The ADF buys another Lemon
That's because the Army, in spite of - (because of???) - strident RAAF opposition, insisted on flying them around with the *** external fuel tanks permanently fitted!
True that.I would like to hear about Tiger v Kiowa for recce too if someone is really in the know.
?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: my happy place....
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the MRH, some Army Officers need to grow some balls and start telling their superiors the truth who in turn need to push it all the way to the top.
Tiger v Kiowa, IMHO apples and oranges. Loose flexability and gain sensor reach / weapons capability. Army doctrine is see's ARH as an important part of the big picture, network centric warfare and all that stuff, we are heavily invested in its future. Most non avo types see ARH with a big "A" and little "R" however.
I got into the Sqn after the golden years of Kiowa. Our brothers in years gone by could achieve exraordinary things with the little fella. And they flew there arses off, when some one needed recce support just yell out and they were there.
An unarmed helicopter on todays battlefeild is a liability. The days of camping with armour or cav in a hole in the tree's are gone me thinks. Lots of pers/equipment to support ARH, thats about all I can say. I can say once they do finally sort it, it will provide great capability but not all day and night. nuff said
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The days of camping with armour or cav in a hole in the tree's are gone me thinks.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unarmed Helicopter
slo n lo you make some excellent points. This one in particular.
All helicopters when operating have a rotor disc. Have any of you seen the strength of a helo return on a modern fighter PD radar? It is quite a sight to behold. Doesn't matter if you are a BH dude, an MRH-90 hero or a Tiger king.
Not a helo mate myself, and I really appreciate the job you all do. Not much point in knocking either the MRH-90 or the BH. Military has to get on and do what it's told. There is no doubt that helicopters are important, but the job is really dangerous. I understand helo operations will involve much mutual support from surface and airborne friendlies, but somewhere in this debate you need to realise everything close to the ground over the battlefield is at risk from all sides these days. An AMRAAM or similar is so attracted to a helicopter they should get a room together... their relationship will be explosive!
Wasn't there a headshed bloke who got a job with the manufacturer just after MRH-90 was signed for?
An unarmed helicopter on today's battlefield is a liability.
Not a helo mate myself, and I really appreciate the job you all do. Not much point in knocking either the MRH-90 or the BH. Military has to get on and do what it's told. There is no doubt that helicopters are important, but the job is really dangerous. I understand helo operations will involve much mutual support from surface and airborne friendlies, but somewhere in this debate you need to realise everything close to the ground over the battlefield is at risk from all sides these days. An AMRAAM or similar is so attracted to a helicopter they should get a room together... their relationship will be explosive!
I don't really think the headshed really give a **** about aviation specific problems with new aircraft.
Surely everyone realises that the decision to buy this platform or that platform has less to do with what the ADF wants and more to do with what votes can be won and where?
It all has a great deal to do with industrial cooperation/offset programs. I imagine the makers of the NH-90 simply offered a better program than the rest. (perception being reality in a politician's mind of course)
It all has a great deal to do with industrial cooperation/offset programs. I imagine the makers of the NH-90 simply offered a better program than the rest. (perception being reality in a politician's mind of course)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFGAN you need to move on. I am not a fan of any government but at least this government had the balls to cancel the seasprite project. I hope they do have their fingers in the pulse with other contracts as well so this doesn't happen again.
Time will tell.
But while we are talking about ADF aviation lets mention the Wedgetail and the KC30 tanker. Both behind schedule, not sure about budget.
The Wedgetail is just another broken promise from Boeing, they promise everything to everyone but in recent times have failed to deliver, ie 787 ,767 tanker.
I think the RAAF made the right move with the 330 tanker, seeing that the 767 fiasco with showed Boeing to be the thugs they are.
I know the 330 is late as well, but now Qantas is on the job things will all come good (said with tongue in cheek)
Time will tell.
But while we are talking about ADF aviation lets mention the Wedgetail and the KC30 tanker. Both behind schedule, not sure about budget.
The Wedgetail is just another broken promise from Boeing, they promise everything to everyone but in recent times have failed to deliver, ie 787 ,767 tanker.
I think the RAAF made the right move with the 330 tanker, seeing that the 767 fiasco with showed Boeing to be the thugs they are.
I know the 330 is late as well, but now Qantas is on the job things will all come good (said with tongue in cheek)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: my happy place....
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, you mean those RAAF "brylcreem boys" might have had a point way back when when they said it wasn't sensible to leave multiple Hueys, (which required considerably more manpower, spares, POL and God only knows what else than a Sioux) right up on FEBA with everyone living rough "like real men" in a shellscrape?
Wasn't there a headshed bloke who got a job with the manufacturer just after MRH-90 was signed for?
Chronic Snoozer, you hit the nail on the head there. Plus the bad publicity with BH would no doubt influence things in the Govt's mind I suspect.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But while we are talking about ADF aviation lets mention the Wedgetail and the KC30 tanker. Both behind schedule, not sure about budget.
The Wedgetail is just another broken promise from Boeing, they promise everything to everyone but in recent times have failed to deliver, ie 787 ,767 tanker.
I think the RAAF made the right move with the 330 tanker, seeing that the 767 fiasco with showed Boeing to be the thugs they are.
I know the 330 is late as well, but now Qantas is on the job things will all come good (said with tongue in cheek)
The Wedgetail is just another broken promise from Boeing, they promise everything to everyone but in recent times have failed to deliver, ie 787 ,767 tanker.
I think the RAAF made the right move with the 330 tanker, seeing that the 767 fiasco with showed Boeing to be the thugs they are.
I know the 330 is late as well, but now Qantas is on the job things will all come good (said with tongue in cheek)
Yes, Wedgetail is late, but it will eventually come good. The fact that MIT has been brought in to 'baseline' the radar's performance means they're getting close.
KC-30 is only eight months late, and only because the mod process for the first jet took longer than expected. While the first jet will be late, the remaining four will be more or less on time. And while Qantas is providing support to the mod process at BNE, the work is still being project managed by EADS.
And, whilst Boeing has had a bad run of late, almost all major contractors have a habit or over promising, so it's not unique to Boeing!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slow n low, I admit I was taking a snipe at an attitude that was pretty widespread in the Army in the days when the RAAF operated the Hueys. Many of the (mostly non aviation) green machine couldn't get it into their heads that a Sioux (or later, a Kiowa) with one pilot and a single groundie, not a hell of a lot more than a tool roll, a hand pump and a 44 gal drum, was a very different kettle of fish for a front line unit to support than (usually multiple) Hueys, with four air crew (OK, only three - no gunner - if we 'pretending' to fight a war, which we all too often were) - one, but usually as many as three or four groundies for a multiple ship detachment, a (if you wanted to keep 'em flying) relatively bulky spares/maintenance package, and (compared to a Sioux/Kiowa) a relatively voracious appetite for avtur. Having all this right up with a forward unit was a big logistics drain, and one that in my experience, was simply not sustainable.
This sillyness, post Vietnam, even extended to Caribou crews having to dig themselves shellscrapes every night to sleep in the field beside their 'mortar magnets'. If there'd been real bad guys out there on those ops, we 'blue forces' would have run out of tac air, both FW and rotary, within a matter of days, with damn near every one of them destroyed where they were parked overnight. (Ever tried to effectively cam. a parked Caribou's tail from a ground level observer who was within a two - make that five - mile radius of you?)
The AAVN guys did a superlative job with equipment well suited to their task – simple, robust and (I don’t think I can overstress this last point) easily maintained in the field. Recce, in the olden days I refer to, was best done from ultra low level with the door off. The pilot was not unlike an airborne stock musterer – he could stick his head out the window and SEE (and sometimes smell) what he was looking for.
I accept the argument from people who are currently in the business that the days of unarmed helicopters in the modern battlefield might be gone. However, I can’t believe a Tiger pilot, even with all his electronic sensors - (when they’re working!) – will see, from his enclosed, air conditioned, elevated cockpit, what a Kiowa pilot would see. I also don’t believe that AAVN will be able to field enough Tigers to actually have one, available for even a small proportion of the tasks that will be demanded of it. A ‘cheap and cheerful’ light recce helo, (perhaps with nominal on board anti air defence when required), that can be backed up with heavy gunship support when needed, would seem to me a far more efficient use of the very limited budget the ADF has always been forced to operate under.
The Tiger, in my humble opinion, risks becoming not unlike the battleship of WW2 – too valuable to commit to many areas it will be needed because, with having so few available, (and no simpler alternative platform), the ground commander simply can’t risk losing one. I also believe that serviceability, particularly in the remote north of the country, (and where else, apart from the ‘Stan or somewhere similar overseas, let’s face it, will it be needed?), will be such a huge issue that it will become a multimillion dollar ‘hangar queen’, if not before high intensity ops, then certainly soon after they start.
I know many will disagree with me, but I can’t help but think we’d be a lot better off (and offer a far superior product to the customer) with a lot of ‘cheap and cheerful’ airframes that will continue to work with minimal tech support for the many jobs that don’t require a ‘high end’ aircraft like the Tiger.
This sillyness, post Vietnam, even extended to Caribou crews having to dig themselves shellscrapes every night to sleep in the field beside their 'mortar magnets'. If there'd been real bad guys out there on those ops, we 'blue forces' would have run out of tac air, both FW and rotary, within a matter of days, with damn near every one of them destroyed where they were parked overnight. (Ever tried to effectively cam. a parked Caribou's tail from a ground level observer who was within a two - make that five - mile radius of you?)
The AAVN guys did a superlative job with equipment well suited to their task – simple, robust and (I don’t think I can overstress this last point) easily maintained in the field. Recce, in the olden days I refer to, was best done from ultra low level with the door off. The pilot was not unlike an airborne stock musterer – he could stick his head out the window and SEE (and sometimes smell) what he was looking for.
I accept the argument from people who are currently in the business that the days of unarmed helicopters in the modern battlefield might be gone. However, I can’t believe a Tiger pilot, even with all his electronic sensors - (when they’re working!) – will see, from his enclosed, air conditioned, elevated cockpit, what a Kiowa pilot would see. I also don’t believe that AAVN will be able to field enough Tigers to actually have one, available for even a small proportion of the tasks that will be demanded of it. A ‘cheap and cheerful’ light recce helo, (perhaps with nominal on board anti air defence when required), that can be backed up with heavy gunship support when needed, would seem to me a far more efficient use of the very limited budget the ADF has always been forced to operate under.
The Tiger, in my humble opinion, risks becoming not unlike the battleship of WW2 – too valuable to commit to many areas it will be needed because, with having so few available, (and no simpler alternative platform), the ground commander simply can’t risk losing one. I also believe that serviceability, particularly in the remote north of the country, (and where else, apart from the ‘Stan or somewhere similar overseas, let’s face it, will it be needed?), will be such a huge issue that it will become a multimillion dollar ‘hangar queen’, if not before high intensity ops, then certainly soon after they start.
I know many will disagree with me, but I can’t help but think we’d be a lot better off (and offer a far superior product to the customer) with a lot of ‘cheap and cheerful’ airframes that will continue to work with minimal tech support for the many jobs that don’t require a ‘high end’ aircraft like the Tiger.
Wiley
Wouldn't a combination of UAV's and modern, sensor equipped helicopters be the way forward ?
A Kiowa type capability in a place like Afganistan would be homicidal.
Why didn't the army buy the Apache BTW? Isn't that what our troops work with in Afganistan? Dutch, British and US use it.
Wouldn't a combination of UAV's and modern, sensor equipped helicopters be the way forward ?
A Kiowa type capability in a place like Afganistan would be homicidal.
Why didn't the army buy the Apache BTW? Isn't that what our troops work with in Afganistan? Dutch, British and US use it.
Was about twice the cost of the Tiger, and the price didn't include the Longbow radar!
As a taxpayer you have to ask a few questions. Firstly, 16 Apaches would have been in-service and with the ability to have deployed to Afganistan with good support in place.
Secondly, all the banging on about a network hardened army, how does this figure with a European helicopter. Wouldn't have Apache been already integrated in the US and a less high risk project?
Seems ludicrous that the RAAF doesn't have the ability to deploy fast jets in a close air support role ( Afgan' ) and the army bought a troublesome, un-proven battlefield helicopter. It seems structurally out of balance.
I hear the Singaporians bought the Apache. Got a good deal on the radar and the Israelis are involved in consultancy on training and deployment.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 2nd Jan 2009 at 06:49.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COST
I'm pretty sure with the cost increases Oz Aerospace have been able to squeeze out of defence post contract the cost difference between Apache and Tiger is now nil or minimal.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure exactly why many here are so suprised about another untried, flawed in design procurement.
The list is long and distinguished ( in terms of wasted tax payer dollars, please add more ), JSF, ANZAC ships, Seasprite, Collins class, what was that poxy Army RADAR system ? and LST's.
I believe the more technology they bolt into these machines the less suitable for extended deployment and greater amount of down time will be seen.
The list is long and distinguished ( in terms of wasted tax payer dollars, please add more ), JSF, ANZAC ships, Seasprite, Collins class, what was that poxy Army RADAR system ? and LST's.
I believe the more technology they bolt into these machines the less suitable for extended deployment and greater amount of down time will be seen.