apache vs. super cobra

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

WinsettZ RE:apache vs. super cobra 9/1/2003 9:45:25 PM

Apache. The Longbow has a cool dome, which helps for coordination. Cobra and Apaches will do pretty well against a Soviet tank force, but whichever has more armor today against ambushes and rpgs and stuff. I have faith that a newer airframe is better off then a older airframe, in terms of wear. So, Apaches. They got shot up in Operation Anaconda...still flying.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:apache vs. super cobra 9/1/2003 11:28:46 PM

The AH-1Z is upgrading 60's UH-1 technology while the AH-64D has digital capabilities from the 90's derived from the Commanche LHX program. The AH-1Z with its upgrades will still be a generation behind the Apache AH-64D. link link

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:apache vs. super cobra 9/2/2003 3:49:08 AM

I have one issue with the Apache: Supplies. From what I have read, it is an extrem maintainance requirer and supply-goppler. This is defencible if you paln to meet massive armoured thrusts, where you need to destroy a lot of tanks fast. Question is: Is a somewhat simpler attack helicopter not sufficient for a lot of other tasks?

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:apache vs. super cobra 9/2/2003 11:58:01 AM

"Is a somewhat simpler attack helicopter not sufficient for a lot of other tasks?" Yes. The theory is though, that the more advanced version can do the job as well, as well as things the simpler system can't do. And you won't get both. Thats why the original question is moot. Of course you'll take the Apache. But the Corps has always found its more cost effective to upgrade existing weapons systems than to get a new one when it first comes out. Let someone else work out the bugs, then at some point, obtain a "seasoned" system. The Corps would still have M60 tanks if the M1 hadn't been forced on them. But back to Thomas's question. All helicopters are expensive to maintain, even the "simple" ones. Its got something to do with having to rebuild the engine (and/or rotor?) frequently. Thats why you'll never see multiple types of attack helicopters, but you will see multi-role helicopters. Because of the expense, its just more cost effective to buy a large production run of one type. Over the years, there have been many "low cost" attack helios that have been proposed that per unit, were cheaper to operate, but couldn't compete with the existing helios which had already been invested in. But now we have UCAVs. And alot of those roles those "low cost" attack helios could do, UCAVs can do now. Hence, brigades and battalions are getting UCAV to perform them, because the unit cost is so cheap. And since they are so cheap, there are numerous types out there. Who knows? Maybe in addition to obsoleteing manned aircraft, combat helios in general may become obsolete.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:apache vs. super cobra ... missing point 9/2/2003 12:05:54 PM

Want to make sure the point about the Corps being "cost efficient" is understood. The Corps can be that way only because the Army can't. When the new toys come out, the Corps can sit back and watch the Army, even send observors or advisors. Once the Army absorbs the development costs, then the Corps can purchase the equipment at a more normal cost. Its no different than when any new computer equipment or piece of software is announced. Let someone else be on the "bleeding edge". Once the bugs are worked out and the thing is patched, you buy the "mature" product. It makes life alot simpler as long as someone else goes thru the development pains. Thats what the Army, and to a lesser extent, the Air Force and Navy do for the Corps.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:apache vs. super cobra 9/3/2003 2:39:08 AM

My wondering was based on the fact that the danish Fennec simply isn't up to the job. All helos are expensive to maintain - the moving parts are a committee-desing - have to satisfy all sorts of requirements. But thanks: You have confirmed one of my sneaking suspicions. Denmark should not buy apache, but cobra. We can't afford to many mistakes.

Quote Reply

Interrested RE:apache vs. super cobra 9/4/2003 7:10:47 AM

I think you missed the point a bit. The Apache right now is a mature airframe, all be an expensive one. It will be (is) the most frequently deployed attack helicopter and the most advanced one. Interoperability with the American's will have many benefits (manly logistics) on the battlefield. As vividly shown during the last even attack helicopters need armor protection agains small arms fire from the ground. A Apache can survive mutiple 23mm hits while a Cobra will not. Even a .50 with AP munition can spoil the cobra's day Furthermore de new Cobra has still many mant bugs, with vibration, software and handeling probelems to sort out. (it not really on shedule or cost....) The AH-1Z will be a very good, well equipt, agile attack helicopter for the marines but I'm affraid it lacks a bit in the "protection" department. Last, the delay's in the AH-1Z program have spiralled the cost the unit. It's beginning to rival the AH-64D, even without the troubles experienced with the milimetric rader pods on the cobra.... Ofcourse the greater weapons variety and the salt protection make it ideal for brown water operations and therefor ideal for the marines. Greetings to all

Quote Reply

Brock RE:apache vs. super cobra 11/25/2003 3:01:47 AM

The Super (King)Cobra all the way. The Apache is a maintenance nightmare. The Apache is by far the most sophisticated, but the Longbow radar is overrated. Reports--via Tom Clancy, an official US military advisor--show that the Apache force is rougly 25-40% less serviceable than the Super Cobra. In its newest upgrade, which makes it basically a new helicoper, the AH-1Z will rival the AH-64, minus the Longbow radar, in capabilities. Indeed, the AH-1Z is probably more capable, due to a more modern fire control and targeting system.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:apache vs. super cobra 11/25/2003 8:26:31 AM

Anyway! As there are few enemies of capacity in the forseable future, I would opt for the AH-1. A) You get an attack helo. B) If a serious enemy comes up - you will have to buy new equipment anyhow.

Quote Reply

Snakedriver RE:apache vs. super cobra 12/20/2003 7:13:45 PM

I am a former Army Cobra pilot who turned down an Apache transition when it first came out. I stuck with tried and true until the bugs were worked out. All Cobras except the Z model have a teetering rotor system which has some severe limitations and nasty habits when not handled right. You can get things like mast-bumping when the yoke flexes down and makes physical contact with the mast and the occasional taking out the guy in the front pit on hard landings. You really can't manuever a teetering system like a semi-rigid or rigid system like the Apache or Z model Cobra. The dome on the Longbow is a millimetric wave-length radar that gives very crisp black and white near photograph quality images coupled to MM Hellfires. The flat plate canopy of the Apache isn't as aerodynamic as the round but that only causes slight trim issues. Personally I would say that the Z is better than the Apache for several reasons. The SuperCobra has the ability to carry some significant heavy ordinance in addition to being able to carry everything the Apache can; Mavericks, Zuni rockets, sidewinder missiles linked to a HMS. It still lacks a mast-mounted sight but that may be fixed in the future. The Apache may be tested and cleared to fire these types of weapons but never will. I have yet to see an Apache carry stingers. I just haven't seen it. Marines carry the ordinance. I don't know when the Army put on chaff/flare dispensers on the Apache or if they ever did. We never had them when I was in while the Marines did. I just think the Z is better equipped. It does need to be put on new build airframes though. Long live the Snake!!!

Quote Reply

1 2