MRH-90 helicopters for Australia

[SawThe Light]

News is that the Australian Aerospace/Eurocopter MRH-90 has been selected for the additional troop lift helicopter requirement. Seems like a good choice.

News confirmed and initial batch of 12 aircraft announced.

[Time Out]

To provide a few more details:

Govt approves $1b Army chopper squadron

The Federal Government has decided to buy 12 new heavy-lift helicopters for the Army at a total cost of $1 billion.

Prime Minister John Howard says the Government has selected Australian Aerospace, a subsidiary of European defence giant EADS, to supply the Eurocopter MRH 90 helicopters, subject to final negotiations.

The helicopters can carry up to 18 troops and operate from the Navy's amphibious ships.

Mr Howard says the new squadron will be based in Townsville.

The helicopters will be delivered from 2007 and 2008.

"This will bolster not only our troop-lift capacity, because of the state-of-the-art technology associated with the new helicopters, but it will also release a squadron of Blackhawks," Mr Howard said.

"They will be shifted to Sydney to reinforce the ADF's [Australian Defence Force] special forces under the arrangements that were announced some 18 months ago."

Cabinet selected the MRH 90 over the Black Hawk made by US firm Sikorsky.

The new helicopter is expected to double the Army's troop-lift capacity. The MRH 90's ability to operate from naval vessels was a key consideration in awarding the contract.

Australian Aerospace says the MRH 90, known as the NH 90 in Europe, is used for tactical transport army missions, amphibious missions, navy anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare missions from a single platform type.

The helicopters will be manufactured in Europe and assembled in Brisbane.
source (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1188969.htm)

and

Senator the Hon. Robert Hill, Minister for Defence
Leader of the Government in the Senate

Media Release

31 Aug 2004 MIN175/04

NEW HELICOPTERS FOR ARMY

The Australian Army will be equipped with 12 new troop lift helicopters under a $1 billion project approved by the Howard Government, Prime Minister John Howard and Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said the Government had selected Australian Aerospace to supply the new MRH-90 aircraft to form an additional troop lift helicopter squadron, subject to satisfactory conclusion of negotiations.

This will bolster Australia’s counter-terrorism capabilities by releasing a Black Hawk squadron to provide dedicated support to our Special Forces on the east coast.

"The MRH-90 is the new generation of multi-role helicopters, equipped with state-of-the-art technology, a rear ramp that can be used to load small vehicles, a flexible cabin configuration, a full fly-by-wire flight control system and digital cockpit," Senator Hill said.

"The helicopter can carry up to 18 troops plus four crew or 4000kg of underslung cargo, cruises at up to 300kph and has a maximum range of over 900km. It is a fully marinised helicopter that is able to operate from the Royal Australian Navy’s current and future amphibious ships.

"It is purpose-built for amphibious operations and includes extra corrosion protection, folding rotor blades and other enhancements to allow shipboard operations. This will give the Army an enhanced ability to move more soldiers further and faster from our amphibious lift ships, HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, and their replacements.

"The aircraft is certified for ditching and is designed to modern safety standards, including crashworthiness and tolerance to structural and system damage – offering excellent protection for our troops that will be conducting sea and land operations."

Senator Hill said the first helicopter for the new squadron at Townsville would be delivered in 2007, with all 12 aircraft expected to be delivered by 2008.

"The new squadron will increase Army’s troop lift capability by more than half," Senator Hill said.

"This will allow the relocation of a squadron of Black Hawk helicopters to the Sydney area to support the ADF’s Special Forces, further strengthening the Howard Government’s commitment to fighting terrorism.

"The Black Hawk squadron will be located near our Special Forces soldiers that are based at Holsworthy and will enhance mobility and training effectiveness for this critical capability.

"The Howard Government has committed more than $1.3 billion to the Australian Defence Force to fight the war against terrorism since 11 September 2001. This project will mean our Special Forces are better equipped to respond swiftly to any terrorist threat or incident."

Senator Hill said the project would also provide a substantial boost for Australian industry.

"The purchase of these new helicopters will include a support contract that may last for up to 20 years, and the overall Australian industry component of this project is expected to exceed $300 million," Senator Hill said.

"Benefits are expected to build on Australian Aerospace’s industry commitment developed as part of project AIR 87 and the delivery of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, the Eurocopter Tiger. Opportunities for Australian industry are anticipated in helicopter assembly, common and similar aircraft systems, avionics equipment, structural and engine technologies and training systems."

Images (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Aug/310804.cfm)

[capt.sparrow]

Now that Australia has selected the MRH90 will New Zealand order the same as Huey replacements or will their government continuing delaying the replacement ?

[RobboRider]

One of the problems with the UH1H as I recall from my days as a grunt (infantryman) in the early 1980s was that they couldn't carry a full infantry section (Aust section = 10 men when at full strength). They carried about 8 fully kitted out troops. So you had to have a helo and a half to carry a section or three to carry two sections.

That proved a logistic problem especially when you wanted the two sections to be landed at different places. The sort of excercise that had the potential for stuff ups etc. Dopey digger getting off at the wrong stop, half the section there and under strength due to delays in the second helicopter etc.

When we got blackhawks the whole section could be lifted in each machine and solved the problem.

Now we go back to the same problem but on the next scale up. Now we can fit 1.8 sections not 2 sections in each helicopter and have to have a second to load the last two blokes.

I'm not saing they aren't a better machine from a pilots, or store carriers perspective but I wonder if the old problem has been missed by some too-young-to-know type person.

[gadgetguru]

don't think i ever saw a full strength section during my (10yrs) service :E

problem solved? :}

[rjsquirrel]

The US Army special ops people solved the size problem in Hawks by removing all the seats and sitting 25 on the floor. The aircraft has the lift, and it seems silly to sit people on crashworthy seats on their way to a fire fight, where they will get shot at by folks who think the safety of thier enemy is not top priority!

The scenes from Black Hawk Down show this method, which also de-planes fast.

[RobboRider]

Gadgetguru

don't think i ever saw a full strength section during my (10yrs) service

Yeah I have to admit as I was writing that post I was thinking the same sort of thing. ;)
But we had them up to strength just enough times that it came back to mind.

[derangedrover]

Gday all,
Firstly, congratulations to all on a fantastic site and resource for information.

Secondly, my apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I am unable to start a new thread in the appropriate (military aircrew) section, or find any information using the search function.

My question is, does anyone have first hand or reliable information about who will be piloting the MRH90's and Tiger's that the Australian Army is aquiring, ie will existing Blackhawk and Kiowa crews move across to the new aircraft, or will the next generation of pilots coming through their training move into these aircraft?

Thanks for any information.

Daryl.

[Aussie Shaun]

Daryl, the short answer is Army pilots will. Of course there will be those that say you have to have twin experience and a million hours b4 having the honour of crewing the new aircraft, however, when it comes down to it, it will be bums on seats. Of course the prority will be for Blackhawk/Ch47 drivers from Townsville with a splatter of laterals from the UK etc in the same way that Tiger will be Kiowa crews. It is also pretty clear that newly qualified aircrew will qualify on both types too.

Strange that you ask on this forum. Why not call the boys at DACI, Oakey? or OC A at Townsville? I'm sure you'll get all form the horses mouth!!!

Shaun :ok:

[Freestream]

I thought the first 8 are destined for the Navy to replace the Sea King could be wrong:confused:

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Yeah apparently NZ has decided to buy a handful of NH-90s as well.
Thats two dumb helicopter ideas in a row now for the kiwis.
They have also decided to buy A109s for.. pilot training!

And why, well because aussie bought the Seasprites so NZ did too and aussie bought the '90s so they did as well and then aussie decided to help pilot retention by giving their boys a A109 sqn and so NZ did that too.
Who learns on A109s?? even the poms train on Astars first.

And whats wrong with a Blackhawk to replace the hueys, Sikorsky have just got a contract to make another 1100 of them so theyre going to be around for years yet.
And the NH90, well knowing the airforce 40% of them will be U/S at any one time so there will be about 3 on line on any given day....
Typical dumb kiwi military purchase ....again...

[Heli-kiwi]

Not to mention the flying budget changes, I think the Airforce are in for a shock when they realise that keeping all those pilots current to todays standards just may not be possible even on triple the budget.
At least if we have problems getting the fleet to work we won't just scrap it all and start again :E

[If all else fails]

TTBB. Clearly you have an axe to grind ("knowing the airforce") Suggestion is that the A109LUH cockpit (MFD's, FMS, 4 axis AP) alone justifies the selection as a lead-in trainer for NH90 simply for the potential saving of training hours on the larger airframe. As a tax payer I can appreciate that. Press releases did not seem to suggest the A109E was ever in contention with the Kiwis, I think it was between the EC635 and A109LUH. So it seems disingenuous to the say they chose 109's because Oz did?

[Aussie Shaun]

Freestream.
You are sort of right the first operational MRH will be with the RAN, however, the first 2 are delivered for training and 02 has Navy written on the tail and 03 has Army. I know that its just paint but there will be a bit of a share going on to set up the training system in Townsville. At this point in time the aircraft are identical depite the role.

TTBB
Hadn't heard that Aus had gone for A109, jungle drums havn't got this far yet!!

[Turkeyslapper]

I think the 109s are used by the RAN as a motivational tool to help keep young pilots (and QFIs) interested while they wait for a conversion onto an operational type.

[busdriver02]

just goes to show you, pilots like the Blackhawk.

[baffler15]

just goes to show you, pilots like the Blackhawk.

Absolutely! And don't you think it would have made sense to upgrade to a helicopter that flies just like the one we're already used to, only better? Or one that our coalition partners are used to? Maybe even one that is actually proven on the modern battlefield? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Could have gone with the Mike, but we went for a left-handed European bag instead.......:yuk: Why aren't any of the line drivers consulted when these sorts of decisions are made?:hmm:

The Baffler :ok:

[Turkeyslapper]

Good, proven robust acft you can throw at the ground that aircrew, tradies etc know...got to be joking.

Throw in an assembly line here in Oz, plus one for EC120 or 30 and a few jobs created...you do the math!

turkey

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

"So it seems disingenuous to the say they chose 109's because Oz did?"

Youre right theres absolutely no connection...
Australia Seasprite, NH-90, A109
NZ Seasprite, NH-90, A109

Total coincidence!
Name one other country that bought these 3 types recently...anyone?

Wait for the NH-90 job to go over budget, ask anyone who operates european helicopters, the deal was $780 million and theres only 8 of them and then they had to get 5 A109s to train on as well as a flight simulator for , just for the A109!!
Who trains ab-initio helicopter pilots in a A109? You think thats going to be cheap??

Should have bought Blackhawks.
And thats from a tax payer

[Trojan1981]

The RAN Seasprites are very different to New Zealand's. They are likely to be on the fireground soon anyway:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23135758-31477,00.html

The A109s are there so that RAN aircrew have something to fly. This apears to be an effort to stop those pilots who have completed their ROSO fm departing for greener pastures and to give those still locked in some flying experience and training.

[Blackhawk9]

Have heard from a couple of guys both in and ex the system the MRH90 is not up to expectations, Floor easily damaged , not up to handling wear and tear of combat troops, can't open ramp in flight , only one soldier on ramp at time on ground (just what you need in a combat zone!!, restricted loading of ramp (have to use spreader boards so as not to damage ramp if loading trailers etc), no storage of equip on ramp when closed-big wasted area in cabin!, cannot open sliding doors in flight (in a combat zone i'd want the bloody doors open to get out in a hurry!)(also can't have doors open in spec ops to fast rope teams into targets), can only open R/H door in a hover to use hoist must be closed for fwd flight, very little ground clearance under A/C (should keep the composite guys busy with repairs when they go bush), limited engine power -the engine control system of the RTM322 will only give you 100% power even if the engine could give you more (hot and high i'd want every bit of power the engines will give me), with tricycle U/C very high chance of tail strike in tactical flying, Limited field of fire with side guns (a/c was not designed initialy to have door/side guns ), what a great A/C a stepup up from the Blackhawk!!! I think not! The UH60-M can do all the things i've listed the MRH90 can't! (except ramp) and it can't carry 20 troops ,but its no use having 20 troops on board if your delivery A/C can't do the job.

Have also heard the NAVY are trying to give there MRH 90's to the ARMY as they don't want them ,hoping to get 6-8 MH60-R's/S-70B's and 6-8 MH60-S's instead and have an all 60 series helos and T-700 engines, let the ARMY operate 4 differant types and 4 differant engines!

I can see another Seasprite saga with the MRH90 and its new!! for the ARMY's sake and the poor grunts or specops in the back and the Taxpayer I hope not.

[Dan Reno]

Gee, what a surprise.

[bladebanger]

Please tell me that the same fools who ordered the seasprite are not the same fools who are ordering these new aircraft. Just glad to be a tax payer in this country at the moment.

Banger

[jessie13]

We've all seen and said it before with almost all the aircraft introduced over the last few years (haven't heard anything bad about C-17 yet). Some people are opposed to new aircraft before they even have a chance to enter operational service and prove themselves. Can anyone thing of an aircraft the ADF has got in the last 20 years that someone hasn't bitched about. We all seem to have short memories when it comes to new aircraft. I personally like Black Hawk but I haven't forgotten the serviceabilty problems, corrosion problems of Sea Hawk, canopy cracking of Squirrels and numerous other problems which have plagued the rotary wing fleet over the years. You just need to look into the history of some of the greatest aircraft of the past (F-14, F-111) and even in the recent past like V-22 and see the problems that these aircraft had through development but how good an aircraft they turned out to be. Who wouldn't defend the F-111, who would say something bad about the F-14, and god forbid, who doesn't still bag the F/A-18 purchase all those years ago. I suppose that in our rotary wing world in the ADF that we expected Apache or Cobra over Tiger, or I would have liked Black Hawk, EH101 over MRH90 (I'm sure the Navy would have for Sea King replacement). I know some of the ex-RN types I've worked with says that Lynx pisses over Sea Hawk, but is that based on fact or the love of you favourite aircraft. My lovely Hueys are gone and I wished the wrath of God onto the Defence Minister for not replacing them with UH-1N's but I sort of knew that the day would come and my last wish of ferrying pilots out after the disposal of Black hawks into the desert would not happen. My time in the RAN, I loved my UH-1B and my Sea King but lots of people bagged them, I suppose you really need to work on or fly the aircraft to like them and if it isn't one you don't fly, its open season. I can recall many a time at Oakey were Black Hawk Loadmasters always bagged Iroquois Loadmasters about their crappy old aircraft BUT always had a little smile and laugh when some of these guys had to then fly in Iroquois and after a while did not want to go back to Black Hawk. I suppose the point is that lets try to keep emotions and bias out of our opinions to other aircraft and give them a bit of time to prove themselves, it'll all work out in the end (sssshh, don't mention Sea Sprite!).

[imabell]

i heard a rumour that the navy can't use them because the powers that be forgot to order them with blade folding kits, a 300,000,000 dollar mistake.

then there is the tiger, what a disaster.

[bladebanger]

With all due respect. I'm a tax payer and don't want to pay more for bungles these fools make.

Graham, how much do you think these tiger problems are going to cost to fix. I have heard in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

Banger

[Cyclic Hotline]

What was the German Navy experience with the 90?

I understood they cancelled their order.

[scran]

Imabell:

That rumour is utter crap!!!


Give yourself an uppercut!!! :ouch:

[What Red Line?]

imabell

The thread was supposed to be bagging the NH 90 wasn't it, not bagging the procurement folks. If you can't think of anything really bad to add about the helicopter, get in touch with Blackhawk9, he seems to have all the good goss directly from the NH 90 operators.

b'banger and imabell,

Are you free to let us all know the Tiger "disaster"? I've heard that Army don't have enough crew to fly most of them, is that the disaster? Or are the "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" for blade folding kits?

We're tax-payers too and we rely on you folks who really know the facts to let the rest of in on the goings-on that cost us hard-earned dosh. Be aware that its the facts we need though. Yeah we know it's a rumor network but . . . .

[imabell]

scran,

whack,ooww, now my jaw hurts:ok::}

[Blackhawk9]

imabell the Germans may not have cancelled the NH 90 but the Norwegians cancelled the option for 10 SAR NH 90s as the didn't meet requirements only went with the initial order of 14 ,6 x ASW ,8 x Coast guard, The S-92 is favorite to get the SAR contract and the army would like Blackhawks to replace the B412's not NH 90's.

[Urshtnme]

emergov (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=99647) is spot on with all of those statements and I'll back him up on that!

Blackhawk9, make sure you get better info next time cause it sounds like everything you're on about is nothing but a 3rd hand **** buzz.

[sagy34]

Emergov,

Pretty big call there:ok:

Can't recall any black hawk tail rotor strikes onto the ground, and pretty certain that I recall a conversation with the engineer that brought the demo over that went somthing like "No we don't have a plan for where to fit door guns as the original design did not specify them":ugh:

Could be wrong, as old age kicks in, but I doubt it:E

Sag On

[emergov]

I don't think the possibility of putting the tail rotor into the ground is sufficient grounds to assume the MRH 90 will never be a suitable aircraft for troop lift. Black hawks have had numerous stab strikes, however, and have put the tail into the trees on least one, highly public occasion. I think the furthest you could go on this line is that if you deliberately look to touch down with the tail first, then you need a tailwheel. If you haven't got one, you fly a different profile. the tail rotor on MRH 90 does not extend below the bottom of the boom. Cue endless arguments about dust landings, fast approaches etc. Merlin has a nose wheel, and they're doing quite well in the sand pit, I hear.

The chap you were talking to may have been referring to the number of options being presented by NHI for door gun mounting - central to the doors, offset in the doors, on the ramp, or in an enlarged rear window. If you as a customer didn't ask for door guns, you didn't get them. The ADF had door guns as a primary requirement, and they were offered from the outset.

[slow n low]

I have to say I am with you emergov..:D

I had my attitudes to MRH changed recenty when the FACTS were presented to me. Keep in mind that there a hundreds of other issues being played out behind the scenes by some very intelegent and experiencd people. Heaven forbid there are even some ex Blackhawk crew amongst them...:E

The aircraft is here to stay, we just addapt our TTP,s to make it work.

I dare say we have some very cleaver folks in the SPO's as well. If one particular part is not quite right for the needs of the day, we will find a way around it. ;)


Give the thing a chance.

[Homers_love_child]

Emergov,

One note – you assume that a Black Hawk pilot would want a lift back from the bone yard. No self-respecting BH pilot would be seen dead in a Huey and would rather crawl back……….

[SASless]

CH-53's have been around since Vietnam years and are still going strong.....all of them have nose wheels.

Shame you got the 90 and not the 53 however.

[Dan Reno]

"The MRH 90 has been in Australia for 6 months. The Blackhawk has been here for 20 years - and all of the issues you talk about were solved in Blackhawk during that time. MRH 90 will be in service for 30 years. Full capability isn't planned until 2015."

Shouldn't whatever helo is about to replace the old be better, more capable and last longer than what it replaces? And another SEVEN years until it's ready to be held accountable ? And then it is schedule for retirement 15 years later? It doesn't sound like a step forward on most accounts which the BH was when it replaced the Huey.

[Max Dover]

Emergov -

Do the MRH90s going to the Navy have blade-folding kits? If so how much did that afterthought option cost the taxpayer?

[Blackhawk9]

emergov and others,
I was one of the crew who assenbled A25-101 (first Aussie Black hawk)at Amberley in 1988 I did time on Iroquios ,Chinooks ,Kiowas and Blackhawks with RAAF and Army units, mates who I worked with then ,when I was in are still in now and are of significantly higher rank than ab's,sargents or lieutenant when I have a beer with them I get the goss , I also worked in Europe and saw alot of the specs on the NH 90 for the Nordic Helo program and alot of the things we got on our MRH90's where NOT in the original design spec., yes we are stuck with the MRH90 and Tiger and we will make them work but why do we make it so bloody hard on ourselves when if we bought UH60-M Blackhawks we wouldn't have to modify the A/C to make the bloody thing work or build new hangars as the MRH90 won't fit in B/hawk hangars/carports or train crews/techos /stores etc from scratch , the MRH 90 will be a good helo but how many millions more over the actual a/c cost will it cost us in support ,building etc to bring it on line when for the same TOTAL cost how many UH60-M's could we have got .

And the Tiger is even worse!! basic cost of 22 Tigers plus cost of intergrating Hellfire system(French are saying thankyou Australian Army we now have the Hellfire System to sell as an option to other operators and the intergration it didn't cost us a cent!!), plus cost of bigger engines as the Tiger can't hover in Darwin with full fuel and Weapon load ,plus cost of partical seperators which takes away the power margines the bigger engines gave us and higher fuel burn of bigger engines give less range , lot of thinking went into buying this gem!! and for all that TOTAL cost we could have had 24 AH64-D in service now.But it is a step up from a Kiowa for Recce!

The one good think at least we bought more Chinooks and hope we buy more at least the Chooks will keep going when the Eurocrap breaks!

[fleebag]

And the Tiger is even worse!! basic cost of 22 Tigers plus cost of intergrating Hellfire system(French are saying thankyou Australian Army we now have the Hellfire System to sell as an option to other operators and the intergration it didn't cost us a cent!!), Not true, CoA can receive royalties!plus cost of bigger engines as the Tiger can't hover in Darwin with full fuel and Weapon load ,plus cost of partical seperators which takes away the power margines the bigger engines gave us and higher fuel burn of bigger engines give less range , lot of thinking went into buying this gem!! and for all that TOTAL cost we could have had 24 AH64-D in service now.But it is a step up from a Kiowa for Recce!
Not true, the increased power is for the power margin only. The ARH meets the hover requirements and it the engine mods do not decrease range.

How late was the UK apache program running, 6 years! ARH is also now off the DMO hit list.http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Combettpl.cfm?CurrentId=7756

The one good think at least we bought more Chinooks and hope we buy more at least the Chooks will keep going when the Eurocrap breaks!

[spanner90]

Two questions.

1. Can the MRH90 fly with full (ie 100%) fuel, and max internal and external load?

2. How many MRH90's will fit in an LPA hangar, compared to S70 (both folded)?

As I understand, the acft is weight limited when put to the test, and from my calculations the footprint is larger than a Blackhawk, even when folded.

These are not necessarily "war-stoppers" but perhaps operational considerations that commanders need to bear in mind.

Look forward to unbiased, factual responses.:)

[pohm1]

Look forward to unbiased, factual responses

You'll be lucky :ok:

P1

[Blackhawk9]

fleebag the UK Apaches run RTM 322 engines not GE T700's and other UK mods they are not AH64-D's , the poms are as bad as us can't leave the bloody thing alone look at the Mk 3 Chinook, all most operators want is a multi use common airframe , not a highly modified hybrid no one else operates , look at us the S70A-9 (yes my favorite is a bitsa!), S70B-2, the Seasprite,Tiger and MRH90 at least the Chinooks are almost the same as a factory standard airframe

[baffler15]

How many MRH90's will fit in an LPA hangar, compared to S70 (both folded)?

Who cares? By the time they're ready to even try amphibious ops, we'll have the LHDs. Maybe......:ugh:

The Baffler :ok:

[emergov]

Blackhawk9:
The NH 90 basic design was offered with a number of options, like engines, comms, ramp, Top Owl, FLIR and a host of others. The airframes are either the TTH variant (ours), the nordic high roof vaiant or the NFH variant (with provision for search radar etc). The MRH 90 for the ADF has very few Australian unique options - mainly radios and ICS fit and door gun configuration. All the other stuff is the same role equipment as designed for other countries.

yes we are stuck with the MRH90 and Tiger and we will make them work - you are on the money there. The challenges will be different, probably greater, but there are a lot of dedicated people working hard to make it work.

The MRH 90 does fit in the Blackhawk shelters it's just that bigger concrete pads were required on the floor. The decision to buy MRH 90 was made on the basis of more bums on seats per acft, and getting an acft at the start of its design life. It will be OK.

[Max Dover]

Emergov -

So the Navy boys will be trying to secure the blades manually on a rolling heaving deck in a storm. Outstanding.

Totaly ill-conceived waste of the tax-payer's money.

I am also led to believe that the entry level training helicopter for up and coming new MRH90 and Tiger pilots is going to be either EC135/A109 twins as we no longer need to teach them how to fly just twiddle knobs and wear funny looking flying fish bowl helmets.
You have got to be joking :ugh::ugh:

[John Eacott]

So the Navy boys will be trying to secure the blades manually on a rolling heaving deck in a storm. Outstanding.

How did they manage for all those years, folding the Whirlwind and Wessex blades before auto blade fold was developed ;)

Ducking around the storms, leveling the heaving and rolling deck :p

[spanner90]

Emergov, you seem to know what your talking about (thank you).

Supplementary question...

The goal of a helmet manufacturer is to reduce the weight as much as possible, ideally below 1kg, while still retaining the protective capability for bird strike, accident, etc. So how much does the ARH/MRH helmet weigh, with the II tubes and the daylight cameras? Is there any thought that this may cause concern for some pilot demographics?

Second supplementary question...

Is there any polyamide insulation (Kapton) in either the ARH or MRH? If so, should Aus require this to be replaced to comply with ADF standards?

[emergov]

There is no Kapton in the MRH 90. A couple of other nations also specified this mod for their NH 90.

I don't know how heavy the TopOwl is, but any extra weight over a standard helmet would be to project flight symbology or FLIR images on the visor. I'm not sure if the IIT are removed for day flight. For NVG ops, which is bread and butter for troop lift missions, the placing of the IIT on TopOwl is supposed to give better weight distribution than having the tubes located in front of the eyes. There is also no requirement for a battery pack and counterweights as used with an ANVIS setup.

[Homers_love_child]

Hey emergov,

you seem a wealth of knowledge of all things MRH-90. I dont want to go on about the tendering process as that is been bashed to death and we are stuck with what we signed up to pay for. However, I have always wondered about the crashworthiness of the MRH-90. The Black Hawk is an excellent aircraft with respect to survivability (ask anyone involved in Aust Army Aviation for the last 20 years). The majority of the impact attenuation is due to the fixed undercarriage and the seats. With the retractable wheels of the 90, what is the survivability claimed to be?

HLC

[emergov]

Hi HLC,

I agree that the Blackhawk is probably second to none for crash survivability. The MRH 90 has been certified to FAR29 standards, and I haven't seen any specs or details on what that means for crash protection. It does have crashworthy, stroking seats for all occupants.

If the wheels are up there would be little attenuation from them in the event of a crash. I know that some operators of Puma leave the wheels down for that reason. I'm afraid I don't know much else about this aspect of the aircraft. The MLG struts are quite substantial when you look at them behind the cabin wall.

[Ian Corrigible]

The UH-60M Block II will itself be moving to a composite cabin in the 2013 timescale, likely predicated on technologies developed under the SARAP program, so it looks like crashworthy composite structures are the future.

I/C