Jump to content
tanknet.org

Australia Begins Looking For Tiger Replacement


Recommended Posts

I think the ADF has pretty much had enough of them by this point.

 

https://warisboring.com/australia-to-ditch-its-tiger-gunships-which-have-never-seen-combat/

 

I wonder which way they'll go with the replacement. The AH-64E is a lot of helicopter for what the ADF want to do, so I wonder if some kind of armed scout like the Little Bird might be a possibility. Another option might be the AH-1Z which could presumably operate off of an LHD.

Edited by Adam_S
Link to post
Share on other sites

They wanted a well-rounded miniature military with all the toys the big boys play with.

Now they noticed that they don't have any use for this kind of helicopter.

They will notice by the 2030's they they have little to no use for the super-expensive submarines they're now so eager to buy.

Australian security policy isn't known for being super rational.

 

On the Tiger; the whole program shouldn't have existed in the first place. We could have had Apaches in service in the 80's already.

Same with the Mangusta; Augusta-Bell even produced the AB 412, a Cobra with AB 412 dynamic system was the obvious choice for Italy (and possibly many other European countries).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issues seem to be that it had a prototype-ish nature when it was introduced and sending parts half way around the world back to Airbus for maintenance was a pain in the arse.

 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters

 

They certainly send the parts by air freight. This means the delay is maybe ten hours more than for operators in Europe.

Security may be an issue, but transportation in itself shouldn't be one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a SOF/light attack/utility helicopter project already ongoing as a sub-phase of project 2097. https://www.tenders.gov.au/atm/ShowClosed/97590740-e889-5491-6718-57cb64522cfd?PreviewMode=False

 

The Tiger RFI isnt interested in light attack/utility. Panther & Wildcat are unlikely to meet the requirements. Both AH-64E & AH-1Z are likely contenders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the issues seem to be that it had a prototype-ish nature when it was introduced and sending parts half way around the world back to Airbus for maintenance was a pain in the arse.

 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters

They certainly send the parts by air freight. This means the delay is maybe ten hours more than for operators in Europe.

Security may be an issue, but transportation in itself shouldn't be one.

Youre getting from Europe to Australia in ten hours? The fastest civil flight time from Paris to Brisbane, with a single stop, is 25 hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the issues seem to be that it had a prototype-ish nature when it was introduced and sending parts half way around the world back to Airbus for maintenance was a pain in the arse.

 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters

They certainly send the parts by air freight. This means the delay is maybe ten hours more than for operators in Europe.

Security may be an issue, but transportation in itself shouldn't be one.

Youre getting from Europe to Australia in ten hours? The fastest civil flight time from Paris to Brisbane, with a single stop, is 25 hours.

 

 

No, but guess what? Europeans don't exactly teleport their broken parts to the manufacturers, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how is Tiger working out for the other operators?

 

Sounds familiar.

 

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Caged-Tiger-Germanys-Troubled-Helicopter-Purchase-06411

 

 

Germany’s EC665 Tiger UHT/HAC scout and attack helicopters have traveled a long road since the initial 1984 requirement that launched the program. They were originally slated for service in 1992, but technical delays have dogged the project. Schedule slips and funding shortfalls meant that the EUR 3 billion for 80 helicopters wasn’t placed until 1998. Deliveries from Eurocopter began in 2003, but instead of having 67 helicopters in service by the end of 2009, Germany had just 11 – none of which are considered fit for operations, or even for training.

That issue came to a head in May 2010, as the German government moved to suspend the contract until these technical issues are fixed:

  • Unterstutzungshubschrauber: Germany’s Tiger UHT/HAC
  • Updates & Key Events
  • Additional Readings

 

 

TBH, the whole thing sounds more like a work program to keep defense contractors in business and civil servants in jobs than an actual defense program. Development has been agonisingly slow which has been exacerbated by each country's version being substantially different from all the rest.

 

The ADF and Australian government have prior form with this sort of thing too.

 

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/5FB79830-F807-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9

Edited by Adam_S
Link to post
Share on other sites

The German army made up a whole doctrine of bullshit called "Luftmechanisierung" (air mechanization) with all kinds of obvious bollocks and dreams fit more for a Jules Verne novel than for a serious military. They were excessively inspired by that one forward helo base in ODS.

 

They dropped the bullshit real quick once the orders for the Tiger purchases were official. Every single officer who ever wrote anything positive about that bollocks deserves to be kicked out of the military and be stripped of rank for either moral failure or stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that always intrigued me about Tiger was the TRIGAT LR missile which I believe is unique to the platform and only in German service. Regardless of the merits of the Tiger, or the flawed operational concepts that led to its purchase, how did the missile turn out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think the issues seem to be that it had a prototype-ish nature when it was introduced and sending parts half way around the world back to Airbus for maintenance was a pain in the arse.

 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters

They certainly send the parts by air freight. This means the delay is maybe ten hours more than for operators in Europe.

Security may be an issue, but transportation in itself shouldn't be one.

Youre getting from Europe to Australia in ten hours? The fastest civil flight time from Paris to Brisbane, with a single stop, is 25 hours.

 

 

No, but guess what? Europeans don't exactly teleport their broken parts to the manufacturers, either.

 

 

And other similar helicopters are similarly far away from their respective factories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance from Darwin to Marignane is 13797 km and to Meza, AZ, 13283km, so very similar. If distance to the manufacturer was the sole criterion, the ADF should obviously buy Chinese attack helos. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the issues seem to be that it had a prototype-ish nature when it was introduced and sending parts half way around the world back to Airbus for maintenance was a pain in the arse.

 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/tiger-and-taipan-a-tale-of-two-helicopters

They certainly send the parts by air freight. This means the delay is maybe ten hours more than for operators in Europe.

Security may be an issue, but transportation in itself shouldn't be one.

Youre getting from Europe to Australia in ten hours? The fastest civil flight time from Paris to Brisbane, with a single stop, is 25 hours.

No, but guess what? Europeans don't exactly teleport their broken parts to the manufacturers, either.

And other similar helicopters are similarly far away from their respective factories.

Quite. Reinforces the ridiculousness of the statement. Spares availability doesn*t refer to transit time, it refers to the fact that spares take forever for this OEM to produce, reducing operational availability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So how is Tiger working out for the other operators?

Sounds familiar.

 

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Caged-Tiger-Germanys-Troubled-Helicopter-Purchase-06411

 

Germanys EC665 Tiger UHT/HAC scout and attack helicopters have traveled a long road since the initial 1984 requirement that launched the program. They were originally slated for service in 1992, but technical delays have dogged the project. Schedule slips and funding shortfalls meant that the EUR 3 billion for 80 helicopters wasnt placed until 1998. Deliveries from Eurocopter began in 2003, but instead of having 67 helicopters in service by the end of 2009, Germany had just 11 none of which are considered fit for operations, or even for training.

That issue came to a head in May 2010, as the German government moved to suspend the contract until these technical issues are fixed:

  • Unterstutzungshubschrauber: Germanys Tiger UHT/HAC
  • Updates & Key Events
  • Additional Readings

 

TBH, the whole thing sounds more like a work program to keep defense contractors in business and civil servants in jobs than an actual defense program. Development has been agonisingly slow which has been exacerbated by each country's version being substantially different from all the rest.

 

The ADF and Australian government have prior form with this sort of thing too.

 

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/5FB79830-F807-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9

Basically the Arjun of helicopters.

If you got people completing their entire careers in the military between the start of the program and today, when it's still in an early stage, you know that none of importance gave a shit about the program anyway, or someone very important just wanted to be placed somewhere comfortable and for the money to just flow.

 

And it's a no brainer that everyone who buys this garbage will want a radically different version. A mid 80's helicopter is not fit for the reality of the 2020's, so it needs serious upgrades to meet ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact there is no newer Western attack helicopter design. Which might actually be the problem - after the impact of the Cold War's end which also delayed or outright killed so many other 80s projects, Tiger has yet to see any major updates. Even the next-youngest Mangusta has evolved quite a bit over its life by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the attack helicopter, it was built for vietnam with the premise that a Helicopter, with armour, could survive over enemy forces. And that worked fine, till the MANPAD came out. In fact, its questionable how great a concept it ever really was. You only have to look at that Aviation Brigade that was shot to bits over the skies over Iraq, the premise of operating rotory wing aircraft deep inenemy terrain is not a particularly great one. At night, well maybe its pardonable, but with the 24 hour concept of warfare, who these days is willing to wait till it gets dark?

 

It all looks a bit out of date now we have predator drones. Its surely only a matter of time before someone comes up with an armed gunship that is a drone, which is surely a much better option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That mission in Iraq gets a lot of focus but it was a horribly planned route determined by artillery and fixed wing operations elsewhere and the intelligence was so out of date they were flying over suburbs that were supposed to be open desert IIRC. I don't think it is fair to dismiss the entire attack helicopter concept based on that incident.

 

Seems like the RAH-66 might have been a good fit for the Australians had that program not been canned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are different design roles within the attack helicopter category. The Apache was primarily anti-tank thus not likely born out of Vietnam War experience. Russia used helicopters quite extensively in Syria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...