British AH-64D's in Afghanistan

[SASless]

Are the British Apaches still carrying the mast sighting gear or have they done away with them after gaining some field experience in theater?

That six hundred pounds of kit trades off to either more gun ammo or fuel for loiter time over Troops in contact. The American Army quickly opted for the extra ammo so as to be able to provide more effective support to troops in contact.

[jimgriff]

British Apaches never had mast mounted sighting gear! The "donut" was a radar thingy and data transfer widget. Not an option to remove !

[glad rag]

AgustaWestland Apache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_Apache)

So some other "cold war" kit thats no longer required acording to some pundits...:hmm:

Unlike their American counterparts in Afghanistan, the Apache AH Mk 1 is being deployed with its Longbow Fire Control Radar, which enables the pilot to better manage traffic in their airspace.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_Apache#cite_note-21)

[orgASMic]

The American Army quickly opted for the extra ammo so as to be able to provide more effective support to troops in contact.

Did they? Most of the US Army's AH-64 fleet are A models which did not have the Longbow radar fitted in the first place. Do not confuse 'not having one' with 'having had one removed to save weight for other things'.

[MightyGem]

The American Army quickly opted for the extra ammo so as to be able to provide more effective support to troops in contact.
Our aircraft have more powerful engines which will help.

[SASless]

Only about half were to be equipped with the FCR....and without the Mast mounted radar pod (which I called a "sighting" device which I consider a Fire Control Radar (FCR) to be...) the aircraft can carry that amount of extra ordnance and/or fuel.

Given the nature of the conflict, terrain, and tactics....all the fabulous Fulda Gap kit seems a bit of the wrong kit for the job. As there is no Airborne threat by the Taliban or Al Qaeda....that negates that function being needed. I assume AWAC's can do the traffic separation along with other systems.

We are fighting a counter-insurgency battle...against small bands of fighters hiding amongst the populus....milimeter radar cannot be of as much use as the standard kit on the Non-FCR equipped aircraft.

The extra rockets and cannon ammo would certainly be useful.

Timely Rounds on target when needed by the ground troops is the is the most important matrix by which to judge the value of gunship kit....not de-conflicting the airspace.

After all....is that not the mission of the all the attack aircraft that are supposed to be assisting the guys on the ground?

[BossEyed]

Not an option to remove !

Not so; it's the same Longbow system as the AH-64D; it could come off, just like the US Army ones do.

The UK AAC aircraft are not AH-64Ds; Westland call them WAH-64s, to show the differences (the RTM322s are the most obvious) between them and a "standard" Longbow Apache.

MOD calls them Apache AH1.

[SASless]

Per your very own Colonel Bryant.....

"Typically, we take off armed with 300 rounds of 30-mm. ammunition, 16 CRV-7 rockets (the FL-7 flechette version) and two Hellfires. Because we carry extra internal fuel tanks, our endurance has been extended to 2 hrs 45 mins, but the drawback is we can't take more than 300 rounds of ammo. In recent ops we found that the gun is the most-often used weapon; 300 rounds per mission is not enough so we may change out the extra tanks for more ammo," Col Brynt says.



Longbow Radar Key to British Apache Ops in Afghanistan (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:fc25a3b0-cb42-4fab-ada1-194501f80911)

A recent conversation with a very senior American Army Officer noted attempts to pass on "Lessons Learned" to the arriving WAH-64 crews met with some typical reluctance to listen re what worked and what did not. But then as the fellow said..."What the hell do we know about Apaches and gunship tactics?"

"Demand continually outstrips supply," says Bryant, "we exceeded our flying hours by 20-30% in the first three of my four months in the theater."



So....if you dropped the six hundred pounds of Radar gear...carried more rockets and cannon ammo....stayed on target longer....cut down the numbers of trips to re-arm and return to the fight....would you cut down on sortie count, flight hours, and most importantly....improve your ability to put rounds on target in support of the troops in contact with the enemy?

[ninja-lewis]

So....if you dropped the six hundred pounds of Radar gear...carried more rockets and cannon ammo....stayed on target longer....cut down the numbers of trips to re-arm and return to the fight....would you cut down on sortie count, flight hours, and most importantly....improve your ability to put rounds on target in support of the troops in contact with the enemy? Assuming of course that removing Longbow gives you the same endurance as you lose by replacing the internal fuel tank (Robertson IAFS) that limits gun capacity to 300 rounds.

As Lt Col Bryant states the radar is useful for deconfliction - handy when close escorting Chinooks and Merlins at low level at night in a dusty environment one imagines - as well as performing surface searches of the vast areas of desert in and around Helmand. Now given they're still carrying the radar 4 years on - just perhaps experience supports retaining Longbow.

The US Army AH-64Ds are not all equal -some have less powerful engines than others. Add in to the bargain that the US Army only received it's 400th Longbow unit last January yet has 600+ AH-64Ds in service. The main reason the FCR was removed in 2006 was to counter the increased drag penalty of the "Aviation Survivability Product Improvement" (Engine IR Suppression). Perhaps this is why the forthcoming Block III upgrade is due to improve performance, especially Hot and High.

Incidentally the Dutch didn't buy Longbow when they bought their AH-64Ds hence none to remove in Afghanistan - however they signed an upgrade contract with Boeing last month which will include Longbow kits amongst other upgrades.

[SASless]

If you remove the Radar kit and the internal aux fuel....how much more weight does that save?

[AHDriver]

Please allow me to clarify some of the issues raised above if I may. The radar can both scan the ground and provide small scale airspace deconfliction, the second of these roles is the mode it has been used in for almost all of its employment in Afghanistan (less a few specific scenarios). The removal of the FCR has been carefully considered by many deeply experienced people over the years and we have elected not to go that way. In short, it is very useful.

Without giving any specifics, the figures given regarding ammo loads and endurance are all very much out of date as the article was published nearly 3.5 years ago. Significant progress has been made on both of these issues.

It is fair to say that our lesson learned process with the Americans hasn't been perfect, they do some things very differently to the British military though and a degree of wheel re-invention was required. We do not fly around at 500ft over a contact for various reasons and have therefore been able to spend tens of thousands of hours over the green zone without losing an aircraft to enemy action.

Apologies for the lack of specific details, but OPSEC still very much applies.

[SASless]

A list of aircraft losses in Afghanistan operations.....no idea how accurate the list really is but it gives a basis to judge what risks exist.

List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_losses_in_Afghanistan#2011)

[handysnaks]

Sass, we're skint! we can't afford to put anymore ammo on the things!!

[SASless]

If you do....some young'un just goes out and shoots it all up!:ok:

[Sir George Cayley]

I'm speaking to you from a very deep bunker in case what I say brings mors ab alto

Would the deployment of those helicopters (whatever you wish to call them) to the theatre around Misrata fall under UN1973 RoE?

Sir George Cayley

[Ian Corrigible]

Apologies for the lack of specific details, but OPSEC still very much applies.
FWIW the RCEFS aspect of the AAC's ammo/endurance solution was covered in Janes IDR a few years back.

If you remove the Radar kit and the internal aux fuel....how much more weight does that save?
~500 lb for the FCR and 635 lb for the fuel. Though the combo pak IAFS is now standard fit on the Apache line, incl. AB3.

Most of the US Army's AH-64 fleet are A models
The A model is now an endangered species in U.S. service. <40 left, mostly with ARNG units.

I/C

[AHDriver]

Noted, however there is a difference between something being available from an open source and actively advertising current capabilities and limitations.

I can only assume the reference to the 'RAF's solution' is a poor attempt at a bite...

[Ian Corrigible]

My mistake, now corrected. Was actually intended as a reference to the UK (vs. U.S.) unique fit.

I/C

[Lonewolf_50]

Ian, a few numbers for you.

Aviation Week reported in January of this year:
United States Army had 727 AH-64s: 107 AH-64As, 620 AH-64Ds
US Army Posture Statement 2011 (https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/VDAS_ArmyPostureStatement/2011/information_papers/PostedDocument.asp?id=282)...
End state for US Army AH-64D Longbow inventory is 810 total aircraft of which 690 will be Block III, and 120 will remain Block II.
As of December 2010, the ARNG has an inventory of 96 Block I and 3 of 96 planned Block II aircraft.
That leaves ~ 90 As to be refitted a few months ago?
From Defense Industry Daily[/FONT]] AH-64D Block III deliveries are currently scheduled to begin in 2011. This program is currently slated to begin by updating the 284 AH-64D Block 1 helicopters via a second remanufacturing process ... they would remanufacture the Block II fleet to AH-64D Block III standard by 2020.
There are reports that the remaining 100 or so AH-64A attack helicopters in the Army’s fleet will be offered to foreign buyers (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-Army-Apaches-for-Auction-04927/), most of whom are likely to order AH-64D remanufacturing upgrades of their own.
Your number may be off slightly, but your assessment fits the U.S Army's program aims.

Glad you brought this up. I my digging, I tripped over the Arrowhead system. (Are the Brits getting that?) This enable the AH-64 to do MOUT CAS from higher altitudes, effectively negating the RPG threat, and most Small Arms ... but creating other challenges for FAC's and crews as they coordinate fire missions in Urban Environments.

How often to UK AH-64's operate in a MOUT environment?

(If any of the above questions are OPSEC sensitive, please advise).

[AHDriver]

Answers, courtesy of the Army News Team:

YouTube - New target system for Apache

[AHDriver]

Answers, courtesy of the Army News Team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vlMvxsYwhGg

[Thelma Viaduct]

AH-1Z would be a fairly useful bit of kit right now seeing as it's marinised and simpler/cheaper than AH-64.
Apache seems a bit overkill in comparison for fighting farmers/goat herders etc

Any Apaches that go out on Ocean will come back sh@gged with salt in every nook and cranny, more expense.....

[Modern Elmo]

AH-1Z would be a fairly useful bit of kit right now seeing as it's marinised and simpler/cheaper than AH-64.

It's not that much simpler and probably not much cheaper.

DATE:20/12/10
SOURCE:Flight International
...

CUTAWAY: AH-1Z Viper enters production as substantially new aircraft


Initially envisioned as an effort to modernise the drive train of the US Marine Corps' (USMC) veteran fleet of Bell AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper has essentially evolved into a new aircraft.
The helicopter, which was developed alongside its close cousin, the UH-1Y, is a significant technological leap over its predecessor. The new airframe offers increased aerodynamic performance and exponentially more sophisticated avionics. The service hopes to procure some 226 AH-1Zs, including 58 new-build airframes and 168 machines remanufactured from the AH-1W.

For the USMC, the appeal of the "Zulu" is focused on the logistical advantages of the UH-1Y/AH-1Z combination; there are those, however, who question the value of this arrangement.

...

"The H-1 programme originated largely because the Marines wanted to avoid ever taking any [Sikorsky] H-60s," says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, a Washington DC-based consultancy.
"Taking H-60s would have been enormously sensible in terms of costs, capabilities and intra-service commonality, but it would have jeopardised the [Bell Boeing] V-22 requirement, which was the Marines' highest priority," Aboulafia says.

Further, the US Army's Boeing AH-64D Apache, which is a direct competitor to the AH-1Z on the market, is arguably a superior attack platform.

...

CUTAWAY: AH-1Z Viper enters production as substantially new aircraft (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/20/351056/cutaway-ah-1z-viper-enters-production-as-substantially-new-aircraft.html)

[GreenKnight121]

Further, the US Army's Boeing AH-64D Apache, which is a direct competitor to the AH-1Z on the market, is arguably a superior attack platform.And which was evaluated and rejected by the USMC not just once, but twice... in 1984-87 (in its Sea Apache guise) and again in the mid 1990s.

The first time they upgraded the AH-1T into the AH-1W, and the second time the AH-1W into the AH-1Z.

[SASless]

"The H-1 programme originated largely because the Marines wanted to avoid ever taking any [Sikorsky] H-60s," says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, a Washington DC-based consultancy.
"Taking H-60s would have been enormously sensible in terms of costs, capabilities and intra-service commonality, but it would have jeopardised the [Bell Boeing] V-22 requirement, which was the Marines' highest priority," Aboulafia says.


The truth of the matter in a nutshell!

The USMC would have wound up with no Bell's....and a fleet made up of UH-60's and Apaches.....and no MV-22.

Granted the US Navy would not have to modify LHA designs to accomodate the larger V-22 and do away with the Well Decks which render the new ships into catapault-less well deck-less mini-Carriers.

[NorthernKestrel]

Anyone with any Apache AH1 questions might like to know that Ed Macy is down to do a rare speaking engagement in London in June at the National Army Museum.

RAeS has just got a giveaway to win tickets here...

Aerospace International Editor interviewed on Airplane Geeks podcast | Aerospace Insight | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://bit.ly/hOX4FT)

[Lonewolf_50]

Abouafia chose to over look deck multiple (you need 2.2 Blackhawks on deck to equal on CH-46 and about 2.0 to equal 1 V-22) in terms of moving people. I think his analysis is confined to the dollars and cents point of view. That said, I agree with his stated logistic side advantage, particularly given the Navy's "all Sikorsky" Helo Master Plan of the 90's. This "plan" has come mostly to fruition with the 53 and the various subspecies of Seahawk forming the core of Naval Helicopter assets.

The Huey and Cobra decisions are a bit more complex than Abouafia's brief summary there claims ... but he's on to something, and a pretty well informed industry analyst. I think he ought to have made more mention of the Boeing link ... ;)

In re the amphib issue ... that may still have been done whether the V-22 was sustained as a program or not. Given that there is the F-35 VSTOL tossed into the equation (and the infamous "what does it do to our deck?" issue) LHA-6 might have been inevitable.

[GreenKnight121]

Actually, you would need 4 H-60s per MV-22... two to move the people the first half the distance, and two to move them the rest of the distance while the first two go back for more.

The MV-22 can move them in one shot, and make the full round trip in the time an H-60 takes to make one-half round trip.

[SASless]

For what a 22 costs....you could buy four 60's complete with the external armament and have a dual use transport/ground support aircraft, not have to "armor" the ship's landing deck, and maintain a 93-95 plus readiness rate.

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless, dollar for dollar I believe you, but I think you know you can't buy the extra space on the gator. That is finite, regardless of how cheap or expensive your lift platforms are.

IIRC, the deck multiple on an Apache or a Zulu Cobra is close enough to "the same" to render any differential negligible. (This is an Apache/Attack helicopter thread, after all, even though weaponizing the Blackhawk isn't all that hard. Sikorsky has a variety of Blackhawk weaponization kits available for sale ... but none of them will approach the level of attack power an Apache of any sort will provide to you, and you won't get that fancy radar dingus on the Longbow ... )

The logic for sticking with the light lift and basically MG and rocket attack suite with the Yankee Huey, versus Blackhawk (Medium light?) has a reasonable logistic/commonality logic that (unless I recall incorrectly) is significantly better than the N / W commonality currently enjoyed.

What has that to do with WAH Apaches?

Not much, and given Afghanistan's land locked status, even less. :) We should probably keep the V-22 banter over in that lovely V-22 thread in Rotorheads. :cool:

[foxtrot tango]

Some clarification on AH-64 details

Nomeclature for US AH-64 (in chronological order):
AH-64A - Only a few left in NG service
AH-64D Block I - NG and limited AD service
AH-64D Block II - Majority of AD service
AH-64D Block III - First fielding to AD unit in the near future

[The Sultan]

Sas

4 60's for a V-22? Please work the numbers.

Turkey is paying $30M plus for their new 60's. So that makes it maybe 2 at best for a V-22.

If you bring up S-92's the Canadians are paying $100M+ (if they ever get them). A V-22 is a bargain there.

The Sultan

[SASless]

Unit prices depend generally upon numbers built....or older airframes available for rebuild to new specs. Thus Turkey and other small buy contracts are much more expensive. Add in initial spares stockage and unit price goes up on new buys. Needless to say....the US Military does business in volume with Sikorsky.

A V-22 can in no way be considered a "bargain"!

Combat necessity allowed the UH-60 to carry 24-25 fully equipped Soldiers in the Sand Box.....told to me first hand by crews that had done that. That is bang for the buck!

Cost figures I found were Six Million USD for L Models and Ten Million USD for Pavehawks.

Divide the latest Air Force CV-22 crash (Eighty-Four Million USD) by the Pavehawk price and I see an 8:1 ratio favoring Blackhwaks over Ospreys.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Achtung! Thredkriep!