Cant help myself here really... Clear in Live!
Such complex analysis, capability, and purchase projects are at the limit of Defence Force capabilities, especially dealing with a capability that is so far beyond the subject matter expertise of those involved. The step from Kiowa and the MK1 eyeball to Tiger with Night Owl, third gen IR, situational awareness software, tandem seating, onset of the digital battlefield, two engines, and the introduction of weapon systems was a lot to ask in one go. We can point holes in what happened, but overall, it has been a fantastic capability increase and the Army aviation can be proud.
The engine defficiency was noted even during the High Range demo flights in Townsville in about 1998 or 99 when the Huey was getting off Woolshed (2000ft, 30 deg) with more fuel and ammo. And the Huey won the Air to Air engagement too!!! Powering up the engine has also reduced engine life, as per the jelly bean jar analogy - the report seems to have skimmed over that.
But the most glaring defficiency for me (silly old AFS pilot that I am) is in this:
The heavily armed aircraft provides aerial reconnaissance and fire support to ground troops.
Make no mistake, this is a wonderful reconnaissance aircraft, and with the current short comings in the microwave radar (Longbow, etc) in the Aust environment, I would argue it is the leader of the recce pack. But aerial fire support (AFS) is a different thing entirely.
Firstly, even from day 1, the project definintion called for range equivalent to the Black Hawk. In a vast country with extremely limited CAIRS, a significantly limited artillery deployed by very range limited CH-47D, the Army required an AFS platform that had the ability to go to the radius of the Black Hawk and loiter for the provision of AFS to airmobile troops, conduct relief in place and carry enough ammo to hurt and "Free the World" as Duffy would say. The Tiger can do none of these things. But it will detect where the fire power should be directed!
Secondly, the weapon systems that the tiger was equipped with are generally not for anti-pers, they are for point target destruction/neutralisation, ie it is an attack platform more than an AFS platform. What the Army now lacks is the ability to rapidly apply an area weapon for attack/withdrawal support. I am not saying the Huey is the answer because in AFS ops, it is not the airframe that is the issue so much as the weapon systems it carries. The mini/rocket mix combined with the off axis twin M60Bs allowed the aircraft to work in very close to own troops for AFS, something the Tiger will simply not be able to do. I note that one of the Iraq War's revelations was the "911" call, an armed OH-58D that was able to get in close with a large volume of fire weapon system and rockets. This was the same principle used by the little birds in Somalia. very similar to the Huey weapon mix. But at least the Tiger has some protection from ground fire, is crash worthy, and has two donks! In a similar dispersed enemy (albiet on a different concentration and capability planet), fractured FEBA scenario that was Timor, I think it was a poor decision not to take the AFS capability when Oz deployed there in '99. Timor represents the most common environment Oz troops are likely to face: a dispersed mobile enemy without substantial SAM capabilities, and it is the environment in which the Oz Huey gunship was specifically designed to operate.
Perhaps if a couple of AFS people had been involved at any stage of the AIR 87 project, things may be different but spilled milk is spilled milk. In the mean time, we have purchased the premier recce platform that can shoot back if it has to, is a quantum leap for our Army, and brings Army aviation into this century. Nothing is ever perfect, and when compared to other recent ADF procurement projects, is a shining light and the guys should rightfully be proud.
As for the Huey? Little while longer. But no AFS methinks.
Cease Fire, Safe-up.