AH-64 Apache Orders, Sales & Incidents

T

tomcathornet1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
22 August 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
8
GTX said:
RavenOne said:

Has anyone on here have any artists impression or graphics or how an AH-64 would look in Heeresflieger (German Army Aviation) please?
Click to expand...
final-side.jpg
Click to expand...
This is great. I'm not a fan of the Eurocopter Tiger, and I wished that Germany had picked the Apache or Cobra.
 
Last edited:
The rotor hub looks different from what is usual on a D or E model without Longbow radar. I wonder what has changed.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The rotor hub looks different from what is usual on a D or E model without Longbow radar. I wonder what has changed.
Click to expand...
That's the MUMT-X (Manned-Unmanned Teaming) kit that lets Apache control and receive imagery from RQ-7 and MQ-1 UAVs. Looks like you can have either Longbow or MUMT-X but not both on the same airframe.

https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/t...-secure-communications-between-us-army-apache
https://twitter.com/x/status/1609958417128460288
View: https://twitter.com/AbdNav2K2/status/1609958417128460288
 
I would not be surprised if the longbow radar can do the MuM-T function by itself.
It would then make sense to fly with the mast mounted MUMT-X where.a non-longbow is needed.
 
TomcatViP said:
I would not be surprised if the longbow radar can do the MuM-T function by itself.
It would then make sense to fly with the mast mounted MUMT-X where.a non-longbow is needed.
Click to expand...

Possibly. There is a lot of imagery out there showing the MUMT functionality on a Longbow Apache. More likely using the data exchange system in the Longbow than the radar proper, I guess.
 
A couple of weekends back we had a foursome of AH-64Es overnight at a local airport. All four had the MUMT-X mast. These were the first E models I have seen up close and all were just a year old.

On the same ramp, we have had a S-58T residing while it waits to do some construction site lifting in the area. She was originally built in 1957 - 66 years old! Damn, as old as me....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 03.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 03.jpg
    924.4 KB · Views: 57
  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 05.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 05.jpg
    1,007.7 KB · Views: 57
  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 07.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 07.jpg
    882.6 KB · Views: 52
  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 09.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 09.jpg
    964.8 KB · Views: 58
  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 10.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 10.jpg
    1,011.3 KB · Views: 52
  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 12.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 12.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 62
  • z21-03400 AH-64E - 13.jpg
    z21-03400 AH-64E - 13.jpg
    456 KB · Views: 66
  • zMG_9810.jpg
    zMG_9810.jpg
    1,000.8 KB · Views: 64
So any ideas as to what happens to the final Apache AH.1? I would not like it to be scrapped rather I would like it to be displayed in a museum.
 
I'm sure there are likely a number of countries in the que for the platform. Another possibility is that there is a buy back where Boeing with refit them for another customer.
 
I am surpriesed that the Army Air Corp did not purchase and modify the last Apache AH.1 as an AH-64E as it did with the others. I find it all rather strange.
 
Also worth noting that the AH-64E in AAC use is not designated AH.2, it retains its US designation (which seems to be the custom these days for US-acquired kit).
 
State Department making deals to keep the doors open at Boeing, Mesa AZ. Unless the U.S. Army comes up with another refit soon, Boeing will likely close the doors to reduce the fiscal bleeding.
 
Attack helicopters are clearly out of vogue just now, so I don't see large sums being invested on them.
 
That´s should be why the Apache compound might have a chance. ;)

Note:
Everybody represent the compound having a propellor as propulsor but with the Industry leaning on cheap CCA turbofans in the range of 1500lbf, there is a straightforward path for a rebirth of the XH-51 as an Apache derivative.
 
FighterJock said:
I like the look of the Apache compound TomcatVIP. Boeing should put it into production immediately.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that there have been versions of this concept for both Apache and Black Hawk for years (decades) but no one seems to actually like them except Piasecki and their congressional reps. The Black Hawk version (X-49A Speed Hawk) even flew something like 80 flights in 2007-8 but there was precisely zero interest in adopting it. Don't know whether the returns proved disappointing or if there was just an institutional issue.
 
Piasecki cannot compete with Boeing, nor Sikorsky, politically. That is just the reality of it. Karem, AVX and others with sound engineering have had to fight that as well and without the political and financial base to push on politicians it is almost impossible. New venture capitol like Musk or Luckey are not inclined to invest in this particular niche it appears.
 
There was also that more recent in-house compound derivative of the AH-64 that Boeing showed a few years ago but that apparently didn't win enough interest for them to pursue further. Lately I get the sense that Army Aviation (or at least the people making decisions for them) doesn't know what they want other than the MV-75. And while I wouldn't be surprised if some escort gunship version of the MV-75 is developed that program's first and foremost role is moving infantry around.
 
yasotay said:
Piasecki cannot compete with Boeing, nor Sikorsky, politically. That is just the reality of it. Karem, AVX and others with sound engineering have had to fight that as well and without the political and financial base to push on politicians it is almost impossible. New venture capitol like Musk or Luckey are not inclined to invest in this particular niche it appears.
Click to expand...

I am just surprised that Sikorsky didn't buy out Piasecki entirely and pitch the Speed Hawk instead of X2. But then, that rigid coax has been Sikorsky's baby for a long, long time.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
There was also that more recent in-house compound derivative of the AH-64 that Boeing showed a few years ago but that apparently didn't win enough interest for them to pursue further. Lately I get the sense that Army Aviation (or at least the people making decisions for them) doesn't know what they want other than the MV-75. And while I wouldn't be surprised if some escort gunship version of the MV-75 is developed that program's first and foremost role is moving infantry around.
Click to expand...

I thought that an armed derivative of FLRAA was an explicit part of the plan. That's why they've been showing slide-out missile racks in the crew cabin since forever.
 
Politics. Boeing's compound "Super Apache," as well as the Armed FLRAA came about at near the same time as the FARA program. You can't get a new Scout helicopter if you prove you can do the mission with existing and/or other advanced programs. Right now Army Aviation is clearly at the very bottom of the DoD funding priority. Available funds are going into the MV-75.
Sikorsky likely saw that the customer was happy buying conventional UH-60, and not crying for the Speedhawk. Investors don't like assumed risk.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom