Talk:Bell AH-1 SuperCobra

Popular culture

The 1980's G.I. Joe animated TV series had the Joe team equipped with AH-1 Super Cobras or ones based closely on it. The toy version came with a "Wild Bill" action figure. Bizzybody (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal Toofan (helicopter)

Obviously a copy or just re-manufactured AH-1s. Notable as a variant of the AH-1. Apart from that once you remove all the backslapping and hyperbolae there is very little content to the article.--Petebutt (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinese J-7 vs. Mig-21, F-15 vs. F15E, T-38 Talon vs. F5 vs. F20 have similar situation and have separate pages on Wikipedia. Iranian helicopter is "Developed from" AH-1 but it is a new and different helicopter. It uses different design (cockpit, nose etc.) and equipment (electronics, avionics, navigation and fire control) and possibly different engine. I disagree with your merger suggestions. Both on this one and Panha 2091. However Panha and Toofan can possibly be merged since they are produced by the same company. Sarmadys (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Chinese J-7 vs. Mig-21, F-15 vs. F15E, T-38 Talon vs. F5 vs. F20" - I must disgree that these examples are comparitive: All those examples are split because, at the rough and smooth of it all, there's so much information to cover that the articles would be too big if they were covered as one article. Secondly, those examples all have a collosal number of changes between the comparitive aircraft, while the Toofan changes are pretty routine (There are far, far more differences between the AH-64A and AH-64D than between the AH-1 and Toofan, yet the AH-64A+D remain as one article; the same goes for the CH-47A/D/F, all one article, or the F-15A/C, or the F-16A/C/E, all with significantly more changes than the Toofan but being dealt with as one article still, as the detail/size doesn't justify a split. I'd also article that we're not dealing with a 'new' helicopter, but an indiginous remanufactured one at best, a heavy overhaul with routine upgrades if being critical. Upgrades/overhauls are routine, and it isn't uncommon for a manufacturer/sub-manufacturer to have an internal designation code for the design - rarely is it noteworthy enough for a standalone article. A more accurate comparison would be the F-16 verses the domestically-produced Turkish F-16s (which, you guessed it, are dealt with as one article), indigenous components have been installed and a fair share of the sub-system design, fitting, and maintainence work is carried out by the Turkish home company, but it remains at core an F-16 and hasn't justified its own article - there's never been enough to go on. There's been a lot of emotive 'differentialisation' going on, it's politically convinient to rebadge and give new names to former US equipment over time, it drums up national capabilities and pride - whether the technical difference is any greater than other overhaul programs carried out by other operators (none of which have articles) is yet to be seen. As far as I'm concerned, while the massive amount of operational history and technical changes justified a split between the J-7 and MiG-21, there is practically skant information to justify an article to be spun out on this particular indiginous build, and no reason to suspect that sudden wealths of information are suddenly going to appear either - it's noteworthy, but does it deserve an article onto itself? My answer is, probably not. Kyteto (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

- it is basically an ah-1a that has had a russian electronic system installed to make the tv screen color — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.7.160 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think being a copy this is different enough to have its own article. Leaving it separate should allow expansion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to take seriously in the Iranian claims, or to know what in the aircraft was actually changed, or simply upgraded from old airframes. The Iranians don't exactly have a free press! Anyway, this expresses my view of most Iranian claims. :) - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• No Merger - This is a separate helicopter, not an identical copycat. JunoBeach (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - Appears to be a designation for an indigineous upgrade of existing aircraft, and not a seperate aircraft in and of itself; most upgrades are listed in the variants, merging would be restoring the norm. I wouldn't expect the standalone article to expand much, not to the point where it would justify a standalone article. Kyteto (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• No Merger - T-72, lion of babylon and even M-84 are essentially the same tanks but they have separate articles Toufan has new cockpit,optics,laser targeting and will carry different weapons(like iranian version of Kornet ATGM) from basic AH-1J.Farzam1370 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All those seperate articles (Lion, M-84) are far, far larger and have far more sources than the Toufan has to date. I don't see why, at this miniscule level of detail, a whole article needs to be devoted to an indiginous derivative/upgrade; it seems gratuitous. The Lion of Babylon, your example, currently sits at roughly 44 kb and near 70 cites; the Toufan sits at 2kb and has 2 cites - barely a paragraph's worth of information, that hardly seems an equal comparison. Kyteto (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Iranian officials usually dont publish much information, but in a few weeks Mashreghnews will publish a full report about toufan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farzam1370 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge - Upgrade of existing airframes, not a new aircraft, and too little reliably-sourced content for a separate article. - BilCat (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Panha 2091 is an upgrade of existing airframes but Toufans are completely new built airframes, pictures: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/mattin4/iiuyiuyii.jpg . http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/54119576.jpg/Farzam1370 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Images don't prove anything. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In the images you can clearly see that they are building new airframes, also Toufan is not a carbon copy of original AH-1J, it has a newly designed cockpit,indigenous electronics optics,its EOG is controlled by pilot helmet,it has laser distance finding and will be capable of firing dehlavieh(Iranian version of AT-14 Kornet) Farzam1370 (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The image shows airframes. What and where is not proved by the image alone. The AH-1W is a very different aircraft from the original AH-1J, but both are covered in this article. In the future, perhaps enough info will warrant a separate article for the Toufan, but not now. - BilCat (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Images are screen shots taken from a video publish by IRIB(Islamic republic of iran broadcast)which show building of HESA P4(which has been evolved to Toufan 2)at HESA's plant in Isfahan here is another picture from the same report with HESA P4 written on its side HESA P4 and this is picture of orginal AH-1Js deliverd during shah AH-1J non TOW AH-1J TOW you can see that they are clearly different in the cockpit, I have searched for the original video but i couldn't find it. and this is a picture of Toufan 2 Toufan 2 you can see that it has different optics from HESA P4.Farzam1370 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• No Merger - Let's not be hasty here. This aircraft was unveiled very recently, so it's obvious that there won't be many published sources available at this stage. As a matter of fact, if you follow military-related news from Iran, virtually all military vehicles and weapon systems manufactured there that are shown to public come with poor specs. But as time goes by, more and more information will be released to the public. For example, the moment the first generation of "Sejjil" surface-to-surface solid fuel ballistic missile was unveiled to the public, no specification was released. But, some years after the second generation of that missile was unveiled, Iran officially released the specs at a missile exhibition in Baharestan Sq. in Tehran. I tend to agree with Farzam1370 that a more in-depth report on this aircraft is to be expected. Another thing that some people are missing is all the talk about airframes without even mentioning the avionics and other crucial subsystems. Iran has a history of copying structures from known systems and incorporating their own electronics in them. Compare the seeker inside the Shahin missile with the seeker inside the MIM-23 Hawk missile. From the outside, both missiles look exactly the same. But from the inside, they look completely different from each other. Here is inside MIM-23 Hawk. Here is inside Shahin. The bottom line is, unless you can prove that Toufan is a copycat (which I doubt) of AH-1 SuperCobra, my vote is on No Merger.D3L74 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an old article Iranian cobras;faster and stronger about panha2091 overhaul program of the existing AH-1J and first generation newly built helicopter known as Toufan I, it also mention some details about HESA P4(AKA tiztak) which now has been evolved to Toufan II,for now I dont have time to translate this article and expand this page but in some weeks a new article will be published. Farzam1370 (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A new article has been published about Toufan2,New kind of Iranian cobrasI hope someone translate and expand this article because for now I dont have timeFarzam1370 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal Panha 2091

Just another minimum change variant with a different name.--Petebutt (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide proof for your claim (of them having minimum changes). Can you list those minimum changes? Wikipedia editors are not in a position to judge. We just put cited information together. Sarmadys (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge - Upgrade of existing airframes, not a new aircraft, per reliable sources, and too little reliably-sourced content for a separate article. - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Echoing BilCat (talk) same thoughts FOX 52 (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to this article or combine in an article with IAIO Toufan somehow. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal IAIO Toufan

Same story multiple articles about the same thing to blow smoke up everybodies ****. Minimum change upgrades of existing aircraft at best, no need for a sepsrate article!!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the same as Toofan (helicopter) above. It got renamed to IAIO Toufan. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Iran images

The photograph of Iranian Sea Cobras in Imperial Iranian Army Aviation (IIAA) markings was removed from the Iran part of the Operational history section of the article. Why was that? It was relevant. The article could be improved if it was brought back. What do others think? Dreddmoto (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That image was replaced by a better Iranian image of an AH-1J in flight. Flight images are generally preferred for aircraft since they show them in action. I restored the older image to show the marking, but it is still low resolution ground image. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Helicopter "dog fighting"

Does anyone know about any war (beside the Iran-Iraq war) with confirmed or unconfirmed "dog fighting" between helicopters? I want to back up the claim that "the Iran-Iraq War is the only war with [confirmed] helicopter vs. helicopter/fighter dogfighting". I found a book on Google Books, Attack Helicopters: A History of Rotary-Wing Combat Aircraft, there's a sentence in it as follows: "There is evidence that helicopter- against-helicopter combat engagements have already taken place in the war between Iran and Iraq."[1] I can't see the rest of the book, and don't have access to a printed version. I think the tone of the sentence somehow supports that claim, but I'm not sure. --Z 18:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bell AH-1 SuperCobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070816230216/http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil:80/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ah1.htm to http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ah1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041105115122/https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/aircraft/Helos/sprcobra.htm to https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/aircraft/Helos/sprcobra.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bell AH-1 SuperCobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203072800/http://www.aja.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=3b14fc31-0ee4-4e3f-8809-664c181e3b6d to http://www.aja.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=3b14fc31-0ee4-4e3f-8809-664c181e3b6d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516192527/http://axgig.com/images/79016160811542429413.jpg to http://axgig.com/images/79016160811542429413.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202113848/http://shahedmag.com/official/shahed/toc.asp?magID=5237&No=80 to http://shahedmag.com/official/shahed/toc.asp?magID=5237&No=80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bell AH-1 SuperCobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807001809/http://www.vectorsite.net/avcobra_1.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avcobra_1.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zHdif1Rp?url=http://www.f-16.net/varia_article10.html to http://www.f-16.net/varia_article10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215190609/http://pma276public.navair.navy.mil/pma276public/history.asp to http://pma276public.navair.navy.mil/pma276public/history.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003182837/http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=4972 to http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=4972
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831033633/http://www.rotorhead.org/military/ah1.asp to http://www.rotorhead.org/military/ah1.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Article is about Supercobra, specifications from the AH-1J (Sea Cobra) are given instead.

Supercobras are twin-engine and start at model designation 'T' up (the 'W' variant being the only production model AFAIK). The AH-1J is the navalized version and is a single-engine variant of the Cobra (and the specs listed list one engine rather than two) rather than a twin-engine variant Supercobra. In other words, the specs listed are for the wrong type of Cobra.38.126.254.206 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Agammamon

Both the AH-1J and AH-1T SeaCobras are covered in this article. And while they are both listed as single-engined, the T400 (Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T) was comprised of two PT6 power cores coupled to one gearbox, so they are often considered "twin engined". In addition, many AH-1Ts were converted to AH-1Ws. We generally don't include two names in article titles, so "SuperCorbra" was chosen, as more of them were built than the other variants. In other words, the specs are of a version covered in this article, so they are correct. Perhaps it should be of the AH-1W instead, but that's another issue. BilCat (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Up until July 2020, there were spec tables for both the J and W variants. See June 2020 version. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The specs table could be switched from the J model to the W model. Any argument against doing this? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's fine with me. (Sorry for the !ate reply, as I didn't see it until today.) BilCat (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the AH-1W specs, but the template needs to be updated to {{Aircraft specs}}, so I left the AH-1J in for now. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Panha 2091 infobox edit warring

This article is currently semi-protected because an ip editor wants to remove the link to Panha 2091 from the infobox without any explaination. One thing that occurs to me is that the infobox is linking to both the Panha article and the IAIO Toufan article - are these the same thing? Should they be merged?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)