To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions. Personal data will be used for personalisation of ads and cookies may be used for personalised and non-personalised advertising
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I know that Gabriele is not popular here but he has written an excellent piece on all the details that came out of the conference where these statements were made. Far better than the IHS write-up.
As far as Apache upgrades go- good. Block III is where its at. It will be interesting to see if they keep the UK engines and whether there is further marinisation.
Pleased to hear about 64E if it is to be a decent buy. Saying we dont need the 64 or whatever we have is bull. We need that to launch decent ops not just a few in a sandbox. Plus you the training. NO pilot will be able to get out of a EC120/130 and take off and fly the apache. They won’t even be able to turn it on. So this is one of those cases where changing the training aircraft wont help.
On the other hand they talk about our training requirements. I don’t get what they are saying abour a surrogate system. The MoD will undoubtebly be looking at glass cockpits as we have seen with even things like the tutor. Wildcat will be glass cockpit so one of the two airframes in the AAC will be glass cockpit whilst the other will be just another world! So that is no real surprise and the fleet does need an upgrade.
But the reason why helicopter training costs acount for 45% of their budget is because helicopters are expensive to run. I doubt the include the figures for feeding and watering the troops here. For an excercise you might want a few troops to stage a dummy attack on some place. Pretty cheap, however for a helicopter training sortie your looking at the cost of the instructor, the fuel, the maintenance and the time. I don’t see what his issue is hes acknowledged that the low incident record is due to the hands on training but he wants to reduce costs. Is he saying less trainging because of costs because that would be a huge no no.
I suspect we will see a new light single with a glass cockpit. (other questions are how much room do you need in the back? can you cope with none or do you need a bit?) And as is the trend at the moment more simulators.
If the Army has been reduced by 20% is it really a surprise the AH numbers do likewise?
Is this not the same system that BAE offers in the Hawk? Air forces Monthly had an article on the Hawk last year. Basically if your main aircraft is say the Typhoon, you can get an App, that has the cockpit screen of that aircraft. So making training easier and it is a lot cheaper flying the Hawk than your Typhoon. If you operate a two type fleet, today the Hawk is set for the Typhoon, tomorrow it is set up as the F35 and so on.
But what helicopter out there, is their than offers this.
Wow 45%. How much of that is attributable to AH? I can’t remember but does Army pick up Chinook costs too?
Apache isn’t worth it on those numbers.
Or you could look at it another way. Look how many Lynx/Wildcat the AAC operate, look how many hulls in the escort fleet, and I would humbly that RN not operating two airframes (of a large size but not Merlin size) per escort is a definite waste.
45% wow. Definitely a number to conjure with before any of you post that moving a footborne section/multiple by air in a vehicle that for the cost could outfit a company with modern APC is the be all and end all mechanized manoeuvre.
EDIT: Back in the olden days didn’t RAF stations often have a “station hack” ?
British Army want AH-64E…
Then show a picture of it being operated off a Royal Navy assault ship designed with the Royal Marines in mind, because that’s the only way they get to do anything useful :-)
With regards APC’s and ilk, even the “airmobile” nature of Vietnam spawned a significant post-mortem rebuke:
I’m sure there’s a happy medium somewhere.
As for Block III and marinisation… if you’re trying to shoehorn the AH1 into marine operations, would the AH-1Z Viper be a better fit (from a capability angle) for the UK going forward? Or does the existing helicopter fleet roster work for us?
Looking at cheaper helicopters, there’s always smaller piston types from the likes of Enstrom and Schweizer. I believe there’s an element of snobbery in having something Gucci looking on the flight line, “Enstrom? Urggh, where’s my EC135?” I’m sure the Turkish armed forces use the Robinson R44.
I believe its the same with the police, many forces use the EC145 or MD900, which are truly excellent aircraft, however, for just carrying a three man crew for observation and traffic duties seems something like overkill when an AS355 will do. I’m sure the twin engine rating is required just for operating over cities, despite the fact that one engine alone probably lacks the power for sustained flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC145
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_Helicopters_MD_Explorer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_AS355
On further reading it says 45% for total army running costs. Not surprising as they rely on helicopters to move troops, utility roles and for close air support.
@TD no but I would have liked to see them using the same number of apaches and seconding an amount to the RM for a dedicated RM AH. But that does require them being some what marinised.
With regard apps for cockpits, that is all very well but you still need training time in the actual aircraft. At best this just removes the conversion to the instruments of the new type. And tbh simulators can do this quite well with a comparatively minute investment.
Is AH1z the way to go? I don’t think so. We currently have apache in service. How often does the MoD say you know what lets not simply upgrade these airframes, lets sell them off to recoup some of the cash and buy another type. Viper has quite narrow skids anyway and you would require hardware on board any of our ships for moving helicopters with skids. Plus we already have the pilots trained to fly the block 1 version of apache so you don’t need to send all your pilots off to learn how to fly a completely new aircraft.
As for the AH-64E, I was surprised that a replacement airframe was mentioned as opposed to just an upgrade of the D variant. Do we have the money for this? Also, given the fact we don’t need a full complement of 66, could we not upgrade a few for export as AW still offer the WAH-64D on their website?
TOC, for dedicated marine ops, I like the idea of the AH-1Z also, although I feel the lack of a radar to be a stepback in capability. Longbow can be fitted to AH-1W apparently, but you also lose a weapons station to achieve it, not an ideal compromise. Alternatively, a Hellfire (or similar) armed MH-60S could offer a stable platform with troop carrying/cargo lift capability in an emergency, as opposed to a dedicated weapons platform.
What makes Apache such a god bit of kit is that it is useful for almost the entire spectrum of operations the Army engages in. From peace-keeping to COIN to heavy peer-warfare it just keeps on giving. So its not niche kit, its about as versatile a bit of equipment as you can hope for. Well worth it and I think the Army sees it clearly. Yes something lighter might have worked just as well in Afghan but then you don’t get the heavy warfighting capability. You get what you pay for.
Sound like an order for the aw169 will be following shortly then. It only really makes sense though if all helicopters used by the military outside of chinook,Merlin, wildcat and puma are replaced by the same machine.
Apache only logical decision.
IIRC a year or so ago MoD released Apache flying costs, it may have been in answer to a PQ. Apache was slightly more expensive (approx 10%) per hour than Tornado.
‘Then show a picture of it being operated off a Royal Navy assault ship designed with the Royal Marines in mind, because that’s the only way they get to do anything useful :-)’
How come every thread turns into an equipment grab for the navy? ;-)
As I understand it AH-64 is significantly better than AH-1, even in the naval role, when the US Army changed over from AH-1 to AH-64 the USMC also wanted to switch aircraft but were denied funding by congress and instead the USMC had to go with an upgrade program instead.
The US doesn’t always have the best kit for the role, so I don’t think we should just assume that as the USMC use AH-1 it is the best, and anyway the naval role is still by far in the minority and even then they are operating against land targets.
If we were able to design in further marinised aspects we could possibly then offer this design as an export option , I could see this being popular among nations which want a single airframe for both their land and sea operations.
David Niven,
“Equipment grab”, “equipment grab”, you say…
More like a “please use our overpriced asset so that we can defend its existence in future budget cuts” from the British Army.
:-)
https://paultonspark.co.uk/ride/miss-rabbits-helicopter-flight
That’s the cheap pilot training sorted.
Nothing is certain around UK Apache. The brigadier JHC may want new Apache, but he’s clear that it is only a hope.
Considering those whopping running costs, it will be a tough sell for the Army to get the nod from the treasury. There will be substantial savings to be had from cutting a helicopter type, and I bet that Wildcat with Hellfire and LMM looks pretty good on the chancellor’s spreadsheet.
We won’t see Viper, or any other helicopter, introduced if the government pulls the plug on Apache. Wildcat is what they already have, and I expect the Army could get a few more for its unwilling sacrifice of Apache.
It’s up to the Army to make the case for Apache; but depending on your reading of the UK’s potential threats from 2020 onwards, Apache is either an absolutely essential weapon system for fighting both infantry and armour, or the most extravagantly expensive way possible to blow up 250cc Kawazukis.
‘More like a “please use our overpriced asset so that we can defend its existence in future budget cuts” from the British Army.’
See now we’ve got back on to the carriers! I thought this blog tries to deal with defence issues on the whole and is not biased towards one service ;-)
Ha ha David, its not through want of bloody trying ;-)
Slowly but surely I think your efforts are bearing fruit TD :-)
Brian Black,
I’ve never thought the Wildcat was a good choice for the army, it has no real carrying capacity and to the accountants looks like a cheap gunship. I think as a military utility helicopter its design has been overtaken by requirements/events. We need a Blackhawk/NH 90 size helicopter to replace lynx and Puma in the future, capable of carrying weapons for escort/light gunship roles and a decent enough load to be truly useful.
I fear you may be right and the Wildcat will end up sidelining the Apache.
If were building new apache fuselages then the corrosion protection for navy operations can be build in from the beginning. Other modifications could happen at the same time.
Think that would be the aw149 david
‘Think that would be the aw149 david’
Yeah anything in that weight/size range. Two airframe fleet of Apache and …… (insert your choice) after the Pumas are retired.
Ive said before that Wildcat should be a RN helicopter maybe doing a tiny bit of gunship work for the RM but I would prefer even 4 Apache. Add a dipping sonar to the Wildcat and you have your self the perfect frigate/destroyer helicopter.
For the army its crud. Why take a state of the art aircraft and use it to look at tanks and move around small amounts of troops. They could have a cheaper easier to run and probably better aircraft. Sharing the procurement of aircraft looks good on paper its what the airframe turns out as that you have to be scared of.
Schweizer, maybe why don’t we use these for basic training. BUt we need a glass cockpit version. Certainly I think you could have just 2 seats in whatever type you pick.
With regard police ops there is no set need for twin engine but its always nice to have. You would be surprised how much weight they do have to carry (nightsun, flir, operator console, not to mention 3 blokes who spend a lot of their time drinking tea and eating biscuits.) So police ops aren’t always about being gucci i.e. D&C 145 is a good size as it has to pick up lost people on dartmoor/exmoor. So the Police aren’t necessarily guilty of having the Gucci kit, well other than the met.
The Military, well decide for yourselves. It would be nice to have commonality between the training a/c and the operational one like with the gazelle but it depends on costs. My money would be on eurocopter here I don’t even think AW do a single engine.
Where are we up to with deliveries of the Army Wildcat? Is there still the opportunity to trade it away for something bigger?
If not then we are probably stuck with it. The RN won’t have the budget to crew an increased rotary fleet, even if they might welcome the flexibility the extra cabs would bring. The ability to put 2 onbard T45, and free up some of the Merlins for a decent sized QE Crowsnest and ASW flight.
Don’t think we would store them either (which is a pity from a RN Contingency point of view) becuase I bet secure warm storage with ongoing light maintenance is not actually that cheap either.
So they would have to be sold off cheap if the Army Armed Medium Utility ‘copter ever comes into being. Not saying it won’t happen. But maybe not to be talked about publically until it actually does…
In all honesty we could take a breath and weigh up our options now Herrick is drawing to close. Maybe combine replacing Lynx and Puma within the same time frame when they come to the end of their life, after all both Lynx and Puma have been upgraded with new engines and I don’t think we really missed not having Lynx always available on Herrick.
But it is no doubt a political as well as a military decision to buy Wildcat, I just hope we don’t lose Apache for it then we will be back to the same Helicopter fleet as the 90’s.
Ref training, I think it’s a sensible move, and if we can contract out to a civvy firm that would be even better.
Eurocopter don’t exist anymore its airbus helicopters now! :)
Only one snag there ted the requirement for rear crew training and air door gunnery training so I don’t think you could do that in a single engine type. I think its unlikely that we will buy from someone other than aw. Though I think the aw139 has changed the philosophy of aw for the better in there helicopter line up and future development trends. Though the bell griffin we use probably fits the bill if old.
If thru life costs are areas of concern with helicopter operations then future requirement setters will have to look to leverage civil designs and temper there demand for bespoke requirements along with type reduction.
@ TED
With regard to police operations, there is a set need for twin engines:
According to the Air Navigation Order 2005, the “congested area” in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. While most of that may be obvious, it is often forgotten that an area within the boundaries of any such city, town or settlement which is used for recreational purposes forms part of the congested area. The pilot of any aircraft (except helicopters which have their own rules) must be able to alight clear of the whole congested area in the event of failure of a power unit. What might appear from above to be a possible suitable emergency landing field in the middle of a town will almost certainly be substantially used for recreational purposes, as will stretches of water. Which basically forbids dropping onto a public park.
Helicopters are only allowed on certain prescriptive routes, from which twin-engined aircraft are allowed to depart, at certain heights. So as well as having the weight, it also means that they can clatter about all over a conurbation, without asking the CAA for an exemption every time.
@Mark I know. What do we call an EC135 then?
Yes I did think about crew training but why have squirrel and griifin when you could have a small twin seat single (not a robinson for christ sakes.)
@Dave Haine Apologies managed to get confused between twin engine and twin pilot (impressive really.) But the rest still stands :)
@David Niven We didn’t miss the lynx on herrick originally as it could not fly in the day. If we lost Apache for Wildcat it would be absolutely criminal.
@All as someone pointed out on another thread, loads of nations use lynx in its naval role but only we use it in a ‘gunship’ role. An AW109 LUH can carry the same amount of passengers as wildcat. So if you want a light battlefield utility helicopter and reconnaissance helicopter heres your man. Personally I would get the A139M to replace as someone said lynx and puma in the AC role at the same time.
The brochure for the wildcat states it has dipping sonar do we not get this?
There must have been some justification for the acquisition of Wildcat for the Army. My understanding from our affiliated RAF Squadron is that the life extension of the Puma was a stroke of genius – the right sized airframe given a thorough overhaul and increase in service life for a relative pittance. Lynx has always been a small helicopter and must surely fulfil a valid battlefield role. There is much opposition to it here – but that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong choice.
The AW149 is a new one to me but looks promising as a possible Puma replacement in due course. As always though, the replacement will be an order of magnitude (or more) more complex and thus more expensive. So far as possible the new medium lift aircraft needs to be affordable – which doesn’t leave many options.
@TAS “There must have been some justification for the acquisition of Wildcat for the Army.” I truly hope so. Puma HC2 works for me but only for sort of 10 years!
‘There must have been some justification for the acquisition of Wildcat for the Army’
From Wiki:The Future Lynx project originated in two studies in 2002 to determine the suitability of a derivative of the Super Lynx 300 to replace the existing Lynx helicopters of the Royal Navy and British Army. These requirements were known as the Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft (SCMR) and Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH) programmes, respectively.[3] The utility transport aspect of the BLUH requirement was subsequently de-emphasised and the programme renamed Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter (BRH)
The problems of Herrick were not known when the acquisition started, although after the lessons learned were that we did not really miss Lynx, due to being able to do the role with other assets but we needed to scavenge aircraft from other countries and find ways of getting more availability from the support helicopter fleet I thought that the Army would have reassessed its requirement. They are due to enter service this year with the Army so there’s no hope of changing the situation.
If the Army goes for the full Block III update then we will lose the Longbow radar as it will be replaced by a data link allowing it to communicate and control UAVs and UCAVs as that is where the US Army is heading. As for replacing the fuselage, this is a really good idea as we have been working our Apache fleet to death over the last decade and the improvements are needed and based on feedback from the operators. The replacement is one of the central part of the upgrade with the new fuselages being built in South Korea. Given the usefullness of the Apache I would put the Block III upgrade near if not at the top of the Army’s procurement plans even at the expense of other programmes such as FRES(SV) or the Warrior upgrade.
Turning to maritime Ops, rather than marinise the Apache I would prefer to see the capabilities of the Navy’s Wildcats expanded to include Hellfire, CVR-7 and Gunpods. This expansion shouldn’t be too complicated and would give a rotary support capability up to the job at substantially less cost, and with more flexibility. In fact I would go as far as to recommend that the Army’s Wildcats are also marinised so that both varieties can operate off ships so a T-26 could carry both an armed and a utility Wildcat as an option.
David, thanks although I was already well aware of the origin programmes and frankly I wouldn’t want to change the requirement. Wildcat is a good aircraft, better engines, decent EOD, lower maintenance requirements and a capable weapons fit in the offing. Surely this must have some value – after all, there is a huge range of tasking that ground forces are asked to undertake and there must be a place for Wildcat, Apache and the support helicopters? I refuse to believe it is a wasted acquisition.
Wildcat, the Army (once more) gets the finest Anti Submarine helicopter money (and many many directorships) can buy :)
Like anything, of course it will have value
Value for money, now that is another story
It’s not wasted entirely we could keep them with the reaction Bde’s but wether the RM and Paras will agree is a different matter. Time has moved on and we found ourselves needing different requirements after some experience in a shooting war where helicopters were fundamental to the campaign. But now the money has been spent so will the money be forthcoming to upgrade Apache, I fear it won’t and we will be forced to use Wildcat in the role.
You’re not wrong TD and might I add some job creation for ex ministers/civil servants and generals in this country too :-)
TED
I don’t think there’s room for a single engined helicopter any more small twin engine aircraft should be the training fleet and for this “new” cheap training aircraft.
TAS
Puma yes you can transport it round easily (minimal dismantling for c17 transport ect) and the new upgrade has learned lessons from afghan for hot and high performance requirements and it was cheap to do. Should never have happened though not a fan of the puma, its a helicopter that is quite susceptible to dynamic roll over. Should have been replaced by a modern equivalent.
TD: “Wildcat, … the finest Anti Submarine helicopter” without a dipping sonar…
Perhaps this enforces the approach of moving the Army Wilcats to the Navy (and integrating a proper ASW package) as part of a SSN / UAV / MPA lite package, freeing up cash for the Apache upgrade…
But what would the Navy be willing to sacrifice to take up the running and crewing costs of 30 more Wildcats?
@DavidNiven: obviously all those unnecessary Merlin’s :-)
It does seem a bit silly to have two types of ASW helicopter when everyone else in the world makes do with one H60 sized one. Mark it down to industrial policy and military blindness when it was decided that a) Westlands needed to make a “Sea King replacement” for which thousands of orders would be forthcoming, many from the North Sea oil community who supposedly required three engines for safety reasons and b) the RN decided they needed the same.
If only we had just license produced the H60, just like we did the Wessex, the Sea King….
UK military helicopter policy
1. Requirements
2. Do Westlands sell it
3. See 1
@wf
Yeah if the navy thinks it could live without the merlin, I presume you would still need a few for crowsnest but could we use the folding blades etc to modify the merlins going to the helicopter commando force?
@Td
Has that not been the case since the westland affair? :-)
TD, wf, Repulse, David,
Hang on a minute fellas. Suddenly the Navy Wildcat is in the crosshairs? Sorry, no – we got our bid right thank you! Wildcat would not be capable as a dipping helicopter because it doesn’t have the endurance. How many navies operate dipping Lynxes today? The Dutch – and that’s about it. Lynx doesn’t have the mission system or the sonobuoy capacity either. Merlin has at least twice the endurance plus the equipment. They evolved from very different requirements and will always be very different. Lynx is a potent anti-surface aircraft, ideal for force protection, boardings, maritime sniper and maritime attack, as well as being able to conduct weapon carrier duties in ASW. Merlin is a slow, unmanoeuverable bus – but it has the kit, the range and the endurance.
I think we have it right – the specialised ASW aircraft and the small fast multi-purpose attack helo. We can pick and choose what we need. I think reverting to a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none like the Seahawk is a mistake. Does Seahawk have the role flexibility of Lynx? Maybe – but it’s much bigger and much more expensive.
Yes, the Navy could do with a few more airframes – because the introduction of Wildcat has cut Lynx numbers yet again. But we would not sacrifice anything to get them – if the Army failed to update and correct its battlefield helicopter requirements then that’s their problem, not ours.
@TAS: you are of course correct, I was making a joke. My point still holds, however: in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be two different airframe types, and the Merlin is a very expensive way of getting the endurance, which is why it sold sod all outside the home customers.
However, we are where we are, and will have to deal with it. Frankly I see more requirements for the Wildcat in the Army and RM, seeing as it can’t lift much or do much in the way of ASW. A pair of Firescout’s on a frigate doing ASW would be a lot cheaper, while the Army could still use the ability to lift a fire team plus for CASEVAC , liason and patrol. Yes, I know the MERT won’t fit in it, but a pair of Wildcat with their own CRV7 and door gunners seems like a better solution than a single Chinook, like the way the USAF uses pairs of H60.
@TAS,
Calm down my exact phrase was ‘Yeah if the navy thinks it could live without the merlin’.If they can’t then fine.
But I will question ‘if the Army failed to update and correct its battlefield helicopter requirements then that’s their problem, not ours’.
The Army are getting Wildcat precisely because the Navy are.
http://helihub.com/2013/10/22/thales-to-equip-aw159s-for-republic-of-korea-navy/
@wf
Whats the point in just lifting a fireteam? that’s at least 8 airframes for a platoon when Puma can do it with 4.
The reason the Americans use 2 H60 is that they do not have doctors, anethiatist etc on board like our MERT but just a paramedic,they will however enter a hot landing zone with the second H60 providing cover, while the MERT prefers to stand back a bit. The PEDROS do have cutting equipment for vehicle extraction though, and its on the advice of the call sign calling for the extraction that a decision to send whichever of the two is taken. They compliment each other nicely in Afghan.
Westland did have a license for the Sikorsky/Westland S-70-19 Black Hawk also called the WS-70.
But at that time there was no interest in replacing the Lynx.
It was for sale from 1987-1991 for Middle Eastern customers and the gulf war killed off any chance of production.
http://history.whl.co.uk/ws70_blackhawk.html
There was also an S-70A-16 Black Hawk engine test bed for the Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM 332.
while the MERT prefers to stand back a bit.
That’s a negative I can say that for certain.
Yes, I know the MERT won’t fit in it, but a pair of Wildcat with their own CRV7 and door gunners seems like a better solution than a single Chinook
Why is a better solution? The MERT is a far more capable CASEVAC unit and can fly faster than its escorts. The thing is a rocket in the sky and can drop into an HLS like a meteor.
PEDRO provides less capability in every sense than a Chinoook MERT and the reason there’s two is so one can cover the other and they are nothing like as effective as an Apache.
If you can afford a decent medical evacuation Chinook / MERT + Apache is gold standard.
‘while the MERT prefers to stand back a bit’
They do its their way of working, if you can be stabilised enough for a short trek they prefer it. But if your in real clip then they will land with the ramp at your head, and I can also say that for certain.
Prefer makes it sound like they won’t. But we seem to agree that they come in.
It depends on how the CASEVAC chain is organised on the ground. Some units would keep their medical personnel relatively central and so casualties were brought back by default to just behind the FLET.
PEDRO would get tasked with Cat Bs and Cs usually or LN casualties. MERT for Cat As.
I think the mert and indeed the csar capability is something the uk should look at bring in full time there both similar but different the pave hawks are really for the csar task, I would like to think it could be keep as platform agnostic as possible so it could be used by any of the main helicopter platforms. To be honest puma would probably make the most sense from a deployable aspect you could lump in with a disaster relief tasking but chinook especially with aar capability is without equal.
Is lynx capable of taking a stretcher I always though it wasn’t quite wide enough and you had to do some manhandling to turn the stretcher round?
PEDRO would get tasked with Cat Bs and Cs usually or LN casualties. MERT for Cat As.
Yeah plus the PEDRO would get tasked if some poor bastard was trapped in a vehicle. I didn’t mean to make it sound like the MERT wouldn’t come straight in if they needed to, I have got a lot of respect for the crews. What they sometimes risk to get people out is awe inspiring especially considering some of them are reservists. :-)
From what I’ve seen over the years, from different tours I think the Army and RAF have finally got their heads around this jointness stuff, I think the jury is still out with the Navy.
@DavidNiven: when I say fire team plus, I’m talking about recce patrols, FOO teams, etc. If you wanted a company lift, you’d ask for Chinook or Puma.
@Phil: Chinook and Apache may well be gold standard, but at the rate things are going gold may well not be available. There won’t be enough of them. BTW, the US use dedicated H60’s for casevac, so the smaller helicopters are still useful…
Chinook and Apache may well be gold standard, but at the rate things are going gold may well not be available.
They’re the two most numerous helicopter types in service.
@wf
But that’s the point we have not got enough of them, we have instead got Wildcat.And H60’s are bigger than Wildcat.
Why is Chinook and Apache gold standard? why can’t they be just standard?
The MERT is an evolution from the ERT which were used in the Balkans, they were carried by a Sea King and had on board a doctor, paramedic,RE EOD team and dog handler.
So it’s not as if everyone’s got spendthrift for Herrick.
It’s gold standard because it’s not always the appropriate treatment or evacuation option. It’s the best but resource intensive.
Yeah Phil I know what gold standard means. What I meant was you can cut costs on everything but medical facilities, when it comes to trauma care there is no such thing as fitted for but not with.
We both know the MERT does not get crashed for every casualty, but we still need the MERT and the Chinook is the more appropriate airframe to carry it. I would not like to be folding seriously ill blokes into the back of Wildcat where a medic has no room to properly work on them. So as for wf saying that they will do, yes to a very small point they will, but anything more serious or painfull than a gunshot wound to the buttocks you need something bigger.
ref: The Army are getting Wildcat precisely because the Navy are
Rm’ no, not really ! The Army are saddled with Wildcat because the “cold war” era plan was for a Light Battlefield Recce helo to do armed scouting for the Apache, echoing the use of the OH58D in the U.S. Army. This meant the 100 airframe plus anti-tank force of TOW equipped Lynx AH1 (later AH7) would be rebuilt / modernised into a new role to support the newly acquired Apache.
Original versions of Westland art work even had a mast mounted optronics sensor and a chin mounted .50 cal MG. It has been a long and very drawn out program, and yes it may well have just got the chop at some point if were not for the politics of Westland and Yeovil, defence industrial strategy, old boys networks and corruption, but be that as it may, the Army is not “saddled with” Wildcat because of RN requirements, far from it !
By the way Army Wildcat’s don’t need to be “marinerised”, they are pretty much identical to RN Wildcat’s as far as airframe, core avionics, engines and dynamic systems – the differences are largely in the details (e.g. Army version not have radome etc).
@Jed
So commonality has nothing to do with? the utility part of the specification for the Army was reduced, was that to fit the specs to the airframe rather than finding an airframe that can do the required specifications?
There’s plenty of other options out there that are cheaper if all you want is battlefield recce helicopter.
@ DavidNiven
Commonality of parts. Apache well more strictly speaking the Lynx attack helicopter replacement programme didn’t begin until 1993/4 when the Cold War was already disappearing into the rear view mirror. Lynx had worked well for both the Army and the RN. Shuffling numbers down due to lack of threat, scrapping Gazelle, but with need still for a liaison, medivac, and observation platform etc, and the logic course of action was to replace Lynx with one type for both services. Low RN numbers due to a much smaller fleet. Imagine RN Wildcat procurement figures if we still had the 50 or so escorts we had in 1990. We are 25 years on nearly from the end of the Cold War.
@DN
What I mean is it is not and will not always be appropriate to send such specialist medical assets that far forward. The MERT has assets that take 10-15 years to produce and there’s not many more of them than Chinook airframes. Chinooks is gold standard for its ease of loading, speed and space.
In Afghan it’s fine – in an Iraqi invasion again it would be better to bring them back to centralised care using the more traditional medical laydown in a lot of cases. You do the most for the most you can and having a field surgical team in a central place may mean they can do more for more people than flying them into the thick of it.
David,
Careful with that assessment of jointness. The RAF and the Army have built up an excellent working partnership as a result of their operations in Afghanistan. Rightly so – what they have failed to do is bring the Navy into their new ways of working. The RN has always been joint. We have a significant presence in PJHQ, embedded troops, a great working relationship with a number of Army regiments and for years have had RAF pilots embedded everywhere, not to mention the tight links between UK Air Defence and our air warfare destroyers, the Nimrod MPA community and the Harrier community. Plus we routinely deploy ships with both RAF and AAC helicopters embarked. So I think you are wrong – the RN does understand jointery – and I would argue we understand it better than the other two Services on average. I’m sure I’m not alone in that assessment.
It’s almost unheard of to find a crab or pongo serving on a ship. But it’s routine to find a matelot in combats in Afghanistan. That to me says it all.
It’s almost unheard of to find a crab or pongo serving on a ship. But it’s routine to find a matelot in combats in Afghanistan. That to me says it all.
Sure does. It shows where the focus of present day operations are.
Lord Jim, ” If the Army goes for the full Block III update then we will lose the Longbow radar…”
Boeing, and Lockheed (who make Longbow) both think there is an AH-64E Apache Longbow. As do the Koreans, who have paid for some.
cutting
@Phil
I understand, what I’m failing to say is, that yes in a large scale invasion you have to use your assets the most effective way you can, but when it comes to equipping those assets you do not scrimp. If it is found that a medic with the forward troops could do with a certain piece of kit you acquire it for them. After all there’s only so much jingoism that will make blokes constantly go out and do the job, but if they know that when it goes pear shaped they will get the best treatment that we can give/offer regardless then that makes a big difference. Like I said save money on tyres, oil etc not trauma care.
@TAS
I’m only going off my own experience and from what I read on this Blog, if in reality its different then I apologise in advance but I’m yet to be convinced.
TAS,
“Plus we routinely deploy ships with both RAF and AAC helicopters embarked.”
“It’s almost unheard of to find a crab or pongo serving on a ship”
Routine, or unheard of?
“The RAF and the Army have built up an excellent working partnership as a result of their operations in Afghanistan. ”
Shame they couldn’t manage the same during Op Banner. Remind me again who was the preferred airline in Bandit Country?
Lord Jim, ” If the Army goes for the full Block III update then we will lose the Longbow radar”
There is an AH-64E Apache Longbow according to Boeing, and Lockheed (who make Longbow). The Koreans are buying E Longbow.
@x
Shame they couldn’t manage the same during Op Banner. Remind me again who was the preferred airline in Bandit Country?
Yes your right x, but times have changed along with attitudes and both have changed for the better.
Phil,
Okay – where is the focus going to be after HERRICK closes down?
David,
Hopefully I and others can convince you of the facts but honestly, we do get it.
Brian,
My point is that we rarely see the other two on anything other than an amphib or aircraft carrier when they are embarked doing their own jobs rather than an exchange. There’s very little evidence of cross-Service exchange into the RN – it always seems to be RN into the other services.
Okay – where is the focus going to be after HERRICK closes down?
Same places it overwhelmingly has since 1945 – land and air.
There’s very little evidence of cross-Service exchange into the RN – it always seems to be RN into the other services.
You should stop being so bloody pushy then :)
@Phil
“Okay – where is the focus going to be after HERRICK closes down?”
“Same places it overwhelmingly has since 1945 – land and air.”
Ah yes. Barracks and RAF stations dotted around the UK. ;-)
@Dunservin
‘Ah yes. Barracks and RAF stations dotted around the UK.’
As apposed to floating around the med. ;-)
@TD you hit the nail on the head the AAC will be getting a great anti sub helicopter.
Just read an article on Puma HC2 and it looks brilliant to me. Wildcat may have been justified with the mast mounted optics and chin mounted 50. Now its a over engineered utility helicopter with a FLIR ball (and a naval one at that.)
My point has always been if all you have is a flir ball why have wildcat strapped to it when it could be AW119/109 EC120/130
” we rarely see the other two on anything other than an amphib or aircraft carrier when they are embarked doing their own jobs rather than an exchange.”
When I’ve seen Navy personnel attached to Army units, they have by and large been doing their own Navy jobs.
I had a look on the Navy’s site to see if I could find some reference to sailors on exchanges. There is mention of a handful of sailors, air and ground crew, serving with 653 sqn (Apache); there’s also a story from last month which states that in Afghanistan “there remain more than 200 RN personnel – mostly Fleet Air Arm – with 857 NAS and the air engineers of 1710 NAS”.
There’s undoubtedly sailors knocking about in other jobs too, but still, it’s only a few sailors out of more than 200 in Afghanistan being used out of their specific role (yet still flying and maintaining helicopters). I would suggest, that ratio could also be described as rare; and this is at a time when the main focus of military operation is still in a landlocked country.
If the Navy finds itself a long pointless naval war to suck up our military resources for a decade, then maybe we’d see more Army onboard the Navy’s ships. That only the Navy understands jointery is a daft claim. And your evidence is definitely weak, using the presence of Navy folks in joint headquarters as an example of how well the Navy understands jointinous; it’s joint headquarters, of course the Navy’s there.
Did anyone see this National Geographic documentry series last year : Inside Combat Rescue
A very insightful look in to the USAF Medevac mission in Afghanistan.
This is the first episode
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN-6lrIgRMg
One thing that is obvious, once you get two stretchers on board their is not a lot room in the back of a Blackhawk.
The puma 2 may indeed be excellent capability wise but it was programmatic given the cost pressures at the time and that should be tempered with
“On the specific question of the Puma LEP, Mr Derek Sharples from Eurocopter told us that the project would “see the aircraft re-engined; new avionics systems; new digital autopilot; it will see new engine control systems; new tail rotor blades; a strengthened tail.”46 These improvements would undoubtedly make Puma a better helicopter, but would not affect the aircraft’s crashworthiness and aspects of survivability. At our second session on 2 June, the Minister said that he “did not like the sound” of using crashworthiness as a factor, as he “would not dream of flying any helicopter that we were not absolutely certain was as safe as it possibly could be”.47 This sounded to us as if the MoD had begun to share our doubts as to whether extending the lives of both Sea King Mk 4 and Puma would really be a sensible course of action to take, taking account of the age of the Sea King and the survivability of passengers in the Puma in the event of an uncontrolled landing. TheMinister admitted that proceeding with the LEP would result in “extended exposure to risk”48.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Helicoptercapability072009.pdf
Phil, I don’t think an overwhelming focus on West Germany is going to help much.
Sea blindness – truly worrying sometimes.
Brian, how wonderfully you put the Navy down. Are you saying that I am wrong, that the Navy doesn’t understand joint operations? Or merely grinding an axe? Some evidence of your own would be nice rather than simply pooh-poohing the Navy’s history of jointery.
For evidence of the RN involvement in a landlocked ground campaign I suggest Google. Starter for ten: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations/current-operations/afghanistan
BTW ‘I would argue we understand it better than the other two Services on average’ does not equal ‘only the Navy understands jointery is a daft claim’. Grateful if you could avoid mis-quoting.
At the risk of incurring a great deal of wrath, what would we lose if Wildcat replaced Apache? From posts above, it seems like Wildcat could be fitted with an MMS and chin turret?
Just interested, given that (IMO) very hard economic restraints will have kicked in by the time the Apaches are due for upgrade. IF Wildcat proves cheaper to run, the cost argument could be compelling.
Phil, I don’t think an overwhelming focus on West Germany is going to help much.
Maybe not. But what about:
Palestine?
Korea?
Malaya?
Borneo?
Aden?
Northern Ireland?
Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Kuwait?
Sierra Leone?
Libya?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Just a quick one
http://gillww1.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/early-armoured-cars-by-e-bartholomew-p14.jpg%3Fw%3D300%26h%3D196
or two
http://www.nam.ac.uk/online-collection/images/480/79000-79999/79317.jpg
Phil, did you forget
1952 Eritrea and Somaliland
1951 to 1956, Egypt
1952 to 1956, Kenya
1952 to 1959, Oman
1954 to 1968, Aden and Radfan
1955 to 1959, Cyprus
1955, Sudan
1956, Suez
1958, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq
1958, British Honduras
1961, Kuwait
1965 to 1980, Rhodesia and Zambia
1975 to 1994, Belize
1983 Lebanon
1997, Democratic Republic of Congo
:)
@ADB
At the risk of incurring a great deal of wrath, what would we lose if Wildcat replaced Apache?
Probably in the scheme of things nothing we could not work around, but why would you spend money bastardising an already expensive and newish airframe to fulfill a role that no other country uses the airframe for? when you could upgrade an airframe with a proven track record of very effectively providing.
We have proved we could live without the Lynx on recent operations the same could not be said for attack helicopters.
David, but what about if we purchased a few more Wildcat and fitted them with pylons and a 30mm cannon?
I know we would be giving an awful lot if we traded in AH for a few pimped out Wildcat (not least the psychological impact on potential enemies) but times are tough
I know we would be giving an awful lot if we traded in AH for a few pimped out Wildcat (not least the psychological impact on potential enemies) but times are tough
That’s no reason to bin something as powerful and versatile as Apache. Going backwards to a Lynx AH1 set up hiding in the trees from men with AK47s rather than strutting around like a big flying bastard shouldn’t be an option. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to marinise it with the upgrades so they can fly from our two new LHAs?
I know Phil, the point remains though, times are hard, and the AH fleet upgrade will suck the life out of the Army rotary (and others) budget.
Plus, at over 60 off airframes, I think it might actually be the largest (or close) fleet of helicopters currently in service
Perhaps the answer is a radical reduction and upgrade. The Cold War magic number of just under 70 AH1 does not seem sustainable in any version of Army 2020
@ all think wildcat would be just as expensive dont forget US are upgrading 650 airframes
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AH-64-Apache-Longbow.html
key point being The total procurement cost of the AH-64E Remanufacture program is $12.20 billion + $1.56 billion in research and development (RDT&E) funds, therefore each remanufacture aprox £18-£20 m compared to a new wildcat with RN spec radar etc and missile hardpoints would be north of £30m ?
Numbers are a different matter but scrapping altogether seems an horrendous decision. That said they should be able to generate 3 “task streams” as it were: supporting the armoured division, being able to fly from the LHAs and also to back up a lighter ground force in something akin to Mali. As well as conduct training etc
oops sorry that would be $18-$20m not pounds therefore £11-£13m …. no brainer for me :-)
TD if I had to, I would do a study about migrating the Longbow and self protection kit (if not all ready fitted),I would just put the 30mm from the AH into a gun pod, but I would not spend any more money than was economical.
So no gun turrets or anything that changes the airframe, and do what the British armed forces have done for years and live with a bit of kit that is neither fish nor fowl.
I would see how many AH airframes we could realistically cut and bin both Lynx and Wildcat to keep the Apache.
But its been done now so time will tell.
Exactly why replace something made for the job doing the job with a naval airframe. Wildact should have soem of this kit available anyway. Paricuarly as the poor old RM will almost undoubtebly end up with 4 wildcat as ‘gunships’.
I would love to see at least 50 Apache. I would like Wildcat to go to the RN. How many ships could take 2-3 wildcat on decl or in hangar? I would like 15-20 A109 LUH 4-5 of which for the RN as plane guard on the QEs. The rest to the Army for recce and light utility.
Puma HC2 in the medium lift, chinook all 60 odd in the heavy lift.
Now the army has a cheaper and arguably more effective rotary fleet and the RN has plenty of ASuW helis to combat FRC.
The very idea of using Wildcat as a Gunship is just plain daft. The French tried that last year in Mali, when they used Gazelles as Gunships. They had a pilot killed and the helicopter was eventually written off. The French had to send Eurocopter Tigre’s to Mali. Go back to the Falklands War. Two Gazelles were shot down in San Carlos Bay on the same day, due to small arms fire.
What would you rather go into battle with a Flying Tank like the Apache or a Flying Ford Transit Van like the Wildcat?
I guess one of the reasons I am playing devil’s advocate here is I don’t see what Wildcat is for. It’s too small to transport much around (even Javelin anti-tank teams, if I’m not mistaken) and a very very expensive scout whose job can be done by Apache anyway.
Binning brand new Wildcats won’t be an option, so in cash-strapped times, could they replace Apache? Especially if running costs are cheaper (probably too early to tell, but we will know by the time Apache needs upgrading).
Just saw your post Simon. So one of the big plusses for Apache would be armour? And like Phil says, Wildcat would have to hide behind trees? Fair enough. Though I do find it strange that Wildcat doesn’t have similar protection, for the cost. Would it really be as vulnerable as a Gazelle?
Would it really be as vulnerable as a Gazelle?
Apache is vulnerable enough even with its armour and redundancy. Lynx is much more fragile.
Replacing Apache with Lynx completely is just silly as Simon has said above.
Fair enough Phil.
In the absence of a gunship role, are the Wildcats of much use?
The other thing to remember with the running costs is that everything the Apache lifts into the air is required to do its primary job of AH. Wildcat however if its primary use is battlefield recce will be burning fuel and airframe hours to carry a cabin that half of which is enclosing air, then add to that a light gunship role.
It might be cheaper to run but the most economical way of getting firepower to the front by helicopter is via a true AH.
Really cant see why as phil and simon257 says you would want to replace apache with wildcat for the gunship role
With the investment already sunk in training, infrastructure, state of the art MTADS/PNV fire control radar etc
Again look at this http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2014/AH-64-REMAN-ARMY-PROC-FY2014.pdf $18.5m per airframe to remanufacture to AH64E standard in financial year 2018 ???
Cant believe anyone would want to purchase more wildcat to provide a lesser capability in its primary tasks???
OK, OK, I get it.
Sheesh!
LOL.
@ADB
In the absence of a gunship role, are the Wildcats of much use?
If you consider that we have managed to live without a battlefield recce helicopter constantly available, and managed to fulfill that role with other assets like UAV’s etc and that they can’t lift a useful load and are too small in the utility role, then no they are not.
In the absence of a gunship role, are the Wildcats of much use?
Err, how else are Colonels going to get home in good time for a good dinner when their course disperses on a Friday afternoon?
OPTAG in 2010 we were on our last serial on the Friday keen to get on the road home. The last serial was a thrilling demonstration of some Gurkhas walking across a playing field demonstrating the Afghan snake.
Fuck knows how many lives that saved.
But anyway we’re about to start and a Lynx appears over the horizon and without asking plomps itself down in the middle of the field.
It sits there for 2 hours and the demo isn’t allowed to happen so you can imagine the blokes working themselves up into deep psychotic rages as they have mental meltdowns imagining the ever growing tailbacks on the roads. Eventually a wagon pulls up and out steps a scruffy Colonel with a bright blue beret who hops into the cab which then without a moments more delay starts its engine and fucks off to drop him home.
That poor Colonel may not have gotten home for several hours if he hadn’t have had a Lynx as his personal taxi. He may well have had to sit in the traffic along with several frothing and red faced comrades.
Give your head a wobble for thinking such terrible things. A senior officer is not just for Xmas.
I fear that people’s analysis of Lynx/Wildcat for AH will also end up being the achilles heel of Apache.
It is simply too fragile to get in the way of modern infantry weapons. Great if you can lord it over an underarmed insurgent, but when it comes to a real war with an enemy armed with MANPADS, it’s history.
Let it sit back, scan the ground and launch Hellfire and Brimstone. If it can get a few rounds of 30mm on target from a couple of km away then all the better.
Wildcat will still be able to do CASEVAC and light lift way after Apache is deemed ineffective and is retired. Perhaps we’ll end up with cheap hovering UAV 30mm cannons.
“Wildcat will still be able to do CASEVAC and light lift way after Apache is deemed ineffective and is retired.”
Woah. I fear you have just committed blasphemy around here, Si. Prepare for incoming.
@Simon
Lynx and wildcat are not suitable for casevac, if in an absolute necessity they were the only things available then yes, but I would throw someone in a wheelbarrow if I had to in an absolute necessity it does not however make it a suitable ambulance.
I’m sure TD has an upcoming piece on CSAR. I might be wrong though? For Medevac/Casevac. You are looking at AW149 or Blackhawk as a starting point. Anything else is to small for military purposes.
If the sole advantage of Wildcat over Apache is light lift, then bin both Wildcat and puma and invest in these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman_K-MAX
Hang a MOTS recce pod underneath for the occasional recce work.
If the Arym had been thinking straight they would have a small lightly armed recce helicopter with decent optics. This may have been able to lift 4 troops or a few ration packs in a secondary light utility role.
If they wanted a BUH they could have something that lifted stuff and was a bit bigger. But not too big cause your getting into crab territory.
The Army’s answer, a Naval helicopter with an EO turret some seats and a hook. I don’t have a huge issue with it being a BUH cause anything can do that and the navy will have to do it. However in a recce role it is p*ss poor. You really need a twin seat heli that can get down in the dirt and folds with a mast mounted camera to stay behind that ridge. And then someway of communicating that intel with the wider world.
I suspect the army just wanted to lower the R&D costs of the buy of these aircraft by teaming up with the navy. Nice plan if you can’t buy off the shelf which in the BUH role you can. 20 bell 412s gives you a nice light-medium lift capability.
Whilst we are discussing helicopters, Puma HC2 may be eaked out o aroun 2030. We have 16 years at best 11 at current predictions to sort out its replacements. The AW139 looks impressive as does the 149. But theres also the EC725. The army and RM seem to lack a LUH or BUH. Wildcat is meant to do this but is it too mcuh?
CASEVAC etc
It depends on your goal. Any chopper can carry a wounded soldier from A to B. But if you want to give them excellent treatment on the way then you need to add human capability to it in the form of consultants, paramedics and nurses. You need a few people to work on a Cat A casualty so space is a must. So if we want MERT we need Chinook or maybe Merlin / Puma at a squeeze. If we just want a swift evacuation then it can be whatever is closest to the tasking.
Sometimes getting them back in anything is better than getting them back in a MERT.
So yes Lynx could move casualties around. But you’ll never have a MERT in it. Too small.
Any way it’s all academic Wildcat is meant to be in service this year, will it eventually sideline Apache? only time will tell.
“Considering those whopping running costs, it will be a tough sell for the Army to get the nod from the treasury. There will be substantial savings to be had from cutting a helicopter type, and I bet that Wildcat with Hellfire and LMM looks pretty good on the chancellor’s spreadsheet.”
And for HM Treasury, that is all that matters……after all once the Army has withdrawn from major operations the MoD / Treasury will be bombarded with requests / pointed memo’s making it clear that the other services have suffered as the Army has hovered up the budget.
No doubt the Telegraph will be filled with letters from all sides……
Pete Doherty speculated on costs earlier. His estimates of £30m for a new Wildcat, and £11m to £13m for each remanufactured Apache led him to plump for Apache on cost alone – a no brainer.
However, thirty recce Wildcats for the Army are a done deal. The Apache fleet could also be cut to around fifty.
Going for that number of fifty aircraft, spending £11m to £13m on fifty Apache comes out at £550m to £650m. Buying twenty additional Wildcat at £30m each comes out at £600m, with a rationalization of supply, maintenance, and training coming from removing a whole fleet type.
Pete Doherty speculated on costs earlier. His estimates of £30m for a new Wildcat, and £11m to £13m for each remanufactured Apache led him to plump for Apache on cost alone – a no brainer.
However, thirty recce Wildcats for the Army are a done deal. The Apache fleet could also be cut to around fifty.
Going for that number of fifty aircraft, spending £11m to £13m on fifty Apache comes out at £550m to £650m. Buying twenty additional Wildcat at £30m each comes out at £600m, with a rationalization of supply, maintenance, and training coming from removing a whole fleet type.
News on the Merlin CHF conversion
25
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_27_2014_p0-658249.xml
Seriously 450 m pound to convert 25 transport helicopters we already own? We’re doomed
@Brian Black
‘Going for that number of fifty aircraft, spending £11m to £13m on fifty Apache comes out at £550m to £650m. Buying twenty additional Wildcat at £30m each comes out at £600m, with a rationalization of supply, maintenance, and training coming from removing a whole fleet type.’
So for give or take £50m difference we have not only lost capability but 30 airframes as well. the rationalisation would have come from not ordering Wildcat to begin with.
But like you said the Wildcat is a done deal.
I must say that the AW 139 seems a better size for a battlefield utility copter.
If we can still get two in the space taken up by a single Merlin I would suggest that maybe Lynx/Wildcat has had its day?
Looking at te Wildcat are they increasing the capacity for the AAC version, as the Navy version can take 7 passengers including a door gunner, so 6 in reality, isn’t a section 8 men, hence the requirment for the Lynx to carry 8 passengers.
I can’t see Wildcat taking a whole section with their kit.
I can barely see it carrying a single fireteam if that fireteam has Javelin, HMG, etc.
If you’ve ever been to Duxford and stood by the Huey it’s amazing how many they cram in with legs flopping about outside. Same could easily be done on Wildcat as long as these chaps are being evacuated and are happy to leave their packs and weapons behind.
Merlin Mk3i, will be in existence cause no one got their ass in gear!
No Simon Wildcat has not had its day. Its had its day as an ‘AH’ ‘BUH’ ‘BRH’. Or I wish anyway.
@Brian black that makes no sense. We lose 30 air frames from 50 apches. Oh and the 20 we do get are not as good?!
The good news is they are what the navy s using!
Merlin HC3i will (I believe) explain to folk what happened to the foldy bits of those HM1 not in the HM2 CSP…..
@NaBoffin
Do you know what happens to the HC3i airframes once the designated HC4/4a become available?
Will they be added onto either the HC4/4a or HM2 programme?
Or will they be stored, stripped or disposed of?
This is really embarrassing isn’t. All three services regularly work together, jointery has been in place for many many years, DE&S project teams are manned on a joint basis and yet we still end up in a position of spending scarce cash on retrofits to meet entirely predictable requirements
I really don’t know what to say
£18m each
Just let that number sink in
On top of that TD we’ve already developed all the avionics for the grey Merlin upgrade and we already know how to navalise the naval helicopter yet still it costs 450m pound. Quite frankly it’s little wonder there in the mess there in it’s utterly barking it’s going ahead at that price.
Warning! Warning! FRES comment imminent!
TD – can’t possibly be seen as expensive – you’d need to upgrade 195 HC Merlin airframes to get to the current FRES expenditure, and is only to deliver 7 reworked Austrian 20 year old vehicles for trials evaluation. Since no-one in MOD is willing to say that FRES has been wildly too expensive, Merlin HC marinization must be bargain of the century!
FRES comment passed. All clear. Back to wocka-wocka helicopters.
Just as a slight counterpoint to those shrieking about expense and asking won’t someone please think of the children….
Once again, none of us know what the contract actually contains. Is it just the conversion manpower? Manpower plus components? Manpower plus components plus initial log support, like tech pubs? Manpower plus components plus 5yrs spares & support? So consider that for a minute.
Second off, what is happening is a complete rework of the cab – essentially a full strip and rebuild, with completely new avionics and some new build foldy bits, including (potentially) the gearbox. Not cheap.
And remind me how many Chinook HC6s we’re getting for the £1Bn contract (which does include 5yr support)? Oh yes. Fourteen.
With reference to the “entirely predictable” requirements, I suggest you address that to the Air Staff who have some track record in forgetting that there may be a need to use aircraft and weapons at sea when specifying their kit (see HC3, Brimstone and others for details). Once upon a time there was an organisation called DGA(N) who were quite good at buying capable aircraft with complex requirements. Perhaps we should regenerate that organisation……..
Peter E – you can guess the answer to your question…….
Given the age of the Merlin airframes, scrap them and use for spare parts for the HM2’s, buy new navalised H60 for the CHF :-)
Merlin has a larger cabin, but it’s lift capacity is actually very close to a UH60M.
wf,
UH60 is similar to Sea King, not Merlin. Merlin is 1.5 times as large.
TD, Mark,
£18m per Merlin is sinking in and sounds to me just a little bit too much like the stinking waste of money for the Puma upgrade and this silly Apache upgrade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-92
Does anyone know if they have done any sort of whole life costing for the Merlin upgrades -because while £18 million a helicopter sounds a lot, if you get 15 years more service out of them, the it may be cheaper in the long run than purchase of new build helicopter’s?
@Simon: yes, I know. But an HC3 can lift 5 tonnes of external load, and an H60M can lift 4.5 tonnes. After the initial assault, I’ll bet most CHF time is going to be lifting underslung loads.
@Tubby: I daresay after factoring in additional costs from an additional type, balanced against additional airframe life, the two options probably come out quite close in life cycle costs.
NaB, you are right, but I doubt there includes a 5 year contractor logistics support package in that price, given what we know about the costs of such.
I would also add that all the systems are known, the folding bits are a known design, HM2 upgrade should provide a massive baseline for all activity on this one so whilst I agree that there is more than meets the eye, £18m per cab more?
It is easy to point fingers at the Air Staff but I see it as a collective failure of the children in charge of the services and sitting in Whitehall / at the end of the M4.
A collective failure
Is this exactly what JHC was conceived for
Comparing the costs to Chinook is fair enough, but lets get real, Chinook delivers real capability
Tubby, of course they would have done a very detailed analysis so you can be sure that all the options were examined in relation to new cabs but there will also be a very large political element to consider that might trump that analysis, there is no way the MoD would stand for scrapping cabs and then buying new ones. Just not going to happen
All that post editing and still in the wrong thread! Feel free to move to the correct one.
The systems are known. The folding bits are (probably, but not certainly) a known design. But they still have to be produced and fitted after the cabs have been stripped. Nor do we actually know much about the costs of 5 yr CLS packages. Do you know how long Merlin IOS was supposed to run? Was it supposed to cover 55 cabs all with HM2 avionics? Is a renegotiated MIOS part of this deal? I don’t know and I suspect, neither do you.
While JHC may appear to have been conceived to avoid this, they post-dated the Air Staff purchase of Merlin by some years. They are also more of an operational command than a true capability command, amply demonstrated by preference for a Puma upgrade (one trick pony, but protected sqn plates) than a SK4 Carson LEP (a little bigger than Puma, but truly multi-role and certainly multi-environment), which left the amphibious lift requirement dependent on the Merlin bodge. Digs about Wokka providing “real” capability are certainly true if you consider a solely land-based environment. Less so if you take a truly joint approach, which includes recognition that sustained embarkation of CHF (and RAF/AAC) cabs on ships other than QEC is a valuable (and oft-used) capability which the Wokka can’t deliver.
I’m sure you do find it easier to think of a collective failure of children. However (as we have discussed before) in a world of limited assets, the default requirement for any system ought to specify all future assets being capable of embarked ops, with the proviso that this should be re-examined only if performance or cost penalties are prohibitive, prohibitive being the operative word, rather than “a bit more”.
Apologies for being in the wrong thread. Needs moving.
I understand the folding bits designs will be taken from the known and in service Italian Navy AW101’s so there may be some minor differences I cannot envisage a huge amount of design content. As for multi year support packages, no, I don’t know if this cost includes elements of that but every single piece of news I have read does not mention anything like that, even the detailed ones. And if you look around you can find multi year support costs for all sorts of comparable equipment so I think we can make an informed guess that the £450m does not include a significant support package. I could very well be wrong and that would be fair enough but it still does not alter the basic premise that we are spending money now, that with a little thought, a reasonable amount of diligence and an ounce of common sense we might have avoided.
We can discuss the amount, but that is a very simple and unassailable fact
For that lack of vision, who could we blame?
Oh yes, the dastardly men in bri nylon, of course, they are always the bad guy, what are we going to discuss next, the position of Australia on the map?
One of the first posts on TD covered the Carson Blade Sea King programme, a really great upgrade for pennies in comparison, but not the cure for cancer either. I know you think the Puma upgrade is a questionable RAF inspired quest for squadron retention but seriously, given the huge scrutiny that programmes like that come under and the joint nature of decision making, do you honestly think that is a serious position to take?
The HC3’s have been in service for about 15 years by the time this Mid Life Upgrade completes, the 3a’s obviously much less and lets not forget the 40 odd UOR’s and just under 500 modifications that have been put in place since they were in service, the fleet has hardly stood still.
So as I said, we can discuss the finer points about the merits of the Puma v Sea King fleets all day long, whether Merlin offers an optimal solution v the Chinook, whether the RAF are responsible for world poverty and the poor old RN once again getting a shitty deal but when I look at it all, I see a collective failure of the service chiefs and the MoD.
They are all equally responsible and it is depressing
No arguments from me about making sure equipment can operate on embarked operations but that also cuts both ways doesn’t it. Merlin was never meant to fly in hot and high conditions, I mean, who could ever possibly have predicted that requirement?
Shall I blame the RN for their lack of vision because its not like the RN’s Anti Submarine helicopters types (or derivations) have ever operated in conditions others than sea level and wet have they.
It would be easy to point the finger at the RN for their single service specification approach, but that would be silly, much like I don’t blame the RAF for not thinking about shipboard use of Brimstone.
I know it is easy to see things only from one perspective
I blame them both equally
Peter
As we only have 27 HC Mk3/3A currently (think atleast one is U/S), basic maths tells us that the Mk3i’s will get roled into the end of the upgrade as Mk4’s become available for the front line . . . probably best to keep quite about this one as you don’t want to be giving young George any ideas!!
Nab, spot on about the 8 stored HM1’s, I think you might find the number of Mk3i’s as a startling similar number, which means pretty slim pickings ahead for CHF for the next few years!
Hmm, is it just me that finds the looming capability gap for both CHF and ASAC as absolutely indefensible. I mean really, what other branch of the public sector would routinely be given the replacement for a capability/service some years after it’s predecessor was lost?
Still, it could be worse, we haven’t even purchased the replacement for Tornado and we’re scrapping them hand over fist . . . nurse time for some more medication!!!
Are you suggesting that the RAF DON’T walk backwards, or have hooves, horns and tail????? Heresy. Burn the heretic! They’re also responsible for pestilence, famine etc etc……
Fair point on the hot n’ high element of a requirement which should also be a given, although I’d caveat that with noting that both hot n’ high are a relatively rare occurrence when compared to the likelihood of working off a deck.
Not convinced that Puma was actually subject to huge levels of scrutiny. Suspect the conversation went something like – need a small nippy cab that can get in places, not Wokka or Merlin, they’re too big. Little mention of the overall economies of scale / benefits in keeping SK (SKIOS would also support ASAC), because that fleet is owned by the Navy…
OK Kevin, I know Puma carries soldiers, crack on.
I’m eternally astonished over the Puma/ Sea King arguments…and I’m afraid it smacks of dark blue, childish petulance, and budget grabbing. (Edit: We would also do well to remember, that the RAF didn’t want the Merlin- and when they were thrust upon the RAF, the whole jointery thing wasn’t on the cards, they were bought as a utility helicopter for the land based role)
This is my take on it:
There continues to be a requirement for a medium lift helicopter, operated on the RAF budget.
Budget is tight, so all options need to be considered, including upgrades/ refurbishments.
The RAF operate Pumas.
Given the age and relative condition of the the Puma fleet, the fact that variants are still in production support, it is cost effective to upgrade and refurbish existing airframes.
The RAF don’t operate Sea Kings in sufficient numbers to fill the role.
The Sea King and variants are no longer in production, or production support, and have fallen to a legacy support status.
…..QED, innit.
The argument for upgrading the Sea King, I think is more about making sure the navy gets the budget, than it is national security. And chipping away at the RAF, until there’s nothing left.
And this is the impression of a qualified civilian….. I wonder what a less knowledgeable civilian would make of it.
However….NaB made a good point about specifications, which should be discussed (not blamed). Rather than have different airframe variants, the basic specification should always be the most challenging.
The best example would probably be Merlin…there shouldn’t have been two undercarriage forms, just the highest rated one- folding rotorheads and tails should have been fitted as standard- it might have simplified the design process and production and therefore production and design costs.
I must admit that if you try to reconcile the UK’s military copters it is very difficult.
Chinook (23t)
Merlin (15t)
Sea King (10t)
Apache (10t)
Puma (8t)
Wildcat (6t)
Lynx (5t)
Gazelle (2t)
Basically, I think it’s the same here as with F35 and the Ford Fiesta. There is a creep forever upwards in terms of size and weight. Sometimes you get to a point where a) you need to insert something new at the bottom (Ford Ka), and sometimes you get to the point where the Fiesta is too small to be an Escort and the Focus is too large. In other words nothing fits.
Chinook is in a league of its own both in terms of capability and historic value.
However, how is a ten-tonne HN90 or a ten-tonne UH60 okay for ASW the world over, but the Royal Navy decide they need a 15t Merlin even though they proved the unbelieveably excellent Sea King was good for ASW, AEW, TTT, etc – oh, by the way, please notice that the Sea King is another TEN TONNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, however much I might like the Merlin (and I do recognise it’s value) it was the wrong choice.
The same fault exists with Wildcat. Too small to be worthy of the weight it can carry (I actually think the same is true for the UH60 but hey ho). Lynx was a much more rounded copter, simpler and cheaper too to go into harms way. Fitted more passengers – figure that one out!
I can understand the value of Puma too, but it should never have been procured. Should have used Sea King for the role.
So: Chinook, Sea King and Lynx.
If we’re hell bent on Wildcat, it should be our second rate ASW copter too (with a dipper). It should also be able to carry Hellfire and/or Brimstone. It should also be resized to carry 8 troops. Actually it simply becomes the AW139.
We can then sit back and have a 23t Chinook, a 6t Wildcat (or AW139) and figure what fits in the middle… a 12 tonne copter. Like, like…
@ Simon
But the fact is Puma was procured, and at the time it was the right aircraft for the job, and to be honest, it has done pretty well.
Your comment on the Sea King in it’s naval role i think was spot on, though….
Mind you, go for the AW149 and it could replace Puma, Wildcat and Merlin….
Dave
One slight problem with your statement : “There continues to be a requirement for a medium lift helicopter, operated on the RAF budget”
At what point did being operated on the RAF budget become a requirement?
Had the justified requirement been “medium support helo able to lift X troops, get into an LZ of Y m diameter and transit at a speed greater than 130kts”, then on speed grounds that points at Puma. But the “budget holder” is not and never will be a requirement.
It’s not that I think SK4 is the final answer, it’s not. Having spent some time with CHF, those cabs were knackered ten years ago, although the Carson fit has bought back some of the performance loss from weight growth. But what we’re left with is a bit of a bodge job. An (admittedly) cheap and useful cab gets another ten years of life, but can’t go to sea. An equally cheap (and arguably more flexible) cab gets binned and in the process takes out a related crucial fleet which has proven very useful over land and sea (ASaC7). An aircraft built to a land-based specification is then required to undergo what is in effect a full rebuild to provide the amphibious capability, albeit concentrating all training/logistic support in one organisation. The Puma may need replacement in ten years time, as would the SK4 if that option had been chosen. There might have been more flexibility to buy a more appropriate cab at that time, which might have saved the near term cash being spent on Merlin.
Not budget grabbing, just an alternate option, which might have avoided what will be a tricky personnel retntion situation in a couple of years time when 849, 854 and 857 stand down.
The only advantage the Sea King had over Puma was that it is optimised for maritime ops, in all other aspects the Puma is flat out the better airframe for the task. And as there was no requirement for the chosen upgraded helicopter to operate in an amphibious role then the Puma was the right choice.
We are where we are with the helicopter force due to miss management of budgets, and in the case of the RAF Merlins original selection, politics and job security.
TD is right they are all to blame. How long have the Navy been holding of on a replacement for the Sea Kings? its not like we suddenly learned they are suddenly obsolete, have other Navy projects taken priority in the vain hope that the cash would be found eventually? well the cash has been found and the whole of the armed forces are paying for it.
Look up FASH/SABR and Future Rotorcraft Coherence. I think you’ll find the RN have been trying to replace the SK4 since about 1996, but the stand-up of JHC, where the focus has (correctly) been on Telic/ Herrick, coupled with the mantra “Chinooks, Chinooks and more Chinooks”, combined with Gordon Browns £1bn raid on the FRC budget in 2007 have continually frustrated that objective.
SABR was at one point supposed to combine the Puma / SK4 replacement requirement into a single aircraft type, so to suggest that there was no requirement for the upgraded helicopter to operate in a maritime environment is somewhat short of the actualite. In an either Puma or SK choice, the amphibious capability would by definition be lost if Puma was chosen – and there is most definitely an amphibious lift requirement, its applicability to the Puma frame has been lost in the FRC churn.
DN – how long? This long: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C13356997
DH – “the basic specification should always be the most challenging” – please no! This is the path to monstrous gold-plate where every expert from every corner of armed services and MOD fit in their pet requirement such that the whole is so unwieldy as to be useless. I really really don’t like the ‘universal platform’ approach. Horses for courses – platforms should either be bought for an operational role (then required to operate anywhere that role exists), or the senior staff should ensure there is a useful range of platforms by size/payload so that ‘the right one’ can be selected for a given task. Again this would bring the broad set of operating conditions but if one type of platform failed to meet a specific environment, the types on either side could be used instead. But please, never give requirement writers carte blanche to specify every variety of role, weapon, sensor, comms kit, ECM, CAA mandated kit, FAA mandated kit, IMO mandated kit, medical emergency kit, SAR kit, troop seating, VIP seating, training aids, test equipment and full set of spares to every single platform, all to be carried concurrently. Else I’ll need to raise another ‘FRES comment imminent!’ warning.
But the Puma upgrade was a decision made with just Telick/Herrick in mind, there was a political need for the government to get more helicopter lift with growing pressure from the media.
It was a quick fix with a limited budget and therefore the amphibious aspect was not a major requirement.
Costs don’t worry me and neither does the a/c type. What worries me is the bodge job of HC3i. Its only there cause no one could be bothered to procure the aircraft that it was obvious we were going to need. Its like forgetting to get presents at Christmas. Its a nearly set date and yet no one signs a deal. If we got a bargain I wouldn’t be that hacked off but it would seem we haven’t.
Merlin will be ok for the CHF. One of the problems an RAF bloke showed me is that the VIP ramp is steep when you are going for a tour of the a/c in the hangar let alone being shot at, carrying a bergen covered in… So if they have found a fix for that in these costs it would be great but I doubt it. But having Merlin consigned to one service is a good idea. Now lets see them refit the fuel probes.
The Puma upgrade is a good plan. They are the right aircraft for AC work and have been upgraded to have more power (lift performance) a glass cockpit and strengthened tail. They are a good a/c and I think they could have made a difference in Afghan.
Given the complete cluster of ducks that we find ourselves imbedded in, whens the deal for the Puma replacement going to be signed. The good news is your Puma replacement may work a your Merlin replacement. However, I want the Navy and RM to have Medium/Heavy lift. And if you try to replace an assualt helicopter with a medium/heavy lift one that may not work. My choice would probably be NH90 as the RM could use it in Assualt as could the AAC (maybe RAF if they still exist.) The Navy may decide to replace WIldact with it as could the Army but then what do you do with them?
There is no valid argument for SK. It was a beautiful cab and has served us well, however its glory days are long gone. Its been around since the 60s for christ sakes. Merlin has been chosen for much the same reasons as I suspect the CHF chose commando SKs. The Navy use the same aircraft. Simples!
My idea for future rotary would be:
RM: 12 Apache, 10 NH90, 20 odd Merlin (maybe an attached Chinook)
RN: Wildcat (or NH90) Merlin
AAC: Apache, NH90 (filling both utility and assualt)
RAF: Chinook
(note no AC helicopter for the RAF. Why have an Army cooperation squadron when you could just have the Army?) (there not all thick!)
‘I think you’ll find the RN have been trying to replace the SK4 since about 1996,’
There’s really nothing I need to say.
‘but the stand-up of JHC,’
Which was the start of a coherent use of our assets in a suitable joint command.
‘ where the focus has (correctly) been on Telic/ Herrick,’
Telick did not begin until 2003
‘ coupled with the mantra “Chinooks, Chinooks and more Chinooks”,’
Because they were the only airframe that could lift a decent load in hot and high conditions, so the right airframe for the job.
‘combined with Gordon Browns £1bn raid on the FRC budget in 2007 have continually frustrated that objective.’
Bloody politicians!
One of the problems an RAF bloke showed me is that the VIP ramp is steep when you are going for a tour of the a/c in the hangar let alone being shot at, carrying a bergen covered in…
Anyone who can’t walk up a ramp with kit on should be ejected from the chopper and left to fend for themselves like the baby girls they are.
@Phil Oh I agree and it is not impossible but it would not be my chosen way of getting out of a sh*t storm!
One of the main problems that we face is there simply isn’t a replacement for Sea King.
The only thing that comes close that I can find is the CH-148… or, if pushed and you’re shipping children then the NH-90.
@Phil, in our new diversity friendly Armed Forces, anyone can join. You telling me wheelchair users cannot be accommodated? That’s a lawsuit boyo :-)
“The relationship was reportedly disrupting the dynamic of the team.
A source told The Sun: ‘The team as a whole became very unhappy and dysfunctional. Knowledge of the allegations went right to the top of the RAF”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547221/First-female-Red-Arrow-Kirsty-Stewart-set-marry-squadron-leader-Ben-Murphy.html
Surprised I am not!
Oh I agree and it is not impossible but it would not be my chosen way of getting out of a sh*t storm!
Walking up a ramp?! Try queuing to get on a SK.
David niven hit the nail on the head. Navy’s know this requirements need replaced for decades however it’s not been a priority much better to buy bloody great ships and subs and hope someone pays for the aircraft later when we cry and stamp we must have it. The phrase all fur coat and no knickers comes to mind. It we must have helos and we must buy from Westland then take a 10-15 year decision and start replacing types with aw149 starting with green Merlin then puma ect ect. Instead of sticking plaster after sticking plaster. If we need heavy lift on land or sea chinook will be there it’s the only aircraft that can lift modern vehicles.
You telling me wheelchair users cannot be accommodated?
Why do you think there’s a ramp ;-)
Debuss speeds would be awesome.
@Phil A fair point!
No worries Phil, it’s amazing what being shot at can do for your motivation. He’ll get on board. lol Running much less. At full speed. With a bergen.
I’ll be more worried about who was the f-up who let hostiles get so close to an extraction and did not wave off the bird. Hot LZ, wave the damn thing off before you end up walking home.
On an even stranger note, our (Super) Pumas are about the same age as yours but there has not been any call to upgrade or replace them yet, they’re still soldiering on. Maybe it’s not the age but how many ops you guys put it through. Ops are notoriously rough on equipment. Or might be a good time to invest in certain companies selling helicopters? Doubt it though, think there is a pause as Defence is saving for an F-35 buy. Save before buying please, not buy then try to figure out how to pay for it. My prediction is other than the 8 new OPVs, there is going to be a spending freeze for the time being to get sufficient fund levels.
As for the Sea King, can’t really find a point for it, seems a bit Goldilocks to me. You need light lift, Merlin/Wildcat can handle it, you need heavy lift, the Chinook can handle it. SK seems neither here nor there.
Ted, January 27,
The Army is already getting thirty Wildcat (plus another eight assault role), Ted. An additional twenty to make up the fifty cabs.
They might not be as good, but it would be a fair bit cheaper. Since we began down the Wildcat path, the RA have got their UAVs for reconnaissance, and the RAF have their UAVs and have managed to keep hold of Puma. Those thirty recce and light taxi variant Wildcats might start to look a bit redundant to the treasury; accountant’s logic might see them as being better utilized as cheap replacements for the Apaches.
There are still more spending cuts to be made after the election, whoever wins. And I expect both Labour and Conservatives will be obliged to make pledges around protecting the popular departments of health and education. Those cuts are landing somewhere; I’m certainly not confident in Apache surviving.
@Brian Black So we lose the one aircraft that excells at intimate air support, tank busting etc. And Apache is also capable of Recon missions at it has DTV and IR cameras.
Instead we get Wildcat that look “a bit redundant” strap some missiles to them and hey presto. If Wildcat looks redundant bin it or sell it to the RN and get NH90 or AW139.
Just cause Apache can’t take the Brass home to avoid the traffic!
Ted, who said Apaches can’t beat traffic? :)
Think we’re conflicting the requirements though, Merlin/Wildcat is a utility helicopter for transport, Apache is an attack helicopter. Doubt they’ll clash in roles or budget allocation. The clash is more likely in Merlin, Wildcat, Sea King, Chinook and Pumas. All used for transport, more or less with overlapping capabilities.
They can beat traffic but you have to coax the brass into the front seat and make the PROMISE not to touch anything! And there is no room for the expansave wardrobe or butler! :D
observer
The Widcat is an armed scout helicopter with a very small u in utility. It will be seen as a direct competitor to the Apache when the budget axe is out.
Who procured the non-marinised Merlin?
Was it a totally separate purchase or was it a split of Merlin between RN and RAF?
Did we get them £18m a pop cheaper (adjusted for inflation)?
How do we cope with Chinook on board ship? Are they marinised?
DavidN
“But the Puma upgrade was a decision made with just Telick/Herrick in mind, there was a political need for the government to get more helicopter lift with growing pressure from the media.
It was a quick fix with a limited budget and therefore the amphibious aspect was not a major requirement.”
Remind me again how many Puma 2 deployed on TELIC (which incidentally predates the upgrade contract) and how many will deploy on Herrick before it ends? Are you suggesting that political expediency after the Chinny HC3 and Fix to Field debacles were allowed to outweigh longer term requirements? And then still missed the required date?
Mark – Lifting vehicles is not the only requirement for amphibious support and Chinook is far from ideal at sea. Having said that, it’s all we’re going to get, so we’ll have to make do. As for the somewhat incoherent rant on big ships and hoping other people will buy the aircraft, I’ll say only that it’s a good thing we did get big ships, as Wokka doesn’t work well on smaller ones and secondly that folding the FASH requirement into SABR was not the RNs idea, nor was it the RN who continually deferred the money once SABR had been initiated.
@NaB
I was trying to make the point that the requirement was being paid out of the RAF budget, it was an RAF requirement- therefore it makes sense for the RAF to seek a solution within it’s own fleet- which the RAF has done, by refurbing an existing airframe, thereby saving the costs of introducing an new aircraft. A programme which is on time and on budget, and delivers an aircraft with more power, better fuel efficiency, more payload and more range (than the original aircraft) for approx £16m a piece, including new flight training sims and support over a three year cycle.
Only the andrew, could possibly think that the obvious solution is to introduce another knackered airframe into a service that doesn’t it operate in any great numbers……or is there another agenda?
“Not budget grabbing, just an alternate solution, which might have avoided what will be a tricky personnel retention situation in a couple of years time when 849, 854 and 857 stand down”
As opposed to the tricky personnel situation if 33 and 230 sqn had stood down? Why are naval aviators so much more important than highly experienced RAF aircrew? Don’t forget when Merlin moves across to replace SK4, 28(AC) and 78 sqns will stand down. No replacement aircraft for them.
Simon – as I recall it was an entirely separate requirement, run by different personnel in MOD(PE)/DPA with different prime contractors. The required systems fit was different – GEC comms in HM1, Thales in HC3 I believe – and so on. The airframes are quite distinct too, the folding tail on HM1 having a tapered fairing from the cabin where HC3 has the rear ramp and a boom tail above it. HM1 never had in-flight refuelling so the fuel systems will have been designed differently. And on and on.
With hindsight you might judge that both types should have had rear ramps, IFR probe capability, folding tail & rotors, salt-water corrosion protection and so on, but if carrying the extra (at the time unnecessary) hardware would have caused problems with operational envelope, range/time on task, payload, etc. then I’m guessing the service chiefs would have binned commonality in favour of useful operational performance.
Chris,
Thanks. I guess therefore that there was nothing really wrong with the whole Merlin procurement process.
I do question WHY they were purchased. Was it really so necessaty to have something between a 23t Chinook and a 7-8t Puma?
If so, I’d love to get to the bottom of that requirement to demonstrate how if the same thing happens with the Army and Navy we end up with 9-12 copter variants.
Just to set the ball rolling again…
If we could have only a single copter type, what would it be? Don’t dodge the question as the answer (whatever it might be) represents the copter we should have in greatest numbers as we should only need to supplement bigger or smaller on either end for specialist tasks.
With hindsight you might judge that both types should have had rear ramps, IFR probe capability, folding tail & rotors, salt-water corrosion protection and so on
What, you mean like the Italian Navy versions
Burn the witch
TD,
I know you’re not answering my question, but you’re getting there :-)
I do question WHY they were purchased. Was it really so necessaty to have something between a 23t Chinook and a 7-8t Puma?
The RAF wanted Chinook but the politicians wanted jobs.
If we could have only a single copter type, what would it be ?
AW 149, but if we were allowed to keep Apache then NH90
Ted, maybe we could surgically attach a weapons flange to every lt colonel and above. An Apache could easily hang four off the wings.
@ Chris
At the risk of flashing up a FRES warning…..
I don’t think I explained myself very well- If we go back to the Merlin as an example, the aircraft was designed from the outset with two different undercarriage sets, two different rotorhead sets, three fuselages and two different tail structures (one for folding).
setting the civvie fuselage aside, mainly because that is selling at a nice, steady pace.
I can’t see how having a ramp on the back would affect the ASW/ ASuW role. Equally, I can’t see how having a folding tail and rotorhead and strengthened undercarriage would be detrimental to the utility role…in fact the RAF sqns that used the Wessex loved the folding bits- it made the aircraft easier to store, and the strengthened undercarriage meant they could really bang it in on air assaults.
Thats what I meant…even avionics can be the same. Mission fit electrickery would be where you optimise, not the basics of the airframe.
There’s been some comments on the vulnerability and effectiveness of Wildcat.
The French Gazelle pilot killed by small arms fire in Mali was referenced. Wildcat can carry up to 20 LMM with a 5 mile range. If the French had LMM available to engage the convoy at stand-off range, maybe they could have avoided taking ground fire, and the aircraft type would have been irrelevant.
This also leads on to how armed helicopters have been used recently. Someone was suggesting that abandoning Apache for armed Wildcat would mean the AAC going back to hiding in tree tops from small arms fire. The cold war tactic of flitting about in tree lines was due largely to the Soviet’s radar guided ZSU-23, which were expected to quickly chop up slow moving choppers getting over-ambitiously high, including Apache.
The more recent tendency to fly higher is not due to the Army swapping Lynx for Apache, it’s due to the change in threat. With no radar guided cannons to contend with, the main threat has been from small arms and RPGs; helicopter loses to enemy fire in recent conflict have largely occurred at lower altitude, with loses dropping off significantly above only 400 feet or so.
If Britain’s forthcoming conflicts look like the recent French interventions in Africa, it might be worth asking whether we need the expense of VTOL light armed aircraft at all, rather than which type of helicopter we should have. Those types of conflicts might better suit higher flying, making hovering a bit of an expensive gimmick. The USMC having deployed OV-10 on assault ships might also suggest that VTOL isn’t necessary for operating light attack aircraft from our carrier’s big deck.
Hovering is very inefficient. The power output of Apache’s engines are comparable to the power output of engines on fixed-wing aircraft in C295’s class. Lose VTOL and you can set that deficiency against the potential for improved range, payload, or protection.
David Niven,
…if we were allowed to keep Apache then NH90
Ah, I see you appreciate the ten-tonners and engine commonality ;-)
Ah, I see you appreciate the ten-tonners and engine commonality
That and the cabin would have its advantages over the AW149 in that the rear ramp makes it much more economical for the varied tasks.
DH – in a shiny let’s-start-again world your statements might be right. As I posted above, it might (or might not) have made sense to buy a common platform with all the basic stuff both RAF & RN needed already in place. But we didn’t – in the fine MOD-knows-best traditions there were two completely separate competitions (I think HC3 was competitive but don’t know for sure). Two winners. Two specs. Two solutions individually engineered.
I have for a long time spoken out against the idea of stovepiped cradle-to-grave MOD procurements, advocating that cross-project commonality makes the whole business of defence much more sustainable. But despite taking the arguments to some of the most influential policy-makers, the decision to compete everything possible stands. Even if its the same three corporations bidding every time for every major programme. No cartels here, obviously. That would be illegal and immoral.
“As opposed to the tricky personnel situation if 33 and 230 sqn had stood down? Why are naval aviators so much more important than highly experienced RAF aircrew? Don’t forget when Merlin moves across to replace SK4, 28(AC) and 78 sqns will stand down. No replacement aircraft for them.”
It’s not that it’s naval aviators that are more important, but in the case above the capability that they bring. In this particular instance, if 33 and 230 stand down you lose experienced RAF support helicopter aircrew. However, there would still be equally experienced support helicopter aircrew available in 7,18 and 27 Sqn, plus 28 and 78, plus 845NAS, 846NAS and 848NAS.
If 849, 854 and 857 NAS stand down, you lose experienced aircrew with the capability in overwater AEW, ASuW and overland AEW and ISTAR, which cannot be replaced by an equivalent capability. E3D and R1 can obviously do some of this, but can’t support maritime operations as required to anything like the same degree.
As for 28 and 78, I believe at least some of them are lined up for the expanded Chinook force, so even if it was about seats for each service as you seem to imply, it’s not anything like kicking them all out.
The andrew would not think the solution would be to introduce another knackered old type – far from it. Instead of deleting SK, you would delete Puma without upgrade, RAF keeps full Wokka fleet and green Merlin, the CHF would keep carson bladed SK4 for an interim period, which would also allow the FAA to extend ASac7 for a few years, bridging the ASaC7/Crowsnest gap. During the interim period, CHF supplies the capability formerly provided by the Puma while an all inclusive plan to acquire a sensible set of cabs to replace SK4 (first in the early 20s), green Merlin second and potentially grey Merlin last (sometime in the late 20s/early 30s) is hatched, when there may be more money or a mature product (not NH90!).
Instead, we’re buying 20 cabs which may be on budget but are late for £16M each (albeit with 3 yrs support) which while they may be good, will last only ten years and in doing so require major beggaring about of other cabs to maintain a maritime lift capability as well as gapping a significant capability which will be hard to regenerate. That’s why there’s a perception that it’s a badge protection exercise and why I flash a bit when £18M for Merlin rebuild is questioned, but not £16M for Puma!
NAB
I think your missing the context in which it was decided to upgrade the Pumas, as I stated before there was a quite a big proportion of political pressure involved in the decision and it was all to do with helicopter availability for Telic/Herrick.
AEW, ASuW and overland AEW and ISTAR were never the considerations hence Puma was chosen, which for the role of support helicopter fitted the bill better than Sea King.
Don’t agree with the puma upgrade either but as for cost they are fitting new engines to the puma airframe they aren’t doing that with Merlin as far as I know.
Well aware of the political pressure at the time Dave, albeit that by 2009 when the contract was let, that pressure was beginning to wane, not least because the USMC had arrived in Helmand with their hoofing great air component. As you will be well aware, helo availability for Helmand was to some degree a consequence of only two fleets being able to operate hot n high (Chinook and Merlin) – particularly wrt the full MERT requirement, compounded by the debacle of the Chinook HC3. There was also some reluctance on cost grounds to deploy more than the 8(?) Chinook from a force of 40 or so. By that time, Merlin force was being released from TELIC, so some relief was on the way and 846NAS were beginning to trial SK4 with Carson blades, which allowed it to operate with something approaching a useful load.
It is difficult to see how, in 2009, given the increasing availability of the Merlin force and the latent potential to add a small number of additional chinook, that the solution to additional lift was a complete refurb of the Puma (which has delivered how many cabs on Herrick?) compared to a limited refit of Carson blades to the SK4 fleet, which would have got cabs there quicker. And that’s without looking at the wider CHF future and impact on adjacent fleets.
By 2009 the pressure had begun to wane but the announcements had already been made.If they had changed their minds then what would the media have done?
It’s politics NAB you and me both know it, and on that basis and the narrow remit of the upgrade the Puma was the right choice.
But lets not lay all the blame at the politicians after all I bet there were a few level headed MP’s wondering why after all this time the MOD had not sorted this foreseen problem out, and they were then getting the flack for.
DN – agreed. With the exception of The Great Financial Genius and possibly BuffHoon, the pollies had little direct influence on this, although those two bear a rather greater responsibility for the prevarication and c0cking about while the EP burned.
@NaB
OK….a bit of research done….I see what you’re on about, the very specific capabilities of the AEW SKs…which I will agree need to be preserved.
But again, the Puma upgrade was an RAF decision, for RAF operational requirements.
If the navy requires the Maritime AEW fleet to be run-on, then surely it should make the case with its own budget. In any case, Isn’t Crows Nest being brought forward? Indeed, if the navy felt it was that important, why didn’t they order a number of AEW Merlin when the Italian Navy did?
BTW I’d also add that idiot Fox into your pantheon of political pr**ks
@Simon
ASW helicopters are really computers with rotorblades attached, a huge proportion of the value is in the electronics/software.
HM1 cost £39m
HM2 upgrade cost £28.1m each (£843 for 30)
HC3 cost £19m (source as HM1)
HC3A cost £33.9m including spares so apples and oranges (£203.3m for six)
HC4 upgrade is costing £18.2m each (£454m for 25)
NH90 are over £30m for the basic troop transport, and pushing £40m for the ASW version.
The Chinook HC6 are costing us £60.1m each.(£841m for 14)
Merlin operating costs including “servicing costs, fuel costs, crew capitation and training costs, support costs and charges for capital and depreciation” were £34k/hour for HC3 and £42k/hour for HM1 in 2007. (source as HM1)
At the risk of re-igniting this, there’s a little bit missing from your summation Dave. There is NO RAF requirement nor is there an RAF budget for support helicopters (I notice you’ve edited to remove budget reference). The money for Puma, Chinook, Green Merlin and CHF SK sits under Land command, in the Joint Helicopter Command, as does that for AAC Lynx/Wildcat and Apache. The only cabs that sit outside that are RAF SAR SK and the Navy Grey Merlin, Grey Lynx and SK ASaC fleets. The RAF SAR SK fleet is (sadly) OBE as is 771NAS. The Navy maintains budgetary control over the “Grey” fleets because they do not (as primary role) support the Land command. All other UK rotorcraft sit firmly in JHC because shifting land forces is their primary function.
This is where the “Joint” model falls over, because although the “Joint” force has control of all the lift assets, which makes for good overall assignment and allocation to task, it does not necessarily consider the wider issues across UK defence, particularly if a “requirement” is actually seen as “just” a platform replacement, rather than capability maintenance. It is also where things like utility cabs for maritime tend to fall through the cracks because it is difficult to make a compelling cost-effective case for a handful of cabs in a purely maritime context and the requirement is lost in the numbers for JHC.
Interestingly, the “capability” debate is exactly that going on above wrt green Wildcat and AH64E.
Thank you El Sid.
‘This is where the “Joint” model falls over’
I don’t agree I think it shows that the joint concept is working, Apache was procured with amphibious operations in mind the green Wildcat is marinised in the sense of anti corrosion measures. The responsibility for the CHF falls within the joint budget and they are spending money to convert Merlins to replace Sea Kings, so if anything it shows that the Puma decision was the right one and that the Navy have been sleeping on the job a bit when it came to replacing the grey Sea Kings.
I will take back from an earlier thread when I said the Navy were not replacing the Sea Kings in the CHF as they seemed to have bigger fish to fry, as it was clearly JHF/MOD responsibility to provide the replacements.
NaB and others – JHC formed 1999, Merlin ordered circa 1995.
Should the Navy/MoD have ordered Jungly Merlins (and AEW Merlins) at the same time as the original HM1 order? Should we have aimed to replace all of our Sea Kings in one go?
News of merlin life support programme ??????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/10601739/MoD-contracts-safeguard-1000-AgustaWestland-jobs.html
apparently upgrade to cost only £330M or £13.2m per cab and also includes 7 interim merlins until fully refurbed ones are ready
Wonder if the interim ones are the mythical HM1 ones not converted to HM2 standard and therefore able to be upgraded later to supplement 30 HM2 merlins in the AEW role ie FFBNW the mission system and dipping sonars etc
At £13.2m for new avionics and cockpit would strengthen and enhance the Hm2 fleet?
More to follow…
Further to above comment could the interim ones upgraded with the avionics/glass cockpit be used in the OCU role in an enlarged 824 sqn to train aircrew for both HM2 and HC4 frontline sqns ? Save using valuable airframes with full mission kit fitted? Any thoughts ?
Probably not the spare HM1 cabs, having a look around the web the interim capability will be with a small number of HC3 given a slimited set of upgrades including a folding rotor head to make them more suitable for shipborne life. They will be called HC3i , the i meaning interim no doubt!
@fedaykin ahh i see what there doin now …. still them spare HM1 cabs for £13m upgrade would be good investment for OCU aircrew training no?
Keeps frontline cabs at full strength with a few in OCU for mission systems training and/or greater use of synthetic training sims etc for the back of cab mission systems crew?
Was under impression 30 HM2 was pushing it a bit for 3 ASW sqns and 2 flights of AEW cabs in frontline?
As I understand it the spare HM1 cabs have been gutted to support the rest of the fleet, lots of tempting spares to reclaim off them! So to bring them back into service would involve much work just sourcing the systems that are meant to be installed.
Curiously a similar thing happened with the Upholder class when they were retired early, instead of lifting them out of the water, washing them down flushing out the ballast tanks and fuel tanks before pumping in light oil to preserve them they were allowed to sit in the water. Considering the Upholder (sensibly)shared many systems with the active Nuclear fleet the temptation to start using them as a spares resource was irresistible. Making reactivation a nightmare of finding the correct systems to put back in them considering they were effectively frozen in time and not all suitable systems were available easily off the shelf as new. I have often pondered how much the fairly speedy draw down of the Swiftsure class was about getting equipment to refit the Upholders … for that matter I have also wondered what the Canadian public reaction would be if that came to light!
Sorry a bit of a digression but nevertheless the spare HM1 cabs are probably not economically viable to regenerate into HM2 now. Crowsnest will be provided by standard HM2 airframes with bolt on radar and a software update to the installed consoles. The good news of that is it means no “fleets within fleets”.
@fedaykin thanks for that update on the spare HM1 cabs can see why engines gearboxes undercarriage etc would have been stripped to provide spares for the frontline fleet.
Anyway just postin a few ideas from a complete ‘layman’ lookin in from outside the box.
Big up to ‘spreadsheet phil’ for tightening screws on Augusta Westland to get the upgrade in at £13m per cab hopefully can do a similar job on Boeing for Apache at end of the 5 year support contract to upgrade Apaches to the ‘e’ standard in 2019
Well the Apache support contract is very much a sticking plaster solution to the real issue, Boeing and the US Army ceasing support for AH-64D block I. Whilst UK Apache AH1 are to a unique configuration they are still block 1 and many sub systems and are reliant on Boeing support. Some of the differences between an AH-64D Block I and a Block III/AH-64E are stark. Four less mission computers for example in the latter model, when Boeing pull the plug they only way we can keep them going is to increase cannibalisation of airframes, something that has already started and I hear rumours that this latest contract will involve a cut to fifty airframes to reduce costs but I guess to provide a pool of spares. Problem is even doing that there are LRU that have a finite life without manufacturer support. After 2019 a decision will have to be made to either:
A) Go full Block III (albeit maybe keeping RTM322 and transferable systems)
B) A hybrid solution incorporating elements of Block III in overhauled airframes alongside refurbished Block I systems and effectively living without Boeing support – problem with that is operating a unique fleet from what everybody else does and Boeing supports massively increases through life cost
C) Retire
Boeing has suggested the most affordable solution is to take new bare Block III/AH-64E airframes off the line and gut the WAH-64D for components that are transferable like the M-TADS, radar and gun. That gives us effectively zero timed AH-64E. Of course how that will go down with the Westland lobby in parliament considering it would involve minimal work AugustaWestland I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a push for option (B) despite the operational and cost implications.
Fedaykin – The other issue is modifications for the naval environment. The folding rotor blades shouldn’t be too difficult, but what about corrosion resistance?
@NaB
Not wishing to contradict you, but JHC is for operational command and control, I quote from
RoyalNavy.mod.uk:
“JHC units continue to belong to their parent service and maintain their respective single service ethos; however, they now come under the Operational Command of HQ Land, pooling their respective specialist capabilities in order to provide a formidable source of aviation assets to support ground operations.”
From raf.mod.uk:
“The Support Helicopter Force (SHF) is tasked by Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) alongside the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force and various Army squadrons.”
To me that says that the individual services are still responsible for supplying the resources to JHC. Even so, I would imagine that JHC command would have a say in what happens to those resources, or what is supplied.
So the situation still remains, a committee somewhere decided that the Puma refurb programme was more appropriate than the Carson update for SK. In fact, as it’s a joint Command it means you can’t even blame the RAF, as I’m sure that the andrew representatives would have been involved, somewhere along the line.
And the basic question still remains- as carrier-based AEW is so important (I think we are both agreed that it is extremely important) why didn’t the Navy fund the carson blade update, out of it’s own resources, particularly as they are not assets under JHC remit, or, indeed order the Merlin AEW (particularly as it as the same Searchwater 2000 radar as the existing assets), when the Italian Navy did?
Not trying to argue with you just for the sake of it- TBH I’m enjoying the frank exchange of views, it’s refreshing to have proper, sensible discussions.
Fedaykin I think once Wildcat is introduced they will go for cheapest option C ) Retire. With the argument being that it is a utility airframe as well, the fact that it can’t lift anything usefull apart from a couple of tyres and a rat pack, or a fire team with belt order.
this from the Augusta Westland web site:
Additionally, the AW159 offers air manoeuvre for command and control of specialist teams, counter-terrorism tasks, close battle casualty evaluation and additional command and control.
Where is the utility (which is also what we are paying for) aspect of that?
BrianBlack
The most used weapon on the Apache is its gun, but if all Wildcat can bring is LMM and .50 what about the ROE? so the Wildcat would have to get close to use a .50 in any case. As I have said before we have lived without a light utility helicopter, so I would not be buying Wildcat to begin with. As for the OV10 type aircraft I think the introduction of the F35 (in terms of cost ) are going to make us look at alternative methods of CAS regardless.
As an addition to my post about costs above, people really are flipping clueless about the cost of Wildcat. Yes, the project is costing a forecast £1663m to buy 66, split between 28 HMA1, 30 AH1 and 8 LAH, so the headline cost is £25.2m each. But as we have seen with Merlin, the grey versions have a lot of expensive electronics/software that the green ones don’t – and there’s a huge chunk of fixed R&D cost which has been spent already and doesn’t affect the marginal cost of buying extra airframes in 2014.
If you look closely at last year’s MPR and the accounting changes when airframes are added/deleted, it looks like the marginal cost of the Army version of Wildcat in PR11 was £33m for four. In other words the Wildcat AH1 cost £8.25m in PR11. Talk of £30m is just barmy. Since the RN suffers less from fiscal bulimia it’s harder to work out a cost for the HMA2, one can imagine it’s somewhere around £15m.
Similarly, @pete doherty and @wirralpete must be deluded if they think we can get a Apache Block III upgrade for £11m. Even if we were starting with US-standard Block I’s (which we’re not), you’d have to add on VAT, that’s an extra £2,2m gone out of the MoD budget before you’ve started. In reality, there’s so much UK-specific stuff (which means fixed development/certification costs spread over a not-huge fleet)I suspect that even a fairly simple Block III conversion will cost us in the order of £20m, more if they end up doing some of the extras they’ve been talking about.
My feeling is that we will end up moving all the expensive bits (engines, avionics) into new airframes. There’s plenty of precedent for shipping airframes to Yeovil for fitting out – the Chinooks are the most recent example, and in the circumstances it seems the most practical way to deliver a capability at the lowest TCO.
As a throwaway comment, it’s worth noting that the US are finally killing off the Kiowa fleet to pay for Block III (among other things), the Kiowa mission is to be replaced (not uncontroversially) by a combination of extra Apache and drones. Some of the lobbying includes real-world examples of a small recce helicopter doing things that it’s claimed an Apache wouldn’t, so you can play it both ways.
@El Sid
The cost is really not an issue, we are buying an airframe the Army does not really need (IMO). If it was just £1m per airframe its still a waste of money.
If the Army didn’t have Wildcat what would they use for light lift/evac?
Have you seen the story about the Chinook being allocated to collect some poor army chaps stranded in a mine field?
Should have sent a Lynx.
@ Simon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_UH-72_Lakota
With the coming of the drones anything smaller would be silly. Considering what the AAC does anything bigger is a waste.
Be careful about programme and unit costs
I have a fairly simplistic view of these things, the programme costs divided by quantity equals how much
The last NAO report said the cost of the assessment phase was £57m and the latest forecast of the Demonstration and Manufacture Cost is £1,663m
We are getting I think 66 airframes
You can all do the maths as they say
If the Army didn’t have Wildcat what would they use for light lift/evac?
They don’t need light lift/evac ( and the Wildcat is unsuitable for evac, the cabin is too small )
Have you seen the story about the Chinook being allocated to collect some poor army chaps stranded in a mine field?
They were rescued by a helicopter with a winch (us Black Hawk ), so Lynx would have been just as useless. Incidentally Chinooks in the Balkans were fitted with winches and casevac was generally carried out by a Sea King also with a winch.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=seaking+Balkans&client=firefox-a&hs=VqE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MCrpUtyKBYG57Aa9rIHADg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=742&dpr=1.25#q=seaking+ifor&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=WgaBw3shlUY0oM%253A%3B_DOofJtep7NpoM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F2%252F2e%252FSea_King_HC4_with_PM_John_Major_Sarajevo_1996.JPEG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcommons.wikimedia.org%252Fwiki%252FFile%253ASea_King_HC4_with_PM_John_Major_Sarajevo_1996.JPEG%3B1524%3B1012
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=seaking+Balkans&client=firefox-a&hs=VqE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MCrpUtyKBYG57Aa9rIHADg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=742&dpr=1.25#q=chinook+ifor&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=v-V_XiTsZ2-COM%253A%3B4CsRobSLPVp5WM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.ebayimg.com%252Ft%252FAIR-PICTORIAL-IFOR-CHINOOK-March-1996-Vol-58-3-%252F00%252F%252524%28KGrHqEOKpoE1qhWl%294%28BNgIJjfc%252C!~~_35.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ebay.co.uk%252Fitm%252FAIR-PICTORIAL-IFOR-CHINOOK-March-1996-Vol-58-3-%252F220755353232%3B225%3B300
Sorry about the long links
@Tom
Navalisation is a consideration, particularly if we take the view that over the next 20 years we will be doing more Ellamys and fewer Herricks. It’s worth noting that the US Army is starting to realise that the Pacific Pivot means that they will need kit that copes better with marine operations – after all they did most of the fighting last time there was a dust-up in the western Pacific, not the USMC. They’ve already started taking baby steps, trialling AH-64D off the USS Ponce, and there’s talk that Block III will include some of the navalisation of the Yeovil version.
Of course the USN will argue that they already have perfectly good navalised kit in the AH-1Z and MH-60 variants. So it comes down to the traditional tradeoff – the US Army Apache offers 120% capability but 10% navalisation, the AH-1Z is 100% capability and full navalisation, the MH-60 is 80% capability and full navalisation – but can do other stuff as well.
That’s their problem – I can imagine a requirement emerging for say a few dozen AH-64E to end up with extra naval features like folding blades for use off AFSB’s. Meanwhile there is certainly scope for Wildcat users to look at what is available off the shelf for the USN helicopters. @DavidNiven you might want to note that there’s a 20mm gun pod available off the shelf for the MH-60, and a podded version of Longbow, although whether it would fit on a Wildcat is another matter. Adding extra modes to SeaSpray is probably a more likely route. Hopefully once FASGW(H) gets a kick from the forthcoming Anglo-French summit, that will include pylons that can take a variety of toys.
Are we sure the Army Wildcat is getting the stores pylons, don’t think it is you know
@E Sid,
you might want to note that there’s a 20mm gun pod available off the shelf for the MH-60, and a podded version of Longbow, although whether it would fit on a Wildcat is another matter. Adding extra modes to SeaSpray is probably a more likely route.
Spend more money on an airframe to fulfill a role that an aircraft we already have fulfills. Can any one give me a credible reason why we are buying Wildcat? especially in light of our recent operational experience.
David
Can any one give me a credible reason why we are buying Wildcat?
One from the archive, just for you
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/05/when-is-the-piss-taking-going-to-stop/
Thanks TD,
Now it makes sense ;-)
@TD
You’re talking about two different problems.
The £25m figure for Wildcat is relevant back in 2002 when you’re deciding whether to replace Lynx with a new design or adapt an existing one.
But in 2014 that R&D money has been spent, and it’s irrelevant to the decision of additional purchases to replace Apache Block I. All that matters now is how much it would cost to build additional airframes to an existing design – in this case £8.25m.
Both numbers are “right”, but only £8.25m is relevant out here in the real world in 2014. That’s the number, not £25m, that will be going in to Phil’s spreadsheet when he (or his successor) takes the decision on how to replace Apache Block I.
@ el sid not sure where you’re getting £20m/$30M from to upgrade our apaches from?
Again i refer you to this http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AH-64-Apache-Longbow.html
i quote
“The AH-64E Longbow remanufacture effort upgrades existing AH-64 Apaches to the AH-64E Apache Longbow Block III configuration. The effort incorporates the AN/APG-78 millimeter wave fire control radar (FCR), radar frequency interferometer (RFI), fire-and-forget radar-guided Hellfire missile capability and cockpit management and digitization enhancements. The combination of the FCR, RFI, and the advanced navigation and avionics suite provides increased situational awareness, lethality and survivability. This program also provides for the installation of the Lockheed Martin Apache Arrowhead Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight (M-TADS) and Pilot Night Vision Sensors (PNVS). ”
We already have Arrowhead and PNVS paid for and hellfire/brimstone capability the AN/APG-78mmw fire control radar etc therefore we’re only paying for new airframes gearbox and poss new engines quote ” two T700-GE-701D engines make up $1.42 million ($711,000 each). ” cant see that adding up to $30m
Again look at DOD budget topline $18m in 2018 for each new airframe manufactured by boeing and all gubbins fitted etc to upgrade their block 1’s ?
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2014/AH-64-REMAN-ARMY-PROC-FY2014.pdf
@DavidNiven
I’m not particularly trying to defend Wildcat or alternate solutions, just pointing out that we are where we are, in 2014. If you want to debate an alternate reality starting in 2002 then fine, but it’s not very helpful if your solution to the problem in the real world is “I wouldn’t start from here”.
The thing about podded Longbow is that we won’t have Longbow or Apache after ~2019, so it’s an option to think about even if my personal opinion is that we will replace Apache Block I by new airframes with old engines/avionics rather than some Wildcat derivative.
@TD – I did say “hopefully”! I suspect multi-role pylons are the sort of thing that will happen eventually, perhaps it’s the sort of thing that the Koreans could do for some workshare, even if it’s not something that we feel we need this minute.
El Sid, yes, fair one, sunk costs and all that
again @el sid here is a description
AH-64E Apache Reman is an aircraft remanufacture program that refurbishes aging Longbow Apaches to extend their service life and upgrades the aircraft with updated technologies and performance
enhancements to keep the Apache viable throughout its lifecycle. AH-64E Apache addresses obsolescence and reliability challenges as well as adds significant combat capability to the aircraft. Upgrades
include: Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Level III-IV Control, Improved Situational Awareness, Upgraded Communications Suite, Improved Drive and Propulsion Systems, Improved Targeting Capability,
Increased Computer Processing Capability and Speed, Improved Navigation Systems, and Improved Diagnostics and Maintainability. Upgrades are integrated as incremental block modifications. The program
addresses operational shortfalls identified during real-world combat missions and meets Longbow Apache Capability Production Document (CPD) requirements for modernization. AH-64E aircraft enter the fleet
in 2012
all for $18.5m in 2018
@el sid get your thoughts on sunk costs and marginal costs didnt see your recent posts regarding this before i posted
@El Sid
I understand that you are not defending Wildcat, and I believe that solutions like podded Longbow will need to be looked at because I’m pretty certain that when it comes to a budget war Wildcat will sideline Apache, in fact I’m 90% sure.
But it is an airframe that is not required and could have been cancelled a couple of years ago when we knew we could live without it because, we already were (if there’s one aircraft you don’t see flying over the Dasht its Lynx).
From Agusta Westland
Work on the £330 million (€400 million) MLSP design and manufacture contract will start immediately with seven interim “Phase 1” aircraft being delivered to the Royal Navy in 2015 and 2016 and all 25 “Phase 2” standard aircraft being delivered between 2017 and 2020. As part of the programme 25 Royal Air Force AW101 Merlin Mk.3 and Mk3A helicopters are being transferred to the Royal Navy to replace their fleet of Sea King Mk4 helicopters. The aircraft will undergo conversion at AgustaWestland’s Yeovil facility in the UK and will be based at the nearby Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton.
The seven “Phase 1” aircraft will provide the Royal Navy with an interim capability between the withdrawal of the Sea King Mk.4 in early 2016 and the Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of the full MLSP configured aircraft being achieved in mid-2018. These seven aircraft will feature several changes for maritime operations including the addition of lashing points, a powered folding main rotor head, undercarriage modifications and additional communications equipment.
The 25 “Phase 2” aircraft will be fully optimised for ship operations and include automatic main rotor blade folding and tail fold. The aircraft will also be fitted with the same cockpit as the Royal Navy’s Merlin Mk.2 aircraft, giving the Merlin fleet a common cockpit featuring five 10” x 8” integrated display units, two touch screen units for controlling the aircraft’s systems and mission equipment, as well as two cursor control devices for cursor control of the tactical displays.
The Merlin Mk4 and Mk4A aircraft will continue to be supported through the existing Integrated Merlin Operational Support (IMOS) contract, which has been in place since 2006 with AgustaWestland as prime contractor.
The MLSP contract will help sustain approximately 175 highly skilled jobs at AgustaWestland and more than 500 jobs in the supply chain, including many with SMEs.
Under the D&M contract AW will also manage a competition to deliver a synthetic whole crew training equipment and infrastructure for the Merlin Mk4/Mk4A, building on its experience of Merlin training and the delivery of the training infrastructure for the AW159 Wildcat
Which I think is cheaper than previously reported and definitely not inclusive of any support arrangements i.e. a Design and Manufacture contract
So are the 7 interim included in the final 25 then and will the IMOS contract be extended?
And for Apache
Apache IOS
The five-year Apache Integrated Operational Support (IOS) contract is valued at approximately £430 million (€510 million) and will continue to provide the Apache AH Mk.1 Attack Helicopter fleet with comprehensive support and maintenance services from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2019.
Under this second contract Apache IOS prime contractor AgustaWestland will continue to be supported by its industrial partners Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Longbow International and Selex ES to deliver complete spares provisioning, engineering, depth maintenance, repair & overhaul and technical support services for the UK MoD’s fleet of Apache AH Mk1 helicopters.
At Wattisham Airfield, the British Army’s main Apache AH Mk.1 operating base, AgustaWestland will continue to manage the Depth Support Unit and the associated workshops, ensuring the throughput of the facility matches the operational requirements of the Army Air Corps. At Army Aviation Centre Middle Wallop, AgustaWestland will continue to be responsible for the provision of Apache aircraft on the flight line at the School of Army Aviation, delivering the required number of flight hours to match the Army’s training requirements.
The Apache IOS programme office, manned by industry and Ministry of Defence staff, located at AgustaWestland’s Yeovil facility, will continue to manage the IOS contract. The Apache IOS contract will directly sustain around 360 jobs, mainly at Wattisham Airfield, Army Aviation Centre Middle Wallop and AgustaWestland’s Yeovil facility.
The Apache IOS contract will deliver the required levels of aircraft availability whilst reducing through life costs. The contract is output-based, whereby AgustaWestland is incentivised to improve the levels of operational output whilst seeking continuous improvement to reduce through life costs.
The UK Apache AH Mk.1 fleet is fast approaching the 150,000 flying hour milestone and recently more than 40% of annual flying hours have been performed on operations in Afghanistan, providing protection for UK and allied forces.
AgustaWestland also provides support and training services for the UK MoD’s AW159 Wildcat helicopter fleet under the Wildcat Integrated Support and Training (WIST) contract, for the Sea King fleet under the Sea King Integrated Operational Support (SKIOS) contract which continues to the expected out of service date of April 2016 and for the AW101 Merlins under the Integrated Merlin Operational Support (IMOS) contract
No mods then, just a contract extention
@TD Here is latest cost of merlin integrated operational support- aprox £570m for all 58 airframes in RN and RAF service
http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland-signs-contract-second-five-year-period-imos-contract.
Puts into perspective running costs over upgrade costs
@TD
Yep, the seven interim HC3i get the physical mods first, but have to wait until 2019 to get their iPads. Folding rotor blades are an established modification for Merlin, whereas a new cockpit takes a bit more time to develop….
Some of the last few comments seem close to crystallizing the problem with the AAC fleet.
Apache has proven itself extremely useful whilst Lynx/Wildcat doesn’t really seem to fill any definitive role which couldn’t be shared between Apache itself and a small amount of battlefield scout and liaison helicopters (Gazelle mk2).
The problem is that on the other hand Lynx/Wildcat is an Agusta-Westland product and secures British business and jobs whilst Apache doesn’t (at least not to the same extent).
If one had to go then it would be an almost direct choice between what’s good for the Army and what’s perceived to be good for the nation in terms of industry and economics.
@wirralpete
I quite understand that it costs $18m to update a US-spec Apache to Block III with all the certifications for US service. But we don’t have US-spec Apaches, and even if we did, we would still need a separate round of certification for UK service, which would not be spread over 650 airframes but 50 (or whatever number we ended up with). There’s other differences – like MoD prices include paying VAT to the Treasury, which the Pentagon don’t have to do. In reality, the fact that our Apaches are significantly different to the US ones means that there would be additional engineering and custom manufacturing required, followed by UK-specific flight trials and all the rest. It’s not hard to see that lot adding up to £200m, which is another £4m of fixed costs per airframe, plus some UK-specific equipment like new radios etc.
If you just look around at other Westland/Boeing collaborations, you can see how the UK always pays significantly more, and it’s not just the Yeovil premium for doing work in this country. Our original Apaches cost £35m when the US was paying less than £20m, our Chinook HC6 are costing £60.1m when the US is paying $38m (£23m) for FY14 CH-47F and so on. So if the US is paying £11m for Block III upgrades, I think £20m is a pretty reasonable guesstimate.
@el sid cheers for that reply very enlightening i must say just goes to show what other posters mean by goldplating for uk specific (ie project julius ) on chinooks is actually costing us ! (wtf £60m for uk spec and $38m for us spec) no wonder mod budgets been in such a mess for last 15 years and adds ammunition to those who say either buy off the shelf (P8) or get in early and help write the specs ourselves (F35)
@TD Oh thats why we are getting Wildcat. Tell me did he draw up the requirement?
@Simon UH-72 maybe. Personally I would plump for something like AW109, AW169 or panther. Lets try looking at light utility helicopters. Now if those don’t float your boat how about NH90 or AW139/149 which are a bit heavier.
My most recent delusional thought (probably making me qualified to lead a party) Don’t touch a single HC3 until they are all upgraded. NO HC3i. Instead we buy 10 NH90/AW139/AW149 ready to go. These then operate for the CHF alongside some detached chinooks if you need heavy lift. You are now free to do your upgrade to HC4/4a. When your done draw down the NH90 or whatever to say 6-8 cabs leaving the RM with some assault helicopters. Introduce the rest to the RAF or AAC and start to gradually replace Puma so you have no loss of capability.
Before anyone says it I know I’m mad!
@TED
‘Instead we buy 10 NH90/AW139/AW149 ready to go.’
If we do that then don’t bother to upgrade the Merlins at all and over time slowly replace all the transport fleet bar Chinook with the same airframe.
‘UH-72 maybe’
I would not even bother with a light utility helicopter for the Army.
Just seen this if it helps, 24 AH64E for est cost $4.8 billion
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/iraq-requests-ah-64e-apache-helicopter-fms/
Hmm. I suspect that includes a decade of maintenance and some bribes :-)
News from Flightglobal, regarding Merlin and Apache contracts:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-launches-commando-role-transition-for-aw101-395363/
That Flight article has a nice pic showing a HC3 and the ex-Danish HC3A side by side, for those interested in the differences. Aside from the extra window, there’s a lot of differences around the cockpit – Flight use a cropped version of 45155911.jpg on http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk (you’ll have to search for it or go in via today’s news package. I can never work out a sensible way to deep link to photos there, it’s a right pain)
so does that Apache deal rule out an upgrade until 2019 or will we be getting whatever follows so there is a seamless transition.
@TED
The US Block III upgrade has been pushed back by sequestration, it looks like the main production run won’t start until 2019 or so. The main driving force from our point of view is when Boeing stop supporting the Block I hardware, which probably won’t be until 2024-ish. If we decide to go the Block III route it just makes sense to try and tie in our upgrades to the main production run in the US – sequestration has given us a bit of breathing space before we have to spend the money, but we would probably start an upgrade some time around 2019. So this maintenance deal keeps us going for as long as we will definitely have the full fleet of Block I’s, but gives us flexibility over how we manage the transition to Block III or something else.
If we did go the Block III remanufacturing route, you can imagine it would be something a bit like the Harrier JUMP on steroids, which combined maintenance with major upgrades in a single programme.
Random thoughts (repost, as much the same was consumed by TD’s spam monster 24 hours ago, and has not reappeared)
1. The Army needs an airborne transit van to carry around all sorts of shit, from Generals to fire teams. It needs them about 5 miles behind the point of support, at 5 minutes notice to take to the air, and without typical Kevin nonsense about ACOs/ATOs and not being able to fly as the moon is In Sagittarius or the nasty enemy are shooting nasty bullets or other typical Kevin excuses for not doing the job they are paid to do. Lynx is an airborne transit van.
2. Gazelle with GOA when flown by an ex-recce young officer or Corporal with an eye for the ground and the balls to fly at 4 feet above the grass was a better recce asset with speed than anything else on the battlefield than anything else in the inventory apart from AH-64D. And cheaper, if you did not need firepower.
3. Pumas were/are shite. Noisy as fuck, up to Chinook decibels. I first flew in a Puma in 1982 as a Sandhurst cadet. Tippy as hell on landing and in crosswinds with a CoG somewhere about 6 inches under the Jesus nut on the rotors. Why the hell are they still allowed? It’s like giving a Lee Enfield a mid life upgrade for service in 2015.
4. The only real measure of capability for support is the efficiency of tasking, and underlying understanding of tactics, that each service can deliver to another.
5. The Army uses Corporals to drive vans. Why cannot the Kevins do the same?
Hi, WirralPete. I think the costs you were looking at earlier were to upgrade existing American Apache to E standard. With hours expended on the AAC’s Apache, the MoD is looking at buying new AH-64E, but harvesting and utilizing bits and pieces from the old aircraft – particularly expensive lumps like the radar and TADS.
The costs aren’t comparable; you’re using refurbishment costs to come up with costs for new airframes.
British Apache costs will be equal to new AH-64E, minus harvested spares, plus unique modifications. There isn’t another Apache program similar enough for anyone here to accurately extrapolate costs for the UK fleet
“It’s like giving a Lee Enfield a mid life upgrade for service in 2015.”
:)
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/cr23.jpg
I think the No4 Lee-Enfield is a classic. Millions of Afghan snipers can’t be wrong :-)
‘without typical Kevin nonsense about ACOs/ATOs and not being able to fly as the moon is In Sagittarius or the nasty enemy are shooting nasty bullets or other typical Kevin excuses for not doing the job they are paid to do.’
Done any recent ops RT?
There’s a small puff piece on the grey Wildcat in this month’s Navy News :
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2ol3p/201401NavyNewsJan14/resources/16.htm
ok i sort of get it but…. why for an AIRFRAME….. that we’ve already paid for MTADS(ARROWHEAD) PVNR LONGBOW radar, etc would /should cost £30m dont see it, steel is cheap etc. Understand what EL SID is saying but double or 2.5 times cost ….why ……keep enlightening me gents would really like to understand … bowman etc already integrated plug and play ?
@brian black cheers friend good point what your sayin, but still cant see where that much money in cost comes from, we’re upgradin airframes no? and shipping already bought expensive tech MTADS / PVNR IFF ETC from one to other
therefore why we havin this argument …. airframes replaced, just new?, therefore no new airworthiness specs needed
still dont know where $30m would come from? as what EL SID said ?
Am a layman, never worked in HM armed forces but am a man among many, who cares, but would still like to explain to my friends when daily fail says things i can rebut with confidence lol
I don’t know why the RAF can’t use corporals to drive their cabs. I would much prefer to be flown around by an experienced SNCO than a juniour Kevin.
Re Gazelle, thats exactly what they need. Something small manouverable and fast. That is a recce asset not Wildcat.
@RT
1. Absolutely- I cannot imagine the army, buying something that they didn’t have a use for
2. Airborne Equivalent of a Bicycle? Cheap and nippy
3. Hmm…Wessex generation?
I remember hearing exactly the same stuff from pilot chappies when the Pumas were being introduced, ‘Too delicate’, ‘too noisy’, ‘too tall’, ‘I can fix a wessex with a bent nail and a ball of string’ ‘I can bang in a Wessex onto a back garden bet the Puma will never be able to manage that’
Turn to Merlin being introduced:
‘Too delicate’, ‘too noisy’, ‘too tall’, ‘I can fix a puma with a bent nail and a ball of string’ ‘I can bang in a Puma onto a back garden bet the Merlin will never be able to manage that’
However, the Puma is so shite that variants are still in production today, whereas the Sea King was so awesomely awesome that no-one apart from Westlands (and they are desperately trying to wriggle out of it) is even supporting it.
4. M&S speak
5. Because all the corporals are too busy in hangers and inflatable sheds fixing the aeroplanes that the Rodneys, using ever more unbelievable, inventive and unusual ways, break.
I would love the return of the Sargeant Pilot, or indeed Master Aircrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_SW-4
Look who owns the factory………….
Wasn’t Merlin actually the Wessex replacement not Puma?
The simple fact is we can all talk about this Helicopter or that or if it’s run by Green, Dark Blue or Lught Blue officers, but WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH full stop. I’ve seen the comments regarding the “laughable US Marines level of Air Transport” but the simple fact is we got lucky in Afghanistan when the USA military saw Brave, Dedicated soldiers loosing their lives for the lack of suitable air transport stepped in and saved our ar***. So to this day if a Chinook can’t get in for Casvac cases we rely on US Blackhawks to extract our injured soldiers. Everyday we rely on US aircraft to run any number of missions because we don’t have the Helicopter force to do the job properly.
We talk about putting 5,000 pointy soldiers in the field but we have nowhere near enough helicopters to supply close air support (because the only other flying thing that can deliver is a multi Million Pound Fast Jet dropping stuff from 2 miles up), we rely on lightly armoured trucks to move stuff that should be slung under helicopters exposing troops to IEDs, We can’t lift enough troops in one go to undertake a real airbourne assault be it from ships or land bases.
The fact is we have got lucky in that the Americans bailed us out in Iraq and Afghan, and the Argentinans military is in a worse state than ours. The sad fact is we have learnt nothing from Iraq or Afghanistan about the helicopter needs of a modern, hi tech ground force.
In my view instead of “coded discusions”, “quite words” behind closed doors, planning assumpttions and spreadsheets, old Generals talking in the Lords, the senior level of all the armed forces needs to go on TV publicaly telling politicians that 1. We are not sending incrdibly brave young men and woman to die because you won’t supply enough of really everything to fight and mount a 5,000 person operation, 2. We can do about a 1,000 person operation at most on our own and even then we need US help for Anti Radar, AEW and other items, learn to live with it. 3. To stop pretending we can either protect British interests or issuing threats (ie Syria) which we have no ability to deliver. In short stop writing cheques that the British Armed Forces as proposed have no chance of cashing.
The only solutions are 1. We effectively become part of the US military and only do ops with there support, but it means we get dragged in to everything they do or 2. We join/create a true Pan European/ or British/French military which can mount large operations on it’s own (ie Libya) with the removal of duplication etc meaning even at EU wide defence spending levels we can at least send up to 10,000 troop packets with engineering support, Helicopters etc etc. 3. We become Ireland/Sweden and give up on the international stage.
My own solution would be to take the Succesor programme out of the MOD budget so that as the USA has noticed we can get back to having an Armed Forces that isn’t hollowed out and un-deployable. Then the UK can decide if it wants a Nucleur option and fund it properly.
The fact is every article on here or on other blogs keeps going on about “Gapping” or “Making Equipment Multi Funtional” but we are going to end up somewhere with 5,000 people fighting and the US or EU aren’t going to come to the rescue.
We are going to come home with our legs between our tails and a lot of body bags because people within the MOD/Armed Forces will not stand up and tell The Prime Ministers/The Exchequer/Foreign Secretary/The Public the truth, that unless we pay for it we can’t do it and stop asking us to do things we can’t do, beause it’s the poor bloody Soldiers, Sailors, Marines or Airman that pay with their Lives.
@ The Ginge
In many ways I have to agree. I believe our lack of Helicopters was somewhat sensationalised by the media. How the bare bones of it were we did not have enough, causing us to develop IED prooof vehicles. We need more of the flying transit vans. That is simple and I have said that with helicopters I personally advocate having sensible divisions between aircraft roles. For instance I would not like an armed chinook as much as I would not like Apache with a load hook.
CAS is not an issue as I see it. You could station Apaches at FOBs or at least closer to the action but people don’t understand that the systems on these aircraft don’t just turn on. For instance IR cameras need to be cooled down significantly before they work which takes time. So I have no real problem with our CAS and anyway we refer to that as intimate air support.
Our vulnerability is not nessecarily in the full blown fire fight. It is in the mundane movement of kit. Stupid things I’ve read about such as a lack of generators to recharge batteries meaning a convoy has to deliver batteries. Even then only a few were delivered so they did it every few days. The whole organisation had to smarten up and they just need basic kit and planning skills but they need to be good.
I would like nothing more than a small utility heli attached to each FOB. Not nessecarily stationed there but always available to them. The lack of daytime flying of the early lynx in Afghan was a disaster in my view for these simple milk runs.
I think we have learnt lessons from every conflict. I think however that we learnt from the Falklands in 82 and started getting equipment that we identified a need for in 92 and so on. Leaving us somewhat behind the drag curve. In Afghanistan the UORs have been good and it shows us learning lessons and identifying needs for kit.
My issue is that no one in the MoD seems to know what they are doing with helicopters. Why for instance was there not just a UOR for 20-30 bell 412 to do milk runs? If we cannot identify the new kit requirred at war how can we expect to do it at peace.
For instance Sentinel is delivering extraordinary capability. But thats ok helpful as its has been we wil never need it agian. Right? We needed more Helicopter and got a handful but it was p*ss poor in all honesty. We must have had close to 50 chinook in service. How many were deployed? 8! As much as they may be too big for some jobs, how is that possible? We decided after Iraq to put more Merlin in Afghan which wasn’t a bad idea but why not the extra puma as well? It all smells of the initial descission that we could deal with Helmand with our limited resources. If we increased this dramatically it showed we couldn’t cope.
Well guess what, we couldn’t, thats why the USMC came to town. A thought occured to me the other day. I’ve never seen a report of a helicopter hitting an IED in the air. Surely someone at the top had their head screwed on. If your fighting a counter insurgency and they use IEDs why are we moving people and equipment by road?
What was it like in NI can anyone tell me? From reading reports it seemed we used more helis. Weren’t we meant to be the experts on counter insurgency?
‘Absolutely- I cannot imagine the army, buying something that they didn’t have a use for’
Ever heard of Springer? ;-)
ah ha, David, you have given me an excuse to bat another archive post out of the park
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/springer-when-uors-go-bad/
Perhaps the Army Wildcat can just get transferred to the CHF since they don’t want them?
Perhaps the RM value a smaller airframe with about 1/4 of the frontal radar area of a Merlin/Puma/Chinook that can nip about at 150 knots down ravines and drop a fully kitted fireteam 100nm into enemy territory whilst providing .50 cal suppressive fire if necessary.
TD, you’re really batting for that 101 thousandth comment are you? :P
Getting closer
@TD
And my mother always told me ‘you should never feed the monster!’ :-)
@Simon IF it could do all that it would be a lovely transfer. But…
TED,
Which bits can’t it do then? I deliberately left out “putting a few LMM into some transport vehicles” or “shooting a couple of enemy copters out of the sky with stingers” ;-)
Well I was under the impression that it couldn’t lift a fully kitted out fire team. And also we are not getting .50s are we? I think it criminal anyway but not using the ability to fit weapons is rubbish.
Also the wiki article states it has an endurance of 1hr 30 to put that in perspective wiki says that Squirrel has an endurance of 4.1 hrs MD902 3hr 12 min Robinson R22 over 2 hours. Surely this is a case where wiki is well out!
Phew on doing the sensible thing and reading the AW website it is 2h 42 on on internal. Citation needed I suspect!
TED
The British armed forces work in sections of 8 men, this is further split into two fireteams of 4 for purposes of fire and maneuver. The Wildcat cannot lift a full kitted out section but it can lift a fireteam/specialist weapons team.
(Sorry in advance if it seams I’m teaching you to suck eggs)
Ginge – The issue with Herrick and helicopters was multi-faceted, but pretty much comes down to two factors.
1. There were four support helicopter fleets at the kick-off of Herrick, totalling (roughly) 40 Chinook, 22 Merlin HC3, 30 Puma HC1 and 30 or so SK4. Not counting Lynx as they’re not really support helos in terms of moving significant numbers of pax / cargo. That’s about 120 cabs total. Unfortunately, two of those fleets (Puma and SK) were not capable of lifting “useful” loads in the hot n high environment of Afghanistan. So that’s half the fleet bowled out then. That leaves the burden on about 60 Wokka and Merlin, some of which (primarily Merlin) were committed to Telic (Iraq). Basically from 120 cabs, only half were suitable or available for Herrick and some of those were comitted elsewhere. You also needed to allow for training use in the UK (including work up of aircrew and troops for each Herrick rotation), maintenanceand some reserve for contingent use.
It was also unfortunate that the ongoing Chinook HC3 debacle prevented another 8 airframes being available and coloured the debate in that until they were fixed, buying more cabs was probably a non-starter. We managed to persuade the Danes to sell us 6 Merlins they had in production, but these were not full-spec, so AIUI are/were used for aircrew/troop training in the UK. A number of SK4 were also fitted with Carson blades, which increased their useful load in that environment, allowng some of them (846NAS?) to deploy to theatre and provide limited additional lift / medevac.
2. One G Brown, Great Financial Genius (source the BBC & Guardian) who ensured that the funds available to support Herrick were limited, which basically meant that the flying hours and number of airframes available were also limited. It is instructive that many of the press releases of the time talked about “increases in flying hours available” rather than extra cabs – largely because there were no more cabs to be had. It is probably also fair to say taht the absence of vehicles adequately protected against IED (and there is no such thing as an IED-proof vehicle) led to a heavier demand on the few cabs in theatre, not least for MERT / MEDEVAC rather than lift.
Simon – CHF don’t want them either, because their basic requirement is to lift an RM Coy (~120 bods) in one go. You can do that with 6 Merlin or 3 Wokka. You could only do that with north of 15 Wildcat which we don’t have deck space for.
@David Niven ah I see the difference there! Which one is referred to as a Brick (or stick I forget which) or is that term long gone.
In that case Simon is right and I suspect the RM will end up seeing some of these regardless. Merlin is towards the top end of loads. So I suspect we will see Wildcat or something similar for when we don’t need Merlin. Plus the poor RM will end up with it being a gunship like with lynx :)
NaB,
Simon – CHF don’t want them either, because their basic requirement is to lift an RM Coy (~120 bods) in one go. You can do that with 6 Merlin or 3 Wokka. You could only do that with north of 15 Wildcat which we don’t have deck space for.
You can’t try and slip 20 bods per Merlin past me! Also, isn’t it 98 for a Close Combat Company (4 Merlin), 78 for a Standoff Company (4 Merlin), or 164 for a Reinforced Company Assault (6 Merlin or 4 Chinook)? Has this changed?
I’d also suggest that there’s more to the Royal Marines than a company sized assault. Maybe they’ve forgotten that. Hopefully, the chaps in charge haven’t. Forward scout drops. Tactical raids. Road blocks/ambush/land-mining and demolition/sabotage jobs for interdiction. I don’t think many of these require a company or platoon. Maybe I’m way off the mark?
Ted,
I thought the Navy Wildcat were going to have a pintle for an M2? Just because the Army want to use a GPMG doesn’t mean they can’t put something a little more beefy on it.
All,
I just don’t really get the problem with Lynx/Wildcat. It’s a great copter. Lynx holds the world speed record for a copter which goes someway to demonstrate just how good they are. Not that I’m suggesting that really matters in military circles, but come on, they’re the last remnant of British military aviation… did someone say Agusta?
:-(
PS: X2 and X3 are hybrids (they have wings), before you all have a go ;-)
Simon
‘I just don’t really get the problem with Lynx/Wildcat. It’s a great copter’
Yes it is and a world of bigger funds then I would have no problem with buying them. However it is going to be fighting for funds against the Apache in the future and then I believe it will win. Dropping of fireteams is a bit more special forces scenarios, and they are getting 8 Wildcat for the purpose.A puma sized helicopter would have been a better buy than the Wildcat, that way we could get a decent lift to do all the jobs that are required 90% of the time and keep Apache.
DavidNiven,
Don’t “special forces” get exactly what they want? I’d make that another plus point for at least eight Wildcat.
I agree, it will divert funds for Apache, but so it should. Apache does not need upgrading. It works as it is and we’re not going to be doing any more Afghanistan. This is of course a politically biased statement, as the reality is we might. Upgrading Apache is like building more tanks or battleships. They’re relics of a bygone age.
We therefore need to procure equipment for the engagements we a) want to get involved in, and b) are likely to get involved in. This means (I think) small-scale raiding and suppression. The French are spot-on with their plans. It’s not necessarily a great military structure, but the reality is, our current military structures will not work in the likely conflicts of the future, just as it hasn’t worked in recent conflicts.
I feel as though I might need to get my head down now ;-)
Simon,
Yes special forces get exactly what they want to a point. It is however not a plus for Wildcat because SF teams work in smaller groups and therefore the Wildcat is perfectly suitable (they are going to be using it in the light assault role)
The Apache will work in all those scenarios you mentioned and is just as deployable plus its a better recce asset with Longbow,how long are Boing going to be supporting older AH’s? You can drop off a fireteam with Puma and it is still useful whereas the Wildcat is much more limited. We also tend to work in sections/multiples (even the Marines) so for 90% of the daily tasks Wildcat is uneconomical if you are going to use if for a tactical lift helicopter.
It is however going into service, so time will tell but don’t be fooled into thinking that Wildcat is a great utility helicopter and can be used for casevac etc because it is very limited when it comes to lifting.
but not job creation ;-)
@ David Niven.
Army Lynx was a transit van, and there’s a reason transit vans ruled the world. Just bloody useful for all sorts of shit. And don’t be hard over on troop numbers: push comes to shove, you’d get 12-14 in with 5 day patrol packs. We regularly did in NI. Just don’t tell the clipboard merchants or the Kevins, who would have a fit at this totally cavalier disregard of insanely conservative rools N regs.
Simon, re Gazelle gorge flying. Totally fun. I booked a Gazelle for a triangular trip from Banja Luka to Sanski Most to Sarajevo and back to BL. The pilot was one of my old Troopers who’d gone over to the Army Air Club and was a Sergeant pilot. Apart from the good cheer of meeting again, I challenged him to fly tactically as I’d taught him to cover country when he drove a Scimitar in my Troop a decade before, and he obliged. Holy fuck what a great flight. Rotors about 6 inches from the gorge walls at 100 knots, and we didn’t exceed more than 10 feet AGL the whole way. You don’t get Kevins willing to play that way, because they are institutionally boring.
Simon
I’m not sure which open-source website you got your numbers from, nor indeed how accurate they are this week. What I do know is that the requirements for RM Coy group lift tend to be “average” and don’t fit a spreadsheet and that depending on how many bergens, suppt weapons and other kit the lads are carrying, plus allowing for weather, fuel load etc, a planning figure of about 20 for a lift is pretty much spot on. CHF themselves were hoping for that themselves as well. 847/TWA will certainly get Wildcat. 845 & 846 not to mention HQ CHF would be distinctly underwhelmed, no matter what your spreadsheet says.
I personally think wildcat will be a good cab as is Lynx, but only for what it’s meant for. The trouble is that it doesn’t fit what Perce thinks he wants (UH60) because it hasn’t been bought for that. It’s been bought to do recce, light utility (not assault lift) and to be a common airframe for a very different Navy requirement. Once people understand that, it should be fine. Trouble is, they fixate on the SH60/UH60 being the solution for navy reqts and army lift, forgetting that its actually quite big and cock-all use for recce etc. Which means you need another much smaller cab to do recce which is either Lynx sized or smaller which means it’s wider utility is limited. And no, its not a UAV either.
NaB,
Open source web site? How dare you ;-) Actually the figures are from various books and web sites.
Generally I believe (from these various sources) that 3Cdo expect to have 18 SK/Merlin sized copters to call upon. Generally that works out to 6 per Commando so that concurs with your figure. They probably then cram as much into those six as possible, which really, really should be more than 20 per box. There are (as you know) seats for 27 and plenty of room between the seat rows for Javelin, M2s, bergens, etc.
There’s no spreadsheet trickery involved here, just working on the fact that Merlin is bigger than Sea King and it seems everyone expects a comfy ride nowadays.
@RedTrousers
The Lynx is indeed a transit van that on paper could lift a section, it was not however used in the battlefield recce role as well, and in the case of the AH9 a true light utility helicopter as it was not equipped with the sighting system to launch TOW missiles for the anti armour role. The Wildcat is being procured to provide a recce helicopter with a small utility added, on paper it can carry 6 passengers so is already a drop in capability from the Lynx. The Gazelle performed in hot and high conditions no problem, whereas the lynx needed to be re engined. We entered Helmand in 2006 and the order for the Wildcat was confirmed in 2008. So after 2 years in Helmand which we found a massive need for a tactical lift airframe, the Lynx was retired to flying at night due to not being able to perform during the day (and was not missed) and the Gazelle performed well.
The answer to that problem is to replace the Gazelle (cheaper and more suited to the role) with the Wildcat, and reduce the tactical lift available by retiring the Sea Kings from the CHF. Not to mention the Wildcat in my opinion will sideline the Apache when the funds are needed to upgrade it, as the Wildcat will be seen as capable of providing intimate air support.
Apologies if this post appears three times, as the first two disappeared.
@Simon: “Don’t “special forces” get exactly what they want? I’d make that another plus point for at least eight Wildcat.”
I know he’s not popular here, but Gabriele has suggested that Director SF has resisted adopting Wildcat for SF, preferring to go with Lynx AH9As. This would mean the increase from 62 to 66 Wildcats (incl. 28 RN) would not go ahead, as the extra four aircraft were ear-marked for SF, along with four more Army variants from the original 62.
@Simon
Apache does not need upgrading. It works as it is
The trouble is, it won’t work as is after 2023 or so, because we won’t be able to get parts first made 40 years previously (without having them custom made at huge expense). I’d agree that essentially the Apache “works”, but there’s lots of little niggles that have been revealed by operations, and it would be nice to make them more maritime-friendly.
The other thing is that our fleet has been worked hard these last few years, so there’s an issue of how many AH hours we have left. It’s not critical just yet, but for once there are people thinking for the long term about how AH hours can be delivered most cheaply between now and 2040. That’s why the favourite-if-we-can-afford-it option for this “upgrade” would be to take our existing good-enough electronics/engines into new, zero-hours airframes. It gives us many more AH hours relatively cheaply, whilst solving most of the obsolescence issues at a stroke.
we’re not going to be doing any more Afghanistan….We therefore need to procure equipment for the engagements we a) want to get involved in, and b) are likely to get involved in. This means (I think) small-scale raiding and suppression.
You mean something like Libya? Where we had 5 Apaches flying off an LPH? That kind of small-scale raiding?
Want to get a section into a 6-man Wildcat?
Train one of each section as a pilot plus :
a) Combat dwarves
b) More recruitment in Wales
c) Maintain recruitment levels to ensure a 12.5% shortfall in frontline units
El Sid – passengers doesn’t = infantry soldier. There are all sorts of people that need moving about that you don’t want to be tying up a proper transport for.
Anybody that thinks that the Army will be giving up Apache is having a laugh. Other than being an immensely useful bit of kit, the Apache has become one of the Army’s defining image touchstones.
While Wildcat and Apache will overlap in certain missions areas, they don’t have the same primary purpose or the same capabilities. Where they do overall lap hi it as being a hi/lo combination (albeit a somewhat expensive “lo”).
Even though Apache is expensive to run and will require a not-inexpensive update, developing Wildcat to the point where it could provide even a half of the capability that Apache does would cost a heck a lot more.
IMO the AAC Wildcat has its place. Maybe it should be abit smaller to be more like the Gazelle, and it could probably do with being cheaper.
PS – The US Army plan to replace its OH-58s with Apaches and UAVs seems shortsighted to me. It will no doubt be effective combo but will be overkill for many situations and expensive to run.
@DavidNiven: “the Lynx was retired to flying at night due to not being able to perform during the day (and was not missed) and the Gazelle performed well.”
I’m guessing you’re talking about the Lynx Mk.9 and not the up-engined Mk.9A? From what I can gather the Mk.9A with the CTS 800 engines have given the army Lynx a new lease of life and there’s plenty of footage on Youtube of it bombing around Afghanistan during the day, armed with the FN M3. I believe the night tasking was more to do with its mission role in theatre, it was fitted with a FLIR ball, than its inability to get airborne, as it was cheaper to send a Lynx around the perimeter on a recce than an Apache.
As for the Gazelle, I’m dead sure UK forces didn’t deploy them to Afghanistan. I’d be very surprised if the SA.341’s which we used could get off the ground in the heat. The French used them, but they were the hot and high SA.342 variant, armed with HOT missiles. Although in the summer they had to take the missiles off and just use the HOT optic for observation. They were later replaced in theatre with Tigers.
As an aside, the Gazelle is still quite expensive to operate, even for a single-engine, lightweight chopper.
@Ace Rimmer,
Yeah I’m talking about the MK9. The MK9A was seen flying around Bastion but was it ever used as a utility helicopter outside that area and down into the PB’s? (I never saw it)
Wasn’t the Gazelle used on Op Veritas in Khabul/Khandahar? It was used on Telic but I can’t recall how long for.
And that’s my point we’ve re engined the MK9’s so why do we need Wildcat? when we’ve proven we can live with that size airframe in the quantities we have, but we are short on tactical lift.
@DavidNiven, re: the Gazelle in Afghanistan, I’m sure the earliest deployment of UK helicopters was in 2002, and they were Chinooks. After that from 2006 it was Seakings, Chinooks, Apache’s and Lynx 9/9A’s.
As to why we need Wildcat now, very good question, one I’ve asked myself a great number of times; probably because we’re now contractual obliged, the engine upgrade on the Mk.9 was a UOR. Also, the Wildcat is around a tonne heavier, so the lift performance is affected accordingly. Personally, I’d scrap the Wildcat for the AAC and develop the AW149.
@Ace Rimmer,
ref Gazelle :Sorry not Veritas, they never deployed from the ships. Was it OP Jacana?
We are where we are with Wildcat, so time will tell if its worth it. How many foxhounds could we buy with the money? probably enough to equip all the regular support units to the light role infantry, and maybe a few for the reserves to train with.
El Sid,
The trouble is, it won’t work as is after 2023 or so, because we won’t be able to get parts first made 40 years previously (without having them custom made at huge expense)
But, isn’t the whole point of Westland building our Apache so that we have a) jobs, and b) a sovereign industry to support our prime military assets?
I can’t quite get my head round anything being that difficult to fabricate save some electronics.
I suppose, having spent a few years studying aerospace I see aircraft and copters (oh, and cars) as just the mechanical bits. The gizmos and wizardry that we then bolt on is as “throwaway” as any other fast-moving technology (the reason I wouldn’t dream of an integrated GPS map system in a car – it’s obsolete the moment you buy it). So I see Apache as a 10t copter that’s got an armored bathtub, a bit of IR suppression and a 30mm cannon, and is otherwise not much else. Bolt Hellfire or Brimstone to the side and that’s it – Apache AH-64.
I’ll grant you the longbow radar mast is a little special, but I think I could put that on Wildcat if you like… along with 8 Hellfire and a couple of .50 cals with thought controlled aiming (two chaps at the trigger end).
You’ll consider me wrong, but if we don’t have sovereign “systems” as well as the sovereign airframe there’s really very little point ever having built the things in the UK. Britannia can then just resign herself to being completely dependent on other nation’s engineering prowess and technical expertise and never being able to get through total war again.
If you look at Lynx* through this lens maybe people can see why it’s so much more important than Apache.
* I say “Lynx” because, to be honest, I do struggle with Wildcat as a concept. I think the strap-line for Wildcat should be “HEAVIER BUT LESS USEFUL” :-)
@Simon But can you make it a Kevlar bathtub able to be flown by both pilots, highly survivable and ugly?
On a more academic note which is more accurate, door gunner or EO laid gun? My money would be on the camera gun although I accept it can lose its harmonization or whatever. I bet a door gunner can do the same!
Simon,
Its not the systems its the class of airframe, the Army do not need it they need something bigger. So if you want to build British systems for an AW149/NH 90 class helicopter then fine, even build the airframes here.
Strap-line would be “WILDCAT, WORLD CLASS LIGHT MARITIME HELICOPTER, OVER PRICED NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL JOB CREATION/MILITARY UTILITY HELICOPTER”
If Apaches (or indeed FJ) are to operate from CVF we need a CSAR capability. In the case of the Libyan intervention with Apaches operating from Ocean, the CSAR was provided by a detachment of USAF Pave Hawks.
A small number of Merlin could be converted for this role but what should we sacrifice to pay for them?
On a second, possibly unrelated, point why do we need 60 Chinooks?
@Perconator
The CSAR organisation for Libya was multinational and ran at NATO level. Whilst the MH60s were part of this they were not always the on call rotary wing aspect. The real limiting factor was available dedicated fast air, especially when CDG and Garibaldi were of station, the lack of carrier air slowed down response by 40 minutes.
@APATS
Sorry, I don’t follow what point you’re making.
Are you saying we do or do not require a CSAR capability to support Apache operations from CVF?
@Perconator
No I am saying that there is an awful lot more to it than buying a couple of cabs.
@APATS
Such as?
@Perconator
It is an open forum but the CSAR Libya plan ran to several pages and involved about 6 assets.
@APATS
We seem to be at cross purposes.
I am of the view that in order to safely operate off CVF in expeditionary missions, Apache needs to be supported by a CSAR capability. As an example I noted that in its only operations in the littoral to date (Libya), such a capability had been provided.
Unless we are only going to operate CVF with the support of NATO CSAR assets, we need to supply our own.
In which case, Merlin would seem to be a good candidate.
I am not asking for details of the Libya CSAR plan, interesting though it may be.
With regard to Merlin CSAR, you claim that there is more to it than buying a couple of cabs. No doubt that is literally true but not very helpful. So once again, such as?
And from that cagey note, can we infer that you were somewhere close by APATS?
Sometimes you can tell more when normally chatty people starts evasive maneuvers. :P
perc, he’s not allowed to say. Such things tend to be classed restricted or above.
OTOH, we can make some good guesses at what is lacking. CSAR assets tend to need protecting, which he vaguely alluded to wrt the lack of air cover. No air cover for the CSAR bird tends to mean “no go”. And the more CSAR there is, the more assets you need to cover them and the less you can allocate to strike packages. There’s also AAR to consider and the requirement to somehow track your downed airmen from above with only a pathetic handset radio, the need to find a secluded linkup point for extraction to prevent unnecessary visitors, a clearing big enough to land and extract etc. Sometimes even a combat section for armed extraction if things really go wonky. It’s all a huge ball of interlinked systems, not just “kick the tyres, light the fires”. Or more accurately, “prior planning prevents piss poor performance”.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions/africa/MV-22-Conducts-CSAR-Mission-in-Libya_72894.html#.Uu5hb38gGSM
You could probably add an AWACS to that list.
Basically you need ISTAR over the site, airborne C2, ability to suppress enemy ground forces. ability to control the air space. Medical and extraction assets, AAR dependent on range.
Now some assets can be dual purpose but you see where I am going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Bat_21_Bravo
Something to consider in CSAR. sometimes, it’s less costly to just let the poor pilot walk out.
@APATS and @Observer
(The system keeps eating my replies).
I’m aware that a variety of different assets may be required to support a successful CSAR mission, however the only asset that is always needed is the extraction vehicle. As we do not operate and cannot afford MV22 I am proposing Merlin as the appropriate asset.
I take the point regarding dual purpose, are you suggesting Merlin HC4 can provide CSAR in addition to its primary function.
percontactor, not really. Sending a bird in solo unsupported is a good way to get a bird MIA. Not KIA, MIA. You won’t even know what happened to it. Bermuda triangle stuff. Vanish off the face of the earth. You won’t even know what killed it. Happens sometimes in civil aviation too. Plane just vanishes, no radio contact, pilot blacks out even before he can report back. Usually followed by search crew finding pieces of plane here and there, but what do you think are the chances of a fact finding crew waltzing around in a combat zone?
And if you are thinking of gathering the force just after shootdown, it can take a while. “Oh sorry, Eagle 4 and 5 are on CAP and AAR is refuelling a package. C4I? He’s in the North taking a look around that area and the ground security team is on VBSS.” It was in the link I posted, but there was a quote saying that past 4 hrs, the chances of a rescue drop to 20%.
@Observer
So that’s back to the original question.
If we need dedicated CSAR assets what should they be and as this is a new requirement, what should we give up in order to pay for them?
@ Percontator
I posted this at the top of the thread. This is the first episode of Inside Combat Rescue:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN-6lrIgRMg
This one of the best documentaries I’ve seen on Afghanistan. Having seen all six episodes, the CSAR/MEDEVAC role is of vital importance. It shows the difficulties they have to deal with, with no punches being pulled. One thing was obvious, having no Force Protection, made the Aircraft very vulnerable when they were on the ground on a number of occasions.
Our Aircrew need to be assured that if they come down behind enemy lines, someone is going to try and come and get them.
As the government has decided to transfer the Air Sea Rescue role to the Civilian Sector, has the CSAR question been asked in Parliament?
I know that we use Chinnok for SpecOps missions, but the Chinook is just to big to do CSAR. We wouldn’t use one to lift someone of the side of Snowdon or Ben Nevis would we. So we are left with either Puma or Merlin.
Although I’d like to know why during the Nineties, we never replaced the entire Sea King fleet with Merlin’s?
Re CSAR,
I know squat all about CSAR as practiced by our colleagues in the USN, and only slightly more about the UK equivalent of Joint Personnel Recovery. That did not however stop the MoD or DoD from agreeing to jointly run a set of experiments in 2003 into novel uses of UAVs beyond ISTAR missions.
So I found myself commanding a UK Detachment on Ex DESERT RESCUE at the Naval Air Weapons School in Fallon Nevada (and thus RT is – if you slightly squint your eyes and equate “participant” to “graduate” – Top Gun material). We had an OTS Hermes 450 with a bog standard Elbit EO/IR 20 x zoom, a Sagem datalink, and a GCS in a Winnebago.
What we had to do was to act as the “on scene commander”, to see if we could be more efficient than a USN Kevin on the Top Gun staff flying a F14 which was the default. We had a DSTL mathematician with us measuring absolutely everything, and he palled up with a Top Gun mathematician (sadly not Kelly McGillis) and the pair of them came up with the results over 3 weeks.
About 20% of the time to find and identify the downed pilot versus standard USN practice. And total recovery time about 40% of the time, and that could be improved with new drills.
Result? The USN actively started a research programme to look at UAVs for CSAR, and the UK funded SUAVE as a means to look at novel means of dropping bombs off UAVs, but this time under RAF control. No, I don’t follow that last bit of logic, either.
Oh, and RT had about 1.5 million air miles on the Government Amex, after flying 62 personnel to San Francisco Upper Class (rules n regs), and there was no way for the Government to take them when I left the Army. I tried, honestly, the AG Corps could find no way to transfer them. So the wonderful Freddie Viggers who was COS LAND at the time, and who’d known me for 20 years told me to keep them as a bonus.
@RT
Initial “eyes on” is a crucial area.
@APATS, it’s important, but not to my mind crucial. There’s a whole series of events that need to be in place before a Commander commits a vulnerable helicopter to extraction. Eyes on is only one event, and indeed eyes on may not even occur, if electronic measures come first.
The key is that the Kevin doesn’t have the SA or comms from his cockpit, nor training, nor much time as he is trying to avoid crashing and being shot at. And with the endless circling about on jets, he’s also telegraphing intent.
@RT
I agree, I may or may not have been involved in writing the CSAR response for all NATO ops in Libya but unless you know whats going on you really can do very little.
The whole point of well worked CSAR is you never have a “vulnerable” helicopter doing anything. It is a multi faceted mission requiring seamless coordination and tri service/country assets and we have had experiences of an italian kevin in an AV8B doing exactly what you deride being a huge force multiplier with rockets and cannon.
APATS, don’t think I’m having a go at anything. I’m puzzled by why you think I’d deride anything. If there’s a need for a Kevin to do some razzing up of OPFOR with rockets and bombs, fair play. What we discovered is that the role of commander was best played by someone not additionally trying to fly his jet and avoid being shot at, while rolling in to deliver the good news with kinetic effects.
To me, it’s a statement of the bloody obvious , but for the USN in 2003, it was a revelation.
Ok, am only offering real life up to date operational experiences after all it is 2014. Airborne C2 is best divested from a FJ platform but your derision demonstrates prejudice rather than operational thinking.
Can you not just down-link the image?
From a simple PoV there is not one crucial element of CSAR. Simply you need to know where bloggs is. Then you need to make sure he stays in a rescuable state using as RT so Americanly puts it “kinetic effects” against the enemy. Or making things go bang to you and me. The you have to physically pick them up. I would suggest these are the three main headings under CSAR but of course it branches further below these.
What about an F35 pair, 2 Wildcat and 2 Merlin?
How about a doctrinal interlude
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-warfare-publication-3-66-joint-personnel-recovery
@Simon257
The transfer of Air Sea Rescue from the RAF to civilian contractors has been discussed at some length on PPRuNe – the Military Aircrew forum.
CSAR was raised as an issue but the view seemed to be that (apart from flying helicopters) the two had little in common.
APATS, pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
Kevin’s flying F14s don’t have the SA of AWACS, nor of UAV GCS.
Your derision indicates nothing more than delusion. After all, it is proven that FJ SA is less than total back in 95 in Srebrenica, and 8,000 Bosniaks murdered proved so. And indeed, the CINCSOUTH / 6th Fleet AAR acknowledged so.
@RT
Perhaps you should retire quietly, I never mentioned F14s or any thing else you harp on about. Otherwise you harp on about 20nyear old campaigns, you stand relieved by weapons and tactics and experience.
M
Guys, just take the “derision” as a bit of tongue in cheek. Ironically both of you are arguing over something you both agree, that situational awareness is important. Let us not go into who is more right than who or it’s likely to turn into a bit of a comedy. “My truth is more truthier than yours!” :P
South Korea buys Spike for Wildcat:-
http://www.janes.com/article/27835/south-korea-shows-off-spike-nlos-ballistic-and-cruise-missiles
Sounds like a great shore defence weapon too…..
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wordpress/2014/02:
847 Squadron, part of the CHF mainly responsible for the aerial reconnaissance will receive just 4 of the new Wildcat Lynx helicopters.
TED – I’ll believe that when I see stated from a credible source.
@Tom Agreed. Even if this was true are they coming from the army or navy fleets. A lot of the other stuff on there is well referenced I will have a scout around!
Wikipedia also states this as well as armed forces commentary. However all of this misinformation could have been caused by one person. If it was confirmed that the RM were going to get Wildcat the PR monkeys would be all over it so I don’t believe there is any certainty here.
I would stick my neck out though and say that its not a matter of if, its when? I’m sure we will see 847 step up with Wildcat at some point in the future but I can’t find out when.
What I did find more interesting whilst scouting around is that there had been murmurs of buying 10 or so NH90 TTH. Part of me thinks that would be the better helicopter for almost everyone involved.
The AAC (according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft) currently have 77 lynx as opose to 37 in the RN. And the RN will have less Wildcat than the AAC. Question for everyone out there, why have the Army got more maritime helicopters than the Navy? Also when will the draw down with modernisation stop? Every time we but new aircraft we get less than the fleet they replace and this is argued to be because aircraft are getting more modern and hence better. I get this but where does it end?