Twas in August, I saw another batch of AH-64E depart Mildenhall for Wattisham, after arriving few days earlier over the weekend

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....29a5dc81e1.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....004ae60a0f.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1cbfc08307.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....35b9a27d86.jpg

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

Please, but am I really missing something as to why they are not flown from their arrival point to Wattisham?

​​​​There will be a reason, but I don't see why it's anybody's concern but those responsible.

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?

From Jane's...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....37c8358c9f.jpg

Perhaps the C-5M's return leg is more productive out of the Mildenhall airhead?

Apparently this more than meets MOD's IOC definition.Wasn't the flotation device a case of fitted for but not with on most AH.1s? Boeing seems to market the E V6's marine capability as the existing folding blades and anti-corrosion coatings; more importantly an upgraded fire control radar system enabling it to be used effectively over water in multiple sea states and target vessels.

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.

Because it's easier to reassemble and test them at Wattisham, with full access to tools and equipment, than it would be on an American base.

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'!

Sorry for asking an innocent question. Perhaps we should close the forum down as most things talked about aren't any of our concern.

The runway is in dire condition at Wattisham, as crab says in post 12

cheers

If crab already said it...

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

JAGM and Spike are two different classes of weapon - JAGM is a short/medium=range replacement for Hellfire, while Spike is a long range standoff weapon. The UK has plans for such a standoff missile (Spike or A N Other) but hasn't made a decision / found the budget yet.

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.

You've worked with Movers before, right? :E

[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

[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?

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.