correct as-is The AH-64D is it that bad?

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

With all respect to our NATO Allies in Europe, and to our Pacific allies, Australia's decision on AH-64D/E , which I agree with, has more to do with interoperability with Australia's prime  allies. UK and US.  Both UK and US operate AH-64D and AH-64E (which India ordered). AU operates UH-60L/M as does US . All three operate CH-47 family. Japan ordered license built AH-64D later upgraded to E. Singapore and Taiwan (ROC) ordered the platform. 

Tiger is a COSMIC helicopter. It has earned a good availability and lethality (to enemy) in AfPak and African theaters. Going from French assessments.

Its lethality wasn't being questioned, it's sustainment costs were.  And the sustainment and maintenance costs were a significant reason cited by the Australian government as a reason to divest the type in favor of the AH-64.  The very nature of the Apache being in use across a much broader community also serves to drive its maintenance costs down. Often the case for aircraft selection among nations with smaller defense budgets are long-term cost commitments, not simply what capability it has.

Not saying the Tiger is a bad helicopter, but buying or leasing them as any interim solution to a role that can easily be fulfilled to the same extent as the Apache makes no fiscal sense.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Raptor9