Why Does the USMC use the Ah-1Z?

[USMC NEEDER 0]

I mean come on someones gotta know this answer...??? Why don't they, I mean the Apache is better right? And it could do more damage... right? Post your answer and tell me please.

(P.S. - i cant ask my brother because hes in the marines over seas right now..... )

[Shashman 0]

Why doesn't the US Navy use the Dassault Rafale M?

Why doesn't the USAF use the AV-8B?

Why doesn't the USMC use the F-14?

Why doesn't the... I could go on

The AH-1Z shares many components with the UH-1Y. Commonality

The AH-1Z is navalised. The AH-64 isn't

The AH-1Z is lighter and more versatile than the AH-64.

The AH-1Z is cheaper.

The USMC has been using variants of the Cobra for over 20 years. The US Army has been using variants of the Apache for over 20 years.

[Pvt Parts 0]

Why doesn't the US Navy use the Dassault Rafale M?

Why doesn't the USAF use the AV-8B?

Why doesn't the USMC use the F-14?

Why doesn't the... I could go on

1. Because the F-18 owns the Rafale.

2. Three reasons the first is F-15/F-16/F22 are better at air to air, the A-10 warthog is better at air to ground, and the AV-8B sucks ass, why do you think the Marines have been trying to get rid of it.

3. First of all because their retired, and second because once again the F-18 fills that role better.

4. list them Im sure theres answers

[Shashman 0]

I could've guessed someone would try and be a smart-arse and answer those questions, which I wrote to be taken rhetorically, to be honest...

The point I was trying to make was, why does any force use the equipment it uses? There are many reasons why certain systems are chosen over others...

No need to go down the "Hornet pwnZ teh Rafal" or "M16 is teh pwnz0r of aK74" road

[4 IN 1 0]

Why doesn't the US Navy use the Dassault Rafale M?

Why doesn't the USAF use the AV-8B?

Why doesn't the USMC use the F-14?

Why doesn't the... I could go on

The AH-1Z shares many components with the UH-1Y. Commonality

The AH-1Z is navalised. The AH-64 isn't

The AH-1Z is lighter and more versatile than the AH-64.

The AH-1Z is cheaper.

The USMC has been using variants of the Cobra for over 20 years. The US Army has been using variants of the Apache for over 20 years.

british have a navalised variant of AH-46 through

[Shashman 0]

Really?

I wasn't aware of that

[Supah 0]

Why doesn't the US Navy use the Dassault Rafale M?

Why doesn't the USAF use the AV-8B?

Why doesn't the USMC use the F-14?

Why doesn't the... I could go on

1. Because the F-18 owns the Rafale.

2. Three reasons the first is F-15/F-16/F22 are better at air to air, the A-10 warthog is better at air to ground, and the AV-8B sucks ass, why do you think the Marines have been trying to get rid of it.

3. First of all because their retired, and second because once again the F-18 fills that role better.

4. list them Im sure theres answers

1. I think that's rather simplistically put. The F-18 and Rafale are from different generations, I think 1 v 1 the Rafale has the upper hand.

2. The Harrier is the only aircraft that could takeoff from the smaller helicopter sized carriers that the USMC use. None of the aircraft you listed could ever be operational from such a small ship. If the harrier is being WFU-ed (which might be just another fad, the times I havent heard USAF officials say that the A-10's days were numbered) it is mainly because they expect to be replacing them with the JSF.

3. Agreed.

4. Let's hope you don't over simplify those answers too.

[Messiah 2]

they dont have a navalised Apache - they ran some tests off Ocean to see the viability of using them from that platform as part of the AA Brigade to replace the underwhelming force of the Lynx, but it ran into major problems because the Terrain Following systems couldn't handle the surface of the ocean constantly moving, thus the aircraft could not operate over anything but smooth water for any length of time.

it's also landed and been stowed on Ark Royal for the same series of tests, although the MoD reported that those tests and the Ocean ones were successful, which contradicts other reports. It depends on what they class as successful. Either way, the point is there is no navalised apache... it just fits already.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Didn't the Apache fail in Iraq? I read reports that it's first several missions were pretty bad, lost to shilkas i recon.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2003/1003najaf.asp

After that failure they didn't use apaches until the end of combat operations if i remember correctly.

edit: i mean not in large scale... didn't see them in use after is what i'm saying.

[echo1 0]

And it could do more damage... right?

Considering they both can use the same weapons, no. I remember reading somewhere or other that they tried out the Apache, thought it was nice, but it was much more cost effective to upgrade the Cobra to an Apache-like state. Makes sense too...

[JdB 151]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the AH-1 uses the TOW, while the AH-64 uses the Hellfire, which has a slightly larger warhead and range.

[Messiah 2]

it can use either:

Quote[/b] ]The increased payload and performance of the Zulu means that it's weapons load has been increased significantly. The Zulu can carry 16 anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) consisting of either the 3.5km wire-guided Raytheon BGM-71 TOW missile or the 8km semi-active laser homing Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire. Longbow International (a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) is developing the Cobra Radar System for the Zulu. Based on the mast-mounted millimeter wave radar used on the AH-64 Longbow Apache, the CRS will be a pod based, weapon station mounted radar that will enable the AH-1Z to fire the radar guided variant of the Hellfire. In addition, the Z is being certified for use of the AGM-65 Maverick missile, which will allow it to attack high value hard (armored) targets, such as bunkers or bridges. In addition to missiles, the AH-1Z will be capable of carrying numerous 7 and 19 shot 70mm Hydra rocket pods, as well as the larger 127mm Zuni rockets. To meet air to air threats, the AH-1Z can carry the AIM-9 sidewinder short range IR guided anti-air missile, and for air defense suppression the "Z" can also carry the AIM-9 based SIDARM anti-radiation homing missile, which locks onto threat radar transmitters and destroys them. Finally, the AH-1Z will continue to use the Cobra's 3 barreled, nose mounted, 20mm rotary cannon with 750 rounds of ammunition.

and forgive me if I'm wrong, but these certainly look like hellfire's to me:

but if you're reffering to what it 'normally' uses, then I'll be shutting up now, as I haven't a clue

[USMC NEEDER 0]

Why doesn't the US Navy use the Dassault Rafale M?

Why doesn't the USAF use the AV-8B?

Why doesn't the USMC use the F-14?

Why doesn't the... I could go on

1. Because the F-18 owns the Rafale.

2. Three reasons the first is F-15/F-16/F22 are better at air to air, the A-10 warthog is better at air to ground, and the AV-8B sucks ass, why do you think the Marines have been trying to get rid of it.

3. First of all because their retired, and second because once again the F-18 fills that role better.

4. list them Im sure theres answers

1. I think that's rather simplistically put. The F-18 and Rafale are from different generations, I think 1 v 1 the Rafale has the upper hand.

2. The Harrier is the only aircraft that could takeoff from the smaller helicopter sized carriers that the USMC use. None of the aircraft you listed could ever be operational from such a small ship. If the harrier is being WFU-ed (which might be just another fad, the times I havent heard USAF officials say that the A-10's days were numbered) it is mainly because they expect to be replacing them with the JSF.

3. Agreed.

4. Let's hope you don't over simplify those answers too.

1. The F-18E/F Super Hornet has a greater weapon capacity, is faster than, and has more advanced avionics than the Rafale currently has.

2. The Marines use the F-18c, EA-6B, F-18D and the KC-130 Hercules(dont tell me this takes off LHA/LHDs). See for yourself it's google the marine factfile, it's all there.

3. Agreed too.

4. I can be technical if you want.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfactfile.htm

[USMC NEEDER 0]

Didn't the Apache fail in Iraq? I read reports that it's first several missions were pretty bad, lost to shilkas i recon.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2003/1003najaf.asp

After that failure they didn't use apaches until the end of combat operations if i remember correctly.

edit: i mean not in large scale... didn't see them in use after is what i'm saying.

name me a better more proven helicopter

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I mean come on someones gotta know this answer...??? Why don't they, I mean the Apache is better right? And it could do more damage... right?  Post your answer and tell me please.

The answer is simple economics.  When the USMC requirement for a “new†light attack Helicopter came out in the early 70’s the AH-64 was considered too high risk as it was a new and totally unproven project.  The decision was take up a drastic sustainment and improvement program for the AH-1.

Over the years the USMC invested heavily in the AH-1 Project, increasing performance, weapons capability and avionics.  Not only did they invest in the airframe but in support facilities and training.  When the option to buy a new “system†arose they had to decide what was the best compromise between cost and compatibility. The AH-64 presented a “state of the art†weapons system but at a huge cost to rearm, re-equip and re-train the USMC.  Also the AH-64 was originally a very unreliable and un proven airframe.  

The early apaches were plagued with engine and electrical problems which made operating them over water a high risk option. The projected cost to “Navalise†them and re-equip and train up the fleet was more than the USMC had to spend at the time. (the AH-64 cost 38% more again than an updated AH-1 series airframe at 1990 figures).

The decision was made to upgrade the AH-1 yet again which had a proven to be a solid performer in both brown and blue water operations.  Eventually it has evolved to the limits of the airframe’s capabilities (fatigue life, take off weight and serviceability) and even in its latest form still has some serious limits eg very tight electrical power generation/consumption issues, limited data integration into modern system (Link 16 stuff) etc.

Going back to the Navalised AH-64 thing.  It was only until the Westland WAH-64 with its newly designed non corrosive sub assemblies; uprated engines and FOD system that any ‘type’ (IE a whole build bloc of Apaches) were granted certification for blue water operation.  As Messiah said, even then they ran into a lot of issues with the software and targeting system in anything but calm conditions.  The Royal Navy can and does deploy Apaches from its ships but only as a method of moving them either to a conflict or acting as a safe base of operations near to the coast.

Limited numbers of US Army Airframes have been remanufactured to a high enough spec to meet the requirements but it was decided that the cost of uprating all the US Army’s AH-64 fleet to meet the spec was not worth it as only a small number of crews were likely to operate from ships. The USMC was again offered Apaches in the not so long ago but declined them preferring to develop their own AH-1 projects further.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the AH-1 uses the TOW, while the AH-64 uses the Hellfire, which has a slightly larger warhead and range.

The Ah-1 can use TOW but as far as I know no longer does, having swapped them for the more flexible and reliable Hellfire.  (Wire guided missiles have always caused problems)

As I understand it, and I could well be wrong; the AH-64 on the other hand cannot carry or fire any TOW or other Anti-tank missile other than Hellfire and Brimstone (UK Only).

From what I’ve been reading in the course of the last few weeks researching loadouts for my projects  I think BIS have the default AH-1 config correct.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

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".

[USMC NEEDER 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.

[simba 0]

an iraki rebellion armed with strela and heavy machinegun would certainly increase the number of downed us helicopters.

Let's not forget also that war in Irak in mainly urban wish was not the case for Afghanistan so troop concentraton is much higher.

[USMC NEEDER 0]

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

Moving on, the urban environment makes it better for shoulder fired AA(they can fire then hide in the abundance of buildings).

And lets not forget Saddam's army was the forth largest in the world so of course they have better AA than Afghan rebels. Im sure they have ZSUs, SA-8s, Tunguskas, SA-7s, you name it.

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

And about your sig did the US threaten to use nukes against civilians, I don't think so. and we go to stop conflict not start them. we target Military targets and terrorist like Al Qaeda target civilians. tell me who flew the plane into the world trade center it wasnt a US or israeli pilot it was an Al Qaeda extremist.

Maybe we did start vietnam but thats the only one, but North vietnam did start it with south vietnam.

Hitler(Germany invaded all or most of Europe. and Japan hit us first at pearl harbor. so Japan and Germany started the war not the US.

That covers the last three wars.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

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.

Maybe not against armour, but Kill for kill, i am sure that either of the two above has a higher kill total considering all the wars and conflicts they've been involved in.  There is, of course, no way to prove that.  Exactly the same way as you have no way to prove the Apache is the best Helicopter in the world.  Its all subjective.  But having seen Apaches sat in thier FARPS for days on end in the Saudi desert in 90/91 all because there was "too much dust in the air" or because the avionics had died from the ambient temp during the day, I dont have the illusions about Apaches that some people do.

Re the Afghan/Soviet Wars it was only in the last 3 years that the Mujahadeen were extensivly using Stingers.  Before that they used RPG7s.  Incidentally according to one documentry i saw recently 2/3 of the 118 jet aircraft and 333 helicopters lost during that war were destroyed on the ground. Not in the air.

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.

[simba 0]

stella

let's have a drink together then

and I was talking of course about guerrilla warfare not about the invasions of GW1 or GW2.

It would certainly be easier for the rebels to destroy helicopter from the top of a building, but how much time would it take for US soldiers to reach the shooting area in a city compared to the vast regions of Afghanistan to seize the weapons ?

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

[franze 196]

A few points I'd like to mention, and if they've already been mentioned - then it bears repeating:

The Cobra, in most instances that I'm aware of, has a far lower operating cost than Apache. Cobra, by it's nature, is a much more basic aircraft than the Apache (although this may or may not be true of the 1Z).

The Apache, specifically the AH-64D line, has a much better lethality compared to the Cobra. This can be disputed, but generally speaking (or from my perspective), the Apache has the upper hand in regards to potential capability. The problem arises from the point made earlier, in regards that the Cobra is more operation-friendly than the Apache. If you were to pit either aircraft against each other with equal crews and optimal conditions, the Apache would have the upper hand. The key thing here is that war is not a optimal condition. Apaches require key resources to support and maintain them in an operation and they cannot be tasked as often as the Cobra can. I'm sure the guys at Boeing are trying to rectify this, and it seems Bell is trying to go forward at the cost of that classic reliability, so that may change in the future. But my points are based on the currently-available AH-1W and the AH-64D.

Now, if you were to come at this from a strict efficiency-operating perspective, then airframes such as the UH-60 would reign supreme. Utility helicopters don't have the same capability as purpose-built gunships, but they can sure as heck carry a lot more as well as do a lot more than gunships. But then you face the problem of not having that extra capability that you may or may not need against a determined foe. The other far end of the spectrum would be aircraft like the RAH-66 - all capability, no efficiency and definitely not cheap to operate! The Apache is very close to that end of the spectrum, while the Cobra is less so.

The end result is, which would you rather lose, an Apache or a Cobra? The answer is rather obvious.

[Heatseeker 0]

The AH-1 was made somewhat based on the huey UH-1 once they realised the value of a dedicated gunship helicopter and stoped loading up the UH-1's to perform a role they werent meant to.

I think the UH-1 was a great success thru all the many years and still is today. Iran has them and plenty of sandy dust over there, dont know if they have any complaints about weather and dust .

Priceless footage of early (vietnam) AH-1's history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28RpUmrtGHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZ5qv1hOXo

Built and tested for war, during the war. The Apache looks impressive... i think thats all there is to it

[Tovarish 0]

Do you even know what your talking about. First of all it's stella not strela

I love irony Strela happens to mean "Arrow" in Russian. Stella is the italian word for "Star". Which do you think more likely as the name of a Soviet MANPAD?

[karantan 0]

Strela in Russian (and in some other slavic languagues) means lightning.

edit: ok, also the arrow ...