Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: Hughes / McDonnell-Douglas AH-64 "Apache"


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Dec 24, 2012
RE: Hughes / McDonnell-Douglas AH-64 "Apache"
Permalink  
 


B.S. + B.S. = B.S. One of the worst pieces of media ever. Armored airframe my butt.

__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Jan 3, 2013
Permalink  
 

hillberg wrote:

B.S. + B.S. = B.S. One of the worst pieces of media ever. Armored airframe my butt.


 

The airframe is armored.



__________________

Flyboy's Site



Veteran Member - Level 3

Status: Offline
Posts: 471
Date: Jan 3, 2013
Permalink  
 

Technically the boron and kevlar are on the outer sides of the overall co.ckpit area, not the individual seats.



-- Edited by Gunship on Friday 4th of January 2013 05:14:07 AM

__________________
Alan Dallas


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 152
Date: Jan 4, 2013
Permalink  
 

hillberg wrote:

B.S. + B.S. = B.S. One of the worst pieces of media ever. Armored airframe my butt.


 It has about 2,500 pounds of high-impact and fragmentation protection that can withstand 23mm hits, plus individually armored seating inside composed of bonded boron carbide and Kevlar. All field-tested, of course. How is this so hard to believe?



__________________

Dear Princess Celestia,

Today I learned that nopony kicks ass without tanker gas. Nopony!

Your faithful student,
Fluttercopter



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

Pilot & gunners stations Floor side walls have sheet armor, seats armored all the rest is sheet aluminum & thats what it is, seen the ballistic testing of gearboxes & airframe componerts. along with the multi spar rotor blades. Believe me when I say the airframe is NOT armored, The fuel cell is a standard self sealing crash worthey type. Get real people.

__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 246
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

fluttercopter wrote:
hillberg wrote:

B.S. + B.S. = B.S. One of the worst pieces of media ever. Armored airframe my butt.


 It has about 2,500 pounds of high-impact and fragmentation protection that can withstand 23mm hits, plus individually armored seating inside composed of bonded boron carbide and Kevlar. All field-tested, of course. How is this so hard to believe?


 

Now that's cold war era BS. Where did you get this info from?

First of all, the protection is designed to withstand 12.7mm fire (think YakB), not 23mm (ZU-23-2 AA)!!

Second, keep in mind the Apache was designed as a fast and agile tank-killer, not a flying tank in itself like the Russian counterparts (Mi-28 & Mi-24). Only the crew and fuel compartments are protected. 

Though I do remember a report some years ago that the original armor would be replaced with ceramic armor like on the M1 Abrams. Any news on that?



__________________


Veteran Member - Level 3

Status: Offline
Posts: 471
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

retroistic wrote:

Though I do remember a report some years ago that the original armor would be replaced with ceramic armor like on the M1 Abrams. Any news on that?


 

It always had ceramic armor in suppliment to the original steel. It already carries the latest generation of it.



__________________
Alan Dallas


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

How is it so hard to understand that the airframe is armored? Standard helicopters don't have any 'armor', therefore even sheet steel is technically armor. You tell us to get real, when there are loads of sources out there that say the AH-64 is armored. You're the one living in a fantasy world.

And yes, the entire aircraft is designed to withstand 12.7mm hits, but critical parts can withstand up to 23mm caliber. Yes, the ZSU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4. This is what the AH-64 was designed to take, as the ZSU-23-4 was the most feared AAA platform in its design era.

For all intents and purposes, the AH-64 IS a flying tank, as stated in many documentaries. The Mi-24 and Mi-28 just use more bulk in inferior armor, so that comparison is a mute point.

To say that the AH-64 is NOT armored is simply stupid. There have been accounts of them taking multiple hits off multiple types of projectile and not being so damaged that they can't fly home. 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 23mm, RPGs. The armor, coupled with redundancy measures, makes the AH-64 the most survivable attack helicopter on the battlefield today. Period.

 

From Jane's:

"Modern, tandem-seat, armoured and damage-resistant combat helicopter; is required to continue flying for 30 minutes after being hit by 12.7 mm bullets coming from anywhere in the lower hemisphere plus 20º; also survives 23 mm hits in many parts;..."

 

From FlightSimBooks.com:

"The crew area, the drive systems, and the hydraulics are covered with high-impact armor and fragmentation shields. This armor is designed to stop the 23mm High Explosive Incendiary cannon projectile fired from the feared Soviet ZSU-23-4 Shilka mobile antiaircraft gun. The rest of the aircraft is, for the most part, invulnerable to fire from .5-inch gun armor-piercing shells."



-- Edited by Flyboy on Saturday 5th of January 2013 05:01:57 PM



__________________

Flyboy's Site



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

I know I'm gonna regret wading into this silliness, but some of the new Huey II's that DOS is having built have a layer of ceramic armor covering the entire cabin and co.ckpit floor.  I've seen it and touched it so I'm not talking off some spec sheet.  I am no AH-64 expert, but I don't think the wieght of ceramic armor is an issue.  I'll ask my buddy Jon, who literally wrote the book on the AH-64 (two in fact) and see what he says about the armor it carries.  Since he was also a Apache pilot I'm sure he had a vested interest in the answer!

   Ray



__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

From my buddy, Jon Bernstein, author of AH-64 Apache Units of Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom and AH-64 Apache Walk Around via e-mail:

"Not a lot of armor on the -64.  There's a new belly armor panel, but I haven't seen it firsthand.  The fuel tanks and co.ckpit area floor and sides are armored and the armor can withstand up to 23mm hits."

Hope that helps clear up any confusion.

  Ray



-- Edited by rotorwash on Saturday 5th of January 2013 09:53:00 PM



__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Jan 5, 2013
Permalink  
 

That airframe is constructed of aluminum, You can punch a screw driver into that structure The Vieo shows a foam & glass instlation in the fuel cell area, braggin that its bullet broof- A total B.S. remark,The drive system armored? B.S. The gear boxes are designed to take hits & run "dry" The compressors have sheet armor added, To say as the video does is complete B.S. The rounds pass through most of the structure, Period, The crews have added armor, Fuel cells are self sealing crash restant type. Get off the sims & see a real machine.
Ceramic armor? I got two sheets at home, Try to lift it 70 lbs & it's only a seat back , You have been fed a fanticy,Get real.

__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Jan 6, 2013
Permalink  
 

hillberg wrote:

That AH 64 is constructed of Aluminum skins, Ribs, and the armor is added as a requirment of a contract. the Fuel cell rests on fibre skins & foam blocks. that are not bullet proof. the Cell its self is balistic nylon & rubber, A typical Crash resistant Mill spec item. The crew seats are armored, the compesssors on the engines are protected, Watch the B.S. "Factories " video and to see the B,S. just chaps my hide, It makes the machine out to be like "Air Wolf" the only saving grace it has is the stand off range of the weapons. The depiction of the "armored" AH-64 makes the general public think that small arms will bounce off like T V.

Miss information is what these shows promote is almost criminal , Spend close to 40 years around,working on ,with,& flying Helicopters , The publics fear & miss information on helicopters is frightening.

Look at the T/R peddles of the AH-64 what company logo is cast?

The OH 58 in the pix enclosed note the hole. thats at the lower forward end of the fuel cell that makes up the back seat, its cell  has the same materal as the AH64 & the OH 58 has NO aromor in that location.no

The construction of the same as the technology of the day (like the AH 56)(1970s & 80s) & the processes of the Manufactures ideals (Hughes)

Small arms are still the #1 threat. You can call it armored all you want It's not a tank. You still can punch a hole in it with a stupid screw driver,

When it comes to helicopters,Americans build sports cars, Russia builds trucks,& Europe makes Vespas.

Sims & books can only get you started, yawnGet some hands on experiance & Get Real.evileye


 

 I see you have lots of experience with commercial helos but I'm not sure what your point is with those photos.  First one is the Bell AH-1 4BW prototype.  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China.  I assume the AH-56 conctruction shot is supposed to convey helos have lots of aluminum.  I'm pretty sure we all get that already.  As for the OH-58 pics.  Well no one said they were armored like Apaches and they are also a Bell product so not sure of the connection other than fuel cell materials.  As for the fact that you can put holes in the Apaches skin with a screwdriver, I have no doubt of that.  Would be happy to test it out for you and take a pic, but I'm pretty sure the folks at Rucker would be a bit miffed.  I have dozens of pics of Apaches with bullet holes in em.  The point is, they are protected in the critical areas and the engines are positoned so that a single round is very unlikely to disable them both.  I think most of us know that the airframe is meant to ABSORB rounds not deflect them like a stupid TV show. 

  Am I undrstanding you correctly that although my buddy Jon says the fuel cells are armored, you just think he's full of BS?  If so, I got nothing for you.  If you don't believe the guys who fly em, I'd say you're pretty much unconvinceable.  Just to be clear here, I'm no victim of Apache puppy love.  The dang things are hanger queens as often as not and maintenance hogs.  The Army would have done much better to keep the Cobra flyng IMHO based on it's current needs, but that's a different discussion.

   Ray

PS:  Pedals have "Hughes Helicopter" cast on them.  Once agan not sure what you're getting at with that question other than it's an old design. 

 

-- Edited by rotorwash on Sunday 6th of January 2013 07:58:18 PM

-- Edited by Stingray on Sunday 6th of January 2013 11:49:14 PM



Attachments
__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Jan 6, 2013
Permalink  
 

Cheers for the input, as always Ray.

What I simply can't make out, is why 'hillberg' is so against the AH-64 being armored. By looking at his profile it appears that he is from the U.S., but his arguments here are typical of those pro-Russian/anti-American comments you get on YouTube. What is your problem, 'hillberg'?

__________________

Flyboy's Site



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Jan 6, 2013
Permalink  
 

That AH 64 is constructed of Aluminum skins, Ribs, and the armor is added as a requirment of a contract. the Fuel cell rests on fibre skins & foam blocks. that are not bullet proof. the Cell its self is balistic nylon & rubber, A typical Crash resistant Mill spec item. The crew seats are armored, the compesssors on the engines are protected, Watch the B.S. "Factories " video and to see the B,S. just chaps my hide, It makes the machine out to be like "Air Wolf" the only saving grace it has is the stand off range of the weapons. The depiction of the "armored" AH-64 makes the general public think that small arms will bounce off like T V.

Miss information is what these shows promote is almost criminal , Spend close to 40 years around,working on ,with,& flying Helicopters , The publics fear & miss information on helicopters is frightening.

Look at the T/R peddles of the AH-64 what company logo is cast?

The OH 58 in the pix enclosed note the hole. thats at the lower forward end of the fuel cell that makes up the back seat, its cell  has the same materal as the AH64 & the OH 58 has NO aromor in that location.no

The construction of the same as the technology of the day (like the AH 56)(1970s & 80s) & the processes of the Manufactures ideals (Hughes)

Small arms are still the #1 threat. You can call it armored all you want It's not a tank. You still can punch a hole in it with a stupid screw driver,

When it comes to helicopters,Americans build sports cars, Russia builds trucks,& Europe makes Vespas.

Sims & books can only get you started, yawnGet some hands on experiance & Get Real.evileye

 

 



Attachments
__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 152
Date: Jan 6, 2013
Permalink  
 

retroistic wrote:
fluttercopter wrote:
hillberg wrote:

B.S. + B.S. = B.S. One of the worst pieces of media ever. Armored airframe my butt.


 It has about 2,500 pounds of high-impact and fragmentation protection that can withstand 23mm hits, plus individually armored seating inside composed of bonded boron carbide and Kevlar. All field-tested, of course. How is this so hard to believe?


 

Now that's cold war era BS. Where did you get this info from?


 Notes on my HD that I've taken from what I consider reputable sources.

And it's not "cold war era BS", it's FACT. It was designed to take hits from such a high caliber in response to the Soviet surface-to-air threats at the time.



__________________

Dear Princess Celestia,

Today I learned that nopony kicks ass without tanker gas. Nopony!

Your faithful student,
Fluttercopter



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Jan 6, 2013
Permalink  
 

Like any manufacture, Hughes , Cessna ,Piper ,Bell, Sikorsky. They all follow up in technologys to produce the next product, One after another with the same design thoughts, prosesses, & people put in the next product, Good features & design flaws incorperated in a line of products, ( Cessnas high mounted wing, Pipers Low mounted wings, Beeches weak spars, Hughes static mast ,add a standard of T.O.ed ,M.S. & AN parts and the contracted venders that provide gear boxes, weapons, fuel cells, Blades, & avionics. Pilots bless thair hearts are schooled but most never go beyond the preeflight & see deeper in the box.
Modern helicopter airframes constructed with aluminum, Aromr is added to protect the crew. Look on the Web and look at the armour placed on larger helicopters, Bolted to the out side , Big ol slabs of armor. On both freind & foe.

We did a study on armoring a helicopter to be sold to South America, Crew, Pax & power plant.
The weight of protection to threat 3 made it a lead sled for one pilot, 2 pax & half a bag of fuel.
His perception were typical of john q public, "factory" TV shows do more harn than good.

Yankee & Zulu Bell machines for the services would be good.

The fuel cell itself requires no added armor.


__________________


Global Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Date: Jan 7, 2013
Permalink  
 

This is about the silliest argument we've ever had here. Hillberg we get it, the vid is bunk. :P

But in general the airframe does have protection. Its a military requirement. It may not live up to its exaggeration in popular media, but that doesn't mean it completely lacks it.

You're really going to argue with the word of someone who has actually operated the bloody thing?



-- Edited by Leela25 on Monday 7th of January 2013 08:59:28 PM

__________________

Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Jan 7, 2013
Permalink  
 

You would be surprized on how pilots with thousands of hours will watch with a childs like adventure , The overhaul and procedures that show the real inner workings of what they fly, Training aids help but with the real thing zipped open , It's a whole nother world.

Have you ever seen the tiny wires that make up a T T strap in an old Bell 205? Or smell the stink of jet fuel & rubber in fixing a cell in a H-60?
Operated? Try Studied, Piloted, Repaired, Designed, You operate tractors & earth moving equipment. Aviation is a little more refined (unless it's Russian)

__________________


Global Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Date: Jan 7, 2013
Permalink  
 

hillberg wrote:

Operated? Try Studied, Piloted, Repaired, Designed, You operate tractors & earth moving equipment.


 Slip of the hand, that's of course what I meant. :P



__________________

Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Jan 8, 2013
Permalink  
 

It's all fun stuff. even the earth moving stuff,;-j

__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date: Mar 11, 2013
Permalink  
 

British Army Air Corps AgustaWestland Apache AH1 attack helicopters operating from HMS Ocean.



Attachments
__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Date: Mar 11, 2013
Permalink  
 

Dramatic photograph of AH-64 Apache from "War Machines" page on Facebook.



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date: Oct 29, 2014
Permalink  
 

Flyboy wrote:

How is it so hard to understand that the airframe is armored? Standard helicopters don't have any 'armor', therefore even sheet steel is technically armor. You tell us to get real, when there are loads of sources out there that say the AH-64 is armored. You're the one living in a fantasy world.

And yes, the entire aircraft is designed to withstand 12.7mm hits, but critical parts can withstand up to 23mm caliber. Yes, the ZSU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4. This is what the AH-64 was designed to take, as the ZSU-23-4 was the most feared AAA platform in its design era.

For all intents and purposes, the AH-64 IS a flying tank, as stated in many documentaries. The Mi-24 and Mi-28 just use more bulk in inferior armor, so that comparison is a mute point.

To say that the AH-64 is NOT armored is simply stupid. There have been accounts of them taking multiple hits off multiple types of projectile and not being so damaged that they can't fly home. 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 23mm, RPGs. The armor, coupled with redundancy measures, makes the AH-64 the most survivable attack helicopter on the battlefield today. Period.

 

From Jane's:

"Modern, tandem-seat, armoured and damage-resistant combat helicopter; is required to continue flying for 30 minutes after being hit by 12.7 mm bullets coming from anywhere in the lower hemisphere plus 20º; also survives 23 mm hits in many parts;..."

 

From FlightSimBooks.com:

"The crew area, the drive systems, and the hydraulics are covered with high-impact armor and fragmentation shields. This armor is designed to stop the 23mm High Explosive Incendiary cannon projectile fired from the feared Soviet ZSU-23-4 Shilka mobile antiaircraft gun. The rest of the aircraft is, for the most part, invulnerable to fire from .5-inch gun armor-piercing shells."



-- Edited by Flyboy on Saturday 5th of January 2013 05:01:57 PM


 

That statement is quite ignorant to call russian armor inferior where it is the only one that is tested before adopting to combat duties.

 

For comparision, Hillberg is partially correct and incorrect at the same time.

The AH-64A/D armor is like this.

 

antishot.gif

The Apache has like in this picture, the blue armor is boroncarbid with kevlar and the blue panel between ****pits is a small bulletproof sheet of glass that seperates both ****pits and maybe around 1.5cm thick capable to withstand 7.62mm at least maybe even 12.7mm.

 

Acryl glass (wind and blast barrier), manufactorer brochure.

http://www.ppg.com/coatings/aerospace/transparencies/militaryaviation/Documents/boeing_apache_AH-64_final.pdf

 

The red panels are kevlar glued to smaller steel or ceramic sheets (AH-64D block3 it is ceramic sheets) not really many and not big. The Apache does not have bulletproof glass like all western attack helicopters the producer of the Apache windshields is PPG aerospace ind. and they use 4 layered reinforced acryl glass and the side windows are so thin they can be pushed in with one finger or pierced by a screw driver, the frontal screen is thicker and essentially only for protection against low velocity impact such as debris or maybe at most a flying bird and absorbs shockwaves from explosions that occure by MANPADS/SAM hits, the  armored seats are the direct indication, that the windshields are not BP glass, for this and protect only from very narrow angles to the pilot, the armored seats are constructed by Simula belongs to BAE Systems today.

Link to Simula Armored seats.

013-Energy-Absorbing-Crew-Seat-for-AH-WAH-64-Apache.pdf

Which states it is armored against 12.7mm API and 7.62mm API.

 

The armor itself is made by Ceradyne Canada and is like stated in picture above boroncarbide with kevlar for the direct crew protection panels which are adaptive, but the outerskin of the front (****pit section) till mid section is made of aluminium alloy probably also from ceradyne (boron aluminium alloy), this does not include aviation bay, they have a different composition of only one layer armor compared with the ****pit (crew armor) 2 layers and 1 soft layers (kevlar).

The tailboom is never armored and has at most kevlar at the after section where the aft aviation bay ends, the tail never armored except tailrotor, that would just destroy the balance of the helicopter.

The bottom of the fuselage is essentially one layer of armor that is armored to single hits 12.7mm maybe 23mm HE, but the aviation bay they would be lucky to withstand 7.62mm, they are usually only armored to 12.7mm in front aviation buy not after section/after aviation bay.

 

The point that you've made about russian armor being inferior to "Apaches armor" is very ignorant.

 

The Mi-28/24 and Ka50/52 have a 3 layerd hard armor with 2 soft layers (kevlar/aramid).

 

The Mi-28A/N armor is the outerskin for ****pit to mid section made of aluminium alloy that withstands 12.7mm API rounds without comprimising the first layers armor structure in the slightest.

The armor is followed by aramid fibric glued on ceramic plates that are set into holdings, in Mi-28A model they were pure ceramic plates that disintegrated immidiatly after impact of a projectile and fall out of the holdings, this was later fixed with glued aramid fibric now they stay in the holdings for several hits. After that ceramic layer of armor comes the titanium composite armor made of titanium and nomex/carbon epoxy and kevlar sandwitched inner main armor that withstands up to 23mm HEFI rounds.

Here of the Mi-28A model in armor tets can be seen how the configuration of armor works, it was shot with 7.62x54, 12.7,14.5 up to 20mm HEFI rounds.

The Mi-28 and Ka-50 share essentially the armor, but the Ka-50 is little bit better armored due the lack of 2nd pilot so the armor could be used for one pilot.

russia12.jpg

 

The entire ****pit on Mi-28 and Ka-50 is completley armored and have BP glass, while Ka-52 and Mi-24 have BP glass for frontal windshield, but reinforced acryl glass for canopy glass.The fuselage itself till the mid section right after after section starts is essentially made of aluminum/composite (nomex/carbon epoxy) armor, the after section and tail boom are not armored like on any other helicopter, the after section has a simple GFC layer that is protective to some degree.

 

So overall saying the armor of russian helicopters is inferior is not only ignorant but also the complete opposite.

 

Calling the Apache a flying tank, does not come anywhere near to reality. Taking RPG hits, that can even a non armored helicopter as long it hits non vital parts, that is also the case for armored helicopters, they only survive because RPGs are shaped charge weapons that punch only a small directed jet stream through the armor and do not rip it apart like HE-Frag warheads which are intented for Anti Aircraft role.

 

Here is a video of a guy in afghanistan field with PK Machinegun or AK-47 penetrating ****pit and the Apache crash lands, but main fault lies on Apache pilot for close distance, which also destroyed the TADS.

 

 

 

Overall the armor can be evaluaded by burned out wreckages of Attack Helicopters, if something remains it is armor if something burns away it is not armor, look at wreckages of Mi24 compared with Mi-8 and you will see that only the cover of APU,tail/tailboom and stubbed wings melt away, the rest remains. Same goes for AH-1 compared with UH1 or AH-64, mainly only the ****pit and midsection (gearbox comparment) remain after a wreckage starts burning.



__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 225
Date: Dec 26, 2015
Permalink  
 

note the red and blue on the AH 64 all added armor, that all folks (missing forward bulkhead behind tads and engine compressor armor)

__________________


Global Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Date: Jan 8, 2016
Permalink  
 

LockMart wins $38M contract for Apache M-TADS/PNVS

http://helihub.com/2016/01/07/lockmart-wins-38m-contract-for-apache-m-tadspnvs/

The U.S. Army awarded Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) a $31.8 million contract in December 2015 to sustain the AH-64D/E Apache’s targeting and pilotage system, the Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor (M-TADS/PNVS).

This Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) contract enables M-TADS/PNVS mission readiness, drives reliability and maintainability improvements, and reduces operation and support costs. A total of $31.8 million was obligated to Lockheed Martin through this one-year base contract award with a total value not to exceed $85.5 million. The period of performance is through December 2016, with four additional one-year options that would extend support through December 2020. The total five-year contract value potential is $424 million.

“We work hard to ensure that our PBL customers have the highest availability rates possible, and we back that up with a team of field representatives who stay ready around the clock, around the world,” said Mike Taylor, director of M-TADS/PNVS international and sustainment programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

The U.S. Army and Lockheed Martin Apache PBL team was honored with 2013 and 2011 Secretary of Defense PBL Awards recognizing outstanding achievements in providing soldiers with exceptional operational support.

Fielded in 2005, M-TADS/PNVS provides Apache pilots with long-range, precision engagement and pilotage capabilities for safe flight during day, night and adverse weather missions. Lockheed Martin has delivered more than 1,350 M-TADS/PNVS systems and spares to the U.S. Army and international customers.



__________________

Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 246
Date: Jan 10, 2016
Permalink  
 

hillberg wrote:

note the red and blue on the AH 64 all added armor, that all folks (missing forward bulkhead behind tads and engine compressor armor)


 

Which means it at least carries armor protection, granted unlike what society tends to think of how it works.



__________________


Global Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Date: Jan 19, 2016
Permalink  
 

Why are we still talking about the armour? Please lets move on.... :P



-- Edited by Leela25 on Tuesday 19th of January 2016 12:35:31 PM

__________________

Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.



Global Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Date: May 4, 2020
Permalink  
 

Training expands to meet need for US Army Apache pilots

https://helihub.com/2020/04/28/training-expands-to-meet-need-for-us-army-apache-pilots/

28 Apr, 20, Source: US Army

The Army has found a viable alternative to assist Fort Rucker in the training of D model Apache instructor pilots and maintenance test pilots.

The last D model IP/MTP courses at Fort Rucker ended in early April, which meant D model IPs/MTPs would have to be taught another way. Among those that needed training were pilots from 4th Combat Aviation Brigade, a unit scheduled to deploy later this year. The Department of the Army G-3/5/7 Aviation contacted the Apache Attack Helicopter Project Office to find out if it had the capability to train Apache D model pilots. The project office builds Apache attack helicopters for the Army fleet and trains its aviators on how to fly the latest aircraft version.

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Aaron Simbro, flight training lead for the project office, was charged to find a solution. The “new process” would have to be conducted at a temporary location. This required tremendous amount of coordination with and support from 4th CAB in order to properly prepare for their primary mission and upcoming deployment.

“We got the program of instruction straight from Rucker,” Simbro said, “so that we would be able to teach on behalf of them.” But the idea on how to conduct the training came from the unit, he said, and they provided all the resources needed. This enabled Simbro and his team to plan the course and conduct training that resembled what would have been taught at Fort Rucker, achieving the same standards, course length and flight hours to complete.

For the maintenance test pilots course, the project office was able to team with Fort Rucker and students received academic training at Fort Rucker, with flight training at Fort Carson, Colorado. The instructor pilots course presented unique challenges. Fort Rucker has significantly changed the IP course and from teaching a pilot to be a Fort Rucker IP to being a unit IP. The project office’s Apache standardization pilots would have to undergo additional training to teach the course to standard.

The three-week preparation for the instructor pilots training, which was conducted at Fort Carson, required Simbro’s new equipment training team to travel to Fort Rucker for one week of mentored training from Fort Rucker, one week at Fort Hood, Texas, for simulation training, and one week of flight training at Fort Carson.

John Haeme, NET project manager for the project office, admitted some apprehension as to whether everything would come together as they prepared the new instructor pilots to be what they need to be. “We were excited that the AH-64 IPC had made the changes that would better prepare the candidates for their new responsibilities and position,” Haeme said. Most of the project office’s NET team instructors had previously taught the AH-64 IPC years ago, and the changes implemented by the AH-64 IPC are fully endorsed, he added.

The typical AH-64 instructor pilots course at Fort Rucker is normally six students. Simbro’s team was able to train five IPs and five maintenance test pilots at Fort Carson. The MTP course completed March 13 and the instructor pilots course ended April 24.

But the mobile AH-64E instructor pilots course would not have been successful without the determination and perseverance of 4th CAB and the NET instructors, Simbro emphasized. Simbro praised the efforts of Chief Warrant Office 5 Mike Corsaro, command chief warrant officer for 4th CAB, and William Ham, IPC task lead NET.

“The unit attacked all the issues with gusto. We were able to graduate the IPs on time – actually two days early,” Simbro said. “As the training manager, it’s the people who make all the difference. It wasn’t just a job for them. It was their passion for getting things done right and supporting the warfighter.”

The instructor pilots and new equipment training team had numerous and difficult challenges throughout training. Fort Carson is almost 7,000 feet above sea level, so the altitude was the first obstacle to overcome. Next was the record snowfall in Colorado, which meant days of not being able to conduct flight training and coordinating alternate flight schedules to compensate for the time lost.

The most difficult challenge was the onset and impacts of COVID-19. From daily decontamination of the aircraft, adhering to safe social distancing policies, and training work-arounds due to the travel ban implemented in Colorado, the team successfully mitigated all challenges.

“The fact that the unit kept on going with the training when they could have elected to postpone it in order to be with their families during a difficult time in the country speaks volumes,” Simbro said. “They never stopped training, including a live fire gunnery, and instead were focused on accomplishing the mission.”

John Haeme and Troy Snook, NET project leaders and retired E model Apache pilots, also sacrificed to complete the mission. Both were only scheduled to be in Colorado for three weeks at most. They ended up having to remain in Colorado for two months. Additionally, the NET team was short two instructor pilots, so all the instructors pulled double duty to complete the training on time for the 4th CAB, specifically 6-17 CAV.

“We were proud to be asked and challenged to meet the standard set by the Institutional AH-64 Instructor Pilot Course,” Haeme said. “Especially with the new changes in philosophy and application implemented by 1-14th Aviation to the AH-64 Instructor Pilot Course. To take this on the road to a unit; it was an honor for our team to be trusted with the responsibility and exciting to take on.”

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Nathanael Tramm, one of the instructor pilot students from 4th CAB, said he expected the course to be similar to that at Fort Rucker but tailored to Fort Carson. “The instructors came switched in and out. Overall it has been a good course,” he said.

Simbro and his team collected many lessons learned that they can now apply and improve on with the next course. The new course better prepares the instructor pilots to manage an Aircrew Training Program and train/evaluate unit pilots though all stages of readiness level progression and annual evaluations. The addition of role reversal and implementation of training plans will better prepare the instructor pilot candidates in the application and their correlation of the fundamentals of instruction.

“I’ll be able to go back to my unit as an instructor pilot and be able to do tasks and help train other pilots and be proficient in our jobs,” Tramm said. “It helps relieve some of the workload since we’ve been low on instructor pilots. I would recommend it to other units because it means you’re at home and can go home to your families every night and not be TDY for three or four months at a time.”

Ultimately, the success of the instructor pilot training has been about the people, Simbro said. “This is the first Apache graduate course outside of Fort Rucker,” he said. The ability to expand training – to help Rucker build pilots to support the warfighter is the fundamental outcome.

“We’re validating the ability to produce graduate level training. I credit that to 6-17 CAV and 4th CAB,” Simbro said. “It was their heavy lifting and determination that allowed us to validate a new process that works.”



__________________

Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.



Global Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Date: May 4, 2020
Permalink  
 

Foreign Military Sale to Morocco of 36 AH-64E Apaches

https://helihub.com/2020/04/27/foreign-military-sale-to-morocco-of-36-ah-64e-apaches/

27 Apr, 20, Source: DSCA

The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Morocco of thirty-six (36) AH-64E Apache attack helicopters and related equipment for an estimated cost of $4.25 billion.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on November 19, 2019.

The Government of Morocco has requested a possible sale of thirty-six (36) AH-64E Apache attack helicopters (24 new, 12 optional); seventy-nine (79) T700-GE-701D engines (72 installed, 6 spares); thirty-six (36) AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/AN/AAR-11 Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors (M-TADS/PNVS); eighteen (18) AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars (FCR) with Radar Electronic Units (REU); eighteen (18) AN/APR-48B Modernized – Radar Frequency Interferometers (MRFI); five hundred fifty-one (551) AGM-114R Hellfire missiles (441 new, 110 optional); sixty (60) AGM-114L Hellfire missiles; seventy-two (72) M36E9 Hellfire Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); five hundred eighty-eight (588) Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) kits (478 installed, 110 optional); seventy-eight (78) Embedded Global Positioning Systems with Inertial Navigation (EGIs) (72 installed, 6 spares); thirty-nine (39) AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS) (36 installed, 3 spares); and two hundred (200) AIM-92H Stinger missiles.  Also included are twenty-one (21) Manned-Unmanned Teaming-2 (MUMT-2) video receivers (18 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) Manned-Unmanned Teaming-2 (MUMT-2) air-air-ground kits (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) AN/APR-39D(V)2 radar signal detecting sets (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) AN/AVR-2B laser detecting sets (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) AN/APX-123 or AN/APX-123A common transponders (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) IDM-401 Improved Data Modems (36 new, 3 spares); six (6) Link-16 terminals; thirty-nine (39) Improved Countermeasure Dispensing System (ICMD) (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) AN/ARN-149 (V)3 automatic direction finders (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) Doppler ASN-157 Doppler radar velocity sensors (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) AN/APN-209 radar altimeters (36 installed, 3 spares); thirty-nine (39) AN/ARN-153 Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) sets (36 installed, 3 spares); four (4) TACAN ground stations; thirty-six (36) Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range/Instrument Landing Systems (VOR/ILS) (36 installed, 3 new); twelve (12) AN/PYQ-10(C) simple key loader (12 new); thirty-six (36) M230E1 + M139 AWS automatic gun (36 new); eighty-one (81) M261 rocket launchers (72 new, 9 spares); seventy-eight (78) M299 missile launchers (72 new, 6 spares); fifty-three (53) Stinger Air-to-Air launchers (53 new); twenty-nine (29) Stinger Captive Flight Trainers (CFT) (29 new); eight (8) Stinger Aerial Handling Trainers (AHT) (8 new); five thousand two hundred sixteen (5,216) 2.75-inch rockets (3,896 new, 1,320 optional); ninety-three thousand (93,000) 30mm rounds (65,500 new, 27,500 optional); secure voice radios; training devices; communication systems; helmets; simulators; generators; transportation and organization equipment; spare and repair parts; support equipment; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support.  The estimated cost is $4.25 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in North Africa.

The proposed sale will improve Morocco’s capability to meet current and future threats, and will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and other allied forces.  Morocco will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and provide close air support to its forces.  Morocco will have no difficulty absorbing the Apache aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and services will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors involved in this program will be Boeing Company, Mesa, AZ and Lockheed Martin, Orlando, FL.  There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.  The purchaser typically requests offsets.  Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of eleven U.S. Government personnel and three contractor representatives to Morocco as part of the Technical Assistance Fielding Team and Field Service Representatives.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department’s Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.



__________________

Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.



Veteran Member - Level 1

Status: Offline
Posts: 83
Date: May 5, 2020
Permalink  
 

Can someone elaborate further on the AH-64ADATS? I'm assuming that the ADATS designator = Air Defense Anti-Tank System as in a proposed helicopter variant?



__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard