Talk:AH-64 Apache

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments

Contents

[edit] MOS

It's 15X for AH-64A and 15Y for AH-64D. Jigen III 12:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe all 15 series are AH-64 related occupations. ElectronFlux 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

15-series MOSs are Aviation-related MOSs. 15T, UH-60; 15S, OH-58D; 15U, CH-47. --Born2flie 18:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Figure Corrected

Corrected Wrong Figure On The Ownership of 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters by the Republic Of Singapore Airforce. Correct figure should be 20. Thanks. PROJECT-ION PHOENIX 07:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] AH-64D merge into this article

An IP user created AH-64D without noticing this AH-64 article. Most of this Info should already be here and anything more should be integrated leaving AH-64D as redirect. --Denniss 01:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Apache in IDF

This article is about the Apache helicopter and its methods of deployment, the way that Israel uses the Apache can be included. However the nature of the targets themselves and their particular ideology is of no concern in this particular situation. The article is centred around the helicopter. It would be absurd to start discussing, and perhaps editorialising the nature of every target of every weapon system in the world. The SLR rifle is not described as being used by the British army against terrorist targets in NI in the 70s, the Abrams tank is not described as being put into action against the despotic and totalitarian republican guard in Iraq. As such i believe that this text

The Israeli Air Force uses the Apaches as a high-tech platform to perform percision strikes with guided missiles against various targets. The AH-64A attacked and destroyed dozens of Hizbullah outposts in Lebanon during the 90's, attacking in all weather conditions - day and night. During the al-Aqsa Intifada, the IAF used the Apaches to target senior Hamas figures, such as Ahmed Yasin and Adnan al-Ghoul with guided missiles.

Is far preferable to this one

The Israeli Air Force uses the Apaches as a high-tech platform to perform percision strikes with guided missiles against terrorist targets. The AH-64A attacked and destroyed dozen of Hizbullah's outposts in Lebanon during the 90's, attacking in all weather conditions - day and night. During the al-Aqsa Intifada, the IAF used the Apaches to target senior Palestinian terrorists (mainly those of Hamas, such as Ahmed Yasin or Adnan al-Ghoul) with guided missiles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.227.181 (talk • contribs).

  • God forbid we mention factual data. Now shut up and pay your taxes. Palestinians don't mind digging American shrapnel outta their dead children.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.67.104.4 (talk • contribs).
You seem to forget that Palestinians strap bombs to their own children and blow them up to kill Israeli children. Either way, the result is the same! - BillCJ 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the Apache, not about suside bombers. SaderBiscut 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about this? In Israel, the AH-64 is the leading cause of terrorist deaths, second only to suicide. - BillCJ 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vulnerable

The 2003 Iraq invasion showed the Apache vulnerable to dedicated AA vehicles in open terrain. This article appears to ignore that, attempting to make it seem more an issue of mountainous terrain, urban settings, and individual infantry with AA weapons. But the Apache appears to have failed in the very scenario it was designed for. Brainhell 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. The Apache was designed to help stem a massive Soviet armored invasion of western Europe if the Cold War ever turned hot. Much like the A-10 Thunderbolt, just in helicopter form. It is, in other words, a tank buster through and through. When given that job to perform, like it was in the 1991 Gulf War, it was very capable of doing it's job. The AH-64, as well as the AH-1, were designed to be used in rugged and wooded terrain, where they could hide behind a hill, pop up (or stay behind the hill, using LOAL (lock on after launch) for their Hellfires), and destroy tanks. You see, Iraq lacks two things. One is terrain like Western Europe. Two is sufficient targets for Apaches. In short, no. It didn't fail the job it was designed for. Simply because it isn't doing the job it was designed for. (USMA2010 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC))
  • I can't think of any aircraft that isn't vulnerable to any dedicated Air Defense system. That would be like saying that the B-17 Flying Fortress was shown to be vulnerable to Luftwaffe fighters and German AAA in WWII. The problem is that armoring aircraft to sufficiently withstand air defense weapons would actually negate their mobility, because they would weigh too much. Aircraft manufacturers do what they can within the design limits; make redundant systems, shield critical locations as much as possible without sacrificing too much power for weight, and create systems that can "absorb" battle damage to a certain extent. It is up to the leaders and the aircrews to employ the aircraft in such a way as to maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses. The 2003 Iraq invasion showed that the AH-64 was vulnerable to poor planning, or at the very least, poor tactics in the environment encountered. Not a single attack helicopter in the world could have completed the missions in question, with the same errors made, without sustaining similar damage/losses. The issue wasn't with the AH-64 helicopter. --Born2flie 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vulnerable?: The Apache is weapons platform that is meant strike outside of opposing AAA, and enemy radar. in 2003, there had been losses of the Apache to small arms and AAA; however, the support role that the helicopter was playing was not the intended role of this plaform.

And don't forget that even though this platform has its defensive short commings, the Apache was responsible for taking out all iraqi communications bunkers and radar stations in the first Gulf war, enabling the Allied powers to have complete air supremecy. [unsigned]


[edit] Eurocopter Tiger

Shouldn't we place its main competitor the Eurocopter Tiger?

As I highly doubt the AH-64 will ever go to war with a nation that uses the Tiger, I think that any competitor should be Russian. Perhaps another Western helicopter if you are looking for information on, say, which chopper a nation might choose for its military. (USMA2010 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC))
Mi-28 perhaps? Honestly, I don't think many 'competitor' helicopters exist. There are a few though. SaderBiscut 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Although it's extremely hard to know what the poster actually meant, I thinkl he may have had economice, not battlefielfd, competition in mind. Either way, I'm stumped as to how we're to "place" the Tiger. - BillCJ 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the Tiger/Apache/Mi-28 (Havoc,not the HiND)are diffrent versions of the same thing, a basic attack helicopter. Sure, I know one might fly better, one might have better avitronics, and one might be made in europe, but they seem to share a general role. This is my general perception, and is not based off of 'vertifiable' content. SaderBiscut 05:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recorrection

Someone deleted my entry at Films & Media about the AH-64D featured in Battlefield 2. I have since added it back in. if you wish to delete it again, please state your reasons here. Thank you.--202.156.6.54 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a common consensus to add only major appearances, not every game/movie where this particular aircraft may be sometimes somewhere available or visible. This consensus is not only used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft but several others, too.--Denniss 16:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say something: it is not "sometimes available or visible". Tn fact, it is one of only the two attack helicopters of the Special Forces expansion pack frequently appearing in the game, and as far as experience has shown me, it is not simply an "extra" to the game. It is integral and very much part of the gameplay.--Ariedartin 14:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
As said, the consensus was either it played a major role (AH-64 flight sim, movie with a starring role) or it is left out (a flight sim with AH-64 as one of many available aircraft, a movie with some shots of an AH-64) --Denniss 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture label

Picture labelled "US Army AH-64 provides air support during raid in Remagen, Iraq, Feb. 24, 2006."

Is Remagen in Iraq? I thought it was a German town? A bit of research shows that there is a military base in Iraq that has been called Forward Operating Base Remagen, but any raid launched from there would not be in Remagen. This base is in Tikrit so I think the picture should be relabelled.--Wikipediatastic 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAH-64 is better?

This Helicopter is a cut above the American counterpart; Its speed is quicker, has more arnament and its power output is higher due to its superior Rolls-Royce built engines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.189.15.82 (talk • contribs).

That may be true, but you can't just claim that. You have to have reputable sources, otherwise it is considered original research, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- BillCJ 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruise Speed

If you click on the link for cruise speed, it keeps on going to the disambiguation for Vc. I'm trying to get to the cruising speed. Even on the disambiguation page, if you click the cruising speed version on that, then it pretty much refreshes itself. Could someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.152.145.117 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Fixed the link in the template and disamb page to VC speed. -Fnlayson 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture wrong for label

"US Army AH-64D provides air support during raid in Remagen, Iraq, 24 February 2006."

The image in question is most definately if the AH-64 A variant, not the D variant which has the large bullbus radar on above it's main rotor, as people who ahve read the article will know. I shall rectify it myself therfore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TOMNORTHWALES (talk • contribs) 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The image in question is definitely NOT an A-model. You can see the low speed air data sensors on the nacelles, which are only on D's. Not all D-models have the radar as anyone who reads the article can see. I have re-rectified it myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.64.14 (talk • contribs).

Seems we're still having edit disputes over this caption for this picture (Image:AH-64 Apache 060224.jpg). A Longbow is still an Apache. The picture IS a pic of an AH-64D Longbow without the FCR installed. As noted already, the air data sensors sticking out the side of the engine nacelles are the instant giveaways, along with the larger Forward Avionics Bays (FABs) that go right up to the TADS/PNVS on the nose (the AH-64A has a single air data sensor mounted on top of the main rotor hub, what you see in the picture in question is an antenna mounted on the tail rotor pylon). I recommend that it stay as an "Apache" and that all the Longbow fans not have a cow that it doesn't specifically say "Longbow", just to put an end to pointless edit wars over a silly caption. If we can't agree on the caption, the only reasonable course of action will be to remove the pic from the article, which seems even sillier to me. --Born2flie 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Longbow refers to the above rotor radar dome system. So the caption should not include Longbow. The Netherlands operational service section mentions this as well.. -Fnlayson 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Longbow is the nickname for the AH-64D Apache, the radar (FCR) is referred to as the "Longbow radar" because it is on the Longbow helicopter. Longbow is always in reference to the helicopter, although I will agree that the name is descriptive of the FCR being on the aircraft.[1] However, within the U.S. Army (the primary user), it is almost always referred to as Longbow with or without the FCR installed; "Longbow" becoming the moniker preferred to describe the AH-64D airframe by the crews and mechanics to distinguish it from the AH-64A Apache. There is no question if you ask an AH-64D pilot what aircraft he flies and he responds, "Longbow." --Born2flie 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK then, what about a generic AH-64 instead of Apache? -Fnlayson 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of odds do you want for how long it lasts until someone tries to stick an "A" or a "D" on it? --Born2flie 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • About the same as someone adding Longbow. -Fnlayson 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holes in article

In its current form the article starts off with a brief history of the AH-64's development, and then it goes straight to a discussion on the differences between the AH-64A and AH-64D models, followed by a section about the AH-64's performance in the Iraq war. Apart from a set of statistics at the end of the article, there's very little about the helicopter itself. I have added a short paragraph of general information but I am not Greg Goebel, so it is very skimpy.

One of the commentators above mentions that the AH-64 was designed to stem a Soviet tank rush, and I have read this too, but it isn't mentioned in the article. An audience of people who are not helicopter enthusiasts would not know this fact. I can think of a few things that the article could cover. The famous helmet-mounted gunsight; the extent of its armour cover; its original intended role; the reliability and durability of its engines; its general performance; its performance compared to the Russian Hind; the 30mm chain gun; its stubby wings - do they provide lift?; its typical combat loadouts in theory and in practice; the use of AIM-9 Sidewinders; the avionics; lots of things. Put them in the article, don't put them here on the talk page. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like this article has a few technical facts and a laundry list of shortcomings as listed by CNN Headline News in Iraq. While the AH-64 wasn't built for urban battle, I think it's one of the best platforms we have going if you need to bring in some quick, heavy suppresion fire with an ability to loiter and risk taking some hits. I would hate for anyone to read this article and think that the Apache is anything less than what it is, which is, frankly, the best of the best. If we didn't have platforms like the Apache, I think you'd be reading about a lot more shot down Cobras and Blackhawks. --128.222.37.20 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The most survivable?

What is with this sentance: Despite the Apache's vulnerability in urban operations, it is currently rated as the most survivable of all military helicopters.? Rated as the most survivable? Rated so by whom? US Army? I thought it was common knowledge Mi-24 is the toughest helicopter around. It is the one being called a flying tank after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanimir (talk • contribs).

The HiND may infact be more armored and can take more damage, but that dosen't make it statisticly more survivable. That comment may also be refering to NATO and/or US Army helicopter, not *all* helicopters. SaderBiscut 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users

Another edit to add British Army helped me notice there's 4 'more' users (5 total) now. Not sure, maybe its been that way a while. I'd try to remove one but don't know who has the fewest. Anyway, wanted to point that out.. -Fnlayson 03:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/h/-/Talk%7EAH-64_Apache_e576.html"