Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Aesma wrote:Doesn't Germany have un unlimited military budget now ?
TangoandCash wrote:From the Reuters article cited above "purely a political decision that ignores operational needs". Couldn't have summed it up better myself, except maybe adding "a make-work project for Airbus Helicopters"
Don't get me wrong, the H145 is a fine helicopter, I've flown in it several times. A fine CIVIL helicopter. But a COMBAT helicopter like the Tiger it is not. A Tiger replacement it is not.
CX747 wrote:TangoandCash wrote:From the Reuters article cited above "purely a political decision that ignores operational needs". Couldn't have summed it up better myself, except maybe adding "a make-work project for Airbus Helicopters"
Don't get me wrong, the H145 is a fine helicopter, I've flown in it several times. A fine CIVIL helicopter. But a COMBAT helicopter like the Tiger it is not. A Tiger replacement it is not.
Exactly...
I am glad that my German brothers in arms have voiced their displeasure with this. A H145 is not a Tiger replacement. This is purely political and driven by the desire to continue to contract with Airbus. I'd have more respect for those supporting this if they just stated that out front. I also chuckle because they could jump right in line for a superior fleet of Subaru-Bell U-2s but make no mention of that superior US/Japanese product in comparison to the hometown H145.
Put an order in for an "interim" fleet of AH-64s or AH-1Zs. That would assist your allies and not the pockets of a company that has already failed you with their current product.
kitplane01 wrote:CX747 wrote:TangoandCash wrote:From the Reuters article cited above "purely a political decision that ignores operational needs". Couldn't have summed it up better myself, except maybe adding "a make-work project for Airbus Helicopters"
Don't get me wrong, the H145 is a fine helicopter, I've flown in it several times. A fine CIVIL helicopter. But a COMBAT helicopter like the Tiger it is not. A Tiger replacement it is not.
Exactly...
I am glad that my German brothers in arms have voiced their displeasure with this. A H145 is not a Tiger replacement. This is purely political and driven by the desire to continue to contract with Airbus. I'd have more respect for those supporting this if they just stated that out front. I also chuckle because they could jump right in line for a superior fleet of Subaru-Bell U-2s but make no mention of that superior US/Japanese product in comparison to the hometown H145.
Put an order in for an "interim" fleet of AH-64s or AH-1Zs. That would assist your allies and not the pockets of a company that has already failed you with their current product.
Airbus does know how to build and support helicopters. Aren't they the largest helicopter supplier in the world, and the largest military supplier in Europe? Anyone know WHY the Tigre sucks so bad?
kitplane01 wrote:CX747 wrote:TangoandCash wrote:From the Reuters article cited above "purely a political decision that ignores operational needs". Couldn't have summed it up better myself, except maybe adding "a make-work project for Airbus Helicopters"
Don't get me wrong, the H145 is a fine helicopter, I've flown in it several times. A fine CIVIL helicopter. But a COMBAT helicopter like the Tiger it is not. A Tiger replacement it is not.
Exactly...
I am glad that my German brothers in arms have voiced their displeasure with this. A H145 is not a Tiger replacement. This is purely political and driven by the desire to continue to contract with Airbus. I'd have more respect for those supporting this if they just stated that out front. I also chuckle because they could jump right in line for a superior fleet of Subaru-Bell U-2s but make no mention of that superior US/Japanese product in comparison to the hometown H145.
Put an order in for an "interim" fleet of AH-64s or AH-1Zs. That would assist your allies and not the pockets of a company that has already failed you with their current product.
I'm not arguing against the AH-64. In fact, the Australians in a similar situation chose the AH-64.
I'm saying it's probably reasonable to assume that the Tigre is going to have a very low readiness rate, and a very high cost of ownership, and in general just kind of sucks a lot. Like sucks so bad that getting rid of them makes your military better.
For evidence, consider both the German and Australian experiences.
Airbus does know how to build and support helicopters. Aren't they the largest helicopter supplier in the world, and the largest military supplier in Europe? Anyone know WHY the Tigre sucks so bad?
RJMAZ wrote:Remember the H145 is the basis of the UH-72 Lakota used by the US Army. Most of the development work to add basic sensors and weapons is done. The top spec Lakota is probably more than good enough for Germany.
CX747 wrote:Put an order in for an "interim" fleet of AH-64s or AH-1Zs. That would assist your allies and not the pockets of a company that has already failed you with their current product.
mxaxai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:Remember the H145 is the basis of the UH-72 Lakota used by the US Army. Most of the development work to add basic sensors and weapons is done. The top spec Lakota is probably more than good enough for Germany.
The UH-72 doesn't carry weapons, though. Its current use is similar to the H-145M in the German army: medevac and transport.
RJMAZ wrote:The Lakota has already flown with the M260 seven-shot rocket launcher and an HMP 400 heavy machine gun pod with a 50-calibre M3P machine gun. It has already flown with a nose-mounted turrets integrating sensor with forward-looking infrared (FLIR), imaging and targeting capabilities.
mxaxai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The Lakota has already flown with the M260 seven-shot rocket launcher and an HMP 400 heavy machine gun pod with a 50-calibre M3P machine gun. It has already flown with a nose-mounted turrets integrating sensor with forward-looking infrared (FLIR), imaging and targeting capabilities.
Sounds similar to the MH/AH-6 "little bird".
Certainly useful for some operations but I wouldn't call it an alternative to a proper attack helicopter.
ReverseFlow wrote:Why does this remind me what was done with the BO-105?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2FLNKQjtIJ8
Alternatively just for fun:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=unRKKRZMAVI
GDB wrote:While looking up some background to this story, I came across this, I know there have been threads particular to this issue but I cannot find it and suspect it's locked anyway.
It might answer one question I never received, I note the comment above about how Germany's Tigers cannot be maintained.
Why? France have used theirs in combat, in remote areas and harsh environments, what is Germany's and Australia's problem then?
Is this why;
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/nothi ... cs-report/
If Germany needs any advice on how to spend the extra money, how about starting with boring stuff like proper spares and logistical support, we know they have to do it for the ground forces after all.
RJMAZ wrote:Yep, 300+ more examples of "the US doesn't buy anything they didn't design themselves".
Remember the H145 is the basis of the UH-72 Lakota used by the US Army. Most of the development work to add basic sensors and weapons is done. The top spec Lakota is probably more than good enough for Germany.
Flying-Tiger wrote:mxaxai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The Lakota has already flown with the M260 seven-shot rocket launcher and an HMP 400 heavy machine gun pod with a 50-calibre M3P machine gun. It has already flown with a nose-mounted turrets integrating sensor with forward-looking infrared (FLIR), imaging and targeting capabilities.
Sounds similar to the MH/AH-6 "little bird".
Certainly useful for some operations but I wouldn't call it an alternative to a proper attack helicopter.
But what is today´s benefit of a "proper attack helicopter" in a warzone such as Ukraine? Many videos have surface of Mi-8/-24 flying artillery rocket missions, and only very very of Ka-52/M-28 tank hunter missions have been seen. That task has mostly been assumed by drones or drone-guided high precission artillery strikes.
In other words: is the value for a full blown attack helicopter still there or is a cheaper, utility-scale combat support helicopter rather the way to go?
I have no clear answer to this but must admit that I start to lean towards H145M / MH-6 solutions due to them being more vertisile than pure attack helicopter.
GDB wrote:While looking up some background to this story, I came across this, I know there have been threads particular to this issue but I cannot find it and suspect it's locked anyway.
It might answer one question I never received, I note the comment above about how Germany's Tigers cannot be maintained.
Why? France have used theirs in combat, in remote areas and harsh environments, what is Germany's and Australia's problem then?
Is this why;
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/nothi ... cs-report/
If Germany needs any advice on how to spend the extra money, how about starting with boring stuff like proper spares and logistical support, we know they have to do it for the ground forces after all.
ThePointblank wrote:It depends on the tactics and weapons systems.
Attack helicopters like the AH-64 and to a lesser extent, the AH-1Z have the ability to engage targets at long range with precision weapons. They can sit back behind cover and plink targets at long range because they have the sensor outfit and the high tech precision weapons to do this.
A101 wrote:GDB wrote:While looking up some background to this story, I came across this, I know there have been threads particular to this issue but I cannot find it and suspect it's locked anyway.
It might answer one question I never received, I note the comment above about how Germany's Tigers cannot be maintained.
Why? France have used theirs in combat, in remote areas and harsh environments, what is Germany's and Australia's problem then?
Is this why;
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/nothi ... cs-report/
If Germany needs any advice on how to spend the extra money, how about starting with boring stuff like proper spares and logistical support, we know they have to do it for the ground forces after all.
the same article from its original source but Airbus is one of the major sponsors of the magazine
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... logistics/
Comments are telling a picture and the list of countries that are abandoning it is not just the ADF
Apparently the Kiwis have a couple of hanger queens as the have been waiting on parts since 2018 from other sources on other forums
GDB wrote:A101 wrote:GDB wrote:While looking up some background to this story, I came across this, I know there have been threads particular to this issue but I cannot find it and suspect it's locked anyway.
It might answer one question I never received, I note the comment above about how Germany's Tigers cannot be maintained.
Why? France have used theirs in combat, in remote areas and harsh environments, what is Germany's and Australia's problem then?
Is this why;
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/nothi ... cs-report/
If Germany needs any advice on how to spend the extra money, how about starting with boring stuff like proper spares and logistical support, we know they have to do it for the ground forces after all.
the same article from its original source but Airbus is one of the major sponsors of the magazine
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... logistics/
Comments are telling a picture and the list of countries that are abandoning it is not just the ADF
Apparently the Kiwis have a couple of hanger queens as the have been waiting on parts since 2018 from other sources on other forums
The link to the complete article does address other users, including Norway and they how went half cocked with their own ASW fit, yet France operate their maritime versions.
Still not getting that answer, why can some use not only use them but deployed to combat out of area and others barely can fly.
Not just France either, even Germany managed to send some to Afghanistan, so did Spain.
Kiwi NH90 Maintainer 04/03/2023 At 10:09 pm
We can only generate 5 serviceable aircraft out of total fleet of 8 (our 9th was purchased for spare parts).
We are still waiting on a gearbox being returned to us from Europe! It was sent in 2018! 2018…
If you think the we are happy with NH90 think again, NZ government too broke to do anything about it.
Expect a quiet quitting of the NH90 by the end of this decade.
A101 wrote:GDB wrote:A101 wrote:
the same article from its original source but Airbus is one of the major sponsors of the magazine
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... logistics/
Comments are telling a picture and the list of countries that are abandoning it is not just the ADF
Apparently the Kiwis have a couple of hanger queens as the have been waiting on parts since 2018 from other sources on other forums
The link to the complete article does address other users, including Norway and they how went half cocked with their own ASW fit, yet France operate their maritime versions.
Still not getting that answer, why can some use not only use them but deployed to combat out of area and others barely can fly.
Not just France either, even Germany managed to send some to Afghanistan, so did Spain.
The original link you provided and the one I gave for the APDR article is trying to show the domestic audience that Airbus is not to blame and trying to generate enough interest via the public to cause an outcry on buying another airframe. Thats the point of the article it wants to show that defence are the main culprits for the problems.
If you read through the comments section there are explanations on how the ADF system works and shows that if it was the ADF systems [roblem we would be have a negative affect on all aircraft that use the system like EC-135 Blackhawk CH-47F Romeo E7A etc
one interesting commentKiwi NH90 Maintainer 04/03/2023 At 10:09 pm
We can only generate 5 serviceable aircraft out of total fleet of 8 (our 9th was purchased for spare parts).
We are still waiting on a gearbox being returned to us from Europe! It was sent in 2018! 2018…
If you think the we are happy with NH90 think again, NZ government too broke to do anything about it.
Expect a quiet quitting of the NH90 by the end of this decade.
GDB wrote:A101 wrote:GDB wrote:
The link to the complete article does address other users, including Norway and they how went half cocked with their own ASW fit, yet France operate their maritime versions.
Still not getting that answer, why can some use not only use them but deployed to combat out of area and others barely can fly.
Not just France either, even Germany managed to send some to Afghanistan, so did Spain.
The original link you provided and the one I gave for the APDR article is trying to show the domestic audience that Airbus is not to blame and trying to generate enough interest via the public to cause an outcry on buying another airframe. Thats the point of the article it wants to show that defence are the main culprits for the problems.
If you read through the comments section there are explanations on how the ADF system works and shows that if it was the ADF systems [roblem we would be have a negative affect on all aircraft that use the system like EC-135 Blackhawk CH-47F Romeo E7A etc
one interesting commentKiwi NH90 Maintainer 04/03/2023 At 10:09 pm
We can only generate 5 serviceable aircraft out of total fleet of 8 (our 9th was purchased for spare parts).
We are still waiting on a gearbox being returned to us from Europe! It was sent in 2018! 2018…
If you think the we are happy with NH90 think again, NZ government too broke to do anything about it.
Expect a quiet quitting of the NH90 by the end of this decade.
For once, I scrolled through the comments and despite you just highlighting one, they were mixed.
Some rubbish the article others supportive and aligned with their own experiences.
The author, replying to one, did point out he had been embedded with a European MH-90 operator flying combat missions in Afghanistan while at home, Australian ones were grounded.
Now you can go and check his bona fides if you want, funny how it again highlighted the unanswered question, why could some deploy these, as well as Tigers, into out of area combat, while others could barely operate them at all.
Still waiting and knee jerk disdain for anything European does not answer it.
Germany has a particular problem, what this thread is about after all. Want to try and claim that all their military equipment availability problems are confined to Eurocopter products?
Even affecting equipment they’ve had in service for many years, on land, sea and air.
The subject of this thread is just another example and aside from the already mooted and urgent big ticket procurements, such as CH-47 and F-35, the extra spending announced in the wake of the Ukraine invasion was to address these.
Which will not happen overnight, problems built up over years don’t go away in just one calendar one.
A101 wrote:GDB wrote:A101 wrote:
The original link you provided and the one I gave for the APDR article is trying to show the domestic audience that Airbus is not to blame and trying to generate enough interest via the public to cause an outcry on buying another airframe. Thats the point of the article it wants to show that defence are the main culprits for the problems.
If you read through the comments section there are explanations on how the ADF system works and shows that if it was the ADF systems [roblem we would be have a negative affect on all aircraft that use the system like EC-135 Blackhawk CH-47F Romeo E7A etc
one interesting comment
For once, I scrolled through the comments and despite you just highlighting one, they were mixed.
Some rubbish the article others supportive and aligned with their own experiences.
The author, replying to one, did point out he had been embedded with a European MH-90 operator flying combat missions in Afghanistan while at home, Australian ones were grounded.
Now you can go and check his bona fides if you want, funny how it again highlighted the unanswered question, why could some deploy these, as well as Tigers, into out of area combat, while others could barely operate them at all.
Still waiting and knee jerk disdain for anything European does not answer it.
Germany has a particular problem, what this thread is about after all. Want to try and claim that all their military equipment availability problems are confined to Eurocopter products?
Even affecting equipment they’ve had in service for many years, on land, sea and air.
The subject of this thread is just another example and aside from the already mooted and urgent big ticket procurements, such as CH-47 and F-35, the extra spending announced in the wake of the Ukraine invasion was to address these.
Which will not happen overnight, problems built up over years don’t go away in just one calendar one.
Being embedded with an operator is vastly different from declaring there on financial interest as Airbus is there prime sponsor.
.
The only reason I highlighted the KIWI comment is what the story is saying, and a actual maintainer user is say are different things one who does not receive cash for comment.
Could the ADF have deployed MRH-90 of course they could have but they didn't they sent the more reliable CH-47 why because they could not guarantee the rate of effort. If it was just the ADF replacing them, you would be raising an eyebrow but it's not.
I am also betting that when NH-90 was sent overseas that Airbus would have diverted all its attention to those airframes as any adverse reports on availability would have increased the adverse reputational damage to the company
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... Helicopter
GDB wrote:The author, replying to one, did point out he had been embedded with a European MH-90 operator flying combat missions in Afghanistan while at home, Australian ones were grounded.
GDB wrote:why could some deploy these, as well as Tigers, into out of area combat, while others could barely operate them at all. Still waiting and knee jerk disdain for anything European does not answer it.
mxaxai wrote:GDB wrote:The author, replying to one, did point out he had been embedded with a European MH-90 operator flying combat missions in Afghanistan while at home, Australian ones were grounded.
Don't worry, the equipment left behind in Europe was grounded as well.
Germany has had a couple of reports, others as well though, that overseas deployments usually meant that the most reliable frames and any available support was sent abroad. At home, this meant deferral of scheduled maintenance, inability to respond to unscheduled events and overall abysmal availability with an accompanying lack of training.
GDB wrote:I would interested to see what items are at or near the top of the ‘must be fixed’ list for availability with Germany, Tiger likely being one of those. Now major war in Europe is now all too real again. What the things were designed for after all.
Flying-Tiger wrote:GDB wrote:I would interested to see what items are at or near the top of the ‘must be fixed’ list for availability with Germany, Tiger likely being one of those. Now major war in Europe is now all too real again. What the things were designed for after all.
I´d venture that the Tiger will be dropped altogether and be replaced with the H145M and possibly a small lot of AH-64Es. Though I think that the H145M would be fully sufficient for the requirements today, especially if supported with long-range artillery and drone corrected fire. For the same money you´ll certainly get more rotors in the air, and more carrying capacity.
The deciding factor for the deployment of the helicopter - the sensor suite - is something which can be integrated into many helicopter types today. And with the current fast development in communication and drone technology it´s certainy not out of reach that the majority of sensors doesn´t need to be on the helicopter anymore. Data is gathered by a multitude of sources and delivered as data package via satellite link to the helicopter for action.
GDB wrote:You might well be right, even so, a major European ground power need rather more than this new machine and a small number of another type, the latter will be small.
Can anyone explain why the three NATO users of Tiger did not, or more to the point, are not in the light of current events, centralizing the maintenance and support of them? They don't have to have exactly the same weapon fit, I mean spares in general and economies of scale.
The recent 2billion Euro ammo support deal by the EU for Ukraine shows that in these times, it's a no-brainer?
CX747 wrote:Also, note that the US Army, a large operator of the UH-72, has not let that bird come go into a combat zone. It is strictly a domestic medevac, VIP, reconnaissance asset. That is very telling. Even at the height of all ME combat operations, the US Army did not waiver and think about bringing those helos to a war zone.
CX747 wrote:The H145 is not in the same league as either offering. The German military knows they are potentially getting a poor man's laughable substitute for what is coming down the pipe or currently available in an AH-1Z or AH-64E.
ReverseFlow wrote:Why does this remind me what was done with the BO-105?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2FLNKQjtIJ8
Alternatively just for fun:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=unRKKRZMAVI
keesje wrote:That's a very broad statement. Which armies would those be? Those smarter, faster drones might be better down the road, but what about today? You never know when the next war might kick off, do you?I think armies feel swarm drones are more effective then 50 yr old attack helicopters.
Probably drones that will be a little faster, smarter than the ones we see today.
aumaverick wrote:I know a pilot who grew up on the Bell family and flew the UH1, OH58, LongRanger, 407, 214ST, etc., but he loved flying the BO105.ReverseFlow wrote:Why does this remind me what was done with the BO-105?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2FLNKQjtIJ8
Alternatively just for fun:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=unRKKRZMAVI
I think it's funny you went to the BO-105 and my mind went to the Bell 222. The Bell was the ultimate civil to military conversion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULfmowbNlK0
trex8 wrote:Airbus offered the H145 (UH72) for the US Armys armed scout competition till some idiot decided all the Kiowa Warriors could be replaced with Apaches! Its no Tiger but will fill many of the Tigers roles. And carry a few men, carrying Javelins and NLAWs!
https://www.army-technology.com/project ... elicopter/
par13del wrote:trex8 wrote:Airbus offered the H145 (UH72) for the US Armys armed scout competition till some idiot decided all the Kiowa Warriors could be replaced with Apaches! Its no Tiger but will fill many of the Tigers roles. And carry a few men, carrying Javelins and NLAWs!
https://www.army-technology.com/project ... elicopter/
Not really, after the Army canceled the Kiowa replacement program, they had nothing else to fill in other than the Apache until a new program was put on the rails. The Apache is a stop gap not a one to one replacement, it is too large, not as maneuverable and is too sophisticated for what is actually needed.
ThePointblank wrote:However, in the Ukraine war, it was found that helicopters getting up close to attack targets usually resulted in a lot of shot down helicopters because the weapons have gotten so much more deadlier, in terms of their ability to engage from all-aspects, having a larger warhead, and being much more quicker to engage a target. This has pushed attack helicopters to stay away from the front line as much as possible, and lob rockets at long ranges as a sort of a flying rocket artillery. Imprecise, but what choice do they have unless you want to end up being shot down in short order?
Aesma wrote:ThePointblank wrote:However, in the Ukraine war, it was found that helicopters getting up close to attack targets usually resulted in a lot of shot down helicopters because the weapons have gotten so much more deadlier, in terms of their ability to engage from all-aspects, having a larger warhead, and being much more quicker to engage a target. This has pushed attack helicopters to stay away from the front line as much as possible, and lob rockets at long ranges as a sort of a flying rocket artillery. Imprecise, but what choice do they have unless you want to end up being shot down in short order?
So it's the role of the attack helicopter in general that is put into question, at least the manned attack helicopter.
In that case no need to make weaker attack helicopters out of civilian models, use these as intended (support, troop transport etc.) and buy/develop attack drones.