Why did USMC Not Change Over to the Apache?

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 that. 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! Semper Fi.

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)"

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Has the USMC totally replaced TOW with Hellfire?

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....

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.

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

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)