Sometimes in life you just have to say I can't be bothered! It was still one of those moments, right up until, rightly or wrongly, I read the first paragraph. 'I'm sorry your Commanding Officer (CO) didn't invite you' what an awful condescending thing to say.

You seem unaware just how busy aviation CO's are? Generally they are so busy they don't even get the chance to maintain their own currency - so bad was Lynx serviceability they generally opted for more reliable, less time consuming airframes. As for where I sat in that pecking order, the CO relied on people like me to advise them on all matters flying. According to your premise I didn't do a very good job.

As for BoI's/SI's they are only as good as the convening order, terms of reference, allows them to be.

I have said my bit and will apologise as I seem to have steered this thread away from its purpose so getting back to that - I still firmly believe we should buy the 18 straight of the shelf - completely cut out the middle man and get the contract fundamentally right first time.

Mostafa

No, I'm not referring to the speed record:rolleyes:

The RN Lynx is a world beater. It is good at what it is designed to do.
As I said before, flawed but still great. That is why other countries bought and buy it.
And yes some of my friends went down in the many many that ended up killing people.
The Army Lynx is just a bodge job, but that is not the fault of Westlands.

It's time to just agree to disagree - but they built it.

Could just say that mostafa and I have exchanged very pleasant PMs and all is well. Sometimes good can come of a good going disagreement!

Yes, back to AH. Please don't let a contract for "Air Vehicles" again, or one that specifies avionics that have been obsolete for over 10 years! MoD no longer has the corporate knowledge that led to another aircraft project team stepping in to identify and correct the problem.

Hear hear Sir and may god bless her and all who sail in her.

ORAC, thanks for the economics lesson. I agree the RTM's are a sunk cost but they also mean that we could avoid the prospective cost of purchasing new engines.

CAC Runway covered it well. Three practical reasons, one political reason:

• The AH-64E's T700-701D are FADEC (EDECU+HMU) equipped, meaning that any re-engining would involve a software (AF/Eng) rewrite. This is never easy, and never cheap.
• The T700 family has 'caught up' with the RTM322 (the variants in SOCOM's MH-60Ms are rated at 2,600+ shp), and is likely to offer greater growth potential (to 3,000 shp and beyond).
• The UK's bespoke changes to its WAH-64Ds resulted in the aircraft being impractical to upgrade to Block II configuration. This, I'm told, is the reason why the user is now planning to forgo the BII upgrade and adopt the Apache Guardian instead.
• Politically, there will be less lobbying to re-engine this time around, given Safran's buy-out of R-R's stake in the RTM322. Although a commonality argument (w/ Merlin) can still be made, a similar case can be made for the T700 family (which also powers the MCA's AW189s).

For comparison, the DoD pays $798,000 for its T700-701Ds ("consume mass quantities!").

There is no sense in the proposal . The Westland 'D' outperforms the Boeing machine and that became more noticable with the introduction of ASPI.
There is no need for a massive increase in engine hp -the helicopter is pretty much at the limit of what it needed to carry and extra hp doesn't make it much more useful. All that extra hp will do is accelerate the fatigue process.
In terms of the Westland 'E' -Link 16 capability isn't a massive stretch in technology and many of the mods of the 'E' programme I am sure Boeing can devise a local modification programme. The real improvement that is needed is the improved nose gearboxes with better cooling and improvements to the MRGB.

Indeed, the RTM322 is down-rated in its WAH-64D installation.

Turboshaft, you said that the AH-64E Fadec software would have to be re-written for the RTM322. Why couldn't it use the same EECU and software that the WAH-64D uses?

Vendee:

Since the baseline Apache Guardian aircraft-engine interface will have been written around the T700-701D, the RTM322 will inevitably require a software mod. The Apache AH Mk1's EECU could be retained, but the software interface with the aircraft would - I believe - need to be updated.

For comparison with the D model, think of it in the context of the B-1B vs. B-52 conundrum: the Air Force has traditionally found it easier to add new toys to the B-52, since it can patch-on A/D converters to the 'analog' Buff, rather than having to mess with the core avionics of the 'digital' B-1B. Same with the Apache: since the original T700 in the AH-64D was a non-FADEC engine, the task of integrating the RTM322 - substantial though it was - at least didn't involve messing with an existing D/D AF/Eng interface.

The AH-64E is touted as using OSA, which in theory could help simplify things, but in general whenever a FADEC software mod is required engineers start weeping as if their favorite sci-fi show had been canceled.

As a sidenote, the E also incorporates a comprehensive IAC vibration monitoring system, covering engines, gearboxes, etc., with the goal of enabling conditioned-based maintenance.

Not to mention that Block 1 is obsolete. Block 2 is projected to be obsolete in 2025 and we are looking for a capability out to 2040-ish. Why take an upgrade to pay again to adopt the end state in a further 11 years anyway?

Value for money is achieved in this instance by going as far down the FMS route and not tinkering with software as much as possible.

That's the point exactly HEDP. The current Block 1 aircraft are obsolete as the electronics are no longer made. Boeing did a bulk buy of the transistor chips when they went out of production, but these will not last very much longer.

FMS is not going to happen. There is no need to buy new airframes! A great many 'D's are rebuilt 'A's -fuselages gutted and then rewired to the latest spec. That is what will happen with the Westland 'D's -retain airframe and engines -install new for the rest. The engines themselves don't need an upgrade -there is extra power that could be gained but there is no need for it! They are not looking to carry anything larger or heavier than what they already have.

A bold statement Riley!

What makes you think that FMS would not be recycling the airframes? It is standard practice for Boeing to do so all the way from Block 1 via Block 2 to Block 3.

For that matter why discount the possibility of new wet build airframes to reduce the maintenance penalty accrued by maritime use?

There is also the small issue of technology rights which might preclude a foreign assembler as the technology has developed. Neither Boeing or USG may wish to pursue the same arrangement again.

HEDP

That reminds me, the UK and Dutch Apaches have been modernised for maritime operations (anti-corrosion coatings, tie-down points, etc), and I imagine this is a capability that the Army and Royal Navy would be loathe to lose.

Are the bog-standard AH-64Es marinised in the same way?

There is no guarantee that sea deployment for Apache will become common.
The airframe no matter what you do is not particularily weather resistant when it comes to salt water. There are plenty of areas where water can get in and stay. I would not advise it long term. As for upgrading the AH-64Ds -there is no reason why the work couldn't be done in the U.K under Boeing .
I suspect that the technological rights are not a massive issue as the parts of the upgrade that would most appeal to the U.K are on the mechanical side of the airframe.

RileyDove you are just wrong there. The UK AH Mk1 comes nowhere near the performance of the AH-64E. FMS would indeed re-use the airframes I'm sure but the RTMs just aren't needed anymore. Where on earth have you got that it will accelerate the fatigue process? Proof? All of the drivetrain is upgraded to cope with the extra power. The T700 with EDECU (not a true FADEC actually) provides more power and more growth potential, plus it means we can stay with the US software. Marinisation is something that can be done to any AH given the equipment and time, no different to when we marinised ours.

Any new airframe must be wet assembled IMHO. They really suffered during the Libyan op. The marinisation program isn't that effective and it seems to give more protection to the systems than to the airframe itself, which is why a wet assembled airframe is desirable.

CAC -its not a matter of upgrading the powertrain to take extra power. The airframe itself needs strengthening to take the extra power. The AH-64 is comparatively lightly built -its a fallacy to believe you can just keep increasing power without it having an effect .
As to performance -you obviously have no idea as to the effect of having ASPI on the U.S 'D' model .As it stands the U.K AH-64D will outperform a U.S
'E' model in terms of performance - the mod state and type of engine electronics doesn't come into it.

Are the Brits phasing out the Hellfire Missile?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ssile-program/