Is Mi-24 Hind A Good Substitute For The Apache?
-
its not the equipment, its the driver.Originally posted by seancannot:Think Apache is a white elephant it was reported in Iraqi when 31 apahce tried to attack an iraqi column 30 of them were hit and one was downed. It was the A10 warthog that came to their rescue. Did RSAF make a big mistake ? -
as someone said... its the driver upstair.. where the fault lies... if your officer give you a knife and ask you to take out an M1 ABRAM MBT.. you wont blame the knife would you?Originally posted by seancannot:Think Apache is a white elephant it was reported in Iraqi when 31 apahce tried to attack an iraqi column 30 of them were hit and one was downed. It was the A10 warthog that came to their rescue. Did RSAF make a big mistake ? -
some people mightOriginally posted by tripwire:as someone said... its the driver upstair.. where the fault lies... if your officer give you a knife and ask you to take out an M1 ABRAM MBT.. you wont blame the knife would you?
-
So what is the value of Apache... its widely publicise Apache failed in Iraq.. an RPG can down it... so when we take on nation X how does Apache come into play..Originally posted by kopiosatu:its not the equipment, its the driver.
Is it a piece of junk purchased by our scholar decision maker -
any rpg can down any helicopter that still uses a tail rotor system.Originally posted by seancannot:So what is the value of Apache... its widely publicise Apache failed in Iraq.. an RPG can down it... so when we take on nation X how does Apache come into play..
Is it a piece of junk purchased by our scholar decision maker -
If the apache is designed for an anti-armour role and achieve that kind of damage/performance, as describe as above, attacking an armour column. That is what a suppose to do, why just blame a well trained pilots ? BTW 31 apache ?Originally posted by kopiosatu:[quote]Originally posted by seancannot:
Think Apache is a white elephant it was reported in Iraqi when 31 apahce tried to attack an iraqi column 30 of them were hit and one was downed. It was the A10 warthog that came to their rescue. Did RSAF make a big mistake
its not the equipment, its the driver.
that's alot of them, and got bashed, against an enemy without sam ? -
Well,this is my way of looking at things, you know hw Boeing always emphasises of the Apache's LongBow Radar system which allows it to pop up over terrain, lock on to targets,compute a fire solution,assign them to others in the attack group, den pop up again, before unleashing the Hellfires on the, and ducking away.Once missile strike, pop up to confirm kill. I doubt that Apache pilots are trained to actually fire on the move as a form of tactics. Thus, if you are constantly popping up and down, firstly, your position can be narrowed down.once you pop up again, naturally, I will lob everything from HMGs,RPGs, Mobile SAMs, Small Arms Fire, spitballs, paperclips and rubberbands, etc....in your location. When faced with a wall of projectiles, chances are there some will hit.
However in the case of the A-10, I belief that their ability to swoop in fast, and maintain a low speed, and fire away Mavericks of the IR or TV Guided variety and its GAU-8 7 barrel 30mm gun which fires depleted-uranium ammunition which are able to penetrate bodies of tanks,thats a whole lot of difference between moving and shooting, and being stationary and shooting. We all know how hard to hit a moving target right?So precisely the point, I believe the Apache is a competent weapons platform, but the doctrine regulating its fighting style should be changed. -
1 chopper paints and the rest can fire without even being seen.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well,this is my way of looking at things, you know hw Boeing always emphasises of the Apache's LongBow Radar system which allows it to pop up over terrain, lock on to targets,compute a fire solution,assign them to others in the attack group, den pop up again, before unleashing the Hellfires on the, and ducking away.Once missile strike, pop up to confirm kill. I doubt that Apache pilots are trained to actually fire on the move as a form of tactics. Thus, if you are constantly popping up and down, firstly, your position can be narrowed down.once you pop up again, naturally, I will lob everything from HMGs,RPGs, Mobile SAMs, Small Arms Fire, spitballs, paperclips and rubberbands, etc....in your location. When faced with a wall of projectiles, chances are there some will hit.
However in the case of the A-10, I belief that their ability to swoop in fast, and maintain a low speed, and fire away Mavericks of the IR or TV Guided variety and its GAU-8 7 barrel 30mm gun which fires depleted-uranium ammunition which are able to penetrate bodies of tanks,thats a whole lot of difference between moving and shooting, and being stationary and shooting. We all know how hard to hit a moving target right?So precisely the point, I believe the Apache is a competent weapons platform, but the doctrine regulating its fighting style should be changed. -
all i can say, sh|t happens... that's warOriginally posted by MobyDog:If the apache is designed for an anti-armour role and achieve that kind of damage/performance, as describe as above, attacking an armour column. That is what a suppose to do, why just blame a well trained pilots ? BTW 31 apache ? that's alot of them, and got bashed, against an enemy without sam ?
wrong tactic, make a mistake and you affect EVERYONE. -
Think you must look at the Apache being able to more accurate in weapon delivery then the Mi-24.
In war time of course more accurate delivery of weapon save time and lives.
However if one cannot afford apache, with air-support in the form of mi-24 will also make a lot of different to the outcome of battle, but all those depends on the equipment of the enemy also. -
really? Wasn't there alot of problems with the powder-like sand?Originally posted by kopiosatu:its not the equipment, its the driver. -
if you're talking abot FOD ingestion into the engine. Then that depends on whether there was any form of filtration device fitted at the air intake area.Originally posted by lwflee:really? Wasn't there alot of problems with the powder-like sand?
now if nature was a possiblity of mission failure, would it totally mean a failure on the equipment? i would say its a design flaw for desert warfare. And if sand was the cause of engine failure, then where do we find lots of sand here?
Rather than find excuses to put down the equipment, find reasons why the equipment has failed, and does it apply to us? -
maintenance wise, i would prefer they took the money to buy another super puma whenever we have a major servicing. Rather than waste time stripping, checking and fitting the whole thing back again. But buying a whole new aircraft is just not ideal would it?
What we can do however is modify the aircraft to suit OUR needs. And that is one of the criteria that Singapore always looks for when purchasing an aircraft, is it upgradable?
So instead of saying, we should have bought this or that, maybe you guys can look into why Singapore didn't buy this or that if it was such a good buy in your eyes? If you can list down the reasons, you will truly understand why the military/government purchased that equipment. -
So why did we buy the apache..
since now we know about their failure in IRAq will we still purchse more of them -
So why did we buy the apache..
since now we know about their failure in IRAq will we still purchse more of them -
then its time to sit down and analyse this question and find some answers through more thinking.Originally posted by seancannot:So why did we buy the apache..
since now we know about their failure in IRAq will we still purchse more of them -
firstly, i think you all have to find out is...
why did it fail? what was the casual factor for the failure? does it have any effect on us?
rather than look at failure and just "regret", take failure as a lesson learnt.
"learn from other people's mistakes, not from your own"
that is why there are publications, doctrines, all written down. when it fails, it will be analysed and decisions would be made to change the practice or to adapt the practice.
all this talk about apache failing and asking why we bought them is a pretty narrow way of thinking and suggesting any "solution". -
if engine failure due to FOD ingestion is the cause of the failure of the apaches, then the logical step to counter that would be to attach air intake filters at the air intake section.
But is it really an issue in our kind of terrain? So far the GE engines of the Chinook are still alright, only the Makila engines of the super puma have MPAIs attached. But the SAR aircrafts don't have it because of weight constraints.
For now the only gripe I hear about the apache is the wearing of the weather seal around the cockpit. -
Just curious: would attaching air intake filters extract any kind of performance penalty due to a possible reduction in the volume of air moving through the powerplant?Originally posted by kopiosatu:if engine failure due to FOD ingestion is the cause of the failure of the apaches, then the logical step to counter that would be to attach air intake filters at the air intake section. -
it depends on the engine itself. ultimately, excess air will still be thrown out via a bleed valve.Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:Just curious: would attaching air intake filters extract any kind of performance penalty due to a possible reduction in the volume of air moving through the powerplant?
so for now you can still put that on a chopper engine, haven't seen one on a fighter jet! -
No weapon is invincible, if Apaches is one, everyone will be buying Apaches and nothing else!!!
But the track record for Apaches is very impressive, during Operation Desert Storm, AH-64s were credited with destroying more than 500 tanks plus hundreds of additional armored personnel carriers, trucks and other vehicles.
( Estimated to be over 800s vehicles)
They also were used to destroy vital early warning radar sites, an action that opened the U.N. coalition's battle plan.
The example you provided on the Karbala show how Apaches should not operate alone but it also show how well armoured this "flying tanks" are, all 31 were shot up by guns and RPGs but only one was shot down, the rest managed to fly back even been shot at and sustain damaged!!!!
Here a links abt Apaches performance over the years:
http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0104&file=0104apache.htm
I think by now, Apaches( US and Israel) have destroyed almost 1000 vehicles/targets in all the wars it's has involved, but how many Apaches has been shot down by enemy???
If you have that exact data, you will know the Apaches is certainly worth it!!!!