RSAF Apaches are coming home! --- Next year.
-
Every helicopter weakest point is the main rotor and tail rotor. These 2 moving parts are the least armoured but most critical in operating the helicopter. Due to these 2 parts are always under constant mechanical stress in fatigue cyclic loading, internal stress could weaken the component severly and cause failure at a much lower stress / impact level.
-
One more new display for next year NDP06.
-
I agree with tango on that. Apaches generally do like to stop hover, shoot, and then scoot. That was how they were trained to handle a potential european conflict against the Russians. They did that pretty OK back in the first gulf war as well. But that was because they were supporting ground troops, and thus did not suffer much casualties.
I cant say if they were playing the exact same role the 2nd time round, but I suspect they were playing more of killer/scout role rather than ground support. I saw some videos where the apache literally hovered there for a whole 10 mins, staring at some exchange between some insurgents, before finally taking them out with their chin mounted 30mms. -
Bottom line is, you can uparmour the Apache all you want, and it'll still be a vulnerable target. Apaches are tank-killers, not tanks.
Scoring an 'M' kill against a tank means that the tank can't move but can still swivel its turret around and blast you to pieces. In contrast, scoring an 'M' kill against an Apache is as good as scoring a total kill against it. An airborne helicopter with a dead engine is a dead helicopter.
After all, we've all seen what the humble RPG can do to Black Hawks in Somalia. No reason why it can't do the same to Apaches. -
M Land recently both abt thousand plus FN-6 from China and gets tech transfer, will those be of a threat?
-
that looks like a stinger clone to me ..... dunno about the actual capabilities though ...Originally posted by equlus84:M Land recently both abt thousand plus FN-6 from China and gets tech transfer, will those be of a threat?
http://www.people.com.cn/GB/junshi/63/20010626/497486.html
translation:
designed to hit targets ranging from a height of 15-3500 meters,
range 500 to 5000m, able to attack head-on targets travelling at up to a speed of 360m/s,
and "tail chase" targets at speeds of up to 300m/s,
72mm diameter, 1.495 metre long ... infrared tracker
Single shot PK of 70% .... -
wad countermeasure systems are the our AH-64s equipped with? Do they have an integrated Missile approach warning (MAWs) system? do they carry chaff and flares or jammers or anything?
-
You think China will supply them with good missiles now?
After the malaysian scandals?
If i were China PM , i would place self detonating devices inside the missiles bound for malaysia at no extra charge -
Yeah, saw some article on JDW about M'sias FN-6. Article also stated that they are favoring the KS-1A system over the Buk-1 too. Whats new?
Apparently, they also hope to get more 105mm howitzers (air portable i suspect,) as well as more Multipler Rocket Launching Systems. Thats a hell lot of firepower.
Oh, i figured there isn't a point getting 105mm howitzers if they weren't air portable right? -
probably for their rapid deployment brigade ...Originally posted by Shotgun:Yeah, saw some article on JDW about M'sias FN-6. Article also stated that they are favoring the KS-1A system over the Buk-1 too. Whats new?
Apparently, they also hope to get more 105mm howitzers (air portable i suspect,) as well as more Multipler Rocket Launching Systems. Thats a hell lot of firepower.
Oh, i figured there isn't a point getting 105mm howitzers if they weren't air portable right?
and yes, that's a lot of fire-power ... these chappies are unable (or unwilling) to outspend us ... so they concentrate on purchases that will negate any tactical advantage that we'll have ... and remember this ... we're not the only armed forces engaged in RMI you know .... whatever high tech toys that we may have, it still doesn't negate our geo-strategic vulnerabilities .... take their MLRS for example ... to quote from an academic paper i read from the IDSS, a battalion of MLRS in southern johore will be a strategic weapon ..... whereas a battalion of similar MLRS in Singapore would still only be a tactical one ......
I sometimes wonder if the senior brass will be so dazzled by all the new-fangled high tech toys that they develop a kind of institutional myopia .... thinking that everything can be solved with the push of a button ..... -
Some combat experienes of the Apaches:
http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0104&file=0104apache.htm -
If their MLRS locks in on the coordinates provided by google earth, there really isn't much we can do is there?
However, if they were to deploy MLRS into southern johore, I'm sure we'd make similar deployments to pre-empt the move. -
The 1st of the 3rd also made the first tank kill with the radar-guided Hellfire. As they did in Desert Storm, Apaches in Iraqi Freedom devastated massed armor. When asked why he surrendered his unit, an Iraqi Republican Guard general reportedly responded simply, "Apaches."
That was soo propaganda.
It wasn't the apaches the iraqis were afraid of. It was the ability of the americans to target Iraqi armored units that shook them up.
During the Iran - Iraq war, the Iraqi tank crews would often sleep in their tanks. Less comfort, but more protection.
That changed during the first Gulf war when american night optics and advanced targeting systems came into play. Day and Night, the US Aircraft were able to accurately target their vehicles and destroy them with impunity. Their tanks were no longer safe places to rest in. Most opted to rest outside their tanks, turn off their engines and pray they weren't attack.
In the event of a ground attack, brave crews would mount up, hopefully start the vehicle up and fight before they got destroyed. Most ran.
This was why the American armored forces pretty much roll over the Iraqi Republican Guards armored forces back in the first Gulf war. It is also partially explains why the americans were able to get off the first shot most of the time.
And it wasn't just because of the apaches. -
What if the 7.62 hit the hellfire the Apaches is carrying?Originally posted by Delta 5:Never believe stories told by the Iraqi resistance forces... Not to mention that the press of any country is known to blow up small matters.
Many opponents of the USA like to spin tall tales about how they can bring them down, such as an Iraqi with an AK-47 shooting down an Apache for that matter, or China claiming it can destroy US Carrier battle Groups. Not that I am a supporter of the USA but can these countries at least make viable claims. A SA-10 or SA-15 system shooting down an Apache would perhaps be more believable.
The truth is that Apaches are immune to small arms fire of up to 7.62mm, resistant against 12.7mm fire and even with a 23/25/30 mm AA Gun bringing down a heavily armoured Apache is no mean feat.
Are the hellfire immune to small arms? -
Well, Apaches is not the only asset that is devastating to Iraqi armoured forces but one of the main one, first thing it have good standoff weapon against them i.e. Hellfire which outrange any VSHORADs missiles.Originally posted by Shotgun:That was soo propaganda.
It wasn't the apaches the iraqis were afraid of. It was the ability of the americans to target Iraqi armored units that shook them up.
During the Iran - Iraq war, the Iraqi tank crews would often sleep in their tanks. Less comfort, but more protection.
That changed during the first Gulf war when american night optics and advanced targeting systems came into play. Day and Night, the US Aircraft were able to accurately target their vehicles and destroy them with impunity. Their tanks were no longer safe places to rest in. Most opted to rest outside their tanks, turn off their engines and pray they weren't attack.
In the event of a ground attack, brave crews would mount up, hopefully start the vehicle up and fight before they got destroyed. Most ran.
This was why the American armored forces pretty much roll over the Iraqi Republican Guards armored forces back in the first Gulf war. It is also partially explains why the americans were able to get off the first shot most of the time.
And it wasn't just because of the apaches.
Second , as you said , it is the more advanced night optics and advanced targeting systems that US army have which BTW is also can be found in the Apaches which is of the most sophisticated that US army have.
For example US Apaches pilots, they have this training which the entire co
The purpose is to train them for nite fighting which depends on the Apaches' sensors, this exe give them total confidance in operating at nite even in total darkness during real combat condition.
Edit:
I try type in co -
National day got new stuff to see
-
You'll be flying with the film crewOriginally posted by X-men:National day got new stuff to see -
Damn....not going back for ICT already if not sure get to see them one...
cant even see them flying in sg sky... sighz.. -
i should be seeing until sian
-
finally is coming in sg emblem.......
-
well said. lack of strategic depth will always be our weakest point.Originally posted by Fatum:I sometimes wonder if the senior brass will be so dazzled by all the new-fangled high tech toys that they develop a kind of institutional myopia .... thinking that everything can be solved with the push of a button ..... -
the Iraqi tankees surrendered to anything that came along, which was commonly the Apaches. They were surrendering at company level because of the F-111 (aircraft of the week) were hitting the tanks one by one by one by one. Until they freaked out.Originally posted by Shotgun:That was soo propaganda.
It wasn't the apaches the iraqis were afraid of. It was the ability of the americans to target Iraqi armored units that shook them up.
During the Iran - Iraq war, the Iraqi tank crews would often sleep in their tanks. Less comfort, but more protection.
That changed during the first Gulf war when american night optics and advanced targeting systems came into play. Day and Night, the US Aircraft were able to accurately target their vehicles and destroy them with impunity. Their tanks were no longer safe places to rest in. Most opted to rest outside their tanks, turn off their engines and pray they weren't attack.
In the event of a ground attack, brave crews would mount up, hopefully start the vehicle up and fight before they got destroyed. Most ran.
This was why the American armored forces pretty much roll over the Iraqi Republican Guards armored forces back in the first Gulf war. It is also partially explains why the americans were able to get off the first shot most of the time.
And it wasn't just because of the apaches.
The tanks were buried under sand right up to the hatch sill. As day turned to night, the different rate of cooling, metal and sand shows up very well under the IR scope.
This was first noticed by the F-117 pilots as they returned from night missions. So planners tasked a pair to try it out. The rest is history.
BTW F-111 dropped the heaviest GBU in the closing days of the war. -
Yes, but the aircraft that was most involved in tank plinking was actually the F-111s and F-15Es. The apaches weren't sent out really as killer scout packages as often as the vipers were. The F-16s would patrol a 30 by 30 mile sectors, calling in fighter bombers to take out the tanks/artillery they spotted.
They figured that an F-111 carrying 8 500lb GBUS, would only cost them $50,000 to kill 8 tanks. Each tank costing half a mil, it was the most cost efficient way to kill tanks. Apaches and Hellfires weren't really as "Dollar for dollar" compared to tank plinking.
Tank plinking also carried a distinct advantage for allied airpower. They could stay above low altitude, orbit about medium altitude to destroy tanks. That kept them out of manpads and other shoulder launched hazards. Apaches still COULD accidentally run into some of these anti- air fire.