Australia dumps Tiger

[rotor-rooter]

Yet another failed military acquisition!

I'm never sure if you blame the Politicians, the Military procurement process or the Manufacturer. Either way, there is a consistent theme of modern military products (not just helicopters) that fail to meet their basic operational capability, are unreliable, inadequately supported and are potentially a major threat to the National security of whoever brings them into service.

What will be the outcome of this, after all, they spent billions getting it to this place?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-replace-tigers-in-mid-2020s-422375/

[gulliBell]

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get to see an Australian Tiger shoot a rocket at a bad guy who might deserve being on the receiving end of such a rocket.

Plenty of rockets should have been shot at certain friendlies for choosing Tiger over Apache. They were just too gullible and overwhelmed with all the French inspired promises. But the Tiger is very crash-worthy. They proved that spectacularly.

[noooby]

gulliBell, given the Oz military knack for ruining perfectly good aircraft that are very capable of doing the task that they are designed for, I wouldn't be out there saying that the Apache would have been better for them. I'm sure they would have screwed that up as well!

Just look at the Billions Oz wasted on the Seasprite, then NZ snaps them up and happily operates them from day one!

Don't blame the machine. The Tiger is a very capable aircraft. You need to look at what was being asked of it and how much of what they were asking for was not "off the shelf". That is what undid the Seasprite. Same as Canada with the S-92. All the goodies they've asked for have killed it.

Tight military budgets are forcing countries to try and but a one type does all solution, and that is no solution at all. Just the beginning of some very large and expensive headaches.

[onetrack]

From one report - "Australia’s annual defense report showed that its Tigers had flown 3,000 hours in the 12-month period, well under the 6,000 hours sought. The Army further said the helicopter’s twin Turbomeca MTR 390s have the highest operating cost of any helicopter engine in its inventory. The service has two squadrons based at Darwin in the far north of Australia. It is concerned about the time it takes for components sent to Europe to be returned, as well as with many unreliabilities. A cabin filling with smoke has caused several forced landings. The first Tiger was delivered in 2004 and the last in 2011 but the type has still not achieved full operational capability. This has now been delayed again, from this year to next.

This sounds like typical Defence Dept - equipment ordered by clowns who have no experience in using it - competing requirements by various depts and sections means they end up with a camel instead of a horse - and a supplier who happens to see Defence Dept orders as a licence to print money, and to load up every component with massive, obscene, and opaque charges.

I can remember one ex-employee telling me how he was involved in the early 1970's with an Indian Air Force contract when he worked for a British aerospace company. Parts that cost the company something like £14, were invoiced out at £1000 to the IAF.

Another factor that grates with me is how all British and European purchases from Australia include the local VAT - in some Euro states, I understand that is around 20%.
Yet, anyone who buys Australian products from an overseas location, gets them completely Australian-tax (GST) free.
20% hidden tax on top of multi-million dollar engines and overhaul costs would be a pretty sizeable additional Defence burden, annually.

I think Malcolm would be well-advised to drop the GST-free status for overseas purchasers of Australian products, to assist in balancing the books.

[gulliBell]

Being ex-Australian Army myself, and knowing some of the guys involved in the Tiger selection process, they told me, in hind-sight, that the French bamboozled them with candy coated b_s_ promises, and if they had the time again they would have chosen an off-the-shelf helicopter that could shoot stuff on day 1. I don't recall whether Apache was mentioned in this context because it was a long time ago, but the sentiment certainly was they made a bad choice.

[ericferret]

Exports to Australia from the EU are ZERO rated for VAT, so no European tax. All goods sold in Europe are taxed at the point of sale. If you want to add Australian tax to goods sold in Europe feel free every other exporter in the world will be grateful.

[Stanwell]

gulliBell,
Have a look on the Military Aviation forum and under that you'll see the Australian Defence Expansion thread.
On post #10, TBM-legend has provided a link to the Australian National Audit Office's report on the Management of the Tiger ARH project.
I commend it to you.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after you've read and digested it.

[jumper2011]

gulliBell,
your username already sounds with an orientation to a certain helicopter company!!!
This acquisition was another one ruins gmobally speaking by the department of Defence considering the specific added requirements and burden added post contact. Furthermore some individuals were not in favour of the choice and did everything possible to delay the operational capability eg: how to explain night flight was not granted while at the same time Tiger was deeply engaged in Afghanistan by the French mainly at night with a lot of success? same thing for flying over water while the operation in Lybia was done from platform assault...

[gulliBell]

Yeah, I was aware of the audit report previously. The simple truth of the matter, they got double whamied: being out manouevered by all the French promises that ended up with the predictable outcome which we now have, and shooting themselves in the foot, actually in both feet. Those involved in the process who spoke to me about it years later freely admit this.

This happens all the time in Defence. Defence procurement is like spending Monopoly money, made worse by the fact that those spending it aren't the ones who earned it. Nobody steps back to think, does spending $1+ billion dollars on 22 helicopters represent good value for money?

No surprise about the cost and other problems associated with operating French built helicopter engines. Those in the civilian helicopter space have known all about this since way before Air 87.

[Stanwell]

Yep, agree.
As I remarked on the other thread, there's enough good material in there to provide a script for a tragi-comedy.
Accountability, what's that?

In my younger days, I was fortunate enough to have a mentor who advised .. "Under-promise and over-deliver".
Worked for us, it did.

[pax britanica]

Stanwell

your posts always catch my eye because I grew up in the village of the same name in UK-a village that adjoins LHRs terminal 5 and rwy 27L/09R.

i share your sentiments about under and over but in today's world where MBA kids (the business version of the flight decks children of the magenta line) take completely the opposite view, over promise and under perform is the way to make a decent profit on a project/product/service. By the time the disparity is discovered they will be long gone bonus secured and 'following their career path'

Shame about 'progress' sometimes isnt it.
Cheres
PB

[Ian Corrigible]

French built helicopter engines
Actually a British (http://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence-aerospace/products/helicopters/mtr390.aspx) / French (http://www.turbomeca.com/engine-partnerships/cooperations/mtr390) / German (http://www.mtu.de/engines/military-aircraft-engines/helicopters/mtr390/) engine (with Spanish (http://www.itp.es/web/Sec_PL/wf_paginaPlana.aspx?IdMenu=361&Idioma=en-GB&idReg=183&idSubmenu=452&idSubSubmenu=380&idP=20&idPS=1) involvement in the growth version thrown-in for good measure). Not that that's much consolation to the ADF (or the Australian taxpayer).

The original promise of "low cost of ownership (http://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence-aerospace/products/helicopters/mtr390.aspx#mtr390-overview)" was probably a victim of the reduction in home nation orders from 902 installed engines (F: 430, G: 424, S: 48) to 296 (F: 134, G: 114, S: 48).

I/C

[rotor-rooter]

Ah, an engine designed by a committee and needing to provide a profit margin for all concerned. That's a real winning concept!

[PANews]

I have not seen this report but I have just seen a Facebook posting reporting this "discarding" of the Tiger and stating that [far from it being dumped with immediate effect] the type will be taken out of service "in the mid-2020s."

I know stuff stays in service for a long time these days but this is TEN years away...... and it has not actually happened yet anyway. It may not be popular because of a lack of spares provision but it isn't actually being thrown on the scrapheap as this thread suggests!

More a decision not to keep a type with a severely limited flexibility in role in extended service.

Or am I missing something?

[ericferret]

"Actually a British / French / German (project) with Spanish involvement in the growth version thrown-in for good measure). "


"designed by a committee and needing to provide a profit margin for all concerned. That's a real winning concept!"



Ah yes the AIRBUS familly of aircraft, they will never sell any!!!!!!

[rjtjrt]

I have not seen this report but I have just seen a Facebook posting reporting this "discarding" of the Tiger and stating that [far from it being dumped with immediate effect] the type will be taken out of service "in the mid-2020s."

I know stuff stays in service for a long time these days but this is TEN years away...... and it has not actually happened yet anyway. It may not be popular because of a lack of spares provision but it isn't actually being thrown on the scrapheap as this thread suggests!

More a decision not to keep a type with a severely limited flexibility in role in extended service.

Or am I missing something?

Yes, I think you missed one thing.
The decision is to reluctantly live with the Tiger till it was due for mid life update, and replace it rather than throw a lot more money into the hole.

[rotor-rooter]

The military procurement cycle will take 10 years to deliver a replacement product. Initiating the program, establishing and approving a budget, identifying a replacement product, determining the specific configuration for the application, getting additional funding because they have just outspent the original provision, delivery delays, more budget, testing, then commissioning into service. Then, fingers crossed!

There's 10 years for you. And in the meantime they still don't have the capabilities with the product that they have already paid for.

If I was a taxpayer, I would be demanding some answers.

[riff_raff]

It only involves 22 aircraft that will be replaced by FY20. The FG article linked in the OP also states they will be looking for an aircraft that has long-range capability for SAR missions. This might indicate the use of a tilt rotor rather than a conventional helicopter.

[rotor-rooter]

Not much to be added to this story. There is a whole range of options to "save loadsamoney" and get free aircraft form other operators in all the proposals and talk. However, decades later from the various published reports, the customer still doesn't seem to believe they have got what they paid for.Airbus calls for open ARH replacement competitionBy Nigel Pittaway and Ewen Levick | Melbourne and Sydney | 15 October 2020
Comments (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/airbus-calls-for-open-arh-replacement-competition#comments) 0 Comments (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/airbus-calls-for-open-arh-replacement-competition#comments) https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/airbus-calls-for-open-arh-replacement-competition
Airbus Australia Pacific managing director Andrew Mathewson last week called for an open competition to fulfil Defence’s requirement for 29 replacement armed reconnaissance helicopters, to be acquired under Land 4503.Mathewson’s comments follow recent reports in some sections of the media that Defence is negotiating a sole-source acquisition of 29 Boeing AH-64E Apache helicopters, via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.

Companies vying for the $4-5 billion project to replace the Australian Army’s current Airbus Helicopters Tiger ARH, with a proven, mature and off the shelf armed reconnaissance helicopter platform, include Boeing (AH-64E) and a Bell/BAE Systems Australia teaming arrangement (offering the Bell AH-1Z Viper).

Airbus in turn is proposing an upgrade to the incumbent Tiger platform. Late last year it presented an unsolicited bid to Government, leveraging the ‘Smart Buyer’ methodology, to upgrade the 22 existing Tigers and supply seven new H145M light helicopters. It claimed that under a deal, Defence would save around $3 billion out to 2040.

Mathewson confirmed last week that Defence has rejected the Airbus proposal and the company is now offering a more comprehensive Tiger upgrade, including seven additional airframes (for a total of 29), which he says can still realise a saving of up to $3 billion, in a bid based on “capability, jobs and savings”.

“Last week we received a letter from the Minister of Defence confirming our (original) bid had been rejected, but we also understand that times have moved on and our objective today is just to compete,” Mathewson said on October 7. “We’ll be offering an upgraded Tiger with a more extensive upgrade than the one we proposed in our previous campaign. We know we can save them around $3 billion, even with a more extensive upgrade, and we will work hard to find seven additional Tigers.”

The European Tiger production line is now closed and while Mathewson says he can’t confirm where the additional seven airframes will be coming from, he says work has already been undertaken to source them.

“I wouldn’t like to disclose specifically which nation would be able to support us in that, but we wouldn’t be making these comments without having done some homework in Europe,” he said.

Besides the Australian Army the Tiger is operated by the armed forces of France, Germany and Spain.

Mathewson also declined to provide specific details of the wider ranging upgrade that now forms part of the new proposal, other than to say that it would include a Link 16 tactical data link (either fully integrated with the helicopter, or a federated system, depending on customer requirements) and would leverage the proposed European Tiger Mk.III upgrades as much as possible.

Eighteen of the Army’s 22 Tigers were assembled by Airbus (as Australian Aerospace) in Brisbane and Mathewson says the upgrades, including the seven additional airframes, will also be done in Australia, using the company’s local workforce and supplier base.

“Right now, we have 496 Australians whose job directly or indirectly supports the Tiger capability, and that’s because we have been able to flow the supply chain from Europe to Australia in a very effective way,” he said.

While the origin of the reports of an Apache sole-source FMS buy cannot be confirmed, Defence is seemingly awash with cash at the present time. As ADM’s managing editor Katherine Ziesing observed in her analysis of last week’s federal budget (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/is-defence-spending-an-economic-vaccine): “Defence’s biggest problem will be getting the money out the door fast enough.”

There has also been speculation that a defence underspend in the near-term could be at least partially addressed by acquiring capability via the relatively quick and straightforward FMS process, but a Defence spokesperson confirmed to ADM on Friday that a Land 4503 acquisition strategy is yet to be decided upon.

“A Request for Information (RFI) was released to market in July 2019, seeking information in support of the development of options for Land 4503,” the spokesperson said. “No procurement pathway has been decided at this point in time. Defence continues to co-operatively consult with industry and engage with other defence forces to fully understand options for the Land 4503 project.”

In a further statement at the end of last week, a Defence spokesperson confirmed that an FMS purchase of Apache had not even been discussed at the recent AUSMIN talks, held in the US in July, and Boeing Defence Australia also declined to comment on the media reports.

“Boeing respects that this is a decision that will be made by the Australian government,” a BDA spokesperson told ADM late last week. “Boeing stands ready to support Australia with Apache’s proven, reliable and value-for-money capability.”

[gulliBell]

As per what I suggested at post #2. I should send them my consultants fee, which would be an appropriately big number.

[Ascend Charlie]

Are we buying these helicopters to have a certain combat capability, or are we trying to support a less-than-fully-capable machine to save some jobs? If we go to war, the enemy won't really care if we saved some jobs if he is able to knock out the choppers easily.

[Phoinix]

You can’t knock it down if it’s in the hangar for maintenance... 😂

[rotor-rooter]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/defence/army-tiger-helicopters-face-an-uncertain-future/news-story/db112cb20d0f43457e731257fa9a8760Army’s Tiger helicopters face an uncertain futureAustralia’s Tiger helicopter fleet may be phased out of service and some defence observers are wondering why?

By KYM BERGMANN
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/d52426e0fbb5695eaedfc52675400a9d?width=1440Australian Army ARH Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters on board HMAS Canberra during Indo-Pacific Endeavour exercises last year. COA Kieren Whiteley

From Defence (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/defence)
October 30, 2020
2 MINUTE READ

Normally when a ship’s platform is replaced it is because it is reaching the end of its life and is no longer fit for purpose. This does not apply to the Army’s 22 Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters, which are performing very well and have recently spent extensive time at sea on board the Royal Australian Navy’s Canberra class LHDs. The European operators of Tiger — France, Germany and Spain — are in the process of upgrading theirs with the intention of keeping them in service until the 2040s.

Despite this, the army is pushing hard to ditch the perfectly good Tiger fleet and replace them with 29 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters from the US for an estimated $3bn. The Apache is a highly capable machine that was originally conceived as a Cold War “tank buster” and its relatively heavy weight — about 10 tonnes — derives from the amount of armour it carries. The European Tiger was developed at the same time and has a different design philosophy, being four tonnes lighter, making it fast and nimble. Both helicopter types have a crew of two and both have similar weapons — a chin-mounted 30mm canon and a variety of missiles.

So keen are some sections of Defence to ditch the Tigers that it is understood they don’t even want to run a competition for what is known as LAND 4508, preferring to hand over a bucket of money to the US Foreign Military Sales system. If this happens, an immediate consequence is that Airbus — the supplier of Tiger — will have no choice but to significantly reduce their Brisbane support staff, which could see about 300 engineers and software developers being retrenched at the worst possible time.

The current situation can be traced back to the 2016 Defence White Paper that — to the surprise of the army aviation community — recommended the Tiger capability be replaced towards the end of this decade. That seems to have had its origins in a number of problems with availability and cost early in the program — issues that have been satisfactorily addressed years ago. But the way that Defence works is that once a policy decision is announced — even when based on outdated *information — spending on the Tigers started to dry up in anticipation of them being withdrawn from service.
One of the attractions of Apache is that the current model incorporates Link 16 — a vital data-sharing tool in today’s *combat environment.

An irony of the current situation is that Airbus has offered to integrate Link 16 onto Tigers four times, but have been rebuffed because of funding problems. Tigers are interoperable with coalition forces, including deployments to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, such as the USS Ronald Reagan during an exercise in August and USS Theodore Roosevelt last year.

Other Tiger users, especially the French, are privately *astounded by the direction Australia is heading. Their Tigers have been in continuous combat operations since 2009, with deployments to Afghanistan, Libya, the Central African Republic and currently Mali. Some of these have been high intensity operations with Special Forces units against heavily armed Islamic insurgents, but these events receive little coverage here in what seems to be a case of out of sight, out of mind.

It has been suggested that there is a geopolitical element to this, with Australia seeking even more equipment commonality with the US.

If this is the case, it is to be hoped that our politicians keep in mind Australian interests rather than those of Washington, especially with hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars at stake.

Defence has prepared a paper on the future of the Tigers for the National Security Committee of Cabinet and a decision is expected within weeks.

[rotor-rooter]

The Apache is announced as the replacement for the Tiger. Sound judgement and practical common sense prevail.
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/apache-triumphs-in-australian-attack-helicopter-competition/141971.articleApache triumphs in Australian attack helicopter competitionBy Greg Waldron (https://www.flightglobal.com/greg-waldron/238.bio)14 January 2021









Save article (https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/apache-triumphs-in-australian-attack-helicopter-competition/141971.article?sm=141971)

Canberra has selected the Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardian to fulfil its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) requirement from 2025.

The decision will see the Apache replace the Airbus Helicopters Tiger, which is currently in service with the Australian Army.

https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/480xany/1/9/3/76193_apacheaustralia_867106.jpg

Source: Boeing Australia

Artist’s rendering of the AH-64E in Australian Army livery

“This new ARH capability will strengthen Australia’s armed reconnaissance force to better shape our strategic environment and deter actions against our national interest,” says defence minister Linda Reynolds.

“Defence considered a number of helicopters against key criteria of proven ability, maturity and an off-the-shelf operating system.”

The Tiger replacement project, designated Project Land 4503, calls for 29 ARHs to replace Canberra’s 22 Tigers.

Although the Tiger is now performing well in Australian Army service, the programme suffered years of issues before stabilising.

The Department of Defence notes that lessons learned from the Tiger and other acquisitions have “informed a strategy to seek a proven, mature ARH replacement capability”.

In addition to Boeing, the requirement attracted interest from Bell with the AH-1Z Viper. Airbus Helicopters also pitched an upgrade to the existing Tiger fleet, as well as the acquisition of seven additional examples, possibly from one of the type’s European operators.

“The Apache Guardian is the most lethal, most survivable and lowest risk option, meeting all of Defence’s capability, through-life support, security, and certification requirements,” says Reynolds.

“By pursuing a proven and low-risk system offered by the Apache, Defence will avoid the ongoing cost and schedule risk typically associated with developmental platforms.”

Cirium fleets data shows Canberra’s decision will make Australia the Asia-Pacific region’s seventh AH-64 user. The type’s other users in the region are India, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

“Boeing appreciates the Commonwealth of Australia’s confidence in selecting the AH-64E Apache’s proven, reliable and value-for-money capability,” says the US company.

“The AH-64E Apache provides Australia with a low-risk, fully-integrated, battle-proven capability which is interoperable with Australia’s key allies. It is supported by an active production line and a US Army modernisation plan through the late 2040s, thereby ensuring the platform remains the leading attack reconnaissance capability through 2050 and beyond.”

[Less Hair]

So Apache has air to air capabilities as well it seems?

[casper64]

So Apache has air to air capabilities as well it seems?

Yes it does, just like the Tiger...

[Same again]

Even the Scout AH1 had A2A capabilities. It just depended how fast the target was travelling.

[Less Hair]

Yes it does, just like the Tiger...

My point was it shot down that Tiger.

[chopper2004]

Even the Scout AH1 had A2A capabilities. It just depended how fast the target was travelling.

Thr cabin mounted Gimpy be more effective than lol wire guided AS11/AS12 ?

cheers

[Same again]

I fired quite a few SS11 but only at stationary targets. I do reckon I could have hit a helicopter though. During the Falklands War a fellow Airgunner in a Scout told me that they were hiding in a valley in a low hover waiting for an air raid to pass when he saw an Argentinian Skyhawk flying towards them. He asked for permission to fire from his pilot who told him in no uncertain terms to forget it :-)

[megan]

Hell, even the old Huey managed two air to air kills, against AN-2. ;)

[industry insider]

Another sensible MOTS procurement decision along with the MH60R and the C17.

[Ascend Charlie]

Hell, even the old Huey managed two air to air kills, against AN-2. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

And in the Bosnia conflict, I believe an F-15 used a laser-guided bomb to hit a slow-moving MiL.

[rotor-rooter]

And now Germany appears uncertain. https://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopter (http://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopter)

https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/files/1250x420/germany_bundeswehr_airbus_tiger_attack_helicopter_crop.jpg (https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/files/germany_bundeswehr_airbus_tiger_attack_helicopter.jpg)on 2nd March 2021
Image : VanderWolf Images / Shutterstock
https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/profile/26/80x80/laimafoto%200171_crop.jpg (https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau)
CLEMENT CHARPENTREAU (https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau)Will Germany abandon the Airbus Tiger attack helicopter?Share this news https://www.aerotime.aero/img/Facebook.svg (https://facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopter) https://www.aerotime.aero/img/Twitter.svg (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopter) https://www.aerotime.aero/img/Linkedin.svg (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopter) https://www.aerotime.aero/img/Reddit.svg (https://www.reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopter&title=Will%20Germany%20abandon%20the%20Airbus%20Tiger%20atta ck%20helicopter?&styled=off&newwindow=1) ?subject=Will%20Germany%20abandon%20the%20Airbus%20Tiger%20a ttack%20helicopter?&body=https://www.aerotime.aero/27385-will-germany-abandon-the-airbus-tiger-attack-helicopterDesigned in the early 1980s amid the Cold War, the Franco-German Tiger combat helicopter was adopted by the two countries’ respective armies in 2009. Initially thought of as an anti-tank platform that could counter a Soviet invasion, it was eventually transformed into a multirole attack helicopter, with several variants being developed to fit the needs of its operators.

In May 2018, France and Germany formalized the modernization of the Tiger, defined by the French Minister of Armed Forces as a “new stage for Europe of defense and the consolidation of our industry.” On behalf of France, Germany, and Spain, the European Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) contracted the manufacturers involved in the project, namely Airbus Helicopters, Thales and MBDA, to carry out risk reduction tasks.

The modernization is due to bring the helicopters to the Mk3, focused on collaborative combat. For example, it should include the Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) which allows for a helicopter to control a drone. The Tigers of the French armed forces would also be able to share information with the newly-induced frontline fighting vehicles of the Scorpion program.

However, it now appears that the German side is hesitant to see the planned update move forward. After the Franco-German Council on defense and security held on February 5, 2021, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that “for the standard Tiger 3, there is a whole series of negotiations to be conducted, in particular with Airbus for the German part.”

Unlike the FCAS fighter jet program, whose bumpy ride can mostly be blamed on political quibble, the reluctance over the €5.5 billion modernization comes from the military itself. In particular, the German Army points at the low operational readiness of the Airbus Tiger, according to Reuters.

In its 2018 'Report on the material situation of the main armament systems of the Bundeswehr',' the Defense Ministry revealed that on average only 11.6 out of its 53 Tiger helicopters were operational. In January 2020, the German media Bild said that number dropped to 8.

The Bundeswehr is not the only force critical of the aircraft. In July 2019, the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) of the Australian defense ministry launched a request for information (RFI) to find a replacement to its Tiger, after several Australian institutions criticized the aircraft for its low availability and high maintenance cost. The RFI asked for the new aircraft to be “proven and mature, off-the-shelf”. In January 2021, Australia’s Defense Minister Linda Reynolds announced the acquisition of 29 Boeing Apaches from 2025, at a cost of $3.5 billion, to replace the 22 Tigers

Germany could now follow the example of Australia. The French defense think-tank Mars reported in La Tribune that Berlin could officialize its withdrawal from the Tiger program by Autumn 2021. Even worse for the European defense industry, an American solution might be preferred. “The decision would seem to have already been taken to order Apache AH-64 helicopters from Boeing through an FMS [Foreign Military Sales – ed. note] procedure,” reported Mars.

Though the decision was not confirmed by any of the interested parties, it is not the first time that Germany’s interest in the Apache is mentioned. In March 2020, Shepherd Media reported that “the German federal government has asked its US counterpart for information about the Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.”

[casper64]

My point was it shot down that Tiger.

Nah, they are Brothers in arms.... its the government that shot down the Tiger.... 😉

[Flying Bull]

Nah, they are Brothers in arms.... its the government that shot down the Tiger.... 😉
Well, al long long time since I was with the forces - but I doubt, that things have changed there since then.
As long as you keep only few spares and need to order from the industry when you need extra parts, its no wonder, that the readiness is down....
I remember when we went to BOST at least one Lynx was loaded with booze and cigarettes and departed to Portland to to some exchange......
You just don't get far, if you only take three seals for generators with you - which you have to dump after use. Some swapping between helicopters to find a fault and you're lucky to get one airborne....
Same at the base, instead of ordering spares in time for the helicopters, the ones in maintenance get cannibalised to keep the others flying - making it hard to get them out of maintenance in time....

[casper64]

Yes sir! Exactly that!

[chopper2004]

Hope they keep their camouflage when they receive the Guardian, as I think only the JGSDF and IDFAF have their lAH-64D in camouflage.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/780x390/11a09b13_ed0a_4293_968c_159f55d3e94e_19304b10380b93fb1998c7a 746bd595277e777af.jpeg

Unless it’s the trick of the light I think our new pair of Guardians have different shade (darker) CARC paint (?)

cheers

[Blackhawk9]

Hope they keep their camouflage when they receive the Guardian, as I think only the JGSDF and IDFAF have their lAH-64D in camouflage.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/780x390/11a09b13_ed0a_4293_968c_159f55d3e94e_19304b10380b93fb1998c7a 746bd595277e777af.jpeg

Unless it’s the trick of the light I think our new pair of Guardians have different shade (darker) CARC paint (?)

cheers
Indonesia and India also have their own schemes, I doubt the Aussie Apaches will be different to US scheme , just like the Chinooks they will piggyback onto the US system so will stay in std colours.

[chopper2004]

Indonesia and India also have their own schemes, I doubt the Aussie Apaches will be different to US scheme , just like the Chinooks they will piggyback onto the US system so will stay in std colours.

Ah forgot about the Indian grey and Indonesia green you might be right there..

Think our new Guardians been airborne at all for flight tests since they arrived? laughingly one of Wattishams finest buzzed over here EGSC last week.

cheers

[casper64]

Oh dear now it seems the Apache ain’t perfect either… who would imagine. Don’t let the Aussies read this!

https://military.news131daily.com/u-s-army-stops-accepting-ah-64e-apache-guardian-attack-helicopters-over-issue-with-nut/

[BigMike]

"U.S. Army stops accepting AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters over issue with nut"So a bit of WD-40 required on the preflight then...

[Twist & Shout]

Oh dear now it seems the Apache ain’t perfect either… who would imagine. Don’t let the Aussies read this!

https://military.news131daily.com/u-s-army-stops-accepting-ah-64e-apache-guardian-attack-helicopters-over-issue-with-nut/

In my mind this demonstrates the advantage of buying one of the most widely used type.
Australia doesn’t have to try to get the issue rectified - a bigger customer will take care of that!

[casper64]

True…. Valid point 👍

[KfirGuy]

One minor point, Casper... while the site you linked strangely seems to have picked up and ran this story recently, it is actually from 4 years ago. The Defense News article they cite was published on 19 April 2018. I recalled this being an issue before, and was surprised to see it pop back up again, only to realize it was a re-hash of an old story for clicks.

The article is titled "army stops taking ah-64es from Boeing due to lack of confidence in part critical to safety" (I don't have enough posts to publish URLs here, sadly, but if you search this alongside Defense News, you'll find the story)
Here is the link in question (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/04/19/army-stops-taking-ah-64es-from-boeing-due-to-lack-of-confidence-in-part-critical-to-safety/).

[Bellicose]

Hope they keep their camouflage when they receive the Guardian, as I think only the JGSDF and IDFAF have their lAH-64D in camouflage.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/780x390/11a09b13_ed0a_4293_968c_159f55d3e94e_19304b10380b93fb1998c7a 746bd595277e777af.jpeg

Unless it’s the trick of the light I think our new pair of Guardians have different shade (darker) CARC paint (?)

cheers
Ref painting Apaches; I have heard that they will be adorned with a rainbow colour scheme as nothing is more important in Australia these days than "Diversity and Inclusion".

[Tibbsy]

Ref painting Apaches; I have heard that they will be adorned with a rainbow colour scheme as nothing is more important in Australia these days than "Diversity and Inclusion".

oh LOL ....:rolleyes: