Very nice. I still think this is the helicopter Australia should be flying.
In the early 1990's the US offered a Australia a package of 40x AH-1W Super Cobras, zero lifed and updated to the latest operational standard at that time, plus weapons and support for $150m.
Even though we only operated old UH-1H guns ships at that time but intended to replace them with a modern gunship under project AIR-87, we knocked back this offer, which seems by most standards to be a bargain.
Then we chose the Tiger ARH under AIR-87 and finally in late 2011 / early 2012 we will have an operational gunship capability out of this project. The AH-1Z was rejected by us as beng "too developmental".
Wouldn't itnp have been great if we'd accepted those 40x AH-1W's back in 1992 or so? We'd have had an operational gunship by 1995 or so, could have joined the development of the AH-1W project and re-manufactured these into the AH-1Z giving us a world class gunship capability, well suited to operating in the maritime environment that was actually beneficial to our local industry?
Ah well, what's one more missed opportunity and 20 more years without capability? A disgrace, that's what...
Our Digs should have had helo gunship top cover in Timor and definitely in Afghanistan for their entire deployment. They had neither...
i never knew that history. how did they get the idea that the AH-1Z was more developmental than the Tigre? its definitely time to start looking into the AIR projects...that should prove some interesting reading!
That's some interesting info Aussie Digger. Think about the interoperability that could have been afforded had Australia gone through with that acquisition, now that we're putting a usmc base down there.
Well Eurocopter bid that the Tiger was essentially "off the shelf". 3 years into the build and 50% of project budget expended, turned out Eurocopter had been telling porky pies (lies).
The Tiger was far more developmental then we had been led to believe (same thing occurred with MRH-90 "coincidentally"). AH-1Z was no better back in 2002-2004 when this was being considered, except it had a contractor with a strong, demonstrated history of delivering capability (Bell) unlike Eurocopter.
As it turned out, AH-1Z is in operational service today. Tiger isn't except for limited "promotional" activities. It's night vision capability still isn't fully sorted out and it's required high level authorisation to deploy on the operations it has so far conducted. It also now costs more than it's competitor - AH-64D does...
It hasn't passed the usual technical airworthiness and operational assessment schemes that would give it the authorisation to enter operational service and one can argue why that's been done, but the French Gazelles have provided years of great service and unlike the Tiger, aren't competing in multiple competitions around the world, against combat proven aircraft, so the compellability to deploy them isn't as strong as Tiger...
In other words, we got hosed. Twice by Eurocopter... I'm sure the Tiger will turn out to be a great aircraft, but when we go to war it won't be other Tigers flying alongside our Tigers and providing the joint infrastructure helping out all the users, it will be Apaches and AH-1Z Cobras flying alongside us and unable to help us in any way, except perhaps some ammunition and fuel and flying on our behalf when we can't replace our combat losses...
well tell me this (if you have the time)...a writer was talking about setting up a maintenance hub for all the F-35's in Australia for the Pacific users. has that gained traction with the military or is still a writers dream?
I think it's got plenty of traction within Australia, but we'll have to wait and see how many regional players see fit to send their F-35's (assuming any regional players actually buy them, at present only Singapore, Japan and South Korea have shown any interest at all) on the long journey south for maintenance activities...
Personally I don't see the idea working out in the manner proposed. The RAAF's maintenance hub will be at Williamtown, where over half of our JSF force will be based.
Geographically speaking, RAAF Williamtown is about 80 miles north of Sydney. Singapore is an 8 hour one way journey by commercial airlines from Sydney... Japan and South Korea are much further away. I can't see it being an economically viable proposition but we'll see.
I can see potential regional users, using our maintenance facilities if they were to base their aircraft in Australia for any length of time (as Singapore does and USMC might eventually) but otherwise I don't see the idea being too popular...
Very nice. I still think this is the helicopter Australia should be flying.
ReplyDeleteIn the early 1990's the US offered a Australia a package of 40x AH-1W Super Cobras, zero lifed and updated to the latest operational standard at that time, plus weapons and support for $150m.
Even though we only operated old UH-1H guns ships at that time but intended to replace them with a modern gunship under project AIR-87, we knocked back this offer, which seems by most standards to be a bargain.
Then we chose the Tiger ARH under AIR-87 and finally in late 2011 / early 2012 we will have an operational gunship capability out of this project. The AH-1Z was rejected by us as beng "too developmental".
Wouldn't itnp have been great if we'd accepted those 40x AH-1W's back in 1992 or so? We'd have had an operational gunship by 1995 or so, could have joined the development of the AH-1W project and re-manufactured these into the AH-1Z giving us a world class gunship capability, well suited to operating in the maritime environment that was actually beneficial to our local industry?
Ah well, what's one more missed opportunity and 20 more years without capability? A disgrace, that's what...
Our Digs should have had helo gunship top cover in Timor and definitely in Afghanistan for their entire deployment. They had neither...
i never knew that history. how did they get the idea that the AH-1Z was more developmental than the Tigre? its definitely time to start looking into the AIR projects...that should prove some interesting reading!
ReplyDeleteThat's some interesting info Aussie Digger. Think about the interoperability that could have been afforded had Australia gone through with that acquisition, now that we're putting a usmc base down there.
ReplyDeleteI have a love for this helo that I have for no other. Nothing in this worlds is better than seeing a pair of those flying overhead during a patrol.
ReplyDeleteYou just walk with a swager knowing you have a big stick waiting to bring pain on anyone who would think about fing with you
I love the cobra, and I'm so glad we have merger gone Apache
Well Eurocopter bid that the Tiger was essentially "off the shelf". 3 years into the build and 50% of project budget expended, turned out Eurocopter had been telling porky pies (lies).
ReplyDeleteThe Tiger was far more developmental then we had been led to believe (same thing occurred with MRH-90 "coincidentally"). AH-1Z was no better back in 2002-2004 when this was being considered, except it had a contractor with a strong, demonstrated history of delivering capability (Bell) unlike Eurocopter.
As it turned out, AH-1Z is in operational service today. Tiger isn't except for limited "promotional" activities. It's night vision capability still isn't fully sorted out and it's required high level authorisation to deploy on the operations it has so far conducted. It also now costs more than it's competitor - AH-64D does...
It hasn't passed the usual technical airworthiness and operational assessment schemes that would give it the authorisation to enter operational service and one can argue why that's been done, but the French Gazelles have provided years of great service and unlike the Tiger, aren't competing in multiple competitions around the world, against combat proven aircraft, so the compellability to deploy them isn't as strong as Tiger...
In other words, we got hosed. Twice by Eurocopter... I'm sure the Tiger will turn out to be a great aircraft, but when we go to war it won't be other Tigers flying alongside our Tigers and providing the joint infrastructure helping out all the users, it will be Apaches and AH-1Z Cobras flying alongside us and unable to help us in any way, except perhaps some ammunition and fuel and flying on our behalf when we can't replace our combat losses...
well tell me this (if you have the time)...a writer was talking about setting up a maintenance hub for all the F-35's in Australia for the Pacific users. has that gained traction with the military or is still a writers dream?
ReplyDeleteI think it's got plenty of traction within Australia, but we'll have to wait and see how many regional players see fit to send their F-35's (assuming any regional players actually buy them, at present only Singapore, Japan and South Korea have shown any interest at all) on the long journey south for maintenance activities...
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't see the idea working out in the manner proposed. The RAAF's maintenance hub will be at Williamtown, where over half of our JSF force will be based.
Geographically speaking, RAAF Williamtown is about 80 miles north of Sydney. Singapore is an 8 hour one way journey by commercial airlines from Sydney... Japan and South Korea are much further away. I can't see it being an economically viable proposition but we'll see.
I can see potential regional users, using our maintenance facilities if they were to base their aircraft in Australia for any length of time (as Singapore does and USMC might eventually) but otherwise I don't see the idea being too popular...