Apache delayed until 2010?

[Navaleye]

Another delay? surely not. Here (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTAIRFO.HTM)

[southside]

There's some good news. Eight Apaches have been modified to operate off of Royal Navy amphibious ships, to support amphibious operations. Modifications included anti-corrosion measures. By the end of the 2005, nine crews should be qualified to fly off of the carrier HMS Ocean, and the navy's two amphibious assault ships. More maritime-qualified crews are expected in 2006, along with certifying the Apache for operations off the Invincible-class aircraft carriers.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

So rather than the RAF getting it, which with our far superior level of technical expertise to support it, hugely more capable cadre of pilots and far greater understanding of all matters in aviation, would only be right and proper........now looks as if the bl@@dy fish ed's are going to get it.........god help us:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[timex]

So rather than the RAF getting it, which with our far superior level of technical expertise to support it, hugely more capable cadre of pilots and far greater understanding of all matters in aviation, would only be right and proper........now looks as if the bl@@dy fish ed's are going to get it.........god help us


Now where's my fishing rod..............

[engineer(retard)]

Thought you needed small hooks to catch lots of fish. Although you need a big hook to catch the hard fighting ones.

Retard

[MightyGem]

5 hours to think up a reply ABIW? You're slipping! :cool:

[althenick]

So rather than the RAF getting it, which with our far superior level of technical expertise to support it, hugely more capable cadre of pilots and far greater understanding of all matters in aviation, would only be right and proper........now looks as if the bl@@dy fish ed's are going to get it.........god help us

Actually not a bad Idea if you look here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=jhc%20servic&ALL=JHC%20servicability&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL=/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubacc/386/4102514.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

The bit that's really interesting....

"In the future, the introduction of the UK Military Flying Training Sytem (MFTS) should offer substantial scope for improving the delivery of more advanced flying training. The current training fleet does not have the capability to download operational training from advanced platforms, which means that there remains a requirement for pilots to conduct training on more expensive operational platforms, such as Apache. For example, in a simplistic comparison with his RN Merlin colleagues, an Army AH pilot with a total flying experience of 250 hours will have cost an estimated £1 million more to train than the RN pilot (at 2003 prices). This need for type-dependent flying training, with advanced skills being learned on specific advanced platforms (or their simulators) determines the differing nature of flying training pipelines within each Service."

And...

"For example, the RN pilot, who is training for a single-pilot, ship-borne role in a highly complex, integrated weapons and sensor platform, will have more experience on type than an RAF counterpart, but his overall total flying experience of 250 hours will be almost exactly the same. The skills required by the RN pilot by the time he reaches Limited Combat Ready (LCR) status dictate an absolute need for him to be trained on type (as opposed to flying an unrepresentative training platform). Conversely, the RAF, in crewing its Support Helicopter fleet with two pilots, can accept a less experienced ab initio pilot on type, having a senior and more experienced aircraft commander on board for every sortie."

[ZH875]

Apache delayed until 2010What's the problem?, It's only 1915 now.

[SilsoeSid]

If there's a PSI pilot amongst them, they wil be here any moment......now!

:rolleyes:
SS

[rivetjoint]

Maybe they could be retro-fitted with AMRAAMS and replace the SHARs air defence capability?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Now the Navy are taking control of them I guess it won't be long before they adapt it for "pingin":E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Rakshasa]

Grey Apaches.... *Shudder*

[16 blades]

Well, the Teenie Weenies have had them for a while now, and we all knew they did't have a clue what to do with them!

Still, sad to see that we have to go through another round of that, with the fishmongers, before they find their natural home, with operators that can actually USE the damn things...it's only delaying the inevitable! And you all know it!

:E

16B

[Two's in]

The aim of AH procurement was to keep a bunch of MoD (PE), (now DPA I believe) staff really, really, busy and fund the move from New Oxford Street to the Sainsbury's caff outside of shabby wood. That exercise has been hugely succesful as we enter the tenth year of navel gazing (with an "e" Navaleye), and to be able to engineer yet another delay speaks volumes for the creative genius of all those whose jobs depend upon it not fully entering service. Top notch stuff, I'm genuinely impressed.

[Rakshasa]

Oh I dunno. Maybe we can all do another procurement merry-go-round! Let's give the Gr7s to the navy, 28s flying dustbins to the army and we get the gunships! :E :}

[Devil's Aardvark 8]

The whole project was dogged from the start. It could all stem from the fact that the Army treats its aircrew as soldiers, who happen to be to be engaged in aviation.

It reminds me of an anecdote I heard at a Dining In (abridged for reasons of brevity).

"A very wealthy chap has triplet sons. For their 18 birthdays he decides to give them whatever they ask for. First son asks for an island so the father buys him Sark. Second son asks for a set of golf clubs so dad buys him Wentworth, Gleneagles and Royal Birkdale. Third son (of limited intellect) asks for a cowboy outfit. Daddy buys him the Army Air Corps".

[tucumseh]

"The aim of AH procurement was to keep a bunch of MoD (PE), (now DPA I believe) staff really, really, busy"

I think you'll find the majority of AH "procurement" staff were MGO's ILS team. Many moons went by before the DPA Gods realised they needed technical specialists because, surprise surprise, the aircraft contained technical stuff. (At roughly the same time CDP announced DPA didn't need/want such specialists - which made things a bit difficult). And numbers really ramped up when they discovered it had to be specified and then procured. But of course they saved on staff costs by PFI'ing the sim.

[MightyGem]

The whole project was dogged from the start.
From the start? How? The aircraft were delivered on time. What other aircraft/ship/tank etc etc was(I appreciate that there maybe some, it's just that I can't recall which)?
It could all stem from the fact that the Army treats its aircrew as soldiers, who happen to be to be engaged in aviation.
The only major delay has been the wait for the simulators, without which the aircrew cannot be trained. How does that relate to the above?

[tucumseh]

“From the start? How? The aircraft were delivered on time. What other aircraft/ship/tank etc etc was(I appreciate that there maybe some, it's just that I can't recall which)?”


“The only major delay has been the wait for the simulators, without which the aircrew cannot be trained. How does that relate to the above?”



The aim of the project was not to deliver 67 aircraft, but to deliver a capability. Aircraft are no use without trained aircrew, so the simulator is an integral part of the project and should have been delivered in time to train sufficient crews so that the defined ISD could be met. The ISD for an aircraft is usually defined as Qty x operational aircraft, or similar. A conscious decision was made to PFI the simulator in the full knowledge the timescale would compromise the ISD.

While I don’t know what the original ISD was in the endorsement, I am 100% certain operational aircraft were not delivered on time. Also, there is a contractual difference between “air vehicle” and “aircraft”. The former can’t fly. On AH, the difference was a MoD liability, not Westlands. The project was, and remains, late.

And at this time the same Directorate in PE/DPA delivered numerous aircraft projects (including a more complex simulator) ahead of time, under budget and with better performance than requested.

[Front Seater]

Okay,

Lets cut the rubbish out. Yes it is late and sadly there has been delays, and yes the programme is not perfect (lets not throw mud at all the others that are experiencing 'snags')....

But, with a Regt (nearly.... give or take a few crews) all set to go then if Defence asked for AH then it could provide the Lead Avn Task Force. and hopefully a limited Mar/SF capability.

So, whats the bone? It was late - fortunately AH wasn't required (so obviously the Risk taking by those in charge worked as they were lucky and got away with it!).

However, if anything kicks off around the world then you can be sure that AH, enough crews/techs and support will be availible to produce whatever capability you want.

I am not saying it is a perfect situation and many a day we all get threaders, but there is genuine confidence that if required then the job will be done very effectively.

As to RAF and RN - yes to all of the above. Of course you can train a Harrier pilot to fly AH as I am sure you could do the same with AH pilots. We all like to talk up our own aircraft - but as we all know, you have it or you don't.

Where both the RN and RAF are miles ahead though is an aviation philosophy, with everything geared up to flying and getting aircraft and crews flying....sadly we are still the poor cousins of aviation and with a superb capability (full of technology) we exist in a trench of the dark ages (now that is why people will leave and why no one is volunteering to go AH...IMHO of course ).

As echoed in so many other posts - LEAN, gapping or just simple undermanning results in those left behind having to do 2 or 3 peopels work. Fine for a short period of time but day in day out - then of course the PVRs/loss to civvie street exodus happens. Its not brain surgery, 3 jobs - 1 person (either all done poorly or one done to usual standard and other 2 suffer or some poor individual works his nads off until he can't go on any further and leaves!).
:D

[Role1a]

<fortunately AH wasn't required>

So why did British ground forces require US Marine Cobra Gunships during Telic

[vortexadminman]

God stop the bollocks.
AH is fine where it is.
Big project running a bit late=no brainer.
Army crews more than capable of driving it.
REME support can do the job.
The only problem is money and that is a true joint issue.

[timex]

So why did British ground forces require US Marine Cobra Gunships during Telic


Mainly because we didn't have enough LX Mk7's in theatre. Those we had (847) worked very hard alongside the now sadly defunct Gaz.

A lot of the USMC work for Brit Forces was done at Night , that was because they had a very comprehensive night Cover. This included A10, AV 8b's and C130 Gunships...

Also for the same reason the guys from 42 Cdo were going to use CH 53, not enough Brit medium/heavy lift airframes.

Leave the AH where it is, with the Army or the Junglies.

[tucumseh]

A couple of recent posts indicate casual acceptance of projects being late, which I find strange.

There seems to be general agreement about one thing – training, and hence the ISD, was delayed mainly because the simulator was late. There are a few golden rules to aircraft/equipment provisioning (the primary role of DECs and their Requirement Managers). Number 2 is - the simulator is afforded the full status of an aircraft, from cradle to grave. So, when the project is transferred to DPA, they (should) carry on the good work and avoid separating the simulator work, and certainly shouldn’t risk delay by PFI’ing it. Risk management is about avoiding the avoidable, and managing the unavoidable. A late simulator should be a low risk if you follow the rule – if you don’t, it’s a raging certainty. And bear in mind, while this was not exactly a MOTS job, the basic aircraft and training regime was nothing new.

Let’s all be glad panic didn’t set in. For example, it would have been tempting to ask Westland to cut down the aircraft production rate to align with training throughput, thus avoiding the embarrassment of hangars full of unusable AHs. But nobody would be that cynical, would they?

[Role1a]

Timex

My point was not about ownership.

It was about the AH being late into service. Front Seater claimed AH was not required therefore it did not matter that is was late.

I argue that it was required on Telic and the USMC had to fill the gap.

Having said that, it sounds like there was a lot of gaps, and AH perhap, should s not be taken in isolation.

R1a

[timex]

My point was not about ownership.


Role 1a, sorry if you thought that was directed at you. It was meant as a general observation to other posters.

As to the gaps, yeah we had a few in all areas.


It was about the AH being late into service. Front Seater claimed AH was not required therefore it did not matter that is was late.

Guess AH wasn't there then...

[insty66]

Vortexetc.......

REME support can do the job.


Is that why RAF Technicians are posted to 16 Air whatever?

That's not a dig at the aac btw but a fair demonstration of which service is best suited (imho) to operate and maintain what are very complex aircraft.

awaitng incoming

[Front Seater]

Role 1A,

Good points, but please do not confuse me trying to be optimistic and look forward with absolute disgust in the way that capabilities are gapped/late.

It really saddens me when people in the procurement world say, 'well - we are where we are, lets not dwell on the past'. So all of the incomptence is just forgotten about from people who could have made a difference 2-6 years ago, but have now been posted to new jobs (probably screwing them up as well!). Those in the key jobs now when the spotlight is on them have been handed a hospital pass from those that just didn't stand up and be counted before them.

As to the requirement for AH. Trust me, AH may have been talked about the wings and contingency plans probably worked up. The strengths and weaknesses of sending AH on TELIC have been debated in detail in this forum. There is no doubt in my mind, personally speaking, that if the tactical situation required it then AH would have gone - albeit with a bunch of QHIs and there would have been implications to the whole AH programme. Again, with TOW still in service one could argue where was the current 'AH' capability? As we all know the 847 crowd did a stirling job, but where was the AAC Lynx and crews if there was that much of a requirement (hmmh - that is right, 'protecting' oil fields with 16 Air Asslt Bde that didn't quite have a role or know what to do).

As to ownership - you talk about giving to the RAF/RN as much as you want, but from the crews perspective the Army operate best in that Combined Arms environment (standfast maybe 847). Anyone else will see a training deficit to place the vast technological and hugely capable aircraft in an all arms/Joint context. By all means put a GR7 mate in the rear seat and a GR 4 WSO in the front seat - good skills, but once they have mastered the airframe, sights and sensors, the integrated combined arms air manoeuvre battle is another training evolution that will take time. Not impossible for the light blue, just time.

However, I agree - if we are talking capability, then leave AH where it is - but if those in high places really want to harness everything the AH can do, then you better give careful consideration to the infrastructure, manning and support. Now that is where a good dose of Jointery could really improve the whole AH capability.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Front seater........This is not a dig.....I say again This is not a dig......for a change:ok:

"but if those in high places really want to harness everything the AH can do, then you better give careful consideration to the infrastructure, manning and support. Now that is where a good dose of Jointery could really improve the whole AH capability."

Is this a small admission that maybe, as many have pointed out previously and been shouted down for such herasy, the Army do not have all that is required to make this highly complex aircraft work.............just my spin on your previous post.

More importantly those in light/dark blue, in the main, simply do not want to work under direct control of the Army. The type of folks, I assume, you need are either of a technical or aviation ilk and their current working environment and general standard of living is far superior to their Army counterparts, 10 years Rotary allow me to make that judgement. In the current climate I would suggest that the volunteer list would be extremely short to say the least.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[SASless]

Someone posted something about the RAF and RN being more advanced in Aviation or words to that effect....whereas the Army treats its people as soldiers who do aviation.

I reckon he is suggesting those that handled the Chinook program that bought bunches that cannot be flown at Night or IFR because of software problems should be in charge of the Apache program too. No telling if the aircraft would ever become operational if that were to be allowed.

I wonder why the British Army just did not start a foreign legion and contract out the work....buy off the shelf US Army kit...hire combat experienced Apache crews....and get on with it. Or...is this new capability just for show and tell....and not for use in combat operations? The new Cobra would have been a good choice as well....even a US Marine can fly them....lord knows that must mean they are simple devices.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"I reckon he is suggesting those that handled the Chinook program that bought bunches that cannot be flown at Night or IFR because of software problems should be in charge of the Apache program too."

You could be forgiven for thinking that maybe he/she was in charge of both projects:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[timex]

I wonder why the British Army just did not start a foreign legion and contract out the work....buy off the shelf US Army kit...hire combat experienced Apache crews....and get on with it. Or...is this new capability just for show and tell....and not for use in combat operations? The new Cobra would have been a good choice as well....even a US Marine can fly them....lord knows that must mean they are simple devices.

So where would these Combat veterans / Mercenaries stand under the Geneva Convention?

The AH is very close to being on-line, The Cobra has been talked about for ages. Yes its a simpler Beast, just as efficient and IMO the one we should have chosen, but how would we keep Wastelands afloat if we did that!!?

[Front Seater]

ABIW,

No dig required - no dig required - no dig required!

Everyone that actually has close and personal links with the AH and that does not have a standard Army career profile to follow will totally agree with you.

It is not a dawning realisation, or sudden recognition or even an attempt at trying to look good - ask any AAC pilot and they will always say (shout!) - for christ's sake will someone get a grip of this, you are wasting such huge potential'!

In the interests of making something more professional, more capable, more efficient and still maintain a work/life balance - then the grass roots are totally transparent and truly Joint. However, ask someone involved in the AH programme who has a vested interest in their own personal career or New Year Honour and then you will always get the same old drivel about - well what would the RN know what to do with Land capability or the RAF doesn't have the same fighting ethos - what absolute tosh (but it will continue to delay the inevitable for another decade, whilst the rest of us just shake our heads in disbelief as we see how much better the whole AH piece could be if a few harsh (but essential decisions) were made by those that are too frightened to be seen to be playing for their own Service - unless that is that the current Comd JHC has the balls to put a stop to this waste and truly embrace Jointery!

So ABIW - no dig required, we are right with you!

[Nimbus265]

The choice of the word 'delayed' is very misleading. What they are refering to is actually an incremental capability release, rather than being fully 'operational'.

The process of incremental capability was how it was planned. The latest Release to Service(RTS) 7.6 was signed a couple of weeks ago, with another due towards the end of the year. These build on the Initial Operating Capability (IOC), which was declared in the last quarter of 2004. This means, that within the limitations of the current RTS - Apache is operational, can go on ops etc.

Each RTS release expands the operational/flight envelope/weapons release capability. There are many parts of the AAC as well as other organisations such as Boscombe Down working to clear the aircraft to the full, Certificate of Design envelope - but that has always been the plan!

Don't forget that there is now significant divergance between the US AH-64D model and the Apache AH MK1. The Release to Service process under GARP is very different from the US system, and is aimed as ensuring that the clearances given to the aircraft are as wide as possible, and more importantly the ac and aircrew can operate within that envelope safely.

Full Operational Capability (FOC) as opposed to IOC may not be achieved until then, but when it is declared the aircraft will be able to operate in all design environments, with all qualified weapons and to the full COD design envelope. Dont forget, the Apache AH Mk1 (formerly known as WAH-64D) is different from the USG model, and not just the engines. While there may be significant similarities in the airframe, the configuration of the US model avionic and weapon suite does differ, and this has to be test and qualified by the UK and this takes time, requires intensive testing, costs a significant amount of money and many parts of it such as M-TADS (required for FOC) are waiting on the US programme for development and manufacture.

Yes, there are programmes issues and there are clearly some areas which require more attention than others . IMHO it would have been fool hardly to try to rush IOC to support Telic; but at that time UK AH was just not ready.

[HEDP]

One could ask the question 'Why not invest and send the crews to the US at a cost of perhaps $350,000 apiece and then conduct a ten week differences course in UK? A large monetary investment per individual but the cost saving of trimming 15 weeks out of the UK course would more than compensate I suggest. A potential money saving and a significant time saving perhaps advancing the date for full manning state. Also easing the officer career issue as well perhaps.

HEDP

[fenestronuk]

From what I have heard training with the uS Army is nothing compared with our CTT and CTR. Capabiliuty comes from training foremost not aiorcraft.