Eurocopter Tiger

[MolliG]

(Warning) very big pictures :D...

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/Ec004.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/PV15623.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/DP-04855.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/DP-04854.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/DP-04844.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/Dp-01812.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/tiger_0009g.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/tiger_0006g.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/tiger_0005g.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/tiger_0004g.jpg

http://www.eurocopter.com/photos/tiger_0002g.jpg

Source: www.eurocopter.com

[Operation Ivy]

Good Pics woot

Not trying to sound mean but i think it's a little on the ugly side. But we all know that doesnt matter ;)

[Russian Texan]

I am sure it is a nice chopper but looks fragile to me. It just doesn't look mean enough :)

[96B]

This may just be me, but I think it looks like a "westernized" version of the Havoc. At least with the cockpit ;)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mi28/images/havoc2.jpg

[Javehn]

Nice pictures. But can you tell it's characteristic ?

[MolliG]

Nice pictures. But can you tell it's characteristic ?

Have a look here (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=95) and here (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=101), Javehn. :)

[Javehn]

Trigat missiles ? Is it german development ?
And how come it has 12.7 mm gun ? Isn't that too small for helicopters .

[Bulkowski]

This may just be me, but I think it looks like a "westernized" version of the Havoc. At least with the cockpit ;)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mi28/images/havoc2.jpg
Yes, but the Havoc looks better :)

[Uncle Chô]

I am sure it is a nice chopper but looks fragile to me. It just doesn't look mean enough :)
Fragile ? The airframe is 100% made out of composites. Ask the Australian Army about crash sturdiness. .. When one of the prototype crashed near Townsville during preliminary NOA flying tests (1998), the evaluation team was astonished to see how the helicopter saved the life of its crew (Eurocopter test pilot and an Australian Army Captain). You can't have a better argument ;)

[Uncle Chô]

Trigat missiles ? Is it german development ?
And how come it has 12.7 mm gun ? Isn't that too small for helicopters .
The main armament for the non German version is the lethal 30 MM canon. The 12.7 is a machine gun pod for the German version only.

The Trigat (Third Generation Anti-Tank) is develloped by EADS. It is a 5 000 m + range missile. IR guided.

[fantassin]

The French made GIAT 30 mm M781 cannon fires a 30X113 mm shell, using the same ammo as the cannons equipping the Mirage fighters.

The 12,7 mm pod used by the Germans is made by FN in Belgium pending the development of a new, linkless telescopic cases ammo for the German Tigers.

BTW, the US made RAH 66 Comanche will also use a French made GIAT cannon, but a triple barrel 20 mm cannon, not a single barrel 30 mm.

In its last two competitions (Spain and Australia), when opposed to the AH64, the Tiger has won.

[Ratamacue]

I like the slim profile on it, reminds me of the Cobra.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Has the Tiger any armor. Or does it rely on not getting hit?

[Miles Teg]

I don't want to start a match but I try to make a comparisson :

Apache aside Tiger

I remember to you that the doctrine of light aviation are different for the US forces and Europe, so the material will offer some difference.


Active service :
AH64A : 1986 AH64D : 1992
Tiger : ... (First flight in 1991)

Mass :
AH64D : max-10 400 kg -- empty- 5 300kg
Tiger : max-6 000 kg -- empty- 3 300 kg

Power :
AH64D : 2 x 1440 kw (0,27 kw/kg)
Tiger : 2 x 1160 kw (0,38 kw/kg)

Speed :
AH64D : 260 - 300 km/h
Tiger : 280 km/h

Range :
AH64D : 480km, 1900 with external tanks
Tiger : 800km, 1300 ...

Manoeuvrability:

Tiger :
http://helicopassion.free.fr/Images/BRGT/brgt108m.jpg
No comment

"Strength" :
AH64D : Full against 12,7 mm (.50), 23 mm for some parts like wings
Tiger : ... not mentionned

Someone feel it correctly, an Apache is strength where a Tiger is "avoiding".
Answering to the european spirit of "Light is right"

A tiger is slower than a Apache, but the Tiger with its power/weight ratio provide more acceleration (like a car with short gears) and manoeuvrability.

But with this comparission the Apache still an impressive killing machine.


http://helicopassion.free.fr/Images/TIGR/TIGR-11c.jpg

http://helicopassion.free.fr/Images/TIGR/TIGR111c.jpg

http://www.flightlab.com/~chris/apache.jpg

http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda2001/ny_11-09-01/afgan-img/apache-flag.jpg

[ArmedPacifist]

I've never liked the eurocopter, just because it tried to kill James Bond.

[Miles Teg]

I've never liked the eurocopter, just because it tried to kill James Bond.

Yeah I like this part : "I'm poor lonesome Tiger and I will suicide". But Pierce manage to eject, pushing the bumper with his head :oops:

[ArmedPacifist]

I've never liked the eurocopter, just because it tried to kill James Bond.

Yeah I like this part : "I'm poor lonesome Tiger and I will suicide". But Pierce manage to eject, pushing the bumper with his head :oops:

Yeah it was a pretty emotional scene. I felt so bad for the tiger....being all alone like that.

Who is Pierce Brosnan? I thought we were talking about James Bond?

[usa320]

apaches are so much better.

And Commanches, if they ever get into full swing production- will pwn all of them.

[-Max2-]

apaches are so much better.

Not so sure...

Like fantassin said, both Australia (who buy only US equipment most of the time) and Spain have chosen the Tiger over the AH-64D Longbow Apache...

And i have read very good things about the Tiger. Unlike the Apache who is a relic of the Cold War, the Tiger is well adapted to today's conflicts... :|

And the Commanche is mainly a scout helicopter, not a attack helicopter... ;)

[oldsoak]

I like the Tiger - it looks good and is a thoroughly competent machine. Australian pilots are in for a treat - good on 'em. It would be a brave man to say that the Apache is a better aircraft - so much depends on weapons systems, mechanical reliability, tactics, survivability and pilots. Also like the Rooivalk (sp ?) - a good, well engineered chopper that certainly deserved better sales than its had.
rgds

[Operation Ivy]

Its the crew that matters ;)

[Russian Texan]

Why did Europe decided to develop Eurocopter independently from US? Why didn't they just buy Apache? What is the price of one?
Here is comprehensive/general comparison of modern attack helicopters from different countries
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/attack-helicopters-comparison.htm

Some pics and video clips of Ka 50 and Mi 28

http://www.aeronautics.ru/kamov/ka5001.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/kamov/ka5009.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/kamov/ka5018.jpg

http://www.rusarm.ru/video/KA50.WMV
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/MI28.WMV

[oldsoak]

Europe needs to be industrially independent of the US in military terms. Tiger is not cheap, but not having an industry capable of providing a competetitor to Apache would be even more expensive in terms of loss of technical expertise, research jobs and sales.
rgds
ps - that Kamov looks evil. Very interesting to see a radically different design approach to a combat helicopter when compared to the west.

[aeternum]

Pics with the mounted Gun-Pods

http://www.heliport.de/heligal/tiger_4.jpg

http://www.heliport.de/heligal/tiger_5.jpg

[Marxist203]

http://www.poynting.co.za/consulting/images/proj_rooivalk3.jpg

The Rooivalk...the thing looks a hell of alot like the Eurocopter eh?

[obd]

Cant have a better argument?? The thing crashed during testing. Thats like saying "well, it broke down, but at least the engine didnt catch fire" heheheheh

[obd]

yes, the south african Rooival looks alot like europes, and THEY ALL LOOK LIKE CHEAP KNOCK OFFS OF THE U.S. APACHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shadow]

The Apache is out-dated like it was said before.

[oldsoak]

Cheap ripoffs ? Hardly.
rgds

[Operation Ivy]

Well this thread is turining into my helicopter is better then yours :roll: :|

[oldsoak]

fair comment. All the above mentioned helo's are good machines capable of delivering mobile firepower just where its needed. Any army would be happy to have them onboard.

[budanski]

The reason why Australia and Spain opted for Tiger over the Apache is because the Tiger is cheaper, although not as capable as the AH-64. The Tiger is sufficient for the needs of these two nations. Also, buying European has certain diplomatic and trade benefits. (Seems the Brits and Israelis werent interested)

Plain and simple.


The Apache is out-dated like it was said before.

I disagree.

Actually, the avionics, radar, weapons and command and control systems that make US jets/copters far more superior. To say the Apache Longbow is outdated shows what little you know.

Take for example:
As far as US fighters go, you will not find the same 70's jet on the flight line. No sir, no way. We upgrade what we want when we want to keep the jets on-line and current. The F-15 airframe may be the same, but the actual guts, from avionics to engines to weapons, are hardly 70's era stuff. The Euro-jets are has-beens before they even leave the factory.

The Euro-Fighter was fine in it's day, but technology has advanced so fast and so far that it is now worthless. The US builds jets and while doing so incorporates emerging technology, as well as yet-to-be-fielded technology. We have program management reviews to ensure we can bring on-board new stuff and produce an aircraft that is practically up-to-date when it rolls off the assembly line. The Europeans, however, because of their socialist laws and oppressive labor regulations, they are not able to make ANY changes to the design or construction once the contract is signed. You see, if you make a small component in, let's say, the UK, and someone in Italy makes a better component, you can't make the change as that would upset the balance of trade and put many people out of a job. The result? You produce an aircraft that is ten-years (or better) out of date.

Eurofighter avionics are those that were agreed at the time of contract signing. No improvements, no enhancements. In fact, a manufactuer of a certain component is out of business but they are stuck buying this high-cost, out of date component because of their European contractural obligations. Same would apply to the Tiger as well.

[Loco]

The reason why Australia and Spain opted for Tiger over the Apache is because the Tiger is cheaper
Not in the case of Spain. In fact, usually american aircrafts are cheaper than europeans by reason of the economy of scale(I don´t know if is properly written in english). Every military aircraft american or russian engineers design are expected to be made in big amounts, europeans not, so the price of design and development, that is fixed, is dissolved in larger quantities than in europe, we are many different countries with differents needs and richness. So, if we want to be friends but independents of americans, and we aren´t independents, and rich like you are, some of us
still we aren´t, we have to make joint projects so to being able of producing in big quantities.
In the case of Spain, our pilots wanted since years ago the Apache, and the question is we just need now attack helos because the only ones we´ve are vintage german MBB, with a lot of flights hours in their engines. There was a contest in Spain for choosing between Apache and Tiger, in the conditions of the contest document it was written that the helo would be choosen looking at its perfomance AND questions about economic industrial return to Spain, this is, we want to make and learn to make helos in Spain. Helos is the lack of spanish air industry, and Eurocopter gave us the chance of entering in this industry. Boeing only offered to a spanish company, Gamesa, making the wings of all Apaches both to USA and to the rest of the world. For Gamesa was a very good deal, and I would be happy, because I work for a company with a lot of business with Gamesa, but for the whole spanish industry it was a bad deal.
Furthermore, Eurocopter, the maker of Tiger and the biggest manufacturer of civil helicopters of the world, is a subsidiary of EADS, like C.A.S.A, a Spanish company.
The case is that spanish army requested a version of Tiger that still is not designed, for what still we will have to wait more time, and our military men are worried because soon the MBB will be useless. I hope that we won´t get into serious troubles until we have the new Tiger. Our pilots are angered, but I suppose that in 3-6 years?? they will be very happy with a few devices of last technology. And our industry will be bigger and advanced and we will have more jobs.
I know 0 about helos, but it´s said that in the flight tests the Tiger was very very good. Furthermore, and is my opinion, the Apache performed badly in Kosovo and in Irak, only being able of flying few hours. In USA you have a different vision of armies because you´ve different resources, usually much biggers. You can allow yourselves a device very sophisticated, but ****e to breakdowns, because you have a magnificent maintenance´s echelon, but armies much smaller than yours we cannot allow ourselves such a thing. To understand each other, we want the AK-47 of helicopters.
Might you to rent us a few Apaches for 10 years?
Edited:

The Europeans, however, because of their socialist laws and oppressive labor regulations, they are not able to make ANY changes to the design or construction once the contract is signed.
The first statement is totally off topic and wildly inaccurate, I think you are talking of other planet. Regarding of the 2º statement, I answered before, Spain bought an helo still inexistent. And the manufacturer of Tiger, eurocopter-EADS, has the half of world civil aircrafts market, when it was an american monopoly 30 years ago, before even EADS was born.

[oldsoak]

Lets not get into the "my dad can beat up your dad" contest. The European projects are necessary for Europe. There are long term strategic considerations at stake. Tiger or Eurofighter might be out of date to those who think we should buy elsewhere, but they are necessary if the Europeans are to develop military technology and compete in the international arms market.
rgds

[Shadow]

Looking forward to the Eurotank!;)
Sounds like some US Guys are jealous.

[Operation Ivy]

Im not worried about you Eurotank :D as long as we got the Abrams :hug: woot

[mustamato]

I think that the Tiger will be kind of a "Eurochopper" just like the Leopards are the Eurotank. As an example the Nordic countries are interested in buying attack helicopters. Nothing has been decided yet, but there has been delegations from atleast Sweden and Finland looking at the Tiger. If they buy a lots of them together (which was the case with NH-90 transport helicopters) they maybe get them a little cheaper.

If they buy Tigers it will probably be escort/combat support to the NH90´s.

http://www.heliport.de/helimg/tiger.jpg

[Falco]

The Apache is out-dated like it was said before.

Go ask that to the Iraqis. Maybe it wasn't designed yesterday but it can still do the job as well if not better than every other attack helicopter on this planet. When you assess the capabilities and the effectiveness of a weapon system, you must include the training and the experience of the crews that will man them. The US Apache and Cobra squadrons have been in a lot of combat situations (Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Kosovo ...). This is something the european chopper crews lack.

[mustamato]

The Apache is out-dated like it was said before.

Go ask that to the Iraqis. Maybe it wasn't designed yesterday but it can still do the job as well if not better than every other attack helicopter on this planet. When you assess the capabilities and the effectiveness of a weapon system, you must include the training and the experience of the crews that will man them. The US Apache and Cobra squadrons have been in a lot of combat situations (Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Kosovo ...). This is something the european chopper crews lack.

The Iraqies :roll:

Would have been interesting to see what Apaches would have managed to do against a little more modern army with soldiers with a little more competence than the Iraqies. Such as the Russian. Combat experience of people before him is not very relevant to a 25-something pilot that has not been there before. And most professional armed forces don´t have to be in combat themselfes to adapt to new tactics. As an example the Finnish Defence Forces that has not been in war since the second world war has a complete site only concerning tactics and such used in the second Gulf War. http://tietokannat.mil.fi/irak/ And it is just naive to think that they would not learn anything from it.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/agusta/images/agusta2.jpg

Italian Mangustas have been deployed in Somalia (where american helicopters were downed) and in Angola. I´m soooo amazed that the Italians didn´t get shot down due to their tooootal lack of experience :P

_____________________________________

These vs Apache (or the Tiger for that matter). What would the result have been?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/images/tunguska1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/index.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/images/pantsyr1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/index.html

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/sa1804.jpg
SA-18 Grouse, (the Iraqi insurgents mainly have the older SA-7´s, and a small number of SA-16).

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/sa11-9a310m1.jpg
SA-11 Buk M1

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/chechnyamilpvo17.jpg
And a motherload of the old but effective ZU-23-2. Anyone that remembers the incident in Gulf War 2 when american helicopters attacking a republican guard division come under very heavy anti-aircraft fire and had to flee... eeerh i mean retreat? :roll:

Yep, it was mainly from guns of this type.

[oldsoak]

To be fair, I dont think any helicopter would be good to be in if it went up against a modern layered air defence system handled by competent crews ! Helos should not be used in those situations.

[Operation Ivy]

experience is experience man no matter what army you're fighting

[Macs.]

Pff, we have Cruise Missiles for that. :-)

[reverence]

The Eurocopter Tiger has been selected as the Austraalian Army's replacement Aerial Fire Support/Recon helo under project Air 87(thats how long it takes us to work out what we want!) Believe it or not we're still running Huey's with unguided 2.75 in rockets and forward firing mini guns. I was impressed watching it fly backward loops in Townsville during the trial the next morning however it crashed although both pilets walked away from the bird which burnt to the ground-Eurocopter said that was pilot error-The long range of the Tiger compared to the Apache for instance make it ideal for ops across the north of Oz. Cant wait to do some live fire work with them prepping the target. Anyone got a delivery date?

[Marxist203]

The Apache is out-dated like it was said before.

Go ask that to the Iraqis. Maybe it wasn't designed yesterday but it can still do the job as well if not better than every other attack helicopter on this planet. When you assess the capabilities and the effectiveness of a weapon system, you must include the training and the experience of the crews that will man them. The US Apache and Cobra squadrons have been in a lot of combat situations (Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Kosovo ...). This is something the european chopper crews lack.

The Iraqies :roll:

Would have been interesting to see what Apaches would have managed to do against a little more modern army with soldiers with a little more competence than the Iraqies. Such as the Russian. Combat experience of people before him is not very relevant to a 25-something pilot that has not been there before. And most professional armed forces don´t have to be in combat themselfes to adapt to new tactics. As an example the Finnish Defence Forces that has not been in war since the second world war has a complete site only concerning tactics and such used in the second Gulf War. http://tietokannat.mil.fi/irak/ And it is just naive to think that they would not learn anything from it.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/agusta/images/agusta2.jpg

Italian Mangustas have been deployed in Somalia (where american helicopters were downed) and in Angola. I´m soooo amazed that the Italians didn´t get shot down due to their tooootal lack of experience :P

_____________________________________

These vs Apache (or the Tiger for that matter). What would the result have been?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/images/tunguska1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/index.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/images/pantsyr1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/index.html

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/sa1804.jpg
SA-18 Grouse, (the Iraqi insurgents mainly have the older SA-7´s, and a small number of SA-16).

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/sa11-9a310m1.jpg
SA-11 Buk M1

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/chechnyamilpvo17.jpg
And a motherload of the old but effective ZU-23-2. Anyone that remembers the incident in Gulf War 2 when american helicopters attacking a republican guard division come under very heavy anti-aircraft fire and had to flee... eeerh i mean retreat? :roll:

Yep, it was mainly from guns of this type.

The usual doctrine for major ground assaults, involving attack helicopters is to achieve air superiority. Meaning, any air defence including aircraft and ground based units are to be destroyed. Usually before apache's or any other attack chopper goes into an area most AA guns are dead...can't say anything about man portable rockets or anything like that though.

Anyway! a whole division of infantry managed to down an Apache with AKM's

[Falco]

Would have been interesting to see what Apaches would have managed to do against a little more modern army with soldiers with a little more competence than the Iraqies.

Could say the same thing about the Tiger.


Italian Mangustas have been deployed in Somalia (where american helicopters were downed) and in Angola. I´m soooo amazed that the Italians didn´t get shot down due to their tooootal lack of experience


The Mangusta is an attack helicopter and was designed to have an increased survivability against threats where as the Blackhawk is a transport helicopter and was designed with an optimal payload in mind. It's like comparing a fighter and a 747. Which will be the easiest to shoot down?


And most professional armed forces don´t have to be in combat themselfes to adapt to new tactics. As an example the Finnish Defence Forces that has not been in war since the second world war has a complete site only concerning tactics and such used in the second Gulf War. http://tietokannat.mil.fi/irak/ And it is just naive to think that they would not learn anything from it.

Never said that you couldn't learn from other peoples mistakes (since you will never live long enough yourself to make hthem all :D). But all of this is theoretical work. I was talking about combat experience. You can have all the best tactics in the world but if you panic when under fire, well everything becames useless. The US Apaches and their crew are battle proven, the Tiger is not.


Anyone that remembers the incident in Gulf War 2 when american helicopters attacking a republican guard division come under very heavy anti-aircraft fire and had to flee... eeerh i mean retreat?


What would have happened if the Apaches would have been replaced by Tigers? ... Very probably the exact same thing.

[Marxist203]

Anyone that remembers the incident in Gulf War 2 when american helicopters attacking a republican guard division come under very heavy anti-aircraft fire and had to flee... eeerh i mean retreat?


What would have happened if the Apaches would have been replaced by Tigers? ... Very probably the exact same thing.[/quote]

It wouldn't have happened if say...they didn't send the Apache's in unsupported. Attack helicopters are in essence support vehicles themselves. Expecting them to do a major assault on their own is ridiculous...because with all the sophisticated systems and jibber jabber they have, they still got their butts kicked by that Republican Guard division(even though the Apache's probably caused horrendous casualties before getting the hell out of dodge)

[Kitsune]

@Budanski:

Where did you get these insights from?

While I would not say the Apache is outdated the Tiger is a bit more modern and performs well even compared to the Apache. I cannot say wether he is superior, but Tiger and Apache are of similar calibre.

In contrast to your believes European equipment is also upgraded. Wether in ground-, sea- or airwarfare even Europeans know that technology advances constantly. The Tiger program took too long, thats right, same goes for the Typhoon. But both were upgraded even in the last ten years during developement. And the abilities of the Typhoon, including avionics are said to be far superior to any American jet at least until the F22 enters service.

But sooner or later we will see trainingfights between Typhoon and American jets...and then we will see. If things were like you said American pilots would always win (they don't by the way) and will also have no trouble with the "Typhoon". We will see.

What IS the problem with European military projects is the fragmention of the European militaries and the petty bickering between these states. Everyone thinks to small...has only his own small view. Result: many projects have problems to accomodate the wishes of erveryone, each nation wants to profit as much as possible and get a piece of the cake that is as big as possible. Or nations step back and do their parallel programs (like the French with their Rafaele... :( ) which leads to lot of wastet money. Money thats missing for other projects. At the same time the US are spending 350+ billions on military stuff...so they can upgrade more often.

But on the national level Europeans are not that bad...its quite astounding what armies like the british or german one achieve with their little defense budgets...cause luckily Americans are not very efficient in many things. The US armed forces have money to burn...and they burn it on many occasions.
Still...as it is now Europeans do not reach that level of efficiency because it is lost on the European level...still not enough, defined cooperation. If we manage it we will do quite well. The EU countries spend around half as much money on military things as the USA does...and since I believe that the US military budget will sink again within the next 5 to 7 years...well lets say chances are high that the difference will diminish considerably.

If Europeans get their act togehter they can do quite well, like Airbus for example. As ist looks now Airbus will surpass Boeing in sales in the year 2005/2006. Just a prognosis of course. But one example of succesful cooperation. Those jets are as good as those of Boeing.

As for the state of american industry...don't be so high nosed about it. The EU has already a larger industry than the USA. And its more effective and modern either (Germany for example uses 3.5 times as many robots per worker as the US do. We Europeans and especially Germany have a huge trading surplus. The USA has not. And its not only rawmaterials the Americans are importing nowadays. Did you know that the US has a trade deficit in computers? In computer supplements? (you have to go to the smaller level of "semiconductors" to find a field were the US do actually export more than they import...a rare occurence). Also in pharmaceutical products - the US has a deficit. And these are areas where one thinks the US is competent...so I'm not talking about cars, yet. In fact...the whole field "advanced technical products"...the USA import more of them then they do export.
Your economic growth is based on consumption...on services...on banking. Your industry is a sorry affair all in all. Not the American strong point, not anymore.
OK...one of the few exceptions IS military industry, agreed. But I think its a reasonable assumption that if Europes industry outclasses the US one so badly we can tackle you there as well. So far military systems is a field with some huge projects, where european fragmentation is a serious disadvantage. (Smaller projects like tanks, guns, smallarms...Europeans are doing quite well here). Once we overcome this fragmentation we will do better than you may like it.

p-)

[IDFM203]

The reason why Australia and Spain opted for Tiger over the Apache is because the Tiger is cheaper, although not as capable as the AH-64. The Tiger is sufficient for the needs of these two nations. Also, buying European has certain diplomatic and trade benefits. (Seems the Brits and Israelis werent interested)

Plain and simple.


The Apache is out-dated like it was said before.

I disagree.

Actually, the avionics, radar, weapons and command and control systems that make US jets/copters far more superior. To say the Apache Longbow is outdated shows what little you know.

Take for example:
As far as US fighters go, you will not find the same 70's jet on the flight line. No sir, no way. We upgrade what we want when we want to keep the jets on-line and current. The F-15 airframe may be the same, but the actual guts, from avionics to engines to weapons, are hardly 70's era stuff. The Euro-jets are has-beens before they even leave the factory.

The Euro-Fighter was fine in it's day, but technology has advanced so fast and so far that it is now worthless. The US builds jets and while doing so incorporates emerging technology, as well as yet-to-be-fielded technology. We have program management reviews to ensure we can bring on-board new stuff and produce an aircraft that is practically up-to-date when it rolls off the assembly line. The Europeans, however, because of their socialist laws and oppressive labor regulations, they are not able to make ANY changes to the design or construction once the contract is signed. You see, if you make a small component in, let's say, the UK, and someone in Italy makes a better component, you can't make the change as that would upset the balance of trade and put many people out of a job. The result? You produce an aircraft that is ten-years (or better) out of date.

Eurofighter avionics are those that were agreed at the time of contract signing. No improvements, no enhancements. In fact, a manufactuer of a certain component is out of business but they are stuck buying this high-cost, out of date component because of their European contractural obligations. Same would apply to the Tiger as well. good post!! :D

Actually isnt this military debate past the apache or even the euro version due to the U.S. Comanche (sp?) that is better then both of them?

Also I understand Europe’s need to do this, but to “kitsune” and this is not meant as a flame or anything, but what I don’t get is your underlying bragging tones or your underlying one-upmanship’s to the U.S as if when you band together x amount of nations that make up the EU (that a lot of them independently have a huge industrial might alone) to beat one nation as that should be any major achievement or anything like that…that should be a obvious conclusion that banding nations combined should produce something of quality, what so special about that?

Shalom :D

[Kitsune]

Sry "idfm203"...Budanskis post sounded quite like bragging TO ME. And not fact based bragging at that. (Certainly no "good post". LOL.) So I did some counterbragging.

And you make it sound as if I would have taken some random states and added their stats. Perhaps you do not know it, but the EU exists. And certainly as a economic supranational entity sharing a common market and (mostly) a common currency. Agreements about defense cooperation are alos underway. Some may not like it. It exists nontheless. So do a multitude of sucessful European projects of which "Tiger" and "Typhoon" are but two.

Shalom yourself. You need it it more than I do. :D

[IDFM203]

Sry "idfm203"...Budanskis post sounded quite like bragging TO ME. And not fact based bragging at that. (Certainly no "good post". LOL.) So I did some counterbragging. Perhaps he was but you sounded a bit of bragging yourself ;) (as you now admitted!).

As for your bragging, well that’s what I realised and that’s what my last paragraph was directed at.

As for facts well I leave both you and Budanski to argue that.

Oh and "good post" is my opinion but hey we don’t have to agree on everything ;) :D


And you make it sound as if I would have taken some random states and added their stats. Perhaps you do not know it, but the EU exists. And certainly as a economic supranational entity sharing a common market and (mostly) a common currency. Some may not like it. It exists nontheless. So do a multitude of sucessful European projects of which "Tiger" and "Typhoon" are but two.
no believe me I get that the EU exists, its just that I don’t find anything special to say that the EU did something as if that’s a big achievement when all you have done is banded together independent powerful European nations on their own right, and have them together producing something.... of course when you band nations especially those tougher, something of quality will be produced…what’s so special or unique about that? That is all that I am saying……..


Btw I didnt get a answer before and I guess this is directed to anyone, is the new Euro tiger better then the U.S. Comanche (sp?)?


Shalom yourself. You need it it more than I do. :D yes I do but believe me we can all use shalom no matter where you are….so,

Shalom to you :D

[oldsoak]

I dont think Commanche and Tiger fulfil quite the same roles - and certainly Commanche is the later design so it will no doubt utilize more advanced technologies.

[Miles Teg]

I make comparisson of Apache and Tiger. But determine how is better is useless. They are designed and use "different".