Couple of issues here.
Network Centric Warfare is an impressive capability, but in order for it to have maximum utility, you actually have to have the network and all associated other platforms in place at the time you need them. The US will often (but not always) have this, but how many others will? Even for the US, NCW tends to profit most in a Cold War type massive battle/large area battle scenario. For attack helos, this is a desirable, but not essential capability. If the network is not in place where you need it, then you are limited to your onboard sensors, and in the case of these two helos, the -1Z’s are better. Again, don’t forget you can get Longbow on the Zulu if you want to pay for it.
Data transfer form other sources, when available, is a wonderful thing but imposes an additional workload on the crew. That’s one of the rainiest the later F/A-8Fs are using a “decoupled” front and rear cockpit, there’s so much to manage. To support your engaged forces (a big reason for attack helos existence), those troops have to have the necessary equipment to take advantage of it and the training and time to use it. Often, they don’t so you’re back to what the helo itself can bring to the fight. Also, the theater in which attack helos operate is much more fluid and intense than it is for fixed wings operating thousands of feet above, and there often isn’t time to take advantage of the humongous dataflow coming form the network. USMC does have datalink cpability, but not as extensive, and they are fielding systems where the aircrew and ground commander can be looking at the same thing, but again the issue is if your troops are suddenly taking heavy fire from that third building/hill/whatever on the left, you need to fire right now, not wait until the network can process and deliver data to you. That kind of operation is where the fastmovers excel, if there happen to be any around.
NCW is a fantastic capability, but it’s one part of a whole and its value must be weighted with all the other capabilities in the scenario in which it will be used.
360 degree radar is fantastic, but it’s what’s in front of you that really counts, because Hellfire does not have (nor does it need) the kind of dramatic off-boresight capability of dogfight missiles, and you can’t turn any helo around fast enough (unless it’s hovering, in which case it’s about to get shot down) to shoot in all directions at once. Hellfire is impressive as heck (it’s the -1Z’s main weapon too), but I doubt anything can shoot 16 of them at the same time at 16 different dispersed and mobile targets effectively. Although the best anti-tank weapon remains another tank, I’d say the -1Z is as good as or better than everyone else in the anti-armor role
Because the -1Z’s advanced sensors normally see further than the -64’s and are passive, thereby not giving away their presence, I would opine that if one had to go against a SAM site or against the ZSU-23 at low altitude, you’d want something that didn’t tell them you’re coming.
This and my previous post were not meant to denigrate the Apache or say that those who bought it made a mistake. Rather, it was to point out that the AH-1Z is a heck of an aircraft and explain why USMC didn’t go with the Apache. I didn’t even get into the R&D, higher price and massive logistics costs to introduce a superior new aircraft into the USMC inventory when for much less cost they could field a weapon that builds on what they arguably have because those issues don’t apply to those that aren’t already operating -1Ws.
As to why the Apache has done better in international competitions, I repeat my points from before:
1. The publicity machine for the Apache is much better than that for the Cobra
2. Boeing can actually quote you a firm delivery day, while Bell can’t do that until completion of development.
3. Until the Zulu enters service, the Apache is seen as the “safer” choice by bureaucrats and politicians.
and add
3a Export customers generally aren’t willing to buy something that isn’t already in service by the host country. The F-35 is an exception because there’s not much else with that type of capability that will arrive in time (the discussion of the F-35 would belong in another thread ).
*nods* good points. thanks.
Sign In
