I was comparing the two and to my surprise i found out that the KA speed is faster than the AH-64D! I'm not a military person but i'd like to know if speed is important? or would it depend on type of mission?

Also are they capable of shooting down flying jets? and how?

Thanks,

Believe it or nor a Chinook can out-run an Apache. I don't believe high speed was part of the design spec or project requirements. IIRC It was designed to be used as a defensive counter-measure to a feared Soviet armoured invasion through the Fulda gap.

"A Zulu regiment can run 50 miles and fight a battle at the end of it."

"There's daft. I don't see no sense in running to fight a battle."

Cheers

I guess you never played EECH? Speed is obviously important but not to the extent where it's a real game-changer on the battlefield, and as far as helicopters go there's never really more than up to about 50mph or so between any of them (of the same era).

The KA-50 can fire Igla air-to-air missiles, they are kind of the Russian version of the U.S. Stinger. So they do have the ability to at least try and shoot down a jet, if these missiles are even loaded in real-life?

I will remember that fact next time I'm playing Super Top Trumps Helicopters.

There are so few air to air engagements involving helicopters. The most kills claimed are supposedly between Iraqi Hinds vs Iranian SuperCobras back in the 80s.

I have been playing black shark for a while, it was so hard especially when you're on hover position to evade an incoming missile, the KA-50 took time to gain speed at least in the game not sure about real life to leave that area immediately.

Funny you mentioned Iraq, I lived there for a while through the Persian war and Iraq had very good pilots until Sadam started to execute them and one day I witnessed right from the top of our house flat roof a dog fight where the Iraqi jet pilot was chasing an Iranian, the Iranian was already hit and dropped something which I think might have been fuel tank to gain speed because the Iraqi pilot was on his tale, the thing he dropped landed ½ KM from where I lived but never exploded. I was a teenager back then and could not believe what I saw, my dad was with me at that time.

Later on, when went and checked the house that got hit with whatever the Iranian dropped and the front of the house was completely damaged but no one got hurt.

There's a "small" type in there Flexman. The Iranians didn't have "SuperCobras", they had (and have) "SeaCobras" (despite both being Cobras they are quite diferent from each other -> Diferent engines, diferent avionics being the SuperCobra MUCH MORE modern and advanced than the SeaCobra).

@InFireBaptize:

WOW, that's a great life experience there!

Technically, the AH-1J SeaCobra is included under the umbrella term of SuperCobra, as 'SuperCobra' just denotes that of the twin-engine family of Cobra's. The actual AH-1W SuperCobra, is indeed a different helicopter though. I remember the Iranians had AH-1J SeaCobra's in Longbow 2.

quite a memory man, i wish i had a camera or a video recorded! by the way house windows were shattered from the noise of the jets.

I know that Wikipedia puts the "Seacobra" and "SuperCobra" under the "same umbrella" the Seacobra and SuperCobra but that's not correct and they are in fact diferent. Basically the very resumed history of the Cobra is the following:

- Cobra -> "First Generation", One engine US ARMY version of the helicopter. The inicial version was the AH-1G which saw combat in the Vietnam War and the most modern and advanced variant was the AH-1F, if I recall correctly and later replaced by the Apache in the 90's.
- SeaCobra -> "First Generation", Two engine US MARINES version of the helicopter (all US Marines Cobras had two engines in order to give "extra security" over water operations). There was the inicial US Marines version the AH-1J which if I'm not mistaken saw combat in Vietnam war and there was a later and improved version of the AH-1J (the inicial SeaCobra) the AH-1T which had some optical sensors and was able to fire TOW missiles.

- SuperCobra (AH-1W) -> A "Second generation" Cobra and a much improved helicopter over the Seacobra with two completly diferent, new and more powerfull engines and improved optical sensors over the AH-1T (and AH-1J didn't even have optical sensors if I'm not mistaken) and capable of firing the Hellfire laser-guided missile (the first Cobra being able to do this)

- Zulu Cobra or Viper (AH-1Z) -> "Third generation" Cobra with new and much more powerfull engines and much more improved avionics and cockpits and optical sensors than the AH-1W SuperCobra (and also with many other improvements). In many regards even more advanced than the AH-64D Apache.





Yes, that is correct!

It began with an 'S' which is all I could remember. I've done more dumb things (like forget to return a value from a function and wonder why it wasn't working).

BLASPHEMY! I bite my thumb at you, sir!

LoL

And yes, you're right it starts with an "S"

Well, facts are facts, sorry...

There are some very interesting articles regarding air-to-air helicopter simulations and studies on dtic. I'm having trouble getting some of the pdf's to open right now, but some of the text-only are working.

http://dsearch.dtic.mil/search?site=default_collection&q=helicopter+air+to+air&btnG.x=11&btnG.y=13&client=dticol_frontend&proxystylesheet=dticol_frontend&proxyreload=1&filter=0&getfields=*

Here's one, AH-1 vs. Hind
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA071904&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

What is so interesting in air2air helicopter combat, I don`t get it? And where is the relation to Combat-Helo?
I dont think that we encounter Ka-50s in CH, do we?

Helo A2A is a bit of an anachronism. No Ka-50s in Combat-Helo and our Apaches will assume to have ASE kits mounted on the outer wingtip pylons.

Iran operates "Sea"cobras (grin) and a Bell-205 alike. Either of which could result in a bad day. No immediate plans to take-time out to add these either, although I like the idea of having our own Cobra model we could maybe expand upon later.

"Speed Kills, Peaches" Graves - Iron Eagle II

WHAT!! NO KA-50s in Combat-helo?? Everyones knows that the Taliban Air Force has Ka-50s!! Look here at a picture of one Taliban Ka-50:

Ouch.

Can I steal that?

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.

ricnunes - I'll let you off with the 2nd vs 3rd generation FLIR, but unless I see a visual comparison - I'm not 100% convinced. The differences might be miniscule and unworthy of mention.

The DTV on the Longbow can now be viewed full color via MFD or MTADS. Only on the older Block I? was it 'monochromatic' and only when viewed via the cockpit MFDs, heads-down through the CP/G's ORT it appeared color. I guess you think those videos on YouTube of black-and-white DTV footage is as the crew sees it!

Just because the pilot and CP/G in the Cobra have 100% duality does not make the 'cockpit layout' more advanced. Again, as I said earlier, it's just a different design by different manufacturers for a different role. I can see no advantage in reality for the pilot being able to fully gun or the gunner to be able to fully pilot, other than what exists in 'traditional' tandem seat attack helicopters. Going by your theory, the KA-50 should be more advanced than both, as that only requires one crew member to do it all - but that is most certainly not the case.

But of course the AH-1Z is more advanced than the 'Apache'.

The DTV is in fact a monochromatic system, regardless of where the video output is viewed, it always has been. I suspect where the confusion lies is seeing videos of DVO through the ORT, which was basically a telescope. However, DVO is no longer installed in the Apache fleet.

There are plans in the pipeline to upgrade the day side of the TADS (DTV) with an improved color TV system, much like the Army's various UAV's have. But again, that's driven by funding priorities. I'm sure it will come out the door further down the line, but the main priority for the Apache fleet is fielding the Block 3's. Of course, the current budget cuts in the government could affect ALL of this.

PS: Ever since the Army came out with the Apache there's always been a war between the Apache and Cobra fans...And I doubt the war will end anytime soon, lol

Yeah that would be it. That, and sims forever doing it wrongly. So you can see in daylight, but it's all still in shades of green, right? Also the DVO can't be viewed via the MFDs, am I right or am I right?



Well, I never knew that... perhaps until this topic ended up the way it has!


As a general rule, I have kinda forgotten most of the intricacies of what does this and what looks like that, with the Longbow. To be honest, I'm really kind of over all the who's right and who's wrong - as in the end who really cares? I'm never going to be a Longbow pilot and there's more to life anyhow. I'm a Comanche man nowadays, and with that there is no argument. Unless you talk to ricnunes, that is.

It all depends, the basic video signal from the DTV or the FLIR is black and white, which is what it's recorded in. However, you can view the MPD's in a green/black filter if desired. The TEDAC automatically switches from black/white when in DAY mode, to green/black when in NIGHT mode. Then you throw in the IHADSS, which can only display things in the green/black spectrum. It can get confusing.

As for the Comanche, it's a crying shame that sleek airframe isn't in the skies right now...blame bureaucracy and mis-management, which seems fairly prevalent in military acquisition programs nowadays. Everytime you hear of a weapon program's cost "sky-rocketing", it's usually due to bureaucracy, which is why new military hardware takes so much longer to field today compared to previous eras, if it gets fielded at all.

Whenever Flex and AD release this game, we'll all be Longbow pilots, growing beards and ordering pizza delivery while we sit on our arses playing CH...Well, Flex will be eating toaster pizza, close enough.

heh Pizza Toast, poor mans pizza.

I admit to having mixed feelings about the Comanche program. Once an airframe is fielded it costs money to keep it in the air, this kind of management it was something that I added to the design document but didn't implement. Every re-arm, hour in the air, lb of fuel burned would be costed and available as running costs on a stats page. Didn't happen.

Ground support systems for these aircraft can be expensive in terms of man-power and cost. I was staggered at how much was needed to keep one Apache Mk1 operating in Afghanistan according to Ed Macy's book.

The idea that the AH-1Z is more advanced than the AH-64D goes against an unwritten principal of the US military; 'Army gets new stuff and marines make do'. At least, that's what Hollywood movies taught me and they're usually correct.

Cheers

Look, a 3rd generation FLIR compared with a 2nd one provide better target detection range and MUCH better image quality which provides a much better target recognition specially a long ranges. In page 29 of the AH-1Z pocket guide there's a graphical comparative between 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen FLIR sensor in terms of capability. This may partially be publicity I grant that, but that comparison between each generation of FLIR makes sense and looks realistic to me.
What puzzles me with this discussion that I'm having with you is that it's seems clear that you haven't got yourself the "trouble" of reading the pocket guide that I posted previously here in this thread (at least in detail) which gets even more odd since it was you what requested that kind of info in the first place
Anyway, if you look at page 31 of the pocket guide you see a very impressive capability of the TSS FLIR where you can even read the sign at a building located at something like 13 to 15Km from the helicopter (and note that the pictures in that pocket guide have very low resolution/quality), a thing which I doubt the Apache FLIR is capable of (at least with that quality and zoom level).
Another thing, in page 28 it says that the AH-1Z TSS has an advanced multi-target auto tracker which is capable of tracking up to 3 active targets plus 10 more inertial targets a capability which if I'm not mistaken only the Comanche had (if I'm not mistaken the Apache MTADS can only autotrack 1 target).
So in this, the AH-1Z wins "hands down".

Again, please READ that doc it included very interesting info even for "Apache fans" like youlself. At least IMO it's interesting for ANY attack helicopter fan.





Like Raptor already said the Apache MTADS DTV is monochromatic and not colored as you claimed and besides while the AH-1Z TSS TV is colored it's also a low light TV (LLTV) which enables high quality images with low light conditions. The Apache MTADS also has a mode which couples the DTV with FLIR (called the VNsight) but it's that a mixture of termal with TV images which for obvious reasons doesn't have the same image quality as a colored TV.
Again in this, the AH-1Z "wins".



Please don't "patronize me" (in a sarcastic way). It's obvious that the KA-50 cockpit doesn't came near in terms of technology because at first it doesn't have any MPDs, it doesn't provide flight and target info to the helmet sight (the KA-50 helmet sight is just that, a simple sight) not to mention that it's doesn't even "sport" termal imaging (FLIR), and long etc... Besides I don't see having one crewmember doing all the stuff as being more advanced, I only see this as pilot overload in terms or work and just to prove this it seems that the Russian are droping the KA-50 in favour of the 2 men crewed KA-52 and Mi-28! But you should already now this, or maybe not...




At least I can admit when I'm wrong about something.

Well if you talk about stuff from the same era that was generally or usually the truth. The thing is that the Apache Longbow it's 90's tecnology with some 2000's era upgrades which by it's turn is based on the Apache which is 80's tecnology. The AH-1Z by the contrary it's 100% 2000's technology and that makes all the diference!
Besides we aren't in the Vietnam era anymore where that diference of Army=new stuff, Marines=old stuff was more evident.

Whew! AH1-Z Cobra vs. Apache vs. Ka-50 vs. Commanche! That's a B movie I would love to see!

I tried to resolve the debate using my Super Top Trumps "Todays Helicopters" deck but it doesn't include the Apache
(despite having the sodding thing on the cover )



I guess Waddingtons doesn't think much of the old Duke.

ricnunes - As far as I can see (I obviously don't have a 3rd gen FLIR for eyes) I haven't been wrong yet!

EinsteinEP - Careful fella, I get a bit touchy when people spell Comanche with two 'M'

Flexman - What!? Super Top Trumps doesn't even have the Apache in it!? I guess Waddingtons shot their wad years ago!

And with this I say:
I rest my case!

I could be wrong but that "thing" in that cover seems to me to be an Apache prototype, the YAH-64.