Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?

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.

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.

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.

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..

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...

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

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

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

Thanks.

Pavejon,

Roger that, and welcome to the Helo forum!

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.

Amen, G'dad!
Interim my big toe!

My last word on the Cobra, not bad for a gunship only meant to be "interim"

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.

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?!

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.
.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.