Turns out, that farmer didn't shoot down the Apache

[yellowking]

The truth is finally revealed! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2969471.stm

The 'Apache' farmer's tale

Ali Abid Minqash with his trusty weapon

The elderly Iraqi farmer who, according to Baghdad officials, literally shot his way to fame by downing a state-of-the-art US Apache helicopter with an old carbine has flatly denied he had anything to do with the crash. [cont'd]

[yellowking]

Although that was no surprise, I'd like to see comments on the following: http://slate.msn.com/id/2081906/

Chop the Chopper
The Army's Apache attack-helicopter had a bad war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 3:42 PM PT


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is gearing up for his next war—not with the Syrians or the North Koreans but with the hidebound generals of the U.S. Army. These are the generals who criticized Rumsfeld's battle plan while Gulf War II was still raging and who beat back his efforts, over the past few years, to "transform" the Army into a lighter, lither fighting force. With Rumsfeld's star rising and the generals' tarnished, he can be expected to mount a new offensive on their bureaucratic turf at the first opportunity.


He might want to start by junking the Army's attack helicopter. The current version, the AH-64D Apache Longbow, is in many ways a vast improvement over earlier models, but it is still too dangerous to the pilots who fly it and not dangerous enough to the enemy it's designed to attack. [cont'd]

[Royal]

I'm not a pilot, fixed or rotary, but am well aware of the teething problems of Apache Longbow in the British Army Air Corps and Royal Marines...

The majority of airframes produced have been mothballed due to lack of trained aircrew. There are two main reasons - the admitted problem is that the training programme has been farmed out to private enterprise and the programme is way behind schedule.

There is another problem. Aircrew trained in the US have complained of sensory overload - too much information from the systems for even an above average pilot to deal with.

Is this a case where we need to go back to the KISS principle?

[hood]

So here's a suggestion for Donald Rumsfeld: Deep-six the Apache, and restart the A-10.

It's rather painful to say so, but he's got a point. I've always been a huge fan of the Apache and it's helmet tracking gun turret. Unfortunately a hi-tech offense isn't good enough when you're so close to the enemy.

[kimouche]

I am afraid I really don't aggree with that.

Any helicopter remains a lot more mobile and agile than even the slowest plane. The apache might not have performed as well as expected in the current context, but I'm sure that in another environemnt that would involve tree lines or hills or any elements of terrain that it can use to hide and ambush, than it would be a killer. Let's not forget that there's been a lot of helicopter crashes in this war, sand is not their best friend.

Maybe they just need to redefine the role of the Apache but I don't think it'll go further that that. If you unleash 10 apaches against a column of 70 or 80 tanks and armored vehicles, you can be sure it's gonna be a short fight.

[Zoomie]

I'd rather fly an A-10 than a AH-64 for some reasons. One of them is that an airplane is a lot safer than a helo. Sure it looks cool and all, but it a also defies physics. If one thing goes wrong with a helo, even at a relatively low altitude, you're going to be in a lot of trouble. Whereas with the A-10, you can glide you plane in and make it in without hoping for autoratation to kickin so you can land.

[hood]

But kimouche, the Apache's were sent into Serbia which has the terrain that you're mentioning and it never got off the ground... If you look at what put the Apache's out of commission, it wasn't guided missiles, it was small arms fire and RPG's. Those are 2 things that you would be hard pressed to hit an A-10 with and do considerable damage. Added agility while flying low at low speeds isn't going to make you faster than bullets at close range.

What the Apache did very well, was flying just above the ground into Iraq at the start of the first Gulf War to destroy SAM sites. There were very few ground forces to oppose them so they did their mission without opposition. I think one of the problems in Gulf War 2, was that we conducted so many operations during the day. The Apache's night optics and thermal scopes are glorified at night, but they were taken out of their element this time around and were exposed to focused ground fire which you probably wouldn't have had at night.

[kimouche]

You make a good point Hood.

But I still don't believe you can replace a helicopter with a plane.
As I said before they might completely reevaluate the role of the Apache. Maybe in the future it'll just be a tank hunter or something like that but they're never going to giv up on it. It's a heck of a machine.

[Burncycle]

Apples and oranges. It's not a matter of "I'd rather fly...".

A-10's should be developed more, don't get me wrong.

So should helicopters.

Sending apaches to strike the republican guard alone was a bad move; thats not the apaches fault. The fact that most of them got back at all should prove the apaches worth right there.

As hood mentioned, it's in how you use them.

[DeltaWhisky58]

So here's a suggestion for Donald Rumsfeld: Deep-six the Apache, and restart the A-10.

If that hapens, can the USAF set up a proper training program for its pilots in allied AFV recognition as well as targetting its weapons.

[Trigger]

If that hapens, can the USAF set up a proper training program for its pilots in allied AFV recognition as well as targetting its weapons.
Hey F**KNUT, how many thousands of sorties were flown during the war without friendly fire taking place?
It's a war. **** happens. The pilots screwed up. We're sorry. Get over it.
I'd like to see you put all of your rounds in the '10 ring' under pressure.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Thankyou for the intelligent profane comment Mr Trigger.

By the law of averages, friendly fire happens, but to mistake friendly AFVs carrying both thermal recognition devices and flying large national flags in inexcusable. Also, those particular AFVs are not remotely like anything operated by Iraq or any other former client nation of the Soviet arms industry.

Yes, thousands on anti-armour missions were flown - RAF, RN, RAAF, USN, USMC and USArmy crews flew loads of them, without incidents of this type. clearly I rubbed salt in a wound - wounds often need surgery!

The A-10 is a marvellous aircraft and does its job very well, especially when the jocks are well trained, but perhaps there is a little, very important window in that training which needs adressing.

[Trigger]

You can't have it both ways Delta. What were the averages in regards to number of missions by each branch of service? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd bet the Air Force did the heavy lifting in that respect. So, by your law of averages they were bound to have more incidents of friendly fire. As for being well trained, I see British Tornados on a regular basis when they visit the US Air Force base I live next to. They come here for training in ground attack techniques. You can't lump all USAF pilots together as being lousy at AFV identification because of the actions of ONE.
If he so blatantly screwed up, he'll get what he deserves.
Your welcome for the profane comment, I save them for special occasions.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Trigger

firstly thank you for not swearing at me this time. I appreciate what you say - I live within three miles of the RAF's largest RAF base, and I served in the RAF.

The point I'm making is the incident with the A-10 jock in the current operation is not the first - do you remember when the A-10 jock wasted two of our Warrior APCs in GW1 killing nine British squaddies - some of them were local to here, people have long memories, so when history repeats itself..........................

[Trigger]

My apologies for the swearing - it makes me sound like 'woodland'.
I physically cringe when we have a friendly fire incident. I think it hurts worse when you kill one of your own/allies and I can't imagine what your locals think or feel when it happens a second or third time. All I'm saying is don't paint all of our guys with the same brush.
Peace.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Trigger

I'm not painting all of your guys with the same brush - far from it. I've been around militery aircrews on and off for many years, both British and US, and I know their levels of professionalism.

The point I am trying to make is aimed at one specific area, i.e. dedicated anti-armour operations. The A-10 - an aircraft long-time operated by the USAF here in the UK - is without doubt the best anti-armour platform in the world. However, what use is such a machine if it's weakest link, i.e. the jock with the stick, can't recognise his main ally's principle armoured fighting vehicles. I know that Blue on Blue incidents are not an exclusively american phenominon...........one of our Challenger 2 tank crews wiped out another Challenger Tank outside Basra, and that is equally terrible, but I just can't accept the reasoning behind the a-10 incidents - you would have thought a lesson would have been learnt in 1991 and remedied by 2003!

Seing that you hail from Arizona, I guess you are fairly familiar with the A-10 community at Davis Monthan AB?

I think this has gone on long enough.................it's late here in Scotland, good night and best wishes.

[spier]

Trigger

I'm not painting all of your guys with the same brush - far from it. I've been around militery aircrews on and off for many years, both British and US, and I know their levels of professionalism.

The point I am trying to make is aimed at one specific area, i.e. dedicated anti-armour operations. The A-10 - an aircraft long-time operated by the USAF here in the UK - is without doubt the best anti-armour platform in the world. However, what use is such a machine if it's weakest link, i.e. the jock with the stick, can't recognise his main ally's principle armoured fighting vehicles. I know that Blue on Blue incidents are not an exclusively american phenominon...........one of our Challenger 2 tank crews wiped out another Challenger Tank outside Basra, and that is equally terrible, but I just can't accept the reasoning behind the a-10 incidents - you would have thought a lesson would have been learnt in 1991 and remedied by 2003!

Seing that you hail from Arizona, I guess you are fairly familiar with the A-10 community at Davis Monthan AB?

I think this has gone on long enough.................it's late here in Scotland, good night and best wishes.Oh gosh! Now that is an intresting statement: "is without doubt the best anti-armour platform in the world" And that is a plane without a HUD, low speed and no impressive preformances to date(bombing helpless tankers without airsupport or even MANPADS is not what I would call impressive..), except for its friendly fire records. The SU25 beats it in every way possible, even in surviveability.

[Trigger]

@DeltaWhiskey: yep, DM's home or at least a next door neighbor.

And that is a plane without a HUD, low speed and no impressive preformances to date(bombing helpless tankers without airsupport or even MANPADS is not what I would call impressive..), except for its friendly fire records. The SU25 beats it in every way possible, even in surviveability.
We covered all of this in a previous thread, so I'm not going to point out the errors of your painfully idiotic post. You're obviously uninformed, uneducated and inbred. Now go away you stupid bastard. :D

[spier]

@DeltaWhiskey: yep, DM's home or at least a next door neighbor.

And that is a plane without a HUD, low speed and no impressive preformances to date(bombing helpless tankers without airsupport or even MANPADS is not what I would call impressive..), except for its friendly fire records. The SU25 beats it in every way possible, even in surviveability.
We covered all of this in a previous thread, so I'm not going to point out the errors of your painfully idiotic post. You're obviously uninformed, uneducated and inbred. Now go away you stupid bastard. :D
I searched for "SU25", "Su-25" and "SU 25". The only thread I found mentioning the SU25 was a certain thread titled: "Turns out, that farmer didn't shoot down the Apache". How odd, considering you said all aspect of the case had been covered, yet the most important aspect(OpFor) had infact not been covered. You said what about "idiotic"?

[Trigger]

Look up A10, dummy. I realize I didn't write it in crayon, but I thought you might figure it out.

[spier]

Look up A10, dummy. I realize I didn't write it in crayon, but I thought you might figure it out.Wow, you really are quite ****ing retarded aren't you? There is a thread about how the A10 compares to the F16(A STRIKE FIGHTER, NOT A DEDICATED CAS AIRCRAFT), but the thread does not mention the SU25(A DEDICATED CAS AIRCRAFT), which is pretty much superior to the A10.

Now I belive it is time for you to get the **** off my internet.

[Trigger]

wow! I didn't realize I was speaking to Al Gore. My most humble apologies Mr. ex-Vice Perpetrator. Now I understand where you're coming from... rofl

OK here's a (rough) comparison of A10 vs SU25:
Speed SU25 .8mach A10 .56 mach
Ceiling SU25 7-10000 Meters A10 over 13000 Meters
Aerial refueling SU25 NO A10 YES
Payload SU25 4-6000 kg A10 7200 kg
both have a 30mm cannon

What in God's name were you talking about?

Chops, handbag please...

[JayHawk]

No HUD.... :roll: :cantbeli:

Yeah right....

[Merik]

Look the problem with the AH-64D is that its waaay too heavy for a Attack Helicopter.I mean who in the right minds wants two engines and a huge ass radar on top of your agile,aircraft?My dad was Cobra pilots in the Cav back in the day and he has told over and over they never had a engine failure due to anything short of hydraulics,compresser stalls,etc.So the question is why have two enigines?Same with the Marines.They want two engines so that if one goes out they can get back with the other.Never heard of them having that problem.
The other thing about the AH-64 is that unlike the Marine helo pilots, Apache pilots sit and hover.If you are in a hostile situation with lots of small arms fire and RPGs,etc. do you want to just sit you ass around and get shot at?No you keep moving.Thats why no Marine Cobras were shot down because they kept moving.Never allow yourself to give the enemy to shoot at you if you sit.
Now if I was Rumsfeld I would get the A-10 and make damn sure that we get the Comanche.That program is never going to finish if they dont do something about it.The money for the Comanche program keeps getting delayed for other military contracts and it is rediculus(spell check lol).In fact the Comanche technology is now 10-15 years old.They are behind the power curve on some of the stuff.
But the one aircraft I would defienatly do some r & d on is the AH-56 Cheyenne.Just think,a helicopter that is faster than a P-51 Mustang and can carry bombs,rockets, you name it.The thing is awesome.

[papabear]

Col. Hackworth's article on the Apache: http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=12&rnd=992.0279041403409

Reader replies: http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Your%20Feedback.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=53&rnd=515.0008682092294

[DeltaWhisky58]

Merik - the AH-56 Cheyenne may have been a fast helicopter, but the helo world speed record is held by the British Lynx at around 250mph - surely the P-51 Mustang was capable of over 400mph+!

Until a whole heap more research work is done, helos just can't fly that fast, sorry.

[StarvingStudent47]

What if they were to replace the Apache Longbow with something along the lines of the Hind? Less electronics, more armor and brute-force firepower?

(I don't know exact statistics of either aircraft, I'm just going off of popular perceptions)

[Merik]

surely the P-51 Mustang was capable of over 400mph+!



My father has spoken to one of the test pilots that flew the AH-56 when it was still under contract and it is a proven fact that the Cheyenne flat-out beat its chase plane which happened to be a P-51 Mustang on a trip back to base.I do believe it is in the Warbird Tech series book they did on the aircraft also.

Now dont get me wrong,Im not trying to profess that I know every thing so if I come across to you that way I apologize beforehand.Im just trying to tell you what I do know from my perspective.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Merik

The last thing I want is to be drwn into an arguement on the merits/performance of helos.

I did a quick search on the web and came up with this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-56.htm


The AH-56A had a maximum speed of 214 knots, cruise speed of 197 knots, a service ceiling of 26,000 feet, maximum range of 547 nautical miles, and could climb 3,420 feet per minute.

This is high performance for any helicopter!

[Merik]

No kidding man.The thing was phenomenal.Nice search btw.