UK maybe procuring AH-64E.

[sandozer]

If procurement does go ahead, can see Rolls Royce being out of an engine retrofit, as the Echo has 2,000 SHP GE T-700s standard.

AH-64E looking increasingly likely for UK - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/35695/ah-64e-looking-increasingly-likely-for-uk)

[JTIDS]

Or we could buy 200 A-10's for pennies, then just field 50 of them and use the rest for spares for the next 30 years.

[Always a Sapper]

Or Both...

Probably end up getting the AH-64E's, retro-fitting them with UK engines and parking them up in some dusty hanger somewhere for 10 years while the MOD and the Contractor argue over the misconstrued expectation that they are actually expected to fly after the fit. Contractors defence being that the contract didnt actually specify it! :rolleyes:

Out of interest... How many A-10's could you fit on a QE Class .... ? Never mind about the taking off bit, that's a mere technicality... :suspect:

[Vendee]

Or we could buy 200 A-10's for pennies, then just field 50 of them and use the rest for spares for the next 30 years.The A10 would be no good as it needs a runway to operate from. What we need is something that can takeoff and land vertically.

Hold on a minute............ didn't we just???...................... Oh, never mind! :oh:

[Vendee]

retro-fitting them with UK engines and parking them up in some dusty hanger somewhereAnd that's our strength. We might have a rapidly shrinking fleet of military aircraft but we have an abundance of dusty hangars :rolleyes:

[Bob Viking]

I realise I'm just stirring the sh1t here but just how many times did the Harrier take off and land vertically during it's time on land in Afghanistan? Did it not use the same runway as the A10s?
Your point has merit but it can't really be used with reference to recent operational experience.
BV:8

[Vendee]

I was being sarcastic. I know the Harriers were clapped out and also their runway requirements. Besides, I'm currently involved with the AH64D's and it would be in my interests if we bought the AH64E :)

[tucumseh]

Contractors defence being that the contract didnt actually specify it!

Just like the original AH-64 contract!

[Gwyn_ap_Nudd]

I don't think that Rolls-Royce would care as they are getting out of the helicopter engine business. They no longer have a stake in the current Apache since they sold their share of RRTM to TM.

[Rhino power]

'The decision to axe Harrier was bonkers...' :}

I'll get me coat!

-RP

[POSW#1]

Hold on chaps, I have a much better idea... Hear me out..

Why don't we design our own attack helicopter?!! Rather than buying one ready made of here shelf, tried and tested, with spares in abundance, let's design and build our own from scratch!? Actually that's going to cost slightly more, so let's maybe let the Italians get involved too, I mean it worked for the Merlin? Those were a lot cheaper and a lot better than anything that was on the shelf weren't they? :ok:

[peter we]

but just how many times did the Harrier take off and land vertically during it's time on land in Afghanistan?

Short take off and landing, a lot.

[MOSTAFA]

I'm guessing they might get them - flog off the D's in part exchange but 18 at the very best, maybe less. By then everything will be absorbed into the RFC, saving all round.

[Easy Street]

Short take off and landing, a lot.

The point was that this was on the same strip at Kandahar that was being used by the decidedly non-STOVL A-10 (which also has about three times the endurance of a Harrier and is only marginally slower!)

[melmothtw]

I'm guessing they might get them - flog off the D's in part exchange but 18 at the very best, maybe less.

Having spoken to Boeing and the British Army on this very subject, the most likely scenario is that an undisclosed number of the 66 Ds would be 'remanufactured' to Es (new airframes, but with the old engines, MTADS/PNVS, fire control system etc). How many has yet to be determined (or at least announced).

It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're cross-decking)

[MOSTAFA]

Not in the least surprised its the Boeing/AAC's perceived most likely scenario. Just got to add the bean counters into that equation.

I'm still betting 18 at the very best.

[melmothtw]

Not in the least surprised its the Boeing/AAC's perceived most likely
scenario. Just got to add the bean counters into that equation.

I'm
still betting 18 at the very best.


To be fair, both Boeing and the army are more than aware that this is all dependent on the beancounters, and both acknowledge that the UK will not be getting 67 new AH-64Es.

18 sounds about right to me also.

[Bob Viking]

Peter.
As ES has already highlighted STOVL was not under debate. You still need a runway for that. Might I politely suggest you RTFQ?!
Just banter you understand.
BV;)

[RileyDove]

Vendee -Not sure where you get your information on the Harriers being 'clapped out' ! A lot of the airframes had far fewer hours on them them than the Tornado fleet and in many ways were superior in terms of reliability and future potential.

Regards the AH-64 Block III -this has always been a racing certainty . The vast majority of 'D' operators will update to the 'E' -whether with new build or reworked 'D's. Some of the desired mods are the engine gearbox improvements and modifications to the mrg and improved avionics.

The airframes themselves can go straight into the programme -there is no need for new aircraft . Indeed many 'D's are ex 'A's that are gutted and reworked .
Its nothing new and is very well conceived.

[Vendee]

Vendee -Not sure where you get your information on the Harriers being 'clapped out' ! A lot of the airframes had far fewer hours on them them than the Tornado fleet and in many ways were superior in terms of reliability and future potential.I didn't mention Tornado because its like comparing one clapped out airframe to another. I know that some Harriers had much less hours on them than your average Tornado, mainly because they were much newer but I'm sure you know that airframe hours don't tell the whole story. I would imagine that the Harriers had a higher number of cycles.

I haven't had anything to do with Harrier since the GR3 but a colleague told me a couple of years ago that the airframes were very tired. I'm not saying that scrapping the Harrier was the correct decision though. It probably had more life in it than the Tornado.

[CAC Runaway]

Having spoken to Boeing and the British Army on this very subject, the most likely scenario is that an undisclosed number of the 66 Ds would be 'remanufactured' to Es (new airframes, but with the old engines, MTADS/PNVS, fire control system etc). How many has yet to be determined (or at least announced).

It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're cross-decking)You've got that wrong as that's the last thing we would want to do. Keep the airframes and ditch the engines is what we need to do. The airframes would be zero lifed after the conversion and having the RTMs means we have our own bespoke software which costs (wastes) us millions of pounds every time we have a change. Full FMS buying AH-64Es direct from Boeing is by far the best option. Oh and the step change in capability between the two is enormous.... and trust me I know quite a bit about them ;)

[barnstormer1968]

POSW said:

Hold on chaps, I have a much better idea... Hear me out..

Why don't we design our own attack helicopter?!! Rather than buying one ready made of here shelf, tried and tested, with spares in abundance, let's design and build our own from scratch!? Actually that's going to cost slightly more, so let's maybe let the Italians get involved too, I mean it worked for the Merlin? Those were a lot cheaper and a lot better than anything that was on the shelf weren't they?

I happened to be looking at the Westland concept model of the lynx derived attack helicopter on Wednesday in the international helicopter museum, and thinking thank goodness we never went for it, as it would have been rubbish at hot and high stuff.

That said, the Westland black hawk looked nice in a sandy cammo scheme :)

[MOSTAFA]

We don't design our own because we can't, the only British designer left (sort of) has never designed a successful helicopter! I cannot even think of a truly successful design to come out of that factory; maybe the Lysander but even that was a fundamental failure - it was designed to be a light bomber.

Buy the 18 straight of the shelf - completely cut out the middle man and get the contract fundamentally right first time. Personally, I thought the Blackhawk worked and looked just fine long before Westlands got their hands on one.

[melmothtw]

Quote:




Having spoken to Boeing and the British Army on this very subject, the most likely scenario is that an undisclosed number of the 66 Ds would be 'remanufactured' to Es (new
airframes, but with the old engines, MTADS/PNVS, fire control system etc). How many has yet to be determined (or at least announced).

It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're
cross-decking)
You've got that wrong as that's the last thing we would want to do. Keep the airframes and ditch the engines is what we need to do. The airframes would be zero lifed after the conversion and having the RTMs means we have our own bespoke software which costs (wastes) us millions of pounds every time we have a change. Full FMS buying AH-64Es direct from Boeing is by far the best option. Oh and the step change in capability between the two is enormous.... and trust me I know quite a bit about them ;)


I'll have to take your word for it that you 'know quite a bit about them' CAC, but my understanding is that it is the electronics and airframes that need replacing and that much of the other equipment can be swapped over (Boeing named the engines as one of these parts, but maybe the particular chap I spoke to wasn't up-to-speed on the RTM). Are you saying that the current airframes would be reused, and the engines discarded?

[CAC Runaway]

I'll have to take your word for it that you 'know quite a bit about them' CAC, but my understanding is that it is the electronics and airframes that need replacing and that much of the other equipment can be swapped over (Boeing named the engines as one of these parts, but maybe the particular chap I spoke to wasn't up-to-speed on the RTM). Are you saying that the current airframes would be reused, and the engines discarded?Well I'm not in the know as to what the decision will be, I was just stating what I feel we should do. RTMs were leagues ahead of the T700 when we first procured them but the T700s have been developed to the point where they are at least as good as the RTMs. By having our own software on the aircraft means we are alienated from the US software updates (which they get for $25 an update... yes I mean $25). Whatever way we go, completely new aircraft or modify ours we need to go the FMS route as I hope we have learnt our lesson by having a bespoke aircraft.... we shall see!

[melmothtw]

Agree with that CAC, I think the Boeing rep was talking about the general remanufacture process (re; transferring engines across) rather than UK-specific. It's probably not ideal for UK, given the reasons you state.

As you say, there's no need for a bespoke UK engine anymore as the AH-64E puts out ample power. FMS and off-the-shelf certainly way to go - provided AgustaWestland don't stick their oar in.

[MOSTAFA]

Why even invite Westlands to the next party? When have they ever done the MOD a favour which has not quadrupled the cost - added a delay to the program or generally annoyed those that fly them.

[Vendee]

As you say, there's no need for a bespoke UK engine anymoreExcepting that we already have in excess of 140 RTM 322 engines. Not sure how much they cost per unit but they must be a least 2-3 million pounds each.

[tucumseh]

Why even invite Westlands to the next party? When have they ever done the MOD a favour which has not quadrupled the cost

Things may be different following recent name changes, but as Westland and GKN-Westland they pulled MoD out of the sh!t so many times. The typical scenario was MoD's prime contractor reneging on contractual obligations (yet receiving full payment) and Westland stepping in to do the job properly, often without any contract cover or promise of payment. One of very few companies that never, not once, remotely let me down in 131 projects/programmes.

The nearest I heard to a complaint from them was the occasion I was "invited" to the head shed and asked if I thought my (MoD civilian) boss was taking a backhander from CDP's favoured supplier.

[MOSTAFA]

Sorry - I can't believe anything has changed at all. Perhaps you could indicate when either Westlands GKN/W or A/W have ever 'stepped in' without it costing 10 times the price in the long run, if you can I might change my mind. In my experience, I can't think of a single case (that was not caused by them in the first place)!

I don't want it to sound rude or for it to be a 'mines bigger than yours' but possibly in your 131 projects did you ever have to sign for and then strap one to your backside, take off and try to do your job? I did, for about for about 7000 (military) hours worth, on quite a few types. If you seriously have not heard a complaint then go sit in any crew room for about 5 minutes - that should be enough!

[tucumseh]

Sorry - I can't believe anything has changed at all. Perhaps you could indicate when either Westlands GKN/W or A/W have ever 'stepped in' without it costing 10 times the price in the long run, if you can I might change my mind. In my experience, I can't think of a single case (that was not caused by them in the first place)!



“10 times the price” sounds like uninformed scuttlebutt, and ignores MoD costing practices which companies have little or no say in. Even if you could offer such an example, my comment related to the many times that an aircraft, or associated equipment programme, would never have been delivered to you in the first place without Westland stepping in. Before about 2000, Puma Nav Update was the obvious one. After that? Sea King ASaC would have been another Chinook Mk3 without them, sitting in a hangar unable to be certified for 10 years.




I don't want it to sound rude or for it to be a 'mines bigger than yours' but possibly in your 131 projects did you ever have to sign for and then strap one to your backside, take off and try to do your job? I did, for about for about 7000 (military) hours worth, on quite a few types. If you seriously have not heard a complaint then go sit in any crew room for about 5 minutes - that should be enough!



I am not aircrew. But yes, I did have to sign at every configuration milestone to say that the equipment and aircraft were safe and met contracted specifications. However, like most MoD trainees, I was used in younger days to having to fly in aircraft I’d just finished maintaining; the main incentive we were “offered” to do our job correctly. Westland, unlike numerous companies (and MoD departments), never once offered me anything to sign for and accept knowing it did not meet these specifications.



They do made a point of ignoring the MoD rule that equipment or aircraft need NOT be functionally safe – so of course I concede that component would be seen as an “extra” cost to MoD. But it is not something that most aircrew I know are aware of. They expect nothing less and just assume MoD demand it. They don’t. Westland do.



They also happen to be the only company who offered me money back because they had been efficient and made too much profit. You will be familiar with Trial and Proof Installations. MoD rules require a company to be paid for both; then for the full production quantity. If they get one or both of the TI/PI right first time, then that is pure profit. Companies always strive for that, many achieve it; only one has offered the money back and encouraged me to spend it at another company.



I am sure you can offer examples which have upset aircrew. They do not prove me wrong; they are, like mine, personal experiences. But I’m pretty certain that most of what you blame on Westland will have its roots in, for example, Service Modifications which Westland are not required to certify as functionally safe or functional. They’re just left to pick up the pieces.





Finally, I have sat in many crewrooms and invited complaint. It is a mandated airworthiness regulation that this opportunity is offered at least once a year to both operators and maintainers at Typed Air Stations, at separate times. It is how Front Line influence acquisition. The practice was formally stopped (in my experience) in 1993, following the “savings at the expense of safety” reiterated by Haddon-Cave. Thereafter, some of us continued with it, concealing the nature of the visit from beancounters and SOs. The regulation requires the Design Authority to be present, so it was the opportunity to say it to their face. I never heard a single complaint about Westland. Again, I’m sure you can tell me otherwise, but that doesn’t make me wrong.



I think any difference between our experiences will have roots in implementation of MoD regulations. Companies, not just Westland, have much to endure when dealing with an MoD organisation which is inherently inefficient when it comes to specifying requirements and managing delivery. Westland know far more about the process than MoD, and I would not hesitate to give them a "GOCO" type contract on rotary wing.

[MOSTAFA]

Sometimes in life you just have to say I can't be bothered - it's one of them times. Maybe one day someone will bother to explain why so many good friends of mine died in machines produced there. All they did was sit there and fly them, with bits coming off all over the place or components not doing what they were supposed to do; that's what killed them - but I'll not hold my breath and I'm very comfortable nowadays, in my Sikorsky.

[RileyDove]

Not quite sure why there is any idea of changing engines! The British Apache outperforms a 'D'. What it does need is all the other parts of the 'E' upgrade and there is no reason why this cannot be carried out in the U.K under Boeing . Its pie in the sky to believe they will just go and buy new when its more than possible to carry out the American 'E' Mods and incorporate ASPI at the same time. Its not a hugely complicated airframe .

[tucumseh]

Mostafa

Still waiting for an example of "10 times the price" and what was said when you reported this fraud. (The fraud would be on the part of MoD).

Who have you asked about the accidents you mention? Did the BoIs not get to the truth? Few report it and, from my previous posts here, you know this frustrates me too. Offer an example and perhaps someone will explain.

I do know that at many of the "moan at the DA" days I've organised aircrew would, indeed, complain about this or that, only to be surprised at the reply. Very often the DA would tell a few home truths about product liability and the fact that on the few times MoD met their obligation to have them appraise a Service Mod, the report would say "It's safe, but it doesn't work", "It works, but it isn't safe" or "Doesn't work and isn't safe" - and MoD would ignore them and fit it and use it anyway. This tends not to be included in BoI reports as the decision to breach airworthiness regs absolves the DA of any liability. Try asking MoD how many times they have had a MF761 decision in their favour. (The result of a Fault Investigation - the 761 notes liability).

You don't say what you fly. Perhaps Lynx. I recall the IPT moaning about the cost of a high tensile steel bolt that Westland had quoted for. They wrote to the workshop and told them to nip down Halfords and buy one. Ever tried asking Halfords if this two and sixpence bolt has had, say, the correct vacuum cadmium and heat treatment? On that occasion the workshop declined and instead framed the signal. But somewhere, someone in MoD will be stupid enough to do what the IPT says. I wonder if that bit fell off?

[MOSTAFA]

Do yourself a favour and read the posts.

You truly don't need me to give you an example of 10X the cost unless you have head surgically placed where it is dark. What part of 'Sometimes in life I just can't be bothered' don't you understand. Go buy a 64 off the shelf when the MOD bought theirs. Did the BOIs get to the truth - I'm not sure they did or for that matter ever published. I think the odd one slipped through when everybody involved had left or just plain forgot about. The truth is simple, bits manufactured were not up to it - doors fell off - tiebars broke, how about an AFCS computer not fitted correctly - the list is far from endless, SADLY MANY DIED.

"I don't say what I fly" - 'on quite a few types' I said. I'll now elaborate, every type the army had made by Westlands, GKN Westlands and AW Westlands between 1979 and 2004.

It's a pity you never invited me or the vast majority of people I flew with to one of your little parties.

Now I'll say it again - sometimes in life I just can't be bothered. If you truly want to continue this so that you can appear to have the last say on the matter crack on. I will not. Personally, I suggest you carry on via a private message because I find what's being said disrespectful to the 20+ that died that I know of, when they were just sitting there doing their job - not waiting for bits to fly off or wiggly amps to tear the aircraft apart in seconds few.

[ORAC]

Excepting that we already have in excess of 140 RTM 322 engines. Not sure how much they cost per unit but they must be a least 2-3 million pounds each. Sunk Costs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs)

In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a retrospective (past) cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.........

In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that economic actors should not let sunk costs influence their decisions. Doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits. Alternatively, a decision-maker might make rational decisions according to their own incentives, outside of efficiency or profitability. This is considered to be an incentive problem and is distinct from a sunk cost problem.

Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors' decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects. In light of such cognitive quirks, it is unsurprising that people frequently fail to behave in ways that economists deem "rational"...........

[Tourist]

Mostafa and tuc

You are having a silly black and white argument.

To suggest that Westlands has never made a decent design is silly. The Lynx is a world beater.
It also has some flaws that keep killing people.
And the idea that Westlands have never screwed us over for cash is silly, as is the idea that westlands get the credit for the Bagger cabs. That is all down to a couple of SL shag aircrew.

These are not mutually exclusive facts.

[MOSTAFA]

Sorry Tourist, I really appreciate the effort but that don't placate anything.

I stand by everything I said, hopefully and without boring to many, I'll repeat a couple of things. I cannot even think of a successful design to ever come out of that factory.

If you mean 'world beater' because of the speed record that's pure folly. The vast majority of army Lynx have had more variable speed restrictions placed on them than any aircraft I know - anywhere from 60 to 120kts if memory serves me right. Vibrations, all over the place, fixed, I used the word loosely, by doubler, then treblers and on and on plates till we forgot where the problem originated. Least said about the head absorber the better! Blade tips improved things a bit till they started to crack all over the place.

I'm guessing most don't know that for a least 20 years the maximum under slung load speed was to 60kts - it might still be the same? I once had to take a u/s load from Cape Orford (FI's) to Port Stanley - about as far as you could go, 120Nm'ish at 60kts in the usual 35kt wind only took best part of 4 hours and several refuels EnRoute, world beater indeed.

I am actually trying to say no more.

I'm reliably informed Lynx was an excellent platform for the Royal Navy but it was a unmittigating disaster for the Army. Respectectfully, to the deceased crew I think there is still a navy one at the bottom of some ocean somewhere where the door fell off and ripped the tail rotor off.

[dervish]

Mostafa, you've certainly got me interested and an example of such overcharging would be welcome, even if the x10 is a slight exaggeration.


Tourist, I bow to your knowledge of ASaC but IIRC the AEW guys you mention worked on a specific aspect when the prime contractor announced they didn't know where to begin. They were successful but tuc is also correct. The same prime reneged on or were absolved of a lot of other work and Westlands dug MoD out big style. They also dug MoD out on pre-requisite progammes. IIRC at one point the prime considered asking to be released from the contract, which you'll recall they didn't actually bid for. How that came about I haven't a clue. Sounds odd and far more interesting than arguing about Westlands.

[tucumseh]

MOSTAFA



I’m sorry your Commanding Officer didn’t invite you to one of the “parties” (part of maintaining the build standard which, if not carried out, progressively invalidates the Safety Case and RTS). However, it is far more likely that either your HQ, Support Authority or Provisioning Authority didn’t arrange one in the first place, or refused to attend. Not entirely unknown, which is why any subsequent complaint would be ignored. It isn’t really a party – the agreed actions are effectively the work for MoD’s Technical Agency (the man with THE signature) and DEC for the forthcoming year; and help inform your Constraints Document. If the party isn’t held, what you want or need is largely guesswork to these postholders.

If there was a serious difference between what any companies charged for the same services, then one must first look to MoD. It is they who make a written declaration that the agreed price is “fair and reasonable”. Specifically, the person with Technical and Financial Approval delegation, which by definition is an engineer. I won’t go into all the problems caused by this policy not being implemented, but suffice to say non-engineers are permitted to self-delegate and make false declarations. That is fraud. It lies at the root of many deaths but not one BoI has ever mentioned it.

Your experiences of Lynx sounds horrendous. I’m more familiar with the RN variants, when they were Mk2 and 3, and while there were indeed problems, it is how the MoD and DAs react, to prevent recurrence, that is important. I know that sounds too simplistic in the face of your personal losses and I am a great advocate of understanding history the underlying causes, because without that knowledge you can’t hope to do better. I know many disagree with me. But I too have lost friends and colleagues, and hope you appreciate that much of what I say and do is directly related to preventing this happening again.

[MOSTAFA]

Sometimes in life you just have to say I can't be bothered! It was still one of those moments, right up until, rightly or wrongly, I read the first paragraph. 'I'm sorry your Commanding Officer (CO) didn't invite you' what an awful condescending thing to say.

You seem unaware just how busy aviation CO's are? Generally they are so busy they don't even get the chance to maintain their own currency - so bad was Lynx serviceability they generally opted for more reliable, less time consuming airframes. As for where I sat in that pecking order, the CO relied on people like me to advise them on all matters flying. According to your premise I didn't do a very good job.

As for BoI's/SI's they are only as good as the convening order, terms of reference, allows them to be.

I have said my bit and will apologise as I seem to have steered this thread away from its purpose so getting back to that - I still firmly believe we should buy the 18 straight of the shelf - completely cut out the middle man and get the contract fundamentally right first time.

[Tourist]

Mostafa

No, I'm not referring to the speed record:rolleyes:

The RN Lynx is a world beater. It is good at what it is designed to do.
As I said before, flawed but still great. That is why other countries bought and buy it.
And yes some of my friends went down in the many many that ended up killing people.
The Army Lynx is just a bodge job, but that is not the fault of Westlands.

[MOSTAFA]

It's time to just agree to disagree - but they built it.

[tucumseh]

Could just say that mostafa and I have exchanged very pleasant PMs and all is well. Sometimes good can come of a good going disagreement!

Yes, back to AH. Please don't let a contract for "Air Vehicles" again, or one that specifies avionics that have been obsolete for over 10 years! MoD no longer has the corporate knowledge that led to another aircraft project team stepping in to identify and correct the problem.

[MOSTAFA]

Hear hear Sir and may god bless her and all who sail in her.

[Vendee]

In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a retrospective (past) cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.........
ORAC, thanks for the economics lesson. I agree the RTM's are a sunk cost but they also mean that we could avoid the prospective cost of purchasing new engines.

[turboshaft]

Not quite sure why there is any idea of changing engines
CAC Runway (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/536435-uk-maybe-procuring-ah-64e-2.html#post8395000) covered it well. Three practical reasons, one political reason:

The AH-64E's T700-701D are FADEC (EDECU+HMU) equipped, meaning that any re-engining would involve a software (AF/Eng) rewrite. This is never easy, and never cheap.
The T700 family has 'caught up' with the RTM322 (the variants in SOCOM's MH-60Ms are rated at 2,600+ shp), and is likely to offer greater growth potential (to 3,000 shp and beyond).
The UK's bespoke changes to its WAH-64Ds resulted in the aircraft being impractical to upgrade to Block II configuration. This, I'm told, is the reason why the user is now planning to forgo the BII upgrade and adopt the Apache Guardian instead.
Politically, there will be less lobbying to re-engine this time around, given Safran's buy-out of R-R's stake in the RTM322. Although a commonality argument (w/ Merlin) can still be made, a similar case can be made for the T700 family (which also powers the MCA's AW189s).
Not sure how much they cost per unit but they must be a least 2-3 million pounds each
For comparison, the DoD pays $798,000 for its T700-701Ds ("consume mass quantities!").

[RileyDove]

There is no sense in the proposal . The Westland 'D' outperforms the Boeing machine and that became more noticable with the introduction of ASPI.
There is no need for a massive increase in engine hp -the helicopter is pretty much at the limit of what it needed to carry and extra hp doesn't make it much more useful. All that extra hp will do is accelerate the fatigue process.
In terms of the Westland 'E' -Link 16 capability isn't a massive stretch in technology and many of the mods of the 'E' programme I am sure Boeing can devise a local modification programme. The real improvement that is needed is the improved nose gearboxes with better cooling and improvements to the MRGB.

[Vendee]

There is no need for a massive increase in engine hpIndeed, the RTM322 is down-rated in its WAH-64D installation.

Turboshaft, you said that the AH-64E Fadec software would have to be re-written for the RTM322. Why couldn't it use the same EECU and software that the WAH-64D uses?

[turboshaft]

Vendee:

Since the baseline Apache Guardian aircraft-engine interface will have been written around the T700-701D, the RTM322 will inevitably require a software mod. The Apache AH Mk1's EECU could be retained, but the software interface with the aircraft would - I believe - need to be updated.

For comparison with the D model, think of it in the context of the B-1B vs. B-52 conundrum: the Air Force has traditionally found it easier to add new toys to the B-52, since it can patch-on A/D converters to the 'analog' Buff, rather than having to mess with the core avionics of the 'digital' B-1B. Same with the Apache: since the original T700 in the AH-64D was a non-FADEC engine, the task of integrating the RTM322 - substantial though it was - at least didn't involve messing with an existing D/D AF/Eng interface.

The AH-64E is touted as using OSA, which in theory could help simplify things, but in general whenever a FADEC software mod is required engineers start weeping as if their favorite sci-fi show had been canceled.

As a sidenote, the E also incorporates a comprehensive IAC vibration monitoring system, covering engines, gearboxes, etc., with the goal of enabling conditioned-based maintenance.

[HEDP]

Not to mention that Block 1 is obsolete. Block 2 is projected to be obsolete in 2025 and we are looking for a capability out to 2040-ish. Why take an upgrade to pay again to adopt the end state in a further 11 years anyway?

Value for money is achieved in this instance by going as far down the FMS route and not tinkering with software as much as possible.

[melmothtw]

That's the point exactly HEDP. The current Block 1 aircraft are obsolete as the electronics are no longer made. Boeing did a bulk buy of the transistor chips when they went out of production, but these will not last very much longer.

[RileyDove]

FMS is not going to happen. There is no need to buy new airframes! A great many 'D's are rebuilt 'A's -fuselages gutted and then rewired to the latest spec. That is what will happen with the Westland 'D's -retain airframe and engines -install new for the rest. The engines themselves don't need an upgrade -there is extra power that could be gained but there is no need for it! They are not looking to carry anything larger or heavier than what they already have.

[HEDP]

A bold statement Riley!

What makes you think that FMS would not be recycling the airframes? It is standard practice for Boeing to do so all the way from Block 1 via Block 2 to Block 3.

For that matter why discount the possibility of new wet build airframes to reduce the maintenance penalty accrued by maritime use?

There is also the small issue of technology rights which might preclude a foreign assembler as the technology has developed. Neither Boeing or USG may wish to pursue the same arrangement again.

HEDP

[melmothtw]

For that matter why discount the possibility of new wet build airframes to reduce the maintenance penalty accrued by maritime use?

That reminds me, the UK and Dutch Apaches have been modernised for maritime operations (anti-corrosion coatings, tie-down points, etc), and I imagine this is a capability that the Army and Royal Navy would be loathe to lose.

Are the bog-standard AH-64Es marinised in the same way?

[RileyDove]

There is no guarantee that sea deployment for Apache will become common.
The airframe no matter what you do is not particularily weather resistant when it comes to salt water. There are plenty of areas where water can get in and stay. I would not advise it long term. As for upgrading the AH-64Ds -there is no reason why the work couldn't be done in the U.K under Boeing .
I suspect that the technological rights are not a massive issue as the parts of the upgrade that would most appeal to the U.K are on the mechanical side of the airframe.

[CAC Runaway]

There is no sense in the proposal . The Westland 'D' outperforms the Boeing machine and that became more noticable with the introduction of ASPI.
There is no need for a massive increase in engine hp -the helicopter is pretty much at the limit of what it needed to carry and extra hp doesn't make it much more useful. All that extra hp will do is accelerate the fatigue process.
In terms of the Westland 'E' -Link 16 capability isn't a massive stretch in technology and many of the mods of the 'E' programme I am sure Boeing can devise a local modification programme. The real improvement that is needed is the improved nose gearboxes with better cooling and improvements to the MRGB.RileyDove you are just wrong there. The UK AH Mk1 comes nowhere near the performance of the AH-64E. FMS would indeed re-use the airframes I'm sure but the RTMs just aren't needed anymore. Where on earth have you got that it will accelerate the fatigue process? Proof? All of the drivetrain is upgraded to cope with the extra power. The T700 with EDECU (not a true FADEC actually) provides more power and more growth potential, plus it means we can stay with the US software. Marinisation is something that can be done to any AH given the equipment and time, no different to when we marinised ours.

[Vendee]

Any new airframe must be wet assembled IMHO. They really suffered during the Libyan op. The marinisation program isn't that effective and it seems to give more protection to the systems than to the airframe itself, which is why a wet assembled airframe is desirable.

[RileyDove]

CAC -its not a matter of upgrading the powertrain to take extra power. The airframe itself needs strengthening to take the extra power. The AH-64 is comparatively lightly built -its a fallacy to believe you can just keep increasing power without it having an effect .
As to performance -you obviously have no idea as to the effect of having ASPI on the U.S 'D' model .As it stands the U.K AH-64D will outperform a U.S
'E' model in terms of performance - the mod state and type of engine electronics doesn't come into it.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Are the Brits phasing out the Hellfire Missile?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/obama-kill-navys-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-program/

[CAC Runaway]

CAC -its not a matter of upgrading the powertrain to take extra power. The airframe itself needs strengthening to take the extra power. The AH-64 is comparatively lightly built -its a fallacy to believe you can just keep increasing power without it having an effect .
As to performance -you obviously have no idea as to the effect of having ASPI on the U.S 'D' model .As it stands the U.K AH-64D will outperform a U.S
'E' model in terms of performance - the mod state and type of engine electronics doesn't come into it.
Well as someone who has flown AH Mk1, Block I, Block II and AH-64E I'm afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. I do, however, agree that the airframe needs modifying slightly, which is why it will get stripped back and re-lifed under FMS. As for not knowing what effect the ASPI has on performance.... I think you'll find I was hovering an AH-64E with ASPI fitted today and it had OGE performance at.... lets just say it was a lot heavier than a Mk1 can be hovered at in those conditions. Oh and for info a Block II AH-64D with ASPI and 701Ds will outperform an AH Mk1 in most conditions too. 5 years ago you would have been correct but not anymore. Maybe stick to your book reading and leave procurement to those that know?

[melmothtw]

You just got schooled Riley.

[RileyDove]

CAC - Have you flown the WAH-64D then ?? Maybe you should have a look sometime what is happening to the airframe. I should take a good close look at the vertical stabilizer and centre part of the rear fuselage. The machine was designed to be light -adding weight to her isn't improving whats happening to the airframe. As for your experince -mine is on the structures side so its not a matter of picking up a floppy leaflet on them - its a matter of seeing what was actually happening to them. As for relifeing -refurbishing yes -changing all the skins to beefier ones I bet no!

[CAC Runaway]

CAC - Have you flown the WAH-64D then ?? Maybe you should have a look sometime what is happening to the airframe. I should take a good close look at the vertical stabilizer and centre part of the rear fuselage. The machine was designed to be light -adding weight to her isn't improving whats happening to the airframe. As for your experince -mine is on the structures side so its not a matter of picking up a floppy leaflet on them - its a matter of seeing what was actually happening to them. As for relifeing -refurbishing yes -changing all the skins to beefier ones I bet no! There is no such thing as a WAH-64D.... for us it is an Apache AH Mk1, and yes I have a lot of time in it. You don't read my posts... I agree the airframe needs to be modified and that is what FMS does. A few of the AH-64Es started life as A models!!

[RileyDove]

I don't disagree that our airframes need modifying. However there is a distinct limit to what this airframe will take in terms of hp. The British engines are fit for purpose and I cannot forsee the Mod wishing to take on another engine type when the RTM is proven and has growth potential. The drivechain is where we specifically need to be able to handle more power -the 'E' modifications would
address this. In order for this to be carried out there is no reason why Boeing in the U.K could not carry out this work on site. There is no need for the airframes
to be shipped 5,000 miles plus. On top of this there is the potential for Boeing to tailor a U.K 'E' to our requirements. So in essence I don't forsee our Apaches going anywhere except into a modification program that will produce British 'E's .

[MOSTAFA]

CAC it's like plaiting fog mate give up. I didn't know Boeing could do this work on site in the UK, silly me I thought they would need a factory somewhere to do that sort of work - or are we talking about another guise for Yeovil these days.

[CAC Runaway]

CAC it's like plaiting fog mate give up. I didn't know Boeing could do this work on site in the UK, silly me I thought they would need a factory somewhere to do that sort of work - or are we talking about another guise for Yeovil these days.
MOSTAFA, agreed.
RileyDove.... you live in your own little world and keep ignoring people that know better than you. I've looked through a lot of your posts and it's a common theme.
Anyway enough, I can't be bothered with this... I'm out of here!!

[MOSTAFA]

I'm still interested to know where this Boeing facility is in the UK? Is it anywhere near the Sikorsky one? Perhaps they could start producing 36 of the modern day Blackhawk equivalents as well instead of the planned farce.

Interestingly, I typed 'Westland history timeline' into google - it comes up on pge 5 but you can link to the other pages - riveting read that just totally confirmed exactly what I thought!

[RileyDove]

Mostafa -who do you think was co-ordinating the Chinnok debarcle? Do you think that was done at Boscombe by a team brought in with no experience or company support ?? It might even come as a suprise to you that the likes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing provide field techs outside of the U.S!

It might be an amazing revelation to you but maybe the work could be done at the existing Pulse facility for the type in the U.K . It doesnt have to go to a 'factory' to be worked on difficult as that might seem . You seem to be under some impresssion that these reworked machines are desolved and reappear new ! They are reworked -that doesn't mean replacing every single part . Hence why there are 'A's that have become 'D's and there will be 'D's that become 'E's -you really need to give up on the Yeovil fixation!

[downsizer]

RileyDove,

Is your name Phil?

[RileyDove]

Downsizer -nope . My experience is on structural / mechanical repair of 'D's abroad .

My feeling is that Boeing UK - UK Rotorcraft Support (http://www.boeing.co.uk/Products-Services/Boeing-Defence-UK/Aircraft-Services-Support)

Will be contracted to carry out the work in the U.K with the factory supplying modification kits for whatever is required from the U.S . It would be a good opportunity to get these machines apart and wet assembled !

[MOSTAFA]

Well that's wound him up again. I could not give a flying fart about Chinooks as for your link read it carefully and tell me Yeovil is not involved. I wish I hadn't bothered.

[Boudreaux Bob]

if the UK cut Westlands out of the mix and dealt directly with Boeing, on the face of it, it would make far more sense. Or wouid that break too many Rice Bowls?

[RileyDove]

Mostafa - leave your Westland obsession for a second ! Aircraft maintaince and repair does happen in the U.K without them being involved.

Bob - dealing direct with Boeing makes perfect sense . The work can be farmed out in the U.K and U.S as required. The U.K cannot afford to go out and buy new machines and ditching the existing spares support for the RTM332 makes no sense. The U.S is reworking vast numbers of Apaches -doing this work in the U.K under a Boeing contract means that your employing U.K citizens and that gives employment and offset. Thats what makes a deal work.

[Vendee]

It might be an amazing revelation to you but maybe the work could be done at the existing Pulse facility for the type in the U.K .What pulse line is that?

[MOSTAFA]

RD

It's so easy when you read isn't it. I see you consider yourself an expert in psychology now as well as structures! It's deals and votes thats got us in such a mess, we have flogged the dead horse for too long.

I'll say it again just in case you missed the other times I've said it - Buy the 18 straight of the shelf - completely cut out the middle man and get the contract fundamentally right first time.

[RileyDove]

You know that isn't going to happen ! There is always going to be an angle -the taxpayer is always going to want to feel good about the deal and thats where some kind of offset will come into play. The Daily Mail would be all over the Mod 'scrapping' British Apaches to buy the 'same' from the U.S. Whether its right or wrong 'jobs for the boys' will be involved
So yes perfect sense for the taxpayer would see a straighforward buy -the political constraints of cash strapped UK however is going to dilute that in some shape. That shape will be in the form of rebuild British machines using the engines we already have . So yes a fudge but one that can be fought for by the Army without trying to justify new airframes and a new engine type.

[RileyDove]

Vendee -I must be mistaken -if they didn't or no longer pulse good!

[Lynxman]

The article says the USN Hellfire program is to be cut, no mention of US Army or USAF or any foreign customer.

[MOSTAFA]

RD

You are doing it again read first then answer. If the tax payer knew the facts the tax payer would agree wholeheartedly. Incidentally, you forget you are talking with the operators who couldn't give a flying ***k what the daily nazi says.

No deals - buy them off the shelf get whatever you can for the others to at least offset some cost.

[chopper2004]

According to the latest i,e this month (next month) Combat Aircraft magazine special report on Page 20...we are getting the AH-64E.

According the the Dep Chief of JHC..The Brig.....the plans are to acquire 50 airframes to be in use by 2020 to replace the entire D fleet.

Cheers

[Vendee]

But as discussed here http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/557736-apache-replacement.html a few weeks ago, it isn't cut and dried, at least not until after the election.

Current D fleet is at 50 airframes now anyway.

[VX275]

Does the AH-64E have a folding rotor and a SHOL like the AH 1? If not why are we even considering it?

[Davef68]

$$$$$$ because buying direct from Boeing as part of the US Army buy is considerably cheaper than buying from the Yeovil Wastelands

[Ivan Rogov]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I have a question...

If the UK is considering a new AH buy why is the answer automatically AH-64?

I presume the original AH-64 requirement was for an anti-armour platform for the German plains in the Cold War?

Given their actual use in service such as ISTAR/COIN in Afghanistan and embarked for ELLAMY, hasn't the requirement changed e.g: Rapid deployment for expeditionary warfare by C-17, marinised, cheap to operate/value for money, etc?

Would the AH-1Z make more sense? The AAC could also purchase UH-1Y for commonality (probably cheaper than an AH-64E buy?) and reduced operating cost, logistics, improvement in capability, etc. and give the rest of the less than ideal Lynx Mk.10s (excellent light shipborne helo) to the RN ;)

Please be gentle :ok:

[melmothtw]

Hi Ivan,

There are a few reasons that I can think of as to why the army would prefer the AH-64E over the AH-1Z (or any other type). Namely:

1. The infrastructure (facilities, training, support, etc) is already in place for the Apache.

2. UK Apaches are already 'marinised' during the manufacturing process, and the AH-64E is also (if you believe Boeing. I know Bell has a different opinion on this). Likewise, they are also C-17-transportable (though granted it takes more work to stow the blades than the AH-1Z - even so, the AH-1Z will only fit into a C-5 without the blades having to come off).

3. Interoperability - while the AH-1Z would make perfect sense for Asian nations such as Australia, that have a large USMC presence, European nations are chiefly looking for compatibility with the US Army - hence the Apache.

4. Better the devil you know - the experience of Afghanistan and Libya (in a maritime setting, no less) proved the value of Apache to the British Army, so why would they want to change for an unknown?

I'm sure those have just scratched the surface, and that others will be along shortly to offer their opinions also.

[ORAC]

And if they go the way of the US Army (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2014/03/ah64e-helicopter-contract.html), the Apache contract would be to remanufacture existing airframes (http://defense-update.com/20150321_british_apache.html#.VYu8RGA-OgM) to reduce costs, not an option with the AH-1Z.

[VX275]

Marinised my @rse.

Apache may be many things, but it is singularly unsuitable for shipborne ops.


Agreed, with no floatation and that canopy I wouldn't want to have to ditch one

[melmothtw]

Marinised my @rse.

Apache may be many things, but it is singularly unsuitable for shipborne ops.

The fact that it has been operated in a limited way from our ships is tribute to the personnel attempting it, not the qualities of the the airframe.

'Marinised' in the sense that the airframe was manufactured using the dry-rivet process to prevent salt corrosion. This was a UK-specific requirement that didn't find its way onto the US Army's platform of an equivalent age.

However, as I alluded to earlier, Bell will point out that this marinisation does not extend to the wiring harnesses and electrical components, etc, on the Apache in the way that it does on the Viper.

Agreed, with no floatation and that canopy I wouldn't want to have to ditch one

Personally, I wouldn't want to have to ditch in any helicopter with those blades spinning above me.

[BossEyed]

'Marinised' in the sense that the airframe was manufactured using the dry-rivet process to prevent salt corrosion. This was a UK-specific requirement that didn't find its way onto the US Army's platform of an equivalent age.

Are you 100% sure? I ask because I know that there was some discussion at the time of a different manufacturing technique for UK aircraft (it was called "wet assembled" in the UK) but in the end I'm pretty sure the aircraft were built exactly as the US fuselages were. What's the dry-rivet process?

When the first UK Apache went to sea on HMS OCEAN for trials, external caulking was applied at Yeovil as a nod to marinisation. Was this also done for Ops e.g. ELLAMY?

[Not_a_boffin]

Marinisation is a lot more than just countering corrosion or folding blades.

Working in a high-power complex RF emitter environment is just as important, which impacts on the electrical/electronic design and equipment standard.

[Hilife]

Personally, I wouldn't want to have to ditch in any helicopter with those blades spinning above me.

Good heavens man, where’s your sense of adventure? ;)

[Lonewolf_50]

Personally, I wouldn't want to have to ditch in any helicopter with those blades spinning above me. Given how top heavy helicopters are, they tend to roll over in a ditch which puts the brakes on all of that spinning rather quickly. (Granted, there are helicopters with floats that keep it more erect so that one can shut down the engines/head before exit ... )

Ditching is one reason people do the helo dunker training before deploying them at sea. With training, the ability to get out once it's all wet is less likely to be fatal, and with systems such as HEEDS added swimming away even likelier.

[CAC Runaway]

Marinised my @rse.

Apache may be many things, but it is singularly unsuitable for shipborne ops.

The fact that it has been operated in a limited way from our ships is tribute to the personnel attempting it, not the qualities of the the airframe. Well the aircraft actually performs pretty well from a ship, in fact the SHOL is almost exactly the same as a Seaking. I'm not sure why you say it's unsuitable. Yes there may be long term salt laden environment issues but short term the aircraft does pretty damn well.

[Rotate too late]

Not forgetting Wattisham is close to the coast! As is a lot of the NVS routes, oh and Woodbridge! Does the UK count as an aircraft carrier? :ok:

[CAC Runaway]

CAC

SHOL I will believe you if you say so. SHOL is basically all about control power and total power.

What about the deck movement limits? Very similar too.

[alfred_the_great]

Just to be a pain in the arse, the 'SHOL' is inclusive of the deck limits - at least that's what the SHOL in my hand is telling me...

[Davef68]

US DoD Notification of potential Foreign Military sale

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/united_kingdom_15-50.pdf

[Lonewolf_50]

Hopefully, this can go through without too much trumpeting of elephants ...

[Could be the last?]

£1.95B............Bargain!

Looking through the specs on the document, I guess we are buying into the long-term partnership with U.S. Industry, and therefore, will be required to go with whatever changes they install on subsequent upgrades etc - including DAS, HMI/D etc? How will this affect coherence with other non-US OEM ac in the future? Also, if this is the future procurement strategy, how will UK/EU Defence Industry view the contribution of their work, or more importantly, their investment?

[dangermouse]

loss of commonality with Merlins, NH90... (and a less powerful engine than the RTM322?)

plus loss of industrial base

plus being tied into a foreign supplier for any mods needed

Icing clearance?

UK SHOL?

great idea...

DM:(

[melmothtw]

Interesting para towards the end of this piece on the USD3 billion quoted for the 50 helicopters (USD60 million a pop)

UK requests remanufacture of Apaches to AH-64E standard - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/53882/uk-requests-remanufacture-of-apaches-to-ah-64e-standard)

Remanufacture, which involves stripping out many of the helicopter's systems and cross-decking them into newly-built airframes, should be the cheaper of the three options as these parts have already been paid for. However, the DSCA notification puts the unit cost of the remanufactured platforms at USD60 million each, which is three-times the value previously given by Boeing for new-build helicopters. While the reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, it could be that the DSCA figure does not factor in the savings that would be made as part of the US Army multi-year buy, which would likely have to be negotiated after the UK's request is approved. If this is the case and the UK does join such a procurement plan, its buy should then turn out to be closer to USD1.5 billion (not including sustainment and support).

(and a less powerful engine than the RTM322?)

Without Googling it, it's my understanding that the engine for the AH-64E is as powerful as the RTM322 (although both are limited by the helicopter's transmission anyhow). Happy to be corrected on that though.

[ORAC]

Except its not $60M unit cost, is it? Apart from the spare radars, engines etc, the price also includes - for presumably at least the 5 year stated period - engineering and logistic support to include: "Also included are AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets, AN/APR-39D(V)2 Radar Signal Detecting Sets, Integrated Helmet and Display Sight Systems (IHDSS-21), Manned-Unmanned Teaming International (MUMT-I), KOR-24A Link 16 terminals, M206 infrared countermeasure flares, M211 and M212 Advanced Infrared Countermeasure Munitions (AIRCMM) flares, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders, ammunition, communication equipment, tools and test equipment, training devices, simulators, generators, transportation, wheeled vehicles, organizational equipment, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.".....

Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of six (6) U.S. contractor representatives in country full-time for up to sixty (60) months for equipment checkout, fielding, and technical support........"

[Mil-26Man]

I think most folks would include the equipment you've listed when they talk about 'unit cost', as most of this is being cross-decked over from the existing WAH-64s, although you're quite right on the support aspect. That said though, support shouldn't amount to $1.5 billion.

[Frostchamber]

One of the entertaining things about PPRuNE is how every situation is greeting with deep dismay. Eg UK may not get the E model - gloom; looks like the UK will get the E model - gloom; UK industry wants to be involved - gloom; UK industry may not be involved - gloom. UK govt refuses to commit to 2% - gloom; UK government commits to 2% - gloom; swingeing cuts look inevitable - gloom; no cuts, budget ringfenced and will increase in real terms for 5 years - you get the idea. Please don't change though, the place would lose part of its charm :).

[Sloppy Link]

End user - hurrah.

[Bigbux]

End user - hurrah.

We should just get Wastelands to design and manufacture a completely new design - one that is radical and futuristic, like the one they promised for the Lynx replacement.

[goffered again]

"Bigbux
We should just get Wastelands to design and manufacture a completely new design - one that is radical and futuristic, like the one they promised for the Lynx replacement"

Never heard that one!

[TaranisAttack]

So we are paying a couple billion to remanufacture our helicopters into something with essentially the same capabilities, and reduce the fleet from 66 to 50. Sounds like the MOD :D

Surely though the Tiger makes more sense when being part of a European Army?

[wg13_dummy]

Remember, the actual requirement has nothing to do with the...actual requirement (as we would expect it- we want this bit of kit because of A, B and C). The requirement from the top is as follows:

1. Nurture/protect home grown industry - AgustaWestland (as Yeovil keeps bleating on; they are the only home based UK helicopter manufacturing company thus ensuring 40,000 jobs and income thus saving the the fall of the UK and Monarchy).
2. The above factor will ensure votes in key marginals.
3. The requirement is to ensure that the vendor writes or re-writes the requirement to ensure the customer manges his expectations based on the vendor 'evaluating' the requirements.
4. The only option is the option assessment provided by the vendor (by way of a £10 million plus assessment paid to an impartial and independent assessor who has experience in building and providing helicopters to the UK MoD). Tiger, T129, Mi28, CAIC WZ-10, Harbin Z-19, Rooivalk or AH1Z Viper aren't even considered because they are all pants.
5. The product provided is based on the requirement of the vendor and this then naturally becomes the amended requirement by the customer.

Net result; the KUR is amended to fit the 'independent' assessment. Their findings are 'you need to procure an attack helicopter that has a legacy logistic template similar to current in service types and one that has a through life upgrade ability that will ensure minimal outlay compared to out-sourcing to a third party'.

What that means is 'you must buy British and you must buy whatever we negotiate with Boeing for the absolute bear minimum. If you want to upgrade or make something bespoke, you will have to pay at least three times as much. If the cabs dont work in the first place, we will be more than happy to provide you with a contract maint program for extra cost. We will sub-contract out every other aspect of the program which will ensure that the lines of communication to rectify faults will be as complex as the Apollo program'.

God forbid the MoD procurement process is moribund nay rotten.........

[HEDP]

The key to understanding the why and wherefores’ is that this is capability sustainment and not purchase of a new capability or platform. We have what we need, we just need to keep it.

The current fleet is already in a state of managing progressively deeper levels of obsolescence that will no longer be supported sometime in the future.

The upgrade of the current fleet to the highest specification offsets future needs until 2040 and beyond. It was unfortunate that the original purchase of D model took 5 years to decide on then 5 years to introduce into service as we therefore lost 10 years use out of what we purchased; it is important that we learn from that and get upgrades earlier otherwise we will always lag behind and get lesser value for money each time a model reaches obsolescence.

It is also the case that future sustainment will cost significantly less by returning to as common a configuration as the US version. There has been a realisation that bespoke software does not come cheap. US Apache technology has moved on at pace compared to slow UK development due to cost. Their engines are better, data capability is better, overall mission systems are better etc. etc.

It is most likely the case that Boeing Defence UK already employs more personnel routinely involved in UK Apache than Westland’s does anyway. The establishment of a transient work force at Yeovil to remanufacture would presumably be delayed by the need to plan, establish and recruit for a new ‘production facility’; a cost and timeline that cannot be justified.

By upgrading and not buying a new platform there will be logistic and training economy, as a new type of platform would require new tooling and training across the board. Significant experience has been accrued with Apache, why change?

There will be enhancements that arrive by virtue of the upgrade that improve capability but at lesser cost than self-development. Why wouldn’t you accept what comes? It has a proven suite of weapons systems that are in parallel continuous development that do the job, why look for something else to integrate with attendant further costs?

It seems to me a no brainer! I am sure we will continue to debate the pros and cons but for once it seems the end user and taxpayer’s are getting VFM.

HEDP

[Evalu8ter]

"So we are paying a couple billion to remanufacture our helicopters into something with essentially the same capabilities, and reduce the fleet from 66 to 50. Sounds like the MOD"

Yes, and it makes complete sense. Firstly, to retain the same capability against different / improved threats requires upgrades just to keep pace - the E has adopted some important UK philosophy in mission avionics, making it a closer fit to our needs. Secondly, as HEDP describes, obsolescence management is critical to maintaining a fleet's capability. By moving closer to the US we can benefit from cost reductions thanks to the US Army's multi year purchases. The UK has decided that the US requirements are close enough to justify the move on a Cost Benefit Analysis. This is not always the case; we went bespoke on the CH47 as the change to TTPs due to very different avionics was deemed unacceptable in the final anaysis at the time.

Going European is no guarantee of quality nor interoperability. Several NH90/Tiger users are unhappy with the cabs, and the Dutch have operated Apache for several years.

[Rotate too late]

Ask any JTAC if he's happy with the choice.....I believe it will be in the affirmative.

[TaranisAttack]

@Evalu8ter
I'm not advocating going European, I'm advocating keeping the current 66 WAH-64s and spending the money on something else.

@Rotate too late
Ask him if he would prefer 66 WAH64 and a couple billion of extra choppers or 50 AH64E.

[The Sultan]

The money would be better spent for 20 Ospreys for use on the QE class carriers to go with the 35's. They would provide a credible assault, air to air refueling, covert ops, cod, etc capability and you would still have $1.5B left for support and mod to an EWA config.

In today's world ship based helicopters make for a sitting duck if you have to go up against a contender.

The Sultan

[Evalu8ter]

Taranis,
The problem is that you can't keep the current aircraft. There are acute obsolescence problems with the legacy aircraft which would render it either horrifically expensive to support or unflyable. The aircraft would also become increasingly incapable of either interaction with allies, or protecting itself against threats. High utilisation Ops in Afghan have robbed years off the fleet - this is the consequence of "surging" for nearly a decade.

V-22 is a great aircraft at niche roles, but I doubt many in the Army/RM would trade Apache fire support for a ride in an Osprey. CHF should have had V-22 over Merlin, but that would have been politically impossible.

[tucumseh]

As Evalu8ter says, obsolescence (a subset of unavailability in general) is always a problem. The Apache programme kicked off over 20 years ago now, and we (MoD) typically insert a clause asking for guaranteed support for 15 years - even then that is a bit tongue in cheek as it can almost never be enforced on avionic suppliers. Apache has done very well to last until now.

On Apache there was existing obsolescence in 1996 when contract negotiations were under way. The US tried to palm us off with kit they were already replacing. Obvious cases, like Bendix 221 VHF radio, were spotted by the DHP Sea King section (as the Apache office didn't have any avionic specialists, their AD had to ask around for advice) but I'm sure some were missed.

Another important factor at this time was funding for avionic obsolescence management was chopped in the years 1991-92, and removed altogether in January 1993. All pretence at management disappeared when the Def Stan was cancelled and agency contracts not renewed. It took many years to recover from this AMSO policy (the Alcock era) and I'd say we still haven't.

[Rotate too late]

66 or 50 AH.......probably just one actually....:E