Australian Tiger ARH

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
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. As a result, Canberra now has a bit of a downer on either buying from Europe and being the lead customer for anything!
I was around Defence Sales when our Attack Helicopter procurement was the hot topic at Farnborough.

AH-64/WAH-64 vs Cobra-1W vs Eurotiger vs Rooivalk if I recall correct.

Given the amount of trialling and in-service operational experience UKFOR has now given Apache, I'd be interested to know what was the main influence on Oz to go with Tiger. Build share? License to supply other RIMPAC customers? Diversification of supply?

Or another very large brown envelope full of bearer bonds? :)
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Some call it more potent, some call it very expensive to operate and even more expensive to deploy It will need additional and costly modifications to improve utility at sea
Interesting..UK has trialled (and operated) Apache at sea since late1990s - 'cos I read the trial report when I was working at AAEE back then.

The UK's Strategic Defence Review called for Apaches to undertake amphibious attack missions, operating from the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, the Invincible class aircraft carriers and their successors

http://www.lzdzonline.co.uk/missile-success-for-army-helicopters-at-sea/


Always used to tickle me how the various competing suppliers take any opportunity to diss the competition. Good to see that although the world turns, much stays the same :)
 
Last edited:
I was around Defence Sales when our Attack Helicopter procurement was the hot topic at Farnborough.

AH-64/WAH-64 vs Cobra-1W vs Eurotiger vs Rooivalk if I recall correct.

Given the amount of trialling and in-service operational experience UKFOR has now given Apache, I'd be interested to know what was the main influence on Oz to go with Tiger. Build share? License to supply other RIMPAC customers? Diversification of supply?

Or another very large brown envelope full of bearer bonds? :)
The original requirement was not for an attack helo but for an armed reconnaissance IIRC (I think it's mentioned somewhere on that thread).

Facts to also consider are:

-log footprint of the AH-64
-operating costs
-a Tiger was crashed during the evaluation phase and the Aussies were supposedly well impressed by the way the crew survived
-Even though the Aussies haven't gotten round to actually deploy their Tigers, the AH-64 is an altogether larger, heavier, more difficult helo to deploy than the Tiger as the Dutch are currently finding out in Mali at the moment (link to AH-64 crash story below).

France go it alone in Mali
 
Last edited:

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Yeah, Kiowa and Apache very different beasts,different roles.

At about the same time, there was quite a bit of debate about best way to arm your AH to counter the airborne threat.

I'm guessing ADF don't figure on meeting too many of these over Woolamaloo :)

 
Last edited:
The only maritime Apache issue I heard about was that they needed a better windscreen wiper and wash squirter!

In contrast, the trouble with European utility helicopters is that they tend to focus on the cockpit but place less emphasis on the mission.

The majority of NH90 customers have had major problems with cargo area utility; Australia, NZ and Sweden are notable Examples. Indeed, after receiving it's NH90s, Sweden found them completely unsuitable for ops and were forced to buy UH-60M for Afghanistan. Australia and NZ do not envisage their aircraft being deployable for several more years yet.

Now, if it was just one country, it may be possible to criticise the thoroughness of their procurement process. However, there's a common trend in complaints arising from post delivery 'gotchas.' Yes France has deployed them but I suggest that there's a tad more political pressure on them to do so.

The 'great cockpit, shame about the mission' dynamic is also arguably becoming evident with A400M. Kiwi nervousness about a repeat of their ongoing NH90 issues will, I suspect, see them opt for C-17 vice A400M.

Regards,
MM
 
France deploying its helicopters is not a matter of political pressure; it's a combination of operational experience and operational needs.

The French ALAT has over 60 years of constant autonomous (emphasis on autonomous) operational deployments under its belt which is much more than all the other nations complaining about either the NH-90 or the Tiger combined. So it get things done.

Also, it hasn't got the built-in "it's US so it has to be better" device commonly found in Australia, NZ and Sweden and in many other nations; finally it is not afraid of sending into austere Op an helicopter it has accepted into service less than a year before. Combine all this and you have doers rather than winghers and NH 90 and Tigres flying combat Ops rather than staying in hangars.
 
Don't be so sensitive Fantassin.

There are plenty of nations who've experiencd difficulties with NH90 who are not traditional US customers. I certainly wouldn't describe Sweden in that mould.

Regards,
MM
 
No sensitivity, only facts.

Having worked with the Swedes (top blokes BTW) on two theatres, I can't think of a more Americanized European nation, complete with pick up trucks and Johnny Cash.
 
From an Air Power perspective I can think of several more American nations than Sweden.

Ultimately however, there are an awful lot of nations whose military have experienced numerous problems with NH90 and Tiger. I'm not a blind 'US is always best' individual (eg ASRAAM, Meteor, SS and DMSB). However, when I hear a lot of experienced aircrew say the same things, there must be some validity.

Regards,
MM
 
Seconded, the NH 90 story is rather bumpy but the different nations have a responsibility in it with their conflicting requirements and, in some instances, a degree of "wetness" which is hard to condone.
 
T

Tinman74

Guest
The original requirement was not for an attack helo but for an armed reconnaissance IIRC (I think it's mentioned somewhere on that thread).

Facts to also consider are:

-log footprint of the AH-64
-operating costs
-a Tiger was crashed during the evaluation phase and the Aussies were supposedly well impressed by the way the crew survived
-Even though the Aussies haven't gotten round to actually deploy their Tigers, the AH-64 is an altogether larger, heavier, more difficult helo to deploy than the Tiger as the Dutch are currently finding out in Mali at the moment (link to AH-64 crash story below).

France go it alone in Mali
Pretty poor show there mate, two Dutch free died.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Also, it hasn't got the built-in "it's US so it has to be better" device commonly found in Australia, NZ and Sweden and in many other nations.
Discounting the M. Chauvin element, there is a grain of truth in this.

The British Army has a high number of people convinced of the undoubted benefits of 'Made in USA'

e.g " M-16 - what's not to like?" " Abrams vs Chally II ? ' -no contest"

Just don't get a serving US soldier going on boots,MREs or flammable AFVs.....or issue helmets,or NBC kit....

Some interesting comparisons here http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/paratroopers-new-helmet-issued.231194/page-4

(Oh...and Humvees make the average Landy look like a limo)
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's been dust and heat that's been an issue for the Australian Tigers and MRH90. Rather the delays have primarily involved system integration, quality control and some associated safety fears resulting from cockpit fumes and engine failures. Some of this was poor selection testing by the Aussies, particularly with the MRH90. However, they have added up to poor availability and a lack of confidence in the aircraft which continue to prevent either being deployed on ops.

Regards,
MM
 
Ah gotcha Fantassin, my apologies.

Regards,
MM
 

FRA Army Avn (ALAT) NH 90s operating in the Sahel; the sand and heat do not seem to be an issue....
Great vid by the way. Those rocky outcrops really do look like something from another planet!

Regards,
MM
 
Probably a good news for the Tiger and Taïpan operators....

Airbus, Defence Materiel Organisation team up to establish Australian helicopter MRO facility
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
23 April 2015

Airbus Group Australia Pacific - a subsidiary of Airbus Helicopters - has commissioned a helicopter support centre in partnership with the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO).

An Airbus spokesman told IHS Jane's on 24 April that the joint facility is a "streamlining of an existing partnership". He added: "We've taken our existing agreement and co-located everyone so we have one team, one location, [and] one focus: delivering for the Australian Defence Force (ADF)."

(...)

The support centre is focused on providing engineering and supply support as well as technical services for the ADF's Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters and the MRH-90 Taipan multirole helicopters.

http://www.janes.com/article/50932/...-establish-australian-helicopter-mro-facility
 

Latest Threads

Top