The ADF buys another Lemon
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afgan,
Good to see you took the bait.
I can't bring myself to suggest Bushranger is wrong. The US experience in (for example) the horn of africa is that the application of substantial rifle calibre machine gun fire from a fixed installation is still an extremely effective method of containing non-formal units in most theatres.
Does, or perhaps will, the Tiger have this capability? Probably. I'm a fan of the Cobra (and Viper) for a variety of reasons, but ultimately that wasn't chosen.
Good to see you took the bait.
I can't bring myself to suggest Bushranger is wrong. The US experience in (for example) the horn of africa is that the application of substantial rifle calibre machine gun fire from a fixed installation is still an extremely effective method of containing non-formal units in most theatres.
Does, or perhaps will, the Tiger have this capability? Probably. I'm a fan of the Cobra (and Viper) for a variety of reasons, but ultimately that wasn't chosen.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghan,
From a source with the US 4th Combat Avn Brigade (who are or about to or deploy to Iraq again)
"The latest Chinook model to enter service is the CH-47F, an advanced multi-mission helicopter featuring a Rockwell Collins Common Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit that brings crews better situational awareness. Incorporated is an advanced digital map display plus a new data transfer system and other improvements. Additionally, the BAE designed Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS) has bought better flight control capabilities that make the aircraft not only more efficient but easier and safer to handle under extreme conditions".
Also, the "new" UH-60L fields the heavy duty flight control system developed for the USN Sea Hawk.
Seems the US don't mind electronics for electronics sake. Seriously - in the modern battlefield, without some serious EWSP kit, survival times for helo's is limited. Granted the main threat in Afghanistan is RPG being fired at you(sometimes down onto you).
Also, I seem to remember that the first deployment of our Chooks was delayed while we fitted some "kit' to make our operations compatible with the US/Allied birds there.
I'd also argue about the recommendation to Government Afghan. All the paperwork I ever saw when I was in Defence indicated that the NH90 was the preferred option (granted UH-60L was suitable). "Army" as you stated would not have made (via the normal process) a recommendation to Government - the CABSUB would have been generated by Defence (not DMO - one of the areas that worked under Head of Capability Systems) rather than just Army.
From a source with the US 4th Combat Avn Brigade (who are or about to or deploy to Iraq again)
"The latest Chinook model to enter service is the CH-47F, an advanced multi-mission helicopter featuring a Rockwell Collins Common Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit that brings crews better situational awareness. Incorporated is an advanced digital map display plus a new data transfer system and other improvements. Additionally, the BAE designed Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS) has bought better flight control capabilities that make the aircraft not only more efficient but easier and safer to handle under extreme conditions".
Also, the "new" UH-60L fields the heavy duty flight control system developed for the USN Sea Hawk.
Seems the US don't mind electronics for electronics sake. Seriously - in the modern battlefield, without some serious EWSP kit, survival times for helo's is limited. Granted the main threat in Afghanistan is RPG being fired at you(sometimes down onto you).
Also, I seem to remember that the first deployment of our Chooks was delayed while we fitted some "kit' to make our operations compatible with the US/Allied birds there.
I'd also argue about the recommendation to Government Afghan. All the paperwork I ever saw when I was in Defence indicated that the NH90 was the preferred option (granted UH-60L was suitable). "Army" as you stated would not have made (via the normal process) a recommendation to Government - the CABSUB would have been generated by Defence (not DMO - one of the areas that worked under Head of Capability Systems) rather than just Army.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghan -
Yes, I know about the "late" bid by Sikorsky. However, I would be very surprised that the recommendation changed. HOWEVER, as I left that part of Defence in early 04, I can't definatively say that the recommendation changed, but seeing that AIR 5046 Phase 2 (from memory) had by that stage recommended the first buy of up to 12 NH-90's, I find it hard to believe the change did occur. And I'm sure that the civilian who headed up the area that prepared the Cabsub's (Ralph) would NOT have allowed the change to occur!!! And given that AIR 9000 (at that stage) was aiming at reducing the number of types, accepting that NH-90 would be acquired for AIR 5046 Phase 2, it is highly unlikely that a mixed buy would have been considered. DCA at the DCC meeting that discussed the initial 12 purchase also spoke about likely fleet numbers if NH-90 was selected and how many would be required in the "follow-on" phase (and I was in the room during this discussion). And certainly, when the follow-on buy went to DCC (or DCSC as it had become then) in early 2006 - the recommendation was NH-90 - the major points for discussion (IIRC) being what blade folding capability if any on the follow on birds and total numbers (and how that number was arrived at).
I'd argue about the availability of the latest threat libraries from the US always being available. There is also the danger that the US library MAY NOT hold details of all the weapon systems that may be faced. No definative info here, but it is an issue. I'd not die in a ditch about this, but an issue nevertheless. As to the avionics etc on birds in the battlefield - I didn't get a good look at the avionics fit of the US birds I travelled on in Bahgdad early last year, but they did seem pretty well equipped.............
Oh - and to whoever asked about blade folding - the recommendation for the first 12 NH-90's DID include manual (as against auto) blade folding, as these birds were earmarked to be used off the LPA's. Auto-blade folding is not only expensive, but also adds weight.
Bell UH1-Y's were considered (Bell was the first place the assessment team visited) but could not meet the ARMY requirement to carry an entire infantry section in crash-proof seats in one airframe and had limited growth potential. In fact, I understand that BH struggles to meet the requirement (from memory - being able to lift a section in partrol order all in crash-proof seats), and that the NH-90 only just meets it - I'll stand corrected here - it's been 4 years since I was invovled.
A GCA? Mate - where have you been? Precision Approach Radar (PAR - the radar you require to do a GCA) was phased out of ADF Military service in the mid 90's.........................
Yes, I know about the "late" bid by Sikorsky. However, I would be very surprised that the recommendation changed. HOWEVER, as I left that part of Defence in early 04, I can't definatively say that the recommendation changed, but seeing that AIR 5046 Phase 2 (from memory) had by that stage recommended the first buy of up to 12 NH-90's, I find it hard to believe the change did occur. And I'm sure that the civilian who headed up the area that prepared the Cabsub's (Ralph) would NOT have allowed the change to occur!!! And given that AIR 9000 (at that stage) was aiming at reducing the number of types, accepting that NH-90 would be acquired for AIR 5046 Phase 2, it is highly unlikely that a mixed buy would have been considered. DCA at the DCC meeting that discussed the initial 12 purchase also spoke about likely fleet numbers if NH-90 was selected and how many would be required in the "follow-on" phase (and I was in the room during this discussion). And certainly, when the follow-on buy went to DCC (or DCSC as it had become then) in early 2006 - the recommendation was NH-90 - the major points for discussion (IIRC) being what blade folding capability if any on the follow on birds and total numbers (and how that number was arrived at).
I'd argue about the availability of the latest threat libraries from the US always being available. There is also the danger that the US library MAY NOT hold details of all the weapon systems that may be faced. No definative info here, but it is an issue. I'd not die in a ditch about this, but an issue nevertheless. As to the avionics etc on birds in the battlefield - I didn't get a good look at the avionics fit of the US birds I travelled on in Bahgdad early last year, but they did seem pretty well equipped.............
Oh - and to whoever asked about blade folding - the recommendation for the first 12 NH-90's DID include manual (as against auto) blade folding, as these birds were earmarked to be used off the LPA's. Auto-blade folding is not only expensive, but also adds weight.
Bell UH1-Y's were considered (Bell was the first place the assessment team visited) but could not meet the ARMY requirement to carry an entire infantry section in crash-proof seats in one airframe and had limited growth potential. In fact, I understand that BH struggles to meet the requirement (from memory - being able to lift a section in partrol order all in crash-proof seats), and that the NH-90 only just meets it - I'll stand corrected here - it's been 4 years since I was invovled.
A GCA? Mate - where have you been? Precision Approach Radar (PAR - the radar you require to do a GCA) was phased out of ADF Military service in the mid 90's.........................
just to throw something in the mix, i recall reading that when external munitions and/or droptanks are carried on the blackhawk, it restricts the door gunners ability to operate.
can anyone confirm this?
the NH90 however, has 'low mounted' munitions so the door gunners can still operate while the NH90 carries external munitions.
can anyone confirm this?
the NH90 however, has 'low mounted' munitions so the door gunners can still operate while the NH90 carries external munitions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the thread should be renamed “ADF buys another Lamborghini to do a Kingswood’s Job”.
It seems to me the really big problem with the NH90 and perhaps even moreso, the Tiger, is they their high unit cost means the ADF simply can't afford enough of them to provide support to all the units that need it.
It seems to me the really big problem with the NH90 and perhaps even moreso, the Tiger, is they their high unit cost means the ADF simply can't afford enough of them to provide support to all the units that need it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that we BH and SK followers appear to be meeting some opposition with our dislike of the MRH/NH 90 and Tiger. I just can't understand why we can't keep the UH-1's and the Kiowas, they're within our budget too.
OK you dis-believers, you've asked for it! C'mon AFGAN, hit them right between the eyes! Post the list of MRH/NH 90 operators (Make sure that you include the operators of the civil NH 90's you mentioned too) complete with the comprehensive list of the faults/discrepancies/can't do's/ won't do's/too expensive/etc's that the operators have ammassed and are complaining about. Don't limit it to the ADF though, show them the real picture.
That ought to finally make the MRH/NH 90 followers see the truth. It might also make them see that we should never operate anything later than the 60's. (Come to think of it, the Bristols were a great bit of kit weren't they, and didn't cost that much.) Go to it AFGAN!
OK you dis-believers, you've asked for it! C'mon AFGAN, hit them right between the eyes! Post the list of MRH/NH 90 operators (Make sure that you include the operators of the civil NH 90's you mentioned too) complete with the comprehensive list of the faults/discrepancies/can't do's/ won't do's/too expensive/etc's that the operators have ammassed and are complaining about. Don't limit it to the ADF though, show them the real picture.
That ought to finally make the MRH/NH 90 followers see the truth. It might also make them see that we should never operate anything later than the 60's. (Come to think of it, the Bristols were a great bit of kit weren't they, and didn't cost that much.) Go to it AFGAN!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must look at pprune more often
AFGAN, you know as well as anyone that the ADF rules for public comment will limit comment from current serving members. I am assuming you are a civilian with ties to a serving member? Fora like these which have a tendency to become fodder for lazy journalists, like just after Indy in 2004.
But, as someone who is close to the project, I will refute your claims that 'those at the coal face' have no faith in the machine, and that noone involved will defend the machine. I can only assume you have been talking to the few lower-level operators who would just rather we had a Black Hawk. MRH 90 has not flown as much as planned. The spares support has not been as good as expected. The type certification (none of which is being conducted by the ADF) has not gone as smoothly as we would have liked. The machine will have some limitations in service. These are all true statements.
Statements like 'this aircraft is a lemon' and 'this is a civilian helicopter' are neither true nor helpful. The reason the NH 90 is certified to a common, european civilian specification is because there are so many countries involved as partners in the project. They chose a civilian spec to allow the thing to be flown in the airspace where all military hardware spends 90% of its time. Do not confuse this with the design, crashworthiness or utility of the aircraft.
Some of the US MILSPEC stuff we put so much faith in is not all it's cracked up to be anyway. The AH1Z blades were 'certified' to take a 23mm strike based on computer modelling, and failed at 20mm. They were MILSPEC. The US military helmet protection standard has been revised many times, but is based on a 1/2 inch blade striking the helmet at a certain force. The European spec (used to certify the TOP OWL) uses a spike with a 0.5mm tip at the same force. Just because the NH 90 doesn't meet MILSPEC, doesn't mean it's inferior. In any case, there is nothing to hit your helmet on in the MRH 90 - not so the UH 60.
Look, if someone in Army did get a sudden visit from the good idea fairy after Sikorsky decided to actually compete for the contract, that's great. But A$2.5BN projects do not get turned around just because some brave staff officer shouts 'stop the presses!'. You are absolutely correct that there are political and national considerations involved in big ticket items like AIR 9000, and it has ever been so. There is a mandatory minimum level of Australian industry involvement in every major acquisition, for very solid national strategic reasons. Usually this means the up front cost and complexity of the project is increased. These are political decisions. Defence is a political business. Get used to it.
Crying about the shoulda/coulda is fabulous fun, and allows every retired pilot and engineer to sit back and mumble self righteously to themselves. But if we do have a Royal Commission into these projects, and they are scrapped, and we all cry 'too right' as we drink dollar pots down the RSL, then in 10 years we will be another Billion dollars in the hole, and we still will not have fielded a capability. With the GWOT on, there is not a whole load of spare capacity over at Sikorsky. And let's not kid ourselves about the similarities between our red-headed bastard UH60/S70s and the current versions.
We will have 46 MRH 90s for about 30 years. The Black Hawk has lasted us 20, and was around for 10 before that. The Huey was retired, about 10 years overdue, at 40. The ADF, for better or for worse, has a commitment to buy the best technology and most modern equipment available. The MRH 90 happens to be that aircraft in the utility world. Noone wants to be tooling around in a 60-year old design (Caribou pilots excepted).
There is no Irony in AIR 9000, it just hasn't really started yet. We will end up with Tiger, MRH 90, either NFH 90 or a newer Seahawk, Chinook and a training helicopter. This will take a few years, so just cool your jets a bit. It's certainly better than the 9 types we had a while back.
There. Someone who is close to the project who is prepared to stand up for both the Project, and the aircraft. The tactical mission is not the only consideration when buying military aircraft, just the main one. MRH 90 happens to do it better, with a bigger cabin than the Black Hawk variant Sikorsky was offering. In 10 years, when the next uber Hawk appears, this conversation will be just as unproductive, because we have already bought our utility helicopter.
But, as someone who is close to the project, I will refute your claims that 'those at the coal face' have no faith in the machine, and that noone involved will defend the machine. I can only assume you have been talking to the few lower-level operators who would just rather we had a Black Hawk. MRH 90 has not flown as much as planned. The spares support has not been as good as expected. The type certification (none of which is being conducted by the ADF) has not gone as smoothly as we would have liked. The machine will have some limitations in service. These are all true statements.
Statements like 'this aircraft is a lemon' and 'this is a civilian helicopter' are neither true nor helpful. The reason the NH 90 is certified to a common, european civilian specification is because there are so many countries involved as partners in the project. They chose a civilian spec to allow the thing to be flown in the airspace where all military hardware spends 90% of its time. Do not confuse this with the design, crashworthiness or utility of the aircraft.
Some of the US MILSPEC stuff we put so much faith in is not all it's cracked up to be anyway. The AH1Z blades were 'certified' to take a 23mm strike based on computer modelling, and failed at 20mm. They were MILSPEC. The US military helmet protection standard has been revised many times, but is based on a 1/2 inch blade striking the helmet at a certain force. The European spec (used to certify the TOP OWL) uses a spike with a 0.5mm tip at the same force. Just because the NH 90 doesn't meet MILSPEC, doesn't mean it's inferior. In any case, there is nothing to hit your helmet on in the MRH 90 - not so the UH 60.
Look, if someone in Army did get a sudden visit from the good idea fairy after Sikorsky decided to actually compete for the contract, that's great. But A$2.5BN projects do not get turned around just because some brave staff officer shouts 'stop the presses!'. You are absolutely correct that there are political and national considerations involved in big ticket items like AIR 9000, and it has ever been so. There is a mandatory minimum level of Australian industry involvement in every major acquisition, for very solid national strategic reasons. Usually this means the up front cost and complexity of the project is increased. These are political decisions. Defence is a political business. Get used to it.
Crying about the shoulda/coulda is fabulous fun, and allows every retired pilot and engineer to sit back and mumble self righteously to themselves. But if we do have a Royal Commission into these projects, and they are scrapped, and we all cry 'too right' as we drink dollar pots down the RSL, then in 10 years we will be another Billion dollars in the hole, and we still will not have fielded a capability. With the GWOT on, there is not a whole load of spare capacity over at Sikorsky. And let's not kid ourselves about the similarities between our red-headed bastard UH60/S70s and the current versions.
We will have 46 MRH 90s for about 30 years. The Black Hawk has lasted us 20, and was around for 10 before that. The Huey was retired, about 10 years overdue, at 40. The ADF, for better or for worse, has a commitment to buy the best technology and most modern equipment available. The MRH 90 happens to be that aircraft in the utility world. Noone wants to be tooling around in a 60-year old design (Caribou pilots excepted).
There is no Irony in AIR 9000, it just hasn't really started yet. We will end up with Tiger, MRH 90, either NFH 90 or a newer Seahawk, Chinook and a training helicopter. This will take a few years, so just cool your jets a bit. It's certainly better than the 9 types we had a while back.
There. Someone who is close to the project who is prepared to stand up for both the Project, and the aircraft. The tactical mission is not the only consideration when buying military aircraft, just the main one. MRH 90 happens to do it better, with a bigger cabin than the Black Hawk variant Sikorsky was offering. In 10 years, when the next uber Hawk appears, this conversation will be just as unproductive, because we have already bought our utility helicopter.
Last edited by emergov; 15th Jan 2009 at 15:31. Reason: typos
Norway ordered quite a few of those NH-90's as frigate helicopters, they were supposed to be operational by 2005, but the Lynx have now been upgraded to be operational until 2012...
In norway the other squadrons that operate helicopters (Sea King, 412 and Lynx) call the NH-90 "Jesus". Everybody knows about it, nobody's seen it...
In norway the other squadrons that operate helicopters (Sea King, 412 and Lynx) call the NH-90 "Jesus". Everybody knows about it, nobody's seen it...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nfh 90
The Naval Frigate Helicopter, NFH 90 has experienced some pretty big delays. All the more reason not to fit auto blade fold to our fleet.
The MRH 90, our version of the NH 90 is a troop transport helicopter. It shares all the piloting avionics, and the same fuselage, and drivetrain except for the Auto blade fold. The major hold ups with NFH 90 have been integration issues with the weapons systems and radar.
Our MRH 90 only has a weather radar, which works fine.
The MRH 90, our version of the NH 90 is a troop transport helicopter. It shares all the piloting avionics, and the same fuselage, and drivetrain except for the Auto blade fold. The major hold ups with NFH 90 have been integration issues with the weapons systems and radar.
Our MRH 90 only has a weather radar, which works fine.
Last edited by emergov; 15th Jan 2009 at 15:39. Reason: carelessness
emergov, I appreciate the balance that you have given to this discussion. I posed the question earlier in this thread that I understand that the MRH-90 requires a smaller cleared LZ than the Blackhawk (due to the BH's very long tailboom/rotor) - can you confirm? GB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nth California
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sizes
NH90 length: 52'11" rotor dia: 53'6"
S70 length: 64'10" rotor dia: 53'8" (love wikipedia!)
Pad size is not only dependent on physical dimensions, but also down wash generated and aircraft performance.
Nice thread. Good to always air the laundry about 3 years after the decision has been made. I'm still pissed that they retired the .303 and used the SLR. If the .303 was OK for our boys in ww1 and ww2, I see no need for anything else.
S70 length: 64'10" rotor dia: 53'8" (love wikipedia!)
Pad size is not only dependent on physical dimensions, but also down wash generated and aircraft performance.
Nice thread. Good to always air the laundry about 3 years after the decision has been made. I'm still pissed that they retired the .303 and used the SLR. If the .303 was OK for our boys in ww1 and ww2, I see no need for anything else.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghan - I'm tired of the discussion as well. Again I'm skeptical about your source - now you are admitting it is all hearsay (basically).
I can't be bothered checking, but I think your "source" has a few other things wrong.
In 2001 when discussing a possible buy with Sikorsky the offer was for UH-60M - new build birds. UH-60L are (IIRC) rebuilt older birds (this was at the time the US had a "thing" about new buys - thats why the Huey "Yankee" is not a "new aircraft" - you have to have part of the roof of an old Huey to build one - and I didn't get that from a source - that is directly from the briefings/discussions at Bell in Sept 2001 - I was there.)
So - you come on here - throw words around about how bad the aircraft is when it hasn't reached IOC yet (confirm if required Ermergov), have a few of us punch holes in some of your discussion, and now throw a hump and don't want to play anymore?
Oh - and how would a UH-60L meet the requirement to operate off the LPA's - after all, there is NO UH-60 unit that I know of operating a bird with folding blades - you see, the folding blade rotor head is off a Sea Hawk - and in 2001 during discussions with Sikorsky the company indicated we (the ADF) could get UH-60M's with folding rotor blades, if we (ADF) paid for the certification of said configuration. Same problem with the UH-1Y. And 60L's being the same as Sea Hawk for corrosion? Only if you treat it with the same sealants and anti-corrosive treatments etc during the build, becasue basically the aircraft is still metal, where as a large part of the NH-90 is carbon fibre composite (that doesn't rust). I doubt if most or all of the US 60L's you lust after are so treated. Emergov will back that up I'm sure.
Oh, and around 2003 when AIR 9000 was on trtack the decision to buy NH-90 was in line with the aims of the project - if followed through the ADF would operate Tiger, NH-90, Chinook (army) and the Navy Seasprite and Sea Hawk (although there was some discussion about considering the Naval version of the NH-90 for the RAN is a complete changeover/dropping of ALL Sikorsky product, but I'm prety sure the NFH - Nato Frigate Helo is it's title I believe - was about half a metre too big for the ANZAC's hangar............)
Emergov - well said. I was once close to the project in the early stages, participating in the 2001 visit to Bell, Boeing, Sikorsky, Westland and Eurocopter (should be able to work out who I am from that) - and everything you have said here aligns pretty closely with what I recall/know.
I can't be bothered checking, but I think your "source" has a few other things wrong.
In 2001 when discussing a possible buy with Sikorsky the offer was for UH-60M - new build birds. UH-60L are (IIRC) rebuilt older birds (this was at the time the US had a "thing" about new buys - thats why the Huey "Yankee" is not a "new aircraft" - you have to have part of the roof of an old Huey to build one - and I didn't get that from a source - that is directly from the briefings/discussions at Bell in Sept 2001 - I was there.)
So - you come on here - throw words around about how bad the aircraft is when it hasn't reached IOC yet (confirm if required Ermergov), have a few of us punch holes in some of your discussion, and now throw a hump and don't want to play anymore?
Oh - and how would a UH-60L meet the requirement to operate off the LPA's - after all, there is NO UH-60 unit that I know of operating a bird with folding blades - you see, the folding blade rotor head is off a Sea Hawk - and in 2001 during discussions with Sikorsky the company indicated we (the ADF) could get UH-60M's with folding rotor blades, if we (ADF) paid for the certification of said configuration. Same problem with the UH-1Y. And 60L's being the same as Sea Hawk for corrosion? Only if you treat it with the same sealants and anti-corrosive treatments etc during the build, becasue basically the aircraft is still metal, where as a large part of the NH-90 is carbon fibre composite (that doesn't rust). I doubt if most or all of the US 60L's you lust after are so treated. Emergov will back that up I'm sure.
Oh, and around 2003 when AIR 9000 was on trtack the decision to buy NH-90 was in line with the aims of the project - if followed through the ADF would operate Tiger, NH-90, Chinook (army) and the Navy Seasprite and Sea Hawk (although there was some discussion about considering the Naval version of the NH-90 for the RAN is a complete changeover/dropping of ALL Sikorsky product, but I'm prety sure the NFH - Nato Frigate Helo is it's title I believe - was about half a metre too big for the ANZAC's hangar............)
Emergov - well said. I was once close to the project in the early stages, participating in the 2001 visit to Bell, Boeing, Sikorsky, Westland and Eurocopter (should be able to work out who I am from that) - and everything you have said here aligns pretty closely with what I recall/know.
Last edited by scran; 15th Jan 2009 at 20:52.
Oh - and to whoever asked about blade folding - the recommendation for the first 12 NH-90's DID include manual (as against auto) blade folding, as these birds were earmarked to be used off the LPA's. Auto-blade folding is not only expensive, but also adds weight.
Thankyou for the clarification.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being pessimistic IS boring
HLC - thanks. I should have opened a book or two.
Scran - you are right, IOC is the Navy' first embarked flight planned mid 2010. First Army capability milestone is a troop ready in Apr 2011.
AFGAN - the NFH has suffered delays, and I'm sure the guys in Marignane know much more about it than I do. Last time I visited, we only discussed the TTH variant.
The ADF is trying as hard as it can to not make the same mistakes. Yes the MRH 90 is specifically configured for Australian service, but in this instance we have deliberately not ordered bespoke Australian mods. Every one of the options we have specified for the MRH 90 is from an available list of certifiable configurations offered by NHI, and every one of them was specified by at least one other country at the beginning of the design life of the aircraft. This has been a deliberate approach to manage risk with the project.
We have not fitted Seahawk engines to the NH90, we haven't put a Super Puma stab on, or Home Brand avionics; we don't have to struggle through certification for an Aussie mongrel. We have bought an aircraft with options certified by the manufacturer, removing risk from our program.
If we did go with NFH 90 in the future, it would be a good decision - there is genuine commonality between the MRH and the NFH 90. Maybe the NFH will be 'proven' by the time the Seahawks are all tuckered out. After all, the first MRH 90 squadron capability will only be on line in 2012. "What? 2012? In my day we would have a squadron stood up by morning tea!" Well we've been pretty busy over the past few years, and will be for a few more. This is what we can do.
Scran - you are right, IOC is the Navy' first embarked flight planned mid 2010. First Army capability milestone is a troop ready in Apr 2011.
AFGAN - the NFH has suffered delays, and I'm sure the guys in Marignane know much more about it than I do. Last time I visited, we only discussed the TTH variant.
The ADF is trying as hard as it can to not make the same mistakes. Yes the MRH 90 is specifically configured for Australian service, but in this instance we have deliberately not ordered bespoke Australian mods. Every one of the options we have specified for the MRH 90 is from an available list of certifiable configurations offered by NHI, and every one of them was specified by at least one other country at the beginning of the design life of the aircraft. This has been a deliberate approach to manage risk with the project.
We have not fitted Seahawk engines to the NH90, we haven't put a Super Puma stab on, or Home Brand avionics; we don't have to struggle through certification for an Aussie mongrel. We have bought an aircraft with options certified by the manufacturer, removing risk from our program.
If we did go with NFH 90 in the future, it would be a good decision - there is genuine commonality between the MRH and the NFH 90. Maybe the NFH will be 'proven' by the time the Seahawks are all tuckered out. After all, the first MRH 90 squadron capability will only be on line in 2012. "What? 2012? In my day we would have a squadron stood up by morning tea!" Well we've been pretty busy over the past few years, and will be for a few more. This is what we can do.