AAC want the new Apache AH-64E

[NutLoose]

To replace the current version by the end of the decade.

British Army wants AH-64E Apache before end of decade - IHS Jane's 360

Why do I just get the feeling that UK PLC will end up refurbishing and updating as we normally do.

They also want a new cheaper training Helicopter.

Speaking at the IQPC International Military Helicopter conference in London, Brigadier Neil Sexton revealed that with helicopters accounting for nearly half of the army's running costs, a cheaper training solution is being sought.

He said that "45% of the army's running cost bill [is] taken up by helicopters. We have to reduce those costs to a minimum, and [the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is] looking at surrogate training".

Hmmmm... sounds like you push for and say you want your own autonomous Airpower, then realise it's sucking your budget dry...

UK considers 'surrogate' helicopters to reduce pilot training costs - IHS Jane's 360

These would need to be equipped with a similar human-machine interface as the operational helicopter type, enabling the pilot to transition seamlessly from one to another..

Read.. controls

[500N]

Brigadier Sexton has certainly risen through the ranks at a reasonable pace.

[hoodie]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

These would need to be equipped with a similar human-machine interface as the operational helicopter type, enabling the pilot to transition seamlessly from one to another..

Read.. controls

Actually, NutLoose, that's really not worth a - it 's far more than just "controls".

If that's all you ask for, you won't get 10% of what you need.

You need switches in similar places operating in a similar manner and having a similar effect. You want displays that look like the operational aircraft, on similar physical screens with a similar menu structure and similar interaction with the screens. You want systems to interact in a similar manner - for example, does the training aircraft have NVG symbology? If so, what should that look like?

And the above isn't half of it. "HMI" is a phrase that covers all of that, and more - you might not like the term, but it's a well understood one for those that need it, and it does its job.

<Banter switch returned to ON>

[SASless]

"45% of the army's running cost bill [is] taken up by helicopters.

There are two answers.....either the British Army has too many Helicopters OR way too small an Army.

Sort that situation out first then talk about modernizing the Helicopter Fleet.

"Old" helicopters is not what drives the consumption of half the Army's budget by Helicopters.

[NutLoose]

Hoodie, any part of the cockpit layout, be it a collective, cyclic, light switch, air vent switch or interactive screen is a control.

It also means your cheap rotary wing training platform has just skyrocketed in procurement, design, costs and maintenance issues.

[melmothtw]

Hoodie, any part of the cockpit layout, be it a collective, cyclic, light
switch, air vent switch or interactive screen is a control.

It also
means your cheap rotary wing training platform has just skyrocketed in
procurement, design, costs and maintenance issues.

I read it as fuel costs being the prohibitive factor in training on operational types. A similar HMI won't increase fuel costs.

[melmothtw]

"Old" helicopters is not what drives the consumption of half the Army's
budget by Helicopters.

Correct SASLess, but training on operational types does.

[awblain]

Fuel costs could add up, but buying a whole new fleet instead of using what you have already in order to cut fuel costs sounds like a hard pitch to make.

It's tough to see how the fuel for a day costs much more than the wages of the 10-20 people working around the machine.

Can the Army really spend 45% of its budget on their helicopters, not including the cost of the ones that they ride on that belong to the RAF? If so, perhaps they need to surrogate more than just training.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Do AAC helicopters still double-up as staff cars for senior army officers?

[Gnd]

Just be careful about statistics, the NAO is about UK RW (JHC and Navy) not the AAC. The budget is Land to JHC who pay for, and own (not Groups), all the CHF, Army and RAF RW (I know COMO but park that for now). Although the Army holds the largest number of RW assets (over 50% and most varied types) they are still JHC assets, just driven by different services. Lets not think a jibe at the Army wont affect the other 2. If P2 hadn't bee payed for, there would be more Wildcat. If CH 1,2,3,4,5,6..... didn't keep changing, the RAF may have kept Merlin and if the Apache hadn't have been so spectacularly successful, we would all be in R22s. Look on the intranet and Hansards - the deal has been done and just remember the doom merchants with P2, they were wrong because business is thicker than selfless commitment: £ make prizes!!!

And lets be sensible about a 'hack', one type, one set of FRCs and everyone at a base line. All we need to add is multiple *s and the Trg pipeline can be totally different for the same people doing the same job in the same aircraft - but- they keep their nice big offices and the over bloated triangle. (opps, cynicism off!!)

[glad rag]

Boys and their Toys.

Does the Army have the same overmanning issues, at the senior level, as the RN?

[hoodie]

NutLoose, that cost will need to be borne if the training aircraft is to represent the operational one - which is what the article says is required.

[Gnd]

Does the Army have the same overmanning issues, at the senior level, as the RN?

Maybe a little plump, but the majority do not have a say in Avn - they are more bombs and bullets. Pure aviation is much leaner than the other services.

[Evalu8ter]

The '45%' figure includes the running costs for the CHF and RAF SH forces, not just the AAC.

Hoodie has it bang on - any 'surrogate trainer' must minimise the 'negative' training it risks delivering by enabling the pilot to simulate he is flying the operational type - albeit in non operational tasks such as IF Practise, GH (EoLs, PFLs, Q-Stop etc) and NVG currency. In addition, you could also look at exporting the gunnery task and light comms/NVG recce.

The Brigadier's point, by now well trailed on the conference circuit, is that aircraft like the Chinook and Merlin are eye-wateringly expensive to operate (circa £20k per hour). The Treasury has been paying for an increase in AFT for ops in Afghanistan; this cash supply will soon be turned off and allocations will return to historical norms. JHC, like other commands, will doubtless be asked to make further 'economies' - especially given the need to recapitalise the AH - and the only levers they have are bases, manpower and flying hours. To cut the latter is fraught with increasing the ODH's risks - crews that are not 'current and competent' are at greater risk. Therefore, if you can find a way of maintaining high standards through increased use of synthetics and a 'surrogate' platform then you can deliver high output at low cost. IIRC the DOCs for a light twin (A109, EC135 etc) are in the region of £1-1.5k per hour, so you can fly 10-15 hrs for the price of -47/Merlin time.

So, yes, they will logically want AH64E to stay in step with the US Army to save whole-life costs; the issues will be finding the cash from a shrinking pot and dealing with the inevitable political interference from UK manufacturing interests.....

[melmothtw]

Can the Army really spend 45% of its budget on their helicopters, not
including the cost of the ones that they ride on that belong to the RAF? If so, perhaps they need to surrogate more than just training.

45% of budget for vehicle running costs (inc tanks etc), not overall budget.

The '45%' figure includes the running costs for the CHF and RAF SH forces,
not just the AAC.

Incorrect. 45% figure relates purely to army running costs.

Why do I just get the feeling that UK PLC will end up refurbishing and
updating as we normally do.

Reading the story, that would be the sensible thing to do in this instance, no? Take the expensive bits out of the current AH.1 aircraft and put them into newly manufactured airframes. Seems win-win.

[dagenham]

Controls very true two sticks to make houses get bigger houses go smaller!!

[Gnd]

This argument of being less 'current and competent' is always interesting. We fly much less than we use to and crash far less - is that simulators, the law of diminishing returns or we are less cavalier than we use to be. Cut the live, improve the synthetic and go with the stats? May be time for some new arguments and that we need to stop wheeling out the old, outdated, biases? Ah sim saves millions and is in the correct locations? a lesson there maybe?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

That's how I see it too. If we need a "transition" Type that looks, feels and functions like the front line Type, that would be a lot of transitioners; Merlin, Lynx, Apache and Chinook at least.

[Haraka]

Have we all quite forgotten the Autogiro?

[Pontius Navigator]

The British Army wants a new Apache.

The British Navy wants a stealth strike fighter.

The British Air Force wants a . . . (there is another thread on that one).

There is to be a strategic defence review next year.

Why are their lordships and airships all pressing for new toys now before they know what UK plc requires them to do?