



His forte is that he 'tells it as it really is'. Incisive in his approach and sometimes even provocative, Francis Tusa's analytical reports and commentaries are closely studied by decision makers within the Defence community at large. Not one to acquiesce to the 'party line' or necessarily follow the latest trend, he is nonetheless widely respected for his unbiased and critical focus on the facts. Not surprisingly Francis Tusa is much sought after by News Editors on both radio and television.
DSD brings you selected articles from Defence Analysis ahead of its monthly publication. To find out more, and how you can order Defence Analysis for a full year's subscription [UK £300; US & ROW $560] - JUST CLICK HERE.


US Army Armed Recce Helicopter
As Apache's demise
was declared, so US Army Chief of Staff General Shoomaker
announced that to fill part of the void, 368 armed recce
helicopters – light choppers – will be procured. What will they
be? Where will they come from? Well, in answer to a question
at a late February press conference, a DoD official said:
"As soon as you give me the requirement, we're going to put that on
the street and let industry tell us which way to go."
Dare we suggest that this may mean several things.
Firstly, no decision has yet been made on type – there is a tabula rasa. Secondly, if proposed timescales for introduction into service of this helicopter are met – about three to six years at the extremes – then whatever is selected has to be based on an existing design. Name an existing helo in the USA that could come close to meeting the Comanche role? Modify a Blackhawk? Buy more upgraded OH-6s? It stretches the imagination, though not industrial lobbying, to see how these would work in environments in which the US Army suggests that Comanche would be less than optimal.
Also worthy of note is that the US Army believes that it can go from concept definition for a light armed recce helicopter into development, then fielding, in a time averaging five years. Compare and contrast – and probably weep over – the pace of trying to get battlefield recce and support helicopter programmes through the mill in the UK. The Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH) programme will possibly take closer to ten years for the same process, and the Support, Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft will take closer to 15 years, if it sticks to its already-delayed path. A lesson here anyone?
Eurocopter Tiger Success By Default
"Victory by exit" – this could well be the phrase to describe the situation that Eurocopter now finds itself in. The Tiger light-medium attack helicopter has been long hampered by pressures from above and below. From above, the heavier, electronics-rich AH-64 Apache Longbow has pressed – while the RAH-66 Comanche has pressed from beneath. To an extent, some countries might well have shied away from Tiger, believing that with Comanche coming along then why not wait for it to reach full-scale production before buying anything.
But with that option now closed, Tiger is the only model in this market niche. Australia might have well shown the way – but others who might have been waiting to see when Comanche came to fruition might well change their minds. Further, Tiger might have an advantage: it is meant to cover all roles from armed recce to attack, and so could be seen as a multi-capability platform. On the other hand, Comanche was seemingly more of a single-role platform, working as part of a bigger network. For export customers, who can only afford one type of aircraft, this could be key.
Tiger For US Army?
So, if the US Army needs a light armed recce helicopter, one that is essentially off-the-shelf, isn't Tiger a pretty good option? Just look at the specifications of the Tiger and the Comanche:
| COMANCHE | TIGER | |
| Length | 46.78ft | 52ft |
| Width | 39ft | 42ft |
| Height | 11ft | 17ft |
| Empty Weight | 7,765lbs | 6,747lbs |
| Mission Weight | 10,600lbs | 13,227lbs |
Bear in mind, too, that the engines for the two different models – the T800 for the Comanche, the MTR-390 for the Tiger – are peas in a pod power-wise, each putting out between 1200-1500 shaft horse-power. The biggest difference between the two is that Comanche, with extreme emphasis on stealth, is lower than Tiger; Tiger has more emphasis on – and better – optronics, and Tiger can carry more weaponry. But, ultimately, these are nearly twins separated at birth.
Other Options: Might buying Tiger – albeit for local production in the USA – be still a buy too far for US legislators or planners? France is still far from flavour of the month, especially in military circles. Are there other options? Is there any hope for a platform such as the Agusta Westland A-129 Mangusta?
Empty Weight: 5,575lb
Max Take-Off Weight: 9,140 lb
The Mangusta is marginally smaller and has a shorter radius of action. But with regard to speed – an increasingly key feature for this class of helicopter – it is up-to-the-mark with the other two models. That it has an Anglo-Italian label on it might well make it more acceptable than Tiger. It can also be uprated with the T800 engine (a nice US powerplant). But would probably need a great deal of work on the sensor package.
Questions For The UK: What lessons might the British Army take from the Comanche cancellation, especially with regard to the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH) programme? An announcement is due on the way forward with this model "soon" – whatever such a statement now means in the UK. If the US Army feels that it can do without a super-dooper stealthy recce/light attack bird, isn't this an "endorsement" that a further uprated Lynx will suffice?
Potentially, the door into the USA – often seen as closed to European bidders – might be starting to open, much as the US Coast Guard's Deepwater programme allowed a chink to open up too. At this stage of the game, it seems that the US Army may have to look at foreign helicopter designs if it is to meet both the requirements and the timescales laid out. The next year will contain the moment of truth.

.






Copyright(c) 1996 - 2004 Defence Data Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium is prohibited except as provided in the Conditions of Use.The Defence Data logo is the trademark of Defence Data Ltd. Defence Systems Daily, and DSD, are the trademarks of Defence Data Ltd. By using this Web Site, you agree to all of the Conditions of Use.