What is the advantages of the Tiger helicopter?

[Gremlin29]

You fellas are mixed up on your info. "km" = kilometers while "nm" = nautical miles. A nautical mile is 1.825 km. You are mixing up date given in kilometers with data given in nautical miles.

I can assure you the Tiger can't fly 730 nautical miles on 2,300 pounds of fuel and the Apache sure as heck has a bigger combat radius than 97 nautical miles (which is roughly equal to 150 km). The Apache Longbow only carries 86 pounds more in fuel than the Tiger yet carries a bigger load. I would say fuel logistics and economy aren't going to be decission makers on this one.

The Apache can ferry 1,100 nautical miles or....over 2,000 kilometers.

In any event the real story is told in the aircrafts performance planning interpolation charts. Helicopters do not have static performance capabilities. For example wiki lists the Tigers "Max Speed" but that is a term that isn't even used in the aviation profession because it's meaningless. There's max cruise (maximum cruise airspeed) and VNE (velocity not to exceed). Typically at max cruise you still have enough power to initiate a 500 fpm climb which is a standard rate of climb. Helicopters don't hit VNE in straight and level flight.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im pretty sure the Tiger does have advantage in terms of range. Do we have any evidence that it doesnt?. Maybe its the newer engines and better drag co thats giving it the large advantage.

For Australia the Tiger makes perfect sense. We don't need to take out huge amounts of amour, maybe the odd one, in a far away land, as part of a multinational mission. The gun is proberly more useful, and the Tiger does well there. Part commonality with the other helos is also a big win, more reliability is again a big plus. Australia is most likely going to operate these off ships that is a huge adavantage over the Apache. (Cobra is a better argument for that).

For what Australia wants the Tiger is actually the better buy. We then improved it by sticking hellfires on it (which the french are now doing too). You lose what 2 missiles compared to an apache but you gain (for Australia) so much more.

Its a good helo, while not the best choice against soviet tank hords, in the sort of missions attack (or "recon") helos will perform, its better suited.

 

[Todjaeger]

Im pretty sure the Tiger does have advantage in terms of range. Do we have any evidence that it doesnt?. Maybe its the newer engines and better drag co thats giving it the large advantage.

For Australia the Tiger makes perfect sense. We don't need to take out huge amounts of amour, maybe the odd one, in a far away land, as part of a multinational mission. The gun is proberly more useful, and the Tiger does well there. Part commonality with the other helos is also a big win, more reliability is again a big plus. Australia is most likely going to operate these off ships that is a huge adavantage over the Apache. (Cobra is a better argument for that).

For what Australia wants the Tiger is actually the better buy. We then improved it by sticking hellfires on it (which the french are now doing too). You lose what 2 missiles compared to an apache but you gain (for Australia) so much more.

Its a good helo, while not the best choice against soviet tank hords, in the sort of missions attack (or "recon") helos will perform, its better suited.

An Apache at full load can carry 16 Hellfires, 4 pylons each mounting four missiles. The Tiger I believe can only carry 2 pylons of four Hellfires each. But then again, the Aussie Tiger should never be facing hordes of tanks. OTOH, the ability to carry a total of 16 AGM-114M Hellfires could be useful when Australia operates in littoral areas against small FACs or in COIN ops against soft targets. Then again, the 30 mm gun would be good in such situations as well.

-Cheers

 

[Gremlin29]

Im pretty sure the Tiger does have advantage in terms of range. Do we have any evidence that it doesnt?. Maybe its the newer engines and better drag co thats giving it the large advantage.

For Australia the Tiger makes perfect sense. We don't need to take out huge amounts of amour, maybe the odd one, in a far away land, as part of a multinational mission. The gun is proberly more useful, and the Tiger does well there. Part commonality with the other helos is also a big win, more reliability is again a big plus. Australia is most likely going to operate these off ships that is a huge adavantage over the Apache. (Cobra is a better argument for that).

For what Australia wants the Tiger is actually the better buy. We then improved it by sticking hellfires on it (which the french are now doing too). You lose what 2 missiles compared to an apache but you gain (for Australia) so much more.

Its a good helo, while not the best choice against soviet tank hords, in the sort of missions attack (or "recon") helos will perform, its better suited.

From public data the Tiger has a range advantage of 130 nm versus Apache using internal fuel. With aux tanks the Apache has a range advantage of 600km which is 322 nm. I would expect a good piece of that internal fuel range advantage comes from carrying 8 hellfires versus the Apache's 16. I can't post the info for OPSEC reasons but suffice to say the comparitive ranges are equal enough while carrying the same ordenance. If you need 16 hellfires for the mission, 1 Apache is going to deliver alot cheaper than 2 Tigers. My conclussion is that the selection of Tiger over Apache is based on either the Apache not being available to the customer or someone wanting X number of aircraft and that was the only way to get to X with the money available. Not saying the Tiger is a bad ship, but it's not nearly as capable as the Longbow and I would really have to wonder why you would want 2 aircraft to do a job half as good as 1.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I dont think either of them are bad ships. They are very different ships.

Australia is unlikely to need 16 hellfires per sortie per helo. We just aren't operating in that sort of enviroment, even when deployed overseas with the US, Australia won't be tasked to require that sort of firepower by a single Helo. Armour is not a big issue in our island region, nor are heavily fortified bases etc. The gun is better placed to disable small boats and softer targets (not to mention significantly cheaper to operate).

I do believe the Tiger has (perhaps a very slight) range advantage, throw in commonality with the NH-90 in many systems and engines and better suited to marine ops and countries like Australia will be interested. They could build them locally. That commonality means when deployed overseas or from a ship, that tiger might be able to make many more sorties from the avalible parts and maintence people over a longer period of time.

The british and dutch have Apaches, because it suits their needs and operations.

 

[Todjaeger]

Australia is unlikely to need 16 hellfires per sortie per helo. We just aren't operating in that sort of enviroment, even when deployed overseas with the US, Australia won't be tasked to require that sort of firepower by a single Helo. Armour is not a big issue in our island region, nor are heavily fortified bases etc. The gun is better placed to disable small boats and softer targets (not to mention significantly cheaper to operate).

The british and dutch have Apaches, because it suits their needs and operations.

I do not know how accurate the first comment is. As I understand it, the Oz contigent in Afghanistan under Operation Slipper required the operational support of Dutch Apache gunships. With that in mind, it is possible that the level of fire support the ADF required might have exceeded what a Tiger detachment could have provided (if the Aussie Tigers had been available). I do not expect that information would be public domain, but it is an interesting question of just what level fire support was needed, and if Australia could provide it if/when required in the future.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Perhaps, its a hard call. The tigers weren't avalible, publically we just don't know. I would imagine the tigers would have done the job, but I don't know if they could have done it by themselves (perhaps additional aircraft either tigers or apaches would have needed to help out, us might have to deploy apaches closer to us or something).

We now have tigers and they are big upgrade on what we had before (nothing). I personally think we do need more Tigers. Just a few extra airframes (6?) would provide a sizeable increase in force in high intensity operations or complex amphibious operations. But that argument has to be balanced out by everything else the ADF needs and tigers aren't cheap.

We could have got apaches, we specifically did not choose them. Im assuming there is a good reason why, its just not public.

 

[Bonza]

Does anyone know what the maintenance requirements of the Tiger are like compared to the Apache? I've heard the Apache is a monster when it comes to maintenance (though I'd appreciate a more qualified explanation), which is fine if you can sustain operations anyway like the US can, but wouldn't significant maintenance requirements be a major stumbling point for a country like us where we're only operating a force of 22 dedicated recon/attack helos?

I imagine it would be far more difficult to sustain operations in the face of a heavy maintenance schedule with only a small force to draw on. Would this be a factor in the choice of helicopter?

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Apache, I seem to recall reading about the maintenance rate being very high compared to the Cobra (and this being one of the reasons the Marines liked the Cobra so much), but I don't want to be making incorrect assumptions, and I've heard nothing about the Tiger's maintenance requirements.

 

[OPSSG]

Guys, just two little notes for your consideration in this discussion:

(i) the WAH-64Ds operated by the British have a folding blade mechanism and the Rolls Royce Turbomeca RTM322 engines (the Rolls Royce engine can produce more power than the General Electric engine, but it’s not exploited except during the take-off because of the Apache transmission system); and

(ii) the Apache Attack Helicopter has been growing in capabilities (with developments in different blocks) and Boeing along with DSTA, Singapore have worked together and helped make maintenance a little simpler. To deal with Singapore's humidity, a chemical coating on its aircraft joints to prevent corrosion, a protective function normally not found in land aircraft. Due to this foresight, an estimated avoidance cost of S$40 million in maintenance was achieved (In 2002, the Gruppo Agusta International Helicopter Fellowship was awarded to the Apache Team for their work).

So, IMHO, the issue is a little more cloudy. Further, Singapore's Apaches are able to communicate a greater distance as compared to other Apaches indicating a strong ISR role.

 

[Firn]

From public data the Tiger has a range advantage of 130 nm versus Apache using internal fuel. With aux tanks the Apache has a range advantage of 600km which is 322 nm. I would expect a good piece of that internal fuel range advantage comes from carrying 8 hellfires versus the Apache's 16. I can't post the info for OPSEC reasons but suffice to say the comparitive ranges are equal enough while carrying the same ordenance. If you need 16 hellfires for the mission, 1 Apache is going to deliver alot cheaper than 2 Tigers. My conclussion is that the selection of Tiger over Apache is based on either the Apache not being available to the customer or someone wanting X number of aircraft and that was the only way to get to X with the money available. Not saying the Tiger is a bad ship, but it's not nearly as capable as the Longbow and I would really have to wonder why you would want 2 aircraft to do a job half as good as 1.

Dear Gremlin, you are doubtless far more knowlegdeable concerning helicopters than I will ever be, but I think that you know less about the second part (Tiger) than of the first part (Apache) of the equation.

Said that I pretty curious how well the Tigers are doing in Afghanistan. Any news about the French ones playing in the sandbox?

Cheers
Firn

 

[Pyongyang]

Dear Gremlin, you are doubtless far more knowlegdeable concerning helicopters than I will ever be, but I think that you know less about the second part (Tiger) than of the first part (Apache) of the equation.

Said that I pretty curious how well the Tigers are doing in Afghanistan. Any news about the French ones playing in the sandbox?

Cheers
Firn

Considering the Apaches poor performance in Iraq war 2 and the war in bosnia it makes you realize that these heavy gunships got limitation against enemies who's expecting them and fighting their battles other places then in the desert...

I'm taking it for granted that eurocopters designers learned atleast something from these deployments.

But it would be interesting to hear about how the french are doing it in afghanistan.

 

[Gremlin29]

Considering the Apaches poor performance in Iraq war 2 and the war in bosnia it makes you realize that these heavy gunships got limitation against enemies who's expecting them and fighting their battles other places then in the desert...

I'm taking it for granted that eurocopters designers learned atleast something from these deployments.

But it would be interesting to hear about how the french are doing it in afghanistan.

Bosnia proved that the deployed battalion arrived undertrained, 1 ship lost in a training accident says nothing about the aircraft and certainly has zero to do with enemy activity. You might want to research hours and missions flow versus losses and then comprehend the difference between improper employment versus capability.

 

[Pyongyang]

Bosnia proved that the deployed battalion arrived undertrained, 1 ship lost in a training accident says nothing about the aircraft and certainly has zero to do with enemy activity. You might want to research hours and missions flow versus losses and then comprehend the difference between improper employment versus capability.

I am sure their capable helicopters. But they got their limitation, like historicaly every gunship. To blame the bosnian failures on bad pilots rather then the fear of the various serbian sam-system can at best be bescribed as uninformed.

Just look at their deployments during Iraq war II, failed miserably against light gunfire and rpg's. Sure they work when their enemies can't reach em....but that's about it.

 

[Gremlin29]

I am sure their capable helicopters. But they got their limitation, like historicaly every gunship. To blame the bosnian failures on bad pilots rather then the fear of the various serbian sam-system can at best be bescribed as uninformed.

Just look at their deployments during Iraq war II, failed miserably against light gunfire and rpg's. Sure they work when their enemies can't reach em....but that's about it.

1 helicopter was lost in a training accident, in Bosnia. I'm not blaming the pilots, I'm blaming the system that deployed undertrained pilots. If you think that my opinion is best described as uninformed I would say that a North Korean arguing with an Apache pilot, about the virtues of the Apache.... is best described as sheer comedy.

Now if your honestly going to say the Apache was a miserable failure in the GWOT whether it be in Iraq or A-Stan, there's really little point in me wasting my time replying, it would be fruitless.

 

[Pyongyang]

1 helicopter was lost in a training accident, in Bosnia. I'm not blaming the pilots, I'm blaming the system that deployed undertrained pilots. If you think that my opinion is best described as uninformed I would say that a North Korean arguing with an Apache pilot, about the virtues of the Apache.... is best described as sheer comedy.

Now if your honestly going to say the Apache was a miserable failure in the GWOT whether it be in Iraq or A-Stan, there's really little point in me wasting my time replying, it would be fruitless.

Okey, let's search the internet. (After 2 min and 30 seconds on the web

The U.S. Army's only disastrous operation in Gulf War II (at least the only one we know about) took place on March 24, when 33 Apache helicopters were ordered to move out ahead of the 3rd Infantry Division and to attack an Iraqi Republican Guard regiment in the suburbs of Karbala. Meeting heavy fire from small arms and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled grenades, the Apaches flew back to base, 30 of them shot up, several disablingly so. One helicopter was shot down in the encounter, and its two crewmen were taken prisoner.

After that incident, Apaches were used more cautiously—on reconnaissance missions or for firing at small groups of armored vehicles. Rarely if ever did they penetrate far beyond the front line of battle, out in front of U.S. ground troops or without the escort of fixed-wing aircraft flying far overhead.

Last year, during the Afghanistan war, seven Apaches were flown in to attack Taliban fighters as part of Operation Anaconda. They all got shot up, again by RPGs and machine-gun fire. None crashed, but five were so damaged they were declared "non-mission-capable"—in other words, unable to go back into combat without extensive repair—after the first day.

In the 1999 air war over Kosovo, 24 Apache helicopters were transported to the allied base in Albania. Their arrival was anticipated by many officers and analysts as a turning point in the war. Yet, within days, two choppers crashed during training exercises. Commanders decided not to send any of them into battle; the risk of losing them to Serbian surface-to-air missiles was considered too great.

Dump the Apache helicopter. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

Pentagon officials tell ABC News they believe Iraqi insurgents used a Russian-made SA-7 surface-to-air missile to shoot down a U.S. military helicopter on Monday.

The AH-64 Apache crashed north of Baghdad, killing the two crew members. It was the third American chopper to go down in 10 days.

It's a troubling new development because there are hundreds -- and by some estimates thousands -- of SA-7 missiles that are unaccounted for in Iraq.

Surface-to-Air Missile Downed U.S. Chopper in Iraq - ABC News we are talking about a strela 2 from the 70's here...how many countries operate better system then these?? Point is helicopters in general are vurnable.

On March 24, when Apache Longbows attacked the Republican Guard's already weakened Medina Armored Division, they fell into a Somali-style trap over the city of Karbala. Rattled by smalls arms and rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fire, one helicopter crashed and 31 limped back to base - most of which were grounded for more than a month for extensive repairs.

My point being these helicopters alone don't work well against a smart enemy who's expecting them. Even if the enemy is armed with only former soviet weapons, no matter how many hellfires you carry. The desert scenario is gone, enter year 2000.

Why you have to attack my persona, instead of providing information that might change my mind does not make sence to me....

 

[Gremlin29]

Okey, let's search the internet. (After 2 min and 30 seconds on the web





Dump the Apache helicopter. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine


Surface-to-Air Missile Downed U.S. Chopper in Iraq - ABC News we are talking about a strela 2 from the 70's here...how many countries operate better system then these?? Point is helicopters in general are vurnable.



My point being these helicopters alone don't work well against a smart enemy who's expecting them. Even if the enemy is armed with only former soviet weapons, no matter how many hellfires you carry. The desert scenario is gone, enter year 2000.

Why you have to attack my persona, instead of providing information that might change my mind does not make sence to me....

I wasn't attacking your personna, I was making a statement.

Helicopters are vulnerable, as are airplanes, tanks, and every other system on the battlefield and this isn't news. The Apache was designed to kill targets, mission accomplished. The Apache was designed to absorb battle damage and continue flying, mission accomplished. The Apache was designed to be crash survivable, mission accomplished. Aircraft have been RTBing with bullet holes in them since WWI, Apache's limping back to base after taking numerous rounds is a testament to their design. There are easier aircraft to fly, and there are safer missions. When aircraft start logging 100's of thousands of hours in a combat zone, there are definately going to be some lost to enemy action, ineptitude and just plane dumb luck.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, you have your ideas and I have mine. I am a bit relieved to learn that I will not be flying beyond the FEBA so thanks for posting the news article

 

[Grand Danois]

The Apache was tasked with a mission it was designed for during Iraqi Freedom. It was the doctrinal employment that was a failure, not the platform itself.

The Apache was designed to stop massed advancing armoured Soviet formations from ambush positions - not to perform the deep attack/interdiction/cavalry mission. The reasoning behind the Apche deployment during the maneuver phases is unknown to me, but perhaps the battlefield was considered benign enough for those type of operations or there was a drive to test the concept from US Army.

Anyhow, the Marine Cobras faced similar massed gunfire/RPG fire during both Gulf Wars and didn't suffer. Why? Because as a close CAS they emphasize speed and maneuver as means of survivability over the stand-off ambush relying on concealment/sensors/firepower concept of the Apache.

With any platform comes a concept of its employment where it performs best.

 

[Firn]

Both Germlin and Danois already answered the main points. All I want to add is that, considering the original concept the designation as counter-attack helicopter would have fitted better

Firn

 

[Onkel]

I guess for Taliban hunting and escort missions it doesn´t matter if you take the Apache or the Tiger.
But little do we (all?) know about their sensor performance and interoperability.

The incident over Karbala is not a witness for the Apache´s low Performance but for arrogance is beeing punished in war. This charge was like WW 1 Cavallery used against dug in maschine gun positions. As GD wrote, those raids are not, what attack helos are mede for.

 

[Mick73]

We (Australia) only got the Tiger because we felt guilty about flying one into the ground at HRTA. :