UK Defence Forum

That (somehow) gave me a frozen screen
... but all the better, as now I can speak from the 'point of ignorance'

If you have to build a whole new missile (to suit the new engagement envelope),
no matter how great the solution that you start with, is it worth the effort/ cost?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:That (somehow) gave me a frozen screen
... but all the better, as now I can speak from the 'point of ignorance'

If you have to build a whole new missile (to suit the new engagement envelope),
no matter how great the solution that you start with, is it worth the effort/ cost?

Why would u be building a whole new missile?

“ The programme was funded by a UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) contract, awarded to MBDA in September 2015. It included a range of environmental and sensor compatibility trials, as well as functional and avionic trials to demonstrate new platform software and functionality implemented into the platform and cockpit by Boeing. Boeing performed the platform and cockpit software modifications and managed the trials programme at Mesa and Yuma, Arizona, using a leased United States Government AH-64E in just nine months. All this activity culminated in a number of successful guided firings.

These firings demonstrated the capability of the weapon to guide using Brimstone’s Semi-Active Laser (SAL), Dual Mode SAL/millimetric wave (mmW) and fully autonomous mmW guidance modes. The weapon releases were from hovering, moving and manoeuvring/banking scenarios against Main Battle Tanks and Pickup Truck targets. All of the firings utilised fully telemetered missiles instead of those with a warhead to confirm performance. The UK MOD’s trials objectives were met with missile telemetry being gathered, confirming that the weapons separated with active fin control off the rails, with no tip-off concerns. The data collected from these missile firings will be used to enable future optimisation of Brimstone for the AH-64E capability.

Dai Morris, UK MOD’s Complex Weapons Senior Responsible Officer in FMC-WECA welcomed the results saying, “UK MOD is working together with MBDA to develop the missile capability the British Army requires. Brimstone is part of a family of capabilities, which in addition to the needs of the warfighter, will be aimed at delivering wider benefits including pan-platform utility, stockpile resilience and better overall value for money for Defence”.

SW1 wrote:firings demonstrated the capability of the weapon to guide using Brimstone’s Semi-Active Laser (SAL), Dual Mode SAL/millimetric wave (mmW) and fully autonomous mmW guidance modes. The weapon releases were from hovering, moving and manoeuvring/banking scenarios against Main Battle Tanks and Pickup Truck targets.

SW1 wrote:delivering wider benefits including pan-platform utility, stockpile resilience and better overall value for money

Oh, well.
how were those things/ statements dated?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

SW1 wrote:firings demonstrated the capability of the weapon to guide using Brimstone’s Semi-Active Laser (SAL), Dual Mode SAL/millimetric wave (mmW) and fully autonomous mmW guidance modes. The weapon releases were from hovering, moving and manoeuvring/banking scenarios against Main Battle Tanks and Pickup Truck targets.

SW1 wrote:delivering wider benefits including pan-platform utility, stockpile resilience and better overall value for money

Oh, well.
how were those things/ statements dated?

That was a 2016 press release

This was video attached

Not a given that it's going to appear on Apache, but seems most likely:

UK signs up for JAGM missile
The United Kingdom has placed its first order for the Lockheed Martin AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) weapon system developed for the US military.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) announced on 11 March that the manufacturer had been awarded USD201.75 million for United States and international JAGM production, some of which will come from fiscal year (FY) 2010 UK Foreign Military Sales (FMS) funding.



No details as to the number of missiles were disclosed, although the contract notification noted that work would be complete by 31 December 2023. No platform type was mentioned, although in UK service the JAGM could be integrated onto any US-built rotary- or fixed-wing aircraft with an air-to-surface mission set, including the Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle, and the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

As noted by Janes Weapons: Air-Launched (JALW), the JAGM programme is a US Army-led pre‐Major Defense Acquisitions Program (MDAP) with joint involvement from the US Navy (USN) and US Marine Corps (USMC), as well as a co‐operative developmental effort with the UK. The JAGM replaces airborne TOW, AGM‐114 Hellfire, and AGM‐65 Maverick missiles, and it is aimed to support more efficient logistics by replacing several missile variants with a single, interoperable weapon.

RichardIC wrote:Not a given that it's going to appear on Apache, but seems most likely:

UK signs up for JAGM missile
The United Kingdom has placed its first order for the Lockheed Martin AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) weapon system developed for the US military.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) announced on 11 March that the manufacturer had been awarded USD201.75 million for United States and international JAGM production, some of which will come from fiscal year (FY) 2010 UK Foreign Military Sales (FMS) funding.



No details as to the number of missiles were disclosed, although the contract notification noted that work would be complete by 31 December 2023. No platform type was mentioned, although in UK service the JAGM could be integrated onto any US-built rotary- or fixed-wing aircraft with an air-to-surface mission set, including the Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle, and the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

As noted by Janes Weapons: Air-Launched (JALW), the JAGM programme is a US Army-led pre‐Major Defense Acquisitions Program (MDAP) with joint involvement from the US Navy (USN) and US Marine Corps (USMC), as well as a co‐operative developmental effort with the UK. The JAGM replaces airborne TOW, AGM‐114 Hellfire, and AGM‐65 Maverick missiles, and it is aimed to support more efficient logistics by replacing several missile variants with a single, interoperable weapon.

Why are we buying this? It is a US version of Brimstone. Spend the money on integrating Brimstone on the appropriate platform or just buy more Brimstone.

Given the known issues with, and cost of, integrating UK weapons onto the F35, I suspect that that is where these are likely to go, pending (or supplementing) Spear 3 integration

RichardIC wrote:The JAGM replaces airborne TOW, AGM‐114 Hellfire, and AGM‐65 Maverick missiles

tomuk wrote:Why are we buying this? It is a US version of Brimstone. Spend the money on integrating Brimstone on the appropriate platform

While I agree with the above expressed frustration, the Kremlinologist in me would note
- the year 2010 (FMS funding. FMS normally works on a flat fee (which actually has several layers in it, but that is besides the point)
- Hellfire is the only one of the mentioned platforms in UK service

Now a Boolean between the platforms (point 2) and US/UK future-oriented agreements signed in 2010 (point 1) will quickly produce the answer
... but any on a postcard will be welcome, too

Just when our deliveries will complete, there could be a major enhancement entering (in 2026?) production:
"Boeing estimates that the revised configuration will give the helicopter 50 percent more speed and range and allow it to be 24 percent more fuel efficient during flight, according to Jane’s. The current AH-64E has a top speed in level flight of more than 170 miles per hour and has a range of around 300 miles.

The Chicago-headquartered planemaker says it has already built a one third scale model of the helicopter, which is presently undergoing wind tunnel tests"

"might lead the way for the service to finally adopt a compound attack helicopter more than four decades after the cancellation of the Cheyenne "

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... n-its-tail

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Just when our deliveries will complete, there could be a major enhancement entering (in 2026?) production:
"Boeing estimates that the revised configuration will give the helicopter 50 percent more speed and range and allow it to be 24 percent more fuel efficient during flight, according to Jane’s. The current AH-64E has a top speed in level flight of more than 170 miles per hour and has a range of around 300 miles.

The Chicago-headquartered planemaker says it has already built a one third scale model of the helicopter, which is presently undergoing wind tunnel tests"

"might lead the way for the service to finally adopt a compound attack helicopter more than four decades after the cancellation of the Cheyenne "

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... n-its-tail

It's quite a novel idea to adapt an existing conventional design into a push-prop. I don't however see there being much hardware carried over, but seems the initial studies are optimistic.

Why would the weapon/ sensor systems need to change? You can just carry more
- a weapon wing 'on the deal'

I’m actually a little surprised there is so much interest in the pusher prop configuration in battlefield helicopters. There has always been a design requirement in battlefield helicopters to ensure the tail rotor was as high off the ground as possible for tail strike/ uneven surface landings ect.

Lots of good 'shots' of the tail arrangement, with two rotors and a huge fin (to hold the rear tyre, among other things) here
- quite incredible what could be achieved 40 years ago

SW1 wrote:I’m actually a little surprised there is so much interest in the pusher prop configuration in battlefield helicopters. There has always been a design requirement in battlefield helicopters to ensure the tail rotor was as high off the ground as possible for tail strike/ uneven surface landings ect.

But that didn't end helicopters having tails & rotors did it?

SO are we seeing the US Army seeing the issues the USAF is having recapitalising its fighter fleets, realising that the F-35 might not be the answer to all its needs and putting the F-15EX into production. Having a mixed fleet of advance Apaches and whatever result form the FVL programme.

For me this only shows how the UK should keep updating and even purchase another batch of Typhoons to keep its fighter mix with the F-35 at maximum effectiveness. In missions not requiring full stealth, a Typhoons in its latest or planned incarnations may actually do a better job. The same might also be true with an advanced Apache over the FVL winner, just like the US Army was able to use the Kiowa Warrior in some situation where the Apache was not essential.

Ron5 wrote:

SW1 wrote:I’m actually a little surprised there is so much interest in the pusher prop configuration in battlefield helicopters. There has always been a design requirement in battlefield helicopters to ensure the tail rotor was as high off the ground as possible for tail strike/ uneven surface landings ect.

But that didn't end helicopters having tails & rotors did it?

I didn’t suggest it did end it. More suggesting I’m
surprised there now willing to accept placing the tail rotor further aft and lower to the ground in a quest for speed when there is gd reasons why you wouldn’t want to.

Seen this on Gabs twitter, disappointing if true.

Well, if the AAC is not getting it, then it will be something else launched off the back of the 'Boxer' future version, too

Jdam wrote:Seen this on Gabs twitter, disappointing if true.

Pretty much the sole 'UK industrial' argument behind the Apache E rebuilding programme.

Another failure for the government's half-hearted 'prosperity agenda'....

I buy the industrial strength to begin with; then I don't have to adjust my hat for the occasion:
"You don't have to be a tin-foil-hat-lined conspiracy theorist to look at this and wonder (personally, I use a 3-ply lining of foil)"
to Francis

Attack of the "Bean Counters" is obviously still in effect in Main Building. Someone has seen a way to save a small amount and obviously is a fan of buying off the shelf, mainly from the USA. Big opportunity missed, but hopefully it will not affect the "Overwatch" programme's choice of missile. This should still be between an updated Brimstone with a man in the loop capability added or Spike NLOS. Of course they could blow any money saved buy this choice of missile for the AH-64E and more, by deciding to reinvent the wheel and develop a totally new weapon as part of the Army's next generation ATGW programme.

Lord Jim wrote: money saved buy this choice of missile for the AH-64E and more

As for the more: what was the choice for the Protectors, in the end?

Probably cheaper for them than brimstone, wider benefits to the country are fine but that's not the DT's issue.
Make it their issue and give them the extra cash to reflect the industry/economic benefits of British made equipment. Until then, its all just hot air.

topman wrote:Probably cheaper for them than brimstone, wider benefits to the country are fine but that's not the DT's issue.
Make it their issue and give them the extra cash to reflect the industry/economic benefits of British made equipment. Until then, its all just hot air.

So give the RAF extra money because they're buying Tempest?

I don't think so.

I didn't say that.