Apache delayed until 2010?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's some good news. Eight Apaches have been modified to operate off of Royal Navy amphibious ships, to support amphibious operations. Modifications included anti-corrosion measures. By the end of the 2005, nine crews should be qualified to fly off of the carrier HMS Ocean, and the navy's two amphibious assault ships. More maritime-qualified crews are expected in 2006, along with certifying the Apache for operations off the Invincible-class aircraft carriers.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So rather than the RAF getting it, which with our far superior level of technical expertise to support it, hugely more capable cadre of pilots and far greater understanding of all matters in aviation, would only be right and proper........now looks as if the bl@@dy fish ed's are going to get it.........god help us
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
So rather than the RAF getting it, which with our far superior level of technical expertise to support it, hugely more capable cadre of pilots and far greater understanding of all matters in aviation, would only be right and proper........now looks as if the bl@@dy fish ed's are going to get it.........god help us
Now where's my fishing rod..............
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So rather than the RAF getting it, which with our far superior level of technical expertise to support it, hugely more capable cadre of pilots and far greater understanding of all matters in aviation, would only be right and proper........now looks as if the bl@@dy fish ed's are going to get it.........god help us
The bit that's really interesting....
"In the future, the introduction of the UK Military Flying Training Sytem (MFTS) should offer substantial scope for improving the delivery of more advanced flying training. The current training fleet does not have the capability to download operational training from advanced platforms, which means that there remains a requirement for pilots to conduct training on more expensive operational platforms, such as Apache. For example, in a simplistic comparison with his RN Merlin colleagues, an Army AH pilot with a total flying experience of 250 hours will have cost an estimated £1 million more to train than the RN pilot (at 2003 prices). This need for type-dependent flying training, with advanced skills being learned on specific advanced platforms (or their simulators) determines the differing nature of flying training pipelines within each Service."
And...
"For example, the RN pilot, who is training for a single-pilot, ship-borne role in a highly complex, integrated weapons and sensor platform, will have more experience on type than an RAF counterpart, but his overall total flying experience of 250 hours will be almost exactly the same. The skills required by the RN pilot by the time he reaches Limited Combat Ready (LCR) status dictate an absolute need for him to be trained on type (as opposed to flying an unrepresentative training platform). Conversely, the RAF, in crewing its Support Helicopter fleet with two pilots, can accept a less experienced ab initio pilot on type, having a senior and more experienced aircraft commander on board for every sortie."
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
If there's a PSI pilot amongst them, they wil be here any moment......now!
SS
SS
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the Teenie Weenies have had them for a while now, and we all knew they did't have a clue what to do with them!
Still, sad to see that we have to go through another round of that, with the fishmongers, before they find their natural home, with operators that can actually USE the damn things...it's only delaying the inevitable! And you all know it!
16B
Still, sad to see that we have to go through another round of that, with the fishmongers, before they find their natural home, with operators that can actually USE the damn things...it's only delaying the inevitable! And you all know it!
16B
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The aim of AH procurement was to keep a bunch of MoD (PE), (now DPA I believe) staff really, really, busy and fund the move from New Oxford Street to the Sainsbury's caff outside of shabby wood. That exercise has been hugely succesful as we enter the tenth year of navel gazing (with an "e" Navaleye), and to be able to engineer yet another delay speaks volumes for the creative genius of all those whose jobs depend upon it not fully entering service. Top notch stuff, I'm genuinely impressed.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I dunno. Maybe we can all do another procurement merry-go-round! Let's give the Gr7s to the navy, 28s flying dustbins to the army and we get the gunships! 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole project was dogged from the start. It could all stem from the fact that the Army treats its aircrew as soldiers, who happen to be to be engaged in aviation.
It reminds me of an anecdote I heard at a Dining In (abridged for reasons of brevity).
"A very wealthy chap has triplet sons. For their 18 birthdays he decides to give them whatever they ask for. First son asks for an island so the father buys him Sark. Second son asks for a set of golf clubs so dad buys him Wentworth, Gleneagles and Royal Birkdale. Third son (of limited intellect) asks for a cowboy outfit. Daddy buys him the Army Air Corps".
It reminds me of an anecdote I heard at a Dining In (abridged for reasons of brevity).
"A very wealthy chap has triplet sons. For their 18 birthdays he decides to give them whatever they ask for. First son asks for an island so the father buys him Sark. Second son asks for a set of golf clubs so dad buys him Wentworth, Gleneagles and Royal Birkdale. Third son (of limited intellect) asks for a cowboy outfit. Daddy buys him the Army Air Corps".
"The aim of AH procurement was to keep a bunch of MoD (PE), (now DPA I believe) staff really, really, busy"
I think you'll find the majority of AH "procurement" staff were MGO's ILS team. Many moons went by before the DPA Gods realised they needed technical specialists because, surprise surprise, the aircraft contained technical stuff. (At roughly the same time CDP announced DPA didn't need/want such specialists - which made things a bit difficult). And numbers really ramped up when they discovered it had to be specified and then procured. But of course they saved on staff costs by PFI'ing the sim.
I think you'll find the majority of AH "procurement" staff were MGO's ILS team. Many moons went by before the DPA Gods realised they needed technical specialists because, surprise surprise, the aircraft contained technical stuff. (At roughly the same time CDP announced DPA didn't need/want such specialists - which made things a bit difficult). And numbers really ramped up when they discovered it had to be specified and then procured. But of course they saved on staff costs by PFI'ing the sim.
The whole project was dogged from the start.
It could all stem from the fact that the Army treats its aircrew as soldiers, who happen to be to be engaged in aviation.
“From the start? How? The aircraft were delivered on time. What other aircraft/ship/tank etc etc was(I appreciate that there maybe some, it's just that I can't recall which)?”
“The only major delay has been the wait for the simulators, without which the aircrew cannot be trained. How does that relate to the above?”
The aim of the project was not to deliver 67 aircraft, but to deliver a capability. Aircraft are no use without trained aircrew, so the simulator is an integral part of the project and should have been delivered in time to train sufficient crews so that the defined ISD could be met. The ISD for an aircraft is usually defined as Qty x operational aircraft, or similar. A conscious decision was made to PFI the simulator in the full knowledge the timescale would compromise the ISD.
While I don’t know what the original ISD was in the endorsement, I am 100% certain operational aircraft were not delivered on time. Also, there is a contractual difference between “air vehicle” and “aircraft”. The former can’t fly. On AH, the difference was a MoD liability, not Westlands. The project was, and remains, late.
And at this time the same Directorate in PE/DPA delivered numerous aircraft projects (including a more complex simulator) ahead of time, under budget and with better performance than requested.
“The only major delay has been the wait for the simulators, without which the aircrew cannot be trained. How does that relate to the above?”
The aim of the project was not to deliver 67 aircraft, but to deliver a capability. Aircraft are no use without trained aircrew, so the simulator is an integral part of the project and should have been delivered in time to train sufficient crews so that the defined ISD could be met. The ISD for an aircraft is usually defined as Qty x operational aircraft, or similar. A conscious decision was made to PFI the simulator in the full knowledge the timescale would compromise the ISD.
While I don’t know what the original ISD was in the endorsement, I am 100% certain operational aircraft were not delivered on time. Also, there is a contractual difference between “air vehicle” and “aircraft”. The former can’t fly. On AH, the difference was a MoD liability, not Westlands. The project was, and remains, late.
And at this time the same Directorate in PE/DPA delivered numerous aircraft projects (including a more complex simulator) ahead of time, under budget and with better performance than requested.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmh..
Okay,
Lets cut the rubbish out. Yes it is late and sadly there has been delays, and yes the programme is not perfect (lets not throw mud at all the others that are experiencing 'snags')....
But, with a Regt (nearly.... give or take a few crews) all set to go then if Defence asked for AH then it could provide the Lead Avn Task Force. and hopefully a limited Mar/SF capability.
So, whats the bone? It was late - fortunately AH wasn't required (so obviously the Risk taking by those in charge worked as they were lucky and got away with it!).
However, if anything kicks off around the world then you can be sure that AH, enough crews/techs and support will be availible to produce whatever capability you want.
I am not saying it is a perfect situation and many a day we all get threaders, but there is genuine confidence that if required then the job will be done very effectively.
As to RAF and RN - yes to all of the above. Of course you can train a Harrier pilot to fly AH as I am sure you could do the same with AH pilots. We all like to talk up our own aircraft - but as we all know, you have it or you don't.
Where both the RN and RAF are miles ahead though is an aviation philosophy, with everything geared up to flying and getting aircraft and crews flying....sadly we are still the poor cousins of aviation and with a superb capability (full of technology) we exist in a trench of the dark ages (now that is why people will leave and why no one is volunteering to go AH...IMHO of course ).
As echoed in so many other posts - LEAN, gapping or just simple undermanning results in those left behind having to do 2 or 3 peopels work. Fine for a short period of time but day in day out - then of course the PVRs/loss to civvie street exodus happens. Its not brain surgery, 3 jobs - 1 person (either all done poorly or one done to usual standard and other 2 suffer or some poor individual works his nads off until he can't go on any further and leaves!).
Lets cut the rubbish out. Yes it is late and sadly there has been delays, and yes the programme is not perfect (lets not throw mud at all the others that are experiencing 'snags')....
But, with a Regt (nearly.... give or take a few crews) all set to go then if Defence asked for AH then it could provide the Lead Avn Task Force. and hopefully a limited Mar/SF capability.
So, whats the bone? It was late - fortunately AH wasn't required (so obviously the Risk taking by those in charge worked as they were lucky and got away with it!).
However, if anything kicks off around the world then you can be sure that AH, enough crews/techs and support will be availible to produce whatever capability you want.
I am not saying it is a perfect situation and many a day we all get threaders, but there is genuine confidence that if required then the job will be done very effectively.
As to RAF and RN - yes to all of the above. Of course you can train a Harrier pilot to fly AH as I am sure you could do the same with AH pilots. We all like to talk up our own aircraft - but as we all know, you have it or you don't.
Where both the RN and RAF are miles ahead though is an aviation philosophy, with everything geared up to flying and getting aircraft and crews flying....sadly we are still the poor cousins of aviation and with a superb capability (full of technology) we exist in a trench of the dark ages (now that is why people will leave and why no one is volunteering to go AH...IMHO of course ).
As echoed in so many other posts - LEAN, gapping or just simple undermanning results in those left behind having to do 2 or 3 peopels work. Fine for a short period of time but day in day out - then of course the PVRs/loss to civvie street exodus happens. Its not brain surgery, 3 jobs - 1 person (either all done poorly or one done to usual standard and other 2 suffer or some poor individual works his nads off until he can't go on any further and leaves!).
Last edited by Front Seater; 11th Sep 2005 at 15:17.