UK maybe procuring AH-64E.

[chopper2004]

Confirmed 50 airframes by 2020

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-aviat...placement.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

[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, the Apache contract would be to remanufacture existing airframes 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]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

'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]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

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?

[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/fi...gdom_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?