Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/26/2002 12:06:30 AM EDT
You know, growing up that's all I heard from my grandpa who worked as a machinist at McDonnell Douglas here in St. Louis, MO. THE APACHE! THE APACHE!..well it was either that or the Harrier or F-15. Anyway, this helicopter in real life is a piece of crap. It suffers from a number of design problems. The main rotor blades have to be replaced every couple hundred hours of flight time since they're made out of a special carbon-fiber, the turbine engines are overly susceptable to dust/dirt and now I read that you can't fire missiles off the damned thing without damaging the tail rotor. You know, the Russians solved the tail rotor issue with an ingenious co-axial system that not only increases lift dramatically, but it has proven to increase operational reliability. Kamov makes them, and the KA-32 series has served the Russians very well thus far. The new KA-50/52 attack helos are down right lethal, and they're just waiting to see some action for whoever buys them. Another interesting point is the Commanche. I wonder how it will turn out, given the Apache's bad reputation. McDonnell Douglas offered the Army the NOTAR tailess rotor system, but the Army wanted something more convention. I think there were some other issues, but I don't remember. Oh, here's the article I saw. It's about the WAH-64D, the British Longbow. themao [chainsawkill] [url]http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/25/napac25.xml[/url] Army's new helicopter cannot fire missiles By Michael Smith (Filed: 25/03/2002) THE Army's new Apache attack helicopter cannot fire its Hellfire anti-tank missiles for fear that debris ejected on launching could cause catastrophic damage. The problem is confirmed by a Ministry of Defence document leaked to The Telegraph. The MoD was unable to say how much damage could be caused. It was working with the makers to solve the problem, officials said. But defence sources said there were serious concerns that the debris could damage the main or tail rotors, causing the helicopter to crash. The Army is buying 67 Apache helicopters at a cost of at least £27 million each. They are being built in Britain by Westland under licence from the US manufacturers Boeing.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 12:07:11 AM EDT
continued: The US has restricted its Apache helicopters to firing missiles only during wartime and to launching them only from the right-hand side of the aircraft to try to ensure that the debris does not hit the tail rotor which is on the left-hand side. The WAH-64 Apache, which is due to take over the anti-tank role currently performed by about a quarter of the Army's Challenger 2 tanks in three years' time, normally carries a total of eight Hellfire missiles, four on each side. The problem comes amid worrying signs from Afghanistan that the helicopter, which is seen as providing devastating frontline firepower, may not be as effective as was hoped, particularly in hot, dusty conditions. Five out of the seven Apache attack helicopters sent to attack al-Qa'eda terrorists during Operation Anaconda two weeks ago were disabled by machinegun fire or ancient Soviet RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers fired from the ground. The five helicopters had to be taken back to the US base at Bagram, north of Kabul, and replaced by new aircraft flown out from America. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said yesterday that there were also serious problems with sand and dust getting into the engines. "In northern Europe you would expect to have around 90 per cent serviceability for these aircraft," he said. "But we are hearing reports that in Afghanistan it may be as low as 60 per cent." The introduction of the Army Air Corp's first operational Apache squadron has already been delayed by at least eight months by software problems with the Full Mission simulator that will train the pilots. The Apache problem is the latest in a series of embarrassing equipment problems to hit the forces. The SA-80 rifle had to be modified at a cost of £80 million after it consistently jammed on operations in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. And the 12-year Bowman project to replace Army radio sets that dated back to the Falklands was abandoned 18 months ago. Soldiers operating in the Balkans were forced to use their mobile telephones to contact each other. During the Kosovo campaign the RAF ran out of precision guided weapons that could bomb through clouds.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 1:03:01 AM EDT
Pretty interesting! I served in Apache units during my time in the Army, and worked on the Apache as a civilian with Agusta Aerospace in Germany. We did complete teardowns of the aircraft serving in Desert Storm. Never heard of such problems. They always seemed to be well built aircraft, requiring less maintenance than older aircraft such as the OH-58, AH-1 or UH-1!
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 1:07:27 AM EDT
But it looks mean as hell!! We have a family friend who pilots an Apache and he loves it. We have heard no such complaints from him, and you would think the guys flying this stuff would know if anybody does. If I can get in touch, I will try to see what he has to say.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:12:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:15:18 AM EDT
AHA!!! Specification. Thank you sir, I will still try to get a pilots feedback. He may be able to help, maybe not.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:20:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:31:59 AM EDT
We have been firing hellfire missiles here in Korea with no problems. Matter of fact in Jan 2002 fired about 75 of them no problems at all.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:59:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2002 4:02:04 AM EDT by Railhead]
"Five out of the seven Apache attack helicopters sent to attack al-Qa'eda terrorists during Operation Anaconda two weeks ago were disabled by machinegun fire or ancient Soviet RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers fired from the ground." Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought helicopters always had problems with ground fire. I have friends who flew in Viet Nam and they can tell you all sorts of stories about the hell small arms fire causes. Hell, read Blackhawk Down if you want to know what RPG's do to helos. That said, I see they moved the A-10's in country so the could provide close air support. Why does the Air Force continue to try to retire this aircraft when the have to pull it every time we realize that the helicopter just can't do the job as well. Long live the HOG! Edited 'cause I can't write coherent sentences.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 7:47:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Ok, that applies only to the WAH-64D, not the Apaches we have always had.
View Quote
To my knowledge there is no difference between that version and the original Longbow. I think Westland Aircraft got to do some assembly work, but the aircraft itself is the same. Atgr07: Yeah, that sounds right. I never heard of this problem until now. My guess is that it has something to do with the radar mast at top of the Longbow versions. There could be a minor redesign change from the "A" version that served in Desert Storm. What variants are serving in Korea right now? Railhead: As the main attack helo of the army, a simple RPG shouldn't bring it down that easily. You're damn right about the A-10. That's the best aircraft the air force ever had the last 20 years. They're stupid for even trying to retire it. They should build more and update them. Nothing beats 1200 rounds of 30 mm DU [devil] themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 8:05:48 AM EDT
themoa: It's a helicopter, not a freakin' tank. These are the same people who say their new Canadian-made C7 rifles are better than the crappy American-made M16 and M4 rifles they had been using. The British love to bad mouth Americans because they can't stand the fact that their former colony is now cock of the roost and they aren't. There operation in the Gulf supposedly had some problems, but so did every other piece of equipment. Our equipment didn't have problems because it was bad, it had problems because ALL mechanical and electronic stuff gets fucked by sand. I don't believe it. Until an American chopper pilot comes right out and confirms the accusations I will chalk it up to British blow hard bullshit.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 8:37:02 AM EDT
A friend of mine confirmed that the Apache is a piece of junk. When they were deployed from Fort Campbell to Ft Irwin a couple of years ago, all the Blackhawks went over with no problem. My friend said that they left Apaches all over the country due to breakdowns. By the time the BH's had ferried spare parts to fix the Apache's they had used up most of their maintenance time causing more delays in their training time at Ft. Irwin. My friend is a BH pilot with the 101st Airborne and is currently deployed at Kandahar Army Airfield in Afghanistan (see my thread in the Hall of Hero's discussion forum). Merlin
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:04:06 AM EDT
I had always heard, and Kosovo seemed to bear it out, that the Apache was maint. intensive and required a lot of ground work to keep it up to spec. Most of that was the weapons systems and sighting systems. They are fantastic when the work, but require aligning and all types of stuff. Never heard anthing bad about the actual airframe, I know blades need to be replaced regularly, as far as not being tough. Didn't think the weapons caused any unusual wear, just tough to keep the electronics running right. Why don't we just get the fixed wing ban lifted for the Army, maybe if the just specified A-10's, then there would be some smiling Army aviators, and better protected grunts. And the Air Force would probably be happy because they could replace their A-10's with some high speed, high tech, fly by wire, gizmotronic that will keep them away from the ground.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:10:02 AM EDT
The days of simple, low-maintenance weapons are over, at least for the US military. We have to build fewer weapons that are more capable, and that can offset a numeric advantage any potential adversaries may have - not to mention making target acquisition more accurate so we don't have as many incidents of fratricide and so we're more likely to get a first-round kill. Yes, an Apache is more maintenance-intensive than a Blackhawk. An Apache also has many, MANY, more systems to maintain. An M1 Abrams has more systems to maintain than a Sherman tank did, a Bradley IFV has more systems to maintain than an M113 or M3 did, and an MLRS launcher has more systems to maintain than a Katyusha. All are MUCH more effective than their predecessors, and that effectiveness comes with a cost - maintenance. I will say that the army, at least, doesn't put enough mechaincs in its units to keep the weapons operational all the time (MLRS units, anyway), nor do the units get enough money in their budgets to maintain their equipment (isn't THAT news? LOL) WRT Apaches not being vulnerable to RPGs, it's just plain silly to expect a helicopter not to be damaged or destroyed by something originally meant to destroy tanks. Kinda like saying a soldier shouldn't be vulnerable to tank rounds.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:10:32 AM EDT
Tell these grunts the Apache is a POS.....might get a punch or two. [:)] Army Times March 25, 2002 Pg. 15 In Shah-E-Kot, Apaches Save The Day — And Their Reputation By Sean D. Naylor, Times staff writer The soldier’s weather-beaten face was streaked with tears of gratitude. Just days earlier, separated from his buddies and pinned down by intense fire from al-Qaida soldiers in the ridgelines around the Shah-e-Kot valley, he thought he was going to die. Then, like fire-spitting avenging angels, Apache attack helicopters sliced through the thin mountain air pouring rocket and chain-gun fire on his would-be killers. "We came in and took the fire away from him," said Capt. Bill Ryan, the commander of those Apaches. He said it matter-of-factly, as if there were nothing remarkable about piloting a helicopter through hails of bullets and rocket-propelled grenades to save a man’s life. Now safely back at Bagram Air Base, that soldier had come to thank his deliverers. As Operation Anaconda wound down, a string of well-wishers stopped by to pay homage to the dozen or so Apache pilots who had kept the al-Qaida troops at bay. Not every visitor broke into tears. But all echoed the sentiments of Lt. Col. "Chip" Preysler, commander of 2nd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment. Preysler’s battalion was one of two that flew into the teeth of entrenched al-Qaida positions March 2, the first day of the operation. Their very lives depended on Ryan’s seven Apaches for close air support. When he came out of the battle nine days later, Preysler immediately sought out Ryan. With a smile on his face and his hands spread wide, he said, "You guys have huge balls." The Apache exploits on the first day of the battle of Shah-e-Kot have done much to bolster the reputation of an aircraft that saw its battlefield role called into question after its role in Albania in 1999. In that bleak period in the helicopter’s history, 24 Apaches were sent to Task Force Hawk for use in the war against Yugoslavia. But the choppers were held back from combat after two crashed and two pilots died during mission rehearsals. The Apache community complained that ignorant journalists and casualty-averse Pentagon officials had unfairly turned their beloved killing machine into a scapegoat. Now, three years later, the contrast could not be starker. The Apache drivers are being lauded as heroes, and their helicopter is receiving what to many pilots is praise long overdue. With al-Qaida fighters so close to U.S. troops that close air support from "fast mover" jets was often out of the question, the Apaches became the only fire support available to ground commanders. In the crucial hours of that first day, when the carefully scripted battle plans had been rendered irrelevant and the outcome hung in the balance, Apaches saved the day. "The weapon that changed the face of the battle for us was the Apache," said Col. Frank Wiercinski, commander of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)’s 3rd Brigade and in charge of all conventional U.S. troops in the battle.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:12:53 AM EDT
continued... "I was just so impressed by its capability," he said. "I had never seen the Apache in combat before, though I’ve always trained with it. I am a firm believer right now that a brigade combat team commander needs his Apache battalion in an air assault division — its ability to protect us en route, its ability to set the conditions on the landing zones and then its close combat attack capability to take out fires. "Artillery is a wonderful asset, but you need an observer, you need a sensor, and then you’ve got the artillery [tube] as the shooter. An Apache can do all of that, and it’s always moving." On station in the valley from dawn on the battle’s first day, the Apaches flew again and again through withering small arms, heavy machine-gun and rocket-propelled grenade fire to provide fire support to the beleaguered infantry troops. Five Apaches were present at the start of the battle, a sixth arrived later that morning and a seventh flew up from Kandahar to join the fight that afternoon. None of the helicopters was shot down, but four were so badly damaged they were knocked out of the fight. The fire the Apaches braved was so intense that when the day was over, 27 of the 28 rotor blades among the seven helicopters sported bullet holes, said Lt. Col. James M. Marye, the commander of the 7th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment. Marye’s aviation task force included the Apaches of Ryan’s A Company, 3rd Battalion, 101st Aviation. Beneath the cold numbers are tales of heroism and extraordinary achievement. None are more dramatic than the story of Chief Warrant Officer 4 Jim Hardy. At about 6:45 a.m., an RPG exploded under the nose of Hardy’s Apache, sending shrapnel slicing through the helicopter’s innards. "I looked up and there was a black puff of smoke, like World War II flak," said Chief Warrant Officer 2 John Hamilton, who was flying nearby. "There was major damage to that aircraft," Ryan said. "They had lost the weapons systems and the target-acquisition systems."
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:13:53 AM EDT
Despite the fact that Hardy’s Apache was now essentially unarmed, he stayed on station. He later told Hamilton that his plan was to fly up the valley and draw fire, allowing the other Apaches to engage enemy gunners once they had revealed themselves. About 10 minutes after an RPG struck Hardy’s aircraft, another hit the Apache piloted by Chief Warrant Officer 3 Keith Hurley, smashing into the left Hellfire missile launcher. "The RPG struck me on the left, rocked the aircraft, and a microsecond after that, a bullet came through the cockpit," Hurley said. By the end of the day there were 13 bullet holes in Hurley’s aircraft. Lights immediately started flashing on Hurley’s control panel, warning him that he was hemorrhaging oil. Hardy, one of the company’s most experienced pilots, realized Hurley was in trouble, and got on the radio. As Hurley recalls it, Hardy told him, "I’ve got to go back to the [Forward Arming and Refueling Point], fall in trail and follow me, and we’ve got to go quick." The two wounded Apaches headed for the FARP, a way station for the helicopters roughly halfway between the valley and their temporary base in Bagram, north of Kabul. They didn’t make it very far. About a mile west of "the Whale," the humpbacked ridgeline that marked the western edge of the valley, more lights came on in Hurley’s cockpit, including one that told him he had no fluid left in his transmission. "I called off the lights to Mr. Hardy and he said, ‘You’ve got to land, you’ve got to land now,’ " Hurley said. The two landed in a dried-up riverbed, within range of the al-Qaida positions. With bullets flying around him, Hardy, who Hurley described as "the unit maintenance god," shut the helicopters down and went to work on Hurley’s aircraft. "He did sort of a triage of the aircraft, examining it like a doctor," Hurley said. Hardy took the three one-quart oil cans that each helicopter carried as spares and poured all six quarts into Hurley’s engine. Then he told Hurley they were going to swap helicopters and fly back to the FARP. "He told me, ‘Don’t dick around, when I get it started, I’m going,’ " Hurley said. Hardy was drawing on his deep knowledge of the Apache to take a calculated risk. With Hurley’s chopper leaking fluid like a sieve, he knew the six quarts of oil he had just poured in would not last long. But he also knew that the Apache’s engine was supposed to last 30 minutes without oil before seizing up. Hardy was gambling that he could nurse Hurley’s Apache 50 miles to the FARP in less than half an hour. The alternative was to strap two of the four pilots onto the side of Hardy’s helicopter, leaving Hurley’s Apache behind as a dead loss. Hardy’s gamble paid off. Twenty-six minutes after taking off under fire from the riverbed, the two damaged Apaches landed safely at the FARP. Hardy’s colleagues were in awe. "There are not a lot of folks out there who would have taken that aircraft off the ground," Ryan said. "It was an incredible action by Mr. Hardy." Hamilton said: "He’s a hero, no doubt about it." Marye recommended Hardy for a Distinguished Flying Cross. He also recommended Ryan, who continued flying despite being nicked on the chin by a bullet, for a Silver Star and several other pilots for the Air Medal with "V" device.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:19:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2002 10:23:06 AM EDT by marvl]
Seems like new weapons systems have to give the generals big woodies before they'll be adopted. The Apache was maybe a "sexy" design but not necessarily a "good" design? Kinda like the old MG I drove in my 20s? [;)] I also don't understand why the AF wants to unload the A10s. It is probably the best ground attack/close air support aircraft of all time. When you consider they've been flying B52s since the mid 50s it makes even less sense. Has anyone seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars" with Kelsey Grammer? About testing of the Bradley fighting vehicle. I'm surprised anything we make works. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:27:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By themao: Five out of the seven Apache attack helicopters sent to attack al-Qa'eda terrorists during Operation Anaconda two weeks ago were disabled by machinegun fire or ancient Soviet RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers fired from the ground.
View Quote
I believe but am not certain that the RPG-7 has been fitted with a new proximity (?) fused warhead so that contact is not required for the warhead to explode. I heard all this crap about nothing we had would work before Desert Storm. Seems that everything we had worked well enough to win and with a truly incredible minimum loss of American lives.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:32:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:36:26 AM EDT
Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought helicopters always had problems with ground fire. I have friends who flew in Viet Nam and they can tell you all sorts of stories about the hell small arms fire causes. Hell, read Blackhawk Down if you want to know what RPG's do to helos. That said, I see they moved the A-10's in country so the could provide close air support. Why does the Air Force continue to try to retire this aircraft when the have to pull it every time we realize that the helicopter just can't do the job as well. Long live the HOG!
View Quote
I have been thinking about this problem as well and the only reason that I think they do this is so they can erase the equipment off the books and ask for more. I mean it is the Warthog after all. That means you can probably not perform any maintenance on the aircraft for a long while get in start it and it will run. To lets just throw those A-10s away and get something new. All the while they are sitting in the PIG PEN out in the MUD where they like to be and well... you get the picture..
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 11:00:56 AM EDT
If the contractors got it right the first time, there would be no need for the Apache II or the Apache III! So a few US troops get killed because of crummy design trade-offs? What do you expect for a measly few billion dollars? All kidding aside, I thought the Apache had better armor and could withstand ground fire up to a 50 caliber. Guess that was propaganda, just like the rest of Operation Anaconda--500 enemy KIA, successful mission, etc.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 12:08:38 PM EDT
1. The British media SUCKS. 2. Army pilots are finnaly gettiong some real flying experience (this usualy takes place only when bullets start flying and the weenies hide) 3. NOTAR is a gadgety piece of crap (I've got 150 hrs in MD520, MD900) 4. The great thing about the Acrashe is that you can hang crap all over it, fill it up with fuel and still take off. 5. I know a pilot who was almost killed in a Gazell in northern ireland while filming a bridge from below and an old man threw a large rock into the main rotor (p.s. the rock was much older than the RPG 7 and so was the dude who chucked it) 6. The arcashe was designed to absorb damage and still fly, because of this fact these guys were alive to win some medals. 7. Helicopters are FRAGILE ! always have been always will be. You can take one out just by leaving some burlap bags lying all over an LZ.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 12:38:49 PM EDT
yep there is a lot of danger from the Longbow....if you are in front of it...
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 12:52:44 PM EDT
What sort of altitude does the Apache fly at while providing close air support? Can the pilot take any sort of evasive action while firing or does he have to hover in place? I'm trying to visualize the difficulty of hitting an attack helicopter with an RPG. It seems as though it would take a lot of luck to actually connect.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 1:54:46 PM EDT
Ignorance drives me crazy. Especially some of you pathetic aim-chair Generals here! 1. What design problems? The “D” model or “Longbow” is the most refined fire and forget platform the Army has, nothing in the world comes close. 2. We get at least 2000 hours out of the blades, MTBF is roughly 5000 with minor repairs. 3. Since when does a tail rotor produce lift on a helicopter? Doh! That was pathetic! 4. The article from the UK is really made of some crazy stuff. The Apache carries16 Hellfires (8 on each side) There are absolutely no restrictions firing Hellfires from either side. (Ask Israel) The firing caps can cause a few minor dents in the horizontal stabilator but it is only a secondary flight control as it is? Even then we simply applied a thin layer elastomer erosion pad and the problem goes away. Your friends’ neighbors’ niece thrice removed expert is [size=3][b]Full of Bullshit[/b][/size=3] and doesn’t have a clue! … As a matter of fact it was some of you same assholes that were posting pictures last week of the [I]“purdy heelocopter that looks like a neeto birdy”[/I] (piece of shit Soviet era Hind-D) that are trashing the Apache. The Longbow is one of the most sought after feared battle implements in the world. … It’s best you stick with a subject you know a little something about!
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 1:56:44 PM EDT
No need to actually hit the thing with the RPG. Just needs to detonate in the vicinity, preferably near the tail rotor.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 2:31:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf: Ignorance drives me crazy. Especially some of you pathetic aim-chair Generals here! 1. What design problems? The “D” model or “Longbow” is the most refined fire and forget platform the Army has, nothing in the world comes close. 2. We get at least 2000 hours out of the blades, MTBF is roughly 5000 with minor repairs. 3. Since when does a tail rotor produce lift on a helicopter? Doh! That was pathetic! 4. The article from the UK is really made of some crazy stuff. The Apache carries16 Hellfires (8 on each side) There are absolutely no restrictions firing Hellfires from either side. (Ask Israel) The firing caps can cause a few minor dents in the horizontal stabilator but it is only a secondary flight control as it is? Even then we simply applied a thin layer elastomer erosion pad and the problem goes away. Your friends’ neighbors’ niece thrice removed expert is [size=3][b]Full of Bullshit[/b][/size=3] and doesn’t have a clue! … As a matter of fact it was some of you same assholes that were posting pictures last week of the [I]“purdy heelocopter that looks like a neeto birdy”[/I] (piece of shit Soviet era Hind-D) that are trashing the Apache. The Longbow is one of the most sought after feared battle implements in the world. … It’s best you stick with a subject you know a little something about!
View Quote
... I got to add, this system is so full of redundancies that survivability is so much higher that any other attack helicopter out there. Did you know that it was designed spare the life of our pilots from a 90 foot free fall? Why 90 feet you ask? Because that in the minimum distance needed to auto-rotate. I could go on but some of you assholes make me mad. Look at this tail rotor drive shaft that was shot last week. This a/c flew back to it's forward base no problem. No, thats not a 5" solid diameter shaft but rather a thin walled structure designed to withstand 30mm strikes and still deliver torque needed to drives the tail rotors. [img]http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL83/513075/710375/8217238.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 2:56:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: Seems like new weapons systems have to give the generals big woodies before they'll be adopted. The Apache was maybe a "sexy" design but not necessarily a "good" design? Kinda like the old MG I drove in my 20s? [;)] I also don't understand why the AF wants to unload the A10s. It is probably the best ground attack/close air support aircraft of all time. When you consider they've been flying B52s since the mid 50s it makes even less sense. Has anyone seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars" with Kelsey Grammer? About testing of the Bradley fighting vehicle. I'm surprised anything we make works. [rolleyes]
View Quote
Iam telling you I've grown UP seeing the wart-Hog fly we lived 40 miles south from an Air Force base, where I lived they have always train with wart-hog's, I lived in the country and they flew were we lived, I had saw some amazing flying, I could tell you some stories! they are one Bad ass flying machine. while doing some rabbit hunting one winter, I heard a jet, I looked to were it was coming from and seen one, he was heading strait at me, id say about 100/200 feet above me i seen the pilot he tilt the plane right on its side i saw his mask and helmet he looked strait at me I was shocked and suprized! I just thought that was cool. Id say every since the colapse they just fly F16's few and far between, but I always will remember the Hog.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:24:13 PM EDT
The only problem i remember the Apache having in Desert Storm was premature wear of the rotors due to sand. A little speed tape on the leading edges and that problem was solved. I have to agree with Winston, seems there's as many arm-chair generals in the world as there are arm-chair quarterbacks.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 3:38:28 PM EDT
Look, I wasn't trying to be an asshole and nor am I associated with them....AND I AM NO F$%KING ARM CHAIR GENERAL! [pissed] I realize that the news media sucks when it comes to reporting military technical crap. The fact remains though that the Brit's WAH-64D is having difficulties when firing its Hellfire missiles. That is asstastic and there is no excuse for it. Now whether or not it is because they are firing different types of hellfires, who knows. Also, the article stated that the NORMAL load out of an Apache is 8 hellfires, implying two hydra rocket pods. I believe this is correct. As for the main rotor blades, I met the person that helped designed them. He's the department chair of mechanical engineering here at Wash U. He told me that the blades were designed to be a trade-off of durability/life for performance. The reason why they used composites is to save weight, and the composites could handle the greater torque from the Apache's overpowered turbine engines. The newer blades coming out should last longer and are supposed to be even stronger thanks to better technology that manufacturers it. However, when one considers its intended role for close air support, I think durability and its ability to take punishment is far more important than a few extra knots of performance. The Russians learned their lesson in Afghanistan, and look at the monstrosities they developed, namely the Mi-28 and KA-50. Brutal aircraft for brutal field conditions. I just hope the Commanche turns out alright. I realize that it takes years to develop good and reliable avionics and mechanical packages, even more so to integrate all the pieces together. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 6:50:38 PM EDT
... OK [b]themao[/b], maybe you did get under my skin a bit. It just frosts my hide when the Goddamned Brits bitch about the Longbow. They don't fly the machines in wartime, all they do is nitpick them apart in the hanger. As for the AH64 blades, the are aluminum honeycomb core not Aramid (Kevlar) like I believe you are insinuating. I've worked intimately on the Apache and Longbow for 20 years now, I know the system. The new AARP blade will not improve performance without a larger disc or an addition blade. Both attribute the Army is not willing to invest in now. As for the Comanche, oh well, I start working it's composite blade at the end of next month. My gut felling is that the system will never be deployed. Our military will opt for UCAV, Predator, Dragonfly and other RPV reconnaissance aircraft to ID and paint targets. Please accept my apology for calling you an asshole, your probably really not one.[;D][;D][;D]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 7:48:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2002 7:55:30 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
You Apache supporters are getting a little worked up. Of course with any "weapon system" there will be "teething" problems. One of the guys that I used to work with, a helicopter pilot, said all helicopters are proff that if you strap an big enough engine onto something you can get it into the air. Yes the Apache is a great, capable weapon system. Unfortunately it also requires a lot of support. It also has a lot of gizmo's and "thinger-mer-bobbers" on it that are very complicated pieces of equipment, and I'm sure they are expensive to. Sometimes simple is better, I just can't help but think the Army would be better off with fewer Apaches and a few Warthogs. Of course there is a law about the Army not being able to operate fixed wing attack aircraft, and the Air Force is much more interested in air superiority fighters. EDIT: The Apache is like a Ferrari, lots of great go fast stuff. Unfortunately it's mission means that it gets driven on gravel roads a lot....... Now an A-10 is like a 70's pickup truck, it ain't fast, pretty, or known for it's smoth ride, but a little "ding" isn't gonna mess it up any, just adds character....... (I don't dislike the Apache, I just like the A-10 more. The Osprey is another story.)
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 8:01:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2002 8:06:34 PM EDT by NH2112]
As far as I know, the Apache's cockpit and engines are armored to withstand anything up to and including the Russian 14.5mm MG round and 23mm cannon rounds (fired from below the a/c.) That is nothing short of incredible for a helicopter as light and maneuverable as the Apache. Armoring the entire aircraft to the same standard would have made is as maneuverable as a CH47. RPGs? There's no way a helo that small can be armored against RPGs and still have the power to fly. Since you can't protect against an RPG strike, why waste ANY of the aircraft's power and weapons capacity carrying a little extra armor that: A) won't help protect the a/c from RPGs, and B) is more than is needed to stop 14.5mm/23mm? Now, WRT this report, I call BS. The whole "leaked report" thing raises flags with me, anyway - can you say "sour grapes?" If OUR AH-64Ds can fire the Hellfire with no problems, then so can THEIR WAH-64Ds. I can't even imagine what kind of "debris" would be kicked up - the idea of parts and pieces being blown off the other missiles on the rack by the rocket blast is pretty silly, and likewise I doubt that arming and firing umbilicals are going to cause any damage. MLRS rocket motor ignitors are a LOT heavier than anything on a Hellfire, and the rocket leaves the tube at Mach 2+ so you know there's a lot of force pushing that ignitor out - but the ignitors don't even bury themselves in dirt/gravel upon firing. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic about the intelligence of our weapons designers, but I'd think they all know about "equal and opposite reactions" and how anything behind the rocket motor nozzle is going to fly backwards at a high speed when you launch the missile. Knowing this, they most likely didn't put anything too dangerous back there. Plus, you design things like this for wartime use, when dangers that are seen as unnecessary risks in peacetime all of a sudden don't matter very much. For example: When firing an MLRS rocket there's a pretty good chance that a lid will be blown off a stowage box and the gear within strewn around the firing point, or (less likely) that the blast will damage something inside the LLM (Launcher/Loader Module.) This sucks in peacetime, since it most likely means a Statement of Charges for the damaged gear (well, SOMEONE'S got to pay for it!) or holding up the live fire so the crew and the 27M mechanics can find the problem, get the LLM stowed either manually or via the Fire Control System, drive the launcher off the firing point, unload the live rocket pods for another launcher, then head back to the hide point to work on it. In combat (Desert Storm) what do you do? Drive the launcher off the firing point with the LLM laid so any counterbattery doesn't catch you. If something breaks, resulting in replacement being needed, oh well - the crew's still alive, they bust their asses till the track's up again, and get back into the fight. So it goes with the Apache. IF there's a danger of damaging the a/c firing Hellfires from the left side (which I still find hard to believe) then in combat you deal with it IF it happens by flying as far from the action as you can and getting the prop 'n' rotor guys (68Ds?) to put a new tail rotor on. Sure beats only having 4 Hellfires.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 8:07:43 PM EDT
They have been bad mouthing the Apache since day one, and every time the Apache has performed and performed well, I remember the BS before Desert Storm. If I recall Clinton made the decision not to send in Apaches into Yugoslavia and the Supreme Commander of Nato got the blame for it. The Longbow is fine as well. The Commanche , well I don't know anything about that one. Some other I have heard. "Allied troops can expect 16,000 causalties" GOD FORBID "THE B2 BOMBER IS A BOONDOGGLE" "THE B1 BOMBER IS A BOONDOGGLE" "THE M3 BRADLEY IS A BOONDOGGLE" "THE US AIRFORCE IS A PAPER TIGER" "THE US ARMY IS TOO DEPENDANT UPON AIRSUPPORT" ^---- The soviets were fond of saying this. I guess because they knew they were not going to have air supperiority and that there guys on the ground were going to be taking a lot of lead because of it. "THE M1 ABRAHMS IS A BOONDOGGLE" You get the picture.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 8:14:47 PM EDT
Anyway, this helicopter in real life is a piece of crap
View Quote
Tell that to an Iraqi tanker. If you can find any who are still alive, that is.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 8:39:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2002 8:44:00 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
DO you remember seeing those two apaches flying at night lit up an Iraqi armored column and took out 5 BMPs and 2/3large trucks and a radar over the course of about 1.5 minutes. The FLIR lit up those guys running away and the apaches just put his TADS reticle on them and shot them all. good grief... No thanks I would rather face a HIND_D .... On the Apache all the pilot has to do is look at you and he can kill you with his helmet mounted recticle linked to his 30mm chain gun. NO FRICKIN WAY>.. Hay don't the soviets have a recticle for their Flanker/ Fulcrum drivers??? It allows the pilot to slave the seeker head of his missile and or radar to the direction he is looking. Talk about heads up. Benjamin
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 9:14:41 PM EDT
The Apaches lost in Kosovo were due to pilot error - to be expected with the severe shortage of training money available at the time. One guy backed into a tree, the other got into "settling with power" a dumb mistake aggravated by high altitudes and heavy load. Interesting to note that old Cobras (AH1) are being used in Afghanistan. That old warhorse is based on Hueys!!!! The thing is STILL deadly. One actually shot down a MIG in VN!! ALL aircraft go through upgrades during production. They NEVER start out with enough power. "A" models morp into "B" models and so on. Some numbers are skipped; some are never deployed. Some suffix models are variants in equipment for specialized duty. Often each individual unit has slight improvemnets over the preceeding serial number. To fail to advance in knowledge and performance is to stand still. In the AC business, standing still is going backwards, not "failing to get it right the first time"!!!! You can be sure as the war grinds on better tactics and more combat experience will result in lower risk to aircraft and crews. Enough hours flown in combat will result in lost aircraft. Fact of war.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 9:26:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2002 9:54:44 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
Well, this is [i]THE[/i] ordnance delivery platform they should still be using IMHO. [url]http://skyraider.org/skyhead.jpg[/url] [img]http://skyraider.org/skyhead.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 9:33:18 PM EDT
oooooo...."Skyraider".......GOOD plane! Can carry an assload of ordnance, and wait around just about all day for the opportunity to use it.
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 9:45:20 PM EDT
MickeyMouse The Marines dont have the AH-1W's because they love them, they are there for the same reason the Sea Knights are still there, they cant get anything to replace them. And I do hope that the Army does NOT cancel Comanche. Its not JUST a scout, for the Light and Airborne units it is supposed to replace BOTH the Kiowa and the Apache. They went to great pains, and a lot of cash, to make sure it could be put into action in 15min after being unloaded from a C-17 by just 5 men with basic hand tools. Even if we have pleanty of UAV's now for scouting, the Light divisions need a more portable attack ship than the Apache. Oh, and the A-10 beats the Skyrader hands down. Then again, it was only half designed as a tank killer- the other half of its job WAS to be the replacement for the Spad. It didn't need all those pylons underwing to kill tanks- look at the plane it beat, the XA-9 (or at any SU-25 Frogfoot, they basicly stole the XA-9 design).
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 9:49:46 PM EDT
Never happen, Pthfndr. Don't cost enough. Noses aren't pointy enough. Too easy to maintain. Too cost effective. I've always loved them. Tate
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 10:42:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 2:40:24 AM EDT
I was a Crew Chief on the OH-58 A and C model Scout helicopters, and 6 months of this was during Desert Shield/Storm with the 1/1 CAV 1st AD. All the Attack units I was assigned to and the CAV used the OH-58 Scout and AH-1 Cobra helicopters. Attack Companies were set up 6 Scouts to 4 Cobras, the CAV was 4 Cobras to 6 Scouts. The Desert is the worst enviroment to maintain any aircraft. Sand has it's effects on every rotating component. Each aircraft was modified at it's weakest points to protect it from the effects of sand. The Cobras had modified particle seperators installed to protect their engines and schafe tape added to the blades leading edges. Scouts had a 2 part epoxy component added to the tail rotor blades leading edges to protect it. Servicing during combat was limited to lubrication of rotating components and fresh water flushes of the compressors. After Desert Storm I was assigned to 2-1 AVN, an Apache unit. They had no problems at all with the aircraft during deployment. It performed as needed, kicking ass. Even returing it's crew after taking a 12.7mm round through the main rotor mast! These aircraft returned to Europe to continue thier mission, in the same condition they left Saudi. A program was started called STIR, Special Technicial Inspection and Repair to COMPLETLY overhall those aircraft from Desert Storm. I worked on that program with Agusta Aerospace as a civilian mechanic. Those aircraft were nothing but airframes when we finished tearing them down, and when rebuilt, were as good as new. I could go on, but the point I'm trying to make is the desert is a rough enviroment to operate in, any aircraft will suffer in those conditions. Guess I get defensive when people start to pick apart the aircraft I worked on and don't really have a clue! "Scouts Out" Quib 17 years aircraft experience A&P Mechanic
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 4:41:47 AM EDT
Sorry for the long delay as the time difference. Looks like I don’t have to defend any thing here thanks guys. We have both A and D model over here and they are both doing fine.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:15:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: No need to actually hit the thing with the RPG. Just needs to detonate in the vicinity, preferably near the tail rotor.
View Quote
Are there fragmentation rockets for the RPG? I thought the standard carried a shaped charge for anti-armor use.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:24:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Originally Posted By marvl: No need to actually hit the thing with the RPG. Just needs to detonate in the vicinity, preferably near the tail rotor.
View Quote
Are there fragmentation rockets for the RPG? I thought the standard carried a shaped charge for anti-armor use.
View Quote
There is a HEfrag rocket for the RPG. No where near as common as the HEAT rocket though. And its still a impact fuze. marvl is wrong though, you have to hit the rotor itself. RPG's wont explode any other way. They have a problem with not going off when they hit things at a angle, and they definently dont have a proximity fuze.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 3:53:37 PM EDT
ArmdLbrl, hope you didn't misunderstand my comments about the snake - impresses hell out of me that a nearly 50 year old design still strikes terror in an enemy! Those things may be old but they still pack a heck of a wallop. Take a lot of punishment as well yet keep on working. Bell did not build the worlds FIRST commercially certified helicopter (Bell 47) by being stupid! QUIB - know what you mean about that sand. Our OH58C STILL has sand in nooks and crannies! It flew 239 hours in SWA with a minigun on left skid. They added Huey fuel filter on the eng deck and sealed up around the particle separator but not much else as best I can tell. It was 101st ship, 417 tail number.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 4:28:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: ArmdLbrl, hope you didn't misunderstand my comments about the snake - impresses hell out of me that a nearly 50 year old design still strikes terror in an enemy! Those things may be old but they still pack a heck of a wallop. Take a lot of punishment as well yet keep on working. Bell did not build the worlds FIRST commercially certified helicopter (Bell 47) by being stupid! QUIB - know what you mean about that sand. Our OH58C STILL has sand in nooks and crannies! It flew 239 hours in SWA with a minigun on left skid. They added Huey fuel filter on the eng deck and sealed up around the particle separator but not much else as best I can tell. It was 101st ship, 417 tail number.
View Quote
Now that you mention it, I remember that mod to our aircraft AFTER Desert Storm. A screw on type fuel filter mounted to the engine pan just below the fwd tail rotor drive shaft. Even with the mod added on we still had to check fuel nozzel spray patterns every 100 hr service! Damn sand!
Top Top