What is the advantages of the Tiger helicopter?

[yunmijj]

If a small country is considering to aquire attack helicopters, by what reasons it would select the EADS Tiger (like Australia)?

As for what I know, the price tags of the Tiger and the Apache Longbow are close, both about $15 million each. But obviously the Apache Longbow has greater fire power.

As for detect or tracking system, Tiger seems not not very advance either, both roof mounted sight or mast mount sight system of the 2 versions of the aricraft are having simular components -- CCD TV, FLIR and laser track system. The Longbow also has similar system but yet an additional fire contral rader. I understand that the Longbow fire contral rader may not mean much to a country that doesn't need to face a large amount of emermy's tanks, but hey, having an option is better than nothing. For instance, if the country select the Apache D w/o the Longbow rader, I guess (only guess) it is cheaper than selecting the Tiger.

Somethings good about the Tiger I can think of is its survivability, easy maintenance and easy-to-fly. But then, the AH-1Z and the Rooivalk also having these adavanges and are cheap. The AH-1Z will have much greater fire power -- it can carry the same load as the Apache does puls two sidewiders, it will also have a ungraded sensor and also an option to carry the Longbow rader. The country may need to wait to aquire the AH-1Z, but the Rooivalk is out there available already. For instance, both the Tiger and Rooivalk are not war-proven. So only by looking at the informations available on papers, the Rooivalk is having sensor not worse than the Tiger, while having greater fire power but cheaper.

Then, the only advantage left for the Tiger is may be it is "more stealth" than the others? Or there are other reasons that would induce a country to select the helicopter? Such as faster delivery, better training programmes, better after-sale services or having more confidence on the European areonautic technology etc? Or there are more advantages the helicopter has that I don't know?

[Gremlin29]

Aside from the obvious reasons of purchasing from other than US sources I wouldn't say the Tiger has any real "advantage" over other designs in the sense of mission capability. Apache's require a tremendous amount of resources to develop and maintain pilot proficiency. If I were making the buy based on personal preference my vote would go for the Twin Cobra. It is very capable, very proven and able to carry out the same mission Apache is. As far as quality is concerned, I would be confident in anything built in the US or western europe. My only personal flight experience with other than US built aircraft is in the Aerospatiale Dauphin which was a very nice airplane in all respects however a gunship it is not. For the ultimate gunship I would convert the UH-60...don't laugh the 160th SOAR uses the instead of the Apache's and for good reason!

[Salman78]

I don't see any reason for a small country to be acquiring the Tiger unless that small country has immediate surface armor threat from its neighbours or has a surplus defence budget.

Tiger and Apache are closely matched. Tiger has a better air-to-air capability with its minstral missiles but apache has better armor and payload capability.

Rooivalk, Cobra & Hokum are all much cheaper and still very capable choppers. Pitted against the Tiget they all will match or outperform the Tiger.

Tiger is the EU answer to the problem of heavy reliance on US arms.

[manna]

do u think the one can get the apachis in the open market , i dont think so , for that u need to have something realy good , i mean strong ties with american govt, coz they wont let u to lay ur hands upon those leading choopers of their inventory, and if u have got them GOD FORBID < then be sure that u will be crippled due to the lack of spares supplies and other maintanance facilities, coz they will be hampered through various knind of sanctions , be sure that u will be black mailed later on to keep ur stuff battle worth, so i think the buyer of tiger must have analyzed all this , otherwise do u think that some one would go for a less quailitative thing then some excellent stuff , that too once both are available at the same cost , and not price , coz in price the politics is involved and which has heavy cost particullarly in deals with USA< :smokingc:

[gf0012-aust]

do u think the one can get the apachis in the open market , i dont think so , for that u need to have something realy good , i mean strong ties with american govt, coz they wont let u to lay ur hands upon those leading choopers of their inventory, and if u have got them GOD FORBID < then be sure that u will be crippled due to the lack of spares supplies and other maintanance facilities, coz they will be hampered through various knind of sanctions , be sure that u will be black mailed later on to keep ur stuff battle worth, so i think the buyer of tiger must have analyzed all this , otherwise do u think that some one would go for a less quailitative thing then some excellent stuff , that too once both are available at the same cost , and not price , coz in price the politics is involved and which has heavy cost particullarly in deals with USA< :smokingc:

Well that theory doesn't hold with Australia. We have been military allies with the US since WW1. In fact we are one of the few nations who have commanded US troops in battle. No mean feat! ;)

The issue of US embargoes with Australia doesn't hold water. The Tiger was the better platform for our requirements. Pure and simple.

No consipracy theories required for this topic.

[Aussie Digger]

The Australian Army was looking for an "armed recon" helicopter, not an attack helicopter, ie: we were looking for a helicopter that would be suitable for armed reconnaisance and fire support. The Tiger was considered against Apache, AH-1Z, Mangusta and Rooivalk. The Tiger was chosen on the basis of value for money, after the competition was narrowed down to Tiger v Apache.

The Apache provided more attack capability than the ADF really required, and was far more expensive to purchase and maintain. In addition as Gremlin can probably confirm, the Apache's don't have a particularly fantastic level of reliability and require considerable maintenance support, something not well suited to the type of dispersed operations that Australia would conduct in defence of Australia or on other operations. Btw Australia is not acquiring Mistral AAM's, for our Tigers, though I wonder whether our current inventory of AIM-9M Sidewinders might be integrated at some point, which would give a good air to air capability...