Apache problem ?

[The Nr Fairy]

As my 2-year old son would say, "Oh dear, Patchy, cwash !".. .. .Seen in today's Telegraph ( unable to give a link due to registration required ) :. .. .-------------------. .Army's new helicopter cannot fire missiles. .. .THE Army's new Apache attack helicopter cannot fire its Hellfire anti-tank missiles for fear that debris ejected on launching could cause catastrophic damage.. .. .The problem is confirmed by a Ministry of Defence document leaked to The Telegraph.. .. .The MoD was unable to say how much damage could be caused. It was working with the makers to solve the problem, officials said.. .. .But defence sources said there were serious concerns that the debris could damage the main or tail rotors, causing the helicopter to crash.. .. .The Army is buying 67 Apache helicopters at a cost of at least £27 million each. They are being built in Britain by Westland under licence from the US manufacturers Boeing.. .. .The US has restricted its Apache helicopters to firing missiles only during wartime and to launching them only from the right-hand side of the aircraft to try to ensure that the debris does not hit the tail rotor which is on the left-hand side.. .. .The WAH-64 Apache, which is due to take over the anti-tank role currently performed by about a quarter of the Army's Challenger 2 tanks in three years' time, normally carries a total of eight Hellfire missiles, four on each side.. .. .The problem comes amid worrying signs from Afghanistan that the helicopter, which is seen as providing devastating frontline firepower, may not be as effective as was hoped, particularly in hot, dusty conditions.. .. .Five out of the seven Apache attack helicopters sent to attack al-Qa'eda terrorists during Operation Anaconda two weeks ago were disabled by machinegun fire or ancient Soviet RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers fired from the ground.. .. .The five helicopters had to be taken back to the US base at Bagram, north of Kabul, and replaced by new aircraft flown out from America.. .. .Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said yesterday that there were also serious problems with sand and dust getting into the engines.. .. ."In northern Europe you would expect to have around 90 per cent serviceability for these aircraft," he said. "But we are hearing reports that in Afghanistan it may be as low as 60 per cent.". .. .The introduction of the Army Air Corp's first operational Apache squadron has already been delayed by at least eight months by software problems with the Full Mission simulator that will train the pilots.. .. .The Apache problem is the latest in a series of embarrassing equipment problems to hit the forces. The SA-80 rifle had to be modified at a cost of £80 million after it consistently jammed on operations in Kosovo and Sierra Leone.. .. .And the 12-year Bowman project to replace Army radio sets that dated back to the Falklands was abandoned 18 months ago. Soldiers operating in the Balkans were forced to use their mobile telephones to contact each other.. .. .During the Kosovo campaign the RAF ran out of precision guided weapons that could bomb through clouds.. .. .------------. .. .As a side-note to the paragraph about five out of seven helicopters being disabled, the thread already <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=46;t=002660" target="_blank">here</a> on Mil Pilots in my mind proves that actually the helicopter is designed to live in a hostile environment - no use having one if you're going to have to run away from Johnny Foreigner armed with a few light weapons, is it ?. . . . <small>[ 25 March 2002, 11:50: Message edited by: The Nr Fairy ]</small>

[ML Handler]

The journo who wrote this piece is an Ex Sgt in the Int Corp,clearly he is well qualified to comment about Apachie, I think not. For those who know him and his work his round up of military eqpt is a prime example of his broad brush rumour mongouring on acting as a puppet for IDS. His comments about SA80 and Sierra Leone are rubbish. Yes AH-64 has its problems but ultimatly it will be a fantastic piece of battle winning eqipment.

[FJJP]

Try this link:. .. .<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/25/napac25.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/25/" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/25/napac25.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/25/</a> ixhome.html

[Archimedes]

Mmm. He also writes - . .. ."During the Kosovo campaign the RAF ran out of precision guided weapons that could bomb through clouds".. .. .Is my nasty feeling that he thinks we had JDAM or somesuch justified, perchance?

[Muff Coupling]

Err who let this fellow near a broadsheet! The old Teledrums is normally fairly accurate, and "two thumbs" for military types, but some work is definitely required on this one.. .. .Since when was the Apache procured to take over the ANTI TANK role of the Challenger and not to replace Lynx AH 7? I am sure the Army (Cav chaps will be chomping at the bit) boys will have something to say. Tanks do not do anti tank per se..they destroy enemy armour and sieze ground in the direct fire role with a big **** off gun!Allowing the Inf boys to dig in and brew up! Supporting thingy's like Helis,(TOW, HOT, HELLFIRE etc) and Inf, (MILAN, LAW 80 etc) do generic anti tank. The Germans were cracking at this..ask the Russians! . .. .Unless, the bean stealers have something up their sleeves..like removing 25% of the Armys Armoured Regts from the OOB in 3 years time? Highly likely..now we have to payback Railtrack shareholders. . .. .The AH 64 D IS a bloody good machine. It is also a CAPABILITY, not just a weapons platform. If you talk to the AAC, I suspect they CAN fire Hellfire in anger. Debris from munitions is hardly a world shattering revelation..its been a problem for FJ / CAS types for years. Besides, the second generation Hellfire simulators were designed to be so realistic..you didnt need to fire practice missiles in peacetime, until actually required for the main event! I hear the Sim at MW is pretty realistic in this respect anyway. . .. .But lets be careful and not get to carried away with the Anaconda exploits.. 1 AH can only be in 1 place at any one time..58 (About a fully up to strength Regts worth)Challengers can be in a whole lot of other places (although slowly) and can slug it out with RPG 7 Vs and DSHK's. Apache may have some survabilty designed in, but there are limits (tolerance to 20mm not proof). A short range fired RPG into the Tail Rotor will change the outlook for a AH crew very quickly (remember Gothic Serpent- Somalia). . .. .The Apache IS merely, a 1969 concept, 1972 produced, Cold War weapons platform, designed to engage mass on the battlefield (armour for the un-educated) at max stand off ranges (8 - 10K). The cannon was primarly for point / area defence (the odd Soviet BRDM / BMP that just happen to stray into the battle position. The D Model incorporates the FCR into the weapons systems to enhance, integrate and update the weapons (rocket, gun, ATAM and Hekkfire K & L) capability..but it arrived to late, after the Wall came down. No more Soviet hordes! It could be argued, therefore, that the military thinkers now have a dilema in identifying a definative future role for the beast! . .. .If we are now talking "whites of their eyes" serach and destroy missions to support SF..different ball game with different loss rates (hence the ballsy but bruising stories from Anaconda...A models by the way, I do not think for one moment, D models would have been committed to this mission). Yes, the FCR can detect, classify and engage armour, APC, ADF vehs and light trucks...but not *******s in caves. You will need to get close in with DVO, PNVS etc to do that. . .. .£27M each..more like £43M and that is the problem, as a high % of the cost is the Longbow system. With all the UK variants D's, we can ill afford to lose them piece meal in the sort of missions currently required in Afghanistan. . .The US has a few hundred AH (A + Ds), they can afford the attrition. Especially has they need to trim down the fleet to pay for RAH 66 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . We will only have 48 D's at front line service. Remember, our original buy was for 168..some goons worked out that the D model was 3x more effective than the A..so "lets cut the order by about 2/3s and buy all FCR fitted"..brilliant. Just when you need, a stand alone weapons platform! (Ah..Cobra..cheap and cheerful)and you need them all over the bloody world!!. .. .Now, hordes of Iraqi armour in the open desert..YES PLEASE! Give the Apache D a mission it WAS designed and developed for..and I agree with ML Handler..watch out! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

[Low and Slow]

ML Handler,. .. .First off, this isn't down to Mike Smith. . .. .The Army released the story. Mike didn't dig it up. He just went with the press release. If you want to point fingers, point them AAEE at Boscombe Down. (I suspect). .. .SO WHAT if he's an ex-INT CORPS Sgt (actually S/SGT). He does a better journo job than 90% of the rest and unlike most of the guys writing for the red tops, has served. Unless you've served in the INT CORPS, I doubt you have any idea, of the vast range of experience the job requires. . .. .He is not writing for military professionals. He's writing for the morons that buy the Telegraph. Pitch the language to the customer.. .. .I certainly remember having huge problems with both Clansman and SA-80. Why is he wrong?. .. .The real question is why is AAC fixated on tank killing when what we really need is CAS. . .The world now has less Tanks than it did 10 years ago and the number is falling with every passing day.

[Ralf Wiggum]

Ah M L Handler,. .. . The good Sgt (S/Sgt) isn't good enough for Journos due to his lack of knowledge on the given subject. Mr Nicholls obviously is, with his experience so that we should sit up and listen when he reports about ANYTHING military.. .. . Don't believe eveything you read in the papers or hear on the News, particularly if it's from a so called military expert.

[mutleyfour]

Did the good Sgt or maybe SSgt ask for conformation about the above from DAAvn.. .. .Truth is as far as im aware is that the hellfire are fine and cause no real problem, however the rockets do!. .. .This is because the dispenser is designed for fast jets which clearly the apache is not. Therefore the exhaust debris could cause a problem with relation to the close proximity of the engine intake.. .. .How has this been overcome....simple..place the dispenser on the outside station rather than the inboard.. .. .Job done. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Finally wouldn't the telegraph save itself a whole lot of cash if it just printed the received press release from the services rather than print the same said release but with somebody else's name attached.. .. .One thing for sure however...Mike Smith was never very good at flying helicopters...ask Sarah Green. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 26 March 2002, 21:29: Message edited by: mutleyfour ]</small>

[ChristopherRobin]

It is a strange story - I do know that the Spams have dramas with firing Starstreak from Apache because of all the caggage that spits out - so much so in fact, that they won't issue a safety certificate for it to go up against stinger in the would-be AAM competition. Normally I'd say 'How Convenient' for the comp to be left to the American contender, but a) Have you ever seen starstreak fire? (lots of gunk) and b) A laser designated AAM? I don't think so!. .. .So have they got hellfire and starstreak confused? I mean you think they'd have spotted problems on hellfire before now!. .. .The rest of the article was crap anyhow - it says BOWMAN has been abandoned. Oh yes of course - we're just going to make do with clansman are we, because comms are too difficult?. .. .Hmmm - it hasn't been abandoned, because as we all know, overdue multi-billon pound programmes are never abandoned, they just keep going on and on and on - I mean, we won the first world war in the end didn't we?

[Lu Zuckerman]

Impingement of rocket motor debris (remnants of the plug and pieces of the solid propellant) on the tail rotors of helicopters is an old problem. On the Cheyenne they were concerned about not only the tail rotor but also the pusher propeller being hit by debris so they placed deflectors on the exhaust end of the missile carrier to deflect the exhaust downward. But, being of ribbed construction much of the exhaust was allowed to pass through while eliminating the solid parts, which were deflected downward. This was for the TOW missiles.. .. .When the Apache was designed it carried TOW missiles and FFAR rockets and I suggested that they incorporate the same deflectors on the TOW missile carriers and they refused. The Hellfire Missile was made available to the Apache designers later in the design process and the TOWs were eliminated.. .. .Much later while working on the Agusta A-129 I suggested that they incorporate the deflectors on the TOW/HOT missile tubes and they complied. Later on the 129 was equipped with a sighting system similar to the Apache and Hellfire missiles were installed. I do not know if the deflectors were retained.

[ML Handler]

Some v interesting comments, especially regarding Mike Smith and him asking if he would call an authoritative source to validate his story. Of course he won't other wise his story would fall apart before it went to copy. I agree that it is a sad day now that the 'Torygraph' appears to no longer be on our side. The only credible defence jouro nowadays is Mike Evans from the Times, at least he checks his stories instead of having them dictated them by MPs. Sadly the AAC are missing a trick AH-64 has been involved in some serious work in the past few months and has shone, they should be using these examples to counter Sgt (S/Sgt whatever...) Smiths drivel.. .What do you think Mr Wren !

[sprucemoose]

Point of order, ML Handler.. .I trust that when you stated that "The only credible defence journo nowadays is Mike Evans from the Times", you're talking purely about the broadsheets and tabloids.. .As a member of the specialist defence press, I would note that I haven't read a single good or accurate article about the Hellfire 'problem' this week, and suggestions that we are going to lose aircraft are just sensationalist.. .As noted by mutleyfour, DAAvn might have been a good place to verify this story, as I did with my last Apache article - perhaps a fluke as you feel none of us are "credible".. .Don't tar everyone with the same brush just because they're not supposed to be in your forum.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: All of you admitted Journalists and Journalist bashers.. .. .If you really want to know the history of the Apache I would strongly suggest that you contact the US Government Printing Office in Washington DC and request a copy of the following report which was commissioned by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of two US Congressmen.. .. .The report was written in 1990 reflecting the problems associated with the fielding of the Apache. Granted some of the problems have been solved in the interim but not all of them. Many of the problems that were associated with the A models are still there in the D models. The D model is made up of many state of the art systems that are installed in an airframe and dynamic system design that was initiated in the 1970s.. .. .The report is:. .. .APACHE HELICOPTER. .Serious Logistical Support Problems Must Be Solved to Realize Combat Potential. . .. .Since that report was written many new problems have manifested themselves. The report number is GAO/NSIAD-90-294

[Cyclic Hotline]

The GAO report referenced above is available at the address below.

GAO Reports (http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/form.php?entry=1)
Search for NSIAD-90-294 to read the report.


I would agree that any product from the old Hughes/MDHS/Boeing, (whatever), is not of the highest quality. They have continually suffered from the lowest quality of any manufacturers product I have operated (commercial helicopters).

Edited for clarity in new PPRuNe software.

[ML Handler]

Sprucemoose. .Fair dos, you are right and I am wrong. I should not tar every body with the same brush. Richard Norton Taylor, Paul Beaver, Francis Tusa (Sp?)Kim Singupta...good journos. I don't know you so can not comment on your work, I was not refering to the specialist press I know you take pride in getting it right and do, sorry if you took offence. I was having a pop at Mike Smith....come back Tim Butcher thats what I say. Some journos just know that they are going to start a ball rolling that is impossible to stop, sadly if you ask any member of the public today about Apachie the first thing they will think now is that it will 'shoot itself out of the sky' this is not true and I blame this on poor journalism.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: ML Handler. .. .Speaking of the Apache shooting itself out of the sky there was a case where the gunner of one Apache was targeting a drone tank on the ground but the Chain Gun was not pointed at the target instead it was targeting his wing man. When he fired the gun he blew the other Apache out of the sky.. .. .By the way the name of the helicopter is Apache not Apachie.. . . . <small>[ 28 March 2002, 21:58: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]</small>

[loalhigh]

The Apache has actually been committing self inflicted wounds for years. . .. .However when you only have relatively few of them compared to the US, then maybe it is worth raising the question of doing something about it rather than rubber matts on the stabilator and patching holes !. .. .Good on the UK for raising this one and just wait until you fire rockets !. .. .BTW it dosen`t stop you firing Hellfire or Rockets, ask the Taliban or Iraqi.. .. .The thing is built to take it, just normally from the other side !

[Lu Zuckerman]

Please excuse the excessive use of the servers

memory.

Here is some of the history of the Apache and its’ design evolution as well as explaining its’ poor performance in the field:

Even though the AAH-64 was a better design than the Bell AAH-63 Hughes should never have received the contract because they were incapable of designing and supporting the helicopter. There was minimal talent in the engineering department to fully flesh out the design and this resulted in the farming out of the design and construction of the major elements of the helicopter to include the fuselage. The gearboxes were designed and built by Litton Gear Systems. The hydraulic system was designed and built by Parker Bertea. The landing gear was designed and built by Menasco. Contract engineers at Hughes did the Basic design of the fuselage and Ryan Aeronautical finalized the design and Ryan also built the fuselage.

. .. .Hughes AAH-64 Design manager: Claim to fame was the design of the skid gear for the model 269.

. .. .Hughes AAH-64 Hydraulics design manager: Claim to fame was the design of the shock absorber on the 269-skid gear and he monitored the hydraulic servos in the tail of the Spruce Goose.

. .. .Product support was having a difficult time in supporting the LOACHs in Vietnam and the support for the civil 269s and the 500 was also minimal. And, the ramp up to support the AH-64 was a very steep curve, which required the hiring of additional personnel to include technical writers and technical illustrators on a contract basis.. .. .The support concept required by the US Army was based on a concept developed by the USAF. The Army did not want to invest a lot of technical schooling on a first term enlistee so the first term enlistee was sent to a basic aircraft maintenance school that taught helicopter basics and equipped the man to use tools. When the enlistee finished his first hitch and he re-upped he would then be sent to a factory school on the AH-64. The concept required that the first time enlistee would work under the guidance of an experienced mechanic and use the technical manuals developed to support the Apache. The manuals addressed the first echelon maintenance on every component on the helicopter. If the newbie was directed to remove a specific part he went to the tech manual and looked at the picture of that unit. The instructions were highly simplified telling the man to use the green screwdriver and insert it in a specific screw and he was told to turn the screw counter clockwise until it came out. Next to those instructions was a picture of a clock and counter clockwise was illustrated. These books cost about $5000.00 per copy and because of that they could not be brought out onto the flightline so Hughes had to put all of the manuals on either microfiche or on microfilm so that they could be printed out. The technical manuals and the additional rewrite cost over $16,000,000. The tech manuals were like old medical manuals that showed the different levels of the internal workings by peeling back the individual pages.. .. .

What was eventually demonstrated was that the Apache was too complex for US Army mechanics and contract mechanics had to be hired to perform the first and second level maintenance.. .. .

Regarding the poor reliability and maintainability of the Apache, these concepts were totally alien to Hughes and they were totally ignored. As senior maintainability engineer I identified 27 different problems that impacted Maintainability and availability. It was within my purview to send this material directly to the Army R&M engineers in St. Louis, Missouri. Somehow it got sent to the assistant chief engineer and he refused to allow it to go out because I had used the term shall instead of will. By the time I had located an Army writing style manual to justify the use of shall as opposed to will it was too late as the material; was time sensitive and the design was frozen. Almost every one of those 27 items manifested themselves and many were included in the GAO report referenced above.. .. .

The manager of R&M was a quality engineer with no background in R&M. The Reliability manager was a statistics engineer with no experience in Reliability or helicopters and the manager of maintainability was a former records clerk on the OH-6 program and he had no experience in maintainability. The design manager would not let the R&M engineers talk to the designer or the vendors and he would not let us review the design drawings. What he did do was to gather up several hundred drawings and call us in and he gave us an hour to review and sign off the drawings or to possibly reject them. If we didn’t finish the job in that one-hour the engineering department would sign them off for us. It would normally take an hour to review the average drawing and this was followed up with a discussion with the designer of that part or system. Naturally, we could not review the drawings for impact on Reliability and Maintainability and what was bad was incorporated into the design with no over sight.. .. .

I could go on-and-on but I think you get the point.. .. .

One other thing, the Apache was originally bid at 6 Million per unit (A Model). That eventually went up to 16 Million and now with the added equipment (D-Model) I can’t count that high.. .. .

When MacDac took over the major part of the engineering management staff was let go. Most of them ended up at Hiller and they drove the FH 1100 program into the ground in one year.. . . . <small>

[ 29 March 2002, 03:21: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]</small>

[frequent flier]

ML Handler,

I am a little reluctant to accept strictures about the inaccuracy of journos' coverage of the Apache from someone who cannot even spell the name of the aircraft!

[Mick Smith]

Thanks for pointing that one out Frequent Flier!

Generally it is my view that if you're in there to throw mud it's best to be able to take it but so much has been thrown at me here that I think it would be best to point out a few facts.

M L Handler.
I have no idea if you actually know me and who I am because I don't know who you are. But from the way you have gone about things on this thread I suspect that you aint quite as junior as you claim to be.

For the benefit of everybody else who reads this thread I was a sergeant (not a staff-seargeant) in the Int Corps. I am now a journalist and have been for about 18 years. I am not sure why M L Handler jumped to the conclusion that I didnt check the story but for the benefit of him and everyone else this is how it came about.

There was no press release. Along with a number of Fleet St hacks, I was leaked a copy of a Restricted document which was the briefing paper for CGS for a lunch with defence correspondents held on 4 March 2002. Most of them only got a few select pages. The Telegraph got it all. You may have noticed a story about squaddies being allowed to bring their girlfriends into camp to stay overnight. That story came from that lunch. But clearly Mike Walker had to be ready for any questions that might be thrown at him and so he was briefed on a number of issues, one of which was the Apache.

This is how the ref to Apache appeared in his briefing notes:


"APACHE

Line to take:
WAH 64 is a world class attack helicopter. The programme is within budget and manufacture is running on time. Our first operational squadron will be deployed in Aug 04. Our pilots are undergoing training in the USA with state-of-the-art simulator training starting in UK in Jun 02.

[If pressed] A problem has been identified with the Hellfire rocket involving damage to the aircraft from motor debris on firing. We are working with the manufacturer to find solutions."

I'm bound to say that, no doubt like some of you, I found this hard to believe. The aircraft has been flying, and firing Hellfire missiles, for ages. How could something be wrong. I checked with MoD press office. They knew nothing about it but rang me back to confirm yes there was a problem with debris damaging the aircraft. How much damage I asked. They couldn't say so I did some research and found out that during one exercise in 2000, 19 out of 43 US Apaches had sustained damage caused by propellant grain spacers ejected from Hellfire missiles during launch.
An article in Defense Daily International on November 30 last year said that "a pair of safety of flight messages released in October issued wartime restrictions on the use of Hellfires on Boeing AH-64 Apache attack and Bell Helicopter Textron OH-58D Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters. These messages restricted use of Hellfire missiles to wartime use and, in such a case, the launch would take place from the right side of both aircraft, away from the tail rotor."
Was this the problem the briefing paper was talking about, yes it was. The US thought they had found a solution, Boscombe clearly wasnt so sure, reassuring really.
So I filed the story and, apart from a number of cuts made in London to fit the story into the page, which unbelievably included the removal of the quote from the MoD document, that is how it appeared. One of the cuts unfortunately turned this, which I accept could be ambiguous:

"During the Kosovo campaign the RAF had no precision guided weapons that could bomb through clouds and ran out of those it did have forcing pilots to use dumb bombs that hit only two per cent of their targets."

into this:

"During the Kosovo campaign the RAF ran out of precision guided weapons that could bomb through clouds."

which as Archimedes rightly pointed out is inaccurate.

But the rest of it is true. Indeed a pal who knows about these things told me he had seen pictures of US Apaches flying during Anaconda with Hellfire on the right-hand side and TOW on the left

Muff Coupling

Sorry you aren't aware that the Apache is due to become the army's frontline anti-tank weapon. It's frankly been fairly well publicised. As for your pessimistic suggestions that this may signal a 25 per cent cut in the Royal Armoured Corps tanks, sadly you're right and wrong. It will and it has nothing to do with Mr Byers's decision to pay back the Railtrack shareholders.

An MoD study (entitled the ARMOUR/ANTI-ARMOUR STUDY, FORCE STRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS) which was leaked to the Daily Telegraph last year, looked into the future requirement for tanks in the light of the introduction of Apache.

Dated 4 April 2001, it began with the words:

"At the PPSG Meeting on 23 Nov 00 it was agreed that the number of frontline battle tanks should be reduced by 25% as the Contracted Force comes on line in 2007."

It then went on to discuss how this was done, as reported in the Telegraph at the time

If anyone still believes my story to be untrue, I suggest they wait until the rest of the world gets back to work on Tuesday and ring the MoD Chief Press Officer who I am sure will tell them the story in the Telegraph was true.

Incidentally, I didn't say the Apache was going to shoot itself down, that was the Sun and the Mail following up on the Telegraph's story. Oh yes, the other main defence correspondent and newspaper to follow up on the story the next day, Mike Evans in the Times.

M L Handler you say it isnt true that the SA-80 kept jamming in Sierra Leone. I am afraid it did. That was a story broken by my predecessor Tim Butcher in the Telegraph, a scoop that he never quite got due credit for because the MoD insisted it wasn't true.

Sadly for the MoD a few months ago in a series of interviews in Soldier magazine with squaddies on how good the A2 is, a para who had been in Sierra Leone compared it favourably to the original which he said, surprise surprise, kept jamming when he and his mates were in Sierra Leone.

Finally, it isn't my job as a journalist to reproduce MoD press releases, or tell people things they already know. It is my job to keep the public informed of what they don't know. Writing about problems with kit, isnt taking a pop at the armed forces. I spent 15 years in the army. I firmly believe that our servicemen and women are a match for anyone.

But the same cannot always be said about the kit. So if I find out that there's a problem with a piece of kit that you the taxpayer is paying for, or you the serviceman or woman is using, it is my duty to make it widely known. What I wrote about the Apache was true. No doubt the problem will be solved by the time it comes into service but at least people like the Defence Select Committee will now be asking the questions to make sure it is and if that had happened with the Mk 2 Chinook, it is just possible that a number of your former colleagues and a number of my former colleagues might still be alive today.

Anyone who wants to continue this debate can do so off-thread by emailing me on [email protected]

[owe ver chute]

Mick, I have done some diggin' about and I have found the artilce from the Defense Daily dated 17 Oct 2001 written by Mark Strass.

"US Army restricts Hellfire missiles with ATK motors to wartime use only"

The Army has restricted the use of AGM114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) motors to wartime operations only after debris ejected from the missile during launch damaged several AH64 attack helicopters during exercises in Europe last year, the service said.

19 out of 43 AH64 involved in Op Victory Strike 1 experienced horizontal and vertical stabilator and aft fuselage damage as a result of firing Hellfire missiles. Investigation determined the debris ejected from the missile with ATK motors installed had caused the damage.

The missiles affected by the restriction include the AGM114L, 114C, 114F and 114K.

Though the damage to the rear of the aircraft was repairable, the US Army FEARED that debris ejected from the missile COULD damage the main or tail rotor, which COULD in a worse case scenario, cause the the aircraft to go out of control and crash.

Furthermore, if the missile are to be fired from an Apache they would be limited to firing from the right outer pylons only, limiting the number of missiles to 4 instead of the normal load of eight.

A similar restriction was placed upon the OH-58D for the same reasons.

It seems to me the solution will revolve around changing the missile motor, or modifations to the units already in stock. That can't be too hard, though I not a rocket scientist!:cool:

[Jeep]

Give the problem of a new rocket motor to them chaps on Scrapheap Challenge. With a bit of sugar and a copper cone from an old lampshade I bet they could make something that didn't spit debris at the rotables.

One thing I am a bit suspicious about though, is the sexy company video that says many parts have been balistically tested. What the hell fires backwards from a hellfire that is more powerful than a frozen chicken - isn't that the norm?

[agentprovocateur]

Are you saying we've been firing frozen chickens at the Taliban???

[Mick Smith]

Sorry ARSSE. I spoke to my man in the MoD who said the use of the word rocket in this context just showed what a numbskull the man who compiled the brief was. I don't know who that was so cant say but it was definitely Hellfire he was supposed to be talking about as shown by Owe Ver Chute's more extensive quote from the US article I cited earlier. I'm glad he highlighted the words FEAR and COULD cos anyone looking at the article at the start of the thread will note that those were precisely the words I used but I guess I will now get accused of plagiarism!

I am even less of a rocket scientist than Owe Ver Chute so I wouldn't even begin to propose a solution but I am told that the fact that Hellfire is rail-launched is an issue here, hence the alleged use of TOW on the left hand side of the US Apaches in Anaconda?

[Muff Coupling]

Mick Smith,

Sorry, if I have added to the misery of undervalued journo's. It would appear everyone has had a go at the press on this thread.

The old Teledrums generally does a bloody good job..and rightly it is down to some CivSec undergrad to put out the release..rockets or missile? most Sun readers will not get the difference anyway.

Must however, still take issue on "anti tank"..the AAC stopped using that term when Scout AH1 SS11 was finally OSD. I think you will find that this anology is purely political. Army Aviation has a remit to aquire a class of helo through the Air Staff and MOD Comptroller Aircraft to conduct anti tank ops. If they tried to purchase an aircraft outside of anti tank or the light recce, liaison, lift role.. the junior service will cry foul..hence the initial argument on whether the Lynx should or should not have gone to the RAF. They body swerved the play by fitting TOW and replaced the Scout, hence the Lynx Mk1 TOW hailed the still current role and widely known term (military speaking)..Armed Action!

But has you say..some p***ker in the MOD Corp Media section still thinks the Skeeter is the latest battlefield helo anyway!

Good post though...cheers! ;)

Luke,

Nothing startling about civilians, being used to help bring in a service aircraft. P&W and McDD had loads of contracted staff at the 36 TFW Bitburg in Germany to bring in the F15A back about 1975 -78. The engines in particular were deemed to technologically advanced for USAF mechs to run riot on!

Bear in mind, that the average comprehension age of ability for US service personnel is about 10 - 12 year old. Equipment / training manuals are therefore janet & john level accordingly. Hence the high cost of breaking down documents into bite size chunks. No reflection upon the good old US Forces intended..we too are having a similar problem. I hear that about 70 - 80% of Infantry soldiers are barely literate on joining up. :eek:

Interesting post on Apache history though:)