Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

WAS

THEN came around the so-called "hundred" series SAMs, and obsolescence arrived faster than anyone had suspected (ie. there was no nxt-gen plan in the pipeline, exc. for some musings about an ARM variant of Meteor... all that did was to pre-empt the purchase of nxt-gen hi-speed missiles - in our case, not so e.g. in Italy's).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by downsizer »

ALARM was canned because there was no money to upgrade it and the TAs that were run said we wouldn't require anything like it until the mid-2020s at least. Make of that crystal ball what you will.

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by whitelancer »

That wouldn't have been a Threat Assessment, it would have been wishful thinking.
It seems to be a common theme to spend large sums of money developing a particular capability, then failing to maintain it.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

whitelancer wrote:That wouldn't have been a Threat Assessment, it would have been wishful thinking.
It seems to be a common theme to spend large sums of money developing a particular capability, then failing to maintain it.
Perhaps they assumed F-35 would be in service by then.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:
whitelancer wrote:That wouldn't have been a Threat Assessment, it would have been wishful thinking.
It seems to be a common theme to spend large sums of money developing a particular capability, then failing to maintain it.
Perhaps they assumed F-35 would be in service by then.
That's a good point you make there, Ron.

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by whitelancer »

Ron5 wrote:Perhaps they assumed F-35 would be in service by then
On what could they base such an assumption?
As I said wishful thinking!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Perhaps they assumed F-35 would be in service by then
On what could they base such an assumption?
As I said wishful thinking!
Hey! You forgetting the steerable death beam from the wonder-AESA... missiles redundant from thereon for SEAD/ DEAD!
- even Libya needed the Americans for kicking the door in (they did not have any of the "hundred" series SAMs, to set that in context)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by LordJim »

Again we need to speed up our procurement process. nearly all of the TAs used when drawing up capability requirements are well out of date by the time any hardware actually arrives. Add to that the next and the next TA. Usual result is the programmes are rebooted time and time again increasing costs and greatly increasing the timeframe for actual delivery if at all.

At the moment the UAS is NATOs kick in the door operator. Germany and Italy can support them but they have not fully kept their capability up to date but at least they have one. With us, because there is never enough money, TAs said we could go without and spend the money else where, or give it back to the Treasury.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

LordJim wrote: At the moment the UAS is NATOs kick in the door operator. Germany and Italy can support them but they have not fully kept their capability up to date but at least they have one.
Do you mean Tornado version , plus HARM (that can go onto a Typhoon, as long as you have some of those missiles) , or something more?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by LordJim »

Yes I was referring to the Tornado ECR used by Italy and Germany, both equipped with HARM. I know the German ones were updated fairly recently but am not sure regarding the Italians. I am also unsure as to with version of the HARM they both currently use but it may not be the latest one.

HARM requires targeting data from sensors either fitted to the launch platform or podded. In both cases additional work on the launch platforms electronics is needed to operate the Missile. All of this is possible on the Typhoon but no country has yet gone for it. You cannot simply hang a HARM on a platform and use it in any but the most basic modes if that.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Gabriele »

Italy's ECR are quite likely more up to date than the german ones, actually. Italy is also procuring the new AGM-88E AARGM, being partner in its development and production with the US Navy, although the 155 Sqn, the ECR unit which is based a few miles away from my home, for some reason hadn't yet seen one delivered as of three months ago.
The unit is having a rough time since it is planned to move out of its historic base in Piacenza - San Damiano and to Ghedi. The move has been planned for a good few years now, yet the ministry isn't able to firm up a plan and properly inform the personnel. The resulting uncertainty isn't helping anyone.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by marktigger »

its a shame as ALARM was the better missile

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

marktigger wrote:its a shame as ALARM was the better missile
One of Bae's finest I guess.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by marktigger »

at least alarm hit radars in the right country!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:Each year, a regiment with 2 squadrons is to be at very high readiness, with one squadron focused on supporting the Airborne Battlegroup and one the Commando Battlegroup.
Assuming the squadrons stay at 8 helicopters each, you do the math.
Anyone know if from the readiness aspect the above is still the plan? I guess the real difference is in the deck landings (and deck ops, even if it is not the pilots who carry those out) rather than in what they do once up.
- with Ocean going in the coming year, there might be some complications
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Gabriele »

The readiness mechanism has changed: now both regiments are at "permanent readiness". 3 Regiment is to support 3rd Division, and 4 Regiment supports the "specialists". 656 Sqn for the naval side, 664 in support of 16 Air Assault. 656 embarked recently on Argus as part of its preparations.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by abc123 »

Gabriele wrote:Italy's ECR are quite likely more up to date than the german ones, actually. Italy is also procuring the new AGM-88E AARGM, being partner in its development and production with the US Navy, although the 155 Sqn, the ECR unit which is based a few miles away from my home, for some reason hadn't yet seen one delivered as of three months ago.
The unit is having a rough time since it is planned to move out of its historic base in Piacenza - San Damiano and to Ghedi. The move has been planned for a good few years now, yet the ministry isn't able to firm up a plan and properly inform the personnel. The resulting uncertainty isn't helping anyone.

Well, I don't see why are they moving them out in the first place. It's about 70 km from Piacenza to Ghedi. Nor I do see it as some major hurdle for their families...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Back to Apaches (E Guardians), I wonder if our slots have been confirmed... it has all gone awfully quiet? RE

" a five-year $3.4 billion contract that will see the company provide Apache helicopters to both the US Army and the government of Saudi Arabia, marking the first multi-year agreement for the helicopter's “E” variant . Under the deal, Riyadh will receive 24 brand new Apache Guardians while the Army will receive 244 remanufactured aircraft, with work expected to be completed by June 30, 2022. Saudi Arabia's procurement of Apaches is part of an effort to build a 156-strong rotary-wing force and they have so far procured 36 helicopters in the last two years. " from DID of today
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by LordJim »

Are we following the US and ditching the Longbow as part of the Apache E programme, instead having an ISTAR node able to link with UAVs, UCAVs and transfer and receive data over long range, amongst other capabilities?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Gabriele »

The Apache E most definitely does not ditch the Longbow radar. It adds a littoral / maritime radar mode and other upgrades, actually. The MUM-TX data link for interoperability with UAS replaces the Fire Control Radar only on some of the helicopters. The intention is to have both and mix the mission fits.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum


User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by Gabriele »

First 38 re-manufactures now are on contract. https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1180256/

12 still missing to get to 50.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by dmereifield »

Gabriele wrote:First 38 re-manufactures now are on contract. https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1180256/

12 still missing to get to 50.
Stretch out to 2024 as well....
Is this an indication of losing the other 12?

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by LordJim »

Well that would give us 2 regiments each with 2 squadrons of 8 Apaches and 6 spares. Would not be surprised given how everything is getting smaller in order to retain capabilities. Unfortunately this is the shape of things to come across the board for all three services.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (Army Air Corps)

Post by bobp »

Looks like 38 then with our growing defence budget blah blah.

Post Reply