Oh, by the way....if you meant Oz, then the RAAF doesn't operate whirly-birds, however, the Army does.

 

As to why we chose Tiger over Apache, I'm sure there are numerous threads devoted to this topic in archives.

 

 

Thanks for correcting me. I keep typing one less A over confusion between RAAF and RAN.

Anyway, things have changed. The primary operation theater is in Afg today. I would argue that it is possible that AA can lease some Apache directly from the US Army like the way Abrams were transfered. After all, you are the only one who are operating Tiger in the region.

Thanks for correcting me. I keep typing one less A over confusion between RAAF and RAN.

1) Who are the 2nd class vassal state?
2) We have Tigers in Afghanistan? Since when?

3) Doesnt Tiger have a larger power/weight ratio then the Apache?

4) Doesn't apache (except for the WAH-64) have massive problems with Hot and High anyway?

5) Since when were the Abrams leased? Personally i'd have preferred a tank with a diesel engine since it would probably be cheaper to maintain and require a smaller logistics footprint (fuel).

1) Not Australia.

 

2)  Since never. Tigers aren't suitable for that environment.

 

3) When no weapons and fuel tanks are attached.

 

4) All helicopters have massive problem with hot and high. Some have less than others.

 

5) Let's not to go to the specifics. AA can lease Apache on sites (both on theater and training facility in the US). In the end, it doesn't hurt buying new ones.

The UK is Frances Vassel state as the have given up on defefending themselves and have asked France to be there protector.

 

France deploys Tigers in Afghanistan.

 

The issue we are having with the Tigers is we are insisting on the fitment of a low vis nav lighting system that wasn't originally contracted.

1. As confirmed by others, the Australian Army flies ADF's Tiger ARH's, not RAAF and not RAN.

 

2. Australian Army M1A1 Abrams MBT's were purchased outright by Australia. They were not leased.

 

3. We haven't deployed Tigers to Afghanistan for several reasons. 1. They aren't operationally ready. 2. Our Government is as weak as water and refuses to deploy capabilities our troops actually require in the field and instead is content to rely on less than perfect fire support arrangements provided by our Allies, (formerly the Dutch, now USA) mainly as a cost saving measure.

 

Cheers, 

 

AD

 

 

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.