Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Apache vs Tiger
YelliChink    12/3/2010 12:05:42 PM
Giving the current operating condition, i.e. High Altitude, longer range fire support, Apache >>> Tiger in many respect. Why didn't RAF choose Apache and favor tiger instead? Most US allies have Apache already, even the second class vassal state got many of them. Maybe it's time to rethink about attack helicopters.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
gf0012-aust       12/13/2010 2:39:16 AM
Tigers on paper was better suited than the Apaches. 

nopw they weren't.   they were politically more acceptable because they were easier to pitch as armed recce assets, and not gunships (which is what they actually wanted)

speak to anyone involved in the actual evaluations and they all come back with the apache as the preferred choice.  the politically correct  issue, plus the outright cost were the deal makers.

ironically the assets were not as capable as the fanboys tout and have ended up costing us close to what we would have paid out for a the real tactical deal.

by the time we get over the myriad of certification issues we would have paid out a similar price to get an asset that is less combatr competitive than the initial preferred  choice.

of course the services will "love them" as we can't trade them in and get what we actually wanted, and nobody wants the political heat

Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       12/19/2010 6:08:42 AM

The Tigers are replacing the Bell OH-58s. Tigers on paper was better suited than the Apaches. Most countries that went with the Apaches wanted it for an anti-armor role. Maybe the Cobra was the best option.

Best interim measure maybe the 'battle-hawk'. Fit the blackhawks with hellfires, cannons and gatling guns. 

It's interesting the whole "Tiger is an armed recon helo" but "Apache is a gunship" argument. 
Can anyone explain to me exactly what makes makes these aircraft allegedly so suited to the particular roles that are ascribed to them? 

What capability does Tiger have that makes it more suitable for reconaissance duties than the Apache? What aeroshell or performance attribute does it possess that an Apache doesn't? What sensor or electronic warfare capability does the Tiger possess that an Apache doesn't? How do these attributes or lack them of make them more suited to one role over the other?
I am aware that an Apache has a much greater weapon carrying load than the Tiger. Does this mean it cannot perform reconaissance missions? I would have thought that this additional capability was simply a function of a larger, more capable base platform? I would not have automatically assumed that the nascent ability to carry more and differing types of rockets and missiles in of itself would directly impact on it's ability to perform ISR type missions?

Maybe it's the presence of an air and ground search capable radar make the Apache less suitable than a Tiger (which of course does not have one)? Why? One would imagine that being able to provide a mechanical device that can search the battlespace tens or perhaps hudnreds of kilometres in advance of the platform and identify, classify and provide targetting data to it's pilots or battle-captains would be a very useful sensor system for a reconaissance asset? One that would greatly reduce the need to fly within visual range of a target and one that can collect data in a form that is eminently suitable for off-board exploitation.
Indeed many other ADF platforms that undertake the role of reconaissance include a radar system as their PRIMARY reconaissance sensor. 

Or as I have postulated earlier, is there in fact NO significant difference (except in overall capability terms) in the roles of these respective aircraft and the "Armed Recon Helicopter" moniker is simply an attempt to make the platform seem a little more politcally acceptable than the term "gunship" because "gunship" could be considered a sensationalist term that implies that the platform has no other use than killing our enemies?
This I think is the true answer... 
Quote    Reply
1 2