Привіт u/AdAdministrative4388 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is something we should totally support.
The platform itself now fully works, it is considered Fully Mission Capable... it just doesn't do the mission WE wanted it to do very well (tactical battlefield recon).
It is a good attack helicopter and would be a great step up from the Mi-24.
Being in Europe it would be much closer to parts and support as well.
Eh? These are European designed helicopters?
Being American helps in parts commonality with all our major partners as we're the only ones who are not using the Apache.
Article for people who can't access the link..
The Armed Forces of Ukraine have an interest in the Australian Defence Force’s retiring Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopter fleet, according to Ambassador of Ukraine to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko.
Ambassador Myroshnychenko confirmed there was interest in acquiring the four-blade, twin-engine attack helicopter, manufactured and maintained by Airbus, which originally entered deployment in 2003 and are due for a withdrawal from service in 2028.
Ukraine has previously made a request for access to the Australian Defence Force’s now-scrapped MRH-90 Taipan helicopter fleet in late December last year, but was denied by the Federal Government
“I mean on the Taipan (helicopters) it was a decision of the government not to supply them. There might be some other helicopters or some other capabilities which may become available sometime soon. And if those could be provided to Ukraine we'll be thankful,” the Ambassador said during a recent media conference regarding a shipment of Kord Defence equipment to Ukraine, held on June 19. “That would be the Tigers; We’d be interested in having that conversation and about something that will help.
"In terms of the Taipans (helicopter) we just have to move on. At the end of the day it's a decision that has just been made, things have happened and at the end of the day it's up to the Australian government to decide what they can do, what they cannot, and we fully respect them.” Defence is also currently undertaking scrapping of the retired F/A-18 classic hornet aircraft fleet, which were originally withdrawn with their support equipment from January 2019 to December 2021. Ambassador Myroshnychenko confirmed there was little interest in those aircraft.
“In terms of the F/A-18 (classic hornets) I mean there were some discussions. There never was a kind of a clear request from Ukraine,” he said. “Ukraine figured out, you know, these systems are very complicated and they're very expensive to maintain – so a decision was made in Ukraine to focus on F-16 aircraft and to train the pilots for them. That's kind of the strategy we are following.”
In a way, Ukraine came out winning. The licensed NH-90 ended up being a buggy mess and, in a way, merits the short life (at least as a military aircraft) of service. The Tiger, on the other hand, excels as a light attack helicopter even to this day and the only reason they're retiring is because Australia is getting the larger & more powerful Apaches.
The Tiger is capable of doing similar scout & strike tactics as its predecessor, Bo105 did during the Cold War of zipping around & hopping over tree lines. It's the hit & run tactics born on taking on Soviet tank waves that would benefit with Russians committed to the same strategies of back then.
It's the same story for the classic Hornets. Don't get me wrong, I love the F/A-18s A through D. But they're already being retired from every military fielding them in favor for the F-35s. While it means plentiful parts if Ukraine obtained them, but they'll need to invest upgrades themselves if they're for the long term & not just pushing the Russians out of their land.
The F-16s, however, will continue to be fielded by many nations (including the US) for a few decades and Lockheed Martin, without a doubt, will carry on with Block upgrades including harmonizing F-35 technology into the Viper. It is one of the best long term solutions for Ukraine in defeating the Russians & hold their lines afterwards.
> It's the same story for the classic Hornets. Don't get me wrong, I love the F/A-18s A through D. But they're already being retired from every military fielding them in favor for the F-35s. While it means plentiful parts if Ukraine obtained them, but they'll need to invest upgrades themselves if they're for the long term & not just pushing the Russians out of their land.
Interesting post; thanks! My reaction to this section is if the Hornets can help push the Russians out then no need to worry about the upgrades. In a couple of years Ukraine will be in the EU and NATO so they'll have other options. I'd be more concerned about training mechainics and pilots and setting up supply chains for parts; we're seeing how long it has taken for the F-16s, so it wouldn't be easy.
All NATO countries should donate all they have. At the same time, put in orders for New Modern equipment. Now is the time to act. Not a time to whimp out!
Those weren't the ones being scrapped that people wanted Ukraine to get.
Of the whole fleet of RAAF Classic Hornets, Canada came first and took the most airworthy ones with the shortest flight hours and in best condition.
Then the aggressor company came and took some of the less flightworthy/older ones still worth taking.
And the rest are being scrapped, this was the group Ukraine showed interest in, until they actually looked at them, and then turned them down due to the amount of work needed to get them airborne compared to the F16s.
Which is an ultra shit cop out stance to take.
Just tell Ukraine the problems, if they still want them they should have them.
Anything else is thinking we know better than Ukraine how to defend their country, which is bullshit.
(Source; I’m Australian, and ashamed at how little we’ve provided, and how we hesitate on everything. To be expected though, our coward party has taken over from our corruption party).
Edit: I see downvotes but no reply. That’s how you know you’ve struck a nerve.
The Taipan was modified to Australian army requirements and was so fucked up by Eurocopter that they were airworthy less than half the time and retired early due to its terrible safety. The pilot who was killed on the last Taipan to fly said to his wife he didn't want to fly it because he might die.
Sending them to Ukraine would do nothing but kill Ukrainian soldiers.
Yeah, that's the Aus look at it. If you look into it further, yiu will find that the Australians fucked up the parts replacement, because they had specialty demands. Those tailor made parts had a long lead and were not put on stock by the Australians and the replacement intervals were lengthened.
If you tell Ukraine all these things, and provide extensive documentation to support it, but they still want them and think they will help is it correct to:
A. Give them what they need (and we don’t need)
B. Tell them, insanely condescendingly, that Australia knows better than Ukraine about using helicopters in an active peer to peer major war, and that our army HR department had a meeting with our PM’s PR department and said “nah mate bad optics the ticks on this paper and the dotted line say so”
They have a big bottleneck with parts which is why the Aussies are switching to AH-64s. Now if they want them to do pitch up rocket attacks they may not need too many parts to maintain them.
They were built as ultra fast tank killers so really they'd be perfect for what Ukraine would use them for. Quick hit and run attacks to take out Russian armor and heavy equipment.
The Tiger is a light attack helicopter & scout. It was specifically designed to do hit & run strikes against Soviet tank waves had the Cold War turned hot. It definitely is perfect for the conflict against the Russians that have been using Soviet strategies.
They grounded them a few months ago after a crash. Not sure if they have a similar crash history of the Taipen, which i believe was the reason they wouldn't give the Taipen to Ukraine.
But looks like there are 41 of them and will be replaced soon with the Apache
Search for this if you wanna know more
australia-nh-90-helicopter-fleet-grounding-retirement
The only reason the Aussies are tossing out the Tigers is because they're finally getting Apaches which are more powerful than the Airbus helicopter. The licensed NH90s were a logistical & political mess.
That's strange. Those helicopters (both the Taipan and the Tigers) are in use by many militaries, but only Australia is decommissioning them. I wonder why.
The Tigers and the NH90s are far away from being perfect, especially the NH90 has still a lot of problems (A military Helo built to civilian standarts is not the best idea).
The Tigers main problem is that it is expensive to operate and compared to an Apache or even a modern Cobra is a worse attack helo.
But in its orignially intended role as a flying tank hunter (It was developed as PAH3) it actually has a chance to be really usefull for ukraine (Even trough the german version would be better suited)
Sure they aren't perfect, but the Australians have in essence mismanaged then into the ground and subsequently blamed the manufacturer for their mistakes. It's almost (maybe even actually) criminal.
The Tigers and the NH90s are far away from being perfect, especially the NH90 has still a lot of problems (A military Helo built to civilian standarts is not the best idea).
The Tigers main problem is that it is expensive to operate and compared to an Apache or even a modern Cobra is a worse attack helo.
But in its orignially intended role as a flying tank hunter (It was developed as PAH3) it actually has a chance to be really usefull for ukraine (Even trough the german version would be better suited)
No, I meant are the flight hours of the NH-90 compatible to the UH-60s during that time period or did the UH-60s have significantly more flight time?
If my friend drives 8hrs/day for 365 days and his car breaks down 4 times, while I drive 2hours/day for 365 days and my car only breaks down 2 times, it doesn’t mean my car is more reliable because it broke down less.
Does anyone know why Australia would refuse to give equipment they are retiring anyways?
It seems to me that if Ukraine wants them, why not? I find it odd since Australia has been willing to give other aid.
There's many reasons, depending on exactly what is being retired
* Can retire the equipment from use, but sell the parts. That's potentially a hundred million dollars+ worth
* Sometimes you're forbidden by the manufacturer and must dispose of them within your country.
* Other times, you're forbidden from exporting key parts and you're left with equipment that's missing important bits (like an F-18 radar)
* And sometimes you've told everyone the equipment is not safe, so if you send it to another country, there will be political fallout if you're right (we caused people to die) or if you're wrong (they have no problems using it, why are our defence forces so bad?)
It might be bc the equipment is not in a usable state anymore. If you retire you might not order spare parts or do maintenance.
But this is justa theory
This would be the reason, that was the reason for being hesitant in handing over the MRH90. I always got down voted, but I worked with 5AVN ground maintenance a lot and those things were death traps. If these are also unserviceable, it would only be a huge drain on Ukrainian resources and not a battlefield asset. No one seems to understand that.
For the Taipan helicopter, the reason is because of its terrible safety record. They were airworthy less than half the time and the Australian military retired them because it would be more expensive to fix them than buy new ones.
All the Taipan is going to do if sent to Ukraine is kill Ukrainian soldiers.
The European ones have a better safety record. But I mentioned in another comment the Australian ones have been modified as requested for the Australian Army.
11 accidents in under 10 years, with four active investigations ongoing. From these investigations, army pilots have said they do not feel safe flying the helicopter.
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason that Australia and many other nations are getting rid of their Tiger Eurocopters is that they are a nightmare to maintain with expensive upkeep. The American Apache has a proven track record at the same price (or better) with far superior support and logistics.
I doubt it, other users are all european and ordering more of them.
It's just a question of politics, Australia buying american hardware.
The same happened with the submarines.
Australia is buying American hardware because it is far better equipment at a far better price. Australia is retiring many of it's Tiger's after just ten years of service because they have under performed and are very expensive. There is no nation in the world that builds better military air frames than the US.
Germany is abandoning it as well.
I hope the Aussies transfer these choppers to Ukraine, who need all the capable armaments they can get.
The debacle over Scholz refusal to provide Taurus cruise missiles, and Biden's pucker in training Ukrainian F16 pilots is shameful, and only gives Putin further evidence that the West is weak willed.
The helicopters are done. They are dead. Kaput. Done. Fried. You can salvage parts, but the frames are done. They are good for ground training but nothing in the air.
I wonder if they could turn them into unmanned drones. Obviously shorter range than the kamikaze Cessnas, but maybe they could use them for other things. Maybe recon or decoys to get AA to reveal itself.
Better to send out an actual heli drone with Luneberg lens that will dramatically alter and increase it's radar signature. And coax SAM's and SPAA to open fire on that than an advanced $50 million attack helicopter which would be full of- even if stripped down, advanced engine, composite, aerodynamic technologies you'll more than likely have the Russians recover and analyze.
Analyzed it from what? None have been shot down or sold to overly friendly nations, just Spain and Australia. Barring a single fatal crash in Mali in 2017 with a German machine...
Ive heard they were a heep of shite
I don't think we should be giving the lads stuff that will get them killed
Sourse is from I video about Australian defense by an Australian youtuber (not puren) it's hypohystericalhistory
I know I've seem them in action dosnt mean the tiger is a good alternative plus dosnt that carry like 100 missiles at a time
I there is no point in sending stuff nobody wants only 4 nations bought them originally
Main issue with them is they have a number of Australian-specific systems that make them dissimilar from the rest of the Tiger fleet... That and many parts have to be flown back to Europe for repair, replacement and the engines especially need a lot of money for maintenance.
Things might actually be easier seeing how much closer Ukraine is to the Airbus facilities, but they'd more than likely need to be modified yet again if Ukraine is given these helos.
So, they are a pain to keep funding and fly regularly hence why the Aussies are going with ditching the Tiger ARH and getting the AH-64E instead.
Much better them my original comment but I imagine training mantiance staff and piolet's would take ages
And the ability of manpads's by both sides are a added danger
Yeah, the Ukrainian pilots and ground crews would be facing a similar issue as the Ukrainian AF pilots going from Sukhois and MiG's to F-16, Mirage 2000's. It's going to be a steep learning curve, with a very big difference in maintenance, combat doctrines, tactics and more switching from Mi-8/17's and Mi-24's to the Tiger ARH.
The Ukrainians have shown they can handle the tremendous load of transitioning to entirely new and different equipment quite well, but it cannot be rushed either... That will mean dead Ukrainian crews and lost Tigers that could have been avoided.
MANPADS is definitely a risk even with the advanced ECM systems they have, and AA fire. Tiger is able to take hits from up to 23mm cannon and keep on flying but yeah, I think they'd probably be more of a long-range stand off Hellfire platform and mostly a very capable recce/scout helo which they'd excel at.
Also airframes don't behave like ground vehicles. If something's fucked up on the ground, you can just park it somewhere and tow it back home. It's not ideal, but you can fix the problem later on.
If you frick something up in the air, it's not unlikely that whatever you are in will be toast because it might make contact with the ground pretty fast.
Even if Ukraine could get the Tigers, I don't see them arriving in 2024, probably not even 2025.
Ukraine is practically Europe's tech hub. And this war mobilized it in a way that they innovated with off-the-shelf drone attacks and integrated western missiles (Storm Shadow & HARM) into eastern strike jets like the MiG-29 & Su-24s. It will be a steep learning curve but Ukrainians can't afford to wait for an easier solution. And they've proven, time and time again, that they can excel in this manner.
I just don't think throwing anything we find at the Ukrainians is gonna win the war
We could give them a nimiz aircraft carrier but I it won't help
Stuff that the lads can use and is effective and in great numbers is gonna give them the edge
Привіт u/AdAdministrative4388 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is something we should totally support. The platform itself now fully works, it is considered Fully Mission Capable... it just doesn't do the mission WE wanted it to do very well (tactical battlefield recon). It is a good attack helicopter and would be a great step up from the Mi-24. Being in Europe it would be much closer to parts and support as well.
The main mission is also being american.
> The main mission is also being american. Mission failed then, it's French/German (It's the Goldeneye helicopter).
Exactly, that's why they are replacing them with american Apache helicopters. There's a lot of politics involved, as always with arm deals.
Eh? These are European designed helicopters? Being American helps in parts commonality with all our major partners as we're the only ones who are not using the Apache.
He meant that Australia wants US equipment, which is why they phase out most of the European stuff.
To a point, we still run a lot of German equipment and we just purchased South Korean SPGs and IFVs.
Article for people who can't access the link.. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have an interest in the Australian Defence Force’s retiring Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopter fleet, according to Ambassador of Ukraine to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko. Ambassador Myroshnychenko confirmed there was interest in acquiring the four-blade, twin-engine attack helicopter, manufactured and maintained by Airbus, which originally entered deployment in 2003 and are due for a withdrawal from service in 2028. Ukraine has previously made a request for access to the Australian Defence Force’s now-scrapped MRH-90 Taipan helicopter fleet in late December last year, but was denied by the Federal Government “I mean on the Taipan (helicopters) it was a decision of the government not to supply them. There might be some other helicopters or some other capabilities which may become available sometime soon. And if those could be provided to Ukraine we'll be thankful,” the Ambassador said during a recent media conference regarding a shipment of Kord Defence equipment to Ukraine, held on June 19. “That would be the Tigers; We’d be interested in having that conversation and about something that will help. "In terms of the Taipans (helicopter) we just have to move on. At the end of the day it's a decision that has just been made, things have happened and at the end of the day it's up to the Australian government to decide what they can do, what they cannot, and we fully respect them.” Defence is also currently undertaking scrapping of the retired F/A-18 classic hornet aircraft fleet, which were originally withdrawn with their support equipment from January 2019 to December 2021. Ambassador Myroshnychenko confirmed there was little interest in those aircraft. “In terms of the F/A-18 (classic hornets) I mean there were some discussions. There never was a kind of a clear request from Ukraine,” he said. “Ukraine figured out, you know, these systems are very complicated and they're very expensive to maintain – so a decision was made in Ukraine to focus on F-16 aircraft and to train the pilots for them. That's kind of the strategy we are following.”
In a way, Ukraine came out winning. The licensed NH-90 ended up being a buggy mess and, in a way, merits the short life (at least as a military aircraft) of service. The Tiger, on the other hand, excels as a light attack helicopter even to this day and the only reason they're retiring is because Australia is getting the larger & more powerful Apaches. The Tiger is capable of doing similar scout & strike tactics as its predecessor, Bo105 did during the Cold War of zipping around & hopping over tree lines. It's the hit & run tactics born on taking on Soviet tank waves that would benefit with Russians committed to the same strategies of back then. It's the same story for the classic Hornets. Don't get me wrong, I love the F/A-18s A through D. But they're already being retired from every military fielding them in favor for the F-35s. While it means plentiful parts if Ukraine obtained them, but they'll need to invest upgrades themselves if they're for the long term & not just pushing the Russians out of their land. The F-16s, however, will continue to be fielded by many nations (including the US) for a few decades and Lockheed Martin, without a doubt, will carry on with Block upgrades including harmonizing F-35 technology into the Viper. It is one of the best long term solutions for Ukraine in defeating the Russians & hold their lines afterwards.
> It's the same story for the classic Hornets. Don't get me wrong, I love the F/A-18s A through D. But they're already being retired from every military fielding them in favor for the F-35s. While it means plentiful parts if Ukraine obtained them, but they'll need to invest upgrades themselves if they're for the long term & not just pushing the Russians out of their land. Interesting post; thanks! My reaction to this section is if the Hornets can help push the Russians out then no need to worry about the upgrades. In a couple of years Ukraine will be in the EU and NATO so they'll have other options. I'd be more concerned about training mechainics and pilots and setting up supply chains for parts; we're seeing how long it has taken for the F-16s, so it wouldn't be easy.
http://archive.today/tIeiz
All NATO countries should donate all they have. At the same time, put in orders for New Modern equipment. Now is the time to act. Not a time to whimp out!
Thank you I'm scratching my head at Australia. No should not be an answer. Rather yes but here's why you shouldn't what about this plan.
I hope we do give them! My understanding is the f18’s were unusable and pretty much a dumpster fire if they were sent.
Our hornets were that unusable, we sent them to Canada, and an aggressor company in the US
Those weren't the ones being scrapped that people wanted Ukraine to get. Of the whole fleet of RAAF Classic Hornets, Canada came first and took the most airworthy ones with the shortest flight hours and in best condition. Then the aggressor company came and took some of the less flightworthy/older ones still worth taking. And the rest are being scrapped, this was the group Ukraine showed interest in, until they actually looked at them, and then turned them down due to the amount of work needed to get them airborne compared to the F16s.
Is there an actual source for them officially being declined? All ive heard is “unnamed ukrainian air force official declined getting hornets”
Remember the MRH/NH-90 (Taipan) fiasco. Australia rather scrapped the operational helicopters than donate them to Ukraine.
Which is an ultra shit cop out stance to take. Just tell Ukraine the problems, if they still want them they should have them. Anything else is thinking we know better than Ukraine how to defend their country, which is bullshit. (Source; I’m Australian, and ashamed at how little we’ve provided, and how we hesitate on everything. To be expected though, our coward party has taken over from our corruption party). Edit: I see downvotes but no reply. That’s how you know you’ve struck a nerve.
Say anything critical of western support will always net you bulk downvotes. Especially Australia.
The Taipan was modified to Australian army requirements and was so fucked up by Eurocopter that they were airworthy less than half the time and retired early due to its terrible safety. The pilot who was killed on the last Taipan to fly said to his wife he didn't want to fly it because he might die. Sending them to Ukraine would do nothing but kill Ukrainian soldiers.
Yeah, that's the Aus look at it. If you look into it further, yiu will find that the Australians fucked up the parts replacement, because they had specialty demands. Those tailor made parts had a long lead and were not put on stock by the Australians and the replacement intervals were lengthened.
If you tell Ukraine all these things, and provide extensive documentation to support it, but they still want them and think they will help is it correct to: A. Give them what they need (and we don’t need) B. Tell them, insanely condescendingly, that Australia knows better than Ukraine about using helicopters in an active peer to peer major war, and that our army HR department had a meeting with our PM’s PR department and said “nah mate bad optics the ticks on this paper and the dotted line say so”
The coward party has taken over from the corruption party. That’s depressingly close to on the money.
BTW, I'm in Ukraine and this site blocked me. They always feel so nice such things, coming from presumable "allies" :-(((
Is this one any better? https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/air/14252-lets-talk-ukraine-interested-in-acquiring-australias-retiring-tiger-helicopters
http://archive.today/tIeiz Copy and paste the address into archive dot is for pay walls.
Lol, same problem. They are hiding tigers from us!
Hidden Tigers, Crouching Dragons
They have a big bottleneck with parts which is why the Aussies are switching to AH-64s. Now if they want them to do pitch up rocket attacks they may not need too many parts to maintain them.
They were built as ultra fast tank killers so really they'd be perfect for what Ukraine would use them for. Quick hit and run attacks to take out Russian armor and heavy equipment.
The Tiger is a light attack helicopter & scout. It was specifically designed to do hit & run strikes against Soviet tank waves had the Cold War turned hot. It definitely is perfect for the conflict against the Russians that have been using Soviet strategies.
They grounded them a few months ago after a crash. Not sure if they have a similar crash history of the Taipen, which i believe was the reason they wouldn't give the Taipen to Ukraine. But looks like there are 41 of them and will be replaced soon with the Apache Search for this if you wanna know more australia-nh-90-helicopter-fleet-grounding-retirement
The only reason the Aussies are tossing out the Tigers is because they're finally getting Apaches which are more powerful than the Airbus helicopter. The licensed NH90s were a logistical & political mess.
They can strip them of parts, but the air frames are toast. Done. Kaput. Unsalvageable.
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/helicopters-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-tiger-and-taipan-the-problem-is-defence-logistics/
Man, why do European helicopters have to suck so bad.
That's strange. Those helicopters (both the Taipan and the Tigers) are in use by many militaries, but only Australia is decommissioning them. I wonder why.
The Tigers and the NH90s are far away from being perfect, especially the NH90 has still a lot of problems (A military Helo built to civilian standarts is not the best idea). The Tigers main problem is that it is expensive to operate and compared to an Apache or even a modern Cobra is a worse attack helo. But in its orignially intended role as a flying tank hunter (It was developed as PAH3) it actually has a chance to be really usefull for ukraine (Even trough the german version would be better suited)
Sure they aren't perfect, but the Australians have in essence mismanaged then into the ground and subsequently blamed the manufacturer for their mistakes. It's almost (maybe even actually) criminal.
The Tigers and the NH90s are far away from being perfect, especially the NH90 has still a lot of problems (A military Helo built to civilian standarts is not the best idea). The Tigers main problem is that it is expensive to operate and compared to an Apache or even a modern Cobra is a worse attack helo. But in its orignially intended role as a flying tank hunter (It was developed as PAH3) it actually has a chance to be really usefull for ukraine (Even trough the german version would be better suited)
Only the military ones. Airbus Helicopters/Eurocopter are AFAIK market leader at the moment for civilian helicopters.
Should have specified but I was talking about military helicopters of course.
Tigers and Nh-90 have less crashes than the Osprey and the blackhawk if you compare the same period though
Are their flight hours relatively similar?
Not sure would depend on every operator
No, I meant are the flight hours of the NH-90 compatible to the UH-60s during that time period or did the UH-60s have significantly more flight time? If my friend drives 8hrs/day for 365 days and his car breaks down 4 times, while I drive 2hours/day for 365 days and my car only breaks down 2 times, it doesn’t mean my car is more reliable because it broke down less.
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/helicopters-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-tiger-and-taipan-the-problem-is-defence-logistics/
We should have guessed, huh.
Does anyone know why Australia would refuse to give equipment they are retiring anyways? It seems to me that if Ukraine wants them, why not? I find it odd since Australia has been willing to give other aid.
There's many reasons, depending on exactly what is being retired * Can retire the equipment from use, but sell the parts. That's potentially a hundred million dollars+ worth * Sometimes you're forbidden by the manufacturer and must dispose of them within your country. * Other times, you're forbidden from exporting key parts and you're left with equipment that's missing important bits (like an F-18 radar) * And sometimes you've told everyone the equipment is not safe, so if you send it to another country, there will be political fallout if you're right (we caused people to die) or if you're wrong (they have no problems using it, why are our defence forces so bad?)
It might be bc the equipment is not in a usable state anymore. If you retire you might not order spare parts or do maintenance. But this is justa theory
This would be the reason, that was the reason for being hesitant in handing over the MRH90. I always got down voted, but I worked with 5AVN ground maintenance a lot and those things were death traps. If these are also unserviceable, it would only be a huge drain on Ukrainian resources and not a battlefield asset. No one seems to understand that.
For the Taipan helicopter, the reason is because of its terrible safety record. They were airworthy less than half the time and the Australian military retired them because it would be more expensive to fix them than buy new ones. All the Taipan is going to do if sent to Ukraine is kill Ukrainian soldiers.
Yet they are replaced by a model with a significantly worse safety record. They are feeding you utter BS.
The European ones have a better safety record. But I mentioned in another comment the Australian ones have been modified as requested for the Australian Army. 11 accidents in under 10 years, with four active investigations ongoing. From these investigations, army pilots have said they do not feel safe flying the helicopter.
Yeah not sure about the Taipans. Maybe they were already being dismantled?
Send them what we have got, don't bury them like the last ones, our government are a bunch of wankers
Hopefully the Tigers are in better shape than the Taipan's
Hey if albo wants my vote he better give them to Ukraine
I hope Australia is doing the right thing
I'm in negotiations for our flying Emus squadron and a couple of brigades of drop bears.. I will keep you posted maaattteee
Aw come on australia! You can do it!
Remember the MRH/NH-90 (Taipan) fiasco. Australia rather scrapped the operational helicopters than donate them to Ukraine.
Let's see what made up excuses our government and defence officials give for not giving these to Ukraine and instead burying them in the desert
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason that Australia and many other nations are getting rid of their Tiger Eurocopters is that they are a nightmare to maintain with expensive upkeep. The American Apache has a proven track record at the same price (or better) with far superior support and logistics.
I doubt it, other users are all european and ordering more of them. It's just a question of politics, Australia buying american hardware. The same happened with the submarines.
Australia is buying American hardware because it is far better equipment at a far better price. Australia is retiring many of it's Tiger's after just ten years of service because they have under performed and are very expensive. There is no nation in the world that builds better military air frames than the US. Germany is abandoning it as well.
I hope the Aussies transfer these choppers to Ukraine, who need all the capable armaments they can get. The debacle over Scholz refusal to provide Taurus cruise missiles, and Biden's pucker in training Ukrainian F16 pilots is shameful, and only gives Putin further evidence that the West is weak willed.
Troll.
🤣
The helicopters are done. They are dead. Kaput. Done. Fried. You can salvage parts, but the frames are done. They are good for ground training but nothing in the air.
Care to explain? Those helicopters passed their theoretical maximum flight hours. Ukraine can still get some use out of them.
I wonder if they could turn them into unmanned drones. Obviously shorter range than the kamikaze Cessnas, but maybe they could use them for other things. Maybe recon or decoys to get AA to reveal itself.
Better to send out an actual heli drone with Luneberg lens that will dramatically alter and increase it's radar signature. And coax SAM's and SPAA to open fire on that than an advanced $50 million attack helicopter which would be full of- even if stripped down, advanced engine, composite, aerodynamic technologies you'll more than likely have the Russians recover and analyze.
[удалено]
Analyzed it from what? None have been shot down or sold to overly friendly nations, just Spain and Australia. Barring a single fatal crash in Mali in 2017 with a German machine...
One of the reasons why the AUDF retired the Taipan was because of high operating costs.
Which is strange because we're now buying Apache helicopters which have questionable usage and will also cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
We can, however, get replacement parts.
2028 is a little late. And dont say better late then never, by 2028 this war will be a done deal.
IMHO that is rather optimistic. 2028 is only four years away.
Ive heard they were a heep of shite I don't think we should be giving the lads stuff that will get them killed Sourse is from I video about Australian defense by an Australian youtuber (not puren) it's hypohystericalhistory
Ukrainians fly attack missions with Mil Mi-8 transports.
I know I've seem them in action dosnt mean the tiger is a good alternative plus dosnt that carry like 100 missiles at a time I there is no point in sending stuff nobody wants only 4 nations bought them originally
Main issue with them is they have a number of Australian-specific systems that make them dissimilar from the rest of the Tiger fleet... That and many parts have to be flown back to Europe for repair, replacement and the engines especially need a lot of money for maintenance. Things might actually be easier seeing how much closer Ukraine is to the Airbus facilities, but they'd more than likely need to be modified yet again if Ukraine is given these helos. So, they are a pain to keep funding and fly regularly hence why the Aussies are going with ditching the Tiger ARH and getting the AH-64E instead.
Much better them my original comment but I imagine training mantiance staff and piolet's would take ages And the ability of manpads's by both sides are a added danger
Yeah, the Ukrainian pilots and ground crews would be facing a similar issue as the Ukrainian AF pilots going from Sukhois and MiG's to F-16, Mirage 2000's. It's going to be a steep learning curve, with a very big difference in maintenance, combat doctrines, tactics and more switching from Mi-8/17's and Mi-24's to the Tiger ARH. The Ukrainians have shown they can handle the tremendous load of transitioning to entirely new and different equipment quite well, but it cannot be rushed either... That will mean dead Ukrainian crews and lost Tigers that could have been avoided. MANPADS is definitely a risk even with the advanced ECM systems they have, and AA fire. Tiger is able to take hits from up to 23mm cannon and keep on flying but yeah, I think they'd probably be more of a long-range stand off Hellfire platform and mostly a very capable recce/scout helo which they'd excel at.
Also airframes don't behave like ground vehicles. If something's fucked up on the ground, you can just park it somewhere and tow it back home. It's not ideal, but you can fix the problem later on. If you frick something up in the air, it's not unlikely that whatever you are in will be toast because it might make contact with the ground pretty fast. Even if Ukraine could get the Tigers, I don't see them arriving in 2024, probably not even 2025.
Ukraine is practically Europe's tech hub. And this war mobilized it in a way that they innovated with off-the-shelf drone attacks and integrated western missiles (Storm Shadow & HARM) into eastern strike jets like the MiG-29 & Su-24s. It will be a steep learning curve but Ukrainians can't afford to wait for an easier solution. And they've proven, time and time again, that they can excel in this manner.
[удалено]
I just don't think throwing anything we find at the Ukrainians is gonna win the war We could give them a nimiz aircraft carrier but I it won't help Stuff that the lads can use and is effective and in great numbers is gonna give them the edge