UK maybe procuring AH-64E.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so another engine type for the UK military to get used to
loss of commonality with Merlins, NH90... (and a less powerful engine than the RTM322?)
plus loss of industrial base
plus being tied into a foreign supplier for any mods needed
Icing clearance?
UK SHOL?
great idea...
DM
plus loss of industrial base
plus being tied into a foreign supplier for any mods needed
Icing clearance?
UK SHOL?
great idea...
DM
Interesting para towards the end of this piece on the USD3 billion quoted for the 50 helicopters (USD60 million a pop)
UK requests remanufacture of Apaches to AH-64E standard - IHS Jane's 360
Remanufacture, which involves stripping out many of the helicopter's systems and cross-decking them into newly-built airframes, should be the cheaper of the three options as these parts have already been paid for. However, the DSCA notification puts the unit cost of the remanufactured platforms at USD60 million each, which is three-times the value previously given by Boeing for new-build helicopters. While the reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, it could be that the DSCA figure does not factor in the savings that would be made as part of the US Army multi-year buy, which would likely have to be negotiated after the UK's request is approved. If this is the case and the UK does join such a procurement plan, its buy should then turn out to be closer to USD1.5 billion (not including sustainment and support).
Without Googling it, it's my understanding that the engine for the AH-64E is as powerful as the RTM322 (although both are limited by the helicopter's transmission anyhow). Happy to be corrected on that though.
UK requests remanufacture of Apaches to AH-64E standard - IHS Jane's 360
Remanufacture, which involves stripping out many of the helicopter's systems and cross-decking them into newly-built airframes, should be the cheaper of the three options as these parts have already been paid for. However, the DSCA notification puts the unit cost of the remanufactured platforms at USD60 million each, which is three-times the value previously given by Boeing for new-build helicopters. While the reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, it could be that the DSCA figure does not factor in the savings that would be made as part of the US Army multi-year buy, which would likely have to be negotiated after the UK's request is approved. If this is the case and the UK does join such a procurement plan, its buy should then turn out to be closer to USD1.5 billion (not including sustainment and support).
(and a less powerful engine than the RTM322?)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Except its not $60M unit cost, is it? Apart from the spare radars, engines etc, the price also includes - for presumably at least the 5 year stated period - engineering and logistic support to include:
"Also included are AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets, AN/APR-39D(V)2 Radar Signal Detecting Sets, Integrated Helmet and Display Sight Systems (IHDSS-21), Manned-Unmanned Teaming International (MUMT-I), KOR-24A Link 16 terminals, M206 infrared countermeasure flares, M211 and M212 Advanced Infrared Countermeasure Munitions (AIRCMM) flares, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders, ammunition, communication equipment, tools and test equipment, training devices, simulators, generators, transportation, wheeled vehicles, organizational equipment, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.".....
Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of six (6) U.S. contractor representatives in country full-time for up to sixty (60) months for equipment checkout, fielding, and technical support........"
Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of six (6) U.S. contractor representatives in country full-time for up to sixty (60) months for equipment checkout, fielding, and technical support........"
I think most folks would include the equipment you've listed when they talk about 'unit cost', as most of this is being cross-decked over from the existing WAH-64s, although you're quite right on the support aspect. That said though, support shouldn't amount to $1.5 billion.
One of the entertaining things about PPRuNE is how every situation is greeting with deep dismay. Eg UK may not get the E model - gloom; looks like the UK will get the E model - gloom; UK industry wants to be involved - gloom; UK industry may not be involved - gloom. UK govt refuses to commit to 2% - gloom; UK government commits to 2% - gloom; swingeing cuts look inevitable - gloom; no cuts, budget ringfenced and will increase in real terms for 5 years - you get the idea. Please don't change though, the place would lose part of its charm 
.
.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yeovil, England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Bigbux
We should just get Wastelands to design and manufacture a completely new design - one that is radical and futuristic, like the one they promised for the Lynx replacement"
Never heard that one!
We should just get Wastelands to design and manufacture a completely new design - one that is radical and futuristic, like the one they promised for the Lynx replacement"
Never heard that one!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 14
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we are paying a couple billion to remanufacture our helicopters into something with essentially the same capabilities, and reduce the fleet from 66 to 50. Sounds like the MOD 
Surely though the Tiger makes more sense when being part of a European Army?
Surely though the Tiger makes more sense when being part of a European Army?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, the actual requirement has nothing to do with the...actual requirement (as we would expect it- we want this bit of kit because of A, B and C). The requirement from the top is as follows:
1. Nurture/protect home grown industry - AgustaWestland (as Yeovil keeps bleating on; they are the only home based UK helicopter manufacturing company thus ensuring 40,000 jobs and income thus saving the the fall of the UK and Monarchy).
2. The above factor will ensure votes in key marginals.
3. The requirement is to ensure that the vendor writes or re-writes the requirement to ensure the customer manges his expectations based on the vendor 'evaluating' the requirements.
4. The only option is the option assessment provided by the vendor (by way of a £10 million plus assessment paid to an impartial and independent assessor who has experience in building and providing helicopters to the UK MoD). Tiger, T129, Mi28, CAIC WZ-10, Harbin Z-19, Rooivalk or AH1Z Viper aren't even considered because they are all pants.
5. The product provided is based on the requirement of the vendor and this then naturally becomes the amended requirement by the customer.
Net result; the KUR is amended to fit the 'independent' assessment. Their findings are 'you need to procure an attack helicopter that has a legacy logistic template similar to current in service types and one that has a through life upgrade ability that will ensure minimal outlay compared to out-sourcing to a third party'.
What that means is 'you must buy British and you must buy whatever we negotiate with Boeing for the absolute bear minimum. If you want to upgrade or make something bespoke, you will have to pay at least three times as much. If the cabs dont work in the first place, we will be more than happy to provide you with a contract maint program for extra cost. We will sub-contract out every other aspect of the program which will ensure that the lines of communication to rectify faults will be as complex as the Apollo program'.
God forbid the MoD procurement process is moribund nay rotten.........
1. Nurture/protect home grown industry - AgustaWestland (as Yeovil keeps bleating on; they are the only home based UK helicopter manufacturing company thus ensuring 40,000 jobs and income thus saving the the fall of the UK and Monarchy).
2. The above factor will ensure votes in key marginals.
3. The requirement is to ensure that the vendor writes or re-writes the requirement to ensure the customer manges his expectations based on the vendor 'evaluating' the requirements.
4. The only option is the option assessment provided by the vendor (by way of a £10 million plus assessment paid to an impartial and independent assessor who has experience in building and providing helicopters to the UK MoD). Tiger, T129, Mi28, CAIC WZ-10, Harbin Z-19, Rooivalk or AH1Z Viper aren't even considered because they are all pants.
5. The product provided is based on the requirement of the vendor and this then naturally becomes the amended requirement by the customer.
Net result; the KUR is amended to fit the 'independent' assessment. Their findings are 'you need to procure an attack helicopter that has a legacy logistic template similar to current in service types and one that has a through life upgrade ability that will ensure minimal outlay compared to out-sourcing to a third party'.
What that means is 'you must buy British and you must buy whatever we negotiate with Boeing for the absolute bear minimum. If you want to upgrade or make something bespoke, you will have to pay at least three times as much. If the cabs dont work in the first place, we will be more than happy to provide you with a contract maint program for extra cost. We will sub-contract out every other aspect of the program which will ensure that the lines of communication to rectify faults will be as complex as the Apollo program'.
God forbid the MoD procurement process is moribund nay rotten.........
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key to understanding the why and wherefores’ is that this is capability sustainment and not purchase of a new capability or platform. We have what we need, we just need to keep it.
The current fleet is already in a state of managing progressively deeper levels of obsolescence that will no longer be supported sometime in the future.
The upgrade of the current fleet to the highest specification offsets future needs until 2040 and beyond. It was unfortunate that the original purchase of D model took 5 years to decide on then 5 years to introduce into service as we therefore lost 10 years use out of what we purchased; it is important that we learn from that and get upgrades earlier otherwise we will always lag behind and get lesser value for money each time a model reaches obsolescence.
It is also the case that future sustainment will cost significantly less by returning to as common a configuration as the US version. There has been a realisation that bespoke software does not come cheap. US Apache technology has moved on at pace compared to slow UK development due to cost. Their engines are better, data capability is better, overall mission systems are better etc. etc.
It is most likely the case that Boeing Defence UK already employs more personnel routinely involved in UK Apache than Westland’s does anyway. The establishment of a transient work force at Yeovil to remanufacture would presumably be delayed by the need to plan, establish and recruit for a new ‘production facility’; a cost and timeline that cannot be justified.
By upgrading and not buying a new platform there will be logistic and training economy, as a new type of platform would require new tooling and training across the board. Significant experience has been accrued with Apache, why change?
There will be enhancements that arrive by virtue of the upgrade that improve capability but at lesser cost than self-development. Why wouldn’t you accept what comes? It has a proven suite of weapons systems that are in parallel continuous development that do the job, why look for something else to integrate with attendant further costs?
It seems to me a no brainer! I am sure we will continue to debate the pros and cons but for once it seems the end user and taxpayer’s are getting VFM.
HEDP
The current fleet is already in a state of managing progressively deeper levels of obsolescence that will no longer be supported sometime in the future.
The upgrade of the current fleet to the highest specification offsets future needs until 2040 and beyond. It was unfortunate that the original purchase of D model took 5 years to decide on then 5 years to introduce into service as we therefore lost 10 years use out of what we purchased; it is important that we learn from that and get upgrades earlier otherwise we will always lag behind and get lesser value for money each time a model reaches obsolescence.
It is also the case that future sustainment will cost significantly less by returning to as common a configuration as the US version. There has been a realisation that bespoke software does not come cheap. US Apache technology has moved on at pace compared to slow UK development due to cost. Their engines are better, data capability is better, overall mission systems are better etc. etc.
It is most likely the case that Boeing Defence UK already employs more personnel routinely involved in UK Apache than Westland’s does anyway. The establishment of a transient work force at Yeovil to remanufacture would presumably be delayed by the need to plan, establish and recruit for a new ‘production facility’; a cost and timeline that cannot be justified.
By upgrading and not buying a new platform there will be logistic and training economy, as a new type of platform would require new tooling and training across the board. Significant experience has been accrued with Apache, why change?
There will be enhancements that arrive by virtue of the upgrade that improve capability but at lesser cost than self-development. Why wouldn’t you accept what comes? It has a proven suite of weapons systems that are in parallel continuous development that do the job, why look for something else to integrate with attendant further costs?
It seems to me a no brainer! I am sure we will continue to debate the pros and cons but for once it seems the end user and taxpayer’s are getting VFM.
HEDP
Last edited by HEDP; 30th Aug 2015 at 11:19.
"So we are paying a couple billion to remanufacture our helicopters into something with essentially the same capabilities, and reduce the fleet from 66 to 50. Sounds like the MOD"
Yes, and it makes complete sense. Firstly, to retain the same capability against different / improved threats requires upgrades just to keep pace - the E has adopted some important UK philosophy in mission avionics, making it a closer fit to our needs. Secondly, as HEDP describes, obsolescence management is critical to maintaining a fleet's capability. By moving closer to the US we can benefit from cost reductions thanks to the US Army's multi year purchases. The UK has decided that the US requirements are close enough to justify the move on a Cost Benefit Analysis. This is not always the case; we went bespoke on the CH47 as the change to TTPs due to very different avionics was deemed unacceptable in the final anaysis at the time.
Going European is no guarantee of quality nor interoperability. Several NH90/Tiger users are unhappy with the cabs, and the Dutch have operated Apache for several years.
Yes, and it makes complete sense. Firstly, to retain the same capability against different / improved threats requires upgrades just to keep pace - the E has adopted some important UK philosophy in mission avionics, making it a closer fit to our needs. Secondly, as HEDP describes, obsolescence management is critical to maintaining a fleet's capability. By moving closer to the US we can benefit from cost reductions thanks to the US Army's multi year purchases. The UK has decided that the US requirements are close enough to justify the move on a Cost Benefit Analysis. This is not always the case; we went bespoke on the CH47 as the change to TTPs due to very different avionics was deemed unacceptable in the final anaysis at the time.
Going European is no guarantee of quality nor interoperability. Several NH90/Tiger users are unhappy with the cabs, and the Dutch have operated Apache for several years.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 14
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Evalu8ter
I'm not advocating going European, I'm advocating keeping the current 66 WAH-64s and spending the money on something else.
@Rotate too late
Ask him if he would prefer 66 WAH64 and a couple billion of extra choppers or 50 AH64E.
I'm not advocating going European, I'm advocating keeping the current 66 WAH-64s and spending the money on something else.
@Rotate too late
Ask him if he would prefer 66 WAH64 and a couple billion of extra choppers or 50 AH64E.
The money would be better spent for 20 Ospreys for use on the QE class carriers to go with the 35's. They would provide a credible assault, air to air refueling, covert ops, cod, etc capability and you would still have $1.5B left for support and mod to an EWA config.
In today's world ship based helicopters make for a sitting duck if you have to go up against a contender.
The Sultan
In today's world ship based helicopters make for a sitting duck if you have to go up against a contender.
The Sultan
Taranis,
The problem is that you can't keep the current aircraft. There are acute obsolescence problems with the legacy aircraft which would render it either horrifically expensive to support or unflyable. The aircraft would also become increasingly incapable of either interaction with allies, or protecting itself against threats. High utilisation Ops in Afghan have robbed years off the fleet - this is the consequence of "surging" for nearly a decade.
V-22 is a great aircraft at niche roles, but I doubt many in the Army/RM would trade Apache fire support for a ride in an Osprey. CHF should have had V-22 over Merlin, but that would have been politically impossible.
The problem is that you can't keep the current aircraft. There are acute obsolescence problems with the legacy aircraft which would render it either horrifically expensive to support or unflyable. The aircraft would also become increasingly incapable of either interaction with allies, or protecting itself against threats. High utilisation Ops in Afghan have robbed years off the fleet - this is the consequence of "surging" for nearly a decade.
V-22 is a great aircraft at niche roles, but I doubt many in the Army/RM would trade Apache fire support for a ride in an Osprey. CHF should have had V-22 over Merlin, but that would have been politically impossible.
As Evalu8ter says, obsolescence (a subset of unavailability in general) is always a problem. The Apache programme kicked off over 20 years ago now, and we (MoD) typically insert a clause asking for guaranteed support for 15 years - even then that is a bit tongue in cheek as it can almost never be enforced on avionic suppliers. Apache has done very well to last until now.
On Apache there was existing obsolescence in 1996 when contract negotiations were under way. The US tried to palm us off with kit they were already replacing. Obvious cases, like Bendix 221 VHF radio, were spotted by the DHP Sea King section (as the Apache office didn't have any avionic specialists, their AD had to ask around for advice) but I'm sure some were missed.
Another important factor at this time was funding for avionic obsolescence management was chopped in the years 1991-92, and removed altogether in January 1993. All pretence at management disappeared when the Def Stan was cancelled and agency contracts not renewed. It took many years to recover from this AMSO policy (the Alcock era) and I'd say we still haven't.
On Apache there was existing obsolescence in 1996 when contract negotiations were under way. The US tried to palm us off with kit they were already replacing. Obvious cases, like Bendix 221 VHF radio, were spotted by the DHP Sea King section (as the Apache office didn't have any avionic specialists, their AD had to ask around for advice) but I'm sure some were missed.
Another important factor at this time was funding for avionic obsolescence management was chopped in the years 1991-92, and removed altogether in January 1993. All pretence at management disappeared when the Def Stan was cancelled and agency contracts not renewed. It took many years to recover from this AMSO policy (the Alcock era) and I'd say we still haven't.
