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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Inf
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickman
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..