UK Defence Forum

Why change so much?

The type has proven itself in an attack role in the naval domain, there are no major road block to apply that to the land domain.

In theory shouldn't the EU be jumping up and down and throwing a fit at eh US for their actions over Boeing and Bombardier? Of course in reality they are quite happy to sit back and let the UK and the US duke it out. I have a feeling though that when it actually goes to court in February the tariffs will be lifted. Like most US actions these days the tariffs have been dictated but have a very shaky legal base. The Army will get tis AH-64Es, how many we shall see but there is not need to panic.

Why would the EU protest? It damages UK and Canadian aviation and makes them more likely to buy EU.

Lord Jim wrote:In theory shouldn't the EU be jumping up and down and throwing a fit at eh US for their actions over Boeing and Bombardier? Of course in reality they are quite happy to sit back and let the UK and the US duke it out. I have a feeling though that when it actually goes to court in February the tariffs will be lifted. Like most US actions these days the tariffs have been dictated but have a very shaky legal base. The Army will get tis AH-64Es, how many we shall see but there is not need to panic.

They want Bombardier to fail.

And then it enables Airbus to sweep in and get 50.01% of Bombardier's best assets for nothing!

shark bait wrote:Why change so much?

The type has proven itself in an attack role in the naval domain, there are no major road block to apply that to the land domain.

if its so good why do the AAC deploy Apache to HMS ocean regularly.

Wildcat hasn't the protection or systems to come close to what Apache can do. The trade spat with beoing was inevitable Beoing will next go for embraer so beoing is the only player in the Americas. And then watch them try and force Airbus out of the US market.

Today Apache is clearly more capable.

There is no technical reason that stops Apaches systems being fitted to the Wildcat platform. It could be an 80% solution for much less cost, which certainly looks attractive considering how tight things are.

shark bait wrote:Today Apache is clearly more capable.

There is no technical reason that stops Apaches systems being fitted to the Wildcat platform. It could be an 80% solution for much less cost, which certainly looks attractive considering how tight things are.

There is zero chance it would be much less cost, you'd have to completely change the entire airframe to fit that sort of kit. Wildcat was never intended for a mast mounted radar, for that degree of systems integration for drone integration/cannon helmet sync/targeting data/networking or the same physical protection and redundancies that make up the Apache. Not to mention you'd have to buy another 50 Wildcats alone.

Changing Wildcat would result in a Wildcat with maybe a couple of ATGMs on its sides, no mast mount, and only cannon pods rather than a traversable, helmet-linked one. That would be at best a 30% solution, ignoring the very things that make attack helicopters so different and powerful compared to normal armed helos.

I'll accept that a mast mounted radar will require a significant amount of engineering, and it wouldn't be the only instance of a platform being adapted to accept a mast mounted sensor.

I wont accept the platform cant have the same level of system integration. Computing power is very small, and software weighs nothing. There is little reason the Wildcat platform cant be fitted with the same networking and helmet tracking features as the Apache.

shark bait wrote:I'll accept that a mast mounted radar will require a significant amount of engineering, and it wouldn't be the only instance of a platform being adapted to accept a mast mounted sensor.

I wont accept the platform cant have the same level of system integration. Computing power is very small, and software weighs nothing. There is little reason the Wildcat platform cant be fitted with the same networking and helmet tracking features as the Apache.

could the airframe cope with the extra computers, weapons, armour, systems etc?

shark bait wrote:I'll accept that a mast mounted radar will require a significant amount of engineering, and it wouldn't be the only instance of a platform being adapted to accept a mast mounted sensor.

I wont accept the platform cant have the same level of system integration. Computing power is very small, and software weighs nothing. There is little reason the Wildcat platform cant be fitted with the same networking and helmet tracking features as the Apache.

And the UK's experience in building attack helicopter systems such as those is...?

It doesn't exist. There is no way this will be cheap.

Of all the stupid idea that surface on here, that is the worst.

Not advocating the idea but regarding it's doability, Westlands offered a Lynx 3 anti-tank version back in the day, equipped with mast head radar, advanced optics, gun, and a bunch of anti-tank missiles.

The idea of turning the Army's wildcat into an "Armed" scout has merit but it could never supplant the Apache as long as the Army still operates it.

Lord Jim wrote:The idea of turning the Army's wildcat into an "Armed" scout has merit but it could never supplant the Apache as long as the Army still operates it.

seriously doubt the airforce could do any better except to rob the budget for fast jets and can the whole capability

Ron5 wrote:Not advocating the idea but regarding it's doability, Westlands offered a Lynx 3 anti-tank version back in the day, equipped with mast head radar, advanced optics, gun, and a bunch of anti-tank missiles.

Was there a reason why nobody took them up on it?

hellfire on wildcat both versions could have saved us having to develop other missiles

So are we getting new build "E" or rebuilding our existing "D". I seriously hope it is the former as our track record of rebuilding aircraft is not the best and always over complicates things just to save, or should I say hopefully save a few pennies.

The vast majority of Apache E are remanufactured units. Goes for US Army ones and for British ones.

marktigger wrote:hellfire on wildcat both versions could have saved us having to develop other missiles

Which ones? Brimstone is already developed and started out in a different role, LMM is not a hellfire equivalent more APKWS and Sea Venom is a very different larger missile and needs to be for it's target set.

Spike NLOS similar to the South Koreans. IMO, the armies trailer based Exactor should be moved on to the Wildcats.

Zealot wrote:Spike NLOS similar to the South Koreans. IMO, the armies trailer based Exactor should be moved on to the Wildcats.

Not really sure what that would give us. Apache E with Brimstone 2 gives us a far superior (and longer ranged) anti tank precision strike system. And Sea Venom is a far superior anti-ship missile. The ROK Navy have fitted Spike NLOS for a specific target set (North Korean coastal artillery units and North Korean attack craft in amongst islets etc). We don't have the same limited set of targets, and remember the South Koreans also use Apache E...and they haven't stuck Spike NLOS on that.

What it would give the British Army is 78 helicopters capable of launching missiles, rather than just 50. 30km is ground launched for Spike-NLOS too, recall. From the air, it could well be longer ranged than Brimstone. After the reduction from 67 to 50 Apaches, it would go a long way to helping close the gap.

Spike-NLOS has some specifics Brimstone doesn't possess. Not better or worse, as Brimstone also has its own unique and unrivaled capability, but they're two quite different forms of missile.

The RAF would have a fit if the Army was given a 30+ Km range air launched missile.

Well, they already have a drone that needs a km of runway (is under the care of the JHC, though, these days... despite not being a rotary craft!).