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

[Diamondback]

Splitting off the Wingnuttery...

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

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.

[B52U]

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

[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.

[Diamondback]

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.

[Stickman]

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

[Diamondback]

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.

[Stickman]

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

[Diamondback]

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).

[markm]

sometimes lean and mean (Cobra).

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

[Stickman]

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.