AAC AH-64E Arrives in the UK
Twas in August, I saw another batch of AH-64E depart Mildenhall for Wattisham, after arriving few days earlier over the weekend
serials obviously blocked out...
I have lost count of how many have been flown in back of either AMC / AFRC C-5M or even C-17A in the last 24 months.
cheers
cheers
serials obviously blocked out...
I have lost count of how many have been flown in back of either AMC / AFRC C-5M or even C-17A in the last 24 months.
cheers
cheers
Apologies if this has been answered before, but ISTR that the UK's Ds had been fitted with flotation gear, whereas I think I read somewhere that no provision has been made to fit flotation gear to the latest Es. Is that still the case?
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
The Apache AH-64E initial operating capability (IOC) is defined as one AH-64E v6 squadron 'at Readiness', cleared to support operational use with full security accreditation; the delivery of two linked and accredited land simulators to conduct mission rehearsal training; and a long-term maintenance and training package.
IOC is expected to be achieved in 2023 and Full Operating Capability in 2026.
Minister of State responding to question from Mark Francois 17 October 2022
IOC is expected to be achieved in 2023 and Full Operating Capability in 2026.
Minister of State responding to question from Mark Francois 17 October 2022
I haven't heard anything about its cold weather capabilities, the AH.1 successfully operated on exercise with the RM north of the Arctic Circle. I remember reading this involved additional treatments to the airframes.
I think that is a picture of one at Operational Readiness. MOD beancounters have determined this will significantly increase airframe life, while reducing operational costs. Retains 2 man crew, just needs a longer intercom lead to reach between cockpit and truck cabin.
Not wishing to denigrate the REME who I'm sure do a wonderful job but years ago at my 'resident' AAC Squadron at Farnborough (originally 664 but later re-numbered 656), a pilot walked out to a Sioux and called for startup. I saw his rotors turning then occupied myself with other traffic.
A few minutes later there was a phone call from this pilot apologising for not telling the tower he had shut down again because 'I was a bit annoyed because when I started up, (it had been for an air test after some maintenance) I discovered the REME had fitted the rotor blades upside down'!
A few minutes later there was a phone call from this pilot apologising for not telling the tower he had shut down again because 'I was a bit annoyed because when I started up, (it had been for an air test after some maintenance) I discovered the REME had fitted the rotor blades upside down'!
The following users liked this post:
Theres much Gnashing of teeth in defence circles about picking JAGM over integrating brimstone 2/3 on the apaches. We dont know JAGM specs and capabilities, but using its publically released its inferior to spike which is integrated and paper specs of brimstone. So its either a **** up decision or they know something we dont know I hope its the latter knowing the former is a strong contender
Theres much Gnashing of teeth in defence circles about picking JAGM over integrating brimstone 2/3 on the apaches. We dont know JAGM specs and capabilities, but using its publically released its inferior to spike which is integrated and paper specs of brimstone. So its either a **** up decision or they know something we dont know I hope its the latter knowing the former is a strong contender
If road movement was essential, I’d have thought Stansted would be a more convenient arrival point.
[QUOTE=212man;11529021]I think the question was why didn’t they fly from Brize Norton to Wattisham (after reassembly), rather than move by road?
If road movement was essential, I’d have thought Stansted would be a more convenient arrival point.[/QUOTE
The first because Brize is the wrong place to reassemble and flight test a new cab. There is no support there and the operational tempo of the station is built around heavy fixed wing.
The second because it generates an unnecessary airframe cycle for the C17 in going empty from STN to BZN. Additionally, Stansted will not want a non-essential military movement, any more than LHR would, so they would charge like a wounded rhinoceros if pressurized.
N
If road movement was essential, I’d have thought Stansted would be a more convenient arrival point.[/QUOTE
The first because Brize is the wrong place to reassemble and flight test a new cab. There is no support there and the operational tempo of the station is built around heavy fixed wing.
The second because it generates an unnecessary airframe cycle for the C17 in going empty from STN to BZN. Additionally, Stansted will not want a non-essential military movement, any more than LHR would, so they would charge like a wounded rhinoceros if pressurized.
N
[QUOTE=Bengo;11529163]
Well, these may be valid but I find them slightly incredulous.
1. A few years ago my organisation imported three Sikorsky S-92s into Brunei, in an AN124. We used the Royal Brunei Air Force hangar facilities to reassemble them - main rotor blades, two tail rotor blades each plus re-pressurise the undercarriage. Then a day or two of track and balance and we flew them down the coast to our operating base, 20 min away. How much more than this is involved with these 64s?
2. Stansted is a major air cargo hub (3rd largest in UK with plans to expand). One C-17 is hardly impacting the airline traffic.
3. One airframe cycle? Seriously?
I think the question was why didn’t they fly from Brize Norton to Wattisham (after reassembly), rather than move by road?
If road movement was essential, I’d have thought Stansted would be a more convenient arrival point.[/QUOTE
The first because Brize is the wrong place to reassemble and flight test a new cab. There is no support there and the operational tempo of the station is built around heavy fixed wing.
The second because it generates an unnecessary airframe cycle for the C17 in going empty from STN to BZN. Additionally, Stansted will not want a non-essential military movement, any more than LHR would, so they would charge like a wounded rhinoceros if pressurized.
N
If road movement was essential, I’d have thought Stansted would be a more convenient arrival point.[/QUOTE
The first because Brize is the wrong place to reassemble and flight test a new cab. There is no support there and the operational tempo of the station is built around heavy fixed wing.
The second because it generates an unnecessary airframe cycle for the C17 in going empty from STN to BZN. Additionally, Stansted will not want a non-essential military movement, any more than LHR would, so they would charge like a wounded rhinoceros if pressurized.
N
1. A few years ago my organisation imported three Sikorsky S-92s into Brunei, in an AN124. We used the Royal Brunei Air Force hangar facilities to reassemble them - main rotor blades, two tail rotor blades each plus re-pressurise the undercarriage. Then a day or two of track and balance and we flew them down the coast to our operating base, 20 min away. How much more than this is involved with these 64s?
2. Stansted is a major air cargo hub (3rd largest in UK with plans to expand). One C-17 is hardly impacting the airline traffic.
3. One airframe cycle? Seriously?
Don't forget the USMC transports sets of 3 helicopters around all the time assembling and then dis-assembling them frequently whenever the POTUS is visiting a particular country.
During the Clinton era, they brought in 3 x S61s in a C5 landing late morning at Farnborough and they were assembled and being test flown that evening.
During the Clinton era, they brought in 3 x S61s in a C5 landing late morning at Farnborough and they were assembled and being test flown that evening.