Talk:Boeing AH-64 Apache/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Balkans

Surprised there is nothing here about the deployment - and problems - to the Balkans in the 1990s. Have added something very outline. See Global Security, etc for more, or this http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c288.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.86.175 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stinger or Sidewinder

Which air-to-air missile did this helicopter use most often? The Stinger or the Sidewinder? EVCM (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The sidewinder was tested but found not to be a good use, so the stinger is the missle is the one that is desighned for the D Model Apache. Sighned QuickSilver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.62.2 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WPMilHist Assessment

Demoted to "Start" as more coverage is needed in the Into production section. Ejosse1 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I work at the plant and I built these WAH64's and there's no difference other than the American 64,s GE power plant, but the powertrain will only handle so much power this is why the RR is down graded. the new block three powertrain will solve this as well as the new GE700d powerplant. this is why there is no difference between the WA64 and the AH64. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.62.2 (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Armour

would anyone have half a clue what kind of armour this carries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.77.68 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Read this article. However, to my knowledge the Apache never had any steel armor on it from the beginning as implied in this article. It was always ceramic based. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

it is all composite or ceramic based armour. The blast shield between the seats is layered acrylic.

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)

If the picture is a D without the dome on top of the rotor blades, then the article is wrong as it states the D _has_ the dome on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.169.73 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

An AH-64D can either have or not have the Longbow radar on top, since that is removable. Move on to something not beat to death.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This picture is of an AH-64D Longbow Apache. There are several ways one can identify it from the AH-64A Apache. One, the AADS are mounted on the engine nacelles. Two, the HADS is absent from the rotor head. Three, the navigation lights are mounted on the engine nacelles instead of the stub wings. This is so that ATAS may be fitted without requiring modifications to the aircraft. CMWS sensors have been fitted to some AH-64D stub wings since this photograph was taken. Four, the avionics bays are wider than on an AH-64A. Also, all AH-64Ds even those not fitted with the FCR, RFI and associated electronics are called Longbow or Apache Longbow. The US Army and the pilots make no distinction as all are capable of using the FCR and can fire the RF missiles even if they do not posses the FCR. Hence, the cited text is incorrect and I will remove it. Additionally, the US Army -10 Operator's Manual does not make the distinction anywhere in its text. All AH-64Ds are called Longbows. An unofficial nomenclature system uses AH-64D WI for those with radar and AH-64D WO for those without. This system is usually used by planners at the Battalion and Company levels to distribute aircraft to crews for missions. Righteous9000 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

About operators

At Greece the 12 AH-64D had arrived , the last 16 months are all in Megara air base but Greece did not accept to enter them in service because of techical issues, finally we will receive them very soon. Turkey ask from USA second hand AH-1W helis because operate the type, US refused because need these helis for US service. Some in US and in Turkey make thoughts about a number of second hand Apaches. Have not ordered any of them till today, seem not to order them in future also. They say to buy 32 russian MI-28 helis but this also seem that will not happen. Its mostly to pressure US to give them AH-1W helis.. In Greece today we have 19 AH-64A+ helis and 12 AH-64D Long Bow ( not all of them carry the radar) arrived that we will accept them for service very soon. About Pakistan has not ordered any 12 AH-64 and dont plan to order any Apaches soon. Received a number of AH-1 Cobra for service and spare parts. Saudi Arabia will upgrade the 12 AH-64A in -D model and will buy 12 more new -D . Japan i am not sure if finally cancelled the order for 50 Apaches and drop the number to procure at 13 helis . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.33.190 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC) John, Athens, 1 Jan 2009.

About India for the 22 new attack helis that want to buy the 2 american companies for Apache and Cobra helis are not longer in the heli competition, they remove their interest. John, Athens, 1 Jan 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.33.190 (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

About USA: it is stated that "Army units began converting to the Apache in 1986". This is incorrect, as it is at least 2 years "late". I was stationed at Ft. Hood throughout 1984 and 1985, and by March 1985 we already had over 50 of the new Apaches in the 6th Air Cavalry Brigade and had had them for months, to fly alongside our Cobras. The Apaches were so new they were crashing often, mainly due to hydraulics failures, and due to the major difference between flying an Apache and a Cobra. The year the Apache went "operational can" be verified here: http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_122a.html and here: http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/pub/news_2004.pdf Quote: In 1985, Mark Ferrell and Brad Rounding, two young soldiers in the first fielded AH-64A Apache unit, were making Apache and U.S. Army history.

The Ft. Hood Apache AH-64A fielding happened prior to the 17th Calvary Brigade, as well as prior to the existence of the 21st Apache Calvary Training Brigade. The first U.S. Army fielding of the Apache was in 1985 with the 3rd Squadron, 6th Calvary Brigade at Ft. Hood, as is noted in the Boeing reference (42) on page 35. The first deliveries to the U.S. Army began on 26 January 1984, at a rate of 12 per month, and the AH-64B was already being worked on by September 1985 as referenced by S.Harding "U.S.Army Aircraft since 1947", 1990, and Jane's Helicopter Markets and Systems, of the Jane's Information Group. http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/mcdonnel_apache.php

As noted by Globalsecurity.org, the FT. Hood's Apache units were operational in 1984 and 1985, and even began training non-FT. Hood Apache units in 1985 as well:

"The 21st Calvary Brigade (Air Combat) "was originally designated as the AH-64 Task Force Headquarters, 6th Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat), on July 14th 1984, and was charged with the responsibility for all planning, programming, and force modernization actions related to the training and fielding of all AH-64 Attack Helicopter Battalions (AHBs) in the Army. This headquarters developed the Single-Station Unit Fielding and Training Program (SSUFTP) now implemented to field all AH-64A AHBs.

On January 15th, 1985, the Task Force became the Apache Training Brigade, a Major Subordinate Command under operational control of the Deputy Commanding General, III Corps. Its mission was to receive, equip, train, evaluate, and deploy all of the Army's non-Fort Hood AHBs receiving the Apache helicopter. " http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/21cav-bde.htm

Even the U.S. Army National Guard at Ft. Hood had Apaches in 1985, and made news with their first fatal Apache crash that year. "Though the National Guard has had Apache training accidents before, the last fatal crash occurred in 1985. " http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1672135

"On 17 January 1985, 1st Squadron (6th Calvary Brigade, Air Combat) was again reactivated as one of the pioneer AH-64 Apache units in the Army. The squadron served as a leader in doctrinal development and validation for the AH-64 until its inactivation on 15 December 1995 at Fort Hood, Texas" http://www.carson.army.mil/units/1-6cav/history%5B2%5D.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.81.121 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

An IP editor add Pakistan to the Operators section, adding a reference that is used on several recent additions. Cursory web search of web-based defense industry media shows that Pakistan has received several examples of the AH-1 Cobra in 2007.[2][3] Recent open source, web-based news articles suggest that the Pakistan government is asking for more AH-1s, and for AH-64 Apache aircraft to be provided for its counter-terrorism operations, but that the United States has not provided any additional aircraft.[4][5] --Born2flie (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for checking on that Born. I was going to come back and do some checking later. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Rotor Blades

I'm not sure why this article says flight testing on the New Rotor blade, which will be used on the AH-64D Block III, was completed in May 2004. The testing was still going on earlier this year (2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.81 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing continues on the AH-64D Block III, but the rotor blades completed development testing in 2004. See "Boeing-Developed Composite Rotor Blade Spins Forward". -Fnlayson (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

SA-7 missile

I think we need more than one source to confirm this survivability claim. News organizations are notorious for getting things like this wrong. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The phrase used in the article is, "Apache helicopters are designed to be able to survive attacks by missiles like the SA-7, but the military is investigating why the chopper targeted in Monday's attack did not." Surviving an attack should not be construed as surviving a hit by a missile. They are two completely different things. Surviving an attack may be accomplished by causing the missile to miss the target. In this case it is clear that the military is trying to figure out why the EW equipment on the helicopter failed to lure the missile away and not why the helicopter did not survive being hit. Helicopters, of all types, rarely fare well after being hit by a missile. It's a catastrophic event and rarely leaves the aircraft in a flyable condition. Righteous9000 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

GA nominee

This article was nominated for Good Article and is awaiting review. It looks well referenced with no outstanding cite needed tags. Content seems to cover all major points/events. Anything that needs to be done? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I have been meaning to put up a note for others to see if they can uncover any firm evidence of the use of the AGM-122 Sidearm missile on the Apache. It's certainly not a regular weapons loadout, but if it is a rare but validly used missile on the chopper, it should probably get a mention in the Design section. I think with both of our efforts to increase references and other improvements, we've got it to the level where it shouldn't get an automatic fail at least. I hope that this article does get reviewed soon; opinions on what improvements to do next are desirable as my own list of things to add has gotten pretty thin. Kyteto (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be good to find some sourcing for this statement "As of 2009, twelve Apache helicopters were shot down by enemy fire during the entire war". Right now I can't see where this is coming from, likely a GA reveiwer would pick this up as well. Any knowledge on this Fnlayson? Kyteto (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks to be cited in this list article there. Although the page(s) used for the references is probably not reliable. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs could do with some summary of the operational history of the Apache - currently it has none. Also, it doesn't say what became of the trials of Starstreak etc. Nigel Ish (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just added that Starstreak part yesterday and don't have anything that says where that went. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

AGM-122 stocks have been expended and the weapon was never used on the Longbow it was a Marine and Navy program. As for Starstreak it has a very narrow engagement envelope and requires the laser to designate the target through missile impact. It also proved difficult to employ from the helicopter as the target had to be near the nose of the aircraft and was never acquired for use on the US Army Longbows. Longbow is capable of using ATAS which is fire and forget but I have never seen that fielded to a unit, either. Righteous9000 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Starstreak went nowhere in the US Army. It was tested but never fielded. It's laser guided so the firing platform has to remain exposed to use it. Righteous9000 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe one AH-64A was shot down by an Iraqi SA-14 during ODS

The article indicates that no AH-64As were shot down in ODS. However, I remember reading in War in the Fourth Dimension by Dr Alfred Price that one AH-64A was shot down during ODS. Does anyone have a copy of this book? I don't have it anymore. Righteous9000 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, 1 loss is mentioned Modern Battlefield Warplanes on page 147. I corrected the article wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

US Army makes no distinction when using the term Longbow with AH-64D and the reference to this should be removed

The US Army makes no distinction when using the term Longbow with respect to the AH-64D. All AH-64Ds are Longbows even those without the radar. In active service all have the -701C engines now so that no longer differentiates them, either. The FCR, RFI and associated electronics are not the only components of the Longbow system. The AGM-114L is also included. All AH-64Ds can fire the AGM-114L RF HELLFIRE missile even if they do not have the FCR or access to FCR targeting data from an AH-64D so equipped. The AH-64A is incapable of firing the AGM-114L as the AH-64A is not compatible with the M299 launchers. There are two types of HELLFIRE launcher used by AH-64 variants in US Army service. They are the older M272 and the newer M299 which is compatible with the AGM-114L. The AH-64D is compatible with the M272 and M299. This is why I have removed the incorrect, though cited, statement from the entry. I also make some of these points under the "Picture wrong for label" part which began because of the incorrect statement I am trying to remove. The statement leads people to believe that only those AH-64Ds fitted with the FCR are Longbows when this is not the case. I have included these references including one from the GAO which states, "In 1991, the Army planned to develop and procure 227 Longbow Apache helicopters. In May 1993, the program was restructured to upgrade the entire fleet of 758 helicopters to the Apache Longbow configuration but outfit only 227 with the fire control radar and a more powerful 701C engine. Full-rate production of both the Apache Longbow airframe and fire control radar was authorized in October 1995." Please note that the program counts all 758 aircraft to be upgraded (all US Army AH-64Ds are rebuilt AH-64As) as Longbows despite the fact that only 227 will be procured with the FCR. Here are some other links which include similar statements: AH-64D on Jolly Rogers AH-64D on FAS AH-64D at Global Security All of these articles use Longbow, Apache Longbow and Longbow Apache interchangeably without regard to the presence of the FCR. Righteous9000 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You state the US Army makes no distinction, but the GAO report and those web pages are not Army sources. The Army Fact File and the DOD Model Designation doc do not get into that detail. Actually the DOD doc list "Apache" for both AH-64A and AH-64D. The AH-64D Apache/Apache Longbow thing may have been the initial plan, that was discarded... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bishop isn't an Army source, either. At least the GAO report is a US Government source. Additionally, I am well aware that all AH-64 variants in US Army service can be referred to as simply Apache. My point is that all AH-64Ds carry the Longbow name regardless of the presence of an FCR. The Army fact file also include four pictures of the AH-64A and lists only Apache Longbow at the top. This is likely due to the fact that there are no more AH-64As in the Regular Army and someone didn't bother to update the pictures. The DTIC file also claims that McDonnell Douglas makes the Longbow. That is no longer the case and was not the case as of the 2004 date on the document. Righteous9000 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim that or anything was an Army source. I adjusted the wording in the article a couple times. Try to sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~) in the future. Think I'm done here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Righteous9000 is correct in his statement(s) above. It does not matter if the AH-64D is equipped with the FCR or not, they are all "Longbow". The term "Apache" can be applied to either variant. The Army has never been "tidy" in it's naming convention for this helo.  Ahodges7   ^talk 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My failure to sign the post does not materially change the fact that there is no naming convention that differentiates AH-64Ds from one another based upon the presence of the FCR. There are now at least three contributors who have provided similar comments on the article, two of whom have flown the AH-64D in combat during OIF. Additionally, I have provided US Government documentation supporting the fact that there is no difference in the names. Unless you can provide a US Government source that counters this I must insist that you not continue to discard my corrections to the article. Righteous9000 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Have already supplied valid and reliable sources per Wikipedia policies. Instead of trying to correct/modify the wording, you have just wholesale deleted the sentence and reference. The point is that both versions are D models. Try not to assume connections between unrelated comments people make. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious ref

Using an editorial as a factual source for this case is improper at best. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Move Potential - Shouldn't this article be McDonnell Douglas AH-64 Apache?

The thought just occured that usually WP: Aviation articles use the manufacturer name of the company that built them at the time of their introduction to service. MD were the manufacturer, as opposed to Boeing, between 1984 and 1997, the first eleven years of service as well s its last two years of development are under the operations of McDonnell Douglas. Perhaps we should consider moving this article to an article name that reflects this? Kyteto (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is no established guideline, but these are handled on a case-by-case basis at the article level. This article's title was discussed during the WPAIR article renaming drive earlier this year, and this was the consensus title. Many published sources use differening standards, but in general, the company that is still producing an aircraft is the one that it is listed under. (Some would title it as "Hughes/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing AH-64 Apache", but still place it in the Boeing section if their articles were listed by company.) This is the general pattern we follwed in the renaiming, though there are some exceptions. A notable one General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but that was the (slim) choice of the discussion on that talk page, and some have objected quite loudly to that choice there! - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought it usually followed the name of the company that brought the aircraft into production-for-service (and produced a considerable amount of them), as opposed to later corporate buy-outs / early development work. I'll look for the discussion now. Kyteto (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The renaming effort generally followed the more common, widely know name. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) for the discussion and so forth. In this case, there are some reasons for using Hughes also. Boeing as the name for its current manufacturer seems to be a decent compromise. -fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hughes would be a poor fit IMO, for the same reason that Hawker Siddley is for BAE Sea Harrier. In both cases, Hughes/HS began development, created the concept, and ran the initial tests towards creating a definatively product. But the companies merged to form new identities years before development was complete, and as such it was BAE/MD that created the first production models, that produced all of the batches for decades, and went onto develop advanced versions to improve on their own original production product in the following decade; the AH-64A was nearly if not entirely produced by MD, MD also developed and brought into production the AH-64D. Boeing did comparitively little for the range apart from incrimental upgrades as technology went on, and continued the production line, much as British Aerospace did for the Harriers. I think there is a strong case for using the above name, but I obviously won't force the issue, only raise it; more than that there is no point. Kyteto (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The company was owned by Boeing when the article was created, so it makes sense that the title having Boeing in it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That same logic applies to BAE Sea Harrier, the company that maintained it at the time of its wiki article being produced; yet that was overturned for the historically more frequent British Aerospace company name earlier this year. There are three common names, they all make sense, else there wouldn't be a discussion to be had. I would argue, as per the Sea Harrier, that the most common name is the one we use, not the one which happens to be current, else we'd need to reconsider Hawker Siddeley Nimrod (which had been defunct for 30 odd years, at the time of article creation it came under the realm of BAE Systems) and a whole host of others (Avro Vulcan for one, the last three years of production and two decades of maintainence done by Hawker Siddley, and as such some period sources recognise it as Hawker Siddley Vulcan)

Sounds to me like a policy issue that needs to be entertained by the Aviation Project. I'm all for consistency, but I don't know if this has ever been addressed. Maybe you should check. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Netherlands Air Force AH-64s numbers

(Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson)

Following the damage to Royal Netherlands Air Force/301 Squadron AH-64D Q-01 in a wire strike near Vlijmen, repairs initially got under way at Gilze-Rijen. The Apache was then moved to the US army facility at Coleman Barracks, Germany for completion and some systems upgrades. It returned into service with 301 Squadron in January 2010. Airforces Monthly July 2010 page 88

The Royal Netherlands Air Force has 30 AH-64 in service, not 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.90.87 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed the Note above about posting article related issues on article talk pages. Anyway, the current reference lists 29. That AF Monthly ref is fine, but I don't have that to check. So you need to correct the number and add that reference. -fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Used during 2011 Bahraini uprising

During the Attack on the Roundabout at March 16, two military Apaches were used,It had an armored personnel and one missile was missing it is not known if it was fired at protesters or was not installed. I would like that it would be added. Calicoosat (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a minor use. If there is a reliable source for that, post it here and we can discuss. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AH-64 fielding date

I'm finding conflicting informnation about the year the Apache was fielded. I disagree with the 1986 date because when I started working, it was fielded. That was a year earlier. I've found a source at FAS that says 1984, which seems more likely. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1986 was the most certain date I have been able to find in multiple sources. April 1986 is per Army History records, chapter 5. With the first delivery of production aircraft in Jan. 184, I'd expect it to be earlier, like 1985 or maybe late 1984. FAS.org, GlobalSecurty.org and others like them are self-published sources with no peer review. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand about those sites, but I don't believe the 1986 date. When I mean fielding, I don't mean when the first aircraft reach the maintenance trainers (who are the first to receive new airframes), I'm talking operational. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right, I was referring to it becoming operational, as in initial operating capability. The 1986 date could be for full operating capability. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that might be. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hellfire fire and forget capability

The reference cited and the WP article (which contains a small error) support my contention, and the way I rewrote it. A missile's name does not make it fire and forget anymore than than a sea sparrow makes that missile a bird. This missle, even in its most advanced form, is NOT a fire and forget missile. No amount of Boeing advertising will change that. Some missiles are both guided and F&F, and are listed in the F&F article. The hellfire is purely guided, and always guided. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will make one change to my statement, the radar version is, and could be separately stated so. The laser version is not F&F in any way, shape or form. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the laser version guided, but it the guidance can be performed by a spotter on the ground with a designator, or by other aircraft such as the OH-58, which allow the firing Apache to pop up, fire the weapon, and leave, thus forgetting about it. That's always been the context of "fire-and-forget" with the Hellfire, as I understand it. Please stop reverting, and discuss this here, or do we need to get the article protected? - BilCat (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The TOW was wire-guided, so obviously it couldn't hand off guidance to another source, and it's in that context tha tthe Hellfire was considered "fire-and-forget". - BilCat (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fire and forget specifically states that NO further guidance is required. And Bill, with all due respect, don't start threatening, I started this discussion after reverting once. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that definition? I've seen it used in both contexts. I've also seen you edit-war before, so the "threat" is warranted, and stands as given. - BilCat (talk)

I used the source cited, and a WP article that defines what a F&F missile is, while you are using conventional wisdom ("the context has always been"). If you disagree with the definition, then I suggest you go edit that article, and not this one. My revision clearly reflects the cited reference, and does not judge either way whether this missile is F&F or not. Now if you feel this has become personal, and cannot discuss this with me unemotionally without threatening page control, then let's move that part to your talk page. I don't think it's necessary, but the ball is in your court. Making a public insinuation that I'm an edit-warrer, is not helpful. It also doesn't make me wrong. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make you right either. Also, what source have you cited for the definition that F&F doesn't apply to laser-guided weapons, or what WP article (which aren't usable as souces, btw) are you referring too? - BilCat (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted a link a couple comments up, but what you are arguing over has nothing to do with the Apache helicopter, and everything to do with the F&F article. If you think another WP article is unworthy as a source of definition (when that IS the purpose of that article), then that article should be corrected. "Forget" doesn't mean sort of forget or partially forget, it means forget and don't worry about it. Now I gave in on the Hellfire L-version(?), because it has active radar. Regarding the other Hellfire variants, handing off to another laser designator is not forgetting, but only one person forgetting and another "remembering" that missile all the way to the target. Now if you think the definition in the F&F article is wrong, I think you should go over there and contest it; and I'll be happy to go there with you and help. Right now that article is extremely clear on what it means, but if it's wrong I think we should fix it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Problematic note

Google translated the Hebrew word "Peten" (פתן) as a noun with 3 choices to chose from: Cobra, Adder and Viper. However, on further checking of the Hebrew word reveals that it actually means an Elapidae snake and since the desert Cobra (Walterinnesia aegyptia) is also found in Israel, "Cobra" would be a more fitting name over "Viper". Incidentally, Israelis named their Bell AH-1 Cobras as "Tzefa" (צפע), Hebrew for Viper, this was probably the reason for the apparent mixed-up.

This note added to the article not too long ago is a little problematic to say the least. It presents information with no sources, takes a subjective and WP:POVish point of view E.G. "it actually means" and "would be a more fitting name". The statement also doesn't bother to say with whom the "further checking" was checked with; and to be honest it might be seen as WP:UNDUE to single out Google (most likely referring to their automated translation web program) while skimming out the identities of every other translation party. It also has some confusing portions, "this was probably the reason for the apparent mixed-up" this part doesn't make sense to me, who's or what mix-up is being referred to? Who says that there is a mix-up at all, it is common for words to have synonymes within the same language let alone translations, one interpretation isn't necessarily a 'wrong' one in the translation business, not is there always one definative 'right' one. Trying to shoe-horn towards a point of view, uncited and needlessly, it borders on good-intention'ed WP:OR, and isn't really necessary here. In my opinion, what is presented in this note could be presented in a shorter, less POVish and more even form. Kyteto (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I trimmed the footnote some and cited part of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe somebody has a Hebrew-English dictionary or something similar to cite the rest of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)