The British Army’s new Apache AH-64E Attack Helicopter has made its first appearance in an exercise.
In a press release, the British Army say that Exercise Talon Guardian has seen 3 Regiment Army Air Corps take a 1,500km road trip over two weeks, establishing itself at three separate locations to plan and execute attack missions and maintain the state-of-the-art helicopters.
3 Regt AAC’s commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Simon Wilsey was quoted as saying:
“Exercise Talon Guardian is a really significant step forward for the British Army’s AH-64E, which is the most advanced attack helicopter in the world. We’ve been working hard to learn how to fly and maintain the AH-64E; now we’re getting the aircraft out into the field, tackling the additional complexities of living, planning, maintaining and operating in an austere environment and developing how we fight with it.
As befits a new aircraft with vastly improved capabilities, we’re not just going back to what we did before. We’re beginning to use all the new systems and capabilities, and looking at the lessons of current conflicts, adapting to ensure our relevance and survivability. It is all about the basic field craft in the air and on the ground. So, for how we operate on the ground, it’s dispersing and camouflaging our positions to prevent observation by drones and communicating by data and over long range; and aircrew must fly using natural cover and all the aircraft’s sensors to counter air defence systems and low-tech threats. We’ve learnt a lot and we’ll continue to learn as we look to exploit the full capabilities of this awesome aircraft.”
Nice, but does it need a longer reach. At least Brimstone and Possibly Spear3 ? Martlet for shooting down drones or whatever?
AA
Because its the British Army, Nope no Brimstone…They are buying AGM 179 JAGM ( AGM-179 JAGM – Wikipedia) which is a US missile that is pretty much a knock off Brimstone. The UK then does not need to pay the cost of integrating Brimstone onto Apache.
Hopefully they’ll be an ER version happening. Wikipedia is saying only an effective range of 8km? That’s crap! Double to triple that surely, minimum.
It’s funny because Brimestone was a knock off of hellfire all though much more capable. Same body though.
Shape wise the same but far more robustly built for fast jet carriage
The JAGM is basically the next generation of Hellfire which the Brimstone was also based off of. The JAGM is stated to get a tri-mode seeker in the next revision. So MMW, IR and laser. It is also going to get much longer range and integration on face movers.
I’m happy with going off the shelf. With our record of customising it would take decades and billions of over spend to achieve anything.
We have Brimstone…but they wont integrate it. Buy American kit and wave bye bye to ever putting your own weapons on it. The apparent saving on integration costs are some where around 99 mil. The jobs and subsequent positive knock on’s through the economy of buying and building British would easily cover that.
And apparently JAGM is not IM compliant which is pretty much a given for munitions nowadays…
Brimstone Guided Missile – Think Defence
There is a flip side here to not integrating Brimstone on our Apaches.
JAGM is short range – @8km range, Brimstone2 is better than 30km. US is looking at purchasing Spike NLOS to cover the defeciancy in JAGM range.
JAG M costs are approx USD 325k per unit, B2 is approx USD 200k per unit. Horses for courses as to what you fit.
Since Spike NLOS will be integrated in US Army Apaches why not it?
6th Generation have 50km range from helicopter and as the name says can be fired from behind a hill.
Plus British Army already have the “Exactor” so it will not be unknown.
Yes Alex we do have Spike -NLOS, but not many I would think. Also it’s only a stop gap for the US until they can produce something long range themselves!!!
The flip side is as @GB states below, why use two missiles when one will do the job just as effectively. Added to that we (UK) produce Brimstone, and have lots already in service.
Integration costs in $ and time will be the main reason plus can the Brimstone be NLOS?
I imagine it’s got everything to do with integration costs.
Believe that both B2+3 are both NLOS capable.
Maybe im missing it deep32 but what is the flip side to not integrating?
Depends on your perspective MS. B2/3 can do the job of both the other missiles. It’s British made, supports our industry. Why use 2 when 1 can do the job?.
Just my take on it, but obviously integration costs are steep so we will be buying the other 2 missiles.
JAGM is fine. BrimStone was designed for high altitude surgical strikes, from Tonka, Tiff & Reap etc. JAGM (while it may have attested to be comparable) is a low level nap-of-earth battlefield weapon. Romeo/JAGM will serve us fine.
Brimstone is also launched from ground vehicles and US used this way in Ukraine. An armoured vehicle launched version has been adopted by Poland.
Read what the latest B3 Brimstone can do. Its savings in commonality and a reduced logistic footprint. No need to mess about with 2 missiles when one will do everything.
We need to do more push Brimestone, its a great product. More we sell the cheaper it will get but integration cost onto other platforms is always going to be an obstacle to more sales. Need to be more creative on how that’s funded. That applies to most of our defence products tbh.
Sadly, l agree, the MOD has a disgraceful record for overruns and ” too many cooks ” !
Often because they try and cram too much into a small amount of space with an unrealistic budget in the first place.
Of course, the manufacturer will rub his hands with glee !!
I’m happy the army is not messing around with bespoke equipment fit. Also if it’s operating it’s probably doing so in a NATO theatre and having common supply chains for missile is vital. Martlet cost £500 million with integration on Wildcat. That’s not the kind of money we can be wasting for marginal capability. Remember it was a British bespoke requirement on the last Apache that saw us throw them away plus cost lots extra. Experience in Afghanistan proved the RR engine to be a better choice but it was not worth the billions paid. Army needs to start working… Read more »
Hard to say if the cost was worth it or not. As you say the more powerful engine was very useful in afgan as it allowed the longbow to be used. I don’t have enough info on what that meant in practice to argue either way on if it was money well spent.
Given the Low tech nature of the enemy I’m not sure how useful the radar was, the US managed to operate Apache without radar there as well and managed to kill a lot of Taliban.
However it was the key reason they were junked and we had to buy brand new G variants when others managed to convert older versions to G.
I suspect it also being connected to ours being heavily used. Most other operators outside the US haven’t really used theirs in a war zone. Upgrading them would probably involve replacing pretty much everything or we would have had badly worn airframes.
They are upgraded frames?
Is the £500m reference the total Marlet program cost from drawing board to in service or just the integration cost on Wildcat?
If just the latter, what the hell costs £500m????
My question exactly.
Where did your figures come from?
Why not fit Martlet to the Army Wildcats?
For the price these are at go and order another 50 same with Chinook, nothings replacing these for another 20 years or so.
Where would the money be coming from? It’s seems clear that massive cuts are about to happen to the public sector, so hopefully the 50 we have brought will be maintained and not cut down.
It’s the cost of buying these plus the F35 in dollars that’s really hammering the budge at the moment. General inflation is 10%+ and the pounds at an all time low.
Yep plus naval lookout tweeted the cost of the t26 has gone up by over £200m due to delays.
…and why relying on foreign companies to produce UK kit has all sorts of downsides. Not least currency exchange issues, and the fact that the money goes out of the UK economy and does not stay within UK communities – let alone the profits of those companies.
👍
It is more about ITAR and the control US therefore exerts.
US foreign policy is a lot less predictable.
As you say retaining sovereign capability is golden.
No it isn’t. The all time low was 1.07, it is currently at 1.14.
I know it’s financially difficult ATM but clever procurement over say 10 years would add the numbers up, surely the integrated report frees up some money with all the cuts planned?
It’s going to be way more than 10 years before the mess that the current government has caused will be past. Truss alone cost the country £65b thanks to her stupid budget and lack of doing the basics of actually checking it was affordable.
The cheap price is thanks to piggy backing onto the much bigger US order. Whether that price will still be available in 10 years is highly debatable.
Or even just another 10. Aren’t 50 replacing 60?
Alas, it’s worse than that, the 50 new ones are replacing 67 AH1s. Another cunning 25% cut in capability from this hopeless government.
Typical MOD procurement, more capable platforms = less numbers ordered.
When was the last time we replaced any state of the art system with numerically more ? It’s defence cost inflation it’s been around for 100 years at least. As a % of GDP we’re spending the same on defence as we were in the late 30’s. Back then we had an RN of 120,000 regs and 80,000 res. Today we have less than a third of that.
Half🙂
It’s also a question of equipment choices and costs David. Faced with a squeeze on budgets and vast inflation on equipment and weapons, the mega sums we are spending on our ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent subs and 2 carriers and their air wings are hard to swallow, they collectively gobble up about £54bn of the equipment budget. Compare and contrast with the RN annual equipment budget IIRC, excluding subs, it’s about £1.7bn pa. The SSBNs and carriers are essentially politically-driven, the politicos wishing to present the UK as a major world player. Maybe faintly plausible back in the Cold War era,… Read more »
😯🤔😁😂
The key is always not the total number but what impact it has on operations, how many are actually used. We have many Chinooks as an example, more than we can structurally operate. With Apache, previously the 2 regiments had 3 squadrons, each of 8, plus an OCU at MW plus an OT Sqn. S0 24 Apache per Regiment. Now they have 2 squadrons each, still on 8, being described as “binary” when the cut was announced. And 653 OT Sqn is still about as far as I know, plus 12 Apache at 673 Sqn at M Wallop. It leaves… Read more »
A late reply DM, good analysis. I think you summed it up well
“It is tight, and doable but as always a balance between numbers and quality.”
I was under the impression that some of the old D airframes were to undergo upgrade. I imagine though the airframes are knackered however after service in Afghanistan. 8 airframes per sqn probably include a couple of unserviceable spares, I guess?
There haven’t been 67 operational for ages.
Were there ever 67 operational at the same time?
No.
6 Squadrons of 8, so 48 forward fleet.
Rest with the OCU and some with OT Sqn, left a handful spare.
I think the issue was more pilot & spares pipeline.
That said they were bought in the years when attrition reserve wasn’t the subject of a low laugh….
‘Operational…’ Not sure what that means SB. The fleet of 67 Apaches would be allocated approx as follows: – 48 frontline with 6 squadrons – Probably 6 in squadron reserve – 8 or 9 with the OCU – 4 or 5 as attrition reserve The helis would be rotated between squadron and reserve on a regular, planned basis, to equalise flying hours and wear and tear and to allow for deep maintenance. So all 67 would be operational at some point. I think Chris is probably right, the limiting factor on numbers is most likely shortage of aircrew and spares.… Read more »
Depends what you mean by operational – that they are working or deployed with field force units? No military equipment fleet is ever fully deployed to deployable units. Some helos are required for training units, some for attrition (peacetime accident replacements), some to replace those in deep maintenance (Repair Pool) and some for war reserve (War Maintenance Reserve or Attrition Reserve). Daniel’s answer is on point.
Original Order for AH-64D was cut from 99 to 67. These were replaced by 50 E models. Government never increases the size of army fleets – EVER.
Great capability however it was sad to see us junking fairly modern Apache D to replace them with Apache G however at-least the Army has managed to buy something off the shelf and not f**k it up like every other acquisition.
We introduced the Apache AH-64D in 2004, it having first flown in ’98 – is that still modern for a helicopter? We have just bought the E model not the G (that doesn’t exist).
Sorry your right was confused with Guardian. It’s not that new however it’s a massive cost we could have done without for a platform that’s long in the tooth. A conversion from D to E standard would have been more palatable on the finances however it would undoubtedly come at the cost of lower life expectancy.
I understood some years ago that we would send most, if not all, of our D models to Boeing for remanufacture into E models. There does seem to be some doubt about this however as some say that entirely new airframes were built.
Hi Graham
I agree – I was also under the impression that our E models were remanufactured D models. Maybe they were too far gone after years of operations in Afghanistan?
If they are all new E’s, did we junk the D’s? Would love to know.
I thought these are the Ds partially rebuilt?
They are brand new airframes. The AH1’s are shipped to the US, where some kit and components are removed for re-use, the rest is junked.
Yes, that was the announced plan with the first few new built.
I *think* that when the frames were assessed that some of them were too worn and respired to be sensibly upgraded.
Last thing we would want is a nimrod situation. Much better to get new airframes. These apaches will be running for next 20+ years
It is very different.
Boeing underwrite the rebuilds are to set specs. If they don’t meet specs it is up to them to fix it.
The Apache are procured to meet the current standard spec so it is relatively easy to do that tightly for something in production.
Nimrod was a build to get something to fly. By taking something of uncertain provenance adding some new wings bodging around with the flight controls and then wondering why nobody could sign off something that was not understood as a full system.
Oh yes they are very different. The point was that in most circumstances when building a new vehicle it’s probably best to get all the bits new. Especially when it’s only saving a small amount of money. I couldn’t understand the nimrod approach. Right at the start I had the view this isn’t going to work that well. Build it from all new parts using the same basic design. Then the warrior upgrade wouldn’t work very well as the reusing hulls built in batches 40 years ago was going to cause issues. If new build had been planned right from… Read more »
Its good that we have 50 of these, yet as a comparision Poland is buying 96 AH-64Es.
If I had a land boarder with Russia I would buy loads of these as well.
Poland does not have quite an extensive list of kit I cannot be bothered to write.
Comparisons with other nations are not always useful.
Poland seems to acquiring a lot more of what would be relevant to fight a conventional war with Russia than what we currently have or are planning on having.
Yes, especially in the land and AD domains. Beyond that? Again differing commitments. We could for example withdraw from all our overseas locations ( which Poland lacks ) which would save a few quid. I’m not suggesting that at all, just that the UK has other wider military commitments than an eastern border with Russia. When doing comparisons compare other political factors not just how many? Where is Poland’s GCHQ and nukes for example? Are they too not counters to Russia? Where is Poland’s ASW Frigate, SSN, and QEC force? They’d want to secure the Atlantic wouldn’t they? Yes, but… Read more »
Poland could also “come a cropper”, Korean, American and older Russian gear makes the logistics chain complicated. Unless their philosophy is like India in not putting all their eggs in one basket.
India is more like not putting all their bungs in one envelope.
Still fields a very capable air force.
Having the toys is one thing, being able to play the game is another.
Jack wrote: “”Poland seems to acquiring a lot more of what would be relevant to fight a conventional war with Russia than what we currently have or are planning on having.”” To be fair, the Uk is around 800 miles away from Kallingrad and 1000 miles from the Russian border next to the Baltics. Poland on the otherhand is next door to Kallingrad, has Belarus next door with Russia proper just 300 miles away. So Poland faces more of a conventional war threat from Moscow than does the Uk, Interestingly whilst everybody is happy to wax lyrical about where will… Read more »
Pretty much every scenario plays out bad for Russia. They get beaten out of Ukraine – bad They withdraw from Ukraine – bad They overrun all of Ukraine -bad I can’t think of a good scenario. Even a lot of Russia’s forces were built on hype. The illusion has been shattered. Sure they can fight but the losses are staggering. they don’t have the illusion they are 2nd/3rd best forces in the world anymore and that’s unlikely to return for a long time. The equipment will take billions and many years to get back to what they had before 2022… Read more »
The Russian military is f@cked for at least a generation now. It certainly won’t recover in Putin’s lifetime.
Excellent! say the penny pinchers. We can cut the UK defence budget now that Russia is no longer a credible threat. As long as we can send a half empty carrier to the pacific as a ‘show of force’ we’ve got all we need.
I don’t think Putin has deployed to the Ukraine any of his National Guard of around 300k. These are the paramilitaries he uses to keep order within Russia.
But Putin’s mobilisation, which seems to draw heavily on the more distant and rural oblasts is certainly increasing hostility towards Moscow. Maybe Russia will fracture as the USSR did…
The Poles have a greater proximity to the Russian Bear – they are realistic about defence requirements too.
They also don’t have a lot of the capabilities that we have. Their defence requirements are different to ours. With Britain being an island nation, our navy needs to reflect that. Poland on the other hand has 8 offensive naval vessels, 1 submarine, 2 frigates, 2 corvettes and 3 fast attack craft. The rest of their navy being made up largely of mine related vessels and other auxiliary ships. So if you cut the Royal Navy down to the size of the Polish navy and scrapped our nuclear deterrent etc I’m sure we would have the money for a load… Read more »
Basically that. UK have different priorities than Poland due to their respective geography.
Thanks Aaaron. Aaaagh, the trouble with a 2-line answer! But I don’t think I am wrong in what I said. I certainly was not suggesting conforming to Poland’s armed forces structure.
I think Poland is responding to their threat in a mature way. UK politicians seem to just think we should continue to send materiel and deliver training to Ukraine – and to contribute & conform to NATO’s revised eFP posture – but to leave our armed forces unchanged in size and structure.
No you’re not wrong with what you have said. There are a lot of things that we could do better in terms of defence but, we need to be realistic about what we want to do. For all the will in the world, we don’t have the money to do everything we want to do. Maybe time to focus more onto the expeditionary and SF, who knows. Maybe time to look at things like the light tank the US is procuring now. Another option would be something similar to the way the Germans are dealing with defence. A one off… Read more »
No bad thing to look at the light tank, so long as no-one thinks we don’t need the heavier MBTs as well. We should recognise that deployment to the Continent (since the end of BAOR/BFG) which was then considered to be ‘home basing’ is expeditionary – perhaps we could resurrect the term BEF for our guys in Estonia & Poland! But I know what you are saying. I really don’t think the Chancellor has got a spare £100bn for additional Defence spending – some are speculating there may be a defence cut announced on the 17th Nov – or ‘efficiency… Read more »
I think a high-low mix for the armoured fleet could be beneficial. Especially if we were to use a wheeled platform, something like the Italian Centauro. Would be a lot easier to move around and could move by road with vehicles like Boxer.
Bringing back BEF would make sense considering that’s pretty much what they are.
No I know there isn’t the money for the £100bn but, if it was possible, that one time injection would help to fix a load of procurement road and mean more of the current defence budget could be spent elsewhere.
Will this new type be able to operate from RN ships like the previous version could?
The budget is getting worse. 😉
More disappearing messages?
My messages returned. That is quite strange,