ricnunes - Care to expand on how the latest generation Cobra's are more advanced than the AH-64D? I don't know too much about Cobra's so it would be interesting to hear what they have that is more advanced.

EagleEye[GER] - What's so interesting in helo air-to-air combat is that attack helicopters have nearly always been fitted with A2A missiles but hardly any have ever seen combat. It is generally frowned upon for helicopters to battle each other, and according to Western doctrines at least, it's the Air Force who go in first and clear up any enemy air assets before the Army's helos even go in. And even an advanced attack helo such as the AH-64D has only recently been given the ability to carry and fire Stingers in its latest version, although it was tested years and years ago to fire them. In reality, again according to Western doctrines, helos only use A2A in a defensive role, and not offensive. You'd never send in helos to counter helos. According to one Longbow pilot I've spoken to, if you had to resort to fighting and not simply evading, you'd use the chaingun. Doctine-wise, I think it is probably different for the East such as Russia, as an example, as it's the Air Force that employ attack helicopters. In the West, it's usually an aviation branch of the Army or Marines that use attack helos.

You desribed it absolutely perfect. It´s for defense only. So what is the interesting part? Ah nevermind, it`s something I cant understand and it playes no major role in CH.

@ricnunes:
Great picture!

Notice how I said 'enemy air assets' and not 'enemy air defense assets'? I thought someone might not read that sentence in its entirety, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt anyhow.

Great link, UnderTheRadar. I think it's the biggest publicity mistake of the Gulf War when everyone talks about the F-117 Nighthawks or the Tomahawk cruise missiles being the first weapons to hit Iraq during the first night of the air campaign. Practically no one has heard of the Apaches in fact being the first weapons to strike at Saddam's forces. I'm still hoping for an AH-64A expansion way down the road in which you fly some historic deep attack missions from 1991. Even in 2003 during the initial invasion of Iraq, Apaches from 3rd ID struck targets ahead of 3ID's advance across the border. For the first several years of the war in Afghan, the only units there at the time were A-model Apaches since only a few units were equipped with D-models. I'm not sure, but I think the first use of D-models was in Iraq in 2003.

Addressing previous posts about Air Force and Army roles with attack helos, it was due to a simple loophole in an Air Force/Army agreement post-WW2 that allowed Army Aviation to develop in such numbers. When the Army Air Corps split off to become the Air Force in 1947, helos were only in prototype stages and no one saw their practical use in war. When the two services were establishing their designated roles, the Air Force was to be the sole operator of combat airplanes. This doctrinal agreement didn't even address helicopters, which allowed the Army to eventually become the largest operator of combat helicopters in the US military. If things had progressed differently, it's very possible Apaches flying today would have US AIR FORCE stenciled on the side.

Even when the Army started to field helicopters in the 50's, the initial flight training for their pilots was provided by Air Force instructors in fixed-wing aircraft. Afterwards they received advanced training on their assigned helicopters. At least until the Army stood up their own flight school.

Yes sure

The AH-1Z has some important features that like I said some of them are even more advanced than those in the AH-64D Longbows (even on later blocks/upgrades). Some of those features are:
- More advanced pilot helmet: In Apache the flight info, target info, etc... is displayed on a monocule attached to the helmet while in the AH-1Z pilot that info is displayed directly on the helmet visor.
- More advanced cockpit: In the AH-1Z the roles of pilot and gunner can be exchanged between both crewmen with a "flip of a switch". For example in the AH-1Z the pilot (which is seated in the rear position) can take over the role of gunner while the gunner can take over the role of the pilot. In the Apache the gunner can take over the role of pilot but the pilot cannot take the role of the gunner.
- More advanced optical targeting sensors: The AH-1Z optical targeting sensors (called the TSS) has a third generation termal sensor (FLIR) while the latest MTADS on the AH-64D as a second generation termal sensor (FLIR). Besides the AH-1Z TSS also has a colored LLTV (Low light TV) an impressive and interesting capability that the MTADS doesn't have (the most similat thing that the MTADS has is the monochromatic DTV).

Anyway, if you or someone else wants to know more info regarding the AH-1Z, I think this link provides with the best and better public documentation (at least that I know) regarding the AH-1Z:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/68/132/EN_AH-1Z_PocketGuide.pdf

(Don't worry this isn't the "Taliban KA-50" ) This is official stuff taken directly from the official Bell Textron (the AH-1Z manufacturer) website, more precisely from here:
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/Military/AH-1Z/1291148375525.html


Just to conclude, don't forget that the AH-1Z is in fact a completly new helicopter (that uses the "traditional" AH-1 SuperCobra airframe) and therefore is newer than the Apache and therefore there's IMO no surprise that it has features that are in fact more advanced than those of the Apache (included later AH-64D blocks).

Yes, please do it so
That would somehow remind me of the F-14 Fleet Defender's dragon

As of right now, yes, but according to Wikipedia it is planned to transfer Army Aviation from VVS control to the Ground Forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces

So which of the cobras was the firstequipped with a four bladed rotor?

Sounds like the AH-1Z would be the more entertaining version to fly and also useful as a training tool, with the possibility of switching pilot/gunner function.

How many MiG kills did the USAF have before the Apache strike?

Excluding experimental versions and/or prototypes the first four bladed rotor version of the Cobra (in operation service) is the AH-1Z Viper.

BTW, and since in thread the subject about Air to Air engagements was brought up, there was also a situation during the Vietnam War where a UH-1 Huey flown by the CIA (under the "cover up" company Air America) shot down one (some sources say two) North Vietnamese Antonov An-2. Here's the details:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-t...mbat-first.html

Nope. US Apaches aren't even wired for A2A weapons. They've been tested, and the upgrade to include them was never done, at least last I heard from a maintainer of 64s.



No, it isn't. The Russians equipped helis with A2A weapons some time ago to carry out interceptions of small, low-flying aircraft because their fighters could not do so (you can't fly alongside a little cessna in a fighter, and you might not even pick it up on radar of that era). They were meant to stop defectors, and it was Mi-24's armed with R-60's. They ended up not being very useful anyway.
The Ka-52 and Mi-28 are wired for A2A, but again ... haven't been proven to be particularly useful. Even those countries that ordered ATAS for their Apaches (Japan, GB) aren't terribly impressed nor really care to use the system much.

Personally, I think the discussion of A2A with helos is overrated, since such an engagement would only happen purely by accident. If one side or the other knew there were attack helos in a given area, they would send in fighters to clean it out first. Otherwise it would be like sending in ten soldiers to kill ten soldiers. Why? You don't want a relatively equal fight, you want an unequal fight to ensure victory without substantial loss of your own forces; you would send 100 soldiers to kill those 10, even throw in some armor support while your at it. Sure, you can get into arguments about other factors like specific weapons and individual pilot skill, but the same principle applies; if you have intel on an enemy force, you bring the most force you can to ensure victory and conservation of your own forces. Helo vs helo goes against that principle in every way.

However, lol...since we ARE talking about it, Flechette rockets would most likely be used in conjunction with the chain gun.

In regards to ricnunes's bullets about the AH-1Z Viper, I will say this in response:
- The reason there is only an HMD mounted in front of one eye in the Apache is so the pilot can easily interact with cockpit controls and read the MPDs with his unaided eye. Not to mention those visor systems are heavier. Sure, helos dont pull the G's that fighters do, but I wouldn't want to spend six hours wearing that thing.
- 90% of everything done in the Apache can be done in either cockpit. The front seater can't start the engines or control exterior lighting, and the backseater can't target with the TADS, but why would it matter when duties are very clearly divided between the two pilots. All Apache pilots are trained in one seat or the other, but when you're planning a real mission, you divide up duties for a reason. The only use I would justify the existence of such a switch is for training flights in which you want to swap roles.
- As for the more advanced optical turret, I'll give you that one. But that all comes down to upgrade timelines and funding priorities.

Logistically, I think the biggest advance in the AH-1Z is its airframe commonality with UH-1Y's (75% part commonality, I think). Although I shudder to imagine a world in which AH-64's shared 75% parts with UH-60's

You are making an assumption that there always be friendly fighter aircraft available to intercept enemy helicopters. So far nowadays most of "conventional wars" consists of small scale conflicts involving a large well equiped force (such as NATO) against a country with a small and often ill equiped armed forces (such as Iraq, Serbia, Lybia, etc...) but as soon as a conventional war will face two "equaly" equiped armed forces the theory that fighter aircraft are enough to intercept ANY enemy helicopters will go "down the toilet" since in a conventional and "balanced" war assets like fighters aircraft may be busy or simply unvailable.
Besides, imagine the following situation:
- Enemy helicopter gunships are attacking a friendly ground unit formation and enemy aircraft will take too long to intercept the enemy helicopters (1 hour for example) or simply NO friendly fighters are available and at the same time a group of friendly helicopter gunships are near the area (available in a 15 minutes or less, for example), are you saying that in this case the friendly helicopters wouldn't be sent to intercept the enemy helicopters? I honestly doubt that they wouldn't be sent in this case!
The reason why the Apache haven't been equiped with air-to-air missiles is because the services that uses them (such as the US Army) doesn't see the need for it in current conflicts which of course doesn't mean that the US Army (for example) is right about this. For example the US Marines do equip and prepare they AH-1 helicopters with air-to-air missiles (in this case the Sidewinder). Who's rights, the US Army or the US Marines? I think no one is sure but if I have to bet I would bet in the US Marines because it's always better to be safe than sorry. Anyway, rigging IR air-to-air guided missiles such as the Sidewinder or the Stinger for use in a helicopter or any other type of aircraft for that matter is a quite simple task and I'm sure this would be easily and quickly done is there ever is the need for it.





I don't know which system is heavier the Apache helmet or the AH-1Z helmet but since the AH-1Z pilot helmet is more modern (you can say whatever you want but this is a fact) I would say that there's a chance that the AH-1Z is in fact lighter than the Apache one (newer technology is usually lighter than older one). If what you say was true than why modern helmets like the F-35 pilot helmet, the JHMCS (joint helmet-mounted cueing system which equips the F/A-18, F-16, etc...), the AH-1Z helmet, and other modern ones display the info in a visor instead of a monocule like in the Apache?
The reason why the Apache pilot helmet displays the info in a monocule instead in a visor is because the Apache pilot helmet is simply of older technology (don't forget that the Apache helmet was the first one of it's kind) and if the monocule is made in order so the pilot can easily interact with cockpit controls this only shows that the Apache cockpit is less advanced than the AH-1Z cockpit.

So like it or not, the AH-1Z pilot helmet is "hands-down" more advanced than the Apache pilot helmet.




As far as I know and if I'm not mistaken the Apache pilot cannot directly control the TADS (or MTADS) so it cannot take over the task of the gunner, at least the most important ones.




"Praize the lord"! If you said otherwise I would start to loose faith in mankind, honestly

Now more seriouly, I can understand why people can prefer the Apache over other any attack helicopter (such as the AH-1Z) but facts are facts and the AH-1Z is in fact (at least in many features) more advanced than the Apache even because the AH-1Z is a much more modern and recent helicopter than the Apache.

That situation is such an example of what I was referring to as an accident. However, no military action would be planned with the specifc use of attack helos as an air defense asset. If it was, and enemy helos did show up, you would have to tell the ground forces to hold fire or risk your own helos getting brought down from fratricide. That's why air defense zones are set up in which anything that penetrates it gets shot down.

I'm no Marine, but I would imagine the rationale behind equipping AH-1's with A2A missiles is the fact that the primary Marine mission is to conduct amphibious landings, to gain a foothold on a beachhead and to project power ashore. During the inital landing, the Cobra's only air support would be AV-8's/F-35's from the MEU and/or a carrier air wing, and most likely the beachhead will be away from the air defense weapons of the ships in the battle group. Therefore, they may need to protect themselves using Stingers/Sidewinders in the event of limited air support until an airbase inland can be occupied.

The Army on the other hand would most likely be conducting a land war across a territorial boundry. In contrast, this operation would most likely be staged from bases or staging points inside an ally's territory. Therefore, a large aircraft force would most likely be available for support. Having prior air superiority would be more likely in this scenario than during a Marine amphibious assault.



Just because something is newer and more modern, doesn't necessarily mean it's better, or lighter. The Land Warrior system was supposed to revolutionize the way the infantryman fought, but that was scrapped after fielding when soldiers said it was too heavy and had problems. (I'm sure the Viper's HMD system doesn't have problems, this is just an example)

It doesn't matter what aircraft you're in, you put some sort of imaging display unit in front of both eyes, the only way you're gonna be able to read your cockpit displays (during night operations) is by looking up and reading below the visor. How does that make it more advanced? I'm not saying a single eye display is better than a dual system, I'm saying there are pros and cons to each set up. Because one system came out later than the other, it doesn't default to "better".



Did you read the entire paragraph above?

Now, before we resort to entire pages of the forum for our back-and-forth responses , I would propose we agree to disagree and let Flex and AD have their forum back, lol.

ricnunes - Thanks for elaborating on what you think makes the latest Cobra's more advanced than the latest Longbow's. However, I don't really see any entries on your list that really make it more 'advanced' than the Longbow - just different equipment by different manufacturers for a helicopter with a different role.

GrayGhost - Upon looking it up, you are correct that no current version (not even latest) Longbow has A2A capability - but it is slated for beyond Block III improvements. And for the second part of your post, how does anything you wrote contradict what you quoted me for? Just recently you seem to like arguing with me but never give a clear, definitive explanation of where I'm supposedly going wrong. And why do you think that you know it all? Even guys who have been in the military 20 years can leave without ever knowing what the hell an M16 is (as an example of the expanse of what there is to learn, and what is forgotten). Just because you've read one thing, doesn't mean that I haven't read another. Oh, and I must always be wrong. In my experience even two Longbow pilots (again, example) are never the same in regards to how they describe flight, avionics, weapons, doctrines, procedures, etc.

Yes, I agree with that line of thought.





Newer and more modern sometimes or in rare times (to be more precise) may not necessarily mean it's better but USUALLY it really means that it's better! An F-86 Sabre is better than a P-51 Mustang, a F-4 Phantom is better than the F-86 and so on...




Look, I'm sure that the AH-1Z cockpit and the AH-1Z pilot helmet are built and integrated to each other so that one doesn't interfere with the other so I'm pretty sure that none of the potential problems that you mentioned will ever occur in the AH-1Z or in any other platform that uses similar pilot helmet systems such as the F-35 for example.




No, admit that for some odd reason (was too tired yesterday, probably that was the reason) I didn't completly read that paragraph of yours, sorry!




I don't know how this could last any longer, I simply stated the obvious (regarding the AH-1Z) which I backed up with pretty accurate evidence.

Don't get me wrong but if you don't "see any entries on my list that really make it (the AH-1Z) more 'advanced' than the Longbow" than you must be really out of your mind or you have some problems with reading! I will try to resume that I said (and proved!). If it doesn't work I may draw you a picture sometime later on (or simply ignoring may be the best choise). Anyway I'll resume what I previously said in case you missed something (which must be certainly the case):
-> The Apache MTADS "sports" a 2nd (SECOND) generation FLIR while the AH-1Z TSS "sports" a 3nd (THIRD) generation FLIR! What does this mean? It means that the AH-1Z HAS A MORE ADVANCED FLIR than the Apache (even later blocks).
-> The AH-1Z TSS "sports" a COLORED LLTV (low light TV) while the Apache MTADS "sports" a MONOCHROMATIC DTV (day light TV)! What does this mean? It means that the AH-1Z HAS A MORE ADVANCED ELECTRO-OPTICAL SENSORS than the Apache (even later blocks).
Resuming: The AH-1Z TSS is more advanced than the Apache's MTADS!
-> In the AH-1Z the pilot can assume all tasks from the gunner and vice-versa! In the Apache only the gunner can take over all tasks from the pilot. In the Apache the pilot CANNOT take over ALL the gunner's tasks (like operating the TADS/MTADS). What does this mean? It means that the AH-1Z HAS A MORE ADVANCED Cockpit layout than the Apache (even later blocks).

Is this enought enough for you to see at least some points/features where the AH-1Z is more advanced than the Apache?? Or do I have to make you a drawing or something??
Don't get me wrong, but sometimes discussing with you can be an exercise of frustration...

Just to finalize, I'm not saying that the AH-1Z is "better" than the Apache and I'm not saying the the AH-1Z is more advanced in everything or every regard than the Apache. I'm only saying that in some or even many regards the AH-1Z is in fact more advanced than the Apache and those features that I posted are some of those more advanced features of the AH-1Z over the Apache. Saying otherwise is simply like saying that a red wall is green colored!!

You boys just can't have nice things.