Talk:AgustaWestland Apache/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

The picture is not accurated, it doesn't display the FCR.

I've added one that does. --Bob the Pirate 21:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So.., the British Army buys a 'copter with the designation "Longbow", and the first thing it fires on is French? We should have seen that coming...

- Astatine 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Firing on French targets is our speciality! :D David 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is quite hilarious. Spartan198 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

better

This Helicopter is a cut above the American counterpart; Its speed is quicker, has more arnament and its power output is higher due to its superior Rolls-Royce built engines.

That may be true, but you can't just claim that. You have to have reputable sources, otherwise it is considered original research, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- BillCJ 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

the engines from rolls royce (RTM322) have had to be de-tuned by 20% power as the existing AH transmission is not capable of handling all the power. Consequently the main rotor gearbox needs to be changed at 750 flying hours, as opposed to 1000 flying hours on the yank model A and D AH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.66.53 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference number 4 links to a server vendor site, not an article on transmission development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.4.108 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kamov

I seem to recall reading in either AirForces Monthly or Air International that Kamov actually proposed - although perhaps not with a 100% degree of officialness? - the Kamov Ka-50 to the British Army as an Apache alternative. Anyone else remember anything about this? - Aerobird 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apache AH1?

The article mentions an AH1 here In British Army service the Apache AH1 will replace the Westland Lynx Anti-tank helicopters ... Is this the MoD's designation for the 'copter or something? If not that should be AH-64 or WAH-64. Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed the MoD's designation. The "Apache AH Mk. 1" or "AH1". WAH-64 is just the type name. For example with the Hercules, while its "name" (actually the US designation) is C-130, it is designated Hercules C1/C3/C4/C5 in RAF service (depending on variant). Mark83 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't see that explained in the article. Would adding a sentence like this: WAH-64 is designiated "Apache AH Mk. 1" or "AH1" by the UK's Ministry of Defence. to the lead be a good idea? -Fnlayson 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the intro. I wasn't really sure where to add it, if you would prefer something else feel free to change it. Mark83 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I put that in its own sentence at the end of the lead. Edit that if I messed up something. -Fnlayson 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, looks better to me. Much better in fact! Mark83 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Rescue

This is believed to be the first time the Apache has been used in such a manner.

I've taken the liberty to remove this claim as there might be a precedent. Seems to be an error on the part of the original source and the hoopla that surrounded that event. A good dicussion on that event can be found here:[1] Htra0497 14:00, 7th July 2007 (AET) — Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

brimstone?

maybe we could add Brimstone to the Armament section? Main text seems to say its capable of firing it. 87.194.223.183 —Preceding comment was added at 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Brimstone is an autonomous anti armour missile based on Hellfire but actually having very little commonality and designed for launch from high speed aircraft. The Apache cannot fire this weaponSamsungjohnny (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tail Rotor Problems

When the Apache was first being tested in British service they found issues when firing missiles using solid rocket fuel as they would on occasion throw debris into the tail rotor which had potentially catostrophic results. I don't know the exact details and I don't have a source (nor can I find one on google) but I think if anyone recalls information about this and the specifics. Ooh actually:

In early 2001 the Apache community was operating under a shortage of M299 launchers and a Hellfire missile restriction. The M299 launchers, under contract to Boeing St. Charles, suffered a failure in recent testing and had been deemed unsafe. The power supply card must be redesigned, which was estimated to take 7-8 months to complete and qualify. Reverting to the old design was not an option; required components are no longer in production. DCSOPS had published a distribution plan. The PM-ARM is responsible for the development and fielding of the launchers and is working to correct the problems. The Hellfire restriction was driven by the new spacer in the motor impacting and damaging the stabilator and potentially the tail rotor. Damage to 19 of 43 Apache Helicopters was detected following Hellfire missile firing during the USAREUR training exercise VICTORY STRIKE in Poland 06-18 October 2000. Damage to AH-64A Helicopter horizontal stabilators was initially attributed to ground debris then later to the Hellfire missile.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-64.htm

I don't know where to add this in though, so many an editor could do it for me? (144.32.155.5 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

• That doesn't look like a new problem. Chances are that's been cleared up by now in some manner. Unless it was a long running problem, I don't think it is notable/significant and should not be added. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, if I recall correctly it was fixed, and although not very long running (a few months) did cause a loss of a few craft. It was in the UK media for some time. (144.32.155.5 (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Comms equipment ?

Hi

I took this little pic and wondered if anyone knows what that speaker lookalike and the object next to it are in the top left corner ?

It is from a Longbow Apache from the British Army ZJ202 - but unknown type

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think they are part of the Electronic countermeasures system. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be the dark dome and panel but the other bit just looks a little strange - I don't know of any ECM system that uses speakers like those out of a home stereo and the white one looks almost exactly like a £10 speaker under white plastic lol! Maybe we bought one from Korea...Chaosdruid (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your loadspeaker bit appears to be part of the Helicopter Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (HIDAS). For a better image see http://edsaircraft.co.uk/Models/Articles-W/WAH-64D/1/WAH-64D_031.JPG I suspect the "loudpspeaker" bit is optical and the other domes are probably radar. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah cool - thx for that - I was starting to think it might be some strange "Apocalypse Now" sound system lmao.

It was great to get within 5 feet of one for a change - and to see those 30mm exploding rounds, not something I would like to be on the receiving end of thats for sure. It must be pretty stable - the area they had to land it in was only about 120x120ft square and had three-storey buildings on three sides.

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The white piece is the Left Forward MW Sensor. The other bit is the Left Forward RWR Quadrant Receiver. There is a wonderful cutaway diagram in Ed Macy's book 'Apache' 5.64.223.224 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A note on the unit cost

Recently a unit cost per helicopter of 35 million GBP was added to the article in the infobox. Although there is a source given, I have seen many other sources which quote a figure nearer to 60 million. Also simple arithmetic shows that the unit cost must be higher. The programme cost was 4.1 billion GBP and there are 67 units. So (4.1x10^9/67)= 61 million GBP. Someone may like to change this. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An average unit cost like that is essentially redundant to the program cost listed. The unit cost figure listed is probably a flyaway cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. It seems that the 'flyaway' cost can actually have several different interpretations and so is actually a rather misleading figure. Combine that with the fact that it is often used without R&D taken into account to make the unit price appear cheaper for political reasons and it adds up to the fact that 'flyaway cost' is too ambiguous to have any real meaning. If the programme costs 4.1 billion then the real per helicopter price is 61 million as far as any reasonable person might conclude but I appreciate it is a question of definition. I suppose the total programme cost is at least given. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Average unit costs are always questionable, especially when you consider there's a manufacturer profit margin always hanging in there. But there are also problems with the method of dividing development costs by number built; we're in a poor position to judge which development costs were fixed, or attached to purchasing in global Apache components manufacture (Boeing Apaches now routinely have parts made by AgustWestland used in them; and transferring those from U.S. subcontractors would not have come free for certain), and those specifically attached to helicopter production. I do prefer using flyaway costs, which is what the government should be charged if they were to order future helicopters (though there are holes in that scenario, as most certainly the government would then bloat them by demanding upgrades at supremely high prices...), and does account for a seperation between sunk cost R&D and running cost production, which there certainly is in the accounting. On another article, the F-20 Tigershark, it had been added that the unit cost of the three prototypes for the cancelled program was $400 million, as the project cost had been $1.2 billion. This strikes me as supremely wrong, as first it was not cited to a source and was just an application of simple devision by the user, which could be called WP:OR, and that the figure was far away from what the aircraft was being offered at per unit; the F-20 certainly didn't cost far more than the F-22 Raptor per unit! Kyteto (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Kyteto. I agree it is nuanced. As for the F-20, if the programme cost $1.2 billion and only 3 aircraft were built, then viewed alone you could try and make the case that each airplane was $400 million but I take your point. No doubt much of that programme's R&D was used elsewhere subsequently anyway. So the cost for government re-orders seems as good as any. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

F-20 didnt cost $1.2 bill for 3 planes modified from the F-5 design. That was the total program cost accumulated over the entire T-38/F-5/F-20 development. US accounting rules allow that to be done that way but it must be written off when that entire program is closed down. The money is spent at the time but listed in capital account for the business. Similar to what Boeing has done for the 787 where over $30 billions has been spent, but listed in a capital account and supposed to be reduced over 1500 planes delivered. Example of actual costs for a whole new development was the $40 mill USAF gave to Northrop for the YF-17 LWF prototypes in 1972. The F-5G/F-20 development began began in 1975 with a new larger rear fuselage with single engine but using most of the tooling from the T-38/F-5. Expensive sections to develop like forward fuselage and wings were largely unchanged and radar/electronics were off the shelf items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okerefalls (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Apache naval operation

"Naval trials and temporary deployments at sea have proven the aircraft as an able platform to operate from the decks of ships, a capability so far unique amongst Apache operators."

This sentence is somewhat confusing as it seems to imply that only the Apache is capable of operating from a ship, which anyone knows is obviously not true. If that's not the message intended to be conveyed, fair enough, but the sentence needs to be reworded to be less confusing as that's exactly what came to my mind when I read it. Spartan198 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording is simply trying to say the British Apache helicopters are the only Apaches that have been operated from ships. That Lead wording has been adjusted some to better get this point across. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement

I added the dubious tag to the cited sentence - "Media speculation suggested that the speed on trialling and establishing an Apache maritime presence is due to the withdrawal of the British Aerospace Harrier II, as a stopgap replacement." Cite: http://www.defensetech.org/2011/05/24/brits-deploying-apache-choppers-on-carriers-off-libya/

The Apaches were delivered with folding rotors to be able to operate off ships with trials already conducted years ago. So how was Libya a hurried operation because of the lack of carrier aircraft? Mark83 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed today. Mark83 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)