Tiger troubles
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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!
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!
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LiveFist - The Best of Indian Defence: Schematics Of India's Light Combat Helicopter
Something that might be available more quickly, made of wood, costs only 2000 rupees and runs on diesel.
Something that might be available more quickly, made of wood, costs only 2000 rupees and runs on diesel.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 on May 18, 2010 4:14 pm
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.
Engine failure grounds MRH 90s
Item by australianaviation.com.au on May 18, 2010 4:14 pm
photo - CPL Rodney Welch/ArmyThe 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.
GreenKnight,
Its actually the Australian Army Aviation Corps
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 
Its actually the Australian Army Aviation Corps
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
The dreamed-of-excuse to delay paying bills
I/C
So what's really going on with those German Tigers?
The dreamed-of-excuse to delay paying bills
I/C
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?)
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?)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeep...
According to Wiki-waki:
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The article in the current edition of Defence Helicopter includes the following comment:
I/C
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Recoil Cannon for Helos
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.
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.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 23rd Jul 2010 at 08:26.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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........
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conceptual Bell Huey II Gunship
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.
'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
The Bell UH-1 Huey
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.
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
The Bell UH-1 Huey
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.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 24th Jul 2010 at 07:11.
Huey II
BR 71,
The UH-1 was a awesome machine in its day but unfortunately some of your arguments don't hold water.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
'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
The US Marine Corps has kept their UH-1N Hueys up-to-date,
proven Huey II would be way ahead of MRH90 for cost-effective utility helo operations.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ammunition
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.
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.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 24th Jul 2010 at 23:57.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thewhiterabbit
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.
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
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 25th Jul 2010 at 00:25.