Best Attack Helicopter

I've read it mate and WOW! I'm impressed. A blue grass engineer working for - Boeing! That explains yer loyalty to the product but don't explain why you don't like anything that's not made in America.

Yes all those poor countries read all the sales blurb about Apache, but the after sales service. What's that all about.

At least here in the UK, GKNWestland knows all about building propper helicopters 'cause they're taking your basic Apaches - which you've very kindly assembled for us at your place - then rework them and bring them up to what army calls A(W)H or AH(W) 1 standard. Something to do with rotors, avionics and weapon systems. We've also replaced your FFR's with our own 70mm FFR's.

One serious question though mate. Why such a small amount of ammo for the main gun? I've never understood that and on the same subject, can it be reloaded during flight?

Just heard on BBC News 24 that Canada has pulled out of the deal with your company. Bad news mate.Hope things get better for you. (Not taking the mickey)

First, let me apologize (or as you guys say, ‘apologise’) for the “kid” and “youngster” comments. Even though I have seven or eight years on you, us old pharts gotta stick together against these young punks out there!

why you don't like anything that's not made in America.

I try not to buy American or Japanese, I try to buy good.

I think everyone knows that there is only one country which knows how to build real motorcycles, and I have owned three of them: a Triumph Tiger Cub, BSA Road Rocket, and Royal Enfield Interceptor (and yes, I had the misfortune of owning an American Heavy-Dangerousone as well as about ten Japanese bikes which are tremendously reliable but have no soul).

And, when everyone’s home, there’s a ’97 Nissan Sentra, ’99 Isuzu Trooper, and ’05 Scion tC in my driveway. No Detroit Iron there, thank you very much.

And finally, when I want to seriously counsel someone and it may involve high-velocity metatarsal-to-gluteus maximus interactions, you can bet I’ll be wearing my Doc Martens!

Yes all those poor countries read all the sales blurb about Apache, but the after sales service. What's that all about.

A typical procurement takes about three years (and I have worked as Proposal Manager on two of them – Japan and the UK). You would not believe how tremendously involved the questions and requirements are from potential customers. In the UKs case, we beat the Aerosplat Tiger, and in Japan’s case we beat the Bell Whiskey Cobra. (In the case of Japan, there were others, like the Rooivalk, Agusta, and Kamov, but they were eliminated right away due to inability to meet the requirements.)

Boeing (neé McDonnell Douglas) has always had a problem with support, although I think it’s a lot better than it was ten years ago. No one can touch Bell for support, of course, since they’re all over the world. We were definitely the underdog in Japan, because they already built – under Bell License -- the UH-1 and AH-1. The problem was that the Whiskey was late, and expensive, and it didn’t have the all-weather capabilities that the Longbow did.

At least here in the UK, GKNWestland knows all about building propper helicopters…

When MD was negotiating with GKN, one of the deals being considered was that we’d build the MD-101 (an EH-101 with a different paint job). The fact that we didn’t was, in my opinion, a big mistake. The EH-101 is one of the greatest transport helicopters made, and would’ve done a tremendous service to expanding our product line. However, neither MD nor Boeing considered the helicopter as a major part of our product offering.

…'cause they're taking your basic Apaches - which you've very kindly assembled for us at your place - then rework them and bring them up to what army calls A(W)H or AH(W) 1 standard. Something to do with rotors, avionics and weapon systems. We've also replaced your FFR's with our own 70mm FFR's.

Until about six months ago, when I left International Programs, I worked on the Boeing-Westland SRP (Support Reappraisal Programme) effort. One of the big things we do is to make sure that each team knew what the other team was doing, so that we’d eliminate redundancy in our upgrade paths. As far as radios, almost every customer uses their own gear, since it’s a major portion of the procurement, allows for domestic content (their engineers, their products), and allows for their own unique interoperability needs. For instance, the Westland Longbows use Marconi radios, the Subaru Longbows use Shin Yagai radios, the Israeli Longbows (which are built here) use their own proprietary electronics stuff, etc. As far as rotors, you guys have blade de-ice; we don’t. We just don’t see the need, not doing North Sea ops like you guys do. We have a” blade-fold kit”, which I’m guessing you guys will get, too, since you use the C-17 to transport the Apache, and a blade-fold kit allows for much faster deployment after the aircraft is unloaded from the C-17.

As far as weapons, I know that you use a different FFAR, and my guess is that you will probably be increasing the capability of your airplanes to fire a wider range of guided missiles, too. I also guess (and this is just a guess) that the Japanese will be the first to really integrate ATAS (air-to-air stingers) onto their airplanes. BTW, the Subarus have the capabilities for snow skis (Honest!)

One serious question though mate. Why such a small amount of ammo for the main gun? I've never understood that and on the same subject, can it be reloaded during flight?

Answer to question number 1: Because the US Army (like the Brits and everyone else except the Germans in the 1930s, planned for the last war, not the next war. The Apache was supposed to fight and die in buying time for the allies by using its HELLFIREs to defeat Soviet BMP and tanks as they came pouring through Fulda Gap at the onset of World War III. It didn’t happen, of course. And now it appears that, given the softer targets in the modern battle environment, the HELLFIRE is overkill. My guess is that most planners would give up either some of the HELLFIREs or the FFARs in order to double or triple their load of Chain gun ammunition.

Answer to question number 2; No, and that is a Bad Deal indeed! However, we have a semi-automated loader that permits the gun to be reloaded by one person while they’re re-fueling the airplane in the FARP – in about five minutes.

Just heard on BBC News 24 that Canada has pulled out of the deal with your company. Bad news mate. Hope things get better for you. (Not taking the mickey)

I got the news three days ago, and here’s our June 18th spin on it (www.boeing.com... ):

SEATTLE, June 18, 2005 -- We share Air Canada 's disappointment at today's developments because we are looking forward to being a part of Air Canada 's vision for leadership. We are seeing very strong demand for the 777 and the 787, and we believe we will have many opportunities to place these aircraft elsewhere.

What can I say? I guess I can take comfort in that we didn’t lose to Airbus; the Union just voted against the cost-cutting approach, and now they’re not getting any airplanes at all AFAIK.

zhangmaster says:

don't know anything about helicopters really, but I love the RAH-66 Comanche with that rotor hidden in the body. All the latest technology, great firepower, maneuverability, stealth, and 3 modes of flight. Anyone know if this has been used in Iraq? The site I got the pics from said it was rolled out in '95, so maybe it's still a little early. Off The Street, you should definately know about this seeing as how you work for them. I'd be curious to see what you had to saya about it.

The Comanche program was cancelled, and I am one of the few people who lost it -- twice.

First, I was working for McDonnell Douglas during the AHX proposal. We proposed (teamed with Bell) an aircraft with a NOTAR system but smaller than the Comanche, and we lost to the "bad guys" Boeing and Sikorsky.

After MD and Boeing merged, all of a sudden the Comanche was "our" program, but it had taken so long to define, compete, and start to go into production that the Army had upgraded the Apache to the Longbow configuration, which meant the new AH-64D had most of the capabilities of the Comanche, but carried a lot more firepower. In other words, the Comanche was really redundant. Plus it weas a lot heavier and more expensive than designed, either of which can be a death blow to a procurement!

As far as I know, no Comanche was ever used in combat, and the existing aircraft are probably going to be retired.

Wow, I'm pretty much sold on the AH-64D. I was just researching it and I'm very impressed with it's capabilities. I mean, the original apache was great, but the Longbow blows it out of the water. I got the below information from the link provided at the bottom.

The tests clearly demonstrated that Longbow Apaches:

--Are 400 percent more lethal (hitting more targets) than the AH-64A, already the most capable and advanced armed helicopter in the world to enter service.
--Are 720 percent more survivable than the AH-64A.
--Meet or exceed Army requirements for both target engagement range and for probability of acquiring a seleted target. The specific requirements and results are classified.
--Easily can hit moving and stationary tanks on an obscured, dirty battlefield from a range of more than 7 kilometers, when optical systems are rendered ineffective.
--Can use either its Target Acquisition Designation Sight or fire control radar as a targeting sight, offering increased battlefield flexibility.
--Have the ability to initiate the radar scan, detect and classify more than 128 targets, prioritize the 16 most dangerous targets, transmit the information to other aircraft, and initiate a precision attack -- all in 30 seconds or less.
--Require one third less maintenance man hours (3.4) per flight hour than the requirement.
--Are able to fly 91 percent of the time -- 11 percent more than the requirement

www.voodoo.cz...

[edit on 21-6-2005 by zhangmaster]

AH-64D Apache Longbow

My compliments to you, Off_The_Street because I thought this thread had died a natural death when up popped your reply.

You raise some very interesting points , not least the issue of Hellfire being so expensive.

A very good friend of mine who uses Hellfire out in the 'Stan told me he recently popped 2 middle ranking baddies at a cost [he reckons] of $100,000 [ish] each person.

I am surprised that your company has not looked at the Viet Nam era Gunship configuration that was all to familiar on the old Huey Gunships.

Having said that, whilst trawlling through the utter rubbish about aero-weaponry on the web, I came across the following site:

www.g2mil.com...

Seems to me to be a step back to the future, if you'll excuse the pun but a gunship varient of the Apache - much like the B17 Gunships and the early Hueys is, in my humble opinion, a giant leap forward in sky to mud support.

What's needed is an aircraft that has a range of about 1500 miles, can loiter for a couple of hours on call, and can carry shed loads of ordnance - i.e a mixed load of cannons, bombs, rockets, mines etc

Now, if someone had the balls to deploy the Skyraider..............................

Hands down for arms on board the Mi/28a/n Havoc,Mi/24 hind, and for the same large payload and added ability to carry men/equipt. the Sikorsky Super Stallion that the Russians use as a cargo/attack platform.

The Super Stallion has been known to cold war vets best by the multi rocket , rocket pods under each outrigger , a small aux. fuel tank on each side and up to 2 medium rockets on each side and a nose gatling cannon,and a 50 or 60 cal. machine gun in each door and flare and smoke counter measures.

These two are muscle made beautiful I mean the Stallion has a 160 knot speed but is known to take out Cobra helicopters so theoretically they should be able to take out Apaches our strong combat helicopter.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Beelzabub]

My vote for the best attack-helo would go to the MI-28N.

It is tough as hell (protected against 30 MM AA auto-cannon fire!), carries loads off weapons and has a full powered 30 MM auto-cannon from the BMP-2 wich is far more powerfull then the one off the Apache.

Then you have the small compartment where 3 people can take shelter in (possible downed helo crews).

Downsides are its small wings and the lack off K-36 ejection seats.

But i hope those faults get fixed by the MI-28NM project. A project to modernise the helo.

If I have to choose I would certainly go with the HIND as far as for supporting troops. It has everything one may want to bring utter destruction to an enemy.

The TRICEROCOPTER

A few of these and wars in backward countries Americans have never heard of and it would be over in minutes...If not from fear, laughter.

Originally posted by adub
My favorite is the MH-60 DAP, it is flown by the 160th Soar "Night Stalkers", here is a picture

unx1.shsu.edu...

If it's anything like the HH-60H/SH-60F/SH-60B, there isn't any armor. Kevlar on the pilot and copilot's seats but that's about it. Self sealing gas tanks help. Only two databuses for the computers. Doesn't the Apache have three?

Nice looking bird not as sturdy or nimble as the dedicated attack birds out there.

The best attack helicopter would be the Apache and the Blackhawk.
Although, they had a few shares of technical issues during the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Now DARPA has came out with a new spy and attack copter called the Hummingbird.

Just do a search on it.

Attack helicopters specifications


1) maximum speed

AH-1W Super Cobra 352 km/h
S-67 Blackhawk 349 km/h
YAH-63 338 km/h
Mi-24 "Hind" 335 km/h
Mi-28N "Havoc" 324 km/h
Ka-50 "Hokum" 310 km/h
AH-2 Rooivalk 309 km/h
CAIC WZ-10 300 km/h
AH-1Z Viper 298 km/h
AH-64 Apache 295 km/h
EC665 Tiger 290 km/h
A129 Mangusta 278 km/h
AH-1F Cobra 277 km/h
HAL LCH 275 km/h


2) rate of climb

AH-1Z Viper 852 m/min
Mi-28N "Havoc" 816 m/min
AH-2 Rooivalk 798 m/min
AH-64 Apache 762 m/min
Mi-24 "Hind" 750 m/min
S-67 Blackhawk 726 m/min
HAL LCH 720 m/min
CAIC WZ-10 720 m/min
EC665 Tiger 642 m/min
A129 Mangusta 612 m/min
Ka-50 "Hokum" 600 m/min
AH-1W Super Cobra 492 m/min
AH-1F Cobra 492 m/min
YAH-63 492 m/min


3) ceiling

AH-64 Apache 6400 m
HAL LCH 6400 m
AH-1Z Viper 6100 m
AH-2 Rooivalk 6000 m
CAIC WZ-10 6000 m
Mi-28N "Havoc" 5750 m
Ka-50 "Hokum" 5500 m
S-67 Blackhawk 5180 m
A129 Mangusta 4725 m
Mi-24 "Hind" 4500 m
AH-1W Super Cobra 4270 m
EC665 Tiger 4000 m
AH-1F Cobra 3720 m
YAH-63 3720 m


4) engine power

Ka-50 "Hokum" 3320 kW
Mi-28N "Havoc" 3280 kW
Mi-24 "Hind" 3200 kW
AH-64 Apache 3000 kW
AH-2 Rooivalk 2984 kW
AH-1Z Viper 2680 kW
AH-1W Super Cobra 2600 kW
YAH-63 2600 kW
S-67 Blackhawk 2200 kW
HAL LCH 2000 kW
CAIC WZ-10 1914 kW
EC665 Tiger 1746 kW
A129 Mangusta 1328 kW
AH-1F Cobra 1300 kW


5A) weapons (anti-tank missiles)

AH-64 Apache 16
AH-1Z Viper 16
S-67 Blackhawk 16
AH-2 Rooivalk 16
Mi-28 "Havoc" 16
Ka-50 "Hokum" 12
AH-1W Super Cobra 8
AH-1F Cobra 8
A129 Mangusta 8
EC665 Tiger 8
YAH-63 8
HAL LCH 8
CAIC WZ-10 8
Mi-24 "Hind" 4


5B) weapons (cannon / machine gun rounds)

Mi-24D "Hind-D" 1470 (12.7 mm)
AH-64 Apache 1200 (30 mm)
Mi-24P "Hind-F" 750 (30 mm)
AH-1Z Viper 750 (20 mm)
AH-1W Super Cobra 750 (20 mm)
AH-1F Cobra 750 (20 mm)
AH-2 Rooivalk 700 (20 mm)
A129 Mangusta 500 (20 mm)
EC665 Tiger 450 (30 mm)
Mi-24V "Hind-E" 450 (23 mm)
Mi-28 "Havoc" 300 (30 mm)
Ka-50 "Hokum" 240 (30 mm)


6) maximum range

AH-64 Apache 1900 km
EC665 Tiger 1300 km
Ka-50 "Hokum" 1160 km
AH-2 Rooivalk 1130 km
Mi-24 "Hind" 1125 km
Mi-28N "Havoc" 1105 km
A129 Mangusta 1000 km
CAIC WZ-10 800 km
HAL LCH 700 km
AH-1Z Viper 685 km
AH-1W Super Cobra 587 km
YAH-63 587 km
AH-1F Cobra 510 km
S-67 Blackhawk 400 km


7) production

AH-1 Cobra/Sea Cobra/Super Cobra/Viper 2387
Mi-24 "Hind" 2000
AH-64 Apache 1174
A129 Mangusta 60
EC665 Tiger 57
Mi-28 "Havoc" 24
Ka-50 "Hokum-A" 15
CAIC WZ-10 14
AH-2 Rooivalk 12
Ka-52 "Hokum-B" 12
YAH-63 2
HAL LCH 2
S-67 Blackhawk 1