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...

 

[amband1]

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.

i got news for you. They will not give us the best. They won't sell us the F22 or technologies that equal their own

I say to hell with them and we develop our own.. We invented metal storm, yet the US have it and we don't. Amazing

 

[amband1]

The Australian Army was looking for an "armed recon" helicopter, ..

"recon" We used to call it "recce". I remember we had armed services, not a "military"

 

[Aussie Digger]

"recon" We used to call it "recce". I remember we had armed services, not a "military"

Funny. "Back in my day" it used to be known as the Kiowa. I've never seen an OH-58 "Recce" in service with the Australian Army though...

The Tiger ARH is known as the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter in Army nomenclature and the capability (as opposed to the actual platform) has been since Project AIR-87 was formulated, 20 odd years ago...

Tiger - Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter

The Tiger ARH is equipped with leading edge technology in its sensors, data links and communications and provide a major new capability for Army. Fitted with Hellfire missiles, 70mm rockets and cannons, the heavily armed Tiger ARH will significantly enhance the reconnaissance and firepower capabilities of the Army combined arms team.

http://www.army.gov.au/ARH.asp

If you have a problem with that, perhaps you can take it up with the headsheds who called it that?

Unfortunately they don't post here...

 

[Aussie Digger]

i got news for you. They will not give us the best. They won't sell us the F22 or technologies that equal their own

I say to hell with them and we develop our own.. We invented metal storm, yet the US have it and we don't. Amazing

Amazing alright. What US unit actually employs a Metalstorm product? Last I heard, Metalstorm had ceased trading....

The closest Metalstorm have come to delivering a useable product is their 3x round 40mm "under slung" rifle grenade launcher system. And they haven't even been able to break into the market for that. M203 type grenade launching systems sell like hotcakes, but poor old Metalstorm with their "superior" product can't seem to break the strangle-hold. There's something not right there...

As for technology, I find that another interesting argument. The F-22 uses "Commodore 64" equivalent processors and yet here I am in Australia typing on a computer which uses an Intel (of Santa Clara California - USA) designed 1.6Ghz dual core processor with 2Gb of memory versus the 300mb of memory available to the F-22's computer systems . What's that about high tech again?

 

[kato]

mmm, six year old zombie thread...

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

Interestingly, iirc the Tiger isn't replacing any US system in those countries that have bought it, instead being an incremental capability upgrade on earlier indigenous systems.

The F-22 uses "Commodore 64" equivalent processors and yet here I am in Australia typing on a computer which uses an Intel (of Santa Clara California - USA) designed 1.6Ghz dual core processor with 2Gb of memory versus the 300mb of memory available to the F-22's computer systems .

To be fair - the hightech component is mostly in the software. I really doubt you're running a multi-threaded multi-processor RTOS at home. Or that your hardware at home can continue operating in a 9G+ environment.

 

[Aussie Digger]

mmm, six year old zombie thread...


Interestingly, iirc the Tiger isn't replacing any US system in those countries that have bought it, instead being an incremental capability upgrade on earlier indigenous systems.


To be fair - the hightech component is mostly in the software. I really doubt you're running a multi-threaded multi-processor RTOS at home. Or that your hardware at home can continue operating in a 9G+ environment.

No, but that wasn't my point. My point is that F-22 is hardly the pinnacle of US technology and they DO in fact export technology of a higher standard.

Even though F-22 is the pinnacle of US fighter aircraft at present, it's export isn't prevented by this, but rather US domestic politics.

Anyway, we should probably move back to the Tiger if this thread is to continue...

 

[t68]

From a platform integration view would it not have made more sense if the ADF went with the Apache in the first place so it did not have the expense of first of type munitions such as hell fire and now possibly Sidewinder if you are correct, when Apache was already cleared to fire all the munitions’ type we integrated on Tiger.

With the money spent on weapons integration could we have purchased more airframes for the ADF and be accepted into service quicker than what we have experienced with Tiger?

How is the aircrew problem been sorted out yet from memory they could get air time for some reason with Germany the hold up or something?


____________________________________________________________________


Helicopter-launched Sidewinder
2 AIM-9 fired from McDonnell-Douglas Helicopters AH-64 Apache in November 1987. Company-funded test of suitability as helicopter self-defense weapon. One was fired from hovering flight, the other while the AH-64 was flying at 81 kts (93 mph; 150 km/h).

 

[Todjaeger]

From a platform integration view would it not have made more sense if the ADF went with the Apache in the first place so it did not have the expense of first of type munitions such as hell fire and now possibly Sidewinder if you are correct, when Apache was already cleared to fire all the munitions’ type we integrated on Tiger.

With the money spent on weapons integration could we have purchased more airframes for the ADF and be accepted into service quicker than what we have experienced with Tiger?

How is the aircrew problem been sorted out yet from memory they could get air time for some reason with Germany the hold up or something?


____________________________________________________________________


Helicopter-launched Sidewinder
2 AIM-9 fired from McDonnell-Douglas Helicopters AH-64 Apache in November 1987. Company-funded test of suitability as helicopter self-defense weapon. One was fired from hovering flight, the other while the AH-64 was flying at 81 kts (93 mph; 150 km/h).

The problem with this notion is that the Apache is an attack, not recon, helicopter. The Tiger ARH is to replace the OH-58 Kiowa, providing an armed/attack capability in addition to the recon role. One area of significant difference between the Tiger an Apache is that the Tiger has approximately twice the range of an Apache (~800 km vs. 407 km). That, coupled with the recon mission role of detecting/relaying targets and information would serve the ADF better from a Tiger IMO than an Apache. If the ADF had wanted a dedicated attack helicopter, then either the Apache or Cobra would IMO have been better choices, but the objective was not a gunship.

-Cheers

 

[jack412]

"recon" We used to call it "recce". I remember we had armed services, not a "military"

that was before we were americanised

 

[Gremlin29]

One area of significant difference between the Tiger an Apache is that the Tiger has approximately twice the range of an Apache (~800 km vs. 407 km). That, coupled with the recon mission role of detecting/relaying targets and information would serve the ADF better from a Tiger IMO than an Apache

Not sure where you got your data from however the Apache has a much greater range than 407km (it's over 900km). All that said, range is based on several conditions, Pressure Altitude (PA), aircraft weight and speed. Helicopters get their greatest fuel economy flying as fast as they can and the previously mentioned range info is based on cruise speeds on a standard day. Tactically you're not likely to spend much of your mission even at cruise airspeed, more like 40 knots or less (assuming you're still talking about recon) so mission range is going to be greatly reduced. Also unless you have a load of replaceable pilots you should cut the previously mentioned mission range in half to get mission radius, which could obviously be extended with FARP's.

With the FCR the Apache Longbow is in my opinion the most capable reconnaissance (and attack) helicopter available in the world, and it's equipped to integrate and pass data to other platforms at the push of a button, something the OH-58 can't do.

All that said, I believe the Block 2 Longbow program cost is $20M per so there are certainly more economical options to field a reconnaissance group.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not sure where you got your data from however the Apache has a much greater range than 407km (it's over 900km). All that said, range is based on several conditions, Pressure Altitude (PA), aircraft weight and speed. Helicopters get their greatest fuel economy flying as fast as they can and the previously mentioned range info is based on cruise speeds on a standard day. Tactically you're not likely to spend much of your mission even at cruise airspeed, more like 40 knots or less (assuming you're still talking about recon) so mission range is going to be greatly reduced. Also unless you have a load of replaceable pilots you should cut the previously mentioned mission range in half to get mission radius, which could obviously be extended with FARP's.

With the FCR the Apache Longbow is in my opinion the most capable reconnaissance (and attack) helicopter available in the world, and it's equipped to integrate and pass data to other platforms at the push of a button, something the OH-58 can't do.

All that said, I believe the Block 2 Longbow program cost is $20M per so there are certainly more economical options to field a reconnaissance group.

The range # came from a Janes Aircraft recognition guide (5th ed. IIRC) No doubt the Apache could do well in the recon role, the question becomes cost relative to capability...

-Cheers

 

[winnyfield]

Compared with the Apache:

- more powerful gun (30x113 vs 30x150)
- common parts and systems with a NH90 fleet (similar to USMC Cobras and Hueys)
- lighter and on paper more agile; but less weapons
- supposedly navalized out of the box compared with the Apache

con

- only became 'combat proven' in 2009

 

[kato]

Not sure where you got your data from however the Apache has a much greater range than 407km (it's over 900km).

The Apache has a ferry range of over 900 km, using four drop tanks and no armament. Its combat radius is 150 km, mission range 407 km.
The Tiger has a mission range of 730 km and a ferry range of 1200 km, although Eurocopter gives the latter in a escort configuration with 4 Mistral and 2 drop tanks (i've seen 1300 km stated without the Mistrals).

For reference, a A-129 has a mission range of only 100 km; a Ka-50 has a mission range of 455 km. The AH-1Z has been stated at between 685 and 735 km mission range in a close-support configuration (with a 204 km combat radius), while the AH-1W has a mission range of 571 km.

 

[Firn]

The Apache has a ferry range of over 900 km, using four drop tanks and no armament. Its combat radius is 150 km, mission range 407 km.
The Tiger has a mission range of 730 km and a ferry range of 1200 km, although Eurocopter gives the latter in a escort configuration with 4 Mistral and 2 drop tanks (i've seen 1300 km stated without the Mistrals).

For reference, a A-129 has a mission range of only 100 km; a Ka-50 has a mission range of 455 km. The AH-1Z has been stated at between 685 and 735 km mission range in a close-support configuration (with a 204 km combat radius), while the AH-1W has a mission range of 571 km.

The Tiger has certainly long legs. I find it interesting that the USMC greatly values the AH-1 and plans to purchase the latest version, the AH-1Z of it. The specific requirements of the Australian armed forces for an armed helicopter were not pulled out of thin air, and I do understand them now a bit better.

I'm pretty out of my lane here, but wouldn't the AH-1Z make for a more appropriate comparison with the Tiger than the Apache?



Firn