SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?

16017 views
131 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • 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 5:57 PM
I can agree with army aviation being the stepchild.
  • 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
    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 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
    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
    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
    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 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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 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: 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
    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: 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 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
    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 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
    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
    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
    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: 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
    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
    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
    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
    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...
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.