# Talk:Boeing AH-64 Apache

As per http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/india-usa-defence-idINKBN0G71OW20140807 , the price is approximately 35 million per unit... not 20M $ as on the wiki, of course it includes missiles but then can't be worth 15 million
~~Just my $.02 here, but I have extensive personal experience with the AH-64A/D.  In 2007 for kicks, I looked up the AH-64D in FEDLOG and/or the Army-specific counterpart (can't recall the acronym ATM).  It priced at $25million as delivered.  That is without that equipment that's on the owning unit commander's property book, such as radios, electronic countermeasures, etc.  Also, that is a non-FCR aircraft.  The MMA itself is almost $3.1million--I had to escort an entire AH-64D phase team to a hospital for drug/alcohol testing after they dropped one, because it was an instant Class A aviation accident since the value was >$1mil.  $35million is consistent with my experiences for a ready-to-fight AH-64D.~~JimIsCrazy~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimIsCrazy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 

Those are the main leaders of Hamas killed by Israeli Apaches during the Second Intifada. They have entries in Wikipedia with plenty of sources. I don't see a reason why they should be excluded.--186.137.204.172 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about Hamas, or even Israel. I actually don't think any of the leaders should be listed, but two is enough. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, really? It says During the al-Aqsa Intifada... AH-64s were used to kill senior Hamas figures.... This is not even a comprehensive list, just the main Hamas leaders, killed by Israeli Apaches, with entries in Wikipedia.--186.137.204.172 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes really. The article is about the Boeing AH-64 Apache. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The sources ([1], [2]) only list 3 of those in the linked diff above. The article test says "such as" to indicate examples and not a full list. There's no need for a full list in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I dont think a naming the people is relevant to the helicopter it is just sufficient to name the more notable operations that the AH-64 was involved in. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a complete list in this article, as it is off-topic. The article is about the helicopter type, so a couple of examples is sufficient, plus a link to any relevant or more complete list, if it exists. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Something should probably be added about the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" meme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC) 

Let's not, as that's not a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that it isn't relevant to this article, but with a reliable source might be relevant to gender identity as a criticism or spoof of that subject. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

" On 17 March 2017, an Apache helicopter was reportedly involved in the attack on a Somali refugee boat in which 42 refugees were killed. Saudi Arabia denied involvement even though it is the only military in the Yemeni Civil War using Apache helicopter "
Hello.
I just checked the HRW site about this incident but I couldn't find whre it states the usage of an Apache.
When i looked at the citation and it was an iranian site, and i found something which is false ( SA attacking Yemeni army ) so I don't think it's a reliable source, especially because it's an iranian site and obviously SA and IR aren't the best friends. Technical Peace (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Technical Peace (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently the article states "The AH-64E flies 20 mph (32 km/h) faster than the AH-64D, cutting response time by 57 percent, and has better fuel efficiency, increasing time on station from 2.5–3 hours to 3-3.5 hours." This is from the article from the Military Times. But sorry LTC Davis, your math is wrong. Improving the speed from 140 to 180 miles per hour cannot possibly be the sole factor in a 57% improvement (and it does appear that the speed is the only reason for the improvement of flight times). The Army Times article  states that it's about a 15 minute trip to the field. The A.T. article also does not include the incorrect statement. I'm removing the wording about the 57%.Linktex (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The source is a WP:RS and your conclusions are WP:OR, as we don't have the complete math to arrive at any conclusion. There may be other factors involved, such as quicker start up and launch times, etc. Furthermore the number is a quote from Lt. Col. John Davis, commander of the 1st Battalion, 229th Aviation Regiment, part of the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade at Joint Base Lewis McCord in Washington. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no possible math that comes out to a 57% improvement with only a 29% increase in speed. Too bad people can't understand this concept.Linktex (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
As I noted above this isn't simple arithmetic. The actual quote says "The faster speeds cut the amount of time it took aviators to reach front-line troops by 57 percent, Davis said." As I noted this may include a variety of other factors besides simple aircraft top speed, including start up time, hot refuelling turn-arounds, weapons loading times and other factors not explicitly mentioned. We have a reliable source with a quote from a unit commander, your assumptions don't trump that. To refute this you need another reliable source, not your own guesses. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Ahunt on this. It's fine to question the source's statement, and you can add a {{disputed inline}} tag to the article it needed. But removing a claim because your personal calculations disagree isn't acceptable. It's quite possible that the journalist misunderstood some aspect of the statement, as journalists are often not all that familiar with military and technical jargon. The writer may have attributed the increase solely to speed when Lt Col Davis added other factors such as acceleration and those Ahunt pointed out. However, we would need a higher-quality source that gives a different figure, preferably from a serious  aerospace or military periodical such as Jane's, AvWeek, or Flight International. Finally, the author could be contacted by email for a clarification, as his e-mail is posted. However, we could make changes based on his private response, but he might be able to publish a correction/clarification to the source article. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary users-
United States Army
Israeli Air Force
Egyptian Air Force
Royal Netherlands Air Force
Indian Air Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partha.sen4 (talk • contribs) 

Thanks for your request. We only list four primary operators in the userbox, not five. India only is operating eight AH-64s, which makes them a very small user of the type. Even when all 22 they have ordered are delivered, they would still be a small user and would not be included in the infobox. - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could someone add a cockpit photo of Apache to the page? KiL92 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Commons doesn't currently have such an image. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Commons does have a few here: c:Category:Cockpits_of_AH-64_Apache, but none of them are great. (Hohum @) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I came to the page and saw the sub section about Apache notable appearances in media and thought oh maybe I'll add in the appearances of it in classic military simulation video games, aka Janes Longbow anthology, but when I clicked edit page, it had a window pop up telling me about some wiki project prohibiting that information, was just curious as to why/what is a wiki project and I suppose that information now goes to the sub article Apaches in fiction? Like I said just curious, any enlightenment would help me better understand the inner working of wikipedia. Thanks TomaHawk61 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The project in question is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, a collection of editors collaboratively working on aircraft articles. As per WP:AIRPOP we no longer add pop culture items to aircraft type articles, as in the past discussions of videos games, anime, transformers and such ended up dwarfing the information about the actual aircraft. So, as explained there, these are now collected at Aircraft in fiction instead, provided that they meet the criteria there for inclusion, including third party references and that the appearance is "a significant role" and not some mere mention. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems strange that this article includes reference to TADS but not to Apache Arrowhead / M-TADS.  I was going to add the link but I don't understand the differences / implementation enough to speak accurately about it. Retswerb (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, reading is apparently hard.  It was already there and I didn't see it. Retswerb (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to add this info accurately, but it's now over 2,400 units.
See here: https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/us-army-takes-delivery-of-500th-boeing-ah-64e-apache-helicopter/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.234.3 (talk) 

Thanks,  Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As there's been another attempt to add India, bringing this here. The article body does not say India use it as a "primary attack helicopter", therefore it doesn't go in the lead. Equally the article doesn't say India are a primary user, therefore it doesn't go in the infobox. Per WP:ONUS, it is up to those wishing to include it to gain consensus to so do. FDW777 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on for a quite a while. The infobox is for the users with the largest number of aircraft, but a number of obviously Indian editors are using it for Wikipedia:Nationalist editing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup. It's just another perennial issue we have to deal with on Wikipedia. Eventually, the Foundation will figure out what's going on, and they'll tell us that it's systematic bias for us to keep removing India. But until that happens, we'll just keep being vigilant. BilCat (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Or, when the Indian Air Force actually has more than three in service, we could discuss whether they qualify as a "Primary user". FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, only the top 4 users are listed in the Infobox per template instructions and WP:Aircraft practice.  India will get listed when they have enough AH-64s in service to be a top 4 user, not an arbitrary number of aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Colonel Elswick Newport was the Plant Manager at the Hughes Facility in Culver City, CA, during the initial construction of the Apache helicopter.  Newport, a Master Aviator, was appointed to this position by Dr. Ronald J. Fox, the Assistant Director of the Army at the time due to his considerable experience in Army Aviation and background in aviation procurement. Newport is a notable person who spearheaded this project and was part of the evaluation team, along with NASA Astronaut Neil Armstrong, that resulted in this contract being awarded to Hughes Helicopter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtmr4 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC) 

Umm that doesn't even make logical sense. The production was conducted by Hughes, not by the Army. The Army was the customer and would have had tech reps at the plant to carry out acceptance test flying and other QA on delivered aircraft, but Hughes manufactured the aircraft. Thousands of people were involved in the design and production of the aircraft, most of whom are not individually notable, including plant managers. What exactly did civilian Neil Armstrong have to do with this? And what was the ref you were trying to cite: Keenan, Thomas J., Deputy Director, Division for Procurement and Production, AVSCOM, St. Louis, MO, 27 September 1976? Is that a letter or something? Regardless, this all looks like a WP:COI issue. Is this Colonel Elswick Newport a relative of yours? - Ahunt (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt the reference I entered was the World Air Forces 2022 directory, but that seems not to support it either. Please take a look at the article List of equipment of the Saudi Arabian Army- it's been changed again and again to say 112. SurferSquall (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference 341 on this article. SurferSquall (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The claim of 112 on List of equipment of the Saudi Arabian Army is not supported by either the cited ref (2022) or the same 2019 ref. On Wikipedia we go what the sources say, so unless you can find a source for 112, we have to go with 48. - Ahunt (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. But shouldn't it be 47 (22 in service plus 25 ordered)? SurferSquall (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes you are quite right! - Ahunt (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is listed as "can be carried" in the specs. As far as I can tell, it may have been considered, but was never even attempted. The source is terrible, a wayback link to a Raytheon brochure on "www.poweredmodelairplanes.com", which is now ads. Seeking a consensus to remove it. Nelsonblaha (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed, technically unsupported information because the source no longer contains the claim SurferSquall (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I have restored it - the archived copy of the cited brochure clearly lists the AH-64, even has a picture: https://web.archive.org/web/20131104071216/http://www.poweredmodelairplanes.com/pma/a10/maverick04.pdf - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Where on that page is the AH-64 mentioned????? SurferSquall (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Page two, right at the top, in the list of aircraft approved to carry. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I guess leave it for now then SurferSquall (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
My point stands- it was only ever a proposal by Raytheon. There's no evidence a Maverick has ever been fired from an Apache or even carried by one, even if Raytheon really did put one on a rail on the ground (which isn't guaranteed by the photo). It doesn't belong as something that "may be carried" Nelsonblaha (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
You're right. You can go ahead and remove it. Kind of dumb to have it here if the only source is from 2002 SurferSquall (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Editors,
I would like to draw your attention to an inaccuracy in the section on the number of AH-64 Apache helicopters produced. Currently, it is 5000.
According to the official Boeing website, as of 2025, more than 2,700 helicopters of this model have been delivered: [3]
"Boeing delivered the first U.S. Army Apache AH-64A in January 1984. Since then, the U.S. Army and other nations have received more than 2,700 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters" (с)
Please review this information and make the appropriate corrections. I believe that the data from the manufacturer is the most reliable.
Thank you for your attention. Andrii Korol (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone please verify 'normal' range vs 'combat' range. They may have been reversed, or are not correct. 23.177.64.104 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)