MBDA also have old problems with own product - PARS 3LR had demonstrate low reliability in US trials
www.capital.de
I know a couple reasons - their helicopters armed the Hellfires and cannons
atalayar.com
Another factor is the damage the Global Financial Crisis did to many companies. Many for instance forced older workers to retire early promoting younger less experienced people to replace them. This led to the advancement of what I refer to as the Teflon cockroach, i.e. the professional survivors in industry who somehow mange to outlast much more capable and competent people by the simple expedient of doing virtually nothing, staying totally within their comfort zones, and specialise in not rocking the boat.
Spain and France team up to make the new Flying Tiger roar
The PSOE-Unidas Podemos coalition government has given the go-ahead for the mode...
www.airbus.com
Mk 3 Upgrade luanched by France and Spain
France and Spain launch Tiger MkIII programme
OCCAR (Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation), on behalf of the French and Spanish Armament General Directorate, the DGA (Direction Générale de l’Armement) and the DGAM (Dirección General de Armamento y Material) has awarded a contract to Airbus Helicopters for the development, production...
cheers
www.latribune.fr
I was pretty grumpy when I wrote that, I was working under a particularly obnoxious, and thoroughly incompetent, retired E-9 who could only have been promoted during a skills shortage. Things are much better now I am working directly for a professional engineer O-6 on a complex project.
It's actually an extremely robust and survivable airframe, much more modern and survivable than the Apache airframe. Ironically Tiger is a rare case where Australia would have been better off doing a truly unique version with as many US systems as possible, that way they could have hooked into the US spiral developments for the systems they shared with Apache and Venom, making Tiger much more sustainable.
Interestingly at an army aviation conference the RASM (Regiment Artificer Sergent Major), the senior technical soldier at 1 Aviation Regiment, was told by his US Army equivalents that the Guardian has its issues and Australia may be better off sticking with Tiger for the time being.
While I agree that the previous Govt did a lot of questionable things on the Defence side and has actually left Australia far less prepared then we should be, the move away from the Tiger was not purely political. Airbus has had an atrocious record supporting both the Tiger and MRH90 in Australia (and arguably elsewhere - see NH90 saga). Their bid for LAND 4503 also had multiple non-compliances which led them to be dropped in the first round.
Technically the ARH Tiger fit the original AIR87 project perfectly. The ADF was after a replacement for their Kiowas first and foremost with a secondary requirement to replace the Bushrangers. The ARH title (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter) sums it up. Despite what people seem to think, the original requirement was never for a dedicated attack helicopter in the mood of the AH-64.
Sadly, whatever was acquired was going to have issues. The late 90s through the 2000s saw a lot of delays due to the perceived "Peace Dividend" project cancellations, privatizations of government owned companies and facilities, shrinking of inhouse technical and engineering capability, contracting out and outsourcing etc. When combined with the acquisition of bleeding edge tech to replace 1950s developed capabilities, it was a perfect storm for troubled and failed programs.
Yes, and I also know that the Apache had a lot of issues for its first decade or so and that the Guardian has had problems too. Australia actually found themselves ahead of the curve in a number of areas on Tiger, hitting milestones and unfortunately problems, before the parent operators. The US used to operate the same way as the French appear to still be doing these days, get the early models into service, find the in-service issues and fix them in follow on versions.
There was modelling done at the time.
Yeah sometimes the software does that. I was certainly not implying it was from you.
The succession of procurement disasters from the late 90s onwards appears to demonstrate the prevalence of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) in terms of modelling. There were some quite unexpected to outright bizarre answers to selection questions during that period, sometimes it was down to the bidding companies being allowed to determine the numbers required to deliver the contracted capability.
Sadly this appears to be endemic across most of the liberal democracies. The initial analysis means are usually poor, designed to demonstrate a specific product or capability, and crumble under acute scrutiny. However if they fit the politics of the day this observation is kept from public view.
