its the element of surprise.
they know that if they have to ever fight a middle eastern tyrant or a columbian drug cartel they'll probably have bought all their hardware off america.

Um Yeahh, Lupe stick to your political commentary, no that it's much better.

The main thing that sold the government on the Eurocopter was that fact that one crashed from around 1000 feet, and both people onboad walked away from it during the trials when all the various tenders were showing of their stuff.

One would think crashing during a sales promo would be a bad thing, but the fact that the pilots lived sealed the deal.

The Australian military is very small and has extremely limited funds. The spend a lot of money training their people, and place a very high emphasis on survivability when making procurement decisions. This is the same reason why there are hardly any single engine aircraft in the Australian inventory - at least if one fails, you have a backup - or thats the idea.

Couple quick comments.

Lupe - Hate to burst your bubble, but Australia, although they do buy a lot of US weapons/platforms, they also do quite a bit of business with Germany and the UK, as well as manufacture their own weapons.

I don't think that Australia's budget/military is as small as you may think. They have 4,321,387 people fit for service and a budget of $9.3 billion. (CIA Factbook). This number is almost directly proportional to the UK's manpower and budget, both of which are close to three times larger.

Originally posted by FreeMasonThe Apache can survive a drop from 10,000 feet if it could get up that high...the reason the helicopters suvive the falls is because when you are "crashing" you release the rotors so that they spin freely...like a "helicopter" seed when you drop it it spins.

This is the technique called "autorotation": By releasing the rotors from the engine, the fall through the air will cause them to spin loosely & build up speed/momentum. As the pilot nears the ground (400-500' or so is optimal in most atmospheric conditions), he pulls back on the yoke to change the pitch on the rotor assembly as if he wanted to climb up...If the rotors have enough momentum going, it will generate just enough lift so that the chopper can land instead of crash. It's as much the skill of the pilot as it is the helicopter itself...The biggest thing is not to panic & forget to disengage the rotors, then figure out the best altitude & timing to pull back on the yoke. Initial altitude before the engine slows down & stops the rotors is the most important thing...If the chopper isn't high enough, then the free-spinning rotors are less likely to have built up sufficient momentum to land safely.

I am an Australian who i like to think keeps up with what is going on in out nations defence forces. I knew about the program to replace the Kiowas and personaly i belived the Apache was a better helicopter. However it cost such a huge amount per unit compared to many others that we as such a small nation simply cant afford it. One also has to question what is the helicopter going to be used for in the new world. Certainly not going up against a Hind or tank convy like we would have expected twenty years ago. It will more likely be operating as a scout aircraft.

Kiowa ? The Kiowa is not the military version from the civil Bell Jet Ranger ???

Yes it is the Bell Kiowa is a jetranger essentialy

Originally posted by dellarb
Yes it is the Bell Kiowa is a jetranger essentialy

So, why do you want to replace the Kiowa by the Apache ? They have differents purposes. You need both of them, not just one of them.

Because the Kiowas are getting old and in the ADF we dont have the money to have 18 different helicopters we have black hawks as utility and kiowas as scout/light attack. Rather then get another like the apache in addition we decided to get rid of the kiowas to get things straight.

And yes i know we do have a few chinooks and the navy has seahawks and squirrels

PAH-2 Tiger > AH-64 Apache

EF-2000 EuroFighter Typhoon > F-22 Raptor

eurofighter is a piece of trash, su-30 can take it, i dont think that the eurofighter can be compared to f22

Originally posted by SectorGaza
eurofighter is a piece of trash, su-30 can take it, i dont think that the eurofighter can be compared to f22

Yeah, the typhoon is much better

saw this on the news about a week ago, dont know much about them but an upgrade is always welcome if it means a safer country.

Originally posted by DarkSide
PAH-2 Tiger > AH-64 Apache

EF-2000 EuroFighter Typhoon > F-22 Raptor

I dont really know that much about the PAH-2 Tiger but from what little I have read about it I would take a KA-50 Black shark any day over it if.

As for the EF vs the F-22 even the official EF sales site admits the F-22 is a better plane. So I dont know how you could make such a claim.

I'd proably say it has to do more with mobility, scouting and costs rather than expensive bulky troops carrying, etc