners, also had the crap shot out of the rest of the flight as well. There were numerous reports that virtually every ship in that flight had some level of battle damage, and a couple other ships also had to make emergency landings. The only difference being that those guys were picked up before being captured. Apparently a lot of this damage was simply from small arms fire... Guys just popping out of their houses and taking a shot, while the helos hovered or passed through. This was reported by numerous people in the media, and I believe one guy who was actually stationed with the unit. I think that says a lot about how the technology and old school tactics involving the 64 fair in the battle environment of today. I personally believe that incident had a great deal to do with why the 66 was canceled. Don't get me wrong... I like the helicopter... Just not sure if it's really the tool for the job now days.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Helicopter Reference Photo CD-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 20, 2005 5:40 PM
Mac...that would be one hell of a interesting looking Gunship...Big Smile [:D]
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 20, 2005 9:02 PM
Both are good machines, but they are for different missions. Maintenance is often blamed on the aircraft, which is not a fair assessment. Much of it has to do with the level of experience of the maintenance people maintaining the aircraft. Experience is something that is going out the door every day, be it USMC or Army and it effects the OR rate greatly. I have flown an AH64 nearly every day for the past month, at no time have I aborted a mission for maintenance.

From a previous post:

“I had a chance to talk to and train with some Apache guys and it is a surprisingly unmanueverable helicopter and all its systems are limited to weapon employment from a hover (not real survivable).”

The above statement is a load of crap, none of our weapons systems are limited to hover fire and the Apache is an extremely maneuverable aircraft. If you haven't personally flown one, your opinion is extremely limited.

Jim Kindred
CW4, US Army
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Sunday, February 20, 2005 11:30 PM
Chief Kindred,

Thank you! I'm getting the crap shot outta me here!

Pharoah,

Hmmm... no worries, dude. I am a bit taken aback by the outright condemnation of my OEF information. I'm well aware of most of the circumstances of Apache crashes within the past few years, as I've either interviewed the pilots themselves, or guys who were there. Drop me an email.

DPD1,

The Karbala mission, where the 11th AHR got shot up was a well executed mission by the two battalions that conducted it. Problem is, it should never have happened. I've interviewed half a dozen pilots who participated in the mission. When you send two full battalions on a deep attack mission without accurate intel, artillery or tac air support, into an urban environment, they are going to get shot up. Also, the air defenses around Karbala were the ONLY coordinated air defense the Iraqis had EVER employed against US forces. And it was very well coordinated.

The problems with the mission began well before it even began. Supply convoys for the three battalions were driving north from Kuwait to the regiment's FARP. With traffic snarls and general slow going, only one battalion's supplies got there by the time the regiment was supposed to jump off. As a result, only two of the three battalions were able to participate. Of the full 64 helicopter regiment, only 29 actually overflew the target. Only one, flown by CW2 Joe Goode, returned to base without at least one hole in it.


Everyone,

As for maintenance issues, I will reiterate that IN A COMBAT SITUATION, Apache units have CONSISTENTLY maintained a minimal 90% combat readiness. Other factors, like weather or lack of fuel may have grounded the Apache force, but that is it.

The Apache had some issues initially in Desert Storm because they hadn't been adapted to the desert environment. During the war, however, they performed flawlessly and were the subject of much praise during and after the war. As for the other conflicts mentioned, a) the Apache didn't serve in Grenada, it became operational in 1984 with the 6th Cavalry; b) in Bosnia, there were numerous POLITICAL issues that affected the Apache deployment (do we really wanna deploy Army units, etc) and a high-profile training accident that pretty much was the reason for said criticism; c) OEF. Where was the criticism? The Apaches operated nearly flawlessly in a combat environment that was totally alien to them, which is a testament to the intelligence, flexibility and resourcefulness of the aircrews of the 3-101st, 1-229th and follow-on units that are still conducting ops in Afghanistan. They were able to take a platform that they trained in hover-fire tactics on, and transitioned to running fire (a la Vietnam tactics) and employ it effectively to support our guys on the ground for extended periods of time, all the while taking RPG, SA-7, small arms and AAA fire.

To finally put an end to this debate, I think that TF Wings, which is currently operating in Afghanistan illustrates it best. Historically the OEF attack helicopter requirement was for a single battalion of Apaches. Right now, TF Wings is flying two companies of National Guard AH-64s alongside a single squadron of Marine Reserve AH-1Ws from HMLA-773. Now that's cooperation.

"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 21, 2005 12:22 AM
From what I have seen personally over the past two years (speaking from Active Duty USMC and civilian standpoint)...both aircraft are very good at what they do. Naturally I'm biased more towards the Cobra but I've seen the Apache squadron CobraHistorian is talking about in Afghanistan and they are doing very well. The cooperation is extremely good (coming from USMC crews of the helo squadrons out there...one "Skid" AH-1Ws/UH-1Ns and one CH-53E). To go even further on cooperations, the Marine Infantry Battalion routinely gets inserted by the CH-47 squadron based out of the same location. Bottomline...I feel very comfortable knowing I've armed Gunships over my POS.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Monday, February 21, 2005 12:51 AM
QUOTE: Chief Kindred,

Thank you! I'm getting the crap shot outta me here!


Jon, I hate to see you rolling on your heels like that!
Enough of the friendly fire guys! lol.

But, just wanting to add a little to Cobrahistorian's last post regarding operational issues. I think it's worth noting that there is a difference between the operational readiness of an aviation unit in garrison vs. a deployed unit -- especially one in combat. I'm not an officer or a bean counter, but from maintenance experience, readiness rates do typically fall when you're stuck at home "in the rear." You don't get all the parts you need, because you are a low-priority unit, and certain maintenance or safety-of-flight issues take precedence over flight hours. Conversely, in combat, your unit priority for parts and equipment goes up to #1. Certain maintenance or safety-of-flight issues that ground a plane in the rear are....I don't want to say ignored, but are taken in by the flight crew as a calculated risk towards accomplishing the mission.

Simply put, I'm not trying to explain away the reportedly "bad" maintenance record of the Apache, just offer a little perspective as to how things can change when the s**t is hitting the fan. In most cases, if the plane is airworthy, the pilots are taking it.
I know that when it comes to putting fire on the enemy in support of our grunts, I have seen more than one cobra / huey pilot take off in a bird that had a master-caution panel lit up in more places than it should have been, just because the operational tempo and gravity of the situation was demanding it. Did that maintenance issue reflect on our readiness report? Maybe it did or didn't.....but we got the job done nonetheless.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Cape Town, South Africa
Posted by osjohnm on Monday, February 21, 2005 2:01 AM
What I would like to know is how does the Apache/Cobra compare to the Hokum/Havoc?

I read in Time magazine years ago that during GW1, Pavehawks/Pavelows? and 64s took out the Iraqi communications and opened up a "lane" for the allied aircraft to fly through at the start of the air war. Is this true?
John
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Monday, February 21, 2005 5:34 AM
John,

Yep, you're right. The opening shots of ODS were fired by the Apaches of 1-101st Aviation. They were led by USAF Pave Lows because at that point, the Apache wasn't equipped with GPS and the '53s were. They flew at 50 feet and 30 knots for a ridiculous amount of time so they could achieve total surprise, otherwise their chances of being detected went through the roof and the mission would fail. The mission was led by then-Lieutenant Colonel (now LTGEN) Dick Cody and the mission is related well in the book "Lightning in the Storm".
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Cape Town, South Africa
Posted by osjohnm on Monday, February 21, 2005 8:40 AM
Thanks Jon.

Tell me, are there any "accurate" websites that depict the missions that 64s flew in ODS, OEF, OIF? Things like how many units, weapon loadouts, actual missions etc?
Just curious.

Thanks
John
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Monday, February 21, 2005 10:36 AM
Jon
I have never seen any reports that show the Apache to be a maintanance nightmare, it seem to me that the critic's always throw these "reports" out. Yes there were some problems when the Apache first came out(show me any new aircraft that doesn't have problems) and yes there were some problelms at first in Desert Storm, but they were overcome.
Maintanance problems usually are the fault on the using unit and not always thier fault. Operational needs and suply problems are always there in or out of combat.
As I have stated earlier they are both good aircraft but will add when maintained and used properly. The Army and the Marines have different needs and uses for thier aircraft and if I had to serve again i wouldn't turn down support from either service. I like the way they support each other these days, it wasn't always that way when I was in.
Know it's Miller time(or the brew of your choice)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 21, 2005 6:29 PM
I think most of you guys are missing the real issue. I have served in both the Army and the Marines as an infantryman. So basically I've heard every comparison between the Army and Marines that one can image, ie. M-16 vs M-4, AAV-7 vs M113, Cobra vs Apache, etc etc.

The point is this. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. The Corps has their way of doing things and the Army has their way of doing things. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a Marine Corps and an Army; they would be the same.

Therefore, the Cobra fills the Corps needs concerning how they get things done, and the Apache fills the Army needs concerning how they get things done.

I firmly belief the guys who make the discions about what piece of equipment to use know more then any of us do about employment of the equipment.

By the way, I love the Cobra and Sempre Fi,

Jesse
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Monday, February 21, 2005 6:44 PM
Gdad,

Thanks! I'd heard of maintenance issues early on in the Apache's career as well, but nothing serious for at least the past 15 years.

One other historical note. The Apache's combat debut was in Panama in 1989. The AH-64s of the 1/82nd Attack operated flawlessly as a part of a coordinated attack on the most heavily defended parts of the country and took a great deal of small arms fire in the process. The overall commander for the mission (I forget his name, but it's in my book) had nothing but praise for the unit's performance and was completely awed at the capability of the Hellfire missile.

Anyhow, Jesse's right. Honestly, the Army's finally coming around to comprehending how the Marines use rotary wing attack aviation. Lets hope they continue to do so!
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Monday, February 21, 2005 11:06 PM
Being a Cobra pilot I may be a little biased but I'll briefly wade into this anyway. Biggest difference in my mind is not a comparison of the airframes it is a comparison of the targeting system and the weapons carried.

AH-64 - Hellfire, 2.75, 30mm, Stinger?
AH-1W - Hellfire, 2.75, 20mm, 5", TOW, Sidewinder, Sidearm

I realize that there are many arguments whether so much diversity is required so I won't go into ARMs or A-A missiles. I'll just focus on anti-armor. TOW vs Hellfire. Hellfire is a good missile but is has major limitations that the TOW doesn't have. Sure the TOW has limitations but being able to carry both giuves you a lot more options and greatly increases the types of targets and environments you can operate in.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 21, 2005 11:36 PM
Bottomline...bad guys beware...if you're in a vehicle or tank...you're dead. If you're running...don't bother...you'll only die tired.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Monday, February 21, 2005 11:46 PM
Supercobra,

The AH-64 has been cleared for carriage of 4 stingers, although I don't think its ever been done operationally. I've gotta check on my sources for that one.

Just out of curiosity, any idea how the Super Cobra's targeting system compares to the Apache's? I figure with the NTS upgrades, they should be at least on par with the latest A models if not slightly superior due to newer technology.

.
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:41 AM
I have to chime in on this one

Having gotten to be in the old MTOE Attack Battalion (18 -64A's, 13 -58A/C's and 3 -60's), prior to WW Gulf I we saw a tripling of our civilian tech reps for the apaches, having learned the hard way that the Apache is allergic to dust from NTC rotations out in Irwin. If memory serves me correctly, all the wiring for the Stinger option is in the wings, but the army thinking was that an apache driver would go looking for an air -to-air kill vs tank killing/CAS.
The Apache isn't a bad aircraft, its just a victim of being in the single most hated branch of the army: Aviation and thus subject to the pittance in funds given to it by the mud stomping money holders.. It had way too many changes per airframe coming out of Mesa, it had untried avionics, it had a FLIR that was tempermental but with the -64D with the Generation II+, its finally realizing its potential. It did and still does have a competent group of aviators manning the controls. And for what it was meant to do, to make the Fulda gap an armored cemetary for the commies, it would of performed admirally. And only 2 apaches got shot down in OIF, the -64 can take an asswhipping like no-one's business. I can't believe as a -60 driver I just defended the -64.
  • Member since
    November 2004
Posted by DPD1 on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:49 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Cobrahistorian



DPD1,

The Karbala mission, where the 11th AHR got shot up was a well executed mission by the two battalions that conducted it. Problem is, it should never have happened. I've interviewed half a dozen pilots who participated in the mission. When you send two full battalions on a deep attack mission without accurate intel, artillery or tac air support, into an urban environment, they are going to get shot up. Also, the air defenses around Karbala were the ONLY coordinated air defense the Iraqis had EVER employed against US forces. And it was very well coordinated.

The problems with the mission began well before it even began. Supply convoys for the three battalions were driving north from Kuwait to the regiment's FARP. With traffic snarls and general slow going, only one battalion's supplies got there by the time the regiment was supposed to jump off. As a result, only two of the three battalions were able to participate. Of the full 64 helicopter regiment, only 29 actually overflew the target. Only one, flown by CW2 Joe Goode, returned to base without at least one hole in it.



OK, at least I was fairly close with that story... Good to hear that they are apparently rethinking tactics now days after something like that.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Helicopter Reference Photo CD-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Central Massachusetts
Posted by snakedriver on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:11 PM
In the interests of full disclosure, I must state up front that I am a former AH-1 pilot with a little over 1100 combat hours.
Last night I watched a documentary on the AH-64 that blew me out of my seat. Some of the footage showed various systems and components under-
going "battle damage" tests; 12.7mm impacts to drive shafts, gear boxes and control linkages. Some rounds had to be 20mm explosive shells, although I
cannot be certain. The danged beast still flew. There was testimony of 23 mm hits to the engines and rotor system with the aircraft recovering to its home base. Pilot comment was, " I think I've been hit!"
As far as agility is concerned, I can only describe the footage as absolutely remarkable. Rearward take off to 50 knots, nose pirouet, and accelerate out to 100knots in seconds. I don't know how the modern, more powerful Snakes handle in low level nap of the earth environments, but the stuff I saw the Apache do would have scared me to death in a G model.
I have met and spoken with combat experienced Apache drivers, and from personal knowledge, their only misgivings were due to lack of training in "running fire" tactics. That has nothing to do with the platform. That is a circumstance caused by decades of Army doctrine which emphasized anti-armor tactics. These same Apache pilots spoke with other Vietnam combat veterans and "picked their brains". The lessons were put to work in Afghanistan
and worked really well.
I would love to strap on a "Whiskey" model or a "Zulu", I'll bet they are a hoot to fly. Why, heck, we saw Marine J models and were really ticked we didn't have 'em. Two motors and that great big gun stickin' out front. Yahooooo!
Don't mean nothin'
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:13 PM
Think the Army needs to go back to the basic's learned in SEA
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:22 PM
Gdad,

Thankfully, that's happening now from what I've heard. No more focus on anti-armor at the expense of everything else!

"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:57 PM
I can agree with army aviation being the stepchild.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:13 PM
especially Guard and Reserve units(they're last on the list)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:47 PM
grandadjohn,
Not in every case. The Alaska ARNG is flying some of the newest UH-60L's out there, and even have 6 with FLIR and hoist. They've also got several (6 I think) C-23B+ Sherpas, although I wouldn't bring that subject up with anyone at the 1/207th. The Sherpa was the aircraft that NOBODY wanted. They had to give up their UV-18 twin otters for them, and the ole Twotter was a MUCH better aircraft for up here in Alaska.





  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:46 PM
ARNG is famous for having lots of aviation $$$$. When you think about it.. the community relies on those birds for much more than most states. It only makes sence they have all the good toys.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:16 PM
I have to agree with Pharoah on that one, but thanks for the photo's Salbando
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:14 PM
Why is it that we learn lessons from a previous conflict (Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc...) and then we don't fully implement them? No wonder history has a bad way of repeating. I will admit that we are doing a lot better than in the past, but I think the military can do a better job.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:49 PM
We were too concerned about fighting the Warsaw Pact on the plains on Europe and didn't adapt to the changing world. Desert Storm was the Europian battle in the desert. Thats what the equipment was designed for and the troops trained for.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:32 PM
Grandadjohn,
If you look at my post you'll see that unknownpharoah and I made the same point. Namely that the Guard actually in many cases has newer and better airframes than the active duty army folks, and are usually FIRST on the list and not LAST (as in your previous post) That's why I included the pics of the AKARNG airframes. Out in western Alaska they're our primary recovery asset when it comes to SAR, and get involved in many civil medevacs, help with fire fighting and are actually currently deployed to OIF.
Glad you liked the pics,Big Smile [:D]
Sal
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Friday, February 25, 2005 7:42 AM
In my years in the Guard, we never got new equipment, especially aircraft. Best we got was rebuilds from depot, I swear some of the rest came from the Boneyard. Case in point, my first M-14 in the Guard had the same serial number as the one I had in Germany that was replaced by the M-16A1.
But I do admit some things have gotten better, but my point is that all units should have the same priority on equipment(active, Guard and Reserve, in as much as possible). In the newspaper here about a year ago the case was made that aircraft in the reserves and guard didn't get the same upgrades that active units did and it caused some lose of life in Iraq. The powers to be didn't think they needed those upgrades and saved money by not getting them done.
I am not trying to offend you or Pharoah, I want you to have the best equipment and training that you need. With guard and reserve units being called up as much as you are(it was never intended to have reserve and guard units called up like this) you need the best you can get. That applies to all guard and reserve units in ALL states. I know what it was like when I was in and I see the equipment this state gets.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Friday, February 25, 2005 8:36 AM
I have a stupid question - where does the Guard units' bugets come from, the federal or state government?
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Friday, February 25, 2005 10:08 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Cobrahistorian

Supercobra,

The AH-64 has been cleared for carriage of 4 stingers, although I don't think its ever been done operationally. I've gotta check on my sources for that one.

Just out of curiosity, any idea how the Super Cobra's targeting system compares to the Apache's? I figure with the NTS upgrades, they should be at least on par with the latest A models if not slightly superior due to newer technology.

.


CH,
Without getting into specifics, my opinion and talking to those who've flown both, the NTS is a generation above the latest on the A and ID ranges beat the D. Number one in my mind must be the ability to ID the target, not just detect or recognize. Then again that depends on your mission but for CAS you can't afford to settle for less. Big problem with some systems is missile range exceeds the sensors range/ability to accurately ID the target (i.e., Longbow). The AH-1Z sensor is awesome as is the latest in our UH-1Ns.
SC
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Friday, February 25, 2005 12:33 PM
The budget for the Guard comes from both state and federal funds, but as for who supplies what and how much(both pay some) you will need to talk to your states USPF&O Officer. He is a active duty national guard officer who handles all that responsiblity.
When called to active duty, for training and annual training the fed's pick up the cost, when called to state duty the state pays
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 25, 2005 8:41 PM
Grandad is correct. The money comes from both federal and state and it generally depends on what activity the Guard is participating in. For example, When the AK ARNG does a civilian Medevac mission for the Native Health Corperation in Western Alaska, the Native Corperation reimburses the AK ARNG for that mission. Usually those missions are done when the civilian air ambulances can't go due to weather, maintenance or airfield conditions.
Now when my unit (AK ANG) does any civila SAR mission, we suck up the costs as "training" funds. Mainly because we're tasked and maintained to conduct SAR when we're here in Alaska. That's our job as per the national SAR Plan. What we do (AK ANG) is figure out what we spent on flying time per airframe type on actual SAR missions for this year, and add that flying time to the training flying time for next year. When we deploy on contingencies, we're paid for by whomever we're working for (AFSOC, USSOCOM, CENTCOM, etc..). It actually boggles the mind when you consdier the different pots of money we draw upon to function. In fact, we originally got our FLIRs through counterdrug money since we would (and still do) assist state and federal agencies with the counterdrug program. DOD generally pays for equipment, equipment upgrades, training and other stuff so that we are maintaned and ready to support national objectives. The state also pays for some types of gear and training, for example fire fighting buckets and flying time to train to fight fires. Since the Guard is made up of part timers, technicians and AGR (active-Duty Guard-like myself), most of the pay comes from the federal government. My pay and benifits are just as if I was an Active-Duty USAF member. When I'm here in Alaska and not on a SAR mission, I'm in Title 32 status. When I deploy or am on a SAR mission, I'm considered in Title 10 Status (just like regular Active-Duty). This is mainly for legalities and UCMJ stuff.

Hell, I'm an NCOIC right now and I'm STILL learning all of the different budgeting issues.

Bottom line is that the money comes from both state and federal. It also doesn't hurt to have a senior senator from your state. Mr Ted Stevens has always been a godsend for the AK Guard, which is probably one of the reasons we have some of the newest Pavehawks, HC-130N's, KC-135s and UH-60L+s out there. Hell, the poor folks up at Ft Wainwright (68th MEDCO) are flying upgraded UH-60A hand-me-downs from the 25th ID, and they're active duty army.

One last thing that I'm sure all of the other military folks still serving will atest to. Over the past several years, even starting before 9/11, we've been seeing a paradime shift in that the guard and reserves are right alongside the active-duty forces when a contingency arises. It started out as a unit/mission skill specific thing, but has evolved into being across the board. We in CSAR have ALWAYS been a high demand low density asset regardless of affiliation, and have been tasked accordingly.. Times have changed since I put on my first stripe.

Pharoah,
I know the 68th MEDCO boys do MAST missions, but do they eat the cost on those? I'm pretty sure they do.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Friday, February 25, 2005 10:21 PM
Sal, John, thank you both for answering my question.
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Kincheloe Michigan
Posted by Mikeym_us on Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:05 PM
the National guard unit we have which is 3 hours away from where I live still fly the old cobra's the only newer airframe they had was the Kiowa I dont even know if they ever got the AH-64's and with everything else going on with the Army and the Marines they always had to call in the Airforce to save their bacon with their A-10's and AC-130 Specter Gunships.

On the workbench: Dragon 1/350 scale Ticonderoga class USS BunkerHill 1/720 scale Italeri USS Harry S. Truman 1/72 scale Encore Yak-6

The 71st Tactical Fighter Squadron the only Squadron to get an Air to Air kill and an Air to Ground kill in the same week with only a F-15   http://photobucket.com/albums/v332/Mikeym_us/

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:35 PM
Confused [%-)]

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 28, 2005 2:21 AM
Wow, I'm sure that will be news to the soldiers and Marines on the ground. I really, really doubt A-10's and specters are being called in to save anyone's, "Bacon". . However, I doubt any Whiskey, Kiowa, or Apache driver would appreciate being told that they aren't supporting the troops and not doing their jobs and that the troops have to call on the zoomies when the muck hits the fan.
.
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Georgia
Posted by Screaminhelo on Monday, February 28, 2005 11:45 AM
Boy...Take your kid to WDW for a week and see what you miss!

I have to agree with Sal on the funding and thinking. We picked up new aircraft at the factory in '95. We also got the SLAB battery, improved HF radio and airbag system just after they were fielded. There are other mods out there that we didn't get but you can look at them as being in the "life extension" category. The truth is that some of these more routine mods are not as badly needed by most Reserve Component units. As a NG technician, I have much more opportunity to go the extra mile in maintaining my aircraft during the week. Active duty mechanics get distracted from thier job of maintaining aircraft by all kinds of requirements that are unrelated to aircraft maintenance. This helps a great deal when it comes to making the airplane last for years to come. The active duty guys don't lack the skills or initiative to go the extra mile, they just don't have the time after all of the extraneous crap gets taken care of on top of a higher optempo than we have here in the Guard.

If you are a guy like Sal, you have a mission that you constantly have to be ready for and don't have the luxury of preventive measures many times. As long as everything is within acceptable limits, you may have to keep the bird on the line until it breaks hard.

As for the -64 Cobra debate...the biggest difference between the two is tactics. I believe that the Corps does a much better job of employing their attack assets. Yes, the Apache is much more maintenance intensive than the Cobra but that is the tradeoff for using some of the systems that the Army wanted on the airframe. The bottom line is that it is an incredible airframe with one of the most durable and reliable power and drive trains out there. Most of the complaints that I hear about the aircraft revolve around non-essential systems. Many of these were added on later in the life of the aircraft.

I'll take either one any day if I need CAS because the crews that fly and maintain them are the best in the world.

Mac

Can you believe yet another -60 guy is defending an Apache?!

Mac

I Didn't do it!!!

  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Central Illinois
Posted by rockythegoat on Monday, February 28, 2005 1:32 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rockythegoat

I was wondering what the reason(s) were for the Corps not picking the Apache for their attack 'copter. I was reading "Cobra In Action" last night (this board is slowly converting me into a rotorhead. I normally build planes and armor, but...) and they mentioned that the USMC never really showed much interest in the 64. Or words to that effect.Question [?]

I can see where size could be an issue, but, if my metric conversion is correct and I remember the Cobra fuselage length, the 64 is only 6 feet longer (51 ft v 45 ft). Admitted total ignorance here (no flaming please. i have a delicate constitution Dead [xx(]) does/is the extra 6 feet that big of a factor? Or was there another size problem? (height, weight, width, etc) And other factors?

If this has been discussed on another thread somewhere, please send me that way. I tried a search but nothing really popped out. Of course I'm sure it wasn't user error or anything.....Blush [:I]



Thanks to all for answering my original question. As a former zoomie (non-aircrew), I'm not too sure about the comment up there of the USAF bailing folks' butts out cuz the USA/USMC can't get it done. Pretty darn sure there are plenty of stories of everybody's butt being saved by everybody else at one time or another.

Before this thread gets worse, maybe we should just close it and go sniff some glue and drink some beer and make up some war stories. Big Smile [:D]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Monday, February 28, 2005 5:22 PM
My last word on the Cobra, not bad for a gunship only meant to be "interim"
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 12:03 AM
Amen, G'dad!
Interim my big toe!
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Cobrahistorian

John,

Yep, you're right. The opening shots of ODS were fired by the Apaches of 1-101st Aviation. They were led by USAF Pave Lows because at that point, the Apache wasn't equipped with GPS and the '53s were. They flew at 50 feet and 30 knots for a ridiculous amount of time so they could achieve total surprise, otherwise their chances of being detected went through the roof and the mission would fail. The mission was led by then-Lieutenant Colonel (now LTGEN) Dick Cody and the mission is related well in the book "Lightning in the Storm".


Don't forget then-Lt Col Rich Comer (now Maj Gen Comer) who led the PAVELOWS that night.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:08 PM
Pavejon,

Roger that, and welcome to the Helo forum!
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:27 PM
Thanks.
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Georgia
Posted by Screaminhelo on Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:06 AM
Wow! I just decided to go back through this thread and I was amazed at all of the info out there! It is amazing to see two aircraft, designed for different missions, now overlaping into eachother's primary roll. The Army is learning from the tactical lessons of the Marines, and the Marines are realizing the they need some additional capability in their airframes. The American military is a complex machine but the end result is always the same. No matter which branch does it, regardless of equipment or unit type, we win in the end. We have the best fighting force in the world and I am proud to be a part of it.

Mac

Mac

I Didn't do it!!!

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:14 PM
i have to say that i personally love the apache it has saved my bacon numerous times it is a sneaky bird on the other hand i could always hear the cobras coming for miles people that have heard them know what im talking about

both are great machines but i will go with the apache

sgtkopp
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 28, 2005 3:45 PM
After seeing both of these helicopters in action in Afghanistan, i would have to say that the Cobra is the better of the two. The Apache is defiantely requires more maintenance time and more times than not they were down for something and the Cobras had to pick up the slack. Working with the Army while we were deployed over there was a real eye opener. They were always more interested in what our Cobras could do than what their Apaches did
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Ft. Sill, OK
Posted by beav on Saturday, May 28, 2005 4:03 PM
you would get a mishmash that wouldn't fly very well, and nobody would want it...
How do Kiowa's mix in? they are scouts right? they have weapons...

"First to Fire!"

Steven

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:15 PM
Well Rockythegoat, you have probably gotten some of the best info from some of these guys..but Im still going to throw my 2 cents in..I agree with ahiwsnake that cost is definitely a factor, and someone else mentioned that the Marines dont like change, which I have seen first hand myself, especially if something works. When I was in Iraq I would talk to alot of the guys like ah1wsnake who would keep the cobras flying. The cobra is a solid, reliable bird. Just about everybug has been worked out of it. It fits well on ships which is a factor. I was told by a cobra airframes guy from Hmla 169 that many of their birds have been around since the vietnam era..at least the airframes..everything else has been updated/replaced over the years...Ah1wsnake can probably confirm or deny that....Its definitely a very formidable machine. Its a bad mutha.. Smile [:)]
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: MCAS Miramar
Posted by SSgtD6152 on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:51 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mikeym_us

the National guard unit we have which is 3 hours away from where I live still fly the old cobra's the only newer airframe they had was the Kiowa I dont even know if they ever got the AH-64's and with everything else going on with the Army and the Marines they always had to call in the Airforce to save their bacon with their A-10's and AC-130 Specter Gunships.



1st of all we do not like to call the Airforce for air suport we call for AH-1W and F-18D's. And if Marine Air is not on station then and only then we call the Air force. Lets talk about the 3 CH-53e's that the Air Force killed in Afgan.

  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:20 AM
Actually, the Marine grunt doesn't call for anyone specifically and really doesn't have too much say in what platform he gets. He (his FAC, Air Officer, or JTAC) puts in a request for air support. What gets provided and responds depends on what's available and what gets routed by the DASC or TACC. The Marine on the ground doesn't get much choice or say in that. The other day we had F-16's and AH-1W's respond to the same call. Both did a wonderful job and I'm sure the grunts were happy to have either or. Same with MEDEVAC/CASEVAC. Injured get carried by Army H-60s and Marine Phrogs. Both are doing a great job and I'm sure the guys bleeding in the back aren't very parochial about who evacs them.

If you are talking about the incident where the B-52's dropped on the CH-53E's that was not in Afghanistan and while tragic, is no reason to condemn an entire service. I have controlled plenty of air and have been personally bombed by Marine air. I hate to sound placid but that stuff happens.

As far as who is better and what you would take for a particular instance; it all depends on the situation. As a Cobra guy I'm extremely biased but but permit me an analogy: We have two kinds of bottled water in Iraq, Mossn and Nestle. The taste of the Mossn sucks but it comes in bigger bottles. Sitting in garrison which one I choose depends on whether I have anything to add to it for flavor, whether I can drink it all in one sitting, etc. Out in the middle of the desert I'm going to be pickled tink to have either.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:37 AM
Well beav, I can honestly say that in over 6 months in Iraq I didnt see 1 kiowa. That thing is not suited for the mission there. If your thinking of the AH/MH/OH-6 "Little Bird" helicopters, they are being used in limited numbers by special ops guys. But even those arent suited for the day to day ops there. The Cobras there are usually paired with UH1N Hueys when they go out on missions. The Huey like the Cobra has been around along time and is extremely reliable. It is also very versatile and can be used for many different roles. It can be outfitted with rockets as well as door guns. I have seen it with M240G machine guns and with the Mini Guns. Most guys preferred the Mini Guns which was definitely the most popular door mounted weapons system. So it can really pack a punch on its own. The Huey can also carry personnel to be inserted or picked up. Well anyway, the Cobra and the Huey are a match made in heaven. They work very well together and I cant see the Marines going with anything different. They dont need to. This works.Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:20 AM
That's kinda funny - you not seeing a single OH-58D. Seems like every time I turn on the news, and there's new footage of a Kiowa either flying in the background or (sadly) shot down. Cobrahistorian has sent me pix of them in theater and they were used over Apaches when the two Hussein boys made their last stand. Jon told me why they were used instead of Apaches - I'll have to try to look that up later

I've only seen one pic of AH-6J Little Birds in Iraq:


I'm waiting on a magazine article from Cobrahistorian about their use over there - not holding my breath; it'll be a month since he's away at Ft. Lewis right now. But you're right - those have a specific task, and that's to support the SOF dudes, not day-to-day CAS
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:40 AM
Trigger, perhaps it had to do with where I was and that I was on an air station dominated by Marine Air. But we were the hub for aircraft ops for every service. We had alot of Army squadrons (Blackhawks) and we did see Apaches. It could be that there werent any squadrons of Kiowas deployed in my area. But I cant imagine that they are being used in any great numbers. Smile [:)]
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: MCAS Miramar
Posted by SSgtD6152 on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:01 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by supercobra

Actually, the Marine grunt doesn't call for anyone specifically and really doesn't have too much say in what platform he gets. He (his FAC, Air Officer, or JTAC) puts in a request for air support. What gets provided and responds depends on what's available and what gets routed by the DASC or TACC. The Marine on the ground doesn't get much choice or say in that. The other day we had F-16's and AH-1W's respond to the same call. Both did a wonderful job and I'm sure the grunts were happy to have either or. Same with MEDEVAC/CASEVAC. Injured get carried by Army H-60s and Marine Phrogs. Both are doing a great job and I'm sure the guys bleeding in the back aren't very parochial about who evacs them.

If you are talking about the incident where the B-52's dropped on the CH-53E's that was not in Afghanistan and while tragic, is no reason to condemn an entire service. I have controlled plenty of air and have been personally bombed by Marine air. I hate to sound placid but that stuff happens.

As far as who is better and what you would take for a particular instance; it all depends on the situation. As a Cobra guy I'm extremely biased but but permit me an analogy: We have two kinds of bottled water in Iraq, Mossn and Nestle. The taste of the Mossn sucks but it comes in bigger bottles. Sitting in garrison which one I choose depends on whether I have anything to add to it for flavor, whether I can drink it all in one sitting, etc. Out in the middle of the desert I'm going to be pickled tink to have either.



You are right the B-52 and the Shitter thing was not in Afgan it was in Africa.

Now what did I say If we can not get marine air then we call the Air Force. Because If they are Marines on the ground there Marines in air.

I'm a Phrog guy, and in OIf 1 I was in HMM-268 and picked up Army, Marines and Navy guys for CASEVAC. When the Army would not go in to get'em out. I have a Capt that just got of a FAC and he and the Grunts did not like the Air Force to give them air support, he about got killed by them every time they cam in. I know chit happens, but when the Air Force is all you can get, use it.

Marine air is by far the best at Air to ground air support. In my eyes.

Im just saying Marines prefer Marines.
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Friday, June 17, 2005 12:11 AM
Yes, I agree with you Marines would prefer Marines Air if they have a choice. I don't believe in generalities that everything else sucks though - especially when those guys are risking their lifes to save Marines. Are you sure that "the Army would not go in and get 'em out."? Maybe it wasn't assigned to them or they didn't have anyone available. Do you under stand the difference between CASEVAC and MEDEVAC? Unitl recently the Army hadn't been getting assigned to do the CASEVAC missions; those were specifically assigned to the Phrogs. The Army does mainly MEDEVAC. However, yesterday I escorted an Army H-60 doing CASEVAC and he lauched in dog crap vis and did an excellent job. Also, I really don't believe that FAC you know "about got killed by them (Air Force) every time they came in." If he did, I'm wondering if he needs to go back to FAC (TACP) school.

Enough on this crap. I stayed out of this blue on blue thread of Apache vs Cobra because as a Marine Cobra pilot I didn't think I could remain unbiased and now I find that I'm actually coming to defend the Army. Since I escort them quite a bit out here maybe I'm just doing my job.

On to some modelling related info. Below is a picture of the AH-1W in its latest configuration. Notice that the 2nd stage exhaust fairing is removed (as depicted on the Italeri Cobras rather than faired as on the MCR/Academy). Also note the new 3rd stage fairing covering the exhaust stack.


  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:52 PM
Supercobra, is this new exhaust fairing just making it onto birds? Ive looked at some pics I took in Iraq and those birds had the old style. I only left in March..its possible I didnt notice the change, but its such an obvious difference that I dont think I would have missed it.
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:44 AM
Devildog1rh,
This is new within the last month. About half the birds half the mod.

SSgtD,
I apologize for the tone of my emails. I wasn't trying to pick a fight or attack you personally. It's just that I fly with everyone and in support of everyone and I've develpoed some good interservice relationships and hate to see everyone take the blame for a few knuckleheads (which every branch has).
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: MCAS Miramar
Posted by SSgtD6152 on Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:00 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by supercobra

Devildog1rh,
This is new within the last month. About half the birds half the mod.

SSgtD,
I apologize for the tone of my emails. I wasn't trying to pick a fight or attack you personally. It's just that I fly with everyone and in support of everyone and I've develpoed some good interservice relationships and hate to see everyone take the blame for a few knuckleheads (which every branch has).


I know sir, I fly with everyone to, but I'm a MarineWink [;)] as are you. And you know how that go's. I do not like the Air Force or the Army. More the Army for not going in to get there guys out, because It was a hot L.Z. that just pissed me off.

What Squadron are you with?
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 25, 2005 8:22 PM
I knew this would happen and this thread would devolve with somebody dogging another service, it was already setup for failure by being called Apache vs. Cobra. I guess I'll add to the downward spiral.
Medevac pilot's do not have the authority to turn down missions, nor would they wish to. When I was a pilot flying MEDEVAC, it was treated as a sacred duty to get ambulatory cases out and would of done everything in my power to find a way to accomplish the mission. Only an O-6 or higher has the authority to redirect missions to what he/she feels is the best use of MEDEVAC. Until recently CASEVAC, was not tasked to Medical Ambulance COmpany's as we evac'd out the more serious cases, walking wounded would be evac'd in the first available helicopter. Perhaps the controlling authority felt that the marines wounded were non ambulatory, hence not high on the priority. I don't know, neither do you SSGTD, unless you also crew hawks too or were in the medical TOC during all this.
Medevac is a theater level asset, and in limited quantity, nor do the aircraft have the room/capacity for all wounded, ambulatory or non-ambulatory. We have have our slicks that get tasked to handle the CASEVAC, but demand permitting, MEDEVAC will perform it. But like in the Swedish Helicopter crash thread, you presume to know all there is about helicopter flying and in your expertise in watching a 3 minute video can tell exactly what is going on in that pilot's head and that Hoplite. And now you are making assumptions from your extensive experience as a PHROG CREW MEMBER that you know Army Medevac procedures, and now dislike us for something that you cooked up in your head, i.e that we're cowards for not landing and getting wounded. Do the other marines that serve honorably and post to this thread, don't make them look like the fool you do.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:02 PM
For me, the Cobra is more like a Sexy model sleek and curvy and the Apache is more like a female body builder on steroids
Ch
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 26, 2005 10:38 PM
Supercobra,
Thanks for the info on the exhaust fairing sir. Maybe Ill see you someday on a FARP somewhere. Semper Fi !
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: MCAS Miramar
Posted by SSgtD6152 on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:46 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mscottholt

I knew this would happen and this thread would devolve with somebody dogging another service, it was already setup for failure by being called Apache vs. Cobra. I guess I'll add to the downward spiral.
Medevac pilot's do not have the authority to turn down missions, nor would they wish to. When I was a pilot flying MEDEVAC, it was treated as a sacred duty to get ambulatory cases out and would of done everything in my power to find a way to accomplish the mission. Only an O-6 or higher has the authority to redirect missions to what he/she feels is the best use of MEDEVAC. Until recently CASEVAC, was not tasked to Medical Ambulance COmpany's as we evac'd out the more serious cases, walking wounded would be evac'd in the first available helicopter. Perhaps the controlling authority felt that the marines wounded were non ambulatory, hence not high on the priority. I don't know, neither do you SSGTD, unless you also crew hawks too or were in the medical TOC during all this.
Medevac is a theater level asset, and in limited quantity, nor do the aircraft have the room/capacity for all wounded, ambulatory or non-ambulatory. We have have our slicks that get tasked to handle the CASEVAC, but demand permitting, MEDEVAC will perform it. But like in the Swedish Helicopter crash thread, you presume to know all there is about helicopter flying and in your expertise in watching a 3 minute video can tell exactly what is going on in that pilot's head and that Hoplite. And now you are making assumptions from your extensive experience as a PHROG CREW MEMBER that you know Army Medevac procedures, and now dislike us for something that you cooked up in your head, i.e that we're cowards for not landing and getting wounded. Do the other marines that serve honorably and post to this thread, don't make them look like the fool you do.



FIRST OFF, YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIRE. AND I DO NOT APPRECIATE THAT, MY NAME IS NOT JOHN KERRY.
YOU CAN GET A HOLD OF OLLIE NORTH HE WAS ON MY PLANE THAT DAY, AND HE WAS PISSED MORE THAN USE. I DID NOT HEAR WHAT OLLI SID TO YOUR ARMY BROTHER, WHEN WE GOT BACK BUT IM SURE IT WAS NOT NICE.

ALL I KNOW IS YOUR BELOVED ARMY H-60 CREW, "WE ARE IN CREW DAY AND THAT IS A HOT L.Z WE ARE NOT GOING IN."

SECOND I AM A CDIQAR, WITH A A&P LICENSE. I KNOW WHAT THE HELL IM TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO A HELICOPTER FLYING.


  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Central Illinois
Posted by rockythegoat on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:10 PM
Okay, everybody, let's all sit back, have a cold one and smoke 'em if you got 'em. Party [party] (I don't anymore, I quit. Smoking, that is. Still have a stogie now and then, but I digress...) Last I checked, we're all on the same side, so everyone, take a deep cleansing breath. Hold it. Release. There, all better. Smile [:)]

As someone said above, this "blue on blue" ain't helpin' a thing. Sad [:(] My only goal in starting this thread was to get info on why the Corps decided on the Cobra over the Apache, and continues to do so. Thanks to all who replied for supplying the info. I found it very informative from a historical point of view and very good background info.

mscottholt: I see your point about the thread title. Blush [:I] Guess a better one might have been: "Why did the USMC pick the Cobra?" or some such. I shall be more circumspect in the future, I do believe.

supercobra: Thanks for the pics of the exhaust on the birds. May have to give that a shot on one of my 1/72 birds. As for my 1/700 Cobras on my "gator navy" ships, I may forgo it! My 45 yr old eyes will likely no cooperate! Cool [8D]

PEACE ALL! Angel [angel]

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:33 PM
I think you need a little PT time to burn off some steam there, SSgtD.

I'm so sick of the service rivalry B.S.
Marines always take pride in their own service -- as we should -- but then you always have the few "uber-marines" out there that feel the Corps can do no wrong, and preach to their younger devil dogs about the worthlessness of all other services. Pure crap.

Down in Haiti, not only did our unit work with Army Medevac, but also foreign detachments like Chile, France, and Canada. Think the "my way or the highway" attitude goes over well in situations like that? We all need to work together here folks, not bad-mouth each other at every turn. But there's always one.

Lastly, having a CDI/QAR stamp and an A&P license gives you outstanding credentials as a maintenance technician, but I don't recall flight lessons or stick time anywhere in that curriculum.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:50 PM
Okay I do have a question about the Whiskey. I know with the Longbow that the radar bird can designate targets with the radar, and the non radar birds just pull the trigger and the hellfire goes to its assigned targets. Is it possible with the Whiskey to carry radar hellfire and have someone else do the targeting?

I've seen pictures of whiskey's with the AIM-9, and read that bombs can be carried, is that true.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:08 PM
Thanks AH1Wsnake
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:50 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mscottholt

Okay I do have a question about the Whiskey. I know with the Longbow that the radar bird can designate targets with the radar, and the non radar birds just pull the trigger and the hellfire goes to its assigned targets. Is it possible with the Whiskey to carry radar hellfire and have someone else do the targeting?

I've seen pictures of whiskey's with the AIM-9, and read that bombs can be carried, is that true.




To my knowledge, the AH-1W has no provisions for carrying radar-guided hellfires. The software and equipment setup for the avionics in the bird is for laser-guided only. That being said, we can still have one bird (or forward observer) do the laser designating, while the firing bird can remain out of sight with his missile tuned to the proper laser code, then fire it in a high-arc.
The Marine Cobra is capable of firing Sidewinders, yes. AIM-9 launch rails can be fitted to either outboard station, and let 'er rip in an air-to-air engagement. A targeting reticle gets displayed on the HUD, and the pilot gets the warbling tone in his ICS too. Those same rails can also carry the Sidearm, which is a radar-seeking (think HARM) air-to-ground missile that looks similar to a sidewinder.
As far as bombs, lol, I have seen a funny picture where some of our ordnance guys are posing with two 500 pounders attached to the stub wing racks, but it was just a gag shot with the bombs provided by the fixed-wing guys working on the same ramp. So yeah, we can technically mount bombs, but I can't think of any kind of crazy situation where you'd want to!

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:08 AM
In a book I have, it shows a picture of a napalm canister made by Bell for the H-13. So actually dropping bombs MAY have been tried, but I see two big probelms with it:
1. Helo must have the speed and height to escape the blast
2. Accuracately placed the bomb where it is needed
Anybody out there have any more info on this subject?
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:06 AM
Yes, Marine Cobras (AH-1J, AH-1T, AH-1W) have provisions for carrying bombs. We haven't done it in a while. Every now and then a MEU will go out and try to talk the Harrier det out of a couple of bombs just to day they did it but I doubt anyone has done that in a while. I've only dropped one bomb from a Cobra. The most common one we used to carry was the CBU-55 fuel air explosive. Idea was to use it for clearing obstacles in LZs. In Desert Shiled there was a bright idea to use them for clearing minefields so to see how well it would work we set up a test area marked with engineer tape. We put CBUs on two aircraft. As mentioned, there are no sighting provisions. Lead flew over about 2000 feet and missed missed the entire area long.
-2 adjusted from lead and missed short. They scrapped the BAH-1W idea and we never tried it again.

In Vietnam on Marine UH-1Es they had a system called the HTW (helicopter trap weapon) that was two Zuni warheads with proximity fuzes on parachutes. Idea was that they would fly over the LZ, drop the HTWs, the parachutes would make them fall vertically, and the horixontal blast would clear booby traps and obstacles. I think that they were actually used more than just a few times. I've got a picture of the setup around here somewhere. They hung side-by-side on the tally rack.

Sidewinders are a little more ingrained in our tactics. While we haven't had much of an air-to-air threat lately we do train for it. We carry captives fairly often and have air-to-air in our training syllabus but we don't get very many actual missiles for training. I've only fired two Sidewinders in my career for training and have only carried them operationally once. One Sidewinder takes the place of four TOW or Hellifre and no one wants to make that tradeoff.

The Longbow uses a different Hellfire launcher rail than normal Hellfires and I "think" that there is some prepointing talk that takes place between the aircraft and the missile so even if you put the right launcher on an AH-1W and had an AH-64D painting the target I don't think it would work.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:31 PM
Thanks for the info. The army's OH-58D's are the only ones right now that train for the counter air role, with ATAS/Stingers, although thats a dying art and from what I hear. I like the idea that marines train for the counter air role and lament the fact that the army has the institutional memory of a gnat on speed, and will only go hard core and play catch upafter a Rooivalk or Hind-D shoves a IR missile up our...anyways.

Do you have any pics of bombs hanging off a hardpoint? I have a 1/35 AH-1W languishing in closet hell and I thought that might be an interesting weapon loadout.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:57 PM
Supercobra

I was told by a former Marine I used to work with that one of the reasons the Corps replaced TOW with Hellfire was that the TOW missiles were "flakey" when fired over water. On one training flight off the NC coast, a Whiskey popped off a TOW and w/o warning it doubled back and nearly hit the Huey photo chase he was in. Any truth to the TOW over water story or is he telling tales?

Thanks,
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Maryland
Posted by Par429 on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:10 PM
Just a note that bombs of any kind are not currently authorized loads for the AH-1W. They were in the past, but have not been for at least several years.

Supercobra is correct in that even though you could hang a Longbow launcher on a Whiskey, it won't work. The USMC has no plans to integrate the Longbow on Cobras since the Hellfire is intended to be replaced by the Joint Common Missile, which will have tri-mode seeker (Laser, IR & Radar). This will be integrated on all Cobras (and Apaches, etc, etc).

The TOW story may be true, but as an engineer who has done lots of ordnance testing, I'd say that would more likely be some kind of missile failure. If it actually happened, I'm thinking that we would call that a deficiency and not send it to the fleet with fixing it.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:27 AM
I'm not sure about the TOW over water story, but I do know that our CO firing one at CAX had his TOW explode about 100 yards in front of his aircraft after it launched. I suppose any munition has a bug somewhere along the line of thousands being produced.

Anyways, I just wanted to add that the Corps hasn't "replaced" the TOW with Hellfire -- not until the Zulu model anyways. Both missiles are still used extensively in day-to-day operations, and often carry a mix of both types on sorties.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:01 AM
That's what I suspected - it was just a bad round. I know electricity's a funny thing, especially around water, but I couldn't think of a reason why firing over the open sea would mess with it.

And you're right AH1WSnake - I shouldn't have used the word "replaced." I know better than that
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:44 PM
Missiles can go crazy from time to time for a variety of reasons and from a shooters perspective it may looked like it did a 180 but chances are it didn't.

Firing a TOW over water affects the max range of the missile if the wire becomes submerged. It's not very much but something you need to take into account. Over water shots are rare though. While the TOW can be used for many purposes, it is mainly anti-armor (or used to be) and I have never had to shoot a tank on the high seas. Hellfires are great but TOWs really round out the load and can do some things that Hellifres can't. The reasons why the TOWs were not kept on the Zulu is the extra black boxes that add weight and take up space and the extra weight/maintenance of the articulated pylons in the stubwings. It was also claimed at one time that they were going to close down the airborne TOW production line as the Army was ceasing use and the Marine Corps can't afford a missile of it's own.
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Cape Town, South Africa
Posted by osjohnm on Friday, July 1, 2005 9:30 AM
Hi all

Forgive me for jumping in this late but I have some questions on the Zulu.

Is there an official date for its entry into service?

Will the Whiskeys be upgraded or replaced?

Lastly, besides Italeri's Whiskey/Zulu hybrid has anyone heard any rumours of someone like Minicraft or Hasegawa releasing an accurate Zulu kit?

Thanks
John
John
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 2, 2005 3:25 AM
John,

Congress gave the Marine Corps the go ahead to buy new, production line AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys. It was deemed more cost-effective than remanufacturing AH-1Ws/UH-1Ns to AH-1Z/UH-1Y s. Not sure of an exact deployment date for the new Huey and Cobra. It's a good deal for the Marines since that way they won't have to take "Whiskeys" or UH-1Ns off the line for "reman", and keep them ready for deployments.

We'll probably have to wait a while for a more accurate model of the new "Yankee and Zulu Skids".
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Dundee, Scotland.
Posted by Sasarchiver on Saturday, July 2, 2005 10:33 PM
me personally, i think the apache has some really cool technology. The thing that interests me though is its radar (lonbow version ah-64D) it can pop up behind some tress or a hill 8 kms away, itll have allok at the battlefield, it will recognize 256 targets, priotize the 16 most dangerous at that given moment and destroy all of them and itll do all that, in 28seconds. It carries 12hellfires, 72 rockets, and it has a cannon where-ever the pilot is looking and fires10 high xplosive round a sec.
But i have to agree that the apache has some difficulties, but some prefection will result in another model. The commanche??

sasarchiver
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Saturday, July 2, 2005 11:05 PM
The Comanche is history maybe next time?
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Sunday, July 3, 2005 3:57 AM
Don't believe everything you read on the Longbow's capabilities. Those 16 most dangerous radar returns might be rocks. Nothing beats the Mk1 eyeball and direct view optics for positive ID.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Sunday, July 3, 2005 9:38 AM
I've heard that some Longbow units deployed to the sandbox right now are removing the Longbow-specific black boxes. Those avionics are nothing but dead weight for the sorties they're flying.
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 11:37 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by 44Mac

The Corps has always been the "red headed stepchild" of the DOD budget battles and that has alot to do with what they aquire. Wonder how much they´ve spent on the Osprey?


HOOAH 44Mac... I know this battle all too well. Im the ILS/O&S (Intergrated Logistics Support/Operations and Supportablity) analyst for the H-1 Upgrades program (PMA276) and fight this battle 3 times a year (Navy budget, OSD budget, and Pres. budget).

Seems like the USMC is always the one making the sacrifices and left with less and less of a budget. Hence the Upgrade vs. Buy New AH-1Z and UH-1Y.

From my experiences in dealing with the Marines that fly these boys into battle, and the Marine ground pounders....there is nothing like seeing a AH-1 in the sky overhead. Some describe them as Angels!

The whole AH-64 v. AH-1Z argument is really a moot point. The Army opted for the 64 and they perform fine. The Marines have had the AH-1/UH-1 a long time and are comfortable with them. I dont think you could convince a Marine to go with another helo (maybe a H-60 for a UH-1 replacement).

And as far as the Osprey goes....we have a joke here in aquisition land. The V-22 will be the FIRST program to finish its production line in LRIP! I can remember being in highschool seeing the V-22 in testing and saying "thats a neat aircraft"...and that was almost 20 yrs ago!!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 9, 2005 7:54 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Dragonfire

Bottomline...bad guys beware...if you're in a vehicle or tank...you're dead. If you're running...don't bother...you'll only die tired.



Are you sure you know who the bad guys are? I'm less and less sure about that.
Just askin'...
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Modeling anything with "MARINES" on the side.
Posted by AH1Wsnake on Saturday, July 9, 2005 8:15 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by spongya77
Are you sure you know who the bad guys are? I'm less and less sure about that.
Just askin'...


I think you're asking the wrong folks.
We're positive.

Bottom line is, no matter what the airframe, we've got some pretty slick pilots, aircrew, and techs flying an fighting to make the world a little safer.
To all combat helicopter crews -- whether Cobra, Apache, Huey, Kiowa, Phrog, Chinook, "-53", Blackhawk, etc:
Happy hunting and stay safe.

 

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and those who have met them in battle. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Oklahoma
Posted by chopperfan on Sunday, July 10, 2005 1:45 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by AH1Wsnake

QUOTE: Originally posted by spongya77
Are you sure you know who the bad guys are? I'm less and less sure about that.
Just askin'...


I think you're asking the wrong folks.
We're positive.

Bottom line is, no matter what the airframe, we've got some pretty slick pilots, aircrew, and techs flying an fighting to make the world a little safer.
To all combat helicopter crews -- whether Cobra, Apache, Huey, Kiowa, Phrog, Chinook, "-53", Blackhawk, etc:
Happy hunting and stay safe.


Well said, Snake. Well said!!!!
Randie [C):-)]Agape Models Without them? The men on the ground would have to work a lot harder. You can help. Please keep 'em flying! http://www.airtanker.com/
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:26 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by spongya77

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dragonfire

Bottomline...bad guys beware...if you're in a vehicle or tank...you're dead. If you're running...don't bother...you'll only die tired.



Are you sure you know who the bad guys are? I'm less and less sure about that.
Just askin'...


When you see little flashes of light and tracers coming at you, it's pretty definite who doesn't like you.

Take what you read and see in press with an open mind and a grain of salt. There are a lot more good news stories over there that aren't being reported back here on the evening news...a few examples...

- Iraqi military soldiers decorated by Marines for their actions while engaged with insurgents (an Iraqi pulled a wounded Marine to safety while under fire).

- Iraqi Air Force C-130 pilot doesn't even tell his son what he does to keep him from worrying. As a father he said that he'd rather fight today so his son can live in safety tomorrow (sound familiar, like a phrase back from 1775).

- Public Works (water and power) are more available and efficient than they were while under Saddam's regime.

- Death isn't the only thing coming from our helos in Iraq...take a look at this topic
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=45194

I can see where your concern is coming from but believe us when we say that 99% our Service Members do the right thing every day over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Snake: Oorah! Semper Fi!
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:00 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by AH1Wsnake

Bottom line is, no matter what the airframe, we've got some pretty slick pilots, aircrew, and techs flying an fighting to make the world a little safer.
To all combat helicopter crews -- whether Cobra, Apache, Huey, Kiowa, Phrog, Chinook, "-53", Blackhawk, etc:
Happy hunting and stay safe.



Well said Snake!
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 10, 2005 11:53 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Dragonfire

QUOTE: Originally posted by spongya77

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dragonfire

Bottomline...bad guys beware...if you're in a vehicle or tank...you're dead. If you're running...don't bother...you'll only die tired.



Are you sure you know who the bad guys are? I'm less and less sure about that.
Just askin'...


When you see little flashes of light and tracers coming at you, it's pretty definite who doesn't like you.

Take what you read and see in press with an open mind and a grain of salt. There are a lot more good news stories over there that aren't being reported back here on the evening news...a few examples...

- Iraqi military soldiers decorated by Marines for their actions while engaged with insurgents (an Iraqi pulled a wounded Marine to safety while under fire).

- Iraqi Air Force C-130 pilot doesn't even tell his son what he does to keep him from worrying. As a father he said that he'd rather fight today so his son can live in safety tomorrow (sound familiar, like a phrase back from 1775).

- Public Works (water and power) are more available and efficient than they were while under Saddam's regime.

- Death isn't the only thing coming from our helos in Iraq...take a look at this topic
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=45194

I can see where your concern is coming from but believe us when we say that 99% our Service Members do the right thing every day over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Snake: Oorah! Semper Fi!



Don't get me wrong. I know the solders go where they are ordered to go to. (And I have vet friends who fought in Vietnam and Desert Storm.) It's just the more I know about history and the more unjustified wars the US start, the less I like what I see. (Not mentioning those reports where innocent civilians are blown up with these weapons in the Occupied Territories...) Do I like Saddam? Hell, no! But I don't like the other bloody dictators the US supported and keeps supporting either...
It just leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I really believed this country stands for something great. And looking at these birds remind me of this. I started building Russian choppers...
Sorry for the OFF.Disapprove [V]
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Georgia
Posted by Screaminhelo on Sunday, July 10, 2005 4:51 PM
QUOTE: I really believed this country stands for something great.

[#offtopic SoapBox [soapbox]
Politicians may make you question the fact at times, but this is the GREATEST country in the world!!! The greatness of the United States of America can be seen in the people all across this great land that make it all possible. Without the average everyday U.S. citizen, we would be nothing! Alan Greenspan doesn't make our economy work, all that he can do is change the federal lending rate to speed it up or slow it down, the people drive the economy. The House and Senate are elected by the people of this nation and serve at their pleasure.

We enjoy freedoms in the U.S. that others only dream about. There are some things that have been said in this very topic that may have gotten the writer arrested in other countries. We have the freedom to speak out against government policy, even protest without the threat of reprecussuions. We have the freedom to debate almost any subject openly (such as Cobra v. Apache). We can disagree with whomever we please and tell them so.

This nation is driven by the people. The people of this nation affect policy by electing govt. representatives that reflect their view. The people of this nation are the ones who spend the money that is the lifeblood of our economy. The people of this nation pay taxes to fund the military. As I sit down to dinner tonite, I will remember that it has been paid for by the people of this great nation.

I believe that this country still stands for the same principles that it did in 1776, the only thing that has really changed is technology.

Sorry for the soapboxMy 2 cents [2c]
Mac

Mac

I Didn't do it!!!

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 11, 2005 4:48 AM
Mac,

Did you return to CONUS yet? If so...WELCOME HOME! If not...Stay safe!

Carl
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Monday, July 11, 2005 6:40 AM
My unsolicited 2¢...

1. Mac's right. For all out faults, this is still a great nation for those reasons he mentioned and more. Not every nation can make that claim. Nor would many governments or cultures (I seperated those two on purpose) allow us to discuss, debate and outright argue about policy in public forums. Trust me, that freedom isn't just unknown in some parts of the world, it's impossible to comprehend. If there's something that we don't like, we have the ability to change it. It's often difficult to do do, but in a lot of places such changes only come about via bloody revolts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've studied history beyond what our public education system calls "History" (Route memorization of names and dates does not constitute a history class. If history were taught in a proper way, more kids would be interested in it and wouldn't take daily 55 minute naps). I am curious however to know more about all these unjustified wars the US has started (if you want to discuss that, eMail me thru the site here and let's do that off-forum - the FSM boards aren't the place for that discussion).

2. I'm not comfortable about the direction some of your earlier comments seem to be heading. I hope I misunderstood them. I too have friends who are vets and I know people from the forums here who either have been deployed, currently are deployed or are scheduled to be deployed. I have a great deal of respect for all of them. Remember, it was the soldier who gave us the freedom of speech, not the poet. It was the soldier who gave us all freedom of religion, not a religious leader. It was the soldier who gave us freedom of the press, not the reporter. There have been and will be bad apples in the bunch, but I challenge you to find a profession where there are none.

3. The topic here is "Why did the USMC go with the Cobra instead of the Apache?" We got off on an interservice rivalry tangent a few days back that got pretty heated so let's not get sidetracked again. I've said my piece so I'm going to step down from my soapbox; besides, the dog is crying to be let out. Gotta have priorities...
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Georgia
Posted by Screaminhelo on Monday, July 11, 2005 8:05 AM
Carl,
Yeah, I got back in Feb. That is why I haven't been on the forum much over the last few months. I have alot less free time now that I have to deal with a three-year-old instead of a helo.

Trigger,
The dog is pretty much a priority when it is time to go out.
QUOTE: it was the soldier who gave us the freedom of speech, not the poet. It was the soldier who gave us all freedom of religion, not a religious leader. It was the soldier who gave us freedom of the press, not the reporter.

I have heard several versions of this over the years and it is one of my favorites.

To all,
I don't know who originally wrote it, but there is one version that ends with "It is the soldier's coffin that is draped by the flag so that others may have the right to burn the flag." As much as that last phrase repulses me, I have to remember that the freedom of speech is one of our most basic freedoms and I have to respect the decision of the Supreme Court. Everyone has an opinion that they want to express, just express it in a respectful manner. If someone posts something that offends you, log off for a while. Later on you can reply in a much more constructive manner or even just let it go and let the mudslinging die out.

I enjoy this forum and all of the people on it. I have learned a great deal from all of you and y'all have tolerated my rantings and misinformation. Let's not let any of our discussions get to this point again. If it does, we should just let it die or even have it removed from the forum because we are here for information and fun. Remember everybody, it all goes back to the first model that you ever built. That P-40 was the most beautiful thing that I had ever seen. I didn't see the glue fingerprints or the bad paint all over it. All that I could see was the masterpiece that I had created. That is what scale modeling is really all about.

Mac

Mac

I Didn't do it!!!

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Monday, July 11, 2005 10:05 AM
Remember seeing a picture in an aviation mag back in the early 70's of the Army testing Sidewinders on the end of the stub wings of a G model Snake. Wish I still had it
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 11, 2005 3:03 PM
Mac,

A well deserved WELCOME HOME! I'm betting your three year old is finding all types of ways to wear out "Pops" now that he's home!Big Smile [:D]
  • Member since
    September 2005
Posted by randallhaws on Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:22 PM
Hello All,

new to the board. Can't claim to be a historian. Can say I have flown AH-64As and Ds, both in combat environment (Bosnia, OIF) and can say that the first month in Bosnia we had a 98% FMC rate (I confess, we didn't point out every little thing that was wrong like we do in the rear, but we weren't flying Red "X"s either) and had a simliar sucess rate while we were in Iraq (with the Screaming Eagles).

As for which is better or why - there is no right answer, they are different aircraft and the services use them differently. The Corps, in my estimation (and I am not in the Corps so I am an outsider looking in) has always had that "sticker shock" thing going, and the AH-64 is expensive.

As to it's capabilities and limitation, well of course I speak only for the AH-64 when I say it has both, but it does it's job more than good enough.

As for shoot downs in Iraq, I was (as I mentioned earlier) in the 101st, and to my recollection, 1-101 didn't have any shootdowns. They had two burned to the ground due to APU fires resulting from an APU clutch failure, but no shootdowns that I remember. 3-101 (AH-64A unit) had a shoot down I think (trying to search my memory, I know they lost one, can't remember the circumstance). I had/have good friends in 2-6/6-6 and 1-227 (folks that did have a shoot down, and pilots were EPWs for a while), and 6-6 did get all shot up and all but one came home, and the majority of them were back in the sky killing stuff three days later.

Anyhow, anyone have any questions or busy building a model and need some photos of the big rig in the desert, I think I could help out there.

RIH
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:49 PM
Welcome to the forum RIH!
Sign - Welcome [#welcome]
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 12, 2005 12:56 PM
I'm going to toss in my two cents worth here. On the original topic of why the USMC chose to stay with the Cobra and not buy Apaches, is Marine doctrine. Why did the Marines not buy M-16s in Vietnam for several years until the Arny had worked out some bugs? Why did the Marines not have M-1s to take to Desert Storm in '91(they borrowed some form the Army to use there)? Why do the Marines still have Cobra's? Reliabilty and proven effectiveness answers most of the questions. In '91 the Mairnes had M1 Abrams,but no way they could get there at the time, the Army had the deployment arrangements with the Air Force. The M-1 at the time didn't fit on any landing craft the Navy had, M-60s fit. Now they fit on LCAC's. The Cobras work. They work well. The Marine system is familiar with them. The maintnence and support system is set up. The training system is set-up. The Marine Corps is small, especially in comparison to the Army. To change over to a new system is very difficult on the Mairnes. Recently while at NRMCAS I got to take a look at the V-22 ramp and hangar. They took over a CH-46 spot at New River. Now the 46's are sharing room with other aircraft. Can you imagine all the maintnence considerations that would have to be looked at to change to an AH-64? What about all the LHDs and LHAs? All the maintence facilities on the boats would have to be changed to accept Apaches as well. Hence the AH-1Z! Beware the VIPER!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:44 AM
Randall,
Got a question concerning the '64's blades. When I was a '60 driver in the old MTOE AtkBn, the Apaches in the Bn didn't have foldable blades, but something was in the works from MD called a fold kit. Have they been fielded and does it make a noticeable difference in the look of the Hub?
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing!
Posted by Cobrahistorian on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:11 PM
Scott,

The Lot 7 and later AH-64Ds have the new blade fold system. I'm not sure if they will be retrofitted to older birds (I hope so!) but it'd make sense to do so. Apparently the first birds to get them were the 1/227th's D models before they deployed for OIF3. From what I hear, they cut down offload to first flight time from hours to a mere 20 minutes!

(gee, I hope we get em before I deploy in 08!)
"1-6 is in hot"
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
Posted by MBT70 on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:05 PM
I sure would like to do a commemorative print for some of you guys in the sandbox. I have some pictures hanging in the Pentagon. Still waitin' for some connections ...

Anyone?
Life is tough. Then you die.
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by supercobra on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:39 AM
MTB70,
Sorry, right after I got your email I went home on leave. I'll need a bit to get snapped in and then I'll see what we can come up with.
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
Posted by MBT70 on Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:10 PM
You da man! Standing by .....
Life is tough. Then you die.
  • Member since
    September 2005
Posted by randallhaws on Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:09 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mscottholt

Randall,
Got a question concerning the '64's blades. When I was a '60 driver in the old MTOE AtkBn, the Apaches in the Bn didn't have foldable blades, but something was in the works from MD called a fold kit. Have they been fielded and does it make a noticeable difference in the look of the Hub?
  • Member since
    September 2005
Posted by randallhaws on Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:17 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mscottholt

Randall,
Got a question concerning the '64's blades. When I was a '60 driver in the old MTOE AtkBn, the Apaches in the Bn didn't have foldable blades, but something was in the works from MD called a fold kit. Have they been fielded and does it make a noticeable difference in the look of the Hub?


I'll try this again - As mentioned by Cobra Historian, yes they do have foldable blade, but no, there is no appreciable difference in the way the main rotor head appears. They have blade pins that are very slightly modified (nothing you could see when they are installed) and then they fold onto blade racks that tie on the tail boom. In 2003 there were a grand total of 24 of these kits in the Army (gratis of Uncle Cody...aka the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army who is also a 64 driver). I know he was pushing to get more of them, but it is not like they are fielded to all units, nor is the plan ever that they will be. It doesn't really make them feasible for shipborne operations either, because it still takes a crew a long time to get them hung back...however, they don't have to track and balance the blades anymore because they haven't been hung, and they were working a note so that all you had to do was a run up, not even a maintenance test flight. I believe that is approved right now. Not that any of that will help you tons if you have to pull wings or stabilators to get the load in a C5 or something, because you will still have the maint test flight requirement, just not the track and balance. Not to mention that frequently you have to pull one or two of the tail rotor blades to get an aircraft to fit somewhere you have it loaded. We dense packed three RO-ROs (ships, The Bob Hope, the Shughart and one other I don't remember) with our aircraft when we went to Iraq in 2003 and we still blew all that stuff off because we were going to war and we did have the time or place to do all the MTFs, so really, it would save a bit of time in peace time only.

Anyhow, more of an answer than you probably wanted. If there is anything else, let me know.

RIH
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Central Illinois
Posted by rockythegoat on Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:31 PM
I changed the topic title to prevent any chance of the "issue" we had previously.

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
Posted by MBT70 on Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:20 PM
POLITICS! Sorry ... didn't mean to swear .....
Life is tough. Then you die.
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Down the road a ways
Posted by Frunobulax on Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:51 PM
Wow!!! Just have opened this thread a few minutes ago. Quite a ride!! As a civilian who's neither flown nor flown in any military chopper, what I will say is I really admire all you guys who do/have done so for a living. And that goes for all the other military guys on this forum. From a very appreciative civilian; THANK YOU. Now, as far as building models goes, anybody who wants to build a helo model couldn't ask for a better reference source. The wealth of first-hand info for helos going back 30 or more years is amazing. Now, about the Cobra/Apache thing; I have built an Apache, there are pics of it in my thread on page two, I have a 1/48 Whiskey Cobra with a detail kit. So, what I'll do is build it, then I'll set them both face to face and just let them growl at each other.
Edward "I guess he's about the best dang sergeant they is in the whole dang Air Force." Join the FSM map http://www.frappr.com/finescalemodeler
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Salisbury Massachucetts USA
Posted by PanzerWulff on Friday, September 16, 2005 3:57 AM
WOW guys i have never and i mean NEVER seen so many acronyms in 1 place LOL. but this thread has some great info and ideas to throw around as for myMy 2 cents [2c] i'm glad our military has bolth the apache and the cobra. the snake is lean and mean & and the apache is a big scarey beast and if i remember right didn't iraqui soldiers SURRENDER just seeing US attack helos bolth cobras and apaches???
so to all whirleybird warriors out there keep being DEATH FROM ABOVEPropeller [8-]
ACE??? you were NEVER an ace AN ace HOLE maybe! (Lister to Rimmer on BBC's RED DWARF) Chris"Hey GRAVITY still works"Gray
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 14, 2005 3:35 PM
QUOTE: just trying to keep the site relevant to modeling. Plenty of chat boards and forums out there for pilots and helos as well. Since it is a modeling site, lets stick to modeling relevant issues.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, October 15, 2005 12:36 AM
I for one dont mind hearing from those who have actual hands on experience with the aircraft , it ads to the interest of the discusion for me .My 2 cents [2c]
CFR
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.