Apache Longbow

[flygunz]

From defence helicopter, a bit of good news to put a smile on any gun pilots fizzer! And to the ill informed prophets of doom, the glass is very much half full!!

Apache does well on two fronts - Curran

Content: Radar and fire control equipped U.S. Army AH-64D Apaches deployed in Kuwait are turning in ‘exceptional’ mission capable rates.

‘It’s been really better than we anticipated,’ says Gen Mark Curran, CG of the Army Aviation Center, Ft Rucker, Ala.

‘It means we can support the sustainment and maintainability rates. And it’s a tough situation out there - the helicopters are split based, which adds to the problems.’

Deployment of a battalion of D model Apaches to Kuwait was a closely kept secret until recently. But the aircraft are part of a training exercise in Kuwait that has been running more or less permanently since the end of Desert Storm.

The battalion - the 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division - are normally based near Savannah, Ga., under the command of Lt Col Mark Jones.

The aircraft moved to Kuwait shortly after President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech.

In an interview with Defence Helicopter shortly after attending ceremonies marking the transition between Multi-Year Procurement I and MYP II Apache production series at Boeing’s Apache plant in Mesa, Az., Curran also commented on reports that A model Apaches had performed well during last month’s Operation Anaconda on the Afghani-Pakistan border.

‘The feedback we’re getting is that they are very pleased with performance of aircraft.

‘You look at the reports at what those aircraft went through and the fact they were able to return home, and it’s a testimony to the engineering design and the requirements that were set.

‘The bottom line is that Apache’s proven to be a pretty hardy aircraft in actual combat.

‘People were psyched a little bit. You had a situation with soldiers on ground in close contact there, and they needed close air support. Obviously we have an aircraft that can do all that.’

However, Curran said he had no direct operational information to impart. ‘I’m going on informal reports and frankly what the press has been saying,’ he commented.

Nevertheless, his remarks may signal a renewed outburst of enthusiasm for the aircraft during forthcoming budget cycles. Since operations using Apaches went wrong in Kosovo three years ago, Army and Congressional support for the aircraft has been muted. The mood has affected modernization plans, shifting many of them into the future, and this may now be changing.

But Curran cautioned: ‘It’s not over yet. We anticipate they’ll be in action again soon.’

[Orange Whip]

It'll probably prove to be a great asset. Shame it's the Pongos flying it and not us Crabs. I don't suppose they'll swap 'em for a few second hand Wessex?

[Muff Coupling]

We do not want or need Apache..we cannot afford it, we do not have the pilots to crew it and we do not really understand Aviation..Air ..yes! We have our own problems with FJ, Multi Eng Airlift and Rotary..let the Pongos have a share of problems with aircraft programs. Besides, its to late..brought and paid for by the Army!

[robspottydog]

All well and good but...............

The Yanks reckon on a C130 and a CH 47 to support each Apache in the field - fair really, given FARP requirements and fire rate. I am less than sure we have appreciated the fact, but I am sure a 4 tonner will do just as well!

:rolleyes:

[I.P Stop]

Muff, well said, let the pongos fly it, and deal with the problems etc.
As for robspotty why all this negative attitude -- you would think by all the comments made around the place that people want Apache to fail... so the ol' "told you so" type syndrome can set in. Get on with it. It is such an awesome platform and dont think that a four tonners will do, why dont you do something towards the push, what have YOU done.. ****** all probably.. so get back in your box. If you don't like it sign off. :mad:

[owe ver chute]

As is common with Apache threads on this forum, this has already degenerated into "the CRABS should fly it, cos the Army don't have the technological support", posted mostly by green eyed wannabe attack pilots from the junior service.
Lets not forget that the CRABS are short of trained pilots and technicians. If the Army did relinquish control of the Apache then Middle Wallop would have to become RAF Middle Wallop and the dozen or so Army NCO QHI's trained on the 64 would have to get transfered along with the fixtures and fittings, and I'm not sure that many of the QHI's would want that sort of drop in status;)
This thread started with good news about the Longbow performing very well in the desert. I'm sure it won't be too long before we hear more about the British 64's doing equally as well.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It used to be RAF Middle Wallop. Mind you, Trenchard Lines, used to be RAF Upavon, and before that a Cavalry Barracks - these things do go around in circles.

I'd venture to suggest that the Army has got to the point in Aviation that the RAF probably met around the Lightning. That is that it's no longer sufficient to be a competent aviator or technician, very deep type knowledge has become necessary. No doubt this is a bit of a shock, but they had to meet it sometime, and perhaps the RAF having lost the political battle to get it (and you can't blame them for trying) should do their best to help the Army learn the necessary lessons. Perhaps they are, but bar-talk I'm privy to suggests they could do rather more.

G

[owe ver chute]

G t H, on the day of the races, the Longbow and it's crew will form a major part of the "air campaign", just as the 64A's did in the opening hours of the 1991 gulf war, used to devasting effect, to ensure the improved safety of the fast jet mates, who had to cross into Iraq. The British Army aircrew who fly these machines will be more than ready to execute the missions given to them by which ever component commander pulls the strings.
It is worthy of note, that in the 91 Gulf war and also during the 99 Kosavo operations it was the "Commander Air" who wanted the 64's in thier orbat, to enhance capability, due to it's point target weapons, with little chance of collateral damage with devastating effect, it is a battle winner.
To the mud movers, this machine will become a important player, not only for SEAD but also in designating heavy targets.
If, a small number of CRABS are not doing all they can, to ensure the success of this machine, thier actions may hamper the capability of a British weapons platform, not just an Army one! Rest assured, this machine will be called upon to fight side by side with the boys in blue.:cool:

[ORAC]

Two sided street. The army has never been that good at integrating with other components. In future, the AOCC(L) and BCE are going to have to be fully integrated and supported to make it work.

In particular, if the Apache/Longbow is to be fully integrated into datalink net planning (L16/22); and to allow real-time targeting coordination and handover to platforms like the Jag via IDM etc, then the AAC is going to have to start integrating into joint planning instead of using them as the personal toys of the Corps commander.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Owe Ver Shoot,

Although I wouldn't use quite your words, I agree with you. I'm not a serviceman, I have spent 15 years trying to produce good kit for the customer, for 9 of those years that customer was the services, and occasionally it still is.

All three services are very professional, but they have different jobs and priorities. This tends to make them see things in different ways, and ultimately leads to the sort of daft rivalries that seem to have happened over Apache. I don't know what the solution is - possibly regular exchange of RAF Pilots to army squadrons and vice versa (and the Navy). I do know it was very frustrating when I worked for MoD and you were trying to do your best to get the best stuff out there for the best people to win the next war, and they spent too much time (at, it must be said Flag/Air/Field rank mostly) bickering about budgets and service rivalries (or where I was, report writing standards when all the services wanted to know was whether it worked or not).

Mind you, we still have never approached the stupity of the USA where a Navy, has it's own Army, which has it's own airforce - which doesn't trust the Navy's airforce and wouldn't even talk to the Airforce's airforce ! Goodness gracious, in the UK you can even refuel a Navy jet from an air force tanker and the army, marines and RAF regiment use the same rifles, that would never be permitted in the states.

Let's face it, things aren't that bad - but a bit of constructive banter doesn't do any hard. But, things could be better and it's worth pointing out where they could.

G

[robspottydog]

I P Stop ...well really!

There is no need for such a full fronted assault, I've been away for a few days.. working... sad I know.

The Apache is a fine aircraft, I've done stuff for it, trust me, it is merely the way we will support it that concerns me. We must give it proper credence, forgive me if my attitude was too negative ( it might have been beer!)

I hope and pray that it is given the help it needs and deserves, alas that bit isn't up to us:confused:

[Muff Coupling]

Robspot,

Nail on the head me lad.

Forget bitchy swipes on who should own it..I say again (see above) too bloody late!

All 3 services must get a handle on what the AAC have...a capability..not just an aircraft. We will need to support (i do not just mean motion lotion and bullets) them if the platform is to do what it does best..kill and destroy. In particular armour, prime movers and the odd building thrown in. It will need full integration in the air and EW picture, we should give the all the help they need.

We are clawing around for jobs at the moment (ASW will only be about 4% of MR 4 utility for example)...mutual support and facilitation of AH in the battlespace could be a growth market for us (ASTOR?).

We should be supporting not slagging!;)

[SirToppamHat]

Something to be said for all of the points above, especially the issue of cosidering the beast as a capability rather than a chunk of hardware that an individual Corps owns. Increasingly, the reliance on each other's information will become important if we are to make the most of a battlespace that is, after all, multi-dimensional. ASTOR might be thought of as an 'info-exchange hub' in this respect, as well as a pure sensor platform.

In order to project the capabilities of Apache, though, it will need to be moved to wherever El Presidente Tony wants it. The RAF is best to do this in quick time, but once 'in-theatre' (why can't we say Out of Area anymore?), it needs a base and the RN represents a pretty good option I would think.

One thing occurs to me though; I heard that Apache had not been delivered marinised? If true, presumably the costs of making them able to live at sea would be significant?

:confused:

[Muff Coupling]

Top Hat,

I understand your right on marinisation.

The thought of stopping the Wastelands production line to rejig for sealing up the airframe sent palpitations into the Treasury..especially after the cheque on the programme had been cashed!

Suspect that bubble wrapping / coccooning the beast and using the great grey steel tubs to get them to El Presidente's choice of location, will be the way ahead. Although I dont see this as the prefered option...with ferry tanks the machine can self deploy from E. Anglia to FRY...why go cruising? If required in place further afield quicker than National Insurance goes up...C17 trials already done!

Agree with having floating motion lotion station and fly through snack bar off shore though..cracking concept:)

[owe ver chute]

Before people start thinking about flying the 64's from HM Ships, the US Army don't like flying this machine over water, because the emergency canopy jettison doesn't work too well under water. This will no doubt cause problems with the morale of the aircrew tasked to execute these missions.
The USMC, who fly an awfull lot from ships, they fly twin Cobra, my guess is there's a good reason for this! And it ain't cos the Cobra carry's more missiles!
A quick solution, purchase a dozen W Cobra's from the USMC and give em to 847 NAS.
Then we can stop all this talk of flying 64's from ships.;)

[chapman1]

To my understanding, which is rarely coherent and sober, one reason the USMC do not use the 64 is due to its high centre of gravity, which can complicate and introduce additional dangers to deck landings in unfavourable weather. The cobra is much more sure footed, apparantly.

[DANGLEBERRY]

With the view to marinisation,from what i understand the US 64's came dry assembled,when Wastelands got hold of it they assembled wet with jointing compound, which added a fair amount of weight.Also Wastelands (I like that name) also had to devise a head folding kit for shipbourne use,this question being raised by a SGT in a Westlands intro to the Army.
I dread to think of what problems these horrendously expensive aircraft will have with corrosion at sea,especially with DLO in such strife with money.
However, the way we currently seem to be getting to and from any hotspots and waiting around to do anything, it would seem that marinisation of WAH 64D is the prudent thing to do.

[BossEyed]

Dangleberry, some clarification: WHL haven't assembled the aircraft wet: the components that came over from the US are essentially the same as every other country's AH-64 i.e. dry assembled. Any weight increases on the UK aircraft are not down to a jointing compound. Was wet assembly considered for the UK aircraft during the bid? Dunno, but I bet a non-standard production method like that would have put a few quid on the price, which is probably why it never happened.

The (manually) folding head was an essentially Boeing design, too - not WHL, although they were there... It's one of the UK-unique features of the Apache AH Mk.1 and may be "a larf" to use on a moving deck. It was part of the spec.

There are indeed a number of features of the Apache that may make the aircraft a challenge to take to sea. Not necessarily insurmountable though - for example, some countries put Pumas on deck, for which similar problems to those already identified in this thread can apply.