Comments by "Mr Grinch" (@mrgrinch837) on "Found And Explained" channel.

@philsalvatore3902 I flew Cobras for 9 years and I can tell you since the E model Apache has rolled off and all of the quirks have been fixed it is a superior aircraft and capability then the Marine Viper model cobra. The thing people do not seem to understand is that you can fit a whole lot more cobras underneath the ships maintenance deck then you can apache. Both are excellent machines, very very capable but if you can carry 40 Vipers or you can carry 20 Apaches makes a big difference. I'd rather have the 40. After going into Apaches from cobras I can tell you those machines are freakishly huge in comparison. Also the Vipers are a lot easier to work on.
7
In reality the Air Force wanted to abscond with the cobra. They felt that only the Air Force should have dedicated armed aircraft. The Army told them to go pound sand.
7
@Slava22222 I apologize, I didn't read your comment fully, only skimmed the first parts. There's a lot of people who just love to argue nonsense. Again, my apologies. In answer to your question, I get the math while on active duty and you are correct. We had a company in Tustin California that wanted to upgrade our F model cobras to the Super Cobra standards at that time. The Department of Defense said instead of spending 3.7 million dollars to upgrade a single F model COBRA to the Super Cobra standards they decided to spend 12 million dollars on a single Apache. What can I say, I don't control the credit cards. The Pentagon is spend crazy. At the time this is before the D model came out, the Apache had a horrible operational Readiness rate compared to the cobras but the Marine Cobra is a completely different animal. As far as the payload, you can mix and match whatever type of Ordnance you want depending upon the enemy threat as well as the temperature because that has a great deal to do with how much ammo we could carry. Both Apaches and Vipers have more power available so they can lift virtually a full tank of gas and full ordinance, ours we have to decide on whether we wanted to fly longer or carry more firepower. At the time the Marine Super Cobra was far more Superior than hours. I can admit that. But if you want to compare bones to bones, a 20 mm 3 Barrel M-197 gun on the Cobras have a much tighter shot group or impact points at distant targets between 1500 to 1800 meters than the apache. When a 30 mm fires off the dispersal pattern of those rounds go every freaking where. Ours was more like a sniper in comparison. All the bullets are landing in pretty much the same zone. You don't have much dispersion. Ours could fire between 12 to 15 rounds per second which worked pretty well for us in a direct fire mode when supporting ground troops. The Apache gun does have better range though. It's just when they fire, they have the potential to get a lot of collateral damage.
3
@Foxtrot_UniformCharlieKilo I don't think you realize it but the Air Force did not want the A-10 warthog. Only the pilots and crew chiefs and Armament Specialists love that airplane. The hierarchy of the United States Air Force is bigoted only for the higher flying high speed aircraft that allows them to get jobs with the aircraft manufacturers after they leave the military. The Air Force does not want to support the ground combat troops. They want to do the Top Gun thing and only the top gun thing. Marines and grunts are not in their calculations.
2
I watched the entire video and there are a number of serious discrepancies. First off, when the Army asked for a dedicated attack helicopter there were three contenders. The Cobra was not even one of them. Bell helicopter built the cobra in something like 9 months and had it flying in a year. By 1967 it was in Vietnam. As far as the true competition there were three helicopters up for purchase. The cheyenne, the Apache and the Blackhawk which is seen as a photograph of the S-67 seen at 6 minutes and 32 seconds. There are very very few photographs of this machine and it seems to have disappeared from history so I credit you guys with being able to dig the references on this helicopter up. The bottom line is through research and development the Apache is the only one that survived the culling process. The Cobra was meant as a stop gap until the winning design would have been chosen in approximately 8 to 10 years. The cobras service in the army wound up up lasting 33 years. That's a pretty impressive stop gap. It evolved through the decades and became what the Marines have today, they're viper. Which in my opinion is the most reliable and deadly Battlefield aircraft because it's much simpler in design than the apache. Much easier to maintain. And this is coming from an X cobra pilot. Ultimately the AH-64 won a contract that was started in the mid 1960's and the Army took the first orders in 1984, about 20 years later. Just a "taad" longer than the 8-10 years promised.
1
@philsalvatore3902 just Ball parking the ratio in numbers between Apaches and cobras. I've been on board troop carriers and I've seen how tight the spaces are below decks when you're putting these machines so tightly together. I have also sat inside an Apache in a transition to the AH-64 course and in comparison to cobra's, those things are freaking huge! The destructive capability is pretty much equal, the Viper cannot absorb as much damage by far as an Apache but again when you have more attack airframes you're a more formidable fighting force to the enemy.
1
@philsalvatore3902 I've used tow missiles since I was infantry off of jeeps and Humvees and then it's the same tow missiles used on a cobra. The Apaches use Hellfire and they can designate targets with their own laser systems as well as using other ground laser identifiers or Glids, or they can use a drone. This is referred to as lock on after launch missions (LOL). I've never found out if the Marines used their own laser identifiers in their telescopic sight units, just like Apaches I'm sure that their sighting systems have lasers built in. But the Hellfire is extremely accurate and has to have a laser identifier. My guess would be it's better to use a drone rather than bringing the helicopter in closer but the range on a Hellfire is somewhere between 4 and a half to 5 miles. You don't have to get close. As far as them being exposed to enemy fire, it's no more dangerous than eating a peanut butter sandwich without something to drink close by. There's a risk in everything you do, that's why you get the big bucks.
1
@philsalvatore3902 Sorry to be so wordy, just to add as far as a tactical perspective, I flew Cobras for 5 years out of Wheeler Field in Hawaii, and I live in California and have gone by Camp Pendleton tons of times and when I see Marine cobras flying up and down the coastline one thing that I do note is that they fly a whole lot higher than we do overwater. That makes him a great target as the lower we fly the harder it is for heat-seeking missiles to lock onto us. I don't know if they do that over ground but the tactics are the ground guys call us in and tell us generally where the bad guys are. We use maps or nowadays GPS systems to find their location and we sneak in low level, extremely low level pick them up through the 13th power telescopic sight unit. Once sighted the gunner select a particular weapon and then wreaks havoc. Our weapons range is so far away that you're never going to hear us, you're never going to see us. All that you know is that things around you are blowing up. A cobra hovering in bushes or a tree line from 2.6 Mi away is virtually impossible to see. But there is the odd grunt out there that may have you in Rifle Range but that's why we have the 20 mm autocannon slaved to the helmet sight system. All you have to do is look at a person, pull the trigger the gun automatically swivels in his or her direction and it starts unloading at 15 rounds per second. It's primarily a self-defense weapon and generally the pilot will control it while the gunner is targeting the enemy in the distance. Again all you have to do is look at your target and pull the trigger it can turn a human into a red mist out to 1500 yds. Keep in mind, we fly in packs of 3 to 5 cobras, if you start shooting at one of us the other two to four will take you out. If there's a grunt out there, my advice is don't shoot at cobras, or apaches. Or so the Viet Cong figured out 2 months after the Cobra was introduced into Vietnam. The bad guy stopped shooting at them because they knew their weapons gave out a muzzle flash signature which would attract attention from the snakes. They quickly realized that these things will shoot back, they'll shoot back a lot. Again, we travel in packs. If we don't know where you are then that's the best survival tool you have. Don't attract attention!
1
@williamzk9083 Russian Doctrine and Western Doctrine are very very different when it comes to attack helicopters. Our Attack Helicopters will be working close to the forward line of troops (flot). It's actually the Infantry who requests support and gives targeting information to include ground laser identifiers. We don't generally fly beyond our friendly lines, we can engage targets out to up to 5 Mi away from their Direction and instructions. Therefore, our forward arming and refueling points will have to be within at least 30 Mi of the flot in order to refuel and rearm. Also they're called jump farps because we can set them up and break them down in a matter of about 20 minutes. Any kind of clearing would work. In a Cobra we can cover 1 mi in about 20 seconds. It would take less than 15 minutes to go 30 mi. To be back any further away would hinder the ability for us to support the ground troops. I have no understanding of why the Russians have to fly from as far away as they do. Apparently they're not very good. We in the United States Army and I suspect the Marine Corps is well we don't do that. If it's a question of deep attack strikes, we use the fix wings for that. Attack helicopters in the Army stay with the army. We don't go out on our own.
1
@blacklight4720 you don't have to read it you know, it's a free country. Go have a cookie and watch tv.
1
@philsalvatore3902 I'm sorry, I just noticed your question. I can't answer that question definitively as I was Army and we have a equipment used in a particular way that you actually pointed out already. I know they have a tendency to fly with the Yankee model Huey's and it's likely that they have enhanced magnifications with the sighting systems but that's a big ask. It's likely they use general support from the Marines who on the battlefield who can see and hear because of their proximity to the enemy and point out where the enemy is by the noise of their vehicles or becoming engaged engaged in a firefight they can call for immediate suppressing fire by using M-203's to mark targets with smoke rounds as well as ground laser identifiers or GLIDS if they have them available.
1
@philsalvatore3902 again apologies, I just noticed these questions you had. In regards to the Cobra over the Apache with the Marine corps, the Marines have a great deal more experience and operating the cobras then the apaches. That is to say the software, all of the hardware in an Apache is a maintenance nightmare. Where is the newer versions of the cobras ie, the Vipers are very similar in type and they have experience in keeping them flying and again, there's a lot more of them you can put below the decks than apaches. They're just too damn big. They have really the same operational envelope so one is as good as the other. The only true difference is in Apache can take hits and still keep flying where is a Viper if it gets hit it's coming out of the sky like Mike Tyson punching a nun in the gut. She's going down!
1
@jgr7487 in reality, the Cobra was only meant as an immediate stop Gap measure. It was designed in 6 months and the first one was flying 3 months later. It was never meant to be flying for 33 years and in the case of the Marine Corps more than that. There were three prototypes put out, the cheyenne, the blackhawk ( a gunship version, not the uh 60 that most people are used to) and the apache.
1
@blacklight4720 a lot to unpack here. I'll answer as much as I can. I was electronic warfare tactical operations officer so my job dealt specifically with the aircraft defensive systems such as chaff flare dispensers infrared Jammers and radar jammers. That is very in-depth but I can tell you this, along with all the electronic warfare equipment and flying low to the ground there is virtually no chance that a man pad will take out a helicopter. In the ukraine, all the Russians are flying in the nosebleed section. We don't do that. We skimmed the treetops. Missiles are not designed to go after aircraft that low to the ground. The avionics are becoming more advanced Through The Years along with microprocessors the weight of the components are lighter and lighter. The Apache and the Marine Cobras have twin engines, they have no power problems whatsoever. In actuality we had an engine that put out 1800 shaft horsepower but the transmission couldn't take that much power so it's been d-rated to 1180 to 1250 shaft horsepower. That way you don't destroy the transmission, the Apache as well as the Marine cobras don't have that problem so they can carry all the ordinance as long as they have hardpoints and full load of fuel, we have to tailor our fuel load and our weapons load depending upon the temperature of the day. The Apache has been outfitted with a wing tank so it could get better range but ordinarily we don't go much further than about 40 miles forward of our operating base. We travel at 2 me a minute so we can cover 40 miles and 20 minutes.
1
@blacklight4720 list of part 2, the reason why they needed that Wing tank was to go on extended missions such as taking out the Iraqi early warning radars. That is an extremely rare example. Ordinarily a wing tank would be used to Ferry the aircraft from one place to another. It's not generally used in most Mission profiles. All hard points are used to carry weapons when you go into battle. My opinion, the Marine cobras and that includes the super cobras as well as the Vipers are the absolute best attack helicopters under the sun. The only thing the Apaches have is the Apache can take hits and still keep flying. None of the cobras are able to take hits and not crash. The profile is made to engage targets out to 2 to 4 MI away. When you're hovering in the tree lines from 2 mi away you're pretty much invisible. With a tow missile I could hit a 4 by 4 ft box moving 2.3 Mi away. The Hellfire has a lot greater range than that. The Rockets along with the targeting systems has range up to approximately 3.5 MI. The only issue they may have is some loan Rifleman who can spot them hovering 20 yd away. That's why we use the flex gun. It can aim and put out bullets in less than a second. Beauty of it is all you have to do is look at The Rifleman pull the trigger the gun automatically turns and starts firing and you turn him into red mist. But as survivability goes it is the best flying but a drill sergeant once told me you want a guarantee buy a toaster. The pnvs / Tad systems have problems as far as picking out trees and such while flying so while I was in Ah-64 Pilots were using night vision goggles to get into the target area and then they switch to the thermal systems on board their aircraft. And this ANVIS6'S were the best night vision goggles we had at that time. I retired in 97 so I'm sure things have changed since then but as far as the avionics go again, the communications and navigation systems have only been enhanced since I left. As to avionics failures, while stationed at Fort Polk and Fort Hood we had 64 in the hangers next door. Cobras flew a lot more because the aircraft was a lot easier to work on whereas the a model 64's were a computerized nightmare. Most of the problems have been fixed they filled it the Delta model and the Echo model is even better. I hope that answers your questions.
1
@blacklight4720 oh yeah, if you're going to be in a crash the Apache is the best aircraft to do that with. Cobras are not designed to take hits, they're not designed to slam into the ground and Pilots walk away. Again, if you want to guarantee, buy a toaster .
1
@Slava22222 I posted additional information a few moments ago that didn't seem to post. Crap that was a lot of stuff. Us principally about avionics. It was an Electronics Warfare/ threat officer. My responsibilities dealt primarily with infrared and radar jamming systems as well as chaff and flare dispensers. When you look at these Russian helicopters being blown out of the sky the reason is because of their flying too freaking high. We skim the Treetops and in addition to the electronic defense systems it's virtually impossible to bring a helicopter down by a man pad. Those missiles were not designed to hit helicopters skimming the ground, there's way too much interference with a surrounding trees and such that makes it virtually impossible to bring down. Russians don't know how to fly. Anyway, I retired in 1997 and the electronics were getting much more sophisticated so we are borg, resistance is futile. I can only imagine in the 27 years that I have been retired all of the electronics have been improved. As far as super cobras compared to vipers honestly, they're just upgrades. The aircraft will perform pretty much the same. As far as range goes both are carrying a considerable amount of fuel and the only time you put the wing tanks on the Apaches is for deployment. Except for the attack of the early warning radar systems in iraq, there is no need to carry the wing tanks. The cobras I flew operated about 40 to 50 Mi forward of our operating base. We cover 2 me a minute. It would take us roughly 20 to 25 minutes to get out to where the shooting is. Once we get there we generally have about 40 minutes available on station. The newer Apaches and Vipers are better as they can carry more fuel as well as nearly full ordinance if not completely topping out. They're a good buy. I'm not sure of anything more that I can answer for you. And again I apologize I thought you were just some guy who's screwing around again. I got a lot of that. Anything else you want to know just ask.
1
@philsalvatore3902 I'm not advocating that one is better than the other, I'm just stating that the Apache is designed to take hits and still keep flying. I flew the S, F and ECAS model cobras. I loved every second of it but if you got so much as a bird strike you're coming out of the air. The true advantage of the Cobra over the Apache is the aircraft has a smaller profile and much much harder to see in the distance. If it's harder to see it's harder to shoot. With the fact that it is so slim you can store more below the deck.
1
@Foxtrot_UniformCharlieKilo I have never heard of the controversy between the Cheyenne and the Air Force helping to cancel it until one or two other videos came out exposing it. The Cobra came out because we realized that the Huey hog (a fully armed uh-1h) could not stay with the Chinooks in vietnam. They needed Firepower that was able to stay with the faster helicopters. There were four aircraft prototypes proposed one was the cobra, one was the Cheyenne one was the Apache and one was called the blackhawk, a very different aircraft than the lift aircraft. The Cobra was essentially designed in about 6 or 7 months and was actually bought up by the military in less than a year from the time they put it on the drafting table. When it was found the Cobra was going to be heavily armed the Air Force wanted to be in charge of it and that's where they lost their fight. The A-10 came about because a fixed-wing asset had more range and greater speed to be able to do close air support. That type of aircraft was always needed. Even the people who helped design the Stuka dive bomber from Germany helped to design the A-10 Warthog. Attack Helicopters can do the same job they just can't carry as much armament but they are much more accurate than the A-10. There are pluses and minuses on all sides so you just got to your fights.
1
@williamzk9083 Attack Helicopters are not used for such deep strike missions, although there are exceptions the vast majority of the time they are used to support ground infantry troops and armor. In that role I guarantee you they're going to run out of bullets pretty quickly if the fighting is that intense that's why they don't go further away than they have to for their own FAARP's or forward area arming and refueling points. Does no good to fly 70 miles and be gone so long that by the time they finally get back to the battle the people they're supposed to be supporting are dead. We don't do much further away than 20 to 25 miles. Bottom line kind of staying out of artillery range. It was an Army tactical operations officer and Cobra pilot and the only time I have ever heard of an attack helicopter being used in what's considered a deep strike mission was the nine Apaches that went into remove the early warning radar systems in the Kuwaiti desert. There is no reason for us to use maximum range when that will also give us the maximum time away from the battle. In this case, the range is not a factor, what is a factor is ammo load and the ability to stay with the ground troops.
1
@ericzaiz8358 The attack that killed the brits was because the British column wandered into the warthogs kill box. First rule of killboxes, if you want to live, stay the hell out of the kill boxes. I don't know why they ignored the phase lines that limit ground advancement into a kill box, but knowing the A-10's were there I'd have made absolutely sure I knew where I was. When in doubt, stop!
1