Apaches

[alexanderpeterson]

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

 

[alexanderpeterson]

Also, the British will be soon retiring Gazelles, perhaps replacing them by Lynx Helos...they will prefer "replace" them by CAD Apaches

 

[AirDet]

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.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

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 ] :

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 After about 20 years, they are technically and operationally outdated.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

 

[alexanderpeterson]

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

 

[tomahawk6]

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

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[MJP]

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.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[alexanderpeterson]

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

 

[tomahawk6]

Just buy the choppers like Canada bought the C17.I think that was a success.

 

[GR66]

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. 

 

[NavyShooter]

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

 

[dapaterson]

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.

 

[Loachman]

Eighty percent serviceability is optimistic at best. Yes, one could reasonably expect that during a deployment, but it will drop dramatically in garrison for a variety of reasons. Major inspections on Griffons take a couple of months. If a deployed aircraft requires a major inspection, it goes home in the C17 that brought its replacement in.

We had eight Griffons in KAF, to provide up to three sections of two. Four back in Canada were prepped to go at short notice, partially to cover aircraft due for inspection and partially as replacements in the event of loss, and they did not fly.

So, if, out of ten machines total, one or two are sidelined for major inspections, six are deployed to provide two sections of two, at least one is set aside as a hasty replacement, how many are left for training aircrew and techs (conversion to type) and currency for those qualified (given that over two-thirds of qualified pers will not be deployed in order to provide continuous rotation)?

This is silly.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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 MLRS to our inventory and get better overall capability increases for the Army for the same cost as a tiny Apache fleet in my opinion.

There, FTFY

 

[tomahawk6]

A jog down memory lane. ;D

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html

 

[Good2Golf]

A jog down memory lane. ;D

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html

Not a bad piece, T6. A few details need tweaking (ex. original Chinooks retired in ‘91, not ‘74), but overall, the loss of attack aviation proponency post-unification describes a large factor. Arguably (or not?), that is the basis of the issue inside the military, but many would say the more important factor was the lack of will to pursue, or in fact explicit desire by Government to eschew any discussion of  attack helicopters — attack is such an un-Canadian concept, and one to be actively avoided.  It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.  The Dutch offered us some of their Apaches in the mid/late-2000’s, that...as with the American Cobras, we quickly declined.  AH in Canada never, I’d say.

:2c:

Cheers
G2G

 

[alexanderpeterson]

It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.  The Dutch offered us some of their Apaches in the mid/late-2000’s, that...

Thanks for sharing...do we have a way to know how many AH Dutch were offering, any News link or Government Announcement from Holland or Canada?