Main difference between Tiger (EC) and Longbow

[Oce]

I think this two weapon systems marks the limit of attack helicopters today...

But what are the diffrences ? Are there any ?

[indiana46767]

I think this two weapon systems marks the limit of attack helicopters today...

But what are the diffrences ? Are there any ?


Personally i think that the Longbow is the better choice because it has been PROVEN effective in battle. The Eurocopter Tiger's have not had as much or any proven battle experience. The Tigre is the next generation attack fighter but has yet to be proven in battle.

[swerve]

That's an argument for never buying anything new, e.g. buying the F-15 & F-16 rather than F-35 & F-22, because the last two have no proven battle experience.

[indiana46767]

That's an argument for never buying anything new, e.g. buying the F-15 & F-16 rather than F-35 & F-22, because the last two have no proven battle experience.

Or you can look at like the B 52 Bomber that the US had for half a century in their fleet. They had an aircraft that was proven so all they did is upgrade the avionics and engines to state of the art. Don't get me wrong i like the Tigre personally, but if i had these two side by side i would go with a brand new Apache Longbow. Now a cobra i would scratch them off the list for sure.

[StingrayOZ]

I think this two weapon systems marks the limit of attack helicopters today...

But what are the diffrences ? Are there any ?

Apache is bigger and heavier, carrys more, shorter range. It is more at home in high intensity conflicts, tank killing etc.

However the Tiger favours lighter but longer ranged missions. I think its a bit more stealthy and modern.

There are good reasons to choose either. Its a bit unfortunate no one really has had them ready to put them into combat because it looks like it would be able to prove itself.

[the road runner]

The Apache was designed to be a Anti-Armour helicopter.Its main mission were destruction of Armor.The crew compartment and fuel tanks are Armoured to withstand shots from 23mm Anti Air guns.Apache carries more weapons(16 hellfires for Apache compared to 12 on Tiger) than the Tiger,thus reflecting its Anti Armour role.

The Eurocopter Tiger was designed as a Armed Reconosance Helicopter.Its main mission is to sense the battlefield,flying with a lower silouette,lower profile and agility.Tiger has greater range than the Apache,thus reflecting its reconnasance role.

Different choppers for different missions.........

[Aussie Digger]

I think this two weapon systems marks the limit of attack helicopters today...

But what are the diffrences ? Are there any ?

AH-64D Apache Longbow is a bigger, heavier helicopter designed for firepower missions (primarily anti-tank) with recon as a secondary tasking.

Eurocopter Tiger is a lighter more manoeuvrable helicopter designed for armed reconnaisance missions. It does not pack as much firepower as the Apache and lacks the millimetre wave radar that Apache Longbow carries.

Both have similar lethality with Hellfire missiles, un-guided rockets and 30mm cannons equipping both helos (French and Australian Tigers carry Hellfire - Spanish and German Tigers will use different missiles), but Apache can carry a heavier load of rockets, missiles or various combinations of both, than Tiger can.

[Waylander]

I have to disagree.
While some versions of the Tiger are better suited for armed reconiassance as well as escort duty other versions are especially designed to fill the tank hunter role.
The German UHT Tiger for example is the direct successor to the PAH1 (On Bo-105 chassis) in the anti-tank role.
Just the recent shifts in politics lead to it getting pushed into a multi-role role.

The French also envision to use their HAP versions for the armed recon role while the HAD does the more serious fighting.

Besides HOT3 Germany is going to use the Trigat-LR missile while spain opted for the Spike.

Nevertheless you are right when stating that the Apache (be it in the longbow version or not) is the heavier gunship helicopter compared to the Tiger.

[StingrayOZ]

I think the Apache is better for target rich enviroments. Some sort of imagined russian tank invasion. Go, hit hit hit, refuel rearm.

Where as the Tiger is better at covering lots of ground, looking and then killing a tank.

Ones not really weaker than the other as a killer, they just kill in different ways.

They really are different horses for courses. Although both at a pinch can perform each others mission.

I think Australia made the right decision to go for Tiger, I think it will better suited our type of operations better. Range, we needed range. I just wished we were totally operational by now.

[Ananda]

I
They really are different horses for courses. Although both at a pinch can perform each others mission.


Stingray..do you think if comparisons more appropriate between Tiger and Super Cobra..
I've to admit have limited knowledge on current Attack Helicopters, but seems considering similarity on light weight and weapons carrying capabilities, Super Cobra seems more match with tiger compared to Longbow.
Don't know though on the range capabilities. Still from what I read, the lattest upgrades by US Marines for their Super Cobra's are quite remarkable.

[butterknuckles]

Stingray..do you think if comparisons more appropriate between Tiger and Super Cobra..
I've to admit have limited knowledge on current Attack Helicopters, but seems considering similarity on light weight and weapons carrying capabilities, Super Cobra seems more match with tiger compared to Longbow.
Don't know though on the range capabilities. Still from what I read, the lattest upgrades by US Marines for their Super Cobra's are quite remarkable.

My good friend Ananda, the Super Cobra indeed packs a desirable punch and is more slimmer than the both with advanced avionics and features though not comparable to the Apache Longbow variant it still carries a similar arsenal excluding that it uses a 120mm chain gun which is more powerful than the 30mm equipped on the Apache and comparing to the Tiger the Super Cobra as we all know was used during the Vietnam War as an armed reconnascience helo so I'm pretty sure it has more advanced capabilities today for the same role as well as anti-armour, sead and surisingly air defense. so all in all the Super Cobra outranks the Tiger and is near the Longbow.

[Ananda]

I'm pretty sure it has more advanced capabilities today for the same role as well as anti-armour, sead and surisingly air defense. so all in all the Super Cobra outranks the Tiger and is near the Longbow.

Interesting..
So if we see the scenario's of Cold War (thus) large theather combat environment then Apache is the only suitable western attack helicopters for that..??
While the SuperCobra, Tiger and AW129 although have anti-armour but their primary task is for Combat Recce and more suitable for non conventional warfere like facing western powers at this moment..??

Sorry not have intentions for invoking any debates of which better, but quite confuse on the capabilities of present attack choopers :unknown
Heard that economically, maintaining Apaches' are much more expensives than the other three, and for the current threat, the other Three is much more appropriates choices...true ??

Try to rationalise this, but seems on the logic of present threat, then Apache even the Long Bow versions should become the last choices, thus perhaps the US should increase the procurement on Super Cobra.

Can be the rank for Theather combat :
1. Apache/Long Bow
2/3 Super Cobra - Tiger
4 AW 129

However if for non theather combat environment then:
1/2 Super Cobra- Tiger
3 AW 129
4 Apache/Long Bow.

Is this appropriate ..??

[winnyfield]

Both have similar lethality with Hellfire missiles, un-guided rockets and 30mm cannons equipping both helos (French and Australian Tigers carry Hellfire - Spanish and German Tigers will use different missiles), but Apache can carry a heavier load of rockets, missiles or various combinations of both, than Tiger can.

The Apache uses a less powerful 30mm cannon but overall carries more firepower.

[riksavage]

Out of interest can the Apache carry external fuel tanks to increase range, and does Tiger come with a Longbow option whereby a single frame can datalink tactical information to the rest of the fleet and ground units?

[StingrayOZ]

These are all for different purposes.

Supercobra has a smaller (and less ammo) 20mm gun verse 30mm on Apache/Tiger. I think you will find there are some good reasons why people like the 30mm over the supercobra(jamming?).

Supercobra can fire Zuni missiles which I don't think Apache and Tiger have ever fired (Apache no doubt could be upgraded if required). By how useful are they?
Supercobra is often without radar as it has to be ineffectively side mounted.
Supercobra is designed to be a maritime helo and excels in that regard.

Tiger still has longer range, and can be made longer with fuel tanks on inner pylons.

I do belive the tiger can datalink up and down. It has a range of various higher speed protcol links it can do that to intergrate with a variety of other equipment.

I think for modern lower level engagements Tiger would be the pick. You could cruise for longer, stealthier, with lower on going costs. Its well able to take out. But then again it would be unsuitable for someone like the US and what they do.

[HKSDU]

People keep changing views cause its simple made in America. They favour Apache cause it has been battle proven. Ok thats fine. Yet then they favour F-22 yet it not being battle proven, simple cause American say its good aircraft having an impressive fake kill ratio. Which simulated in real life is completely BS. Are we just sterotyping American technology as being good no matter what platform comes of their production line even if it ain't? It can swing both sides, saying that a Cold War era is more advanced then current ones cause it is battle proven can be wrong. Saying that its battle proven but its adversary are obsolete Cold War era with poorly trained pilots can also be wrong.

Firepower each carries sufficient and equal amounts of firepower, the Apache doesnt have more firepower its just has more in quantity, being able to support armoured vehicles in the theatre for longer period engagment then the Tiger.
About the massive land invasion of tanks they aint gonna be lining up to be blown up by aerial ATGM without surface to air covergage.

[Verstandwaffe]

Personally i think that the Longbow is the better choice because it has been PROVEN effective in battle.

No offense but:

This kind of "argument" is PROVEN to be the only one americans have to say when someone pits US arms against european ones or others.

We have read this same thing for years regarding Leopard II

These days computational models allow a lot of accuracy when evaluating this kind of matters.

[Onkel]

The german Tiger UHU is the successor of the PAH 1, it was originally designed for tank hunting. The PAH 1 is a simple BO 105. The tactics developed by the german army are quite different to those, the US forces use. Do you remember the charge of a squadron of AH 64 during Gulf War three, countered by the republican guards on 24 March 2003? Such a Manouver is quite unthinkable for german forces. The Tiger would strike and dug, using natural coverage for hiding from hostile fire. That´s why it isn´t that heavy.

Apart from that, I guess no one of us knows very much about the performance of this helos.

[Waylander]

Using the terrain for a covered approach and then attacking enemy tank columns with pop up tactics is exactly what the US wanted to do with their Apaches if the cold war would have turned hot.
And the Apache-Kiowa team was defenitely much more capable at this than the PAHs.
And a modern Longbow is also better suited for the role of a massive tankkiller stemming the tide of enemy MBTs.
Not that the UHT isn't a capable tank hunter but the Longbow has alot of advantages on it's side.

That the Apaches took some beating during OIF had to do with faulty intelligence reports.

I hope we don't go on stating mere patriotic nonsense like Verstandwaffe does it without anything backing it.

[the road runner]

I have to disagree.
While some versions of the Tiger are better suited for armed reconiassance as well as escort duty other versions are especially designed to fill the tank hunter role.
The German UHT Tiger for example is the direct successor to the PAH1 (On Bo-105 chassis) in the anti-tank role.
Just the recent shifts in politics lead to it getting pushed into a multi-role role.

The French also envision to use their HAP versions for the armed recon role while the HAD does the more serious fighting.

The UHT and HAD are the anti tank versions for Germany/France(just been reading up on them);)

We do not get alot of press on the UHT or HAP version,come to think about it the whole Aussie ARH has been very hush hush of late.Last i heard the Commonwealth stopped payment to Australian Eurocopter.

Didnt Australia choose the Tiger ARH because it had an IOC 2005?

[Aussie Digger]

Firepower each carries sufficient and equal amounts of firepower, the Apache doesnt have more firepower its just has more in quantity, being able to support armoured vehicles in the theatre for longer period engagment then the Tiger.
About the massive land invasion of tanks they aint gonna be lining up to be blown up by aerial ATGM without surface to air covergage.

The Apache can carry a greater number of Hellfire missiles (up to16x as opposed to 8x on the Tiger), guided and un-guided rockets (up to 76x compared to 52x on the Tiger) AND up to 4x Stinger AAM's with a full load of Hellfires, rockets or a combination, the Tiger cannot match these numbers irregardless of the configuration it operates in and in the final nail in the coffin, the Apache has a capacity for carriage of 1200x 30mm rounds, compared to 450x in the Tiger.


The Apache clearly carries greater firepower, which is it's intended role, afterall.

This doesn't make the Tiger less capable. It's role is not the same as the Apache, is all.

[south]

As AD said, slightly differing roles. However, if making a direct comparison of firepower, while the apache is capable of such mighty feats, can it a) carry the 16xhellfires and the 1200 rounds in the gun simultaneously, and b) what does such a load do to the range/endurance.

From my reading (Apache/Ed Macy) (Apache Dawn/Damien Lewis)...both books on UK Apache's in Afghanistan.

UK Apache's are certainly not carrying such loads routinely (more commonly 4-6 Hellfire, 16-32 odd rockets and ~320 Gun rounds. Believe they have just had armoured (?) self sealing fuel tanks delivered for greater endurance.

US Apache's have sacrificed their Longbow for greater lifting capability in the hot and high environment.

Lets not forget that helicopters are generally affected to a greater degree than fixed wing by a change in density altitude and I'm sure rarely go raging around with the configs listed by AD.

[Firn]

Using the terrain for a covered approach and then attacking enemy tank columns with pop up tactics is exactly what the US wanted to do with their Apaches if the cold war would have turned hot.
And the Apache-Kiowa team was defenitely much more capable at this than the PAHs.



I might only add that the Apache was tailored to form a highly mobile operational reserve during the expected strategic defense with all the advantages. It would usually also operate over friendly territory in cooperation with all the other arms against heavy enemy concentrations in motion, which would have greatly mitigated the danger from enemy SAM and air.

[HKSDU]

The Apache can carry a greater number of Hellfire missiles (up to16x as opposed to 8x on the Tiger), guided and un-guided rockets (up to 76x compared to 52x on the Tiger) AND up to 4x Stinger AAM's with a full load of Hellfires, rockets or a combination, the Tiger cannot match these numbers irregardless of the configuration it operates in and in the final nail in the coffin, the Apache has a capacity for carriage of 1200x 30mm rounds, compared to 450x in the Tiger.


The Apache clearly carries greater firepower, which is it's intended role, afterall.

This doesn't make the Tiger less capable. It's role is not the same as the Apache, is all.
umm did you actually read my post before you responded? I already said Apache carriers firepower more in quantity. I know how much Apache can carry compared to Tiger, thats what I directed my post to.

[Waylander]

@south
The 16x Hellfires would have been carried for the AT-role during a "hot" cold war.
However as always the missions dictates the loadout.
If you are hunting soft targets (like convoys) one could very well see most of the Apaches armed with FFARs and guns only with just some of them also carrying some hellfires for the occassional armored target.
And for sure a heavy loadout reduces range but the Apache has the luxury to be more versatile in this regard.
One can't compare the support role in A-stan with mainly lightly armed dismounts and fortified compounds as targets with the idea of blunting a red army armored spearhead in the Fulda Gap.

@Firn
I just want to add that enemy AA vehicles are the number one target for ground forces engaging enemy armored/mechanized formations.
They are just too dangerous for rotary and fixed wing CAS and so need to be addressed first.

[Aussie Digger]

umm did you actually read my post before you responded? I already said Apache carriers firepower more in quantity. I know how much Apache can carry compared to Tiger, thats what I directed my post to.

Did you read mine? The Apache is capable of carrying Hellfire, rockets, and Stinger AAM's simultaneously, all in greater numbers than the Tiger.

Both have sufficient firepower for their respective roles, yes, but the Apache DOES have the greater firepower, which by definition is, "the ability to deliver fire onto a target".

You can call it semantics if you wish, but you split the hairs in the first place...

[Firn]

After the most important points have been adressed I wonder which variant of the Eurocopter is especially suited for the conditions of a conflict like Afghanistan.

And I have a second question: Is there any indication that the newer EC is easier to maintain than the Apache under conditions similar to those in Afghanistan? I recon that this one is almost impossible to answer.

[dragonfire]

After reading the thread i feel that the tiger is a more versatile helo while the longbow is more effective as a h/k helo with comparitively better armour, firepower but lower range

Need Clarity on if Apache is also made out to have flexible roles like reccee roles or long range patrol missions etc

Both helos are supposed to be in the fray for the Indian Army's Attck Chopper acquisition program

[Aussie Digger]

After reading the thread i feel that the tiger is a more versatile helo while the longbow is more effective as a h/k helo with comparitively better armour, firepower but lower range

Need Clarity on if Apache is also made out to have flexible roles like reccee roles or long range patrol missions etc

Both helos are supposed to be in the fray for the Indian Army's Attck Chopper acquisition program

The Apache most definitely has the capacity to conduct recce missions and if necessary can carry external fuel on it's stub-wings to enhance range, allowing for the long range patrol mission.

Apache has the capability to conduct day and night time surveillance with FLIR and television day/night and optical sensors, whilst Longbow adds Millimetric Wave radar surveillance for air and ground targets.

AH-64D also possesses tactical data-link and solid state digital recorders to record the surveillance footage and images their sensors obtain and they can "hand off" this information via the Link 16 Tactical data-links, something the Australian Tigers are being upgraded to do as well. (Though Aussie Tigers currently incorporate Link 4A "proprietary data-links" they are being modified to the Link 16 standard to fit in with the wider ADF Link 16 architecture).

Unlike fast jets though, helos can land just about anywhere and refuel and rearm at FARP's (forward area refueling points) so the range issue is not a drama, provided your logistical support is established sufficiently to support these kinds of operations.

No matter which of these helicopters your Country chooses, you will have an excellent capability.

Cheers.

[riksavage]

The Apache most definitely has the capacity to conduct recce missions and if necessary can carry external fuel on it's stub-wings to enhance range, allowing for the long range patrol mission.

Apache has the capability to conduct day and night time surveillance with FLIR and television day/night and optical sensors, whilst Longbow adds Millimetric Wave radar surveillance for air and ground targets.

AH-64D also possesses tactical data-link and solid state digital recorders to record the surveillance footage and images their sensors obtain and they can "hand off" this information via the Link 16 Tactical data-links, something the Australian Tigers are being upgraded to do as well. (Though Aussie Tigers currently incorporate Link 4A "proprietary data-links" they are being modified to the Link 16 standard to fit in with the wider ADF Link 16 architecture).

Unlike fast jets though, helos can land just about anywhere and refuel and rearm at FARP's (forward area refueling points) so the range issue is not a drama, provided your logistical support is established sufficiently to support these kinds of operations.

No matter which of these helicopters your Country chooses, you will have an excellent capability.

Cheers.

Having just read the book 'Apache' by Ed Macy, which looks in detail at attack helicopter operations in Afghanistan it makes you appreciate the value of such airframes. The book provides an excellent insight into the technical specifications and capabilities of the Apache and how they are applied in actual combat. Critically the following came out, which one must assume also apply in most respects to the Tiger.

The amount of time and effort put into the design allowing for maximum redundancy in the event certain critical systems fail or are damaged as a result of enemy action.

Careful application of materials - light weight materials in certain areas specifically designed to allow rounds to pass straight through minimising the size of entry and exit hole and subsequent impact upon the structural integrity of the airframe. Heavy armour in other areas where the 'soft and pink' bits sit and fly the beast.

Ability to fly the helo, whether in the front or back seat.

Unparalleled surveillance, tracking (Longbow) and killing capabilities - day or night.

High weapons load - 30mm round capacity, hydra, hellfire. The way they describe the interaction between fast air dropping bombs followed by 30mm Apache sweeps to kill insurgents escaping the scene of engagements is fascinating. With the thermal capability the term 'you can run but can't hide' brings a hole new dimension to the equation. Even though the Apache was designed for cold war tank killing it's ability to dominate the battlefield fighting light irregulars is still very impressive.

My only criticism is the need to develop cheaper munitions, firing a hellfire to destroy personnel in tunnel complexes sounds too expensive and is definitely overkill, companies should be developing smaller guided munitions with an HE / shrapnel capability - something cheap and cheerful with long shelf-lives. The issue of shelf life is a real factor, because every time an airframe deploys and returns without firing its missiles the strain brought about by the in-flight vibrations means that after a while the munition must be sent out of theatre to be checked and re-calibrated. The armourers on the ground try and encourage the pilots to fire the weapons, which are coming to the end of their operational shelf-life to cut the cost and embuggerance factor of having to send them back for servicing, something I didn't appreciate before I read the book.

The book is well worth a read, similar in detail to the Vietnam helo classic 'Chickenhawk'.

[Waylander]

At least the German UHT Tigers also have HOT3 integrated. (I had the luck to be one the firing range during live fire tests. Beautifull! :))
I assume the french tigers going to A-stan can do the same.
Using this ATGM for the current tasks should be much cheaper tha using a Hellfire, Spike or Trigat for the same target. Especially when one uses the existing stock.
And it's capabilities should be good enough for use in A-stan. It's not like one needs the ability to fire a dozen ATGMs against enemy tank columns simultaniously at the current operations.

[Firn]

At least the German UHT Tigers also have HOT3 integrated. (I had the luck to be one the firing range during live fire tests. Beautifull! :))
I assume the french tigers going to A-stan can do the same.
Using this ATGM for the current tasks should be much cheaper tha using a Hellfire, Spike or Trigat for the same target. Especially when one uses the existing stock.
And it's capabilities should be good enough for use in A-stan. It's not like one needs the ability to fire a dozen ATGMs against enemy tank columns simultaniously at the current operations.

Isn't the Spike a rather affordable ATGM?

Anyway I'm a firm believer that artillery should be the main source of firepower. A Tiger or an Apache is however an excellent mean of support and a very important element of the whole system. I wonder how a light attack aircraft would perform under the current circumstances....

[Waylander]

I also think

The problem with artillery is that it is just not able to give you the same fire support like Helicopters can give to you.
Their ability to loiter in an Area and immediately attack targets they spotted with a variety of weapons is much more direct and responsible than artillery support. Helicopters are also able to give closer support and attack enemies with more precision than artillery.
While artillery has it's worth and is needed as the heavy hammer, even when used with intelligent ammunition.
A GMLRS may be highly accurate but it still is a 237mm rocket coming down.

[dragonfire]

The Apache most definitely has the capacity to conduct recce missions and if necessary can carry external fuel on it's stub-wings to enhance range, allowing for the long range patrol mission.

Apache has the capability to conduct day and night time surveillance with FLIR and television day/night and optical sensors, whilst Longbow adds Millimetric Wave radar surveillance for air and ground targets.

AH-64D also possesses tactical data-link and solid state digital recorders to record the surveillance footage and images their sensors obtain and they can "hand off" this information via the Link 16 Tactical data-links, something the Australian Tigers are being upgraded to do as well. (Though Aussie Tigers currently incorporate Link 4A "proprietary data-links" they are being modified to the Link 16 standard to fit in with the wider ADF Link 16 architecture).

Unlike fast jets though, helos can land just about anywhere and refuel and rearm at FARP's (forward area refueling points) so the range issue is not a drama, provided your logistical support is established sufficiently to support these kinds of operations.

No matter which of these helicopters your Country chooses, you will have an excellent capability.

Cheers.

Thanks AD for the inputs :)

Just hope that the order is expedited. It would be quite exciting to see something with the Indian Army which looks so lethal and modern as the Apache Longbow. That plus a helo for spec ops operators would giv an edge for the army aviation - any suggestions on this

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks AD for the inputs :)

Just hope that the order is expedited. It would be quite exciting to see something with the Indian Army which looks so lethal and modern as the Apache Longbow. That plus a helo for spec ops operators would giv an edge for the army aviation - any suggestions on this

Depends what the requirements are.

If they are looking for a larger transport helo, MH-60 Blackhawk, NH-90, MH-47 Chinook and EC725 Cougar all have special operations features and variants which could fulfill the need well.

If a smaller COIN/CT insertion type helo is sought, the MH-6 "Little Bird" or the newer AH-6, still under development, might be suitable.

The "little birds" are used by the 160th "Special Operations Aviation Regiment" (Nightstalkers) and commonly fly "Delta" operators around.

Horses for courses really and unlike the USA, most Countries tend to have to make do with using their tactical transport helicopter fleet, sometimes modified with some "Special" operations features, as Australia has done with her CH-47D+ Chinooks.

Our Chinooks were "standard" D model Chinooks, that have been upgraded with some equipment from the "G" model Special Operations model CH-47 Chinook, for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Likewise, our soon to be ordered CH-47F Chinooks, will likely carry some or all of the same Special Operations, specific equipment

This tends to be the most common route taken, by those who can't afford such a mission specific fleet of aircraft.

[Firn]

Thanks AD for the inputs :)

Just hope that the order is expedited. It would be quite exciting to see something with the Indian Army which looks so lethal and modern as the Apache Longbow. That plus a helo for spec ops operators would giv an edge for the army aviation - any suggestions on this

Ironically the helicopter arm of the Indian armed forces was effectively curtailed by MANPADs in the Kargil war after IIRC one or even two were downed. The artillery did allmost all the (heavy) lifting in it. That doesn't mean that such a modern combat helicopter is futile, far from it, but that it is a very precious assets with a huge potential which can be rather suscitable to SAM, especially under specific cirumstances as in the Kargil war.

[winnyfield]

EMA - Afghanistan : arrivée des 3 hélicoptères Tigre à Kaboul (vidéo) (http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/operations_exterieures/afghanistan/breves_et_photos/afghanistan_arrivee_des_3_helicopteres_tigre_a_kab oul_video)

French Tigers in Afghanistan. Deployed to Kabul.

[Aussie Digger]

Ironically the helicopter arm of the Indian armed forces was effectively curtailed by MANPADs in the Kargil war after IIRC one or even two were downed. The artillery did allmost all the (heavy) lifting in it. That doesn't mean that such a modern combat helicopter is futile, far from it, but that it is a very precious assets with a huge potential which can be rather suscitable to SAM, especially under specific cirumstances as in the Kargil war.

Don't cheapen out on important things like EW and self protection systems, in order to give the appearance of a large and powerful force.

I'm not denigrating the Indians, but they were facing mostly an IR guided MANPAD threat. That level of threat hasn't stopped Western helos in Afghanistan or Iraq or Bosnia etc, because they invest heavily in force protection measures designed specifically to address this threat.

If you don't, don't expect to be able to face a credible air threat.

Simple as that.

[Firn]

Don't cheapen out on important things like EW and self protection systems, in order to give the appearance of a large and powerful force.

I'm not denigrating the Indians, but they were facing mostly an IR guided MANPAD threat. That level of threat hasn't stopped Western helos in Afghanistan or Iraq or Bosnia etc, because they invest heavily in force protection measures designed specifically to address this threat.

If you don't, don't expect to be able to face a credible air threat.

Simple as that.

A very valid point, even if one might add that the threat facing the Indian helicopters was markedly higher due to the specific circumstances - an headlong assault against fortified positions on peaks over 5000m manned by infantry with decent MANPADs.

[riksavage]

I noted in the online SPIEGEL addition that the German Military is spitting-fire over EADS reference a number of projects including the Tiger and NH90, quote as follows:

The German army ordered 80 "Tigers." The prototypes delighted crowds at air shows from 1991 onwards. But the German army hasn't received a single Tiger helicopter that is capable of reliably hitting targets with its rockets and cannon. The 10 "Tigers" it currently has are only suitable to provide basic instruction for pilots. More have been built but they haven't been accepted -- mechanics recently complained about chafed cables.

The NH90 transport helicopter is also regarded as a flop by the military. The plans to develop the aircraft go back to 1992. The Bundeswehr had ordered 80 of the helicopters for a total of €1.7 billion. However, the first sample aircraft only arrived at the end of 2006. Admittedly, the army is now in possession of eight of them. However, they are only 26 percent fit for service. That means that on average only two of the helicopters are ready to start at any given time.

One must assume this is largely press bluster, and reflects teething problems with the new platforms. I'd be interested to hear if the Aussie's are experiencing problems with their Tigers, nothing heard thus far in the public domain? Clearly the French aren't because they have deployed three to Afghanistan, which would not have happened unless they were fully combat certified.

[uuname]

I'd be interested to hear if the Aussie's are experiencing problems with their Tigers, nothing heard thus far in the public domain?
They are quite late, and payments were suspended at one point. This was blamed on overseas problems, rather than the local systems.

The missiles do work, but the german version has different missiles (and a different gun, AFAIK) so it may not be much of a comparison.

I recall reading that the French were considering using the hellfire after the Australian success with it, which I found rather surprising.

Here's a link I found:
Australian Government, Department of Defence (http://army.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1171/breakingnews/story01.htm)

[Waylander]

Jup, the German UHT Tiger is going to carry PARS 3 (Trigat LR) as it's main ATGM.
As this missile isn't in service yet HOT3 is also integrated.
I have been on the range when a UHT Tiger performed a test shooting.
At least with HOT3 they seemed to hit what they aimed for...

The UHT also doesn't has an integrated gun like other Tiger versions and so relies on a gun pod if one wants to use a gun.
There have been reports of problems with the gun pod (the mentioned bad accuracy) but I have no idea if they solved the problem.
It is the first time I hear of accuracy problems with the 7,5inch rockets but who knows. may very well be a media thing.

The French barely managed to get the handfull of Tigers operational for their A-stan deployment and they literally scratched the bottom for them.

One shouldn't blame the industry completely for the slow introduction. As with the EF the Bundeswehr tends to be not the fastes at introducing new kit.
Part of this "problem" is that the Bundeswehr likes to perform some sort of in-house introduction. Meaning that it wants to be able to do everything by themselfes in contrary to other countries which also use alot more help by the industry.
The EF again is an example for this with the UK being at one side of the scala and Germany on the other side.
One can argue that introduction is faster with the UK way but the Bundeswehr is more independent from industry which is also not always a bad thing.
Nevertheless I also would like to see them enter service faster.

The NH90 even more than the Tiger.
I assume the NH90 if deployed to Afghanistan could take some strain from our CH-53G fleet.

I bet Kato and others also have something to say about this topic. ;)

[dragonfire]

Don't cheapen out on important things like EW and self protection systems, in order to give the appearance of a large and powerful force.

I'm not denigrating the Indians, but they were facing mostly an IR guided MANPAD threat. That level of threat hasn't stopped Western helos in Afghanistan or Iraq or Bosnia etc, because they invest heavily in force protection measures designed specifically to address this threat.

If you don't, don't expect to be able to face a credible air threat.

Simple as that.

A very valid point, even if one might add that the threat facing the Indian helicopters was markedly higher due to the specific circumstances - an headlong assault against fortified positions on peaks over 5000m manned by infantry with decent MANPADs.

The IAF's challenge was that there was no conventional structures for targeting, the biggest structure was a hangar which could take a single helo, apart from which it was just tents and fortified bunkers. The altitude was another major challenge the intruders were at above 2700 mts to above 5000 mts in most places, the only armed helo which could reach that altitude was the mil mi-17, of which one was taken down by three stingers resulting in loss of life of the crew, the downed craft was without protection systems too. Post this incident the IAF stopped using helos in an offensive role and shifted tactics to using LGB's from high altitudes from Mirage-2000s.

Some of the IAF's helos have flare dispensers, apart from which i am not aware of any other self-protection systems on them, would appreciate what kind of such measures are prevalent today, esp with new helos like the HAL Dhruv and 80 new Mi-17 being bought by the Indian Millitary, apart from which the HAL is also developing 3 more copters for Millitary use namely the Light Observation/Utility Helicopter, the 10 ton class Medium Lift Helo for the Navy and the HAL Light Combat Helicopter, also the purcahse of 20 Attack choppers (apache and tiger being frutrunners) is on the anvil, such systems of EW and self protection systems can be deployed on the new acquisitions rather than upgrading existing inventory

[dragonfire]

Depends what the requirements are.

If they are looking for a larger transport helo, MH-60 Blackhawk, NH-90, MH-47 Chinook and EC725 Cougar all have special operations features and variants which could fulfill the need well.

If a smaller COIN/CT insertion type helo is sought, the MH-6 "Little Bird" or the newer AH-6, still under development, might be suitable.

The "little birds" are used by the 160th "Special Operations Aviation Regiment" (Nightstalkers) and commonly fly "Delta" operators around.

Horses for courses really and unlike the USA, most Countries tend to have to make do with using their tactical transport helicopter fleet, sometimes modified with some "Special" operations features, as Australia has done with her CH-47D+ Chinooks.

Our Chinooks were "standard" D model Chinooks, that have been upgraded with some equipment from the "G" model Special Operations model CH-47 Chinook, for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Likewise, our soon to be ordered CH-47F Chinooks, will likely carry some or all of the same Special Operations, specific equipment

This tends to be the most common route taken, by those who can't afford such a mission specific fleet of aircraft.

My motivation behind asking for inputs is this image which has stuck in my mind of this huge IAF helo from which NSG operators were fast ropping down during the Mumbai terrorist attack on 26/11. The helo was huge (probably Mi-17/8) and it was on top this Jewish Chabad house which was on contrast looking smaller than the helo :)

However i guess the HAL Dhruv which has been inducted into the Army can be used for the same purpose not the same load but atleast it should be less noisy. I think India is trying to indegeniously develop it's own Heli capabilities except for the most advanced combat helos. I did some comparison and I realized this for eg.. The black hawk can carry 14 ppl - the Dhruv can do 12, NH-90 - 20 - the Mi-17 can do upto 32 and am sure the MLH when it's up and running will be able to do 20 because it's in the same weight category, Eurocopter 725 Cougar can do 29 the Mi-17 32, The only copter which i didnt see matched was the MH-6/AH-6, but probably if the LUH will be armed it might be able to so the same role

A comparison like this should sure invite a lot a criticism over a over simplified point of view - but pls hold on ppl

[kato]

I assume the NH90 if deployed to Afghanistan could take some strain from our CH-53G fleet.
Quite some time to go. LTHRgt 10 was supposed to get the first operational NH-90s last month - postponed, without fixed delivery date (but it's measured in months, not weeks). And the BMVg expects the first NH-90s in Afghanistan in 2011.

2011 is also the year the BMVg expects the Tiger to be operational with the Bundeswehr.

[A.Mookerjee]

In the scenario which I see the Apache Longbow, I feel that the gunship is not as manoeuvrable as it should be. In Afghanistan, if some tanks are accompanied by foot soldiers with stinger missiles, the Apache is a sitting duck. The Apache is generally a cold war weapon, which is supposed to be used against massed tank formations. The 'Hellfire Missile' is synonymous with the Apache Longbow. The helicopter gunship must have advancements in aeronautics, and must not hinder the natural aeronautical capabilities of the helicopter. What is the ideal helicopter gunship? One which has high speed, is very manoeuvrable, (which is the prerequisite for a helicopter), and has a long range cannon, which is very accurate, apart from being armed with heavy machine guns, and quite a few of them. The anti- tank capabilities should also be considerable, and the gunship should also have some anti gunship missiles, for combat with other gunships. I do not believe, that the aeronautical capabilities of the gunship has been advanced, as it should be.

[riksavage]

In the scenario which I see the Apache Longbow, I feel that the gunship is not as manoeuvrable as it should be. In Afghanistan, if some tanks are accompanied by foot soldiers with stinger missiles, the Apache is a sitting duck. The Apache is generally a cold war weapon, which is supposed to be used against massed tank formations. The 'Hellfire Missile' is synonymous with the Apache Longbow. The helicopter gunship must have advancements in aeronautics, and must not hinder the natural aeronautical capabilities of the helicopter. What is the ideal helicopter gunship? One which has high speed, is very manoeuvrable, (which is the prerequisite for a helicopter), and has a long range cannon, which is very accurate, apart from being armed with heavy machine guns, and quite a few of them. The anti- tank capabilities should also be considerable, and the gunship should also have some anti gunship missiles, for combat with other gunships. I do not believe, that the aeronautical capabilities of the gunship has been advanced, as it should be.

The Apache is far from being a sitting duck! You need to take a serious look at the technical specifications of the Longbow model. The latest version is designed to operate above the ceiling range of existing MAN-PADS, this coupled with the standard ECM fit further reduces the threat posed by the current generation of hand-held missile systems such as Strela and Stinger. Unless I'm wrong not a single Apache has been shot down by a MAN-PAD in A-stan, compare that to the casualty rates of the Hinds during the Russian occupation, which where driven from the skies by Stinger armed insurgents.

With the planned introduction of smaller munitions and semi-active laser seeker hydra (70mm) missiles the Apache will continue to remain the predominant attack helicopter in service today. Experience has shown that the heavy weapons load of the Apache and ability to turn on its own axis at speed coupled with its all weather surveillance capability means it's still remains the weapon of choice to fulfill the close support role by ground troops.

Helo's with increased speed and maneuverability will not deter a MAN-PAD which is designed to shoot down fast jets, you need to ensure you fly outside the weapons range or be confident with the ECM package. The pilots biggest concern in A-Stan is heavy calibre anti-aircraft guns. Even these have a finite life-span because as soon as they engage an Apache, the wingman flying picket invariably destroys the gun and crew in double quick time.

Until we see laser beam riding hypersonic MAN-PAD's such as Starstreak, which are impervious to ECM the Apache has nothing to worry about. And even if these arrive in theatre the Apache's current MO is to operate at a height, which makes use of such systems redundant.

[redsunlee]

Thanks for the suggestion, I wish it had worked.


property internet management software project document asset (http://internetmanagementsoftware.org)This internet management software is perfect for your document and web company property internet management software project document asset (http://internetmanagementsoftware.org)