Aussie Navy getting MRH-90 ??

[tinythom]

Had a phone call from a mate of mine today looking for a job. Apparently he's had enough of sitting around on his a:mad:e at Nowra waiting for a conversion course. He tells me that he's flown less than 150 hrs in 12 months.

The other interesting thing he said was that the Sea Kings are moving up to QLD (not sure if he said Oakey or Townsville) and that the navy was getting the new Eurocopters (NH/MRH-90) instead of the army. I won't bother getting back in the green suit if the army aren't getting their new toys after all :sad:... Unless the army now leap for the M model blackies now:cool:..... That'd be tempting!!:ok:

Anyone else heard this rumour?

[wishtobflying]

I must admit that when the decision was first made to go for MRH-90, my first thought was .... "and the naval version????"

I think the rumour would be unsubstantiated, with the amount of work required to change the order to a marinised version, with all the differences in weatherproofing etc, plus changing the order for the avionics to meet the Navy's ... unique ... requirements would take years.

I would surmise that the more likely discussions being had are along the lines of expanding the order and looking into what would be required to get the Sea Kings replaced sooner than expected, with a product that has spares interchangeable with another services' product.

Besides .... do you really think the crew at Oakey or Townsville want to have to learn how to look after those old grey things? :yuk: :)

[tinythom]

I think the Army always was getting the marinised version ie the MRH-90 not the NH-90 so that they could meet the new amphibious capability plan and tie in with the Navy's acquisition of their new troop ships. And if the plan is to replace the Sea King with them, then they only need to drop in the consoles (unless they're going to be purely in the utility role....).

Been doing some checking around. All of my Navy mates have heard the same thing but no one in Army has heard it, except from their Navy mates.... hmmm:cool: I wonder if it is like the rumour that the old RAAFie rotor heads spread every now and then about Air Force getting the Army RW assets back :p

Besides .... do you really think the crew at Oakey or Townsville want to have to learn how to look after those old grey things? :yuk: :) - I think the Navy would continue to operate the SK - not suggesting that the Army would take them over!

Anyone from Navyation able to confirm/deny/hint??

[wishtobflying]

The MRH ("Multi-Role Helicopter") designation is an Australian-ism I believe - the naval version of the NH-90 is the NFH-90 ("NATO Frigate Helicopter"), and the "other" version is the TTH-90 ("Tactical Transport Helicopter") - see NH Industries website: http://www.nhindustries.com/

But that's just me nit-picking, telling you things you already know, and doesn't mean that our MRH-90's won't be suitably marinised for sea transport (makes sense).

It's interesting to see that most of the pictures of the TTH version on the TTH page of the NHI site (there are lots of the German one in the media gallery) are with the Australian camo paint scheme.

You're scaring me tinythom :D I'm still hoping to be one of the lucky ones to transition to this type in several years time!

[Blackhawk9]

I think it would be a much smarter idea for the RAN to have the NH90 and the Army got M model Blackhawks, the NH90 TTH is the most ordered version even for naval use as most countries ordering the NH90 want the rear ramp, and put palletised mission equip in it as Norway and several other countries are doing , the naval version has no ramp and is optermised for ASW/ASSW, not multi role as much.
If the RAN got the NH 90 you would have an exellent machine based at Nowra to go onto the new Helo Carriers which will be based in Sydney and support 4 RAR the primary unit for maritime and Special Op operations (also the NH90 could operate off the FFG's,FFH's, Oilers and the new DDG's ,its better to have navy crews operating off all these ships instead of trying to train Army crews to do to much) this would then give the navy the SH2GA ,S70B2 for the specialised Navy ops and the NH90 for utility ,Combat SAR,Special Ops, vert rep, etc and the Army with Tiger, UH60M (wishful thinking) and CH47D's, a much better mix for both services and less strain on the support train of each service.

[jessie13]

I can see by the replies that a lot of current miltary pilots are reading this and you would all know that the Navy was always going to get the MRH as part of the rotary aircraft rationalisation program. Every since they argued so much for it for AIR 9000 phase 2 (and hopefully phase 4). For those unaware, this program was supposed to rationalise the amount of airframe types between the Navy and Army, but the Navy want to retain Sea Hawk and Sea Sprite. The grand plan was to have Tigers, MRH and a common training aircraft between the services instead of the 8-9 frames that curently have. The Sally is still a good aircraft, even though its old, and because of a maintenance error, everyone is condeming them. As an ex- Sea King person and now army, I would fly in a Sea King anyday compared to a Black Hawk for reliabilty but I must admit I wish that the Sea King was as crashworthy as the Black Hawk. The MRH will be marinised as part of the project because of the amphibious role that is planned for it. The navy would get a utility version to replace the Sea King because they have no requirement for an ASW version as long as Sea Hawk are around. Just to add to all the rumors, I hear rumblings that UH-1H will get upgraded to last till 2013 instead of 2008. It would be too good to be true. As for the rumors you've been hearing tinythom, I've heard them as well from Nowra and it was quite a surprise when I told some people in Oakey.

[wishtobflying]

Still just a rumour?

From the Townsville Bulletin http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,18161089%255E421,00.html

http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,5109845,00.jpg

Faulty helicopters to be replaced
By Jonathan Porter and Sid Marris
16feb06

THE troubled, ageing Sea King helicopter may be replaced earlier than planned in the wake of the crash on the Indonesian island of Nias that claimed nine Defence Force lives and injured two others last year.

On the same day the inquiry into the crash heard that no pilot could have rescued the plummeting craft after a critical bolt dislodged, the Senate was told the navy would make recommendations on a new machine later this year.

Head of the defence capability development group Lieutenant General David Hurley said a Sea King replacement was part of the larger program to upgrade the defence helicopter fleet.

"We are not to that point to give advice to Government yet, but it will be done this year," he told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra.

A replacement for the Sea King was envisaged over the next 10 years as part of the 2003 Defence Capability Plan, but will now be accelerated.

Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston would not be drawn on when the replacement would happen when asked in Senate estimates hearings yesterday.

But a Defence spokeswoman last night confirmed a decision would be made on the replacement craft this year.

Air Chief Marshal Houston said the European MRH-90, of which a dozen have been ordered for the army, would be one suitable option.

At the inquiry in Sydney into the crash of a Sea King at Nias in January last year, following the Boxing Day Tsunami, one of the nation's top naval aviation test flyers ruled out pilot error as the cause of the crash, which killed nine defence personnel, saying the tragedy was "inevitable" after a 5cm bolt came loose.

The pilots of doomed Sea King helicopter Shark 02 had less than three seconds to save the aircraft, said Tony Baker, who has more than 2000 hours flying helicopters for the Australian, US and Royal navies.

Mr Baker said the crew could "not have averted the inevitable crash".

Crash investigators believe Shark 02 went down because either a defective slit pin was fixed to the bolt, or no split pin was in place at all.

The bolt joined two components in the "broom cupboard" behind the pilots' seats, so-called because it houses a succession of rotor control rods.

Mr Baker said once the bolt had worked loose the control rod would have slipped "under gravity", activating a servomechanism that pitched the helicopter into a nosedive.

"Once that happened there was no way to recover the aircraft because the pilots had no fore and aft control," Mr Baker told the inquiry.

"There is no doubt in my mind that that bolt is most likely the cause (of the crash)."

Mr Baker said the pilots' first reaction would have been to pull back on the joystick. The next would have been to feed more power if any were available to the rotors, or apply collective pitch to the rotors to create more lift.

But with the chopper's nose facing the ground, such an action would "not affect the outcome", he said.

[bockywocky]

In my opinion you are thinking too easy about using the MRH-90 in different roles. I must admit that i do not know the exact configuration of the MRH-90 exactly, but i suppose it resembles the TTH.

In this case be aware, because the standard TTH only has a weather radar that is obviously not suitable for Navy operations (no MTI).

If you look at the NHI website you will find the TTH specialised for land operations with its weather radar, piloting FLIR, digital map, etc. and the NFH specialised for ship operation with its 360 degree radar, normal FLIR, steerable nosegear and decklock and not to forget weapons (!).

By the way, the NFH can also have a rear ramp (the French one does).

[SASless]

Sure is easy to take life for granted when something as simple as a defective split pin...lack of split pin...and a nut working loose can get you? So much for duplicate inspections, preflight inspections, daily inspections and phased inspections I guess.



Crash investigators believe Shark 02 went down because either a defective slit pin was fixed to the bolt, or no split pin was in place at all.
The bolt joined two components in the "broom cupboard" behind the pilots' seats, so-called because it houses a succession of rotor control rods.

Mr Baker said once the bolt had worked loose the control rod would have slipped "under gravity", activating a servomechanism that pitched the helicopter into a nosedive.

"Once that happened there was no way to recover the aircraft because the pilots had no fore and aft control," Mr Baker told the inquiry.

"There is no doubt in my mind that that bolt is most likely the cause (of the crash)."

[maxeemum]

A couple of issues here:

1. Safety management culture
2. redundancy (in this case pitch axis)-Aircaft design
3. supervision and independendants
4. Maintenance culture
5. Availability of spares and life of type projects
6. Adherence to Maintenance manual procedures and OEM
7. Post corrective maintenance test flying and QA of critical flight components post test flight
8. SENJO input and maint release

Q1-Was the maintenance carried out on the said aircaft conducted IAW AAP and Maintenance manual procedures. Was it overseen by a supervisor and was it eventually signed up as serv by the independant? What input did the final QA/SENJO have?

Q2-What sort of post maintenance test flying was carried out for a critical flight control component? Was a maintenance pre flight carried out as opposed to a pilot pre flight? was the test flight carried out IAW with the applicable AAP by qualified Maint test pilots. Did inspections occur prior to buttoning up the Aircraft which made visible inspections valid.

I am not attempting to apportion blame or point fingers or throw stones in glass houses. I am simply throwing out some issues that have been buzzing around my head since the accident of Shark 02.

Maxee.


:\

[Brian Abraham]

maxeemum - check PMs

[international hog driver]

The Aussie MRH-90 is a different bird to the TTH,

At the Paris air show last year I was give the $10 dollar tour of the 1st Swedish NH-90. This is significant because of two things.

1) First “High Cabin” body, about an extra 9in in cabin height if memory serves me right.
2) Almost Identical in cabin config to the MRH-90 I was lead to believe.

Given the level of customisation in avionics the airframes are nearly the same. I would be surprised if the MRH does not have the External tanks, hoist, and Flir as standard.

If the Navy gets them first and paints them grey and send them to sea they will be doing exactly what the army was going to do anyway.

Don’t be surprised if additional airframes are ordered.
Don’t be surprised if the “King” is killed quickly as a political sacrifice.
Don’t be surprised if there is an interim utility bird for the navy……that will some how morph into a combined services twin trainer.

Heard it in several circles now a very long way away from Oz.

[LLSRC]

Just looking at the original thread. From the rumours I have heard out of Nowra, anyone logging 150hrs for the year is doing well. Have heard from a number of places some involved with Seasprite have logged less than 20 hrs in the past year. As for the NH-90 swap for the Seaking, there is lot's of talk but many more hoops to jump before that will be a certainty.