A few thoughts that might help the discussion along.
Not all of the changes made to the UK Apache were designed to allow Westlands to 'rip off the MoD'.
The aircraft were bought against a requirement written around 1993, which was focussed almost exclusively on high intensity anti-tank capability in all weathers. The decision to use Westlands as the 'Co-ordinating Design Authority', with McD (later Boeing) as a sub-contractor, was driven by MoD concerns over the ability of a US supplier to meet UK airworthiness certification requirements. Sound familiar at all? The US Government wanted to sell us the aircraft direct via FMS, but the MoD weren't interested for the same reasons as not buying direct from the US manfacturer.
The decision to go via WHL was not, sadly, accompanied by the up front efforts in the MoD needed to allow transfer of US Army data to the UK. (This included just about all flight trials evidence, and much of the data needed for weapons certification - as usual in the States, the Army were the Design Authority, not McD/Boeing). ITARs were a major headache. The UK/US Apache MoU was around two years late, and its absence certainly caused problems (and delays) early on. Some reading this might wonder what the MoD have learned about buying aircraft from the US in the last 30 years.
Some of the changes made to the UK aircraft weren't all bad. The change of engine from T700 to RTM322 was wholly political, and came from outside the MoD (Hesletine at DTI, to be precise). It cost the UK an arm and a leg, but was carried out extremely well by Westlands and Rolls Royce. (The D model Apache's engine control systems had some less than happy aspects, and several US Army aircraft were lost to Nr droop due to engine lag - the 322 integration attracted very favourable comment from US Army pilots). The 322 also gave the UK Apache a useful boost in power hot and high, or so I've been told by those who flew it out in the Stan. However, it did increase empty weight, and moved the CofG further aft - never a good thing.
We also needed a new DAS - the one fitted to the basic D model at the time wasn't very capable at all, and the US Army were not willing to release much information about what was fitted, which made evaluating it a bit tricky. The UK system (HIDAS) was and remains a world class fit, and was subsequently offered (and taken up) as an option for US Apache FMS exports. I understand it has performed extremely well in the Stan, and the technology developed for it was used to make a major DAS upgrade to the Chinook possible at an affordable cost.
The aircraft also needed changes to the comms fit to make it work with the rest of the UK Armed Forces, especially Bowman. Other changes, such as addition of windscreen wipers and washers, and more recently flotation gear, were certainly not 'excuses for WHL to make money'.
We also went for a new rocket system, and the CRV-7 is way more capable (and a whole lot safer) than the US system. Again, AW did a good job in getting it on and cleared.
I would offer the opinion that AW's technical expertise in system and weapons integration (fairly important on Apache), as well as DAS is very good indeed, backed up by a top rate team in the UK at Selex. It's easy to barrack UK companies - I'd just suggest that buying direct from Uncle Sam isn't always the bargain, or panacea, some people think it is.
Some changes weren't so sensible. Some of the offsets mandated by the Government added cost for little reward. Examples of these were the composite stabilator, and UK built (or assembled) components like the stub wings. The late addition of a PFI training system didn't come cheap either.
But the fact is that any large defence procurement (and this was a very big one at the time) will have political aspects. The challenge for the MoD was, and remains, having the technical 'nous' to understand where excessive risk is being introduced as a result of politics, and the commercial nous to get the product at a fair price. I've worked extensively with both AW and Boeing, and I have to say that I've seen examples of truly amazingly high pricing and very 'sharp' behaviour from both, as well as very good behaviours. I've also seen some fairly average performance from the MoD.
Going forward, I'd suggest that those who are pushing for an FMS buy from the US Army need to make sure that all those pesky 'Lines of Development' issues are cleared away. Plus plans to address all those ratty safety and certification aspects that MAA have put in place - what 'worked' for Airseeker might not work for an Apache. Oh, and there will need to be a good plan for putting in those UK specific bits that the US Army might not be able to do (DAS and comms might be examples). Plus a UK based support system, training, Uk publications, etc., etc.
I suppose what i'm trying to point out is that buying highly complex weapons systems from a foreign country (and the US IS a foreign country) isn't all plain sailing. AW aren't all bad. Nor are Boeing. Nor are the MoD. But what is certain is that the process is complex and risky, whatever course is chosen.
Best Regards as ever to those having to make the big calls in Whitehall,
Engines