AH-1Z Cobra attack helicopter to replace AH-1W Super Cobra

[Fenway]

So they gave the Cobra Apache features with this new version... Why not use Apaches? Is it a price issue? Please edumacate me

[ame]http://youtu.be/jaWpvBQJr08[/ame]

 

[shooter521]

So they gave the Cobra Apache features with this new version... Why not use Apaches? Is it a price issue? Please edumacate me

http://youtu.be/jaWpvBQJr08

IIRC, it was an issue of the Cobra platform being better suited to shipborne operations. Lighter weight, perhaps? AND, the Marines have been using Cobras for so long to great effect, why switch?

 

[Stschil]

Cobras leak less than the apaches. Saving $$ on hydrolic fluid.

 

[shooter521]

Hi, I'm a badass. Howyadoin'?

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Per the wiki:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache

Naval versions of the AH-64A for the United States Marine Corps and Navy were examined from 1984 to 1987.https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipe...pache#cite_note-Richardson_Peacock_p60-61-148https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#cite_note-Donald_p150-149 The Canadian Forces Maritime Command also examined the prospect of using a modified Apache in naval service.https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#cite_note-150 Multiple concepts were studied with altered landing gear arrangements, improved avionics and weapons.https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipe...pache#cite_note-Richardson_Peacock_p60-61-148 Funding for the naval version was not provided, and the Marine Corps has continued to use the AH-1 SuperCobra.https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#cite_note-Donald_p170-151 The US expressed interest in trials onboard HMS Ocean to test the suitability of the AgustaWestland Apache used by the British Army.https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#cite_note-seatrials1-92

So the funding was never provided to navalise the Apache.


The AH-1Z was originally suppose to be an airframe upgrade, where they just reuse the aircraft they presently have, but the Marines were able to funding to also buy additional airframes. Also, there is suppose to be a high percentage of parts commonality between the AH-1Z & the UH-1Y, which the Apache would not have.

When you factor in additional training costs, parts cost & the money required to navalise the Apache, it was cheaper to go with the upgraded Cobra.

 

[60Driver]

As Shooter stated the Zulu is more adapted to shipboard use. As an evolution of the Whiskey model it will utilize much of the same logistics train (support equipment, some parts etc) and be a faster transition for Mechs and Aviators. The AH-64 while a viscious attack bird in it's own right would require a LOT of redesign to "navalise" it. The Snake also has a smaller "footprint" for spotting it on the flight deck.

By all accounts it is a stellar upgrade in terms of performance and avionics. Big plus having that four blade system allowing a broader flight envelope and the ability to carry those extra AGM-114s

 

[ATOMonkey]

This is the USMC/Navy trick to get new birds without having to go through all the hoops of re-certifying a new platform, AND getting funding through congress.

Congress is much more likely to approve an "upgrade" than a whole new vehicle.

The 47s, the 53s, the UH1, the FA-18, where all given SIGNIFICANT overhauls to the point that the only thing original about them is the basic shape.

Heck, they ADDED an engine to the 53 and called it an upgrade. The Super Hornet only vaguely resembles the original Hornet.

All because our procurement system is so jacked up.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

This is the USMC/Navy trick to get new birds without having to go through all the hoops of re-certifying a new platform, AND getting funding through congress.

Congress is much more likely to approve an "upgrade" than a whole new vehicle.

The 47s, the 53s, the UH1, the FA-18, where all given SIGNIFICANT overhauls to the point that the only thing original about them is the basic shape.

Heck, they ADDED an engine to the 53 and called it an upgrade. The Super Hornet only vaguely resembles the original Hornet.

All because our procurement system is so jacked up.

What is your suggestion to overhaul the procurement system?

 

[$mooth]

I used to be an engineer on the H-1 upgrade program (Yankees and Zulus) in a previous life, so I'll throw in my .

The Z is a quicker and more agile fighter than the AH-64. Think of it as a street fighter for close air support mission vs anti-tank. It's incredibly slim and has basically the same armament (20mm cannon on the Z vs 30mm on the 64).

Some cool stuff:
- The cyclic has two triggers; the lower one slews the gun to your helmet, so wherever you're looking, you're shooting.
- Though not usually listed, it can be outfitted in all air to air configuration. That means 10 AIM-9s plus the 20mm. Not sure a good use for it, UAV hunting maybe? Sure as heck isn't going up against MIGs.
- AH-1Z and UH-1Y have 84% common parts. In fact, everything behind the cabin is the exact same. This is a huge reduction in logistics footprint.
- I know many think of the Apache as the attack helicopter of choice, but before the 80s, the Cobra was that. Bell had some dumb CEOs for a stretch that basically told the Army to go shove it as they are a civilian company and doing the Army a favor by building these. They pitched a 2 blade helicopter with limited capabilities and the Army (rightfully) went with Hughes.
- The original Zs had the same exhaust as the Ws (vertical). This caused the tailboom to light up like a Christmas tree on FLIR, so in a two week operation Bell XworX redesigned and issued a turned exhaust (horizontal) that made a significant difference. So you may see pictures of it in both configurations.
- The 20mm cannon under the nose is electrically primed, but mechanically fired. It does not clear itself when the trigger is released. If you do not check it when you pull it into the hangar, you may have a big oops. someone spun the cannon in the hangar and left a few big holes in the hangar door.
- I've never heard anyone associated with the program call it the Viper. Only the Cobra, SuperCobra or (usually) Zulu.

I'll shut up now cause it's probably way more than people wanted to hear. I'm just excited cause we got to a topic I know something about.

 

[$mooth]

My favorite poster:

 

[60Driver]

Viper = F-16, Snake = Cobra, and for $mooth; The drivers I know overall Love the Zulu thanks for helping build a great bird!

 

[ATOMonkey]

What is your suggestion to overhaul the procurement system?

Simple really.

During the contract competition, contractors should bring production ready birds.

Then no cost plus contracting for production. One lump sum, for XXX aircraft.

The way is used to be.

Boeing showed up with a 2/3 scale "concept demonstrator" when they were trying to win the JSF contract.

Lockheed used a plane that had a wrong nose gear, no avionics, and a VERY experimental version of the liftfan.

Since then they've up the weight rating on the plane, upped the power requirements on the liftfan (which necessitated a complete re-design) and changed the mission requirements for the plane.

It's THE most frustrating thing. They had us designing to old specs at one point, becaue we didn't have the funding for the new specs, EVEN THOUGH WE KNEW WHAT THE NEW SPECS WERE. That's because you have to pass certain "gates" in the development process (after you win the concept deomonstrator phase) to continue to gain funding for development.

It's a complete circle jerk.

IMO, the USMC/NAVY does it best way possible to circumvent all the BS.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

ATOMonkey:

It sounds like the industry went to the cost plus model because the military keep doing feature creep on what they wanted.

There is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the procurement process, but the majority of programs come into the system on time and budget. Some programs take on a life of their own and personally i would expect the F35 to be this large of a cluster since it is expected to be the last mass produced manned fighter. Too many interests are involved in this project to make it a simple thing.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Feature creep happens because someone lets it happen. Most of it is not necessary, it just makes the product a little nicer to use or operate.

For instance, the additional power requirement comes because planes now have to vertical land fully loaded, or they want it to STO on a shorter runway, or with an additional fuel or armament load.

The VSTOL would already be in active squads operating with a shorter range, or less armament if they would have stuck with the original reqs.

These airframes only have a certain number of hours on them, so putting so much time and effort in up front isn't really money well spent. Just my humble opinion. We're going to do 20 years of R&D on a platform that is going to be obsolete and worn out in 10 years. Especially with the limited number of birds being built. That means more flight hours per year, less training, and more down time per year for scheduled maintenence.

It's just very frustrating. Especially since there already isn't enough planes for the aviators that need to fly them. The Harrier is a great example of this. A plane that requires a ton of flight hours to stay sharp that is always down for maintenence, and so few planes available, that pilots only get a couple hours a month in them.

It's just bad planning.

(still ranting)

The F-15 is another example of this. They have limited G-load during training to try to extend the life of the airframe. What the hell good does that do? Especially when there's a good chance that it'll break up in combat? What replaces it? VERY limited numbers of F-22, that most aviators have very little seat time in, that are flown so often that they'll be junk in no time.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Per the wiki:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache


So the funding was never provided to navalise the Apache.


The AH-1Z was originally suppose to be an airframe upgrade, where they just reuse the aircraft they presently have, but the Marines were able to funding to also buy additional airframes. Also, there is suppose to be a high percentage of parts commonality between the AH-1Z & the UH-1Y, which the Apache would not have.

When you factor in additional training costs, parts cost & the money required to navalise the Apache, it was cheaper to go with the upgraded Cobra.

This ^^^ Essentially, because of what ATOmonkey was getting at. The process to develop a whole new system is really expensive. The process to adapt an existing system to your needs is moderately expensive (depending on the the adaptions necessary and what part of the acquisition process those modifications will fall into). The process to upgrade an existing airframe, with all the current logistics for life-cycle support in place is relatively cheap compared to the first 2 options.

 

[ATOMonkey]

This ^^^ Essentially, because of what ATOmonkey was getting at. The process to develop a whole new system is really expensive. The process to adapt an existing system to your needs is moderately expensive (depending on the the adaptions necessary and what part of the acquisition process those modifications will fall into). The process to upgrade an existing airframe, with all the current logistics for life-cycle support in place is relatively cheap compared to the first 2 options.

Congress critters aren't the smartest people either. You can pitch them an "upgrade" which is essentially a clean sheet redesign that looks similar to the old product, and they'll sign off on it all day every day. Because they are told there is less risk, and it will be easy to merge into the existing infrastructure, and blah blah blah. Also, it requires NO bid process. A very time consuming and expensive procedure.

I fully support the way the Marines and Navy procure equipment.

 

[Fenway]

Thanks!

I used to be an engineer on the H-1 upgrade program (Yankees and Zulus) in a previous life, so I'll throw in my .

The Z is a quicker and more agile fighter than the AH-64. Think of it as a street fighter for close air support mission vs anti-tank. It's incredibly slim and has basically the same armament (20mm cannon on the Z vs 30mm on the 64).

Some cool stuff:
- The cyclic has two triggers; the lower one slews the gun to your helmet, so wherever you're looking, you're shooting.
- Though not usually listed, it can be outfitted in all air to air configuration. That means 10 AIM-9s plus the 20mm. Not sure a good use for it, UAV hunting maybe? Sure as heck isn't going up against MIGs.
- AH-1Z and UH-1Y have 84% common parts. In fact, everything behind the cabin is the exact same. This is a huge reduction in logistics footprint.
- I know many think of the Apache as the attack helicopter of choice, but before the 80s, the Cobra was that. Bell had some dumb CEOs for a stretch that basically told the Army to go shove it as they are a civilian company and doing the Army a favor by building these. They pitched a 2 blade helicopter with limited capabilities and the Army (rightfully) went with Hughes.
- The original Zs had the same exhaust as the Ws (vertical). This caused the tailboom to light up like a Christmas tree on FLIR, so in a two week operation Bell XworX redesigned and issued a turned exhaust (horizontal) that made a significant difference. So you may see pictures of it in both configurations.
- The 20mm cannon under the nose is electrically primed, but mechanically fired. It does not clear itself when the trigger is released. If you do not check it when you pull it into the hangar, you may have a big oops. someone spun the cannon in the hangar and left a few big holes in the hangar door.
- I've never heard anyone associated with the program call it the Viper. Only the Cobra, SuperCobra or (usually) Zulu.

I'll shut up now cause it's probably way more than people wanted to hear. I'm just excited cause we got to a topic I know something about.