Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?

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)

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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/

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!

Think the Army needs to go back to the basic's learned in SEA

Gdad,

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

I can agree with army aviation being the stepchild.

especially Guard and Reserve units(they're last on the list)

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.

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.

I have to agree with Pharoah on that one, but thanks for the photo's Salbando

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.

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.

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,
Sal

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.

I have a stupid question - where does the Guard units' bugets come from, the federal or state government?

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

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

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.

Sal, John, thank you both for answering my question.

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.

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.
.

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?!

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. 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 ) 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.....

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.