We were having an interesting chat about the acquisition on another post recently and we veered onto the subject of the Westland Apache AH1, problems with its introduction and potential for the forthcoming upgrade programme, probably a UK specific version of the US Block III programme.
I do wonder if as a concept, the attack helicopter is all it is cracked up to be, a throwback to another era and for a given and finite future budget, whether we could get more for less elsewhere?
Elsewhere does not necessarily mean another attack helicopter or even helicopter at all by the way, focus on capabilities, guns, rockets, missiles and eyes on.
There is no doubt it is expensive, there is even less doubt the sustainment and upgrade programme will be budget constrained and will take an increasing percentage of the armed forces wide rotary aviation budget as Gazelle and Lynx gradually disappear and Wildcat comes into service.
A handful of relevant parliamentary questions;
Question
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of Apache during Operation Ellamy.
Answer
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
Apache helicopters performed well on Operation Ellamy, deploying from HMS Ocean for the first time, and made a substantial contribution to the NATO mission to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and protect the civilian population of Libya.
Question
Richard Drax (South Dorset, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussion he has had with representatives of Augusta-Westland on the contract to build Apache helicopters.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
No requirement currently exists to add to the Army Air Corp’s fleet of Apache attack helicopters. The Ministry of Defence is engaged in the concept phase of a Capability Sustainment Programme to address our future attack helicopter capability requirement and how it will be sustained to 2040.
As part of the Concept Phase, informal discussions are taking place with potential contractors to inform the range of options which will be taken forward into the Assessment Phase. The Project Team have had initial meetings with representatives of AgustaWestland, who have been encouraged to continue to work with the MOD to help develop our analysis.
Question
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the wet assembly for the Apache helicopter; what estimate he has made of the associated costs; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The current Apache AH Mk1 aircraft are based on the US Army Apache AH64D. In common with those aircraft, the Apache AH MK1 airframes were dry-built. There is currently no engineering solution available, and therefore no cost information, for undertaking a retro-wet assembly of the in-service aircraft airframes. They have, however, been treated with a two stage protection process to reduce the effects of corrosion and maintain the airworthiness of the aircraft in the maritime operating environment.
Question
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the number of operational Apache helicopters; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The Army Air Corps operates a fleet of 66 Apache helicopters, which meets the current operational requirement for Attack Helicopters.
Apache, which is currently supporting operations in Afghanistan, has been in service with the Army since 2001 and is due to undergo a capability sustainment programme in the near future. This upgrade will ensure the capability remains in service out to 2040. The number of aircraft to be upgraded as part of this programme will be based on an assessment of the future operational requirement and will be decided at the main investment decision point, which is currently planned for 2014.
One aircraft was recently removed from the fleet having been assessed as beyond repair as a result of damage sustained following a heavy landing on operations in 2008. The damage was not caused as a result of enemy action and neither pilot was injured in the incident.
Question
Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-4, on defence budget and transformation, what helicopter capabilities are part of the Core Equipment Programme.
Answer
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The helicopter capabilities in the Core Equipment Programme consist of current in-service capabilities plus the following equipment programmes and their support and training costs:
- Chinook Mk6 New Buy
- Apache Capability Sustainment Programme
- Merlin Capability Sustainment Programme
- Puma Life Extension Programme
- Falkland Island Search and Rescue and Support Helicopter
- Wildcat—Army and Navy variants
Question
Lee Scott (Ilford North, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to the procurement of an alternative model of attack helicopter if the Apache AH-64D cannot be upgraded at an acceptable price.
Abswer
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The Attack Helicopter Capability Sustainment Programme is currently in its concept phase. All viable options are being investigated to maintain operational attack helicopter capability and no decisions have been made.
Question
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects on air worthiness of the Apache helicopters flown from HMS Ocean during Operation Ellamy.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 23 October 2012, c809W)
Answer
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The Apache helicopters used on Operational Ellamy were modified and cleared to support maritime operations prior to their deployment on HMS Ocean. The modifications made were to improve their resistance to corrosion and to include a solution to disperse sea spray in the windscreen wiper system. They underwent pre-deployment maintenance and inspections and, on return to the UK, usual post embarkation maintenance was conducted as well as an additional aircraft condition survey. Any corrosion experienced was within normal tolerance levels and the aircraft remained fully airworthy; this corrosion has now been treated. Deployed aircraft will continue to be monitored during routine maintenance activities.
Question
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) when he plans that the Apache helicopter will be upgraded to utilise the Brimstone missile system;
(2) what plans he has to marinise the Apache helicopter;
(3) what the total number of Apaches in use is; and how many are earmarked for upgrade.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Army Air Corps currently operates a fleet of 67 Apache helicopters. The number of aircraft to be upgraded through the Capability Sustainment Programme will be decided at the main investment decision, which is currently planned for 2014.
While not originally designed as a maritime helicopter, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has modified and cleared the Apache to support operations from the maritime environment as demonstrated from HMS Ocean on Operation Ellamy. The modifications included wet-sealing the aircraft to resist corrosion and modifying the windscreen wipers to include a solution to disperse sea spray. We are also currently in an assessment phase to fit flotation equipment to increase safety when operating over water.
The Apache is currently armed with variants of the Hellfire missile which are due to go out of service in 2021-22. The MOD will look at various options as a replacement to this capability. The successor to Brimstone, the 50kg class Spear Capability 2 Block 3 missile, will be one of the options considered as a replacement.
Question
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Apache helicopter will be able to be moved by lift below deck on the Queen Elizabeth class carrier without the need to manually fold its rotor blades.
Answer
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers will be able to transport an Apache helicopter with its rotors fully spread from the flight deck to the hangar and vice-versa using the aircraft lifts. Depending on the number of aircraft embarked, the rotor blades of Apache helicopters may be manually folded prior to entering the hangar to maximise storage space.
This post isn’t to replay the decision taken many years but to consider these issues
- Apache costs a great deal to run, the quoted flying cost of £46k per hour as we know, includes all sorts of costs but in comparison with other types of fixed and rotary aircraft, it is still near the top. Gazelle is £2k and Tornado £25k using the same quoted tables.
- Anecdotaly, it is maintenance heavy
- It has been battered from many years of continuous use
- It’s avionics are not to the latest standards and will need an expensive upgrade
- Maintenance costs of the upgraded version are not clear because it will be a UK specific upgrade
- It will need additional and costly modifications to improve utility at sea
It doesn’t matter how much it cost, it doesn’t matter whether it was the correct decision or not and it doesn’t matter how undoubtedly awesome it is or what the Taleban call it.
We need to think about the future, an expensive one if we go down the upgrade and sustain route.
It might be heresy to question the value for money of the Apache upgrade but am going to ask it anyway.
Playing devils advocate for a moment, and don’t take this as a proposal as such, what would we lose, what disadvantages would we suffer, if we;
- Withdrew all Apache
- Increased the purchase number of Wildcat
- On the Army version, where the Navy versions radar is, inserted the Nexter THL-20mm cannon
- Integrated Brimstone, CRV-7 and LMM
As a starter for ten, the situational awareness of the tandem seating position, Longbow and armour but think of the cost savings of withdrawing completely an aircraft type (think back to Harrier v Tornado, you only save big time by withdrawing a fleet) and what that would get you in terms of airframe numbers and weapons integration.
It should be obvious that like for like, it would be a big step down but given the kinds of operations most likely and the big impacts on the budget of upgrading and sustaining the current fleet of Apache AH1, surely it is worth asking that heretical question.
We might even ask if it needs to be rotary at all, combinations of unmanned systems, precision ground launched weapons and even fixed wing might offer a better and/or cheaper alternative.
It is a question we need to ask, even if the answer is Apache
Thoughts?
[Google the Romanian IAR 330 SOCAT]
Think Defence 
I seem to recall many years ago the competition for UK Attack Helo was between Hughes Apache, Bell Cobra, Eurocopter Tiger and Denel Rooivalk. I am pretty sure MOD selected the most expensive option (although Tiger was probably quite expensive too). If that was the case, and MOD-PE then put in the usual tranche of UK specific requirements for comms, engines, weapon systems and and and, then the most expensive option would have become *really* expensive. You have to wonder why there is any surprise that upgrading a really expensive aircraft with really expensive UK-only mods turns out to be really expensive?
LikeLike
The Viper might be the better choice if one was choosing again. A marinised ‘copter should be a key requirement but we have a start point and that is the Apache and changing this is just so unrealistic I shouldn’t even be mentioning it.
Do we need attack helicopters?
Absolutely needed for land and amph ops, not sure the money should have been spent on the wildcat and puma the apache is as core as a chinook and merlin in my book. Are we getting too excited about UAVs – they are currently a very useful tool for some very specific environments, the apache has operational abilities in many more circumstances, and is a complimentary weapon at that.
LikeLike
Do we get all the stuff we cut because aviation would do it back? No? Just a fart, then.
LikeLike
@Chris
some of the mods like folding blades, more powerful engines, longbow radar have clearly stood the test of time and proven to be absolutely the right decision at the right time.
common engines with the Merlins must have saved money too.
Your point of course is still spot on and no doubt the ‘surprises’ will surprise us all
LikeLike
I’m not so sure the Apache was ever the right thing for us, although I love them to bits.
I know it may seem a little bit of schoolboy question but how many Hellfire and FF rockets have we actually fired from Apache? I’d guess not many. That tends to suggest it is a little overkill for our requirements.
I still believe that AH Lynx is all we really need on the battlefield. It has the utility of CASEVAC as an added bonus – even if you have to climb over people to move around. Perhaps Wildcat with LMM will be the preferred option in the future? Perhaps Apache does not need an upgrade?
That first video is embarrasing. Surely the target should have been painted by the guys on the ground. Surely then any nearby aircraft (or ship, or vehicle) could launch a laser homing missile or round?
LikeLike
In many ways Apache is like Challenger and Warrior – a cold war warrior in a expeditionary age. Expensive and designed to do one or two things very well. They’ve perfomred admirably in recent operations but they wouldn’t of been designed/purchased today.
That being said, of the 4 choices from the UK attack helo, we probably picked the right one expect for one (significant) issue.
The Tiger is a European project that we probably would only just of gotten into service. Rooivalk just has too small a user base to generate a long term sustainable product.
Viper is a old base design which well reach the end of its useful design life before the Apache would of done, especially as the US Army has hundreds of them and well continue to upgrade them till the middle of the century at least. BUT the Viper is designed for shipboard operations, which given the importance of the Carriers to the future of the military (all three services) measn it might of been a better choice.
Hughes Apache, Bell Cobra, Eurocopter Tiger and Denel Rooivalk
LikeLike
@TD: I’d worry about Tiger, given that it’s record for even entering service has been dire. The figure for Apache is extraordinarily high, given the USAF is on record for HH60 costs of around 25K USD (an aircraft with FLIR and navigation radar though no weapons). I suspect the MOD figure includes depreciation at the insane prices we bought them for, rather than the more normal figures other international customers paid.
LikeLike
I do wonder if as a concept, the attack helicopter is all it is cracked up to be, a throwback to another era and for a given and finite future budget, whether we could get more for less elsewhere?
Elsewhere does not necessarily mean another attack helicopter or even helicopter at all by the way, focus on capabilities, guns, rockets, missiles and eyes on.
As I’ve mentioned before, a couple of things that need remembering about AH:
1. The US Army loves AH, and is willing to pay through the nose for great AH. But the US Army, we should always remember, is _legally prohibited_ from operating fixed-wing ground attack, and has been since the 1950s. Much of the state of the art in AH is due to this fact.
2. Helicopters are maintenance queens. You quote £46,000 per flying hour; that’s more than twice the cost per flying hour of, say, an F-16. Fixed wing aircraft can go further, faster, carrying more payload, have better availability, are better able to withstand AAA, and have lower maintenance costs than helicopters.
Which means that, when you’re talking about an effect, the first question should be: does this absolutely, definitely have to be delivered by something that can hover and land vertically?
Sometimes it does, no question. Medevac. Troop transport. Shipboard ASW. CSAR. That sort of thing.
But other times maybe it doesn’t; and we might want to think about whether a fixed-wing CTOL or STOL solution would be possible, because it would certainly be cheaper and more available. If you took the weapons and sensor fit from an Apache, along with a bit of cockpit and engine armour, and put it on a twin-turbo STOL airframe, you’d have something rather interesting – a kind of modern Beaufighter, which could lift off from any three-hundred-yard stretch of straight road or beach, stay in the air for hours, and deliver a far wider variety of weapons than Apache, over a far greater radius, with a much quicker reaction time.
LikeLike
Having given this a little more thought. I don’t think we bought Apache, what we really bought was Hellfire.
That’s the thing we needed. I know Hellfire is now integrated into many platforms now but what about in 1995?
Nowadays we’d probably look at Predator or Reaper as the predominantly anti-armour system with a spattering of Viper or Wildcat for expeditionary use from Naval assets.
Perhaps the UK should be designing a rotary UAV that can carry a couple of Brimstone and can sit inside the rear of a truck along with the command/control module. This would provide “over the hill” visibility, precision anti-armour and anti-personnel capabilities?
LikeLike
I reckon the best use of Apache is probably close air support. Compared to a fighter aircraft, it will have a shorter transit time and more time on station, as well as the ability to stop and watch at low level in high threat environments, although I’m sure it’s maintenance costs will be higher. Deep strike is not it’s forte, but that’s just fine, it’s CAS where it’s very valuable
LikeLike
Of course, there’s the Super Tucano too 😉
LikeLike
I reckon the best use of Apache is probably close air support. Compared to a fighter aircraft, it will have a shorter transit time and more time on station
Eh? Transit time: Apache does 160 knots. A fighter does four times that.
Time on station: Apache has flight endurance of three hours. Fighters can easily beat that – and if you have a tanker on station, or another aircraft with a buddy kit, they can stay up until the pilot gets hungry.
It’s maybe also worth thinking about this from an effects point of view. If the desired effect is “see that building/compound/tank? Big lump of explosive on that now, plsthx”, then maybe that can be achieved more cheaply and reliably than with a great big airframe. Maybe a UAV plus a truck with a few pallets of NetFires might be a rather better solution…
LikeLike
The Russian thingamabob was also an early contender for the UK’s attack helicopter, though that would have required the MoD to cross quite a substantial mental barrier at the time.
Viper came to late for us, but I suspect that could have pipped Apache by being cheaper while still giving the Army a notable capability improvement. The Marine Corps future of Cobra at the time was uncertain, and I reckon the risk ruled out that option as a realistic contender.
I think we do need a light attack aircraft, and a helicopter gives us options that a fixed-wing aircraft wouldn’t. Though a substantial chunk of that £46,000 p/h could probably be lopped off by using a fixed-wing aircraft mounting much the same sensors and weapons. However, with just 66 aircraft, I’m not sure a two-type fleet would be any cheaper.
Would adopting a cheaper fixed-wing light attack aircraft to replace Apache, and relying on Wildcat for the ship-borne role, be something we could live with?
The 66 aircraft figure has to survive the capability sustainment programme investment decision, the 2015 defence review, and possibly a change of government. If you don’t want to swap expensive Apache for another aircraft type at the moment, how great a reduction in numbers would you be prepared to see before changing your mind?
LikeLike
@wf not always, apache is several hundred knots slower, it cant aar refuel. it can stay longer on a fuel load but only by a small amount. thats not to say its poor at what it does its not. but its not without its weaknesses.
LikeLike
Simon – a bit of gary googling brings up an FoI request for weapons usage on Herrick alone.
Click to access 20130318%20FOI%20Mills%20111233%20001%20FINAL%20U.pdf
which indicates that the half-dozen Apaches in theatre have shot off 700 or so Hellfire since 2008. There are no figures for CRV7 for the WAH, but given that our cabs have often run with a mixed load of Hellfire + CRV7 it would seem likely that they’ve probably expended several times that number (the Harrier force seem to have used about 6000 in four years). I’m not sure I’d describe that as “not many”!!
The marinisation elements are a combination of minimum cost change and operational procedure to mitigate the effects of salt water. The best you’re going to get for a land-based design.
I’d look carefully at the support construct for that £46k pfh. The way these things tend to be calculated is to add up the total manpower and materials bill and divide by the number of flying hours. It’s often instructive to look at what is in those bills and determine whether it’s actually required to support the cab or the unit or whether it’s an overhead that goes with the method of support. In which case you can have the deabte as to whether you can do without it.
As for alternatives, UAS have yet to be proven in any sort of threat (and importantly, all weather) environment (which is after all why we bought Apache), f/w and other (non-AH) rotary types are almost certainly more vulnerable to AAA/Manpads.
I suspect this is another case of something being used in an environment below what it was designed for and hence appearing to be overkill (see T45 and pirates for lurid detail). That doesn’t mean that the requirement to operate in the designed environment has gone away.
LikeLike
I think Apache was the right choice out of the possible contenders at the time, although setting up a separate production line for a UK variant at Westland was a ridiculous decision that massively inflated the costs (same old procurement mess really) so I definitely would have just bought them off the shelf and made do with the American systems instead of trying to take of foreign product and tailor it to specific British requirements.
I think the idea of it being a ‘Cold War warrior’ has some merit. I love the things, and they have more than proven themselves in Afghanistan and Libya. But maybe TD is onto something when he brings up how expensive it is to keep such a niche and high-end platform running. Plus they have been seriously pushed to the limit with constant activity over the last few years and are in need of an undoubtedly pricey overhaul.
I’m not sure…. the idea of more Wildcat with bits of Apache capability bolted on sounds OK to me, I mean it wouldn’t be the same level of capability, but it may well be enough and has the obvious benefit that TD mentioned of removing a fleet from service and making a substantial saving.
I think id need to be persuaded that more/modified Wildcats would be a cost effective and capable (or capable enough) solution before id seriously consider getting rid of Apache.
LikeLike
NaB,
Thanks for your googling services. 700 is enough for me to admit I’m wrong. I did however change tack on a subsequent post realising that it was probably Hellfire that we actually needed not necessarily Apache.
Excellent FOI response!
Interesting how the Reaper figures crept up even with just 10 of them.
LikeLike
Costs per flying hour always come with a health warning but they are useful comparator’s.
Have read a few places that maint is very heavy for ah
Crv7 use was pretty high at one point, especially the flechette version
LikeLike
“Fixed wing aircraft can go further, faster, carrying more payload, have better availability, are better able to withstand AAA, and have lower maintenance costs than helicopters”
Most of that is true, but I’d have a serious think as to whether f/w withstand AAA better than a dedicated AH. IIRC Apache was designed to survive at least 14.5 DShK rounds. In general, you can usually station your AH closer to the battle area than f/w which will make up some of the speed/endurance differential.
“Eh? Transit time: Apache does 160 knots. A fighter does four times that.” Not if he wants a decent fuel margin at the other end he doesn’t! The speed differential is still mainly on the f/w side though.
One other thing that is worth considering. With the RoE in force, there are some seriously restrictive targetting procedures in place. In some cases, the cabs are allegedly having to target individuals, which tends to mean using 30mm. I doubt that you could do that with f/w in any sort of populated environment. You certainly couldn’t use UAS for that, unless you had a very controllable trainable gun system.
The thing about Apache is that it will do pretty much anything across the whole spectrum from all-out all-weather anti-armour, to highly restrictive scenarios with the ability to apply weapons in a very selective fashion. That equals flexibility, which you won’t easily get from any other system (or combination thereof).
LikeLike
I am wondering if the Army needs all of it Wildcats – could we not agree that the upgrade the Apache’s to the same standard as the US version, without any attempt to make them fit to operate at sea, and divert a squadron’s worth of Wildcats to the Navy, and fit pretty much as TD says (though I think I would go with GAMA turret)? That should be fairly cost neutral and if we can squeeze in cockpit armour and fuel passivation system, along with the weapon pylons and a 20mm turret of choice, then the Wildcat AH option looks fairly reasonable, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
I’d have a serious think as to whether f/w withstand AAA better than a dedicated AH. IIRC Apache was designed to survive at least 14.5 DShK rounds.
And the A-10 Warthog was designed to survive anything up to direct hits from 23mm. The cockpit armour is supposed to keep you alive against anything up to a 57mm. I know which one I’d rather be sitting in… not to mention that greater speed gives you another advantage in survival, because you’ll spend less time within range.
Targetting individuals from the air with fixed-wing cannon would be difficult, I grant you. I’d say that’s where UAVs with small precision munitions come in. (And if we’re in a high-threat environment, we’re warfighting, so we probably won’t be targetting individuals anyway…)
LikeLike
@ajay, @Topman: AH’s can be based a lot closer to the FLOT than can most fighters, with far less infrastructure required, like those 1500m runways with those hairy takeoffs under hot and high weather. Can we add the cost of AAR into the Tornado flight hours figures then?
I suspect Netfires + UAV’s and the like will indeed replace much of the artillery and AH role. The same would go for fighters of course. But they are not there yet, although the potential to replace fighters with Tomahawk is there already. I believe the INF treaty forbade the Yanks from even conventional cruise, but knocking out our own ground launched missile might well be worth it. After all, BAE has been selling Terprom for fighters for two decades…
By 2020 I suspect we’ll be thinking about a small UAV for the intimate brigade/battalion CAS role, something that can carry a good sensor array and maybe 4 Brimstone/SPEAR for time critical targets, with everything else coming out of tubes held on the ground.
LikeLike
Sorry this relates to an early post but I’ve been doing other stuff…
@Opinion3 – “common engines with the Merlins must have saved money too” – well. I haven’t been in the loop for a few years now, but I worked on Merlin HM1 at the time the Apache was in build. Yes they both have RTM322 engines, but the unofficial techno-gossip was that the mounting arrangements were so different they were essentially two types of engines with common bits inside them. At some level that might save some costs, but it meant there were two types of engines to be kept in MOD stores, not one.
But then again Merlin HM1 is RN, Merlin HC3 is RAF and Apache is AAC so they’ll probably run very separate stores anyway.
LikeLike
Interesting question TD. Suppose the devil is in the detail of how much they will actually cost to upgrade. Howerver I recon the Lynx Wildcat armed with Brimstone could give us most of what we need. if scrapping apache is a significant fiancial gain then we should do it for SDSR 2015. There are probably more important capabilities which require investment and one has to wonder how much of keeping apache is trouser length comparison with the US Army.
aging Viper would also be good but likley too expensive to operate in the small numbers required.
LikeLike
What am I missing about that Romanian Puma?
If it is a game of buy the foreign cheap helicopter I see your Puma and raise you a PZL W-3 Sokół.
If it is a game of buy the foreign cheap helicopter it is the wrong game. The game we should be playing is Apache as broad spectrum (COIN to high end warfare) asset verses Tornado (its performance in the Sandbox whether it should be replaced and the cost of that programme and how it interfaces into CVF) verses PGM artillery (whether from a tube or UAV.)
LikeLike
“I’d say that’s where UAVs with small precision munitions come in. (And if we’re in a high-threat environment, we’re warfighting, so we probably won’t be targetting individuals anyway…)”
High-threat to a non-AH is an RPK / GMPG equivalent. Plenty of that around where you’d still be after individuals.
Fair point on the Hog, although everyone aprt from the US & SK would be using unarmoured f/w.
“At some level that might save some costs, but it meant there were two types of engines to be kept in MOD stores, not one. But then again Merlin HM1 is RN, Merlin HC3 is RAF and Apache is AAC so they’ll probably run very separate stores anyway.”
But it does mean one overarching support contract between MoD and RR, as opposed to one with Rollys and one with someone else. I’m pretty sure HM1/2 and HC3/3a are both depth-supported out of Culdrose using a single facility, so probably less “separate” stores than you’d think. Interesting point re the mounting (possibly related to armour?) on WAH though.
LikeLike
@ wf on paper yes, but im not aware of them being used so. id bet them needing more support than first thought. in the case of afghan retasking is often required during a sortie to another part of the country, so its basing location isnt as important as at first look. its slow speed and lack of range is an issue.
LikeLike
re rtm322 support, yes theres one engine bay joint manned at culdrose that supports both types of merlin.
LikeLike
Apache alone is all that is needed (other than utility/lift) in an environment that does not have any direct air threat. However, it’s not the greatest surveillance asset. So the SAM and Apache combo certainly delivers a major capability to the battlefield if partnered with other ISTAR assets.
Questions:
Is a F35 and Wildcat combo better and/or cheaper?
What is the most efficient way we can make use of Reaper? It is a good surveillance and anti-armour asset, but the problem I see with Reaper is the same problem I see with all fixed-wing CAS – not accurate enough for small targets (humans). This means either land forces or a gunship. I appreciate that a rotary wing UAV/UAS would be a sitting duck, but so are most copters. Their best asset is stealth. So, I still believe that something like the MQ-8C Fire-X is required… preferably smaller. Oddly when you start looking at the Bell 407 on which the MQ-8C is based, you quickly move through the Augusta 109 to the Bell 222 and onto Airwolf.
LikeLike
Regarding AHs and Fixed Wing CAS, the way they approach their attack is also different. A fixed wing does a firing run with cannons, rockets and bombs through the enemy position, an AH hides behind a hill, pops up for a shot, then ducks behind the hill again or hovers out of small arms range and hammers the target with hydras and the chin gun.
This means that both the f/w and AHs have different advantages and flaws, neither of them is the “perfect” CAS system. For f/w, they are faster, covers more area, and are incredible morale breakers, but they pay for it in fuel consumption and the fact that they have to tear THROUGH the target area.
Something people don’t usually know is that after a bombing run, planes tend to afterburn away from the target to get more favourable flying conditions fast. In aircraft, you have to think in terms of “energy state”, the total sum of your usable “energy”. A plane flying high and fast has a very good energy state, Planes flying high and slow have the option of converting potential energy to speed by diving. On the other hand, planes travelling low but fast have the option of climbing to trade their kinetic energy for potential energy.
After a bombing run however, planes are in their worst possible energy state, slow (to increase aiming/firing time) and low, so they tend to hit the gas to climb out. AHs don’t have that kind of problem, their performance profile is much more stable as their tactics are slow stalking using terrain to conceal themselves or to park at standoff distances and pound, not tear through in a hurry.
CUAVs… uh. The jury is still out on that one. Most ops UAVs have been on are ones with overwhelming firepower and presence on their side. On a peer to peer slug out, I’m not really sure they can survive that well, being fairly similar in strategic utility to a prop-driven plane. Easy meat for any helo, f/w or any stabilised medium gun. Using a 120mm on a UAV might be overkill. 🙂
LikeLike
Has anybody suggested yet pouring Wildcat into a slim body a la Cobra?
Also are we really saying that given the costs of a Brit Ah-64 verses a Boeing one that engine commonality is really that big of saving? Really? The Army’s Apache fleet is bigger than some countries’ air arms.
And off on a tangent, but the Puma rebuild LEP, how long is supposed to keep them in service for?
LikeLike
“What is the most efficient way we can make use of Reaper? It is a good surveillance and anti-armour asset,”
I disagree on this, the original UAV concept was cheap, disposable eyes, all the rockets and bombs are an example of capability creep, to the point where it is no longer cheap or disposable, a case where people got too greedy. Most times, MQs travel light, their job is usually surveillance, and all those fireworks off the wings eats into the fuel, and 2 Hellfires are hardly enough to consider it a dedicated anti-armour vehicle. If it were to go all out, yes it can act as short range tank killers, but most of the time, they are just eyes in the sky.
LikeLike
@ simon fixed wing can hit people without any great accuracy worries. ive seen a moving person be strafed successfully strafed with 27 mm rounds. and thats the least accurate weapon.
LikeLike
top, think he was worried what else might be in the target area other than the primary target. You know, the things media call civilians and the military call collateral damage?. 😛
Just teasing about the collateral damage BTW, before some regular military takes offence.
Militaries are much better at reducing collateral damage in MOUT/FISH nowadays. My day, tactics for FIBUA started with a frag grenade through a door/window and went downhill from there. “Oops, sorry bout the grenade ma’am…”
LikeLike
Observer,
The original UAV concept might have been cheap disposable eyes, but once you’re high you have the edge as you pointed out with the PE/KE trade. You may was well carry a few Hellfire or Brimstone. In addition, is there any such thing as cheap “eyes” – most sensors worth their salt are relatively expensive?
LikeLike
Topman,
As Observer stated. We only want to kill the baddies 😉
LikeLike
It is an interesting question to be sure. A few thoughts.
1. I think the idea of replacing attack helicopters with UAV’s is pretty premature. It is just nowhere near the same level of capability in most environments.
2. I find the notion of arming Wildcat with Brimstone DM to be kind of funny from a cost savings approach. Someone pointed out that Apache fired 700 Hellfires in Afghanistan in the last 5 years and that is not a particularly brisk pace of use really. But the cost difference of those 700 missiles if changed to Brimstone is something around $70 million USD. There is really no reason to switch to Brimstone unless you have to because it does not buy you a lot of capability on a helicopter. I don’t see any reason why one would go down that path until forced to unless you just want to light money on fire. Brimstone is a great weapon for where it was intended (employment from supersonic aircraft against an armored concentration) but is a bit pricey for more generalist use, particularly from a helicopter.
3. I am not 100% sold on the missile in a box solution to everything. It will all work well enough in theory where they are unbreakable data links, instant communication, solid GPS signals and no counter-battery fire. Add those thing in a more opposed environment and your cost are going to start to rise very quickly.
LikeLike
“Also are we really saying that given the costs of a Brit Ah-64 verses a Boeing one that engine commonality is really that big of saving?”
I think the point is that we don’t actually know what the cost diff twixt AH64D Longbow and WAH64 is or was. We do know that it cost £3.2Bn to get 67 WAH and that this included a significant chunk of CLS and engineering support to get the thing established.
What we don’t know is what an AH64D and equivalent support package would have cost. There are batch figures floating about for USA ones, but they don’t inlcude the logistics and CLS set-up, so we’re not like with like. Some of the FMS figures are out there, but the scope of supply is wildly different.
All we do know is that WAH64 cost more than AH64D, but we really don’t know whether it works out at £500k per airframe or £5M per airframe. We just don’t know.
I think it’s probably a reasonable bet that doing an AH1/UH1 analogy to the Wildcat is unlikely to end well, or at least cheaply.
AFAIK Puma HC2 will have an OSD of 2028.
One point re Predator / Reaper and all the other UAS. Those who have been on Herrick will hopefully correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the the weather systems are largely CAVU. That makes having these UAS bimbling around at sufficient height to do surveillance / targetting while avoiding detection and attack relatively easy. What happens to them when we get weather? Stay above cloud and be (I assume) relatively ineffective, or come down below the clag and becaome vulnerable (and with much reduced FoV? Lots of things we haven’t worked out yet I suspect…….
Topman – I’m sure 27mm off a FJ can hit people, but is that in the open or in proximity to non-combatants?
One more thing re Brimstone – as I’ve posted before, that puppy ain’t going to sea, courtesy of a procurement spec that didn’t consider operating in a naval EM environment.
LikeLike
I thought the SAR on Reaper was capable of penetrating foliage never mind about clouds?
LikeLike
I suppose I’m guilty of applying our Herrick RoE to what you might use a SAR-targetted MQ for against a different target set. Not sure you could use SAR for every type of target ID though..
LikeLike
NaB, CAVU? That’s one that I havn’t heard before.
Simon, fly that high in a hostile environment, expect a visitor soon, or a SAM with the UAV’s name on it. None of the MQ-1s or -9s are particularly stealthy, the propellor is a rather big giveaway. And yes, going up gives you lots of PE. Now lug an arsenal up there and see how long you can last.
Compare the IAI Heron vs the Reaper, costs 50% less, 500% more endurance, performance profile fairly similar, with the exception that the MQ is a sprinter, and the Heron is a marathon runner. Reaper is 50% faster, but Heron can stay up for days.
And the 50% price difference means you can get a 3 for 2 swap, though that comes at the expense of weapons.
Edit: I’m showing my age. My first thought on SAR was “Search and Rescue” not “Synthetic Appeture Radar”
LikeLike
re 27mm i suppose how it depends how close you consider close 🙂 my point was regarding accuracy on fj and lack of issues.
LikeLike
Just throwing this one out there to the fixed wing fixed gun discussion
LikeLike
This thread is moving fast!
RE wf June 18, 2013 at 10:03 am
@TD: I’d worry about Tiger, given that it’s record for even entering service has been dire.
– yes, ask the Australians… and if anyone should have bought the Viper, they should have, as it has 80% parts commonality with another chopper in service
– the snag: none are made new, all (?) are re-manufactured from what the USMC already has
LikeLike
A British Army version of the T-129 / AW729 could be an interesting option.
LHTEC engines used in the Wildcat
Able to fire the full range of Apache weapons
Already used by the Italians for amphibious warfare.
LikeLike
RE “By 2020 I suspect we’ll be thinking about a small UAV for the intimate brigade/battalion CAS role”
– I seem to have put my today’s Viper Strike comment on a wrong thread
– yes, exactly that
LikeLike
Cripes! I forgot about the Mangusta and it’s derivatives. If ever there is a Lynx poured into a slimline body it’s a T129… nearly 😉
LikeLike
RE “Cripes! I forgot about the Mangusta”
Isn’t it the “real” Mangusta that the Turks are producing, for themselves, at numbers well above our 5+ dozen?
LikeLike
What would we lose?
– A heavily armoured scout,
– An anti-tank platform,
– A fire support platform for operations like Afghanistan,
– Generally a fast, flexible platform, that can massively enhance the capabilities of a ground force,
So not much then 😉
A single Apache can carry 16 hellfire, so that’s 32 between a pair. The ability to forward base Attack helicopters very close to the front line has already been demonstrated in conditions of war. The ability to hover in concealed/semi-concealed environments while lining up targets shouldn’t be discounted as a major benefit, as opposed to a fast jet that has to make several attack runs, losing sight of the target as it passes over and escapes the danger zone.
The speed of reaction and adaptability to a variety of roles is unlike anything any ground commander has in his arsenal.
LikeLike
At £60m a shot, they should be pretty good.
But what can three Reapers and Wildcat do for around the same amount?
42 Hellfire, faster and further.
24-7 battlefield surveillance rather than just a localised scout (‘cos I’ve got three MQ9 for the same price)
A faster, more agile, localised scout too (Wildcat) with fire support from a couple of .50 cal.
LikeLike
What is the cost parity, though, between weapon (AH… I know, it is a weapon system) and counter?
With the AFVs we have accustomed to bush war -like situations with RPG7s on the other side. They are obsolete.
Similarly, the shoulder-launched SAMs out there have been pretty tame (with the exception of Stinger, that the CIA is rumoured to have mainly bought back… they do still turn up in the wide stretch across Africa, and where next?) in any of the theatres where Apaches or the like have been deployed.
What about the next-gen? The Apaches that stumbled on top of a whole Iraqi armoured Guards Division did give a pretty good show, with minimal losses. But they had been designed to be taking the heavy AA MG flak, exactly from that weapon that is on top of every other Soviet produced AFV.
– not so any more/ going forward, but the mention of Active Defences Suite, I think, was in the leading-in article
LikeLike
plus CASEVAC and light utility lift thrown in for free 🙂
LikeLike
The Apache is an excellent anti-tank helicopter. When we acquired it, it undoubtedly provided an ability to counter massed tank formations. Fast forward to a very different type of attack helicopter role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it still provides much valued ground support.
We bought the Apache because we felt it would be an equaliser in anti-tank engagements. In one sense, it was seen as a tank substitute – IIRC, there was even talk of re-roling cavalry regiments as attack helicopter regiments. Although the Cold War has thawed and the threat of massive tank thrusts has receded, we still retain tanks. Intuitively, if we still need tanks, then we still need anti-tank helicopters?
The point about cheap and cheerful fixed wing strike aircraft is well made. Long loiter time. Good range. Good payload. Four or five squadrons of ground attack Tucano’s would be an excellent additional resource. But before we relegate the Apache and its ilk to museum piece status, it is important to remember one thing that the Apache can do better than most fixed wing aircraft: it can hover statically almost beyond the enemy’s field of visibility and observe targets. I know UAVs can do this too, but having a Mk 1 eyeball making a judgement call (and realising that a target is emerging next to a wedding party or children playing) is preferable to a UAV pilot relying on the situational awareness afforded by a low resolution TV camera when he’s sat thousands of miles away. There are also many instances where a helicopter can manoeuvre to take advantage of natural cover offered by trees and small land features. It can also land to take a direct brief from the commanders on the ground.
Of course, many Apache advantages could also be provided by Wildcat, with the added benefit of being able to accommodate several soldiers in the back. No doubt that the Wildcat has become a much improved machine and its multi-role capabilities provide more bang for the buck, but I’m not convinced it is the best choice.
When it comes to replacing the current helicopter fleet, the question is whether we can afford to have five different platforms: Chinook (Heavy lift), Apache(Attack / Anti-tank) Puma, (Medium lift) Lynx (Utility / GP) and Gazelle (Recce/ Liaison)? Clearly, we need the heavy lift capability provided by Chinook, but it may be allow us to acquire more helicopters in total and reduce the cost of maintaining them if we select a single additional type. Ideally, that should be whatever replaces the UH-60 Blackhawks and we should use them for every role we need including anti-tank / attack, medium lift, casevac, utility, liaison and recce. In one sense, the Wildcat is a UK Blackhawk, but is too small.
If the budget allowed for a third helicopter, My choice would be an Apache replacement with two additional seats for recce and liaison.
LikeLike
Doesn’t it all come down to money and bang for the pound?
It appears the AH CSP upgrade will only be done to 50 AH reducing the fleet by 2 squadrons and will extend service life to 2040.
How much for the upgrade – somewhere between £10m-£20m so lets say £15m. Cost for 50 would be £750m
The alternative is retire Apache and buy more Wildcat (suitably configured for Army). At approx £30m each that would mean getting 1 Wildcat per 2 AH upgrades or an extra 25.
This gives a single Wildcat fleet for Army & Navy increasing the planned size from 66 (30 Army, 8SF, 28Navy) to a total of 91. Army Wildcats could then operate from the amphibs when required.
I like the AH, but after withdrawal from Afghan and army reductions, perhaps the politicians will allow the forces time to recover and regenerate from 2015 to 2020 so the need for the AH will diminish and the Wildcat could provide a reasonable capability?
For the money which is a more realistic option?
LikeLike
@Observer
“Compare the IAI Heron vs the Reaper, costs 50% less, 500% more endurance, performance profile fairly similar, with the exception that the MQ is a sprinter, and the Heron is a marathon runner. Reaper is 50% faster, but Heron can stay up for days.”
The problem with the Heron is that it does not carry that useful of a payload. That is really the reason that the Reaper is not just faster but also about 4-5 times bigger and carries a payload that is 4-6 times bigger than the Heron.
With UAV’s there is really no free lunch as they are all pretty aerodynamically similar (at least the prop driven MALE’s). You have a big, thin wing designed to allow them to cruise for a long time. You can then divide up your weight in some fashion between payload, fuel, sensors and comm. equipment. They are pretty simple vehicles in that respect.
I agree with you though. Male UAV’s are really only fire support solutions when there is no threat or only really a MANPADS IR threat around. Sending them in against even an old Soviet style SA-6 operation is asking to get them swatted out of the sky like clay pigeons. You can’t really make a prop stealthy.
LikeLike
@ Simon,
Assuming you could get all that for the cost of an Apache (and bearing in mind the Apache has already been purchased) the Reaper needs to fly all the way to the battlezone first. The Apache can be parked much, much closer to the action. Reaper is a high altitude camera in essence, and UAV’s have an appalling record of losses in combat environments.
Wildcat is not a patch on a Apache. It has no radar, no hellfire, and the .50 is nothing when laid against a 30mm cannon.
LikeLike
@Simon
I think it is important to realize what Apache is supposed to be. A scout it is not. It was designed and deployed by the US Army as a heavy strike asset really designed to give the division and corps commanders the ability to conduct a “deeper” battle against Soviet Forces. That role has evolved somewhat as the threat has changed but if the Apache is not a scout helicopter. It can do the role but that is not what it was designed for.
Reapers are great so long as the same threat is basically zero. Apache can survive pretty well against SAM’s. Both Reaper and Apache are screwed if you don’t control the air against fighters. Apache is about providing a direct fire capability in a moderate air defense environment. Reaper really can’t do that. And the Tucano would be equally as screwed in an opposed air environment.
LikeLike
As Chris says, the losses are appalling… but very few are combat losses, mind you
Monty says ” In one sense, it was seen as a tank substitute – IIRC, there was even talk of re-roling cavalry regiments as attack helicopter regiments.”
– the Dutch have done away with their tanks, but kept the flying tanks
– the ExPed force would be some combination of 3 Marine bns and 3 army Cdo bns
– don’t know if their sizeable CV mounted force is called cavalry, or if it is meant to be left behind, as a NATO assigned contingent of AI (does the Belgian-Dutch Div. still exist?)
LikeLike
Chris,
“Wildcat is not a patch on a Apache. It has no radar, no hellfire, and the .50 is nothing when laid against a 30mm cannon.”
I didn’t pitch Wildcat against Apache, I pitched 3 Reaper plus 1 Wildcat. Which negates your point about radar and Hellfire – that was very much my point. I’ll sit here and accept your point about the chain gun though 😉
Jeremy,
Apache was used as a scout in Desert Storm more than it was for anti-armour or fire support. 34 attack missions verses 36 armed reconnaissance. Okay, not a big difference, but all the same considering it was its big debut.
Which is better, a high altitude UAV out of MANPADS range or a tougher copter easily taken out by a Stinger? Obviously the UAV has to come in at Mach 0.4 at some point but only to the same range as Apache launches it’s Hellfire from.
I’m not sold on UAVs. I’m not sold on Wildcat, but I think things are changing and they’ll probably make AH obsolete. Just look at the prevalance of man portable missiles.
LikeLike
If we are talking about ruthless commonality and leveraging existing assets how about a high/low mix:
Trade in our 66 Apache for 2 extra squadrons of Reaper plus 2 extra squadrons of F35B.
The UAS for dropping the odd rocket on riff raff in technicals. The Fixed Wing for killing tanks (and other things).
We would then have 5 squadrons of F35B in service by 2020: 2 FAA squadrons routinely embarked, two RAF squadrons for CAS, and a swing role squadron doing a bit of both.
And for maximum cost saving brownie points those extra Predators could also do a bit of spotting for the gunners thus enabling us to can Watchkeeper at the same time.
What’s not to like?
LikeLike
Apaches is a useful way to bring significant degrees of fire power across a signifcant range of operations compared to warrior or challenger or as90. You could quite easily have seen apache in serria leone, falkland, Bosnia, Kosovo, the gulf the same cannot be said for armour and in that case I think it should be the priority for upgrade for the army it won’t mind cause they love there tanks.
Fast jets can with today’s pods, rover and precision weapons sit well above aaa and manpads to deliver cas an attack helicopter can’t that the benefit the fj brings in higher threat areas. They are complimentary capability.
LikeLike
Financially the question is not what you can get for the cost of the upgrade. This was priced earlier by Alistair as costing approx 15 million an airframe. Given that S Korea ordered 36 AH64E in April for approx £32 million each this seems a realistic price. So in my opinion if.
1. The answer to providing the capability remains a manned rotary wing platform.
2. The upgrade is somewhere in region of 15 mill a pop and it extends service life to 2040.
Then yes keeping and upgrading Apache is the correct option.
LikeLike
@Mark
How often do we hear arguments to scrap this or that? Or this is better etc when your last line sums up the truth so often 🙂
LikeLike
“Just look at the prevalance of man portable missiles”
One of the reasons AH64 is armoured and has those hoofing great suppressors in way of the engines (among other things) is that it was designed to work in a manpads threat environment and elements of it are designed to survive meeting Mr Shilka.
Despite its own suppressors, I doubt the Wildcat is going to be anything like as survivable and making it so will be far from cheap.
Until the actual cost of CSP is clear, we’re all just wildly speculating. But we should be clear. The choice is between no AH, or a tbd number of WAH.
Some sort of third way where a different cab (be it Mangusta, Wildcat or Tiger) is procured or modified to meet the requirement is highly unlikely to be cheaper to acquire or support. Given that there are less than 150 Tiger/Mangusta in service or on order vs over 350 AH64 in exports alone, never mind the hundreds in the US Army, I know where my money would be for an affordable solution.
LikeLike
You can also keep the current Apache (no upgrade) and complement it with other things. It’s still a tank-killing thug.
LikeLike
I think the upgrade is less about capability increase and more about supportability, In other words how long Boeing will continue to support the “legacy” configured Blocks of aircraft at component and software level. That’s why the CSP is in the programme, just the same as the CSP (Merlin HM1 to HM2) and almost certainly, just as Typhoon and F35 “blocks” will require supporting in the future.
LikeLike
Well that puts the cost of each Apache at about the £75m mark (current prices).
Doesn’t look good value to me, not that I think they were at the £47m purchase price if Boeing could just “pull the plug” when it suited them?
LikeLike
UAVs are sort of a snatch landrover of the sky. Hard to criticise in a permissive environment but really pretty pointless when the going gets tough. They aren’t even allowable in our airspace.
I am not suggesting that UAVs are useless, but in Iraq the enemy was watching the feeds, in Iran the enemy was landing the damn thing at their airfields and as we all know most current UAVs grumble at carrying a pint of milk so you can forget armoured tubs……
The Apache upgrade should enable control and interaction with UAVs, the terror of the sound of an apache is going to make the enemy seek cover …. or get the manpad out. I am sure the wildcat is not a bad chopper but I fail to see it as an Apache replacement.
@NAB
pretty much agree with your posts
LikeLike
Agree with Mark here ” Fast jets can with today’s pods, rover and precision weapons sit well above aaa and manpads to deliver cas an attack helicopter can’t that the benefit the fj brings in higher threat areas. They are complimentary capability.”
But as for Paveway IV, I saw an incredibly late ISD posted somewhere, anyone know about that one?
LikeLike
I was hoping somebody would look at what happens if we do nothing.
SImon you should not think of the cost per airframe but rather by capability. If we need to spend this money to extend the capability to 2040 then is it the cheapest and best way to do so?
Looking at it per airframe and adding on capability upgrades would see some staggeringly expensive F15s flying 🙂
LikeLike
NaB, agree it is more a service and compatability upgrade than a peformance upgrade.
BTW Simon, MQ-9s tend to only carry 2-4 Hellfires, not the full load, so it is only approx. 6-12 air to ground for the force of 3. They do it as anything heavier cuts into the endurance.
As for America’s lost Stingers, you can safely rule them out. Those things have a battery designed to KO after a decade. I’d be more worried about how many Iglas and Grails the Russians have exported. Those things can last for a while.
Keep the Apache, it is still too useful to let go.
LikeLike
APATS,
You’re right of course about my costing per airframe. It’s not really the final cost it’s the poor decision making that lead to a disparity between Boeing’s plans and Westland’s.
Seems we pay forever more to re-learn the same old lessons.
Observer,
Regarding the Hellfire on MQ-9… 😉 But 16 Hellfire on Apache gives a pretty poor radius of action in comparrison. Much, much better to put 12 on it and carry a bag of fuel (40% more efficient in terms of deployable air power).
Ahh, I give up. Apache is great. There’s no denying it. Shame we tend to pay through the nose for things though!
LikeLike
@Monty
Would following a similar development path of the EC 725 that the South Koreans have (the KUH-1 Surion) that have several variants that include maritime and an attack helicopter be the future for the UK’s rotary fleet?
LikeLike
Wasn’t the Comanche also put forward originally? Not relevant now but just improving accuracy.. 🙂
LikeLike
Apas
Very true.
Acc
Paveway IV I assume you mean on fast jets I believe it will be available on typhoon this year and its already on tornado.
LikeLike
There’s been a lot of emphasis on the number of HELLFIRE and CRV-7 shot off. However, in combat, our WAH-64s have also used their guns a lot. That gun, coupled to the impressive stabilised optics and HMS make for a highly discriminating, persistant and lethal combination that no other platform in our service can currently match – an M3P door gun on a Wildcat simply doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. If we take the sensible approach and adopt a laser guided 70mm rocket system rather than LMM, we’d have an airframe that could pack no fewer than 76 guided missiles and up to 1200 30mm rounds. The Apache may be expensive, but it’s a truly versatile, responsive, survivable and effective weapon system. and one I’d be loathed to give up.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark, ” its already on tornado.”
Paveway IV (as a diverging investment path for the same weapon between the US and UK ) was a great success story in Libya… Just that some one here lumped it together with the 2017 ISD for Meteor (now a fact) and AESA on Typhoon (don’t know for that, but isn’t it enough to prove that it works on whatever batch of Typhoons, and then , if need be, they can all be upgraded plenty quick?).
LikeLike
Chris Werb,
Do you actually put 1200 rounds in it? I thought that was what made it jam up?
LikeLike
The strongest argument for retaining Apache is surely preventing someone, somewhere coming out with a cunning plan to spend trillions and decades trying to get Wildcat to deliver a hundredth of the capability!
LikeLike
Craig certainly has a point!!!!
LikeLike
@ Simon,
Well Reaper lacks radar, so that’s one down for a start.
I don’t think we can really over state the value of having a platform that will hover in a semi-concealed position, assessing the target, and engage multiple targets from that position. And that’s one part of its role. The flexibility offered by the choice of missiles, rockets or guns gives Apache a massive advantage over something like Reaper.
LikeLike
RE “The flexibility offered by the choice of missiles, rockets or guns gives Apache a massive advantage over something like Reaper.”
– imagine one side having reapers and the other apaches… no contest
Now: both sides having AHs, then they would make it the first priority to hunt each other down, before doing all the stuff they are there for (Apaches having Stingers, don’t know what the equivalent is on the choppers supplied from the East (Russia/ China).
– as a curiosity, the Turkish competition was entered into by a Russian airframe with all Western avionics and all Israeli weapon systems… the Italians only won, because the technology transfer was maximised thereby
LikeLike
Apache has flexibility in basing and the benefit of not requiring a satellite system and can be sent were ever we wamt it but I’m less sure about some of the other criticism. From the raf
“The Reaper baseline system has a robust sensor suite for targeting. Imagery is provided by an infrared (IR) sensor, a colour/monochrome daylight electro-optical (EO) TV and an image-intensified TV. The video from each of the imaging sensors can be viewed as separate video streams or fused with the IR sensor video. The laser rangefinder/designator provides the capability to precisely designate targets for laser-guided munitions. Reaper also has Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) to provide an all weather capability”
It standoff ability to assessing targets is not exactly poor and it does use hellfire and bombs with a signifcant loiter time and faster speed.
LikeLike
What if we replaced both Apache and F35b? The savings would be enormous!
Hmmm… I wonder what that would look like [queue the harp, and shimmer fade to jpeg].
LikeLike
ACC
Yes Turkey was only interested in something they could licence produce a variant of. They had run a previous competition won by the AH1Z Viper but could not agree tech transfer. I had heard though that the Israeli industries Hokum version was eliminated on cost grounds early in the competition.
LikeLike
Yes ” heard though that the Israeli industries Hokum version was eliminated on cost grounds early in the competition.”
But it does not stop there: at the time of the Peace Armada, Turkish UAVs were flown by the Israelis… so that stopped right there and then
But they were also heling to design/build the Turkish UAV, Anka, That stopped there and then as well.
The Phantoms are only the mainstay of the air force, because they were cleverly updated in Israel… I wonder, if they installed an extra “off” switch somewhere there
LikeLike
There’s too much agreement in this thread. TOO MUCH! 🙂
LikeLike
“The Bronco was a Tri-service development, and in fact has something to offer every service. Let’s recap some of the things a Bronco can do :- It has a speed of 305 knots -twice that of a helicopter and can carry 2400lb (more than a ton) ordinance. It’s tougher than a helicopter and can take off in just 345m (1,130ft). The turret configuration I propose for the Super Bronco allows fire equal in accuracy to that of a helicopter. Roles that a Bronco can perform include :- observation, surveillance, patrol, FAC, artillery spotter, Casevac, personnel and cargo transport, helicopter escort, gunship and ground attack bomber.”
“The Super Bronco can also serve as a helicopter killer -because of the turreted weapons many of the helicopter’s usual defensive tactics against fixed wing aircraft simply won’t work. The Bronco doesn’t need to dive to keep its guns trained on a helicopter, or even fly towards the helicopter to fire on it.”
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bronco.html
LikeLike
“Apaches having Stingers, don’t know what the equivalent is on the choppers supplied from the East”
That would be Igla or Vympel (Gimlets and Archers for NATO accustomed guys) armed Havocs.
LikeLike
Is there any way to keep the apache with out the upgrade. I see a lot of nations like Sngapore still operating far older versions than we are operating now yet we are lead to believe our aircraft that are just over a decade old are ready for the scrap head with out a near £1 billion upgrade. unite simply we can’t afford this upgrade and their are far more vital capabilities requiring the money. I really can’t believe Boeing will pull the plug on the version we are using. They are still supporting RC135 built in the 1960’s. We should keep these helicopters for as long as we can with out the upgrade then replace them when they can’t be flown any more. we should take the same view with a lot of our other kit as well like Typhoon tranche 1, challenger 2 and warrior.
LikeLike
It’s not a matter of supporting them today, it’s to do with supporting them in 10 years time, so the current age of Singapore’s aircraft is not relevant.
No-one actually knows the cost of an upgrade in any case, that’s what the Assessment Phase is trying to work out.
It’s not a case of Boeing pulling the plug, it’s more a case of what they charge to provide that support. Someone, somewhere has to acquire the component level spares and consumables to keep the birds airworthy and support any software components of them and that will cost money too. The trade-off is whether that amount is more or less than the upgrade and subsequent support.
RC135 is a 50s design. But it’s airframe and components are (I believe) mostly analogue and mechanical, so provided they are within “life”, no dramas. Vulcan to the Sky are the same with XH558, but that isn’t cheap and is only possible because there is next to no software-driven kit on the aircraft. It’s where you get software involved, particularly in safety-critical systems like flight control that age of components becomes a big issue. RC135 is far from cheap to support (it’s just the US are or have been prepared to pay that price) and the mission system is upgraded every ten years or so as well.
LikeLike
I take it that it is not an urban legend that the early UK Chinooks received the advanced radar warning sets from the Vulcans?
Re “there is next to no software-driven kit on the aircraft.”
Common sense, but most of the time technological advances are such that “recycling” hardly ever applies
LikeLike
Don’t know abour RWR on the Wokka. Point is there’s no need for one on XH558, so VTST don’t have to get it certified for airworthiness.
LikeLike
Getting rid in favour of some sort of sort-of-maybe thing with one or two rockets on a drone sounds very much like concentrating on “Afghan stuff” with a year or so to go before final drawdown.
LikeLike
Another angle are 18 Puma worth more than upgrading all Apache?
LikeLike
@swimming trunks
just wondered if the bronco needs a 1130ft take off run, how did it work on USS Saipan?
LikeLike
just wondered if the bronco needs a 1130ft take off run, how did it work on USS Saipan?
Probably didn’t operate fully loaded.
LikeLike
“Another angle are 18 Puma worth more than upgrading all Apache?”
Never in a million years! (Unless you work for one particular organisation…..)
“just wondered if the bronco needs a 1130ft take off run, how did it work on USS Saipan?
Probably didn’t operate fully loaded.”
Don’t forget, the runway can move at 20kts, plus whatever natural wind is available……
LikeLike
Performance(A: OV-10A/C/E/F; B: OV-10B; C: OV-10B; D: OV-10D, with internal 20 mm ammunition only):
Takeoff Run:A, at normal weight: 740 ft (226 m)
B, at 12,000 lb (5,443 kg): 1,130 ft (344 m)
C, at 12,000 lb (5,443 kg): 550 ft (168 m)
D, at 13,284 lb (6,025 kg): 1,110 ft (338 m)
Landing Run:
A, at normal weight: 740 ft (226m)
A, at overload weight: 1,250 ft (381 m)
D, at landing weight: 800 ft (244 m)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco
LikeLike
if you search you tube for ov-10 rough landing trials then up pops a rather good vid i may attach it to the end of this. My contacts with the apache are thinning out (better life outside the wire it would seem) however it seems the block 3 is better engines (not needed by wah) gearbox, and composite blades, then internally one of the main features is the ability to control a UAV from the helo, do we really need that? Also better data links to other friendlies ie sending target aqs to ground forces
An idea that came to me in “pauls world” (you should visit it’s fun) would be Mr apache hiding 3-4kms from the nasties collecting all the info on the longbow and then something like the bronco (ie rough strip STOL) being beamed that data as they come past and then whacking the nasties followed up by the slower apache to finish off. Obviously the main drawback would be the bunfight about who flies the bronco type aircraft! edit the vid is fun from0.50 onwards
LikeLike
NaB,
“Don’t forget, the runway can move at 20kts, plus whatever natural wind is available”
Too true. With a 30 knot headwind you’ll probably be in the air without even starting the engines 🙂
LikeLike
Awesome video on the Bronco:
http://xbradtc.com/2013/06/01/ov-10-bronco-in-perspective/
And proposal to equip with 106mm RR!
http://xbradtc.com/2013/06/05/what-might-have-been-broncos-and-106mm-rcls/
LikeLike
@Nab and x re Puma upgrade – my understanding that retaining Puma is really to do maintaining helo numbers and maintaining a platform that is suitable to lift a Patrol sized unit + kit into spot too large for a Chinook/Merlin.
LikeLike
” platform that is suitable to lift a Patrol sized unit + kit into spot too large for a Chinook/Merlin.”
Errr? Don’t worry, know what you meant!
X & I both know what the excuse is, we just question why the solution to that requirement isn’t retaining SK HC4. And the actual question was whether Apache upgrade or Puma upgrade was better vfm.
LikeLike
@ Tom
I am very familiar with the reasons for retaining Puma. I think the size issue is a bit of red herring. Though Merlin is a big aircraft you are talking only a difference of what 10 feet difference in rotar diameter? Are we really saying that our helicopter needs are so nuicanced we need to fill that niche? Not too big or not too small. Because really the difference between the two from a safety and operating space point of view is negligible when you come to consider LZs. You have to remember Merlin was designed to be flyable from frigate decks working in an urban environment (one of the supposed reasons) shouldn’t be a problem. And if it is a problem for Merlin then those problems would be there for Puma too. Further you could approach the argument the other way and say we could buy more Wildcat instead of Puma. We could for £600m buy 24 Wildcat that would have a much longer service life than 15 years. The problem there is who flies Wildcat and who supports Wildcat. Setting that against Apache that will be in use for at least 20 years approaching 30 years. Now as I have said somewhere above if Puma was being refurbed for a specific use, say to give CVF an organic vertrep / trooping capability, then it would be worth it. A specific use in support of a strategic defence project. Retaining Puma just so we can move a multiple if the aircraft is in theatre (perhaps maybe) isn’t worth it. And if it a question of helicopters numbers then as I have said buy 24 Wildcat. NaB is probably right. The argument is between the Army being able to inflict extreme violence on the HMtQ’s enemies for 30 years, or the RAF being able to keep 18 pilot slots open to move troops about for 15 years.
LikeLike
x
Do remember that the Pumas has been operating in environments where other helicopters haven’t (SK could not operate as well in the Kenyan dusts as Puma did), or have not been sent due to pressure on other areas. Puma has had the thankless task of fulfilling the training and other smaller posts (such as NI and Kenya) whilst the more capable assets (SK, Merlin and Chinook) have been heavily in demand.
I cant seeing an extra few lynx filling its hole. Though I agree that new Merlins would have been better, keep the current as RAF and new build CHF, enabling a smoother navalisation rather than a ad-hoc modification… that or keep a smaller number (perhaps the ex-Danish) for a CSAR squadron like the US, French and Germans.
LikeLike
No no no Mike, surely you must understand that it is all a light blue conspiracy, you should have known better
LikeLike
Just thought I would throw in another interesting Bronco related link, this one from a few days ago
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/
LikeLike
@ Mile
I know what Puma can and can’t do. The question here is what is the better value Apache or Puma? What has the longer life? Can savings be made? If we can cover the cost of upgrading all of Apache and say increase slightly Widlcat numbers then it is a win. There is too much overlap from above and below to make Puma viable when the budget could be used in other ways. Let’s not forget who and whose stuff Puma moves around the most. I think there is niche for CH53 for CVF ; it won’t happen. There are lots of niches. We can’t fill them all. £600million would be what just over 12 new Merlins? Lots of choices. It’s not far off three quarters of the cost of CVF F35b air group.
What you have to remember at the end of the day is the RAF are getting 18 Puma. What we write here as no bearing on real life.
LikeLike
Of course X 🙂
Just that I do feel the Puma is being bashed simply on its age and size, without people looking at the role its played whilst the bigger assets have been on higher profile operations. I am sure there had been similar arguments when the SK came up for an upgrade… Overlaps aren’t particularly a bad thing, especially when you look further into the operations of it – though of course its a double edged sword.
I do feel that Puma has a place, though my stance is that Apache certainly has a bigger place, and that if puma could have been sacrificed for it, then I see a case for that. But the green and light blue powers that be saw a reason to keep the old cab and upgrade it, and I don’t think the reason is solely the lazy “Evil RAF” fanboi excuse. I do feel we have the chance to develop them into a CSAR asset to fill a hole we have had for too long.
But I do agree with your logic, just that I feel there is more to it; totally agree with your final statement C:
LikeLike
Apaches. Broncoes. Pumas. I thought we were replacing everything with F35s 🙂
Where there’s a niche there’s a sale. Blast, I should have copyrighted that!
http://www.defencetalk.com/south-korea-opens-bidding-on-7-3-bn-fighter-jet-deal-48154/
Haven’t we just sold them some Wildcats, or was that Singapore? I get confused east of Accrington. Anyway, Puma is RAF, Apache is army and as we all know, when it comes to budgets, never the twain shall meet. If you scrap Puma will one penny saved go to Apache?
LikeLike
How many Blackhawk would £600m buy us? 30?
Ditch Puma. Make do and mend Apache.
Transfer Chinook to the AAC.
Transfer all Wildcat to FAA.
Army = Chinook, Apache and Blackhawk
Navy = Merlin and Wildcat
RAF = no copters – they’re an air-force not a taxi service.
LikeLike
I agree with the idea that retaining the much younger Merlin’s in RAF service to fit the medium sized helo role in a complimentary fashion to the larger Chinook (doing training, special forces insertion etc) in favour of the Puma would have been a sensible choice and prevented the prolonged and tricky naval modification programme we are now seeing.
However…..obviously that raises the problem of what would have replaced the Commando Sea King’s. How much are new build Merlin’s these days? I know doing things that way wouldn’t have been cheaper, but does anyone have any idea how much say 30 new Merlin’s would have cost and how does it compare to what we could have saved on the Puma upgrade programme?
LikeLike
@Simon
I don’t necessarily disagree with you’re proposal (although I would ideally look to keep the number of aircraft types lower by purchasing more Merlin instead of Blackhawk) but the problem as I see it is that the money for the Puma upgrade must have surely already been spent?
LikeLike
I thought the Puma upgrade contract was for £340 million not 600? The Puma actually has a smaller footprint than even a UH60 but seems roomier inside, to me anyway. Dont be surprised if we keep a few C130 in service after A400?comes in for the same users.
LikeLike
I suppose we’re looking at the total savings from not doing the Puma upgrade (which I think is already in progress) and not upgrading Apache.
It’s possible there’s in the order of £1b in that bucket. Enough for a proper fleet of Blackhawk. Or to reopen the SK production line. Or to buy a spattering of overpriced HN90s.
I think you’re right with the size thing though.
LikeLike
People on here have apparently nearly doubled the puma upgrade budget
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121114/DEFREG01/311140006/RAF-Delays-Timetable-Field-Upgrade-Puma-Helo
Still would have binned it mind.
Funny you mention retaining hercules apas
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130618/SHOWSCOUT02/306180019/Lockheed-Talks-3-Countries-Sell-Sea-Hercs-
LikeLike
@ Mike
“Just that I do feel the Puma is being bashed simply on its age and size, without people looking at the role its played whilst the bigger assets have been on higher profile operations. I am sure there had been similar arguments when the SK came up for an upgrade… Overlaps aren’t particularly a bad thing, especially when you look further into the operations of it – though of course its a double edged sword.”
£600million that could be spent on two platforms we are retaining beyond Puma’s OSD. Puma does fill lots of niches. Spent a lot of time reading about African bush wars. Puma/Oyrx is Africa’s helicopters; even have a copy of the book on the subject of helicopter war in the Dark Continent, Chopper Boys. Top heavy. Not perfect. But what is?
“I do feel that Puma has a place, though my stance is that Apache certainly has a bigger place, and that if puma could have been sacrificed for it, then I see a case for that. But the green and light blue powers that be saw a reason to keep the old cab and upgrade it, and I don’t think the reason is solely the lazy “Evil RAF” fanboi excuse. I do feel we have the chance to develop them into a CSAR asset to fill a hole we have had for too long.”
Decisions are rarely made purely for logical objective reasons, politics and tribalism play there part too. I wouldn’t trust the judgement of anybody who doesn’t understand that about human society. Organisations display human traits because they are composed of humans. You don’t get far by talking yourself out of work or by suggesting somebody else can do the job better.
As you know I don’t think there is much logic in the way the UK operate’s its battlefield helicopters. The French, Italians, Spanish, and US armies all operate large helicopters. As there is no Puma replacement in sight I wonder if it would be better for the RAF to jettison to the tactical end to the Army and just operate Chinook (as the in-theatre shuttle aircraft).
If CSAR is needed then again Puma wouldn’t be the way to go would it when we have a large Merlin force? Um. What is replacing SK in the FI for SAR?
“But I do agree with your logic, just that I feel there is more to it; totally agree with your final statement C:”
As our friend young Philip is fond to tell us there is no such thing as a budget for each service. That £600m being spent on Puma means we aren’t spending £600m on something else. What Puma does can easily be done by something else we have. What Apache does can also be done by something else; but not as easily and easily not as well.
LikeLike
X.
Where has £600 million come from? Everything I van find indicates a price of about £340 million.
LikeLike
I shall go to check. I am sure it is £600m. If it is only £300m I shall only be only half as outraged. 🙂
Still a chunk of change…….
LikeLike
Yes £340 million.
But I have had to read PPRUNE so I will claim £240million in compensation.
I am worried that the UAE’s Puma LEP with Romanians was problematic. And then the Puma accident rate is a bit sobering.
LikeLike
x
You could alternatively have clicked the link 4 posts up.
LikeLike
@ Mark
Sorry. 😦
£340 million would still have bought 24 AW139. One less passenger but quicker, longer range, better climb rate, etc. and so on. Probably cheaper to run to boot.
LikeLike
Transfer Chinook to the AAC.
What on earth for? It makes zero sense to go through moving all those mountains and spending all that money to get what – exactly the same capability (actually probably severely reduced capability as the transition happens). Utterly pointless and nothing other than service squabbling over who gets what shiny toy. What is the case for this move other than to look good on an internet ORBAT list?
LikeLike
Still would have binned it mind.
So what is the official rationale for keeping it? All this bashing but seldom are the reasons for doing something analysed, it’s straight into the criticisms. I’m agnostic about it I don’t really care either way but it would be interesting to know from the horses mouth why we are spending money on it – clearly there must be some compelling reason. Now people might think the reason is garbage but what is it?! I imagine it has a lot of financial undertones and also the fact it requires a smaller HLS than a Chinook or Merlin – quite a bit smaller indeed.
LikeLike
X
340 million May buy 24 AW139 but in a military configuration with the upgraded DAS, modern secure military comms and ballistic protection incorporated into HC2.
The Hc2 also sees an engine upgrade that talks about carrying twice the load three times as far due to improved efficiency/power and greater fuel capacity.
Add in the costs of pilot retraining, simulators and support contracts and how many operational military variant AW139 do you think you can really get for £30 million?
LikeLike
My other concern is we spend money on Puma and it turns into another Jaguar.
The latter was probably the best refit programme of its type. Pragmatic. Good value. And then it gets dumped.
LikeLike
Typo in my last post should have read 340 million not 30.
LikeLike
The puma upgrade is real value for money but because its RAF the dark blue see conspiracy behind everything. It is however a short term thing so you might argue long term there might have been better options
If you remember some time ago we had an RAF merlin aircrew come on and explain why puma was being upgraded and it all sounded plausible to me but then I haven’t got a chip on my shoulder
LikeLike
@ APATS
It is just easier to share the amount by unit cost. Seeing as “we” are going with Puma it doesn’t matter does it? I could have said we could buy 18 leaving £88million for training. I should hope £88 million would cover pilot OCU for 24 pilots (say) seeing as these bods are all cleared for large multi-engined aircraft. And enough to train the core of the maintainers. And lets not forget I was on about scrapping the capability, so I would have saved £340 million any way.
LikeLike
@TD
Excuse me, I have been defending it!
@x
You are still going to get a less capable non military aircraft at that price.
LikeLike
My apologies apats, it was a quick response on a mobile device 🙂
The only thing I would say is that it is a short term option so long term, less ‘strategic’
LikeLike
“The puma upgrade is real value for money but because its RAF the dark blue see conspiracy behind everything. It is however a short term thing so you might argue long term there might have been better options”
I wonder how much “value” is actually added? You’re talking about 18 cabs (for which MAR has not yet been achieved btw) which are just about able to lift a section into a small HLS that will last until 2028.
Compare and contrast with (for example) running on SK HC4 with the Carson mod and keeping the SK IOS contract live until Crowsnest ISD (or indeed bringing Crowsnest forward). That doesn’t mean binning CHF at the end, because the requirement to provide sustained embarked air will still remain (unless of course you’ve a chip on your shoulder and think all air should be light blue!), but it gives more time to look at HC3 marinisation costs and alternatives.
I remain unconvinced by the HLS size argument. There’s about 4m diff in the rotor diameter, a bit less in the length rotors turning. You might get a little less scatter in a lighter more powerful cab, but it ain’t going to make much more than 5 or 6 m difference in HLS overall. If it’s good in Kenya, great, HTUFT it. It doesn’t need to be mil.
It is all academic of course. But it ain’t dark blue paranoia that makes it look a little less than best vfm…….
LikeLike
NAB
Eurocopter were awarded a contract to support 24 cabs 2 weeks ago. One of my neighbours was an RAF ex Puma Wcdr last year and he told me that the whole HLS thing was SF driven. They also like the height of the cab, unlike the pilots.
I really railed against the decision but almost every rotary wing “operator” I have spoken to has told me it was the best option.
LikeLike
@ APATS
Seeing as was also talking about more Merlin and Wildcat, modern miliatry aircraft, instead of getting Puma I think I grasp that. AW139M seems to roughly equate to Puma.
LikeLike
Will have to dig out the older comments but from memory one of the reasons was not hls size but separation in flighht – I also expect dsf had something to say on tyjhe matter and his opinion has weight. There is some older stuff on the Carson upgrade in the TD archives
LikeLike
Four engined Bronco proposal; appears to be for ASW:
LikeLike
@X
So how much is AW139M as nobody seems to have bought one? You quoted specific numbers based on a non comparable aircraft.
LikeLike
My opinion of the Puma is that it works ok, so why replace it with a new unfamiliar platform? With new things, you have to tear down the entire old logistics structure and rebuild a new parts inventory as well as train new staff to maintain the new platforms instead of using the knowledge built up by the “old guys” that can be taught hands on instead of “trained by manufacturer”.
There is always a risk getting new stuff, they might not work as planned. Is it worth increasing the risk that you might end up with nothing? Old is familiar, old is comforting, old is safe (logistics wise).
And yes TD, you may have a blade difference of 4m, 5m or x meters of your choice, but you don’t pack aircraft blade to blade, nasty things happen when you are that close, there is always a safety seperation of approx 100m regardless of if a bird is either a UH-1H or a Puma. Not sure if this is because of laziness though or if 125m(?) is much easier to remember than individual numbers for every specific platform type. Only the Chinook is different as that thing is much larger. And the 2 engines above the bay door throws out a hell lot of hot air.
And after a Chook, every other cab is “too small” 🙂 To be fair though, we were squeezing the Puma’s max load of 16 men most of the time, it was quite uncomfortable. No place to stretch your legs. Guess that is going to be common with all helos that don’t have a cargo bay, so it is pretty much a common constant over all the models.
“The whole HLS thing was SF driven.” Tell them to toss a rope over and bring their rapelling gloves.
LikeLike
@obsv
How does the Chinook compare internally to a CH53? Remember getting quite comfortable operating Chinook from the LPD and being amazed how much bigger a CH53 looked from both the bridge wing as it approached and on deck.
How much weight can you rapelll or fast rope with? The HLS allows the team to be deployed into an urban area with all gear, sometimes out of site of the situation.
Perhaps some of these HLS sites may be pre designated near possible high value urban targets and have a known size? Maybe!!!
LikeLike
No one whose ever done a SPIE infiltration would ever complain about helicopters being too small inside. I did one exercise once in North Carolina at the USMC base there. Utterly fucking terrifying. I recall being hoisted with some of the boys to about 1500 feet and thinking that I was hanging there suspended by standard 58 pattern webbing, a climbing harness and a couple of Italian made karabiners sourced from the lowest possible bidder.
(I don’t recall that much checking of kit or safety as is shown on the video. Basically, turn up, get into the climbing harness, hook up and away you went)
LikeLike
There was a £408m upgrade being made to the Chinooks at about the same time the decision was made to upgrade the pumas, so the money to purchase a new helicopter in numbers was never there. The decision was also a political decision as much as a military one, at the time weren’t the Labour government being dragged over the coals by the media and opposition over helicopter numbers and availability in Afghanistan at a time when IED casualties were rising.
I’d take the Puma over Wildcat any day, the latter’s choice was wrong for the army, it has no real utility other than armed recce/escort. I think for the price we could have chosen cheaper with true utility such as the Lakota the US purchased. The question should really be is Wildcat worth it for the army?
LikeLike
@RT
Screw that 🙂
Have been winched up solo from a Hunt to a SK MK 5 to get me ashore after a sea ride but nothing like that.
LikeLike
“How does the Chinook compare internally to a CH53?”
No idea, never tried a Stallion. The central open space bay in the middle of the CH-47 is wonderful for stretching your legs though, so I’m guessing without it, you’re stuck with keeping your feet close to yourself.
As for the rappelling weight limit, no idea really. The operating principle is that your back will give out before the equipment does, so if you can lug it, you can rappel with it. Fast roping, maybe not, the heavy weight might pull you backwards and off the line, so if you got a load, use a carabine. Fast roping is best done with only basic loadout w/o a fullpack.
RT, that looks fun! Never had a problem with heights, just leg cramps and DVT induced numbness. To each his own I guess.
LikeLike
Obs, APATS – “How does the Chinook compare internally to a CH53?”
Basic dimensions (not accounting for lumps bumps & tapers) are the same for height & width, but CH-47 has 6 inches more quoted length. For the CH-47 this is defined as cargo floor length, and while the Sikorsky data I have doesn’t define it as such I’d guess the quoted 30ft is floor length too. Looks like these two aircraft might have been designed to meet the same requirement.
For quite a few years it seemed USAF and USMC/USN would select competing designs from DoD competitions; USAF select F-16 and USN F-18, USN select F-14 and USAF F-15. In this case it seems USAF picked CH-47 and USMC CH-53. This may be a false perception, but it does really look like it was the case.
LikeLike
“This may be a false perception, but it does really look like it was the case.”
The helos originate from the days before “joint” requirements – essentially the individual services could write their own and then procure kit against it. The US ARMY procured CH47 in the early 60s (yes it’s that old) and the USMC requirement for CH53 (Sea not Super) stallion dates from the same period.
AFAIK there were no “fly-off” competitions because they were different requirements – F14 and F15 originated from very different places and the F16 vs F18 were separated by a decade and a complete change of the YF17 to get to F18.
LikeLike
Haven’t posted a comment on this website for quite a long time…
I think that we should try to keep all 66 Apaches in service with the Army. Do they really need upgrading? Is it vital… No they can still do the job expected of them without being upgraded, this will save us quite a lot of money.
On the other hand if we do retire some Apaches I think with the money we save we should invest into a small fleet of 15-30 A-10 Thunderbolt’s. They will be cheap as the US is retiring some and they are getting quite old. The USAF is trying to keep the A-10’s in service until the 2040’s! The A-10 has proved itself in the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’m certain that they will prove themselves in future conflicts. They will also take some workload off the F-35B’s that we will be getting.
LikeLike
Well welcome back Mark 2
LikeLike
Just my positive two-penneth about Puma…
It can do its job on one engine if necessary. I now suddenly realise why it makes so much sense for SF. Added to that a relatively low disc loading (bold, so that people know I don’t mean just get home).
However, can I point out that this “upgrade” (at £340m) is hardly an upgrade. That’s £14m per cab! That’s Blackhawk money… for a brand-spanking new one!
LikeLike
@ APATS
“Seeing as was also talking about more Merlin and Wildcat, modern military aircraft, instead of getting Puma I think I grasp that.”
This was a hypothetical discussion about how the Puma refurb money could have been spent. I speculated about the unit cost of a comparable new aircraft. I appreciate that there is more to buying anything than just the windshield price. Seeing as the cost for Puma is roughly the same cost as a new comparable aircraft I think it bares noting. It also worth noting when that £14m per unit is compared to aircraft we have in service. The programme is going ahead. I am just commenting on a defence blog that will have 0 impact on how decisions are made. I apologised for getting the cost wrong.
“AW139M seems to roughly equate to Puma.”
I meant in specifications I should have qualified that. Sorry again.
LikeLike
“It can do its job on one engine if necessary.”
Most helicopters are designed for this, so it’s hardly a unique selling point. More sales marketing than special feature.
“For the CH-47 this is defined as cargo floor length, and while the Sikorsky data I have doesn’t define it as such I’d guess the quoted 30ft is floor length too.”
It’s more than this, the central aisle is usually left empty so there is space to stretch your legs, it is actually the width of the cargo bay that helps with ergonomics as you are seated along the sides, but as mentioned, it is a guess as I’ve never inserted by CH-53 before. As for cargo bay length, the CH-47 has an advantage because it doesn’t have a tail, the bay stretches all the way to the back whereas the CH-53’s terminates early to taper off into a tail. Of course, not everyone is going to be as anal as I am on leg room, it’s just a personal problem that having my legs trapped in small confined spaces makes me seriously uncomfortable, other people will have their own favourite criteria.
LikeLike
I appear to have lost my trunks last time – how embaressing! I sincerely apologise…
RE: A-10. Awesome aircraft. I do like the idea of the Low in a Hi-Lo mix being a dedicated attack/ground support aircraft (see what I did there? 🙂 )However, the A-10 is old now and could a future CAS aircraft be built which could survive in future high end Air Defence AND be affordable?
LikeLike
I think the A10 is one of the most over rated aircraft ever
There, said it!
LikeLike
Obs – both cargo bays are listed as 2.3m wide and 2m high (not accounting for those lumps bumps & tapers). CH-53 flyer states capacity for 55 passengers along with 3 crew. As for length, the boxy part of CH-53 fuselage is much the same size as CH-47 – the tail of the 53 extends 20ft further rearwards.
I’d draw a picture if the editor permitted…
LikeLike
Ref A-10. Another one from the rumour mill. The US competition for the tank buster aircraft was between Fairchild (eventual winner) and Northrop who put forward YA-9:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9
Shortly after the competition went to Fairchild, Sukhoi turned up with the Su-25 (NATO Frogfoot) which has an significant resemblance to the YA-9:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25
Some wags at the time did voice suspicions that the resemblance was much more than coincidence, but then again this was the time when Embassy ‘attaches’ were being deported almost weekly from Washington & Moscow so maybe some YA-9 data became attached to one of the attaches…
LikeLike
” the CH-47 has an advantage because it doesn’t have a tail, the bay stretches all the way to the back whereas the CH-53′s terminates early to taper off into a tail.”
The CH53 has a rear ramp, so the cargo area doesn’t taper off.
” the central aisle is usually left empty so there is space to stretch your legs”
I wish someone had told the army that when I was in. Maybe they wouldn’t have given me all that crap to carry.
LikeLike
@TD
Agree completely. The A-10 would have done a good job against tanks relatively early in its service. I think the double digit SAMs would have made its life very hard. It has found a second life as a fantastic COIN aircraft due to its ability to loiter and low MX needs. But a front line combat aircraft against a near peer it is not.
More than that weapons developments (Brimstone, CBU-97) have let other aircraft be better at the role the A-10 was designed to do. I think the USAF made the right call to basically just keep the A-10 around in limited numbers for as long as they can as a COIN aircraft.
LikeLike
” the A-10 is old now and could a future CAS aircraft be built which could survive in future high end Air Defence AND be affordable?”
If that’s alluding to a requirement to be a super magical invisible flying wing, ST, then forget it. However, an intelligent ‘signature aware’ design shouldn’t break the bank.
Vintage classics, like the Thunderbolt, Bronco and Pucara would all benefit from modern design & manufacture and the use of modern composites if you were to build new versions of essentially the same planes today.
LikeLike
@BB
They would be cheaper but in what way would they even be as survivable?
LikeLike
TD please
The A 10 has had to fight for it’s existence ever since the USAF decided it could not put the SkyRaider back into production.
Throughout the 70’s and 80’s the USAF kept trying to cut it and buy more F16’s. (Nothing to do with F16 being fast, or pointy, sexy looking, high tech, no nothing at all no no no….)
The shear utility of the A 10 design overrode such attempts. The figures for the number of vehicles destroyed in gulf 1 speak for themselves. The gun was probably a bit of a mistake but as a guided ground attack / rocket carrier it hauls a lot of stuff, is a stable platform, and compared to other aircraft of that type relatively cheap to operate . Regardless of ‘battle damage’, its strength makes it durable and easy to fix.
Could it have withstood a high threat environment probably not: – but remember the Apache got it’s arse kicked in Gulf 2 when it tried to ‘slug it out’ en mass with an Iraqi Armoured formation. So that’s a problem with every ground attack platform- theses days those on the ground can ‘attack’ back.
LikeLike
“I wish someone had told the army that when I was in. Maybe they wouldn’t have given me all that crap to carry.”
You don’t shove your kit under the canvas seat?
“The CH53 has a rear ramp, so the cargo area doesn’t taper off.”
I meant the fuselage tapers off into the tail after the cargo bay terminates in a bay door, but since Chris said the dimensions quoted were for the cargo bay only, guess it is a moot point. As long as I got space to move my legs.
LikeLike
” Just my positive two-penneth about Puma… It can do its job on one engine if necessary”
This one jumped out I thought that the pumas single engine reputation was infamous.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood. Perhaps someone can enlighten me:
If the Apache is so awesome and desirable why is the Warthog so overrated and obsolescent?
Truth is both are great in the sand pit, and both are toast against a peer competitor with a decent MANPAD, let alone double digit SAM.
But we are leaving the sand pit, and we need to consolidate around kit which serves all levels of requirement. Therefore, just as in our debate about buying second rate patrol vessels, where we concluded (if I remember correctly) that we should first invest in a much larger complement of full fat Type 26s, why should we continue to support Apache at all? Why are they not a sexy distraction, when we should be aiming for high fast air with high-end sensors and standoff weapons, plus stealthy (perching) drones and excellent forward air control?
Is close air support not an evolutionary dead end, which we should decline to afford where money is tight and we must also have high end strike capability?
Or is the status quo alright because:
a) Apache is Green, and the Light Blue would not buy Warthog
b) most likely there will be more sand pits anyway, so carry on jogging
Shall I get me coat??
LikeLike
Hi, APATS.
” They would be cheaper but in what way would they even be as survivable?”
Every kg saved replacing the seasoned oak and nails that they were originally built with, with modern lightweight composites (I feel I should be using the word ‘nanotubes’ in here somewhere) is a kg that you can then use as ballistic protection for the crew and critical components.
Using composites can also help reduce the radar signature without really trying too hard. Wildcat, for example, uses a new composite tailboom and tailplanes that do just this. Even ye olde Lynx apparently benefited from fairings being changed during its life to use carbon fibres.
LikeLike
If you’re bringing up the GW1 as the exemplar of the A-10 then you’re barking up the wrong tree. The F-111 – using 500lb laser guided bombs – proved itself to be the premier method for “tank plinking”, something even Typhoon can do now. The F-16 had compatability with the Maverick missile by that point, but pilots at the time barely trained with it because of the not unreasonable expectation that the anti-tank role would be handled by A-10 and thus Maverick training was largely a waste of time.
Once the A-10 was pushed back to medium altitude operation for the most part it just became another one of the boys. Perhaps had a slight advantage in slow loiter, but such an advantage is off set by the inflexibility of the platform relative to something like F-16.
If you want an A-10 replacement these days you’re probably better off buying a B-52 or B-1, complete with targetting pod.
LikeLike
Sorry BB
I meant in comparison to an A10?
LikeLike
@ Chris B
The ardvaark certainly proved itself the safest way to tank plink. Can Typhoon now self designate? The ATO was rewritten 6 times to ensure they had target designators for their Libya “ground op” cue one very pissed off US 3 star:)
LikeLike
The A-10 would have done a good job against tanks relatively early in its service.
The Soviets would have clawed those things out of the sky and the smoke at the FEBA would have massively dented the performance of any left flying. They would have made the Fairey Battle look good.
Even primitive radar controlled AAA was going to smash those things as they came in on their shallow dive gun runs; and those that came in very shallow would probably either (a) not aquire their targets and or (b hit the deck.
Same for Harrier, same for Jaguar. Over-flying CAS in a high threat AAA environment is just madness.
LikeLike
@Phil
Casualty rates would have been bad but we ran exercises etc with far more sophisticated western systems and decided the effect that they would have achieved was worth it.
LikeLike
@ APATS,
I thought they’d bodged self designation onto Typhoon now, post-Libya? If not, it’s at least something that Typhoon will acquire in the next few years.
LikeLike
@IXION
I don’t think the situation is really that clear. The A-10 did have to fight for its life, that is true. And it did have a useful role. And yes, the A-10 was successful in GW1. But people often tend to forget that it was pulled off the most critical mission (killing Republican Guard Tanks in the leadup to the ground offensive) in favor of F-16’s and other “sexy” aircraft because they were getting shot up pretty badly and those other aircraft were not. But the real death knell for the A-10 is honestly the advancement of munitions for dealing with ground targets. For the US SDB-II and CBU-97 have taken over its role in a lot of major conflicts. It is still a great COIN aircraft as it s intimidating as hell if it opens up near you with its gun though.
@Ant
Apache can, for lack of a better term, stay well below the engagement horizon of a lot the more capable SAM systems. The ability to stop and loiter in the trees is huge for the aircraft.
The A-10 necessitates a much more comprehensive SEAD campaign to work at full capability in my opinion. It needs a lot more altitude to effectively engage targets than a helo does. That brings area and divisional level air defense assets into play to a much larger degree. Sure an Apache group could blunder right across the middle of an S-300 system and have its day ruined but those are the breaks. The radar horizon for finding a helo operating 30 feet off the ground is pretty short. Finding an A-10 at 5,000 feet is a lot simpler.
Doing the A-10’s job in the future for the USAF will involve fast jets dropping CBU-97’s with WCMD’s from 15 KM’s or more away after being cued onto targets by JSTARs or whatever replaces it. Strikes on individual tanks will be made from 30,000 feet or more with SDB II leveraging its tri-mode seeker. Weapons took away the thing the A-10 was best at in the end.
LikeLike
@Chris b
One hopes so but sure that Mark or topman will be able to tell us.
LikeLike
Typhoon the aircraft could self designate since about 2007. Crew currency at the time of libya is another matter.
Full integration of the targeting pod with aircraft and integration of it with the helmet should be available to all with p1e currently being integrated.
LikeLike
Chris b and others
A10 pilots would have told you by mid 80s diving attacks with the gun were no longer doctrine.
IT was as a maveric platform it excelled. BT W the b52 did a lot of damage as well! Yes i do stand by the A10 as a platform and an idea. Remember it is 40 odd years old as an idea Over 30 as a service platform.
After all that know nothing fool Hans Rudel was consulted in the design. So it must have been crap:)
LikeLike
Casualty rates would have been bad but we ran exercises etc with far more sophisticated western systems and decided the effect that they would have achieved was worth it.
I’m not convinced. The Soviets could throw up a lot of AAA and the A10 was just as vulnerable to that as a WWII Typhoon or Stuka as it comes in slow and steady to use its gun. I think the only way there’d have been any CAS a/c left flying within 48 hours of the balloon going up was because there was cloud. Even using the US JAAT tactics I still think casualties would have been horrendous (I imagine lots of the planes simply would have been taken out by artillery) because those tactics required an optimal amount of co-operation between ground components and air components in a chaotic and condensed battlefield heavy with ECM.
LikeLike
@Phil
I was trying to be nice. A-10 fans are often not rational. I think they might have done a bit better than you describe but it would have necessitated flying incredibly close to the ground to survive.
LikeLike
@Phil
My point exactly not something we would have designed but something we had which could have been sacrificed to chew up an attack.
LikeLike
Observer, re your willingness to try out the SPIE,
it’s not so much the height. When you think about it, parachutists get the same view when under the canopy, and I’ve done a very small amount of sport parachuting 25 years ago (15 jump course to very basic free fall).
The worry is that firstly you are secured only by a single point of contact (ie a knot tied by an airman to the underside of the helicopter). Secondly, you haven’t got direct control of the Kevin flying or the ability to jam your pistol into the back of his neck if he starts acting up. Thirdly is the possibility that he’ll fly so badly that the whole thing will develop a pendulum effect and the Kevin will either not be able to control it and so crash, or that to save his aircraft he’ll cut you loose, as is the drill for any other form of underslung operations. Fast-roping is not really an equivalent, as your are normally close to the ground and the Kevin is hovering. SPIE could be an hour or more and flying a considerable distance.
(My exercise flight was merely about 5 minutes, apparently on a standard and quite short 10? mile hop that the USMC use for introducing people to the idea)
I think the idea was developed by the USMC for getting Brigade Recce Teams into deep parts of the jungle in Vietnam, no prepared HLS etc, and given your locality, it may possibly still be of great use to your country. Possibly, you should use it to insert specially trained paramilitary firemen into Indonesia to put out the forest fires that seem to be afflicting Singapore so badly…. 😉
LikeLike
Of a generally depressing nature is the link someone posted above to the Bronco history.
The designer when talking numbers likely to be required by the three services involved.
USAF not interested……..
Until they discovered the Army wanted 100 then the USAF demanded 200! Twas ever thus….
But like the alleged Black Hawk conversation in the UK forces a few years back…..
LikeLike
I know it’s only in design stages but what do you guys think about the Taranis being an option for close air support in the future. The prototype version cost £143 million but if they enter production that’s bound to decrease. They will have low running costs because it’s a drone and they can stay airborne for quite a long period of time providing support for troops. No matter what anyone says the future of air power is a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft.
CAS of the future:
– F35B or Typhoon taking up a similar role to the Tornado in an Army Cooperation squadron
– Upgraded Apache or Apache replacement
– Taranis or other unmanned aircraft
LikeLike
Why do we need close air support from fixed wing of any type?
All we need is over the horizon targeting and that can be done by a variety of platforms, and with the new pods and optics it can be done from a good distance too.
Doesn’t make sense to me to strap bombs to a hundred million pound plane for it to drop essentially the same amount of HE to virtually the same level accuracy as a GMLRS rocket.
LikeLike
Phil
Going by that logic the army should be replacing challenger 2 with Stryker vehicles with a 120mm gun they deliver roughly the same affect after all.
LikeLike
@Mark2
‘They will have low running costs because it’s a drone ‘
Not always, some of them have high running costs, in manpower costs it’s quite high as well. Although as always costs are relievent to what it provides us, nevertheless I’m not sure anyone would describe them as cheap.
@ Phil
I suppose that depends on whether you have a GMLRS in range of everyone in need of CAS. You can easily reposition a FJ and quickly so.
LikeLike
@Phil
The SDSR’s main headline is ‘Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty’. It is correct, we do not know what we are going to be up against in the future so why not have CAS aircraft of all types? Fixed wing, rotary, unmanned etc…
LikeLike
@ Phil,
The other problem is what to do prior to the GMLRS being in range if you have no air support? In both GW you had air attacks softening up the enemy ground forces to a degree, especially the reserve elements and the supply network, prior to the engagement of ground forces. Those same weapon/platform combinations can then easily slip into the CAS when needed, for example when GMLRS is out of range or otherwise unavailable as mentioned above.
Artillery still king of the battlefield though I suspect.
LikeLike
Like when? Its enormously expensive and even in the Falklands at the arse end of a barely there supply chain on the islands the blokes still had mortars and artillery.
LikeLike
@ Phil,
You get a recce unit out run its artillery support, finds a nice juicy target, but is not inclined to have a pop itself. Call in the air. That’s just for a start.
If you look at the history of armed conflict since the arrival of semi-capable air attack such as in WW2, close air support has been heavily used even by units that had quite heavy artillery support. You can only lug so many rounds with you and if you have an attack planned for the next day, why waste good ammo that you’ll need in the thick of the fighting when you could call in air support? And once your attack has been underway a few hours and the artillery has burned through into a slightly conservate mode, air attack is an option for saving ammo. If your artillery supply is limited (in terms of number of tubes) air attack gives you extra firepower. And on the defensive air attack has proven its use, time and again especially in providing “danger close” fires.
LikeLike
@Topman, @Phil: the big “thing” with CAS was always that it delivered accurate firepower in the way that artillery and mortars didn’t. With the likes of guided artillery and UAV spotting, especially the stuff that that alters it’s trajectory to drop vertically, the requirement is definitely less, and even a relatively expensive guided round is a shedload more responsive and cheaper than running FJ or AH. CAS is going to migrate towards emergency and SF support tasks. Not that we’re all there yet….
LikeLike
@Mark2
“I know it’s only in design stages but what do you guys think about the Taranis being an option for close air support in the future. The prototype version cost £143 million but if they enter production that’s bound to decrease.”
I have some ocean front property in the central United States I would like to sell you my friend. I can guarantee that as they move from a first flying prototype to a full on combat system (assuming that ever happens) that the cost will go up and drastically so. To do what you talk about the thing would need integral targeting just to start with.
LikeLike
Air delivered v tube/rocket/ground launched missile delivered ‘CAS’ is one of the most interesting debates at the minute. Kit like GMLRS, Spike NLOS, guided mortar rounds and others are challenging both the effects, reaction times and cost of delivering HE by fast air and rotary
This is why I raised the question on this post, go back to capabilities and throw in a precision guided 120mm mortar (stand fast Jed), GMLRS, Exactor or even a loitering munition and the easy decision becomes somewhat less so
LikeLike
RT, not worried about the cargo hook, I’ve seen that thing lug a pack of bikes before and know for a fact that it can carry a triple pack of LSVs and 155mm guns, 4-8 men won’t even be noticable as weight. What might be more worrying is the pilot misjudging the height of the rope and flying with the guys below treetop level. 🙂 Gives “treehugging” a whole new meaning. OTOH, thought you knew by now, recce are all crazy.
And damn that slash and burn crap, seriously, every year it’s the same thing over and over, but this year happens to be the worst in history. Problem is that it is in a neighbouring country, we have no jurisdicture there. We really need to find a better/more economical way to clear the underbush than the traditional slash and burn and teach it to them, or shift to different crops that uses permanent crop fields instead of the overgrow, clear, overgrow method. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Could the CAS problem be mitigated by a reshuffle of assets and allocation of a SPH or 2 per combat team? With intrinsic fire support, we can rely less on calling for aircraft and more on using what is with the unit in the field already. This would mean an ad hoc grouping of 3 MBTs, 5 IFVs and 2 SPHs, which would be a decent force for tasking. Or a pair of 120mm 8x8s, which on further thought might be a better choice, 155mm might be overkill and better used for counterbattery than close fire support, the 8km of a mortar would be sufficient. Or an Exector 8 pack.
LikeLike
But there not really challenging them. You can with half a dozen jets or indeed helicopters based for example at bastion cover a cas reaction to the entire afghan theatre. You simply can’t do that with any form or artillery unless you half lots of it with supporting uavs or some such asset. The logistics effort ground commanders require to support that kind of coverage is far in excess of that required by assets based at the central main logistics base.
The jets can one day support a air defence mission, the next a longer range strike mission the next cas the next a recon task or conduct a number of those missions simultaneously over considerable range. As well they can effectively cover cas in an operation similar to Libya. Artillery does not have that flexibility or deployablity.
LikeLike
Actually Mark, they can’t. Any IAD defence net would demand FJs and AHs act more circumspectly to reduce losses, so you can’t simply just fly in, do the job and fly out. Most air attack missions end up needing escorts, wild wessels, strike package etc, so it is a whole hog effort, and sometimes not worth the trouble just for a single mission.
Why else would ground forces be the ones most often calling for CAS/arty if they were not the ones at the point of attack? Why not just let aircraft bomb every bit of military equipment they can find? Because enemy defences force them to operate carefully and not just go wild.
LikeLike
I can understand where CAS requirements came from. The A10 used to be about the only thing approaching precision, especially over the hill, and it was even more useful with Mavericks hung off it.
But now EVERYTHING that fights and flies in the west, is a precision strike platform. Who now needs a dedicated CAS aircraft when anything we currently fly and which can kill can strike using various precision munitions? Nobody I argue. But having everything that flies and fights as a precision dealer of death makes things far more expensive. And that is a game changer in my opinion.
As TD and others have pointed out there is a whole swathe of weapon systems, many with considerable range, that can deliver precision munitions at fractions of the cost of fixed wing. And fixed wing is not as wonderfully flexible as some here are making out – planes can’t just fly where they want they have to be de-conflicted with all manner of things that will ruin its day from artillery to other planes to the enemy. It is not as simple as streaking a CAS aircraft across the battle-space when that battle space has even just friendly forces in it.
So I think this means a re-think is required. Is it worth thinking about fixed wing delivered CAS when it is so shudderingly expensive and other far cheaper weapon systems, in practise almost always deliver the same bangs with far less danger and arguably more responsively because one of the things that holds up artillery fire these days is making sure there are no friendly aircraft in the way.
I agree fundamentally with wf, CAS will be for exceptional operations and is just as likely to be delivered from high altitude B52s than fast fixed wing. In practise ground troops are hardly ever outside of their IDF bubbles. And for all those arguing what if they are outside of their IDF range, well what if your enormously expensive plane is u/s because it is one of the most complex feats of human engineering ever devised and it’s sat in the desert in the heat and dust?
LikeLike
Hi, Observer.
“You don’t shove your kit under the canvas seat?”
I’ve staggered sweating towards a waiting Chinook with knees buckling and vertebrae unzipping under the weight of my personal kit, with the big heavy thing I was transporting perched on top of that, and had the RAF trolley-dolly (think they call them loadmasters) refuse to let me on, as he said I would overload his aircraft.
All the stuff I was carrying would never have popped neatly under my seat.
I’ve also flown sitting on a Chinook’s floor, in someone’s leg room, when there’s been far more passengers than seats. Hope they complained to their tour operator.
LikeLike
Artillery does not have that flexibility or deployablity.
It does. There was excellent artillery coverage in Helmand with a battery of light guns and a troop of GMLRs. Both of those systems are far more robust and require far less logistical effort than a fixed wing aircraft. You at the very least need a runway, a tower, fuel farms, ordnance bunkers and somewhere to do maintenance on your aircraft as well as a large flow of spares and fuel. And that all has to be protected. Whereas artillery can do its own local defence and provide smoke and illumination all with basic supply needs.
LikeLike
Romanian navy Puma…………
LikeLike
@Jeremy M H
What!? Prototype models are always more expensive than production models. Tell me are you going to want to spend a lot of money getting the design right and fixing your mistakes on the prototype or go straight into production from the blueprint design? You’re going to chose the 1 one aren’t you. When an aircraft enters mass production they know exactly the amount of material they need, they don’t need to faff around changing the design and buying extra material etc… This is why it is cheaper.
LikeLike
Observer
Yes they most certainly can. If your doing a long range strike mission against a dense iads that would require specialist aircraft supporting the task. But the majority of the modern multi role aircraft have the systems onboard to preform the air policing, cas, recon tasking simultaneously for most threat conditions and be reconfigured on another day for the more demanding strike or specific air defence mission its what they were designed to do. And should you be conducting such missions against an enemy of such capability a la Iraq 1991 it would be an all arms event and most certainly a coalition in nature so the idea is rather mute IMO.
I think most of this artillery can fulfil our cas requirement is the army desperately trying to protect numbers and scratch around for a role for moth balled mlrs and big gun artillery units along with its uav program which unfortunately has been overtaken by events.
Phil How does the artillery get there in the first place can it support northern, eastern afghan and Helmand deliver effect from a 27mm bullet to a 2000lb bomb and everything in between as well as supply recon imagery all from the same base?
Not saying artillery does help but it most certainly does not replace a fast jet capability that has been tasked constantly every day for the last 20 years to provide the entire range of airpower requirements in multiple regions of operation around the world.
LikeLike
Sven wrote an article about CAS vs Artillery, involving missile delivered SDB’s I think…
Found it:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/boeing-reaffirms-artillery-and-cas-are.html?m=1
LikeLike
Phil How does the artillery get there in the first place
Delivered by a Royal Navy ARG of course. How else does any Army unit get anywhere?!
Not saying artillery does help but it most certainly does not replace a fast jet capability that has been tasked constantly every day for the last 20 years to provide the entire range of airpower requirements in multiple regions of operation around the world.
I never said fast jets were replaceable in general. I am just failing to see the benefit of putting hundred million pound jets over enemy heads to deliver effects that can be delivered by other means. For deep strike and a whole other range of missions the fast jet isn’t going anywhere. But to drop munitions on an enemy force engaging ours on the FLET – it’s madness and has been for decades, we just haven’t had the peer war that would prove this.
in between as well as supply recon imagery all from the same base?
That base is ENORMOUS! I’d expect all that from such a mahoosive great big thing.
LikeLike
RAND did some studies about the ability of long range precision strike (aircraft and artillery, both land and sea based) to “halt” an invading army – effectiveness was based on range and terrain. The further a target was away, the more time they had to move out of the weapons targeting “footprint”, which was also affected by terrain such a tree cover, etc.
Short to medium range precision strike (eg E-FOGM) was much more effective due to the shorter flight time and larger footprint; also some could perform their own damage assement, saving wasted effort.
LikeLike
@ All,
what nobody seems to be remembering is that the number one issue is that whoever is flying the thing doing the CAS needs to fundamentally understand land operations, which are different from air operations. The RAF and Army mutually agreed that it was too difficult for Kevin to learn both, and after about 1985 RAF CAS pretty much stopped. They did BAI instead, 20-50 miles further away. And no one in the Army really wants a Kevin in the airspace overhead, as you can’t trust them to not try to kill you inadvertently through some procedural screw up.
Observer, that’s reason number 4 for steering clear of SPIE. You don’t want a Kevin smearing you into the ground as he can’t remember if you are on a 50 yard dangle, or 100 yards.
Good luck with the forest fire / smog thing. The news report that I read said that Indonesia was forever promising to do something about it, but never does.
LikeLike
@BB
You really need to change your tour operator. You really do.
@RT
Just another day, we’ll make noise, they will promise to do something, then forget about it until next year. We’re used to it. Annoying, but that’s life.
@Mark
Yes you can hang Rockeyes, Mavricks and Hellfires off a plane in addition to camera pods, that is equipment. What Phil and I are pointing out is that just because you can hang the equipment off your pylons does not mean you will be allowed to use them. The enemy won’t like it and will be doing things to stop you. That affects usage. And the “we are a coalition” is a useless excuse. In that case, why bother having an RAF at all? You are a coalition, if you get attacked, the US will provide your air force. Or Navy? The US will provide. Or Army? See the problem? If you want to use “coalition”, it can be used as a blanket excuse for the lack of everything. You cannot base your entire strategy on the expectation that someone else will come and save you. Which means you plan for solo jobs, but hope you get help.
@ST
You know my opinion of SO. 🙂
LikeLike
Blimey, late night!
The thing to remember is that you have systems like Typhoon and eventually (we hope) F-35 which can use precision munitions. Once the air superiority stage is over and the ground attack stage begins in earnest (they’ll blend to a degree, but you get the gist) your platforms are still busy. But as the target list begins to shrink and the ground war approaches you’re likely to see a shift towards attacking the enemy force in the field. Once the ground war proper starts, you’re likely to still have fixed targets on the list that could do with a pasting, but what happens when the list of targets begins to dry up while your ground forces are still engaged? Do you just leave Typhoons and Lightnings sitting around doing nothing? Or do you integrate them now as close air support? Traditionally fast moving forces have always benefitted greatly from the flexibility of having on call aircraft.
I’d just say in closing that like Phil I’m generally opposed to dedicated fixed wing ground attack aircraft, unless you can somehow make it cheap as chips a-la SU-25, and that artillery should still be considered the primary back up for the ground forces, especially with the advances in guidance and ISTAR. Indeed we could probably do with growing our artillery/land strike capability, not shrinking it. But fixed wing CAS still has a place in the puzzle I think.
@ RT,
I think the RAF now contributes to the American “Green Flag” exercises? Topman might be able to give us more details. Basically the army co-operation version of “Red Flag” air combat exercises.
LikeLike
@Mark2
I think you have confused a demonstrator level aircraft with a prototype. The Taranis that you see about to fly (for the 1st time btw) is much more akin to the X-35 than it is to a true production prototype. How many mission systems are designed and installed at this point? Do we even know what kind of systems it is supposed to carry? Have they hardened the com links against ECM? Is it going to be programed to operate in a com denied environment? How far along on that are they?
Yes, your production aircraft MIGHT be cheaper than what is a demonstrator. But it had better be a damn large buy of the things. You won’t be able to buy a dozen of them and call it good because there is likely still a billion or more pounds of R&D to do to get the thing operating as a real autonomous UCAV.
LikeLike
The question was asked, whether Apache was worth it.
Assuming that from now on that every infantryman (warfighter) will be jabbing at the screen of his PDA, highlighting targets to call in precision artillery, and airstrikes from a high-altitude unmanned bomb truck… won’t we still need an Apache-like aircraft anyway?
If we intend to move troops from land or sea by Chinook, which we do, then they need an armed escort. You wouldn’t expect to move a convoy of trucks without the vehicles capable of defending them, would you send a company or battalion in Merlin and Chinook without a heavily armed escort?
Similarly, it’s been said that folks want low flying attack aircraft out of the way to clear the sky for artillery and airstrikes; but if you want helicopters to insert or assault or to casevac, then surely you’ll need Apache or its replacement to continue CAS at those times.
And what about armed reconnaissance? Apache or similar can cover ground far quicker, more directly, and without being so troubled by geography as a lumbering ASCOD SV.
In this role, Apache can strike targets before there’s a need for close air support. And the crew can identify or confirm targets on the spot.
LikeLike
@APATS and @Chris.B.
Re: Typhoon self-designation. Full capability comes with the P1E update via LITENING III pods.
More details, along with pre-P1E capabilities, can be found from Page 8 onwards:
Click to access efworld0202012.pdf
LikeLike
@ BB – But couldn’t those roles also be performed by a suitable fixed wing aircraft at lower operational cost? In fact equiped with a gun turret and air to air missiles could it not also hunt helicopters?
LikeLike
Yes they could, ST. At least to some extent. Helicopters have certain benefits, fixed wing aircraft have others; cost is one attribute that you’d have to weigh up against others.
But the spot that Apache has occupied within our forces hasn’t gone away entirely, as some people are suggesting. That spot may shift, or shrink, and the edges blur as other systems like precision artillery or UAVs take the stage; but I still think there is a need for an armed, manned light aircraft of some kind.
LikeLike
@Chris B:
I’m generally opposed to dedicated fixed wing ground attack aircraft, unless you can somehow make it cheap as chips a-la SU-25,
Well that was always the point of the A-10, it’s a lot cheaper to acquire or run than an F-15E or Typhoon, let alone an F-35. Here’s some (rather out of date numbers comparing everything in the US fleet, in different commands :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/hourinfl.htm
Some of the numbers for eg the F-22 look a bit out, and you’d probably have to multiple everything by 3 to get up to current numbers – variable cph for an F-15 is about $20k these days. The whole multi-purpose thing is great and all, but there does come a point where it ‘s just a bit crazy to use £100m jets to plink the odd terrorist. For instance, it was costing us about £20m/month to keep a squadron of Tonkas at Kandahar, which was working out at over £2m per bomb dropped. And that’s just marginal costs over keeping them at home, it doesn’t take into the capital costs of having the jets in the first place (and associated bases, tanker support at £10.5bn for 14 etc etc)
Once you start factoring all that lot in (OK, some of them are still there if you go for an A-10, but you could get 3-4 times as many A-10’s for the money) then your definition of “cheaper than that” changes a bit… Perhaps the (only?) realistic option for the RAF would be a CAS version of the Hawk – the trainer versions cost about a quarter as much as a Typhoon to buy and to operate, an armed version would obviously cost a bit more but not a whole heap more, the technology is available from the export versions. Or an AC-130 variant I guess, but they would cost more.
LikeLike
@ El Sid
‘For instance, it was costing us about £20m/month to keep a squadron of Tonkas at Kandahar, which was working out at over £2m per bomb dropped.’
That’s an interesting £ number per month, I wonder how it was calculated what it included and didn’t? As is the total per bomb, is that since entry into theatre? I can only add my experiences which clearly don’t cover the whole period nor do I pretend it does. Using the time I was out there, there must have been alot of quiet periods, which seem not to tally with the admittedly anecdotal evidence. My experience aside, where abouts did you get the figures from?
@ Chris B
‘I think the RAF now contributes to the American “Green Flag” exercises? Topman might be able to give us more details. Basically the army co-operation version of “Red Flag” air combat exercises.’
Yes, green flag is a common exercise for the FJ world. It’s carried out at either Nellis or Barksdale (under Green flag East, not sure if it is a goer the last couple of years) Tonkas generally do it as part of pre deployment to Herrick or Telic in the past. During the exercise it’s focused on A to G ops. Nearly always we’ll take Army personnel to assist in the missions so both aircrew and them can do a work up for CAS. Quite often it will involve US army personnel as well in a similar role often from across that state line at various bases in California. There’s 2 other exercise that take place that cover similar A to G ops.
Generally it is Tonkas but Typhoon sqns have taken part a few times, expect that to increase as time goes on.
@ Phil
I am just failing to see the benefit of putting hundred million pound jets over enemy heads to deliver effects that can be delivered by other means… But to drop munitions on an enemy force engaging ours on the FLET – it’s madness and has been for decades, we just haven’t had the peer war that would prove this.
I’m not going to pretend that I know a great deal about how the Army operates in realtion to local artillary/mortars support, and possibly it worked better for your unit to get it support from those units rather than CAS from FJ. However that wasn’t that case across the Army, they hoovered up every flying hour the tonkas could and did give. Across various surge ops there was a demand for more flying hours to provide more support for the various army ops on the ground. These requests came from the head sheds in your mob. Does FJ CAS work in every case and can it replace mortars/artillary in every op no clearly not. But within the army, from my experience, it’s still seen as something that is a key option if the shit hits the fan and very much something the army look to have plenty of.
LikeLike
I believe the USMC in recent actions have complained that it could take up to 30 min for a FJ to be freed up and to get to the point of contact. Can’t remember if it was Iraq or Afganistan or both. 30 min is a long, long time in battle, which is why I do support more intrinsic fire support within the unit, saves the CAS for areas that are critical, clears out bandwidth on the net with less people yelling on the air, more timely fire on target.
Cheaper too. Aviation grade kerosene costs a lot, much more expensive to field than a Foxhound or FV432 armed with Exector or a 120mm mortar for the latter. Or even the Viking/Warthog with a 120mm. 2 of these with any combat team would give timely and decent firepower, though many here should know my insistence that the ATTCs are not really supposed to be frontline fighters. In this case though, having 2 indirect platforms following just behind MBTs/IFVs might provide enough benefits to justify the risks. Best of all, you don’t have to design from scratch, ATTC rear cab mounted mortars are already OTS, so you don’t even need to buy a whole new vehicle. Or recycle the Viking 81mm, though I would prefer a bigger bang at the end. The armoured cab also makes a wonderful ready made mortar pit, drive to a new firebase, disconnect the back, and drive off. Gives the rear module something to do when not following combat teams.
But back to the main topic, no, AH-64s still have their place as ambush killers, so they still have their uses, but dedicated fixed wing CAS is/has been slowly phasing out in favour of more flexible platforms and the limitations of their usage. Being forced to overfly your target area can be a bit too risky, hence the proliferation of all the standoff munitions. And if any plane can use the munitions, why is there a need for a specific CAS plane?
LikeLike
This is an interesting picture
Seems the US is putting an Apache 30mm chain gun onto an old Mohawk
LikeLike