Eurocopter EC 665 Tiger

Don't forget that Germany is used with civilian conversion for Attack helicopters.

220px-Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F073468-0003%2C_Hubschrauber_BO-105.jpg


Then, there is also this unnamed Apaches customer. You'd never know...
 
yasotay said:
This seems to be both an economic and military rational issue. Many countries appear to be looking toward more flexible operations for their helicopters whereby they can have multi-role capability with their rotorcraft. There is of course also the aspect of cost. Civil helicopters without any armor do not last long unless you are able to afford both aircraft and aircrew production to make up for the losses. Until the advent of the RAH-66 effort, all of the US aeroscout helicopters were based on updated civil helicopters. Their loss rate, for machines and aircrew were high, requiring industrial level of production of both.
Click to expand...

im wondering if Germany is planning to follow Japan, which recently made a defense plan to phase out attack and scouting helicopters and use drones instead. This also means that utility/light transport helicopters should be made to be a bit more flexible and carry some arms.
 
TomcatViP said:
Don't forget that Germany is used with civilian conversion for Attack helicopters.

220px-Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F073468-0003%2C_Hubschrauber_BO-105.jpg


Then, there is also this unnamed Apaches customer. You'd never know...
Click to expand...

Yes but - this seems like a return to the 1980's with the Bo-105 you mentions. Also the issues facing civilian choppers turned combat helicopters are well known - Gazelle provided stellar service for decades but the crews were not much protected. As found the hard way by the Syrians in 1982 and some french crews in Africa - unfortunately.
 
yasotay said:
This seems to be both an economic and military rational issue. Many countries appear to be looking toward more flexible operations for their helicopters whereby they can have multi-role capability with their rotorcraft. There is of course also the aspect of cost. Civil helicopters without any armor do not last long unless you are able to afford both aircraft and aircrew production to make up for the losses. Until the advent of the RAH-66 effort, all of the US aeroscout helicopters were based on updated civil helicopters. Their loss rate, for machines and aircrew were high, requiring industrial level of production of both.
Click to expand...

OH-6 and OH-58 indeed... same for France with the Gazelles.
 
helmutkohl said:
Germany to replace their Tigers with H145Ms
on the one hand, the H145M seems to be getting popular. We just had another country replace their NH-90s with them.

On the other hand, replacing attack helicopters with H145Ms seems very questionable .

www.reuters.com

Germany to buy Airbus civil helicopter and convert for combat, Business Insider reports

Germany's Defence Ministry wants to buy 82 Airbus H-145M civilian helicopters and convert some of them into combat helicopters to replace its Tiger combat fleet, Business Insider reported, citing military internal documents.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
From the article:

"The H-145M helicopters are approved for military use but are not designed as combat aircraft and the Bundeswehr has concerns about the machine's combat suitability and crew protection, which the ministry has ignored so far, the report added.

The Bundeswehr sees the planned procurement "a purely political decision that ignores operational needs," Business Insider said, citing a letter from the German Armed Forces Technical Service for Aircraft and Aeronautical Equipment (WTD 61) to the Ministry of Defence."

As I recall the F-104 was another political decision over objections of the military.
 
I am surprised that Germany gas gone down the route of converting what is actually a transport helicopter into an attack helicopter without first having a competition with the other proper attack helicopters that are out there.
 
Sigh.

Though of course we should take these kind of news reports with grains of salt, just because a journalist has seen one planning document it doesn't mean that there aren't other planning documents. This feels like its a low-cost option being explored and no doubt other options involving real attack choppers are on paper too (though given the Chinook shenanigans Boeing might not be flavour of the month in Berlin).
 
Hood said:
Sigh.

Though of course we should take these kind of news reports with grains of salt, just because a journalist has seen one planning document it doesn't mean that there aren't other planning documents. This feels like its a low-cost option being explored and no doubt other options involving real attack choppers are on paper too (though given the Chinook shenanigans Boeing might not be flavour of the month in Berlin).
Click to expand...
Airbus Australia proposed supplementing Tiger with H-145M. This was to get around the lack of sufficient Tiger Airframes to meet the new operational requirements.

For many years US Army Attack and Air Cavalry Helicopter Squadrons used a mix of Cobras/Apaches and Kiowas of different models. I wonder if this may be the case with the Germans, supplementing to increases the combat capability of the unit until a longer term replacement can be acquired.
 
helmutkohl said:
apparition13 said:

As I recall the F-104 was another political decision over objections of the military.
Click to expand...
since you brought it up.. what did the military want instead of F-104s again?
Click to expand...
Grumman Super-Tiger. It won the competition in Switzerland, but Mirage was chosen for reasons of economy. It was preferred by pilots in West Germany and Japan due to it's superior handling, I've read a test pilot describe it as the best handling aircraft he had ever flown, unlike the Starfighter which was notoriously difficult to deal with, but their respective governments decided they liked Lockheed's "deals" better.
 
Can the glass of the Tiger and Apache be bulletproof?
They look fragile in terms of the thickness of their glass.
 
I had always thought that both the Tiger and Apache had bulletproof glass that could withstand direct hits will bullets of up to 23mm.
 
I believe, at least for the Apache, that the canopy are 7.62 "resistant". Certainly not 23mm. Indeed during the ill-fated 11th Regiment "deep attack" in Iraq several aircrew had bullets enter the cockpit. One gunner actually was wounded in the throat and was fortunate to survive. Where the confusion comes in for the Apache perhaps is that there is an armored glass plate between the aircrew, such that if a explosive round up to 23mm, detonates in either of the cockpit spaces the other aircrew member would be protected. Fortunately this has not been demonstrated.
 
TomcatViP said:
I think the passive protection is designed for up to 12.7mm bullet at max. (some area)
Click to expand...
Great document! Thanks. So the forward facing windshields are armored as TomcatVIP states. The side windows while resistant have been documented as not stopping 7.62. I am not sure if the Tiger is "armored" the same.
 
I've been trying to find an answer to this for some time but finding anything definite is a tough matter. What I can find for certain is that the side canopy panels are pretty much just plexiglass and this tends to be the norm for that area on most attack helicopters. The only real exception to this rule is the Mi-28 which has excellent armor for the crew at the cost of some visibility. On the AH-64 there is a definitely a rather thick barrier between the pilot and CPG which I believe was designed to stop and contain the blast of a 23mm HEI or larger projectile so it doesn't kill both crewmen. The remaining question is if the two flat forward facing tempered glass panels are designed to be ballistically resistant and if so to what caliber ammunition.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
I had always thought that both the Tiger and Apache had bulletproof glass that could withstand direct hits will bullets of up to 23mm.
Click to expand...

Just imagine how thick (and heavy) that would need to be...the glass on MRAP's is incredibly thick but won't stop .50 cal let alone anything heavier.
 
So what happens now? With the Tiger 3 program suspended indefinitely will France and Spain get together and design a proper Tiger replacement program or what? It has certainly been a mess-up.
 
FighterJock said:
So what happens now? With the Tiger 3 program suspended indefinitely will France and Spain get together and design a proper Tiger replacement program or what? It has certainly been a mess-up.
Click to expand...
No idea. I wonder if they'll go for an interim upgrade to remove obsolescence but not much more. Can't imagine them sinking a huge amount of money into a platform with little future or export potential.
 
I can see both France and Spain going down the interim update route timmymagic, but what about the long term as the Tiger 's will no doubt be reaching the end of their number of operational flight hours.
 
There was cost cutting measures hinted before as performances was not on par with objectives. But this took me aback.

Let's however hope that the next upgrade of the Tiger will not be Gazelle retirement yet again pushed to the right. Otherwise, French ALAT might well get out of pilots before reaching the end of Tiger's airframe useful life.
 
FighterJock said:
but what about the long term as the Tiger 's will no doubt be reaching the end of their number of operational flight hours.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many hours they do in the first place, I know they've not had the similar scale of issues that NH-90 has had, but its still not been good. And service in Mali etc. will have been costly in terms of flight hours and wear and tear.

I think a lot will depend on the lessons learned from Ukraine....

Dedicated AH might be a similar story to the A-10. Not survivable in a peer on peer war, or at least not in the designed role, and reduced to using weapons that other platforms can do just as well but cheaper/more survivably (for AH firing unguided rockets in parabolic arcs can be done by utility helos, same with long range munitions like Spike or Brimstone..., A-10's delivery of precision munitions is done better by the likes of F-16....). In non peer on peer war there are platforms that do the job far cheaper...

It might be that they are too much for lower tier conflicts, and too little for higher tier.
 
The tactics and technology available will play a significant role in the viability of AH in the future. While I agree that there are lessons to be had from the current war, I think we have to recall that many of the platforms are not using the technology available to most western AH users. Certainly, the training of the crews was less than desired at the beginning. Most of the peer AH users are now working on even longer ranged weapons that will keep them out of the Weapon Effect Zone of a number of the low altitude air defense systems.
 
yasotay said:
The tactics and technology available will play a significant role in the viability of AH in the future. While I agree that there are lessons to be had from the current war, I think we have to recall that many of the platforms are not using the technology available to most western AH users. Certainly, the training of the crews was less than desired at the beginning. Most of the peer AH users are now working on even longer ranged weapons that will keep them out of the Weapon Effect Zone of a number of the low altitude air defense systems.
Click to expand...

Thats true....but..... then the longer ranged weapons negate the reason for a dedicated AH in the first place...

If an AH has to fire from such a long range (and low altitude).....what is the point of the extra expense of a helicopter....you may as well use a drone or fixed wing....

If you can't get eyes on a target or operate within your sensor range (like the US plans to do with AH-64 with Spike...) then what benefit does a very expensive AH bring?

What benefit does an AH have firing Spike just over the horizon, using target acquisition from 'other platforms' have over a ground unit firing a Land Precision Strike missile at far, far lower cost....with greater range and effect on target.
 
@timmymagic - I will agree with you that all platforms eventually become obsolete, I will have to disagree that the AH is at that point.

You said - "If an AH has to fire from such a long range (and low altitude)…what is the point of the extra expense of a helicopter....you may as well use a drone or fixed wing..." The reason they operate at low altitude in a high threat environment is that they are staying underneath the radar horizon of those ADA that are looking for them, as well as the UAV and the fighters. While drones have a function the mortality rate on them in a high threat environment is very high. I have heard that the expected life is something like three hours. Why are there pleas to have more UAV sent, Where are the UAV that were until recently masters of reconnaissance? As well as their lack of survivability they don't work as well in sub-optimal weather. In fairness nothing does, but a 16,000 lbs. platform is not as susceptible to weather conditions as a 1600 lbs., let alone 16 lbs. platform.

You said - "If you can't get eyes on a target or operate within your sensor range (like the US plans to do with AH-64 with Spike...) then what benefit does a very expensive AH bring?" By this logic we ought never have had the expense of any fighters past F-8 Crusader and other late 50's fighters. Nor should we invest in these sort of platforms or missiles any more to fight the BVR fight. Anti-radiation missiles are fired at very long ranges to minimize the time the shooter is in the engagement basket of the air defenses they are trying to defeat. Why are so many missiles types being made to shoot well beyond the range of their targets. "Defeating your enemy without being engaged is the epitome of warfare," to paraphrase one of the Masters of Military Strategy.

You said - "What benefit does an AH have firing Spike just over the horizon, using target acquisition from 'other platforms' have over a ground unit firing a Land Precision Strike missile at far, far lower cost....with greater range and effect on target?" Most countries that have bought Spike have them ground mounted and use them on high pay-off targets non-line of sight sniping). The Spike on the US Apaches are not replacing the AGM-114 and JAGM muntions. They will carry just a few in order to snipe threat ADA that keep them from shooting ATGM at the targets the ground commander wants prosecuted. Until ground vehicles can drive over mountains, rivers, swamps. plowed field, etc., at 150 miles per hour/200+kph having a platform that can maneuver to do that while staying masked from the threat seems a good idea.

Someday the AH will outlive its usefulness. I do not believe that day is today.
 
yasotay said:
@timmymagic - I will agree with you that all platforms eventually become obsolete, I will have to disagree that the AH is at that point.

You said - "If an AH has to fire from such a long range (and low altitude)…what is the point of the extra expense of a helicopter....you may as well use a drone or fixed wing..." The reason they operate at low altitude in a high threat environment is that they are staying underneath the radar horizon of those ADA that are looking for them, as well as the UAV and the fighters. While drones have a function the mortality rate on them in a high threat environment is very high. I have heard that the expected life is something like three hours. Why are there pleas to have more UAV sent, Where are the UAV that were until recently masters of reconnaissance? As well as their lack of survivability they don't work as well in sub-optimal weather. In fairness nothing does, but a 16,000 lbs. platform is not as susceptible to weather conditions as a 1600 lbs., let alone 16 lbs. platform.

You said - "If you can't get eyes on a target or operate within your sensor range (like the US plans to do with AH-64 with Spike...) then what benefit does a very expensive AH bring?" By this logic we ought never have had the expense of any fighters past F-8 Crusader and other late 50's fighters. Nor should we invest in these sort of platforms or missiles any more to fight the BVR fight. Anti-radiation missiles are fired at very long ranges to minimize the time the shooter is in the engagement basket of the air defenses they are trying to defeat. Why are so many missiles types being made to shoot well beyond the range of their targets. "Defeating your enemy without being engaged is the epitome of warfare," to paraphrase one of the Masters of Military Strategy.

You said - "What benefit does an AH have firing Spike just over the horizon, using target acquisition from 'other platforms' have over a ground unit firing a Land Precision Strike missile at far, far lower cost....with greater range and effect on target?" Most countries that have bought Spike have them ground mounted and use them on high pay-off targets non-line of sight sniping). The Spike on the US Apaches are not replacing the AGM-114 and JAGM muntions. They will carry just a few in order to snipe threat ADA that keep them from shooting ATGM at the targets the ground commander wants prosecuted. Until ground vehicles can drive over mountains, rivers, swamps. plowed field, etc., at 150 miles per hour/200+kph having a platform that can maneuver to do that while staying masked from the threat seems a good idea.

Someday the AH will outlive its usefulness. I do not believe that day is today.
Click to expand...
What I mean about the extra expense of an AH is that if you're not using a helicopters main characteristics (vertical takeoff and hovering) in the attack you could use a cheaper platform to do the same job...want to lob some rockets from range? Cheaper to do it with a Super Tucano....if you can't get close enough to use the trainable cannon, or expose yourself to use a semi active missile then whats the main point of an AH? I can see that a Western AH like AH-64D/E with a mast mounted radar/sight may have some utility...but how long is that tactic credible for? We're going to have small fixed wing loitering munitions to contend with in the near future....

I understand your point about some fixed wing platforms...but at the heights that helicopters operate their sensors have a limited range...AH-64 Longbow radar will be outranged by the weapons it can carry now, like Spike NLOS or Brimstone (and presumably JAGM-MR). With fighters you can stick a bigger radar on them...but with an AH at low level you're limited by terrain and the horizon...

Spike is an old missile now....there will be missiles coming along, like LPS, that have an 80km range...at that point they'll have a quicker response to a ground commanders request at a far, far lower cost than AH can ever approach...and they're available 24hrs a day...not just when they're in the area...

I know the war in Ukraine is an extreme in some respects, but how survivable is an AH in its primary role right now? Mi-28 and KA-52 aren't bad...they're not perfect and their employment has left a lot to be desired, but they've taken a hammering...and their utility has been dramatically lessened.
 
GTX said:
www.defenceconnect.com.au

Let’s talk: Ukraine interested in acquiring Australia’s retiring Tiger helicopters

The Armed Forces of Ukraine has an interest in the Australian Defence Force’s retiring Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopter fleet, according to ambassador of Ukraine to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko.
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
Click to expand...
And soon in Aussie NH-90s as well, I assume? Afterall, maintenance is not a priority for them, their main priority lies in having as much equipment as possible.
 
snne said:
And soon in Aussie NH-90s as well, I assume? Afterall, maintenance is not a priority for them, their main priority lies in having as much equipment as possible.
Click to expand...

The Aussie NH-90s either have been or will be scrapped. The government has made it pretty clear they are not available to Ukraine.
 
TomS said:
The Aussie NH-90s either have been or will be scrapped. The government has made it pretty clear they are not available to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I bet they'll soon reverse this decision though. I mean, Ukr is literally operating every Soviet and Western type they can get their hands on; what makes you think they'll just watch as Australia throws them away??
 
snne said:
I bet they'll soon reverse this decision though. I mean, Ukr is literally operating every Soviet and Western type they can get their hands on; what makes you think they'll just watch as Australia throws them away??
Click to expand...

The very fact that Australia is parting out the MRH-90s right now.

www.flightglobal.com

Australia’s MRH90 fleet to be parted out under disposal plan

Australia has worked out a disposal strategy for its NH Industries MRH90 Taipan helicopters that does not include transferring them to other operators.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

FlightGlobal also understands that Ukraine issued a formal request for the helicopters, but that Canberra received this only after the break-up of the MRH90s had commenced.
Click to expand...
 
snne said:
I bet they'll soon reverse this decision though. I mean, Ukr is literally operating every Soviet and Western type they can get their hands on; what makes you think they'll just watch as Australia throws them away??
Click to expand...

no, its already being destroyed. unfortunately.
 
That can´t be right, why would someone spend so much when training with live ammunitions can be safely done above a field simply large enough?!
 
Despite the ever worsing situation in the Ukraine, the Federal and State governments seem to still have a few post-cold war hangups about military training with live munitions.
 
Actually practice rockets are widely used. Initial Apche training in the US is done with practice rockets. Most of the training tabled in units also use them. That is not to say they don't use standard rockets at all, it's just cheaper to teach with practice rockets. The ballistics are the same.
 
But how many would you buy with $100M?! 100 000* ?
They have 50 Tigers on paper to be augmented by more EC135 (let´s say that on average 50 will be available for training).

50 for 100 000 rockets equates 2000 training rockets fired per a/c. Let´s say that every crew get to fire 10/year, it´s 200 crew per Helicopter. Even if we say that they bought them for the next decade, it is still 20 crew per helo.
Does it match anything we know about the reality of staffing in the German Army?

Now, if you tell me they are guided rockets, I would understand. But wouldn´t that have better appeared in the news release? On the contrary, they clearly say Unguided.

*Zuni rockets are listed around 400$ per round, I am assuming here 1000$ per round
 
Last edited:

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom