The Apache in Iraq???
- Thread starter Rich
- Start date
Google search "Ambush at Najaf"
You'll see that the Apache's have not been very good at all. The Apache failed its primary mission of deep attack. Since the ambush the Apache has been used for light duties such as armed recon and close air support, of course these easy missions were done flawlessly.
The Apache's can no longer fly deep into enemy territory without ground and air support.
The Apache's armour is no longer strong enough for the initial stages of the war like gulf war 2. You now have large calibre machine guns in enough numbers to fill the sky with bullets, this high level of ground fire was never expected when the Apache was designed.
Its like the Humvee's roadside bombs that rip through them and kill soldiers due to their lack of protection. Atleast the Apache can be switched to lighter duties, where as the Humvee's were doing the lighter duties so they are now useless.
You'll see that the Apache's have not been very good at all. The Apache failed its primary mission of deep attack. Since the ambush the Apache has been used for light duties such as armed recon and close air support, of course these easy missions were done flawlessly.
The Apache's can no longer fly deep into enemy territory without ground and air support.
The Apache's armour is no longer strong enough for the initial stages of the war like gulf war 2. You now have large calibre machine guns in enough numbers to fill the sky with bullets, this high level of ground fire was never expected when the Apache was designed.
Its like the Humvee's roadside bombs that rip through them and kill soldiers due to their lack of protection. Atleast the Apache can be switched to lighter duties, where as the Humvee's were doing the lighter duties so they are now useless.
Najaf is more an issue of failed doctrine rather than a failed platform. At least, thats the assessment from opposing reports I've seen from US Army and USMC.rjmaz1 said:
Any inapprop tasking will end up performance negative for a platform - and that was the primary lesson. If you don't committ assets under your own established deployment/tasking profiles then you'll lose them.
writing off the platform post lessons learnt is a bit of a stretch of the assessment imagination....
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Where have all these "large calibre machine guns" come from now that weren't around in the 80's? M2's and 14.5mm machine guns are both "ancient" designs in terms of weapons design and have proliferated on battlefields for more than 30 years (more than 50 in terms of the M2).rjmaz1 said:
The Yanks stuffed up with the employment of the Apache on that particular raid. Nothing more. This can be done with any platform and ANY helicopter is a more vulnerable platform than most.
The lesson here is nothing more than simple reinforcement of those learnt in Vietnam. Attack helo's are useful platforms but they need to be employed skillfully. They cannot withstand sustained HMG/Cannon fire (despite what manufacturers might say about their armoured protection) let alone SAM systems or even RPG attack on certain occasions, when ground forces are prepared to stand and fight.
It most certainly does not mean the Apache platform is a failure or cannot be used on "hard" missions, it just confirms that they need to be employed carefully.
The amount of enemy groundfire in Iraq is a 10 fold increase over that of Vietnam.
Failed doctrine perfectly describes what has happened with the Apache. Its these lessons that stengthen the US fighting machine. Boy has it taken alot of lessons... such as Pearl Habour, No machine gun in F4's in vietnam, September 11 hijacking, F117 being shot down, the Apache ambush, Soldiers being blown up in humvee's.
Its these lessons that actually create the doctrine in the first place as well as adapting it to suit the current threat.
Failed doctrine perfectly describes what has happened with the Apache. Its these lessons that stengthen the US fighting machine. Boy has it taken alot of lessons... such as Pearl Habour, No machine gun in F4's in vietnam, September 11 hijacking, F117 being shot down, the Apache ambush, Soldiers being blown up in humvee's.
Its these lessons that actually create the doctrine in the first place as well as adapting it to suit the current threat.
actually it was a failure to abide by established processes that was the problem - not the doctrine itself.rjmaz1 said:
Pearl Harbor was a failure to listen to gathered intel as well as complacency. Human error in the main.rjmaz1 said:
The F4's sans machine gun were a legacy of being seduced by missiles as the ultimate arbiter of air to air combat - the Russians also had the same view. It also didn't help that the rules of engagement for "cleared weird" were nonsensical.
September 11 was a failure to collate and merge existing intel. Human error in the main.
The F117 shootdown was a legacy of combinations. A French intel officer sympathetic to the serbs and leaking info (subsequently court martialed) and a failure by the pilot to undertake and process proper procedures (ie repeated predictable flight path, over confidence and some smart lateral thinking by the serbs). Human error in the main.
The humvee issue is one of using what was available to undertake a rapidly shifting strategic environment. The US couldn't have replaced them with any other vehicle for the same duties en-masse anyway. One could well argue that the continued use of thin skinned vehicles in a volatile and persistently hostile environment is a legacy of civilian politics corrupting the capability of people on the ground to do their job properly.
In the main these are convoy management issues - what part of the doctrine has failed due to there being a vehicle type involved? The convoy issue is a bit more complex than blaming the Humvee.
None of the above are issues of doctrine failure. Doctrine is a process of established procedures for a given mission type.
If only it was'ent for the humans war would be a perfectly planned exercise.
What was the apache designed for in the first place? was'ent it for a tank killer role in the central european plain? Zooming up from behind hills and letting of a couple of hellfire missles and such... I think it would be a strech of the imaganation to imagine the Apache coping with a modern army, when no matter how you chop it they have struggled in the face of heavy machine gun fire, let alone 30mm cannon fire, manpads, and modern vichele mounted surface to air missles.
In the resent conflict in the Lebanon the mere threat of manpads was enough to keep the Apache off the border, imagine if Iraq had a SAM problem to the extent of afganistan in the 80's(thank you john rambo)! With the advent of pricision guided bombing, and drones, does the Apache, and by extention the Eurocopter and other gunships still have a valid role? or have they already been surplanted?
And yet the venerable AH-1Ws of the USMC performed very well in GW2.merocaine said:If only it was'ent for the humans war would be a perfectly planned exercise.
What was the apache designed for in the first place? was'ent it for a tank killer role in the central european plain? Zooming up from behind hills and letting of a couple of hellfire missles and such... I think it would be a strech of the imaganation to imagine the Apache coping with a modern army, when no matter how you chop it they have struggled in the face of heavy machine gun fire, let alone 30mm cannon fire, manpads, and modern vichele mounted surface to air missles.
In the resent conflict in the Lebanon the mere threat of manpads was enough to keep the Apache off the border, imagine if Iraq had a SAM problem to the extent of afganistan in the 80's(thank you john rambo)! With the advent of pricision guided bombing, and drones, does the Apache, and by extention the Eurocopter and other gunships still have a valid role? or have they already been surplanted?
Sorry guys but it is a matter of employment and tactics not platform here.
Perhaps its because of it being smaller and more agile, or even better training then the Apache pilots...?Whiskyjack said:
The AH-1Ws are more for support, where as the Apache does a lot of patrol work along the city skies, with Blackhawks and Stallions in an escort role as well, this slow moving set route provides a perfect oppurtunity for someone who knows the Airbase is near, and that they will have to pass over a certain point when coming from one way or another. Tactics outdoes human miscalculation in the capacity to provide indirect routes to targets.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
I think prior to Iraq-2 the Longbow was considered a "do it all" type aircraft, most of all a "survivable" one. Its always tough to learn that a mission just might not stay within the parameters of a systems design. The army got exactly what it wanted with the longbow, a system that would be murder on enemy tanks in a war where a enemy, roughly comparable to us, used predictable tactics. The lesson learned at Najaf, I believe, was that a helicopter is still a helicopter no matter what you spend on it, or no matter how many systems you load on it.
Its a mistake to task a helicopter as you would a wing of fighter bombers. And that is never going to change.
I will add that we expect to lose aircraft in combat. Even stealth airplanes. To have lost so few is a testament to the people behind their design, construction, and operation. Look at the record of both Apache and F-117 and compare the mission rate, the success rate, and the casualties incurred during combat. Its pretty impressive! Maybe not perfect, but "perfect" is an irrational expectation for combat Ops.
Its a mistake to task a helicopter as you would a wing of fighter bombers. And that is never going to change.
I will add that we expect to lose aircraft in combat. Even stealth airplanes. To have lost so few is a testament to the people behind their design, construction, and operation. Look at the record of both Apache and F-117 and compare the mission rate, the success rate, and the casualties incurred during combat. Its pretty impressive! Maybe not perfect, but "perfect" is an irrational expectation for combat Ops.
Apache is a fine aircraft, no doubt. It was design for two main roles:
1. Attack huge armored formations. 1 Apache company can destroy (>70%) an armored brigade.
2. Using NVS, to fly low in night, undetected, to destroy enemy's value targets (radar sites, commumication centers, etc.).
Also we must have in mind that US Army doctrine and trainning were focus on that missions.
That's why in Gulf War I, AH-64A was looked to good.
Now, in Gulf War II, far more advanced AH-64D Longbow seemed to be ...useless! As a highly ranked officer wrote in Rotor&Wing magazine, doctrine will be adjust to the new kind of rolls.
An example, till recent, Apache mostly were fighting from battle position (stationary) and now they are doing that on the move. From a video I found shows 2 Apaches in Afganistan to firing into Taliban positions at speed making a racetrack.
Moreover, it's proven that Apache's ALQ-144 is a very effective IR-CM. In addition, now they are equiped (mostly I think) with incoming missile warning detectors, etc. With RPGs, to try to hit a helicopter when it has a speed (60 kts or more), seems to me like the million dollar shot!
1. Attack huge armored formations. 1 Apache company can destroy (>70%) an armored brigade.
2. Using NVS, to fly low in night, undetected, to destroy enemy's value targets (radar sites, commumication centers, etc.).
Also we must have in mind that US Army doctrine and trainning were focus on that missions.
That's why in Gulf War I, AH-64A was looked to good.
Now, in Gulf War II, far more advanced AH-64D Longbow seemed to be ...useless! As a highly ranked officer wrote in Rotor&Wing magazine, doctrine will be adjust to the new kind of rolls.
An example, till recent, Apache mostly were fighting from battle position (stationary) and now they are doing that on the move. From a video I found shows 2 Apaches in Afganistan to firing into Taliban positions at speed making a racetrack.
Moreover, it's proven that Apache's ALQ-144 is a very effective IR-CM. In addition, now they are equiped (mostly I think) with incoming missile warning detectors, etc. With RPGs, to try to hit a helicopter when it has a speed (60 kts or more), seems to me like the million dollar shot!
The issue is not platform competence - its doctrine relevance. whats changed has been doctrine implementation.
There are very few helos in the Longbows skillset that even remotely approach its concurrent target tracking capability. In fact, its concurrent target tracking is more sophisticated than a lot of major warship classes. (in the FFG-DDG class). It's a mini awacs in that sense. (exceptional tracking but in short range)
Apache is a very capable platform. It is an overly complicated machine to operate IMHO. It is a tank buster, so it's mission in Iraq now is not really what it was designed to do. It looks like Army aviation learned the lesson the hard way, NOE is a CRAP mode of tactical flight for helicopters.
I believe your concept of effectiveness of stinger is overestimated. Stingers and so like missiles have a very low hit probability (max 60% - newest missiles like Russian Igla) and a 1kg warhead is mostly capable of damaging but not complete destruction of an helicopter with its proximity fuse.
Please remember that AH-64 have inadequate armor for its vital parts, I have serious doubt about the claimed resistance for 23mm hits. From what I know that the side glass panels are resistant to max 7.62mm and US lost few helicopters in Albania in 99 due to Serb snipers with 12.7mm.
From the pictures I've seen that the engine compartment armor seems rather thin, though probably can sustain a 12.7mm hit. But the transmission rail to the tail rotor seems to be quite vulnerable. The latest shot-down in Iraq seems to confirm my theory where I believe rebels are using 12.7mm HMG and Striela or Igla portable sams.
No doubt that these helicopters are not used for what they are designed for. I believe that in this type of missions, Americans should learn from Russians' experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The Serbs did destroy the NATO air forces many times over, so why not add those two Apaches to the tally.
The Taliban does the same.
Hrm... anyone have details on latest crash?
What I heard was it was hit by MANPADS. The local news didn't mention the exact weapon but gave a hint that most probably was something like rpg7.
And from my knowledge. Helicopter is actually a not stable flying vehicle which flies in many restrictions. Hence, a little of violate will cause a crash. Although I agreed that on paper MANPADS have only 60-70% hit probaility but veteran launcher with correct strategy will be able to do enough damage to present armor flying vehicles.
Reading the article ambush in Najaf i reached the conclusion that yes the Apache failed in it,s mission but it doesn,t mean it is a useless aircraft it just has to be operated with other fixed wing aircraft in support and in that enviroment it can be a valuable asset.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Good point here steve33. I don't think we should ever judge the success or failure of military equipment without looking to see if it has been used in a tactically sensible way. The Apache, IMO, is a fine helicopter (I wish Australia had some) but it should be used, IMO, in conjunction with other assets and used tactically in the roles for which it was designed.
Cheers