DMO Project AIR 87 Aussie Tiger ARH

S

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Grand Danois said:
IIRC that was AA artillery. As I understand it, Kerbala was a employment/doctrinal failure. Using attack helos for deep battle proved not to be a good idea.

Using Cobras for CAS and Kiowas for recce seemed to be OK.

Dunno about Afghanistan, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was both AAA and small arms fire I think - pretty much everything they had, they shot.

Afghanistan was heavy and medium MGs during Tora Bora, in more of the CAS role. The Apaches had to be withdrawn and they resorted to carpet bombing.

Regardless, it's safe to say that unarmoured Tigers would not have come off a lot worse from AAA and small arms hits. :)
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
Tiger ARH aircraft

As I understand it, the Tiger ARH uses a composite airframe to reduce weight and RCS. From what I've read (darned if I remember the source) it's supposed to be something like 80% composite. Are any of the exterior panels made of composites? Also, does anyone know if the specs on the panels are to be able to resist certain calibers of weapon? It would make sense to me to have that included in the specs. Not necessarily to the level of the Apache since that is an attack, not recon helicopter, but still.

-Cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Simon9 said:
Plus recent operational experience has shown the attack helos are quite vulnerable to small arms fire. The Apaches were handed tactical defeats in both Iraq and Afghanistan and were heavily damaged. They are heavily armoured birds which no doubt saved them and their crews, but what would have happened to our Tigers in that situation? We'd have lost a lot more.
Click to expand...
Who knows, but it's interesting Kiowa Warriors have been operated in te same environment without a reported level of battle damage as Apache has suffered. Tiger may not be well armoured, but it simply HAS to be better armoured than a Kiowa.

Kiowa is used as an ARH by the USA (though it is to be replaced shortly). Perhaps given similar roles, the Tiger may perform just as well???
 
S

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
Who knows, but it's interesting Kiowa Warriors have been operated in te same environment without a reported level of battle damage as Apache has suffered. Tiger may not be well armoured, but it simply HAS to be better armoured than a Kiowa.

Kiowa is used as an ARH by the USA (though it is to be replaced shortly). Perhaps given similar roles, the Tiger may perform just as well???
Click to expand...
True, although the Kiowas have suffered comparatively badly in the Insurgency War, often from small arms. Come to that, so have the Apaches, though the latter usually from MANPADS.

It is probably fair to say that in the Kiowa's ARH role the Tiger would perform well, but in the Apache's gunship role it might not perform as well. In the Cobra's role of CAS... who knows. I think it probably actually best matches the Cobra in terms of ideal role. Another example of how the USMC so often tends to better reflect the ADF than the US Army does.

I must say I don't like the terming of the Tiger an ARH. It gives the impression that its primary capability is recon, while in fact it is a light gunship. Same way they call the ASLAV units recon - while in fact in 7 Bde, 2/14 has the heaviest direct firepower of the entire brigade!
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Simon9 said:
True, although the Kiowas have suffered comparatively badly in the Insurgency War, often from small arms. Come to that, so have the Apaches, though the latter usually from MANPADS.

It is probably fair to say that in the Kiowa's ARH role the Tiger would perform well, but in the Apache's gunship role it might not perform as well. In the Cobra's role of CAS... who knows. I think it probably actually best matches the Cobra in terms of ideal role. Another example of how the USMC so often tends to better reflect the ADF than the US Army does.

I must say I don't like the terming of the Tiger an ARH. It gives the impression that its primary capability is recon, while in fact it is a light gunship. Same way they call the ASLAV units recon - while in fact in 7 Bde, 2/14 has the heaviest direct firepower of the entire brigade!
Click to expand...
Except when 1 Field fires it's guns over "open sights" I agree. Which would be the only reason I'd support the "light tank in Australian service" arguments, we seem to have here at the moment...

An ASLAV styled version of the US's Stryer AGS I would support for 7 Brigade and 3 Brigade to increase their firepower. An SP 120mm mortar capability would be nice too, but anyway back to ARH's...

I agree, though I wonder how much Army will employ the Tiger in it's "firepower" role. I still remember some of the silly comments from officers in Army magazine when discussing the ARH capability, "see that person with the orange moustache? Shoot him!" Is one that comes to mind... Comments like that didn't inspire much confidence that they were seriously thinking about how best to employ their new "toy"...

It seemed to me as if these Aviation officers envisaged themselves sitting in lounges, drinking cognac, playing pool and instructing the plebs on who to destroy...
 
S

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If 1 Fd is ever reduced to that we're in real trouble. :)

Aussie Digger said:
It seemed to me as if these Aviation officers envisaged themselves sitting in lounges, drinking cognac, playing pool and instructing the plebs on who to destroy...
Click to expand...
Not the sort of attitude you want for men who may have to blow apart defenceless enemies at night who can't even SEE them. I always feel uncomfortable about that when I watch the US thermal footage from Apaches and AC-130s. I actually thought of applying to be a Tiger pilot, but that was one of the biggest things that stopped me. I don't need that on my conscience. The "him or me" factor of infantry combat I could live with, even ambushes, but slaughtering men who pose no threat (and a good deal of whom turn out to be civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan) isn't for me.

A rather artificial distinction it may be, but there it is. Psychology is a funny thing.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Simon9 said:
If 1 Fd is ever reduced to that we're in real trouble. :)

Not the sort of attitude you want for men who may have to blow apart defenceless enemies at night who can't even SEE them. I always feel uncomfortable about that when I watch the US thermal footage from Apaches and AC-130s. I actually thought of applying to be a Tiger pilot, but that was one of the biggest things that stopped me. I don't need that on my conscience. The "him or me" factor of infantry combat I could live with, even ambushes, but slaughtering men who pose no threat (and a good deal of whom turn out to be civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan) isn't for me.

A rather artificial distinction it may be, but there it is. Psychology is a funny thing.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. I remember finding myself thinking any number of times after firing a 0.50cal HMG, gee I hope I'm not doing this for real one day.

Firing a 0.50cal HMG from an M113 as I remember it, creates what I always thought of as an "overpressure". I could feel how powerful the gun was simply sitting near it from a drivers seat, let alone hanging onto the back of one...

I could always easily imagine what the gun would be doing to people if I were firing it for real. I always felt slightly sick with the thought. A good thing to I suppose...

I have a similar thing with policing, not that it's similar firing a machine gun to firing a pistol, but at least with a 0.50cal it would be an "enemy". With policing, it's going to be a fellow Countryman. The "heat of the moment" would get me through it I don't doubt, but I'd be feeling ordinary afterwards I'd imagine...
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Naked swimming is elemental part of culture here so we don't need tech for seeing boobs. :D :nutkick
 
S

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I challenge you to find a better use for a helicopter, Waylander!

It took place during an Indy Carnival on the Gold Coast. There was a BIG media storm about it and I'm sure the crew responsible got in a LOT of trouble. :)
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Waylander said:
Naked swimming is elemental part of culture here so we don't need tech for seeing boobs. :D :nutkick
Click to expand...
Topless is common enough on Aussie beaches, & there are plenty of nude beaches, mostly of the "everyone does it so it's accepted" sort. I think the law's much the same as here, i.e. there's no law against it, but you can be made to cover up if anyone objects. But of course, objections don't count on beaches where it's established as the norm.

Unfortunately, when I worked in Sydney it was winter. The weather was just about getting warm enough for the beach when I had to come home - straight into an English autumn. No summer for me that year. :( I had to fly off to the Canaries to get a sunshine fix.
 
F

Falstaff

New Member
Quite interesting to see the stuff you guys are discussing here... anyway...

I read the posts about the tiger's armour and battlefield survivability and as far as that is concerned I'd like remind you of when and for what purpose the tiger was designed.
If you look at the helicopters the tiger replaces in the french and -more importat- german armies (the gazelle and the BO 105 PAH) you will see that they are light yet highly agile anti-tank-helicopters.
Our army's task was to take out some 10.000 soviet tanks in germany's rolling-hills-with-lots-of-wood terrain and the BO 105 was built to do so, and so is the tiger. It was built to maneuver and hide in the difficult terrain, find and ambush tanks before it can be detected by the enemy and get out of the highly weapon-saturated cold war frontline.
It is by far the most agile combat helicopter ever built, it has a superb sensor suite and a durable airframe. It is quiet stealthy for a helicopter: quiet and compact, made of composites. And it is one hell of a pilot's machine. Of course it can stand fire from small firearms. In this respect, it is a quantum leap...

Yet, it is not designed to fulfill a heavy (armed and armoured) gunship role over flat terrain. It is not as heavily armoured as the apache and surely can't take as much damage (although I don't exacvtly know, just guessing)- but the Kiowa did that well because it is agile and (compared to the huge apache) harder to detect...
 
Tasman

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Falstaff said:
Quite interesting to see the stuff you guys are discussing here... anyway...

I read the posts about the tiger's armour and battlefield survivability and as far as that is concerned I'd like remind you of when and for what purpose the tiger was designed.
If you look at the helicopters the tiger replaces in the french and -more importat- german armies (the gazelle and the BO 105 PAH) you will see that they are light yet highly agile anti-tank-helicopters.
Our army's task was to take out some 10.000 soviet tanks in germany's rolling-hills-with-lots-of-wood terrain and the BO 105 was built to do so, and so is the tiger. It was built to maneuver and hide in the difficult terrain, find and ambush tanks before it can be detected by the enemy and get out of the highly weapon-saturated cold war frontline.
It is by far the most agile combat helicopter ever built, it has a superb sensor suite and a durable airframe. It is quiet stealthy for a helicopter: quiet and compact, made of composites. And it is one hell of a pilot's machine. Of course it can stand fire from small firearms. In this respect, it is a quantum leap...

Yet, it is not designed to fulfill a heavy (armed and armoured) gunship role over flat terrain. It is not as heavily armoured as the apache and surely can't take as much damage (although I don't exacvtly know, just guessing)- but the Kiowa did that well because it is agile and (compared to the huge apache) harder to detect...
Click to expand...
Good points here Falstaff. You put the role of the Tiger, and hence its armour, into perspective. In the Australian Army the role will not be to take out massed tank formations (though it could certainly take out a tank) but to replace the Kiowa in the recce role and the Iroquois in the gunship role. With its agility and firepower, it will be a quantum leap on its predecessors in the ADF and from what I read here its armour should be adequate for the role.

Cheers
 
M

Mick73

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top