"Parallel Systems" - split from Lysander's "Leser Known History" thread

Splitting off the Wingnuttery...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stickman

Why does the Army fly Apaches and the USMC flies a Super Cobra and Viper variants? Two completely different airframes for the same mission.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

At the risk of taking a tangent, Stick, my understanding re Apache vs Cobra is that the Cobra is more conducive to maritime/amphib/shipboard ops than the Apache--they both kill bad guys and blow up their shit, but a lot of it goes back to operational differences like the luxury of a spread out land base vs the tight quarters of a ship, or the Cobra being more easy to beat back into shape with lower-level tools--llike A-10 vs F-16 in CAS.

Objectively, in the battlefield the Apache is the better weapons system; operationally the difference is in the forward-deployment basing getting TO the battlefield and going home after.

At least, that's as I understand it from a lifetime around aircraft and the aviation industry, I probably don't have the entire picture. Then again, give me a blank-check budget to build any helo I want and I'm building the AH-53 "Super Stallion rebuilt into a Hind from Hell" that a buddy who was an engineer at Sikorsky and I cooked up... imagine a VTOL Hog that can both lift the troops into battle then immediately pivot right into their topcover.

---

Another difference to note is "Light Attack" vs "Heavy Attack"--the Cobra packs less punch but is faster and more agile, and would have been even more so had the 249 (four-blade rotor) and 309 KingCobra models been fully developed.

There is another reason to maintain two systems filling the same role: Single Point of Failure. If one is benched the other allows SOME retained operational capacity, unlike the V-22 Osprey being our sole Medium Vertol platform where standardizing one platform across all services then grounding the fleet means we presently have ZERO Medium Vertol capability anywhere.

How much commonality of parts does the latest cobra have with the UH-1 airframes that the Marines also run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B52U

How much commonality of parts does the latest cobra have with the UH-1 airframes that the Marines also run?

---

Found it, 85% commonality. That's kinda cool.

Also another reason for the Marines keeping the Cobra around - parallel AH-1/UH-1 improvement programs help cut WAY down on the range of spare parts an LHD or LPA needs to keep stocked aboard.

Is there a reason the Apache couldn't have built to be a folder to make the squids happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stickman

Is there a reason the Apache couldn't have built to be a folder to make the squids happy?

---

A "Sea Apache" variant WAS proposed, but it wasn't just tail length--the Apache has much more sophisticated support requirements as I understand it; the better solution would be to design a heavy attack chopper based on the backend and powertrain of the Blackhawk/Seahawk much like the Huey vs Cobra differentiation/commonality. (Or there's the Russian approach if you INSIST on putting all eggs in one basket; the only reason the Hind can't hot-swap between transport and attack like my friend's "AH-53" concept is that it can't lift the payload weight required for a full load of both troops and weaponry. Admittedly to make the "Attack Stallion" work on paper our design study added a FOURTH engine AND assumed the new GE38's used on King Stallion could be uprated to 10,000shp each - a powertrain equivalent to roughly half the powerplant of a Zumwalt-class destroyer.)

The Sea Apache proposal I saw would have been even more impressive than the land version, even having an "offensive" anti-aircraft capability with Sidewinders like some Cobras rather than just "defensive" with Stingers. Problem again comes back to "what grounds one version grounds both." Here again we come back to the limited room for support facilities, not just aircraft size--which is not what I meant, I was referring to the space required for high-tech/avionics support workshop spaces, spare avionics storage and "precision machining" requirements to fab expedient repair parts. The less shop/tech support "tail" you need aboard ship, the more room you have for the ship's required "stay afloat" functions plus ammunition, fuel and the important delivery systems. It's a LOT easier to get a busted Cobra back in the fight, and needs a lot less square footage and technical resources for back-end shop facilities outside the hangar bay, than it is a bent Apache.

Another point to note is that hunting insurgents requires different capabilities from an aircraft than Hulk Smashing waves of Commie T-72s while dodging ZSU-23-4s in the Fulda Gap.

Apache takes 8-3/4 hours of wrenching for each hour flying; average for rotorcraft is somewhere in the range of 3-5:1.

EDIT: Better comparison: Why does Ford make both smaller F-150s and bigger F-350s? The Apache is like a super-longbed, King Cab all-the-options F-350, while the Cobra is an F-150 with better handling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

A "Sea Apache" variant WAS proposed, but it wasn't just tail length--the Apache has much more sophisticated support requirements as I understand it; the better solution would be to design a heavy attack chopper based on the backend and powertrain of the Blackhawk/Seahawk much like the Huey vs Cobra differentiation/commonality. (Or there's the Russian approach if you INSIST on putting all eggs in one basket; the only reason the Hind can't hot-swap between transport and attack like my friend's "AH-53" concept is that it can't lift the payload weight required for a full load of both troops and weaponry. Admittedly to make the "Attack Stallion" work on paper our design study added a FOURTH engine AND assumed the new GE38's used on King Stallion could be uprated to 10,000shp each - a powertrain equivalent to roughly half the powerplant of a Zumwalt-class destroyer.)

The Sea Apache proposal I saw would have been even more impressive than the land version, even having an "offensive" anti-aircraft capability with Sidewinders like some Cobras rather than just "defensive" with Stingers. Problem again comes back to "what grounds one version grounds both." Here again we come back to the limited room for support facilities, not just aircraft size--which is not what I meant, I was referring to the space required for high-tech/avionics support workshop spaces, spare avionics storage and "precision machining" requirements to fab expedient repair parts. The less shop/tech support "tail" you need aboard ship, the more room you have for the ship's required "stay afloat" functions plus ammunition, fuel and the important delivery systems. It's a LOT easier to get a busted Cobra back in the fight, and needs a lot less square footage and technical resources for back-end shop facilities outside the hangar bay, than it is a bent Apache.

Another point to note is that hunting insurgents requires different capabilities from an aircraft than Hulk Smashing waves of Commie T-72s while dodging ZSU-23-4s in the Fulda Gap.

Apache takes 8-3/4 hours of wrenching for each hour flying; average for rotorcraft is somewhere in the range of 3-5:1.

EDIT: Better comparison: Why does Ford make both smaller F-150s and bigger F-350s? The Apache is like a super-longbed, King Cab all-the-options F-350, while the Cobra is an F-150 with better handling.

---

I own an original Ford Super Duty (first year they made them back in 93), which is the equivalent of the F450. Say nothing bad about my precious truck!! LOL

I'm not dissing either, I was just using that comparison to illustrate "horses for courses." :) Sometimes you need big and bad (Apache), sometimes lean and mean (Cobra).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

sometimes lean and mean (Cobra).

---

And nothing beats the sound of a Cobra's rotor chopping air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markm

And nothing beats the sound of a Cobra's rotor chopping air.

---

I had Apaches over my house yesterday, nice and low. After I got over the immediate obvious paranoid concerns, it was pretty awesome.

If memory serves, in Desert Storm, the Iraqis feared what they called "the slim bird" right up there with the Hawg and B-52 strikes.

Aircraft intricacies are interesting to debate, but the greater point of waste is being overlooked.

For example there is no excuse for service specific vanity camo uniforms. Probably wasted into the hundreds of millions and produced some crap camo worse than just going back to OD green.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd.K

Aircraft intricacies are interesting to debate, but the greater point of waste is being overlooked.

For example there is no excuse for service specific vanity camo uniforms. Probably wasted into the hundreds of millions and produced some crap camo worse than just going back to OD green.

---

True. The entire point of camo is to hide things, and for all the "hiding" the USAF's vanity pattern does it might as well be Day-Glo Pink. I can see having different patterns for different environments, but "MUH SPEHSUL SNOWFLAKENESS!" is not a legit need.

I just copied and pasted the post, hope you can follow it.



Why does the Army fly Apaches and the USMC flies a Super Cobra and Viper variants? Two completely different airframes for the same mission. The list goes on and on, but the Joint Chiefs could straighten it out in an afternoon if they cared. We don't need classes on affirmative action/ race relations. We don't need classes on how to not rape people. We don't need the endless BS to make people feel good. Take those classes and trade them for combat related taskings, and make everyone go through them.

Hell, show me a routine unit that has everyone currently qualified on all their weapons (who isn't gearing up for deployment) and I'll be impressed.


At the risk of taking a tangent, Stick, my understanding re Apache vs Cobra is that the Cobra is more conducive to maritime/amphib/shipboard ops than the Apache--they both kill bad guys and blow up their shit, but a lot of it goes back to operational differences like the luxury of a spread out land base vs the tight quarters of a ship, or the Cobra being more easy to beat back into shape with lower-level tools--llike A-10 vs F-16 in CAS.

Objectively, in the battlefield the Apache is the better weapons system; operationally the difference is in the forward-deployment basing getting TO the battlefield and going home after.

At least, that's as I understand it from a lifetime around aircraft and the aviation industry, I probably don't have the entire picture. Then again, give me a blank-check budget to build any helo I want and I'm building the AH-53 "Super Stallion rebuilt into a Hind from Hell" that a buddy who was an engineer at Sikorsky and I cooked up... imagine a VTOL Hog that can both lift the troops into battle then immediately pivot right into their topcover.




riginally Posted by Stickman View Post
Why does the Army fly Apaches and the USMC flies a Super Cobra and Viper variants?
The Marine Corps wants two engines for greater overwater safety and increased payload. Their Hueys also had twin engines.

Unsure about the Cobra and the Hueys, but to my knowledge most other USMC and Navy helicopters have rotor brakes.

The Viper and the Venom (UH-1Y) also have four rotors.




Quote Originally Posted by Stickman View Post
Why does the Army fly Apaches and the USMC flies a Super Cobra and Viper variants? Two completely different airframes for the same mission. The list goes on and on, but the Joint Chiefs could straighten it out in an afternoon if they cared. We don't need classes on affirmative action/ race relations. We don't need classes on how to not rape people. We don't need the endless BS to make people feel good. Take those classes and trade them for combat related taskings, and make everyone go through them.
Hello Stick, not the same mission profiles in a lot of way's while at the same time they overlap quite a bit. Comparing the Apache to the Cobra is like saying the Mk12 and the Mk18 do the same job. The Apache is and has always been a hunter killer of tanks and entrenched units, to be on the battle field for a prolonged period of time, while the AH-1z Cobra is a designed to offer close air support but furthermore to clear paths and harass enemy units while mobile forces move into place. You're looking at it from the McNamara perspective vs the individual needs perspective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

The Marine Corps wants two engines for greater overwater safety and increased payload. Their Hueys also had twin engines.

Unsure about the Cobra and the Hueys, but to my knowledge most other USMC and Navy helicopters have rotor brakes.

The Viper and the Venom (UH-1Y) also have four rotors.

---

Short answer is landing surface. The Cobra's and Huey's have a much smaller landing space which makes them more ideal for ship to ship and ship to shore operations, the second is overall operational cost, the cost of maintaining a Blackhawk type Helicopter on the bottom end is $3000 per flight hour verse $1600 per flight hour for a UH1Y, this is also data from when I was in from 2011 so it's dated but not necessarily changed in the ratio of dollars per flight hour.

Thanks Mark, it does make sense in hind sight after years of use. My wondering is if during development they could have made one instead of splitting them into two different airframes.



Todd- I agree 100 percent. Allowing the USMC to put a copyright on their cammies is a joke. The US Navy needs blue? Really?? For what, to blend in with the water if someone goes overboard? The USMC uniforms are at least functional. The total turn over of all branches to Multicam would save a massive amount of money.

Obviously different services require their own items for their own taskings, I don't think anyone would debate that. The larger point is that by saving money in some areas, the allowance for other projects would be larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stickman

Thanks Mark, it does make sense in hind sight after years of use. My wondering is if during development they could have made one instead of splitting them into two different airframes.



Todd- I agree 100 percent. Allowing the USMC to put a copyright on their cammies is a joke. The US Navy needs blue? Really?? For what, to blend in with the water if someone goes overboard? The USMC uniforms are at least functional. The total turn over of all branches to Multicam would save a massive amount of money.

Obviously different services require their own items for their own taskings, I don't think anyone would debate that. The larger point is that by saving money in some areas, the allowance for other projects would be larger.

---

If you think the USMC was absurd, try the Canadians trying to make an exact shade of green "state secret" ('Canadian Average Green,' not to mention their similar BS with CADPAT).

But to segue to yet ANOTHER potential thread splitoff going back to Stick's underlying point, by all means we should standardize wherever practical allowing more budget for the 'specialized needs' elsewhere..