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
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
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?
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.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.
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.