UK maybe procuring AH-64E.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spoken to Boeing and the British Army on this very subject, the most likely scenario is that an undisclosed number of the 66 Ds would be 'remanufactured' to Es (new airframes, but with the old engines, MTADS/PNVS, fire control system etc). How many has yet to be determined (or at least announced).
It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're cross-decking)
It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're cross-decking)
Last edited by CAC Runaway; 21st Mar 2014 at 22:37.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POSW said:
Hold on chaps, I have a much better idea... Hear me out..
Why don't we design our own attack helicopter?!! Rather than buying one ready made of here shelf, tried and tested, with spares in abundance, let's design and build our own from scratch!? Actually that's going to cost slightly more, so let's maybe let the Italians get involved too, I mean it worked for the Merlin? Those were a lot cheaper and a lot better than anything that was on the shelf weren't they?
I happened to be looking at the Westland concept model of the lynx derived attack helicopter on Wednesday in the international helicopter museum, and thinking thank goodness we never went for it, as it would have been rubbish at hot and high stuff.
That said, the Westland black hawk looked nice in a sandy cammo scheme
Hold on chaps, I have a much better idea... Hear me out..
Why don't we design our own attack helicopter?!! Rather than buying one ready made of here shelf, tried and tested, with spares in abundance, let's design and build our own from scratch!? Actually that's going to cost slightly more, so let's maybe let the Italians get involved too, I mean it worked for the Merlin? Those were a lot cheaper and a lot better than anything that was on the shelf weren't they?
I happened to be looking at the Westland concept model of the lynx derived attack helicopter on Wednesday in the international helicopter museum, and thinking thank goodness we never went for it, as it would have been rubbish at hot and high stuff.
That said, the Westland black hawk looked nice in a sandy cammo scheme
We don't design our own because we can't, the only British designer left (sort of) has never designed a successful helicopter! I cannot even think of a truly successful design to come out of that factory; maybe the Lysander but even that was a fundamental failure - it was designed to be a light bomber.
Buy the 18 straight of the shelf - completely cut out the middle man and get the contract fundamentally right first time. Personally, I thought the Blackhawk worked and looked just fine long before Westlands got their hands on one.
Buy the 18 straight of the shelf - completely cut out the middle man and get the contract fundamentally right first time. Personally, I thought the Blackhawk worked and looked just fine long before Westlands got their hands on one.
Quote:
Having spoken to Boeing and the British Army on this very subject, the most likely scenario is that an undisclosed number of the 66 Ds would be 'remanufactured' to Es (new
airframes, but with the old engines, MTADS/PNVS, fire control system etc). How many has yet to be determined (or at least announced).
It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're
cross-decking)
You've got that wrong as that's the last thing we would want to do. Keep the airframes and ditch the engines is what we need to do. The airframes would be zero lifed after the conversion and having the RTMs means we have our own bespoke software which costs (wastes) us millions of pounds every time we have a change. Full FMS buying AH-64Es direct from Boeing is by far the best option. Oh and the step change in capability between the two is enormous.... and trust me I know quite a bit about them
Having spoken to Boeing and the British Army on this very subject, the most likely scenario is that an undisclosed number of the 66 Ds would be 'remanufactured' to Es (new
airframes, but with the old engines, MTADS/PNVS, fire control system etc). How many has yet to be determined (or at least announced).
It's win-win really, as you're essentially getting new aircraft but at a significant fraction of the cost (the expense is primarily locked up in the parts and systems you're
cross-decking)
You've got that wrong as that's the last thing we would want to do. Keep the airframes and ditch the engines is what we need to do. The airframes would be zero lifed after the conversion and having the RTMs means we have our own bespoke software which costs (wastes) us millions of pounds every time we have a change. Full FMS buying AH-64Es direct from Boeing is by far the best option. Oh and the step change in capability between the two is enormous.... and trust me I know quite a bit about them
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll have to take your word for it that you 'know quite a bit about them' CAC, but my understanding is that it is the electronics and airframes that need replacing and that much of the other equipment can be swapped over (Boeing named the engines as one of these parts, but maybe the particular chap I spoke to wasn't up-to-speed on the RTM). Are you saying that the current airframes would be reused, and the engines discarded?
Agree with that CAC, I think the Boeing rep was talking about the general remanufacture process (re; transferring engines across) rather than UK-specific. It's probably not ideal for UK, given the reasons you state.
As you say, there's no need for a bespoke UK engine anymore as the AH-64E puts out ample power. FMS and off-the-shelf certainly way to go - provided AgustaWestland don't stick their oar in.
As you say, there's no need for a bespoke UK engine anymore as the AH-64E puts out ample power. FMS and off-the-shelf certainly way to go - provided AgustaWestland don't stick their oar in.
Why even invite Westlands to the next party? When have they ever done the MOD a favour which has not quadrupled the cost - added a delay to the program or generally annoyed those that fly them.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, there's no need for a bespoke UK engine anymore
Why even invite Westlands to the next party? When have they ever done the MOD a favour which has not quadrupled the cost
The nearest I heard to a complaint from them was the occasion I was "invited" to the head shed and asked if I thought my (MoD civilian) boss was taking a backhander from CDP's favoured supplier.
Sorry - I can't believe anything has changed at all. Perhaps you could indicate when either Westlands GKN/W or A/W have ever 'stepped in' without it costing 10 times the price in the long run, if you can I might change my mind. In my experience, I can't think of a single case (that was not caused by them in the first place)!
I don't want it to sound rude or for it to be a 'mines bigger than yours' but possibly in your 131 projects did you ever have to sign for and then strap one to your backside, take off and try to do your job? I did, for about for about 7000 (military) hours worth, on quite a few types. If you seriously have not heard a complaint then go sit in any crew room for about 5 minutes - that should be enough!
I don't want it to sound rude or for it to be a 'mines bigger than yours' but possibly in your 131 projects did you ever have to sign for and then strap one to your backside, take off and try to do your job? I did, for about for about 7000 (military) hours worth, on quite a few types. If you seriously have not heard a complaint then go sit in any crew room for about 5 minutes - that should be enough!
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 23rd Mar 2014 at 12:20.
Sorry - I can't believe anything has changed at all. Perhaps you could indicate when either Westlands GKN/W or A/W have ever 'stepped in' without it costing 10 times the price in the long run, if you can I might change my mind. In my experience, I can't think of a single case (that was not caused by them in the first place)!
“10 times the price” sounds like uninformed scuttlebutt, and ignores MoD costing practices which companies have little or no say in. Even if you could offer such an example, my comment related to the many times that an aircraft, or associated equipment programme, would never have been delivered to you in the first place without Westland stepping in. Before about 2000, Puma Nav Update was the obvious one. After that? Sea King ASaC would have been another Chinook Mk3 without them, sitting in a hangar unable to be certified for 10 years.
I don't want it to sound rude or for it to be a 'mines bigger than yours' but possibly in your 131 projects did you ever have to sign for and then strap one to your backside, take off and try to do your job? I did, for about for about 7000 (military) hours worth, on quite a few types. If you seriously have not heard a complaint then go sit in any crew room for about 5 minutes - that should be enough!
I am not aircrew. But yes, I did have to sign at every configuration milestone to say that the equipment and aircraft were safe and met contracted specifications. However, like most MoD trainees, I was used in younger days to having to fly in aircraft I’d just finished maintaining; the main incentive we were “offered” to do our job correctly. Westland, unlike numerous companies (and MoD departments), never once offered me anything to sign for and accept knowing it did not meet these specifications.
They do made a point of ignoring the MoD rule that equipment or aircraft need NOT be functionally safe – so of course I concede that component would be seen as an “extra” cost to MoD. But it is not something that most aircrew I know are aware of. They expect nothing less and just assume MoD demand it. They don’t. Westland do.
They also happen to be the only company who offered me money back because they had been efficient and made too much profit. You will be familiar with Trial and Proof Installations. MoD rules require a company to be paid for both; then for the full production quantity. If they get one or both of the TI/PI right first time, then that is pure profit. Companies always strive for that, many achieve it; only one has offered the money back and encouraged me to spend it at another company.
I am sure you can offer examples which have upset aircrew. They do not prove me wrong; they are, like mine, personal experiences. But I’m pretty certain that most of what you blame on Westland will have its roots in, for example, Service Modifications which Westland are not required to certify as functionally safe or functional. They’re just left to pick up the pieces.
Finally, I have sat in many crewrooms and invited complaint. It is a mandated airworthiness regulation that this opportunity is offered at least once a year to both operators and maintainers at Typed Air Stations, at separate times. It is how Front Line influence acquisition. The practice was formally stopped (in my experience) in 1993, following the “savings at the expense of safety” reiterated by Haddon-Cave. Thereafter, some of us continued with it, concealing the nature of the visit from beancounters and SOs. The regulation requires the Design Authority to be present, so it was the opportunity to say it to their face. I never heard a single complaint about Westland. Again, I’m sure you can tell me otherwise, but that doesn’t make me wrong.
I think any difference between our experiences will have roots in implementation of MoD regulations. Companies, not just Westland, have much to endure when dealing with an MoD organisation which is inherently inefficient when it comes to specifying requirements and managing delivery. Westland know far more about the process than MoD, and I would not hesitate to give them a "GOCO" type contract on rotary wing.
Sometimes in life you just have to say I can't be bothered - it's one of them times. Maybe one day someone will bother to explain why so many good friends of mine died in machines produced there. All they did was sit there and fly them, with bits coming off all over the place or components not doing what they were supposed to do; that's what killed them - but I'll not hold my breath and I'm very comfortable nowadays, in my Sikorsky.
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 23rd Mar 2014 at 19:39.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure why there is any idea of changing engines! The British Apache outperforms a 'D'. What it does need is all the other parts of the 'E' upgrade and there is no reason why this cannot be carried out in the U.K under Boeing . Its pie in the sky to believe they will just go and buy new when its more than possible to carry out the American 'E' Mods and incorporate ASPI at the same time. Its not a hugely complicated airframe .
Mostafa
Still waiting for an example of "10 times the price" and what was said when you reported this fraud. (The fraud would be on the part of MoD).
Who have you asked about the accidents you mention? Did the BoIs not get to the truth? Few report it and, from my previous posts here, you know this frustrates me too. Offer an example and perhaps someone will explain.
I do know that at many of the "moan at the DA" days I've organised aircrew would, indeed, complain about this or that, only to be surprised at the reply. Very often the DA would tell a few home truths about product liability and the fact that on the few times MoD met their obligation to have them appraise a Service Mod, the report would say "It's safe, but it doesn't work", "It works, but it isn't safe" or "Doesn't work and isn't safe" - and MoD would ignore them and fit it and use it anyway. This tends not to be included in BoI reports as the decision to breach airworthiness regs absolves the DA of any liability. Try asking MoD how many times they have had a MF761 decision in their favour. (The result of a Fault Investigation - the 761 notes liability).
You don't say what you fly. Perhaps Lynx. I recall the IPT moaning about the cost of a high tensile steel bolt that Westland had quoted for. They wrote to the workshop and told them to nip down Halfords and buy one. Ever tried asking Halfords if this two and sixpence bolt has had, say, the correct vacuum cadmium and heat treatment? On that occasion the workshop declined and instead framed the signal. But somewhere, someone in MoD will be stupid enough to do what the IPT says. I wonder if that bit fell off?
Still waiting for an example of "10 times the price" and what was said when you reported this fraud. (The fraud would be on the part of MoD).
Who have you asked about the accidents you mention? Did the BoIs not get to the truth? Few report it and, from my previous posts here, you know this frustrates me too. Offer an example and perhaps someone will explain.
I do know that at many of the "moan at the DA" days I've organised aircrew would, indeed, complain about this or that, only to be surprised at the reply. Very often the DA would tell a few home truths about product liability and the fact that on the few times MoD met their obligation to have them appraise a Service Mod, the report would say "It's safe, but it doesn't work", "It works, but it isn't safe" or "Doesn't work and isn't safe" - and MoD would ignore them and fit it and use it anyway. This tends not to be included in BoI reports as the decision to breach airworthiness regs absolves the DA of any liability. Try asking MoD how many times they have had a MF761 decision in their favour. (The result of a Fault Investigation - the 761 notes liability).
You don't say what you fly. Perhaps Lynx. I recall the IPT moaning about the cost of a high tensile steel bolt that Westland had quoted for. They wrote to the workshop and told them to nip down Halfords and buy one. Ever tried asking Halfords if this two and sixpence bolt has had, say, the correct vacuum cadmium and heat treatment? On that occasion the workshop declined and instead framed the signal. But somewhere, someone in MoD will be stupid enough to do what the IPT says. I wonder if that bit fell off?
Do yourself a favour and read the posts.
You truly don't need me to give you an example of 10X the cost unless you have head surgically placed where it is dark. What part of 'Sometimes in life I just can't be bothered' don't you understand. Go buy a 64 off the shelf when the MOD bought theirs. Did the BOIs get to the truth - I'm not sure they did or for that matter ever published. I think the odd one slipped through when everybody involved had left or just plain forgot about. The truth is simple, bits manufactured were not up to it - doors fell off - tiebars broke, how about an AFCS computer not fitted correctly - the list is far from endless, SADLY MANY DIED.
"I don't say what I fly" - 'on quite a few types' I said. I'll now elaborate, every type the army had made by Westlands, GKN Westlands and AW Westlands between 1979 and 2004.
It's a pity you never invited me or the vast majority of people I flew with to one of your little parties.
Now I'll say it again - sometimes in life I just can't be bothered. If you truly want to continue this so that you can appear to have the last say on the matter crack on. I will not. Personally, I suggest you carry on via a private message because I find what's being said disrespectful to the 20+ that died that I know of, when they were just sitting there doing their job - not waiting for bits to fly off or wiggly amps to tear the aircraft apart in seconds few.
You truly don't need me to give you an example of 10X the cost unless you have head surgically placed where it is dark. What part of 'Sometimes in life I just can't be bothered' don't you understand. Go buy a 64 off the shelf when the MOD bought theirs. Did the BOIs get to the truth - I'm not sure they did or for that matter ever published. I think the odd one slipped through when everybody involved had left or just plain forgot about. The truth is simple, bits manufactured were not up to it - doors fell off - tiebars broke, how about an AFCS computer not fitted correctly - the list is far from endless, SADLY MANY DIED.
"I don't say what I fly" - 'on quite a few types' I said. I'll now elaborate, every type the army had made by Westlands, GKN Westlands and AW Westlands between 1979 and 2004.
It's a pity you never invited me or the vast majority of people I flew with to one of your little parties.
Now I'll say it again - sometimes in life I just can't be bothered. If you truly want to continue this so that you can appear to have the last say on the matter crack on. I will not. Personally, I suggest you carry on via a private message because I find what's being said disrespectful to the 20+ that died that I know of, when they were just sitting there doing their job - not waiting for bits to fly off or wiggly amps to tear the aircraft apart in seconds few.
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 24th Mar 2014 at 08:05.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Excepting that we already have in excess of 140 RTM 322 engines. Not sure how much they cost per unit but they must be a least 2-3 million pounds each.
In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a retrospective (past) cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.........
In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that economic actors should not let sunk costs influence their decisions. Doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits. Alternatively, a decision-maker might make rational decisions according to their own incentives, outside of efficiency or profitability. This is considered to be an incentive problem and is distinct from a sunk cost problem.
Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors' decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects. In light of such cognitive quirks, it is unsurprising that people frequently fail to behave in ways that economists deem "rational"...........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostafa and tuc
You are having a silly black and white argument.
To suggest that Westlands has never made a decent design is silly. The Lynx is a world beater.
It also has some flaws that keep killing people.
And the idea that Westlands have never screwed us over for cash is silly, as is the idea that westlands get the credit for the Bagger cabs. That is all down to a couple of SL shag aircrew.
These are not mutually exclusive facts.
You are having a silly black and white argument.
To suggest that Westlands has never made a decent design is silly. The Lynx is a world beater.
It also has some flaws that keep killing people.
And the idea that Westlands have never screwed us over for cash is silly, as is the idea that westlands get the credit for the Bagger cabs. That is all down to a couple of SL shag aircrew.
These are not mutually exclusive facts.
Sorry Tourist, I really appreciate the effort but that don't placate anything.
I stand by everything I said, hopefully and without boring to many, I'll repeat a couple of things. I cannot even think of a successful design to ever come out of that factory.
If you mean 'world beater' because of the speed record that's pure folly. The vast majority of army Lynx have had more variable speed restrictions placed on them than any aircraft I know - anywhere from 60 to 120kts if memory serves me right. Vibrations, all over the place, fixed, I used the word loosely, by doubler, then treblers and on and on plates till we forgot where the problem originated. Least said about the head absorber the better! Blade tips improved things a bit till they started to crack all over the place.
I'm guessing most don't know that for a least 20 years the maximum under slung load speed was to 60kts - it might still be the same? I once had to take a u/s load from Cape Orford (FI's) to Port Stanley - about as far as you could go, 120Nm'ish at 60kts in the usual 35kt wind only took best part of 4 hours and several refuels EnRoute, world beater indeed.
I am actually trying to say no more.
I'm reliably informed Lynx was an excellent platform for the Royal Navy but it was a unmittigating disaster for the Army. Respectectfully, to the deceased crew I think there is still a navy one at the bottom of some ocean somewhere where the door fell off and ripped the tail rotor off.
I stand by everything I said, hopefully and without boring to many, I'll repeat a couple of things. I cannot even think of a successful design to ever come out of that factory.
If you mean 'world beater' because of the speed record that's pure folly. The vast majority of army Lynx have had more variable speed restrictions placed on them than any aircraft I know - anywhere from 60 to 120kts if memory serves me right. Vibrations, all over the place, fixed, I used the word loosely, by doubler, then treblers and on and on plates till we forgot where the problem originated. Least said about the head absorber the better! Blade tips improved things a bit till they started to crack all over the place.
I'm guessing most don't know that for a least 20 years the maximum under slung load speed was to 60kts - it might still be the same? I once had to take a u/s load from Cape Orford (FI's) to Port Stanley - about as far as you could go, 120Nm'ish at 60kts in the usual 35kt wind only took best part of 4 hours and several refuels EnRoute, world beater indeed.
I am actually trying to say no more.
I'm reliably informed Lynx was an excellent platform for the Royal Navy but it was a unmittigating disaster for the Army. Respectectfully, to the deceased crew I think there is still a navy one at the bottom of some ocean somewhere where the door fell off and ripped the tail rotor off.
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 24th Mar 2014 at 10:53.
Mostafa, you've certainly got me interested and an example of such overcharging would be welcome, even if the x10 is a slight exaggeration.
Tourist, I bow to your knowledge of ASaC but IIRC the AEW guys you mention worked on a specific aspect when the prime contractor announced they didn't know where to begin. They were successful but tuc is also correct. The same prime reneged on or were absolved of a lot of other work and Westlands dug MoD out big style. They also dug MoD out on pre-requisite progammes. IIRC at one point the prime considered asking to be released from the contract, which you'll recall they didn't actually bid for. How that came about I haven't a clue. Sounds odd and far more interesting than arguing about Westlands.
Tourist, I bow to your knowledge of ASaC but IIRC the AEW guys you mention worked on a specific aspect when the prime contractor announced they didn't know where to begin. They were successful but tuc is also correct. The same prime reneged on or were absolved of a lot of other work and Westlands dug MoD out big style. They also dug MoD out on pre-requisite progammes. IIRC at one point the prime considered asking to be released from the contract, which you'll recall they didn't actually bid for. How that came about I haven't a clue. Sounds odd and far more interesting than arguing about Westlands.
MOSTAFA
I’m sorry your Commanding Officer didn’t invite you to one of the “parties” (part of maintaining the build standard which, if not carried out, progressively invalidates the Safety Case and RTS). However, it is far more likely that either your HQ, Support Authority or Provisioning Authority didn’t arrange one in the first place, or refused to attend. Not entirely unknown, which is why any subsequent complaint would be ignored. It isn’t really a party – the agreed actions are effectively the work for MoD’s Technical Agency (the man with THE signature) and DEC for the forthcoming year; and help inform your Constraints Document. If the party isn’t held, what you want or need is largely guesswork to these postholders.
If there was a serious difference between what any companies charged for the same services, then one must first look to MoD. It is they who make a written declaration that the agreed price is “fair and reasonable”. Specifically, the person with Technical and Financial Approval delegation, which by definition is an engineer. I won’t go into all the problems caused by this policy not being implemented, but suffice to say non-engineers are permitted to self-delegate and make false declarations. That is fraud. It lies at the root of many deaths but not one BoI has ever mentioned it.
Your experiences of Lynx sounds horrendous. I’m more familiar with the RN variants, when they were Mk2 and 3, and while there were indeed problems, it is how the MoD and DAs react, to prevent recurrence, that is important. I know that sounds too simplistic in the face of your personal losses and I am a great advocate of understanding history the underlying causes, because without that knowledge you can’t hope to do better. I know many disagree with me. But I too have lost friends and colleagues, and hope you appreciate that much of what I say and do is directly related to preventing this happening again.
I’m sorry your Commanding Officer didn’t invite you to one of the “parties” (part of maintaining the build standard which, if not carried out, progressively invalidates the Safety Case and RTS). However, it is far more likely that either your HQ, Support Authority or Provisioning Authority didn’t arrange one in the first place, or refused to attend. Not entirely unknown, which is why any subsequent complaint would be ignored. It isn’t really a party – the agreed actions are effectively the work for MoD’s Technical Agency (the man with THE signature) and DEC for the forthcoming year; and help inform your Constraints Document. If the party isn’t held, what you want or need is largely guesswork to these postholders.
If there was a serious difference between what any companies charged for the same services, then one must first look to MoD. It is they who make a written declaration that the agreed price is “fair and reasonable”. Specifically, the person with Technical and Financial Approval delegation, which by definition is an engineer. I won’t go into all the problems caused by this policy not being implemented, but suffice to say non-engineers are permitted to self-delegate and make false declarations. That is fraud. It lies at the root of many deaths but not one BoI has ever mentioned it.
Your experiences of Lynx sounds horrendous. I’m more familiar with the RN variants, when they were Mk2 and 3, and while there were indeed problems, it is how the MoD and DAs react, to prevent recurrence, that is important. I know that sounds too simplistic in the face of your personal losses and I am a great advocate of understanding history the underlying causes, because without that knowledge you can’t hope to do better. I know many disagree with me. But I too have lost friends and colleagues, and hope you appreciate that much of what I say and do is directly related to preventing this happening again.
Last edited by tucumseh; 24th Mar 2014 at 17:18. Reason: typo