SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?

15991 views
131 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Central Illinois
Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?
Posted by rockythegoat on Friday, February 18, 2005 12:55 PM
NOTE: I changed the topic title to ensure peace and harmony.

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]

"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 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
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.