Slater Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Didn't know that a buy was being considered: http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/united_kingdom_15-50.pdf Correction: Looks like a remanufacture only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Interesting, as approval is there for T700 engines. Why aren't the RTM322 engines being upgraded as they gave more power? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntPhillips Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Interesting, as approval is there for T700 engines. Why aren't the RTM322 engines being upgraded as they gave more power? Trevor It's in the last paragraph, to increase interoperability with US forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 What is the visable external differences between the D and the E? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 It's in the last paragraph, to increase interoperability with US forces. I saw that but seem to recall that in Afghanistan the Brit Apaches had better hot and high performance. Will the T-700's give more power, otherwise it seems pointless to incur the expense of a new engine and the logistical chain and training etc that goes with it. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 The new T700s have the similar power to the RTM332, and the Uk would have to pay for any integration and certification of the RTM on the E Note it's an FMS, not a licensed build by Westland - rumour is that the Westland licence only covers the AH-64D, and that was one reason why the GUardian was given the 'E' designation. They will also be cheaper than having them rebuilt at Yeovil. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveJL Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Will the UK spec HIDAS be fitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Will the UK spec HIDAS be fitted? "AAR- 57(V) 3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS). Improved Countermeasure Dispenser. Also included are AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets. AN/APR-39D(V)2 Radar Signal Detecting Sets." Doesn't look like it. Whilst state of the art when new, HIDAS appears to require an update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 If AgustaWestland don't have a licence (license?) for the E, would the work be done in the U.S. or in this country as a sub contract? I suppose AH.2 would be the new designation as well given the amount of new kit. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 From the document: The prime contractors will be The Boeing Company in Mesa, Arizona; Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, Florida; General Electric Company in Cincinnati, Ohio; Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training in Owego, New York; and Longbow Limited Liability Corporation in Orlando, Florida. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. So, most likely in the US since the remanufacture line in already running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 If AgustaWestland don't have a licence (license?) for the E, would the work be done in the U.S. or in this country as a sub contract? I suppose AH.2 would be the new designation as well given the amount of new kit. Trevor In the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The original Kit Builder Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 You can bet that this will bite the MoD in the bottom at some point. The shape of this indicates that some minister or bean counter thinks it will be cheaper, but giving a foriegn company a monopoly, even one in a friendly country is seldom wise. The approach also ignores very solid strategic reasons for doing things the way we have since the start of WWII. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Evidently this is not a "done deal". According to the below article, AgustaWestland was also invited to tender: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/08/28/uk-apache-upgrade-cleared-state-department-ah64e/71303224/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The FMS notifictaion is just the US approving the idea of the sale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Why oh why are the British Armed Forces becoming so Americanised,..........even the centuries old unit names such as `Field Ambulance, Field Workshops etc' have been changed to American versions which is a snub against history and tradition in my view. We have worked with allies before and those old names were good enough then,......why change them now! Even the modern uniforms look American to me, apart from the berets and stable belts,..when these are worn that is. It there was ever another Suez situation where the USA did not agree with British Foreign Policy would half of our kit such as the future F-35, Hercules, Chinook, Apache etc just stop working if the USA wanted them to? Seems like the MoD is snuggling further and further into Uncle Sams pocket to me,.........maybe another reason why the Gulf War Report still has not been published maybe? I`d prefer Westland to upgrade the Apache myself retaining the superior British engines. Tony 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) It's all to do with risk. It's mush cheaper and vastly simpler not to muck about with a product, or keep it the stuffing about to a minimum. Especially something like an aircraft, where certification of alternate systems can be complicated. Look at the Nimrod AEWC and MR-4 all that money spent for nothing. And the now the UK has no MPA. Putting aside national paroicalism what premium did the UK pay for the WAH-64 over the AH-64D? And was it worth it? (I don't know thats why I'm asking), Edited August 30, 2015 by Calum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natter Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Many years ago (2007-2009) I was working with UK Apaches and even then there was work ongling to conduct a remanufacture programme. In 2012 the Daily Mail was reporting that the US was to upgrade to the E model with the risk of support for UK AH-64D to be withdrawn from 2017. I note reading the document at the link that the new programme is for 50 aircraft plus spare systems. This wil be a reduction from the current fleet size, and even with the system upgrades for spares this will leave quite a few redundant airframes and systems. Even at $3bn this is going to be considerably cheaper than home grown upgrades or a new development, lets's face it the UK PLC's record for homegrown defence projects in recent times has not always been great. The remanufacture is a long term plan, noting the requirement for up to six contractors to be 'in country'... 'for up to 60 months'. Purely political or not, cost saving or not (and it would have to be cost saving to get passed in these constrained budgetary times), I hope it provides our Forces with 'the best possible equipment to continue to be an important force for political stability and economic progress around the world' and gives them the ability 'to deter and defend against potential threats'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MASU Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Even if westlands upgraded it firstly we would still be reliant on Boeing for support just like we currently are and secondly it would end up costing more! Why pay a middle man? Also the Rtm 322 is not as awesome as you think it is powerfull but so is the T700, yes it was the best engine out there ten years ago but not now. I really hope we dont get westlands involved they were a nightmare to work with when we bought it into service. THEY HAD TO CONSULT BOEING REGULARLY delaying the time it took to get stuff done. The only positive for Westlands doing it is UK jobs, but every thing else considered it would cost more and support would take longer. Im not a fan of Boeing but why buy an aircraft from one company and get some else to make it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Can I just check that I understand what is happening here? Do I understand the following? Westland originally paid fro a licence to build 67 Apache D's. They cannot upgrade the fleet to E's or equivilent. Now the fleet is being upgraded with the original T 700 engine that was not as powerful as the British engine that is used on other UK helo's. the work will all be done in the USA and will fund US jobs, the fleet will be more capable? with less aircraft? with less powerful engines? That are common with US forces helo's not British? Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Now the fleet is being upgraded with the original T 700 engine that was not as powerful as the British engine that is used on other UK helo's. with less powerful engines? That are common with US forces helo's not British? Nigel I accept the commonality point - very understandable. From what I understand, RR no longer supports ("has divested itself) of the RTM322. Is it 'British' any longer? Also, the E has a new transmission, delivering more of the available power - and there is much, much more power available from the new T700-GE-701D. From what I can work out, there doesn't seem to be much available power difference from the WAH-64D and the AH-64E. If anything, the AH-64E seems to offer superior performance. Just my two bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Regarding US vs UK costs/pricing, perhaps something can be deciphered on US costs from this budgetary document: http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2016/Army/stamped/P40_A05111_BSA-20_BA-1_APP-2031A_PB_2016.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Seeking an alternative supplier is also a good negotiation strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troffa Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (Full-ish disclosure, I do have a dog in this particular fight! ;-), Hi Natter-fancy seeing you here! ) As previously stated, Rolls-Royce sold off their stake in the RTM venture a couple of years ago so there is no Political imperative to maintain commonality with say, the AW101 Fleet, and given the increased power available from the latest T700 model means that the transmission is still the limiting factor in this equation, not much point operationally either. There can be little doubt that an off the shelf "E" Model from the middle of a large US production run will offer some economies of scale vis-a-vis a Licence built model given that no UK specific bits and bobs will have to be integrated with the standard US Aircraft. The only issue for me, is that in the case of the UK Apache, despite sincere hopes to the contrary, it found itself in a shooting war very soon after it's introduction to service, and in order to deploy to that conflict a huge amount of effort was expended to apply a suite of complex and significant Theatre specific modifications for our aircraft- these modifications were designed, integrated and embodied by AW teams across the UK and in theatre and met the very tight timelines required by the MOD- This in my opinion reflects the commitment by a UK based company to its major customer, not something guaranteed perhaps when you have become a less significant player for a company who I would suggest would naturally prioritise US and (perhaps some other customers) before the UK's relatively small fleet of 50. In addition, the MOD as a customer seem to regularly want an "Off the Shelf" system- only to decide to modify the hell out of it soon after. I would of course prefer the product to be built in the UK, but if it isn't, a company that has just celebrated it's centenary, with many platforms in use all over the world, both civilian and military ought to be able to survive. Oh, and as Colombo used to say- "one more thing..." It's always best to go straight to the manufacturer for these contracts, isn't it? ;-) http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/04/military.defence Cheers, Troffa Edit: To answer MASU's point that "Westland had to consult Boeing Regularly" - that's perfectly true- the contract was split into Boeing and AW Workshares- AW were contractually obliged to consult Boeing when issues impacted the Boeing workshare, or law suits ahoy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natter Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Troffa - eloquent as always. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydhuey Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Having worked on RTM 332 and T-700's, the RTM ain't as good as the shiny brochures say, the RTM as fitted to the WAH-64 has much better performance at ISO (15oC) than the T-700-701C in the AH-64D, but above 35oC the T-700 holds its power better,(I know it doesn't get above 35oC much in Europe, but that's a normal day in the Mid East or Australia), The T700-701D as fitted to the UH-60M, MH-60R and AH-64E has full FADEC control and while still below the RTM 332 at ISO leaves them for dead over 35oC, with more than 50,000 T-700/CT-7's in use round the world it is the most used reliable Helicopter engine in the world, if you realy want to give the AH-64 some balls put in the T-706 (CT-7-8A as fitted to S-92 and spec ops MH-60M, 2750 HP). T-700/CT7-2 series T-700-700; 1500HP. T-700-701A /CT7-2A; 1780 HP T-700-701C; 1900 HP T-700-701D/CT7-2E/F; 2000 HP T-706/CT7-6/8 CT7-6 2300 HP T706/CT7-8A 2750 HP the future T706/CT7-8C will be 3100 HP. Edited September 2, 2015 by Sydhuey 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now