AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2699 times:
There is no doubt that the USAF faces significant hurdles in the years to come, but what I'd like to know is how the USMC thinks they can continue to buy overly expensive aircraft just as well versus perfectly viable alternatives readily available at a fraction of the costs: they dove all into the V-22 when they could have saved billions on a conventional rotary-winged medium lift replacement, they want F-35B's to replace not just their AV-8B's but also their F/A-18C/D's when F/A-18F's can be had at one-half to two-thirds the costs, rebuild and subsequently buy all new H-1 airframes versus buying readily available MH-60S and AH-64D+, etc.
The USMC Air Wing basically needed
a complete replacement of everything in the wing - choices should have and need to be made.
So, can the USAF buy some AC-130J's, more C-17's, F-15E+'s perhaps, F-35A's, F-22's, KC-45's, B-2's etc., and still make budget - where will they compromise?
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
AirRyan, normally I agree with your posts, but this one is an exception. Think about what your saying for a second. Lets analyze this.
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): There is no doubt that the USAF faces significant hurdles in the years to come, but what I'd like to know is how the USMC...
1) How in the heck did you get the USMC involved in this? The USMC was never mentioned in said link you posted. 2) Your confusing all of us. Is this a USMC thread, or a USAF thread?
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): but what I'd like to know is how the USMC thinks they can continue to buy overly expensive aircraft just as well versus perfectly viable alternatives readily available at a fraction of the costs:
OK, what are you talking about? The USMC is one to be proud of. They are using every air frame hour they can get out of their birds: helos, fixed, you name it, they are getting it. Hell, they are still flying the trusty CH-46 when the Navy retired that years ago.
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): they dove all into the V-22 when they could have saved billions on a conventional rotary-winged medium lift replacement, they want F-35B's to replace not just their AV-8B's but also their F/A-18C/D's when F/A-18F's can be had at one-half to two-thirds the costs, rebuild and subsequently buy all new H-1 airframes versus buying readily available MH-60S and AH-64D+, etc.
Time to tackle this. The true purpose of the V-22 remains controversial. As of right now, nobody really knows what this aircraft would be specifically good at, but so far its proving to be a capable bird of doing a bit of everything from troop hauling, cargo transport, and even risky "aero-scout" missions. All while maintaining a mission capable availability rate of 68.1%, which is not bad considering how technical this aircraft is. The Marines needed a aircraft that was the size of the CH-46, and the V-22 is the only thing that is close in that size. The Chinook is too big, while the Sea Hawk is too small.
For the F-35. Smart. VERY SMART. Kill two aircraft with one stone, thats efficiency in management and maintenance perspectives. The Marines need a close air support bird such as the AV-8B, but can deliver the firepower of a F/A-18, hence the F-35. On the upside of this, the F-35 maintains some stealth characteristics, its hard to fire at it if you don't even know it is around.
As far as the helos, well, different missions. Sure, the MH-60 would probably be a suitable replacement to the UH-1s, but the AH-64 Apache Longbow to replace the AH-1 Cobra? WTF? That helo would have to be redesigned to just think about landing on a ship, plus you have to consider what type of corrosion the components will have on a AH-64 due to the salt water, so you'll have to change those corrosive parts for non-corrosive ones, etc etc. The Apache was designed for a different environment from the get-go, and it would take a major conversion (which is lots of $$$) to even make it ocean environment friendly.
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): So, can the USAF buy some AC-130J's, more C-17's, F-15E+'s perhaps, F-35A's, F-22's, KC-45's, B-2's etc., and still make budget - where will they compromise?
They will compromise. They bought only 20 B-2s, C-5 re-engine program is being scraped, F-35s is being shared among the Navy and Marines, as well as foreign air forces (which makes it a little bit cheaper,) more C-17s and F-22s are definitely needed, not to sure about the F-15Es but I believe they are around 10 years of age, and then of course, the KC-45 program, which who knows what may happen with that one.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2659 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): they dove all into the V-22 when they could have saved billions on a conventional rotary-winged medium lift replacement
Why are you unwilling to accept the fact that the USAF and USMC wish to fly something faster and with better range than the slow helicopters of the 20th century?
Yes, there will always be a place for conventional RW acft, but perhaps Gen Brown, former USSOCOM Commander said it best when he wondered why VTOL acft were still flying as slow and with the same limitations as when he flew Huey's forty years ago in Vietnam?
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1):
1) How in the heck did you get the USMC involved in this? The USMC was never mentioned in said link you posted. 2) Your confusing all of us. Is this a USMC thread, or a USAF thread?
AirRyan is a former Marine helo mechanic... thus he knows the USMC side of the house better than others. And his hatred for the Air Force is... well... legendary.
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): The Marines need a close air support bird such as the AV-8B, but can deliver the firepower of a F/A-18, hence the F-35. On the upside of this, the F-35 maintains some stealth characteristics, its hard to fire at it if you don't even know it is around.
The problem I have always had with the F-35, and the heavily reliance on stealth... eventually someone figures out a way to detect it. Take the F-117 - it was only cutting edge for less than a decade, and eventually someone (in the F117's case, a significantly lesser power) will find a way to shoot it down.
And when the F-35 is heavily relying on stealth, it's killing power is dramatically reduced. And yes, I know the argument: the F-35 will fly in stealth mode for the opening days of the war, and once the air defense network is crippled, it will transition to a conventional configuration with external stores. But it's still a very limited frame while in pure clean configuration, especially the F-35B! Range is weak, payload is weak, radar is unimpressive... and arguably the strike ability is weakened with only one pilot on board.
It's a great step forward, but a "one-two knock out punch" .... sorry but I don't buy that.
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): As far as the helos, well, different missions. Sure, the MH-60 would probably be a suitable replacement to the UH-1s, but the AH-64 Apache Longbow to replace the AH-1 Cobra? WTF? That helo would have to be redesigned to just think about landing on a ship, plus you have to consider what type of corrosion the components will have on a AH-64 due to the salt water, so you'll have to change those corrosive parts for non-corrosive ones, etc etc.
This is simply not true, and a common misconception amongst people.
The truth is, the conversion being the two is really not that large, nor insurmountable... just as the conversion between the UH-60 and the SH-60 was not a huge project. The biggest issue has always been how to change the main landing gear to a wider base. But corrosion issues? Hardly.
The Corps was highly interested in the AH-64, and conducted sea trials, but they simply could not afford the airframe. That is honestly the answer why there is no Apaches in the Marines - money. Not corrosion issues. The Apache uses the same engine as the Black Hawk, and the T700 series performs quite nicely in the salt water environments, with the 401C mod. Also the rotor, transmission, hydraulics, and other major components have commonality with Sea Hawk parts, and could be modified for saltwater flying.
The issue with center of gravity has always been the biggest question. MD did a study on the modifications needed, and determined that the AH-64 would need to feature the same tail wheel configuration as the SH-60. The main landing gear was a different issue. It could be lowered (but the reason the Apache has high sitting struts, is because they compress during hard landings, to absorb the high G forces, and clearance for the gun. Now in the Marines version, they would have substituted the 30mm for a different gun, and that would have allowed for a lowered gear strut. They can also rearrange the strut for a wider base in this case. Or they could have moved the gear to the wing tips (at the Navy's request).
But the benefits would be tremendous. The Sea Apache could be outfitted to carry TOWs, Hellfires, [b]Harpoons, Sidewinders, Stingers, Penguin ASMs, etc... It would also be able to mount a ground search radar on either the nose or mass mounted. In almost every aspect the Sea Apache would offer greater capabilities than the Sea Cobra.
The issue was never really about whether it could be done, but whether the Marines were granted the funding. Being that they are usually low on the pecking order, the answer was already written on the walls.
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): The Apache was designed for a different environment from the get-go, and it would take a major conversion (which is lots of $$$) to even make it ocean environment friendly.
Again, not really. The Army has operated their AH-64s off naval ships, and MD has conducted tests. A basic modification could be made for very little money. And from there, greater mods could be designed based on what the USMC/Navy specifically wanted.
KevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2524 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): C-5 re-engine program is being scraped
That is partially true. The AF just ran an article saying how the program is moving forward. The B models and two C models are getting re-engined. All of the As however are not.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10483 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): OK, what are you talking about? The USMC is one to be proud of. They are using every air frame hour they can get out of their birds: helos, fixed, you name it, they are getting it. Hell, they are still flying the trusty CH-46 when the Navy retired that years ago.
Yes, and same for UH-1 Cobra.
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): For the F-35. Smart. VERY SMART. Kill two aircraft with one stone, thats efficiency in management and maintenance perspectives. The Marines need a close air support bird such as the AV-8B, but can deliver the firepower of a F/A-18, hence the F-35. On the upside of this, the F-35 maintains some stealth characteristics, its hard to fire at it if you don't even know it is around.
I agree. If money is to be spent, why spend it on 1970s tech? It seems the military is getting 30+ years out of fighter airframes. Do you know how obsolete an F-18 will be in 2040?
With regard to the linked article, I can see how Iraq/Afganistan is putting huge demands on the cargo fleet, but why the fighters? There is no airborne foe, and it's been a long time since I've heard of a bomb being dropped in Iraq. The last time that was tried, there were all kinds of issues with the local population: not surprisingly, no one wants to have a bomb dropped in their neighborhood. Maybe the taskings are greater in Afghanistan, but still I wouldn't think they would be severe. I'm pretty unaware of the taskings over there, can anyone fill me in?
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3): AirRyan is a former Marine helo mechanic... thus he knows the USMC side of the house better than others. And his hatred for the Air Force is... well... legendary.
Ahhh that explains it.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3): Range is weak, payload is weak, radar is unimpressive... and arguably the strike ability is weakened with only one pilot on board.
If your comparing it to the F/A-18 E/F birds, that makes sense, but the F-35 is designed to replace the F/A-18 A~D models and complement the Super Bug.
Quote:
The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:
-U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F
-U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22
-U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter
-United Kingdom Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft to replace Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter
-Other Countries Potential JSF customers include current operators of F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B
Regarding the AH-64, ok, the corrosion issue was a stretch and I stand rebutted. However, I'm given the impression the AH-64 has a reputation of being a bit of a hanger Queen, a bit maintenance heavy and expensive to run and obviously, as you pointed out, buy. I can see where you are coming from with the tremendous capabilities for the Apache, and how well it synchronizes with the Sea Hawk, but here's a question for you. Would you have the expensive Apache or the slightly less capable but cheaper Cobra for the Marines?
My impression is the Cobra and Apache are nearly 1 for 1 in some cases, while the Apache mainly has the upper hand in terms of electronics (especially Longbow). While the Apache would be very nice for the Marines, would they really need something of that caliber when the Cobra is doing the job already?
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3): The Army has operated their AH-64s off naval ships, and MD has conducted tests.
That I didn't know. Thanks for the info.
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 4): That is partially true. The AF just ran an article saying how the program is moving forward. The B models and two C models are getting re-engined. All of the As however are not.
Bah, my mistake, should have put partially scrapped. The damn thing is I just read that thread before I came to this one.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2446 times:
I just think our USAF is not good at bargaining. These days a great car costs only $25,000.
Why should a fighter jet cost $100 million? It just doesn't make sense. The govt paid to research those aircraft. Why, then, should they get ripped off on production? That is the 1 core of the problem.
Obviously R&D costs a lot. But it seems the USAF / USG already paid for that R&D. Why not send production out in a bidding process across Europe / USA? That would avoid the manufacturer having you by the balls for all eternity.
Production of anything doesn't cost $100 million. It's just financial smokescreen. The V-22 doesn't even cost $100 million per aircraft to produce. And yet it costs $200 million. That's a lot of damn money! Obviously we can't afford 400 of anything at $100 million a pop.
I am thinking that instead, the F-22 for example should cost around $50 million tops. The rest is just gravy for the manufacturer. They are really hoping to get filthy rich off these gotcha, small fleet deals.
The net effect is, we pay enormous money for very few aircraft. China will come along with 400 to 600 front line fighters, make no mistake. They won't match us but with Russia's help, they will come close. All without spending barely ANY money compared to us. Nobody with any sense would go about this as we have. Senseless.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3): The Corps was highly interested in the AH-64, and conducted sea trials, but they simply could not afford the airframe.
You could look also at the size of a Cobra to an Apache, you can fit alot more AH-1's in a carrier hanger deck than Apaches that includes the new AH-1X's coming on line, the same can said about the Huey compared to the H-60 which I think the USMC went for quantity instead of quality. A MEF equipped with AH-64 and UH-60's runs out of room real quick and don't forget about the CH-53E beasts on the carrier flight decks.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2313 times:
I believe the "Z" Cobras will be a rather capable platform. The "Y" Hueys not so much; the Corps should have picked up some of the MH-60s to replace them. I know the Corps loves the commonality between the Huey and Cobra, but the 60s would be nice to fill a void left by the Osprey (direct action, VBSS, etc). The 60s and Cobras both have the T700 motors, so a little commanality there.
The Apache seems more geared towards the "tank hunter/killer" mission, and the Marines use the Cobras in more direct support of the grunts on the ground.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4633 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2272 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 7): These days a great car costs only $25,000.
Why should a fighter jet cost $100 million?
In 1978 a Honda Accord cost just under $5,000 and as you note a "great" car is only $25,000 now, so that's a five-fold increase in the cost (for a much better car). The cost of an F-15 in 1976 was just under $20M and for the F-22, the true cost per plane (removing the development cost) is just under $80M. So that's just a four-fold increase in cost.
Not too bad comparatively.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 7): the F-22 for example should cost around $50 million top
Why? As noted above the flyaway cost is under $80M.
Tug
[Edited 2008-02-19 11:54:29]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4633 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2247 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 11):
That's not a real world figure. The price does include development costs, and no matter how you twist it, an F-22 costs considerably more than $100m.
It is real world, for each additional unit the AF buys its costs something like $77M.
The problem with including the Dev costs (and why the military contractors want the Dev money up front) is that quantity bought changes, and often nowadays it changes down. The original projected quantity to be built was something like 800 units, that was then cut to 400, and now its looking like it will be about 200. If you add development costs the price per each varies which is useless as the cost is already sunk.
Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 10): Why? As noted above the flyaway cost is under $80M.
Okay then that is a relatively fair price. I had heard that rate was some $120M but thanks for correcting me.
At $77M or something, it's excessive but not completely grossly so.
Boeing's materials and labor cost for a 772LR is, I would guesstimate, well, I dunno. Hence my confusion. Boeing builds R&D costs into its commercial prices. But on fighters, building in an "R&D margin" would be inappropriate since it was USG funded. That's sort of all I am saying.
We are the USA so if we need more F-22s we can easily buy them under reasonable terms. I only object to rip-offs. It's possible for Bill Gates to run out of money, if crooks are ripping him off bad enough.
JohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
As far as the AF goes, something has to give. The long delays from spec of a new system to production add to cost. The military industrial complex is smaller, just as the military is, and they don't have lots of capacity to quickly ramp up as in past decades. For personal reasons, I hope the C-5M project doesn't turn into a nightmare.
The AH-1 issue: I'd say the AH-64 has it by miles. Why? Because the Apache is (and has been) flying and fighting for a long time, and damn well. The AH-1Z, maybe hanging out @ Bell, or a few at Pax River? That program is beyond late, it's MIA. So the "new" AH-1 isn't out in the fleet, it's kept alive because somebody didn't have the guts to cann the program and invest the money properly somewhere else. (Like the RAH-66 funding divert the the rest of Army Aviation). The UH-1Y or whatever it is, might someday approach the UH-60's capabilities, only a dozen years or so later than USMC Black Hawks could have been in service.
Each service has spent money poorly, but the USMC seems to be the current worst offender.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
Quoting JohnM (Reply 14): The UH-1Y or whatever it is, might someday approach the UH-60's capabilities
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2121 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3): The Apache uses the same engine as the Black Hawk, and the T700 series performs quite nicely in the salt water environments, with the 401C mod. Also the rotor, transmission, hydraulics, and other major components have commonality with Sea Hawk parts,
The engine I can see. But the rotor, transmission, hydraulics?
Maybe fluids and some standard hardware. Can you provide some specific examples of common parts?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 1): 1) How in the heck did you get the USMC involved in this? The USMC was never mentioned in said link you posted. 2) Your confusing all of us. Is this a USMC thread, or a USAF thread?
I posted the article because it's an issue not just for the USAF even though it's all it was talking about. I didn't necessarily intend to not to talk about the USAF budget but I figure all US DOD is fair play when discussing this issue.
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 2): Why are you unwilling to accept the fact that the USAF and USMC wish to fly something faster and with better range than the slow helicopters of the 20th century?
We all wish for a lot of things! The fact is the V-22 will never be able to justify the price paid - the Corps is just beginning to procure the platform and has like 300 to go where as for the money already spent the Corps could have replaced their Phrogs with an H-92 or H-101 variant after Desert Storm, have all the R&D complete, and have them all bought and paid for sitting on the ramp at New River and serving in Iraq and AFG. What good is all the V-22's speed if the rest of their Wing still flies at the same speeds? It gives a whole new meaning to "Hurry up and wait!"
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 6): If your comparing it to the F/A-18 E/F birds, that makes sense, but the F-35 is designed to replace the F/A-18 A~D models and complement the Super Bug.
The F-35C is intended to replace F/A-18C/D's but not the F-35B like the Corps is trying to do. The Corps would be better off reaplacing the F/A-18C/D's with F/A-18F's at less than half the cost of an F-35B because all of those F-35B's couldn't operate off existing LHA/LHD's as it is - so if your going to have to operate a JSF not specifically designed for an aircraft carrier (F-35C) than you'd get more bang for your buck by going with F/A-18F's as oppossed to F-35B's.
The H-1 upgrade has become a joke - the AH-1Z will even if it ever achieves what it's supposed to do will still never be able to hold the AH-64D+'s jock; we had a flightline in Skopje for ops in Kosovo in '99 where we had Apaches parked alongside AH-1W's and their payload and range just put the Skids to shame. The Britis have used their WAH-64's off of naval vessels before and there is just no eviable xcuse that precludes it from service in the Marines.
And don't even get me started on the UH-1Y, that POS damn near embarasses the legendary H-1 line - and it will never just as well as the AH-1Z be as good as the readily available alternative in the MH-60S that the USN uses in great number now. To think the Corps could have just bought existing aircraft and have them all on line right now versus throwing a bone to Bell - that's sad.
I think the USAF needs to get as many F-22's as possible but I'm of little fan to the F-35A at this point relative to the price and performance of current F-16E/F's. Same goes with the Strike Eagle - new build F-15E's with the GE engines and Super Hornet Block II pits would be an immensly valuable platform for the price. I still don't understand what is so wrong with the B-2 that we can't buy enough of them to replace the B-52's - what gives, it can't possibly be cheaper to design an alternative rather than just build more B-2's?! I think the KC-30 gives the USAF more capabilities at the same price as the KC-767ADV's and in turn helps preserve the C-17 fleet which we need more of, not to mention all the upgraded C-5's as economically feasible.
God help us if the Dems win the office - the DOD will be selling war bonds again just to pay for gas.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2066 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 11): That's not a real world figure. The price does include development costs, and no matter how you twist it, an F-22 costs considerably more than $100m.
No, your figure is the rest of the world figure, as in what price the F-22 would be offered to a customer other than the US government.
Quoting Tugger (Reply 12): It is real world, for each additional unit the AF buys its costs something like $77M.
The US government only has to pay the manufacturing costs plus manufacturing profit for each unit, as they already paid for the development cost. A foreign buyer should have to pay the price with developmental costs factored in. But the difference between that price and the price the US government pays should go to the government to recoup the US taxpayers investment.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
Quoting CTR (Reply 16): The engine I can see. But the rotor, transmission, hydraulics?
Maybe fluids and some standard hardware. Can you provide some specific examples of common parts?
Have fun,
CTR
Getting a little bit off topic here, but I want to clarify my remarks.
I didn't mean to suggest that the Apache and Black Hawk have the same exact parts. What I was saying - albeit very poorly - was that they share very similar parts. Open up both aircraft, put them next to each other, and you can easily see the commonality between the two.
Having never even flown an Apache, I can still climb on top of one and immediately identify parts because they look like, located like, and flow like a Black Hawk does.
So my point was that we have already successfully modified core UH-60 systems for salt water operations, and since the Apache is not so different, the modifications could also be made for it, as well.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11715 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 7): just think our USAF is not good at bargaining. These days a great car costs only $25,000.
Why should a fighter jet cost $100 million? It just doesn't make sense. The govt paid to research those aircraft. Why, then, should they get ripped off on production? That is the 1 core of the problem.
Cars are not an accurate comparison. R&D for each new aircraft is spread over the known production run, not the desired run. For example the F-22 R&D costs are spread over 183 airplanes. This is exactly the same as what other countries do, the EuroFighter, A-400M, and in the US, include the C-17. The R&D costs get spread over the known production run.
The OEMs cannot use the commerical "break even point" as in the commerical world, there are a lot more customers, and production could go on for decades.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 19): So my point was that we have already successfully modified core UH-60 systems for salt water operations, and since the Apache is not so different, the modifications could also be made for it, as well.
The whole salt water ops thing is not the big change really. Sure some components may be changed materially to help battle corrosion, but really the big changes would be elsewhere. Power blade folding rotor head comes to mind, and someone mentioned some landing gear mods. Its things like that, that take a lot of the money in making an aircraft more compatable for shipboard use.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1954 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 22):
The whole salt water ops thing is not the big change really.
Exactly my point.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 22): Power blade folding rotor head comes to mind
Already designed and available... but the Army did not purchase it, due to a lack of real need for it. The Sea Apache would also incorporate a folding tail (it would fold at the 3rd and 4th tail rotor drive shaft segments, and would swing forward just as the SH-60s), it would also incorporate a folding tail stabilizer. All of these would permit it to fit into roughly a 37x17x14 box, compared to the AH-1Z... it's not a huge increase. It's roughly the same length and height, just wider.
There is simply no debate about "which is better." And it goes so much further than the novice questions like which is bigger, faster, stronger. It's about which has better system fault detection, better IR threat protection, better pilot assist systems, better sensor capabilities, better force integration systems (the Cobra cannot remotely link and control UAVs... er sorry the new politically correct term is UASs ) T .... oh and the AH-64 Block III is actually on schedule and preparing to be fielded, and is on budget... the AH-1Z? Well lets not talk about that disgusting waste of taxpayer funds.
The Sea Apache had a real chance at life, but was rejected for cost reasons. And 15 years later it is obvious that any additional funds spent on both AH-64s and UH-60s would have been worth it. They have spent far more money, time and effort to bring two aircraft systems to a level that still under performs their Army brethren.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 22): and someone mentioned some landing gear mods.
lol, yeah... me.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 9): The Apache seems more geared towards the "tank hunter/killer" mission, and the Marines use the Cobras in more direct support of the grunts on the ground.
The number one mission for the AH-1 is amphibious assault support. It obviously has many other major missions, but when the Corps looks at what it needs in a helicopter, the biggest mission they weigh is beach assault.
And again... the Apache puts the Cobra to shame. Do you know that the US Army currently trains for ocean warfare? Yup. The AH-64s stationed in South Korea are tasked with destroying a North Korean amphibious assault. It's a fascinating mission, and hopefully one day the DMZ will dissolve, and the missions can be declassified and discussed more publicly.
The Sea Cobra would be capable of carrying 4 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, which are capable of sinking major surface combatant ships, such as destroyers and frigates. The AH-64 has greater anti-missile protection, and actually has a lower engine heat exhaust IR signature. The AH-64 is simply a better system.
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 6): I'm given the impression the AH-64 has a reputation of being a bit of a hanger Queen, a bit maintenance heavy and expensive to run and obviously, as you pointed out, buy.
Yes and no. We have an Apache pilot on the forums - LongbowPilot. He would be a better expert than me.
But the short and sweet of it, it's reasonable for the systems it carries. More systems equal more upkeep. But here's the kicker... what is Bell doing with the AH-1Z? They're trying to make it an Apache-lite! They're adding digital cockpits, better avionics, better weapons, better drivetrain and power systems, etc... and all of this is going to have the same effect on maintenance costs and time!! The AH-1Z is going to have the same issues as the AH-64, but still have less capability! It's obscene!
The rumors of the AH-64 being a hangar queen are mostly false. If you have a squared away unit, with good morale and motivation, they should have very high availability rates.
Although, the rumors about Apache pilots being skirt-wearing, low IQ'ed, inbred and closeted.... are all true!
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 23): The number one mission for the AH-1 is amphibious assault support. It obviously has many other major missions, but when the Corps looks at what it needs in a helicopter, the biggest mission they weigh is beach assault.
Direct support of the beach assault is moving down the list of importance when it comes to Marine aviation. The Marine Corps wants to be able to perform beach landings with the new AAAVs, and naval gun support (I always forget which ship it is... the DDX or the LCS... that is supposed to have the new gun). Aviations focus should be on enveloping and flanking. You need the Cobras inland keeping the LZ's secure so the assualt transports (Phrogs, Ospreys, Sh*tters) can make their insertions. After the insertion the Cobras focus should still be on supporting the lightly armored helo company on the ground. The boat company coming ashore will have some light armor support with the AAAVs, and hopefully some shore bombardament support.
This is the "scenario" followed with most exercises I took part in over the past ten years. Obviously real time situations can dictate you using your assets differently of course.
Phrogs Phorever
25 CTR: It seems others disagree. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-1w.htm "The Marine Corps deployed 4 of 6 active force sq
26 UH60FtRucker: So you wouldn't buy a piece of equipment because it wasn't pretty? The DDX, and it will have two 40mm guns. But if you're referring to the "rail gun"
27 CTR: Sir, my interpetation of being objective is trying to look at both sides of any discussion. I also worked for Boeing as an engineer on four different
28 Dragon6172: I am a Phrog guy, always will be. The things are far from pretty, but nothing is more beautiful than the sound of the tandem rotors and watching one
29 DL767captain: Can you really compare a stealth F-35 to a Harrier? I don't think so. A V-22 also has a lot of advantages, like being a helicopter/plane and being ab
30 AirRyan: Sure it has it's advantages and it's a great platform so long as maintenance has it up and ready for flight, but the simple fact is that it will neve
31 DL767captain: I think they could justify the price of a stealth airplane with unparalleled advanced technology over an older aircraft they could have had before, t
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
) T .... oh and the AH-64 Block III is actually on schedule and preparing to be fielded, and is on budget... the AH-1Z? Well lets not talk about that disgusting waste of taxpayer funds.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
