Jump to content
ashdivay

1st Indian Built Apache very soon

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

~41 million for one RAH-66, in 2002 when one AH-64A cost 20 million.

it's a bit like arguing for buying one stryker, when you can have 2 abrams tanks for the same price. 

 

That's a strawman argument but I'll field it anyway.  I bet those both numbers were not determined by the same methodology.  The $41 mill is not only misleading, it is not true because you could not buy one for $41 mil or any price because it was still in development in 2002.  I'm pretty sure they were not building Apache A models anymore by 2002.  They were getting upgraded to the D model or buying new Longbows  (AH-64D has the same equipment except Longbow millimeter radar and its HELLFIRE version).   What's the price for the D model?.... $65 million.  I can build a strawman too  :P  Unit cost is worst thing to argue over because you don't know what that number represents.  For aircraft, you should look for the "flyaway" cost which is what it cost to manufacture a single aircraft.  Even this number is dubious at best.

 

It's debatable if the Apache would have been the superior.  It was slower, less maneuverable and had no stealth, but it was better armored, carried more ordinance, and had slightly better high altitude performance.  The Comanche and scout helos in general have the harder job.  They have find the targets and then laze them so the Apache can destroy them with HELLFIRE launched from behind cover.  A lot of the reasons they used to end the program applied to the Apache too.  It's no coincidence that AH-64E is capable of controlling drones.  I would bet a lot of money that F-35 has this capability too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lt DeFault said:

I didn't think the words "too expensive" were in the government's vocabulary. ¬¬

 

You don't want to know what the US Navy pays for a ship/sub.  A price tag of $1 billion would be considered a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Homer said:

 

That's a strawman argument but I'll field it anyway.  I bet those both numbers were not determined by the same methodology.  The $41 mill is not only misleading, it is not true because you could not buy one for $41 mil or any price because it was still in development in 2002.  I'm pretty sure they were not building Apache A models anymore by 2002.  They were getting upgraded to the D model or buying new Longbows  (AH-64D has the same equipment except Longbow millimeter radar and its HELLFIRE version).   What's the price for the D model?.... $65 million.  I can build a strawman too  :P  Unit cost is worst thing to argue over because you don't know what that number represents.  For aircraft, you should look for the "flyaway" cost which is what it cost to manufacture a single aircraft.  Even this number is dubious at best.

 

It's debatable if the Apache would have been the superior.  It was slower, less maneuverable and had no stealth, but it was better armored, carried more ordinance, and had slightly better high altitude performance.  The Comanche and scout helos in general have the harder job.  They have find the targets and then laze them so the Apache can destroy them with HELLFIRE launched from behind cover.  A lot of the reasons they used to end the program applied to the Apache too.  It's no coincidence that AH-64E is capable of controlling drones.  I would bet a lot of money that F-35 has this capability too.

 

41 million per comanche is lower end estimate i derived from this: 
In 2002, the program was restructured and the number of Comanches to be purchased was cut to 650. The production of this fleet had a projected total cost of $26.9 billion.

Apache doesn't have to be superior, only as good. still, it has superior payload, and a larger caliber gun,

and in NOE flight, it's as invisible as a comanche. 

also part of the comanche role would already be fulfilled by infantry with laser designators. 

 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My arguments still stand.   Infantry cannot be everywhere a helo can be, much less every unit be equipped with laser designators.

 

Well, we're going to find out because the DoD spent the last 40 years licking a window trying to procure a replacement.  The current scout helo is being retired by the end of the year and the job will fall upon the Apache because there is literary nothing else available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Homer said:

My arguments still stand.   Infantry cannot be everywhere a helo can be, much less every unit be equipped with laser designators.

 

Well, we're going to find out because the DoD spent the last 40 years licking a window trying to procure a replacement.  The current scout helo is being retired by the end of the year and the job will fall upon the Apache because there is literary nothing else available.

Infantry cannot be everywhere a helo can

 

The grunts can operate in all weather conditions, helo's can't. The dust where I was confined them to their pads till it cleared, the grunts face no such restrictions on movement. Your argument on this point is weak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grunt is the backbone of the Army,the Helo is not.Not knocking Helo Pilots,they are life savers for sure and extremly important,but they do have limitaions a grunt wont have to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a helicopter is much, much faster, and can go longer distances. Plus, it can carry a ground radar and other equipment. If the commander wants to know about enemy presence in a specific location hand hasn't halready positioned infantry there, without a scout helicopter he can only rely on jets and satellites (if available, and each with their own limitations), or drones (which don't work well in contested airspace and which must transfer their video in real-time, which is problematic both from an EM emission control perspective, the lack of signal encryption (the enemy can see what you can see, and knows exactly what you don't know), and the fact that in contested airspace drones are hapless targets for about any kind of air defense except unaided rifle and MG fire.

 

No. As versatile as grunts are, they cannot do everything that scout helicopters can do. If they could, we would never have acquired scout helicopters in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scout helicopters can travel 50km and have eyes on the enemy in 20 minutes.

 

Dismounted scouts can cover not 1km at the same time :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think drones are more effective then infantry and scout helicopters very quite and no fear.

I have spoken to a former cold war era military helicopter pilot, he reckons his life expectancy was in the hours had it ever kicked off. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a few years,heck thats already here,Dismounted Scouts will have drones that are carried with them.Already do I believe.They will be able to do everything an attk drone will do,call arty,search and destroy,Medavac, ect.Drones are extremly important and are part of the Combined Arms and Tech Package,but theyll never be able to think and react like a human and are only as good as the human controlling them.After all the F35 has major componets made in China!Go figure.Which means QC is crap.

Edited by mpow66m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

Infantry cannot be everywhere a helo can

 

The grunts can operate in all weather conditions, helo's can't. The dust where I was confined them to their pads till it cleared, the grunts face no such restrictions on movement. Your argument on this point is weak. 

 

I was responding to Deja's statement: infantry can laser designate targets in the place of the scout helo.  If the helos are grounded, whom are the infantry lasing for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2016 at 2:18 PM, 12Alfa said:

OH 58's will be around for some time. 

 

 

Only 2 squadrons remain and they are scheduled for deactivation at the end of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mpow66m said:

The grunt is the backbone of the Army,the Helo is not.Not knocking Helo Pilots,they are life savers for sure and extremly important,but they do have limitaions a grunt wont have to deal with.

 

No one disputes that.  The discussion is about the scout helo and if other assets can perform its role as well as a purpose built helo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Homer said:

 

Only 2 squadrons remain and they are scheduled for deactivation at the end of the year.

in the US yes, however the US is not the sole operator, but you knew this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Homer said:

 

No one disputes that.  The discussion is about the scout helo and if other assets can perform its role as well as a purpose built helo.

 

29 minutes ago, Homer said:

 

I was responding to Deja's statement: infantry can laser designate targets in the place of the scout helo.  If the helos are grounded, whom are the infantry lasing for?

Other ground units, (There are more than Inf in a battle), tanks, aircraft, navel wpns, death stars, no wait, it's been destroyed by them rebels. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

in the US yes, however the US is not the sole operator, but you knew this.

 

3 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

 

Other ground units, (There are more than Inf in a battle), tanks, aircraft, navel wpns, death stars, no wait, it's been destroyed by them rebels. :ph34r:

 

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Homer said:

 

No one disputes that.  The discussion is about the scout helo and if other assets can perform its role as well as a purpose built helo.

ok,no i guess.a scout helo and an attack helo are two different birds.having the AH64 scout is kindalike having the SEP scout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mpow66m said:

...After all the F35 has major componets made in China!...

 

Elaborate please  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

But a helicopter is much, much faster, and can go longer distances. Plus, it can carry a ground radar and other equipment. If the commander wants to know about enemy presence in a specific location hand hasn't halready positioned infantry there, without a scout helicopter he can only rely on jets and satellites (if available, and each with their own limitations), or drones (which don't work well in contested airspace and which must transfer their video in real-time, which is problematic both from an EM emission control perspective, the lack of signal encryption (the enemy can see what you can see, and knows exactly what you don't know), and the fact that in contested airspace drones are hapless targets for about any kind of air defense except unaided rifle and MG fire.

 

No. As versatile as grunts are, they cannot do everything that scout helicopters can do. If they could, we would never have acquired scout helicopters in the first place.

All of this is true, in good weather. What I'm saying is the weather is not always good for helo ops. Take Afghanistan, 60% of the time dust grounded the helo's, except in life or death Med vac missions. We as ground (read foot) and MRAP mounted could move at will. Helo's saved our bacon a number of times, then their were the times we knew we could not count on them. The West over reliance on this platform has been overstated to the good side.When you factor in weather, enemy anti air capibility and just normal air mishaps vs ground power alone I just dont see the great effects being posted and reported in real life conflicts. Granted when your enemy has no anti-air and the weather is good and the platforms are new and good working order it looks like the perfect storm. But as the last few conflicts has shown the helo has, shall we say not lived up to the reported repetition vs a platform like the A-10. I tend to see this as "we need more new shinney things" The A-10 were on station in all weather conditions, and for a longer time with a greater assortment of wpns.

 

Scouting can be done more efficiently with drones, no need to place a helo in danger. They are now more cost effective, carry the same if not better optics/comms and have a longer loiter time in comparison to helos. I say the scout helo is now passed, transport, sure, attack, well the A-10 and SU-25 can do that job. So much money for so little now a days with drones/UAV's.

It's reported that last year the US trained more UAV pilots than for aircraft, I think the trend is going to continue with most developed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...