Got a photo of one flying over my house on December 7 so it would be a yes. The Aussie main steam media are very good at sensationalism but not so good on positive stuff.
t68
Well-Known Member
wonder when the decision is to be made in regards replace or upgrade?
I'm in two minds wether Apache is the way to go or Cobra being built for the maritime environment
The 2016 Defence White Paper lists on page 98
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf
- The Government will replace the 22 Tiger Armed Reconnaissance helicopters with a new armed reconnaissance capability from the mid-2020s.
The 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Program lists on page 114
http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/Docs/2016-Defence-Integrated-Investment-Program.pdf
- 6 .30 The 22 Tiger helicopters provide a responsive reconnaissance and attack platform to support joint operations . In a reconnaissance role this helicopter complements other surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities . The Tiger’s intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and electronic warfare capabilities and attack options (including a range of precision weapons) can be employed and tailored to support tasks including close air support, escort and interdiction .
- 6 .31 Armed reconnaissance helicopter operations will rely increasingly on intelligence and mission data and access to the common operating picture and other real time data for effective integration with joint forces .
- 6 .32 The Tiger has had a troubled history – essential upgrades are programmed to maintain the capability’s effectiveness . Defence will invest in a future armed reconnaissance capability to replace the Tiger, which could include manned or unmanned systems or a combination of both, to be introduced from the mid-2020s .
The 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Program lists the following planned investments on pages 119-120:
- Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Replacement, 2021–2030, $5bn–$6bn
- Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Assurance Program, 2017–2026, $500m–$750m
As far as replacement options, I wouldn't assume the AH-64 and AH-1 are the only options for consideration for the capability, though they certainly would be strong contenders.
There are other options which could potentially be in the mix, particularly if an Australian build is considered highly desirable (I could easily see a domestic build option for a $5bn-6bn program being politically favourable). For example Leonardo (formerly Agusta-Westland) have provided the locally built TAI/AW-129 for Turkey and have the AW-249 currently in development replace the Italian Mangustas from around 2025.
On further investigation, second pass of LAND 9000 Phase ARHCAP Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Capability Assurance Program or replacement (ARH CAP) is planned for 2017-18.
2017 budget reveals what’s ahead for major defence projects - Defence Connect
2017 budget reveals what’s ahead for major defence projects - Defence Connect
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If Australia's experience with helicopters is anything to go by, then they would do well to go with an in-service American design, especially if the programme start is as soon as 2021. Three of the ADF's most recent helicopter programmes (ones requiring development) have encountered problems which has either prevented or significantly delayed their service entry. Does anyone want a repeat of the Seasprite or Tiger ARH debacle? Or the issues with the MRH90?
As for the cost of the programme... I could easily see that being an Australian build for AUD$5 bil. I cannot really see how reconnaissance helicopters would be imported for that much, even as a 'total life of type cost' unless Australia were to get a significantly larger fleet. The in FY2014, AH-64E cost ~USD$35.5 mil. each, or about AUD$45 mil. each Even tripling the price to account for the training, spares and support package, plus through-life costs, that would still only be ~AUD$135 mil. or just a shade under AUD$3 bil. ($2.97 bil.)
Unless Australia was planning on almost doubling the size of the recon helicopter fleet, I cannot think of too many other ways to spend that extra ~AUD$2 bil. outside of building up a domestic manufacture scheme. My question would be, "what happens to the capability once the Australian build is completed?"
Spending a premium on creating a domestic build capability makes sense if the capability is sustained. Continually going through boom and bust phases where skills keep needing to be re-learned and there is little to no continuity between projects is IMO a waste of resources as what little is gained is soon squandered once a project has ended.
I do agree with you Tod and I think your approach makes a lot of sense. As I have stated previously I personally believe Australian industry involvement is best value in the support and maintenance.
The $5bn-$6bn for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Program listed in the 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Program is for acquisition only. There will be additional investment in whole-of-life sustainment and operating costs.
Depending on our CONOPS, it seems to make sense to me that we should use FMS to procure either the AH-64E or AH-1Z. Recent FMS acquisitions such as the F/A-18F, EA-18G, C-17A and MH-60R have all gone fairly smoothly.
With the new special forces light deployable helicopter capability from the mid-2020s, I am curious if a FMS of something like the MH-60M (Special Operations version of UH-60M) could be considered.
The $5bn-$6bn for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Program listed in the 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Program is for acquisition only. There will be additional investment in whole-of-life sustainment and operating costs.
Depending on our CONOPS, it seems to make sense to me that we should use FMS to procure either the AH-64E or AH-1Z. Recent FMS acquisitions such as the F/A-18F, EA-18G, C-17A and MH-60R have all gone fairly smoothly.
With the new special forces light deployable helicopter capability from the mid-2020s, I am curious if a FMS of something like the MH-60M (Special Operations version of UH-60M) could be considered.
Last edited:
Hopefully the extra money is for a fully sorted and supported support system, proper parts holdings, comprehensive test and evaluation, governance and assurance. This is the stuff that drives up the cost of FMS verses the "bargains" the government has opted for in the past, but gives a more honest project cost and often results in savings.
At the end of the day, so long as it meets or exceeds operational requirements, the platform selected doesn't really matter, what is of concern though is its integration into the ADF as a whole and the support systems required to ensure it reliably delivers the required capability. In many ways the Tiger is a more capable and effective platform than the types being proposed as its replacement, what it lacked was maturity and an adequate support system, now those things have been sorted (after much delay), as per usual people are looking at years past and saying it sucks when the truth is the procurement and support models chosen / contracted would have resulted in similar problems on any platform (Sea Sprite anyone).
DMO doesn't exist anymore for a good reason, now there is CASG which has a lot more in common with the system that was behind the successful procurements of the past as well as a focus on governance and assurance often missing in the last two decades.
At the end of the day, so long as it meets or exceeds operational requirements, the platform selected doesn't really matter, what is of concern though is its integration into the ADF as a whole and the support systems required to ensure it reliably delivers the required capability. In many ways the Tiger is a more capable and effective platform than the types being proposed as its replacement, what it lacked was maturity and an adequate support system, now those things have been sorted (after much delay), as per usual people are looking at years past and saying it sucks when the truth is the procurement and support models chosen / contracted would have resulted in similar problems on any platform (Sea Sprite anyone).
DMO doesn't exist anymore for a good reason, now there is CASG which has a lot more in common with the system that was behind the successful procurements of the past as well as a focus on governance and assurance often missing in the last two decades.
Thanks Volk.....I guess seeing is believing.
Surprised AA have not done a follow-up.
As to the future I'm starting to wonder if the battle space is to hot for any type of armed helicopter.
As IFV's are getting larger calibre weapons with smart munitions together with 5 generation SAM's the air space is looking pretty precarious for high end conflict. Maybe the UAV day is already here with troops only flown in only when the area is sanitised or alternatively when conducting low intensity operations.
Thoughts
Regards S
Out of interest, what capability advantage do you think the Tiger has over the replacements being proposed (primarily AH-1Z and AH-64E)?
I see very little in the Tiger that out-matches it’s potential replacements (and indeed so must Army given it is planning to replace it in only 7 years time more or less anyway) and if you remember back to the AIR-87 days, it wasn’t chosen for reasons related to any capability advantage it possessed, but rather due to Eurocopter’s promises (which largely have still yet to be met).
Not many of those auto-cannons can reach out to 8k’s and while missiles can, air-launched missiles have a physical advantage over ground-launched for obvious reasons. JAGM for instance is in testing on AH-1Z at present leading up to it’s first live firing soon. It will double the range that Hellfire currently has, being able to engage targets at up to 16k’s... It will take a substantial ground-launched capability to addess that...
t68
Well-Known Member
Do you know if they can be retrofitted to the Romeo's if testing is satisfactory?
I suspect there will eventually be an OFP update for the Romeo’s that will give them the software capability to do so, but they will also have to be physically integrated, undergo vibration and flight testing and so forth, then there is ship compatability to be understood and integrated so I suspect they will eventually reach Romeo, but it won’t be any time soon.
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
Gentlemen,
The Tiger fires Hellfire missiles (x8). So can they currently take the upgraded missiles?
I have to admit watching the Tiger fly over Canberra many years ago (watching a Canberra Comets game so quite a long time ago - one was doing acrobatics somewhere near Russell Offices) and the 360 degree roll did look impressive.
The Tiger fires Hellfire missiles (x8). So can they currently take the upgraded missiles?
I have to admit watching the Tiger fly over Canberra many years ago (watching a Canberra Comets game so quite a long time ago - one was doing acrobatics somewhere near Russell Offices) and the 360 degree roll did look impressive.
If you get the chance ask the operators and those who have worked with the tigers in recent times. Ask about manoeuvrability, flight performance, reliability, ease of maintenance (when the parts are available), survivability (including crash survival), the capability of the systems, the ordinance they can put on target and their performance in the recon role.
What is becoming more and more apparent is the "issues" are pretty much like those of the Collins class. They were an advanced platform delivering capabilities the ADF had not had before that required a lot more time and effort to get them into service than anticipated while the contract and sustainment side of the equation was sadly deficient.
Why were there so many troubled projects in the 90s and 2000s? Was it every single contractor, no matter where they came from or how successful they had been on other projects or was it the gutting of defences engineering capability and its replacement by contractors and a bipartisan belief in Canberra that things could be done on the cheap (despite the lessons of the past)?
The Tiger is not perfect but it is much better than the rumour mill would have you believe.
Thanks Volk
I had a long chat with some of the maintainers of the Tiger at Avalon last year. Given it is a public event and every one was on there best behaviour the conversation was polite and fairly neutral.............. At the end I asked if we have a go to war capacity with the Tiger?
Some what taken back the sudden bluntness of the question, the response was some what guarded, indicating it would have to be a serious level of circumstances, yada yada ..........................Then a look of pride and conviction with the answer YES.
Maybe the UAV future is not quite here and the Tiger may have more to offer than is advertised!!!!!
What ever the reality 1st Aviation Regt need congratulating for their perseverance with a challenged platform/ project and dealing with the perception right or wrong of the Tiger as a failed Aircraft.
Regards S
I really don’t think that is the case when every single other operator of the Tiger, including the countries that designed and built the thing, not only have the same problems, but worse problems. You can hardly blame the Australian system when we are doing better than every other country with turning the Tiger into a useful capability.
The Tiger might be a good helicopter, but it is a terrible weapon system.
But we know of the very real problems the Tiger has with it’s sensor systems and inability to exploit the capabilities of it’s main weapon systems. Without off-board targetting a Tiger can’t engage a target at much beyond 2k’s (ie: line of sight) with Hellfire because it’s targetting system is so limited. Compared to a UH-1H Bushranger I’m sure it’s a big step no doubt, but we are comparing it to top of the line modern attack helicopters, not 1960’s era modified utility helicopters... Have you ever heard of such an issue with Apache or UH-1Z? It’s how Tiger compares with the capabilities of these aircraft that is at issue. I’m sure we would have, if they were superior given AH-1Z aircraft have done plenty of live fire training in the NT on the same ranges the Tigers use...
That is the true situation of the aircraft today. I’m sure the operators do like it, in fact we’ve heard the CO of 1 Avn bleating publicly about how good it is and running the company line. How marvelous it is to fly and how agile it is. Well that is wonderful, except it is supposed to be one of our Army’s major weapon systems as Raven has pointed out, not a dynamic airshow performer...
That company line will run until the ‘company’ decides to replace the capability and then we’ll truly see how ‘wonderful’ it is...
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
CAP is required to treat obsolescence issues, if nothing else. That will get Tiger to the PWD. I would also steer away from assuming only a helicopter will fulfil the armed reconnaissance capability, and while an AH-64 is probably the lead contender (especially as Mangusta lost to Tiger and it is unlikely we would take a developmental program again), there should be consideration of a non-inhabited platform as well.
This is the theory - and I believed it in 2007/08. But what has flowed on from Eurocopters involvement in Qld? A handful of EC 120 built there? The regional hub that was to occur has not really progressed - so what long-term benefits has there been?
The last thing the SORW capability needs is a H-60 model. There are other parts that are (a) more needed and (b) contribute to the ADF overall in a better fashion.
It is a very pertinent question, that some aspects of AHQ are trying to look at now. FVL has potential to mitigate some of the increased AD capabilities; but the reality is that 2035 - 2040 will be very unhealthy for low level aviation.
Yes, Yes and Yes. To all three points. Tiger is a lot better than this forum believes and, other than the smoke and fumes issue in 2012/13, I cannot think off-hand of any pilot or maintainer who wouldn't happily take it to war.
The point about 1990s / 2000s is a very good point that should be part of a separate review that seeks to answer it. But almost every project in that period, across all services, had massive issues. It might actually be worth a proper review...
I have seen AGM-114 shots greater than 2000 m. From a single aircraft doing onboard targeting. And every actual issue bar one that has been raised with Tiger I have seen similar / identical raised with Zulu. In fact, I know of engineering work that the ADF supplied to the USMC to help clear up at least two Zulu technical issues.
Could it be that the company line is correct? After all, we are the operators.