AH-64 Apache
I'll see your derrr and raise it to a D'Oh. If something is cut, it is taken out, if it is moved then it is conducted in a different phase of the training. From the AH OSP....
CTT ammunition
30mm = X
Rockets Prac = Y
MPSM Prac = Z
CTR ammunition
30mm = A
Rockets Prac = B
MPSM Prac = C
Reality is...
CTT = Nil
CTR =
30mm = X+A
Rockets Prac = Y+B (when they become available)
MPSM Prac + Z+C (as above)
Rockets and their availability is matter of funding (being addressed), the amount required to complete training (under review) and the lead in time from ordering to delivery. The move of firing to CTR was taken as a measure to ease the strain on the overloaded CTT process. IRRC this applies to the current CTR and the next one will resume firing but probably only for 30mm. The rationilastion of CTT/CTR training will produce a more joined up approach whereby hypothetically mountain flying will fit later in the pipeline but formation flying will fit earlier.
Finally, NVG is not taught at all at the moment but NVS is (different optical wavelength). DNVG is not far away though.
Tom,
A SAAvn Instructor should not be doing diving fire, he is not qualified and it is not a TO for a student. All serials are conducted in the hover for CTT therefore that is all a SAAvn Instructor is required to do.
SL
CTT ammunition
30mm = X
Rockets Prac = Y
MPSM Prac = Z
CTR ammunition
30mm = A
Rockets Prac = B
MPSM Prac = C
Reality is...
CTT = Nil
CTR =
30mm = X+A
Rockets Prac = Y+B (when they become available)
MPSM Prac + Z+C (as above)
Rockets and their availability is matter of funding (being addressed), the amount required to complete training (under review) and the lead in time from ordering to delivery. The move of firing to CTR was taken as a measure to ease the strain on the overloaded CTT process. IRRC this applies to the current CTR and the next one will resume firing but probably only for 30mm. The rationilastion of CTT/CTR training will produce a more joined up approach whereby hypothetically mountain flying will fit later in the pipeline but formation flying will fit earlier.
Finally, NVG is not taught at all at the moment but NVS is (different optical wavelength). DNVG is not far away though.
Tom,
A SAAvn Instructor should not be doing diving fire, he is not qualified and it is not a TO for a student. All serials are conducted in the hover for CTT therefore that is all a SAAvn Instructor is required to do.
SL
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree,
The figures you quote is what I am sure should occur, but the reality is somewhat different I am led to believe from an experienced AMTAT member. The 30mm has not changed for CTR and the CTT ammo has just been swallowed up, or taken as another cost saving measure.
But I reiterate the fundamental point i raised; which was how can someone qualify from an Attack Helicopter course without demonstrating his/her ability to shoot sh1t. Can you imagine a tankie or a infantryman leaving training and not completing APWT or basic weapons qualifications live! It sounds like you have had something to do with the removal of the training from CTT with way you defend the ridiculous idea!
Either way as long as the standard of the chaps on the 2 way range is what is required then fine, but why do the Americans fire at CTT, CTR and every month leading up to Ops. and when not on Ops every 6 months regardless of cost or consequence?
PP.
The figures you quote is what I am sure should occur, but the reality is somewhat different I am led to believe from an experienced AMTAT member. The 30mm has not changed for CTR and the CTT ammo has just been swallowed up, or taken as another cost saving measure.
But I reiterate the fundamental point i raised; which was how can someone qualify from an Attack Helicopter course without demonstrating his/her ability to shoot sh1t. Can you imagine a tankie or a infantryman leaving training and not completing APWT or basic weapons qualifications live! It sounds like you have had something to do with the removal of the training from CTT with way you defend the ridiculous idea!
Either way as long as the standard of the chaps on the 2 way range is what is required then fine, but why do the Americans fire at CTT, CTR and every month leading up to Ops. and when not on Ops every 6 months regardless of cost or consequence?
PP.
The CTT shoot as part of a CTR has yet to happen.
Methinks you consider a CTT to be the end of the matter, this is not the case. RAC/Inf, upon completion of basic training, are not ready to go on ops straight away and neither is an AH CTT dude, there is more to be done, in fact, if you do know someone at AMTAT as you claim, he will educate you about progressive training methods and the many shortfalls that a CTT graduate has compared to a AH CR pilot. He will also know about the firing requirements, it's good to talk, their number is not a secret.
Comparison with the US is an old chestnut that is worthy of comment. The main reasons they get so much ammunition is firstly they can afford it and secondly their crews need it to achieve the same level of accuracy that our crews can. I am fairly certain that if their ammunition budget was pared down to our levels, they would not be quite so cavalier about their ammunition expenditure.
You appear to have not helped even though you claim to have the ability to from an earlier post. It might even be said you are doing anything but.
SL
Methinks you consider a CTT to be the end of the matter, this is not the case. RAC/Inf, upon completion of basic training, are not ready to go on ops straight away and neither is an AH CTT dude, there is more to be done, in fact, if you do know someone at AMTAT as you claim, he will educate you about progressive training methods and the many shortfalls that a CTT graduate has compared to a AH CR pilot. He will also know about the firing requirements, it's good to talk, their number is not a secret.Comparison with the US is an old chestnut that is worthy of comment. The main reasons they get so much ammunition is firstly they can afford it and secondly their crews need it to achieve the same level of accuracy that our crews can. I am fairly certain that if their ammunition budget was pared down to our levels, they would not be quite so cavalier about their ammunition expenditure.
You appear to have not helped even though you claim to have the ability to from an earlier post. It might even be said you are doing anything but.
SL
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ammo has been cut
CTT ammo has been cut, after a steady reduction before that and no rockets before that.
Mountains has been cut.
Thank good ness we are not going somehwere mountainous that we require to shoot somebody!
I have done all my ATDs, BPFA and a BCFT though!
The whole thing is a joke and I am considering following the others who have resigned. I support previous posters "how can you qualify on a weapons platform if you don't ever shoot sh1t"? I am too frustrated and not being allowed to train for my job
Mountains has been cut.
Thank good ness we are not going somehwere mountainous that we require to shoot somebody!
I have done all my ATDs, BPFA and a BCFT though!
The whole thing is a joke and I am considering following the others who have resigned. I support previous posters "how can you qualify on a weapons platform if you don't ever shoot sh1t"? I am too frustrated and not being allowed to train for my job
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
Just to clarify, initial weapons assessments are carried out in the simulator as part of CTT. The weapons package is taught at CTT as a whole to a basic standard. CTT only ever exposed the crews to initial consequence of fire standard requiring a full table.
Moving live firing to CTR as opposed to CTT enables more progressive use of the ammunition and therefore in theory a better product at the end. Qualification was never achieved until the end of CTR anyway as several tables of munitions are required progressively,
Regards,
HEDP
Just to clarify, initial weapons assessments are carried out in the simulator as part of CTT. The weapons package is taught at CTT as a whole to a basic standard. CTT only ever exposed the crews to initial consequence of fire standard requiring a full table.
Moving live firing to CTR as opposed to CTT enables more progressive use of the ammunition and therefore in theory a better product at the end. Qualification was never achieved until the end of CTR anyway as several tables of munitions are required progressively,
Regards,
HEDP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just heard that project AH has lost another instructor (PM), I havnt seen him for a while so not sure if its true. I understand he is still a member of AMTAT but has been discharged on medical grounds? (always was a deaf bugger).
Not sure how this will impact on the program but the loss of another instructor can not be good. The last time I served with the 'badger' was in FRY, he was a door gunners nighmare as the ac comd! (joking)
Could someone that actually knows PM let me know what the bobby is, 'badger' if your a pruner PM me please.
PP
Not sure how this will impact on the program but the loss of another instructor can not be good. The last time I served with the 'badger' was in FRY, he was a door gunners nighmare as the ac comd! (joking)
Could someone that actually knows PM let me know what the bobby is, 'badger' if your a pruner PM me please.
PP
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEDP,
I think you are are wrong. It is my opinion that individual aircrew need to fire live weapons on the CTT to achieve the basic level. Individual skill. They should then progress their tactics, and collective skills with further tables at CTR. Individual skills at CTT, and for an AH pilot, that means firing live ammo. Cutting live firing or reducing basic live ammo from CTT is the wrong approach.
The US Army conversion to AH has them firing 6 tables of 100 rounds, 10 rockets each. Front and back seat, running/diving and hover, both day and night. Their equivalent of CTR has further tables for collective training/unit qualification. They do it that way not because they can afford it, but because it is the the correct way to train an AH pilot.
I think you are are wrong. It is my opinion that individual aircrew need to fire live weapons on the CTT to achieve the basic level. Individual skill. They should then progress their tactics, and collective skills with further tables at CTR. Individual skills at CTT, and for an AH pilot, that means firing live ammo. Cutting live firing or reducing basic live ammo from CTT is the wrong approach.
The US Army conversion to AH has them firing 6 tables of 100 rounds, 10 rockets each. Front and back seat, running/diving and hover, both day and night. Their equivalent of CTR has further tables for collective training/unit qualification. They do it that way not because they can afford it, but because it is the the correct way to train an AH pilot.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparison with the US is an old chestnut that is worthy of comment. The main reasons they get so much ammunition is firstly they can afford it and secondly their crews need it to achieve the same level of accuracy that our crews can. I am fairly certain that if their ammunition budget was pared down to our levels, they would not be quite so cavalier about their ammunition expenditure.
One flew past the end of my garden yesterday and I reckon I could have taken it down with a well aimed croissant. That would make me down in the mouth if I was flying about in it!
Originally Posted by Compressorstall
Sloppy Link it is a smug comment to assume that the US lags the British in terms of ability. The US Army does seem to have substantial experience of AH operations with their fleet of about 500 helicopters. It may be assumed that, just like us, they have aviators who range in ability from 'low average' to 'above average'. Just because we don't do it that way doesn't make it right. I would be happy to have any nation's AH with me who is confident that he can put rounds on target. Military aviation is an expensive business.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Apache - article in today's Daily Mail...
I didn't buy it, honest guv - it was free at the gym.
The article concerns overspending and then brushing under the carpet, by the MOD - then flying the secrets act flag, firmly over the budget sheets.
It goes on to say that the 67 Apaches in service in the UK cost £40 million each, after the assembly lines and tooling were considered. Israel then bought their machines from the Boeing line for £12m each. The author then states that each of the assembly line workers at Westland could have been given a million quid each if they had bought straight from the USA !
Anyone ?
TFS
The article concerns overspending and then brushing under the carpet, by the MOD - then flying the secrets act flag, firmly over the budget sheets.
It goes on to say that the 67 Apaches in service in the UK cost £40 million each, after the assembly lines and tooling were considered. Israel then bought their machines from the Boeing line for £12m each. The author then states that each of the assembly line workers at Westland could have been given a million quid each if they had bought straight from the USA !
Anyone ?
TFS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flap62
One flew past the end of my garden yesterday and I reckon I could have taken it down with a well aimed croissant. That would make me down in the mouth if I was flying about in it!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were on the wrong phase of the course, it doesn't look like they would have any 30 mike to do any hosing with - and what happened to well-aimed shots?
Is the Apache vulnerable to the well aimed croissant though?
Is the Apache vulnerable to the well aimed croissant though?
Sloppy Link it is a smug comment to assume that the US lags the British in terms of ability.
Seems a bit odd coming from folks that are flying "American" aircraft...must be a bit off putting having to fly "second rate kit"....oh, wait a minute...there is no British AH helicopter is there? Just like having to improve the Chinook....and they still cannot fly because the software doesn't work?
I reckon simulated hits are fine on simulated targets....but the proof of the pudding is real rounds on real targets on the two way firing range. Ya'll are welcome to come join in the "real" shooting...."talk" is cheap Sloppy....but "doing" will prove your point. Thus, Sloppy is just talking.
Originally Posted by Sloppy Link
Fair comment, I think that as we have such small amounts in comparison, we have to extract every tiny bit of training value from the limited resource. Flippant remark retracted.
Regards
SL
Ah but dear boy....then they would have been "American" AH-64's now wouldn't they? That just would not be the "done thing"....no it just would not do...why one could have 200 of the things whizzing about for that kind of money! Why the poor ol' MOD cannot afford cannon shells for the few they have flyable now anyway. Reckon some of the Typhoon shells that could have been bought if that fighter had a gun could be diverted to the Apache budget?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Why am I not surprised? Actually, 40-odd of them would appear to be not actually in service, but in mothballs in deepest Shropshire. Waiting for the apocalypse, perhaps? Maybe they want a bank of spares?
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nr Gatwick, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether right or wrong, I believe that the number 67 was devised by a method of extrapolation.
The minimum number of operational Apaches required (say for arguments sake one squadron (8 aircraft)) was assumed at the end of the aircrafts life span, say in 30 years time. It was then worked backwards from an estimated attrition rate due to operational incidents, crashes, component lifing etc to the number of aircraft required at present to ensure the minimum operational number in the future.
The minimum number of operational Apaches required (say for arguments sake one squadron (8 aircraft)) was assumed at the end of the aircrafts life span, say in 30 years time. It was then worked backwards from an estimated attrition rate due to operational incidents, crashes, component lifing etc to the number of aircraft required at present to ensure the minimum operational number in the future.