AH-64D Apache

I think the roll of attack choppers has been overplayed by military theoritians. First off let me say that the death of the Comanche was the smartest move the Army budget office has made so far this century. It was a severly outdated and extravagantly expensive design that in effect served no purpose on the modern battlefield.

On the roll of the helicopter. In Iraqi Freedom a detatchment of 40 helos where sent out to take out a force of tanks. Few if any enemy tanks where destroyed at the loss of 2 helos shot down and the rest of the helocopter detachment was so badly damanged the entire squadron was deemed unfit for combat for 6-9 months. Constituting the biggest defeat delt to American forces in the war.
 
Ever seen Korean terrain? The attack helicopter was made for that sort of stuff. What better way to move firepower that can engage enemy ground forces with better precision than a fixed wing aircraft?
You look at that sort of terrain where ground forces will have hell to pay to travel through and then you think of an Apache.
 
Any gun in sight and the infantryman is in shreds.
Any SAM in sight and any plane is in shreds.
Any artillery piece and a lot of things are in shreds.
A TOW and a tank is in shreds.

What's your point?

Chinaman said:
any flak gun in site and the apache is in shreds
Click to expand...
 
And you base this on what?
The AH-64 is backed by some of the most sophisticated electronics in the world. It's well armored and can target without exposing its whole body from behind a hill. The D Version anyways. It's armed with the Hellfire missile which is one of the world's best air to ground missiles. And all these systems have been battle proven.
 
Why did they cancel that Comanche chopper again?
Also don't the Russians have a helo that rivals the apache. They showed it on 10 deadliest attack helicopters or something on discovery.
 
the apache is a good helicopter, hell its the best attack heli

i fail to see the american's points

i think the us army is too confident with iraqis, although iraqis isnt a very good fighting force

us army forgot the basics of combined arms doctine, apparently having all apaches aginist tank convoy isn't as effective as a land, air combined force
 
EagleStrike said:
Why did they cancel that Comanche chopper again?
Also don't the Russians have a helo that rivals the apache. They showed it on 10 deadliest attack helicopters or something on discovery.
Click to expand...

First off, the chopper is exorbantly expensive, I believe the final figure was $52 million each. But not only that, the chopper is obsolete. It was origionally designed in the late 80s as a reconnaissance helicopter for East Europe, now our reconnaisance can be done by a $100,000 UAV that doesn't even have a man in it, so no need for stealth. The Comanche couldn't be modified into a primarily attack role because it couldn't carry much weaponry because they had to be tucked inside the body of the chopper. Sure it looked cool, but it was impractical.

To give you an idea of how expensive the project became, the army is planning to buy 800 aircraft and upgrade 400 more with the diverted Comanche funds.
 
"Any artillery piece and a lot of things are in shreds."

Thanks, 13th Redneck! Gave me a good laugh. :lol:
 
Chinaman said:
the apache is a good helicopter, h**l its the best attack heli

i fail to see the american's points

i think the us army is too confident with iraqis, although iraqis isnt a very good fighting force

us army forgot the basics of combined arms doctine, apparently having all apaches aginist tank convoy isn't as effective as a land, air combined force
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with you here. I think they just simply got careless. The Iraqis successfully measured this overconfidence and set a well laid trap for the Americans.

I don't think the Commanche was really worth it. The Apache is sufficient.
 
i dont think helicopters are good for individual missions unless a full offensive/attack it in place, it is a very good support weapon

keep in note it is used for support, not for primary

it could be demonstrated in the game CnC generals, my friend had all apache and they all got shot down, we only defeated the other player because his new fleet and my armored units combined attack
 
Because Command and Conquer is so realistic right? What peeved me most about that game was how the hardware was named after actual stuff and behaved nothing like it. Playing C&C makes me feel like I'm in charge of a construction company. All of a sudden, the fate of the world depends on me and here I am armed with a dump truck having to build a gigantic structure with a massive crane, then have some power plants built (right, power plants), and ... well you get the drill.

You need all the elements to be successful in at least a conventional war. It may be true that you need ground assets to win, but without air assets, you may not have much of a ground units left.
 
C&C ain't realistic.

There are only a few games like Full Spectrum Warrior, America's Army, Close Combat, that I would consider realistic.

If you want to be taken seriously you should try pointing to engagements that occur in real life, not in a playtoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top