Talk:Boeing AH-64 Apache/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good Article / Featured Article?

Not that I actually care, but ¿why can not this article reach a “featured” status? (This isn’t a discussion; It’s actually just a question, but one that should be explained somewhere.)174.25.42.71 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

An article getting to Featured Article status is not a simple, painless process. In general an article needs to be a good quality article and meet the WP:Featured article criteria first. Then someone has to nominate the article for Featured Article. It then undergoes a review process and if it passes, it is awarded Featured Article status. This article needs more work to get there, imo. -fnlayson (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any editors interested in undertaking a peer review of this article to bring it up to the level of a Featured Article? If there are, I'd be willing to nominate the article for FA-status review, but only once we've conducted a thorough peer review and done our best to meet the standards. There's work to be done but no reason why a team of 2-5 dedicated editors couldn't improve this and get it passed FA-review. Azx2 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never done it before, but I'm willing to join a team. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

YAH-64 photo

I have concerns about this photo. I do not believe it is a YAH-64; for example the paint scheme and nose appear to be wrong. The rotor mast may be too tall. Something just doesn't seem correct here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Somebody who painted Hughes YAH-64 on it thought it was a YAH-64! MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All I could read was Hughes, but this must be a very late prototype, as the TADS/PNVS did not appear or look like this on the original flying prototype. Take a look here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The YAH-64 is in the shadow after the word Hughes, unlikely that the production aircraft would say Hughes on them. They were five flying YAH-64s and this image was taken in 1984 they would have had plenty of time to tweak and add stuff during development. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I think a contrasting version would be more educational, since a near production version doesnt' add much visual value. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Carrying people on the wings?

This news article - "UK | Helicopter rescue bid for Marine". BBC News. 2007-01-17. Retrieved 2012-10-19. - claims that there are attachments on the wings for intentionally harnessing up to 4 people onto the wings. I'm a bit sceptical of that claim. I think the reporter misinterpreted the story and that the soldiers used attachment points that happened to be suitable - rather than actually designed for harnessing "passengers". Roger (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says the 2 Apaches carried 4 people (2 each, probably) and it does mention "in emergencies". Either this emergency harness capability was documented or they improvised it for that use. Either way, Hughes probably did not design that in originally. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No reference for any design feature for attaching people to the wings of an AH-64 model of any kinds that I can find. OR: There are none. --Born2flie (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge what they did was add D-rings to the weapons racks, so that the downed-crewmember straddled the weapons pod face aft, and attached their harness to the D-ring. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

They sit on the EFAB with a D-Ring on their ALSE or Air Warrior vest clipped to the hand hold. My source is I know the guy came up with the crazy idea and did it. He was a CW5 in Germany and it was subsequently done during OIF. oh there is a picture of it to, it was published in the Quad A (Army Aviation Association of America yearly photo contest several years back) and by the way, it is an AH-64D Apache with a Longbow Radar and an Arrowhead Modernized Target and Designation Sight. It is called "A D Model", A Longbow", "The big rig" for slang but those are not the official names. The AGM-117L (L5 and previous versions) is a fire and forget missile because it has autonomous homing to the target and doesnt require a sight to guide it to the target, it only requires a sight for a hand over...that is why is it is described as inertially guided, radar assisted homing...and yes that is a YAH-64 in the piture and it is sitting in the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker AL, the first YAH-64 had a T-Tail. Good luck with all your references... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.86.139 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to help out, that would great. Be nice if you identified yourself (sign your comments), and provided some sources. Unfortunately original research isn't allowed, though you might have even invented the technology yourself. They have rules here, though it may not always appears so. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Operator - Taiwan vs ROC

Editors might not be aware, but Wikipedia changed the name of the ROC article to Taiwan some time ago. It makes no sense to flag the operator as ROC only to link to an article called Taiwan. You have to go by what most users are going to recognise and understand - that's why the country article was renamed to Taiwan. We also don't always refer to countries' official names - do we refer to one of the operators of the Apache being "The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Is there really a dispute here? John Smith's (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You must my have got my edit summary. My revert was about you removing a valid template ({{ROC-TW}}), which lists both ROC and Taiwan, and links to Taiwan. There's no confusion with since Taiwan is clearly listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

But it still says "Republic of Taiwan", which is confusing. And I don't understand what you mean by "valid template" and why that means it MUST be used. John Smith's (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, that template clearly lists "Republic of China (Taiwan)". That's no more confusing than things typically presented. Someone can just click on the link if they are. That template should have been deleted if common name was hard rule here. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact a template can be deleted isn't a reason to use it. John Smith's (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing a valid justification to using the ROC template. Wikipedia refers to the country as "Taiwan" now. If people disagree, they should try to get it renamed to ROC. John Smith's (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Will {{TWN-ROC}} work to satisfy this issue, or is against a policy or guideline somewhere that no one else knows about? - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it's a bit better, but why does it have to mention "ROC" at all? The current template (ROC-Taiwan) was created to clarify what the ROC was for confused readers - which would be most English-speaking people. Why is it necessary to clarify that Taiwan is the ROC? Who is going to think Taiwan is something else? John Smith's (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Block" Definition

Will someone please add the definition of the word, "Block" to the main article? I've done several Google searches and I can't find the meaning of the word "Block". It would be nice if the main article listed the improvements for each "Block" upgrade. I think there was a "Block I", "Block II" and now there is a "Block III", that is a "Block III" Apache or AH-64D Block III. Any thoughts about adding a complete "Block" section to this article?

A block is typically a group of upgrades to increase/restore performance or capabilities, reduce maintenance, enhance reliability or to enhance or add a mission capability. I think the article already lists the upgrades for each Block. AH-64D Block III = AH-64E --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate it. I'm in the helicopter industry (on the commercial side) so I never understood the definition of a "block" aircraft version. However, I was hoping a Wikipedia editor would make the commitment to to add this information to the main article.

I've seen other Wikipedia pages where they have a section called "Etymology". It would be nice to have a section which explained why the word "Apache" was chosen. Also it would be nice to see the definition of "Block" as well. As there are three "Block" versions of the Apache, it would be nice to see a table explaining the major upgrades for each "Block" version. The word "Block" as a version of the Apache is used 13 times throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewest (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section on block modification, hope that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome!!! Thanks a million. I even understand it a little more. Thanks again. -Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.102.142 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Crew

Wondering if there wouldn't be a way to include some more information/detail about the crew and their roles/responsibilities in flying the helicopter and operating its weapons system, especially given the likely increased interest from the general public following the coverage of Prince Harry's 4-mos tour in Afghanistan as a co-pilot/gunner? Azx2 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The front seater is the co-pilot/gunner, therefore Prince Harry is both a rated pilot and primary operator of the weapons systems. Both crewmembers can fire weapons, but the gunner has control of the TADS. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this additional information and insight. Are the two crew-members typically equal in rank? Do they complete the same training only to be given their assigned roles upon completion of the training, or is the pilot trained only to be a pilot, whereas the co-pilot/gunner earns wings and then undergoes additional weapons system training? Who makes tactical decisions and who is in overall control of the aircraft when it's operating? Is this information superfluous to the main article, which I realize is about the aircraft itself and not the crew? Regardless, if you can answer me here at least, the material will become accessible to others. Thank you for your time. Azx2 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The British Apache is covered at AgustaWestland Apache, by the way. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Loss photo

I have an issue with the caption on that photo. It says "sources indicate...", so what sources? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is covered in the text. No real reason for the caption has to repeat it. Besides the images is non-free and it does not have a fair use rationale for this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I read the text several times and couldn't discern the sources. Guess I'm just blind. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph that starts with "The AH-64 took part in invasion of Iraq in 2003" has multiple references (#s 91-98). The text clearly has sources, but the caption has none. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Noted. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Change to "McDonnell Douglas AH-64 Apache"?

I believe there was previously a talk section here that suggested moving it, but it looks like they never got around to actually doing it. Basically, the idea is that since the Apache was first designed and manufactured by McDonnell Douglas, that manufacturer's name should be in the page name, just like how the F-15 and F/A-18 have McDonnell Douglas in their page names, and the F-16 has General Dynamics in its page name. Any objections to a move? —Masterblooregard (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually Hughes Aircraft designed the Apache. The company has gone through several hands. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 10:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's true. I guess I'm mostly used to seeing it in literature as "McDonnell Douglas AH-64". But still, this article's title is inconsistent with those of other aircraft which have changed hands but retained their original manufacturer in their article titles. Maybe we ought to go with "Hughes AH-64" after all? —Masterblooregard (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus to move the article, which is why it wasn't moved. The perceived inconsistency is because such titles are handled on a case-by-case basis. The WP:AIR/NC naming conventions recommends no single solution, as each aircraft's history is different. And yes, I still object to the move, as the aircraft is still in production by Boeing. I also supported moving the F-16 page to be under Lockheed Martin for the same reason, but the consensus there was to keep GD. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I made the case that, in my opinion, the article should be under the McDonnell Douglas name some years ago - the mood was ambivalent to say the least. If asked on my current feelings, I see it belonging under the MDD name more than any other. Kyteto (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c5/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source

I have reverted an edit that as it's source gave a report that at first sight seemed reliable, but when checked turned out to be largely based on unreliable sources, such as blogs (on Geocities etc; you'll find the links in very small print in each section of the report). We would never accept those blogs etc as reliable sources here on en-WP, so why should we accept a report/compilation that is largely based on such non-RS sources? Thomas.W ^talk 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Gulf War additions

Why was my edit reverted by Fnlayson? He/she claims there was an uncited addition, but doesn't specify further. If something wasn't properly cited, he/she should spell it out in clear terms. Myopia1 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on the person adding new information to provide a reliable reference so clearly something you added did not have a citation. If you dont have a reliable reference and want to add something that adds to the article then you can ask on this talk page for help first. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• There was uncited text and the wording not well written, imo. I don't think the text on hot and high conditions add much since that affects all aircraft to varying degrees. This article quality is important here as this is Good Article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

2007 Baghdad airstrike that resulted in the deaths of journalists

There seems to be a few incidents mentioned that reference the AH-64's use in a negative light, for it's operators, including a friendly fire incident on British personnel. This article refers to the roles of I believe 3 AH-64s, that is notable, at least due to the amount of media coverage it received.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Pretty much every weapon system that has ever been used will have been severely and notably misused in some way but I don't think it's worth linking to My Lai massacre from the 5.56x45 NATO page. If the Apache was the only such instance it might be work listing but sadly there's nothing spectacularly important about one commonly deployed military weapon system being used in a blue on blue or a civilian mass killing. Soon every page would be filled with links to murders involving a particular weapon. If you think it's that important you create a new page called something like "Notable incidents involving Apache AH-64" which should include use in battle, crashes, air show appearances (including inverted flight), friendly fire, civilian massacres, etc and put a link in the "Notable appearances in media" section which at the moment is very misleading as it contains only a link to fictional media, not news media. Waerloeg (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

IAF vs Israeli

We have two pictures from Isreal, the first one is of an AH-64A, and calls it an IAF AH-64A, the second is an AH-64D, and it's called an Isreali AH-64D, I think we should change one of them, but I'm not sure which one to change. Cheers, CatGrass 20:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatGrass (talk • contribs)

Why? It is just word variety to make the article less repetitive. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It just seemed tacky to me. If you guys don't want to change it, that's fine.Cheers, CatGrass 05:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatGrass (talk • contribs)