Jump to content

AH-64E's for the UK...


Slater

Recommended Posts

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

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Calum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

(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!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sydhuey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...