Cost-effective Helo Ops
Hello Men,
Have been off this forum for a year or so and a friend requested I contribute to this thread, so herewith some input.
The major arms manufacturers have been hugely overpricing all of their products and bribing nations into purchases, mainly through industry offset deals. In this murky 'arms bazaar', the outrageous unit costs of hardware and particularly operating costs have been more or less shrugged off by defence planners.
Australia has a 'defence industry policy' not a 'military preparedness policy' because in-service military assets have generally not been progressively optimised to maintain continuous adequate military capacity and credibility. Had Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk all been progressively upgraded, then the ADF could have provided broader integral helo support in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now of course, there are serious force capability gaps.
Lets consider Australian dollar operating costs per flying hour for 2006/07 provided to ASPI by Defence (see ASPI Special Report 21):
RAN Fleet Air Arm: Seahawk - $45,317; Sea King - $23,616; Squirrel - $5,208.
Army Aviation: Blackhawk - $20,659; Iroquois - $7,738; Kiowa - $2,865
The higher than normal Hotel model Iroquois operating costs were explained as due to reduced flying on phase out from service. For comparison, a civilian medevac twin-engine Bell 412 operator provided an hourly cost of $5,755. Bell Helicopter claims single-engine operating costs for Huey II to be 30 percent less than for Hotel model Iroquois so arguably below $5,000 per hour if actively utilised. Who knows what operating costs will be for Tiger, MRH-90, MH-60R, but likely to be prodigious!
Hot and high performance is fundamental in Australia's regional tropical archipelago environs, as for Iraq and Afghanistan, and tropical trialling was once undertaken before aircraft acquisitions were confirmed; but this essential performance requirement was apparently not first validated for Tiger and MRH-90 so what is their capability in this regard? The Huey II can hover in ground effect at maximum operating weight at 12,000 feet in ISA +20C conditions.
The Army media link provided earlier this thread reveals the much increased field support capabilities necessary for Tiger and similarly for Apache wherever operated. The complexity of the MRH-90 and MH-60R will also entail substantial deployment penalties. The RAAF operated the Huey extensively throughout the neighbouring tropical archipelago with just 2 flight fitters, tool-boxes and a few basic spares. Single-engine Huey types can be pretty quickly prepared for C-130 deployment and be assembled again and flying at destination within about one hour. Not that easy for Blackhawk and MRH-90 and if C-17 transportation is necessary, then that becomes expensive.
Army Aviation blundered hugely by shedding the Iroquois sacrificing the most valuable battlefield asset, a light inexpensive proven utility capability with multi-role characteristics. But now, 5 Iroquois will apparently be retained for training and the remainder parked mainly at military base locations for historical purposes, just getting covered in bird****. That is just irresponsible defence planning.
Upgrade of the 20 or so remaining Iroquois to Huey II via the Bell Helicopter factory program would only cost around $40million overall, less than the price of a single Tiger or MRH-90! Better to negotiate a reduction in the order for the flawed MRH-90 and upgrade all Iroquois to Huey II, even if some were stored, because it is very obvious that both the Tiger and MRH-90 will not have the requisite versatility for regional archipelago operations.
If anybody wishes to debate the military capabilities of the Huey II, then let's joust.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 13th Jul 2010 at 01:38.