UK confirms JAGM missile for AH-64E Apache fleet

Those Chinooks were ordered late 90s and were already hangared by 2002 (3? I forget) when I was offered a role as part of the effort to try and sort them out. Haddon Cave came years later.

But yes, hell of a mess and gross waste, but also slightly because we wanted MC-47s but the US didnt want to sell MC-47s so hence the starting point for “its not an MC-47 but is kind of the same virtue of all the mods and avionics”.

In fairness, I dont think either of the other Serviced have yet matched “Nimrod” for a procurement fail!

I stand corrected.

But I remember hearing that the final decision to revert the type to close to standard production avionics spec was done of the basis that once the new post Haddon Cave regime was in place nobody would sign off the certification.

Yes, that certainly made resolving them impossible, although I think by then they were almost at the point of reverting them to standard avionics and even that wasnt simple.

Huge waste, but still pales into insignificance vs Nimrod!

The only useable difference between the now Mk5s and the now mk6As. Is that they have the fat tanks fitted. Like the Mk6As they are still late batch model Ds. They were earmarked for SF, so came with a weather and terrain avoidance radar plus a refueling boom as used on the MH47E. The RAF binned aerial refueling by Hercs, so the boom was removed. The crews did like the fact that the radar was announcing their location so that also got removed. The other issue with them was weight, at near full load they are over the weight limits for most oil/gas rigs so couldn’t be landed.
The aircraft after de-modifying and then upgrading were used for static air shows as the RAF did have a real need for them. In Afghan most location were within easy reach. However, then came Mali. The distances are huge and forward operating bases where aircraft can refuel are a lot more sparse. The fat tanks double the range of a standard Chinook. In Mail they are godsend.

Your comment about oil rigs doesn’t sound right…. at least not specifically for the fat tank version. Pretty sure that the mk3 and mk2 had identical engines, drive train and main structure. The max takeoff is more or less identical for both but the mk3 could carry more fuel (at the expense of cargo) hence could go further without cabin tanks. Also, unless they refuel at the oil rig (unlikely if doing a troop drop), they should have used a lot of their fuel by the time they got there so would not be max weight.

A skinny tank Chinook will carry about 4500kgs of fuel. The fat tank is double that. The additional fuel plus passengers pushes the weight past the limit of most of the rigs in the North and Irish Seas, the rigs in the Atlantic are a lot bigger and some can take the weight.

But the max take off weight limit remains the same… if you put more fuel in, you have to take cargo off to stay under mtow.

The empty weights and mtow of a Mk5/Model E and G are heavier than the standard model D (Mk6As) and model F (Mk6s).

Not sure if this table will work properly. But it shows the weight differences between the Chinook models. Although the Mk5 is a model D with fat tanks, it does have a lot of extras and other modifications over the base model.

CH-47D Chinook MH-47E Chinook MH-47G Chinook CH-47F Chinook HH-47 Chinook CH-47F Block II Chinook MH-47G Block II Chinook
Ceiling (meter) 3,094 3,094
Crew 2 2 2 3 2
Cruise Speed (kph) 265.03 259.09 259 265
Empty Weight (kilogram) 10,615 12,210 12,210 10,615
Flight Endurance (hour) 5.5 5.5
Height (meter) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Length (meter) 30.17 30.18 30.18 30.17
Main Rotor Blades 3 3 3 3 6 6 3
Main Rotor Diameter (meter) 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29
Max Power at TakeOff (shp) 7,258 7,258 9,466
Max Range (kilometer) 426 1,136 1,136
Max Takeoff Weight (kilogram) 22,680 24,945 24,945 22,680
Number of Engines 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Payload (kilogram) 11,340 12,285 12,285 9,525.6
Radius of Operation (nautical mile) 400
Top Speed at High Altitude (mps) 87.4 87.4 87.48 78.21
Troops 33 44 44 33
Width (meter) 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63

DaveyB. The oil rig part is rubbish. The vast majority rig helidecks (I’m an HLO) are Chinook 234LR MTOW (ie a civil fat tank with weather radar, life rafts, a heavy 44 seat and trim interior) certified.
It was and still is a legacy of the Chinooks civil use.
Look up near any rig spec and it’s stated.
In addition I’ve been on a couple rigs where SF & RM have visited, they didn’t come by helo and if they did I doubt they would land.

I can only confirm what are in the Chinook Mk5 SOPs regarding landing on oil rigs. They are not cleared due to weight concerns.

My understanding is that there are two issues before airframe availability: Aircrew and Air Engineer availability. There is a huge gap in air engineers accross the three services, but particularly acute in the Army. However, it was described to me like this: “We’ll never feel the lack of air engineers because we’ll run out of pilots way before that is an issue!”

One close friend who is an Apache pilot (and currently leaving) described the situation as AIDS – Apache Induced Divorce Syndrome.

That’s not a good situation. Engineering in civilian occupations pays much better, at a guess

I thought that too, about the AW169, but….

https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/products/aw169m

God forbid we buy the current Blackhawk production variant, straight from US Army production lots, its an old design (who really cares), it works, its matured, low risk and it could be bought for a great price….

But no, its a much better idea to procure, modify and build the 149 in the UK, at I am sure will end up being four times the unit cost of a Blackhawk and will end up being ‘at least’ 5 years late.

We could probably start taking Blackhawk deliveries next year!

We will never learn, its like groundhog day, tail wagging the dog procurement!

I was in agreement, and having spent some time in Blackhawks, it genuinely feels a robust battlefield helo in the way 149 etc arent.

However, it is expensive to operate and has a number of issues in terms of safety and operability and the UK having hit those on Apache runs a mile every time this is considered. The US deals with this by sheer mass and deep pockets. Eg for Apache – they just replaced the tail rotor after Hellfire firings, we (in the WAH-64D) resolved that at cost and thats now in the E (iirc).

I think the 149 etc wont be late etc as they are basically off the shelf. Its just they arent really military helos.

For me we fkd it when the RTM322 S-70 was never taken forward in the early 90s (UK built) and instead we got lumbered with Merlin.

But I dispute we should just buy American off the shelf – as so often said, their kit looks ace until you buy it and start using it…

Reading this it seems that there were plus and minus point to this. The bit about Sikorsky not fancying a deal as flexible as the Sea King one given previously plus in light of that, the problems competing with the NH-90 on profitable terms looks concerning. But have to say it sniffs of the usual lack of decision making we are so familiar with thats for sure.

https://hushkit.net/2021/02/12/whatever-happened-to-the-westland-ws-70-blackhawk/

Yes Ive heard and read that.

Pity as we’d have got a better helo and Merlin was already a dead end anyway, plus we might have helped sell more Blackhawks. Especially as how NH90 has turned out.

Hey ho!

Unfortunately, if the 149 is selected (and I’m sure it will be), I will guarantee it will be late and Wildcat expensive, as UK design tinkering and tooling for UK based production will push the cost straight through the roof…

I don’t buy keeping a UK helicopter manufacturing base anymore, it’s a 100% Italian company, making Italian Helicopters today.

The only UK related products remaining are Merlin, (that’s about played out) and Wildcat sales have been ‘disappointing’ to say the least.

That in itself is not surprising, it’s a massively expensive, Rolls-Royce of a Naval Helicopter with an eye watering price tag.

I think this is a purley political decision that’s got more to do with a wider backroom Italian deal involving Tempest and other projects….

Yeah, I quite agree.

Yeovil does seem to have enormous political clout. I imagine Augusta which actually built successful helos (109) as well as licence built stuff would drop it in a heartbeat if they could.

Wildcat is a bit of a joke really, Merlin, well, its ended up in the best place for it. Neither successfull.

149 to me just repeats having a fragile helicopter, and adding another type. At least however its based on something with wider sales and parts etc. I also suspect once its loaded up with armour, defensive aids and weapons then it’s performance and capacity will not be in the medium category. Tbc…

Yep, it will probably end up maxed out with kit, with room for four passengers 😂!

We really shouldn’t tempt fate…..

I hope that they make the decision on a Military capability and not for political reasons.

Well yes, Im critical of polotical decisions as most – but one haa to reflext as Clauswitz said, “war is politics by other means” so it is all interconnected.

Plus its really not about what is on the flightline, but the abiity to rejuvenate it, to repair it, to modify it and so on – domestic industry gives that and spends that money on our country.

But on the new helo, I’d bet a lot on a Yeovil political choice and I’m not a fan of their products.

Very old bit of kit now though

No, both are mediums but AW 169 is 5t class and Puma 7t class. The Agusta equivalent is the AW 189.
Bristow helicopter is replacing the Super Puma with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umlf_Kh_AEc
another advantage of Leonardo is that the family AW 139, 169, 189 is same generation, have commonalities and a mixed order is possible.

Now that you mention it I recall the Bristows thing; standardise and you keep costs down. Seems to me the MOD is learning that lesson. The strategy assumes that the technology of medium helos has reached a plateau; that they have essentially become commodities. The circus act stuff is in the sensors and military fit.
Also the concept of a ‘family’ of helos enabling a mixed order of machines sharing common components is very attractive in terms of speed of acquisition, running costs.
Plus build in the UK. What’s not to like?

as others have commented on here, we can replace the wildcats and release to the RN.

for me this is a simple decision, instead of trying to do everything, do something well..

its not as if we don’t use them, they were worked hard in the Middle East and are currently on POW.

We don’t constantly have to reduce our equipment volumes, these have proven themselves and are a great price (at the moment – although we may have missed the boat).

so we have a known requirement and a supposedly increasing defence budget that is focused on getting the right kit.. seems to me to meet those parameters.

I don’t accept not providing troops on the ground with good kit, others do, but as ex infantry I don’t.

How does transferring them save anything? Why does the RN need to more than double its Wildcat numbers?

Yours, and others, drive to divest the Wildcat (something we never should have bought but for Yeovil’s political influence – but we have it now) is at odds with what AAC pilots tell me they are used for, and goes back to the AACs other core role of air communciations where a RAF SH is overkill for what/who is being moved.

There wont be any troops on the ground as the self licking lollipop of aviation will suck in the entire Army’s budget. Hell already it dominates it!

What “known requirement” suggests a 3 fold expansion of AH and what other extant requirements get binned for it?

And you were ex inf – So what? On that basis we turn the Army into Air Cav alone? We are buying the best kit, Apache is it. We can always want more but that “more” is infinite and across everything.

The reality is AH are phenomenally expensive to operate, it is closer to a silver bullet than a general purpose one and so numbers are necessarily limited.

One of the best comments I’ve seen on this site, people think there is a bottomless pit of money

I completely believe that’s the US view on foreign weapons integration on their aircraft but i don’t buy without some concrete evidence that it would cost a particularly prohibitive amount in this case. I believe Brimstone has already been successfully test-fired from Apache already!

Consider that with Tiger dead as a duck and Russian stuff having never really got anywhere the US has the AH market largely to itself really.

It wont make much money selling the airframes, but fk me does it make money selling the stuff to complete the “weapons system”.

So a foreign competitor that eats Hellfire/JAGM sales whilst the US provides the market through Apache sales is very definitely not on. Hence the US would extract a particularly heavy pound of flesh.

That isnt going to be written down anywhere for obvious reasons, especially when the US and UK have a cozy deal on Apache generally and the UK is already thinking beyond Brimstone anyway.

The reality is that there would be virtually no synergy between joint RAF and AAC usage of Brimstone, and the latter is really too much missile for the Apache to employ. So pushing for it against the cost and integration factors (and it is an integration risk as anything is), vs an easy option that suits everyone makes no sense.

Don’t forget the Agusta Mangusta! The world’s first stealth helicopter…in the sense that everyone forgets it exists

But also add in the problems of retaining a unique and orphaned product line for the UK where the UK is then stuck with the integration and certification costs of every # that is produced and so it is not updated and upgraded and then become irrelevant.

So the general lesson is: if you buy it in use standard specs.

And if it is a UK design then use a range of saleable missiles that are not too bespoke.

Hey I know we wouldn’t buy it but something to be said for Russian attack helicopters, over engineered, can survive missle hits, fly for hour with no oil, we could learn from the heavy duty , built to last and low running costs

That sounds so likely an explanation doesn’t it, sadly. When you go back and look at many of the cases where the US were pushing for their product (ironically including Brimstone originally) you see how much USA Corp combined with political weight comes into play in all manner of hard and soft ways. Indeed its those tactics that often send some customers into the hands of European or other suppliers and probably keep their export options going at all.

MBDA would claim short of it directly causing a crash!, but yes I agree its overkill for the Apache and is optimised around faster and higher platforms.

The US attitude I understand tbh, its like parts really, no airframe manufacturer makes much or any profit from the airplane sale, its all in the lifetime of parts and so on. Hence (in addition to good safety reasons) why thats such a tightly restricted market as otherwise they’d be bust (even more than they are!).

I think its just a desperate desire to succesfully deliver something and a cast iron “no fking about with what it comes with” being applied. Possibly too rigidly but thats a natural pendulum response to the sheer number and scale of “lets modify / integrate this” fk ups.

USArmy is already integrating the long range Spike missile on it’s Apache’s so don’t really seen the need for Brimstone2.

Ref “There is a lot of work ongoing to look at open systems and modular certification to improve this but it is not there yet for aircraft.”

I understand MOSA is a key requirement in the FARA and FLRAA solutions of the US FVL program, assuming it delivers what its supposed to. I thought I had read that it would also be implemented into Apache, presumably to allow consistent fleet wide updates of equipment and weapons, to reduce support and logistics costs.

Perhaps one reason why the UK has expressed interest on those two programs, as MOSA should enable faster and less expensive integration of alternative systems and weapons.

We never bought or fielded 100 Mk 1’s, what are you on about ?

100 Mk1s? What are you on about?

We bought 67 (vice the 50 successor Es – noting, in Father Ted to Dougal manner “50 is a smaller number than 67”), many sitting in storage for years because we couldnt generate the people. Ironcially this number was much maligned at the time because it wasnt the 95 odd they wanted.

I’m sorry if my experience of actually doing things in defence and knowledge of what actually does, and is needed to, generate combat power made your armchair fantasy numbers obsession look silly.

What do you mean not relevant. It is sourced unlike your ridiculous claims

Ah, I’d already read that, but took it to be a generalisation in mentioning Apache, which after all support 3 Div already, along with a strong dose of spin, like much of that paper!!

I hope to be wrong but for me the DSBCT is not “new” in anything but it’s name and in what other pieces they place in it. It appears at the moment to be a renamed 1 Artillery Brigade, not currently a deployable brigade formation, but an admin one, with 2 spare Ajax regiments shoved into it. Where else do they go now the Strike Brigades are toast.

If it becomes a stand alone brigade complete with integral Ajax, artillery, GMLRS, Watchkeeper UAVs, and new regiments of Precision fires, Loitering munitions and armed drone assets like it should do, I will be pleased.

Not holding my breath though!

Yes I may have had my rose tinted glasses on

However there are enough CSS units within the division (with deletion of strike) to make it a deployable brigade formation.

Depends on where the CSS units go.

I assumed that the two “Light” BCT would take them, or the SOps Bde.

Will be keen to find out exact details, only then can we judge accurately.

Will be very interesting animal if it develops that way. Has the army ever had such a formation? I don’t recall 1 (BR) Corps artillery being paired with ground recc assets?

This is baisically my best guess at the Orbat of the two divisions.
I can’t imagine that anyone will plan on making 1/3rd of 3rd Division non-deployable, as keeping a fully deployable division has been the sine-qua-non of British Army planning for the last decade.

If anything 1st Division will continue to be the sacrificial lamb (since current plans seem to require it to maintain at least 1 non-deployable brigade either way), and the other still on TCV’s for the immediate future.

Ironically shortly after posting this I stumbled across Nicholas Drummonds recent article on the Wavell Room were he guesses at a a very similar structure to what I guessed:

Yes, had seen this one already. First one much clearer. With this they have also created another 2 Boxer battalions for the DSB.

Morning.

I like how the creators of this have russled up a Guards Brigade, and used the enablers from 3 Commando to give it its CS&CSS units.

Shows red wheeled battalions in 11 guards, are they guessing MRVP? Assume the LBCT’s 6 battalions are Foxhound. Would be nice, but I’m sure the DCP said the 2nd of those would be foot only.

I like it though.

Hi Daniele,
Since I’m the creator I guess your comments are directed in the right place XD. (the Full image has the entire land forces of the British Army laid out as I would want them too, and then there’s a gold plated expansion version too, but they’re both so big I don’t think they’d post very well on here) 😛
In my mind the Army would be mad to continue enabling 3 CMDO brigade if it’s largely going to operate in small groups from RN ships, which won’t need the same degree of CS and CSS as a fully formed combat brigade.

My understanding is the Light BCT’s are both eventually supposed to be JLTV/Foxhound, but intitally one will be light role (which isn’t really foot only, since they do have integral TCV’s but point taken).

The wheeled battalion in the Guards is an error by myself I’m afraid, but if MRVP’s are still available perhaps that would be a good place to put them.

Wow, you made it. Niceeeee.

I have seen several of these on Pintrest over the years, and with every new review another appears.

Others I have seen have all of Force Troops ( or whatever it is called this week! ) pity cannot see yours.

Agree on CS&CSS re 3 Cdo. Have feared for them since FCF so hope they get put in some where else such as with yours. CS & CSS are too few and too precious to delete any further.

Going to be picky now, only because I enjoy this ORBAT stuff as you know.  😀 

I know this is as you would have it, but you have 101 Bde with 1 Div. I thought 101 supports 3 Div and 102 supports 1 Div. Why the switch? Where is 102 Bde, on the wider bits we cannot see? I see some of its transport regiments you have placed with the brigades proper, so maybe your following the BCT plan of having all the enablers back with their brigades.

Also, your 101 Bde has the enablers that currently sit within
104 LS Bde.

Finally, where are the medical regiments, REME battalions, and Close Support Regiments for 3 Divisions brigades? You need to add them! Or are they elsewhere in the ORBAT now?

Love it, wish I could see the whole lot.

Thank you for the kind words, and go for the nitpicks by all means. It might show up something I haven’t thought about.

So, last I checked, 102 Log Brigade HQ was due to be disbanded, so I didn’t include it in the Orbat. Equally with the BCT concept I didn’t see any point in keeping enablers in 3rd Divison in their own seperate 1* command (I never liked that even when I was in 3 Div). So all CS and CSS units now sit with the Combat Brigades they support, and 101 Log Bde HQ is transferred to 1 UK Div, rather than re-create 102 Log only to disband 101 Log/rename 101 Log.

As much as possible Regular, Army Reserve, and Regular Reserve units have been seperated into their own formations, 104 Log Brigade has taken all RLC Reserve Units under it’s command, while 101 Log Brigade has taken all Regular RLC units not directly subordinated to BCT’s. (I’ve been toying with moving 101 into FTC actually, and am toying with seperating out the Regular/Army Reserve units in FTC and 6 UK Div too).

Medical Regiments, REME Battalions, Close Supprt Regiments have all been amalgamated into “Super CSS Regiments” in line with what seems to be laid out in the DCP (hence why I left their names blank).

Well, here is the full thing. I’m not sure how legible it will be on here, but if you want the full resolution version I’m sure I can arrange it through some sort of image sharing site.

Aaaannnnd… because why not, I created this:
In my head I divided things I’d want to see into:
-minimum (which is baisically the above orbat)
-priority (things that should be changed as soon as viable)
-growth (long term things that should be aimed for if the budget ever becomes available)
-minor (changes that would either be too expensive to justify other chategories/too difficult/not important enough, but still would be nice)

This is the orbat with everything up too and including minor. Although 6 XX needs work still…

Quality. I’m on mobile at the mo so not a cat in hells chance of studying it. Will try for zooming in on pc later.

If you do try:
This
and
This

@George just links to the above pictures off site, at full resolution so they’re legible.

This shows what could be achieved if the army was organised into a sensible orbat.

“Overseas Command” Like it.

Like the 6th Brigade in Bermuda and the new overseas regiments.

2nd ( AR ) Division too. Did you choose 22 and 70 brigade numbers from historical units. don’t recognise those. The others were the regional bdes from 2,4,5 Divisions.

A few omissions I’ve seen, cannot see them in there.

Your expanded SJFHQ into a 5 Div. I think beneath this should sit the JF HQ and the JF Logistics Component HQ, cannot see them elsewhere on the graphic.

Additions to Stratcom. ( All purple Tri service )

Joint Cyber Electromagnetic Activities Group ( Digby )

JCU Corsham
JCU Cheltenham
JCU (R) Innsworth.

Intelligence Collection Group ( Wyton )

JSSU ( Falkland Islands )
JSSU ( Digby )
JSSU ( Cheltenham )

Joint Support Group ( Or Joint Services Group )

DHO

Defence Humint Unit. ( Chicksands )

Other ST Com Odds and sods.

NCGI

42 Engineer ( Geographic ) ( Wyton )

DSF

UKSF Medical Group.

1 MP Bde

There is a “Special Operations Regiment” now, incorporating such things as the Force Intelligence Bureau and the Service Police Crime Bureau ( both Southwick Park )

Nice work this Dern.

Glad you like it.
22X/70X are numbers from Historical Units indeed (if only so I could find brigade insignia to add to the graphic), the idea was to seperate, where it hasn’t been done already, Regional HQ’s from Combat deployable formations, and give them their local reserve units, with priority to MACA taskings. Flooding in the Midlands? First step is for 8th Brigade to call up 4 Mercians to support their local community. The local aspect hopefully will make people more likely to want to spent a short deployment helping their community, and reduces burden on regular formations, who can focus on more expeditionary roles Reserves aren’t suited for.

The Overseas Regiments all are existing, ideally they should be brought onto a common training footing with the rest of the British Army (the Royal Gibraltar Regiment already does this, aligned to Queens Division). 6th (Overseas) X would preform the same role as Regional HQ’s in the UK, only for BOT’s, with BOT units under it’s command.

When I got to Stratcom, using open source it was pretty difficult to find who actually sits under whom, and at that point I just kind of went “Well I’m not here to reform this purple mess, so I’ll just leave it out.” At any rate as it’s still a work in progress I may (if I find the time) go back and add in the listed ommissions. ‘XD

Also, you’ve probably clocked it but 1 RR XX and 2 RR XX are paper formations to keep the Regular Reserve organised, with 1 RR XX being the more recently discharged (and therefore more current and competent) veterans, liable for a Call Up Exercise once every few years to make sure the brigades could be called up if needed.

Just an additional note on the Overseas Command – the Cayman and TCI Regiments and the Monserrat Defence Force are pretty notional at the moment.

The first two are in the process of being stood up, with around 12 officers from each going through training in Bermuda and the UK and another 50 or so other ranks due to train with the Bermuda Regiment. There is also a small UK military assistance unit in place on both islands (for hurricane planning). Final strength will be around 200 personnel each. The intention is for them to be largely engineering focussed, to assist in HADR operations in the region and, as such they will be associated with the Royal Engineers.

The Monserrat DF is largely ceremonial (and only around 40 personnel), though I read last year that they had started sending individuals for formal military training. It’s a tiny place, so I can’t see it going much above company strength.

As I understand it, the Bermuda Regiment (up until now a classic light role infantry regiment of around 400 personnel) will also re-focus on engineering skills, with disaster resilience in mind.

Oh yes, I’m aware that the two newest regiments are in the process of being stood up, and will at best be similiar to the FIDF, but since this is a “Future” British Army (hypothetical), they need to be included as they are already in the Force structure, and already have a permanent staff. Baisically meant I hadn’t conjured them out of thin air because I thought they should exist.

The entire idea behind “6th Overseas Brigade” is to bring the BOT Regiments more in line with my structure for the TA. In other words Reserve units with a primary role of MACA/Op Tempora style taskings in their local area. Eg if Flooding happens in Yorkshire, 42nd (Northwest) Brigade co-ordinates the response primarily using the Reservist units under it’s command. 6th (Overseas) Brigade would serve the same purpose, only focusing on BOT’s, Hurricane hits Montserrat? 6X co-ordinates the response and has several organic units set up to do so, so if the RMDF needs assistance Commander 6X can on his own authority call in the CIR (for example to assist). To that end (and to provide further utility, and common working practices) I do think all BOT Regiment personnel should complete the same training as Regular or Reserve personnel.

In a pinch, ie if a very large war breaks out I also think that the AR should be able to follow on the Reserves as an additional division, or used as a cadre to grow additional division, and in that case 6X should be used similarly, but due to both it’s geographical location and the unique nature of it’s component units (even the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and Royal Bermuda Regiments aren’t traditional Light Infantry units, and in practice are more composite Battlegroup formations), remains it’s own indipendent command seperate from the AR division.