Talk:AH-64 Apache

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] MOS

It's 15X for AH-64A and 15Y for AH-64D. Jigen III 12:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe all 15 series are AH-64 related occupations. ElectronFlux 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

15-series MOSs are Aviation-related MOSs. 15T, UH-60; 15S, OH-58D; 15U, CH-47. --Born2flie 18:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Formerly 67 and 68-series, or the former CMF 67. Now it's CMF 15, which brought us all on line with our warrant and commissioned officer counterparts. 15R's are the aircraft crewchiefs and mechanics, with Additional Skill Identifier Y1 being used at some point (though I think it's been eliminated or WILL be now that all A-models are out of the active inventory) to distinguish those who've completed the AH-64D Longbow transition. 15X was the AH-64A Armament/electronics repairer, and 15Y is the AH-64D armament/AVIONICS/electronics repairer. The key changes there, besides the two models having significantly different data buses, arre the addition of the Longbow Fire Control Radar system and the elimination of MOS 15N (formerly 68N), Aircraft Avionics Systems Repairer or something like that, from the Longbow Battalion's MTOE. The 15Y does the work of both the 15X and 15N, but just on AH-64D's. JaymzR74 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Figure Corrected

Corrected Wrong Figure On The Ownership of 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters by the Republic Of Singapore Airforce. Correct figure should be 20. Thanks. PROJECT-ION PHOENIX 07:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] AH-64D merge into this article

An IP user created AH-64D without noticing this AH-64 article. Most of this Info should already be here and anything more should be integrated leaving AH-64D as redirect. --Denniss 01:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Apache in IDF

This article is about the Apache helicopter and its methods of deployment, the way that Israel uses the Apache can be included. However the nature of the targets themselves and their particular ideology is of no concern in this particular situation. The article is centred around the helicopter. It would be absurd to start discussing, and perhaps editorialising the nature of every target of every weapon system in the world. The SLR rifle is not described as being used by the British army against terrorist targets in NI in the 70s, the Abrams tank is not described as being put into action against the despotic and totalitarian republican guard in Iraq. As such i believe that this text

The Israeli Air Force uses the Apaches as a high-tech platform to perform percision strikes with guided missiles against various targets. The AH-64A attacked and destroyed dozens of Hizbullah outposts in Lebanon during the 90's, attacking in all weather conditions - day and night. During the al-Aqsa Intifada, the IAF used the Apaches to target senior Hamas figures, such as Ahmed Yasin and Adnan al-Ghoul with guided missiles.

Is far preferable to this one

The Israeli Air Force uses the Apaches as a high-tech platform to perform percision strikes with guided missiles against terrorist targets. The AH-64A attacked and destroyed dozen of Hizbullah's outposts in Lebanon during the 90's, attacking in all weather conditions - day and night. During the al-Aqsa Intifada, the IAF used the Apaches to target senior Palestinian terrorists (mainly those of Hamas, such as Ahmed Yasin or Adnan al-Ghoul) with guided missiles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.227.181 (talk • contribs).

  • God forbid we mention factual data. Now shut up and pay your taxes. Palestinians don't mind digging American shrapnel outta their dead children.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.67.104.4 (talk • contribs).
You seem to forget that Palestinians strap bombs to their own children and blow them up to kill Israeli children. Either way, the result is the same! - BillCJ 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the Apache, not about suside bombers. SaderBiscut 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about this? In Israel, the AH-64 is the leading cause of terrorist deaths, second only to suicide. - BillCJ 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
LMAO! Good one! 121.216.149.60 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vulnerable

The 2003 Iraq invasion showed the Apache vulnerable to dedicated AA vehicles in open terrain. This article appears to ignore that, attempting to make it seem more an issue of mountainous terrain, urban settings, and individual infantry with AA weapons. But the Apache appears to have failed in the very scenario it was designed for. Brainhell 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. The Apache was designed to help stem a massive Soviet armored invasion of western Europe if the Cold War ever turned hot. Much like the A-10 Thunderbolt, just in helicopter form. It is, in other words, a tank buster through and through. When given that job to perform, like it was in the 1991 Gulf War, it was very capable of doing it's job. The AH-64, as well as the AH-1, were designed to be used in rugged and wooded terrain, where they could hide behind a hill, pop up (or stay behind the hill, using LOAL (lock on after launch) for their Hellfires), and destroy tanks. You see, Iraq lacks two things. One is terrain like Western Europe. Two is sufficient targets for Apaches. In short, no. It didn't fail the job it was designed for. Simply because it isn't doing the job it was designed for. (USMA2010 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC))
  • I can't think of any aircraft that isn't vulnerable to any dedicated Air Defense system. That would be like saying that the B-17 Flying Fortress was shown to be vulnerable to Luftwaffe fighters and German AAA in WWII. The problem is that armoring aircraft to sufficiently withstand air defense weapons would actually negate their mobility, because they would weigh too much. Aircraft manufacturers do what they can within the design limits; make redundant systems, shield critical locations as much as possible without sacrificing too much power for weight, and create systems that can "absorb" battle damage to a certain extent. It is up to the leaders and the aircrews to employ the aircraft in such a way as to maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses. The 2003 Iraq invasion showed that the AH-64 was vulnerable to poor planning, or at the very least, poor tactics in the environment encountered. Not a single attack helicopter in the world could have completed the missions in question, with the same errors made, without sustaining similar damage/losses. The issue wasn't with the AH-64 helicopter. --Born2flie 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vulnerable?: The Apache is weapons platform that is meant strike outside of opposing AAA, and enemy radar. in 2003, there had been losses of the Apache to small arms and AAA; however, the support role that the helicopter was playing was not the intended role of this plaform.

  • I would be careful how I would characterize losses. Most of the Apaches returned damaged but reparable. But those in the know should leave it there, know what I mean.--The Founders Intent 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well going by what you said, you've just reinterated what the previous person had already stated, which was "...there had been losses of the Apache...". What is so wrong with saying such things? If you are talking about OPSEC well all I can say is as long as there is nothing about individual losses and the circumstances involved then there's no way OPSEC could be violated. 121.216.149.60 (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to make a point. The Apaches were not lost, just damaged. Nuff said.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


And don't forget that even though this platform has its defensive short commings, the Apache was responsible for taking out all iraqi communications bunkers and radar stations in the first Gulf war, enabling the Allied powers to have complete air supremecy. [unsigned]

[edit] Eurocopter Tiger

Shouldn't we place its main competitor the Eurocopter Tiger?

As I highly doubt the AH-64 will ever go to war with a nation that uses the Tiger, I think that any competitor should be Russian. Perhaps another Western helicopter if you are looking for information on, say, which chopper a nation might choose for its military. (USMA2010 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC))
Mi-28 perhaps? Honestly, I don't think many 'competitor' helicopters exist. There are a few though. SaderBiscut 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Although it's extremely hard to know what the poster actually meant, I thinkl he may have had economice, not battlefielfd, competition in mind. Either way, I'm stumped as to how we're to "place" the Tiger. - BillCJ 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the Tiger/Apache/Mi-28 (Havoc,not the HiND)are diffrent versions of the same thing, a basic attack helicopter. Sure, I know one might fly better, one might have better avitronics, and one might be made in europe, but they seem to share a general role. This is my general perception, and is not based off of 'vertifiable' content. SaderBiscut 05:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recorrection

Someone deleted my entry at Films & Media about the AH-64D featured in Battlefield 2. I have since added it back in. if you wish to delete it again, please state your reasons here. Thank you.--202.156.6.54 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a common consensus to add only major appearances, not every game/movie where this particular aircraft may be sometimes somewhere available or visible. This consensus is not only used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft but several others, too.--Denniss 16:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say something: it is not "sometimes available or visible". Tn fact, it is one of only the two attack helicopters of the Special Forces expansion pack frequently appearing in the game, and as far as experience has shown me, it is not simply an "extra" to the game. It is integral and very much part of the gameplay.--Ariedartin 14:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
As said, the consensus was either it played a major role (AH-64 flight sim, movie with a starring role) or it is left out (a flight sim with AH-64 as one of many available aircraft, a movie with some shots of an AH-64) --Denniss 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture label

Picture labelled "US Army AH-64 provides air support during raid in Remagen, Iraq, Feb. 24, 2006."

Is Remagen in Iraq? I thought it was a German town? A bit of research shows that there is a military base in Iraq that has been called Forward Operating Base Remagen, but any raid launched from there would not be in Remagen. This base is in Tikrit so I think the picture should be relabelled.--Wikipediatastic 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAH-64 is better?

This Helicopter is a cut above the American counterpart; Its speed is quicker, has more arnament and its power output is higher due to its superior Rolls-Royce built engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.15.82 (talk • contribs)

That may be true, but you can't just claim that. You have to have reputable sources, otherwise it is considered original research, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- BillCJ 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Funny, last time I visited the Boeing facility in Mesa, AZ, where these are produced both for domestic and foreign sales, the only significant difference was the Rolls-Royce engine used in the WAH. And I heard mixed reviews from the test pilots there as to whether it was worth the extra expense for the RR's. But that's all hearsay.
What I can say for certain that I saw with my own two eyes is that the RR's are considerably more difficult to maintain, as they're larger and bulkier than the GE's. And the size of the engine nacelles was unchanged. JaymzR74 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who has worked on the Longbow project can tell you that what significantly sets the AH-64D apart from any other helicopter out there is the avionics package. Older software versions are sold to other countries. The current versions are not exported, even to the British.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.7.99 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Cruise Speed

If you click on the link for cruise speed, it keeps on going to the disambiguation for Vc. I'm trying to get to the cruising speed. Even on the disambiguation page, if you click the cruising speed version on that, then it pretty much refreshes itself. Could someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.152.145.117 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Fixed the link in the template and disamb page to VC speed. -Fnlayson 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture wrong for label

"US Army AH-64D provides air support during raid in Remagen, Iraq, 24 February 2006."

The image in question is most definately if the AH-64 A variant, not the D variant which has the large bullbus radar on above it's main rotor, as people who ahve read the article will know. I shall rectify it myself therfore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TOMNORTHWALES (talk • contribs) 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The image in question is definitely NOT an A-model. You can see the low speed air data sensors on the nacelles, which are only on D's. Not all D-models have the radar as anyone who reads the article can see. I have re-rectified it myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.14 (talk • contribs)

Seems we're still having edit disputes over this caption for this picture (Image:AH-64 Apache 060224.jpg). A Longbow is still an Apache. The picture IS a pic of an AH-64D Longbow without the FCR installed. As noted already, the air data sensors sticking out the side of the engine nacelles are the instant giveaways, along with the larger Forward Avionics Bays (FABs) that go right up to the TADS/PNVS on the nose (the AH-64A has a single air data sensor mounted on top of the main rotor hub, what you see in the picture in question is an antenna mounted on the tail rotor pylon). I recommend that it stay as an "Apache" and that all the Longbow fans not have a cow that it doesn't specifically say "Longbow", just to put an end to pointless edit wars over a silly caption. If we can't agree on the caption, the only reasonable course of action will be to remove the pic from the article, which seems even sillier to me. --Born2flie 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Longbow refers to the above rotor radar dome system. So the caption should not include Longbow. The Netherlands operational service section mentions this as well.. -Fnlayson 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Longbow is the nickname for the AH-64D Apache, the radar (FCR) is referred to as the "Longbow radar" because it is on the Longbow helicopter. Longbow is always in reference to the helicopter, although I will agree that the name is descriptive of the FCR being on the aircraft.[1] However, within the U.S. Army (the primary user), it is almost always referred to as Longbow with or without the FCR installed; "Longbow" becoming the moniker preferred to describe the AH-64D airframe by the crews and mechanics to distinguish it from the AH-64A Apache. There is no question if you ask an AH-64D pilot what aircraft he flies and he responds, "Longbow." --Born2flie 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK then, what about a generic AH-64 instead of Apache? -Fnlayson 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of odds do you want for how long it lasts until someone tries to stick an "A" or a "D" on it? --Born2flie 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • About the same as someone adding Longbow. -Fnlayson 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the picture is, without a doubt, an AH-64D Apache Longbow without the FCR installed. All AH-64D's are "Longbows," therefore the picture should have the correct title of "AH-64D Apache Longbow" and especially as there is no such thing as an "AH-64," the caption should be changed to reflect the correct nomenclature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.7.99 (talk • contribs)
  • "No such thing as an AH-64"?? No, AH-64 is the official military designation. It is correct and more general to prevent repeated back and forth edits. -Fnlayson 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"No such thing as an AH-64"??? Under the 1962 designation system, AH-64 is the basic type, the letter suffixes denote models. AH-64 was placed as a compromise to avoid further conflict. So even if you sincerely believe there is "No such thing as an AH-64", just ignore it here for the sake of editing peace. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holes in article

In its current form the article starts off with a brief history of the AH-64's development, and then it goes straight to a discussion on the differences between the AH-64A and AH-64D models, followed by a section about the AH-64's performance in the Iraq war. Apart from a set of statistics at the end of the article, there's very little about the helicopter itself. I have added a short paragraph of general information but I am not Greg Goebel, so it is very skimpy.

One of the commentators above mentions that the AH-64 was designed to stem a Soviet tank rush, and I have read this too, but it isn't mentioned in the article. An audience of people who are not helicopter enthusiasts would not know this fact. I can think of a few things that the article could cover. The famous helmet-mounted gunsight; the extent of its armour cover; its original intended role; the reliability and durability of its engines; its general performance; its performance compared to the Russian Hind; the 30mm chain gun; its stubby wings - do they provide lift?; its typical combat loadouts in theory and in practice; the use of AIM-9 Sidewinders; the avionics; lots of things. Put them in the article, don't put them here on the talk page. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like this article has a few technical facts and a laundry list of shortcomings as listed by CNN Headline News in Iraq. While the AH-64 wasn't built for urban battle, I think it's one of the best platforms we have going if you need to bring in some quick, heavy suppresion fire with an ability to loiter and risk taking some hits. I would hate for anyone to read this article and think that the Apache is anything less than what it is, which is, frankly, the best of the best. If we didn't have platforms like the Apache, I think you'd be reading about a lot more shot down Cobras and Blackhawks. --128.222.37.20 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The most survivable?

What is with this sentance: Despite the Apache's vulnerability in urban operations, it is currently rated as the most survivable of all military helicopters.? Rated as the most survivable? Rated so by whom? US Army? I thought it was common knowledge Mi-24 is the toughest helicopter around. It is the one being called a flying tank after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanimir (talk • contribs)

The HiND may infact be more armored and can take more damage, but that dosen't make it statisticly more survivable. That comment may also be refering to NATO and/or US Army helicopter, not *all* helicopters. SaderBiscut 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mi-24 is highly vulnerable. For example the sides of the canopy are plain plexiglas and you can hole then with a .22LR. Only the front windshield is 70mm rubber+glass. The engine exhausts are large and shots can easily enter via them. The airborne troop cabin is just plain tin and plexi, zero metal or glass armour. There is a reason the russkies started to develop the very much armoured Mi-28 and Kamov-50 to replace the Mi-24.
Anyone here ever worked in helicopter survibability? It is quite complex, and encompasses many things including susceptability and vulnerabiity. The Hind has poor maneuverability because it's grown into a fat cow. Anyone can bolt a steel bathtub under the fuselage and call it armored. There is much more that would fill dozens of discussion pages. The Russian/Soviet and American philosophies on survivability are quite different, so it is difficult to compare them.--The Founders Intent 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users

Another edit to add British Army helped me notice there's 4 'more' users (5 total) now. Not sure, maybe its been that way a while. I'd try to remove one but don't know who has the fewest. Anyway, wanted to point that out.. -Fnlayson 03:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the RAF, I saw a british apache at an airshow recently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.162.138 (talk • contribs)

  • Did it do any maneuvers? Just wondering as I haven't see helicopters do aerial stuff at shows I've been to. FYI, see Westland WAH-64 Apache for the UK Apache info. -Fnlayson 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apachus Pannonicus

The dutch offered to sell 6pcs of their used AH-64D choppers to Hungary due to military spending cuts. Hungary, however, had no economic means to finance re-training and long-term operating costs or buying enough supplies of missile ammo for them, even if we could cough up the initial purchase price. So we declined the kind offer and are currently left with a few Mi-24D/P variant from ex-GDR army. 82.131.210.162 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting and too bad. Would you happen have an article on this? I did a couple internet searches and got bunch of unrelated results. -Fnlayson 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellfire

Fnlayson,

As designed, the YAH-64 and the AH-64A fired laser-guided Hellfire missiles only. --Born2flie 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That's what I thought. The Hellfire article says it is radar guided. Going to clarify that.. -Fnlayson 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Only the AGM-114L is radar-guided. All others are laser-guided. At the time of the AH-64's development, specifically the systems integration portion of the program, the Hellfire was a new weapons system that had been in development since the early 70s (1970?, I can't remember). Hellfire was specifically written into the RFP for the AAH as it was understood that development was far enough along that implementation was pretty much a done deal, especially with armor developments in the Soviet Bloc and U.S. Army doctrine. --Born2flie 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Yea, I figured that first part out and tried to clarify that in AGM-114 Hellfire article, which lists 1972 as the design date(??). My AH-64 book says the AAH proposal requirement included 8 TOW missiles in 1972 and was later changed to the Hellfire. -Fnlayson 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new orders

clarify on the jordanian and bahain order of the apache —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Where is the article known as Helicopters in fiction? That page is what I edited alot once but now its deleted forever. Why the jets get a Popular Culture section while tanks, helicopters and ships get none?(TougHHead 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

If you really want to know what happened to that article, then please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture very carefully. Maybe then you'll understand why the rest of us work so hard to remove every minor mention or appearance when you or other like you add them. It's really really really NOT because we are trying to be mean to you. REALLY! - BillCJ 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wingweb.co.uk

I run a site titled Air Vectors that covers military aircraft and gets cited here and there on Wikipedia. I don't normally touch wikipedia articles other than to correct typos and the like, but I just found out about a site named "Wingweb.co.uk" which is also cited here and there on Wikipedia (for example in this article) ... but whose aviation articles are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.

I have no fuss to make. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia community knows that Wingweb.co.uk is a ripoff operation. Cheers / MrG 4.225.208.126 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

♠ Too bad we can't help you, since you are unregistered and left no proof.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A/B/C/D-model distinctions

Two things. FIRST, I see a lot of mention int he article that the AH-64D is only called a 'Longbow' if equipped with the Fire Control Radar (FCR), and this isn't true, at least in the US Army (can't speak for other countries who operate AH-64D's).

Second, and I have to research this and owe the source back to you, the model distinctions between A/B/C/D may be off. Then-Brigadier General (now GEN and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) Richard Cody addressed a US Senate panel in 1999, following the Kosovo air war and the perceived failure of Task Force Hawk in Albania, and during that address and Q&A session he clarified the distinction between the four.

More to follow. JaymzR74 16:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The AH-64D without the Longbow radar boom is not supposed to be called an Apache Longbow. The A and D model info should be pretty solid. The B & C info could be off since those were proposed upgraded versions. -Fnlayson 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out this source here for extra info on the Apache configurations. I recommend adding it as a reference.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Good point. I added this vectorsite link to the Ext links. The faqs.org copied from the vector page, which is public domain. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you tell who copied whom?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The images don't work on the faqs page. And insider info. ;) Vectorsite is written/run by Greg Goebel, whose name is on the pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Korea

The troubling statement about South Korea in the Operators section was made in this edit by an IP editor. A Google search brings up discussions about anticipated exports of AH-64D to the country, including a reference from Jane's. However, there is no verifiable source that South Korea actually placed an order, nor that such an order was cancelled for any reason. There is this report describing South Korea looking to purchase a quantity of attack helicopters and this later report earlier this year in Rotor&Wing that South Korea is contemplating whether or not to build its own attack helicopter. Looks like no AH-64D for South Korea as of right now. --Born2flie (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-orthogonal alignment tail rotor

Since the AH-64 has a "non-orthogonal" alignment tail rotor which was unique, until the new Bell model 429, I added it to the tail rotor section under the Performance heading. The only reference I could find on why the engineers use this slant X configuration is mechanical. Orthogonal means intersecting at right angles, so non-orthongonal would be non-right angles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.235.181 (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the rotor isnt a normal perpendicular cross as viewed from a point through its rotational axis, the idea was to reduce noise. If you mean the rotor is offset against perfectly horizontal as viewed from say directly behind, that is meant to 'even-out' the superfluous additional torque produced by the main rotor during ascent/descent, and thus make the rudder controls (amongst other things) more even. Is that 'non-mechanical' enough? :) I think this used to be explained here a long time ago, but some clod has deleted it. Perhaps mention your 'mechanical' source and it can be added back in. It certainly is interesting and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The AH-64 tail rotor was designed by Hughes Helicopters as a part of a DARPA (then called ARPA) program in the late stages of the Vietnam War. You can read a bit about it in the OH-6 Cayuse article. The purpose was a reduced noise signature, since the greatest source of noise signature on a helicopter is the collision of the vortices from the main and tail rotors. The same tail rotor design has since been reintroduced on the MH-6M Little Bird. --Born2flie (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I redid some of the intro trying to put more interesting and better summary information and deleted more mundane information. For example, to the novice the follow statement doesn't convey much info:

The AH-64 is powered by two General Electric T700 turboshaft engines.

Therefore I suggest it be in a more detail section rather than second sentence.

The crew sits in tandem, with the pilot sitting behind and above the copilot-gunner in an armored crew compartment.

I don't know if the removed information should be added back in somewhere. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The lead needs to say what AH-64 is before saying what it did. Your action summary was fine, so I put it to the bottom. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Powered by two engines, two pilots sit in tandem versus killed 500 tanks? Killing 500 tanks gives the reader a much better idea of what it is versus those two meager sentences. 90% of readers don't care that is powered by two engines. They want a general idea of what it is, and saying that it is has killed 500 tanks goes a long ways towards saying what it is. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember this is an encylopedia not a Apache fan page and the fact that it has two-engines is part of the general description of the helicopter and is important. The fact that it destroyed 500 tanks is not really that important for the intro, and as the AH-64 is designed to destroy armoured vehicles it is just part of the job. If it couldnt destroy tanks that would be noteworthy! MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
An intro should give the most important information and one of the criteria for importance is interesting, yes even in an encyclopedia. See wp:lead. There are a many things that are important about the Apache, but it would be long and boring to have them in the intro. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Just had a go at tweaking the intro to include your points but keeping the basic encyclopedic content.MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Added in the intro that it was Hughes model 77. Who cares? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do - it is what the helicopter is called the AH-64 is just an Army designation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There was a bit too much detail in the lead. That should be in a Design section. Will see what I can do on that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"...with four-bladed main and tail rotors."

Its obvious from the picture. Is it good to state the obvious in the intro?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all wikipedia articles describe the subject without the use of images. Readers may not be able to see all the images for various reasons and talking software cant convert images into descriptions. If you want to change all the other two million articles in Wikipedia then best of luck. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. The many articles I read don't state the obvious in the intro. And it suggests not to in wp:lead. To test your assertion I went to the another helicopter article. This is the first one I went to: UH-60 Black Hawk . Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK if nobody objects you can delete it from the intro as it is already in the design section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if the image gets changed/replaced, it might not be obvious. That's just a few words anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan

I had a problem getting to the last reference in this sentence. Could someone check this out and see if it's just me or the link is screwed up. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The link in reference 27 pulled up just fine for me. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary users

In the infobox the primary users list doesn't include the British Army, while the operators section lists them as having more in service than any nation but the USA. Similarly, Greece, Egypt and the UAE are all listed as having more in service than the Netherlands (who are listed in the Primary Users section). Is there some rationale behind this, or should it be changed? Also, if it is changed, should the number of 'primary users' be kept to 4 maximum, or increased? Adacore (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple: Because the UK variant has its own page at Westland WAH-64 Apache. Rather than cover the same information twice, we try keep the info on variants that have their own pages to a minimum on the main page, thus allowing more space for coverage of other nations. The Infobox is limited to four users maximum per WP:AIR/PC guidelines. Guidleines can be ignored, but we'd need a good reason and consensus here to do so. By not listing the UK in this infobox, we allow one of the other nations in its place. The WAH-64 is listed under Variants in the Infobox. As far as the Netherlands being there, I'm not sure if there was a specific reason, but it might have been to give a user from each continent. I don't have a problem changing it to go be the top users though, as that is the pattern generally followed on most aircrft pages. - BillCJ (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the WAH-64 is not an AH-64. They are slightly different; engines mainly. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't Users really Operators? Anyway, why is so much time spent on how many helicopters an operator has? Those numbers are so dynamic that I think it's not useful. I think it would be better to say less than 10, or less than 100 or less than 500. One day someone could have 5 and the next 4. What's the point? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)