USMC's Super Cobra (AH-1Z) Moves Forward - Ready for first deployment - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - USMC's Super Cobra (AH-1Z) Moves Forward - Ready for first deployment (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:20:05 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

if Army pilots can fly Army helos off of Navy boats?"

They can, and do. i remember a destroyer that had a -58 det on it, with crossed sabres painted on it and someting like '3/77th Airfield, elevation 9 ft.' I was on CVN 71 and the Army was onboard for a few weeks.

The Army has deployed off Navy ships since Vietnam. They have also fought from ships when it was needed. Several times the Navy has "loaned" us a carrier to use for missions that enabled an Army unit's air assets to be available without the need for build-up on the other end. Sometimes it's just hitching a ride to and fro because it's easier to do it that way and the carrier happened to be available.

Back in the day, the Navy didn't have much in the way of helos armed for surface warfare, and the Army operated -58's off of destroyers to deal with the small boat threat. The Navy nowdays has a robust capability with their 'hawks, WAY better than a -58, but back then it was best the way to deal with the situation.

The Army isn't interested in doing Naval stuff an a permanent basis. You have to remember that virtually all Army aircraft belong to a ground unit. For example the -58's that were on destroyers were from the 82nd's Air Cav. So using them in a Naval role means that some ground unit doesn't have their helicopters.

Most of the time the Navy has actually been supporting the Army in letting them use the ship as a "sea base" to support Army gound troops, or to do sepcial ops missions.

Not as common as some stuff, but way more common than most people know.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:24:09 AM EDT

[#2]

The UH-1 Yankee and AH-1 Zulu have 80% parts commonality. This is key.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:32:48 AM EDT

[#3]

[/quote]

Then they should have bought Apaches and Blackhawks. It was sound logic to refurbish and upgrade the current Hueys and Cobras to give them near Blackhawk and Apache performance at a much reduced cost. It doesn't make good sense to spend more to get less, which is basically what they are now doing.[/quote]

Let me put it like this...

Cops drive police cars.
Firemen drive fire engines.
Army flies Apaches.
Navy flys 60s.
Marines fly Cobras and Hueys.

We all have different missions and we have our own tools to accomplish those missions.

Would your town save money if you made all the firemen drive police cars? Maybe. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense and the firemen couldn't do their job.

Marine attack and light lift is designed soley to assist ground troops in a supporting role. Army attack aviation is a maneuver element.
Skids and Marines have grown up together and every Marine knows what it means to hear those rotors. A flying crew-served weapon has just shown up to solve your problems. Our tactics and whole way of doing business revolves around the capabilities of skid aircraft. 50 years of being together and learning with each other.
Army RW aviators do not view themselves in that light. It is not the same. Apaches do not do 20-30 degree diving rocket runs. Cobras do. Marines like those rocket runs.
Marine Air = CAS first always. Army Air = Not always CAS

We all have the platforms we want/need. Except A-10s. The Marine Corps could do wonderful things with A-10s. But they couldn't bring them on the boat so not gonna happen.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:34:58 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I love the Cobra, but why does it still have skids?

Landing gear is complicated and requires daily upkeep. Not to mention struts and tires improperly serviced can and have killed a lot of guys. Skids are great if you can get away with them.

I've seen skids break, but they are about as simple as they get. The ones on the flgith school birds had cross-tubes filled with rubber foam and steel shoes clamped on the bottom of the normal skid shoe so they could do the daily touchdown autorotations and last longer. Running landings in the Huey or Cobra tend to wear out the normal skid shoes pretty fast.

The Cobra stuck with skids because it already had them. There's no sense in redesigning alighting gear when you don't have to. If they were starting from a clean sheet, maybe they would have went with wheels. Maybe not.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:40:19 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think the Y model Huey and the Z model Cobra were an excellent idea. With those rebuilds, you basically get a brand new aircraft that replicates the performance and capabilities of the Blackhawk and Apache, respectively, for a fraction of the cost.

12 Billion dollars for 349 aircraft? $34 MILLION per aircraft?

That's hardly a "fraction of the cost" and they are basically squandering far more $$ than they would have spent buying navalized Apaches (already in service with the UK) and Seahawk/blackhawk variants.

The Brits didn't navalize anything,the Army Air Corps just fly them from ships the same way the French Armee de Terre flies their Tigers and Gazelles off their assault ships. That would NEVER fly with the Marines as the aircraft would have to live on the ships for extended periods of time and they really weren't built for it...not to mention assholes like me would then ask "why exactly do we need the Marines if Army pilots can fly Army helos off of Navy boats?"

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5036629914_b7cc451d2c_b.jpg

http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/m02011060700004.jpg

To what extent, I dunno, but the WAH-64 IS navalized to some degree.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:48:25 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I always liked the Cobra better than the Apache. Maintenance crews liked the Cobra much better also. Simplier to maintain.

Yes and no. This version is pretty sophisticated, so the "simple" advantage is mostly gone. The technology is pretty mature, and the big advantage the "z" will have is it was integrated from the ground up. With the later Army models we had endless problems with the various systems that had been added over time not being that compatible. The Apache has better access to most systems, and more room, which is always nice for guys that have to actually do the work. On the "z", access is going to be harder for some things than it would have been on a new design. In the end, they will always find some crappy, impossible to reach place to put something you will have to work on regardless of what aircraft it is.

Things like transmission changes, etc. are way easier on the -64 for example, but changing out a fuel cell will be easier on the Cobra. People tend to like working on stuff they get used to though. Experienced maintenance personel are what truly make the difference with any airframe. Going with the combination of H-1's, the USMC will be leveraging that quite well. FAR easier to maintain the H-1 family than dealing with two different aircraft. Less people, the people will be more experienced because the learning curve is shorter between the two H-1's and far better logistics with common parts. On a ship, I'd take the H-1's over a -64/60 mix. It's a better choice for the mission.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:50:29 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

if Army pilots can fly Army helos off of Navy boats?"

They can, and do. i remember a destroyer that had a -58 det on it, with crossed sabres painted on it and someting like '3/77th Airfield, elevation 9 ft.' I was on CVN 71 and the Army was onboard for a few weeks.

Yes,they were used during Praying Mantis and doubtlessly many other times.

Point being is that usually when the issue of Apaches rather than Cobras comes up,there is most frequently talk of them being too big,not navalized etc. Of course,as I also stated the AAC Apaches and French Tigers don't have to live on the boats for extended periods of time and they are taking up all the deck space that would usually be used for other things.

Something that also needs mentioned is that in several pics of HMS Ocean off of Libya,there are usually a couple ?H-60's on deck. I didn't see any close enough to look at the doors and windows but it'd be more interesting if they were USAF CSAR birds rather than Seahawks of some sort.

I guess last point about the AAC Apaches onboard is that they have no other option since all the Harriers are gone...

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:07:35 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sikorsky couldnt meet the demand for navalized crashhawks...

Navalizing is a HUGE requirement.

Everything on the bird has to tolerate salt spray.

Getting aluminum and salt to play well together over, what, a thirty year arframe life? ...That has got to be challenging.

A big factor is EMP as well. Warships are huge EMP generators. If we in the Army were on a ship, we had to use USMC rockets because the rockets we used back in the day had a chance of launching by themselves if the ship had various systems operating. If you had to deploy on a ship, there was a huge list of things most people generally don't think of that had to be different because you were on a ship. You simply can't do some things "the Army way" on a ship and expect to survive. The Navy does things a certain way because that's what it takes.

The 160th aircraft were all "navalized" long ago. The newer generation of Army aircraft are all ship compatible as well, along with weapons, etc. Most of the gear nowdays is all standardized. In the past, it didn't matter, so they didn't bother. Nowdays it does, so they bother with it.

We also have to remember just how long these programs take. The decision to stick with the Cobra was made when the Army was just getting the "A" model Apache. Far different equations that the decision had to be based on. The USMC chose what was best for them at the time. It's probably still the best choice now for what they need.

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:53:07 AM EDT

[#9]

What's not to love about that!!!

I'm fairly partial to Cobras myself.

Posted: 9/28/2011 9:01:21 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

if Army pilots can fly Army helos off of Navy boats?"

They can, and do. i remember a destroyer that had a -58 det on it, with crossed sabres painted on it and someting like '3/77th Airfield, elevation 9 ft.' I was on CVN 71 and the Army was onboard for a few weeks.

The Army has deployed off Navy ships since Vietnam. They have also fought from ships when it was needed. Several times the Navy has "loaned" us a carrier to use for missions that enabled an Army unit's air assets to be available without the need for build-up on the other end. Sometimes it's just hitching a ride to and fro because it's easier to do it that way and the carrier happened to be available.

Back in the day, the Navy didn't have much in the way of helos armed for surface warfare, and the Army operated -58's off of destroyers to deal with the small boat threat. The Navy nowdays has a robust capability with their 'hawks, WAY better than a -58, but back then it was best the way to deal with the situation.

The Army isn't interested in doing Naval stuff an a permanent basis. You have to remember that virtually all Army aircraft belong to a ground unit. For example the -58's that were on destroyers were from the 82nd's Air Cav. So using them in a Naval role means that some ground unit doesn't have their helicopters.

Most of the time the Navy has actually been supporting the Army in letting them use the ship as a "sea base" to support Army gound troops, or to do sepcial ops missions.

Not as common as some stuff, but way more common than most people know.

At the end of the Vietnam War in late 1972, my Army Cobra Unit did several joint missions with the Navy and Marines off the Iwo Jima I think it was. We worked with Seawolves and Marine Cobras while supporting a big bunch of CH-53's and CH-46's loaded with ARVN Rangers & Marines. Landing on a moving ship is a little tricky if you're used to your landing zone being fixed.

Posted: 9/28/2011 9:34:46 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Then they should have bought Apaches and Blackhawks. It was sound logic to refurbish and upgrade the current Hueys and Cobras to give them near Blackhawk and Apache performance at a much reduced cost. It doesn't make good sense to spend more to get less, which is basically what they are now doing.

Quoted:

Let me put it like this...

Cops drive police cars.
Firemen drive fire engines.
Army flies Apaches.
Navy flys 60s.
Marines fly Cobras and Hueys.

We all have different missions and we have our own tools to accomplish those missions.

Would your town save money if you made all the firemen drive police cars? Maybe. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense and the firemen couldn't do their job.

Marine attack and light lift is designed soley to assist ground troops in a supporting role. Army attack aviation is a maneuver element.
Skids and Marines have grown up together and every Marine knows what it means to hear those rotors. A flying crew-served weapon has just shown up to solve your problems. Our tactics and whole way of doing business revolves around the capabilities of skid aircraft. 50 years of being together and learning with each other.
Army RW aviators do not view themselves in that light. It is not the same. Apaches do not do 20-30 degree diving rocket runs. Cobras do. Marines like those rocket runs.
Marine Air = CAS first always. Army Air = Not always CAS

We all have the platforms we want/need. Except A-10s. The Marine Corps could do wonderful things with A-10s. But they couldn't bring them on the boat so not gonna happen

.

IIRC, just about every EWTGLANT, TACP, and MEU CERTEX conducted from OP2 included both fixed and rotary winged aircraft (AH-1s) in the exercise (plus arty and mortars). Rocket runs and guns into the G10. Those exercises lasted a few days and were very busy for us.

I was at the marina at New River with a friend of mine in HMHT 302 one Easter. Was talking to a UH-1 pilot about the use of the aircraft by the USMC, which was obviously quite different from the role it played in the Army which was lift. In Iraq, the UH-1s and AH-1s were flying in teams. The UH-1s could bring their door guns to bear on ground target firing at aircraft better than the Cobras, which had restricted visibility and weapons traverse. The Huey's had two extra sets of eyes.

One of our IAs in 2010 was a reserve Cobra pilot going to A-stan for a staff job. Great fellow. He did a couple of tours in Iraq. I asked him about the armor on the Cobra for crew protection. I learned that day that "snake" crews have balls.

Posted: 9/28/2011 9:45:11 AM EDT

[#12]

Posted: 9/28/2011 9:48:10 AM EDT

[#13]

One of our IAs in 2010 was a reserve Cobra pilot going to A-stan for a staff job. Great fellow. He did a couple of tours in Iraq. I asked him about the armor on the Cobra for crew protection. I learned that day that "snake" crews have balls.

The only thing bulletproof in a Cobra is me.

Posted: 9/28/2011 9:55:09 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Looks sexy

This

Posted: 9/28/2011 11:20:49 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

One of our IAs in 2010 was a reserve Cobra pilot going to A-stan for a staff job. Great fellow. He did a couple of tours in Iraq. I asked him about the armor on the Cobra for crew protection. I learned that day that "snake" crews have balls.

The only thing bulletproof in a Cobra is me.

I believe you.

Posted: 9/28/2011 11:22:28 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's beautiful!

Best Ad Ever

Pure WIN.

CMOS

Posted: 9/28/2011 2:04:07 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Let me put it like this...

Cops drive police cars.
Firemen drive fire engines.
Army flies Apaches.
Navy flys 60s.
Marines fly Cobras and Hueys.

We all have different missions and we have our own tools to accomplish those missions.

Would your town save money if you made all the firemen drive police cars? Maybe. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense and the firemen couldn't do their job.

]Marine attack and light lift is designed soley to assist ground troops in a supporting role. Army attack aviation is a maneuver element. Skids and Marines have grown up together and every Marine knows what it means to hear those rotors. A flying crew-served weapon has just shown up to solve your problems. Our tactics and whole way of doing business revolves around the capabilities of skid aircraft. 50 years of being together and learning with each other.
Army RW aviators do not view themselves in that light. It is not the same. Apaches do not do 20-30 degree diving rocket runs. Cobras do. Marines like those rocket runs.
Marine Air = CAS first always. Army Air = Not always CAS
We all have the platforms we want/need. Except A-10s. The Marine Corps could do wonderful things with A-10s. But they couldn't bring them on the boat so not gonna happen.

I have to strongly disagree with the parts in red.

And it's Close Combat Attack

Posted: 9/28/2011 2:08:46 PM EDT

[#18]

Does anybody know what the top speed of these cobras are

Posted: 9/28/2011 2:17:09 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Let me put it like this...

Cops drive police cars.
Firemen drive fire engines.
Army flies Apaches.
Navy flys 60s.
Marines fly Cobras and Hueys.

We all have different missions and we have our own tools to accomplish those missions.

Would your town save money if you made all the firemen drive police cars? Maybe. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense and the firemen couldn't do their job.

]Marine attack and light lift is designed soley to assist ground troops in a supporting role. Army attack aviation is a maneuver element. Skids and Marines have grown up together and every Marine knows what it means to hear those rotors. A flying crew-served weapon has just shown up to solve your problems. Our tactics and whole way of doing business revolves around the capabilities of skid aircraft. 50 years of being together and learning with each other.
Army RW aviators do not view themselves in that light. It is not the same. Apaches do not do 20-30 degree diving rocket runs. Cobras do. Marines like those rocket runs.
Marine Air = CAS first always. Army Air = Not always CAS
We all have the platforms we want/need. Except A-10s. The Marine Corps could do wonderful things with A-10s. But they couldn't bring them on the boat so not gonna happen.

I have to strongly disagree with the parts in red.

And it's Close Combat Attack

My old Army unit flies Longbow Apaches and I know for certain that they went back to diving rocket runs in Afghanistan because hovering out of ground effect, with an armament load, at 10,000 ft altitude to deliver their ordinance didn’t work too well.

Posted: 9/28/2011 3:15:13 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think the Y model Huey and the Z model Cobra were an excellent idea. With those rebuilds, you basically get a brand new aircraft that replicates the performance and capabilities of the Blackhawk and Apache, respectively, for a fraction of the cost.

12 Billion dollars for 349 aircraft? $34 MILLION per aircraft?

That's hardly a "fraction of the cost" and they are basically squandering far more $$ than they would have spent buying navalized Apaches (already in service with the UK) and Seahawk/blackhawk variants.

Which cost is that and which cost are you comparing it to?

I would imagine it's much easier to dupe congress into funding "upgrades" than to say "we need some of what everyone else has". You've seen the procurement process and seen how fucked it is.

Want more proof that "upgrade" aircraft that are actually entirely new aircraft pass congressional muster better? Look at the Superbug.

Ta-da!

Posted: 9/28/2011 5:08:25 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Let me put it like this...

Cops drive police cars.
Firemen drive fire engines.
Army flies Apaches.
Navy flys 60s.
Marines fly Cobras and Hueys.

We all have different missions and we have our own tools to accomplish those missions.

Would your town save money if you made all the firemen drive police cars? Maybe. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense and the firemen couldn't do their job.

]Marine attack and light lift is designed soley to assist ground troops in a supporting role. Army attack aviation is a maneuver element. Skids and Marines have grown up together and every Marine knows what it means to hear those rotors. A flying crew-served weapon has just shown up to solve your problems. Our tactics and whole way of doing business revolves around the capabilities of skid aircraft. 50 years of being together and learning with each other.
Army RW aviators do not view themselves in that light. It is not the same. Apaches do not do 20-30 degree diving rocket runs. Cobras do. Marines like those rocket runs.
Marine Air = CAS first always. Army Air = Not always CAS
We all have the platforms we want/need. Except A-10s. The Marine Corps could do wonderful things with A-10s. But they couldn't bring them on the boat so not gonna happen.

I have to strongly disagree with the parts in red.

And it's Close Combat Attack

You call your meshing on maneuver elements Close Combat Attack.
We call the detailed integration of aviation attack elements with ground forces Close Air Support.
Different jobs that use different tools and different methodology.
All joint fires pubs highlight the differences and emphasize how important it is to understand where each service is coming from.
Ask a Marine infantryman if he would perfer Marine or Army attack helocopters overhead and why.

Posted: 9/28/2011 5:40:34 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Let me put it like this...

Cops drive police cars.

Firemen drive fire engines.

Army flies Apaches.

Navy flys 60s.

Marines fly Cobras and Hueys.

We all have different missions and we have our own tools to accomplish those missions.

Would your town save money if you made all the firemen drive police cars? Maybe. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense and the firemen couldn't do their job.

]Marine attack and light lift is designed soley to assist ground troops in a supporting role. Army attack aviation is a maneuver element. Skids and Marines have grown up together and every Marine knows what it means to hear those rotors. A flying crew-served weapon has just shown up to solve your problems. Our tactics and whole way of doing business revolves around the capabilities of skid aircraft. 50 years of being together and learning with each other.

Army RW aviators do not view themselves in that light. It is not the same. Apaches do not do 20-30 degree diving rocket runs. Cobras do. Marines like those rocket runs.

Marine Air = CAS first always. Army Air = Not always CAS

We all have the platforms we want/need. Except A-10s. The Marine Corps could do wonderful things with A-10s. But they couldn't bring them on the boat so not gonna happen.

I have to strongly disagree with the parts in red.

And it's Close Combat Attack

You call your meshing on maneuver elements Close Combat Attack.

We call the detailed integration of aviation attack elements with ground forces Close Air Support.

Different jobs that use different tools and different methodology.

All joint fires pubs highlight the differences and emphasize how important it is to understand where each service is coming from.

Ask a Marine infantryman if he would perfer Marine or Army attack helocopters overhead and why.

In the Marine Corps it is CAS (Close Air Support).

I personally would rather have Marine Cobras overhead. They give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Hearing Cobras overhead always made my dick hard.

Posted: 9/28/2011 5:50:39 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

You call your meshing on maneuver elements Close Combat Attack.
We call the detailed integration of aviation attack elements with ground forces Close Air Support.
Different jobs that use different tools and different methodology.
All joint fires pubs highlight the differences and emphasize how important it is to understand where each service is coming from.
Ask a Marine infantryman if he would perfer Marine or Army attack helocopters overhead and why.

I'm well aware of this, but if you're going to take digs at Army Aviators at least get the terms right. Also, to suggest that Apaches don't do diving rocket runs is ridiculous and you know it.

As to the question you posed; go ahead and ask any Soldier which they prefer and why... See how that works?

Posted: 9/28/2011 5:57:03 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

The only thing bulletproof in a Cobra is me.

You're full of shit, sir.

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:08:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Awesome. USMC Cobra driver vs Army Longbow driver.

Fights on.

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:12:11 PM EDT

[#26]

Isn't there a Marine joke in there somewhere about using the whole alphabet?

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:13:11 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think the Y model Huey and the Z model Cobra were an excellent idea. With those rebuilds, you basically get a brand new aircraft that replicates the performance and capabilities of the Blackhawk and Apache, respectively, for a fraction of the cost.

12 Billion dollars for 349 aircraft? $34 MILLION per aircraft?

That's hardly a "fraction of the cost" and they are basically squandering far more $$ than they would have spent buying navalized Apaches (already in service with the UK) and Seahawk/blackhawk variants.

Which cost is that and which cost are you comparing it to?

I would imagine it's much easier to dupe congress into funding "upgrades" than to say "we need some of what everyone else has". You've seen the procurement process and seen how fucked it is.

Want more proof that "upgrade" aircraft that are actually entirely new aircraft pass congressional muster better? Look at the Superbug.

Ta-da!

The USMC did a mix of rebuild and new build because it actually saves money. They had a limited number of airframes to choose from, and previous rebuild programs in both the Army and USMC had shown that rebuilding wasn't always cheaper. The Corps and the Army looked VERY closely at this together and crunched the numbers from the H-46/H53 rebuilds and the -58/-47 "D" rebuilds. They figured out that it actually cost more to rebuild all the airframes in a program because once you strip the airframe bare and inspect it, a certain number of them will be condemed and you loose all that cost in finding that out. They came up better parameters, and it results in better choices in what airframes to rebuild and what you should buy new. It's the reason you now see certain Army and Marine helicopters rebuilt or upgraded, and certain ones bought new. Buying a mix of new and rebuilt actually saves money in the end.

If you take the approach that it's a new aircraft, then you should also take the approach that the Marine Corps actually saved money because it was able to reuse some airframes instead of buying all new ones. Any other replacement would have required a complete new buy. No matter how you look at that, a non-H-1 would have cost more.

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:19:01 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Awesome. USMC Cobra driver vs Army Longbow driver.

Fights on.

Lol, that is a new one.

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:22:09 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Does anybody know what the top speed of these cobras are

Yes. Somebody does.

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:23:33 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/articles/the-super-cobra-moves-forward.html

The long-awaited Bell AH-1Z “Zulu” — the latest and greatest in a long line of AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter models — will soon undergo its first operational deployment with the 11th Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif.

http://www.verticalmag.com/images/online_features/AH-1Z/8.jpg

http://www.verticalmag.com/images/online_features/AH-1Z/9.jpg

Hi der, secksie.

Posted: 9/28/2011 6:30:26 PM EDT

[#31]

OK, so if this is the 'Z' variant, what do they designate the next one? 'AA'

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:00:15 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
OK, so if this is the 'Z' variant, what do they designate the next one? 'AA'

"FishKepr's mom"

Oh shit, aw snap.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:24:23 PM EDT

[#33]

I've probably stood in front of that very aircraft during engine starts for flight tests in Amarillo.

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:28:45 PM EDT

[#34]

Now that is a beautiful bird. As a two engine craft, can she do a full fuel/full munitions take off? Say full 20mm, 16 Hellfires, and full tanks?

Posted: 9/28/2011 7:37:47 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
OK, so if this is the 'Z' variant, what do they designate the next one? 'AA'

I think they're supposed to start over at "A" again, but I'm not sure if anything except the H-1's have actually gotten to "Z" before.

Frankly, since the Marines are the only ones with Cobras in US service they can leave it "Z" pretty much forever, as long as they upgrade them all the same and don't get vastly different variations going on in the population, they can stay with "Z". Even if they get a few different ones, they can add stuff like "Z+" or "Z modified" or "Z-acronym". The Army actually had three different "S" models in service at one time, Mods, Prods and Fully-mods. Eventually they reused some old letters that weren't used anymore and changed them to AH-1M, AH-1P, and AH-F.

Odds are if they have to do something in the future about new variations, it will make no sense to anyone but the few people in on renaming it.

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:06:14 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Now that is a beautiful bird. As a two engine craft, can she do a full fuel/full munitions take off? Say full 20mm, 16 Hellfires, and full tanks?

Well, I'm not sure, since we don't test that here. BUT, since they have 84% commonality (I SOOO wanted to say 87%) with the UH1Y, I am guessing yes.

Commonality includes engines, rotors, tails booms and some other stuff.

That familiar "whop whop" is gone. Sounds like a buzzsaw now.

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:21:19 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does that helo have an APU?

Pretty sure it relies on battery power for start up. I could be wrong however as that is Attack and I know not of thier dark magic.

I guess that third exhaust is an APU Details Here

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:25:31 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does that helo have an APU?

Pretty sure it relies on battery power for start up. I could be wrong however as that is Attack and I know not of thier dark magic.

I guess that third exhaust is an APU Details Here

Yes, it does have an APU.

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:25:50 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sikorsky couldnt meet the demand for navalized crashhawks. So behind were they that the Navy had to buy some Army model 'hawks for shore based squadrons (told to me by a Navy sea hawk pilot)

There is truth in that statement. Hawks are in high demand and Sikorskys is jumping through hoops to meet that. FMS and DoD are all wanting more

Hence the stupid location of the MH-60S's tail wheel. I've seen more than one pilot about put his tail wheel into flight deck nets. Stupid, stupid, stupid location for a navalized helo.

The MH-60S was never meant to operate from the flight deck of small boys.
Like everything else Navy that went out the window.

I'll bet that the Phrogs put just as many wheels in the netting as the MH-60S does.

Posted: 9/28/2011 8:41:05 PM EDT

[#40]

I should just post this with every AH-1Z post I make.

DESIGNATING AND NAMING DEFENSE MILITARY AEROSPACE VEHICLES

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 16-401(I)
ARMY REGULATION 70-50,
NAVY NAVAIRINST 13100.16
14 APRIL 2005

<snip>

A2.7. Series (Required).
Identifies the production model of a particular design number and later models representing major modifications that significantly alter the aerospace vehicle systems components or change the logistics support of the vehicle.

Consecutive series symbols, starting with "A", appear to the immediate right of the design number.

To avoid confusion, do not use the letters "I" and "O" for this symbol.

EXAMPLE: F-16C. Series "C" indicates the third production model of the F-16.

At the end of the series indicator “Z”, the next sequence will be to advance the design number to the next consecutive unused number and begin with symbol series “A”.

My example: After the AH-1Z the next unused helo design number is - 73 (as far as I know), the next model would be the AH-73A.

Posted: 9/28/2011 11:49:38 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I think the Y model Huey and the Z model Cobra were an excellent idea. With those rebuilds, you basically get a brand new aircraft that replicates the performance and capabilities of the Blackhawk and Apache, respectively, for a fraction of the cost.

you should research... there are MANY ways in which the Zulu Cobra outperforms the apache hands down.

Posted: 9/29/2011 12:00:43 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Does that helo have an APU?

Yes, supplies air start capabilities, hydraulic and electrical power.

Posted: 9/29/2011 12:34:28 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's beautiful!

Best Ad Ever

I need a cigarette. And I don't smoke!

Posted: 9/29/2011 2:03:25 AM EDT

[#44]

The "We Made it Beautiful" poster is actually available through the Bell website, but it's kind of expensive for a poster.

Posted: 9/29/2011 2:19:43 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sikorsky couldnt meet the demand for navalized crashhawks. So behind were they that the Navy had to buy some Army model 'hawks for shore based squadrons (told to me by a Navy sea hawk pilot)

There is truth in that statement. Hawks are in high demand and Sikorskys is jumping through hoops to meet that. FMS and DoD are all wanting more

Hence the stupid location of the MH-60S's tail wheel. I've seen more than one pilot about put his tail wheel into flight deck nets. Stupid, stupid, stupid location for a navalized helo.

The MH-60S was never meant to operate from the flight deck of small boys.
Like everything else Navy that went out the window.

I'll bet that the Phrogs put just as many wheels in the netting as the MH-60S does.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/US_Navy_Helo_Master_Plan.jpg

Not really. The -46 was God's gift to SWOs. Wind envelope? It didn't need a wind envelope. Anyway, the -46 would come in sideways 9 times out of 10. The problem with the -60S is when it tries to take off again, it pitches up and as the ship moves forward/helo moves back, the little rear wheel has a propensity to put itself very near the flight deck netting.