New Apache contract for Army Air Corps
Discussion
The MOD is looking to "freshen up" the Apache Fleet by acquiring 50 new Apache Helicopters. The Army want to acquire them direct from Boeing whereas Augusta-Westland want the opportunity to bid. It Looks like the US is going to the "E" model and the "D" support will be dropped. Seems AW should at least get a chance to bid rather than just buy the US version. The AW "D" has superior Power range and speed to the US "D" so a UK "E" may very well be superior. It also shows the Problem of depending on the US to supply aircraft. You may as well do it yourself or have to find money to replace them down the line.
Edited by telecat on Monday 9th March 11:58
Well there are about 20 flying outside my office (not at the same time!) operated by the Americans and they are the slim line (Non-Longbow type) and they still do the business.
Lets face it the Afghan type wars will still be fought against possibly less advanced enemy (the type that think amputation and throwing homosexuals off buildings is de-riguer!), so do we need the super-dooper version? Someone with more knowledge than me maybe able to confirm if over 50% of the time AH64D Longbows have been deployed as "what it says on the tin" or did it fly around (which tends to do the trick) and then unleash a load of missiles and rounds at the insurgents?!
Lets face it the Afghan type wars will still be fought against possibly less advanced enemy (the type that think amputation and throwing homosexuals off buildings is de-riguer!), so do we need the super-dooper version? Someone with more knowledge than me maybe able to confirm if over 50% of the time AH64D Longbows have been deployed as "what it says on the tin" or did it fly around (which tends to do the trick) and then unleash a load of missiles and rounds at the insurgents?!
British industry has a track record of lobbying for more expensive kit, rather than letting the military buy cheaper or more suitable versions (eg the F35 STOVL vs conventional take off and landing). It's a tough call, is the military there to support British industry, do we need to retain strategic capabilities etc.? if it is either or both of these cases then the MODs budget needs to be adjusted upwards accordingly. Not likely though. But, if the more expensive AW version is procured, what other capabilities are the Army going to lose in order to pay for it, and what is the effect on industry then?
Which ever version they buy, they need to be fully marinised with auto blade fold etc. to facilitate easier Joint ops from sea.
Which ever version they buy, they need to be fully marinised with auto blade fold etc. to facilitate easier Joint ops from sea.
andy97 said:
British industry has a track record of lobbying for more expensive kit, rather than letting the military buy cheaper or more suitable versions (eg the F35 STOVL vs conventional take off and landing). It's a tough call, is the military there to support British industry, do we need to retain strategic capabilities etc.? if it is either or both of these cases then the MODs budget needs to be adjusted upwards accordingly. Not likely though. But, if the more expensive AW version is procured, what other capabilities are the Army going to lose in order to pay for it, and what is the effect on industry then?
Which ever version they buy, they need to be fully marinised with auto blade fold etc. to facilitate easier Joint ops from sea.
Much as I would like to agree The AW Apache has folding blades for Naval operations whereas the Boeing "D" does not. Also the US Marine Corps are the primary driver behind the F-35B. The Navy and RAF jumped on board.Which ever version they buy, they need to be fully marinised with auto blade fold etc. to facilitate easier Joint ops from sea.
davepoth said:
True enough. Maybe the AW version is better than a Boeing one - but is it really twice as good?
How much more does the 'twice as expensive' airframe cost overall though? Fuel, ammunition, groundcrew and aircrew training over years of operations may well cost about the same making the cost difference much smaller.Also in certain situations a less capable aircraft might not be 50% less effective but 100% less effective.
telecat said:
andy97 said:
British industry has a track record of lobbying for more expensive kit, rather than letting the military buy cheaper or more suitable versions (eg the F35 STOVL vs conventional take off and landing). It's a tough call, is the military there to support British industry, do we need to retain strategic capabilities etc.? if it is either or both of these cases then the MODs budget needs to be adjusted upwards accordingly. Not likely though. But, if the more expensive AW version is procured, what other capabilities are the Army going to lose in order to pay for it, and what is the effect on industry then?
Which ever version they buy, they need to be fully marinised with auto blade fold etc. to facilitate easier Joint ops from sea.
Much as I would like to agree The AW Apache has folding blades for Naval operations whereas the Boeing "D" does not. Also the US Marine Corps are the primary driver behind the F-35B. The Navy and RAF jumped on board.Which ever version they buy, they need to be fully marinised with auto blade fold etc. to facilitate easier Joint ops from sea.
As to the F35 - the RN and RAF both wanted the conventional take off and landing variant NOT the STOVL version. 2 studies were undertaken several years apart and both concluded that the STOVL variant did not meet the 2 services operational requirement.
When the second study was delivered to the Defence Minister, the respective Chairmen of BAe and Roll Royce demanded meetings to discuss the findings. They pointed out that thousands of UK jobs were at stake if the STOVL version was not procured - BAE and RR both had a big stake in the STOVL version but not the conventional version.
How do I know all this? I used to work for the RN Commodore who led the second report team.
Seems daft to buy the UK versions IMO. We are in a time of defense cuts and value for money should be the main consideration. If AW cant compete in a free market it should do something different, the UK defense industry in general is very strong on the back of producing innovative and competitive products. AW isnt 'special'.
I'm sure that has nothing* to do with it.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff