(AH-1Z Viper)
Volume 75, No.2 (Apr-Jun 2013) issue of Navy (The magazine of the navy league of Australia), at the news stands now, starts off on page 2 with a piece called "Paper Tiger - Don't Add Sea Water".
No author so it is either someone not brave enough to stick their head above the line in fear of getting it chopped or it is from the editorial staff.
The article savages the Australian acquisition and development of the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH). Just about everything in the article is a good quote. The writer strongly suggests that the AH-1Z Viper used by the USMC is the way to go. In short:
The USMC Viper is "faster, deadlier, cheaper and working."
The article also states a rumour that the Army has a $1B 'mid-life upgrade' planned for the Tiger despite the aircraft not being in full service yet.
It would be difficult for me to think of a more critical article about the troubled Tiger.
(click image to make larger)
15 comments:
Except that the Tiger isn't working yet as proposed the figures in the table are questionable:
Empty weight plus max. payload of the Tiger exceed the max. T/O weight. How is that possible? In-flight rearming?
The only problem being that when the Tiger was selected the Cobra was facing serious delays, was not working and faced the chopping block...that said, then end products seems ok
Anon April 29
But it works now,IOC last year.
Tiger, first assembly started 2005,still no IOC in sight.
And it does not work. Cannot take off with reasonable load in the heat.(Darwin)
Only achieved 17% of budgeted flight hours in 2011-12.
Cost 2.2 billion and climbing. A lot of money to shoot up a mud hut and a couple of people with an AK47.Hate to be the first to prang one.
Germans have cancelled last 40 of purchase.
Well, if you use a bogus comparison, you get bogus conclusion.
As mentioned, the Tiger empty weight plus max payload is more than it's listed max take-off weight.
The chart is bolding the Viper as superior in max payload when the listed max payloads are exactly the same! Bias much?
The max speeds for Tiger also seem off, it's listing 278km/h, but simply looking at Wikipedia's stats for HAP it lists 290km/h with mast, 315km/h without mast... uprated HAD should best that.
I also find the different winners of range/endurance kind of bizarre/interesting. I'm not sure what causes those to diverge or if that's legit, but if the main reason you need endurance is to cover larger ranges, the larger range still wins (Tiger).
The idea of comparing paper-spec numbers on the basis of 'who's bigger?' (/faster/etc) independent of operational needs seems pretty dubious. Capacities in excess of needs are just not needed, and may not be a compelling additional benefit.
Of course, no possible reason to mention Tiger's 30mm cannon turret with superior range, penetration, and destructive powe. "Deadlier", right.
And then of course make the empty criticism of the MoD planning for a future MLU. Of course, planning for a MLU indicates some critical weakness of a platform, a good plaform would never receive a MLU, right? Planning for the future must be a sign of weakness, right? With Tiger, of course, a MLU will have synergy with the MLUs of other operators, while assuming that US Marines will fund development of a Viper MLU is not something I would assume, and Australia funding that itself would make it much more expensive - look at the development of the latest Viper standard.
Of course, that Australia has already purchased Tiger and is/will be operating it means adopting Viper for marine usage would require an independent support infrastructure, support personel, etc. Which Viper would have to make up for before any advantages can be discussed.
Ultimately, the Navy wasn't in charge of procuring Tiger, and they probably have sour grapes about it now... yet that matters absolutely not, because it has been procured. France is also operating Tiger from Mistral, and is interested in it's performance in that role, so being incapable of that role is not an option. Get real.
Don't want to rain on anyone’s parade... but don't plan to getting anything in the near future that is remotely exotic or deemed 'new' for defence (so no salt tolerant Vipers or similar, Tiger upgrades…F35). The state of the budget in AU as alluded to today by the Prime minister is a shocker. I would think that anything that involves spending in the next 10 years + defence wise that is not care and maintenance will likely to be deferred or cut.
It is very interesting that AU went the Tiger, but I re-read the DMO material http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/asd/air87/main.cfm and it seems tender process was run….”properly”. However questions over why the Tiger was chosen over the Viper or even the Apache/Longbow (capability) remains a mystery. Plenty of speculation about Apache being ‘attack/missile platforms... so essentially AU cannot have aggressive military hardware… but also AU wanted something different to what the British and or US have (Cant understand the logic there other than its some egos).
Given the Tiger is being run by the Army and not the Navy or Airforce, the marine/salt tolerance probably didn’t even get a consideration…..
It’s interesting, I don’t think the Tigers are even mission capable yet? Army has 11 with rest potentially being assembled in AU? It does look like the Government has ridden Eurocopter fairly hard on delivery (holding payment etc.) http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/asd/air87/news.cfm However I can’t help but feel this acquisition is another example of poor defence tender processes, and a lack of logical, strategic, unbiased, practical thinking. We are talking the Tiger now, not the F35. I say that because what has transpired is that there are better, cheaper and more practical options up and running now and AU has made another poor decision as per the original post.
AH-1Z had more problems with Bell management than with the aircraft, which worked fine (plus priority was given to the UH-1Y). It also had (since resolved) problems with the sensors and helmet, supplied by other companies.
Bigger issue was that AH-1Z had not yet entered service. Given the bad publicity from other Australian defense procurements, Tiger was a "safer" choice.
Yank
It does not work.In addition to not having enough power,the airframe cannot take the constant firing of the 30 mm.It cannot take off in the heat,unless it gets new engines.
Joining the fray here and first a bit of history.
Post-Vietnam War, joint Army/RAAF planning determined a requirement for 3 Iroquois squadrons, 1 MLH unit and a Hueycobra acquisition and facilities were constructed at Amberley and Townsville toward that end. New permanent accommodation for an Iroquois squadron was deferred, although the Iroquois Bushranger gunship capability retained and the Hueycobra project (Air 87) then cancelled due to economic constraints; a sound decision in my view.
That project was subsequently resurrected by Army following transfer of battlefield support helos from the Air Force in 1989; but Army Aviation erred in my view proposing that an AAH could adequately replace both the utility helo gunship and Kiowa reconnaissance roles, as now there is inadequate capacity for either capability.
The attributes of AAH versus helo gunships have been debated since the 1960s and it really gets down to what is best suited for mainly armour busting or intimate close air support. Apache, Hueycobra, Tiger are all expensive specialised platforms not justifiable for nations with smaller defence spending capacity, hence the emergence of a whole range of modular bolt-on weapons systems and sensors to adapt more versatile platforms for weapon delivery functions. Versions of Kiowa and Iroquois for example operated in Iraq and now Afghanistan.
Defence White Paper 2009 says: '...Our strategic interests and defence posture suggest a primary focus for the ADF on tasks in our geographical vicinity...'. That of course means any platforms acquired must be suited to operations in the regional wet tropics characterised by rugged very mountainous largely jungle covered terrain necessitating adequate hot and high performance and ease of supportability in the field. Deployability by C-130 is also a significant tactical consideration.
Seemingly, downstream upgrade of Tiger is intended, reputedly at cost of perhaps $1billion. Instead, maybe all the Blackhawk fleet should be brought up to the same modification status and remaining Iroquois (plus those of the RNZAF also acquired) upgraded to Huey II. That would be a far more cost-effective spend of $1billion and remediate some forfeited military capacity. It does not seem worth upgrading Tiger and it would be wiser to mainly store them and conduct occasional weapons camps for some MRH90 drivers, just to keep weapon capabilities alive.
Re the Tiger cannon. It was astounding that Army Aviation in DMO chose a high recoil 30mm cannon when a low recoil version by the same manufacturer had been reliably functional on a wide variety of fixed and rotary wing platforms for decades. It will really hammer the somewhat weak airframe and also has a cooling limitation inhibiting protracted firing.
Finally, while Tiger is another procurement disaster, perhaps some in the Navy League should pull their heads in. The Seasprite fiasco resulted from the RAN wanting to completely redesign an in-service platform so a bloody Observer could sit up front and have the aircraft operated single pilot hovering over the sea on dark and stormy nights - just mindless! The latest development in that saga is the Kiwis are now buying all of the Australian Seasprites back for a song after their reconfiguration by Kaman while our Navy is acquiring the hugely expensive MH-60R and also forfeiting Seahawks which could have been cost-effectively upgraded. See this link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-continue-with-illstarred-sh2g-seasprite-project-03338/.
What is the basis of the idea that never upgrading a platform is a cost-effective approach to procurement? Refurbing and upgrading Tigers at some point in their service life will extend the time period of service and keep capabilities relevant, making the most of the initial procurement and infrastructure investment. Obviously this should be done at a reasonable point of time in the platform's service. Spain and France are not having troubles with HAD which is very similar to ARH standard.
What are the actual reports of problems with 30mm gun in-service? Reports of missing target and civilian casualties because of inaccuracy? Airframe repairs due to recoil? A 30mm gun is simply not going to be fired continually as much as a 20mm anyways. If it is problematic, why are no other users wanting to install a 20mm turret instead (which is off the shelf), even when they are switching to a new standard (HAD)? The increased range of 30mm is useful for increasing distance from ground threats.
A real armed recon platform, cheaper and more like what Eurcopter, Bell, and Agusta are offering the US, and what EC has sold to Iraq, is an economic and rational approach alongside a true attack helicopter fleet... That goes regardless of what attack helicopter is procured. France's planning even still includes adoption of such a light armed recon helicopter to replace Gazelles and serve alongside Tiger. All the platforms mentioned are either already or soon will be ready off-the-shelf, and should be no-risk buy if additional customizations are not added to the requirement.
Eric; I respectfully suggest that it would benefit debate if 'Anonymous' was removed from your 'Choose an identity' options so we might establish whether we are sparring with Bonza or whoever.
Responding to whichever Anonymous, May 1, 9:11AM.
I cannot recall it being said in this forum that platforms should not be upgraded. Had that been done progressively with Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk, Sea King, Seahawk; the disastrous Helicopter Strategic Master Plan might not have emerged with its associated huge waste of funds and capability gaps/deficiencies. Consider also B707, F-111, Caribou, C-130H, P-3C.
Not known whether the French in Afghanistan are operating the same 30mm cannon as the ADF Tiger and they would perhaps be reluctant to advertise any adverse airframe effects. Presumably, Australian Army Aviation might not yet have had sufficient weapon usage for the problem to emerge. Rest assured though, a colleague who retired as a 2 Star a year or so back identified the potential problem during airworthiness assessment of the platform. The Air Force of course had lots of experience regarding weaponry features and effects during 90 plus years of service. The Germans declined to accept the high recoil French weapon and intended to install their own low recoil cannon.
I lived and worked in Kuwait soon after the first Gulf War and crawled over lots of captured gear. There were multiple places around the Kuwait City area where Iraqi armoured vehicles had positioned beneath highway overpasses and been 'brewed up' by nice neat 20mm shooting from fixed wing, as evidenced by the SAPI round impacts on surrounding pavement.
Due to their higher attack speed, fixed wing would normally fire cannon not closer than about 600 metres from targets to enable recovery above ricochets. When operating Iroquois Bushranger gunships in Vietnam, we began weapon delivery at around 700 metres down to about 250 metres, although occasionally boring right in to point blank range and overflying the enemy in necessitous situations.
Essential requirements for intimate close air support are an appropriate mix of high density ball (7.62mm/.50cal) and HE cannon weaponry with redundancy to assure contination of support in event of stoppages and swags of ammunition to stay in the fight as long as possible. AAH only sort of fulfil this need if podded gun/cannon weaponry (M18-7.62mm/XM14-.50cal/NC621-20mm) are substituted for missile like stores. 20mm rounds weigh 0.6kg and 30mm weigh 1.0kg so almost twice as much 20mm can be carried which is far more effective than unguided rockets.
Cannon HE safety distances are about 35 metres from friendlies and accuracy suffers appreciably in longer range firing from a moving platform. If you want to give the guys on the ground support as close as 10 metres in dire circumstances, then you have to be prepared to get right in the face of the enemy to deliver high density ball ammunition.
Having made a bad decision to replace both Kiowa recce and Bushranger gunship capability with the deficient Tiger, it is not now reasonable to argue for more big spending on an upgrade and also acquire an new armed scout helo when the Kiowa could be be upgraded and the Iroquois cheaply recovered. Better to spend modestly on some proven capabilities with much lower operating costs, even if some of various types are placed in reserve storage, as for armour.
Anon 9.11am May 1.
" A 30mm gun is simply not going to be fired continually as much as a 20mm anyways. "
Suggest you look at usage, for example of same with the British Apache in Afghanistan. Astounding usage.
Anon 9.11 may 1
"The increased range of 30mm is useful for increasing distance from ground threats."
30x 113 mm effective range 1500 m
20 x102 mm effective range 1500 m
Unfortunately we cannot read the article.
Most of the comments so far have as much credibility as the attached table which looks like a 12 year old wrote up for a school project. Some truths:
Why did defence by Tiger vs Apache vs Cobra ? One answer ....Money.
Why didn't defence upgrade Kiowa/Huey vs buy Tiger? One answer ... Capability.
The Tiger cannot operate in the heat nor handle the 30mm cannon it was designed to carry? It has been operating with the French in Afghanistan since 2008, Libya in 2011 and now Mali. Still shooting bad guys the world over.
Podded small calibre weapons are more accurate than computer guided 30mm cannon and laser guided missiles? Ask the Germans with the UHT and podded 50cal, there are many regrets there. There is no reason to fly into the effective range of every weapon system on the ground down to a 9mm pistol just because that's the only way to hit the target. It's not a smart way to fight and win.
The Tiger does is not marinised? Curious as the aircraft is almost 100% composite. What would corrode? Carbon fibre.
The Aussie Tiger is not mission capable? Wrong! Day/Night all weapons and missions except maritime as the LHDs are not in service yet.
5 mile sniper
Anon 30 april 2013 9:00 a.m. said:
Tiger cannot take off with reasonable load in the heat in Darwin.
Please, can you specify the temperature and the current fuel load & weapon load when taking off in hot weather in Darwin?
Post a Comment