Why Does the USMC use the Ah-1Z?

[M9ACE 0]

Im sure they have...Tunguskas...you name it.

That is incorrect.

[cozza 24]

and we go to stop conflict not start them.

There was a conflict going on in Iraq before Iraqi Freedom

[Ironsight 1]

Do you even know what your talking about. First of all it's stella not strela and second of all its Iraq not Irak.

It is Strela

Make sure you know what you're talking about, no offense.

He's only 13.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

I mean the Apache is better right? And it could do more damage... right?

Who said that ?

Albeit both the AH-1 and AH-64 are pretty old, the newst variant of the Cobra (AH-1Z) is definetely more modern and advanced than the "for-decades-not-touched" Ah-64.

By the way, they carry the same weapons systems.

Hellfire, Hydra and chaingun. And the Cobra can also utilize bomblet dispensers, HOT and other things. Its further cheaper and lighter than the Apache.

So why is the Apache better ? Cause they knocked out T-55s from a distance of 8 Km in 1991 when Iraq was exhausted due to two wars and their tanks had a day visible range of 1 click ?

[Rhodite 3]

@ April 10 2007,03:45)]

Im sure they have...Tunguskas...you name it.

That is incorrect.

I wasn't aware Iraq had such a nasty peice of kit?

[Messiah 2]

they don't, it is only operated by:

India

Russia

Morocco

Ukraine

Belarus

Armenia

Peru

Algeria

Myanmar

although some of those nations seem a little 'small' to be operating such relatively hi-tech kit

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

although some of those nations seem a little 'small' to be operating such relatively hi-tech kit

Its not all that "hi-tech" (shouldn't that be 'High-tech' Danny? Grammar mi'lad, Grammar is key ) its actually quite old now.  But it does present a good investment from Defence Planner's viewpoint.  You get 2 mobile and proven air-defence weapons mounted on an easy to maintain chassis for a reasonable price.  If you don't have much money a flexible and mobile air defence solution makes a lot of sense.

[Rhodite 3]

Going off on a tangent, one does wonder why the comanche was scrapped when the following facts were present.

1. It was the first Project of its kind to not only meet expectations and requirements but exceed them.

2. It broke numerous records

3. Pilots who flew it thought it would be an exceptional addition

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Going off on a tangent, one does wonder why the comanche was scrapped when the following facts were present.

1. It was the first Project of its kind to not only meet expectations and requirements but exceed them.

2. It broke numerous records

3. Pilots who flew it thought it would be an exceptional addition

Wasn't money the big issue there? Too expensive? From what I've heard and read, the whole project went way over budget...

[Messiah 2]

BUZZARD @ April 10 2007,14:59)]

Going off on a tangent, one does wonder why the comanche was scrapped when the following facts were present.

1. It was the first Project of its kind to not only meet expectations and requirements but exceed them.

2. It broke numerous records

3. Pilots who flew it thought it would be an exceptional addition

Wasn't money the big issue there? Too expensive? From what I've heard and read, the whole project went way over budget...

going over budget is all relative when it comes to most military contracts though?

At its cancelation it had already cost 8 billion and was filling a slot which really wasn't there(?) - the remaining money was put into upgrading the current helicopters instead, as well as intergrating the useful technoligies created with the commanche program.

plus, its intended role, scout/light attack is now being filled by off the shelf helicopters at a fraction of the cost. But after you've spent 8 billion, its all rather relative again.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Going off on a tangent, one does wonder why the comanche was scrapped when the following facts were present.

1. It was the first Project of its kind to not only meet expectations and requirements but exceed them.

2. It broke numerous records

3. Pilots who flew it thought it would be an exceptional addition

Apart form costing far too much,  It was realised that a fully stealth helicopter wasnt really necessary anymore inthe Post Coldwar era. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, most of the conflicts were against (relatively) poorly equipped insurgents and militias armed with small arms, visually aimed AAA and IR SAMs.  It seems the US military planners felt that the role could be be done more effectively with cheaper aircraft and UAVs.

[Baff1 0]

and is anyone arming rebels with AA missiles like the americans did in Afghanistan ?

Someone is.

Quote[/b] ]The US has lost more than 50 military helicopters in Iraq since the invasion with the loss of a number of soldiers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Quote[/b] ]With Thursday's incident, at least nine U.S. helicopters have crashed or been brought down by hostile fire this year in Iraq.

www.abcnews.go.com

They lost a lot of Apache's during the initial invasion.

Mainly to infantry armed with small arms and RPG's.

I'm not sure whether to view this as a weakness in aircraft or a strength.

On the one hand it clearly took losses, but on the other hand, They clearly had enough confidence in the airframe to send it in on the front row.

It took the brunt of the defensive fire and the battle was won.

[M9ACE 0]

@ April 10 2007,03:45)]

Im sure they have...Tunguskas...you name it.

That is incorrect.

I wasn't aware Iraq had such a nasty peice of kit?

Notice that I said incorrect.  

The old Iraqi army under Saddam never fielded that particular system (as previously mentioned).

[ran 0]

This thread is a goldmine with pretty large nuggets such as that "stella" MANPADS.

What caused the American helos to go down was more of a doctrinal than technical nature. You don't fly over desert and over gunmen filled casbahs the same.

That's my humble advice as a former poor little gun-totting grey blob in the optronics of those things.

[BlackScorpion 0]

@ April 10 2007,03:45)]

Im sure they have...Tunguskas...you name it.

That is incorrect.

I wasn't aware Iraq had such a nasty peice of kit?

The "bad guys" (can't remember who, never played it) in BF2 do.

Hitler didn't invade whole of Europe. UK held it's defence, Ireland being neutral but with obvious stance. Others were either neutral (Sweden, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland, atleast), allied atleast partially (Spain technically; Hungary, Romania, Finland, Italy etc.) or conquered by the Germans.

US and Israel have drawn plans of using nuclear weapons against high-value tactical/strategic targets if necessary. I'm not saying they're the only ones doing so (India and Pakistan are still somewhat in war with each other, both having atleast few hundred SRBMs), but well, they're doing so.

[crashdome 3]

My 2cents:

I remember taking off from naval ships in Team Apache so it must be true

oh wait ... Lol.. I thought I was in a flight sim forum for a moment

[Big Dawg KS 6]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 10 2007,04:02)]Albeit both the AH-1 and AH-64 are pretty old, the newst variant of the Cobra (AH-1Z) is definetely more modern and advanced than the "for-decades-not-touched" Ah-64.

The AH-64 has been "touched" actually, quite recently too. The latest varient is the AH-64D, and it includes a lot of improvements. Also, the AH-1Z does not have any more advanced systems than the AH-64D, in fact the AH-64D is technologically more advanced than the AH-1Z.

Quote[/b] ]By the way, they carry the same weapons systems.

Hellfire, Hydra and chaingun.

That's incorrect too. All USMC AH-1s still use the smaller M197 3 barrel 20mm Gattling gun, and they also have less ammo capacity than the AH-64 with it's M230 30mm chain gun. Apparently, the M197 also has an unreliable ammunition feed that is still present on the AH-1Z.

[echo1 0]

What caused the American helos to go down was more of a doctrinal than technical nature. You don't fly over desert and over gunmen filled casbahs the same.

That's my humble advice as a former poor little gun-totting grey blob in the optronics of those things.

Too true. The apache was designed for the Cold War. Tactics: Hiding behind trees and letting Kiowas pick up targets. The Apache, like a lot of equipment, was designed for a situation that never arose, and suffers from this when used in different situations.

Quote[/b] ]3. Pilots who flew it thought it would be an exceptional addition

I read that many didnt like it, problems with vibrations or something? Cant remember. At any rate a stealth chopper isnt much use when an insurgents fires an RPG at you when youre flying at low speed.

[USSRsniper 0]

name me a better more proven helicopter

Aérospatiale Alouette III or the Mi-24 series.  Both have operated for 10-15 years longer than the Ah-64 has been in operation.  They both cost far less than an Apache to buy, operate or maintain.

Alright they don’t have all the lovely techno toys of the Apache but they are used all around the world and have proven themselves to be very capable in a fight.

Specifically:

Aérospatiale Alouette III

- Rhodesian 1966–1979 - more than 8000 combat operations.

- French Air Force and Army consistently used it for nearly 30 years in both gunship and support roles.

- South African "Bush Wars" - 20+ years supporting SF operations along its borders

Mi-24 Hind-D

- Afghanistan December 1979 - February 1989

- Various African Nations for the last 30 years

Both of these aircraft have flow far more missions than the Apache.  They've been made in larger numbers and are operated by many nations and participated in more conflicts over the last 40 years than the US has been involved in.

I know its subjective, but I’m willing to bet that either of these aircraft have more “real†time in battle than the Apache has by quite a large margin.  During the first gulf war the Apache suffer badly with poor reliability.  At one point a large protion of the deployed aircraft were grounded due to engine wear caused by the "wrong grade or sand present in theatre".

The Mi-24 and the Alouette's combat record(K:D ratio) does not even come close to that of the apaches, i dont know exact numbers but i can assure you thats true.

Also how can you give the Russian/Afghani war as an example for the Hinds, they were lost one after another, after another and so on.

But Mi-24 doesnt need alot of maitenance as Apache, just as AK, m16 will die fast of sand while AK still will be able to kill you, Jus as all russian/soviet weapons So mi-24 is very reliable and was higly feared during Afghanistan War, and it was proven effective also. But dont forget its attack/transport helicopter, this is where Ka-50 kicks in which is purely attack helicopter and can manuever better  

About Tunguska, if Iraq had them, you can say bye bye to your AH-1 and Apache......  

[alext223 0]

Sorry guys, I didn't read all ther post so I'm sorry if my answer treads on a few toes. This may not be practical, but it may be logical, each fulfill a DIFFRENT ROLE! Diffrent shoes fit diffrent feet. One weapon platform may be lacking in certian areas where as another may excell, like I saw earlier, AV-8, VSTOL, it fulfilled the USMC needs, for now.. Due to their limmited support for other aircraft, it fulfills their needs for their doctrine of warfare. We have not reached a point where we have a platform that covers all aspects of requirements for modern combat, yet, or will we ever?

Besides, we live in a capitlist world, (some or most of us do), think of all those unemployed workers! Diffrent strokes, diffrent folks.

[Jahve 0]

Do you even know what your talking about? its Iraq not Irak.

Its not like you do anyway...

[echo1 0]

Sorry guys, I didn't read all ther post so I'm sorry if my answer treads on a few toes. This may not be practical, but it may be logical, each fulfill a DIFFRENT ROLE! Diffrent shoes fit diffrent feet. One weapon platform may be lacking in certian areas where as another may excell, like I saw earlier, AV-8, VSTOL, it fulfilled the USMC needs, for now.. Due to their limmited support for other aircraft, it fulfills their needs for their doctrine of warfare. We have not reached a point where we have a platform that covers all aspects of requirements for modern combat, yet, or will we ever?

Besides, we live in a capitlist world, (some or most of us do), think of all those unemployed workers! Diffrent strokes, diffrent folks.

I think its impractical to have a weapon/vehicle specialized for each role. Imagine all the expenditure on R&D and manufacturing, training, logistics etc. for a weapon system designed for a situationt that may never happen. With all the constant budget cut-backs, it would be unfeasible. Thats why multi-role weapons are more popular; they may be the jack of all trades, but theyre much more effective in terms of cost and logistics.