The ADF buys another Lemon
The ADF buys another Lemon
Found it . It's over here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(apologies to the naked vicar show)
Four Corners
Four Corners
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand where you are coming from AFGAN but the Seahawk Blackhawk fleet is not without politics and problems.
The ADF has struggled for years to get the same level of support and spares availability as the US counterparts but were basically held to ransom.
If I remember correctly HDH at Bankstown were overhauling the engines for these aircraft but couldn't hoour the contract because GE would not supply parts to allow the job to be done, in the end all engines have ended going back to the states for overhaul at no doubt a higher cost.
Then there is the problem of a lack of main rotor blades. This hae been in the media a number of times inyears gone by. Do you remember seeing a row of grounded Blackhawks on the news at Townsville all waiting rortor blades.
While the MRH helicopter is new and unproven maybe the ADF is sick and tired of being taken for a ride ny the US military and its suppliers.
I think going to the MRH and Turbomeca engine is a good thing. Australia has been overcharged and screwed by Boeing, GE, Kaman the US navy in recent years. Cost overruns, delivery dates 2 years late or no delivery at all, someone with balls made a decision to go away from the yanks. Good on them. At least 1 person inCanberra has a set of balls.
It seems the US president is over the American suppliers as well.The next presidential helicopters are going to be based on the European EH101, I bet Sikorsky wasn't happy with that.
The ADF has struggled for years to get the same level of support and spares availability as the US counterparts but were basically held to ransom.
If I remember correctly HDH at Bankstown were overhauling the engines for these aircraft but couldn't hoour the contract because GE would not supply parts to allow the job to be done, in the end all engines have ended going back to the states for overhaul at no doubt a higher cost.
Then there is the problem of a lack of main rotor blades. This hae been in the media a number of times inyears gone by. Do you remember seeing a row of grounded Blackhawks on the news at Townsville all waiting rortor blades.
While the MRH helicopter is new and unproven maybe the ADF is sick and tired of being taken for a ride ny the US military and its suppliers.
I think going to the MRH and Turbomeca engine is a good thing. Australia has been overcharged and screwed by Boeing, GE, Kaman the US navy in recent years. Cost overruns, delivery dates 2 years late or no delivery at all, someone with balls made a decision to go away from the yanks. Good on them. At least 1 person inCanberra has a set of balls.
It seems the US president is over the American suppliers as well.The next presidential helicopters are going to be based on the European EH101, I bet Sikorsky wasn't happy with that.
Totally agree with you superlame.
It is not that long ago that the Blackhawk was the 'lemon' on four corners. To many issues to mention in one post. with regard to survivability, there was a time (very recent) when BHs could not deploy due to lack of EWSPS. This may have changed now.
I don't understand, however, why the ADF is not purchasing MRH-90s with blade-folding capability like the NFH-90. I know this adds weight and expense but it also adds versatility.
It is not that long ago that the Blackhawk was the 'lemon' on four corners. To many issues to mention in one post. with regard to survivability, there was a time (very recent) when BHs could not deploy due to lack of EWSPS. This may have changed now.
I don't understand, however, why the ADF is not purchasing MRH-90s with blade-folding capability like the NFH-90. I know this adds weight and expense but it also adds versatility.
Moderator
Fifteen countries have now ordered or optioned over 650 of the €16,000,000 NH 90 series helicopter.
Should one assume all those countries also made a mistake in ordering that aircraft?
I don't recall any ADF aircraft purchase in the last 30 years, which has not been controversial!
Should one assume all those countries also made a mistake in ordering that aircraft?
I don't recall any ADF aircraft purchase in the last 30 years, which has not been controversial!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily tailwheel, it is after all a multi role helicopter. It may well fit the roles envisioned for it in other countries. It obviously doesn't fit the envisioned role in this country. Whether we do or don't get "ripped off" by US companies or not isn't really the point. Whoever the supplier is, the equipment should at least do the job it is bought for......... Keeping in mind of course, that this country has a sad history of speccing one thing, and then requiring changes and modifications to the design to encompass roles, uses and integration of equipment not envisioned by the manufacturers. Blame usually being apportioned to someone else, depending upon who you ask!!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not just the MRH. The Tiger has more than a handful of issues as well.
Eventually, both types will be able to produce a moderately effective capability. The MRH will not be able to do some of the roles they do in the S70. It will however be able to do some that the S70 can not. The Tiger is a capability that we have never had and so is a substantial improvement.
The key for both types is the timeline, which remains the great unknown.
In the meantime, because the Army is conducting so much R&D on both types the corp is hurting. Both the MRH and ARH are sucking up so much manpower that the rest of the corp is in a massive hurt locker.
Apart from the SO role which is all hush hush, the only output of the entire core is a couple of CH47's for about 8 months of the year in the sandpit.
If the politicians had listened to the advice provided we would have all the extra capability (Whisky model cobra and S70M) stood up and operational by now.
The tax payers of Australia should be extremely upset at the politicians for foisting these two lemons on the country.
Hell, I'm a taxpayer and I'm pissed! You should be to.
tsalta
Eventually, both types will be able to produce a moderately effective capability. The MRH will not be able to do some of the roles they do in the S70. It will however be able to do some that the S70 can not. The Tiger is a capability that we have never had and so is a substantial improvement.
The key for both types is the timeline, which remains the great unknown.
In the meantime, because the Army is conducting so much R&D on both types the corp is hurting. Both the MRH and ARH are sucking up so much manpower that the rest of the corp is in a massive hurt locker.
Apart from the SO role which is all hush hush, the only output of the entire core is a couple of CH47's for about 8 months of the year in the sandpit.
If the politicians had listened to the advice provided we would have all the extra capability (Whisky model cobra and S70M) stood up and operational by now.
The tax payers of Australia should be extremely upset at the politicians for foisting these two lemons on the country.
Hell, I'm a taxpayer and I'm pissed! You should be to.
tsalta
Moderator
Not necessarily tailwheel, it is after all a multi role helicopter. It may well fit the roles envisioned for it in other countries.
A perfectly good helicopter but an expectation (by ADF) that it will do something the manufacturer never intended it to do?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an expectation (by ADF)
tsalta
Ya gets wot ya vote for
.Army Avn is hurting for a number of reasons, not just project overuns. Although from the outside ARH looks to be a a bit of a nightmare. Do we need that capability (if no ops in the sandpit)? Is it cost effective?
I understand the MRH is virtually off the shelf so hopefully it will all come together in the end. Remember, the F-111 was once considered a 'lemon'.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need that capability (if no ops in the sandpit)? Is it cost effective?
Is it cost effective? NO, not with the present aircraft
I understand the MRH is virtually off the shelf so hopefully it will all come together in the end
tsalta
^ Tsaltsa, are you sure on that? This article from Flight International in May says that they are operational in Germany (as the TTH). I believe that it is the ASW version which is facing some issues, rather than the transport one.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead set certain. Army Aviation does not have the manpower required to introduce two new developmental aircraft at the same time.
The Army has accepted several airfames so far. However, just like the Tiger, they are still develepmental.
The 5 or 6 airframes which have been accepted so far produce about 5 flight hours per month each. Most of that is test flying. As a battlefield helicopter, when compared to the S70, they are truly hopeless.
tsalta
The Army has accepted several airfames so far. However, just like the Tiger, they are still develepmental.
The 5 or 6 airframes which have been accepted so far produce about 5 flight hours per month each. Most of that is test flying. As a battlefield helicopter, when compared to the S70, they are truly hopeless.
tsalta
Dead set certain. Army Aviation does not have the manpower required to introduce two new developmental aircraft at the same time.
The Army has accepted several airfames so far. However, just like the Tiger, they are still develepmental.
The Army has accepted several airfames so far. However, just like the Tiger, they are still develepmental.
Manning problems are the Army's problem, not the helicopters.
There are plenty of areas in which the department could trim fat from the ADF and redirect funds to where they are needed. Indications are this will probably happen over the next twelve months.
The S-70 has had its share of problems. Anyone remember aircraft having to be re-skinned (particularly Seahawks)? What about fatigue cracking adjacent to BH stores pylons and rotor delamination? There were also accute spares shortages and reductions in the acceptable operating temp of the turbines.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: That would be telling ;)
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a step back....'Those who choose to ignore history are destined to repeat it'...Ok not quite the quote I was thinking of, but let's cast our minds back to the Iroquois. Developed in the 50's to be a Medevac, adapted to be a ground attack, electronic warfare, troop carrier, and gun-ship...all in a very short period. Sure things were a little simpler back then, but the lesson to be learned is don't take a 'frame at face value. The NH-90 has the potential to be all of the above, all it wil take is a little Aussie ingenuity, aka some bungy cord for the door gun, and you will have a very capable utility helicopter.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: my happy place....
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NH-90 has the potential to be all of the above, all it wil take is a little Aussie ingenuity, aka some bungy cord for the door gun, and you will have a very capable utility helicopter
nah those days are long gone... changing ANYTHING on a state aircraft requires a mountain of engineering proposals,approvals, ammendments ect .. I am pretty sure we need SPO approval just to change seat covers theses days
Mounting anything on the airframe that does not come from the OEM forget it. It would be about a simple as planning a space shuttle mission 
Thanks DMO
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about fatigue cracking adjacent to BH stores pylons...?
Any AAVN recce drivers out there care to give their opinion of using the Tiger for recce as opposed to a Kiowa or its modern day equivalent?