British Army ‘Wildcat’ reconnaissance helicopters arrived at Siauliai Air Base in Lithuania earlier this month.

The British Army say here that the 1,500-mile journey from Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton, Somerset, took the four Wildcat Mk1 helicopters over some notable landmarks including the airfield and camp in Gutersloh, where 1AAC had been stationed 1993-2016.

“During the transit across Europe, the 1AAC RH conducted a ‘handover in the sky’ with their Attack Helicopter (AH) colleagues from 4AAC in the skies over Germany prior to their arrival in Lithuania. Upon arrival, 659 Sqn began the hand-over process from Aviation Task Force 1 (ATF-1) who had previously been operating the Apache Mk1 AH as part of Exercise SABRE STRIKE alongside NATO Forces. 

With the aim of building on the relationships and interoperability created by ATF1, the 1AAC Wildcat helicopters, crews and aviation support teams will maintain a UK battlefield helicopter presence in the region. This deployment will bring about a change in posture from an Aviation Task Force to a Combat Liaison Team (CLT), supporting the enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) battlegroups. “

The British Army add here that the deployment will demonstrate the role and capabilities of the Wildcat Helicopter to allied personnel already deployed at Siauliai Air Base, increasing the awareness of UK battlefield helicopter’s interoperability.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

161 COMMENTS

  1. Sorry, can someone clarify for me if going forward there will be a permanent British Rotary Asset deployment to the EfP or if this is just a case of 2 deployments back to back due to the increase in tensions with Russia.
    Thanks in advance! 🙂

    • Grear idea but the Army don’t like things that go bang these days. Pass all over to the RN and then we can get our monies worth out of the them

      • Angus, as an ex-Army man who served 34 years, I cannot understand your comment. Please explain.

        [BTW, the navy took £5bn of army funding a few years back (FRES) otherwise they would not have had their 2 shiny carriers – the army can’t keep handing money over to the navy – its AFV and artillery inventory is in tatters and needs every penny.]

        • I’ve not heard that before, do you have a link to what happened?!
          I understood they just kept re-baselining the programme out of existence, but that could very easily be clever accounting to re-distribute funds…

          • It’s ancient history and I heard it from another comment on UKDJ which didn’t give a link or reference. FRES was a £13bn programme that died in about 2012 – the surviving elements were MIV (Boxer) to replace Saxon and FV432s and Scout Vehicle (Ajax) to replace CVR(T)s.

        • Grahame/Joe, I seem to remember seeing something along these lines (robbing Peter to pay Paul) but I can’t find any links. The army is definitely the poor relation these days out of the 3 services. Someone’s not been shouting loudly enough at the top table. Every time they had a spending review the head of the army always comes out with the same clap trap of leaner and fitter but fit for f÷×k all these days.

          • They do like to blame the RN for their woes, yet they have still managed to p***** 11 billion up the wall on Ajax, Boxer, FRES, and WCSP so far.

            The Army takes the biggest share of the TLBs for the 3 services, it is not short of cash, but what they do with it.

          • Daniele, thanks for that, I’d have thought with all the Navys new toys they would have had the biggest share (i suspect they proably have in equipment spend) but your absolutely right of course, I do wonder if that Ajax figure is going to be a total right off, surely they could have gone with proven existing platform?

          • I hope not. I’m told the guys who will operate it are keen given it’s ISTAR suite.

            As for your comment about “leaner and fitter” SO true! Drives me nuts. Don’t forget the “more agile” bit.

            It’s spin designed to spoof the majority of the public, but not all!

          • Hiya DM. I patiently wait for the MOD to explain how “more agile” magically translates as being in two places (or more) at the same time.

            Alas, no response to date

          • Hi K mate. The Agile comment is always the one that irks me the most. Less of everything is not agile, it’s hamstringing yourself.

          • Excluding equipment spending land forces gets £7 billion a year( including RM and RAF regiment) while navy gets £2 billion a year. The equipment budget is about £16 billion a year and it’s pretty much a three way split if you exclude trident and nuclear defence. That was the 2015 figures breakdown and not seen anything new.

          • Yes, I did try to have a look at various publications but most up to date stuff just shows you the all in spend on personal and equipment across the board. With service numbers as they are you would expect the army’s share to be the major chunk.

          • Completely agree. Procurement in the RN and RAF has been reasonably on track of late, but in the army it’s been an utter @$%@ show…

          • Point taken Danielle. The Army might however argue that their kit has (unlike the other services) contributed the most to the most recent conflict in quantities unmatched by any other European nation. They might even argue that that kit did it’s job so well it has turned the tide of that conflict. They must be getting something right you would think?

          • Of course, they get plenty right. The Army is a professional well trained organisation with superb people and some great kit. No one argues their soldiering is lacking. But armoured vehicle procurement and excuses from the brass is the pits!

          • Yes, the boys and girls are generally very high quality and well trained, compared to peer operators.

            There is, clearly, a lot of really, really good effective kit about. Which is excellent. I am also 100% that we have teams to operate it.

            We need to think a bit more positively than we did in the ‘80’s when old carp from the ‘50’s was kept in service although in reality it would have been totally useless.

            The problem with armoured vehicles was Gucci ++++.

            They just got so complicated that the original design rational was left behind under a desk in Abbey Wood…..key with any highly complex project is to be unafraid to ask ‘why are we doing that?’ And then not to be afraid to say ‘that makes no sense.’

            Hard things to do when someone wearing a high rank is breathing down your neck……

            Simplicity has a virtue all of its own.

        • Ajax says it all. And No it was not Army cash that build them and both work and crewed so. I served and supported the Army on several tours saving manpower as I covered 4 jobs on average with just me……..

          • David,
            I guess you have not heard servicemen or veterans use the term ‘shiny’ to mean new and impressive. I am a huge fan of our carriers and believe that, as a global power, we must have a globally deployable navy, which includes the ability to deliver CEPP.
            I am very well aware that all services need funding – my own procurement project (one of the smaller ones) at Abbey Wood cost £60m.

    • The bulk of the Russian navy is corvette size and the purpose of the helicopters would be to hunt Russian corvettes in the Baltic. Much the same as operations against the Iraqi navy in 1991.

      • Are these not the army wildcats that are deploying? I think they only do land based stuff. I don’t think they have the same sensors as the navy ones but I could be wrong on that. Maybe they left the radar in the army wildcat.

        • The Army Wildcat does not have the radar. Though they are looking into that. The Naval version is fitted with the Leonardo Seaspray 7000E. This is an X-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that is also mechanically rotated in the horizontal plane. It can detect a “corvette” sized ship around 200 miles away. But it also has a ground moving target indication mode that can be interleaved with a synthetic aperture mapping technique. This means it can see and track vehicles. Both the Army and Naval versions use the same laser designating electro-optical turret. So both can technically fire the Martlet missile and the Sea Venom. But I’m not sure if the Army version has the wiring installed necessary for the wing and hard points?

          What could be an interesting development if they do go down the Seaspray radar route along with the wing, is that the Army helicopter could also be paired with the Brimstone or Sea Venom missile. Where the radar is used to search for and track targets. This would give the Army the option of using Wildcats in a proper supporting role to the Apaches. Or in a stand alone hunter-killer role, where they seek out their own targets. If the Army used the Sea Venom with its very high resolution imaging infrared sensor and two-way data-link. They will have a 20km plus range air to surface missile that contains a 30kg semi-armour piercing blast fragmentary warhead. That would make it ideal against command bunkers, structures or other hardened targets, not to mention parked vehicles and depots.

          • The RN Wildcats ( Not sure about the AAC cabs) also have a very good ESM fit. By using the PID down an EW bearing line you can positively ID targets of interest from a very long way out without needing to transmit anything. With Sea Venom you can then detect and engage without a single radar transmission.

            The PID is scarily good range wise.

  3. Taken over from Apache..if this article is correct. Are they interchangeable? I would have thought Apache was a much more useful asset forward deployed facing Russia then Wildcat.

    • I think the main role of the Army Wildcat is reconnaissance and transporting small numbers of troops, combat is left to the Apache.

      • We had a locally developed Attack helicopter here in South Africa called the Rooivalk. During the Bush Wars and sanctions, much world class equipment was made locally including a development of the Mirage called the Cheetah and a range of weaponry built around the 155mm G6. In addition a number of locally made Armoured vehicles saw service with the SADF and other security services.
        Necessity as they say is the mother…
        The Apache is an awesome asset but might send the wrong signal to the sensitive Mr. Putin!

          • Indeed MS. Sadly Denel has been trashed by our ANC government along with virtually every other parastatal

          • I’ve not looked at the South African forces but I’m guessing they aren’t much of a priority these days. Such a shame. While there maybe other issues that need financing in South Africa defence equipment was something they did well. I wish the country well.

        • The G6/52 howitzer is the best in the world and should be adopted by the British army to replace the AS90 gun. The Korean kit they are currently touting is good UT the G6 is exceptional and can be had immediately in 6×6 wheeled form or be place on a tracked platform of the MoD’s choosing.

          South Africa has developed and deployed some exceptional equipment and the British Army would do well to take look at them.

          • Well said Branaboy but as mentioned above our government have trashed our Defence sector from top to bottom.

          • The U.K. seems to be giving up on making any kind of large gun barrels. A as-90 replacement shouldn’t be so hard to make in the U.K.
            such a missed opportunity to have armoured vehicle development. With so much needing replaced the design and build could of been enough to keep a company going. Warrior, as-90, bulldog etc etc.

        • I would have thought the Russians are more upset with us for sending NLAWs, Javelin and Starstreak to Ukraine rather than potentially sending Apaches to Lithuania.

          • Indeed Jack-it is only per the stipulation that Ukraine can be assisted with hardware for self-defence that allows us to get away with it!!

        • Morning Geoff.

          The SAAF is a tragic shadow of what it was in the 70 and 80’s. Although much of the kit was ancient, it was well maintained and fit for purpose. In particular I’m thinking of the exceptional DC3. On occasion, I recall flying in the bush and wondering if that particular aircraft might have been at D Day, Arnhem or the Rhine crossing

          An honourable mention goes to the Harvard, DC4 and Shackleton.

          • Morning Klonkie

            The ravaging of SA’s Military, indeed of the whole country is down to one man,the truly evil,incompetent, corrupt criminal Jacob Zuma. No particular fan of Ramaphosa but he was handed a poison chalice and seems to be slowly working on almost mission impossible to fix.
            The SAAF was a proud and efficient force and kept their older equipment in top condition. The Rhodesians also were amazing nurturing their old Vampires, Canberras,Hunters etc.on a shoe string. No politics inferred here-just simple observable facts!
            DC3 is an icon-envy you for flying in one! The Harvard-unique sound of that Radial engine and Shackleton, son of Lancaster also an amazing old aircraft. On the subject of Douglas’s, I came to Africa in 1961 in a DC7C, last of their propeller driven commercials. 24 hours from London to Salisbury!!
            Cheers Klonkie!

          • Thanks Geoff, that 24 hour trip on a DC7 must have been something. Looks like Qantas are planning a non stop direct schedule Sydney to London (Project Sunrise) in the next couple of years. I’m guessing that’ll be about 22 hours.

          • p.s. I do miss the sound of those four Rolls Royce Griffins and contra rotating props of the Shack. A regular sight (and sound) over Cape Town until 1985.

          • The 24 hour trip included a five hour stop in Rome with “Engine problems”!😁 Then on to Nairobi where we were greeted by two immaculate Askaris in Khaki and shiny leather with 2 Union Jacks fluttering in the breeze! ah, those were the days my friend(we thought they’d never end)😄

          • Hi Klonkie yes the SAAF was on the ball and best in theatre by a long chalk! We we desperate to lob out of the DCs when we were there but they weren’t set up for the Para role! Instead we got out of a CASA 212 and some Cessna thing lol! But respect to the SA forces in general, as always capable even with the sanctions, and in fact very innovative with kit development and procurement!

          • Thanks for the kind comment Airborne. Incredible to think the SAAF still uses the turboprop DC3 for maritime patrol.

    • Apache is being upgraded and we are buying just 50 AH-64E to replace the 67 AH-64D – that is our attack helicopter.
      Wildcat is a successor to Lynx and is a recce/troop transport asset – it is certainly not an attack helicopter!

      • I really don’t get the mentality of having a recce asset that can’t do anything if it finds something. They don’t have link22 to accurately call on fire support and don’t have any form of missiles to take a few shots at the enemy. They also don’t have something like the longbow radar to safely scout whilst staying out of line of sight. Meaning they would be sitting ducks for any shoulder held anti air assets etc.

        Ok they can ferry troops around but realistically they are too small to take anything other than specialist units and so Chinook/etc are better suited for it

        Just seem to be a replacement to the sake of it, rather than adapting to new combat realities.

        • Hi Steve, I am figuring out how to answer this! Wildcat is multirole with battlefield recce being just one role, not the one and only role. You’ve got to be a fairly senior figure to jump in a Wildcat to conduct a recce – they would have jumped in a Gazelle before but these are only in BATUS and NI now (plus 667 (Development & Trials) Squadron AAC).
          So the Brigadier or the General jumps in and uses the aircraft’s high vantage point to view the battlespace and gain an overview awareness of distant enemy positions and to look at ground and obstacles etc before shaping his battle plans. He is not going to direct fire onto enemy AFVs or positions – that would make him an FAC (JTAC).
          Equally, specialised recce teams (eg. Engr recce) could deploy forward in Wildcat particularly if speed was of the essence.
          I understand that Wildcat can work in tandem with Apaches but I am unfamiliar with that work.

          It is a smaller helicopter than Chinook so takes a smaller passenger number. Puma sits in the middle in capacity terms. Good. There is flexibility. Wildcat takes the smaller specialised teams as you say – it is not trying to move platoons of Infantry about the place. You need a mix of assets with different capabilities. You would not use a Chinook or Puma to move a 4-6 man team forward.

          Not sure what new combat realities mean that the Wildcat does not have much of a role. It does battlefield recce (for senior commanders or specialist teams), SAR, utility (troop transport (up to 6 pax) & liaison & delivery of small vital stores), co-work with Apache.

          • I get the approach if it was the 60s, but today with peer and most near peer enemies having shoulder launched SAMs, any high flying helicopter with limited battlefield reader sensors, is going to find itself shot down fast, as it will need to be fairly close to the front to see stuff. Better to use even higher flying drones and hope they avoid visable detection.

          • Steve, you single out the battlefield recconnaissance role, of the many roles that Wildcat has. A formation commander wants to get ‘eyes on’ and not pore through hours of drone footage. There is always some danger in going forward – that is the reality of war. Surprising how few helicopters the IRA, the Iraqi army and the Taliban actually shot down.

            Every military platform has a counter (or many) and so does the dismounted man. Does not make them unusable.

            If we did lose many Wildcats on recce tasks to shoulder launched SAMs and the aircrew could not adapt flying tactics, then Wildcat could still achieve its other roles.

          • I single it out, as that is its primary role, even stated on the MOD official page.

            It surprised me how few were shot down during Iraq/afgan, but then again we were fighting insurgents without much military training and not using latest tech. Plus both Iraq traditional wars were mainly fought over desert, where you can see for miles and not over densely packed urban environments where visablilty range is way shorter.

            Ukraine seems a better comparision where Russia appears to be losing a lot of them or even Somalia and the informous blackhawk down scenario, caused by using the wrong type to helicopter (commanders wanted Apache for it but got little birds)

          • Thanks Steve. This reminds me of the argument that the tank is obsolete, and should be scrapped, because there exists a counter to it (as there has been since 1917).

            It strikes me that Wildcat needs some defensive counter-measures and/or greater offensive weaponry, if its participation in its ascribed roles is so dangerous.

          • It will be interesting where the main powers end up going in regards to tanks, following this war. They probably still have a place, but tactics might need to be heavy changed, as I’m sure a fair few MLAWs/Javlins would have been captured by Russian troops and sent back to Russia for reverse engineering and that info will also be shared with China.

            We have already seen the US marines drop their tanks in favour of more mobile options.

          • I don’t think the main powers will change their views on tanks based on one war where Russia failed to deploy tanks properly due largely to ineptitude. The advent of anti-tank weapons is not a modern phenomenon that will prompt a re-think – the first anti-tank weapon was fielded by Germany in 1917.

            It is interesting to note that the USMC has dropped tanks – the only other peopel to do so is Belgium. It did always surprise me that the USMC had a need for tanks – no other marine forces do, I think. It was an odd fit for a littoral specialist arm.

          • Any war in Europe will now be urban warfare, as it’s too dencey populated and any war the UK gets involved in outside Europe is likely to turn into it. The days of open fields and tank rushes are long gone, as Russia has found.

          • Interesting points. Ukraine is mainly classic tank country with most land being plain/steppe. Russia has chosen not to do tank rushes although the terrain favours it. This must be because they think in terms of controlling or dominating certain urban areas. Yet they do not wish to engage in urban warfare with ‘boots on the ground’, so attack cities and towns remotely with air and artillery.
            So, if the Russo-Ukraine war is the benchmark of well-considered Russian military operations, you are right – and the Russians will continue not to use tanks in an aggressive, fluid and highly mobile way. However – maybe their tactics have been wrong, all along.

          • It seems to me that Ukraine forces have been setting their defensive lines within urban areas, to counter the Russian tank threat. Which i suspect is part of the reason for so many civilian buildings hit.

    • The wildcat is much better than apache at taking officers to fancy dinners and meetings.
      The main thing I hope this will help with is practicing deploying quickly from home bases.
      With constant new intake of soldiers they all need to keep roles practiced.

  4. It has presence I guess but no fighting hardware which it needs, RN already done the hard work just fit it + gun pods or is H&S in the Army holding back again?

    • Odd decision, Apache extremely useful, but to be fair, the Army Wildcat excels at being incredibly expensive!

      Maybe it’s a Pyops operation, showing the Russians we can afford to blow money on folly helicopters that can’t really do anything??

    • Surely a no brainer?? As you say…simply bolt on. I can understand not wanting to get recce assets involved in the fighting, but Martlet would be great for self defence and of course targets of opportunity. It would also make someone think twice if they were armed.
      Give them to the RN when we get the new replacement helicopters, but arm the replacements at least.
      AA

      • Good morning AA, let’s hope they’re just not advertising what’s been brought over on these WCs. Hope it’s not just “Fitted With Fresh Air” as it looks!! There’s been way too much broadcasting of what’s been sent by the UK to Ukraine in MHO. Are the Russians being jolly nice chaps and telling us upfront what they’re bringing to their war?! I doubt it!! There’s got to be a whole lot more going on than we know or can see and let’s hope the Ukrainian forces can cause further decimations to all those tank, truck, launcher convoys I’m seeing in the news. It’d be good if they could do some drone attacks from the south and also take out some more major ships. I guess they have to use their resources very very carefully.

    • Normally Apache and Wildcat operate together, find and destroy. I guess any escalation and the Apaches would be back too. Probably giving both rgts. experience. This deployment will have been in response to a NATO commander ask.

    • Unfair comment, Angus. Army and Navy Wildcat have totally different roles. Navy wildcat is a maritime attack helicopter so is well equipped with weaponss such as Stingray torpedoes, depth charges and Sea Venom – or is planned to have all that.

      Army has Apache for Attack role and Wildcat is successor to Lynx and has recce/utility(liaison/troop transport) roles. Army version has pintle GPMG for self-protection, not attack, given such roles. Not sure if it is getting Thales Martlet lightweight multi-role missiles or if that is for navy attack version

      What do you mean by saying the army is holding back again – what does that mean? – please give examples.

      I don’t get your H&S comment – please explain – all service equipment should be safe to operate.

      • It’s the same aircraft less the radar which the lads are after being fitted so making it the same aircraft to greatly enhance it. Army use a GPMG when the RN/RM mount a 50cal for same action. Give it some punch with rockets with so few all need to be able to hit the bad guys.

        • The Navy has continually upgraded there Wildcats with new comms and weapons the Army has different priorities like Chally 3. Ajax, Warrior upgrade Ranger Battalions etc The AAC has been cut to pay for them.

      • Is it an unfair comment Graham,

        Recce, no recon mast, data link or sensors other than a flair and only a pintle mounted GPMG for protection, It would simply be blown out of the sky in a recon role against a peer enemy.

        Anything not picked up by the Flir or mk 1 eyeball would be completely missed!

        Troop transport, it can carry 4, so nope, bloody useless.

        Utility, underslung loads, finally, something it can do!

        Liaison, great for transportation of senior officers about the place …

        Call it what it is, an outrageous waste of tax payers money….

        • The type of recce that Wildcat does is not the same as that done by an RAC crewed recce vehicle. As Gazelle has largely been withdrawn except for BATUS, NI an d a Trials & Dev unit – the Wildcat has to pick up the remit that Gazelle had. So we are talking about senior commanders and perhaps their R Gp staff conducting aerial surveillance of the battlespace. They are not cueing weapons launch or requiring friendly forces to suddenly change direction/stop/start or whatever. Perhaps you haven’t been in many helos with senior officers, John – but they don’t call for or need hugely sophisticated sensors or Link22 or whatever. They are not looking for small and subtle elements that could be missed by the Mk1 eyeball.
          Other recce users might be small specialist teams such as Engr recce.
          Wildcat will not overfly enemy positions and will seek to not come in range of enemy direct fire weapons. GPMG on a door pintle is basic self protection, and I am not sure if the army Wildcats will get Thales Martlet in addition. Many was the time I deployed in a vehicle with a GPMG or less for self-defence.
          Troop transport – it can carry 6 including the door gunner – so enough for a senior officers R Gp or a small specialist team (recce or otherwise)- if you want to carry more people you task a Puma or Chinook – horses for courses.
          Not sure why you mock the carriage for recce or liaison of senior officers – this has been an AAC role since 1957, and is very important.
          Roles – recce by commanders and specialist teams, utility, SAR, co-work with Apache, movement of other specialist teams, carriage of urgent stores internally or underslung.

          • Evening Graham, I hear you, I understand the need for a light utility Helicopter, but you just can’t get away from the fact that the Army has replaced the capable Lynx Mk9 with the ‘ hugely’ expensive Wildcat, the high unit cost and available budget reducing the numbers to fraction of what’s needed.

            It’s simply a case of literally chucking money away to keep a factory open at the detriment of the end user.

            A far cheaper off the shelf opinion could (and most certainly should) have been purchased for the light utility and transport roll.

            The US Army Lakota immediately comes to mind, we could probably have purchased them diverted from US Army production, in the same way as our bargain priced AH64E purchase.

            I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for Army Wildcat, excellent Naval Helicopter, but as a stripped out utility Helicopter, it’s just a scandalous folly.

            No doubt they will turn Puma replacement into a similar, torturously expensive, job creation scheme at the expense of the front line, again….

          • Bravo.
            Jobs for the boys. How many ex brass canvas in support of Yeovil?

            “It’s simply a case of literally chucking money away to keep a factory open at the detriment of the end user.”

            Nail on head. And the usual conundrum of UK industry and jobs vs what the military actually need.

            Wildcat is an excellent replacement for the FAA Lynx but should not be army, a cheaper type could undertake the roles Graham rightly mentions.

          • We both agree the need for a light utility helo for the army and I am sure you are right that political considerations prompted purchase of Wildcat rather than a cheaper foreign competitor. I must admit that I am surprised that Wildcat carries fewer passengers than Lynx and that upgraded Mk 9s (fitted with CTS800-4N engines) were delivered in 2010 – they should have had some more life left in them than be replaced by Wildcat.
            Politicians have a lot to answer for – they caused a massive increase in the cost to build the 2 aircraft carriers, and Stuart Crawford still bemoans the purchase of Chally 2 rather than Leopard. Just 2 examples.

          • Absolutely Graham, we all see our hard working Armed forces not supported as they should be, short changed and sold down the river by the politicians….

            I think the Mk9 Lynxes were cannibalised for their engines and transmission, for the Wildcat programme.

            I know a few guys who served in the AAC until quite recently and they were certainly not impressed with loosing the useful nimble little Mk9 when they were withdrawn…

            Re MBT’s, In my opinion, Leopard 2 should have been chosen, upgraded with advanced UK ceramic Armour technology, it would have been an excellent tank and a joint upgraded Leopard 2 would have sold well…

            At least we can rant and moan here and perhaps hope, some of our more positive thoughts are picked up by those who stalk the corridors of Whitehall…..

  5. Does anyone know if the datalinks have been added to the AH1 Wildcats yet, or if not what the timescale will be? Will they be getting the naval radars?

    • Are we looking to do the same I wonder?

      “The fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget request for the US Navy (USN) seeks to reduce the number of F-35C and F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) for the FY, while starting the procurement of a number of MQ-25 Stingray unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), according to budget documents released on 28 March.”

      “The Pentagon requested USD11 billion for 61 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters for fiscal year (FY) 2023, 33 fewer than the 94 it had previously planned for in FY 2023, within a USD18.499 billion aircraft procurement plan.

      About 45% of that procurement plan is for combat aircraft (USD8.389 billion) and 23% for modifying in-service platforms (USD4.257 billion), according to Pentagon briefings slides provided to reporters on 28 March. In FY 2022 combat aircraft procurement was funded with USD5.963 billion.”

      https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air-platforms/latest/pentagon-budget-2023-usaf-reduces-f-35-procurement-but-grows-combat-air-funding

      • Does a reduction in the US F-35B intake mean these can be reallocated to the UK to speed up our uptake even if not fully block 4? Seems like a good opportunity to do so.

        • No its still in pre-serial production, the US reducing its order for this batch has increased the unit price of the aircraft. F-35A excluding long lead items (engines and government furnished equipment) has gone from $101m in 2021 for 60 to $118m in 2023 for 33. F-35 B/C has gone from an average of $125m for 36 to $149m for 28.
          FY2023_Weapons.pdf (defense.gov)

          • Countries are actually hoping less being built will help the supply problems. In the US availability for service hit a peak of 70% in Jan 2021 but its sunk back down to a low of 58% averaging 61% during 2021 (contracted requirement is 65%). Of the average 39% unavailable for service 8% were in depot maintenance, 15% were in normal maintenance and 16% were out of service awaiting spare parts to be delivered. Of the 214 US owned F-35 in combat service during 2021 38 were out of service awaiting a replacement engine in June peaking at 52 out of service awaiting a replacement engine by the last week of the year. At the start of the year the aircraft had 873 open deficiencies including 10 category 1 (Those leading to pilot death or loss of aircraft) by the Mar 2022 the aircraft had 845 open including 5 category 1, 171 deficiencies were closed and 143 new deficiencies were opened. An example of a new deficiency was a patch was introduced adding support for a new weapon but that patch broke compatibility with the AMRAAM.

          • A USAF General has remarked on the bill and why the F35 numbers have been cut to previous years. He stated that they are waiting on the Block 4 version as they see that as better value for money, i.e. they don’t have spend additional money updating a Block 3 version. I also think that there is an underlying statement, in that Lockheed Martin need to get their sh*t together” or we will stop ordering large batches of aircraft.

          • Totally. Why can’t LM just put some extra resources into speeding up this Block 4 saga that seems to be holding everyone up? Wondering if the UK can source some future F35Bs from the Italian assembly line?

      • I doubt Congress will let that happen. The f35 is spread over many states. Unless the aircraft are still ordered but for other allies

    • After a pause last year, the US Air Force (USAF) has requested funding to buy its first five Boeing MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters in a programme to replace the service’s fleet of 63 UH-1Ns.

      Boeing MH-139A is AW-139

    • And we could probably buy 3 Blackhawks for one of these Nigel, obviously we will go for the all singing and dancing option, with heated seats, cigarette lighter, plus all the added options we can possibly think of and as a result, buy half the number we actually need, you just know it!!

  9. Hmm, replacing Apaches with Wildcats!

    Better to shift them all to the RN with radar, data-links and Martlet/Venom.

    Right now they are just a very expensive way of conducting ‘recce’ and ferrying commanders about which any off the shelf platform could do.

    The AAC already has Watchkeeper for some of the recce role and new Apaches on order. They also have Project Matcha to replace Gazelle with some new Airbus H135’s – maybe just buy some more of them as a jack of all trades utility/recce helicopter?

    • More like replace with drones for the reccee roles?

      Quite dangerous having a look see if a helo in contested space.

      • Getting senior officers to review hours of drone footage rather than pop up in a helo? Not going to happen any more than the RAF give up the manned fighter.

        • I see: so this is the UK Army equivalent of the Russian method of sending senior officers to the front line….in an effectively unarmed and unarmoured helicopter……..

          Ummmm – may need to have a think about that.

          Komrade #1 ‘what is most important target?’

          Konmrade #2 ‘British recon helicopters Komrade’

          Komrade #1 ‘easy target Komrade’

          • SB, were you in the army? Surely you would have seen how AAC helicopters (Gazelle back in the day) were used for recce? Yes, senior officers went forward in unarmed and unarmoured helicopters. Surely not a revelation…and it would not be true to say that all this was in the days before anti-aircraft weaponry.

            AAC pilots flew ‘Nap of the Earth’ and minimised exposure time.
            I am not sure things are different now, except that Gazelle is largely gone and such recces would happen in Wildcat – or someone brave could tell the General to look at drone footage instead as it was too dangerous for the Wildcat to fly. Senior officers also go forward in armoured recce vehicles of course, to gauge the lie of the land.

            The Russian officers going forward seem to be doing so by vehicle rather than helicopter and to chivvy up forward troops who are not making adequate progress rather than conducting recces and seem to be picked off by snipers.

            I spent most of my army career as a REME officer, when in the field in an unarmoured vehicle and I was not the only one. I remember the Convoy Logistic Patrols of the RLC in Afghanistan operating in the heart of enemy territory and not being particularly well protected.

            War is certainly a dangerous business.

          • Nope, I certainly was not in the army in any shape or form.

            War is a very, very dangerous business.

            But mitigating the risk to prevent the command chain being decapitated was something I was taught!

          • Yes mate to be fair to the RLC lads and lasses in those resup convoys, certainly to Inkerman, mostly added on armour to the truck cab and off you go! Plenty of times getting hammered and taking losses from small arms, IEDs and mines! And they still got to us. Plenty of my lads cutting about in WMIKs, as you say not very well protected at all! War is about risk, you can minimise, mitigate but never eliminate. Cheers.

          • Maybe a senior officer of today who was hugely risk-averse and who grew up on video games might go for that – but not the senior officers of yesteryear who I served under.

            Full situational awareness and an ability to study the ground is only possible by being present.

    • When you look at the specs of the two aircraft. The Apache would make the better of the two as a recce aircraft. Due to its top mounted radar. The Wildcat is massively over priced for the role it does and can’t really do it that well. I still can’t fathom why the Wildcat cost so much?

      If the Army just replaced the Lynx in its utility role, the H135 would do just as well. Perhaps the Army should resurrect one of the 16 air assault brigade roles. Where it used Lynx to ferry anti-tank missile teams to ambush locations or where a mechanized force had broken through. The H135 would be a good platform for this role.

      Watchkeeper was primarily bought for the Royal Artillery in spotting targets for AS90 and MLRS. However, its utility has spread to other units. There isn’t enough of them to go round.

      • 24 Air mobile Bde mate, should be resurrected given the proof we are seeing of light role AT teams both denying ground and restricting the enemies freedom of movement.

          • Airborne is correct. 24 Airmobile Brigade in BAOR. 16 Air Assault arrived by the merger of 24 AM and 5 Airborne.

          • Part of mate, as 5AB in the Cold War was rear area control and manoeuvre in BAOR! 24 AMB took it one stage further and had double or more of the numbers of Milan’s, some LSVs and plenty of lynx allocated and became the tank stoppers lol!

      • Morning Davey,

        Wildcat is so horrendously expensive because it’s a classic case of the tail wagging the dog!

        Designed, developed and fielded with a total of just 60 odd Helicopters built, it had one specific priority mission, to keep a factory open!!

        We will do it all again with Puma replacement too.

      • Yes – better off with more Apache.

        Something more mid sized and cheaper than Lynx for the ferry and recon roles.

        Although ferry will be done based in short order as I dare say will be recon.

    • MoD/AAC seem to be interested in the US Army FARA program for recce. That won’t happen until the 2030’s, if the UK goes down this path. However if MoD do this, then we may see the transfer of Wildcat to the FAA, which eventually addresses the existing low numbers and also aligns with the increased number of naval platforms in the 2030’s that would benefit from vertical lift. Battlefield utility is served by H135.

      So FAA uses Merlin and Wildcat out through 2040 OSD on the former plus unmanned rotary platforms. AAC migrates to Apache, FARA, H135 or similar, Chinook and what may only be an interim medium helicopter capability in the near term. Ultimate medium lift for both forces may coalesce around either FLRAA, or the European Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC), or the FAA goes with NGRC while the AAC goes with FLRAA.

      https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/us-uk-ink-pact-on-next-gen-aircraft-precision-weapons/

      • For European manufacturers to compete with either of the production versions of the SB1 Defiant or the V280 Valor. They will also need to produce an aircraft that can compete on an equal footing, i.e. range and speed, or they will be looked on as the second best option within the export market.

        To that end, a development of the Airbus X3 and Racer concept would be the best option to compete equally with the SB1 at least. The Racer like the X3 decouples some of the the drive from the main rotor blade. Instead relying on the pusher propellers for thrust. Leaving the main rotor and wing to generate the lift. To compete with the Valor for outright speed, you need to fully decouple the main rotor and turn the aircraft into a gyroplane. By doing this you should be able to crack 300kts.

  11. Wildcat, a pitifully small fleet. The army and RM share 34 cabs.

    1 AAC I believe has just 3 squadrons, one of which is the OCU. Then there is the FAA’s 847 NAS for the RM.

    They replaced no less than 7 squadrons of Lynx, in 1AAC, 9AAC, plus other squadrons in 5 AAC and with JSFAW, and maybe others I’ve forgotten about.

    2015 SDSR alone removed several squadrons from the AAC.

    As for its capability, wish it could be armed to bring greater bang to the minimal assets remaining.

    • Story of the British Armed Forces. Not forgetting the Billions wasted on projects that never deliver and that goes for the RAF too.

      • Commando Helicopter Force, yes.
        SABR was to replace Sea King HC4s., which numbered in the mid 30s I believe.
        Gordon Brown cut that budget and they took existing RAF Merlins instead. Even with the small extra Chinook order to compensate it’s still robbing Peter to pay Paul.
        Having said that, it makes sense to me that all Merlin are now FAA operated and the RAF were not in love with it, nor the Army.
        Merlin remains peerless as an ASW asset.

        • I see 18 merlin have been converted at Yeovil to commando merlin and I think that’s it finished. That still leaves 7 not modified. Was that always the plan?

          • I hope not!! We had 28 Merlin ( 22 plus 6 Danish new build ones added when G Brown panicked with his pants pulled down and the army found wanting for lack of helicopters in Helmand )

            Yes, 25 were transferred to the FAA.

    • And not forgetting the fixed wing Islander fleet is also gone! I guess we can also say goodbye to the Gazelle fleet, although I imagine their role is undertaken by watchkeeper.

      • Yes, first they handed them over to the RAF then got rid.

        Remaining Gazelle are being replaced.
        The others yes we’re part replaced by Watchkeeper but unsure if more than one battery of those is trained up and operational.

        AAC numbered over 300 helicopters now 84. That cannot be denied no matter how modern or agile they are.

        • As ever Daniele, summed up beautifully…

          What was 300 is now 84 … Pitiful!

          At the same time we were sold a smaller more agile Army, they slashed the very thing that makes it ” agile”…..

          And still a month into Cold War 2, we hear nothing from the MOD about rebuilding our armed forces…

          Is it simply a case of they won’t admit that 30 years of slashing capability was a seriously wrong move??

          I was hoping to hear of a new SDSR as last year’s is now obsolete…..

          • To be picky of my post there are a few more than 84 as I didn’t include the Bells or Dauphins! A mere handful each. Or the remaining Gazelles. Still barely over 100.

          • Nope, the No 1 enemy have dug their feet in. On a more positive note the F Sec and others are calling for more and the DS has said the same today in the Telegraph but it’s paywalled I cannot read it.

          • Yes, not really front line deployable assets though. They’re used in supporting roles in UK with a couple allegedly used by SF.

  12. The days of manned rotary recce should be coming to an end. There are already drones that can do this more economically and with a hell of a lot less chance of being detected.

    To me we should have been looking at unmanned before wildcat even entered service.

    • Unmanned were being used well before wildcat came into service. Not sure about the period when it was first ordered, but would guess the unmanned options were also being considered and ordered at the same time.

      To me it just shows backward thinking. I have read many articles on how the top bass plan for the wars they faught in and therefore are at least war or two behind when it comes to accessing needs of the modern war and for sure not forward looking.

      • Going forward all weapons carrying or recon helicopter systems should be unmanned. The tech is mature it just needs the will to go that route. There’s a mental block to trusting it with live passengers which I can understand though.

        Same with much of the airborne refueling and AEW. Data link back to ground removes the need for crew. That’s also a huge amount of space and weight saved. Even more relevant for the carriers which are limited in aircraft size.

  13. Big fan of wildcat although with current budget issues I cannot understand why the army operate these + Apache for the same role. In an ideal world wildcat should be navy exclusive and the army would have more Apache, would solve the navy’s airframe issues and give the army much greater firepower

    • Does Wildcat have the same role as Apache ie killing tanks? That’s a surprise to me.

      The army don’t just need Apache attack helicopters. They need a helo type for battlefield recce, utility, liaison, rapidly moving small specialist teams. With Gazelle only left in BATUS and NI, the Wildcat multi-role helo had picked up recce as well as its other roles.

      Your solution would leave the army without any utility/recce helos.

      • Why work in tandem to identify targets, when Apache can work independently. Surely the other forms of recce you envision can be covered by watchkeeper?. The army is going to get a new light utility helicopter soon so that will cover all other roles. We need to have fewer but more numerous types to simplify costs

        • I don’t know why it has been said by James Fennell that Wildcat works in tandem with Apache – I was surprised to hear that as Apache has hitherto operated alone in the air – it was news to me – I wonder if it is true?

          Although it is available for recce and surveillance in general, Watchkeeper could not conduct engr recce and will be in huge demand for Target Acquisition tasks.

          A replacement for Gazelle (which is now only available in BATUS and NI) is required but we will hear voices claiming that you can’t possibly deploy an unarmed and unarmoured helicopter anywhere near the enemy. [However we have a lot of unarmed and unarmoured vehicles and dismounted soldiers not too far from the enemy].

    • Neither do the Army Alex …. Issued with and having to make do unfortunately..

      Fitted for, but with …. A roll in the British Army!

      I’m sure if the Army was offered a new production run of 50 odd Lynx Mk9 with the new engines and avionics, they would have been delighted…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here