Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
The Apache they are flying now is very different from the original design, in capability and avionics. But it's still the same airframe in design, some strengthening, not withstanding.
|
Apache, as I recall, was another example of McDonnel Douglas engineering of that time. It took almost 20 years to get a working system (as was also true of the B-1, B-2, C-17, Osprey, etc also built by the same 'management' system). By the time it was 'corrected', Apache still would not work in Kosovo. Those Apaches mauled in Iraq were Longbows - best we had.
Notice in the artlcle how Apaches were attacking. First they would hover. Then site a target. That was a complete violation even in Nam. But as the article notes, the Army had to unlearn mistakes created by ignoring what was learned in Nam. Choppers no longer hover. They must attack while constantly moving - which was the mistake in Karbala.
Meanwhile, what is the most dangerous attack by any aircraft? Ground attack. Just another reason why the Air Force wants to dogfight - not support the troops. There was little glory in being shot down by small arms. And yet only those aircraft superior enough to ground attack can survive. F-15, F-15, F-22, etc. These glory aircraft are only support aircraft for the Air Force's best airframe: A-10 Warthog.
Meanwhile, did you here British soldiers complaining about their own RAF support? Also decribed by words such as shit and worse. Harriers - almost useless. British soldiers in Afghanistan were in such desperate situations - the Taliban threatening so much - that British soldiers only wanted A-10 support. Welcome to the little stories that really tell in spades what has been happening - in Afghanistan, in military 'glory' circles, and in what gets forgotten in Nam and from Patton in WWII. And look who was getting the story right early on - Ted Koppel.