|Quoting Deskflier (Reply 1):|
I don't have any special inside info on this, but as I recall the AH-64 is somewhat of a hangar queen compared to the AH-1. It became painfully (to the Army) obvious during the build-up to Desert Storm. The Marines kept exercising while the Army attack choppers were mainly being repaired, serviced or whatever.
Actually in Desert Storm, the serviceability rate was ~90%.
The rumors pretty much come from two things: when they were being introduced during the 1980s, there were teething problems and many worried that the helicopter would not perform as advertised... which was disproved in the desert of Kuwait/Iraq in 1991.
And their haphazard deployment to Kosovo in the late 90s. The Army was very anxious to throw the aircraft into the battle, but it was very poorly executed.
This is no different than what other aircraft experience during their lifetimes. Other than this, the AH
-64 is a great helicopter, and is essential in Iraq. The AH
-64 is going to be around for years to come, and we're even upgrading the Longbow to Block III.
|Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):|
I remember a AH-64 book I had in the Eighties had a section about a possible Navalized AH-64, which leads me to the obvious question.
Why keep upgrading the AH-1, why not AH-64 longbows. I imagine that the Long Bow radar could be modified to also track targets on land or sea. The AH-64 Long Bow seems to be a better choice than to keep upgrading the Cobra.
Same question with the UH-1, why not the UH-60?
Maybe because Marines can't handle the complexity of those airframes!?
But seriously, the size of the AH
-64 may be to large to base off an LHD
. It also sits high, and it costs a lot.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.