Australian Tiger ARH

tigre-20141128.jpg

FRA Tigre HAD in CAR

dethelico-20130312.jpg


FRA Tigre HAP and Gazelle in support of FRA forces in the mountains of AFG (RC-E)

French Tigre have operated in anger in

-Sahel region
-Afghanistan
-Central African Republic
-Libya
-Somalia (one raid)

and they never have experienced such problems that they couldn't be deployed.

I don't know what the issues with the Aussie Tigers ARH are; have they have tried to add-on many Aussie or US parts that were not initially on the helo thus delaying its FOC date ? It would not be the first time that sort of thing happens....or is it Oz political "wetness" ?
 
It has also had its fair share of problems including fumes in the cockpit ,dodgy cockpit glass ,it was also overdue and i recall it had very little in the way of ground simulation for training purposes .I cant be arrsed to google it however so i could well be wrong as usual.
+1. Defence procurement strikes again.

In 2006 Tiger failed to meet its ADF operational targets due to insufficient power from its MTR390 engines. Eurocopter proposed an engine replacement programme to resolve the problem, requiring the replacement of the entire aircraft drive train and cost another A$100 million.

In addition the first six of 22 aircraft had problems with their radar navigation and altimeters, 30mm main guns, 70mm rockets, and aircraft mission management and electronic warfare mission support systems.

The first Australian-assembled Tiger, was found to have even more deficiencies.
 
Instead of keeping a differentiated fleet of 40 Tigre HAD and 40 less capable Tigre HAP, France will standardize on 60 Tigre HAD.

PARIS — French authorities have agreed to cut 20 Tiger combat helicopters and retrofit to simplify the two-model fleet to the more capable attack version, Airbus Helicopter executive vice president Dominique Maudet said on Jan. 27.

The value of the contract will remain the same despite the smaller number of units because unit cost will increase. The new feature is a conversion of the existing escort unit to the attack model, he said.

The 20-strong cut stems from the 2014-19 multiyear budget law, which slashed a planned acquisition of 80 Tigers to 60, reflecting tough budgetary constraints. The Army would have received 40 of the support and escort, and 40 in the support and attack version.


http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...france-cuts-order-tiger-helicopters/22530483/
 
It's fair to say that the Aussies have been very unhappy with several European products in the last decade. While the French have successfully deployed Tiger and NH90, the Australian Army have had no end of problems with both.

Much of this is likely to be issues with the Aussie spec kit which possibly explains why the French have deployed theirs but the Aussies have not. The French also have considerably more operational experience than Australia. However, I know at least one Brit AH pilot who transferred to the Australian Army who has been genuinely concerned about the basic airworthiness of the Tiger (or at least the version delivered to the Aussies). I understand that they're close to resolving issues but not to the point of being able to deploy either Tiger or NH90 quite yet.

Likewise, major problems have been encountered with the KC-30 boom which has displayed a worrying tendency to 'do its own thing'! As a result, Canberra now has a bit of a downer on either buying from Europe and being the lead customer for anything!

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Talking about Op experience, looks like somebody in the FRA Aviation community has decided it could be a good idea to cash on it....

France offering NH90 training abroad

France's Centre de Formation Interarmées (CFIA) NH90, which trains French NH90 helicopter pilots and mechanics, is now offering training to NH90 operators worldwide. IHS Jane's understands it already has takers for the use of its facilities, with Belgium, Spain, and Sweden all planning to train personnel at the CFIA in 2015.

The CFIA NH90 is based at the French Army Aviation's (ALAT's) academy in Le Luc in southern France.

Belgium is scheduled to use the centre this year for the practical training of 20 mechanics, including an option for a 'train the trainer' course, with use of the CFIA's training devices enabling them to activate their NH90 unit. From 2016 onwards Belgium has a requirement to train around two pilots and six mechanics a year.

More at:

http://www.janes.com/article/48762/france-offering-nh90-training-abroad


Language may cause some challenges once all the Belgians have been trained.....
 
I was under the impression that all NATO military pilots had to speak English..or is that only fast jet/air force pilots?
Crew members yes but mechanics no...it'll be easier for the younger generations but the old salt could find it challenging....
 
It's fair to say that the Aussies have been very unhappy with several European products in the last decade. While the French have successfully deployed Tiger and NH90, the Australian Army have had no end of problems with both.

Much of this is likely to be issues with the Aussie spec kit which possibly explains why the French have deployed theirs but the Aussies have not. The French also have considerably more operational experience than Australia. However, I know at least one Brit AH pilot who transferred to the Australian Army who has been genuinely concerned about the basic airworthiness of the Tiger (or at least the version delivered to the Aussies). I understand that they're close to resolving issues but not to the point of being able to deploy either Tiger or NH90 quite yet.

Likewise, major problems have been encountered with the KC-30 boom which has displayed a worrying tendency to 'do its own thing'! As a result, Canberra now has a bit of a downer on either buying from Europe and being the lead customer for anything!

Regards,
MM
you sound like a man in the know ,but if the aussies are seriously blaming European companys for providing crap kit i'd be amazed ,its their own system of 'australisation' that f***s most of their gear ,a classic case is their current submarine .
 
you sound like a man in the know ,but if the aussies are seriously blaming European companys for providing crap kit i'd be amazed ,its their own system of 'australisation' that f***s most of their gear ,a classic case is their current submarine .
Their next submarine is probably going to be Japanese, "Australianising" that could be interesting...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-15/japanese-concerns-over-submarine-deal/5743022

Or perhaps it won't be...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/australian-government-promises-submarine-fleet-tender-1423392741
 
...if the aussies are seriously blaming European companys for providing crap kit i'd be amazed ,its their own system of 'australisation' that f***s most of their gear ,a classic case is their current submarine.
Not all their kit has been appreciably modified, notably the KC-30 where the problems encountered have been with the production standard refuelling equipment. Likewise, some Australianisation has been conducted on non-European products (eg the major AP-3C upgrade) without problems. For balance though, I should also add that the RAAF experienced problems with the E-7 and their Hawks for varying reasons.

However, European products do have a particularly poor rep in the ADF. This was a major factor why the RAN elected to procure the MH-60R rather than a variant of the NH90 which they already operated and which would have afforded commonality with Army MRH-90s and Tigers. Likewise the Army's Blackhawks have had to be extended in service to cover the MRH-90 issues.

Regards,
MM
 
However, European products do have a particularly poor rep in the ADF.
Christ knows why. DMO are hopeless at buying pencils, let alone modifying complex equipment. How many pairs of boots did they try to issue to us before they gave up? What about that disastrous wool fleece episode? all fleece jackets in the world are synthetic, but not the DMO one.

How bad are they?

Years ago we moved 2Cav from Holsworthy (Sydney) to Darwin. Down in NSW the Leopard 2s didn't need arcon, but in Darwin crews were on the verge of collapsing with the heat

DMO solution 1 - add beach unbrellas to the turrets. Seriously.

DMO solution 2. - build their own Australian designed aircon units, that had a small donkey engine, weighed 500 kg and hung off the side of the turret. These were so heavy that they started stripping turret ring gears. Crews had to lock the turret is a set position before traversing slopes. I forget the cost of them, but it was staggering.

No way, according to the DMO, could a standard part work in Australia. (they said this about the Steyr rifle as well).

In the end they scrapped the lot and bought the correct stock aircon unit.
 
i recall reading that that chopper had no night fighting capabilty hence why it was never used in Afghanistan ,this chopper occupies a similar place in aussie procurement procedure as its Collins class sub.
The only correct usage of the word "chopper" in your posts, Spider, is when you use it as a description of yourself.

You consistently embarrass yourself on a wide range of threads - it's just that you dont seem to realise it. Hence: you're a chopper.
 
The only correct usage of the word "chopper" in your posts, Spider, is when you use it as a description of yourself.

You consistently embarrass yourself on a wide range of threads - it's just that you dont seem to realise it. Hence: you're a chopper.
great post really imformative ,unfortunately your complete lack of knowledge on Australian military procurement procedure renders your thoughts here just as pointless as mine,nothing i've said here is disputed i have even provided the links ,and as any aussie here will tell you 'Australisation' is a term well known in Aussie land ,clearly you just need to create some excitment in your pointless life by baiting me .
 
great post really imformative ,unfortunately your complete lack of knowledge on Australian military procurement procedure renders your thoughts here just as pointless as mine,nothing i've said here is disputed i have even provided the links ,and as any aussie here will tell you 'Australisation' is a term well known in Aussie land ,clearly you just need to create some excitment in your pointless life by baiting me .
Posts & threads passim - Yawn...........




Chopper.
 
Re the Defence Materials Organisation:

The boots saga was incredible - between the end of the (excellent) GP Boot in 1999 and 2008 the DMO issued no less than 5 different designs of boots to soldiers. In the end they gave up and allowed soldiers to wear self purchased boots.

The mistakes were incredible. To make them "Australian" they made them partly out of kangaroo. Other than making them unique to Australia there was no advantage in using kangaroo skin.

They added one way waterproof valves and breathing vents in the boot, near the sole. Then they took away the one way valve in a cost cutting move, meaning that stepping in a parade ground puddle meant soaking socks.

The sole composition was designed to suit a bit of drill in a Canberra car park. As soon as they were worn in the field the soft soles ripped apart on the sharp rocks.

why is DMO so bad? Its full of "sheltered workshop" Canberra Public Servants, most of who have never lived outside of the ACT. The aging military officers who are supposed to provide the experience served during the peace days post Vietnam, with very little real experience.

But the problem is best shown with the story of the Corporate General Manager of the DMO, Jane Wolfe, was dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in March 2009. Wolfe was reinstated in April 2010 following a legal challenge against procedural aspects of her dismissal. Wolf had received six face-to-face meetings and 20 written memos re her unsatisfactory performance over 17 months, including nine warnings that she could be sacked.

Wolfe, sacked for unsatisfactory performance, then received a $277,076 payout for lost earnings, including a $38,000 "performance bonus". The taxpayer funded legal bill included $825,000 paid to the Australian Government Solicitor and $307,000 for the private law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...126844319?nk=f63a0d0dc3a738e15857d182353f3cbc

They are incapable of even sacking their own staff.
 


Since the NH 90 is also often mentioned in this thread, this is one of the two NH 90s currently deployed to Mali; they are fitted with pintle mounted MAG 58s for self protection.
 
Re the Defence Materials Organisation:

The boots saga was incredible - between the end of the (excellent) GP Boot in 1999 and 2008 the DMO issued no less than 5 different designs of boots to soldiers. In the end they gave up and allowed soldiers to wear self purchased boots.

The mistakes were incredible. To make them "Australian" they made them partly out of kangaroo. Other than making them unique to Australia there was no advantage in using kangaroo skin.

They added one way waterproof valves and breathing vents in the boot, near the sole. Then they took away the one way valve in a cost cutting move, meaning that stepping in a parade ground puddle meant soaking socks.

The sole composition was designed to suit a bit of drill in a Canberra car park. As soon as they were worn in the field the soft soles ripped apart on the sharp rocks.

why is DMO so bad? Its full of "sheltered workshop" Canberra Public Servants, most of who have never lived outside of the ACT. The aging military officers who are supposed to provide the experience served during the peace days post Vietnam, with very little real experience.

But the problem is best shown with the story of the Corporate General Manager of the DMO, Jane Wolfe, was dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in March 2009. Wolfe was reinstated in April 2010 following a legal challenge against procedural aspects of her dismissal. Wolf had received six face-to-face meetings and 20 written memos re her unsatisfactory performance over 17 months, including nine warnings that she could be sacked.

Wolfe, sacked for unsatisfactory performance, then received a $277,076 payout for lost earnings, including a $38,000 "performance bonus". The taxpayer funded legal bill included $825,000 paid to the Australian Government Solicitor and $307,000 for the private law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...126844319?nk=f63a0d0dc3a738e15857d182353f3cbc

They are incapable of even sacking their own staff.
Christ, that's embarrassing. I remember the boots saga. I was one of the last to get issued black gp boots in my battalion. They were brilliant.

Then came the brown boots that you had to smear in dubbin to keep them waterproof. They were meant to be an "interim " boot until new, sexy boots were procured, hence the cardboard inner soles. The "interim" boot stayed around for about 10 years iirc.
 

Latest Threads

Top