This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't we place its main competitor the Eurocopter Tiger?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
This is an article about the Apache, not about suside bombers. SaderBiscut 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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]
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)
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)
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)
Fnlayson,
As designed, the YAH-64 and the AH-64A fired laser-guided Hellfire missiles only. -- Born2flie 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
clarify on the jordanian and bahain order of the apache —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Therefore I suggest it be in a more detail section rather than second sentence.
I don't know if the removed information should be added back in somewhere. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 03:35, 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)
Its obvious from the picture. Is it good to state the obvious in the intro? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Demoted to "Start" as more coverage is needed in the Into production section. Ejosse1 ( talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
it is all composite or ceramic based armour. The blast shield between the seats is layered acrylic.
"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)
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)
OK then, what about a generic AH-64 instead of Apache? - Fnlayson 01:57, 13 March 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)