AH-64 Apache

[ORAC]

I don't know if this will scare the enemy, but by God it scares me. You can spend as much as you like on precision weapons; but if you can't or won't find the right people to the designation and train and equip them properly................

I also find ther concept of only qualifying only half the AH-64 crews strange. Unless they mean 50% of each crew?


Janes INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JUNE 01, 2002:

The UK armed forces are planning to expand both the number and size of their tactical air control parties (TACPs). According to UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources, the future vision is of an enlarged matrix of TACPs dedicated to forward air controlling (FACing), each with a full equipment set (including terrestrial and satellite communications facilities, plus target location/designation systems) and a full complement of personnel, of which at least one is qualified as a primary FAC.

As a complement to the TACPs, it is foreseen that designated secondary FACs, currently trained to the same standard as the primary controllers found within the TACPs, will in future undergo a shortened course (two weeks instead of four) with the object of proliferating the total number of 'eyes' on the battlefield able to understand target location and marking. Among them would be secondary FACs aboard Apache attack helicopters, Warrior OP vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles who, by exploiting digitization, would be able to feed additional target data into the TACP matrix.

The long-sought increase in the personnel establishment of UK TACP from two to four personnel (see IDR 6/1999, pp56-61) has now been officially authorized and the necessary manpower found (in most cases). The British Army's 16 Air Assault Brigade already has its quota of three TACPs, as does the Royal Marine 3 Commando Brigade and the UK-based 3 Division. The Germany-based 1 Armoured Division has none as yet. The next step, still an aspiration, will be to double the number of divisional TACPs to six, bringing the overall number to 18.

It has been decided that 1 Division's TACPs should be carried in Warrior tracked vehicles, as opposed to the smaller and less mobile Spartan carriers or Land Rovers currently available (3 Division will have to persevere with the smaller Spartan). The Warrior OPV (observation post vehicle) variant already has an integral target location facility, and though a laser target designator would not entirely be operable from under armor, there is an existing blanking plate to which the mounting bracket for the FAC's LF28 designator could be secured.

The officer commanding a TACP (OC TACP), normally its primary FAC, desirably has bi-service experience. The majority are ordinarily drawn from the British Army. However, the latter currently has insufficient captains with the right qualifications, while the Royal Air Force (RAF) no longer has pilots to spare to send on ground tours.

At the moment, therefore, the RAF Regiment, the air force's ground defense organization, provides the majority of OC TACPs (albeit paid for by the British Army). 3 Division has two RAF and one Army OC TACP, while 3 Commando Brigade's three OC TACPs are found from the Royal Marines, and all three of 16 Air Assault Brigade's OC TACPs are from the RAF Regiment. The Army has been tasked to find three suitable captains for 1 Division.

The CAS (close air support) applications of the British Army's Longbow Apache AH Mk1 attack helicopter fleet are the subject of a current evaluation, the feasibility and utility of ground FACs calling upon the Apaches for support being assessed, as well as the use of the Apache crews themselves as airborne FACs (ABFACs). The intention is that 50% of Apache crews should be ABFAC capable, their aircraft already being fitted with designators and IDMs (improved data modems), and their crews already being able to operate "in the third dimension" (ie being attuned to air matters). However, it remains to be determined what the optimum split between FAC and Apache crew training should be - "there's a lot they already know, but they still have to understand how to pass information to the other agencies".

The standard issue ground-radio is currently the UK/PRC346 TacGA V/UHF transceiver intended to replace the old AN/PRC-113 HaveQuick and UK/PRC344 sets. Continuing problems encountered with both the TacGA's receive and transmit ranges are understood to have led to the raising of an urgent operational requirement (UOR) for a new multiband radio specifically for FACs.

Desirably this would have the multirole capabilities of a radio such as the Harris AN/PRC-117F (C) or Raytheon PSC-5, including satcoms. However, the worsening capacity problem in the UHF satcoms band that both of these use may compel a move to a higher frequency range. Meanwhile, the authorized link to the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) remains the existing unencrypted, fixed-frequency Clansman HF radio (UK/PRC320, VRC321), which has been supplemented by 'borrowed' satcoms radios such as the PRC-117D model.

(ps. The correct data code for Airborne FAC is FACA - not ABFAC)

[MATZ]

I note with interest the comments on the PRC 346.

I use these radios on a daily basis, and with a recieve and transmit range of up to 100nm, they work very well. Yes, line of sight helps, but speaking to a 8-ship formation of hercs (and crystal clear as well), 75nm away is OK for my Unit.

The only problem my Unit has identified with the radio is the lack of an audio warning of a low battery, and yes, they could do with an encryption device along side HQ II. (The American version of the radio has this)

What more do you want from a radio that was part of the Bowman system that sneeked through??

MATZ :)

[A Grey Man]

Dear Santa,

Please may I have..

1. SATURN upgrade.
2. Secure HF with chirp sounder (fitted to aircraft for long range comms).
3. IDM compatability with all TACPs.
4. BOWMAN to be funded properly for aircraft.
5. Compatability with US SINCGARS.
6. Someone to co-ordinate all the different J6/Comms/Digitization issues that have so much commonality but projects are worked on in isolation.

And a DAB radio for my car please....

And then I wake up with my head in a bowl of cornflakes......more chance of getting a DAB radio than 'my' wish list.

:)

[ORAC]

What you really want are JTRS radios. The US army initially intends to buy 104,285 vehicular and 2,115 helicopter radios as well as 560 vehicular sets for the USAF TACP vehicles.

The USN is expecting to undertake procurement for their ships, the USAF for aircraft and special forces a hand-held set for dismounted soldiers. The total initial DOD purchase is estimated at 260,000 sets.

JTRS radios are totally software driven and can support any waveform in any band and can simultaneously Tx/Rx on multiple frequencies using the one radio.

inital waveforms supported in Cluster 1 include:

Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS),
Enhanced SINCGARS Improved Product (ESIP),
HAVE QUICK II,
Ultra High Frequency Demand Assigned Multiple Access (UHF DAMA),
High Frequency Single Sideband with Application Link Enabling (HF SSB with ALE),
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS),
Link-16,
Very High Frequency AM (VHF AM),
and Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW).

JTRS (http://www.navicpmart.com/news/newstmp.cfm/v/001~~..%2Fnews%2Fmw_200103_2.cfm.html)

JTRS FY01 Report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2001/dot-e/army/01jtrs.html)

Raytheon (http://www.raytheon.com/c3i/c3iproducts/c3i013/images/ss_jtrs.pdf)

[MATZ]

Saturn is coming, but slowly! (for ground ops anyway)

We were meant to trial it last autumn (on SSII), but it has only just reached the unit in a "test stage" now. Unfortunately, it still requires a lot of work done. Perhaps we will have it in a year or so from now.

Never mind, another project years late entering military service won't go un-missed........

As for giving RAF Tac AT aircraft Cougar.....

or TAC SAT....

Wait out........... for a long time I expect.

MATZ :(

[owe ver chute]

ORAC, by my reckoning 50% of each crew is half of the Longbow crew! Why would this percentage worry you? It is a great deal more aircrew than are currently trained ABFAC. Even if two ABFACS were seated in each aircraft it would still be 25% of the force ABFAC trained! Again that is a higher ratio than current units have.
Numbers, numbers!

[canberra]

why do facs have to be officers? military air traffic controllers are a mix of commisioned and nco so why is it that facs are comissioned? do the crews call up on the radio and ask for the facs rank before commencing an attack? some how i doubt it! i was 24bde and our facs were aac and a sapper, the aac was an x raf loadie. but i have to ask why they have to be comissioned after all the army trusk cpls to fly helicopters why cant they be facs, i think the answer may be tradition, but is it a tradition or a bad habit?

[Sloppy Link]

Canberra,
An AAC ABFAC is in fact an NCO/WO/Officer. As a general rule, few Officers go down this route as they unfortunately get spannered with other"Officer" type jobs and can't spare the time it deserves. The task is mainly an NCO/WO preserve. I may be wrong but certainly, Cpl's have attended the course, the only thing is, I think they are held as limited CR until they achieve Aircraft Commander status and the subsequent promotion to Sgt that goes with that. In real terms that means they can only FAC under supervision.

[owe ver chute]

As a former AAC ABFAC I can offer some light on the subject.

1. The reason the TACP FAC is a Commisioned Officer is because he commands a team of four or five personnel and will operate in remote area's more often than not. They are also responsible for abvising the Brigade staff on FAC and CAS matters. It sounds better coming from a Rodney! I recall that due to a shortage of Army Officers to fill the posts, the establishment were looking at allowing AAC WO's do the job, if they had previously done the job of an ABFAC.

2. Any AAC pilot who attends the FAC course will be CR'd when he achieves the requesite number of strikes ( hits preferably!) regardless of being an aircraft commander or not. He will however have to fly with a qualified aircraft commander to satisfy the crew composition. I was that man on many occasions. With hindsight it was alot of resposibility for a Cpl!

3. With reference to Longbow drivers becoming ABFAC's I can't see any problem with that, but I also reckon that the Longbow will be called upon to provide CAS rather than call for it!

[Muff Coupling]

Couple of thoughts here..

The AAC have stated that Apache pilots will be trained to fly the aircraft from both seats, but only the front seater will be trained as a Tac Commander. ABFAC 50%?...mmmmmm.. if this only the front seater, this chap is going to be very busy. I would have thought ALL apache crew to be trained as ABFACs, to maximise CRM and the platform.

What is more interesting is the training time for these poor geezers, it just keeps adding up; 6-7 months CTT (if they are lucky- night, weather, servicable airframes, etc etc), probablytalking 9 months, extra time for Instructor pilots, 4 weeks Tac training, simulator training 1 week, about 1 year on operational work up, EW,QHTI, Air Weapons courses for some, E&E, RtoI for all and now 4 weeks for 1 in 2 at JFACSU!!! Bloody hell, just get them qualified and their tours will up!

Almost as long as our F3 OCU...no end in sight!:(

[Bob_Weight]

:rolleyes: The doctrinally pure amung us (are there any?) will be aware that CAS is dead, long live CIFS (Close In Fire Support).
I am sure that the rear seater has enough to do flying the aircraft on the NVS in and around trees/wires while slaving the gun to provide local protection from small arms/manpads. Your having a laugh if you thing he is also going to call in Fast Air. In addition, the front seater is the chap with control of the sight (TADS) and he is only one who can operate the LASER. I expect the 50% figure will be more than enough if achieved.

[Devildawg]

Agree with Bob; far fewer than 50% of battlefield heli crews are qualified FACs at present; what makes anyone think this will change with Apache? Trying to secure a space on the course is a major task, then there are the problems with maintaining currency; unless we are going to regularly send crews to the States we will never be able to achieve this with the assets available in UK. Certain JRRF land formations have cried out for additional TACPs / FACs for years but can't have any more for just this reason. Only when ops are imminent are FOOs/Recce callsigns and the like trained up as emergency FACs.

[canberra]

just read an article in the sunday post about army horses. did you know the army has 560 horses? and how many helicopters? what century are we in?

[Green Bottle]

Canberra,

Horse = £000's I guess (not being a horsy type) at most, and many to the Army are probably free - from sanctuarys etc (saw a recent bit of Army PR).

Helicopter = £000,000's

therefore 1 helicopter = cost of all Army horses and some.

PR value to UK of horses - Trooping of the Colour etc. is immense.

Getting rid of horses in the Army would be a big mistake for the Army and Great Britain.

Right enough defending the Army - The RAF are great the Army aren't!

GB

[The Nr Fairy]

Not news to the guys who've flown them to Shawbury I suspect, but check here for BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2379501.stm) on the matter.

If they're in storage, can I borrow one to play with for a bit ?

[BEagle]

'Bodged PFI deal' they say?

Hmmm......

[doh-nut boy]

2007 when the airframe is 32 yrs old.

We may get it before commanche is replaced.

[thom]

Check out this piece from the BBC dated 23 May 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2003353.stm

I don't suppose much has changed?

[Heliport]

from the BBC

Dozens of the Army's new £3bn Apache attack helicopters will be kept in storage for four years due to a shortage of trained pilots, the government's spending watchdog has said. Eleven of the 25 helicopters so far delivered - out of an order for 67 - have been mothballed in a move described as "wasteful" by the National Audit Office.
The NAO's report warned that although the Apaches were being delivered on time, a private finance initiative (PFI) deal to train aircrew was three years late. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38406000/jpg/_38406587_apache150_ap.jpg
Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin blamed the government for the delays. "The delays in this programme mean that we have more than an entire squadron of attack helicopters sitting in sheds. They should be flying by now," he said.

The delay means dozens of aircraft will have to be stored away in hangars while the completion date for the initial training programme for 144 pilots is put back from April 2004 to February 2007.
The NAO warned the delay in training also put in jeopardy the delivery of 16 more Apache helicopters, scheduled for February 2005. That would reduce the Army's capability, it added. Contractual problems over the supply of spares could mean the Apaches kept in storage may have to be used for parts.

The initial order for 67 Apaches, placed with Westland Helicopters in 1995, was said to offer the greatest advance in Army effectiveness since the tank. A separate PFI agreement was reached with ATIL - a company jointly-owned by Westland and the Apache's US manufacturer Boeing - to cover the training. But delivery of the hi-tech flight simulator was delayed by 17 months, pushing the start date for pilot training from 2001 to September 2003.
The length of the training courses has been extended from 15 weeks to 26, because of the £45m helicopter's complexity and the UK's poor weather conditions for flying.
As a result, the NAO said a "large number" of Apaches - some estimates say more than half - will have to be stored away in hangars at RAF Shawbury in Shropshire at a cost of £6m. Out of the 25 helicopters delivered so far, 11 have been mothballed.
The head of the NAO, Comptroller and Auditor General Sir John Bourn, criticised the decision to split the training programme from the main contract. He said: "It is disappointing that because of problems with the training programme the helicopters are not expected to provide a brigade-level capability until February 2007."
The MoD said it had noted the NAO's concerns and steps were being taken to try to reduce the duration of the pilot training courses without compromising the quality.

[Q max]

£45m each - on telly this morning.

The military utility of 150 R44's is obviously greater than one Apache.

Any how sounds like it's riddled with politics!

[mutleyfour]

BBC have got it wrong!

We don't have enough QHI's to fly the beast.

Because once again the "we are not worthy!! Bow Bow to QHI! fraternity are clearly not good enough!

Without the line, there is no Corps!



;) ;) ;)

[Draco]

Perhaps they should let the taxpayers who have paid for them (ie ourselves) lookafter them for the next few years.... I am sure that we can find some use for them!;)

[Q max]

Sounds like the private training contractors are being 'setup' to take the wrap.

Smells fishy...

My understanding is that there are trained type instructors - but that they were trained 'over there' and as such are not 'recognised' over here.

Understandable since obviously the yanks can't actually fly. ;)

Terminal buck passing, perhaps?

[BDiONU]

This seems like farce, until you realise its being orchestrated by the MOD! Its surely not beyond the bounds of possibility to send our pilots to use the simulators in the USA, much as we did when the RAF Harrier force was grounded by the kapton wiring problem in the early nineties?
Or is that too pragmatic a suggestion?

Of course it does make monetary sense to buy and store the choppers now, 'cause in the next few years the price is certain to rise! And putting aircraft into storage is a very cheap thing to do NOT! :mad:

[DuckDogers]

All very old news i'm afraid. This was raised many moons ago circa 1999 i seem to recall when discussions were afoot on how to best crew and train these persons. It was said at the time that you just cannot take Cpl Bloggs and throw him into an Apache and that we should have utilised the US Army trg facility at Ft Hood to get QHI's et al up to speed. But god bless one of the PFI companies, headed by an ex-AAC chap i seem to remember who managed to convince and pull the wool overthose who did not no otherwise.

All i can say is told you so! Looks like another part of the IDM loop is pardon the pun, out of the loop. My other quesion is have they actually figured out how they are going to be able to support the beast in the field yet?

[escapee]

Just a quick question about the Apache. I'm RAF and heard in the crewroom this morning when disussing this latest debacle that the Apache is only going to be piloted by commissioned types; is this true? If so I would be amazed as it seems to me most of the AAC's experienced flyers are SNCOs or was the information I was given just crewroom blah?

[Helo]

I'm a H269c and R44 rated PPL and would be willing to help out if required. It's a JAA licence so I could fly abroad, although I'm not sure if I'd be legal in Iraq (not in JAA, are they?) ;)

[RFHO]

Escapee,

You and your crewroom are wrong.

We have just completed the first course and a Warrant Officer has finished in fine style. Actually several SNCOs started the course but were commissioned on the way, which indicates the quality of the AAC SNCO Pilots. The next course has a shed load of SNCO pilots on it.
:)

[LXGB]

More here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,822765,00.html

http://www.itv.com/news/Britain137240.html


Oh well...

[escapee]

RFHO
Cheers for that I thought it was probably bull; I should have known better, the person who told me will now be treated with suspicion and a DQI of zero.;)

[cpmafia]

As i understand the situation, the problem lies with the PFI. The US export agreement didnt allow private contractors access to the classified information needed to build the simulators. Since the order was placed the company that builds the sims has been bought out and the MOD has had to re-apply to the US for an export licence for the new contractor.

[Smoketoomuch]

Pardon my civvie ignorance on this one, but, errr, what are they for?
I have no doubt they are very nice machines, but does the UK have the means or the perceived need to deploy the beasties? Are they a cold-war 'must-have' capability that just never got re-assessed.

[The Nr Fairy]

So no offers of a go then ?

All I would need is a basic type conversion to fly it without bending it, no need to learn the weapons kit tho . . . :D

Having said that, this is the same guy who mis-calculated his heading on Tuesday and only twigged in the air when it all looked a bit wrong, so maybe I'm not the best person !

[The Nr Fairy]

I think that's the same situation which applies to any MD ( couldn't spell it longer than that ! ) product. When Boeing bought them out, the security requirements changed.

Seems odd to me - the US end changes, but the UK end doesn't but is the one which has to re-clear security. Ah well.

[Chicken Leg]

MUTLEYFOUR

Stop being a prat. There are plenty of QHI’s who are waiting to start the next course, which begins VERY soon.

It would appear that you have an axe to grind with the AH Programme or QHI’s or both. Grow up.

[[email protected]]

In the late 90s, ATIL (the people who got the training contract) were fishing around for stuff to plagiarise (copy) to start producing their training documents. One of these was the Lynx instructors guide which in itself was a bastardisation of the original RAF Gazelle instructors guide. Now if they had just asked the RAF to do it for them in the first place........
The Boeing problem was to do with the intellectual property rights to the software and its algorithms that run the hardware. We were allowed to buy the weapon system but not the clever bits inside it - hence when the engines were changed to RR the airframe behaved differently under recoil and the cannon missed!
The higher echelons of the AAC and the big green army were so pleased to get hold of the Apache, they forgot to ask a lot of very pertinent questions about it's capabilities, the non existent simulator and the logistics of supporting it. This was not rocket science - there were many capable people, some of whom had flown it, trying to make the AAC understand what it was taking on and no-one listened to them.
Now the NAO have had their say I don't suppose anything will change and no-one will get the sack for cocking this procurement up so badly.

[Muff Coupling]

Water under the bridge me thinks..storing the AH is hardly ground breaking news. The NAO report would have been started last April to cover this financial year. MOD, Army planners and Shawbury were given heads up early 01 that this would happen.

Key question.." measures are being considered in reducing the pilot training time without compromising quality". That I have got to see!

The AAC could have:

Option A: Day VMC shoot anything in bright sunlight only crews and rip out the NVS, selling them them off to Kuwait to help cover this failed PFI. Nights could be spent at home having quality time with family or chicks.
or

Option B: Night VMC shoot anything that is nocturnal crews on permanent graveyard shift who are divorced or single. Days could be spent out bergan running and digging in.

or
Option C: Give the whole package to the RAF? Err..Eurofarce, MR4, Wot still no future transport aircraft, Airmen aircrew..Who?, Forgot to mention Merlins are in storage as well! Maybe not then.

or

Option D: The Navy are keeping shtum dont you think! Hoping the JSF programme doesnt go the same way..Err another UK / US aircraft project, PFI training, code sharing..eject, eject!:eek:

Option B looks good..all those bored housewives:p

Nice post Crab @ SAAvn...nail on head. The AAC top bananas still do not realise what they have taken on.

[Bertie Thruster]

How many people do you know who have been posted to their level of incompentence?

[HectorusRex]

It gets even worse!:(

Apache helicopter cannot operate fully until 2012
The Army's Apache helicopter will not be capable of operating fully until late 2012, 12 years after it was due to be brought into service, it emerged yesterday. By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent.
[http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/01/nheli01.xml[/URL]

Half of Britain's warships in dock
Almost half the Royal Navy's 36 warships will be unavailable for operations in the Gulf because of the firemen's strike, accidents, routine refits and attempts to save money. By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent and George Jones, Political EditorHalf of Britain's warships in dock (http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/01/nships01.xml)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Could I suggest that there's a major misconception in some of these posts. Not in the fact that it's a cock-up (which it clearly is), or what's specifically missing (the sim), or why (developed by beginners who weren't given access to the data they needed), but in the suggestion that it's all the fault of the Army higher-ups, or even the RAF.

Projects like this are managed by an organisation called DPA (Defence Procurement Agency), a.k.a. MoD(PE), a.k.a. Min of Tech, a.k.a. Min of Av.

The AAC or RAF are largely responsible for generating a spec and budget, which are then handed over to DPA who are told to get on with it. They manage detailed bids, specs, manufacturer oversight, spares and support contracts, the lot - to "customer" (army/RAF) requirements. If the Army was asking for something impossible it was up to DPA to inform them and modify the spec. If the manufacturer was slipping behind it's up to DPA to chase them and make it work.

This organisation has a long string of such projects in it's history, including Nimrod, Lynx Mk.1, Tornado F3, Beaurofighter (although the management of this was shared with the Germans, French and Italians), EH101, SA80, etc. etc. In which perspective, 4 years late in-service, and 8 years to full operational capability is pretty good.

The army's business is fighting wars, which if it cock's up it'll get suitable blamed. DPA's business is procuring equipment on time, budget and spec. Credit where credit's due....

I did used to work for this organisation, but haven't for several years and feel much better for it.

G

[Whirlybird]

Well, that's all as clear as....

So while all these departments are sorting out the cock-up at the taxpayer's expense, I think it would be a really really nice gesture for me and The Nr Fairy and Draco and anyone else who's interested, to just kind of...offer to keep them in working order, so to speak. Not that we really want to do any extra flying in a helo like that of course; we'd just be doing it in the interests of...helping out and serving our country and all that kinda stuff.

How about it, guys and gals? :D :rolleyes: :)

[Hoverman]

That's now the third time that 'witty' :rolleyes: suggestion has been made.
:o

[The Nr Fairy]

You're so right, Hoverman. Just remember who's first in the queue . . .

[Grainger]

Fourth, HM: I thought of it too before HP poured cold water on my JB thread. :(

Hey, NrF - right behindya in that queue.

H3ll, I'd even pay for the fuel myself. Just give me a shot. Go on.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You'll need a qualified backseater however.....

[The Nr Fairy]

Nope, qualified front seater, G. Pilot flies from the rear. Sorry about that.

Can you overspeed Apaches ?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Wouldn't trouble me at-all. My one sortie in the front of a Hawk (the rest were all in the back) was thoroughly enjoyable, I can't imagine that an AH64 will be any less fun.

G

[greenarrow]

Well I must say they do look good as Hanger Queens. I gathered that the purpose built recovery platform is a tad to short for the machine, they must have measured up the short wheeel base version. It also seams that with the Mast mounted radar it requires a straight vertical lift of at least 12-13ft without touching the sides of the rotor shaft to remove the mast the radar sits on. therefore airtransportable its not. What a shambles. I think if you look back a few months in the military forum "Shawbury the largest Apache base". :confused:

[Moneyshot]

Seems to me that there is a very simple (simplistic) solution to all of this. If the Army are so short of trained pilots, why not expand the TA to take in other bases as well as Netheravon (I'd like Wattisham please). This would allow a whole bunch of suitably qualified personel in training and support roles to do a short conversion (maybe in the USA) on the AH64 and join the front line anti-tank squadrons in short order.
The good thing about this is that it would free up the support jobs to be taken on by many of the very adequately trained pilots who post on Rotorheads (have to join the TA of course, bit hard to swallow for an ex fish-head). It would not be just Weekends either. The roster of a professional civilian pilot is such that days off are not necessarily taken on weekends.
The Army Brass need to be told of this plan immediately as there is really no down side. Everybody's happy, they just need to stump up the cash.

[Vfrpilotpb]

What do you chaps think about this for an idea!
Mr G Hoon
Boss man
MOD
Whitehall
London.


Dear Mr Hoon,

As a pilot who loves to be up in the flimsy stuff, I would like to make the following offer:-
I will pay for my own conversion from small stuff to mega stuff like the Apache, and then if you will let me, I'll run a few in for you(so they are ready when your pilots are), I promise to be very careful and only go out when the sun is nearly out, if needs arise I will hop over to Iraq do a bit of blatting and try to not over rev the engine, enclosed please find the pink grannie that seems to be popular in government circles these days, to speed up your answer, please ring me at home.

Oh by the way if the wife answers, dont explain anything.

My Regards


ANY CHANCE OR NOT
:D :D

[MightyGem]

Whoa there boys, not so fast! I don't want to put the dampers on
anyone's enthusiasm, but...unfortunately you have to have completed
an Army Pilots course to be eligible to fly helicopters in the TA.

I have :) , and I do :) :) , so ya sucks boo to the lot of you.

[Moneyshot]

Yeah but there must be loads of ex-service guys and girls who have done a gazelle course at some point in their careers and who, now as civilian pilots (esp over winter) have a bit of time on their hands.
All it would take would be a refresher course and Army role training. Tailored somewhat for the inevitable lack of continuity obviously.
Been a Navy QHI, done the UAS flying at the weekend, believe me, it can be done. Just need to get rid of a few prejudices and dish the dosh. Let's do it..

[Bronx]

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/images/94-226.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/images/ah6401.jpg Boeing Delivers Final UK Apache To AgustaWestland

ST. LOUIS, Mo., March 27, 2003
Boeing will deliver their final Apache helicopter for the United Kingdom the same way it delivered the first – ahead of schedule.

All 67 multi-role UK Apaches for the British Army – either complete aircraft or in kit form – were delivered on or ahead of schedule to prime contractor AgustaWestland over the past four years.

The UK Apache is the United Kingdom’s version of the next-generation AH-64D Apache Longbow. Produced at Boeing in Mesa, Ariz., the British Army will field these Apache aircraft under the designation AH Mk1.

Boeing built eight Apache aircraft and partially assembled the remaining 59 for AgustaWestland. Final assembly, flight test, delivery and support is taking place at AgustaWestland’s Yeovil, United Kingdom facility.

The program quickly earned a reputation as an example of successful international collaboration that provided both military and economic benefits to both the United Kingdom and the United States. The collaboration logged its first delivery on Sept. 28, 1998.

“This truly has been an international team effort,” said Al Winn, vice president of Apache Programs in Mesa. “Together, we’ve exceeded our expectations on many levels and met those commitments without sacrificing quality or product integrity.”

Martin Fausset, Apache program director for AgustaWestland, said, "This delivery is a milestone event that is the culmination of a most significant and successful collaboration between Westland and Boeing.

“Much has been achieved in this unique Anglo-American team effort. By serving and meeting the needs of the Ministry of Defence to introduce both an attack helicopter and an air manoeuvre capability within the British Army, we have collectively harnessed our combined strengths.”

Fausset added, “We are now well placed to further develop our association into the next decade with future endeavours that will build upon Westland and Boeing’s proven track records in managing complex international programs."

AgustaWestland was the first customer to acquire Apaches under a commercial contract, completing assembly and delivering them to the British Ministry of Defence for the British Army Air Corps.

The UK Apache incorporates a series of enhancements that make it more effective in combat, and more survivable, deployable and maintainable in the field. The UK Apache’s fire control radar and advanced avionics suite give combat pilots the ability to rapidly detect, classify, prioritize and engage stationary or moving enemy targets at standoff ranges in nearly all weather environments.

The UK Apache’s ability to communicate digitally with other aircraft and ground forces, and to share that information almost instantly, also gives it a significant warfighting advantage over current combat helicopters. With the advanced Longbow fire control radar, UK Apache crews can scan the battlefield in real time, classify and prioritize multiple threats, and digitally share this battlefield information with other next-generation Apaches and other friendly forces.

All sounds good. Do the Brits think it's the success story this Boeing Press Release makes out?
Who does the pilot training?

[AlanM]

Bronx....I am sure it will be - when the chaps and chapesses get to fly it!

[bladeslapper]

It's great to know that the aircraft have been delivered in timely fashion, but the lack of their presence in the skies above Great Britain, must raise many questions. (A large number are unused and in storage at RAF Shawbury - no great secret)

I will leave the question of WHY to those with the technical expertise to expand appropriately.

Seems a shame to spend so much................. :(

[SASless]

Blade Slapper....the more important question is why there are none in the skies of Iraq over the British Forces there on the ground! Someone saving the best kit for some other bit of "Unpleasantness"?

[MightyGem]

Well it's been said before but I'll say it again. Yes the delivery of the aircraft is a great success. Name me any other piece of major military hardware that has been delivered on time, let alone ahead of time.

The major problem was the contract for the training package, with holes in it big enough to drive a bus through. Additionally the full mission simulator was approximately 18 months to 2 years late in coming on line. This forms such a large part of the training package, especially the tactical side of things, that squadron conversion training cannot go ahead without it.

The first squadron should start their training this year. After that, as you will probably know SASLess, that squadron, aircrew and groundcrew, will require workup training at Troop/Flight level and then Squadron/Company level.

OK, there are 20 odd QHI/IPs trained on the aircraft, but they are trained to taech other people how to fly it. They haven't done any intensive tactical training. Even if they did take some to the Gulf. Who would then train the crews back here. That would further delay the Operational Ready date.

You don't run before you can walk or try and hover on you first helicopter lesson.

[jstr4753]

I heard AugustaWest are still having weapons problems during development, preventing extensive use, or have these problems been solved?

[bladeslapper]

It would appear that (probably for the sake of political pressure) the UK models are not standard build, so that there is a level of UK componentary. The consequences seem to be that bits from fired weapons can get in the tail rotor: there are problems with the head / drive train because of engine differences and the alternate fitted cannon wants to shake everything to bits!

If I am incorrect on any of this then I apologise to those who may know more detail, but sounds a little like the same meddling people who procured the SA80 rifle have had their fingers in this pie !

Either way the taxpayer has paid out and all we've got to show for it is a bunch of shiny museum pieces, because they are not in the sky, where they should be.

[Heliport]

Story from BBC NEWS
Army's Apaches learn F1 lessons

The British Army has managed to halve the refuelling times for its fleet of Apache helicopters by studying the pit stop techniques of Formula One teams.
The idea was sparked by the Directorate of Army Aviation, which invited a team of Formula One engineers to its base to look at army crews in action.

An Army spokesman said the collaboration came about not because there were specific problems with refuelling, but simply as an exercise to improve techniques.

"The Army often works with private industry to explore new ideas and improve operations," the spokesman said.

For their part, personnel from the British Army Air Corps were also invited to a number of Grand Prix to watch pit stop procedures during races.

There was also a brand new Apache attack helicopter on display at Silverstone ahead of Sunday's British Grand Prix.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39288000/jpg/_39288967_apache203.jpg

A spokesperson from Formula One's governing body, the FIA, said of the collaboration: "These exchanges led to a number of relatively minor changes which when implemented together have made the complete procedure more efficient, contributing towards cutting the rearming and refuelling time for an Apache by 50 per cent."

Pilot shortage

The Army's new £3bn fleet of Apaches have encountered a major setback since the first batch was delivered, down to the lack of trained pilots currently available to fly them.

A National Audit Office report last October revealed that dozens of the new £3bn fleet would have to be kept in storage for four years due to the shortage.

Apache facts
Cost: £45m
Top speed: 162 mph
Range: 285 miles
Engine: Rolls Royce
Weapons: 16 Hellfire missiles, 76 Rockets (2.75"), 1200 cannon rounds (30mm), 4 air to air missiles

The NAO report warned that although the Apaches were being delivered on time, a private finance initiative (PFI) deal to train aircrew was three years late.

Eleven of the 25 helicopters so far delivered - out of an order for 67 - are having to be stored in aircraft hangars.

The delivery of a further 16 Apache helicopters is scheduled for February 2005.

[Flying Lawyer]

Refuellers await their Apache .........

http://www.ferrari.it/cmc_upload/1/610/911/346/GRB38_780.jpg

[Hilico]

Wonderful - Apache sweeps in to its forward base, lands between two pairs of grunts, one leaps forward and spears it with the refuelling nozzle, the others clip more rockets on, and 6.8 seconds later it's on its way back to the front line.

Most of the time.

Occasionally, the refueller pulls out the probe, big splash because it's gone wrong, wumph! and a dozen others rush over with fire extinguishers. Location of forward base no longer a secret as there's a 200ft column of black smoke pointing to it. Or, 6.8 seconds are up, off goes the heli with a crew of three - yep, the refueller didn't manage to get the probe out. How much is Bernie Ecclestone paying them to take this?

[HeliAviator]

Nice red suits though. Perhaps they could help out in Santas Grotto whilst waiting for an Apache to turn up. Lets face it they will be waiting an awfully long time.:{

[ShyTorque]

Are the Army top brass still baffled by the lack of pilots?

In my day, when they had aspirations to take over RAF SH, they assumed that all the RAF Wessex, Chinook and Puma crews would rush to transfer to a brown uniform.

So what happened then chaps? :hmm:

[NickLappos]

Apache Crews come back from tough mission, greeted by pit crew:

http://s-92heliport.com/images/323_winners_marlin.jpg

Apache crew perform routine maintenance:
http://s-92heliport.com/images/354-woman.jpg

[HeliAviator]

Shy Torque, they are still trying to take over the SH world only now via the Jolly Happy Club!:ugh:

[headsethair]

There's another lesson for the UK Apaches to learn from F1:

Always ensure a ready supply of drivers by maintaining a stable system of training and development. Have you ever heard an F1 team say "Can't race - got no drivers!"

[Lu Zuckerman]

If the Navy And Air Force pilots don’t want to transfer what about the existing pool of Army pilots. If that doesn’t work do what the US Army does. Recruit the future pilots off the street, train them as basic helicopter pilots and stream them into the Apache flight programs. In any case make sure the pilots are capable of using the helmet mounted sight. The US Army trained a lot of Apache pilots only to find out they could not adapt to the helmet mounted sights.

:rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

JHC?

Join Hoon's Club?

Off you go chaps. If Mr Hoon says it's alright, then it must be alright.

Get those Khakis on. :E

[slamtofakie]

http://www.angelfire.com/nf/jessf1/schucham.jpg
apache crew celebrates victory of bagdhad airday 2003

:)

[belly tank]

ANYONE,

im curious as to the setup of the apache tail rotor, from limited photos ive seen it seems though they have a set inboard and another set on the outboard side of the shaft. how does the pitch control work for both blade setups, is it a similair sytem to the 500 4 bladed tail rotor they produced?

Im sure someone can enlighten me as ive always been curious and no one can seem to tell me.

chhers guys

[Jcooper]

I think Rich Lee told me they seperated the blades in order to produce a lower noise signature. Thats all I think I know.

Jim


Sorry Rich if you were not the source and it is wrong...

[CRAN]

People often state that the Aphace's seperated twin teeter 4-bladed tail rotor was so designed for a reduction in acoustic signature.

WRONG.

It was staggered along the axis to allow room for the mechanical elements of the design. This was made very clear by Ray Prouty at a recent discussion at the Boeing factory in Az.

Hope this clarifies matters
CRAN
:}

[the wizard of auz]

Are these tail rotors of conventinal teetering design, or are they of the delta three type of teetering hinge?

[The Nr Fairy]

I heard it was for survivability - separate the four blades into two pairs, one set gets hit, it's possible you'll end up with a working pair.

And I was also told that there's enough power with just two blades to give reasonable yaw control. However, any AH/WAH-64 pilots care to comment ?

[Lu Zuckerman]

The scissors tail rotor design was created to minimize the acoustic signature. The design concept was proven on an OH-6 that was modified to the acoustic requirements of a DARPA contract. The design concept included mounting the OH-6 airframe on a waterbrake dynamometer in order to isolate the different generators of noise. In the end the helicopter included a five-blade rotor that turned at a lower speed, the scissors tail rotor, a muffler on the engine exhaust and every part of the airframe was insulated to minimize the broadcasting of noise. The rotor systems were eventually incorporated on later models of the H-500.

When this helicopter flew over at 500 feet all you could hear was a “whoosh”. I think it ended up in Vietnam.


:E :E

[Ian Corrigible]

The modulated blade spacing (MBS) concept is also used on the latest generation of Eurocopter fenestron tail rotors. There are several papers on the mechanics of the concept available on-line, including one here (http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2002/mtg/NASA-2002-58ahs-bms.pdf)

I/C

[Boathouse]

I was told ground transportation vertical clearance was a driving issue too. I was also told the lower noise signature was an unforseen bonus - fact or fiction?? Maybe someone from Mesa could comment?

[belly tank]

Thanks guys you have enlightened me a bit, the noise signature makes sense but an interesting comment by NR Fairy about survivorbility which is a valid comment, interesting.

any apache drivers on this forum??

[Lu Zuckerman]

For a closer look try here.

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead/1077.html

To: Boathouse

If the Apache had a conventional four blade tail rotor vertical clearance would be compromized not for ground transportation but for transportation on the C-141. However the design was frozen prior to having air transport.

:E :E

[Jcooper]

Wait for Rich Lee to come save the day. I would question the survivability issue cause you would think it the tail rotor got hit or run into something it would cause to great of an imbalance that it wouldnt matter. What do I know?

[Thomas coupling]

After looking at Lu's piccy it would seem they were thinking of redundancy, what do you think?

[[email protected]]

I think the choice of 2 separate 2-bladed tail rotors is for redundancy/survivability and the choice of unequal spacing is for noise signature and transportability.

[hotzenplotz]

I ask myself why we see so much Apaches going down in Iraq and no Cobras.

Reasons I found are that there are more Apaches than Cobras around, the mission profiles seem to be different, and tactics from Army and Marines are different.

Maybe the one or the other has some more detailed information to add and we can discuss this interesting topic.


Regards ...

[B Sousa]

Also consider the Army has no Cobras there, its just the Marine TwinPack ( A Very Good Machine) I dont know if the Army has any Cobra units left. Other Countries are still using the Mod (S) etc
As always the Army outnumbers the Marine Corps, cant say they outfight them.

Standing by for Incoming..............

[Shawn Coyle]

One of my Israeli Air Force Apache pilot friends said that early on, they learned that it was much safer and just as effective to operate at 3000 ft AGL. Sensors and weapons worked just as well at that height and they were out of range of small arms fire and had more warning of any approaching hand-launched weapons as well.

[D2664254]

When I was deployed to the Gulf last year I saw quite a few Cobras at Ali Al Salem Air Base and also at Kuwait International Airport, I've got a couple of photos but the quality isn't very good.

I have no idea if these were Army or Marine machines, there were plenty of personnel from both organisations based at both locations - met some very interesting people.

IIRC there were about 20 or so Cobras at Ali Al Salem, but I didn't see any Apaches - they may have been further North. There were a few BlackHawk types around, had a chat with a HEMS pilot who flew a BlackHawk (variant), he was a reservist just like me - although we don't get to fly at the weekends :{

Obviously a year on those machines could be anywhere......

[Rich Lee]

You approach this question from the wrong point-of-view. From the Iraqi point of view it would be "why have I lost so many of my countrymen, tanks, air defense, and artillery to the Apache in comparison to the Cobra? The answer to your question will be self-evident.

Marine or Army aviator, Cobra or Apache, all will bring the fight to the enemy with equal zeal and intensity.

As for the last, third hand information (unconfirmed)...they were called in after a mission, responding to a convoy that had been ambushed and about to be overrun. They provided close cover until wounded could be evacuated before they were shot down. They stayed to fight. Both are said to be recommended for the DFC.

[Lu Zuckerman]

The Apache as originally conceived and eventually built was to fight a down and dirty war starting at the Fulda Gap and ending up in the plains of Spain. At this point the army was to be dug in and starting to fight back. In order to meet this requirement the Apache was to be crash worthy to about 14 Gs and it was to be impervious to all small arms ammunition, a tumbled 50 cal. round and a 23 mm HEI hit in the rotor system, the main gear box and the intermediate and tail rotor gear boxes as well as one engine. This included a HEI round into either the gunners or pilots’ compartments. In the first two uses of the Apache in combat the first in Panama and the second in Gulf War 1 it did not perform in that capacity instead, it was used as a stand-off weapons system. In Gulf War II it was used as a standoff weapons platform during actual combat but in the present application it is being used in close in combat and it has proven to be very vulnerable to small arms ammunition as well as RPGs. It is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get.

Do I hear Rich Lee getting into the saddle?


:E :E

[B Sousa]

Rich Lee writes:"Both are said to be recommended for the DFC."

I would kick that up to at least a Silver Star....

For those who cant tell the difference, the Navy and Marine Corps traditionally fly twin engine aircraft as they are overwater a lot. All Army stuff up to the Chinook are single engine..... Thus the Cobra in the Marine Corps has a big back end from the two engines, versus the single pipe out the rear. I also see that the Navy/Marine Corps are going to a four bladed version of the Cobra and also using a souped up 412. Both great machines.
Right Lu??

[rjsquirrel]

Even the implication that comparitive losses in Iraq reflect some glory on the Cobra is ridiculous.

The Army has hundreds more aircraft, and thousands more troops, in Iraq and everywhere. The losses reflect that, and little else.

The current Marine Cobras (the W) are retreaded designs, updated of course, but still fairly poor imitations of modern aircraft. The Apache is considerably tougher, and much better equipped, by all accounts (except Bell's). In a system by system match, the cobra falls far short, but is used by the Marines because it is not an Apache, as the Marines are paranoid about buying anything that the Army has, lest Congress question why we need a Marine Corps.

The UH-1Y is an example. Having rejected the Black Hawk, the Marines built an entirely new aircraft (rumor has it everything had to be redesigned, in spite of the optimistic "upgrade" plans that Bell sold.) This new aircraft will sell for more than a Black Hawk, but carries less than 2/3 the troops, and has about 15 knots less cruise speed, and a hundred miles less range. When the actual performance is published, we will see what a flop it is.

The AH-1Z will be in similar stead, compared to Apache.

Regarding any comparison between weapon systems and their use in Iraq, take care. Iraq is now an occupation, and the urban situations are actually police duties, trying to quell rioters and insurgents in civilian populated areas. The military is left, yet again holding the bag for failed political leaders. Short of sterilizing the entire area, there is no military solution, no tactic and no miracle weapon system that will cure the ill. And no lesson about military hardware that can be drawn from the situation.

This forum is not a political one, but the lessons of Iraq do not concern tactics or equipment, they are all political, ppruners.

B. Sousa is dead wrong, the Active Army has no single engine helos except the H-58 and H-6, and it has few of them. The US Army is the largest helicopter organization in the world, with about 5,000 helicopters, including 1500 Black Hawks, 800 Apaches and an assortment of other helos in the hundreds each. The USMC has a few hundred rotorcraft of all types.

[SASless]

Lu,

Even the M-1 Abrams tank is now vulnerable to RPG's....read up on the duplex war head capable of defeating any known armor...thus there is no...repeat no...helicopter that is capable of withstanding an RPG hit.

[Rich Lee]

Lu,

There are so many errors of history, non-sequiturs, and invalid conclusions based on false premise in your comments; I am unable to respond in any meaningful manner on a point-by-point basis.

I do not know on what information you based your comment that “it is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get”, but I disagree.

The AH-64 A and D have proven robust and capable multi-role designs. Our enemies report that it is one of the most feared and lethal weapons on the battlefield. Our battlefield commanders report that it is a valued and effective maneuver asset. As the tactics and training evolve for each new tactical situation, the AH-64 has proven again and again to be highly adaptive and always deadly.

It is not indestructible; no helicopter is, none ever will be, but it does a better job of protecting the crew than any attack helicopter in service to date. The Apache has proven it can sustain a great deal of damage to enemy ground fire and continue to fight. Don’t take my word for it, ask the crews.

I make no claim that the AH-64 is the best Army aircraft for all attack roles. For instance, large numbers of fast and highly maneuverable AH-6 type aircraft engaging in 'swarms' have proven very effective in the urban close support role.

Were one to follow your reasoning, that the Apache is being used for roles it was not designed for, then the Army is getting more than it paid for.

[B Sousa]

Sorry Rjsquirrel, forgot about the Blackhawk.........after my days.
(ORWAC 70-28) How about you........

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Rich Lee

I do not question the lethality of the Apache. In the view of lethality it is second to none if you don’t consider the A-10 or the C-130 gunship. The point I was making deals with the survivability of the helicopter.

A great deal of effort went into the vulnerability analysis. This consisted of the use of ballistic armor on either side of the pilots, the use of transparent armor between the gunner and the pilot, the use of ballistic armor around the servo systems and the use of “armor “”between the engines.
The main transmission was designed for 30 minutes of flight without any oil in the sump, the use of viscous lubricant in the intermediate and tail rotor gearboxes.

The analysis also consisted of using non-essential components to mask the entry of small arms fire from the ground into the cockpit area.

The main weapon that the Soviet bloc would use against the Apache was the ZSU-23-4 so the Apache had to be invulnerable to one hit of a high explosive incendiary round in one of several places on the helicopter. The ZSU-23-4 shoots around 1200 rounds per minute so if one round hit the Apache it would surely be hit with 20 or more rounds including HEI rounds.

The vulnerability analysis included in the study of the ballistics of small arms ammunition, the effects of being hit by a tumbling 50 cal round fired from a specific distance and the HEI round.

Tests were run to verify that the helicopter could survive in an intensive ballistic arena and I believe the tests, which did not reflect dynamic loading of the elements under test, were successful. I made my comments based on the design requirements specified by the army and, in the fact that small arms rounds downed many of the Apaches.

Oh yes, regarding the ballistic armor that was just inside the skin of the Apache and used to protect the pilots we had a guy in our department that had a hobby of loading his own ammunition. He borrowed a section of the armor and used it as a target at 100 yards. He brought the armor back the following Monday with a hole in it. The armor did not distend in order to absorb the ballistic energy.

Please note that my comments are based on what was during the design phase and some things may have changed.

:E :E

[NickLappos]

Lu,
All the analysis in the world does not make armor stop what it can't stop. Except for the big Russian machines (Mi-28 and KA-50) the Apache is a lot tougher than anyone else out there. Furthermore, the fact that Apaches and Black Hawks are being downed by RPG's says a lot for the US Army requirements. NOTHING FLYING can withstand an RPG hit in a critical area.

As rjsquerril said above, the lessons of Iraq have little to do with how helos are made, and a lot with how they are being used.

[Rich Lee]

"We will all die one day. Nothing will change. If by Apache or by cardiac arrest, I prefer Apache" Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi (deceased)

Lu,

You are an engineer held in high esteem in this forum. Your comments and conclusions should always be based on sound and verifiable engineering or scientific principles. Where are the data to support your conclusions that the Apache is "very vulnerable to small arms ammunition as well as RPGs" and "is proving very rapidly that what the army paid for it did not get"?

What research have you conducted? Do you know how many Apache pilots have lost their lives or have been wounded as a result of ground fire? Can you tell me how many Apaches have been downed to ground fire and to which types of ground fire? Do you know what Apache componants have been damaged by ground fire? How does the Apache compare to other attack helicopters?

You wrote in part "small arms rounds downed many of the Apaches" How many is 'many'? Where? When? Where are the data?

The Vietnam Helicopter Pilot's Association has conducted studies that show the approximate number of helicopters destroyed in the Vietnam War was 5,086 out of the total sent there of 11,827. The ratio of helicoper loses to helicopters in theatre in Iraq are a fraction of that. Why? They are more survivable. All current designs are more survivable.

Your arguments remind me of the people I hear who say that the world is a more dangerous place. The evidence is otherwise because the risk of death from all causes is less now than at any other time in history. How do I know? I know simply because life expectancy is longer.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Rich Lee

First of all I should never have even referenced RPGs. Just forget about that part. The same for Nick Lappos. My comments about the design for invulnerability are based on my participation on the Apache program when Hughes was bidding on the contract. I set up the design for maintainability program and I had to work hand in glove with the vulnerability group so whatever comments I made about ballistic vulnerability are based on that background. We suggested the application of removable armor plating much like that used on the Douglas B-26. By using this type of armor they could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel costs since the armor could be removed making the helicopter lighter by several hundred pounds during peacetime operations. The ballistic armor design chosen was several ballistic panels mounted on springs. If the ballistic armor were compromised it would be displaced on the springs impacting on electrical components as well as the engine condition levers (left side) and on the right side the panels could cause major problems with electrical components.

You are privy to a hell of a lot more of information than me relative to combat damage and the result of that damage. Like a lot of guys on these forums I have to rely on CNN or some of the other channels. They say that ground fire downed the Apaches as well as the Blackhawks and OH-58s. I have to go with that information and compare that with what I already know and any comments I make are based on what I know and what I am told.

That is why I stated that the Army paid for a high level of invulnerability and the downing of the Apaches by ground fire (CNNs words) indicates that the Army did not get what they paid for.

Hopefully this does not result in a pissing contest.

If you are interested in what the program was like at the beginning please feel free to PM me.
:E :E

[helmet fire]

Lu the Helicopter Gunship tactics expert, I am very intrested in your descriptions of the ballistic testing for the AH-64 because they provide insight, and are made by someone with a solid background in the subject matter who was actually there, and I would love to hear more about that. I am also intrested in your comments on gunship tactics but from an entirely different perspective - humour! Because they are not insightful, and they are not made by someone with a background in the subject matter, and because, lets face it, they ARE funny!

I particularly enjoyed:
First of all I should never have even referenced RPGs. Just forget about that part.

which I think means: "I'm sorry guys, you are right of course, and the RPG bit was a bit over the top - forgive me" Perhaps you could add you ZSU 234 comments to that too! I dont know of ANYTHING flying that would survive a direct engagement by one of those bad boys. The ZSU is a very good reason for one of the Apache's other attributes Lu: weapon system standoff or overlap. Perhaps you have heard of it?

As for the conjecture about more survivability, I would ask everyone to choose what western helicopter they choose if they had to fly through a combat area infested with SA and RPGs.
How many choose anything other than the Apache?
I thought so.


There is however, some useful discussion about this topic to be had. As alluded to in the previous comments: are the weapon systems of the Apache accurately matched to these specific engagement scenarios, or are they being used because they are the most appropriate and available asset? For example - would the Apache have been a better platform for the engagements of Somalia where the Little birds went to work? Are the Iraqi engagements reminiscent of Somali?

There has been some renewed debate in Australia upon the eve of introduction of the Tiger that the team running fire tactics used for close-quater infantry support by the retiring UH-1 are not yet obsolete, but may in fact be the most appropriate engagenment tactic. It is recognised that running fire application in teams is a far more complex system to train for, use, and more importantly, to control during engagements in terms of weapon arcs and avoiding fratricide. in contrast, the new trend was to rely on standoff overlap, and fire from easily controlled fixed firing points - a la the Apache. Despite this complexity, the "Vietnam style" running fire is still practiced by Marine Cobras specifically because of the effort to reduce aircraft vulnerability, and there is some speculation as to the contribution this tactic has made to any reduction in shoot downs of Cobras. Perhaps it is just that the nature of the Iraqi conflict has produced no fixed fighting fronts, and thus no areas in which gunships can safely adopt fixed firing points. Sounds a bit Vietnam/Somalia like doesn't it?

Or was it the weapons system (cannon types, rounds used, rocket warhead selection, etc)?

[Gregg]

It seems that too many people are looking to criticize models of aircraft in an effort to explain combat losses.

The losses of aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan have been due to the fact that there are actual wars going on in those places.

Our attack helicopter pilots, Marine and Army, are getting down and dirty with the enemy so that they can do their jobs- supporting our troops on the ground and winning the battles.

Differences in numbers of losses are most probably not due to aircraft design or tactics- more likely to numbers of aircraft involved and the flow of the specific battles fought.

We may be better off asking why, when much of the combat is at close quarters in urban areas, combat losses in attack helicoters have been so low. Perhaps a combination of capable airframes and well trained pilots?

I do take exception, however, as a former Marine AH-1W pilot and a current Bell pilot on the AH-1Z/UH-1Y program to rjsquirrel's comments above.

The Marine Corps chose the UH-1Y and AH-1Z based on avareity of reasons, including commonality of components, mission flexibility, and performance. Both aircraft are designed to the Marine Corps' requirements for their missions. And when the official performance numbers are published, you can see the error of assumptions of capability.

The Marines did not say that the Apache or Blackhawk were bad aircraft. They just chose different aircraft, in their opinion better suited to their mission. (And had they gone with an H-60, it would have more closely resembled the Navy version H-60S.) Anyone who would believe that the Marines would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an aviation program to just be different from the Army is missing the point. Flying the same aircraft as the Army would certainly not make anyone question whether the Marine Corps needs to exist. From that reasoning, the Marines would not be using the M-16 or flying the F-18 or using M1 tanks.

The Marines will do their unique mission using whatever tools they need to do the job- just as the Army will do for their missions.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: helmet fire

If you want to make light of what I said that's OK and I do not claim to have an engineering background to perform ballistics design tollerance. However I worked very closely with those engineers that had that capability.

They performed analyses to determine the impact energy of small arms ammunition fired within a specific distance and from various directions. They performed further analyses to determine the impact energy of a tumbled 50 cal. round fired from a specific distance and various directions. From that they were able to design ballistic armor to protect the pilot and gunner.

The also performed analyses regarding the explosive energy released by a 23 mm round as well as a HEI round and from that they designed the transparent armor separating the pilot and the gunner and they also fed this information into the design of the main and other transmissions, the rotorheads and the rotor blades.

After the design was completed they performed live firing exercizes shooting the respective rounds into the respective structures. I do not believe that the components were dynamically loaded so there is a possibility that the respective tests were not truly valid. However the Army accepted the findings.


Here is something that should raise the hackles of a lot of the guys on this forum:

The US Army lied to the pilots of the Apache relative to its’ invulnerability to the ZSU 23-4 weapons system. This was the primary weapon that would be used against the Apache if it were to attack a group of Warsaw Pact tanks.

This weapon was also being supplied to all of the governments that were in league with the Warsaw Pact. The U S Army commissioned a study by a so-called ”Think Tank” to study the effectiveness of the ZSU 23-4 against the Apache. It was their considered opinion that the ZSU 23-4 was inaccurate, It had a low degree of reliability and that if the ZSU 23 did hit the Apache with one round, the pilot would have sufficient time to evade any further hits by dropping below the tree line. The uninitiated reader should understand that the ZSU 23-4 has a rate of fire of 1200 rounds per minute and that if one bullet hit its’ mark, there would be forty or fifty rounds right behind the first round.

When the I was on contract with Agusta helicopters I took a two-week holiday in Yugoslavia. While there, I watched a T V program, which was describing the weaponry of the Warsaw Pact. One of the weapons demonstrated was the ZSU 23-4. In the demonstration the weapon was pointed on a line parallel to a stand of trees. A helicopter popped up from behind the trees and in an instant the weapon acquired the helicopter and was pointed directly at it. The helicopter then dropped below the treetops and at that time the gun was turned off. The helicopter was allowed to fly away and the gun was turned on. It immediately started to fire and it swept an arc approximately 30 to 45 degrees on either side of center. The trees started to explode. It looked like there were hundreds of chain saw wielding loggers in the tree stand felling trees as fast as they could. It appeared to me that if a hail of 23mm bullets didn’t hit the helicopter, a falling tree would destroy it.

The only point of my post was to show that although the Apache was designed with a high level of ballistic tollerance it was brought down by small arms fire. (According to CNN).

:E :E

[Rich Lee]

The US Army lied to the pilots of the Apache relative to its’ invulnerability to the ZSU 23-4 weapons system.

These are the type of inflammatory comments that should always be supported by factual information. The US Army is an organization. An organization does not lie. People within the organization lie. Who in the US Army lied Lu? Please show me in writing where anyone has claimed that the Apache is "invulnerable" to the ZSU 23-4 weapons system?

Should you choose to believe everything CNN or 60 minutes claims, that is certainly your right. To use that information as the basis of an opinion regarding the overall ballistic tolerance capability of an aircraft, without detailed knowledge of the incident or supporting evidence is something I do not expect from an educated gentleman with your knowledge and engineering background.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Rich Lee

The lie alluded to in my post was relayed to me by one of the authors
of a Government Accounting Office report titled:

APACHE HELICOPTER
Serious Logistical Support Problems Must Be Solved to Realize Combat Potential

This report was published in September of 1990 and although some of the problems have been solved many have not.

The report has a number: GAO/NSIAD-90-294
Inside on the first page it is titled:
National Security and International Affairs Division and numbered B-238876

If you haven't already read it I would strongly suggest that you do.

I can't say exactly who it was that lied but I would seriously suggest you look at the individuals responsible to get more pilots to fly the Apache.

I don't know if it is classified but just how many were downed by small arms fire. The RPGs notwithstanding several Apaches have been lost and the enemy on the ground does not have heavy weapons like the ZSU-23-4 nor do they have heavy machine guns.

At least not according to CNN.

:E :E

[NickLappos]

Rich,

Let me warn you of the dangerous road ahead:

step 1 - Lu makes slanderous statements that indicate that someone/something lied/cheated/misrepresented something and the whole system/group/manufacturer/regulator/governemtn is rotten/not to be trusted/on the take/stupid and only Lu through his report/fmea/fmica/analysis was able to prove it and save the world.

step 2 - Someone who actually knows what he/she is talking about, writes and disagrees

step - 3 Lu's posts get longer, windier and more convoluted.

step - 4 We yawn and flip to the next thread

Nick

PS I believe you are at step 2.

[helmet fire]

I think that Lu is already at Step 3.

But I would like to add another step in there somewhere between 3 and 4 - Rational person laughs at the escalation of outrageousness in Lu's claims, but worries about others believing/being influenced by them.

Lu: Please quote the exact part of the report (word for word please) where it mentions lies, or invulnerability to ZSU or RPGs.

Also answer the question I previously posed: what western helicopter would you have chosen?

Other rational contributers: I would be keen on discussion on the matters raised in the bottom of my last post if anyone else is intrested?
:8

[Aser]

My personal thought it's that the losses of more Apaches than cobras it's just because the "running fire" tactics of the marines and of course the number of sorties.
Have you seen a cobra doing a high hover attacks?
Have you seen a cobra low and slow flying over n Iraki city?
Surely you have seen an Apache doing those things.
From the images I have seen in TV Cobras were just doing close support (in the best way), coming from the back of the marines , shooting and then breaking hard.

Anyway...
I have found these images that I want to share
http://hal9000.inetstrat.com/crash/ah64.html
Looks pretty good crash resistant.

Regards.

[rjsquirrel]

Thanks, charlie!

Lu strikes again, not one mention of vulnerability, 23 MM and even this as the only citation about survivability:

"far superior to the Cobra in all performance dimensions, including......survivability."

So much for Lu's credibility.

RJ

[Helipolarbear]

When Lu stated that the US Army lied......he was being truthful in a non subtle sense. But, he is correct! To think that we were so protected from ZSU's, RPG's, ( even US Stinger's) and a load of 'off the shelf ' weaponary is ignorant and stupid. From Vietnam to Somalia and the rest since! The Army knows the vulnerability of the AH64 and every other machine that would be involved in the fight, but there is no sense in training pilots to constantly think of their equipments weakness. They'd be too scared to go to battle and understandably so. But, they are designed as a tool to prosecute a war or battle as the politicians see fit. I think Lu was touching on the morality of design and how much is really understood by the operators (Commanders, Pilots) as oppossed to inflammatory remarks!! The key to utilization and survivability of these machines is how they are tactically employed on the Battle field. Keep in mind that there are no FLOT's or FEBA's to adhere to, and that the conflict in Iraq is urban and unsuitable for Heli's for the most part! They still carry massive ordinance and can do damage....but to what effect strategically??
At the risk of having the T/R shot off or pilots killed by an AK47?
This war can only be won by the boot on the ground! At least in the urban area's of Iraq.......................and thats a whole lot of realestate for even the US Army to patrol and secure!:cool:

[hotzenplotz]

In an urban environment against troops wearing no uniforms it must be hard for an AH crew to engage an target from 1500ft. Maybe (my speculation) the Apache crews take larger risks because of the higher survivability of their machines. So the higher losses of Apaches are because of more AH-64 than AH-1 around and (maybe) different tactics. Does anybody know if the Army and Marines doctrines are different?



Crash review team

The team conducting the comprehensive review of all downings was headed by Col. Stephen Dwyer, a brigade commander at the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala., and it included about a dozen forensic and weapons experts, crash analysts and helicopter specialists. The team spent about four weeks in Iraq visiting each crash site, taking soil samples for forensic analysis and talking to aviators.

"They went over to look at Army aviation, make an assessment and make recommendations on how to improve it," said Lt. Col. James Bullinger, a spokesman for the Army Aviation Center.

Bullinger said that even before the team started its work, the Army was adopting lessons from Iraq, teaching pilots to fire their weapons while "running and diving," instead of hovering, when a helicopter is more vulnerable to an attack.

Senior Army commanders said the assessment team provided several valuable insights for pilots in Iraq, and for the fresh crews preparing to rotate into the country.
"This is a case of our Army coming through quickly with the right expertise at the right place," said Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division.

American intelligence analysts have said that during Saddam Hussein's rule, Iraq stockpiled at least 5,000 shoulder-fired missiles of all types, and that fewer than a third have been recovered.

From the Jan. 18, 2004 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[NickLappos]

The tactics that are used play against the weapons we face. There are three types:

Type 1 - small arms/shoulder weapons (7.62mm/.30 cal and including RPG's) - these are ineffective against helos which are operated above 800 to 1000 ft and flown at speeds above 60 to 80 knots. Employ diving fire with rockets and circling engagements with turret. Avoid low speed, low altitude. Vietnam tactics

Type 2 - Crew served automatic weapons 50 cal/12.7 and above - engage at long range, using standoff weapons. Avoid overfly at any altitude below 4000 feet, at any speed. Can be engaged from low NOE altitudes if the gun position is known and split fire engagement from simultaneous attackers can be arranged. Very difficult to engage if multiple sites having overlapping effective range and with radio link are found.

Type 3 - Shoulder fired IR missiles - Stand off and stay low. Easy to engage when site is known, very hard to know! Use background clutter and NOE tactics, which are very effective, especially if aircraft has IR supression. Avoid use of type 1 tactics, as they put you squarely within the missile's kill zone.

Iraq is confusing, as they have all 3 types in abundance, all soaked into a passive civilian populace. This is not military work, it is police work, and not for the faint of heart. Those who use diving fire techniques will avoid the small arms and die from the missiles and crew served weapons.

[Lu Zuckerman]

It seems I have started a firestorm and as a result my known detractors have chimed in and used confusing facts such as I don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground and further offering that I am not to be believed..

What I stated was that the Apache was designed with a high degree of invulnerability. That is a fact.

I got the following from the Internet and it supports what I said.

"Grease filled gearboxes designed for substantial ballistic tolerance to 14.5 mm and 23-mm fire. Twin T700 engines with sufficient reserve power to limp home on one powerplant. A tailshaft designed to absorb hits and if cut by fire, not to chop the tail off. Extensive use of composite armor to absorb low caliber fire, shrapnel and spall. Seat shock absorbers and structural design to absorb extremely high sink rates. A dual redundant 3000-psi hydraulic system and a host of other less evident design features provided the AH-64A with unprecedented damage tolerance". This is also a fact.

Regarding the “Lie” if you feel that a military organization would not lie to or deceive the troops you are either in denial or, you are naïve.

As far as where the lie came from I believe it came from TRADOC Bulletin 4: Soviet ZSU-23-4: Capabilities and Countermeasures

I am checking into it to determine if this was the source.

Since it is a proven fact that the AH-64 was designed to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI or HE round (1) or, a tumbled 50 cal round (several) or a whole lot of small arms fire then what other than an RPG caused the loss of so many Apaches. The D model was supposedly more invulnerable to this threat so why were they shot down? I am just asking a question. I am not in any way addressing combat tactics other than the AH-64 was designed for direct contact with an enemy.

It seems that this thread has diverged into those of you (and you know who you are) trying to convince the other guy all about combat tactics and not discuss what strange forces downed so many Apache helicopters. And that too is a fact.

:E :E

[helmet fire]

Guess we are still waiting for this:

Lu: Please quote the exact part of the report (word for word please) where it mentions lies, or invulnerability to ZSU or RPGs.

because you say:
Since it is a proven fact that the AH-64 was designed to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI or HE round (1) or, a tumbled 50 cal round (several)

but strangely do not back it up with a reference, nor do you in any way attempt to PROVE the fact, nor substantiate your claim that it is "PROVEN". Thus your arguement is comming out of your arse (or a hole in the ground if you still cant tell the difference!)

Back to the real topic of the thread now... I did not mean to infer that running fire was the same as diving fire. Diving fire makes running fire so much more accurate and allows the helicopter some protection form SA, etc as per nick's Type 1 system. Running fire can, however, be used from NOE altitudes, exposing the aircraft only to bring main armament to bear on the target or fro supression of areas. Obviously, the ability to do this is entirely predicated on the Type 2 and 3 weapons systems you are facing, and the fractured nature of the FEBA in situations such as Iraq.

BTW, does Iraq continue to have type 2 weapons systems active?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helmet Fire.

Sometimes you get me so pissed at people from Australia that I may stop using Aussie hairspray. I really would but I am addicted to the grape smell.

Re-read your post in reference to the two quotes.

I stated the possible source for the lie bit and I stated that I am in the process of verifying the story and the source.

Regarding the bit about design invulnerability and how the design-evolved relative to ballistic tolerance I reiterated my statement and I also added a bit I gleaned from the Internet. An Australian engineer who visited the Boeing facility in Arizona authored the report it came from. I assume the report was used to justify the purchase of the Apache by the Australian MOD.

:E :E

[helmet fire]

..........and I always wondered why you smelt of grapes - I just thought it was all that good Aussie wine!! Burrrrp!

As you stated that the fact was "proven" I thought you may have some "proof". Silly me.
:ooh:

[Helipolarbear]

Fact of the matter is LU use's Aussie Hairspray........why......Is the Ozzie Grape a better quality for the folically challenged when applied? Back to you Lu.....;)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helipolarbear

Is the Ozzie Grape a better quality for the folically challenged when applied? Back to you Lu.....

Are you incinerating that I am folically challenged?

I have a full head of gray hair and that is a problem in using Aussie hairspray. Several weeks ago my wife told me that the hair on the back of my head was turning purple. I assumed it was from the hairspray. I tried washing it out but to no avail. I contacted the company on their 1-800 line and explained my problem.

The woman asked for my postal code and I gave it to her. A minute or so later she gave me the address of the place that could get the purple out of my hair.

When I arrived at the place I found it was one of those stores where you could buy the products necessary to make your own wine.

I spoke of my problem to the owner of the shop and she brought me into the back room. She put my head into some sort of a winepress and she applied pressure and I could not believe the amount of purple liquid that was coming from my hair. She provide a mirror and I found that my hair was back to gray.

She told me that this was a common problem since the introduction of Aussie hairspray. As I was walking out I asked what she did with the purple liquid and she told me that it was sent back to Australia and they used it to color their wine.


:E :E :ok:

[Helipolarbear]

Lu, as ever, you get a banana and a gold star for effort. You should write a short story for Rotor & Wing.........the extraordinary life of a Heli-journey-man and his favourite Aussie Hairspray! Keep them coming and bring some life to this otherwise semi-illiterate, too serious BB!! Still enjoy some of the threads, but lately.....well, there is a lot of gloom to what is a seriously funny and exciting profession and all the nutters that make it that!:ok: Any Pearls of wisdom about Helicopter sales men/women.............................nearly as bad as the Jail House Lawyers..eh?:}

[troglodytis]

I ran upon a video capture of Top Gear, a BBC auto program. The video is of a Lotus Exige, USA version of the Elise, trying to evade missile lock from a Longbow at short range.

It's a huge file, 44.8 MB. Certainly not dial-up friendly.

Take a look. (http://www.sleepy-fish.com/sleepy/Top_Gear_Exige_hi.wmv)

[John Eacott]

Well, that looked like fun: I'm not sure whether I'd rather have been driving the Apache or the Lotus :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

I saw the article on TV last week. Could have been better if the Apache wasn't made to look silly with all that flying around looking lost.
As they said at the end, all they'd do in reality is stand-off and blow the crap out of Jeremy, or cut the car in half with the gun.( I'd rather it was his little puppy of a co-presenter though, what a suck-up).

Good bit of KAPE though.
(Keeping the Army in the Public Eye)

[helmet fire]

I renew this thread for three reasons:
1. I have heard unconfirmed reports of the first Marine Corps Cobra being shotdown in Iraq. Anyone have any info on this?
2. The recent drunken discussions at the Oz Huey Funship retirement involved the perceptions of hover fire V running fire.
3. Lu has yet to provide ANY back up to his claims when he was challenged MONTHS ago to:

Lu: Please quote the exact part of the report (word for word please) where it mentions lies, or invulnerability to ZSU or RPGs.

And Lu, I recently saw you on an aviation crash program - nice presentation indeed!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: helmet fire

I contacted the Training and Documentation Command (TRADOC) of the US Army. They provided a condensed version of a report dealing with the ZSU-23-4 weapons system but it applied to the Cobra and not the Apache and it did not deal with any lies told to Apache pilots regarding the capabilities of the ZSU-23-4. In all sincerity I did see the article in which the US Army downplayed the capabilities of the weapons system and how it would be ineffective against the Apache. I just was unable to locate it.

I recovered this from my word file and although there is no attribution the facts in the two paragraphs accurately reflect the original article.

The US Army lied to the pilots of the Apache relative to its’ invulnerability to the ZSU-23-4 weapons system. This was the primary weapon that would be used against the Apache if it were to attack a group of Warsaw Pact tanks.

This weapon was also being supplied to all of the governments that were in league with the Warsaw Pact. The U S Army commissioned a study by a so-called ”Think Tank” to study the effectiveness of the ZSU 23-4 against the Apache. It was their considered opinion that the ZSU 23-4 was inaccurate, It had a low degree of reliability and that if the ZSU 23 did hit the Apache with one round, the pilot would have sufficient time to evade any further hits by dropping below the tree line. The uninitiated reader should understand that the ZSU 23-4 has a rate of fire of 1200 rounds per minute and that if one bullet hit its’ mark, there would be forty or fifty rounds right behind the first round.

The original article did not address invulnerability to RPGs nor were RPGs even addressed in the design specs for the Apache.

The original Apache invulnerability specification addressed tumbled rounds of various caliber’s (7.62 and 50 Cal.) and the engines, the transmission, rotorhead, rotorblades and the intermediate and tail boxes as well as the tail rotor had to be invulnerable to a single hit by a 23mm HEI round. The pilots and gunners compartments had to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI round in that if one compartment were hit the other would still function. The two compartments were separated by transparent armor (Polycarbonate plastic).

Hopefully this is satisfactory.


:E :E

[Ian Corrigible]

Helmet Fire -

A Whiskey Cobra force-landed near Fallujah last Tuesday after taking ground fire. Both pilots were rescued.

I/C

[Robbo Jock]

A thought occurred to me this morning. Coincidentally, this thread's been resurrected, so I'll ask it. The Israelis would appear to be operating in a remarkably similar environment to the US forces, attacking targets in built-up areas, yet they don't appear to have the same loss rate as the Americans. Why would that be ?

[hotzenplotz]

We learned from Shawn Coyle that the Israeli Gunships operate at 3000 ft AGL. At this altitude they are out of range of small-arms-fire. In Iraq the Gunships have to fear MANPAD's (man-portable air defense systems). That's why they stay low and expose themselves to gunfire what their armor holds off in the most cases.
This is my own interpretation. So if you know better, please let me know.

[Robbo Jock]

Ah. I'd forgotten that post. Why don't the Americans take a leaf out of the Israeli book, then ? (Or is there a post on that somewhere back there ? I'll have to go back and read 'em all again!)

[hotzenplotz]

Yes, there is a post. It was the one I posted before.

I tried to tell you that the Palestinensians have no MANPAD's. That's why the Israeli Gunships can operate at an altitude where they don't expose themselves to gunfire. I don't believe that it is an advantage regarding a MANPAD threat, to fly at 3000 ft because of the reaction time for counter measures. The important thing for the safety for an helicopter is the cone of threat. The higher the helicopter, the larger the area at the ground from where the helicopter can be shot. A low and fast flying helicopter is a hard target for a missile. Everybody who operated a Stinger knows that.

[Shawn Coyle]

More info from a source recently returned from the theater...
His comment was that the Army were entirely too predictable. They flew along the same routes at 500' agl, in tight formation a lot of the time.
He cited several examples of Army helicopters that had been shot down where they had been flying and turning over the same point on the ground for several days.
Navy and Marine helicopters were grounded if their countermeasures were unserviceable, where many Army helicopters didn't even have countermeasures...
Evidently the Army general in charge of aviation wouldn't let his people fly below 500' because he was certain he would lose more to flying into the ground than to enemy fire.
This particular individual said they never went above 50' agl unless it was to cross power lines....
Hope that helps return this to the subject at hand.

[helmet fire]

Lu, I guess you are going to go off the grapes again....

To paraphrase your post then you could have said:

"I found no supporting evidence for my claim that the US Army lied to it's Apache pilots about invunerability and therefore withdraw it unconditionally. Although the Apache was designed to be ballistically tolerant, no one in their right mind would believe it would survive a ZSU-234 engagement".

BTW, the word "invulnerability", is that USA speak for "not vulnerable" or "survivability"?

Robbo and hotzen go back a page and review Nick's three types of weapon environments. That may add to your comments.

Shawn, are you saying that the US Army aviators have been ordered to fly above 500 ft AGL? I guess that MANPADS are not considered a threat then. I have always tried to avoid the small arms envelope - fly 50 ft or less, or NB 2000ft unless you absolutely have to. At 500 ft, they are smack bang in the least survivable height band for SA - sounds like Somalia where they were apparently shot down from 300 ish ft.

[Shawn Coyle]

I don't know whether they were 'ordered to' fly above 500' AGL. My source said that they flew at 500' and not lower. And he did make the comparison to Somalia.

[SASless]

Shawn,

In Somalia, after the Bad Day event, the US Army put in place a VFR airway setup around Moga. We inherited that routine and it made me wonder then why such things happen. Knowing the Army mentality...it does not surprise me that similar things happened in Iraq. The key is in making one self "unpredictable" as possible. If I wish to mug you...all you have to do is follow the same path at the same time at the same height at the same speed......and WHAM! GOTCHA!

Using Hover fire techniques in the open desert or an urban area that is not divided by a MLR with opposing forces nicely divided between over there and right here....just sets the guys up for trouble. In Somalia, Task Force Ranger became predictable and used the same tactics repeatedly. Then to do it in the daylight to boot....just begged for trouble.

My hat is off to the courage those guys demonstrated during that fight....but I would suggest it could have been avoided by use of different tactics. Critiques of that action confirm that.

[Shawn Coyle]

I find it interesting that Marine officers are almost required to read Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'. I have yet to hear an Army person quoting it.
They may know how many rivets there are in the tailboom, however...

[Helipolarbear]

Army Pilots learned that which is not spoken of.................'The Fog of War'............at least ..not in peace time!!!:}

[Flying Lawyer]

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE News Release (146/2004) issued by the Government News Network on 14 October 2004 Initial Operating Capability (IOC) has been declared for the Army’s new generation of Attack Helicopter. The Apache AH Mk1 will be the cornerstone of the Armed Forces’ new Joint Helicopter Command and is considered one of the most significant weapons’ systems to enter service with the British Army since the tank in 1916.

IOC is a significant step towards the platform reaching full operating capability.

Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said:

“I am delighted that IOC has been declared for the new Apache Attack Helicopter. This is a considerable achievement and evidence of how equipment projects are benefiting from the principles of Smart Acquisition.
ache is a hugely flexible and formidable fighting platform which will form part of 16 Air Assault Brigade and support 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. It can be armed with a variety of weapons including Hellfire missiles, CRV7 rockets and 30mm cannon rounds, and with its on-board surveillance and target acquisition systems the Apache provides a major increase in capability over its predecessor.”

Note to Editors

1. The Army’s requirement for an Attack Helicopter (AH), was endorsed in June 1991. This identified the need for an Attack Helicopter with long range anti-tank capability to replace its Lynx/TOW helicopters. Following a competitive tendering exercise, the contract was awarded to WHL in March 1996 and a separate contract for the supply of munitions was placed with Hunting Engineering Ltd.

2. In July 1998, the Strategic Defence Review quoted the Attack Helicopter as an example of the new equipment entering service in the next few years which would greatly improve our ability to conduct the hard hitting, mobile land operations of the future.

3. A Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract for the provision of the WAH-64 training services was awarded to ATIL in July 1998, following a detailed analysis of the increased cost effectiveness of the PFI solution over the conventional procurement and operation of training equipment.

4. The aircraft is based on the AH-64D Apache Longbow, which entered service with the US Army in 1998. Key differences between the WAH-64 and the US AH-64D are the Rolls Royce Turbomeca (RTM) 322 engines and the Defensive Aids Suite (HIDAS) that will be fitted to WAH-64.

5. Current plans see AH capability growth being delivered in a stepped manner, culminating in Full Operating Capability (FOC) in 2007, when 3 AAC Regiments will be operational.

6. Created as part of the Strategic Defence Review, Joint Helicopter Command will focus the joint capabilities of the three Services and enhance the operational effectiveness of the battlefield helicopter.

[[email protected]]

Has it actually got RF Hellfire yet or are they bridging the gap between desired capability and actual capability with spin?

[sprucemoose]

Wasn't this supposed to have happened in August? Anyway, well done AAC - looking forward to seeing this bit of kit in action soon!

[Vfrpilotpb]

A brace of these big ugly birds seen today flying over the lower Pennie hills North East of Manchester, heading out over the Rossendale Valley. What a sight, although now a little worried due possible terrorist action in the hills!;)

Vfr

[Navaleye]

Does this mean we have an operational squadron or one or two aircraft that have passed weapons trials.

[Heliport]

Press report First Apache Attack Helicopter Regiment Fully Operational

The UK's first Apache Attack Helicopter regiment is fully operational, following the successful completion of Exercise Eagles Strike today.

9 Regiment Army Air Corps, part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, has been fully trained, tested and exercised as the lead Apache Helicopter Regiment and is now available for operations.

The Regiment Army Air Corps based in Dishforth, Yorkshire, and is the first front-line unit to take delivery of the Apache Attack Helicopter Mk1.

Brigade Commander, Brig Ed Butler, added: "As the modern battlefield becomes more complex, dispersed and technical, we need to evolve our military capability correspondingly.
"The Apache Attack Helicopter will give the British Army a genuine advantage over contemporary and future adversaries in the battlefield air space."

At the conclusion of Exercise Eagles Strike the MOD announced the award of two new contracts worth over £300 million to AgustaWestland that will significantly enhance the Apache Mk1's night vision capability and provide a new four year support solution for the helicopter.

The MOD has entered into a £194m contract with Westland Helicopters to provide Modernised Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/Pilots Night Vision Sensors (M-TADS).
The MOD has also awarded a £115m contract to AgustaWestland to provide essential logistics support to the Apache.

The Apache Mk1 is based on the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow. The prime contract was placed with AgustaWestland for the supply of 67 aircraft and all role and support equipment built to UK requirements.

The Mk1 replaces the Lynx/TOW helicopters and will be the key equipment within the Army's new air manoeuvre formation.
The Apache Attack Helicopter can be armed with a variety of weapons including Hellfire missiles, CRV-7 Rockets and 30mm canon rounds.

[Jonp]

Whilst driving up the M40 on Thursday I saw 4 of these flying over at about 100ft agl

What an awe enspiring sight. I was lucky enough to sit in one at shawbury last year, but to see 4 together in formation was pretty good.

Jonp

[SASless]

Now all they need is a mission.....any of them being painted in pink?

[rotorrookie]

It's not so easy to outrun the Apache video (http://www.funny-spot.com/html/Apache-Helicopter-Vs-Lotus.html)

p.s. Who else than Jeremy Clarkson would try it:}

[Spheriflex]

This is TV, so the M6 had to win :hmm:
You can see it by the nose up of the aircraft
M6 versus S76b (http://www.rtl.nl/(channel=rtl4,progid=autowereld)/system/media/wvx/automotor/rtlautowereld/miMedia/2005/week35/vrijdag_1_bmw_heli.avi_plain.xml/wm364.wvx)

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Wow - Holland has a Jermey Clarkson - and he talk bollocks too - but in Dutch !

[Graviman]

Well, the heli don't need a racetrack...

If i had the money to buy a silly sportscar, i'd be asking "which heli" advice on this forum and giving my Polo Diesel a carwash. :}

Mart

[purge98]

Interesting....the hangar was a CHC one but the aircraft did not have CHC markings.

Spooky......

[mazakari]

CHC Schreiner. I thought it was rather nice they pulled into the hover to allow him to catch up.;) :p

[Spheriflex]

They already painted the hangar, cause it doesn't move. The aircrafts are to busy flying, so they don't have time to put the warbird on.:E

[hotzenplotz]

Some questions about the AH-64 Apache


http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/8928/1ah64aapache3xw.jpg
AH-64 A

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7522/2wah64dlongbow3sl.jpg
AH-64 D Longbow (with MMW)

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7199/3ah64netherlands8dg.jpg
AH-64 D (without MMW)

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/2663/4apacheprowl0nm.jpg
AH-64 D (without anything)


I wonder what the difference is, between the two AH-64 D Models without the MMW?


I also wonder what these balls are, on the wingtips of the Israeli AH-64 D?

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8938/257473vc.jpg


Maybe someone can help me.
Thanks in advance,

Hotzenplotz

[Jonp]

I have no idea, and unfortunately can't help. What I can say, is if you think thats odd, you try sitting in one. The only things you can recognise are the 3 basic controls - everything else is like nothing else I have flown.

We were lucky enough to visit them at Shawbury a year ago, and even sit in the cockpit - amazing bit of kit

Jon P

[Ian Corrigible]

The difference between the two pictures is simply that the third picture shows a DWI (D model with Longbow) aircraft with the Longbow de-rotation collar installed, whereas the fourth shows a DWO (D model wthout Longbow), which lacks both the collar (since it is never fitted with the fire control radar) and the antenna from the AH-64A.

As you probably know, only 45% of the D fleet was installed with the Longbow FCR.

I suspect the wart on the Israeli bird is part of the Elisra Passive Airborne Warning System fitted to the Saraf.

I/C

[hotzenplotz]

Does this mean that the DWO's with the Longbow de-rotation collar get the MMW-Radar later?

Or are they "full" Longbow machines with demontaged Radar, because the Radar is not needed for the actual mission?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here stands that the Elisra Passive Airborne Warning System is for the F-16:

http://www.aviationnow.com/media/pdf/spec05_ew.pdf

Do you have a source for the "warts" ?

[Ian Corrigible]

hotzenplotz:

All upgraded Ds with the glass cockpit are supposed to be wired for the Longbow FCR, and capable of being retrofitted with the system in 4-8 hours (a task which is obviously simplified when the de-rotation collar is installed). Even without the FCR, Ds are capable of launching the MMW AGM-114L Hellfire, handing-off to FCR-equipped aircraft for targeting.

However, since the buy of AN/APG-78 FCRs has not increased, even under the Block III upgrade program, less than half the fleet remains equipped with the radar (hence the lack of collars on all the fleet). While driven primarily by cost considerations, this is also a reflection of the fact that FCR-equipped aircraft are not needed for all missions, and that a DWO D model Apache equipped with laser-guided Hellfires is still capable enough for most missions, esp. in non-obscured environments.

The Block III upgrade, which adds a range of improvements to the overall D model fleet including a extended-range FCR and AGM-114Ls, also includes uprated 701D engines, which help offset the weight penalty associated with the radar and accompanying boxes (e.g in mid-East opps).

Re: the IAF aircraft, I have no proof that the warts are associated with the PAWS (for some reason the IDF is strangely protective of its mission fit ! :E), but the program has been under consideration for several years and there was additional blurb on it at Paris this year.

I/C

[hotzenplotz]

Thank you verry much.
You were really helpful. :ok:

[NickLappos]

I wonder how the Longbow has proven itself in service. Those promises of swatting targets at 5 miles like video gamers do it always seemed excessive.

Some word I got from US Army pilots is that the MMW can't tell a school bus from a T-80, and that the eyeball and visual systems are what allow launch. Failure of the IAF to buy the whole lot would tell us they found it less capable than Boeing brochures would indicate.

Any of you Apache guys in Britain able to help out?

[TechHead]

MMW Radar for the Apache.

The capabilities of the MMW radar are pretty much governed by the tactical situation in which it is deployed. MMW in an urban environment is pretty much useless. MK I eyeball with the normal EO/FLIR and you have yourself a game of soldiers. On the other hand, stand off 6 or 8 clicks in the middle of a desert with a everything outside your cockpit deemed 'enemy' and you have yourself a barrel of fish. That would be 16 dead fish in under a minute.

As for T-80 versus Schoolbus. It can indeed tell the difference. The radar returns from both are quite different and extremely distinguishable.

There is plenty of room for improvement however. :D

[BigMike]

Anyone have a link to the video of the Apache that struck trees with the MR blades, while NOE at night?

Thanks BM

[SuperAviator]

BigMike

i've got exactly what you're looking for.

can't seem to figure out how to upload files on this site at the moment.

if you like, PM your personal e-mail address & i'll send it over pronto.

[ppf]

BM,

The video is on this website entitled "Will it fit through the gap":

http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/videos/

ppf ;)

[BigMike]

Thanks a lot ppf! and to SuperAviator as well.
Great site.
I am putting together a safety presentation and had been searching for this clip.

Any EMS related, or wire-strike clips, would be appreciated too.


Thanks BM

[paco]

Big Mike - PM me with your snail address - I've got loads of stuff like that and I'll send u a CD

Phil

[BigMike]

Thanks Phil, you have a PM

[Vfrpilotpb]

Seasons greetings to all Rotorheads,

I have posted before on the footprint of certain Helis, but was supprised on Thursday of last week when I picked up the unmistakable throb of some sort of approaching Heli, I had a friend with me(non flyer) who also heard this I commented that it sounded pretty powerful and could be a three of four blade sysem making the increasingly loud noise, I told my pal where to look in the sky to see the arrival of this noisey beast , I checked my watch for some other reason but was supprised three miniutes later to see the Apache at about 150 ft fly into our view in the sky position I had indicated to my friend, on its own that really is no big deal.........

But if these type of Helis are capable of being detected like this with the Human ear, surely this would give some sort of time advantage to insurgents to get the old RPGs ready to have a go, any thought from others with more active experience?

Many regards

Vfr

[Hilico]

I can't imagine it took three minutes to reach you from first hearing. Perhaps it was manouvering hard in tight circles, in the direction you heard the noise from, and in the last 30s headed in your direction? That would account for why it was making that level of noise for so long.

They've been cruising past over Ipswich for several months now and the noise is not exceptional - though it's not EC135/MD902 quiet.

[headsethair]

Post above now edited.

Heliport

[SASless]

Sound was used to detect aircraft in WWII and no reason why it does not work today as well.

[MightyGem]

Hi Peter, long time, no post.

Are you sure it was approaching from a distance, and not slowly from
half a mile or so? Compared to a Lynx or Chinook, they are
positively quiet.

[crab beefer]

Rumour at Shawbury is 3 experienced Apache pilots have resigned.

Is life that bad in the apache world or were these 3 at a natural break point?

will there be slots for more exchanges? I know the NAvy have one, isn't it time the RAF got a look in?

or looking at the exit numbers should i stay away?

[AHQHI656SQN]

Crab Beefer, stay away!

I think your source of information is a little bit wrong, cos it's more than three! I am curious about the sincerity of your post.
Are you one of a growing number who like a good old verbal bashing about the Army Apache program?
As a "crab beefer" I assume (might be wrong, I have been wrong before) you a RAF helicopter pilot and QHI, therefore failed fast jet maybe, with a burning desire to something more than just ash and trash.
Bullied at Red 850 by Lynx 5 in the past maybe? To be honest I don't really care.

The people you speak of haven't yet resigned, well maybe one or two have, but not all, and I think you'll find they could all be staying within the Apache program, just as civvies, all of them are at points in there service where it is natural to leave if a better offer comes along.

Why is it the Apache makes the headlines everytime somebody on the program has a good sh1t? Life in the Apache world isn’t bad, there are challenges sure, but what part of the armed forces doesn’t have any challenges right now.

Oh one more thing, the Royal Navy have 2 current Apache pilots to at the moment, one is a QHI who got us all onto and off HMS Ocean without incident. The Royal Navy added to the Attack Helicopter budget when they decided not to buy a Lynx TOW replacement, which is why one of the Attack Aviation Squadrons has a Maritime role. No need for any Crabs thank you!

[ShyTorque]

AHQHI656SQN

Strewth! You should have gone into Air Defence with a defensive attitude like that!

It seemed like a genuine enough question to me so why fly straight off the collective?

Sounds like a very sensitive spot was touched there......

But you said "I think your source of information is a little bit wrong, cos it's more than three!"

Followed by "The people you speak of haven't yet resigned, well maybe one or two have"

Make up your mind! :rolleyes:

[AHQHI656SQN]

ST, the bottom line is, why does it matter that 3 or more Apache pilots have resigned, how many Puma pilots, or Chinook pilots have resigned? No news really.
A lot more than 3 Apache pilots have resigned, some very senior, some not so senior, every one of em for better offers. As my memory serves me about 11 so far.
Not attitude at all, just miffed every time I someone post a disingenuous thread on here about Apache. Really what does it matter to crab beefer that 3 Apache pilots have resigned? He's nothing to do with Apache, nor could he be. There is more impact on me and those flying the Apache at the moment yet none of us put the post up. We are the ones who have to carry on doing the job, and there are few enough of us as it is.

Merry Christmas.

[owe ver chute]

Tom, maybe it would be better if the crabs had Apache eh?
Cos look at how well they keep hold of the Tornado and Harrier and Hercules and Tristar and Chinook and Puma pilots. None of them leave do they? :ok:

Merry Christmas mate.

[mutleyfour]

Maybe CB was simply fishing and AHQHI took the bait.

[Zoom]

I do feel sorry for the Apache mates. As any military person will know, there is not a single piece of equipment, from the humble sock to the super-snazzy jet fighter, that has worked as advertised at any stage of its time in service.

You may correct me if I am wrong.

[ExGrunt]

Jerrycan :ok:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Two's in]

Isn't saying 'don't slag off the Apache" a bit like saying "don't call me Ginger"? Glad to see it still works though.

[AHQHI656SQN]

2's in, who's slagging the Apache?
The aircraft is fantastic, I would't want to go into battle dressed in anything else.
As for being Ginger.....

[FrogPrince]

We nicked the design for the jerrycan in 1941 from... the Jerries (the clue is in the name).

:D

IIRC, the Spitfire had teething troubles pre-war, the 4 engined Lancaster only came into being because the 2 engined Manchester was a right 'horlicks', Kestrel / Harrier also had a long and difficult birth.

Goes with the territory for any major change programme. All four major change elements need to be sorted:

People
Organisation
Technology
Information

From the outside, AH within 16 AA Bde seems to be a readily deployable asset. We'll find out soon enough next year, I'm sure.

[boswell bear]

I'd be happy to fly Apache :cool:

[wg13_dummy]

But did all the other bits of kit to come into service with 'teething problems' have a bunch of humourless, soft skinned drippers at the helm?

:rolleyes:

[crab beefer]

Wow..:eek:

All I wanted to know was should I ask to do an exchange tour. I have subsequently been told that there are 4 Apache QHIs resigned amongst others including some Apache pilots in staff jobs. I would be happy doing a line shag slot but would be equally keen to fill a QHI slot.

Having said all that I am now worried as I have obviuosly have hit a bit of a nerve. Glad the RN doing well, I do like to think the RAF would be able to impart something to the development of this great aircraft, maybe you disagree.:confused: :rolleyes:

[mutleyfour]

Crab Beefer, you havent exactly hit a raw nerve, so one person bites, not surprisingly as you lot continually bait such people. Im sure AHQHI is feeling a little bit miffed after countless bouts of said sarcasm. But his bite doesnt constitute a landslide vitory against AH does it?

I agree with you however that maybe an exchange RAF Pilot might be worthwhile, but will you find an NCO Pilot!

Happy Christmas

Muttley out

[Sloppy Link]

Arctic socks, can't beat them. The roll mat has never let me down either. In fact the only thing that has let me down is my own expectations of kit as it is introduced.
(Is that irony, sarcacm, satire or wit? Please could an educated person advise. Crab Beefer perhaps?)

[CSRO]

I am sure the RAF would add to the apache program.

Should he be FJ or rotary?

CB - as SQHI656 says of those that are going, some will stay linked to the program so no huge loss.

Suggest you speak to your manning branch and put in a request to do exchange.

[sarmonkey]

All us blue-jobs would love a go of the Apache - Very capable and, it has to be said, cool as ****. I'm sure with our limited experience of helo ops and weapon delivery, we could through hard work and sending only the very best candidates, contribute in some small way. It would appear that we need to work on our bitterness and bait-taking abilities though, since this is obviously part of the job....





Just kidding, chaps - put down your dark visors and go and impress some girls and have a happy christmas too!

[MaroonMan4]

SarMonkey,

Now now my dear chap - no need to add to add to the melee! Although it grieves me to admit, Front Seater is actually right - and although a humble civvie I know that us light blue bretheren have not actually got anything endorsed by our airships and so what do they (Air Component) actually want Apache to do for us?

We have not included or requested them in any JFACC orbat, where as the JFMCC and JFLCC have and have the associated endorsed doctrine to back it up.

As you well know in a cash strapped MoD, unless it is endorsed there is no requirement, no requirement then no funding and with out funding there is no capability. All of the TLT, SAXON SHIELD, WICKHAM WARRIOR stuff is all done by mates, for mates through the back door and not through any ATO/ATM tasking from a CAOC.

So it has absolutely nothing to do with experience in helo ops or weapon delivery skills - as although I am sure there is experience out there it appears that the Pongos are doing a pretty good job at training their own QWIs and Weapon Instructors. As to the remainder of the Air Component stuff, again just before I left I observed the AH EAGLE STRIKE exercise where it was pleasing to see the brown jobs fully up to speed on COMAO, FRA, DCA, OCA blah blah and more to the point willing to listen to the SH guys during the planning process - now that is a step change from the old Army way of doing business!

And ultimately, regardless of the hot air about who should fly it (done to death in so many other threads, so please not start it here!) the bottom line with the Lynx Fleet being reduced, Gazelles joining history and according to the press releases only 48 frontline AH, then every single seat in any Army aircraft is high value for their own Corps and future career progressions.

But as I have always said on numerous occasions, in this resource and cash strapped MoD lets stop party politicking for individual Service gains and why not just accept the inevitable and stop faffing and having a protracted cuffuffle and go Joint - properly and not in the half baked attempt that it currently is.

[SilsoeSid]

As any military person will know, there is not a single piece of equipment, from the humble sock to the super-snazzy jet fighter, that has worked as advertised at any stage of its time in service. To add to the growing list, how about those 'mini doss bags' that were/are brilliant in Norway?


And ultimately, regardless of the hot air about who should fly it (done to death in so many other threads, so please not start it here!) the bottom line with the Lynx Fleet being reduced, Gazelles joining history and according to the press releases only 48 frontline AH, then every single seat in any Army aircraft is high value for their own Corps and future career progressions. What is the future of the various AAC TA units?
Is it true that they are the 'safest' TA unit to be a part of, bearing in mind present TA deployments?

Just wondered!
;)
SS

[HEDP]

7 Regt is safe as houses and picking up a lot of the admin tasking and 6 Regt AAC (TA) has/is just forming as a ground AH support Regt based out of Bury St Edmunds.

HEDP

[aytoo]

It's been said before, but will bear saying again. Like any new bit of kit, there is a honeymoon period, followed by a reality check.

When the Scout came into service, contrary to urban myth, it was such a piece of Sh1t, that the light-blue jobs bought Alouette 2 off the shelf so that they had something to fly. Much, much later was the old brussel sprout considered the landrover of the skies - and even then it was rumoured that on completion of a Scout AH1 conversion the successful candidate filled in a Green Endorsement but left the date blank - it was not a case of if, but when, the mighty Nimbus would fail...

The Apache is a mighty piece of kit, and is currently operated by the leading experts (at least in Europe), at direct-fire weapons from rotary aircraft. Let us hope that they do not continue to leach manpower of the quality that they seem content to do so. Several very fine young men indeed appear to have just had enough, including one Sandhurst Sword of Honour Winner (how's the sword case JVB). The other two that I know of are also a huge loss to a fine Corps.

[MightyGem]

that has worked as advertised at any stage of its time in service.
Compo can opener. An excellent piece of kit, still use one at home.

[BEagle]

Indeed - that compo can widger was an engineering masterpiece! One of the few military things which actually did what it was supposed to.

As did the old 'gorilla snot' glue for joining maps together.

[Wizzard]

Aah, Gorilla Snot.

Many happy memories of being high as a kite on completion of my Munster LFA map!

Wiz:D

[owe ver chute]

Aytoo, the Sandhurst Sword of Honour Winner that you speak of hasn't had enough of the Apache, I hear it's the thought of no more Apache flying that he's not happy with. Indeed it's the same old Army Air Corps Officer career profile that a lot of bright young Army Officers have to come to terms with, or leave the Corps. I dare say that for the first time this profile is coming to bite the AAC on the @rse. It now takes too long to train a replacement Apache Flight Commander, to the point that Apache CTT (already pushed to the limit) won't be able to keep the numbers of Apache pilots up to the required quantity! At a time when the requirement is for the number of pilots to increase, it makes no sense to remove pilots from a flying role at a time when this fledgling pragram is trying to grow.

[fenestronuk]

Good point about YOs leaving due to career path restrictions.

Are these 3 leaving all officer Apache pilots?
Are they all QHIs?
I am told it is more than 3? (4 from Dishforth and 3 from Wallop)??which doesn't seem like many to me but when it is out of a small number I guess it does make a difference.

I thought the PA spine was designed to keep these guys in? or does the AAC army career path still come first?
I genuinelly hope the AAC doesn't blow Apache and handit on a plate to another service who will be able to man it...

I am due to go on Apache CTT soon and am interested if I am going to get the flying I am being promised or whetehr it is more of the same but leaving me even less competent as I will have even less time to get to grips with a more complicated platform. Why won't they let us get good?:confused:

[AHQHI656SQN]

Fenestronuk, if you want to see what life in an Attack Sqn is like pop up to Dishforth if you get the chance. You could also go to 673 Sqn at Wallop, but bare in mind that they a funded by ATRA, the 673 Sqn crewroom cost more than 656 Sqns hanger!! Only joking but they are well looked after.

The program needs top quality individuals who want to fly the Apache because the Apache is what they want to fly, without that want, you'll fall by the way-side. It is hard graft, no two ways about it, and it's a long old haul, but every time you sit in the cockpit (front or rear seat) you'll grin from ear to ear and when you let rip with the M230 for the first time, your world will rock.
Give us a call on 94713 4669 and have a chat.

Merry Christmas
Tom

P.S. Not sure about who has or who hasn't resigned, but it's sure getting people talking!

[MightyGem]

'gorilla snot'
Withdrawn during my last years due to "fumes in the cockpit". :(

[aytoo]

TRF,

Looking at the timing of your post, you MAY just be excused for attempting to crowbar this thread into the traditional crab v pongo slanging match - but I doubt it! There are very serious issues being discussed here, but the ownership of said capable piece of hardware ought not to be one of them.

All right then, at your level - just how much experience has the SH force got in direct fire weapons against armour or even SSVs? Really? As much as all that?

ps - do you fly the front or the back cyclic:ok:

[Twin Rotor Fun]

Apologies for drunken posting! Post duly removed.:ugh:

[CSRO]

Can someone confirm as QHI656 states - who has resigned?

Can someone confirm the following have resigned (not including those chopped):
3 (BA, PD, SG) ex A model QHIs in USA in the early days
1 (KM) to industry
1 (TD) to Shawbury DHFS as FBH QHI
RQHI 9 Reg (MG)
Ops Offr 9 Reg (DW)
Adjt 9 Reg (RT) - not sure if he is Apache trained
Ex OC 673 Sqn (NW)
Ex SSM 673 Sqn (SW)
Rumour of RN exchange pilot (SD) too
Rumour of one member of AMTAT (CW or CE?)
Reg Flt Comd (JVB)?

This can not be good news for the program at this stage.

What I want to know is why? and what can we do about it? particularly as alot of these QHIs have a great deal of experience that we should not be loosing before we have even finished fielding Apache.

Positive proposals only but obviously appreciate the negatives will address the why question. Think broadly and yes ownership may be one solution but I doubt it.

I may be in a position to try and help.:confused:

[DUMPS]

Come on boys ... back off the gingers ... surely they get enough grief??

[AHQHI656SQN]

CSRO, if you might be in a position to try and help, why not pick up a telephone and call the units or individuals effected?
Check PM

[peoplespoet]

Wait until the FRI time bars runout later this year!!

Bugger.

[Sloppy Link]

CSRO,
Your apparant lack of knowledge is at odds with the intimate depth of knowledge you appear to have of individuals career plans. If you feel that you can help, how about doing it? You should not have to be asked.

[breakscrew]

Crab Beefer,
The RAF cannot yet fill the Lynx exchange QHI slot at SAAvn (after gapping it for 3 months already and looking at another 3 months until it is filled), let alone front up with a suitable candidate for AH. Rumour has it that the proposed individual is ex-RN, recently transferred to the RAF and on his first posting. Lots of confidence in the quality then......
:hmm: BS

[peoplespoet]

Cant let this one disappear, its not even started to hit any raw nerves yet!

I must ask this question, just why are AH pilots so down in the mouth about life in an AH sqn??

Honesty must be the best policy if anything is to change.

[Low Ball]

Peoplespoet

You ought to read what folks who actually fly the Apache say rather than fishing for manure. AH pilots are not down in the mouth.

Check out AHQHI's posts on this thread - 'he wouldn't want to go to war wearing anything else' he goes on to say, I paraphrase, it needs dedicated people who really want to do this and it is challenging. He's even offering visits to an AH Sqn for likely applicants to check it out before they apply. I assume you do not fall into this category since you seem to know little about the Apache or the men and women who fly it.

LB

[peoplespoet]

LB,
I'm sure that you are correct but I have spoken with many AH crews recently and to a man they are hacked off.

Fed up of poor serviceability, being placed on and off the deployment wagon and AH funding being cut left right and Chelsea. The general feeling appears to be that the AH is a great ac but the MOD cant afford to operate it effectively. It costs to much for ac MODs and training ammunition (which has apparently ran out) and the men are left to provide the full capability on a shoe string which is damaging to health and reputation.

I have no Axe to grind, just cant understand how the crews that fly the beast have become so demoralized that they should consider leaving after so much has been invested in them.

Surely everything possible should be available and considered to keep them on AH and in the forces i.e. more money if thats what it takes, after all the NAO state that it costs the tax payer nearly 1 million pound to fully train each CR AH pilot so 100K extra to retain their services for 5 years is a wise investment, and it worked for the harrier mates.

If any of the above has truth in it 'especially the ammo thing' then the MOD must have a duty of care to front up the dosh ASAP (UOR) especially if the media hype of a deployment next year is correct. The men need to train if they are expected to deliver!

Responses welcome

PP.

DEFENCE
Apache Helicopters

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it costs to train a pilot to fly Apache helicopters; and how long the training takes. [153977]

Mr. Ingram: The basic Conversion to Type course for qualified Army pilots on the Apache helicopter at the School of Army Aviation, Middle Wallop, is 26 weeks. A current estimate of cost for this course for one pilot (the course has yet to complete) is £600,000. Once qualified, pilots then progress to a Conversion to Role course which will take place at Dishforth and Wattisham, and is run by the Air Manoeuvre Training Advisory Team (AMTAT). This course is of 26 weeks duration and an estimate of cost is £550,000.

[Bertie Thruster]

Wow! 26 weeks conversion to type! How many flying hours?

[AHQHI656SQN]

26 week Apache CTT, a bit like a student trimming out a Chipmunt T10!

I love the fact that so many people on here hide behind names that mean nothing and wax lyrical about mates who are Apache pilots and fed-up!

I too have got mates who are Apache pilots, not one of them are fed-up of flying Apache or being on the program. I would say that Apache pilots are no more or less fed-up than the Lynx drivers in the Regt.

I've said on here previously and stated there are issues, sure there are, but when you strap in they ebb away. The ammunition situation isn't ideal, indeed I had a chat with DCJHC Brig NC and it was top of his list of things to correct, but you can't pop down to Halfords and buy a batch of CRV7 off the shelf. The spares issue is complex, and to be honest is an issue, however it is often over-stated, what isn't often mentioned is how low the manning levels are at the Sqn CSS, now, if you want to find a group who are fed-up, speak to your friendly Apache REME! Never mentioned is how long it takes 7 Bat to turn round 300's cos fixing aircraft is 5th on a list of 7 tasks for the Bn. Or is it cos there are no spares?

Guys, I've had a heavy week on OPTAG Trg down at Colly, lets stop the bitchin and we'll p155 this.

Peoplespoet, it's been a while since you were last on here, I know I know who you are, but give us a clue mate.

[wg13_dummy]

Crikey, AHQHI656, youre dull. It appears the only people who bring this subject up is 'you lot'.
I love the fact that so many people on here hide behind names that mean nothing
Most choose to be anonymous. It appears you use your user name to gain ACR points, just a guess.;) Bet you dont say anything bad or against the Corps with that do you?

[AHQHI656SQN]

WG13 Dummy, you’ve got the gall to call me dull, I’ve just read your public profile, who’s dull?
You can wink all you like but suggesting I’m on here to gain CR points couldn’t be further from the truth, if you knew me then you’d know better. You seem to have confused my loyalty to the Apache (which I love dearly) for trying to gain CR points.
You claim that the only people bringing up this subject [Apache] is us lot, again wide of the mark, check out who started this thread, not an Apache pilot!
As for not saying anything bad against the Corps, when it’s warranted it gets it, though I’ve not said anything good about it either. I will not sit idly by while rubish is stated about the Apache or my fellow Apache pilots, no more than when I was flying Lynx.
We are where we are on this program due to hard work and dedication of a hand-full of fine aviators, who overcame a lot of obstacles placed by the Corps and the Army, some of which have not been overcome nor will they be any time soon. As long as the men who fly Apache have to adhere to the career profile that the Army insists on there will be waste.

[peoplespoet]

AHQHI656 is correct about many things that he writes on here and is a top bloke, but he stops short of the full reality of the situation, for the right reasons 'world of **it springs to mind'. :ok:

QHI656 and the rest of the AH pilots are undoubtedly proud and clearly revel in the achievement of qualifying on AH, and so they should. Their pride along with the knowledge of what the aircraft is capable of clearly frustrates them when they continue to suffer from poor serviceability and have few realistic training opportunities to look forward to, at least one's without shouting Bang, Bang, Bang, anyways...Joke!

The apparent lack of willingness to providing funding for the AH is frankly worrying, the RAF don't suffer to this degree I'm certain. Don't budget training; if X capability costs Y it stands to reason that if you provide Y- funds then you will only achieve X- capability or don't civil servants do maths anymore, or is it that they have been promised X+?

The AH has an awesome reputation to maintain and it won't be cheap.

No longer can the phrase "its just another helicopter" be used and for that reason a new bread of fighting leaders must push attack aviation into the limelight with substance to back it up (walk the walk, not Squawk, Squawk), the 'spirit of attack' which they all spout off about. Lets see some.

Can't imagine the consequences of not training regularly when faced with a two way range, only one outcome guaranteed me thinks!

PP.

(Tom, we flew the Twin Engine Torque monster together many times)

[[email protected]]

Ah.. the name PeoplesPoet....brings back happy memories of days at Wallop when out of the ether, a new peoplespoet message on the computer brought joy to the downtrodden QHI masses.

[peoplespoet]

Crabo, done anything mad with a lynx lately?


Those were the days me old mate how are SAR things going?


PP

[mutleyfour]

Back to basics though...When your getting on a bit..and flying Apache...as a QHI...with pension in back pocket...and along comes Mr ATIL...whom offers you a monday to friday...without deployment....in Hampshire....in civvies...but still flying AH..on equal or maybe even better money...Who in their right mind would say NO?

Muttley Out

[CSRO]

Limited job security though.

The ATIL contract is only for 30 years.....

Hang on, where do I sign?

[Low Ball]

Mutleyfour

Not quite right in your post there

Mr ATIL does not come along to you and offer you anything. You have to crawl to him with a date that is believable and agreed by your employers. Then and only then will he talk to you. The gate into ATIL is only one person wide they wouldn't want the masses bending the metal!

LB

[peoplespoet]

I am led to believe that ATIL also offer a reasonable pension, private health care, annual bonus schemes, guaranteed leave (30+ days) and a great quality of life, Oh and not to mention a 30 year contract.

Well if so, now that PAS has been fixed by the masters of all ideas that are brilliant I'm sure retention of AH pilots will be no problem at all...


PP

[MaroonMan4]

Guys,

This was an interesting thread - now very dull indeed. So you have some of your older AH pilots leaving and/or going to civilian MoD contracts. If you have a look around all three Services (Shawbury, Bovington and Portsmouth) you will find experienced men/women as civilians on a PFI contract, passing on their years of military experience.

Good - I am glad it is retained indirectly by the military as it would be a real pity to lose these guys to true civilian life in the airlines/civil rotary world.

Maybe continue this on ARRSE if you still think it is news/post worthy, but to be honest (and I have always had the upmost respect for you brown jobs, and envy the opportunity to fly Apache) you are just making yourselves look very spoiled by airing your washing on this forum.

Get over it guys - people will come and go, and don't ever think that you are irreplaceable. Maybe when you guys 'eat yourself up' from the inside there may be no other option but to make the capability Joint, and yes that does include recruiting suitable RAF/RN aircrew to fill those sacred Army AH seats.

If you guys don't want it, then I can assure you that there are many that would bite their arms off to give it a try - even if does mean cam cream, boil in the bags and bivvies!

:ok:

[HEDP]

Bored or boring? :E

As a tax payer it might be relevant to ask what is to be done to retain these aircrew costing 1 million a pop. If we turn them round every 4 years that is a hell of a cost.

What is to be done to accelerate to the full manning if we are already backfilling by 4 or 5 bodies to maintain the already understrength first regiment?

Many, many more issues that would raise concern lurk in the undergrowth too.

[oggiebob]

English! Crab Beefer - not - crab beefer!!

[peoplespoet]

MaroonMan4,
You don't have to visit this thread if you find it so dull! or is it that actually because you don't fly AH you are compelled to visit this thread in the hope that one day you may read something that offers you the slightest glimmer of hope at potentially having a go in the beast.

Try Bob or No if your looking for hope......else keep away!

Oh and by the way this thread is about AH pilots resigning and under that title the underlying reason's why surely is befitting.

PP:}

[ShyTorque]

Someone with this Profile:
Occupation:
Apache Aircrew wanabe"

Says this:
..or is it that actually because you don't fly AH you are compelled to visit this thread in the hope that one day you may read something that offers you the slightest glimmer of hope at potentially having a go in the beast."

Hello Po(e)t, Kettle calling!

[PIC]

I was interested to see two Apaches cruising around the Spey valley in Scotland this morning while I was at a shoot, but slightly disconcerted to see one start to circle overhead when eight shotguns started firing at the same time. Obviously they were just training but is it possible that such small arms fire would light up something on the panel prompting them to come and have a look, or was it just coincidence? In any event, never having seen one before they were an impressive sight and probably had a good day out in the highlands.

[TiPwEiGhT]

Do they have some based at Lossiemouth or Leuchars?

TiP

[PIC]

I doubt it

[Sioux4D]

PIC,

HIDAS (Helicotper Integrated Defensive Aids Suite) is the only system that could theoretically react to such events, in particular the Missile Warning System (MWS). However the system is programmed to recognise specific UV emissions and as such should not be triggered by shotgun blasts. If they were I think that the MOD would have serious questions to ask about the false alarm rate of the system. However I am certain that this is not the case.

Needless to say if the Apaches had caught wind of the shots and were trying to ascertain the source, I imagine the guys would have got a bit of a shock!!
However, even in peace time I doubt the aircrew would put themselves or the airframe at risk where gunfire is concerned. Most probably just sit in a suitably high hover and use the powerful Targeting systems in the nose of the aircraft to have a look!

Regards,
Sioux4D

P.S The operational Apache squadron is at Dishforth North Yorkshire

[PIC]

Sioux4D

Thanks. We suspected as much, but did amuse ourselves by discussing what might be the best course of action if it did return fire. It was generally agreed that scarpering towards the trees all in different directions probably wouldn't be sufficient evasive action.

[MaroonMan4]

Shy TQ/PP,

Edited and deleted - because I got involved in an unecessary slagging match with Shy TQ, without reading his thread.

Apologies Shy TQ

[ShyTorque]

Maroon, I was actually defending you. If you had done some research yourself, you would have realised that I am also a civvie tax payer.

P.S. military personnel are also tax payers.

Tsk! :rolleyes:

[CSRO]

Maroon Man 4 I agree, they are not lost.The first 2 going to ATIL are excellent QHIs (who I enjoyed flying with) with loads to offer and we will continue benefit as a Corps.I am sorry that there are so many others thinking of going who will be lost to the system.I know I will not stay the whole time, unless we get allowed to train properly rather than dwindle this great capability.Perhaps ATIL should civilianise the regiments?

[Uncle Ginsters]

See here in today's Scotsman......
Click for link (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=62642006)

Uncle G :ok:

[peoplespoet]

Interesting reading, at least someone is aware of the potential disaster that may occur if the AH remains poorly funded and badly resourced.

I get the feeling that whilst money may well be something that could be offered to tempt pilots to stay for a while longer I doubt that it will keep the majority in unless of course the financial figure is significant; already people are leaving when they could get FRI2 thats 50K for 5 years service..........Mmmmm.......not working is it.......... but why?

Well one reason may be quality of life, the chaps I see on a daily basis that are in their 20's look like they are in their 40's they are knackered, worn out and fatigued.

Don't visit an AH pilot within the first few days of his leave, as he will be ill in bed, plagued by illness that his body has fought off until rest is available.

Great aircraft but what an existence....AttackKKKKKKKKK... What..

PP.
its good to talk, start listening!:}

[Ed Winchester]

Well one reason may be quality of life, the chaps I see on a daily basis that are in their 20's look like they are in their 40's they are knackered, worn out and fatigued.
God help the poor lambs if they actually have to deploy anywhere. Give me strength. :hmm:

[md 600 driver]

this maybe of some interest to some out there
found on google
Sat 14 Jan 2006 The Scotsman
Army being scalped of Apache pilots
JAMES KIRKUP
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE British Army's £2 billion fleet of Apache attack helicopters could
go short of pilots after a string of resignations. Military insiders
say that many of the small number of army pilots qualified
to fly the aircraft have either quit or plan to leave in coming months.
Some have been lured to the private sector where their skills command
much higher wages than those paid by the army. Others say they are
frustrated by rigid military career structures that force them out of
the cockpit and into an office. Even frontline pilots complain that
they spend too little time actually flying. After a lengthy and complex
procurement process, 67 Apaches were declared
"ready for operations" last year. The Apache is arguably the most
sophisticated combat aircraft in the world, packed with weapons systems
and advanced sensor packages that provide pilots
with a deluge of information about their surroundings. In all, training
an Apache pilot to combat readiness takes six months and costs the MoD
more than £1 million. At least four Apache pilots are believed to have
resigned in recent weeks. Army rumours suggest that several more could
shortly join them, possibly as many as 11 in all. If true, several of
the Apaches, which cost about £30 million each, could effectively be
grounded for lack of a qualified pilot. The Apache fleet already has
suffered teething troubles in the form of mechanical and technical
failures. Such is the complexity of its systems, anything between a
fifth and a half of the helicopters are grounded for maintenance at any
one time. Military insiders say a shortage of qualified engineers
exacerbates the situation. While pilots are hugely enthusiastic about
actually flying the Apache, the mechanical difficulty of getting the
aircraft into the air and the inflexibility of the army career
structure are said to have left many pilots frustrated. One reason the
Apache-qualified pilots are leaving is money. Several private companies
pay generously for army-trained pilots who are then effectively hired
back to the military through Private Finance Initiative training
contracts. "Now why would some of the highest calibre pilots be leaving
the army? The sum of £60,000 a year springs to mind," said one
military insider. The fresh fears for the Apache are being discussed
widely by Army Air Corps members on unofficial service internet forums.
"A lot of these [qualified pilots] have a great deal of experience that
we should not be losing before we have even finished fielding Apache,"
said one poster. Other insiders blame the Army Air Corps' career
profile that obliges pilots to move on from operational flying after a
three-year posting. "As long as the men who fly Apache have to adhere
to the career profile there will be waste," said one pilot. But the
Ministry of Defence said there could be flexibility. "Apache crews may
serve for longer than three years if their careers allow, and may of
course return to flying after experiencing other roles," said a
spokeswoman.

[BigMike]

You spend a million pounds training someone, then just when they are starting to get some experience on type, you take them off flying dutys? Dosn't sound real cost effective.

[paco]

That's always been the way, especially in the RAF. My moles tell me it is almost completely due to the "man management" coming from AG14, if that's what it's still called (they're the guys that do the postings). There have been a couple of juicy sessions where the Apache guys have just got up and walked out of the meetings, due to the patronising attitude. They then proceeded to do their licences and PVR.

Phil

[Vfrpilotpb]

Senior Mil types do seem to have some sort of problem with Proper management of assets and manpower,
Small example, friend of mine is a Col in the Maroon berry brigade, we were having a pint one day talking about the business I was in(transport) I explained that we could accept a load for delivery from the North West of the UK to any part of the EU continent and have it delivered within 24 hours,

Very seriously he told me that would take weeks to achieve, and that would be just the planning, if it was to move any of his regiments assets.

Well if that is the case, these boys at the top of the Mil tree need a swift dose of business in Civvie street!!;)

Vfr

[What Limits]

Interesting reading. Looks like a lot of info lifted directly from a thread on the Mil Forum.
A lot of Apache pilots are well into their mil careers and some of these may have been close to retirement age anyway. (Remember that standard retirement age for Non-Commisioned Officers is 40!)
Others have been tempted by the lure of filthy lucre by recycling their skills as civilian instructors on the Apache system, thus their skills may not be lost.
Besides the Apache is a young mans sport, not flying it of course, but fighting it. :)
BTW Paco, AG14 became PB14 that became MCM. Same sh1t different name!

[Sioux4D]

I thought that only one squadron (8 aircraft) had been declared as fully operational, with 9 reg AAC based at Dishforth.

Alot of the problems stem from the huge learning curve that is required to learn the raft of complex Avionics (both aircraft and mission systems) on the platform. As faced with conversion from the intuitive analogue systems of the likes of a gazelle or the single squirrel to a fuly integrated glass cockpit and mission suite, can be some what daunting.

The ground school training that is required to learn the capabilities and operation of the systes on board is extensive. This coupled with the fact that the systems and the aircraft's system processors (the heart of the aircraft) are being constantly updated and developed, makes the job that much harder. Finally add the fact that actual time in aircraft is like gold-dust, you can see that a new Apache pilot's task is enormous.

Don't get me wrong the AAC training is superb, and the Apache pilots (in my humble experience) are constantly proving to be extremely capable and intelligent. The simple fact is that the UK MOD just doesn't have enough money to fulfill the old adage that "Practise makes perfect".

Finally I think that the Army's philosophy that you are an Officer first and a Pilot second (unlike in the RAF and RN were pilots fly for the majority of their career) is proving to be detrimental in the case of the Apache. Seeing as experienced AH pilots are few and far between you would have thought it advisable to keep any fully trained assets current.

Apologies if any of my opinions prove controversial.

Sioux4D

[B Sousa]

The Brits did not invent this concept. The American Army by far loses more Pilots due to their moronic policies. I continue to meet some fine young folks who have gotten out due to being a rated pilot and flying a desk (and continual deployment outside the U.S.). Its been going on for years, but the "Generals" never seem to learn and besides they are all comfortable.
Its called "Busy Work" for Junior Officers as the Army cannot give them "blade time" which is budgeted for active combat units. So they train them, piss them off and lose them...........
Back after Vietnam went down the toilet, I remember we were restricted to 80 hours a year, not much for "building time"

[SASless]

Bert,

Beyond agreeing completely with you...one must also recall the active duty Army is merely a holding pen for cadre to form vast numbers of units should the Balloon go up for real. That being said...can you imagine some of the Dud's being given real tasks to complete?

At least we have Guard and Reserve units that are out doing the job instead of playing Sunny Glade Day camp like it used to be. They are actually using the equipment instead of merely maintaining it.

My old Guard unit flies Apaches and is part of the active duty 82nd Airborne Division....maybe the Brits need to consider such a notion....incorporate TA units into their force structure. That way...the pilots learn to fly the machine on Active Duty...then when they leave for civvie life they can join the TA unit and continue flying the machine....or do they have such a system in place now?

[CrabInCab]

Front Seater:

Late start Mondays and early finish Fridays like the other two services; get with the plot my dear chap! Light Blue Sqn, currently supporting 3 different ops on top of Ex Tropical Storm, Clockwork, Jebel Sahara, Mountain Lion, Eagles Blah and Herricks Whatsit. Old airframes in desperate need of replacement (read extension to 2024 if the latest rumours are to believed) not withstanding the IDT, IRT, CCS, FPC, WHT etc. Oh and don't forget the ISS, JOCC, JEWC, JAEWC, CEWIC, QHTI. Oops almost forgot the Airtests and Groundruns.

We're all in the same situation......

SO MAN UP WET PANTS!

[996]

I think the main problem is simply that those who were 'converted' to the Apache joined the service to fly and not to ponce about in a simmulator with few 'real' flying hours. A newer breed who expect nothing other than this will last longer but having said that the AAC internal recruitment and manpower maintenance has not been conducive to retention for over 10 years - irrespective of the governments half assed policies.

[peoplespoet]

Crabincab,
If your stupid enough to put up with it then more the fool you, I'm not on AH and don't suffer the way these chaps do, but just because you also suffer doesn't make it right either. Its not as if the wages service pilots get is remotely reflective of the monies our cushy airline friends get.

so I'm sure many of the AH drivers will continue in the sterling manner that they have already in delivering AH capability; on time, under budget and to a very high standard. But they have a point, flying GH with the AH is very, very different to fighting AH competently!

PP Out...

[Genghis the Engineer]

incorporate TA units into their force structure. That way...the pilots learn to fly the machine on Active Duty

Such as 658 Squadron and 666 Squadron at Netheravon, and 3 and 6 flights at Leuchars and Shawbury for example. I've no doubt that could be expanded and more capable aircraft than the current Gazellicopters used.

G

[B Sousa]

My old Guard unit flies Apaches and is part of the active duty 82nd Airborne Division....maybe the Brits need to consider such a notion

Sasless
Therin lies another problem. The Active units are short handed so the Reserves are filling in the gap more than they really want too. As the sign in the window of a Hum V in Iraq as seen in the news said. "One weekend a month My Ass"

[HEDP]

The problems with the program are many and complex and no one single issue could be cured without knock on effects in other areas.

It was decided in the early stages that the training would be in the UK rather than the US. One wonders whether this was done with a view to perhaps providing training to other Apache users in Europe and the Middle East. This was doomed to fail as soon as the UK model was 'Anglicised' with so much deviation from the US model. As a result, the training is very expensive i.e in the order of 1 million pounds in UK rather than circa $350,000 in the US for the type conversion alone.

The type conversion takes 6 months with a further 6 months for operational role training, excellent training but somewhat longer than the 15 week US course. Most of this is driven by the narrow focus of resources of only one simulator in the flight school and only a dozen or so aircraft for the training pipeline training about 20-24 aircrew every six months.

A significant engineering and logistics problem are the new 'just in time' spares provisions. The bean counters dont understand that the 2-3 days or more likely 2-3 weeks to provide a spare part means a loss of some 5 productive flight hours per day of aircrew training.

Yes, the taxpayer wants to see something for his/her money and I can assure you that those that have qualified on the machine so want to fly it and deliver the capability. That delivery however; is hampered by the frustration above and many more, not least the career structure and lack of training munitions.

It just does not seem possible to deliver the numbers required through the bottleneck of the training pipeline in order to fully man the frontline as quickly as it is required. Why you may ask do we not invest and send a couple of courses to the US and give them a differences course on return, costing significantly less than a pure UK training course?

Alas, money is everything these days and you only get what you pay for. I would still ask though, is it not cheaper to train in the US followed by a small conversion course costing maybe 40% of what the current conversion to type does?

HEDP

[SASless]

I heard the old saying was...."The British Navy did not amount to much until they shot a few Admirals."

[CrabInCab]

PP,

Didn't say I agreed with it, just that most of us (if not all) are in the same boat!