This from RP Defence
One such example is how Col. Shane Openshaw, the Army’s AH-64 Apache program manager is eyeing F-35-style distributed aperture sensor (DAS) tech for use on the Apache. “We’re thinking about how to do integration” with DAS-style technology on the third development phase of the Block III Apache sometime later this decade, Openshaw told me this week. “It’s very much in the realm of the possible.”
The F-35’s DAS system consists of six infrared cameras mounted in the airplane’s skin providing a 360-degree sphere of coverage around the jet. Video filmed by the cameras is fed directly onto a screen on the pilots helmet visor allowing him to literally look down through the bottom of his aircraft. Now, the system is still having its teething issues, especially the helmet part, but an F-35 flying over Maryland and Virginia recently tracked a missile launch in Florida by using its DAS system.
Now, the Apaches may not necessarily use the same system as the F-35, but its the concept that Openshaw likes. The miniaturization of sensor tech could someday allow him to install a network of tiny but powerful sensors around the Apache’s airframe and feed their data back to the cockpit. He pointed out that this could allow him to remove the 400-pound sensor turret on the helo’s nose. The reduced weight would improve the aircraft’s speed and fuel and weapons load.
Combine this with advancements in engine and blade tech that are already in the works — and possibly even pusher propellers mounted on the aft of the chopper — and modified versions of the basic Apache design could inch Army aviation ever closer to achieving the speed, altitude and maneuverability breakthroughs that the service wants from its next generation helo fleet, said Openshaw.
The UK’s Apache AH1′s are in many ways the most advanced model in existence anywhere, in others perhaps less so, but the problem the UK’s faces is that it has a relatively large fleet of Apache’s with some elements approaching block obsolescence but very little money to upgrade. With the coming reductions in Army manpower, continuing uncertainty about the future of the Multi Role Brigade, FRES and Future Force 2020 it may soon come down to choices between historic Regiments and an upgraded Apache fleet.
Perhaps the outcome will be an announcement where only part of the fleet is selectively upgraded with the rest being used for spares, oh, isn’t that happening now?
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
70 Comments
i keep hearing people say that the British Apache’s are the most advanced in the world. in what way?
Because they have Army Air Corps pilots of course Sol :)
Engine power and avionics mainly although I wonder of that advantage is still true?
Plus, they use CRV-7 rockets which are to use an American phrase ‘awesome’
The problem we have is affording the Block III updates across the whole fleet
Sol
We have bigger engines
This means bigger warloads, more fuel, ect.
In Afghanistan, ours carry their longbow radar, yours dont.
Theres a list out there somewhere, whether they were worth the extra cost, I cant say.
There’s going to have to be a reduction in front line Apache strength those airframes have been beasted for 6 years with another three to go. We have beasted kit so hard for ten years now. It’s a wonder some things still work. I suppose that’s what they are there for but it means expensive supposed to last decades is getting shagged out when there’s no money to buy new.
Shouldn’t be to big an issue with the helicopters. There a lot easier to replace the lift limiting element on than fixed wing a/c and they aren’t pressurised. Is the money there for the major service required should be meet from the reserve but who knows.
The added power requirements of these new systems need to taken into account it don’t know what margin there is in the Rtm engines. But I would update the full apache fleet and marinise some. I think they’ll be most useful in the future Istar world at the expense of extra armour.
Shouldnt any excess damage to the fleet be made up from the mythical treasurey reserve?
As I understand it, the RTM322′s have more power, but the gearbox cannot transmit all of it. However, if we use bleed air or a separate generator it’s useful for hotel load at least :-)
US apaches are now on a par with UK ones, composite blades and new engines. More importantly they now have the gearbox to transmit that power. We have folding blades, handy for ship bourneops but seeing as the US has viper it’s not really been a requirement for them.
It’s worth noting that the US no longer has any AH-64A’s either retired or converted to block III. I would say our “better” apaches have now been overtaken by the US mainly due to their upgrades and larger numbers mean they haven’t been spanked in the desert like ours have, as mentioned above
A fixed wing, light attack aircraft with similar systems could have performed many of the UK Apache’s tasks over the years in Afghanistan; and done so with less operating costs, less of the concerns regarding power and payload, and with better transit speeds (including being able to keep up with Chinooks).
If by the time we exit Afghanistan we have run down the Apache airframes to a terminal degree, would you folks favour a purchase of new Apachies, or an alternative – like Viper, or a fixed wing aircraft? Arguably, the technology of the AAC Apachies has not been fully exploited – could we do without block III? Is it also worthwhile marinising Apache while there is a very capable marine attack helicopter on the market?
‘Apaches’, not ‘Apachies’. I’m always doing that.
No it couldn’t. Apaches hover. And they are seen to be seen. Their mere presence pinches off contacts that fixed wing cannot because it’s higher, faster and less menacing. You hear planes all the time in Helmand, they know when Apache is about. It terrifies them. It hovers, or flies low and very slow, and they know it’s looking for them. Slowly, deliberately, they can see the canon moving. It’s psychological effect has probably saved lives on its own.
Sol,
Its also their DASS – more than anything else I suppose (the engine is v. powerful, the gearbox less so).
I think its pretty inportant to upgrade the fleet…more so we can continue going around telling everyone how our apaches are the dogs-balls, but also how much they have come in use, really shown their worth, despite manpower shortages.
That and for the next 10 or so years they are our only main airbourn strike element from the sea.
Surely the costs saved from loosing the latest numbers of Army personell be put into this upgrade?
I agree with Phil though, the numbers of airframes that may have to be withdrawn may help make up the costs of a fleet upgrade. But I cant see us retiring it for the AH-1Z, too soon, even 3 years in the future.
Fixed-wing can fly slow and low too, Phil. And on many occasions, Apaches will maintain forward flight when closely on top of likely hostile positions, rather than present a static target.
The ability to hover comes at a sterling cost. More power/fuel required for each kg of useful load, more moving parts, more vibration, more highly stressed parts.
Do all of our light attack aircraft need vertical flight?
It’s not the same though. It does move slowly far more than hover you are right there.
Apache is more like that scene in Jurassic Park. It doesn’t fly, it stalks. Slowly, deliberately. It really upsets the Taliban and avoids a lot of contacts which makes the Taliban look weak. Fast air just doesn’t have the same psychological effect. Apache is very primeval. It sounds bizarre I know but that thing gets inside their heads more than Mirages dropping JDAMs at 30,000 ft or Tornados swooping over. The A10 comes close but that swooping in doesn’t seem to unnerve them as much as a circling Apache or indeed Cobra.
The Raptor scene!
Although off topic, I think the AH1Z would have been a much better aircraft for the UK
Much simpler logistics
Easier to maintain
Easy to operate ‘from the sea’
Cheaper to buy
Cheaper to run
oh for the benefit of hindsight :)
Yeah but wouldn’t buying those have been like buying a Burke DDG ie the basic frame is maxed out there’s no more margin for growth. The Cobra is about maxed out now isn’t it? It’s a 1960s car, admittedly with a nice engine and electronics package but it’s still all inside or bulging out of a 60s chassis.
Not sure Phil but it seems the basic design has been growing for about 40 odd years!!
Apache seems another one of those 100% solutions that has cost Army aviation an arm and a leg to the detriment of other stuff
I’m not sure I agree with Apache. It’s proven itself very versatile from cold war warrior to sea strike to COIN. I think it’s one of the best things we’ve bought. Costs a fortune but it’s effective. Very effective. Cobra would be too except a 40 year old design must be on its last upgrade legs by now. Otherwise I’d have been just as happy with Cobra.
Everything I’ve read from an infantrymans perspective has said Apache is very very good, in perhaps more colourful language….
If anything, Phil understates it, Typhoons, Tucanos and Predators are all very nice, but they dont hide behind hills waiting for you.
Its a psycological as well as a directly military effect.
TD
Any thoughts on why we didnt?
In wiki terms, it appears a compelling case, but so do many things.
Apache first flew 1975 and cobra 1969 not much in it really. Apache is the ultimate attack helicopter and helicopters are more useful than fixed wing in a counter insurgency as the can go slow but that is also there weakness there easier to ambush. It needs both in equal measure and gd awareness.
Umm, a fixed winged aircraft which can fly slow and can hover… What a great idea, who would have thought of it :)
Dom, why did we go Apache, good question.
I think the desire for the very best, its fair enough, nothing at all wrong with that but we underestimated the effort and cost to bring them in and sustain them in service. The US Army have a typically massive logistic tail and their equipment reflects this, the USMC are leaner, more akin to the British Army, so their kit tends to match in those terms, our requirements.
Same with the UH1Y, probably a much better fit than Blackhawk but it never appears on anyones wish list
Hmm, removing the 400 lb sensor from the nose is going to cause some serious centre of gravity issues, unless we want its nose permanently pointing at the sky and the aircraft taxying on its tail wheel. But then there’s always the good old British solution of shoving a lump of concrete in the nose.
Blue Circle target acquisition turret.
The other possibility of “Why no Cobra” could also be due to the companies involved in making them. Bell is smaller and are more focused on the civillian market now, so there isn’t a real upgrade path and research on the Cobra whereas Boeing is still very active in the military research arena. Not to mention much bigger.
isnt it just a matter of changing the flight software, or beefing up the gun?
Apache was the ‘must have’ weapons system back in the 90′s, also the AAC was involved in a major bun fight with the RAF over who was going to get it. I think the AAC won with the argument that it was for supporting and fighting alongside its own men which won the day. Had the RAF got it, the AAC would’ve been relegated to a very minor support role, with the risk of being disbanded.
2TD
The problem with the UH1Y is a combat radius less than half of the Blackhawk and green Merlin.
cheaper COIN aircraft than apache? fantasy but cool..
http://www.architectswanderlust.com/2010/03/the-arbalest-close-air-support-cascoin-vstol-aircraft/
USMC could have gone for an MH-60S type rather than rebuild the UH-1N, I think it was more of a political issue where the USMC couldn’t be seen to buy a new aircraft type given they were developing the MV-22 at the time, the UH-1Y being a compromise. The commonality with the AH-1Z was probably seen as a definate advantage to boot.
With you on that one Gareth….
…however, cheaper still would be a PC-7 or a Tucano…
of course the apache decision had nothing to do with the politics who would build the winning aircraft, cough cough westlands!! I was at middle wallop 95-97 so when the decision was made, many many whispers
@ Ace – possibly but i think a small turboprop might be better suited as a observation/recon/artillery spotter. This article is about the T-6 but it could be about any similar plane…
http://www.g2mil.com/o-6b.htm
Nice plane Jones. My main worry is can it take AK fire? Seems too lightly armoured, and someone in the air is going to get everyone firing at him, so you either need speed, armour or enough firepower to keep everyone’s head down to survive.
@ Observer – Possibly, like the usual turboprop’s used for COIN. Like I said only a fantasy plane but the South Africans recently revieled a turboprop pusher which is somewhat similar. Again, more observation than attack.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/advanced-high-performance-reconnaissance-light-aircraft-ahrlac/
“— and possibly even pusher propellers mounted on the aft of the chopper —” – this could be a reference to Piasecki’s tail pusher ducted fan concept:
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/06/AH-64%20with%20Piasecki%20Vectored%20Thrust%20Ducted%20Propeller%20%28VTDP%29%20concept_SpeedApache_1.jpg
Or a version of AVX’s twin ducted fans:
http://www.avxaircraft.com/company.html
Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but given the cost of modernising AAC Apaches to Block III I think you might expect to see most or all withdrawn of them from service post-Afghanistan. The projected defence budget looks unlikely to afford to sustain the current force and since we never seem to deploy more than 8 at a time that would suggest just 3 squadrons might be a politically acceptable solution. However, I think you may find that the Treasury has its sights on scrapping the whole capability and relying on our allies. This also avoids the cost of ordering JAGM as a Hellfire replacement. If, as I suspect, the UK avoids any more small wars for a long, long time it may not matter that much.
Fatman, I can see where you’re coming from, possibly we could sell a few to existing users and plough the money back in. The Fleet Air Arm could possibly sponsor a squadron until F-35 becomes operational….I’ll take that one back, there isn’t the money!
Gareth, I’m sure I’ve seen a Cessna O-2 with the forward engine removed and replaced with a sensor kit. Given the COIN history of the O-2, could be a cheap alternative converting existing airframes sat in the boneyards.
not a chance, still have contacts in this area, apache is here for the foreseeable future, anything goes from JFH, puma is top of the list.
@ paul g, but in the medium term?
Aside from the urge to buy the most expensive product on the table, perhaps one of the reasons the Army didn’t go for Cobra years ago was that the future evolution for that aircraft wasn’t assured at the time. The UK could have bought into a development dead-end if the USMC had plumped for SeaApache. Aren’t the latest UH/AH-1 airframes substantially different to the aged originals?
Hi, Ace. You wouldn’t need concrete ballast to balance sensors removed from the Apache nose. Various black boxes would migrate around the avionics bays to maintain c of g, the freed up nose space would be used for other bits ‘n bobs already fitted.
Honestly though, Fatman’s right, now’s a terrible time to be buying or upgrading, the budget simply doesn’t allow for much leeway.
We can probably plan for future upgrades and purchases, but until the global economy picks up, it’s going to be hard to spend.
Hi Brian, re: migration of black boxes, my initial thought would be to move the Longbow radar to the nose to improve aerodynamics, but you’d lose 360 degree coverage. Is there 400 lbs of avionics in the tailboom to transfer forward to the nose? My knowledge and experience grinds to a halt at this point.
You wouldn’t need 400lbs of gear moved up front, Ace. Anything moved from behind a line drawn down through the aircraft’s main rotor shaft would no longer be trying to tip the aircraft back, and would no longer need to be balanced by a load up front.
Just think of the main rotor shaft as the pivot of your see-saw, and everything else is force x distance.
Remeber that when we took the decision to take on Apache, the new Zulu Cobra was still in development, only now is it reaching frontline service.
i think it was a four bladed version of supercobra, “cobra venom” which then went on to be viper. there were no funds for for this development in the US govt (they were apache fanboys after GW1) so it was seen as a bit of a gamble, as it was USMC put the money which why it probably took longer from drawing board to production.
just a point on ace’s comment, the targeting was moved from the nose in the A version to mast mounted in the D so as to avoid exposing the whole aircraft to the nasties you were hoping to kill, not so obvious in today’s world of open deserts, however concept bourne out of hiding in the woodline, ridges etc in the plains of west germany.
@ paul g
Sorry, I think you may well be wrong here. Sure the AAC/JHF wants to retain Apache (and to update it), but what they want is frankly no longer material in the present situation. The bean counters will make the key decisions. What you are about to see is the cancellation of several major projects, further redundancies in the MOD, both military and civilian (beyond announced levels), a general slowdown in procurement, etc. Unless a very good case can be made for the retention of some Apaches after 2014 you are going to see them being sold or scrapped. And I would forget Block III. For a start the DAS has so far abysmally failed to work.
Defence policy is being driven by money, not military sense. What we are witnessing is the UK’s military status being rapidly eroded from the lower part of the first division to the middle of the third and countries like that don’t play with the most expensive advanced systems. Think of Australia as a model – quite good, but with some distinct limitations, restricted size and unlikely to deploy more than a battlegroup on operations. That is the UK in 2020. But if we avoid war in Iran and the Falklands and keep our noses clean does it really matter that much? Incidentally I am an Apache fan, but we must face fiscal realities.
can’t agree, i’m basing it the fact i spent my last 5 years at wattisham and also i still have friends who are not only pilots but instructors on the thing.
You’re right there’s some shocks coming, but it’s down the line,the actions off libya certainly helped the cause. Although i agree block III is a pipe dream there will be some upgrades (blades and some avionics).
I say all this but the main point of your comment rings true and either of us could be right!!!
USMC Cobra attack squadrons also operate the UH-1s. Parts commonality was always going to be paramount. Thus, no SH-60s or Apaches (although the uh60-line and apaches do share the same engine).
(Ch53s, ch-46/v22 are the USMCs prime movers.)
” a general slowdown in procurement, etc.”
- hmmm, where is that fully funded equipment plan, due months ago? (the comment just reminded me of it)
I think paul g is right, we will have Apaches (maybe cutting the fleet numbers to “fund” the limited updates) at least to 2020
- poor man’s carrier strike
@ ACC – “- poor man’s carrier strike”.
Yes and no. Helicopters can’t replace FJ for many missions but then again they may be more suited for operations in the Littoral; also more flexible in their basing options? They are a seperate capability which slightly overlaps that of Carrier Strike.
Hi GJ,
Fully agreed. And I couldn’t put in “piss-poor man’s” as they themselves cost so much to operate (despite the fact that they’ve been paid for)
- 2018 to 2020 will be interesting, Ocean bowing out and the first big one hopefully through the sea trials
- we can put all 67 of the fleet on it (joke, joke!)
Well we saw yesterday that another 3000 MOD jobs are to go, not for any rational reason other than to save cash. The MOD financial situation is more desperate than most people even begin to appreciate. I would not wager much on Apache surviving too long. As soon as it needs major upgrades (Block III, new missiles, expensive structural repairs etc) the axe will come down, just like Harrier. That gives it until around 2018 when Hellfire goes out of service. The political will to spend on Apache is simply lacking, despite all the excellent military arguments to retain it.
I would also be watching out for a Uk withdrawal from F-35. MOD has no new aircraft programmes beyond that. For example there is no planned AWACS replacement because once again there is just no money. Given the time lag in project development you would expect IPTs to be set up now for a variety of successor projects from c 2022-2025 – but other than UAVs there simply aren’t any. If, as I suspect, the UK is going to withdraw to its own homeland and ignore the rest of the world it may not matter; indeed we can then sell the carriers, reduce air defence to 2-3 squadrons and so on. The bottom line is that the UK remains a wealthy country but there appears to be no long term strategic vision by our political class, which is why you will eventually see some future national humiliation like the Argentines seizing the Falklands or the Iranians sinking a frigate.
ACC, I’m sure the Apache fleet is now 66, as they bent one in Afghanistan in 2008. Given the lack of beans, the chances of a repair are zero. I haven’t heard what happened to the airframe.
RIP Apache.
It used to be very disconcerting patrolling continuously past a burnt out Chinook. And it was very surreal to see a Chinook engine half a mile away outside someone’s compound. It must have been worth a lot to them.
From the quote: “Now, the Apaches may not necessarily use the same system as the F-35, but its the concept that Openshaw likes. The miniaturization of sensor tech could someday allow him to install a network of tiny but powerful sensors around the Apache’s airframe and feed their data back to the cockpit. He pointed out that this could allow him to remove the 400-pound sensor turret on the helo’s nose. The reduced weight would improve the aircraft’s speed and fuel and weapons load.”
Unlikely. The sensor system they are talking about can detect hot things far away, for example. It could not replace the long zoom lens in the chin that the gunner uses for accurate targeting because it does not have the long range detail required.
If something like it ever does get onto an Apache it will, as with the F35, be in addition to targeting sensors at the front.
reht mentions the USMC decision being informed by reasons of commonality.
Has this ever been a consideration for UK helicopter decisions? Lynx, Puma, Merlin platforms could all be turned into gunships of one sort or another from a small tandem cockpit armoured one to something akin to the Mi24 Hind.
The commonality issue could also be taken in the opposite direction – The Apache has considerable engine performance due to the weight it has to lug around. Something bigger than a Lynx but smaller than a Blackhawk would be achievable I reckon. Which, er… would be too similar to the NH90 or AW149.
I often wondered about the posibilty of developing a home-grown gunship from the Lynx…
Another idea I had was to cross the Hind with a skycrane… huge weaponload or modular cargo pods for troops, supplies, etc.
I’ll go and take my pills now…
Gareth, leave your pills for a moment and have a gander at the link below. If you scroll down to the bottom you’ll find a silhouette of your suggestion. From what I remember I think it was on cards for the UK as long as the French bought some as well. Unfortunately the French pulled out and the concept was binned, hence the TOW armed Lynx to keep the Soviet hoards at bay.
http://www.vectorsite.net/gfxsh_02.html
As for the Hind skycrane idea, the Russian pilots loved the Hind in Afghanistan as they could carry reload rockets and missiles in the back, but didn’t like carrying troops as it detracted from their true role. From this I’d say choppers should be gunships or armed transports, but not try to be both, the Hind being the exception.
so why not put (polish built) hinds on the QE class? Rather than having a lynx as top cover and a merlin as the boarding cab (seeing as there’s no room in the back of a naval lynx) Fly over in a hind drop off troops in the back and hover in the overwatch role pointing all those shag nasty bits attached to it at the offending ship.
Is that suggestion classed as a fantasy fleet request?
@ Ace – Cool link! I aways envisaged something like the Mongoose but it looks more like the Commanche.
The Russians suggested a “Flying IFV” helicopter recently but it was essentially a heavily armed transport and I don’t think it went anywhere.
The US built a few prototype helicopters in the ’70′s which combined attack and transport roles, mainly for carrying scouts I think.
Gareth, try this one for size, the silhouette doesn’t do it much justice as it looks more like a mini Sikorsky Cheyenne.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201578.html?search=WG.13 Gunship
@Paul g, re: the Hinds on board ship, I’d rather stick with having Apache’s on an as and when basis. By the time you’d finished modifying a Hind up to our requirements, especially for the maritime role, and in such small numbers, the cost of an Apache would appear cheap in comparison!
i did say build it in poland!!!!
@ Ace – another cool link and you’re right – it does look like a Cheyenne!
@ Ace – found it! The S-67, confusingly called the Blackhawk – attack helicopter and/or transport for up to 8 troops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-67_Blackhawk
… and it had some commonality with the S-61, US veersion of the seaking.
Another attack/assault helicopter concept from Russia – not sure of the stats:
http://www.photoka.info/ansat-2rc/images/ansat_2rc_15.jpg
Gareth, looks like a Russian AW129 Mongoose, I wouldn’t be suprised if it had similar stats.
Re: the S-67 Blackhawk, I think (note non-committal language) this was in the days when flying at tree top height was the in thing, then it went to below tree top height which required a smaller aircraft hence the Cobra and Apache for anti-tank missions and cancellation of the big birds. Now because of Afghanistan and Iraq we’ve gone back to high again.
What do you think of a new style S-67 Blackhawk, but using the Merlin transmission and rotor system? Ideal for long-range SF insertion, especially with an inflight refuelling probe.
Gareth, my comment about the Mongoose triggered a memory of the original Agusta A139 which I saw at Middle Wallop airshow back in the late 80′s. It had the AW129 Mongoose transmission, rotors and undercarriage etc, but with a utility style fuselage, much in the similar layout of a UH-60 Blackhawk. Unfortunately it never got further than the mock-up, although I remember having the brochure for it for years.