End of Hueys for the Australian Army

[tinythom]

Very reliable source informs me that the days of the Huey in the Australian Defence Force are numbered!

Last week, the chief of staff at the aviation training centre called a meeting and told everyone that effective immediately, there was no more UH-1H operations in the Australian Army. The order was rescinded exactly 60 mins later when it was pointed out that there was no other aircraft type available for crewman training, search and rescue, or the other multitude of tasks that the huey performs. Unbelievable that an announcement of such magnitude could be made in error.

The latest scuttlebutt is that all operations are to cease at the end of the year with the aircrew to receive Blackhawk conversions.

[topendtorque]

Oh yeah, until the next big flood somewhere!

do not fear, one will be left. I heard the other night that tricky dicky has donated one big one to enthrall chopper lovers every day they visit the Canberra war museum.
envisaged is a huey on permanant display like the Lancaster???

[Ascend Charlie]

There is already a Huey in the AWM - Bravo model 1019, which did its time in Vietnam, and then as a trainer for RAAF pilots, and then as the SAR bird at Williamtown and other bases.

I also believe that the 9 Sqn Association is on the lookout for an H model to keep in flying condition at Temora.

[topendtorque]

AC
Easily stand corrected, the loot, one big mil as i understood, may have been for a new structure to house it?????????????? came in on the tail end of the story.

[Arm out the window]

Many reliable sources have said the same thing in the past ... as long as they're running well and there's enough spares, they'll do a good job.

Maybe it's actually true this time - if so, what an innings.

[B Sousa]

As the saying goes. When the Blackhawks go to the Boneyard, the crews will be flown home in a Huey..............

[maxeemum]

And for more excitement lets replace the Black Hawk fleet with MRH-90

obviously new shiny things are sooooooooooooooo much better?

Max

:{

[tinythom]

Nope, perhaps the rumours of the huey's imminent passing are greatly exaggerated after all because the army will have to resurrect the gunship capability if this is anything to go by. What a fantastic state of affairs.

Defence pays for toothless Tigers
Ross Peake
Wednesday, 3 May 2006

The Defence Department has quietly sidestepped contracts to allow it to accept a new breed of helicopter with numerous faults.
The secret deal was revealed yesterday in a damning report by the Auditor-General which said a Defence test pilot recommended the French-built Tiger helicopter not be accepted from the manufacturer on safety grounds.
In an extraordinary development, Defence said it knew the aircraft had about 70 defects, including being under-powered, but paid the full price.
The first test aircraft had to be temporarily grounded and has now been sent back to the workshop for a nine-month refit.
The Tiger has major problems with its electronics systems which means it cannot yet operate at night or in bad weather in Australian civil aviation airspace.
The helicopter's engine does not deliver enough power to carry the four Hellfire missiles specified by Defence.
The bungle occurred when the contractor assumed Australia would use a lighter version of the missiles, the report reveals.
The cost of replacing the engines will be at least $110 million.
The $1.5billion purchase of the 22 armed reconnaissance helicopters is Defence's largest spending project this financial year. The heavily armed aircraft provides aerial reconnaissance and fire support to ground troops.
It carries two crewmen, has extremely accurate nose cannon and can fire rockets and the Hellfire missiles.
The first four aircraft were delivered from France; the rest are being manufactured in France and assembled in Brisbane.
The first Australian-assembled Tiger was delivered amid much fanfare last July.
However, it could not be flown for three weeks because its computer software had not been approved for use.
The Defence Materiel Organisation comes in for sustained criticism in the report.
The purchase of the aircraft was based on the notion they were "off the shelf" working models, representing a low risk to Defence of cost overruns or technical glitches.
However, Australia appears to have been the first customer for the high-tech machine. The French Government accepted its first production aircraft in March last year, four months after Defence, the report says.
The original cost estimates were "immature" and exposed Defence to significant future budgetary risks.
The 105-page report from the Australian National Audit Office shows bungles at every stage of the project.
The DMO shortened the tender evaluation process for the complex project from six months to six weeks, and did not write a report to summarise and record the evaluation process.
Defence accepted the first two of the four French-built aircraft using a "draft procedure", the report says.
"These aircraft were accepted from the contractor on schedule in December 2004 with known technical, operational and managed airworthiness limitations," the report says.
"The ANAO was informed that it is the DMO's practice to accept deliverables with contractual shortfalls and operational limitations, on a risk managed basis, to progress Defence specific training and testing activities, to deliver the required operational capability."
A Defence test pilot and flight engineer who flew the first aircraft off the Brisbane assembly line said it should be rejected.
"The Defence test team stated ... a number of issues would directly affect safe and efficient operation of the aircraft, especially in the training environment," the report says.
The choppers were not safe for long flights over water and did not have sufficient crash resistance.
"However, the DMO did not withhold part-payment from the corresponding milestone payments for production acceptance, even though the acquisition contract allows for this arrangement," the report says.
The Auditor-General discovered that DMO agreed with the contractor to a lower capability for the choppers but this was not formalised through agreed contract change proposals.
The contractor has found a way to make the engines deliver more power but this will use more fuel and reduce the aircraft's range.
The report makes five recommendations, calling on the DMO, when handling further projects, to prepare a formal report of the tender evaluation board, to complete the required testing activities and to write into contract documentation unambiguous specifications.
Defence had agreed to all five recommendations and had begun implementing them, a Defence spokesman said last night.
The first four choppers assembled in France and the first assembled in Brisbane had been accepted by Defence, he said. Defence expects to accept the second locally assembly aircraft in June.

[helmet fire]

Cant help myself here really... Clear in Live!

Such complex analysis, capability, and purchase projects are at the limit of Defence Force capabilities, especially dealing with a capability that is so far beyond the subject matter expertise of those involved. The step from Kiowa and the MK1 eyeball to Tiger with Night Owl, third gen IR, situational awareness software, tandem seating, onset of the digital battlefield, two engines, and the introduction of weapon systems was a lot to ask in one go. We can point holes in what happened, but overall, it has been a fantastic capability increase and the Army aviation can be proud.

The engine defficiency was noted even during the High Range demo flights in Townsville in about 1998 or 99 when the Huey was getting off Woolshed (2000ft, 30 deg) with more fuel and ammo. And the Huey won the Air to Air engagement too!!! Powering up the engine has also reduced engine life, as per the jelly bean jar analogy - the report seems to have skimmed over that.

But the most glaring defficiency for me (silly old AFS pilot that I am) is in this:
The heavily armed aircraft provides aerial reconnaissance and fire support to ground troops.
Make no mistake, this is a wonderful reconnaissance aircraft, and with the current short comings in the microwave radar (Longbow, etc) in the Aust environment, I would argue it is the leader of the recce pack. But aerial fire support (AFS) is a different thing entirely.

Firstly, even from day 1, the project definintion called for range equivalent to the Black Hawk. In a vast country with extremely limited CAIRS, a significantly limited artillery deployed by very range limited CH-47D, the Army required an AFS platform that had the ability to go to the radius of the Black Hawk and loiter for the provision of AFS to airmobile troops, conduct relief in place and carry enough ammo to hurt and "Free the World" as Duffy would say. The Tiger can do none of these things. But it will detect where the fire power should be directed!

Secondly, the weapon systems that the tiger was equipped with are generally not for anti-pers, they are for point target destruction/neutralisation, ie it is an attack platform more than an AFS platform. What the Army now lacks is the ability to rapidly apply an area weapon for attack/withdrawal support. I am not saying the Huey is the answer because in AFS ops, it is not the airframe that is the issue so much as the weapon systems it carries. The mini/rocket mix combined with the off axis twin M60Bs allowed the aircraft to work in very close to own troops for AFS, something the Tiger will simply not be able to do. I note that one of the Iraq War's revelations was the "911" call, an armed OH-58D that was able to get in close with a large volume of fire weapon system and rockets. This was the same principle used by the little birds in Somalia. very similar to the Huey weapon mix. But at least the Tiger has some protection from ground fire, is crash worthy, and has two donks! In a similar dispersed enemy (albiet on a different concentration and capability planet), fractured FEBA scenario that was Timor, I think it was a poor decision not to take the AFS capability when Oz deployed there in '99. Timor represents the most common environment Oz troops are likely to face: a dispersed mobile enemy without substantial SAM capabilities, and it is the environment in which the Oz Huey gunship was specifically designed to operate.

Perhaps if a couple of AFS people had been involved at any stage of the AIR 87 project, things may be different but spilled milk is spilled milk. In the mean time, we have purchased the premier recce platform that can shoot back if it has to, is a quantum leap for our Army, and brings Army aviation into this century. Nothing is ever perfect, and when compared to other recent ADF procurement projects, is a shining light and the guys should rightfully be proud.

As for the Huey? Little while longer. But no AFS methinks.

Cease Fire, Safe-up.

[w_ocker]

"two's in",
Lets see, we lose of corporate knowledge, loss of ability to support airmobile and ground troops in either attack or suppression, a break from supply chain of our most likely battlefield allies (US), loss of utility capabilities when not "doin' the biz" (and loss of that cool sound/sight and smell of the Bushrangers). And we gain expense, complexity, admittedly very impressive recce ability and proven crash survivability (thanks demo), but unproven actual abilities.
Any AFS member would be first to say that the huey platform needed updating, but that the concept of employment was and will continue to be sound for likely Aust ops into the future. Come on you SickHorsie bous, now is the time to fullfill your secret desires and push for an S70 Guns fit!:}
Still, as was said, the milk is spilt and I'm sure that a great capability will develop as required.
that said, I'm glad we didnt waste a sticker on it!
"two's on the break"

[SASless]

Upgraded Huey?

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/images/heroUH-1YmPg750x260.jpg

[jessie13]

The rumours are true, except for the fact that a troop of 6 Huey's will stay around to look after SAR and Loadmaster training at Oakey (until the new commercial contract), and any other tasking as required (ie. Solomons, cyclones; illegal immigrants etc.). This is finally the end of Iroquois in the Australian Defence Force. As for sending them to the Navy, that was going to happen before the Army first got them. I even did a course in 1988 to accept 11-12 of them for the Navy! But alas, the Army got greedy and took the lot!

[Ian Corrigible]

Upgraded Huey?
By the sounds of things, the Venom program has its own issues (cost, schedule, quality).

I/C

[Doors Off]

Maaate! Put away the justified frontal protruding canon from your trousers with respect to the Huey AFS capability. Yes, a lovely respectable aircraft. A magnificient aircraft 40 years ago. Rolling in, heading down straight at the target area, Mini-guns, 2.75's, mini-guns, break, door guns, was a real hoot. Loved it! But we need to get real with respect to that being a capability in comparison to what is available and what has been purchased.
Obviously you and I were at a different High Range, I think yours was a little 'HIGHER' than mine. The Sound of Freedom platform beating the Tiger in the air to air engagement, NUP! Did not happen. Sounds good though, Nicholas Cage in Firebirds with the help of George Lucas special effects could have achieved it, that is about as real as that scenario gets.
I agree with you on a lot of other things, great to see that the Tiger is here, the AAAvn capability is moving forward. Great to see. It may be moving slowly, but it is moving. That is a huge step forward. Every nation that has introduced such a level of technology and jump in capability has had it's problems. Eventually, it works out.
As for Timor, the AFS excuse for a capability at the time was not required for political and tactical reasons. With hindsight the AFS element was not required and would not have aided in achieving the mission.
By the way, exposing yourself unecessarily to stare at the enemies eyes in a 30 degree descent to close within 800metres of said bad guy with modified RPG's, 12.7mm, dragunov, Barret .50 in a very clever helicopter ambush should be left for books. In reality, when Abdullah and Nooradim and his mates want to kill you, you really need off axis capability.
Anyway, some great points mate. Beers and chat expand the mind. :p

[helmet fire]

Come on mate, you know I cant stop touching my minigun :} :}

You have been so distracted by that wonderful sound that you may have missed the bit where I said AFS is not so much about the airframe as it is the weapons systems. Dont confuse the AFS capability with the Huey airframe. The Huey airframe has no place on the battlefield of today and I count myself truly fortunate to have never had to fly it anywhere near a two-way range. But the mini/rocket/twin M60B weapon systems are superior to that of the Tiger for AFS (not for attack, not for armed recce, but for AFS). Calling the Tiger a "heavily armed gunship" is a bit rich, but calling it the world's premier armed recce bird is not.

Remembering that I think the Tiger is the bees knees for armed recce, that the project intro is a shining light in ADF procurement, and the purchase is a great thing for the Army, indulge me in my AFS fantasy for the fun of it.... after all, I'm in the right kind of mood !! :8

Timor. Mission went off fine and beaut without AFS, a few fighting withdrawals aside. I know that the ground pounders would have liked to see them, even if you and I feel it was not mission essential. Learning something off the Russians here, there is apparently nothing quite like a regular gunship fire power demo for the locals, just to make them think twice. A quick couple of mini bursts up and down the airport perimeter every few sunsets with 100% trace does wonderful things for our morale, and really makes the enemy question the risks. A few vacant hillsides out bush used for rocket and mini practice also makes interesting viewing for the locals and turns the sound of the Huey into an entirely different proposition. Ah, but we have hindsight - and I've already mentioned the spilt milk.

On your other point, I am assuming you are proposing that your novel-inspired helicopter ambush sceario would not have affected the Tiger because of it's standoff range and precision sighting devices? Good point. It can simply come to the hover, out of range (BTW it's a lot more than 800m! for 12.7 and .50 Barret) and pop the bad guys off at leisure. Sounds great.

Now fast forward to the fractured FEBA typical of today's likely engagement scenarios, and every time you come to the hover you are risking doing so above another RPG weilding poo-eater fumbling with the safety as fast as he can, or his wife trying rapidly to pull her AK-47 out of the pram directly behind you. Sitting still is uncool. Very uncool. Even orbiting the same area blows, just as the 160th Black Hawks discovered in Somalia - even in a robust damage tolerant airframe.

So, now you are saying the Tiger is going to fly around at tree top height, 2500m plus from the hidden ambush, AND find them amongst the clutter (remember you dont know they are there - as in "ambush") AND pop them off within close vicinity of own troops. Now THAT is impressive. Especially impressive is how you positively identify them whilst flying at tree top hieght!! What if they open up as you pass by? You have no side/rear protection, or even ability to see them. What to do?

Back to AFS, whose role is not to sniff out point targets, standoff and destroy/nuetralise them, it is to provide Aerial Fire Support to ground forces. Lets say a troop of SAS are under fire and are attempting a withdrawal across "Sh!t Creek".
"Pierre, Pierre, this is Chicken Strangler, withdrawing east from Sh!t Creek under heavy fire from west. Smoke everything on the west bank ASAP, over"

"Chicken Stranglers, diss eze Pierre une Tigre, world's mozz famouz pilote d'helicoptere and of corz, helicoptere itzelf. Dee two of us can zee some of dee, how you say eet, bady guyz??, yez!, Ve are aving dee tres difficile time zeeing most of ze bady guys through ze trees with ze TI. But vee vill have to pause until you are at least anozer 200m away for le danger close, no?"

Then suddenly.......Over the radio with a vague background track from Wagner comes...

"Hey Pierre record this ya poof: Chicken Stanglers this is Mr Magoo inbound from the south, confirm no friendly west of Sh!t Creek, over"
"Chicken Stanglers, I confirm no friendlies west, over"
"Magoo, target is troops in treeline west of creek advancing east, no fire is to be directed east of the creek line, attack direction up Sh!t Creek, racetrack, right break, Clear In Live!"

I wonder if the above gives you any idea of the differences?
Sometimes, you just have to get in close and look to see the enemy, you cannot standoff at thousands of metres with a 20deg field of view, creating a dust cloud and being a stationary target yourself. As I said abve, this is the reason for the 911 success in Iraq, and for the little birds in Somalia. Ever wondered why the 160th doesnt take Apache?

Two more cirtitcal points, then I'm out of ammo! Promise.
when Abdullah and Nooradim and his mates want to kill you, you really need off axis capability
Hearin you. You are a man after me own 'eart on this one. You may not know this, but the Oz Huey gunship was designed by Aussies and then chosen in PREFERENCE to the AH-1 in Vietnam specifically BECAUSE of this issue!! After flying and trialling both in combat.
The Yanks went the AH-1 for speed, agility, and the skinny fuselage. They revised tactics to dive from hieght and speed, then break whilst still high, and climb up (weather permitting of course). These tactics changes, and the new fuselage shape were credited with reducing the gunship losses by almost 30%, though I have heard this figure quoted up to 80% (and the truth is I am relying on faded memory here, so feel free to shoot me down)!! But the Aussies still went for the Huey.

They did this because the break could be conducted at a 100 to 200m and be protected both by the twin M60Bs, and then quickly by the main armament of the next aircraft. The M60s are capable of off axis right around to the tail, and the gunner doesnt need to do an exorcist impression with his head just to see the target. Several Bushranger pilots have told me that the door gunners were the most accurate weapon they had because they were engagiing from 100 to 200m into a target area they could clearly see with a reduced closure/crossing rate and no requirement to be flying the aircraft at the same time. In addition, the aircraft was specicifcally designed with 2 minis, 2 rocket tube sets, and 2 M60s on each doorgun mount so that the aircraft had weapon redundancy at all times in the firing sequence. Try going into the break in a Tiger configured frame. One cannon for the attack run, extremly limited off axis in the break, (who is driving aircraft, who is firing gun), pleeeeeaase god, dont jam now...., and who is watching for and covering off axis threats during attack run and escape? :eek:

As I said before mate, the Huey aint the answer to modern AFS, and certainly not to attack, or armed recce but lets not kid ourselves that the new girl has improved the AFS capability in the same way it has improved the recce role and created an attack capability.

Last one!!:The Sound of Freedom platform beating the Tiger in the air to air engagement, NUP! Did not happen
Wrong I am afraid. Huey 1, Tiger 0. And no door guns were fitted.
Can you feel it?
And in the immortal words of Prof O'Connell when the Tiger Demo came to Townsville, captured by w-ocker above: "I'm gald we didn't waste a sticker on it!"

More beer garcon sil vous plais !

Mr Magoo, I maybe blind...but I can still see you! :=