Jump to content

Talk:Eurocopter Tiger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

ILA 2006 photos

some photos i took on ILA 2006:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.183.255.45 (talk • contribs)

"The first Tiger ARH is scheduled to enter service in 2004"

Could we update that part? It seems out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.105.199 (talk • contribs)

Tiger cockpit picture

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Tigre-openphotonet_PICT5917.JPG Is that really a picture of the Tiger cockpit? It looks much too wide for a Tiger cockpit. Looks more like a cockpit from a helicopter with side-by-side seating. You can even see the centre consol and parts of a second cyclic controller to the far left in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.208.22 (talk • contribs)

you're right, that's definatly not a Tiger's cockpit. The cockpit shown on the picture obviously has at last 5 MFDs while the Tiger only has 4 MFDs totally. And as you said the cockpit looks like one from a side-by-side seating heli. I'll remove it.--BSI 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's an NH90 cockpit. Some specification errors I noted - MAUM = 6100Kg, Vne = 175 Kts. Engine Super contingency (SUP) power = 1555 SHP. The 1070SHP quoted is MCP. The fusalage is 80% composite - the % you have quoted are incorrect. The Tiger is not capable of stoppping 23mm cannon fire - It has some balistic tollerance that varies. Also, empty weight is closer to 4100Kg (3060Kg is very light on - not sure how you got that number, probably EC propaganda)

Herve Moray

Following commments are valid for both English and German versions of the Eurocopter Tiger page.

Concerning the Eurocopter Tiger page, you will find the new KHS designation mentioned in the German air show ILA website (www.ila2006.de/ila2006/besucher/dateien/Fluggeraete.pdf). The decision is recent (March 2006). Therefore not yet reflected in the official sites of Eurocopter or Deutsches Heer.

By the way, I am the Eurocopter Marketing Manager for Tiger and I can assure you that we do not have sold HAD to Saudi Arabia and we are not currently involved in any process that may lead to a short term sale of Tiger to Saudi Arabia. This country is a potential prospect for our helicopter as 30 other countries worldwide (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Malaysia ...)

And finally, it is a pity to drop the very last updates concerning delivery schedules and flight hours performed as by June 2006.

Hervé MORAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hervé MORAY (talk • contribs)

about the KHS-designation-thing:you as marketing manager of Eurocopter should be a little ashamed for not keeping your website up-to-date. March 2006 ain't really 'recent', it's nearly half a year by now. So, before being bothered to spread the news on wikipedia, you should do your important work first and fix that errors on your corporate website, then explain the Bundeswehr how they call their chopper now and tell them to fix their website too. It'd also be nice if you'd sign your posts on talk pages. Have a nice day--BSI 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PAH-2

What is the origin of the PAH-2 designation? Drutt (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

it's actually an outdated German designation which means "Panzerabwehrhubschrauber 2" (anti-tank helicopter 2) which indicated that it would succeed the "BO-105 PAH-1" Matthias Rigling (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian spy tried to steal Tiger technology

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,490759,00.html

According to Spiegel, an influental european news magazine, Russia severely intensifies his efforts to get his hands on blueprints and technologies related to the Tiger combat helicopter. Unfortunately i don't have the time right now to add something about that in the article, maybe one of you can. 88.64.30.248 08:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the article, and there isn't anything we can really use that's relevant to the aritcle. The piece is really more of an editorial or opinion piece than a straight news story. But it's on the talk page now, and others can look at the story. - BillCJ 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Libyan interest

Their is an article in Greek in defencenet.gr date 22/4/2008 about a German-Frence desagree for the sale of 12 Tigers to Libya. Merkel says no to the sale but Germany cant veto the sale, Sarkozy says yes and he will ingnore the German reguest for the sale. Says the article that their is a deal from the year 1972 the the two countries cant veto common made product sales to third countries except in very unigue cases.

About the Tiger, Muammar Kaddafi is interesting for 12 helis for the Presidential Guard. John , Athens, 1/3/2008

Mexico

One French newspaper started a rumor (unconfirmed by Eurocopter) that Mexico is in negociations with Eurocopter to purchase an undeterminate number of Tigre combat helicopters; Mexican aviation forums a buzzing with the rumor, so I am asking the interested editors to contain any such entry based on rumors and asumptions, which will beguin to pour in. Thx -BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already removed it twice over the last few days! Are you saying it will get worse? Ugh! The cited report mentions other Eurocopter aircraft too, but no numbers for any of the types. (It's in French, so I am relying on Google Translations, but numerals like "150" don't need translating, and I didn't see it at all.) The entries here have mentioned 150 Tigers, which is very high number for one type for Mexico to be purchasing. Very few nations have that many attack helicopters, and Mexico is not known for buying military aircraft, especially combat types. Also, all 150 were to be delivered by 2012, and to be license-built, quite a feat for any nation, much less Mexico, to produce that many in only 4 years. - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Good job, BillCJ. The quote in question being forced in the article is nothing but a speculation by a french newspaper. Absolutely NO anouncement of such contract with Mexico has been anounced by Eurocopter. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The article was not just speculation. The article says that the Mexicans are negotiating the purchase of 3 types of helicopters: Tigre, Super Puma and Fennec. It seems that they have eventually bought 12 Super Puma (EADS:[1]) - so far. --Christian.benesch (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ejection seat

I had read somewhere (in web and/or magazines, can't remember exactly) that the Tiger is fitted with an ejection seat (similar to Ka-50). Could somebody please clarify this info? In addition, if you have watch a James Bond's movie called Goldeneye (1995), there was a scene whereby Pierce Brosnan managed to escape by activating the ejection seat. Any further info wrt my question is highly appreciated. TQ Zamwan (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

HAP, HAD and HPC - On French military terminology

The translation of French military terms on this page seems a bit wooden to me.

Helicoptere d'Appui Protection / Helicopter for Close Protection
Hélicoptère d'Appui Destruction/ Support Destruction Helicopter

Firstly Hélicoptère d'Appui in both cases should mean "Support Helicopter".

Their full names miss an "et" and should be "Hélicoptère d'Appui et Protection" and "Hélicoptère d'Appui et Destruction", respectively. I am basing this on the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation website [2], but maybe there is a more authoritative site. To me it simply reads better.

HAP

I think a better translation for Hélicoptère d'Appui et Protection is "Support and Escort Helicopter". This I base on a similar use of the term in "navire de protection", which describe the destroyer escort in carrier task force. (see for instance [3] )

HAD

With similar reasoning the Hélicoptère d'Appui et Destruction should be called "Support and Attack Helicopter".

HCP?

On EADS' website[4] the French version is described as Tigre HAP/HCP. But I cannot find a source for what HCP is supposed to mean. "Helicopter for close protection" is suggested on the page, but the HAD has no similar English translation and why would the French give their versions English names?

If you are a Frenchman or work in EADS' PR department and don't agree, please feel free to correct me. --Christian.benesch (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Literal translations can be not quite correct sometimes. The French page for Tigre HAP does not list HCP. HCP must be an acronym for the english translation or something like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The solution is: the French do not give their machines English names. HCP means "hélicoptère de combat polyvalent" or "Polyvalent Combat Helicopter" I just found that on[5] under Eurocopter Studies HCP. --Christian.benesch (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not say the French military give english names. Eurocopter's or other web pages do not have to match what the French military does. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Christian, "Hélicoptère d'Appui Protection" and "Hélicoptère d'Appui Destruction" are actually both correct. You are right that most of the time in French, you cannot have 2 nouns following each other without some kind of preposition or article in between but I guess this is one of the exceptions. And yes it does sound a little off (even for a native French speaker like myself). Here is a link to the French defense ministry for confirmation [6]. --McSly (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
McSly, thanks for the clarification. I feel very much that it sounds a little off, yes, but I guess the rationale would be that they are both the same helicopter with slight modification so one is the hélicoptère d'appui - P and the other is the hélicoptère d'appui - D. I guess the Armée de Terre website has more authority than my source, so I will agree with you.
Although I must point out that they do not use it very consistently on the site you found[7]. HAP to them is the "hélicoptère français d’appui protection", so they slip in française while the HAD is merely the "version appui-destruction", where they hyphenate. L'Armée de Terre also list them[8] as HAP(appui-protection) and HAD(appui-destruction) and destroys all grammatical speculations, leaving out even the hélicoptère.
I guess miltary personnel everywhere are not very verbose.
Fnlayson, I was not trying to be snappy. I was merely answering my own suspicion from above, that the French are very unlikely to give the machines English names. Eurocopter is to a great extent a French company, the French state is a big stakeholder and pays for research and development, the French military is a huge customer and the model in question is not even an export version, so all that didn't let me believe that HCP is an English acronym. --Christian Benesch (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with that, in principle, I cannot understand where the term "Helicopter for Close Protection" came from. --Christian Benesch (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Today I added information about the Tiger's appearance in the 007 movie GoldenEye. I would have added it to the popular culture section that was created for this article, but GoldenEye is the Tiger's only major movie appearance I am familiar with, so I had it labeled as a James Bond Appearance. If I can place this information in the popular culture section, please let me know. And003 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the entry as it should be in the Aircraft in fiction article. It then can be linked from this article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

Someone, keeps deleting the entry for Pakistan as an operator. Now, France seems to have promised to supply 18-25 Tigers to that country according to the quoted article. That makes Pakistan an operator, if they pay for it or not. There might be more up-to-date news on this issue. Decisions are revised all the time, but as long as there is no new information, which can be quoted then the old version should stay. Feel free to discuss and update, but don't just randomly delete. --Christian Benesch (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While I would normally agree with you, in this case, I don't think the source article is reliable. The article is written poor English, and it's uncleat whether France is providing Pakistan with Tigers, or deploying their own Tigers to Pakistan. The fact that there have been no other reports that I've seen in the usual defense/aerospace sources about Pakistan receiving Tigers argues for the deployment option. Anyway, I've added {{dubious}}{{vc}} tags to the source. If we haven't found corroboration within 2 weeks, then we should remove the info. - BilCat (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The reference supports an agreement. But there it is not an order until a contract is signed. I can not find any updates on this from reible sources after some internet searches. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Their is no any deal, no any promise, nothing..

Pakistan make an annoucment a few days ago that is interesting to buy 20 new AH-1Z helicopters from U.S.A. About the french promise, you ask something to buy it and they give it to you or not, Pakistan never said that will buy/get free Tiger helicopters. ,,If they pay for it or not,, Is their anybody that gives free 18-25 new -expencive- helis to other ?? May i have a Tiger free ?? You pay even a single screw for such a helicopter, they are not Gazelle or Bell-47 or UH-1 of Nam war.. Pakistan has not get any promise from France, has not said that want to buy Tigers, the issue is open with not any final decision taken yet. Some types are still candidates. John, Athens Greece 12/2/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.33.201 (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent guys, now we have some discussion. It should just not be deleted out of thin air. So either, we can remove it completely, if you agree, or we can tone it down to say something like "Pakistan was investigating the purchase ...". --Christian Benesch (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

DAWN is a reliable source! They are one of the largest English Newspapers in Pakistan and one of the largest TV networks. They are quite progressive and have the most balanced reporting in the country. As for Pakistani interest in the Tiger, currently we are also looking at the AH-1Z and the Tiger. We have not made a decision yet as to which one to choose! 74.68.39.209 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Their is no matter what the news paper said, the matter is what Goverment has said. A change could be at article here is that Tiger is a candidate helicopter for Pakistan Army. John, Athens Greece 15/2/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.11.205 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan has not acquired any Eurocopter Tiger. Pakistan Army and Air force depend on USA and Saudi to fund these expensive heavy weapons deal and surely Eurocopter wouldn't help that strategy. Pakistan would rather go for 2nd hand American Apache.~Naveed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.255.212 (talk • contribs)

Better Performance than a Cobra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Section closed as Wikipedia is not a forum.

Comparing performance and weight restrictions of a Eurocopter tiger to a Cobra, the tiger seems to have the upper edge. Able to carry more weight, higher service ceiling, faster rate of climb, larger weapons loadout, this helicopter could out manouveur and out perform a Cobra. i can't wait to fly this baby in the australian army!

One would hope that it would outperform the Cobra, or the Supercobra, for that matter, with those particular machines being Vietnam era technology based on the old UH1. The Tiger is far more sophisticated and capable, not to mention, still being made.

A more relevant comparison would be the AH-64 Apache. ck (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cobra is still being made too - the AH-1Z - and these will be new-builds. How the Tiger matches up to the Zulu remains to be seen. As far as weight class, I believe the AH-64 is somewhat heavier than both the Tiger and the later Cobra variants. - BillCJ (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Army found out it made a big mistake in purchasing the Tiger over the AH-1Z. During a recent conference of Australian and visiting military heads the Australian Army admitted to their embarrassment that the Tiger was unsuitable to be operated from the Royal Australian Navy's upcoming Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships (LHDs), because their airframes are not marinised (read not able to handle the corrosive conditions of the maritime environment), don't possess Folding Blades for compact storage aboard ship, and don't have the required tie-down points to lash it securely onto the ship's flight deck. This means that Australian Army amphibious operations will have to do without aerial fire support. Whoever decided upon the Tiger must have been a real genius (sarcasm intended)! Maybe the Navy can pick up the ball and purchase a small force of AH-1Z's to fill this crucial gap. Unless the Tigers are modified to operate aboard ship (a potentially expensive proposition) then the RAN will have to do just that; in the process diverting money that was originally meant for other programs, because someone at Defence failed to do their homework! 58.170.15.209 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.eurocopter.ca/asp/cmNews070621-4.asp "The capability of the Tiger to operate on a ship was put to the test in extremely severe weather conditions, with 6-meter swells, winds close to 100 km/h, and deck angles up to 12 degrees. The aim of the sea trials was to evaluate deck landing capability and to define the operations for helicopter tie-down after landing, blade folding, and handling on the deck, hangar and well deck of the ALD. In the 13 days at sea, the Tiger accomplished 300 deck landings and 80 logistic operations, confirming its outstanding suitability for ship-based operations." (No comment) Hcobb (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
An excerpt from the Royal Australian Navy Sea Power conference 2010 (January 27-29) by Rear Adm. Andrew Robertson, AO, DSC, RAN (Ret.) "A representative of the CO of the Australian Army's 16 Aviation Brigade spoke on army's combat aviation afloat, and the problems involved....One problem was that the new TIGER helicopter was not designed for operations at sea, and it's rotor blades would not fold, causing stowage and handling difficulties..." The Army representative said that "The TIGER is not marinised, particularly against the effects of salt spray. It's undercarriage and tie down points are unsuitable for deck operations...". - Do you think they're making this up? 58.164.29.6 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
More than likely, marinization is optional, meaning it costs more to oreder the helicopter with that capability. I'd guess the ADF decided it didn't need that capabilitywhen they originally ordered the Tigre. Subsequrently, the ADF decided to procure LHDs, and that the Tigres should operate from them. It's probably not a case of someone not doing their homework as a beancounter doing to much work! Governments making short-sighted decisions on military equipment based mostly on cost is nothing new. - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Marinization shouldn't be optional but mandatory for certain types of aircraft for a supposedly "Joint" military service as the ADF, to maximize versatility and "seamless" integration of assets on operations; but that's just my opinion. In my view the capability to operate at sea would pay for itself many times over. The unification of the three services into the Australian Defence Force in 1976 was done to increase interoperability and cooperation. 34 years later it seems it has never translated into the equipment side of things. All ADF Helicopters slated for a combat or combat support role should have the inherent capability to operate from the RAN's ships. It's just common sense, but I understand; When money talks and the beancounter is on the prowl, common sense goes into hiding. 58.164.29.6 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Just leaves more room for F-35Bs. Hcobb (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If ordering F-35Bs for the RAN competes with the RAAFs desire for the 100 F-35As it says it needs then the Navy won't get them. The RAAF doesn't want any of the other services to have the capabilities it thinks it already provides for the entire ADF. The Navy had already given away its aerial maritime reconnaissance and surveillance capability to the Air Force a long time ago and had already gotten rid of it's carrier capability. The RAAF will see the RANs possible request for F-35Bs as the first step to bringing back a true carrier capability, and will therefore be a threat to the Air Force in terms of who gets how big a slice of the defence budget pie. If the military services were separate instead of unified (seperate budgets) the chances in my opinion of the RAN getting the F-35B would be very good. I reckon that had it not been for unification the RAN would have retained a carrier capability up to present day. Gotta love unification; consolidation and rationalisation is great for the beancounters. 58.164.29.6 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why comparing the two would be of relevance >.>

However, if you must, I must say that the Russian Ka-50/52 outperforms the Cobra, the Apache, and the Tiger on several performance categories. However, the Viper has a slightly faster Speed and about 600m more maximum Altitude. Also, I added the Ka-50 into the "Comparable Aircraft" section just because the Eurocopter is on the Ka-50's Comparable Aircraft section too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory in Germany (talk • contribs) 11:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving the article. Don't turn it into a discussion forum. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Better than a Cobra? Don't make us laugh! The AH-1 has almost double the horsepower, carries more antitank missiles, more rockets AND has superior performance air-to-air missiles, not to mention more cannon ammo. Plus it has a 40 year lineage of battle experience. Only 3 tigers have fought.96.238.132.124 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

well, it's in Libya now, alongside Westland Apaches. Can't wait to see the final score. they even use the same hellfires too, so it'll be a fair match! course ghaddafi's flak & sams are fail so it's a Turkey Shoot.96.238.129.49 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The mystery of HCP resolved

Finally I found something official, an EADS Press Release from 2002, notably in English, which uses the HCP acronym translating it as:

HCP - hélicoptère de combat polyvalent / Multipurpose Combat Helicopter

the whole paragraph looks like this:

However, in order to respond to different requirements stemming from diverse geographic, geopolitical, or military situations, Eurocopter offers the basic platform of its HCP (Hélicoptère de Combat Polyvalent-Multipurpose Combat Helicopter) version in a variety of forms like CCH for Spain or ARH for Australia. This aircraft has many different configurations so it can handle all kinds of missions, such as reconnaissance, anti-tank, or escort support, ground and air interdiction, or any possible combination of these different types of assignments.

Also "Multipurpose" is the better English word, so I'll change the translation.

My whole point being here that HCP never was an English acronym. Now that EADS themselves resolve it into its French designation and then translate it, my point is proven.

My suspicion arose mainly from two things:

  • "Helicopter for close protection" does not really sound like an English military term. Sounds to me a bit like "helicopter for hand to hand combat" and makes no sense. It clearly is a clumsy attempt to fit the letters of the acronym.
  • Then as I have pointed out before the French are not shy with their language even when it comes to export.

I rest my case, --Christian Benesch (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Helicopter for close protection" probably means Helicopter for Close Air Support or something similar, btw. -fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"Helicopter for close protection" does not mean anything. It is not an official designation. Thus it should not be used as one. --Christian Benesch (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any post about that translation ["Helicopter for close protection"] being official. Jane's describes the variant as a multimission version of HAP. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure why you are fighting this. EADS, the manufacturer itself, translates the acronym. How much more official can it be? HCP is a French acronym not an English one. That is the only point I am making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.4.119 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No big deal. "Helicopter for close protection" was what I was referring to. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Export orders

"Deliveries are scheduled for 2007–2008." References to future events which have already passed should be updated; even better avoided in the first place. Dawright12 (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is a disaster. Plus the number of helicopters each customer has was changed recently too. Germany went from having 11 to only 6. I guess they crashed from those shoddy control cables. Plus the paragraph about the RMK-30 should be deleted since there's no citation for that ever being considered for the UHT Tiger. Sad, sad article. (Though it s doesn't help that all the seach engines come up dry on the topic & all the top results are years out of date & recycled from just a few dusty sources. I blame Jane's for having a complete monopoly on military data.) ((I noticed an earlier remark on the German Military's stillborn RMK was deleted))96.238.131.181 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Flight International numbers are correct, if you count only the helicopters with airworthiness certificate (aircraft registration 74+xx) and not the ones with provisional airworthiness certificate (like "pre-production models" with aircraft registration 98+xx, on a large white label). That's maybe the explanation, why the numbers dropped...--pkk (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. btw, do you know the current price in us dollars & euros? 2011 prices are likely 50% higher than 2001.

also, is there information on the weight limit for the inner & outter pylons?

the outter ones carry twin stinger or mistral (60-80lb), 7x70mm or 12x68mm rockets (140-216lb) while the inner carry roughly 500-600 lbs, right? 96.238.129.49 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eurocopter Tiger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Start== Born2flie: Following the lead of the WP:MILHIST rating. It's easier and doesn't require much thinking. :) --20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurocopter_Tiger/Archive_1&oldid=718099442"