Australia selects AH-64E to replace its troubled Tiger fleet

Well I have dropped the ball a bit lately with keeping tabs on a fast changing procurement system. Seems the Australian Army WILL replace the less than stellar Tiger ARH, and the selected aircraft is perhaps unsurprisingly the AH-64E Apache. I'm reasonably satisfied with the decision as anything was better than the Tiger, which just never quite cut it. Personally I would have been a little happier with the AH-1Z as it is fully marinized and could be deployed for extended periods on our Canberra class ships. I also suspect the Zulu is a little kinder on the wallet, however the Apache is fine and stops the ridiculous dancing around the term "attack helicopter" that drove the idiotic purchase of the "armed scout" Tiger. Its nice to see that the Apache will also be bought in a modestly greater number than the Tiger too with 29 AH-64's to replace 22 Tigers, 5 of which will be dedicated to training leaving 24 machines combat coded. Personally I would like to see far more bought as I give the odds of a US/China conflict in our region around a 40-60% chance of occurring in the next 20 years. If you have 5 combat coded squadrons of 12 each and a training, deep maintenance and attrition reserve of 15 more you can do something useful, whereas 22 unreliable Tigers was a money draining farce.

Of interest to this will be the second link I have put to an Op ED piece by Jim Molan a retired Australian Army officer and prominent politician who gives some historical insights as well as his views on the selection.

Thirty years ago such a decision would have been an impractical dream, now its looking increasingly like a necessity.
Apache purchase decision

Jim Molan Op Ed

a reply to: thebozeian

It's a disgrace that Australia doesn't already have AH-64s.

In my ignorance I'd always assumed that Australia had the same tactical units as we have here in the UK. I thought that was the advantage of being in the commonwealth.

Evidently I was mistaken.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

It's a disgrace that Australia doesn't already have AH-64s.

Its a disgrace we went for the Tigers in the first place instead of at least the Whisky or Zulu Cobras.

This is not unexpected. I read an Aussie report a couple of years ago which basically said that Tiger was poor value.

a reply to: Blackfinger
The only issue I can see with the Zulu Cobra from memory was less range than the Apache. Its arguable I suppose that a heavy drone could do some of the Apache's roles at a lower price, and its also true that if you wait 10-15 years something like the V-280/Defiant will begin give a far greater leap in capability over even the AH-64E and UH-1Z can. But those are all virtual birds for now. We need a proper attack helicopter now, actually we needed it 5-10 years ago.

a reply to: paraphi
No its no secret, I was just surprised that they actually managed to commit relatively quickly and got the funding for a replacement. Normally this process takes years longer and gets watered down.

So what ever happened to that TR3B tech the Navy released patents on not too long ago? Does not seam to be a machine that can handle a 50 cal too well, but as for other goodies?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
It's a disgrace that Australia doesn't already have AH-64s.

Better late than never in this case.

Properly deployed, these birds would make the Chinese think 9,632 times before even considering a landing on Aussie soil.

a reply to: thebozeian

They've operated the -64 from ships in recent years. The AH-64EV6 upgrade includes a maritime threat detection upgrade as well as doubling the FCR range.

AH-64E(V6)

a reply to: thebozeian
Off memory one of the Tigers early problems was with full load of fuel plus extra tanks plus weapons it couldnt hover in days over 30 degrees Celsius.
Meh Chinese own a lot of Australia already with them buying up a lot of drought effected farmland and properties back 20 years ago.But thats for a more political discussion.