Main difference between Tiger (EC) and Longbow
- Thread starter Oce
- Start date
indiana46767
New Member
indiana46767
New Member
Or you can look at like the B 52 Bomber that the US had for half a century in their fleet. They had an aircraft that was proven so all they did is upgrade the avionics and engines to state of the art. Don't get me wrong i like the Tigre personally, but if i had these two side by side i would go with a brand new Apache Longbow. Now a cobra i would scratch them off the list for sure.
Apache is bigger and heavier, carrys more, shorter range. It is more at home in high intensity conflicts, tank killing etc.
However the Tiger favours lighter but longer ranged missions. I think its a bit more stealthy and modern.
There are good reasons to choose either. Its a bit unfortunate no one really has had them ready to put them into combat because it looks like it would be able to prove itself.
the road runner
Active Member
The Apache was designed to be a Anti-Armour helicopter.Its main mission were destruction of Armor.The crew compartment and fuel tanks are Armoured to withstand shots from 23mm Anti Air guns.Apache carries more weapons(16 hellfires for Apache compared to 12 on Tiger) than the Tiger,thus reflecting its Anti Armour role.
The Eurocopter Tiger was designed as a Armed Reconosance Helicopter.Its main mission is to sense the battlefield,flying with a lower silouette,lower profile and agility.Tiger has greater range than the Apache,thus reflecting its reconnasance role.
Different choppers for different missions.........
The Eurocopter Tiger was designed as a Armed Reconosance Helicopter.Its main mission is to sense the battlefield,flying with a lower silouette,lower profile and agility.Tiger has greater range than the Apache,thus reflecting its reconnasance role.
Different choppers for different missions.........
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
AH-64D Apache Longbow is a bigger, heavier helicopter designed for firepower missions (primarily anti-tank) with recon as a secondary tasking.
Eurocopter Tiger is a lighter more manoeuvrable helicopter designed for armed reconnaisance missions. It does not pack as much firepower as the Apache and lacks the millimetre wave radar that Apache Longbow carries.
Both have similar lethality with Hellfire missiles, un-guided rockets and 30mm cannons equipping both helos (French and Australian Tigers carry Hellfire - Spanish and German Tigers will use different missiles), but Apache can carry a heavier load of rockets, missiles or various combinations of both, than Tiger can.
I have to disagree.
While some versions of the Tiger are better suited for armed reconiassance as well as escort duty other versions are especially designed to fill the tank hunter role.
The German UHT Tiger for example is the direct successor to the PAH1 (On Bo-105 chassis) in the anti-tank role.
Just the recent shifts in politics lead to it getting pushed into a multi-role role.
The French also envision to use their HAP versions for the armed recon role while the HAD does the more serious fighting.
Besides HOT3 Germany is going to use the Trigat-LR missile while spain opted for the Spike.
Nevertheless you are right when stating that the Apache (be it in the longbow version or not) is the heavier gunship helicopter compared to the Tiger.
While some versions of the Tiger are better suited for armed reconiassance as well as escort duty other versions are especially designed to fill the tank hunter role.
The German UHT Tiger for example is the direct successor to the PAH1 (On Bo-105 chassis) in the anti-tank role.
Just the recent shifts in politics lead to it getting pushed into a multi-role role.
The French also envision to use their HAP versions for the armed recon role while the HAD does the more serious fighting.
Besides HOT3 Germany is going to use the Trigat-LR missile while spain opted for the Spike.
Nevertheless you are right when stating that the Apache (be it in the longbow version or not) is the heavier gunship helicopter compared to the Tiger.
I think the Apache is better for target rich enviroments. Some sort of imagined russian tank invasion. Go, hit hit hit, refuel rearm.
Where as the Tiger is better at covering lots of ground, looking and then killing a tank.
Ones not really weaker than the other as a killer, they just kill in different ways.
They really are different horses for courses. Although both at a pinch can perform each others mission.
I think Australia made the right decision to go for Tiger, I think it will better suited our type of operations better. Range, we needed range. I just wished we were totally operational by now.
Where as the Tiger is better at covering lots of ground, looking and then killing a tank.
Ones not really weaker than the other as a killer, they just kill in different ways.
They really are different horses for courses. Although both at a pinch can perform each others mission.
I think Australia made the right decision to go for Tiger, I think it will better suited our type of operations better. Range, we needed range. I just wished we were totally operational by now.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Stingray..do you think if comparisons more appropriate between Tiger and Super Cobra..
I've to admit have limited knowledge on current Attack Helicopters, but seems considering similarity on light weight and weapons carrying capabilities, Super Cobra seems more match with tiger compared to Longbow.
Don't know though on the range capabilities. Still from what I read, the lattest upgrades by US Marines for their Super Cobra's are quite remarkable.
butterknuckles
New Member
My good friend Ananda, the Super Cobra indeed packs a desirable punch and is more slimmer than the both with advanced avionics and features though not comparable to the Apache Longbow variant it still carries a similar arsenal excluding that it uses a 120mm chain gun which is more powerful than the 30mm equipped on the Apache and comparing to the Tiger the Super Cobra as we all know was used during the Vietnam War as an armed reconnascience helo so I'm pretty sure it has more advanced capabilities today for the same role as well as anti-armour, sead and surisingly air defense. so all in all the Super Cobra outranks the Tiger and is near the Longbow.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Base on Theather Combat
Interesting..
So if we see the scenario's of Cold War (thus) large theather combat environment then Apache is the only suitable western attack helicopters for that..??
While the SuperCobra, Tiger and AW129 although have anti-armour but their primary task is for Combat Recce and more suitable for non conventional warfere like facing western powers at this moment..??
Sorry not have intentions for invoking any debates of which better, but quite confuse on the capabilities of present attack choopers :unknown
Heard that economically, maintaining Apaches' are much more expensives than the other three, and for the current threat, the other Three is much more appropriates choices...true ??
Try to rationalise this, but seems on the logic of present threat, then Apache even the Long Bow versions should become the last choices, thus perhaps the US should increase the procurement on Super Cobra.
Can be the rank for Theather combat :
1. Apache/Long Bow
2/3 Super Cobra - Tiger
4 AW 129
However if for non theather combat environment then:
1/2 Super Cobra- Tiger
3 AW 129
4 Apache/Long Bow.
Is this appropriate ..??
Interesting..
So if we see the scenario's of Cold War (thus) large theather combat environment then Apache is the only suitable western attack helicopters for that..??
While the SuperCobra, Tiger and AW129 although have anti-armour but their primary task is for Combat Recce and more suitable for non conventional warfere like facing western powers at this moment..??
Sorry not have intentions for invoking any debates of which better, but quite confuse on the capabilities of present attack choopers :unknown
Heard that economically, maintaining Apaches' are much more expensives than the other three, and for the current threat, the other Three is much more appropriates choices...true ??
Try to rationalise this, but seems on the logic of present threat, then Apache even the Long Bow versions should become the last choices, thus perhaps the US should increase the procurement on Super Cobra.
Can be the rank for Theather combat :
1. Apache/Long Bow
2/3 Super Cobra - Tiger
4 AW 129
However if for non theather combat environment then:
1/2 Super Cobra- Tiger
3 AW 129
4 Apache/Long Bow.
Is this appropriate ..??
winnyfield
New Member
The Apache uses a less powerful 30mm cannon but overall carries more firepower.
These are all for different purposes.
Supercobra has a smaller (and less ammo) 20mm gun verse 30mm on Apache/Tiger. I think you will find there are some good reasons why people like the 30mm over the supercobra(jamming?).
Supercobra can fire Zuni missiles which I don't think Apache and Tiger have ever fired (Apache no doubt could be upgraded if required). By how useful are they?
Supercobra is often without radar as it has to be ineffectively side mounted.
Supercobra is designed to be a maritime helo and excels in that regard.
Tiger still has longer range, and can be made longer with fuel tanks on inner pylons.
I do belive the tiger can datalink up and down. It has a range of various higher speed protcol links it can do that to intergrate with a variety of other equipment.
I think for modern lower level engagements Tiger would be the pick. You could cruise for longer, stealthier, with lower on going costs. Its well able to take out. But then again it would be unsuitable for someone like the US and what they do.
Supercobra has a smaller (and less ammo) 20mm gun verse 30mm on Apache/Tiger. I think you will find there are some good reasons why people like the 30mm over the supercobra(jamming?).
Supercobra can fire Zuni missiles which I don't think Apache and Tiger have ever fired (Apache no doubt could be upgraded if required). By how useful are they?
Supercobra is often without radar as it has to be ineffectively side mounted.
Supercobra is designed to be a maritime helo and excels in that regard.
Tiger still has longer range, and can be made longer with fuel tanks on inner pylons.
I do belive the tiger can datalink up and down. It has a range of various higher speed protcol links it can do that to intergrate with a variety of other equipment.
I think for modern lower level engagements Tiger would be the pick. You could cruise for longer, stealthier, with lower on going costs. Its well able to take out. But then again it would be unsuitable for someone like the US and what they do.
People keep changing views cause its simple made in America. They favour Apache cause it has been battle proven. Ok thats fine. Yet then they favour F-22 yet it not being battle proven, simple cause American say its good aircraft having an impressive fake kill ratio. Which simulated in real life is completely BS. Are we just sterotyping American technology as being good no matter what platform comes of their production line even if it ain't? It can swing both sides, saying that a Cold War era is more advanced then current ones cause it is battle proven can be wrong. Saying that its battle proven but its adversary are obsolete Cold War era with poorly trained pilots can also be wrong.
Firepower each carries sufficient and equal amounts of firepower, the Apache doesnt have more firepower its just has more in quantity, being able to support armoured vehicles in the theatre for longer period engagment then the Tiger.
About the massive land invasion of tanks they aint gonna be lining up to be blown up by aerial ATGM without surface to air covergage.
Firepower each carries sufficient and equal amounts of firepower, the Apache doesnt have more firepower its just has more in quantity, being able to support armoured vehicles in the theatre for longer period engagment then the Tiger.
About the massive land invasion of tanks they aint gonna be lining up to be blown up by aerial ATGM without surface to air covergage.
Verstandwaffe
New Member
No offense but:
This kind of "argument" is PROVEN to be the only one americans have to say when someone pits US arms against european ones or others.
We have read this same thing for years regarding Leopard II
These days computational models allow a lot of accuracy when evaluating this kind of matters.
Onkel
New Member
The german Tiger UHU is the successor of the PAH 1, it was originally designed for tank hunting. The PAH 1 is a simple BO 105. The tactics developed by the german army are quite different to those, the US forces use. Do you remember the charge of a squadron of AH 64 during Gulf War three, countered by the republican guards on 24 March 2003? Such a Manouver is quite unthinkable for german forces. The Tiger would strike and dug, using natural coverage for hiding from hostile fire. That´s why it isn´t that heavy.
Apart from that, I guess no one of us knows very much about the performance of this helos.
Apart from that, I guess no one of us knows very much about the performance of this helos.
Using the terrain for a covered approach and then attacking enemy tank columns with pop up tactics is exactly what the US wanted to do with their Apaches if the cold war would have turned hot.
And the Apache-Kiowa team was defenitely much more capable at this than the PAHs.
And a modern Longbow is also better suited for the role of a massive tankkiller stemming the tide of enemy MBTs.
Not that the UHT isn't a capable tank hunter but the Longbow has alot of advantages on it's side.
That the Apaches took some beating during OIF had to do with faulty intelligence reports.
I hope we don't go on stating mere patriotic nonsense like Verstandwaffe does it without anything backing it.
And the Apache-Kiowa team was defenitely much more capable at this than the PAHs.
And a modern Longbow is also better suited for the role of a massive tankkiller stemming the tide of enemy MBTs.
Not that the UHT isn't a capable tank hunter but the Longbow has alot of advantages on it's side.
That the Apaches took some beating during OIF had to do with faulty intelligence reports.
I hope we don't go on stating mere patriotic nonsense like Verstandwaffe does it without anything backing it.
the road runner
Active Member
The UHT and HAD are the anti tank versions for Germany/France(just been reading up on them)
We do not get alot of press on the UHT or HAP version,come to think about it the whole Aussie ARH has been very hush hush of late.Last i heard the Commonwealth stopped payment to Australian Eurocopter.
Didnt Australia choose the Tiger ARH because it had an IOC 2005?