Hello Felix; re your post #329.
Many seem somewhat aligned with the DoD 'group think' mindset wherein Australia should just continue to cast aside useful platforms despite manufacturer upgrade programs enabling continuing operational application by other operators worldwide. Shedding capable proven hardware stems from the central plank of defence policy being support of largely foreign-parented defence industry through generating highly expensive projects for new dubious merit platforms and associated imprudent whole of life support contracts. Maybe $7billion or more has been/is being foolishly squandered on needless helo acquisitions when military requirements could have been adequately satisfied via cost-effective upgrade programs.
If platforms like C-130H, Caribou, Iroquois, Kiowa continue to provide adequate military capabilities in operational theatres, then why does Australia continue with its longstanding folly of virtually giving away such assets in lieu of optimising them at modest cost and/or putting them into dry climate storage, as happens in the US? And how can DoD justify shedding say Iroquois and then lease civil versions to do functions once performed by ADF assets?
Both the Iroquois and Kiowa are aircraft from another, simpler era - neither are suited to the needs of today's ADF. The Kiowa is not currently fit for purpose even as a trainer because it cannot be legally flown in IF conditions.
Worldwide utilisation of Iroquois and Kiowa platforms is very strong with service life expectancy forseeably unlimited due to long range supportability. Use of upgraded platforms is broadening around the world due to proven reliability and cost-effectiveness.
A year or so back, a MinDef Advisor (minder) informed me that the Huey II Iroquois would no longer meet DoD crashworthy standards. How absurd, when numbers in service are increasing and they are now being utilised by multiple law enforcement and emergency services agencies in the US. An overemphasis on OH&S requirements in military planning will become hugely costly and limit the flexibility of the ADF. See the overview at this link regarding enhancement features for the USAF TH-1H (Huey II) including the latest multi-function cockpit displays and avionics enhancements plus improved crashworthiness (all at unit cost of only $2million) - to remain in service until 2025 on present planning: TH-1H Iroquois (Huey)
Regarding basic helo training, the Kiowa is widely utilised for this purpose with recce versions also operated at night by other armed forces. Seemingly, DoD now considers the ADF must conform with civil aviation IFR requirements. Intent to acquire an expensive twin-engined training aircraft/LUH for this purpose can only be considered needless extravagance.
You aren't seriously suggesting that the Government should look at placing ARH & MRH-90 in storage are you?? Personally I think both types were horrendous mistakes but no Government is going to park a billion-plus dollar (?) capability in the shed.
Yes; I certainly am suggesting putting ARH & MRH90 in storage. Operating costs for the ADF will soar and I foresee shrinking of some functions for all 3 arms. The ARH does not have the versatility/flexibility of the Bushranger platform which could be configured as required to conduct an occasional weapons camp, so the aircraft could still be mainly employed in utility roles. In a low threat scenario, boring costly holes in the sky with the ARH is going to be hard to justify.
Problems with the MRH90 seem far from resolved and even whether it would be justifiable accepting all 46 aircraft in such circumstances. Better to freeze the project, bring all the Blackhawk fleet up to the same modification status and perhaps put any MRH90 into storage. The alternative is to do nothing and keep on squandering funding allowing the utility helo capability to further diminish.
TBM-L contends no amount of logic will stop the plan in motion. Well; there will have to be some tough decisions made re ADF structuring as economic constraints tighten over the next decade and that will require some open-minded thinking. As General Peter Leahy recently intimated, there is no point in trying to progress extravagant planning if funding will not be available; so it remains to be seen what unfolds over the next year or so.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 13th Aug 2012 at 06:10.
Reason: Omissions