Author Topic: Apaches  (Read 65037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Apaches
« Reply #150 on: May 01, 2018, 16:10:32 »

One idea to upgrade Griffons into a UH1Y Venom (Bell 412 Mirabel Hardware) installing Rocket Launchers for Hydra or equivalent and both automatic Gatling -


I agree that may be the easiest COA to sell to the politicians and public, but the Bell412 has a critical flaw. She's too slow. The Chinhooks had to slow down so the "escorts" could keep up in Afghanistan.

It may be easier to have any used AH we purchase refurbished and upgraded in Canada thus providing high tech jobs. We know that no matter what used helo we purchase it'll need to be modified. Use that as a selling feature to our political masters and the public.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 339
Re: Apaches
« Reply #151 on: May 01, 2018, 16:27:43 »
I agree that may be the easiest COA to sell to the politicians and public, but the Bell412 has a critical flaw. She's too slow. The Chinhooks had to slow down so the "escorts" could keep up in Afghanistan.

It may be easier to have any used AH we purchase refurbished and upgraded in Canada thus providing high tech jobs. We know that no matter what used helo we purchase it'll need to be modified. Use that as a selling feature to our political masters and the public.

In this hypothetical I'm guessing CH-146 get upgraded powertrains just like the UH-1N/Y's, although I'm guessing the government would prefer to stay with PWC engines.

Can Mirabel do this work? Can the 412 be turned into a UH-1Y? Or would it end up as a my grandfather's axe situation much like the UH-1Y or the LAV program?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,562
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Apaches
« Reply #152 on: May 01, 2018, 16:41:33 »
Going by Wiki, the Chinook F is still faster than a Apache, from reports I read there is no helicopter in NATO that can keep up with a Chinook and flight scheduling had to be done to ensure the escorts arrived just before the Chinooks did in Afghanistan.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 294,241
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,904
Re: Apaches
« Reply #153 on: May 01, 2018, 18:02:55 »
What about a weaponized chinook.

Swap the C6s with HMGs.  Maybe put some TOW missiles on it like the cobra has.  Auto cannon under the nose?
Fill the back with a gps jammer and cell phone spoofer.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Re: Apaches
« Reply #154 on: May 01, 2018, 18:21:38 »
Quote
Can the 412 be turned into a UH-1Y? Or would it end up as a my grandfather's axe situation much like the UH-1Y or the LAV program?

I think that was exactly the point of the USMC approach. Similar to the Lav 6.0 it was sold as an upgrade to an existing platform when essentially it was (and now truly is- approval for new airframes has been given) an entirely new aircraft. They are quite a bit faster (only 11km/hr slower than a chinook) and more powerful than the old Hueys let alone a Griffon.

In a way this is a clever (albeit somewhat sneaky) approach to military procurement. We can learn a lot from the USMC; like them we are an underfunded force that needs to scrimp and economize.


The parts commonality with the Cobra makes that a more realistic (although still unlikely) prospect than buying Apaches.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 18:26:55 by Loch Sloy! »
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 244,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,719
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Apaches
« Reply #155 on: May 01, 2018, 19:23:04 »
What about a weaponized chinook.

Swap the C6s with HMGs.  Maybe put some TOW missiles on it like the cobra has.  Auto cannon under the nose?
Fill the back with a gps jammer and cell phone spoofer.

Although I'm in danger of thread jumping, if we really want a cost effective and flexible ground support platform in the face of a cost shy, pacifist oriented prevailing government culture, we should buy something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx58ig-dZSA

Call it a 'trainer with teeth'.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,598
Re: Apaches
« Reply #156 on: May 01, 2018, 20:21:38 »
...

Call it a 'trainer with teeth'.
As a reminder of what our last, "Trainer with teeth," looked like.

Sorry for the further derail...

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: Apaches
« Reply #157 on: May 01, 2018, 20:40:50 »
It may be easier to have any used AH we purchase refurbished and upgraded in Canada thus providing high tech jobs. We know that no matter what used helo we purchase it'll need to be modified. Use that as a selling feature to our political masters and the public.

Another adept to the cause...I really think the cheapest way is for British Army to hand over their used old Apaches (name of the thread), us to upgraded them here (job, Jobs,Jobs)...use them at BATUS (deterrence) improving/creating our inter arms doctrine...leveraging their experience and logistics (cost)

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,593
  • Crewman
Re: Apaches
« Reply #158 on: May 01, 2018, 21:01:03 »
I am curious, why you would want them to stationed at BATUS?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 244,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,719
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Apaches
« Reply #159 on: May 01, 2018, 22:03:19 »
I am curious, why you would want them to stationed at BATUS?

I'm assuming that it's because the 'Limey LAD' is located there.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 00:17:41 by daftandbarmy »
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: Apaches
« Reply #160 on: May 01, 2018, 22:51:05 »
Good one...No. My assumption is related to creating an agreement for the used former British Hardware ergo they will need something in return and as we all know we don't have enough Loonies...what best that use as a leverage something more valuable that training ground

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: Apaches
« Reply #161 on: May 01, 2018, 22:55:53 »
Also, the British will be soon retiring Gazelles, perhaps replacing them by Lynx Helos...they will prefer "replace" them by CAD Apaches

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Apaches
« Reply #162 on: May 02, 2018, 14:17:11 »
In this hypothetical I'm guessing CH-146 get upgraded powertrains just like the UH-1N/Y's, although I'm guessing the government would prefer to stay with PWC engines.

Can Mirabel do this work? Can the 412 be turned into a UH-1Y? Or would it end up as a my grandfather's axe situation much like the UH-1Y or the LAV program?

If we had the Griffons built to MilSpec that would be a great plan. As they are now, the frames are getting stressed.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,092
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Apaches
« Reply #163 on: May 02, 2018, 14:49:45 »
Less the cross-beam baffling surrounding the underfloor fuel-cells, the physical airframe is nearly identical to the CH-135 Twin Huey’s. Electronics and some EMI/EMC shielding was only approved to civvy specifications, engines actually upgraded, but the structure and transmission, hydraulics are close to being identical.  Considering how the Huey’s were looking just before retirement, the Griffin is actually doing relatively well for the same age now.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,558
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Apaches
« Reply #164 on: May 02, 2018, 15:40:02 »
As for the madly militaristic killer Dutch (they had four Apaches in Mali with MINUSMA, killed some bad guys: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37618:dutch-apaches-strike-mali-rebels&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107 ] :

Quote
Defense Wants Modern Apache Combat Helicopters


The Dutch defense ministry has told Parliament it has launched the upgrade of its AH-64D Apache attack helicopters to “E” Guardian standard, but only said the cost will vary between “€250 million and €1 billion”. (NL MoD photo)

Defense wants to modernize the fleet of 28 aircraft AH-64D Apache combat helicopters. After about 20 years, they are technically and operationally outdated. The aircraft are being thoroughly modernized so that the Air Force can continue to operate Apaches until 2050. This is what State Secretary for Defence Barbara Visser reports today in a letter to the House of Representatives.

The Apache is especially important in joint operations with other air force units, and provides firepower and observation capabilities during land operations. However, technical and operational factors make the deployment of the helicopters more difficult. This already leads to operational restrictions in circumstances with high threat levels. The limitations are increasing because of rapid technological developments...

Remanufacture means rebuilding and overhauling the existing AH-64D helicopters. They are equipped with new fuselages, transmissions, rotor blades, and the power of the engines is increased. If everything goes according to plan, the Air Force will again have brand-new aircraft from 2022 onwards.

The modernization costs between € 250 million and € 1 billion.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/192966/dutch-launch-apache-helicopter-upgrade.html

Theme song for RCAF (and Canadian Army):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnpbzmjcxQM

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: Apaches
« Reply #165 on: May 04, 2018, 15:34:12 »
So...28 AH64D to E cost between 384.4 MMCAD - 1.5 Billion meaning low end 14 MMCAD per Helo converted...so 10 - 16 will cost 140 MMCAD - 250 MMCAD

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,790
Re: Apaches
« Reply #166 on: May 04, 2018, 17:56:36 »
The Dutch may well need the Apache in the anti-tank role living on the continent.Canada has different needs IMO.During Vietnam 4 CH-47's were built as gunships,a helicopter version of the AC-130.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttpWwcSjy4

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,092
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Apaches
« Reply #167 on: May 06, 2018, 11:03:50 »
So...28 AH64D to E cost between 384.4 MMCAD - 1.5 Billion meaning low end 14 MMCAD per Helo converted...so 10 - 16 will cost 140 MMCAD - 250 MMCAD

Given that the Government doesn't do "aircraft-only, nothing else in support" acquisition, I'd be willing to bet more accurate numbers would be:

16 AH-64E at FMS rates (US cost (page 21 - $32.25MM + 10%) of 35MM USD per aircraft (560MM USD) + initial provisioning of associated equipment and sparing at 50% (280MM USD) plus 75% of airframe acquisition for infrastructure and simulators and courseware (420MM USD) plus 3 x acquisition costs for 20-years of in-service-support (1,680MM USD) + 15% of airframe cost for annual O&M (84MM x 20 = 1,680MM USD).  Consider that both ISS and O&M are planned in BY not CY, and for 20 years, you have to apply an accrual factor of (approximately) 1.63 (using 2.5% annual increase, in reality defence inflation is closer to 5-7.5% technology dependant) so both your ISS and O&M budgets of 1,680MM USD becomes 2,740MM USD, so your running total is (560MM + 280MM + 420MM + 2,740MM + 2,740MM = ) 6,740MM USD. 

Let's use today's exchange rate of 0.78 USD / CAD, so the total CH-164E program cost including acquisition of helicopters and equipment, simulators, course-ware, infrastructure, in-service support and life-cycle management would be 8,640MM CAD CY (current year).

In other words, that would be about $8.6 Billion total cost to the Department to run 16 Apaches for 20 years.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 165,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Apaches
« Reply #168 on: May 06, 2018, 13:09:45 »
Given that the Government doesn't do "aircraft-only, nothing else in support" acquisition, I'd be willing to bet more accurate numbers would be:

16 AH-64E at FMS rates (US cost (page 21 - $32.25MM + 10%) of 35MM USD per aircraft (560MM USD) + initial provisioning of associated equipment and sparing at 50% (280MM USD) plus 75% of airframe acquisition for infrastructure and simulators and courseware (420MM USD) plus 3 x acquisition costs for 20-years of in-service-support (1,680MM USD) + 15% of airframe cost for annual O&M (84MM x 20 = 1,680MM USD).  Consider that both ISS and O&M are planned in BY not CY, and for 20 years, you have to apply an accrual factor of (approximately) 1.63 (using 2.5% annual increase, in reality defence inflation is closer to 5-7.5% technology dependant) so both your ISS and O&M budgets of 1,680MM USD becomes 2,740MM USD, so your running total is (560MM + 280MM + 420MM + 2,740MM + 2,740MM = ) 6,740MM USD. 

Let's use today's exchange rate of 0.78 USD / CAD, so the total CH-164E program cost including acquisition of helicopters and equipment, simulators, course-ware, infrastructure, in-service support and life-cycle management would be 8,640MM CAD CY (current year).

In other words, that would be about $8.6 Billion total cost to the Department to run 16 Apaches for 20 years.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

It's almost like you know the process and costing to bring a new capability into the CAF.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,092
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Apaches
« Reply #169 on: May 06, 2018, 17:49:17 »
It's almost like you know the process and costing to bring a new capability into the CAF.

...and the scars from the Auditor General's audit to boot!   ;D

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: Apaches
« Reply #170 on: May 10, 2018, 21:07:09 »
Thanks for that info, it was really interesting. Playing with numbers...

1. We can reduce from 16 to 10…from 560 to 350
2. The cost mentioned is Acquisition not conversion, right? Can be reduce even further
3. We can reduce Spare Parts having an Shared Agreement Cost with US or UK (Consignment Inventory or similar)
4. Simulators can be shared with UK and US
5. As 10 pieces instead of 16 Accrual reduced from 2.7 to 1.7 Billion
6. Idem item above
So cost per year will be around 300 CAD MM or even less



Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,790
Re: Apaches
« Reply #171 on: May 10, 2018, 21:20:29 »
Just buy the choppers like Canada bought the C17.I think that was a success.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 56,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 623
Re: Apaches
« Reply #172 on: May 10, 2018, 22:16:06 »
What's the point of 10 Apaches?  Not enough capacity to make any difference in a major conflict with China or Russia (or Iran or North Korea for that matter) and a major drain on resources for an orphan fleet for that negligible return.

Adding 10 more MPAs, Cyclones, Hercs or fighters would be less of a drain with greater return if you want to add aircraft.  Alternately,  you could add mortars, ATGMs or more tanks to our inventory and get better overall capability increases for the Army for the same cost as a tiny Apache fleet in my opinion. 

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,371
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,076
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Apaches
« Reply #173 on: May 10, 2018, 22:22:28 »
Yes, please, do tell what f***ing good a 'fleet' of 10 Apaches would be?

Let us divide this up - from open source, (google- second link) the 'expected readiness rate' for an Apache Squadron is 80%.

So, of our 10 airframes, only 8 are available.

How many do we need for Force Generation? 

How many do we intend to deploy at any given time?

How many do we want on EX MR?

What good are 10 airframes....?  It's honestly not even worth the effort to explain to you why this is so dumb, so I'm just going to stop here.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 459,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,682
Re: Apaches
« Reply #174 on: May 10, 2018, 22:41:44 »
Sharing simulators is not good. You are forced to maintain the same upgrade path, loose time to travel to and from, and can't integrate the sims into your electronic battlespace.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html