The Apache Longbow
- Thread starter CanadianBoy92
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I know I might catch S$%t for this but the kid was just stating what he thinks. I dont think there is any harm in that. I dont think you should ban people for what they say unless its hurtful to others. Just my 2 cents.
Most of us relise that its a more complex issue then just wanting something or pointing to the shiny one and saying thats the one!!! Course...if he has been caught trolling alot and posting nothing but this stuff...I do understand.
Again ..just my 2 cents.
Most of us relise that its a more complex issue then just wanting something or pointing to the shiny one and saying thats the one!!! Course...if he has been caught trolling alot and posting nothing but this stuff...I do understand.
Again ..just my 2 cents.
- Reaction score
- 4,829
- Points
- 1,060
Bobbyoreo said:
Thanks for the input. Many things happen in the background of which only the Mods are aware. Decisions to ban are not taken lightly, and when it happens it's warranted and done in consultation. Your concern is noted, but the incident is not what you describe and warrants no further discussion here.
Keep the thread on ttrack please.
Between last night and today, I find this Cody is like the little kid that lays down throwing a tantrum saying "gimme gimme".
Rather than jump on him right away, everybody was pointing him to the threads he needed, and to the rules...he just plum ignored everyone and went on posting new threads in a total "gimme gimme" attitude.
Rather than jump on him right away, everybody was pointing him to the threads he needed, and to the rules...he just plum ignored everyone and went on posting new threads in a total "gimme gimme" attitude.
- Reaction score
- 4,829
- Points
- 1,060
Please keep the thread on subject.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Couple of things I have against the Apache's as a attack helo for the CF:
1. Purchase costs. The AH-64D costs around $56.25 million dollars US, according to the latest prices. Compare that with the AH-1Z SuperCobra price of around $12 million dollars US, the Eurocopter Tiger unit cost of around $36 million dollars US.
2. Maintenance. Apache's are fairly maintenance-intensive machines, especially in desert conditions, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the sort of thing to have helo's sitting on the ground being serviced when they could instead be flying. Also, that maintenance costs a lot of money with the Apache, compared to other machines.
3. Surviveability. The Apache is vulnerable to ground fire, as experienced in recent conflicts. For example, in the intial invasion of Afghanistan, at one point, 80% of Apache's in theatre were heavily damaged by ground fire. This is due to the design and purpose of the Apache, which is of a long range standoff tank killer. Operate Apache's in mountainous regions with disparate enemy forces or in urban terrain exposes the Apache to ground fire, and lots of it.
1. Purchase costs. The AH-64D costs around $56.25 million dollars US, according to the latest prices. Compare that with the AH-1Z SuperCobra price of around $12 million dollars US, the Eurocopter Tiger unit cost of around $36 million dollars US.
2. Maintenance. Apache's are fairly maintenance-intensive machines, especially in desert conditions, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the sort of thing to have helo's sitting on the ground being serviced when they could instead be flying. Also, that maintenance costs a lot of money with the Apache, compared to other machines.
3. Surviveability. The Apache is vulnerable to ground fire, as experienced in recent conflicts. For example, in the intial invasion of Afghanistan, at one point, 80% of Apache's in theatre were heavily damaged by ground fire. This is due to the design and purpose of the Apache, which is of a long range standoff tank killer. Operate Apache's in mountainous regions with disparate enemy forces or in urban terrain exposes the Apache to ground fire, and lots of it.
A
aesop081
Guest
Armymatters said:
4. Not built by Airbus
5. Not advocated by CASR
6. It would be available in a relatively short time as oposed to 15 years from now
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
booya
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Where did you get this? Afghanistan was never "invaded" and I don't recall the Apaches taking anything like the damage you claim.
What did happen was that the US Army attempted a mass heliborne attack against armour in Iraq during the initial invasion, resulting in (IIRC) one Apache being shot down and a significant number of others damaged.
As for the Afghan context, you have no idea - as in zero - what you're talking about.
mod: typo
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,754
- Points
- 1,110
At the risk of being put on the warning track myself, the AH-64 is the gold standard when it comes to attack helicopters over here. In fact, its pretty much the only standard. The UK and Nethelands have them over here. Instead, we have several squadrons of O&M/PY thieves (aka the Griffon) operating in Canada. We lack vision and thus we lack capabilty.
Chinooks and Apaches give you capabilities.
Chinooks and Apaches give you capabilities.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
+1
As I've pointed out when discussing attack aviation previously, it isn't merely the firepower that counts. You need a complete sensor suite that makes the aircraft so useful in a variety of operational scenarios. We used Dutch AHs extensively in theatre for all sorts of things, due mainly to their powerful night vision capability.
There are a variety of aircraft that can do this, but the AH-64 is the standard and is what our Allies are using. Having said that, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Canada to buy any type of attack aviation, let alone Apache Longbow.
As I've pointed out when discussing attack aviation previously, it isn't merely the firepower that counts. You need a complete sensor suite that makes the aircraft so useful in a variety of operational scenarios. We used Dutch AHs extensively in theatre for all sorts of things, due mainly to their powerful night vision capability.
There are a variety of aircraft that can do this, but the AH-64 is the standard and is what our Allies are using. Having said that, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Canada to buy any type of attack aviation, let alone Apache Longbow.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I appreciate the Longbow, but there is somewhat of a reputation for being a bit of a hangar queen, not to mention the costs. I find myself looking toward the AH-1Z and I'm interested. Bell claims, The AH-1Z and UH-1Y have 84% commonality with identical components. The assumption therein would lie with an expectation for commonality with our Griffons, this could be an economic supporting point.
I feel an argument in favour of the Bell system could be presented: integration with the current utility/recon fleet; direct support of the upcoming medium/heavy lift vehicles; integration with allied transport (C-17) and maintenance systems; direct support for CF personnel on the ground; anti-air capability; reduced costs per unit in relation to AH-1D; limited maintenance integration with current fleet of utility helicopters, and the sensor suite/weapons packages are more than satisfactory.
The AH-1Z may not be the dominant helo, as the Longbow arguably is, but it could be more than effective in meeting the CFs needs (although that is another issue in itself; politics notwithstanding).
Bell makes many claims: http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/bellAH-1Z.cfm. Peruse and form your own conclusions.
I feel an argument in favour of the Bell system could be presented: integration with the current utility/recon fleet; direct support of the upcoming medium/heavy lift vehicles; integration with allied transport (C-17) and maintenance systems; direct support for CF personnel on the ground; anti-air capability; reduced costs per unit in relation to AH-1D; limited maintenance integration with current fleet of utility helicopters, and the sensor suite/weapons packages are more than satisfactory.
The AH-1Z may not be the dominant helo, as the Longbow arguably is, but it could be more than effective in meeting the CFs needs (although that is another issue in itself; politics notwithstanding).
Bell makes many claims: http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/bellAH-1Z.cfm. Peruse and form your own conclusions.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
It's to bad the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche project was cancelled. It looked like it would have been a great reconnaissance helicopter.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/rah-66.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/rah-66.htm
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The Longbow can acquire and fire >:30, great; it was designed to take out as many tanks in the least amount of time as possible while maintaining a high survivability to the crew. The AH-1Z may not be up to the same level of capability in this regard, but as an overall system I feel it may have value to the CF for the reasons listed.
In all fairness, I doubt that we'll see an attack helicopter in any form anytime soon, unfortunately, the general public is a tough sell when the words "attack" and "military" are used in the same sentence. It's all about compromises Quagmire, if you think an argument in support of the Longbow's costs and integration are realistic, I'm all in favour of it.
In all fairness, I doubt that we'll see an attack helicopter in any form anytime soon, unfortunately, the general public is a tough sell when the words "attack" and "military" are used in the same sentence. It's all about compromises Quagmire, if you think an argument in support of the Longbow's costs and integration are realistic, I'm all in favour of it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Follow up for Quagmire:
Longbow International (a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) is developing the Cobra Radar System for the AH-1Z, based on the Longbow millimetre wave radar on the AH-64D Apache. Cobra is a pod-based radar that can be mounted on a wingtip or in a stores position. Cobra can automatically search, detect, classify and prioritise multiple moving and stationary targets. It has a range of 8km against moving and 4km against stationary targets.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/
Down the page under Sensors.
Longbow International (a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) is developing the Cobra Radar System for the AH-1Z, based on the Longbow millimetre wave radar on the AH-64D Apache. Cobra is a pod-based radar that can be mounted on a wingtip or in a stores position. Cobra can automatically search, detect, classify and prioritise multiple moving and stationary targets. It has a range of 8km against moving and 4km against stationary targets.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/
Down the page under Sensors.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
2Bravo said:
Just a quick inquiry - With enemy armor as a secondary consideration, does investment in the Longbow radar justify the ROI? I'm just thinking in terms of hunting individuals with AK-47's and IED's that perhaps investing in the highest-end thermal detection optics would be more useful....
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Any helicopter can become a "hangar queen". I'm not sure what the specific issues with AH64 in Afghanistan are, but environment would be a big one. A parts problem could well be another - Iraq is taking a major toll on US Army equipment of all types. I've seen the ones being rotated out of Iraq through Fort Knox for major overhaul and talked to the techs (civ contractors) working on them. One of the first things done is to suck many pounds of sand out of them. I can't remember the specific quantity, but the Hercs going through the same process at Louisville arrive with an average of 900 lbs of sand trapped throughout the airframe. These machines have been worked hard and are very tired.
AH1Z will have no commonality with CH146. Commonality is with UH1Y - same basic box as CH146, but big difference in content. Buying both H1 variants would make sense - but still expect hangar queens when operating complex machines in severe environments with parts and manpower shortages (the latter is a significant factor in the ongoing CH146 serviceability problems).
We could buy AH64 without Longbow, and keep the option to upgrade should the need arise. All wiring etcetera is included in the airframe - the US Army are doing this, too, as a money-saving measure.
One of many reasons for the US Army to operate the MH6 ("Little Birds") is that they do not look as aggressive as AH64, yet still have a significant sensor and weapon capability. The US Army will be acquiring RH70 to replace OH58D in the armed recce role, and this may be a viable option for us. It's cheaper and less aggressive-looking than either major AH - very pleasing lines similar to the Jet Ranger that it's derived from and there will no doubt be a civil version with snazzy paint schemes that will further reduce the "threatening appearance" in civilian eyes - yet will have a very good sensor package and decent weapon suite. That would be my preference, as a Kiowa guy.
AH1Z will have no commonality with CH146. Commonality is with UH1Y - same basic box as CH146, but big difference in content. Buying both H1 variants would make sense - but still expect hangar queens when operating complex machines in severe environments with parts and manpower shortages (the latter is a significant factor in the ongoing CH146 serviceability problems).
We could buy AH64 without Longbow, and keep the option to upgrade should the need arise. All wiring etcetera is included in the airframe - the US Army are doing this, too, as a money-saving measure.
One of many reasons for the US Army to operate the MH6 ("Little Birds") is that they do not look as aggressive as AH64, yet still have a significant sensor and weapon capability. The US Army will be acquiring RH70 to replace OH58D in the armed recce role, and this may be a viable option for us. It's cheaper and less aggressive-looking than either major AH - very pleasing lines similar to the Jet Ranger that it's derived from and there will no doubt be a civil version with snazzy paint schemes that will further reduce the "threatening appearance" in civilian eyes - yet will have a very good sensor package and decent weapon suite. That would be my preference, as a Kiowa guy.
I'm nitpicking here, but I believe the designation for the new ARH helicopter is RAH-70, not RH70. Also, it is based on the civilian Bell 407 which has been around since late 1995, and adapted to military use rather than being developed as a military aircraft.
Similar threads
