British AH-64E Apache helicopters will be armed with the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) in addition to Hellfire missiles.

The information came to light after a written question was submitted in Parliament.

Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, asked via a written Parliamentary question:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what air-to-ground missile will UK Army Air Corps Apache AH-64E aircraft be equipped with.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, replied:

“The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) for the new AH-64E Future Attack Helicopter has been selected. This missile is designed for helicopter use and is already integrated within the aircraft, simulators and mission planning systems. In addition to JAGM, the Hellfire K1 and Hellfire Romeo missiles will also be fully qualified and integrated onto the aircraft.”

An AH-64E Apache being delivered and unloaded from a C-17.

According to the British Army website, the new and upgraded AH-64E will deliver a significant enhancement to the UK’s 1st Aviation Brigade which operates a previous variant of Apache.

“The fleet of AH-64E Version 6 aircraft, the most advanced variant of Apache, have been procured from the United States to replace the Apache AH Mark 1, which reaches its Out of Service Date in 2024. These Boeing built new aircraft will enable the UK to maintain its battle-winning Attack Helicopter capability for decades to come thanks to its improved digital capability. The new aircraft is already in service with the US Army and other defence forces and has been designed and equipped to offer common configuration.

First UK flying is anticipated to commence in July 2021. Initially, this will be focussed on trials activity and then on developing instructional techniques to safely manage aircrew transition from Mark 1 to E-model.  The focus will then change to the full rate conversion training of 3 Regiment Army Air Corps (3AAC). Prior to commencement of flying, the full Air System Safety Case will be rigorously tested to ensure it can support safe flying. This will include Quality Assurance and airworthiness tasks by 7 Bn, plus certification by the UK Military Aviation Authority, assurance of aircraft documentation, simulators, training and instructors.”

AH-64E will deliver a significant enhancement to the UK’s 1st Aviation Brigade.

Major General Jez Bennett, Director Capability, said:

“The arrival of the first Apache E Model Attack Helicopter to be delivered to the British Army over the next two years marks the beginning of a significant uplift in capability to enhance the Army’s contribution across the spectrum of military operations. From supporting hostage rescue missions, to countering an adversaries’ anti-access, area denial platforms, the Apache E outstrips the outgoing Mark 1 aircraft by increased platform digitalisation, improved weapons and avionics, and the ability to use the latest and future technology to enable teaming with semi-autonomous systems such as UASs.”

The UK has ordered 50 of the new Apache AH-64Es to replace the older AgustaWestland Apache AH1.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
173 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago

Maybe, just maybe, the army has procured something well?

I never had anything to do with AAC: do they work with RAF on procurement?

Mike
Mike
4 months ago

I have distant memories of a load of Chinook helicopters sat in a hanger for years with issues due to their procurement? The RAF are just better at keeping their issues quiet.

the_marquis
the_marquis
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike

But the Chinooks are an RAF asset, even though they support Army ops, so not sure which service is to blame for that one. Also, that may not have been even an error on the part of the military, but possibly MoD civil service, treasury or politician, as if i remember correctly the reason they grounded was because we bought them on the basis we would fit our own UK built avionics instead of the standard Boeing equipment (ignoring Boeing’s warnings it wouldn’t work), presumably to boost UK jobs etc; sure enough it didn’t work so they were relegated to… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  the_marquis

In all fairness it did work fine.

The problem was signing the design modification off.

The design authority was Boeing and the whole thing fell foul of Haddon Cave and there needing to be a single design authority and proper process to get it signed off.

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago

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… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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.

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago

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!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike

Well quite.

In all fairness RAF have got their procurement house in order.

Nicholas
Nicholas
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike

From what I can remember that was 8 (?) Chinook and the issue was something to do with software and software licences. A very poor piece of work concidering the helicopters were desperately needed.

TrevorH
TrevorH
4 months ago
Reply to  Nicholas

They were ear marked for special services weren’t they? They never worked for that and we now have very expensive regular chinooks. (?)

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago
Reply to  TrevorH

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… Read more »

Dave G
Dave G
4 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago
Reply to  Dave G

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.

Dave G
Dave G
4 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago
Reply to  Dave G

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… Read more »

Alba Airborne
4 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago
Reply to  Alba Airborne

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike

Ha! The SF Boscombe down Hanger Queens!

Mike
Mike
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike

According to Flight Global the rectification contract was made in 2006.

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago

No, the requirements are specified by Joint Helicopter Command. Which is then auctioned by DE&S.

Pacman27
Pacman27
4 months ago

at the price point offered for these (£20m I believe) we should have bought at least 140 of them.

these are probably the hardest worked asset in the MOD over the last 20 years and are critical to a strike brigades success and survival.

great product, missed opportunity I fear.

Steve
Steve
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Very much so and more so now that the f35 order has been cut. Close air support is so key to the types of conflicts our troops are realistically likely to get involved in, where they are out numbered and over stretched and so force multipliers are essential.

I still don’t get why they are not buying the guided rocket pods, to increase the leathality of the Apache at very little cost.

Last edited 4 months ago by Steve
Billythefish
Billythefish
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve

More relevant than the F35 decrease – the confirmation of decrease in MBT.

fearlesstunafish
fearlesstunafish
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve

worse than that, im pretty sure the apkws use the same rockets from the same pods, the only difference being they have a laser guidance bit bolted on? all they need to do is pay bae from some conversion kits same as the us did for their hydra stocks! would definately make more sense than wasting hellfires on light targets, cause they a lot cheaper!

Last edited 4 months ago by fearlesstunafish
Paul42
Paul42
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve

It has been suggested the UK might not purchase 138 x F35B. But the order has not actually been physically cut as it were. More a case of watch this space.

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Problem is there wouldn’t be enough crews for 140 of them. Would need an increase in training and army numbers to make 140 Apache useful

Steve
Steve
4 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

I guess the question is how many crews do we have and is it the lack do crews or the lack of airframes that means they can’t be deployed

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve

The pipeline of trained crews coming through the defence helicopter school is the issue, from my understanding. And the fact that now we have fewer airframes probably doesn’t help either; so a bit of both contributing to the issue

BobA
BobA
4 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

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.

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  BobA

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

Pacman27
Pacman27
4 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

I am pretty sure that crewing will not be an issue.

at the end of the day who wouldn’t want to fly / work with the Apache.

this is absolutely critical capability for the Army (and RN looking at POW)

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Agree, there will be lots of people wanting to crew the Apache, but it’s more the restrictions caused by more limited training slots that cause the shortage

John Clark
John Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

I would certainly have bought 80-90 of them and used them in the recce roll too, replacing the virtually useless Army Wildcat.

Some of the 34 Army Wildcats could go to the Navy for conversion, (say 15) and the remainder sold to try to kickstart interest in the type.

Replace the Army examples with an off the shelf type, capable of carrying at least 8 fully equipped troops.

I would suggest a buy of 40 Blackhawks, straight from US Army production, to give the Army some additional useful troop transport and underslung haulage capability.

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

A good idea to increase Apache crew numbers, potentially. Why not move all the Wildcats to the Navy – they could use them, I’m sure? Although, likely the same crew numbers issue exists in the FAA too.

The Future Medium Helicopter mentioned in the recent review could be Blackhawk, but there are more modern designs out there which are mature now, such as the AW149 from Leonardo or various options from Airbus.

Last edited 4 months ago by AndyCee
Jon Wickham
Jon Wickham
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

The medium helicopter role currently undertaken by the Puma, is going out to tender shortly. The shortlist looks to be the NH90 and AW169.

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Jon Wickham

Have you got a link to that info? Would be good to read more about it.

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Jon Wickham

Eh?

Shortlist is (will be) AW149, the militarised 189, and H175, Airbus’s equivalent super medium.

UK build is key to it, hence 149 is favourite although Airbus is talking about setting something up in UK.

NH90 wont be considered, even the above are a large replacement for the Gazelle/Bell 212/412 aspects of the replacement. It’s also complete rubbish. The AW169 has no militarised variant.

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

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

John Clark
John Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

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… Read more »

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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/

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

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!

John Clark
John Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

We really shouldn’t tempt fate…..

nic
nic
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  nic

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.

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Very old bit of kit now though

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago
Reply to  Jon Wickham

AW169 is sort of a light helo where than Puma is medium? If we go Airbus then H175 would be the choice, no?

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

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?

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  Jon Wickham

The AW149 has also been mentioned as contender.

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

This would make an ideal replacement for the Puma as it is a tried and tested helicopter.
But the only issue is the age of the design

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  Nic

Are any of these produced as military armoured units except Blackhawk or are we footing bill alone? Did MOD not see this coming? Could we not have chipped in with another country to split development

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Where are you going to find the threefold increase in people needed to operate and maintain them? Noting it takes 5-10 years at a bare minimum to develop experienced technical supervisors and similarly pilots. Lifecylce cost make procurement ones look cheap, consider 150 hours per year at 30k oer hour (Apache originally stated as 46k in Hansard), is 4.5million per year. So the procurement cost is equalled by running costs in under 5 years. This is before we recruit people and train them, cost per person circa 100k (instructors, 1 year of full time training). Further, the vast array of… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

But its plug and play…. 😂 

Pacman27
Pacman27
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

we wouldn’t get them all at once, if we want this capability we will train the people required to operate them.

its something we are currently using and have done for some years, we just need to scale up.

I would prioritise this over other capabilities, it is that simple

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

So 15 years then? Thats a realistic minimum.

The billion for the aircraft.
The extra billion for the upfront infra and recruitment costs.
The billions and billions for sustainment of parts, running costs and people costs.

Come from where?

What do we do with all these attack helos? Didnt the US do this in the Balkans and Iraq and it didnt work as an operational tactic?

Pacman27
Pacman27
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

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… Read more »

Martyn Parker
Martyn Parker
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
4 months ago

F35’s can carry this too.

Rudeboy1
Rudeboy1
4 months ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

No they can’t.

JAGM integration to fast air was cancelled an age ago.

dan
dan
3 months ago
Reply to  Rudeboy1

F-35s are really designed for the lower altitude arena where the JAGM would be useful.

Challenger
Challenger
4 months ago

So just a couple of months after a review talking up UK PLC and saying procurement should always factor in the wider supply chain and tax revenue benefits by buying British The Army buy a missile off the shelf from America rather than Brimstone.

Clearly they weren’t paying attention! Hope the RAF remain on message when it comes to weapons integration for Protector.

Charles Verrier
Charles Verrier
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

I suspect this is the same reason we use US weapons on the Poseidon aircraft – everyone is getting fed up with UK buying custom versions of things that then cost a fortune (As per the Chinook HC3 debacle) and are not radically better than the fully tested and working OTS option.

Challenger
Challenger
4 months ago

That’s true in a lot of instances but I don’t think it really stacks up here. Brimstone is already a mature bit of kit with a proven track record and is in production for the RAF. The only cost is for integration on Apache but I can’t believe that would cost the earth. It sounds like what’s happened is The Army are in such a procurement mess across the board that they’ve not factored in the integration costs and been swayed by the slightly cheaper JAGM that’s good to go. But as I say this is completely against the apparent… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

“ The only cost is for integration on Apache but I can’t believe that would cost the earth.”

The US has a habit of charging the earth to integrate foreign weapons on its kit (talk to the RAAF about ASRAAM on FA18), especially if it also costs it a sale of something else instead.

It may also have been a factor in the rumoured very good price we got the Es for.

Annoying but sensible if you are the seller and people really want your goods.

Challenger
Challenger
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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!

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

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… Read more »

the_marquis
the_marquis
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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.

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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.

TM
TM
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Whilst Brimstone works very well when launched from a fast jet at altitude, it’s not designed to be fired from a helicopter operating in the low level environment. JAGM is specifically designed for that and as such is more reliable. Also JAGM means that a UK Apache can roll into a US FARP and have complete interoperability.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

MBNA tested Brimstone 2 on Apache in 2016 and claimed that integration was relatively trivial and low risk and certainly proposed Brimstone 3 for the new Apaches (in 2018 I believe). I suspect that cost per missile is a factor here in not taking that further though not buying more of them hardly helps in that unit cost regard. I guess its seen as a specialist weapon used as required from Protector which I reckon they see as the idea selective target platform perfect and stealthy to exploit its specialist areas of its capabilities and precision, whereas on Apache its… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

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… Read more »

dan
dan
3 months ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

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

Dave G
Dave G
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

It is probably easy to bolt on and fire (at least in a trials set up) but formal integration of anything that involves software changes onto an integrated system based aircraft often costs a fortune these days as it requires changes to the mission computers, databus protocols/scheduling and displays etc which are generally flight critical. The safety requirement for aircraft are very strict and even a couple of lines of code may require the entire system to be re-certified to standards necessary for flight critical systems. This is why you generally get block upgrades to software as an upgrade can… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago
Reply to  Dave G

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… Read more »

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Balancing cost vs. reward, at a guess – Hellfire is already in use with AAC Apaches, and JAGM will be integrated already into the new E models.

Peter S
Peter S
4 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

The worry is that like much of the rest of the 3 defence papers, the Defence Industrial Strategy was little more than hot air.
Brimstone and derivatives are successful and have been exported. What does it say to a potential customer if we buy something else for our entire attack helicopter fleet?

Ron5
Ron5
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Exactly!

Challenger
Challenger
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Absolutely! How can we market something like Brimstone to export customers when we won’t use it on our own kit beyond Typhoon.

It’s not just the US with it’s much bigger military-industrial complex that buys domestically wherever possible – just within Europe France and Italy wouldn’t dream of buying off the shelf from them for anything if there was a home-grown alternative!

It’ll be really interesting to see what happens with the choice of weaponry for Protector and the selection for the new medium helicopter requirement.

dan
dan
3 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

The US rarely buys foreign aircraft, ships, ect but does buy a ton of systems that go into those. Just ask BAE.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

We will see what happens with the mobile anti tank proposal that was announced recently that would really hit its chances for further sales if it doesn’t win that one. Not sure what their view of the numbers against capability balance combined with that usual overarching cost factor, will influence any final decision. Doesn’t bode well for any further development of such missiles if a foreign solution is used. Seems the best is not always any sure guide to being a best seller, especially when we make it. Not the first time that reflection has been made.

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
4 months ago

Would be good to see this Apache order double in size what with the cuts to CH2, Warrior and the delays with Ajax…. surely that would make sense ?

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

And the people to man it all? Pilots with lead times of 5 years and technical supervisors of lead time of 5-10?

Where do they come from for this magic growth?

If anything we need less, there is going to be bog all on the ground that needs air support!

Steve
Steve
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

5-10 years isn’t a problem, it would take that long or longer to actually agree a deal, pay for it and for the airframes to arrive. The only question is whether there is enough budget to pay for the air frames, training and support and clearly the answer is no.

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Quite, even if we bought such a force, we couldnt use it. As we found out with the Mark 1s.

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  captain p wash

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.

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Why is that Clear though ? We are losing Warriors, CH2’s, Puma’s Gazelles, C130’s, F35B’s, Typhoons, T23’s, another 20 or so thousand Troops, Hawks, Sentinels plus a possible cut or worse of any Ajax Orders……….. Maybe I just see things differently.

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Erm, sorry mate, I was only asking a simple question and I’m sure another 50 Pilots could be found. May as well just cancel everything I guess then…………. after all mate you seem to be the expert here.

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

Not really, not overly useful against a peer enemies in shoot out, with s500 and the like with out air superiority

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago

That truly annoys me. We’ve got a quality, world leading weapon in Brimstone and we buy JAGM that I don’t think is even production ready yet! We’ve even gone to the expense of test firing Brimstone from Apache!
JAGM is a quarter of the range and 30% more expensive including development (according to Wikipedia) for a promise of essentially the same warhead and seeker that we have now in Brimstone. I’ve no idea why the Army thinks anyone should be happy about this news…

Last edited 4 months ago by Joe16
Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Wiki numbers as a source?

Your Brimstone range is from a semi static helicopter right? Or from a fast jet at 400kts…

How did the test firing go? Perfect? Issues?

I assume they opted for this as it works, is integrated and so is very low risk. In contrast to nearly every other piece of Army procurement.

At some point you have to take the easy option.

Ron5
Ron5
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

The US Apache guys said the Brimstone firings were the best they’d seen in years. So yes, there’s reason to believe integration would not be technically difficult.

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

Thanks, I didn’t know that. I clarified my position more broadly too, but that is helpful extra info.
Really disappointing decision by the Army in my opinion.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

JAGM cost $238k a pop. Forbes good enough source for you?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/01/04/did-the-pentagon-use-new-joint-air-to-ground-missiles-in-killing-of-general-soleimani/

FYI heli fired range of Brimstone is 13km. So yes it shoots a lot further.

What risk? MBDA makes some of the best and most reliable missiles.

Last edited 4 months ago by Lordtemplar
Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

No, not remotely. Context- batch size, multi-year, foreign/domestic, variant, inclusive of any sustainment/r&d/integration costs. And so on. About as relevant as the price of corn really. Heli range of Brimstone is evidenced where, and what type of range is that? What happens at that magic distance? And some US Army guys said Brimstone were “best seen in years”. Define “best”? Define “normal” results. Fk me, ok, maybe DE&S arent the most amateurish about! Clue: Apache’s tail rotor moved from mid to top fin in development, did that solve an issue fully or just partially? Now why might a lower energy… Read more »

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

To be fair to Wiki, they’re normally pretty good- gone are the days when they just made stuff up! I did have a bit of a look around though, and the numbers match up with what has been published elsewhere. JAGM range is 8 km vs Brimstone’s 20 km, both from rotary wing platforms. JAGM doesn’t look like it’s been tested from fast jets yet because it’s not at that stage of development, either way I can’t find a range figure from a fixed wing aircraft to compare to Brimstone’s 40+ km. Reports of the Brimstone launch tests from Apache… Read more »

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Wiki is good mate unlike some “Experts” on here, Wiki does invite and encourage Corrections and allows true experts on subjects to make those corrections….. again unlike on here where one’s opinion just invites scorn all from behind an anonymous user name and non traceable source. Jst my opinion. 😁 

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Wiki is junk for military equipment specs, especially anything to do with weapon system ranges it really is. Brimstone was not added to Typhoon at short notice – it was Project Centurion and took many years from concept to operational release. Over Libya it was fired by Tornado, with some mixed results (generally good, but note how its never been employed in autonomous mode again and hence DM Brimstone’s development). I think the Army is in a bad place where it has an obsession with the US Army, cant procure nearly anything and is getting desperate as to what it… Read more »

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Difficult to be certain as it was from MBNA itself but the source that I read (not Wiki a Defence journal) certainly claimed the tests were successful and as I said above claimed (at least by MBNA) to be low risk. So believe them or not. But as I also say above I think the reasons are more down to missile cost against how often you would need their unique capabilities from that particular platform and that Protector better exploits those specialist aspects. And the rest of the story revolves around what Rogbob says above the US has many reasons… Read more »

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Cost’s to integrate probably mate.

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago
Reply to  captain p wash

Good point, estimates are in at about £70M, but givent he benefit to UK manufacturing and potential sales to other countries ont he back of the integration I’d have gone for it…

Dave G
Dave G
4 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

At tree top level, can you regularly see 4x the range in the terrain you want to use it to use the extra capability within the RoE? I dont know the answer but You cant just play missile top trumps, it is about the whole system….

JAGM development and integration is being payed for. The uk would have to pay that alone for brimstone so it may not be cheaper to the uk on apache…

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago
Reply to  Dave G

You make a fair point, but the US Army themselves have been testing Spike N-LOS (which has about the same range and capabilities as Brimstone) on Apache, so apparently the requirement for that extra range is there. it’s all about distributed platforms- Apache E can control a couple of drones that can roam ahead and provide targetting information, and the idea is to have all kinds of distributed sensors and suchlike that can cue these weapons from beyond line of sight of the launch platform. We get in Brimstone what the US army are looking for in two separate weapon… Read more »

dan
dan
3 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

And the Brimstone has much less range and no man in the middle like the long range Spike that the USArmy is buying.

Joe16
Joe16
3 months ago
Reply to  dan

Brimstone has equal if not longer range than Spike N-LOS, at 25+ km when launched from a helicopter.
I’m also not sure what you mean by no man in the looop; every Brimstone from Mark 2 onwards has this…

John Bayliss
John Bayliss
4 months ago

Can’t the Brimstone missile be fitted to the Apache?

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  John Bayliss

The Army have it seems decided to shift the blame for their appalling procurement decisions onto UK industry so buy US at every step. They then genuinely wonder why UK industry cant deliver anything…

It also illustrates just how badly the Army has gone down the “must be like a miniture version of the US Army” (BCTs…) in comparison to the other two who seem to have a bit more independent thinking and confidence.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Spot on, so much of this attitude goes back as far as the the war, change upgrade, modify and then wonder why its overweight, has technical problems, cost overruns or even obsolete and is late to service if it arrives at all. Pretty much reflected in every computerisation project Britain has tried to introduce this past 30 years tbh. Many a company has died or sold abroad due to such impenetrable policies. I think you are right the US has many of the same problems it (and its companies) can just afford to ride them out more, though even they… Read more »

Carl
Carl
4 months ago

Just wondering why I cannot find any reference to Leonardo building these for the UK under licence.
Do we know if they are or are Boeing building all of them?

Rogbob
Rogbob
4 months ago
Reply to  Carl

AIUI, the further a helicopter stays away from Yeovil, it becomes cheaper, more reliable and better at its job.

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Cheaper yes but not too sure about Reliability or being better at it’s job……. I’ll ask the question next time we all meet up.

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 months ago

Could anyone explain to me why Wildcat and Apache come out of Army budget and Puma and Chinook the RAF’s ?

BigH1979
BigH1979
4 months ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Certainly can. Wildcat and Apache are operated by the Army and Puma and Chinook are operated by the RAF. And never the twain shall meet……

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 months ago
Reply to  BigH1979

Yep. Maybe another answer is ‘Because’.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  BigH1979

😁

BigH1979
BigH1979
4 months ago
Reply to  David Steeper

To be fair its a case that could be open for discussion. To my knowledge and experience the Puma Role is just a battlefield taxi and could be undertaken by the Army i suppose. Chinook probably has more of a logistical element to it that is a bit more specialized and would ideally be kept under ‘Airlift’ capability. For Apache and Wildcat to come under RAF control would need a huge leap of faith from the Army i guess and im assuming wouldn’t be popular with the grunts. I don’t know how far the JHC mandate goes. And of course… Read more »

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  BigH1979

I think that the helicopters will remain in the same units,
FAA Merlin, Wildcat . Army Apache, Wildcat RAF Chinook, Puma ( replacement )But you could find RAF flying a wildcat and Army flying a Puma filling the pilot shortage.

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  Nic

I thought all three services ran a joint heli force?
Jagm seems mistake but I’m no expert.

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Dates back to a decision made on who operates helicopters (over land!) back in the 1950’s. The deciding factor was the aircraft’s weight. Anything under say 7000lbs is Army anything above is RAF.

the_marquis
the_marquis
4 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Didn’t the Army operate an Islander over Northern Ireland? But then it got passed over to the RAF recently? Is that really that light??

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  the_marquis

Yes the AAC operated Islanders during Op Banner they replaced the Beaver. I think that a couple of Islanders still operate along with a couple of Gazelles from JHC Aldergrove .

DaveyB
DaveyB
4 months ago
Reply to  the_marquis

Fixed wing army cooperation aircraft don’t fall in to this category. Why the RAF took control off the Islanders from the Army has been widely publicised. But may have to do with the Army downsizing manpower wise, but still requiring the requirement. The Watchkeeper UAS can do the same role as the Islander for video surveillance, not sure it can do the mobile phone ELINT stuff.

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Oh had a bad feeling it would be something as daft as that.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
4 months ago
Reply to  David Steeper

MT-Air is done by the Blue-jobs.

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  David Steeper

According to a recent article outlining the possible replacements for the Puma. stated that the Puma was operated by the RAF but it came out of the Army budget.

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 months ago
Reply to  Nic

Whoa don’t think the army would be happy with that. Rows about respective budgets and what they’re to be spent on rarely stay secret.

Finney
Finney
4 months ago

What a joke, JAGM is a poor man’s Brimstone that’s not even in service yet and the army go and buy it to save a few pennies.

John N
John N
4 months ago

This is the US DSCA announcement from last week for the Australian Army’s procurement of 29 AH-64E:

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-ah-64e-apache-helicopters

No JAGM for Australia, more Hellfire missiles which are already in service on MH-60R and the soon to be replaced Tiger ARH.

Cheers,

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago

3 AAC is mentioned, but not 4 AAC.

Is this the next stealth cut as 4 AAC goes and the two merge?

Considering there were originally 2 regiments of 3 squadrons each then 2 regiments of 2 squadrons each ( plus 1 Ops conversion Sqn in 1 Regiment) I’ve been expecting the chopping to 1 regiment of 4 squadrons for a while.

James Fennell
James Fennell
4 months ago

Possibly, although could also be referencing 3 AAC as first unit to convert. No change in number of active airframes. The plan is for 3 AAC to support the Recce and Fires BCT in 3 Div and 4 AAC to support 16AAB and/or FCF aboard carriers I believe, so would be a major problem to delete one of them.

Last edited 4 months ago by James Fennell
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Good point, it could mean that.

Didn’t know the Fires BCT detail where did that come from?
At the mo 3 Reg does support 3 UK Div.

Yes, one squadron in 4 AAC is 16AA/SF orientated and one squadron maritime focused, forget which.

James Fennell
James Fennell
4 months ago

From the Future Soldier page on the Army’s website..

  • A new Deep Recce Strike BCT will give the Army a formidable find and strike capability, connecting longer-range artillery, electronic attack and attack helicopters with the reconnaissance capabilities of AJAX and uncrewed aerial systems.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/events/future-soldier/

Last edited 4 months ago by James Fennell
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

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… Read more »

James Fennell
James Fennell
4 months ago

Yes I may have had my rose tinted glasses on

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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?

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

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.

Guess.jpg
Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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:

Wavellroom.jpg
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

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… Read more »

Last edited 4 months ago by Dern
Dern
Dern
4 months ago

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.

BA-Recovered.jpg
Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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…

BA-Recoveredgooldplated.jpg
Last edited 4 months ago by Dern
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

If you do try:
This
and
This

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

Last edited 4 months ago by Dern
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

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… Read more »

Caribbean
Caribbean
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Caribbean

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… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Dern
Ron5
Ron5
4 months ago

Bad decision, should have ordered Brimstone.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
4 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

Yeah it’s nuts. Brimstone is UK made, has longer legs and cost less than JAGM ($238k per unit). The only thing missing was airburst mode, but that was a proposed variant for Brimstone 2.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
4 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

Must admit wasn’t sure what the JAGM was and having checked just been reminded that this of course is the Hellfire upgrade that was chosen to develop rather than the US buying Brimstone a decade ago, for political and industrial/commercial reasons as much as anything else but those demonstrations certainly showed their need to improve Hellfire but keeping it ‘in-house’. I guess you can see their logic for what was deemed such a crucial missile system. Buying foreign would have been difficult to ‘sell’ at home. Someone above said that this is the ‘safe’ option, I presume they were referring… Read more »

Last edited 4 months ago by spyintheskyuk
Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

Not disagreeing with you, but all that is surely a reason why we should have avoided it in the first place and gone with Brimstone 2 instead!!!!

Paul T
Paul T
4 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

Similar situation in the 1980’s – Sea Eagle was developed, and equipped for Air Launch,a Ship Launched version was available too and the MOD inevitably chose Harpoon for T22.

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago

This is just replacing the Hellfires.
Meanwhile US is also ordering Spikes with 30km range for their Apaches that can be fired from behind a hill.

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

How do they take the Hill ?

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

So given that the army already uses Exactor, Spike for UK Apaches would be the way to go rather than Brimstone for the long range option.

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

Here is an article https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39826/an-army-ah-64-apache-used-an-israeli-made-missile-to-blast-a-small-boat-20-miles-away “The Army has already demonstrated the potential value of these capabilities in earlier testing. In August 2019, an Apache hiding on one side of a 1,600-foot-tall mountain at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona hit a surrogate for a Russian-made Pantsir-S1 point air defense system on the opposite slope with a Spike-NLOS. The helicopter remained largely concealed from and out of range of this simulated threat the entire time. An unspecified unmanned aircraft was used to first spot the target and then observe the strike. This would have been an impossible task for an AGM-114 Hellfire missile, the present primary… Read more »

Nick Harriss
Nick Harriss
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

As the British Army has a stock of Spike NLOS that was procured for a specific role in Afghanistan but probably no longer fits in with strategy, and this missile is integrated into the Apache, perhaps it will be repurposed?

Orlando M
Orlando M
4 months ago

No British contemt, then. No Bŕitish jobs so no British taxes from those jobs. Procuremeny should include requirement for British build or.content. how do maintain skills and capability without it.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 months ago

If memory serves, I believe the UK has been very involved in the JAGM project, with the missile being closer in concept to Brimstone than Hellfire. Cannot locate a source, though.

Grant
Grant
4 months ago

Shame they didn’t go with Brimstone, but hey why buy British!