Audit Slams Australia's Tiger Helo Program

Jezza

Member
The [Australian] Government's costliest defence project this year - buying 22 helicopters "off the shelf" from Europe - has again fallen behind schedule and could blow-out to an extra $110 million, an independent report today found.

Senator Mark Bishop, Shadow Minister for Defence Procurement, said this meant troops serving overseas must continue to rely on outdated equipment. The Auditor-General's report into the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Project was delivered to Federal Government this morning.

It was looking into why the project to manufacture and deliver 22 Tiger helicopters "off the shelf" from France - touted by the Federal Government to be the most cost-effective plan -- could actually cost taxpayers $110 million above the original estimate.

"Again, poor planning, inadequate specifications and huge time delays have led to a cost blow-out in the defence budget," Senator Bishop said.

The fiasco started six years ago, when the Government decided to buy 22 Tiger Armed Reconnaissance helicopters from France.

These helicopters provide aerial reconnaissance and fire support for ground troops.

But the army is still waiting for these, since four "test" craft delivered to the government failed to meet capability standards.

The test crafts' engines were too heavy and they consumed too much fuel, the Auditor-General's report found.

Four years on, this design fault has still not been fixed, Senator Bishop said.

The report also told how the Defence Materiel Organisation identified another 69 faults in the test craft that were eventually delivered. "Despite this, the Government still accepted the delivery of helicopters that cannot do the job."

He said the report also showed that to fix the design fault - and effectively make the craft airworthy - would blow out the budget by $110 million.

"I intend to ask how this has happened at the next round of Senate Estimates, since it is the largest capital expenditure by the Howard Government in this financial year," Senator Bishop said. (ends)


(Source: Australian Labor Party; issued May 2, 2006)

http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/0/349E96573F316C1ACA2571620018DD23

I thought this was a good project and was going well
 

scraw

New Member
Big-E said:
They should have bought Cobras.
On what basis do you make that claim? Cobras are positively geriatric.

In any event these are meant to be a Kiowa replacement with more capability/versatility, not a full blown gunship.
 

Snayke

New Member
Brutus Caesar said:
The fact it's been issued by the ALP should give you pause for thought.
I can't recall much lying by Labor federal members, besides, no politics. :p

Anyways, how does the Tiger rate up against the Apache, and other similar aircraft? I've always had a liking to the Apaches. :D
 

rjmaz1

New Member
I also thought the Cobra was a better option at the time. The King cobra is the fastest and most powerful and armoured helicopter. The

They are all roughly a similar size.

Apache Max weight: 7,530 kg
King Cobra Max weight: 8,400kg
Cobra Max weight: 6,690 kg
Tiger Max weight: 6,000 kg

Im sure the Tiger Helicopters will do an awesome job though, even if it only reachs 90% of the capability of what was promised it will still kick ass :ar15

Personally i think our requirements were wrong, we should have got much lighter/cheaper helicopter.
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
rjmaz1 said:
I also thought the Cobra was a better option at the time. The King cobra is the fastest and most powerful and armoured helicopter. The

They are all roughly a similar size.

Apache Max weight: 7,530 kg
King Cobra Max weight: 8,400kg
Cobra Max weight: 6,690 kg
Tiger Max weight: 6,000 kg

Im sure the Tiger Helicopters will do an awesome job though, even if it only reachs 90% of the capability of what was promised it will still kick ass :ar15

Personally i think our requirements were wrong, we should have got much lighter/cheaper helicopter.
The AIR87 program that resulted in the Tiger purchase evaluated the Tiger, Apache, AH-1Z, Rooivalk and Mangusta helo's, with Mangusta, Apache and Tiger eventually being short-listed. Tiger won based on capabilty, the degree of "marinisation" compared to Apache, it's main rival, cost compared to Apache and through life support costs compared to Apache.

True it's not as good in the tank killing role as Apache, but then it's not designed to. If we needed it, we could have bought the German UHT version which IS a dedicated anti-tank helo.

What we wanted however was a light maneuvrable and agile helo that was primarily concerned with aerial recon missions and able to conduct significant aerial fire support missions when required. Both Tiger and Apache were assessed as being capable of doing so to the required level, however costs were the deciding factor. For "bang versus buck" the Apache couldn't compete with the Tiger.

This article is rather disengenous in places and downright wrong in others. The "cost blowouts" they mention are largely a factor of currency exchange rate fluctuations (ie: if Australian Dollars lose ground against French Francs, anything you buy from the French becomes more expensive), this is what has happened and is something completely beyond the control of the Defence Department. Doesn't stop the media though...

As to the "significant" design modifications, well there were 900 requirements set down by the ADF for the Tiger to meet. 14 of these were modifications to Australia's specification. Roughly 1 per cent...

The major design changes are the inclusion of the Hellfire missile and M299 "smart launcher" and different spec radio's that are capable of interfacing with our "legacy" (aka: old) Army radio's.

These design changes contained quite a few integration challenges with Hellfire and M299 never having been carried by Tiger before. We have sorted it now to the point that ours are working fine and even Spain has chosen this setup over the standard Trigate missile the Tiger was designed for.

Once again we see a case of a reporter selectively quoting this report and not reporting accurately on what was written in said report. Labour has picked up on these few problems, (which as I've said have now been sorted anyway) and decided to play a bit of "oppositional politics".

A storm in a tea cup really and insignificant beside the important point that ADF can't recruit the pilots needed to fly the things ANYWAY. It doesn't matter how capable Tiger could be. No pilot, no capability. Pity Labour doesn't kick up a fuss about THAT. Possibily that way they could be useful. harping on about problems that are now fixed is worse than useless in my opinion.
 

scraw

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
ADF can't recruit the pilots needed to fly the things ANYWAY. It doesn't matter how capable Tiger could be. No pilot, no capability.
I've actually been trying for a slot flying Rotarys for a couple of months with a definite view to the Tiger, I find it hard to believe there aren't those out willing to have a crack, it's just the usual BS regarding recruitment.
 
Top