New Apaches

[Nighthawke]

Ah ok thanks for that.

[moxey]

I thought they were new builds

None the less a very good catch by the Doncaster correspondent - surprised the serial was visible. Hopefully the 'new' numbers will be spotter friendly!

The serials don't stand out that much. But the new colour scheme (matt green) black numbers. (Faded). I would say easier to read than the old Apache s. In the rite light conditions

[tommc]

The serials don't stand out that much. But the new colour scheme (matt green) black numbers. (Faded). I would say easier to read than the old Apache s. In the rite light conditions

The AH-64Es are exactly the same colour as the Apache AH1s, just it is shinier and fresher and less worn and faded.
The AH-64E serial numbers are larger and MUCH easier to read.

[tommc]

The serials don't stand out that much. But the new colour scheme (matt green) black numbers. (Faded). I would say easier to read than the old Apache s. In the rite light conditions

The AH-64Es are exactly the same colour as the Apache AH1s, just it is fresher and less worn and faded.
The AH-64E serial numbers are larger and MUCH easier to read.

[seven]

3 times larger and easier to read!? Fantastic!

7

[tommc]

3 times larger and easier to read!? Fantastic!

7

Haha. I was well through a nice bottle of Malbec and was just trying to edit a couple of words. I guess I used reply instead!

I'm loathe to try and re-edit or delete the posts in case I totally FUBAR it!

[welshandy]

Why didn’t they get delivered direct to Wattisham?

Because the runway at Wattisham is U/S.
It was suitable for heavies only but not fast jets up until a few years ago.

From latest AIP:

“Use of Runways

The largely PFC surface has considerably exceeded its design life (DIO AD maintenance inspection, April 2016) and the integrity of the surface cannot be guaranteed. The following restrictions apply:
1. No take-off, landing or touch-and-go by fast jet or heavylift (eg C17, AN24 etc). Low approach to go around accepted. 2. Caution: Due to degradation of rwy surface a heightened risk of FOD from runway debris exists.”

Trev

Could they not have used a closer Base ie Marham/Mildenhall? Less distance traveled by Low Loader,therefore less cost.

[Ravendriver2008]

for those of you who live in Europe the 1st Air Cav are back in Europe on their Rotation taking over from the Fort Riley based 1st Combat Aviation Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division.

Just a bit of a correction here, its currently the 101st CAB on rotation from Fort Campbell. They replaced the 3rd CAB in the summer (https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Artic ... n-mission/)

1st ACB (not to be confused with 1st CAB who have also rotated prior to 3rd CAB) haven't returned since their initial deployment from 2017/18.

Beg your Pardon I was reading a Belgian or Dutch military FB news showing how they guarding the port when the rotational division came in and mentioned 1st Cab Sic.

Cheers

[Fighterfoto]

Far more cost in having the movements personnel drive to Wattisham and then have the C-17 reposition back to Brize, possibly the following day due to crew duty hours.

[paulk]

Not to mention the increased fire cover that would be required for a C17. Also pretty sure that Wattisham wouldn’t be open 24 hours and as the C17 arrived at approx 0100 hours then flying into Wattisham would be a non starter.

[Agent K]

Why didn’t they get delivered direct to Wattisham?

Because the runway at Wattisham is U/S.
It was suitable for heavies only but not fast jets up until a few years ago.

From latest AIP:

“Use of Runways

The largely PFC surface has considerably exceeded its design life (DIO AD maintenance inspection, April 2016) and the integrity of the surface cannot be guaranteed. The following restrictions apply:
1. No take-off, landing or touch-and-go by fast jet or heavylift (eg C17, AN24 etc). Low approach to go around accepted. 2. Caution: Due to degradation of rwy surface a heightened risk of FOD from runway debris exists.”

Trev

Could they not have used a closer Base ie Marham/Mildenhall? Less distance traveled by Low Loader,therefore less cost.

I suspect those far more experienced than some here and currently managing logistics will have used all the information they have to hand and proceeded with the most efficient/cost/operational combination.

[Nighthawke]

Quite agree Agent K - those with required expertise tend to sit in office chairs rather than armchairs!

[Finty]

Quite agree Agent K - those with required expertise tend to sit in office chairs rather than armchairs!

Indeed

[TeeJay]

Why didn’t they get delivered direct to Wattisham?

Because the runway at Wattisham is U/S.
It was suitable for heavies only but not fast jets up until a few years ago.

From latest AIP:

“Use of Runways

The largely PFC surface has considerably exceeded its design life (DIO AD maintenance inspection, April 2016) and the integrity of the surface cannot be guaranteed. The following restrictions apply:
1. No take-off, landing or touch-and-go by fast jet or heavylift (eg C17, AN24 etc). Low approach to go around accepted. 2. Caution: Due to degradation of rwy surface a heightened risk of FOD from runway debris exists.”

Trev

Could they not have used a closer Base ie Marham/Mildenhall? Less distance traveled by Low Loader,therefore less cost.

Well not Marham as there are no facility to unload heavy aircraft. And surely hiring Mildenhall to do it would cost more than using our own Facility at Brize?

[dotwatcher01]

20 years with a major carrier taught me rule number one with any flight "the pilot most get home on time". So unless the C-17 PiC happened to live at, Sandringham for example, Brize would always be findest.