DMO Project AIR 87 Aussie Tiger ARH

[Aussie Digger]

I think when people hear or see about a new piece of hardware that is going to be introduced in the ADF. You get twotpyes of reactions. Most of the time they are subjective and only on occasion objective.
In 98 (IIRC?) I first saw the Tiger fly over Lavarack Bks doing the old sales tour and it did a loop, I went wow, that's cool...we should get thoses...after it went down, up in the HRTA and I saw the condition of the two pilots I said...we will get thoses. As far as I am concerned, any helo that spuds in at speed and little height and the crew walks away from the crash with minimal injury is worth the money.
What I know about deploying armed helos into a combat area?...zip!
What do I know about selecting a piece of multi-million dollar hardware?..zip!
What I do know is that the UH-1's anf Kiowa's were/are getting old...lack the senors and weapons to support the ground forces and needed to be replaced. The range of helos on offer were interesting...the AH-64 was IMO not right for the job we needed. I think the AH-1Z(?) was still on the drawing board but it would on been my choice as a replacement for the UH-1. It did have some parts that would of been similar to our old UH-1s. However I'm the reasons for the Tiger been selected were long and well thought out.
However, why in the world would we mod them for the Hellfire II intead of going with the off the shelf weapons and systems. The mast mounted system would of been fine IMO and the ATGM's like wise.
At the end of the day we take a good platform and mod it into problems.
One question are we going the sling on AAM's onto the Tiger? Or are we just going with the ground pounding approach?

Funnily enough the "mods" that you talk about have gone perfectly smoothly. To the best of my knowledge the Hellfire II integration is complete. The only other significant mod WE chose, was the adoption of radio's that are capable of interfacing with the "legacy" systems we STILL operate as our main radio systems...

Other mods include engine modifications which were conducted at NO cost to ADF by the manufacturer to address the "hot and high" operating requirements for the helicopter. As of October 2006, all bar 1 of the 6 ARH's delivered had been modified, thus meeting ALL of defence's requirements. I'd imagine that ARH 5 has now been modified as well and all future deliveries will come with the engine upgraded already...

I can't say why ADF picked Hellfire II over the other weapons, but the Hellfire version we have chosen has a "Blast Fragmentation" (ie: general purpose) warhead rather than a dedicated anti-tank (HEAT or similar) styled warhead. Perhaps the "standard" weapon (Trigat I presume you mean, as Spain has chosen SPIKE-LR for her's, a different weapon AGAIN) didn't offer this capability?

Now if only Army could find some people who want and are capable enough to be pilots...

 

[Waylander]

Can Hellfire II be updated within flight?

IMHO one of the problems of Trigat is that it is a pure fire and forget weapon. This could be a problem when facing low level threads in civilian areas during peacekeeping operations.
Without the ability to " ride" the missile you have no chance of stopping the attack if you see with o sensorsnboard that the position you are attacking is full of civilians and not of guerillas.

 

[Falstaff]

Well, Hellfire II is a laser guided missile and not a FF-missile.

I could think of 2 reasons australia chose the Hellfire II:
1. as mentioned before it is better suited to destroy hardened targets
2. perhaps the australians didn't want to rely solely on european sources for the ARH-program and therefore chose an american weapon system

 

[Waylander]

So the Aussies are using the AGM-114K and not the AGM-144L.
Hmmm, no fire and forget is IMHO a problem if you really want to squeeze the best performance out of the Tiger.
And without the mast you have to go out on a limb for marking the target.

As to the problem with the just fire and forget Trigat on our Tigers.

I just remember that the Tiger is also qualified to use HOT (And I dumpass forgot that despite seeing it at the range in Bergen ) . So the problem should be solved with reserving Trigat for high quality targets while using HOT for others.

 

[Mick73]

I don't really have a problem with the Tiger. I think it will be great for the Army to have some new recon/fire support. Now that I have learnt what Hellfire II is going to be used for it makes sence. Thanks.
However, I think the mast mount sight would of been useful for our terrain. Hiding down in a dry creek line, pop up for a look see and move would be useful.
Running around an urban/ desert area maybe not useful as much, as slow moving helo would be a bullet magnet for small arms fire. Maybe it could be looked at later for a upgrade.
My main grip is we don't develop much in Oz (for obvious reasons) but we mod the crap out of things, but why? Local input and job creation? Most of the time it seems to add to the delays of getting this gear into operational service. These delays cost us money and add to more costs later down the track. Why not get them in service and use the first few platforms to slowly get the mods right and keep everyone happy. Lucky for us we don't have pilots sitting around waiting for these aircraft. I think one of the reasons for the lack of suitable people to fly them is when are they going to be ready for service and then getting people quailified to fly done as a large group, which must be cheaper than dribs and drabs approach. Maybe?

 

[old faithful]

Just did a course with ACCREATE, a civillian training org, who have won the contract to train the tiger crews in underwater escape from theeir cockpits. They have a pool on site with a mock up.

 

[Magoo]

Just Just did a course with ACCREATE, a civillian training org, who have won the contract to train the tiger crews in underwater escape from theeir cockpits. They have a pool on site with a mock up.

Well, no training from Tiger representative airframes at least, but it doesn't mean no overwater training at all. They can still do HUET courses from other cabin and cockpit trainers which will provide about 90% of the training they'll require without being type-specific.

AD will probably agree - This is probably stuff the Army possibly wouldn't want a contractor talking about, so I'd recommend you modify your post accordingly.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[old faithful]

This one problem that i see with contracting work to civie organizations! Security is non existant, and the instructer there bought up the subject, almost bragging about it. Im sure the course i did,which was only a day long was an "attendance course", but how many others were told the same thing. Really dont like the idea of civies training the ADF.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This one problem that i see with contracting work to civie organizations! Security is non existant, and the instructer there bought up the subject, almost bragging about it. Im sure the course i did,which was only a day long was an "attendance course", but how many others were told the same thing. Really dont like the idea of civies training the ADF.

Me either. I remember the days when Army personnel used to conduct "under water" escort training in the pool at the QPS Academy. Every so often a few Huey's would fly in, land on the oval, the "boys" would do their training and fly off back to Oakey.

No wonder they're considered "ice cream" boys...

 

[Simon9]

I keep meaning to put a vid of me doing HUET up on youtube (for the curious and the army hopefuls) but haven't got around to it yet... it can be pretty nasty, finding yourself upside down, underwater, desperate for breath and completely disoriented. Not something I'm in a hurry to go repeat.

I don't have a prob with the civvies teaching it though. Most of them are ex-army anyway. The ones who take the ADF courses are at least. It's also a good civil accreditation to have too - highly valued in industries like oil where you do a lot of helicopter flights over water.

 

[alexsa]

I keep meaning to put a vid of me doing HUET up on youtube (for the curious and the army hopefuls) but haven't got around to it yet... it can be pretty nasty, finding yourself upside down, underwater, desperate for breath and completely disoriented. Not something I'm in a hurry to go repeat.

I don't have a prob with the civvies teaching it though. Most of them are ex-army anyway. The ones who take the ADF courses are at least. It's also a good civil accreditation to have too - highly valued in industries like oil where you do a lot of helicopter flights over water.

Try doing it in a Puma mock up with an overweight ships crew member in the seat next to you .... and he is by the escape hatch. If you don't panic it is not bad (I dive so I have an advantage) but it does stretch thepatience when the silly bugger forgets how to undo his seat belt.

 

[Simon9]

Here we go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GM78RTlQHI

http://pics.livejournal.com/firstashore/pic/00074yp4

http://pics.livejournal.com/firstashore/pic/00075804

HUET training in all its scary glory..... :shudder

 

[Tasman]

Payments stopped on Tiger ARH

Defence has stopped payments on the AIR 87 Tiger ARH project because of failure by Australian Aerospace to achieve a contracted milestone.

DEFENCE STOPS PAYMENT ON ARMED RECONNAISSANCE HELICOPTER ACQUISITION CONTRACT



The Defence Materiel Organisation has exercised its rights under the Air 87 Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) acquisition contract and stopped payment to Australian Aerospace on 1 June 2007 as the contracted milestone for ARH Initial Operational Capability has not been achieved.



Initial Operational Capbility for the Tiger ARH Project is defined as the ability to conduct collective training. Delays in the Franco/German Tiger program have negatively impacted the development of the simulators and establishment of the Australian based training needed to achieve this milestone.



Defence and Australian Aerospace are working cooperatively to limit the effects of the delay. Seven of the 22 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters have been accepted and these aircraft have now flown over 1500 hours in training and testing which will contribute to this outcome. Defence is confident that the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Project will deliver the contracted capability.



The Tiger Through-Life Support contract is unaffected and flying operations are continuing. Although payment has ceased Australian Aerospace will continue delivery of aircraft and support systems.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6829

According to the report the program is continuing and I presume the payment 'stop' is a penalty for failure to deliver contracted outcomes on time.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Defence has stopped payments on the AIR 87 Tiger ARH project because of failure by Australian Aerospace to achieve a contracted milestone.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6829

According to the report the program is continuing and I presume the payment 'stop' is a penalty for failure to deliver contracted outcomes on time.

Cheers

From the way I read the media release, it appears that the delays to the ARH program are not a failure by Aerospace Australia, but a Eurocopter issues with France/Germany. Is that anyone else's impression? I had thought that the Aussie Tigers were doing well and underway but that they were being held up by certification, etc. in Europe. Is there any additional information available on the nature of delay?

-Cheers