The Apache Longbow

[Loachman]

RAH-66 Comanche was a Reconnaissance/Attack Helicopter, hence the RAH designator. RH-70 is recce only, albeit armed.

The Bell 407 is an evolution of the Jet Ranger/Long Ranger series, I just went further back in the ancestry. RH-70 is generally described as "based on" the 407. Little info on improvements is available online.

 

[PMars]

[quote}
I'm nitpicking here, but I believe the designation for the new ARH helicopter is RAH-70, not RH70. Also, it is based on the civilian Bell 407 which has been around since late 1995, and adapted to military use rather than being developed as a military aircraft.
[ End quote]

The RAH-70 has similarities to the Bell 407 (i.e. fuselage and 4-blade rotor system) but I believe it is based on the uprated Bell 417 which was developed as a military machine (offered to Indian AF for high altitude ops], and which is now on offer to commercial operators.

 

[Kirkhill]

Came across this about the British WAH-64 Apaches. 

I seem to remember reading elsewhere that their engines (Rolls Royce ?) give them a bit of an edge in lift over the AH-64Ds.  Can anybody confirm that?

Apaches Return to Hero's Welcome
 
 
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Sept. 25, 2006)
 
 
 
The Armed Forces most senior officer has heaped praise on the Yorkshire-based personnel returning from the first-ever operational deployment of Apache attack helicopters. 

Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, presented personnel from 656 Squadron, 9 Regiment Army Air Corps (9 AAC), based at Dishforth Airfield in North Yorkshire, with their operational medals on a visit to the unit on Friday 22 September 2006. The personnel have all recently returned from Operation Herrick in Afghanistan after a three-month tour. 

Sir Jock said they had all earned their spurs and the praise of the praiseworthy was beyond measure. He also highlighted the devastating firepower the Apache had delivered in Afghanistan's Helmand Province: 

"As we enter the final few months of 2006, our perspective of the Apache attack helicopters of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps is very different from that which we had at the beginning of the year," he said. 

"We always knew that the Apache was an enormously potent weapon system. We always knew that the people who operate and support it were brave and professional. But in the intervening months they have had to demonstrate these qualities - and more - in the most demanding circumstances. 

"We knew from the outset that our forces would face a stiff challenge in southern Afghanistan. We recognised that there would be some hard fighting - which is, of course, why we sent the Apache in the first place. 

"We might not have expected the degree of ferocity that fighting would sometimes reach at its peak, but we were ready for it. We were ready because of the quality, training and courage of our forces on the ground. 

"But we were also ready because we had deployed the best attack helicopter in the world; and because it was crewed and maintained by people who are undoubtedly amongst the most able, innovative and brave anywhere. 

"You do not need to ask them about their contribution. You need to ask those on the ground who depended on them, day after day, to provide the crucial military edge over the enemy. They will leave you in no doubt about what the Apache achieved. And the praise of the praiseworthy is beyond measure." 

9 Regiment Army Air Corps reformed in March 1988 as part of 24 Air Mobile Brigade. On 1 September 1999 the Regiment became one of the Aviation Regiments of 16 Air Assault Brigade and is now equipped with the 'Apache' attack helicopter. The returning 656 Squadron has been replaced in theatre by 664 Squadron, also of 9 AAC. 

"The Apache has, over the course of 2006, established itself, with friend and foe alike, as one of our most powerful and flexible weapon systems - as a battle winning capability," Sir Jock continued. 

"But the weapon system can never be better than the people who wield it. The people of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps have earned their spurs in the heat, dust and fire of combat; in the face of challenging and complex operational situations; and often in the face of great danger. 

"It is their professionalism, their dedication and their courage that has taken a nascent force and placed it firmly at the cutting edge of British military power. We can and should be enormously proud of them." 

-ends- 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sir Jock Stirrup? .... bwahahahaha.

 

[Krypto]

Barring some completely unforseen turn of events (and more importantly funding), I don't see Canada getting Apaches at all.

As great an aircraft as it is, it's quite specialized in its role (relatively speaking) and we simply can't afford to put such a large portion of our limited resources into such a system when the money could have been better spent on something more multirole that suits out needs better. If we were to go that route, it would have to be some hypothetical perfect helo that covers many roles, and if it can conduct SAR ops at home, all the better. The only reason we're buying new systems now is simply because they're filling vital roles that we need.

Also, losing an Apache in combat would be a huge blow to our forces that we couldn't easily replace. And by nature, the Apaches would be be going into combat. Sure, you could argue the same for CF-18's, but they're much less vulnerable than an Apache. Griffons and the Chinooks (once we get them) could get into some action, but for the most part wouldn't, and so stand a significantly smaller chance of being shot down. Sure, we've lost other aircraft, but those are mostly random sccidents and can happen to anything.

As an aside, I prefer the Cobra anyway, though this is mainly from a military fanboy angle on my part. It just looks really fun to fly.

 

[Loachman]

We'll likely be forced into it eventually, now that real-world ops are waking people up from cold-war game-playing slumber. Even CAS has mentioned a requirement, a huge departure for our fighter-and-transport-centric a** f**ce.

When the first Chinook full of troops goes "bang" because it lacked escort, there'll be a mad scramble. Hopefully, a more leisurely scramble will take place before that.

Our problem is that we need so much else right now as well, thanks to over a decade of lieberals.

How would losing an Apache be any worse than losing a Leopard or a platoon of Infantry all at once?

Specialty is good in many cases. Multi-role is just another way of saying that you won't have it for what you really want because it's off doing something else. Put seats in an AH64 and it'll be used for VIP transport while troops need fire support. Neither Coyote nor Leopard nor M777 have multi-role capability (other than what can be improvised if really necessary). There's no VIP seat kit for them, or a cargo-carrying configuration, or (shudder) SAR capability and they are therefore truly useful for that which they were designed and acquired.

An AH gives phenomenal firepower, recce capability, and flexibility. As far as I am concerned, it most definitely fills a "vital role(s) that we need". They'd be busy enough that the guys on the ground that they are intended to support would not miss the "lack" of SAR or VIP capability one bit - in fact they'd be damned glad for those "lacks".

As for the specifics, both AH64 and AH1Z would be fine as far as I'm concerned. The former, as has been said, is the "gold standard" and is in use with several of our allies. The latter would make more sense if we upgraded CH146 to UH1Y standard, for commonality with that.

Multi-role... I just had a vision of a VIP kit for Sperwer...

 

[Good2Golf]

We'll likely be forced into it eventually, now that real-world ops are waking people up from cold-war game-playing slumber. Even CAS has mentioned a requirement, a huge departure for our fighter-and-transport-centric a** f**ce.

When the first Chinook full of troops goes "bang" because it lacked escort, there'll be a mad scramble. Hopefully, a more leisurely scramble will take place before that.

Our problem is that we need so much else right now as well, thanks to over a decade of lieberals.

How would losing an Apache be any worse than losing a Leopard or a platoon of Infantry all at once?

Specialty is good in many cases. Multi-role is just another way of saying that you won't have it for what you really want because it's off doing something else. Put seats in an AH64 and it'll be used for VIP transport while troops need fire support. Neither Coyote nor Leopard nor M777 have multi-role capability (other than what can be improvised if really necessary). There's no VIP seat kit for them, or a cargo-carrying configuration, or (shudder) SAR capability and they are therefore truly useful for that which they were designed and acquired.

An AH gives phenomenal firepower, recce capability, and flexibility. As far as I am concerned, it most definitely fills a "vital role(s) that we need". They'd be busy enough that the guys on the ground that they are intended to support would not miss the "lack" of SAR or VIP capability one bit - in fact they'd be damned glad for those "lacks".

As for the specifics, both AH64 and AH1Z would be fine as far as I'm concerned. The former, as has been said, is the "gold standard" and is in use with several of our allies. The latter would make more sense if we upgraded CH146 to UH1Y standard, for commonality with that.

Multi-role... I just had a vision of a VIP kit for Sperwer...

+1

I agree that CH146/UH1Y  +  AH-1Z is likely about as much as wee could hope for, not that that would be a bad thing at all.

G2G

 

[Krypto]

We'll likely be forced into it eventually, now that real-world ops are waking people up from cold-war game-playing slumber. Even CAS has mentioned a requirement, a huge departure for our fighter-and-transport-centric a** f**ce.

When the first Chinook full of troops goes "bang" because it lacked escort, there'll be a mad scramble. Hopefully, a more leisurely scramble will take place before that.

Our problem is that we need so much else right now as well, thanks to over a decade of lieberals.

How would losing an Apache be any worse than losing a Leopard or a platoon of Infantry all at once?

Specialty is good in many cases. Multi-role is just another way of saying that you won't have it for what you really want because it's off doing something else. Put seats in an AH64 and it'll be used for VIP transport while troops need fire support. Neither Coyote nor Leopard nor M777 have multi-role capability (other than what can be improvised if really necessary). There's no VIP seat kit for them, or a cargo-carrying configuration, or (shudder) SAR capability and they are therefore truly useful for that which they were designed and acquired.

An AH gives phenomenal firepower, recce capability, and flexibility. As far as I am concerned, it most definitely fills a "vital role(s) that we need". They'd be busy enough that the guys on the ground that they are intended to support would not miss the "lack" of SAR or VIP capability one bit - in fact they'd be damned glad for those "lacks".

As for the specifics, both AH64 and AH1Z would be fine as far as I'm concerned. The former, as has been said, is the "gold standard" and is in use with several of our allies. The latter would make more sense if we upgraded CH146 to UH1Y standard, for commonality with that.

Multi-role... I just had a vision of a VIP kit for Sperwer...

I totally understnad what you're saying. My point was that I just don't see it happening any time soon, as I said because of all the catch-up buying we're doing now. My comment about losses is based solely on our current situation. We have troops and Leopards (or other vehicles) now, and casualties are expected. To spend a large chunk of our limited funds on Apaches only to have them shot down wouldn't be a big selling point right now when the money could be better spent.

Further down the line, I don't see why not, either Apache or Cobra. It would certainly be nice!

 

[Loachman]

I agree with you that it won't happen as soon as any of us would like.

As far as losses, AHs would be a lot less vulnerable to enemy action than ground vehicles. Losses of military equipment of all sorts are to be expected in combat, and, cost aside, I fail to see how the loss of an AH is any worse than the cost of a LAV. Aircraft are lost through accident, as you pointed out earlier. We put a lot of efforst into minimizing that, but it's still the cost of doing business.

Neither combat nor accidental losses are any more acceptable than the other, but losses of ground troops due to lack of support is completely inexcusable.

Wait until we have a platoon overrun because no support was available and tell me how the money could have been better spent.

Not buying needed equipment because it might be lost for whatever reason is just plain silly.

The only acceptable reason not to buy it is because the same job can be done better or cheaper by something else.

 

[a_majoor]

The only acceptable reason not to buy it is because the same job can be done better or cheaper by something else.

Since armed UAV's have been proved in combat, this might become the wave of the future rather than an armed helicopter of any sort. While the ideal would be to have multiple systems (Long range heavy bombers, "Strike Eagles", A-10's and Apache's along with armed UAV's), but in a universe of limited resources that might have to do.

While an armed Predator derivative only carries two HELLFIRE missiles, different sorts of weapons could be mounted, either HELLFIRE missiles with different sorts of warheads, pods with 70mm rockets to saturate areas with fire or even perhaps a "gun pod". Light scout or utility helicopters that are armed carry similar weapons, so the real deficiency is in the fact a Predator type UAV is a fixed wing aircraft and not a helicopter. Looking ahead, it is only a matter of time before purpose designed UACV's (Uninhabited Air Combat Vehicles) are available.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Armed UAVs are great strike platforms in the current operating environment, and that capability will likely improve.  I'm not sure, however, if we could use armed UAVs as escorts for CH-47s and medevac helicopters.  There may be issues mixing them in the same airspace.   

If we want to use helicopters to move soldiers, supplies and casualties around today's theatre we also need escort helicopters.

 

[Good2Golf]

Armed UAVs are great strike platforms in the current operating environment, and that capability will likely improve.  I'm not sure, however, if we could use armed UAVs as escorts for CH-47s and medevac helicopters.  There may be issues mixing them in the same airspace.   

If we want to use helicopters to move soldiers, supplies and casualties around today's theatre we also need escort helicopters.

+1

Aviation, like other components of the battlespace is a system of systems.  Transport clearly needs dedicated escort when the threat so dictates.  There are many things that UCAVs can do, but they are not as strong in the area of providing responsive, mutual support to other aviation forces.

G2G

 

[Dale Denton]

I don't know much when it comes to procurements, but what would you guys have to say about the MH-6 "little Bird"?. In the past i've searched this website and havent found much on them. Is this feasible for our armed forces? Does it make sense for us to use and operate? I've wikipedia-ed it, but i'm not sure whether that accounts for anything. Yet again I don't know anything about procurements but from what i've read on other websites (a long time ago, i've long since forgotten the links, sorry). If the CF (or anyone here) has looked into it, why hasnt it been a competitor? I know the MH-6 isn't exactly on par with the Apache Longbow (or other competitors) but since its armed, most likely less expensive, and smaller, wouldnt that make it a good possible competitor?

Edit: (The actual link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-6

Regards

 

[Loachman]

It's a dated aircraft. RH70 will be the new US Army ARMED reconnaissance helicopter, replacing OH58D.

Whether or not MH6 is replaced depends upon other factors, such as transportability. One of its advantages is that three can be placed into a single Herc and flown anywhere very quickly, and another is that it looks less aggressive than AH64 (sometimes a less lethal "look" is a political advantage) while providing very effective fire support OR moving as many troops as a single Huey (when configured for troop lift).

We could put three Kiowas into one Herc as well, so this should hold true for RH70 as well.