USMC have neither integrated AMRAAM nor Harpoon on their AV-8Bs. the assumption is that there will always be a CSG nearby with Navy/Marine F/A-18s that do air-superiority and antiship strike much, much better than AV-8Bs.

it kinda makes sense, as a carrier will be able to go anywhere a Tarawa or Wasp can go.

it begs the question, though, of why the Marines have AV-8B in the first place. since the Hornet’s CAS capability isn’t any worse.

a Seahawk from the Abraham Lincoln CSG just crashed performing disaster relief for tsunami victims in Aceh. thankfully no deaths.

RSAF Super Pumas are also doing a good job over there.

after reading what has been posted… my view is that the S-70 is indeed a better war machine. but you don’t get a helicopter just to use it in war. as the relief operations in Aceh, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka and elsewhere serve to remind us, helicopters are used much more in peacetime than in war!

probably, of all the helicopters in Aceh, only the USN Seahawks have been to war. but the Super Pumas, JMSDF Dauphins and others have been serving just as well.

in my view, the Cougar will be a better choice for most countries with no immediate threat of war. it has more capacity, and importantly, a larger cabin. and of course the decisions made by many countries in favour of the Cougar/Super Puma seem to bear me out.

have you ever seen a commercial passenger-carrying C-130, C-141, Transall, or C-17 either?

there are a lot of reasons why military cargo a/c don’t make good passenger transports. i’ll throw in one. you notice most military cargo planes have wings mounted high, above the cabin. Thus the engines, hung below the wings, are near the cabin. meanwhile Airbuses and Boeings have low mounted wings below the cabin. Thus the engines are below the cabin and further from the passengers than if the wing were to be mounted high. This reduces cabin noise, which is very important for commercial airliners.

the high-mounted wings of military cargo planes make FOD much less likely, especially since they often operate from semi-prepared airstrips. Airliners, which don’t expect anything less than a properly-maintained airport, are exposed to a much smaller risk of FOD.

why are they killing JCM?!?!?! it’s well into devt and they’ve already got the seeker working and test launches good. budget-wise the program has been doing okay too. what are they going to do, use Hellfires and Mavericks for the next 40 years?

IMHO the program has come too far for them to cancel. for now they’ll make do with the 160, but they can always order more later. just look at the F-111, F-15 and AH-64 programs for instance. all were over budget and faced massive cuts at first but in the end decently large fleets were still bought. personally i think we’ll see at least 300-350 F-22s of all versions by say, 2020. if the F-15A/B/C/D/E numbers are anything to go by.

and to think the original plan was for 750 Raptors…..

yep that’s precisely what Longbow (both on Apache and Cobra-Z) lets you do. and that’s engaging 16 tanks in one mission, SIMULTANEOUSLY.

of course such situations arent going to be common, but it does show AHs are still very capable.

sure AHs are vulnerable, but your turboprop PC-21s etc only go abt 150mph faster than an AH and thus still easy meat for AAA and MANPADS. PC-21 etc are much less protected/armoured/crash-survivable than Apache. and it cant hover/fly NOE/hide behind cover like AHs can. chances are the Apache pilot has a better chance of survival than the turboprop guy. and your typical subsonic AJT is still vulnerable too – plus like the turboprops it cant hover and hide behind trees and buildings like AHs.

$50mil for an Apache? i suppose thats based on sales figures to Netherlands and Singapore, which paid $1bn for 20 choppers. but that’s inclusive of ammo, parts, training etc which aint cheap. stock AH-64Ds are around 20-30mil IIRC.

yeah you can still buy a much more flexible F-16 for that, but as phantom, spectral and i have said, you buy AHs to do things F-16 cant do, and there are a hell lot of ppl who think so too and do just that.

as troung has pointed out, the failure of Apaches that fateful day in OIF was not due to the helicopters themselves, but due to tactics. also, Apaches were never designed for action in deserts, which are flat. any soldier on the ground has an unobstructed 360 degree view of the airspace for miles around him. and the Apache has nowhere to hide, except perhaps behind the occasional sand dune.

the true home of the Apache is in forested areas – the West German forest areas around the Fulda Gap especially. a look at Apache operations doctrine for West German operations is instructive. Most of the time the Apaches would be safely inside friendly territory far behind the FEBA – forward edge of battle area. They would shoot off their 8km-range Hellfires at incoming tanks from here – 8km away from the nearest enemy units and out of range of trashfire/AAA/MANPADS.

also the doctrine called for Apaches to stay extremely low, via either Contour or Nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flight regimes. in contour flying, the choppers flew just above the treetops, while NOE called for choppers to actually fly AROUND the trees. that low. As such they would have been hardly visible to the enemy, popping up only to acquire and fire Hellfires. In fact, the Longbow versions can acquire, sort and designate targets while still behind cover. When used ideally, the Apache is thus hardly exposed to enemy vision – let alone enemy fire – at all!

do note that no other aircraft – A-10, Su-39, F-16, even PC-21 – can do this.

of course, there must be trees to hide behind in the first place. that is why we in Singapore bought 20 Apaches. for operations in the malaysian jungle and palm/rubber plantations, which is the perfect environment for them.

the success of Apaches in the 1st Gulf War, and indeed the fact that 30 of 32 Apaches did get back despite getting horrifically shot up that day in OIF, shows the Apache is still an excellent design, despite being used in unsuitable environments. of course, IMO they could have cut their losses by going in at night – where enemies can’t see to point their trashfire and MANPADS while the Apaches can see with their thermal imagers and Longbow and own them.

Srbin’s points are very good ones indeed… but i’m just saying the attack helicopter isn’t obsolete like some people say. it still has its place.

basically the costs incurred spent making the X-29 a decent production fighter would not justify any advantages the fighter would have over the cheap(comparatively), mass-produced and capable Lawndart.

well, for the FSW fans we had the Switchblade. what happened to it anyway? cool plane…