Apache replacement
Engines: 
Excellent post, as ever.
But... Use of facts and reasoned discussion in a PPRuNe post? Buying off-the-shelf from Uncle Sam isn't automatically the answer to a maiden's prayer?
Is the world about to end?
For that reason, some said that "CPG" in the WAH-64 should stand for "CorPulent Gunner". One way to balance out the longitudinal CG.
Excellent post, as ever.But... Use of facts and reasoned discussion in a PPRuNe post? Buying off-the-shelf from Uncle Sam isn't automatically the answer to a maiden's prayer?
Is the world about to end?
Originally Posted by Engines
and moved the CofG further aft - never a good thing.
Jobs in the military itself seem by far more unproductive to me as a civilian than extra jobs at a helicopter maker. I have to assume that they represent some sort of potential use or value. Why wouldn't skills and capabilties in defense-related production be the same?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westlands at Yeovil have never themselves taken any helicopter through from initial design to production.
N.B. the Lynx was initially a Hayes ( i.e. ex. Fairey Helicopters ) design.
N.B. the Lynx was initially a Hayes ( i.e. ex. Fairey Helicopters ) design.
Precisely - hardly a strong case to base a claim of "strategic capability" on. It's not as if helicopters aren't repaired and serviced elsewhere in the UK - though at the time of the IOS contracts that is exactly what the Treasury was told.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all of the changes made to the UK Apache were designed to allow Westlands to 'rip off the MoD'
Sounds innocuous? On its own perhaps - but we pre-paid for all planned engine overhauls. So what? Our pre-payments were rendered null and void if we used our own lubricants.
How many copies of the Westland contract were distributed to REME/AAC on deployment?
Only a complete sucker of a customer would let that pass and only an arrogant, predatory, short-termist supplier would put it in a contract.
Last edited by Bigbux; 10th Mar 2015 at 22:36. Reason: spolling mistook
Sorry, PN, I tried to say it in one short line which failed.
What I mean is that the military, when it's not fighting, is a waste of money in a sense but we pay for it because we might need it and it has a deterrent effect.
Isn't the ability to produce and maintain weapons also a necessary part of warfare? Why would we not be prepared to "waste" some money on it in the same way - because we might need it, because when other people know we can come up with improvements, can maintain our equipment and invent new things then they will be less certain of the limits on our ability.
What I mean is that the military, when it's not fighting, is a waste of money in a sense but we pay for it because we might need it and it has a deterrent effect.
Isn't the ability to produce and maintain weapons also a necessary part of warfare? Why would we not be prepared to "waste" some money on it in the same way - because we might need it, because when other people know we can come up with improvements, can maintain our equipment and invent new things then they will be less certain of the limits on our ability.
Excellent Engines, as usual.
A little tale that reveals much. As a programme, Apache was being ramped up at much the same time as the follow-on Chinook Mk2 buy was being split into Mk2 and Mk3.
Both were resourced by our 2 Star (same one as Nimrod 2000/2010/RMPA/MRA4) as a simple build to print job. Apache, for example, had no avionic specialists whatsoever in the small project team. (MGO on the other hand resourced it with 70+ ILS staff).
Essentially, the US offered a build standard that included old 2nd hand kit they were replacing, and MoD blindly accepted (what UK call the Appendix A to the aircraft spec) because the PT had no-one to scrutinise it properly. That happened some way into contract negotiations, when a programme manager in another part of DHP pointed out that some of the comms system was obsolete (not just obsolescent) and the RN had the same kit under a "repair by cannibalisation" maintenance policy since the early 80s. Worse, and illustrating the "stovepiping" within the Directorate, never mind across Directorates and Services, DHP were actively replacing it in those RN aircraft. There is something VERY wrong in Main Building if, at the same time, one Service is replacing an obsolete kit and another is buying it for the first time. If they REALLY wanted it for Apache, why not just take the RN kit being hooked out of SK?
The 2 Star's immediate reaction was revealing. Apache got a 4 man avionics team, later augmented by a radar specialist. The PM who spotted the con was told he was an "embarrassment to the department" and ordered to find another job outwith Air Systems............
MoD's problems encapsulated in one post! Now, are we confident MoD has progressed to such an extent this could be avoided this time? Take that one simple example. Does DE&S still have anyone who would know the maintenance policy of such a random selection of mostly foreign avionic kit just by looking at the part numbers? None of the necessary skills or experience are required today to gain entry to DE&S.
A little tale that reveals much. As a programme, Apache was being ramped up at much the same time as the follow-on Chinook Mk2 buy was being split into Mk2 and Mk3.
Both were resourced by our 2 Star (same one as Nimrod 2000/2010/RMPA/MRA4) as a simple build to print job. Apache, for example, had no avionic specialists whatsoever in the small project team. (MGO on the other hand resourced it with 70+ ILS staff).
Essentially, the US offered a build standard that included old 2nd hand kit they were replacing, and MoD blindly accepted (what UK call the Appendix A to the aircraft spec) because the PT had no-one to scrutinise it properly. That happened some way into contract negotiations, when a programme manager in another part of DHP pointed out that some of the comms system was obsolete (not just obsolescent) and the RN had the same kit under a "repair by cannibalisation" maintenance policy since the early 80s. Worse, and illustrating the "stovepiping" within the Directorate, never mind across Directorates and Services, DHP were actively replacing it in those RN aircraft. There is something VERY wrong in Main Building if, at the same time, one Service is replacing an obsolete kit and another is buying it for the first time. If they REALLY wanted it for Apache, why not just take the RN kit being hooked out of SK?
The 2 Star's immediate reaction was revealing. Apache got a 4 man avionics team, later augmented by a radar specialist. The PM who spotted the con was told he was an "embarrassment to the department" and ordered to find another job outwith Air Systems............
MoD's problems encapsulated in one post! Now, are we confident MoD has progressed to such an extent this could be avoided this time? Take that one simple example. Does DE&S still have anyone who would know the maintenance policy of such a random selection of mostly foreign avionic kit just by looking at the part numbers? None of the necessary skills or experience are required today to gain entry to DE&S.
One way to look at your military capability is as a whole life insurance policy.
Term is cheaper, but expires or reduces benefits over time.
Not the best analogy ever, but if what you are staring at is a dollar and sense perspective, that's one way to look at it.
Question:
Why are Apaches so knackered and need replacing so quickly?
You might say that it wasn't built beefy in the first place.
Why later editions look like they are showing premature wear and tear may be related to the original design.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigbux,
Good points, and putting that sort of thing into the contract comes under the heading of the 'sharp' behaviour I've seen from almost all contractors. The MoD fashion for 'all in' support contracts (they even call them 'Integrated' sometimes) has led to some really stupid issues out at the front line.
Issues like the one you quote are usually inserted into the contract by the companies to reduce risk, especially where they are being asked to guarantee a certain level of performance or availability at first line. These risk mitigation measures often get included as part of very complex 'Terms and Conditions' or 'Assumptions' documents within the contract. As Tuc so well points out, the safeguard against this sort of nonsense is close and professional scrutiny of the contract (I think it's a bit like what the financial world call 'due diligence'), especially these bits. And that's where the MoD has had a very big problem for some time.
Apache was presented as an 'off the shelf' buy, and there was a real reluctance at higher management level to listen to the many warnings they were getting about the technical configuration of the Apache, and some of the built in obsolescence Tuc mentions. Not helped by the decision to form a small team (an off the shelf project, see?) from entirely within a Helicopter Directorate, which was, in some key areas, deficient in technical horsepower. Tuc's mentioned one area - I know that the whole area of weapons procurement for the aircraft (a very large project in its own right) was staffed by 0.5 of a CS with absolutely no previous weapons experience.
Going forward, the MoD simply has to rebuild its technical skill set. Getting rid of very good Service personnel has only made the situation worse, and reliance on contractors isn't a long term solution. (Statements of interest - I've been contracting to the MoD for some time, and was involved in the Apache when I was still serving in the RN).
My bottom line - you can complain about the contractors all you like - in my experience on both sides of the fence, the surest way to a good performance from a contractor is a good performance from the procurement team who are charged with managing the project and the contract.
Best Regards to all those having to do it now,
Engines
Good points, and putting that sort of thing into the contract comes under the heading of the 'sharp' behaviour I've seen from almost all contractors. The MoD fashion for 'all in' support contracts (they even call them 'Integrated' sometimes) has led to some really stupid issues out at the front line.
Issues like the one you quote are usually inserted into the contract by the companies to reduce risk, especially where they are being asked to guarantee a certain level of performance or availability at first line. These risk mitigation measures often get included as part of very complex 'Terms and Conditions' or 'Assumptions' documents within the contract. As Tuc so well points out, the safeguard against this sort of nonsense is close and professional scrutiny of the contract (I think it's a bit like what the financial world call 'due diligence'), especially these bits. And that's where the MoD has had a very big problem for some time.
Apache was presented as an 'off the shelf' buy, and there was a real reluctance at higher management level to listen to the many warnings they were getting about the technical configuration of the Apache, and some of the built in obsolescence Tuc mentions. Not helped by the decision to form a small team (an off the shelf project, see?) from entirely within a Helicopter Directorate, which was, in some key areas, deficient in technical horsepower. Tuc's mentioned one area - I know that the whole area of weapons procurement for the aircraft (a very large project in its own right) was staffed by 0.5 of a CS with absolutely no previous weapons experience.
Going forward, the MoD simply has to rebuild its technical skill set. Getting rid of very good Service personnel has only made the situation worse, and reliance on contractors isn't a long term solution. (Statements of interest - I've been contracting to the MoD for some time, and was involved in the Apache when I was still serving in the RN).
My bottom line - you can complain about the contractors all you like - in my experience on both sides of the fence, the surest way to a good performance from a contractor is a good performance from the procurement team who are charged with managing the project and the contract.
Best Regards to all those having to do it now,
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Going forward, the MoD simply has to rebuild its technical skill set."
tell that to the Chancellor - he's going to spread a lot of pain around the MoD shortly - it won't be just the guys 'n gels in unform who get the shove
tell that to the Chancellor - he's going to spread a lot of pain around the MoD shortly - it won't be just the guys 'n gels in unform who get the shove
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now confirmed:
Boeing to boost British Army capability with 50 AH-64E Apache helicopters as UK confirms purchase
IOC set for 2022.
Boeing to boost British Army capability with 50 AH-64E Apache helicopters as UK confirms purchase
IOC set for 2022.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by MightyGem
Will they be "off the shelf", or modified with UK engines, avionics etc as the first lot were?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yesterday's DoD Contracts announcement included an order for Boeing for the remanufacture of the AAC's AH Mk1s to AH-64E Apache Guardian standard...but intriguingly the order volume was for only 38 aircraft, vs. the figure of 50 announced last July. A further cut, or will the UK – like the U.S. Army itself – pursue a joint path of remanufactures and new-builds?
(Mesa is currently a quarter of the way through the remanufacture of 634 AH-64Ds to E spec, with a further 56 new-build aircraft also being acquired.)
I/C
(Mesa is currently a quarter of the way through the remanufacture of 634 AH-64Ds to E spec, with a further 56 new-build aircraft also being acquired.)
I/C
