Tiger troubles

[Jeep]

Exclusive: Germany suspends EADS helicopter purchase | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64O23C20100525)

[Blacksheep]

We used to have Tiger troubles. Last week of every month, after the Scaleys had drunk all our ration and then stayed at home to drink their own. :(

[HaveQuick2]

This makes the AAC WAH-64 procurement look absolutely inspired.

The choice of Apache didn’t appear anywhere near certain, given the “competition”, and by further complicating the purchase by getting new engines and avionics, on a Westlands assembly line. Yet, despite the shortage of spares and crews they have been flying on ops constantly for a number of years now, and have proven their value time and time again.

What do you know, a MoD procurement success!

[Less Hair]

The Eurocopter boss pissed the german MoD's procurement agency BWB the other day blaming them alone for the delays during a speech in Berlin. So this is sort of their natural retaliation.

[Jeep]

LiveFist - The Best of Indian Defence: Schematics Of India's Light Combat Helicopter (http://tinyurl.com/39tgrf5)

Something that might be available more quickly, made of wood, costs only 2000 rupees and runs on diesel.

[GreenKnight121]

So, how are the RAAF's Tigers doing? I haven't heard of any complaints from them.

Is it that the Aussie decision to assemble 18 of their 22 in Oz meant that they found & corrected the wiring issues before the aircraft were delivered to the RAAF?

Or perhaps it is simply that French workers didn't put their best work into the machines that were going to Germany?

[500N]

I happened to read this the other day so it probably answers part of your question


Engine failure grounds MRH 90s

Item by australianaviation.com.au (http://australianaviation.com.au/author/admin/) on May 18, 2010 4:14 pm

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20071218adf8161479_223-300x187.jpg (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20071218adf8161479_223.jpg)photo - CPL Rodney Welch/Army

The ADF has grounded its fleet of 11 MRH 90 helicopters after one experienced what was reportedly a “catastrophic” engine failure on a flight near Adelaide on April 20.
Almost a month after the event, the Department of Defence confirmed in a statement on its website on May 18 that an MRH 90 returned to RAAF Base Edinburgh on April 20 after suffering an engine failure while on a flight northeast of Adelaide. MRH 90 flying operations were immediately suspended, and specialists from engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce Turbomeca have been brought to Australia to assist the DSTO with forensic analysis of engine components to determine why one of the RTM322-01/9 engines failed.
“The full impact of the engine failure on the project schedule is yet to be determined,” the Defence statement reads.

[chopper2004]

GreenKnight,

Its actually the Australian Army Aviation Corps :ok: not the RAAF, unless there's been a turn back on history and the RAAF have demanded the rotary wing assets back leaving the army sans aviation branch :)

[GreenKnight121]

500N... completely different helicopter... nice try, but no cigar.

Mea culpa on the RAAF/Aussie Army gaff. :p

[Ian Corrigible]

That €750bn for Greece has to come from somewhere. Expect to see additional contractual disputes in the near future, such as the props on the A400M turning the wrong way and the Eurohawk being vulnerable to hacking by Cyberdyne Systems.

So what's really going on with those German Tigers? (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub/so-what-s-really-going-on-with-those-german-tigers/6431/)

The dreamed-of-excuse to delay paying bills (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a55d06dda-b328-4794-bd0b-5229fe04f06b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

I/C

[Jeep]

I was looking at the photos of the German UHT tiger and it doesn't have a cannon. The mast mounted optical site would have to look down through blades when operating high level in Afghanistan. Perhaps their version is not ideal for their needs? Can a cannon be fitted to the UHT?

Name that film:

Come my friends, I have chastened you enough.
I am here to help.
Anything you need?
Yes boss, give me a squadron of .... (Apache?)

[GreenKnight121]

Jeep...

According to Wiki-waki:

The UHT (from Unterstützungshubschrauber Tiger German for Support Helicopter Tiger) is a medium-weight multi-role fire support helicopter built for the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces).
The UHT can carry PARS 3 LR "fire and forget" and/or HOT3 anti-tank missiles as well as 70mm Hydra air-to-ground fire support rockets. Four AIM-92 Stinger missiles (2 on each side) are mounted for air-to-air combat. Unlike the HAP/HCP version it has no integrated gun turret, but a 12.7 mm gunpod can be fitted if needed. The German Army decided against the French 30 mm GIAT cannon that is used on other Tiger versions because it was dissatisfied with the heavy recoil of this weapon. The upgrade of the UHT with the Rheinmetall RMK30, a 30 mm recoilless autocannon, is not yet clarified due to the budget.
Another noticeable difference with the HAP version is the use of a mast-mounted sight, which has second-generation infrared and CCD TV cameras. Countermeasures include radar/laser/missile launch/missile approach warning receivers and decoy launchers

[livingseawind]

Do you have an idea where does the wiring problem comes from?
Is it from design or production related issues?

[Ian Corrigible]

The article in the current edition of Defence Helicopter (http://mags.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/2010/DH/DH%20Jul-Aug%2010/pageflip.html) includes the following comment:

At the [ILA] airshow, [EC CEO] Bertling said it was not actually the chafing of the physical wiring on the aircraft that is the issue, but the Nomex wire sleeving, which protects the wiring while the aircraft is being built. Spanish and French authorities accept some chafing of the sleeving, but the German authorities do not.

I/C

[Bushranger 71]

ARH Tiger; respectfully, you might be a bit off track in post #15.

Helicopter airframe pounding and cracking due to high recoil weaponry has been a known problem from the Vietnam War onwards, which is why the NC621 low recoil 20mm pod was developed and is now in wide service. See the book APACHE for comments re airframe hammering when firing 30mm cannon.

If I understand correctly, the Germans wisely intended fitting their own Mauser low recoil turreted cannon but weapon development status not known.

A major problem with single turreted cannon is no gun redundancy as they are all mechanical and prone to stoppages to some degree, mostly through ammunition feed problems. Cannon/gun redundancy is essential for close air support.

2 x NC621 20mm cannon pods and 2 x 7.62mm podded miniguns mounted on the stub wing stations would be a more effective optional fit for the Australian Tiger.

[foxtrot tango]

Not having read the book APACHE, but having extensive experience using the 30 MM I can assure you that it does not really impact the 64 unless of course if you forget to close all the latches on the front EFABS and they pop open during firing. Not to say that has happened to me....but I heard about it one time........

[Bushranger 71]

The following image and detail illustrates what is achievable with the very versatile Huey II regarding cost-effective gunship operations, without the appreciable technical and logistic penalties associated with Hellfire and 70mm unguided rockets. Both Apache and Tiger require substantial support teams for field operations which would likely compound operating considerations in remote areas throughout the Australian regional archipelago. The Huey II would be much more simply supportable and has outstanding hot and high performance.

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/ConceptualBellHueyIIGunshipcr.jpg

'Intimate' Close Air Support in my view is laying down accurate high density ball ammunition fire support with acceptable risk about 10 metres from own forces in necessitous circumstances whereas safety distance for HE 20mm cannon is about 35 metres. High density 7.62mm fired at reasonably close ranges is adequately penetrative in jungle and it needs to be delivered from fixed forward firing installations by the pilot flying to assure accuracy.

Turnaround time for the Bushranger gunship in Vietnam was very slick at 10 minutes and would only increase to 15 minutes with substitution of NC621 low recoil 20mm cannon in lieu of rocket pods on a Huey II version. All Bushranger aircrew deplaned to assist with rearming and to relieve aching backsides.

Lack of cannon/gun redundancy on say Apache, Tiger and high recoil cannon cooling cycle constraints (where applicable) are serious negative factors regarding close air support. They can of course be remedied somewhat by substituting podded cannon/guns for Hellfire and 70mm rockets.

The US Marine Corps has kept their UH-1N Hueys up-to-date, adding countermeasures such as infrared jammers and chaff-flare dispensers, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) turrets in the nose, new armament fits, and revised avionics. The conceptual Huey II gunship envisages a 4 man crew, full fuel of 1,400 pounds, armoured seats for pilots and some lightweight armour around engine, transmission and some floor areas. Fully armed in that configuration, there would still be about 500 pound payload availability for a selection of niceties like in the USMC UH-1N.

The ADF now has to live with Tiger but also appreciate its limitations. That requires thinking outside the square and whether it adequately satisfies some basic principles of war; flexibility, versatility and economy of effort. It is thus foolhardy to shed the Iroquois when it could be retained for a secondary gunship role (even if in reserve storage) and proven Huey II would be way ahead of MRH90 for cost-effective utility helo operations.

See these links for more information regarding Huey II:
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellHueyII.cfm (http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellHueyII.cfm)
The Bell UH-1 Huey (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avhuey.html)

Another image of a UH-1H Bushranger gunship is added to better show the original configuration for those unfamiliar. 2 x NC621 low recoil 20mm cannon pods would be substituted for the rocket launchers on the conceptual Huey II version.

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/Gunship773-LeftBreak6x4.jpg

[thewhiterabbit]

BR 71,

The UH-1 was a awesome machine in its day but unfortunately some of your arguments don't hold water.

what is achievable with the very versatile Huey II regarding cost-effective gunship operations, without the appreciable technical and logistic penalties associated with Hellfire and 70mm unguided rockets. Both Apache and Tiger require substantial support teams for field operations which would likely compound operating considerations in remote areas throughout the Australian regional archipelago.

This is like arguing that the fighter pilots should still be flying upgraded Mirages with only rockets and cannon. Warfare changes and weapon systems get better. If we accept something because it is easy, cheap and already understood we would still be riding around on horse back.

'Intimate' Close Air Support in my view is laying down accurate high density ball ammunition fire support with acceptable risk about 10 metres from own forces in necessitous circumstances

Close Air Support is killing or neutralising the enemy so they can't kill our troops. Whether it takes 1000 rounds of 7.62 from a teetering head helicopter aimed purely by the awesome skill of the pilot or 5 rounds of 30mm with laser ranging, it is the effect that is important not the method. Regardless of the calibre it is the off axis ability of a turreted cannon that puts it over fixed line systems. You don't have to fly straight at the enemy and you can cover the first 90 degrees of your own break (yes I know the Huey had an M-60 out the door but I'll take 30mm over 7.62 for that job).

The US Marine Corps has kept their UH-1N Hueys up-to-date,

They have done this because like the Australian Army they are the poor cousin and don't get to throw huge sums of money at interim capabilities or new ones. Oh to have $6 Billion and more people than you can poke a stick at for an interim capability. They are also moving on to the UH-1Y which apart from the name, basic shape and structure is a totally new helicopter.

proven Huey II would be way ahead of MRH90 for cost-effective utility helo operations.

It would still take 2/3 of them with a refuelling stop to do the same job as one MRH (not AAAvn's choice either).

Lack of cannon/gun redundancy on say Apache, Tiger and high recoil cannon cooling cycle constraints (where applicable) are serious negative factors regarding close air support.

Again this logic can be applied to fighter aircraft, tanks and modern frigates. They all have one gun. In the case of the ARH, it still has the option of Hellfire or rockets and it is also one of the reasons they operate as a pair.

You guys did a great job in Vietnam but just because it worked then in that specific war doesn't mean it is the way we will always do it.

[Bushranger 71]

ARH Tiger; re your post #20.

Yes, ammunition differences are understood; but capacity needs to be optimised for reliable close air support to maximize time on target during engagements. Multiples of 7.62mm can be carried compared with 0.50in ball; similarly with 20mm and 30mm and the comparative weights of complete rounds all these calibres (not just projectile weight) are easily researched on the web. Proximity of HE delivery is of course restricted by fragmentation effects so acceptable risk distances are greater than for ball ammunition.

Tight beaten zone density is highly desirable in close quarters engagements in jungle which is why heaps of 7.62 ammo is better than much less 50 cal. As for longer range delivery; 20mm is adequate from about 2,000 metres inwards although physics says that accuracy must suffer to some extent when fired at longer ranges, irrespective of targeting systems. 20mm is also pretty adequate against light armour and some of the derelict/captured Iraqi hardware that I crawled over post-Gulf War 1 had been disabled by accurate grouping of 20mm delivered mainly by fixed wing.

I agree that some advanced technology 30 and 40mm cannon ammunition is jazzy stuff, but it is arguably an overkill for soft-skinned targets in counter-insurgency ops. Based on lessons we should learn from Vietnam involvement, the scenarios fore-seeable in the Australian regional archipelago environs would require closer range shooting than seems practiced in Afghanistan, so a balance of 7.62 and 20mm would give best effect if added to whatever helo airframe.

[GreenKnight121]

You guys did a great job in Vietnam but just because it worked then in that specific war doesn't mean it is the way we will always do it.

You forgot to add... 40 Freaking Years Ago!!!

That's right, "Mr. lost in the past BR71"... the great days of the Huey gunship were over & done 40 years ago!

The USMC uses our UH-1s as light utility helicopters (with a supporting armed transport role), not as primary gunships!

We* use our AH-1 purpose-designed (with turreted gun, enclosed cockpit, FLIR, etc) gunship helicopters for that role.

And guess what... we made that decision right around the time you are holding up as "proving the the Huey gunship's worth"... and so did US Army Aviation!


Sorry, your idea was rejected during the Vietnam War, because the Huey gunship wasn't doing the job well enough... that's why the US Army asked Bell to design the Cobra!


And here you want the Australian military to regress back to something that was NOT working well enough 40 years ago!



*Yes, I said "we"... Jon A., Sgt USMC 1981-1989

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/supcobra/images/cobra1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/AH-1Z_HMLA-303_in_flight_2008.jpg/800px-AH-1Z_HMLA-303_in_flight_2008.jpg

[GreenKnight121]

.
.
.
And if you can't move past the UH1 for all "light" roles, at least get the real version... UH-1Y Venom
FLIR - check
4-blade composite rotor - check
twin-engined (same engines as in AH-1Z & AH-64) - check
125% higher payload than the UH-1N, and almost 50% greater range and maximum cruise speed than the UH-1N - check

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/UH-1Y_HMLAT-303_Camp_Pendleton_2008.JPG/800px-UH-1Y_HMLAT-303_Camp_Pendleton_2008.JPG


AH-1W Super Cobra (with turned exhaust developed for AH-1Z Viper) & UH-1Y Venom Camp Bastion Afghanistan 2009

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/AH-1W_UH-1Y_take_off_from_Bastion_Afghanistan_2009.jpg/800px-AH-1W_UH-1Y_take_off_from_Bastion_Afghanistan_2009.jpg

[Bushranger 71]

The White Rabbit; re your post #22.
This is like arguing that the fighter pilots should still be flying upgraded Mirages with only rockets and cannon. Warfare changes and weapon systems get better. If we accept something because it is easy, cheap and already understood we would still be riding around on horse back.As you say, military technology advances which is why emerging weapon systems are continually developed as optional fitments for different platforms; but the taxpayer is not a bottomless source of funding for highly expensive preferred hardware, in some cases relatively unproven. Any credible military force has to have an affordable balance of higher end and adequate capabilities which will vary according to threats and operating environs. Consider the wisdom of the Americans in putting most semi-obsolescent aircraft into dry climate storage so they can be refurbished and upgraded as appropriate.
Close Air Support is killing or neutralising the enemy so they can't kill our troops. Whether it takes 1000 rounds of 7.62 from a teetering head helicopter aimed purely by the awesome skill of the pilot or 5 rounds of 30mm with l@ser ranging, it is the effect that is important not the method. Regardless of the calibre it is the off axis ability of a turreted cannon that puts it over fixed line systems.You don't have to fly straight at the enemy and you can cover the first 90 degrees of your own break (yes I know the Huey had an M-60 out the door but I'll take 30mm over 7.62 for that job).Whether it takes 1000 rounds of 7.62 from a teetering head helicopter aimed purely by the awesome skill of the pilot...The Bushranger gunship configuration enabled moving the aircraft CofG forward to create a pretty stable gun platform which is why it was able to consistently deliver intimate close air support as near as 10 metres from friendlies. Those of us that had formerly flown fighters, embracing close air support, trained mostly junior pilots in Vietnam for the Bushranger gunship role and they excelled with many of them being later posted to fighters.

We sometimes operated in concert with Hueycobras in Vietnam and witnessed some alarming instances where hundreds of rounds from turreted minigun were loosely sprayed in direction of friendlies on target breakaway.

'You don't have to fly straight at the enemy...' Better to do so in my view and perforate them with dense accurate fire; it's warrior stuff.

'...yes I know the Huey had an M-60 out the door...' 2 each side for the Bushranger and I would much prefer to be able to see and hear groundfire, some of it only observable by the guys down the back.They have done this because like the Australian Army they are the poor cousin and don't get to throw huge sums of money at interim capabilities or new ones. Oh to have $6 Billion and more people than you can poke a stick at for an interim capability. They are also moving on to the UH-1Y which apart from the name, basic shape and structure is a totally new helicopter.Come off it; had Australian Army Aviation gone for sensible progressive optimisation of Chinook, Blackhawk, Iroquois, Kiowa; the ADF could be operating in Afghanistan today with more comprehensive integral support.Tiger and MRH90 programs collectively total about $4billion plus the more justifiable cost of 7 x CH-47F and another $2billion or more in the offing for naval support helos. A very big spend is in train for ADF helicopters and may not work out very well on present indications.

Maybe you have not visited the Bell Helicopter website, but Huey II is essentially a factory rebuilt new aircraft with very long supportability envisaged and because it is such a versatile platform, can be easily adapted for multiple roles. The widely-peddled notion that Huey II is unsuitable old technology is just nonsense – consider the C-130 for example. And the clincher is Huey II only costs around US$2million with more than 150 in service and orders growing.

The AH-1Z/UH-1Y program is pretty costly overall so the USMC can hardly be considered poor cousins; and they have also been wise enough to move toward AC-130 gunship capability, a la USAF. Unit cost for the UH-1Y is not yet known but it might be a competitive or better platform than the MH-60S for naval support requirements. The operating cost per flying hour for the RAN Seahawk is around $45,000 compared with Huey II about $5,000. The UH-1Y will be much more expensive to operate than Huey II for basic battlefield support roles.It would still take 2/3 of them with a refuelling stop to do the same job as one MRH (not AAAvn's choice either).More misinformation. Huey II can carry a crew of 4, door guns and 10 plus troops with outstanding hot and high performance. By the way, the Saudis have just ordered a lot more Blackhawks.
Again this logic can be applied to fighter aircraft, tanks and modern frigates. They all have one gun. In the case of the ARH, it still has the option of Hellfire or rockets and it is also one of the reasons they operate as a pair.Cannons/guns are all mechanical and stoppages are inevitable, mostly due to ammunition feed problems. I referred to the necessity for cannon/gun redundancy in providing reliable intimate close air support within very close proximity to friendlies (as close as 10 metres), which rules out 70mm unguided rockets and Hellfire due to safety distances for blast and fragmentation effects. Much of the video footage from Afghanistan ops indicates 'close' air support being maybe hundreds of metres from friendlies and many engagements seem to be at longish small arms range. Losing cannon/gun capability from one aircraft of a 2 ship flight seriously inhibits ability to keep steady fire on enemy positions.You guys did a great job in Vietnam but just because it worked then in that specific war doesn't mean it is the way we will always do it. War-fighting methodologies will of course vary with technological advances and operating environs, but military operations still have to be conducted cost-effectively and the lessons from prior conflicts heeded. In my view, this is where Australian defence planners in particular are falling way short.

[Bushranger 71]

Hello GreenKnight121; re your post #24.

The US Army UH-1B and UH-1C gunship versions were performance and payload limited which is why the Hueycobra emerged in 1967; but the Charlie models did a great job during the Vietnam War considering they were an early stage of development in armed helicopters and I am sure many of your countrymen can convince you in that regard.

The problem 1 Australian Task Force encountered in Vietnam was availability of gunship support due to US Army resource limitations. 9SQN RAAF was re-equipping with the higher performance UH-1H model which was not then envisaged as gunship adaptable in the US Army/Bell mindset. But that model Iroquois (thus Huey II) has fore and aft station hard-points and related racks for adaptation of various external stores. If you look closely at your UH-1Y image, those hard-points have been incorporated for broad multi-role application of the aircraft which will doubtless emerge downstream.

Through bartering beer and other commodities, we managed to acquire 3 complete Charlie model XM-21 system kits for experimentation with UH-1H adaptation and when a configuration was adequately proven, the Australian government approved the princely sum of $A94,000 for 'formal' acquisition of another 4 XM-21 kits for modification of some UH-1H for a gunship role. Some US Army units also adapted the versatile UH-1H for gunship roles (see the image).

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/HotelModelHybrid.jpg


Why did we not go down the Hueycobra track at that time? Primarily availability and affordability. US Army Charlie models were never totally replaced by Hueycobra during Vietnam involvement because they could not be produced fast enough and around 270 were lost. So much for the history stuff.

Your contention that Iroquois family adaptation for gunship roles 40 years ago is not relevant now is flawed - we see Kiowa versions being operated in Afghanistan in a close air support role. A whole bunch of helicopter platforms have morphed into armed versions over decades and they continue to emerge for versatility, flexibility and cost-effectiveness reasons. This is why the arms manufacturers keep producing modular versions of advanced technology kit and bolt-on weapon systems adaptable to a wide range of aircraft.

The Huey II is an enhanced new platform in multiple respects so certainly not a museum piece. Indulge in semantics about armed scouts, light utility helos, armed transport support, attack helicopters, etcetera if you will; but armed forces worldwide will adapt military platforms for whatever suits their needs best in particular operating environs. The major consideration for all nations now is the affordability of escalating military spending considering the worldwide economic scenario.

It obviously suits USMC concepts of operations to go down the expensive AH-1Z/UH-1Y track with pretty high operating costs, but the more affordable single engine Huey II could provide a very adequate range of capabilities in Australia's demanding regional tropical archipelago of prospective military interest, considering Huey II comparative technical simplicity and outstanding hot and high performance. Single engine helo reliability (if properly maintained) is now very good and multiple types are operated in marine and rugged onshore environments worldwide.

To reiterate; we are talking about an enhanced new platform in Huey II adaptable for virtually unlimited roles by outside the square thinking. Glass cockpit options are available and it can be fitted out with whatever modern kit is desired within payload considerations, as for UH-1N and UH-1Y (Penguin or Hellfire missilery also). At around $US2million each and with operating costs less than $5,000 per flying hour, it just has to be the bargain of the century in the 'arms bazaar', especially for smaller nations.