AH-64 Apache
 

I don't know if this will scare the enemy, but by God it scares me. You can spend as much as you like on precision weapons; but if you can't or won't find the right people to the designation and train and equip them properly................

I also find ther concept of only qualifying only half the AH-64 crews strange. Unless they mean 50% of each crew?


Janes INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JUNE 01, 2002:

The UK armed forces are planning to expand both the number and size of their tactical air control parties (TACPs). According to UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources, the future vision is of an enlarged matrix of TACPs dedicated to forward air controlling (FACing), each with a full equipment set (including terrestrial and satellite communications facilities, plus target location/designation systems) and a full complement of personnel, of which at least one is qualified as a primary FAC.

As a complement to the TACPs, it is foreseen that designated secondary FACs, currently trained to the same standard as the primary controllers found within the TACPs, will in future undergo a shortened course (two weeks instead of four) with the object of proliferating the total number of 'eyes' on the battlefield able to understand target location and marking. Among them would be secondary FACs aboard Apache attack helicopters, Warrior OP vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles who, by exploiting digitization, would be able to feed additional target data into the TACP matrix.

The long-sought increase in the personnel establishment of UK TACP from two to four personnel (see IDR 6/1999, pp56-61) has now been officially authorized and the necessary manpower found (in most cases). The British Army's 16 Air Assault Brigade already has its quota of three TACPs, as does the Royal Marine 3 Commando Brigade and the UK-based 3 Division. The Germany-based 1 Armoured Division has none as yet. The next step, still an aspiration, will be to double the number of divisional TACPs to six, bringing the overall number to 18.

It has been decided that 1 Division's TACPs should be carried in Warrior tracked vehicles, as opposed to the smaller and less mobile Spartan carriers or Land Rovers currently available (3 Division will have to persevere with the smaller Spartan). The Warrior OPV (observation post vehicle) variant already has an integral target location facility, and though a laser target designator would not entirely be operable from under armor, there is an existing blanking plate to which the mounting bracket for the FAC's LF28 designator could be secured.

The officer commanding a TACP (OC TACP), normally its primary FAC, desirably has bi-service experience. The majority are ordinarily drawn from the British Army. However, the latter currently has insufficient captains with the right qualifications, while the Royal Air Force (RAF) no longer has pilots to spare to send on ground tours.

At the moment, therefore, the RAF Regiment, the air force's ground defense organization, provides the majority of OC TACPs (albeit paid for by the British Army). 3 Division has two RAF and one Army OC TACP, while 3 Commando Brigade's three OC TACPs are found from the Royal Marines, and all three of 16 Air Assault Brigade's OC TACPs are from the RAF Regiment. The Army has been tasked to find three suitable captains for 1 Division.

The CAS (close air support) applications of the British Army's Longbow Apache AH Mk1 attack helicopter fleet are the subject of a current evaluation, the feasibility and utility of ground FACs calling upon the Apaches for support being assessed, as well as the use of the Apache crews themselves as airborne FACs (ABFACs). The intention is that 50% of Apache crews should be ABFAC capable, their aircraft already being fitted with designators and IDMs (improved data modems), and their crews already being able to operate "in the third dimension" (ie being attuned to air matters). However, it remains to be determined what the optimum split between FAC and Apache crew training should be - "there's a lot they already know, but they still have to understand how to pass information to the other agencies".

The standard issue ground-radio is currently the UK/PRC346 TacGA V/UHF transceiver intended to replace the old AN/PRC-113 HaveQuick and UK/PRC344 sets. Continuing problems encountered with both the TacGA's receive and transmit ranges are understood to have led to the raising of an urgent operational requirement (UOR) for a new multiband radio specifically for FACs.

Desirably this would have the multirole capabilities of a radio such as the Harris AN/PRC-117F (C) or Raytheon PSC-5, including satcoms. However, the worsening capacity problem in the UHF satcoms band that both of these use may compel a move to a higher frequency range. Meanwhile, the authorized link to the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) remains the existing unencrypted, fixed-frequency Clansman HF radio (UK/PRC320, VRC321), which has been supplemented by 'borrowed' satcoms radios such as the PRC-117D model.

(ps. The correct data code for Airborne FAC is FACA - not ABFAC)

I note with interest the comments on the PRC 346.

I use these radios on a daily basis, and with a recieve and transmit range of up to 100nm, they work very well. Yes, line of sight helps, but speaking to a 8-ship formation of hercs (and crystal clear as well), 75nm away is OK for my Unit.

The only problem my Unit has identified with the radio is the lack of an audio warning of a low battery, and yes, they could do with an encryption device along side HQ II. (The American version of the radio has this)

What more do you want from a radio that was part of the Bowman system that sneeked through??

MATZ :)

Ground to Air Radio
 

Dear Santa,

Please may I have..

1. SATURN upgrade.
2. Secure HF with chirp sounder (fitted to aircraft for long range comms).
3. IDM compatability with all TACPs.
4. BOWMAN to be funded properly for aircraft.
5. Compatability with US SINCGARS.
6. Someone to co-ordinate all the different J6/Comms/Digitization issues that have so much commonality but projects are worked on in isolation.

And a DAB radio for my car please....

And then I wake up with my head in a bowl of cornflakes......more chance of getting a DAB radio than 'my' wish list.

:)

What you really want are JTRS radios. The US army initially intends to buy 104,285 vehicular and 2,115 helicopter radios as well as 560 vehicular sets for the USAF TACP vehicles.

The USN is expecting to undertake procurement for their ships, the USAF for aircraft and special forces a hand-held set for dismounted soldiers. The total initial DOD purchase is estimated at 260,000 sets.

JTRS radios are totally software driven and can support any waveform in any band and can simultaneously Tx/Rx on multiple frequencies using the one radio.

inital waveforms supported in Cluster 1 include:

Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS),
Enhanced SINCGARS Improved Product (ESIP),
HAVE QUICK II,
Ultra High Frequency Demand Assigned Multiple Access (UHF DAMA),
High Frequency Single Sideband with Application Link Enabling (HF SSB with ALE),
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS),
Link-16,
Very High Frequency AM (VHF AM),
and Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW).

JTRS

JTRS FY01 Report

Raytheon

SATURN
 

Saturn is coming, but slowly! (for ground ops anyway)

We were meant to trial it last autumn (on SSII), but it has only just reached the unit in a "test stage" now. Unfortunately, it still requires a lot of work done. Perhaps we will have it in a year or so from now.

Never mind, another project years late entering military service won't go un-missed........

As for giving RAF Tac AT aircraft Cougar.....

or TAC SAT....

Wait out........... for a long time I expect.

MATZ :(

ORAC, by my reckoning 50% of each crew is half of the Longbow crew! Why would this percentage worry you? It is a great deal more aircrew than are currently trained ABFAC. Even if two ABFACS were seated in each aircraft it would still be 25% of the force ABFAC trained! Again that is a higher ratio than current units have.
Numbers, numbers!

abfacs
 

why do facs have to be officers? military air traffic controllers are a mix of commisioned and nco so why is it that facs are comissioned? do the crews call up on the radio and ask for the facs rank before commencing an attack? some how i doubt it! i was 24bde and our facs were aac and a sapper, the aac was an x raf loadie. but i have to ask why they have to be comissioned after all the army trusk cpls to fly helicopters why cant they be facs, i think the answer may be tradition, but is it a tradition or a bad habit?

Canberra,
An AAC ABFAC is in fact an NCO/WO/Officer. As a general rule, few Officers go down this route as they unfortunately get spannered with other"Officer" type jobs and can't spare the time it deserves. The task is mainly an NCO/WO preserve. I may be wrong but certainly, Cpl's have attended the course, the only thing is, I think they are held as limited CR until they achieve Aircraft Commander status and the subsequent promotion to Sgt that goes with that. In real terms that means they can only FAC under supervision.

As a former AAC ABFAC I can offer some light on the subject.

1. The reason the TACP FAC is a Commisioned Officer is because he commands a team of four or five personnel and will operate in remote area's more often than not. They are also responsible for abvising the Brigade staff on FAC and CAS matters. It sounds better coming from a Rodney! I recall that due to a shortage of Army Officers to fill the posts, the establishment were looking at allowing AAC WO's do the job, if they had previously done the job of an ABFAC.

2. Any AAC pilot who attends the FAC course will be CR'd when he achieves the requesite number of strikes ( hits preferably!) regardless of being an aircraft commander or not. He will however have to fly with a qualified aircraft commander to satisfy the crew composition. I was that man on many occasions. With hindsight it was alot of resposibility for a Cpl!

3. With reference to Longbow drivers becoming ABFAC's I can't see any problem with that, but I also reckon that the Longbow will be called upon to provide CAS rather than call for it!

Couple of thoughts here..

The AAC have stated that Apache pilots will be trained to fly the aircraft from both seats, but only the front seater will be trained as a Tac Commander. ABFAC 50%?...mmmmmm.. if this only the front seater, this chap is going to be very busy. I would have thought ALL apache crew to be trained as ABFACs, to maximise CRM and the platform.

What is more interesting is the training time for these poor geezers, it just keeps adding up; 6-7 months CTT (if they are lucky- night, weather, servicable airframes, etc etc), probablytalking 9 months, extra time for Instructor pilots, 4 weeks Tac training, simulator training 1 week, about 1 year on operational work up, EW,QHTI, Air Weapons courses for some, E&E, RtoI for all and now 4 weeks for 1 in 2 at JFACSU!!! Bloody hell, just get them qualified and their tours will up!

Almost as long as our F3 OCU...no end in sight!:(

Apache FAC
 

:rolleyes: The doctrinally pure amung us (are there any?) will be aware that CAS is dead, long live CIFS (Close In Fire Support).
I am sure that the rear seater has enough to do flying the aircraft on the NVS in and around trees/wires while slaving the gun to provide local protection from small arms/manpads. Your having a laugh if you thing he is also going to call in Fast Air. In addition, the front seater is the chap with control of the sight (TADS) and he is only one who can operate the LASER. I expect the 50% figure will be more than enough if achieved.

Agree with Bob; far fewer than 50% of battlefield heli crews are qualified FACs at present; what makes anyone think this will change with Apache? Trying to secure a space on the course is a major task, then there are the problems with maintaining currency; unless we are going to regularly send crews to the States we will never be able to achieve this with the assets available in UK. Certain JRRF land formations have cried out for additional TACPs / FACs for years but can't have any more for just this reason. Only when ops are imminent are FOOs/Recce callsigns and the like trained up as emergency FACs.

army and helicopters
 

just read an article in the sunday post about army horses. did you know the army has 560 horses? and how many helicopters? what century are we in?

Canberra,

Horse = £000's I guess (not being a horsy type) at most, and many to the Army are probably free - from sanctuarys etc (saw a recent bit of Army PR).

Helicopter = £000,000's

therefore 1 helicopter = cost of all Army horses and some.

PR value to UK of horses - Trooping of the Colour etc. is immense.

Getting rid of horses in the Army would be a big mistake for the Army and Great Britain.

Right enough defending the Army - The RAF are great the Army aren't!

GB

AH-64 Apache
 

Not news to the guys who've flown them to Shawbury I suspect, but check here for BBC News on the matter.

If they're in storage, can I borrow one to play with for a bit ?

'Bodged PFI deal' they say?

Hmmm......

2007 when the airframe is 32 yrs old.

We may get it before commanche is replaced.

Check out this piece from the BBC dated 23 May 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2003353.stm

I don't suppose much has changed?

Army mothballs Apache
 

from the BBC

Dozens of the Army's new £3bn Apache attack helicopters will be kept in storage for four years due to a shortage of trained pilots, the government's spending watchdog has said. Eleven of the 25 helicopters so far delivered - out of an order for 67 - have been mothballed in a move described as "wasteful" by the National Audit Office.
The NAO's report warned that although the Apaches were being delivered on time, a private finance initiative (PFI) deal to train aircrew was three years late. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...ache150_ap.jpg
Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin blamed the government for the delays. "The delays in this programme mean that we have more than an entire squadron of attack helicopters sitting in sheds. They should be flying by now," he said.

The delay means dozens of aircraft will have to be stored away in hangars while the completion date for the initial training programme for 144 pilots is put back from April 2004 to February 2007.
The NAO warned the delay in training also put in jeopardy the delivery of 16 more Apache helicopters, scheduled for February 2005. That would reduce the Army's capability, it added. Contractual problems over the supply of spares could mean the Apaches kept in storage may have to be used for parts.

The initial order for 67 Apaches, placed with Westland Helicopters in 1995, was said to offer the greatest advance in Army effectiveness since the tank. A separate PFI agreement was reached with ATIL - a company jointly-owned by Westland and the Apache's US manufacturer Boeing - to cover the training. But delivery of the hi-tech flight simulator was delayed by 17 months, pushing the start date for pilot training from 2001 to September 2003.
The length of the training courses has been extended from 15 weeks to 26, because of the £45m helicopter's complexity and the UK's poor weather conditions for flying.
As a result, the NAO said a "large number" of Apaches - some estimates say more than half - will have to be stored away in hangars at RAF Shawbury in Shropshire at a cost of £6m. Out of the 25 helicopters delivered so far, 11 have been mothballed.
The head of the NAO, Comptroller and Auditor General Sir John Bourn, criticised the decision to split the training programme from the main contract. He said: "It is disappointing that because of problems with the training programme the helicopters are not expected to provide a brigade-level capability until February 2007."
The MoD said it had noted the NAO's concerns and steps were being taken to try to reduce the duration of the pilot training courses without compromising the quality.

Corrupt ...
 

£45m each - on telly this morning.

The military utility of 150 R44's is obviously greater than one Apache.

Any how sounds like it's riddled with politics!

BBC have got it wrong!

We don't have enough QHI's to fly the beast.

Because once again the "we are not worthy!! Bow Bow to QHI! fraternity are clearly not good enough!

Without the line, there is no Corps!



;) ;) ;)

Perhaps they should let the taxpayers who have paid for them (ie ourselves) lookafter them for the next few years.... I am sure that we can find some use for them!;)

Blame and politics?
 

Sounds like the private training contractors are being 'setup' to take the wrap.

Smells fishy...

My understanding is that there are trained type instructors - but that they were trained 'over there' and as such are not 'recognised' over here.

Understandable since obviously the yanks can't actually fly. ;)

Terminal buck passing, perhaps?

This seems like farce, until you realise its being orchestrated by the MOD! Its surely not beyond the bounds of possibility to send our pilots to use the simulators in the USA, much as we did when the RAF Harrier force was grounded by the kapton wiring problem in the early nineties?
Or is that too pragmatic a suggestion?

Of course it does make monetary sense to buy and store the choppers now, 'cause in the next few years the price is certain to rise! And putting aircraft into storage is a very cheap thing to do NOT! :mad:

All very old news i'm afraid. This was raised many moons ago circa 1999 i seem to recall when discussions were afoot on how to best crew and train these persons. It was said at the time that you just cannot take Cpl Bloggs and throw him into an Apache and that we should have utilised the US Army trg facility at Ft Hood to get QHI's et al up to speed. But god bless one of the PFI companies, headed by an ex-AAC chap i seem to remember who managed to convince and pull the wool overthose who did not no otherwise.

All i can say is told you so! Looks like another part of the IDM loop is pardon the pun, out of the loop. My other quesion is have they actually figured out how they are going to be able to support the beast in the field yet?

Just a quick question about the Apache. I'm RAF and heard in the crewroom this morning when disussing this latest debacle that the Apache is only going to be piloted by commissioned types; is this true? If so I would be amazed as it seems to me most of the AAC's experienced flyers are SNCOs or was the information I was given just crewroom blah?

Offering assistance
 

I'm a H269c and R44 rated PPL and would be willing to help out if required. It's a JAA licence so I could fly abroad, although I'm not sure if I'd be legal in Iraq (not in JAA, are they?) ;)

CREW ROOM RUMOUR
 

Escapee,

You and your crewroom are wrong.

We have just completed the first course and a Warrant Officer has finished in fine style. Actually several SNCOs started the course but were commissioned on the way, which indicates the quality of the AAC SNCO Pilots. The next course has a shed load of SNCO pilots on it.
:)

More here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...822765,00.html

http://www.itv.com/news/Britain137240.html


Oh well...

RFHO
Cheers for that I thought it was probably bull; I should have known better, the person who told me will now be treated with suspicion and a DQI of zero.;)

As i understand the situation, the problem lies with the PFI. The US export agreement didnt allow private contractors access to the classified information needed to build the simulators. Since the order was placed the company that builds the sims has been bought out and the MOD has had to re-apply to the US for an export licence for the new contractor.

Pardon my civvie ignorance on this one, but, errr, what are they for?
I have no doubt they are very nice machines, but does the UK have the means or the perceived need to deploy the beasties? Are they a cold-war 'must-have' capability that just never got re-assessed.

So no offers of a go then ?

All I would need is a basic type conversion to fly it without bending it, no need to learn the weapons kit tho . . . :D

Having said that, this is the same guy who mis-calculated his heading on Tuesday and only twigged in the air when it all looked a bit wrong, so maybe I'm not the best person !

I think that's the same situation which applies to any MD ( couldn't spell it longer than that ! ) product. When Boeing bought them out, the security requirements changed.

Seems odd to me - the US end changes, but the UK end doesn't but is the one which has to re-clear security. Ah well.

MUTLEYFOUR

Stop being a prat. There are plenty of QHI’s who are waiting to start the next course, which begins VERY soon.

It would appear that you have an axe to grind with the AH Programme or QHI’s or both. Grow up.

In the late 90s, ATIL (the people who got the training contract) were fishing around for stuff to plagiarise (copy) to start producing their training documents. One of these was the Lynx instructors guide which in itself was a bastardisation of the original RAF Gazelle instructors guide. Now if they had just asked the RAF to do it for them in the first place........
The Boeing problem was to do with the intellectual property rights to the software and its algorithms that run the hardware. We were allowed to buy the weapon system but not the clever bits inside it - hence when the engines were changed to RR the airframe behaved differently under recoil and the cannon missed!
The higher echelons of the AAC and the big green army were so pleased to get hold of the Apache, they forgot to ask a lot of very pertinent questions about it's capabilities, the non existent simulator and the logistics of supporting it. This was not rocket science - there were many capable people, some of whom had flown it, trying to make the AAC understand what it was taking on and no-one listened to them.
Now the NAO have had their say I don't suppose anything will change and no-one will get the sack for cocking this procurement up so badly.

Water under the bridge me thinks..storing the AH is hardly ground breaking news. The NAO report would have been started last April to cover this financial year. MOD, Army planners and Shawbury were given heads up early 01 that this would happen.

Key question.." measures are being considered in reducing the pilot training time without compromising quality". That I have got to see!

The AAC could have:

Option A: Day VMC shoot anything in bright sunlight only crews and rip out the NVS, selling them them off to Kuwait to help cover this failed PFI. Nights could be spent at home having quality time with family or chicks.
or

Option B: Night VMC shoot anything that is nocturnal crews on permanent graveyard shift who are divorced or single. Days could be spent out bergan running and digging in.

or
Option C: Give the whole package to the RAF? Err..Eurofarce, MR4, Wot still no future transport aircraft, Airmen aircrew..Who?, Forgot to mention Merlins are in storage as well! Maybe not then.

or

Option D: The Navy are keeping shtum dont you think! Hoping the JSF programme doesnt go the same way..Err another UK / US aircraft project, PFI training, code sharing..eject, eject!:eek:

Option B looks good..all those bored housewives:p

Nice post Crab @ SAAvn...nail on head. The AAC top bananas still do not realise what they have taken on.

How many people do you know who have been posted to their level of incompentence?

It gets even worse!:(

Apache helicopter cannot operate fully until 2012
The Army's Apache helicopter will not be capable of operating fully until late 2012, 12 years after it was due to be brought into service, it emerged yesterday. By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent.
[http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news...01/nheli01.xml[/URL]

Half of Britain's warships in dock
Almost half the Royal Navy's 36 warships will be unavailable for operations in the Gulf because of the firemen's strike, accidents, routine refits and attempts to save money. By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent and George Jones, Political EditorHalf of Britain's warships in dock

Could I suggest that there's a major misconception in some of these posts. Not in the fact that it's a cock-up (which it clearly is), or what's specifically missing (the sim), or why (developed by beginners who weren't given access to the data they needed), but in the suggestion that it's all the fault of the Army higher-ups, or even the RAF.

Projects like this are managed by an organisation called DPA (Defence Procurement Agency), a.k.a. MoD(PE), a.k.a. Min of Tech, a.k.a. Min of Av.

The AAC or RAF are largely responsible for generating a spec and budget, which are then handed over to DPA who are told to get on with it. They manage detailed bids, specs, manufacturer oversight, spares and support contracts, the lot - to "customer" (army/RAF) requirements. If the Army was asking for something impossible it was up to DPA to inform them and modify the spec. If the manufacturer was slipping behind it's up to DPA to chase them and make it work.

This organisation has a long string of such projects in it's history, including Nimrod, Lynx Mk.1, Tornado F3, Beaurofighter (although the management of this was shared with the Germans, French and Italians), EH101, SA80, etc. etc. In which perspective, 4 years late in-service, and 8 years to full operational capability is pretty good.

The army's business is fighting wars, which if it cock's up it'll get suitable blamed. DPA's business is procuring equipment on time, budget and spec. Credit where credit's due....

I did used to work for this organisation, but haven't for several years and feel much better for it.

G