Apache replacement
A cheaper solution; it's the Sioux "attack" helo. It will fit the shrinking UK budget and is a stealth machine with a low radar and IR signature too boot!
http://vietnamresearch.com/air/helo/helo_weapons16.gif
http://vietnamresearch.com/air/helo/helo_weapons16.gif
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shotone,
Not a criticism but picking up on your last point. I have yet to see a single member of the military or MoD CS held to account for any equipment deficiency or shoddy acquisition. Which can only mean that it did happen and I missed it, or it hasn't happened, or there have been no examples of shoddy acquisition. I think the last one might be unlikely because we wouldn't have needed Levene and Gray et al to sort out a problem if it wasn't there.
I can personally think of three senior figures at DE&S who are useless - but they get shuffled from team to team and their incompetence is an 'in joke' but they don't get sacked.
On a similar note, I have noticed that no-one has gone after Dannatt, Stirrup, Torpy, Band et al for their pensions (or even just an apology or public admonishment) - surely that's where we should have started when it became apparent that their generation created the £38 bn hole that we have laboured long and hard to fill?
Not a criticism but picking up on your last point. I have yet to see a single member of the military or MoD CS held to account for any equipment deficiency or shoddy acquisition. Which can only mean that it did happen and I missed it, or it hasn't happened, or there have been no examples of shoddy acquisition. I think the last one might be unlikely because we wouldn't have needed Levene and Gray et al to sort out a problem if it wasn't there.
I can personally think of three senior figures at DE&S who are useless - but they get shuffled from team to team and their incompetence is an 'in joke' but they don't get sacked.
On a similar note, I have noticed that no-one has gone after Dannatt, Stirrup, Torpy, Band et al for their pensions (or even just an apology or public admonishment) - surely that's where we should have started when it became apparent that their generation created the £38 bn hole that we have laboured long and hard to fill?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The kit has to do what it says on the tin and do so with extreme reliability, economy and safety.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad you mentioned NASA. When they were tasked to go to the moon, no one told them to do it cheaply. But the budget became an issue later.Today the ISS gets its cornflakes delivered by a private company - for a fraction of what it would have cost the government. a similar approach to defence procurement might get us a lot of kit we currently can't afford.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(G.Hoon was SEC.of State/Defence to 6/5/05). MoD issued its Defence Industrial Strategy paper 12/05 establishing Strategic Partnership Agreements. AgustaWestland signed one 22/6/06. The present Govt. retains them: they are an attempt to reconcile: "the fragility of the wider UK industrial base is such that open international competition could put the sustainment of key industrial capabilities at risk", with the need to extract best value from our £. There is an Open Book notion to attempt to link profit to efficiency.
Always - there are no exceptions - we try to buy jobs with our Defence budget. Always - there are no exceptions - when best value suggests an import, we try to create some jobs - either by offset, or by fitting some UK kit. That costs £. What the User wants is fit kit NOW! What Ministers want is same+jobs+value. No doubt a Commercial Off the Shelf AH-64E would upfront cost less than a WAH-64E. Quite proper for the UK Supplier to lobby. Quite proper for a firm to employ anyone with a little black book of direct numbers (much good may it do).
Be grateful you are not the Minister. Whatever you do will be wrong - in someone's mind.
Always - there are no exceptions - we try to buy jobs with our Defence budget. Always - there are no exceptions - when best value suggests an import, we try to create some jobs - either by offset, or by fitting some UK kit. That costs £. What the User wants is fit kit NOW! What Ministers want is same+jobs+value. No doubt a Commercial Off the Shelf AH-64E would upfront cost less than a WAH-64E. Quite proper for the UK Supplier to lobby. Quite proper for a firm to employ anyone with a little black book of direct numbers (much good may it do).
Be grateful you are not the Minister. Whatever you do will be wrong - in someone's mind.
The lesson these days is "buy our kit, buy our update path". The US Army has been given lots of money to upgrade its Apaches, with the result that the AH-64D Block Is are already close to being inducted into the AH-64E remanufacturing program. Block II will hang around much longer and I think most of the exports are Block II. But the UK aircraft are pretty young to be facing obsolescence.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately having spent the last 10 years in the acquisition stream covering T&E, research and finally the last considerable stint at DE&S, getting 'fit for purpose' is incredibly difficult because no-one is willing to underwrite (or even define) capability level KURs.
The MOD is very much risk averse when it comes to commercial decisions, and as a consequence would rather roll over than play hard ball with industry. MOD tries to play fair with EU procurement regulations and then wonder why we get shafted as everything takes so long to define, compete, procure and deliver.
An analogy which has many real-life examples: imagine you are a company that wants to procure a new engine management system for your fleet of BMWs, you would think that you could just go to BMW and buy new ones. In the MOD, a case has to be written to say why you can't go Ford, Audi and Bentley to get a new engine management system for your BMW. You have to do this in formal commercial terms through advertising in the journal, pre-qualification questionnaire and maybe a full bid (because only at the bid stage is money allowed to be discussed). That takes time, money and people to do that work. Or it takes someone with big (political) balls to say "No, we are going this way" and take the informed and accepted risk.
Now in the case of an overseas capability, how do you get an overseas (or even UK contractor) to sign up to any performance of mission critical capabilities which are UK-specific such as DAS, comms or weapons. Furthermore, how do we programme, test and accept such capabilities if they are US systems where we are not allowed access to the guts of the system or the T&E data?
Whilst I accept that an off-the-shelf cost for Block III might be cheaper, TLCs need to be considered when looking at the niche capabilities we have rather than the helicopter itself. Or, we just accept that the US T&E system works perfectly fine and they get 'fit for purpose' from their platforms when delivered to the front-line...
No easy answer, but blindly trusting the US to deliver to spec (when they have defined the spec which will not be the same as ours) is potentially foolhardy.
The MOD is very much risk averse when it comes to commercial decisions, and as a consequence would rather roll over than play hard ball with industry. MOD tries to play fair with EU procurement regulations and then wonder why we get shafted as everything takes so long to define, compete, procure and deliver.
An analogy which has many real-life examples: imagine you are a company that wants to procure a new engine management system for your fleet of BMWs, you would think that you could just go to BMW and buy new ones. In the MOD, a case has to be written to say why you can't go Ford, Audi and Bentley to get a new engine management system for your BMW. You have to do this in formal commercial terms through advertising in the journal, pre-qualification questionnaire and maybe a full bid (because only at the bid stage is money allowed to be discussed). That takes time, money and people to do that work. Or it takes someone with big (political) balls to say "No, we are going this way" and take the informed and accepted risk.
Now in the case of an overseas capability, how do you get an overseas (or even UK contractor) to sign up to any performance of mission critical capabilities which are UK-specific such as DAS, comms or weapons. Furthermore, how do we programme, test and accept such capabilities if they are US systems where we are not allowed access to the guts of the system or the T&E data?
Whilst I accept that an off-the-shelf cost for Block III might be cheaper, TLCs need to be considered when looking at the niche capabilities we have rather than the helicopter itself. Or, we just accept that the US T&E system works perfectly fine and they get 'fit for purpose' from their platforms when delivered to the front-line...
No easy answer, but blindly trusting the US to deliver to spec (when they have defined the spec which will not be the same as ours) is potentially foolhardy.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowObservable: Too young indeed; a symptom of our slow procurement process that led us to be one of the last customers for Block 1, hence 5 years less use from what we buy due to obsolescence. The same will be true of E model as due to prevarication we will be late into the program and therefore not realise the through life benefit.
The significant through life costs attributable to Block 1 in a large part stem from bespoke software leading to all elements of the platform and part task trainers requiring bespoke development. This can be offset with E model by having common software and hardware as much as possible and federated DAS sensors.
Work share again is an interesting area as Boeing Defence UK has more manpower invested in Uk Apache then Westland do.The jobs will not transfer out of UK; it is merely a choice of an Italian or US owned company.....
The significant through life costs attributable to Block 1 in a large part stem from bespoke software leading to all elements of the platform and part task trainers requiring bespoke development. This can be offset with E model by having common software and hardware as much as possible and federated DAS sensors.
Work share again is an interesting area as Boeing Defence UK has more manpower invested in Uk Apache then Westland do.The jobs will not transfer out of UK; it is merely a choice of an Italian or US owned company.....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that AW are a business; they make money by selling helicopters and support services. Of course they will bid and lobby hard for UK RW orders. Let's not attack them for simply doing their job. I'd rather we poured scorn on the weak politicians who listen to lobbyists and govern by focus groups and polls rather than by decisiveness and common sense.
As for job losses, Westlands has a long history of hiring contractors on low rates and short contracts - letting them go at opportune moments (with accompanying press release) and then re-hiring them.
New EU procurement regs came into force last month - they include Defence and Security contracts. The normal practice of lobbying and offering senior stakeholders (from the support as well as sharp end) consultancy positions, directorships and jobs may prove to be a little more difficult this time around. Unless the UK is planning to design and build it's very own AH thus avoiding an international competition , then the process becomes more transparent and challengeable.
And as for the procurement process being lengthy - ever asked why? It's not because of the process.
I look forward to Westlands either stepping up to the challenge and becoming the home grown centre of helicopter excellence they claim to be, or going bust.
Defence in the UK and Oz always seems to be an expensive "work for the dole" program. I don't see commercial enterprises who spend billions on kit being subject to this archaic syndrome. "Bank for the buck" is best. Why keep trying to reinvent the wheel at great expense, years late and often not fit for purpose...
The smaller our armed forces get, the less kit we need making it more expensive to build small quantities to meet our own needs which then makes sense to buy more off the shelf kit from someone else. Even if we buy UK kit lower quantities will mean less jobs will be involved in making it making buying British less of an issue.
the home grown centre of helicopter excellence they claim to be,
N.B. the Lynx was initially a Hayes ( i.e. ex. Fairey Helicopters ) design.
Navaleye,
We burnt a lot more hours in Afghan than in the orginal planning assumptions when we bought the aircraft. That, and the fact that the US are migrating to the 64E standard, brings obsolescence management into the equation. As intimated elsewhere, the big carrot to do the deal now is to take advantage of the large bulk purchases by the US Army and get the cabs at the lowest price.
Bigbux,
I find myself agreeing with you over PDS and IOS activities; the supply of spares for Merlin, for example, had resulted in poor availability stats for several users.
We burnt a lot more hours in Afghan than in the orginal planning assumptions when we bought the aircraft. That, and the fact that the US are migrating to the 64E standard, brings obsolescence management into the equation. As intimated elsewhere, the big carrot to do the deal now is to take advantage of the large bulk purchases by the US Army and get the cabs at the lowest price.
Bigbux,
I find myself agreeing with you over PDS and IOS activities; the supply of spares for Merlin, for example, had resulted in poor availability stats for several users.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few thoughts that might help the discussion along.
Not all of the changes made to the UK Apache were designed to allow Westlands to 'rip off the MoD'.
The aircraft were bought against a requirement written around 1993, which was focussed almost exclusively on high intensity anti-tank capability in all weathers. The decision to use Westlands as the 'Co-ordinating Design Authority', with McD (later Boeing) as a sub-contractor, was driven by MoD concerns over the ability of a US supplier to meet UK airworthiness certification requirements. Sound familiar at all? The US Government wanted to sell us the aircraft direct via FMS, but the MoD weren't interested for the same reasons as not buying direct from the US manfacturer.
The decision to go via WHL was not, sadly, accompanied by the up front efforts in the MoD needed to allow transfer of US Army data to the UK. (This included just about all flight trials evidence, and much of the data needed for weapons certification - as usual in the States, the Army were the Design Authority, not McD/Boeing). ITARs were a major headache. The UK/US Apache MoU was around two years late, and its absence certainly caused problems (and delays) early on. Some reading this might wonder what the MoD have learned about buying aircraft from the US in the last 30 years.
Some of the changes made to the UK aircraft weren't all bad. The change of engine from T700 to RTM322 was wholly political, and came from outside the MoD (Hesletine at DTI, to be precise). It cost the UK an arm and a leg, but was carried out extremely well by Westlands and Rolls Royce. (The D model Apache's engine control systems had some less than happy aspects, and several US Army aircraft were lost to Nr droop due to engine lag - the 322 integration attracted very favourable comment from US Army pilots). The 322 also gave the UK Apache a useful boost in power hot and high, or so I've been told by those who flew it out in the Stan. However, it did increase empty weight, and moved the CofG further aft - never a good thing.
We also needed a new DAS - the one fitted to the basic D model at the time wasn't very capable at all, and the US Army were not willing to release much information about what was fitted, which made evaluating it a bit tricky. The UK system (HIDAS) was and remains a world class fit, and was subsequently offered (and taken up) as an option for US Apache FMS exports. I understand it has performed extremely well in the Stan, and the technology developed for it was used to make a major DAS upgrade to the Chinook possible at an affordable cost.
The aircraft also needed changes to the comms fit to make it work with the rest of the UK Armed Forces, especially Bowman. Other changes, such as addition of windscreen wipers and washers, and more recently flotation gear, were certainly not 'excuses for WHL to make money'.
We also went for a new rocket system, and the CRV-7 is way more capable (and a whole lot safer) than the US system. Again, AW did a good job in getting it on and cleared.
I would offer the opinion that AW's technical expertise in system and weapons integration (fairly important on Apache), as well as DAS is very good indeed, backed up by a top rate team in the UK at Selex. It's easy to barrack UK companies - I'd just suggest that buying direct from Uncle Sam isn't always the bargain, or panacea, some people think it is.
Some changes weren't so sensible. Some of the offsets mandated by the Government added cost for little reward. Examples of these were the composite stabilator, and UK built (or assembled) components like the stub wings. The late addition of a PFI training system didn't come cheap either.
But the fact is that any large defence procurement (and this was a very big one at the time) will have political aspects. The challenge for the MoD was, and remains, having the technical 'nous' to understand where excessive risk is being introduced as a result of politics, and the commercial nous to get the product at a fair price. I've worked extensively with both AW and Boeing, and I have to say that I've seen examples of truly amazingly high pricing and very 'sharp' behaviour from both, as well as very good behaviours. I've also seen some fairly average performance from the MoD.
Going forward, I'd suggest that those who are pushing for an FMS buy from the US Army need to make sure that all those pesky 'Lines of Development' issues are cleared away. Plus plans to address all those ratty safety and certification aspects that MAA have put in place - what 'worked' for Airseeker might not work for an Apache. Oh, and there will need to be a good plan for putting in those UK specific bits that the US Army might not be able to do (DAS and comms might be examples). Plus a UK based support system, training, Uk publications, etc., etc.
I suppose what i'm trying to point out is that buying highly complex weapons systems from a foreign country (and the US IS a foreign country) isn't all plain sailing. AW aren't all bad. Nor are Boeing. Nor are the MoD. But what is certain is that the process is complex and risky, whatever course is chosen.
Best Regards as ever to those having to make the big calls in Whitehall,
Engines
Not all of the changes made to the UK Apache were designed to allow Westlands to 'rip off the MoD'.
The aircraft were bought against a requirement written around 1993, which was focussed almost exclusively on high intensity anti-tank capability in all weathers. The decision to use Westlands as the 'Co-ordinating Design Authority', with McD (later Boeing) as a sub-contractor, was driven by MoD concerns over the ability of a US supplier to meet UK airworthiness certification requirements. Sound familiar at all? The US Government wanted to sell us the aircraft direct via FMS, but the MoD weren't interested for the same reasons as not buying direct from the US manfacturer.
The decision to go via WHL was not, sadly, accompanied by the up front efforts in the MoD needed to allow transfer of US Army data to the UK. (This included just about all flight trials evidence, and much of the data needed for weapons certification - as usual in the States, the Army were the Design Authority, not McD/Boeing). ITARs were a major headache. The UK/US Apache MoU was around two years late, and its absence certainly caused problems (and delays) early on. Some reading this might wonder what the MoD have learned about buying aircraft from the US in the last 30 years.
Some of the changes made to the UK aircraft weren't all bad. The change of engine from T700 to RTM322 was wholly political, and came from outside the MoD (Hesletine at DTI, to be precise). It cost the UK an arm and a leg, but was carried out extremely well by Westlands and Rolls Royce. (The D model Apache's engine control systems had some less than happy aspects, and several US Army aircraft were lost to Nr droop due to engine lag - the 322 integration attracted very favourable comment from US Army pilots). The 322 also gave the UK Apache a useful boost in power hot and high, or so I've been told by those who flew it out in the Stan. However, it did increase empty weight, and moved the CofG further aft - never a good thing.
We also needed a new DAS - the one fitted to the basic D model at the time wasn't very capable at all, and the US Army were not willing to release much information about what was fitted, which made evaluating it a bit tricky. The UK system (HIDAS) was and remains a world class fit, and was subsequently offered (and taken up) as an option for US Apache FMS exports. I understand it has performed extremely well in the Stan, and the technology developed for it was used to make a major DAS upgrade to the Chinook possible at an affordable cost.
The aircraft also needed changes to the comms fit to make it work with the rest of the UK Armed Forces, especially Bowman. Other changes, such as addition of windscreen wipers and washers, and more recently flotation gear, were certainly not 'excuses for WHL to make money'.
We also went for a new rocket system, and the CRV-7 is way more capable (and a whole lot safer) than the US system. Again, AW did a good job in getting it on and cleared.
I would offer the opinion that AW's technical expertise in system and weapons integration (fairly important on Apache), as well as DAS is very good indeed, backed up by a top rate team in the UK at Selex. It's easy to barrack UK companies - I'd just suggest that buying direct from Uncle Sam isn't always the bargain, or panacea, some people think it is.
Some changes weren't so sensible. Some of the offsets mandated by the Government added cost for little reward. Examples of these were the composite stabilator, and UK built (or assembled) components like the stub wings. The late addition of a PFI training system didn't come cheap either.
But the fact is that any large defence procurement (and this was a very big one at the time) will have political aspects. The challenge for the MoD was, and remains, having the technical 'nous' to understand where excessive risk is being introduced as a result of politics, and the commercial nous to get the product at a fair price. I've worked extensively with both AW and Boeing, and I have to say that I've seen examples of truly amazingly high pricing and very 'sharp' behaviour from both, as well as very good behaviours. I've also seen some fairly average performance from the MoD.
Going forward, I'd suggest that those who are pushing for an FMS buy from the US Army need to make sure that all those pesky 'Lines of Development' issues are cleared away. Plus plans to address all those ratty safety and certification aspects that MAA have put in place - what 'worked' for Airseeker might not work for an Apache. Oh, and there will need to be a good plan for putting in those UK specific bits that the US Army might not be able to do (DAS and comms might be examples). Plus a UK based support system, training, Uk publications, etc., etc.
I suppose what i'm trying to point out is that buying highly complex weapons systems from a foreign country (and the US IS a foreign country) isn't all plain sailing. AW aren't all bad. Nor are Boeing. Nor are the MoD. But what is certain is that the process is complex and risky, whatever course is chosen.
Best Regards as ever to those having to make the big calls in Whitehall,
Engines