Why not Tiger for US ARH?
- Thread starter hot222
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
For the same reason the Airbus A330 won't be chosen as the new USAF tanker, despite it's superiority over the Boeing KC-767. Because it's not designed and built by an American company...
There's nothing wrong in this approach though in my opinion, all Countries should encourage their own industry like this...
There's nothing wrong in this approach though in my opinion, all Countries should encourage their own industry like this...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
AD, you are quite right. I also don't think that's possible. But may be there is a way of thinking. Eurocopter can create a joined company with sikorsy to build a "US Tiger" as happened with US101. Also they can use their supperior knowledge to improve Tiger for their own.
After all, Tiger is NATO helicopter, too.
By the way it's just a proposal.
After all, Tiger is NATO helicopter, too.
By the way it's just a proposal.
nz enthusiast
New Member
The US very rarely will buy from another country, as in I would like someone here to name the last foriegn made aircraft they made. Remember that boeing has a range of aircraft all diffrent sizes so there shoul dbe one that meets the USAF requirements.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
I don't believe that US have ever bought an aircraft from another country (if someone knows, please speak) exept maybe Canada...(?)
But it look that if put all that kind of sensors needed, you get no more than a new...kiowa Warrior! Why don't take a ready helicopter, and just upgrade sensor (if the need). Tiger is at Comanche's size (of course not that advanced).
And of course US could build it at its homeland, by American workers.
So if Europe thing the same way, European countries, which are till now the best customer, should aquire only European products.
But it look that if put all that kind of sensors needed, you get no more than a new...kiowa Warrior! Why don't take a ready helicopter, and just upgrade sensor (if the need). Tiger is at Comanche's size (of course not that advanced).
And of course US could build it at its homeland, by American workers.
So if Europe thing the same way, European countries, which are till now the best customer, should aquire only European products.
at least major 2 instances:hot222 said:
1) F-21's are used for aggressor training at Nellis
2) 24 x Mig 29's were bought from Moldova and used for test and evaluation
btw, Spanish transports are being considered for Light Transports roles, and the Presidential helo Marine 1 (plus all others) are not US indigenous. They set up the production line in the US so as to comply with DoD criteria. They are however foreign aircraft.
IIRC US Federal Law requires US construction and built in CONUS for new frames.
edit add-on:
forgot to add (apart from EH 101) the US also usess license built HH-65A's (Dauphins/ aka Dolphins)
they also used modified Canberra bombers for recce work after the success of the RAF in running ferrets into the Soviet Union (and after they had some B-45's shot down due to lousy performance)
unmanned aircraft include the Australian Jindivik.
there are a few more in the air transport and ewarfare role but I'd have to do some research to prompt failing memory.
Last edited:
Lightndattic
New Member
The US coast Guard also flys Falcon jets with the F-16's APG-66 as the HU-25C. They are however built in the US.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
But at this time ARH competition is on, with 2 helicopters that i believe that incapable to affored this role. I cannot believe that a longer 58 or a "better" little bird can guide Longbows to the battle. Seems US Army is out of money! Or they try to prove that Comanche's cancelation was wrong. I think that it was wrong too.
I believe that you're confusing your notion of platform usage with current platform doctrine in specific environments.hot222 said:
It's got nothing to do with platform capability but more to do with an extension to tactics.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
gf0012-aust said:
If it's not the platform, why US Army does not stick with Kiowa Warrior? Put it astronger engine/transmition and new rotor system (Bell has a lot new rotor systems) and live with it for another 20 years.
By the way, can any imagine what kind and how many sensors you can put on a little bird?
hot222 said:If it's not the platform, why US Army does not stick with Kiowa Warrior? Put it astronger engine/transmition and new rotor system (Bell has a lot new rotor systems) and live with it for another 20 years.
By the way, can any imagine what kind and how many sensors you can put on a little bird?
have you bothered to read and understand my prev response? I find it curious that you're living in an environment where the delivery and capability issues are tightly connected to autonomous platforms, and you're talking about using helos (from yr prev post) in pairs.
quite frankly, you're talking about a mission delivery that was thrown out a fair while ago and has almost no relevancy in the current climate. No offence, but to talk about revitalising the Kiowa for complex missions seems to base a hell of a lot of faith in the presence of sufficient frames to re-zero.
I'd argue that:
1) insufficient frames exist.
2) zeroing said frames is cost ineffective
3) platform doesn't suit required mission (and that is probably one of the single most glaring deficiencies in the argument)
4) the current hours up on the existing Kiowa fleet borders nightmarish proportions for those conducting fatigue tests etc... As an example, the RAAF Kiowas have had less work than those in the US Army - ours are rated as almost unairworthy.
Hint: Platform suitability to Future Mission - then work your way down.
knightrider4
Active Member
Perhaps the US is better off going for an unmanned solution. Maybe modify an existing UAV.
Dunno mate, I'll ask around and see what the goss is. A-D might have a better current idea.Supe said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The only official thing I've heard is that the Iroquois and Kiowa are to be retired when the NH-90 and Tiger come on line respectively. I haven't heard anything about how the ADF intends to dispose of them as yet. They could probably sell the retired airframes as is though. A lot of airforces are prepared to operate aircraft the ADF won't though... Nomad's for instance?
It will be a pity if all of the Huey fleet is retired... surely some of them could be retained. I think of them as bushbashers (like ye olde Tojo Landcruiser) while the Blackhawks are the limos of ADF fleet. Keeping on a few old 'bush bashers' could even prove more cost effective in terms of saving hours on the airframes of the Blackhawks.
Will more NH-90's procured to replace the outgoing Huey fleet?
Keeping on a few old 'bush bashers' could even prove more cost effective in terms of saving hours on the airframes of the Blackhawks. Will more NH-90's procured to replace the outgoing Huey fleet?
Jason_kiwi
New Member
The current USA use of the apache is much better than using Tigers. Tigers are not as capable.