Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: maybe even SPEAR or Spike NLOS integrated and we will be on a roll.
The 'or' in there saves the day as Spear is a fast jet option. NLOS we have already integrated for the Koreans, on Wildcats, so we could easily do that... and reverse the roles from what was originally the thinking:
- have the Apaches declaring targets (while they do their own job, in the front)
- and have Wildcats with Spoke Nlos, lobbing them fro further back. A bit like quarterbacks, except no need to catch...
The nice thing is that army Wildcat with radar can find its own targets at some distance and with Brimstone, could whack 'em.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I know. But Apache has more protection.

And when they think it is not enough, for getting close and personal, a Spike NLOS fired from a distance only will need the appr. location of target and can use the optical homing to actually hit the target
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:And when they think it is not enough, for getting close and personal, a Spike NLOS fired from a distance only will need the appr. location of target and can use the optical homing to actually hit the target
Or fire off Brimstone and let the missile work it out on its own?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:And when they think it is not enough, for getting close and personal, a Spike NLOS fired from a distance only will need the appr. location of target and can use the optical homing to actually hit the target
Or fire off Brimstone and let the missile work it out on its own?
Spike NLOS has a range of 25 kilometers, more than double than that of Hellfire. With its real-time wireless data link (TV picture) the operator can also abort the mission after launch or change targets.

I wonder how far the Brimstone algorithm stretches beyond types of armoured vehicles? Creating that sort of library for the F-35 has been hard work, even when it has hugely more processing power available
- and what's the range when launched from a low-flyig helo as opposed to a fastjet, high up?

BTW, the Yanks bought the one I am proposing, to make the Wildcats useful, for use on their Apaches
- how's their Brimstone copy :) coming along
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:and what's the range when launched from a low-flyig helo as opposed to a fastjet, high up?
Significantly greater than Spike NLOS. And Wildcat plus radar wouldn't be low level.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder how far the Brimstone algorithm stretches beyond types of armoured vehicles?
Brimstone would be for high value targets i.e. tanks, for which its algorithms were designed. Nobody wouldn't waste them on mud huts.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:greater than Spike NLOS. And Wildcat plus radar wouldn't be low level.
Radar or not, yes, with a proper stand-off weapon it would not need to (but could) be.

Tanks or mudhuts? I see plenty of other key targets on a modern battlefield. And as the ranges we are discussing seem just to improve, there will be even more types of them (as well as more of them, to target ... ohh, the problems with plenty: no weapon-bringback problems :) )
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Lord Jim »

When you have a weapon with the range of Brimstone does it always to be carried on a helicopter. We have the Apaches but I do not think we need it in the Wildcat. Remember there has also been an add-on "Man in the loop" package for Brimstone that would give the Apache and other other platform for that matter a world beating capability. With the right equipment the Apache could also hand off targets to other platforms or personnel whilst it relocated. The range of Brimstone would also give the Apache a SEAD capability, being able to take out enemy SPAA platforms making follow up attacks easier.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:When you have a weapon with the range of Brimstone does it always to be carried on a helicopter. We have the Apaches but I do not think we need it in the Wildcat. Remember there has also been an add-on "Man in the loop" package for Brimstone that would give the Apache and other other platform for that matter a world beating capability. With the right equipment the Apache could also hand off targets to other platforms or personnel whilst it relocated. The range of Brimstone would also give the Apache a SEAD capability, being able to take out enemy SPAA platforms making follow up attacks easier.
Not contradicting any of this but the downside of only fitting Apache is that there's only 50 of them and the range of their radar is less than the range of Brimstone. Wildcat would have a much longer range radar and would add platforms.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Lord Jim »

OR they could form teams like the US Army did with the Apache and Kiowa, with the Wildcat ranging ahead to locate targets and send the data back to the Apaches. The Guardian can already accept data from other sources such as Drones, and can feed data to other launch platforms, that do not have to be airborne.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:OR they could form teams like the US Army did with the Apache and Kiowa, with the Wildcat ranging ahead to locate targets and send the data back to the Apaches. The Guardian can already accept data from other sources such as Drones, and can feed data to other launch platforms, that do not have to be airborne.
I think that's close to the current method. I was assuming that Wildcat stay back and do its scouting from distance and altitude rather than leading the charge. A radar that's currently being trialed would aid in that. In fact, might require that. I was merely thinking that sticking a long range missile on the Wildcat would add value. A sort of overwatch role if that makes sense.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: A sort of overwatch role if that makes sense.
In an engagement Apaches will run out of weapons faster than of fuel. So before retiring, as per above, designate the targets for the further back (and less protected) Wildcats... the targets won't have a chance to move enough so as not to be found by the missile seeker mechanisms
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)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by R686 »

Just a quick question for those in the know; what were the extra features of the WAH-64 by Westland than a Boeing AH-64e in the maritime domain?

Just looking at the ARH Tiger replacement as this article is saying that the AH-64e is not fully marinized for transport or operations aboard ships at sea,

https://www.rusi.org.au/resources/Docum ... rogram.pdf

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/have-50 ... n-ordered/

But this UKDJ article has a quote that “The E model is fit for maritime operations, much like the British variant being replaced“ does tham mean the WAH-64 was fully marinized. As the conclusions in the RUSI alluded to differences in the maritime domain between the WAH and the Boeing version, can someone set the record straight if the WAH-64 was fully marinized for operations at sea.

From the RUSI article
“Additionally, what effect does a platform having multiple sponsors have on the way the ADF would manage its configuration? Should the ADF just choose one main sponsor and lock their configuration to theirs? Take for example the AH-64E Apache – if it is selected for LAND4503, it may initially appear to be sensible to configuration lock it to the main sponsor version utilised by the US Army. But, what if the ADF’s Apache’s start spending a lot of time on-board LHD’s and there is a marinisation modification option that the Augusta-Westland versions operated by the UK have ready for integration? Do we continue to suffer from corrosion issues that will drastically reduce the life of the platforms, or do we diverge from the US Army configuration and risk future interoperability and upgrade integration issues?“

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Don't know, but judging from the extensive add-on kit list that was developed after the Libya engagement one could guess that they were not marinised at all, prior to that
- supported by the two abandoned attempts -abandoned already at design stage- by the US to marinise theirs (before the "E"... the real question is thus whether the Brit Kit would actually cause any significant divergence as for maintenance and future upgrades)

Over to those 'in the know'...
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Lord Jim »

Still waiting for an answer to these important questions from somebody, anybody.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1218
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by RichardIC »

Lord Jim wrote:Still waiting for an answer to these important questions from somebody, anybody.
Which ones?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2294
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Still waiting for an answer to these important questions from somebody, anybody.
The only real UK 'marinisation' in 2011 was the Boeing developed Blade Fold Kit, developed specifically for the WAH-64. No other operator had it in use at the time. Add in the ground breaking development of AH-64 marine operations and active training onboard HMS Ocean undertaken by the AAC, luckily just in time for Op Ellamy.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-10-15 ... -Worldwide

There was another Blade Folding Kit in use, but it required about 10-11 personnel and a hoist so was unsuitable for regular use onboard a ship (it was more designed for planned moves by air transport, it wasn't quick and couldn't be used safely in higher wind conditions that you find on a ship). Should be noted that neither existing kit is a fully automatic blade folding kit that you'd expect to see on a true marinised helicopter. Which to be honest is something that should have been addressed on the E variant but wasn't.

Since then the UK has also developed the AH-64 flotation kit for marine operations which will also be used on the AH-64E. The AH-64E also incorporates the WAH-64D blade fold system. But beyond that marinisation is comparatively limited to some anti corrosion measures and the new radar will include more maritime modes under the Block 6 software update.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7180
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by SKB »

The other major difference between the British WAH-64 and the usual AH-64 are:

The WAH-64 use a pair of Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 01/12 engines, replacing the original General Electric T700-GE-701C engines. The Rolls-Royce engine produces 1,565 kW (2,100 hp) vs. 1,410 kW (1,890 hp) for the GE T700C engine.

The WAH-64 rotor blades are not only foldable, but also have anti-ice protection to allow operations in Arctic environments.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Lord Jim »

Cheers. So the WHA-64D and up coming AH-64E have very limited marinization modifications and therefore should not be used for any extended maritime operations to avoid causing expensive damage to the aircraft.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Dahedd »

Lord Jim wrote:Cheers. So the WHA-64D and up coming AH-64E have very limited marinization modifications and therefore should not be used for any extended maritime operations to avoid causing expensive damage to the aircraft.

All the more reason to give all the Army's Wildcats to the RN/RM & equip them properly as a seabourne gunship. The Wildcats always been an odd choice for the army.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by R686 »

Dahedd wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Cheers. So the WHA-64D and up coming AH-64E have very limited marinization modifications and therefore should not be used for any extended maritime operations to avoid causing expensive damage to the aircraft.

All the more reason to give all the Army's Wildcats to the RN/RM & equip them properly as a seabourne gunship. The Wildcats always been an odd choice for the army.
Or in the context of the ADF inwhich the original questions was posed, depending how long they intend to use the in the maritime environment a AH-1Z Viper might be a better solution

On the question of the Wildcats it’s a wonder that they haven’t come up with a version like the BlackHawk Direct Action Penetrator (DAP)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Tempest414 »

SKB wrote:The other major difference between the British WAH-64 and the usual AH-64 are:

The WAH-64 use a pair of Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 01/12 engines, replacing the original General Electric T700-GE-701C engines. The Rolls-Royce engine produces 1,565 kW (2,100 hp) vs. 1,410 kW (1,890 hp) for the GE T700C engine.

The WAH-64 rotor blades are not only foldable, but also have anti-ice protection to allow operations in Arctic environments.
When I was at Wattisham last year when speaking with pilots about the E they have did say they would miss the raw power of the British engines however they did say the whole package of new engine and rotor will make up for it also they said a lot more work is being done on the British E's over the D's when it comes to naval op's

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:would miss the raw power of the British engines
The difference was evidenced in A-stan where the Brit Apaches flew with their radars... and the US Apaches w/o
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes but now with the new up-rated GE engine and rotor the E is a lot closer to the British D in power to lift that is what the pilots said last year

jonas
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by jonas »

What will this mean for the UK's rebuild programme :- Article taken from 'Defense One'




Army Halts Apache Helicopter Deliveries
For the second time in two years, the Army had to stop accepting Boeing's attack helicopter. The exact reason remains unknown.
Marcus Weisgerber
By Marcus Weisgerber
Global Business Editor
October 16, 2020

Army
Industry

The U.S. Army has stopped accepting Apache helicopters from Boeing after the company found that an employee kept “improper” records concerning parts installed on the aircraft.

It’s the latest quality-control issue to bedevil America’s largest planemaker, which is trying to shift its company’s culture and repair its public image after two deadly airliner crashes and a production line that left tools and trash inside new tanker aircraft.

“At this time the Army is still conducting a comprehensive review of a number of Boeing processes, production, and manufacturing plans for critical safety items applicable to all AH-64E aircraft production,” Lt. Col. Brandon Kelley, an Army spokesman, said in an emailed statement.

When it learned of “improper record keeping” at its AH-64 Apache factor in Mesa, Arizona, Boeing “immediately notified the Army,” Steve Parker, vice president and general manager of Boeing Vertical Lift, said in a statement provided by a company spokesman.

“Boeing and the government are jointly reviewing our Mesa quality management processes and procedures,” Parker said. “Flight operations and deliveries will resume when Boeing and the Army are satisfied this issue has been resolved and appropriate corrective action plans have been implemented.”

Boeing no longer employs the worker who kept the improper records, according to a person with knowledge of the issue.

Boeing’s Mesa operation builds new Apaches and overhauls old ones with more modern equipment — a process known as remanufacturing. The company continues to build aircraft amid the delivery stoppage, an industry source said.

“The Army will begin acceptance of aircraft once conditions have been satisfied to ensure production processes meet standards for safety and quality and the potential for future quality escapes has been fully mitigated,” Kelley said. “The Army will continue to work with Boeing in reviewing their quality processes and manufacturing of critical safety items and recommend changes as necessary to prevent future delivery of non-conforming product.”

Kelley said that soldiers' lives were not put at risk by the issues.

It’s not the first time the Army has suspended Apache deliveries. From March to August 2018, the service halted acceptances after finding a flaw in a part that holds the helicopter’s rotors to the aircraft.

Boeing quality-control practices have been called into question by both the commercial industry and the military. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating potential manufacturing issues on 787 Dreamliner aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force had to halt deliveries of KC-46 tankers on numerous occasions after military inspectors found trash, parts, and tools left inside the aircraft. In March 2019, Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, blamed the company’s assembly line culture for the issues.

The coronavirus pandemic has only made things worse for Boeing and its suppliers as air travel evaporates and airlines cancel plane orders. Earlier this year, executives said the company’s $34 billion defense business would outperform its typically lucrative commercial business for the first time in more than a decade.

Coronavirus-related factory shutdowns and production slowdowns started taking a toll on Boeing’s defense business in the spring. Boeing delivered 54 fewer military aircraft and satellites so far this year when to the first three quarters of 2019, a 31 percent decline, according to company data.

This year, Boeing has delivered 10 KC-46 tankers, less than half of the 21 delivered through the third quarter of 2019.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jonas wrote: In March 2019, Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, blamed the company’s assembly line culture for the issues.
Sounds a bit like Detroit in the good ol' (=bad) days... nobody would buy a car that had been put together on a Monday
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)

Post Reply