Mitchy260

Best tank in the world i agree but it can only do 1/2 of what the apache is capable of. Apache can do 99.9% of what the challenger 2 can.

dsmith

Barking ..and no, pool not my thing

Sbradley

Well.

We took another helicopter to Ft Rucker, Alabama, for a bit of DAC with the Yanks while we were trying to persuade them (and HMG) to look at buying this piece of kit instead.

We got a 9:1 kill ratio against combat experienced US Army instructor pilots in regular Apaches and rather higher against Longbow. We also got a 3:1 kill ratio against some ANG F-16s

We were pitching for ASR432 - the requirement that ended up with HMG buying the Longbow Apache - and were over £5M an aircraft cheaper. My client offered full offsets - total licence to build and resell the aircraft, whatever Westlands or whoever wanted to make it viable for the West. No dice - a political decision had already been taken

But it's still the best helicopter I've ever flown by bloody miles, and one of the most enjoyable projects I've ever worked on.

To think I got paid for arsing around all day in this:



SB

Simon C

Since when have the yanks been able to well use the kit they make.

An ex's dad was front line in Desert storm, 2 brit officers (1 being the ex's dad) and a US Army officer, in a 4x4 driving into the Iraqi desert. Now this 4x4 was equiped with maps, and GPS. Guess where they ended up...

















POW's in Syria, now guess who was navigating.....






















The yank.. Its not hard to read a GPS even if its not map based (only gives log and lat), even I can do it.

Apparition

Had 4 of those chinook thingys fly over here this morning ... South Lincs, heading North west. Noisy things but quite a sight to see. Comforting to know they are looking after us.
Yve

little-ginge

RAF Benson isn't too far away so we occasionally have chinooks going over.. they are amazing beasts!

ODB

iTrader: (1)

Last time I checked the Apache (nor any other attack helicopter for that matter) cannot take and hold ground, a role that tanks in general excel at. Nor is the Apache very good at urban interdiction (an admission from the Americans themselves no less).

I'd agree the Apache is a damn good attack helicopter, very lethal against other tanks but it still is not a subsitute for the tank, so for me at least the Challenger II is the better piece of kit.

Mitchy260

A tank may well take and hold ground but then they are sitting targets! The battlefield has changed and a lot more combat is being done by air!

An apache has the capability to clear ground for ground troops to move forward! It is designed to pop up behind a tree from as far as 8km, scan the battlefield, prioritise the main threats (Upto 64 calculations) pop back down below the trees for the co pilot gunner to process the information, pop back up above the trees and let loose with what ever the situation needs! Main battle tanks and hell fire missiles will go down the range, light armoured and he will use his rockets, ground troops/landrovers, again rockets or 30mm chain gun!

All this without being noticed from a good distance away! If you catch them in pairs or even 3's then the force used is frightening! Far much more so than any tank which is limited by a lot of factors!

As to Sbradley's post... I have never heard nor seen this helicopter before, so cant really comment on its capabilities although i do nt believe the figures quoted! Im not sure how you can base your opinions on US apaches with US pilots and matching it up with UK apaches and UK pilots! Our pilots will have very different SOP's. I dont need to go to the ins and outs of british vs american and friendly fire incidents do i? The UK apache has undergone major modification over the us apache! (Rolls royce twin engines for more power was the 1st major modification) We now have a hidas capability, chaff and flair. Its a defensive aids capability with radar/missile and laser warning receivers and chaff/flair used to overcome these! It is proven to be extremely effective! Not sure what the yanks use but we use hellfire missiles! All our apaches are radar longbow, with tads pnvs up front also!

There is no signs of any superior sighting/radar units on that aircraft, nor is there any signs of a cannon gun? The longbow is on top for a reason and that is so it can scan the battlefield being hidden! (A very useful tool) There is no such device on the aircraft shown in your pic!

I am dubious about your claim, after all if it were any good the british government would not have invested in billions on the WAH 64. There may be 1 better equipped aircraft and that is the american cobra!

Not sure either why you got a higher ''kill rate'' against the longbow version?? Tells me the pilots were amateurs and didn't know what they were doing with the equipment! They should have seen you, long before you should have seen them!

Is it only 1 engined? Or is there an engine round the other side?

Sbradley

I wrote a long, carefully crafted reply explaining everything which then vanished when I tried to post it while the site was being maintained.

Nuts to it - I don't have time to do it again so here's a precis.

Basically I'm not disputing that the Apache is good or that ours is better than the US one. The stats I quoted are accurate and the reasons for HMG going down the course they took were political, not economic. That's not unusual, either.

Avionics on the Ka-50 are passive rather than active and it was designed to be at least as capable in a battlefield air superiority role as it is in an anti armour role.

We out ranged the Longbow in stand-off air to air capability and once it got into a knife fight their (at the time) restricted flight envelope made the fight even less equal, hence the higher kill ratio.

Yes, we had a gun - a 30mm basically lifted off the BMP-2 and lightened a bit. We also had two engines and one seat. No tail rotor gave us a very, very broad flight envelope - way outside any other currently operational helicopter. The AT-14 missiles are dual role and can be used to target airborne as well as surface targets, and we also carried a pair of Archer AAMs slaved to the helmet mounted sight, giving us a way superior range and letahlity over the Stinger.

I've flown about 50 hours in American Apaches and several hundred in the Ka-50. I've also flown Hind, Lynx, Sea King, Blackahawk (Navy and Army), Wessex, Hip and various other odds and sods. Just to put my comments in context

More pics here:







Cheers,

SB

Edited because my fat fingers typed in the wrong gun size

ODB

iTrader: (1)

Equally that can be said for helicopters, they can be neutralized by fixed wing aircraft, other helicopters or even the lastest in hyper sonic kinectic AA missiles. But the fact remains that if you want to assualt a heavily defended ground target and then occupy that area tanks are the way to go no questions asked. If they are also combined with other elements (such as air power and artillery) you can have a force that can penetrate almost any defence and be very hard to stop.

And what provides fire support for troops more than a tank? Resistant to all small arms and only suspectible to specific weapons the tank is the idea infantry support vehicle in fact that is what it started out as (and likewise infantry can support the tank). Artillery has the same capabilites to clear out an area does that make it better than a tank?

The modern MBT is supposed to engage targets over 1000 yards (either static or moving) of all types whether it be heavy armour or light trucks. The Challenger II is supposed to have the best targeting and fire control system available to a tank witht he commander identifying targets and storing them for the gunner to them dispatch. All of this with moving across country. Plus it has to been able to survive hits from heavy calibre canon (100mm +) without impeding its performance. Name a helicopter that can do that?

The armoured brigade is still the most effective. Tanks supported by AA and Mechanised Infantry using the old blitzkrieg tactics are a very potent combination. Tanks used in multiple numbers are extremely hard to stop. People have been predicting the end of the tank for many years now but it has time and time again shown itself to be a powerful and useful weapon and forms the backbone for all modern armies. It has evolved with the times becoming more powerful and advanced with tactic have evolved to cover their shortfalls. But its best not to forget that Helicopters have their own short comings too.

Ever since Vietnam and the appearance of the first Helicopter gunships and air mobile infantry people have been writing off the tank. Yet both Gulf Wars, the numerous Israeli conflicts and even the Somilia debarcule have shown the tank to still be the best at what it does.

So IMHO the tank is king and here to stay, attack helicopters are good but not top dog.

***Edit***
SBradley is that the Hokum/Alligator? As I have heard good things about it.

Sbradley

Alligator? Not heard it called that...

Hokum was the Nato reporting name, yes, because nobody believed it existed! The factory called it the Werewolf before some marketing weenie decided Black Shark was better...

I think the Alligator might be the 2 seat Ka-52 but I'm not sure...

SB

Leslie

This should take you back in time Simon.

When I did a tour at RRFU Pershore I was taught unofficially up to solo standard in the original Whirlwind with the Alvis Leonides engine, no engine computer of course, and the original Wessex with single engine and a fuel computer which kept playing up and it also had a tendency to get split blade every so often! The MOA in those days always used very original Ministry aircraft! i used to fly a Varsity as well which I last saw at the Brooklands Museum at Byfleet.

It was great fun though and I would have enjoyed an official helicopter tour. I'd like a go in the Apache too.

Les