Autopsy of a Near Disaster (2003)

[Hippikos]

The Apaches perform flawlessly doing what they were designed for.

The Apaches are described as attack-helicopter. Don't you expect incoming when attacking? When I think of light construction, I think of reconnaissance, stealth, high flying, not attacking.

Actually, the original Apache was designed to hid behind terrain and bushes (Iraq mostly don't have) and snipe Russian tanks. But then came the Product Managers and designed an attack helicopter behind their desks.

In Kosovo where much was expected from the Apaches, 2 immediately crashed during training and commanders decided not to send them into battle because they were too vulnerable to Serbian surface to air missiles.

Said that, the A-10 is a helluva plane and worth every penny of it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

snip~Actually, the original Apache was designed to hid behind terrain and bushes (Iraq mostly don't have) and snipe Russian tanks.

Originally Posted by Bruce

The Apaches perform flawlessly doing what they were designed for. ~snip~ When the Apache was designed, in circa 1974, evidently the Army wasn't planning for the operations they're seeing now.~snip~ although they made it quite capable of taking out large or small groups while "standing off".

The Apache they are flying now is very different from the original design, in capability and avionics. But it's still the same airframe in design, some strengthening, not withstanding. That type construction is not conducive to taking punishment from flak. It's an attack helicopter but it's a sniper, not a grunt. The Longbow(later version) is designed to hit their targets from 5 miles away with no visability.

Unfortunately, you can't build a helicopter like an A-10 because of weight and if they tried to use the highly effective A-10 Gatling gun, the recoil would knock a chopper right out of the air.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Apache they are flying now is very different from the original design, in capability and avionics. But it's still the same airframe in design, some strengthening, not withstanding.

Apache, as I recall, was another example of McDonnel Douglas engineering of that time. It took almost 20 years to get a working system (as was also true of the B-1, B-2, C-17, Osprey, etc also built by the same 'management' system). By the time it was 'corrected', Apache still would not work in Kosovo. Those Apaches mauled in Iraq were Longbows - best we had.

Notice in the artlcle how Apaches were attacking. First they would hover. Then site a target. That was a complete violation even in Nam. But as the article notes, the Army had to unlearn mistakes created by ignoring what was learned in Nam. Choppers no longer hover. They must attack while constantly moving - which was the mistake in Karbala.

Meanwhile, what is the most dangerous attack by any aircraft? Ground attack. Just another reason why the Air Force wants to dogfight - not support the troops. There was little glory in being shot down by small arms. And yet only those aircraft superior enough to ground attack can survive. F-15, F-15, F-22, etc. These glory aircraft are only support aircraft for the Air Force's best airframe: A-10 Warthog.

Meanwhile, did you here British soldiers complaining about their own RAF support? Also decribed by words such as shit and worse. Harriers - almost useless. British soldiers in Afghanistan were in such desperate situations - the Taliban threatening so much - that British soldiers only wanted A-10 support. Welcome to the little stories that really tell in spades what has been happening - in Afghanistan, in military 'glory' circles, and in what gets forgotten in Nam and from Patton in WWII. And look who was getting the story right early on - Ted Koppel.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Apache, as I recall, was another example of McDonnel Douglas engineering of that time. It took almost 20 years to get a working system (as was also true of the B-1, B-2, C-17, Osprey, etc also built by the same 'management' system). By the time it was 'corrected', Apache still would not work in Kosovo. Those Apaches mauled in Iraq were Longbows - best we had. ~snip

Different management.
The term, "Attack Helicopter" is misleading...... bordering on oxymoron. Elevated weapons platform would be more accurate.

The original design never was suitable for close cover, just stand off and shoot from a safe distance.
The longbow (recognized by the squashed globe mounted above the rotors) is an improved version that can target under much more adverse conditions and further away.

But that doesn't change the fact that helicopters don't endure flak as well as planes. It can't be done because the rotor blades which keep it in the air as well as propel it, are right out in harms way. There's no practical way to shield them and still work. They have to remain snipers.

aside...After years of nursing the A-10 fleet, duct tape and baling wiring them back together, and salvaging shot up junk because they were allowed to fix them, but not replace them..... somebody got their heads out of there butts, and approved an upgrade and refurbishment program. 'Bout time.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Different management.
The term, "Attack Helicopter" is misleading...... bordering on oxymoron. Elevated weapons platform would be more accurate.

The original design never was suitable for close cover, just stand off and shoot from a safe distance.
The longbow (recognized by the squashed globe mounted above the rotors) is an improved version that can target under much more adverse conditions and further away.

But that doesn't change the fact that helicopters don't endure flak as well as planes. It can't be done because the rotor blades which keep it in the air as well as propel it, are right out in harms way. There's no practical way to shield them and still work. They have to remain snipers.

aside...After years of nursing the A-10 fleet, duct tape and baling wiring them back together, and salvaging shot up junk because they were allowed to fix them, but not replace them..... somebody got their heads out of there butts, and approved an upgrade and refurbishment program. 'Bout time.

A-10's rock. Best damm attack aircraft in the sky. I have seen them in action and seen what they can take. As I recall rummy tried to have them retired. Now he is retired and they are still flying.

Someone please explain to me the purpose of posting an article about helo tactics and the weaknesses uncovered in an attack.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Correcting misperseptions.