New AH-64's for UK

[TBM-Legend]

Ministry of Defence set to hand £425m helicopter deal to a US firm leaving 600 UK jobs at risk | Daily Mail Online (http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614579/600-British-jobs-risk-Ministry-Defence-set-hand-425million-helicopter-deal-firm.html&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiIob7biYTNAhWB3KYKHVqaCiIQqQIILDAC&sig2=72D1zyebCGM3owahYkTW3Q&usg=AFQjCNEfkoE1eQ6YJ5stRY_WUkFJoHpJuw)

Boeing wins again..!

[Courtney Mil]

Oh dear. They're already upset about being blacklisted by India and, I'm told, are very anxious about the possibility of Brexit (made worse by Marcus Fysh MP saying it will all be OK).

[Thomas coupling]

£8 million each - and the rest????

[PDR1]

£8 million each - and the rest????

I think that's just the Shipping. It would have cost more but they've taken the lithium batteries out to reduce the shipping costs...

PDR

[Out Of Trim]

Are we still doing the Rebuild of UK AH-64s to AH-64E or off the shelf from Boeing then? :confused:

If off the shelf we could have two fleets! :ok:

[Evalu8ter]

OOT,
I'd imagine this will be a scrapping of current Apache airframes, spares recovery of those components common to the both versions and new building the AH-64Es. Given that the -64E has new engines and avionics there's probably not an awful lot to be retained. There will, inevitably, be a period as the new aircraft enters service when the "old" aircraft is winding down alongside.

£8m is a ludicrous figure. it might cover the airframe and rotor blades but will not cover the engines, DAS, MTADS/MPNVS and other mission avionics and weapon systems.

Of more interest will be where they are assembled, and by who. Might this be the moment for "Boeing Yeovil"? Sounds better than "Leonardo Helicopters".....

[PDR1]

Would these now ones be built to the current UK spec (Rolls-Royce Turbomeca engines) or the US-spec (General Electric engines)? If the latter then obviously the engines couldn't be RTP'd from the current fleet.

PDR

[pr00ne]

PDR1,

AH-64E does not have Rolls-Royce Turbomeca engines. An of the shelf buy would be just that. US Army spec E model.

[PDR1]

That's the way I read it too. So not only can they not RTP the current fleet's engines, but they now have an additional logistics (spares, training, facilities, tools, test equipment etc) burden through introducing an engine which is previously unknown to the UK forces.

That'll be cheap...

PDR

[VX275]

Who's been offered a job with Boeing?

[Out Of Trim]

I'd imagine this will be a scrapping of current Apache airframes, spares recovery of those components common to the both versions and new building the AH-64Es. Given that the -64E has new engines and avionics there's probably not an awful lot to be retained. There will, inevitably, be a period as the new aircraft enters service when the "old" aircraft is winding down alongside.


Well the original plan was the other way round! It was to strip out the old airframes and then rebuild them in the Boeing factory and installing all new parts to standard US Army AH-64E specs including new engines and DAS etc. Thus, when mods were developed for US airframes, the UK could incorporate these mods and keep in step with the programme? Similar to how they converted US AH-64A to AH-64D airframes.

The expectation was, that it would be cheaper than buying straight of the shelf.

[devonianflyer]

It strikes me that almost every time the C-17 lease/buy is discussed the MOD/RAF is applauded for saving money and buying off the shelf. (other than the fact buying initially and not leasing would have been cheaper (thanks A-400...))

And also every time the Airtanker, UK specific brand of A-330 MRT is talked about everyone wishes we'd just bought the Airbus product off the shelf and not messed around with it.

Why is it different here? A victory for common sense is it not?

[Rotate too late]

The current fleet is properly fooked, and very much in the legacy bracket. The RTM's were world class....once. We have to learn that just because someone has a mate at the DM and Yeovil churn out that tired crap about jobs in danger. Kick a dog enough times and funnily enough it bites back. The C17 example is a great one. I'm sure any AT mates will attest to its deserved rep as helping the British Forces out of a bad position.

[Evalu8ter]

OOT,
It was also the US Army's expectation with the CH-47D to CH-47F; however, by the time the old airframes were stripped, cleaned, assessed and repaired the gap was very small - hence why the US Army ended up with a lot more new builds than the original plan. The CH-47 also underwent a change in airframe construction (we currently have both types in the RAF) which means that a modification on a old aircraft needs amending (with cost implications) for new builds. Given the MoD wants to maximise through life savings it makes the most sense to have the same build standard airframes / engines as the US Army. As Nimrod also proves, rehashing an old airframe isn't always as cheap as it seems. Metal is cheap - man hours are expensive.

[Rotate too late]

Agreed, the current fleet of Tornado (for example) are flown and maintained by miracle workers and a horrendous amount of blood, sweat and tears. :D

[Lonewolf_50]

OOT,
It was also the US Army's expectation with the CH-47D to CH-47F; however, by the time the old airframes were stripped, cleaned, assessed and repaired the gap was very small - hence why the US Army ended up with a lot more new builds than the original plan. USN ended up in the same boat regarding the SH-60B/F remanufacture into SH-60R. All said and done, the "refurbish" didn't pan out, so new R's instead of the original remanufacture plan.

[PDR1]

blood, seat and tears. :D

Are you saying that at the first sign of blood they sat down and cried?

PDR

[Rotate too late]

Are you saying that at the first sign of blood they sat down and cried?

PDR

He he, sorted and probably!!!!! :ok:

[PDR1]

Just checking. I used to know a lot of people in the CMU at Marham...

:)

PDR

[Otterotor]

Originally posted by Lonewolf_50:

USN ended up in the same boat regarding the SH-60B/F remanufacture into SH-60R. All said and done, the "refurbish" didn't pan out, so new R's instead of the original remanufacture plan.

Otterotor:

US Marine Corps arrived at the same decision with their H-1 Upgrades. Rebuild Whiskeys & Novembers were not practical. They are all Newbuild Yankees and Zulus now.

[melmothtw]

While we're on the subject of new-build vs remanufactured, the Swedes had the same issue with the Gripen. Saab originally sold the E/F programme to the government as a remanfucture of the C/D, though in this case it seemed they were being a little naughty as it was known that only a very small number of parts could actually be cross-decked from one to the other (the windscreen and canopy, the outer elevons, the ejection-seat, the internal gun and conveyor system, and some other ancillary equipment). The contract was later amended to new-build.

I wonder if in the dim and distant past the Super Hornet programme wasn't ever pitched as a low-cost remanufacture of the legacy Hornet?

[Lonewolf_50]

I wonder if in the dim and distant past the Super Hornet programme wasn't ever pitched as a low-cost remanufacture of the legacy Hornet? I don't think so. I recall the dispute at the time being an objection that it even be named F-18 at all, given how substantial the changes were. (Is this really the same T/M/S or not?) There was a substantial cost saving if the aircraft was not established as an F-XX (number different from F-18). New airplane and all that (and thus forced competition and cost and more time to ever get them into the fleet ...)

[glad rag]

Was it Grumman or Boeing by that time?

[KenV]

Was it Grumman or Boeing by that time? Neither. McDonnell Douglas

[KenV]

I wonder if in the dim and distant past the Super Hornet programme wasn't ever pitched as a low-cost remanufacture of the legacy Hornet? Lonewolf is correct. The E/F was always going to be bigger than the classic Hornets and the classic Hornets were running out of service life. A refurb was never an option. The classic Hornets had run out of growth mass and space and the new Hornet needed to be bigger both for additional and more complex mission systems and for significantly more fuel. Carrier cycle times of the classic Hornet were too short. The big argument within USN was whether to go with the Super Tomcat which already had the needed fuel volume and systems volume and only needed to have some additional air-to-ground capability added, or go with a Super Hornet which would still have less fuel volume than the Super Tomcat and could not carry the Phoenix missile. USN decided that with collapse of the USSR and the Soviet fleet that a fleet defense missile (the Phoenix) was no longer required so that took that element out of the equation, and while the development cost of Super Hornet was much more than the development cost of Super Tomcat, the operations and support cost of Super Hornet would be much lower. So Super Hornet had far far lower life cycle cost. The Super Hornet also had stealth treatment which the Tom did not have and thus a much lower frontal RCS. It was a painful and bloody fight within Tacair but eventually it was decided to go with the cheaper option and Super Hornet won. Grumbling within Tacair continued for some years, but eventually it was clear that grumblers had no career future and that stopped.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf is correct. The E/F was always going to be bigger than the classic Hornets and the classic Hornets were running out of service life. A refurb was never an option. The classic Hornets had run out of growth mass and space and the new Hornet needed to be bigger both for additional and more complex mission systems and for significantly more fuel. Carrier cycle times of the classic Hornet were too short. The big argument within USN was whether to go with the Super Tomcat which already had the needed fuel volume and systems volume and only needed to have some additional air-to-ground capability added, or go with a Super Hornet which would still have less fuel volume than the Super Tomcat and could not carry the Phoenix missile. USN decided that with collapse of the USSR and the Soviet fleet that a fleet defense missile (the Phoenix) was no longer required so that took that element out of the equation, and while the development cost of Super Hornet was much more than the development cost of Super Tomcat, the operations and support cost of Super Hornet would be much lower. So Super Hornet had far far lower life cycle cost. The Super Hornet also had stealth treatment which the Tom did not have and thus a much lower frontal RCS. It was a painful and bloody fight within Tacair but eventually it was decided to go with the cheaper option and Super Hornet won. Grumbling within Tacair continued for some years, but eventually it was clear that grumblers had no career future and that stopped. *shudder* Some difficult times and choices. The manpower bill the extra NFOs added to the Tomcat option was another nail in that coffin ... :E

[Davef68]

Great DM aircraft ID again

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

It strikes me that almost every time the C-17 lease/buy is discussed the MOD/RAF is applauded for saving money and buying off the shelf. (other than the fact buying initially and not leasing would have been cheaper (thanks A-400...))

And also every time the Airtanker, UK specific brand of A-330 MRT is talked about everyone wishes we'd just bought the Airbus product off the shelf and not messed around with it.

Why is it different here? A victory for common sense is it not?


Presumably because in this case there is a British OEM who could produce the aircraft, and set to lose out if the OTS option is chosen. No chance of that with C-17 or Voyager!