UK Apache...this can't be true
SB - Is that the comment in the 'Have Your Say' bit under the article? I've never understood this bit of the Times online, since it neatly undermines that newspaper's claim to be the home of informed comment.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
60% manning sounds pretty good when taken at face value, I would however be very interested to know what percentage of that is now (or soon to be) inexperienced ab-initio Aircrew? The question should perhaps be.. ' where are our highly skilled and combat experienced Aviators going and why? '
Being at the coal-face, I can tell you that it's very hard to maintain the skill levels required of an Attack Pilot post Herrrick tour when you're flying 5-10 hours per month (including the airtesting that I do to provide cabs to feed the hungry mouth of CTR).
Being at the coal-face, I can tell you that it's very hard to maintain the skill levels required of an Attack Pilot post Herrrick tour when you're flying 5-10 hours per month (including the airtesting that I do to provide cabs to feed the hungry mouth of CTR).
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
just the same old story that we did not buy enough spares
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40% - 60% whatever..................fairly pointless having many aircraft of any sort if you cannot look after the most important asset of getting any aircraft up and active; the people who put it there, engs, pilots etc etc. Until we start to retain quality people in great numbers we are always going to have dramas.
Two's In
Spot on about PFI'ing the training. We were always puzzled at this - it was a quite deliberate decision made in the certain knowledge that the programme would slip many months or even years. Having spent so long on the bidding and selection process, and publishing an ISD, it was a mindless own goal. I know for a fact that the vast majority of MoD(PE) staff were horrified. This was exacerbated by a concurrent programme in the same area requiring, if anything, a more complex training package. PFI was mentioned for all of 5 minutes, the time it took to write the request for waiver and have it approved. It basically said, (a) if we PFI, we miss the published ISD, and (b) there is no overseas sales potential as our build standard is unique. That being so, the question is "Who had most to gain?". Certainly not Westland. Their name was synonymous with a published ISD, which they immediately knew could not be achieved. They were given a contract and, despite attempts to undermine them, they delivered.
I like to think I'm fair-minded, and would not be so quick to blame MoD(PE) for any spares issues. The ILS team were drafted in from MGO. At that time, all 3 Services insisted on doing their own ILS - it coincided with civilian ILS Managers being replaced with Military ILSMs. From the Apache PM's viewpoint (and I knew and worked with him long before that appointment) he would have been concerned over his almost complete lack of control in the support domain, including Training. Not having control over something which will account for 80% of through life costs is ludicrous, and asking for trouble; and breaches every rule in the project management book. I was always secretly glad when "my" MILSMs (they don't actually work for you) invariably said "Don't know how to do this, I'll just take on Social Secretary's job and leave it to you". It meant more work, but I had control of an area which would make or break the project.
You rightly referred to the Nimrod thread, and I'd repeat this - the problem lay with management oversight.
Southbound, true that we never bought enough spares, but there were spares galore scaled when it was the original 72 AH in the competition. After the Apache had won, the operational numbers were cut to 48, the training was removed entirely and left to the PFI vultures, and guess what - the spares holdings were decimated to accomodate the 5 year Contractors Spares Package (CSP). Easy enough to take a pop at Wastelands, but no-one in Main Building figured on the most capable asset in the Army inventory having to go to war, everyone just figured on the "Pimms on the lawn at Wallop" spares attrition rate. Look on the Nimrod thread for a hint at the culpable negligence within MoD (PE) (as it was then) in mismanaging this acquisition.
I like to think I'm fair-minded, and would not be so quick to blame MoD(PE) for any spares issues. The ILS team were drafted in from MGO. At that time, all 3 Services insisted on doing their own ILS - it coincided with civilian ILS Managers being replaced with Military ILSMs. From the Apache PM's viewpoint (and I knew and worked with him long before that appointment) he would have been concerned over his almost complete lack of control in the support domain, including Training. Not having control over something which will account for 80% of through life costs is ludicrous, and asking for trouble; and breaches every rule in the project management book. I was always secretly glad when "my" MILSMs (they don't actually work for you) invariably said "Don't know how to do this, I'll just take on Social Secretary's job and leave it to you". It meant more work, but I had control of an area which would make or break the project.
You rightly referred to the Nimrod thread, and I'd repeat this - the problem lay with management oversight.
Again nothing new and nothing learned. In 1976 660 returned from NI via Gutersloh and the outgoing squadron removed all the clutches from our Gazelles which returned to Soest by road.
A visit to Detmold a week later showed that all of 661's aircraft were also minus clutches.
Given that the Russians were "ready" to invade what price aircraft availability.
No one should underestimate the incompetance of the MOD (except the Russians of course).
A visit to Detmold a week later showed that all of 661's aircraft were also minus clutches.
Given that the Russians were "ready" to invade what price aircraft availability.
No one should underestimate the incompetance of the MOD (except the Russians of course).
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Tuc,
As one of the chosen few who worked 14 hour days in New Oxford Street and then Abbey Wood, I don't blame the team(s) who ended up having to deliver this. It was the complete lack of vision and foresight at 2* level that led to this. Yes, of course there were political considerations, but to spend 5 years on detailed analysis and competition, only to then completely ignore those finding for political expediency is culpable negligence, and we are paying the price for that negligence today (12 years later) in operational capability and availability.
Senior Procurement nebbies all use Apache as the poster child for delivering "On schedule, on performance, within budget". It doesn't take a hard look to see how you achieve that by ripping the guts out the program.
Apache's success is down to the graft and commitment from the people who ended up bringing in to service and operating it, but that's the way it's always been.
I like to think I'm fair-minded, and would not be so quick to blame MoD(PE) for any spares issues.
Senior Procurement nebbies all use Apache as the poster child for delivering "On schedule, on performance, within budget". It doesn't take a hard look to see how you achieve that by ripping the guts out the program.
Apache's success is down to the graft and commitment from the people who ended up bringing in to service and operating it, but that's the way it's always been.
Twos In
Spot on, and I still have a copy of the instruction that this was to include week-ends as well...... Same 2* as MRA4, Chinook Mk3. Say no more.
As one of the chosen few who worked 14 hour days in New Oxford Street and then Abbey Wood, I don't blame the team(s) who ended up having to deliver this. It was the complete lack of vision and foresight at 2* level that led to this.
Spot on, and I still have a copy of the instruction that this was to include week-ends as well...... Same 2* as MRA4, Chinook Mk3. Say no more.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't consider 60% manning too much. You require 80% (4 sqns) to maintain a one on three off operational cycle. You might ask how it is being manned currently with 45% manning as we only get to 60%-ish in a month or so's time.
One of the few ways we have of retaining flying experience is to allow the aircrew to do what they want i.e. fly and develop their skills whilst in UK. The training has to be challenging post operations to maintain the arousal and interest levels of the crews. Minimal currency training in the DUA and enforced periods of no flying will certainly not achieve that therefore we will continue to haemorrhage the crews who have built up the minimum levels of experience that we so crave.
Resource appropriately and this includes the correct number of technicians to achieve the flying task!
One of the few ways we have of retaining flying experience is to allow the aircrew to do what they want i.e. fly and develop their skills whilst in UK. The training has to be challenging post operations to maintain the arousal and interest levels of the crews. Minimal currency training in the DUA and enforced periods of no flying will certainly not achieve that therefore we will continue to haemorrhage the crews who have built up the minimum levels of experience that we so crave.
Resource appropriately and this includes the correct number of technicians to achieve the flying task!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wattashame
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two's in.
Oh I am almost sick
every time I've heard the Apache program being heralded as the leading example of how to do things!
This program has worked thanks to the hard work of of individuals (few who have had formal recognition for their efforts and sacrafice); the likes of 651 Sqn
673 Sqn and AMTAT , all un-sung heroes behind the capability delivered by 656 Atk Sqn and 664 Atk Sqn (AKA Shadows 
(sorry MM)), passing the batton the 3 Atk Regt, who have continued to produce the goods.
These top quality people, all winners, who don't like to even think the word failure have all "dug out blind" to ensure that the guys on the ground get what they need. There now lay the problem.
In the ealy days of HERRICK only 1 battle group with the un-divided attention of a complete Atk Sqn, now many more battle groups, still only one Atk with limited flying hours, meaning more hungry mouths and no more food to give, thank goodness for Bone!
One of the reasons that 12 Bde have a different opinion about Apache than 3 Cdo Bde and 16 Air Asslt Bde 
Sadly HEDP hits a raw nerve, we could not up the hours by too many, without upping the manning, both REME and AAC, we are short of both groups. So the infantry go without the type of close in fire support that can only be provided by Apache, so increase risk of Blue on Blue, because unless we get BFT for the ground troops, they will be at risk from our US cousins, who all have it, and count on it heavily.
Less than 50% manning, not a pinch point trade, poor flying rates , nothing new on the horizon to imagine that there is a solution to preventing the haemorrhage of experience that we have suffered with the first two attack Squadrons (one of which has 2 squadron members remaining from that which deployed in the summer of 2006 
). The bucket is half empty, we're trickling in new ab-initio pilots but the hole in the side of the bucket needs fixing dear Liza! 
Oh I am almost sick
every time I've heard the Apache program being heralded as the leading example of how to do things!This program has worked thanks to the hard work of of individuals (few who have had formal recognition for their efforts and sacrafice); the likes of 651 Sqn
673 Sqn and AMTAT , all un-sung heroes behind the capability delivered by 656 Atk Sqn and 664 Atk Sqn (AKA Shadows (sorry MM)), passing the batton the 3 Atk Regt, who have continued to produce the goods. These top quality people, all winners, who don't like to even think the word failure have all "dug out blind" to ensure that the guys on the ground get what they need. There now lay the problem.
In the ealy days of HERRICK only 1 battle group with the un-divided attention of a complete Atk Sqn, now many more battle groups, still only one Atk with limited flying hours, meaning more hungry mouths and no more food to give, thank goodness for Bone!
One of the reasons that 12 Bde have a different opinion about Apache than 3 Cdo Bde and 16 Air Asslt Bde Sadly HEDP hits a raw nerve, we could not up the hours by too many, without upping the manning, both REME and AAC, we are short of both groups. So the infantry go without the type of close in fire support that can only be provided by Apache, so increase risk of Blue on Blue, because unless we get BFT for the ground troops, they will be at risk from our US cousins, who all have it, and count on it heavily.
Less than 50% manning, not a pinch point trade
, poor flying rates , nothing new on the horizon to imagine that there is a solution to preventing the haemorrhage of experience that we have suffered with the first two attack Squadrons (one of which has 2 squadron members remaining from that which deployed in the summer of 2006 ). The bucket is half empty, we're trickling in new ab-initio pilots but the hole in the side of the bucket needs fixing dear Liza!
Last edited by AHQHI656SQN; 29th Mar 2008 at 18:43. Reason: Just thought of something else
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This problem is not only that of the Apache - there are many Sqns that are experiencing the lack of spares, the lack of crews, poor flying rates in the UK that could barely be called 'tick-over' training leaving an overall feeling that there is underinvestment. However, we all bang on about the same thing, but can anyone actually recall someone saying that we're unable to fulfill our committments? We have unstintingly met our committments and so there is a continual feeling that we can cope. We can all see the shortages but while we all muddle through people will continue with their fingers in their ears.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: edinburgh
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, this is by no way a new problem-funding -remember when an Atk Sqn had 6 Lynx and 6 Gaz and then they got rid of the Gaz and you only had on a good day maybe 4 servicable aircraft in the whole regiment.The mass panic to get a Regiments worth of aircraft ready for a Div Ex and some Sqns SHARING the aircraft. Not enough bowsers and FFR's or troops to man them.I banged out 4 years ago after having enough of banging my head against a brick wall and the "we have always done it in the past mentality". From the guys i am still in touch with tell me it is still no different and they can see no light at the end of the tunnel either with funding or manning.I just hope this does not have a massive effect on our (your)operational abilities.
The spares issue on its own misses a point about the requirement for the spares in the first place. Aircraft Ground Engineers are experienced Senior NCOs who fly with the aircraft and have the judgement to be able to keep an aircraft flying around a route or in a theatre to enable it to do its job often by using temporary repairs or accepting some system degradation with the aircrews.
Quite often these aircraft ,which may have been flying continuously for months on detachment while carrying faults, will come back to the home base and then be grounded for weeks while repairs are undertaken and spares awaited to be fitted.
Obviously the problems have to be fixed sometime but experience and judgement can keep aircraft flying when a rigid adhearance to Maintenance manuals will ground them.
Unfortunately many of the people with this judgement continue to walk away to civvy street in their droves due to excessive detachments, JPA etc...
Quite often these aircraft ,which may have been flying continuously for months on detachment while carrying faults, will come back to the home base and then be grounded for weeks while repairs are undertaken and spares awaited to be fitted.
Obviously the problems have to be fixed sometime but experience and judgement can keep aircraft flying when a rigid adhearance to Maintenance manuals will ground them.
Unfortunately many of the people with this judgement continue to walk away to civvy street in their droves due to excessive detachments, JPA etc...
It seems incredible to me that out of 60 Apaches only 8 can be deployed due to spares/crew shortages.
Considering how long we have been fighting in Afganistan/Iraq this is a scandal that the Govt should be brought to book over.
Considering how long we have been fighting in Afganistan/Iraq this is a scandal that the Govt should be brought to book over.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Where is the news story here??
We have been Xmas-treeing aircraft for years. Tornadoes, harriers, pumas, tucanos, wessex, chinooks etc etc.
Stocks of ammo were not available for the gulf war, landrovers were in short supply, body armour, flying kit actually ran out for 2 months, NVG were not repaired, Porton liners were impossible to find in GW1, Puma sand filters in GW1. The list goes on and on.
But forget all that, the really good news is............... lots of people managed to get promoted and get OBEs for their fantastic money saving measures before the major conflicts.
We have been Xmas-treeing aircraft for years. Tornadoes, harriers, pumas, tucanos, wessex, chinooks etc etc.
Stocks of ammo were not available for the gulf war, landrovers were in short supply, body armour, flying kit actually ran out for 2 months, NVG were not repaired, Porton liners were impossible to find in GW1, Puma sand filters in GW1. The list goes on and on.
But forget all that, the really good news is............... lots of people managed to get promoted and get OBEs for their fantastic money saving measures before the major conflicts.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Us Ah-64
Chaps,
Be careful of any comparison with the flying/servicing rates of UK Apache, compared to the flying rates of US AH-64. I understand that they fly them hard and replace them after 10-12 years. Chances of us doing that???
GB
Be careful of any comparison with the flying/servicing rates of UK Apache, compared to the flying rates of US AH-64. I understand that they fly them hard and replace them after 10-12 years. Chances of us doing that???
GB
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Where is the news story here??
We have been Xmas-treeing aircraft for years. Tornadoes, harriers, pumas, tucanos, wessex, chinooks etc etc.
We have been Xmas-treeing aircraft for years. Tornadoes, harriers, pumas, tucanos, wessex, chinooks etc etc.
The double burden of cannibalisation is a well documented facet of maintenance, for Apache we have not only chosen to ignore the additional servicing costs, but also the deliberate disabling of a GBP 30M asset as it becomes another hangar queen with effectively zero flying hours.