Nigeria just bought 12 AH-1Zs for $1B. Bahrain also has 12 on order. The Czech Republic 4.

Does the AH-1Z have any advantages over the AH-64, beyond parts commonality with the UH-1?

The only advantage the AH-1Z has is availability.

Qatar is currently receiving 24 AH-64E
The UK is then getting 50 AH-64E
Australia is then getting 29 AH-64E
Morroco is negotiating for 24 AH-64E with an option for another 12.

Apache production is filled until 2035.

Bahrain, Nigeria and Czech Republic have a fairly urgent need for an attack helicopter. They would be crazy to buy a Eurocopter Tiger for the only option is a Viper.

Its faster than the AH-64, but that's probably the only advantage.

The AH-1Z is I believe substantially lighter and needs a lot less maintenance than the latest Apache’s. It’s available, can be integrated with a lot of weapons similarly, and depending on the need for things like taxiing (vs hovering) still does a lot of things really, really well for many customers. I don’t think the UH-1 commonality matters to many at this point, but realistically Bell does sell a lot of gear to a lot of militaries/governments and can probably offer service agreements that make it very competitive. Some of this stuff comes down to vendor service agreements, and I can believe Bell has some more flexibility not just in delivery timelines but also such things for military helo operators.

RJMAZ wrote:

The only advantage the AH-1Z has is availability.

Qatar is currently receiving 24 AH-64E
The UK is then getting 50 AH-64E
Australia is then getting 29 AH-64E
Morroco is negotiating for 24 AH-64E with an option for another 12.

Apache production is filled until 2035.

Bahrain, Nigeria and Czech Republic have a fairly urgent need for an attack helicopter. They would be crazy to buy a Eurocopter Tiger for the only option is a Viper.

What I find interesting is that the original Apache AH1s for the British Army were made by Westland in Yeovil.

But the remanufactured AH1s into AH-64E are being done by Boeing and not Westland.

Hot and High performance far better for the AH-1Z according to a Bell rep I spoke to.

That's why the Pakistanis wanted it too.

texl1649 wrote:

The AH-1Z is I believe substantially lighter and needs a lot less maintenance than the latest Apache’s. It’s available, can be integrated with a lot of weapons similarly, and depending on the need for things like taxiing (vs hovering) still does a lot of things really, really well for many customers. I don’t think the UH-1 commonality matters to many at this point, but realistically Bell does sell a lot of gear to a lot of militaries/governments and can probably offer service agreements that make it very competitive. Some of this stuff comes down to vendor service agreements, and I can believe Bell has some more flexibility not just in delivery timelines but also such things for military helo operators.

The AH-1Z is 12,300 lbs empty and 3,600 hp.
The AH-64 is 11,387 lbs empty and 3,780 hp.

So I really think they are the same size.

Boeing sells much more military gear than Bell, and of course the civilian stuff too.

Why do you think an AH-1Z needs significantly less maintenance than a AH-64 of the same age?

The DOD Reimbursement rates for a AH-64E is $6,417/hour direct cost. For a AH-1Z $4,550/hour direct cost. But the numbers are super suspect. They list the UH-1Y , which is same engine, transmission, blades, and 80% parts commonality but no weapons as $8,483/hour. Hard to believe an AH-1Z costs 50% of a UH-1Y. (And if that makes sense, UH-60M is $3,564/hour but a UH-60L is twice as much, $6,115/hour.). So maybe these numbers don't mean very much. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 22_b_c.pdf

Chaostheory wrote:

Hot and High performance far better for the AH-1Z according to a Bell rep I spoke to.

That's why the Pakistanis wanted it too.

I'd be interested.

The AH-64 weighs slightly less, has slightly more horsepower, and a slightly larger disk area. Even so, the AH-1Z might have more hot-and-high performance. Weird.

They both have identical service ceilings of 20,000 ft. I wonder if that's some regulatory or bureaucratic thing. Seems unlikely they'd be identical, and also a round number.

RJMAZ wrote:

The only advantage the AH-1Z has is availability.

Qatar is currently receiving 24 AH-64E
The UK is then getting 50 AH-64E
Australia is then getting 29 AH-64E
Morroco is negotiating for 24 AH-64E with an option for another 12.

Apache production is filled until 2035.

Bahrain, Nigeria and Czech Republic have a fairly urgent need for an attack helicopter. They would be crazy to buy a Eurocopter Tiger for the only option is a Viper.

My uninformed impression is that a Tiger is twice the cost for 80% of the performance????? Is there any advantage at all (besides politics) for buying a Tiger. Australia is spending a ton of money to lose their Tigers and buy AH-64s.

Also, I bet no one wants to buy and operate the Australian Tigers, even at a low price.

kitplane01 wrote:

My uninformed impression is that a Tiger is twice the cost for 80% of the performance????? Is there any advantage at all (besides politics) for buying a Tiger.

That is correct. The purchase price is acceptable but it is the reliability and spare parts that is causing a very high operating cost. The Tiger for example has a unique engine not used by any other helicopter. Likewise with the MH90.

kitplane01 wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

Hot and High performance far better for the AH-1Z according to a Bell rep I spoke to.

That's why the Pakistanis wanted it too.

I'd be interested.

The AH-64 weighs slightly less, has slightly more horsepower, and a slightly larger disk area. Even so, the AH-1Z might have more hot-and-high performance. Weird.

They both have identical service ceilings of 20,000 ft. I wonder if that's some regulatory or bureaucratic thing. Seems unlikely they'd be identical, and also a round number.

AH-64 has a lighter empty weight, but comparing the max takeoff weights (i.e. loaded up for combat) tells a different story
AH-64: 23,000 lbs
AH-1Z: 18,500 lbs
Slightly less horsepower in the AH-1Z but a lot less weight to carry. Of course you're trading hot/high performance for guns, rockets, fuel capacity. And hot/high performance depends on a lot more than just power and weight (main rotor blade design, engine/transmission torque and temperature limits, controllability, tail rotor authority, etc.

The 20,000 ft service ceilings are probably buried in some regulatory or bureaucratic minutiae, and that's what they were flight tested to. No real-world need to go higher, unless you want to land on Mt. Everest or something.

TangoandCash wrote:

AH-64 has a lighter empty weight, but comparing the max takeoff weights (i.e. loaded up for combat) tells a different story
AH-64: 23,000 lbs
AH-1Z: 18,500 lbs

Put the same number of weapons with fuel to fly the same mission and the AH-64E has better hot/high performance. The AH-64E simply has been certified for what I describe as an "overload MTOW". This is driven by mission demand by the US Army. Thanks to this overload MTOW the Apache can fly much further with the same payload compared to the Viper.

A helicopter operating from a ship most likely needs extra headroom in terms of lift.

RJMAZ wrote:

TangoandCash wrote:

AH-64 has a lighter empty weight, but comparing the max takeoff weights (i.e. loaded up for combat) tells a different story
AH-64: 23,000 lbs
AH-1Z: 18,500 lbs

Put the same number of weapons with fuel to fly the same mission and the AH-64E has better hot/high performance. The AH-64E simply has been certified for what I describe as an "overload MTOW". This is driven by mission demand by the US Army. Thanks to this overload MTOW the Apache can fly much further with the same payload compared to the Viper.

A helicopter operating from a ship most likely needs extra headroom in terms of lift.

A helicopter flying from a ship probably is operating in cooler air and lower altitude than the mountains of Afghanistan.

Hey guys,
As I recall there wasn’t much public attention called in the Tiger replacement debate here in Australia before the decision in favour of the Apache was made. I do recall however, some ads for the AH-1Z and limited discussion focusing on its ‘fully marinised’ construction and history with the US Marines in the navel environment.
Take care
Bunumuring

Why woud Lagos pay 80 million for a chopper with only a 20mm gun and APKWS only, no Hellfires ????

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... quisitions

And has anyone ever seen this in a DSCA announcement because in over 3 decades I've never

"$25M of case funds will be allocated for institutional and technical assistance to the Armed Forces of Nigeria (AFN) to continue Air Ground Integration (AGI) program, which includes developing targeting processes that are legally compliant with International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict; and other related elements of logistics and program support."

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

TangoandCash wrote:

AH-64 has a lighter empty weight, but comparing the max takeoff weights (i.e. loaded up for combat) tells a different story
AH-64: 23,000 lbs
AH-1Z: 18,500 lbs

Put the same number of weapons with fuel to fly the same mission and the AH-64E has better hot/high performance. The AH-64E simply has been certified for what I describe as an "overload MTOW". This is driven by mission demand by the US Army. Thanks to this overload MTOW the Apache can fly much further with the same payload compared to the Viper.

A helicopter operating from a ship most likely needs extra headroom in terms of lift.

A helicopter flying from a ship probably is operating in cooler air and lower altitude than the mountains of Afghanistan.

Lower altitude is true…. cooler air not so much.

Still ISA +15c or +20c at sea level sometimes. Helos especially the old phrogs can get performance limited operating off the flight deck to the point they are incapable of hovering in ground effect. So at that point you deck launch the helos like you would a harrier and roll them and they get airborne after they drop off the edge of the flight deck when it ends.

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The only advantage the AH-1Z has is availability.

Qatar is currently receiving 24 AH-64E
The UK is then getting 50 AH-64E
Australia is then getting 29 AH-64E
Morroco is negotiating for 24 AH-64E with an option for another 12.

Apache production is filled until 2035.

Bahrain, Nigeria and Czech Republic have a fairly urgent need for an attack helicopter. They would be crazy to buy a Eurocopter Tiger for the only option is a Viper.

My uninformed impression is that a Tiger is twice the cost for 80% of the performance????? Is there any advantage at all (besides politics) for buying a Tiger. Australia is spending a ton of money to lose their Tigers and buy AH-64s.

Also, I bet no one wants to buy and operate the Australian Tigers, even at a low price.

Not even Germany wants the Tiger anymore, although this is a rather political issue. So far Germany has not joined the upgrade programme from France and Spain. Quite strange since before and after the Tiger, Europe has shown it can build great Helicopters (Bo 105, EC 135/145) - but NH90 and Tiger are hardly positive examples.

I was going to say, Ah-1Z pilots can say 'Cobra la la la la' but they call it a viper now.

Another point is that the T408 should be available for the Apache as an upgrade at some point in the next 10 years, but I don’t believe it will work for the AH-1 for some reason (not sure if I am right on that.)

Woodreau wrote:

Lower altitude is true…. cooler air not so much.

Both cooler air and lower altitude directly affect the property that impacts helo performance. Air density

The air density increase the compression efficiency of the turbine compressor stages as well as the lifting efficiency of the blades.

bt

I don’t think the UH-1 commonality matters to many at this point, but realistically Bell does sell a lot of gear to a lot of militaries/governments and can probably offer service agreements that make it very competitive. Some of this stuff comes down to vendor service agreements, and I can believe Bell has some more flexibility not just in delivery timelines but also such things for military helo operators.

For the larger structural parts, it does. The Z can still fly with the tail from later Huey models; happens all of the time at Marine Corps bases, with many of those parts and structures being totally interchangeable. I would imagine that a nation that already flies and maintains at least newer model Hueys would find the Z an easier transition from a parts and training standpoint. Just my two cents...
.