Aussie MRH-90
FA-18
That is a very good point. I am sure the deployed force played a significant role.
Ozbiggles
Yeah, I think we must be on the same page.
500N
Absolutely! Para load follow, either dropping boats on CEPs or as Bundles is still the go. Great fun too
Doors off
Glad to hear the Tigers are operational. I was told they'd be signed off after TS11, but then heard that they hadn't been due ongoing problems. It would be great to see these machines deploy.
Apologies for the rant, I have very strong views on the subject.
A former colleague recently told me they will struggle to make the MRH operational except as a rear-ech asset, and believes an FMS sale might be on the cards. Apparently the floor problems and lack of a position for door guns presents a problem which will require a very expensive engineering fix. So far there is no solution. I will say, however, that my former colleague is not posted to that type at the moment.
And while the HVA escort missions were tedious and uneventful, I submit to you that we freed up other coalition assets to join the fight.
Ozbiggles
In regards to the MRH 90 I think if it had delivered what it promised we would all be happy now. I think the logic however of buying off the shelf American would have made far more sense, particularly as they are the ones we are going to play with and the support in country that would provide.
500N
Absolutely! Para load follow, either dropping boats on CEPs or as Bundles is still the go. Great fun too
Doors off
Glad to hear the Tigers are operational. I was told they'd be signed off after TS11, but then heard that they hadn't been due ongoing problems. It would be great to see these machines deploy.
Apologies for the rant, I have very strong views on the subject.
A former colleague recently told me they will struggle to make the MRH operational except as a rear-ech asset, and believes an FMS sale might be on the cards. Apparently the floor problems and lack of a position for door guns presents a problem which will require a very expensive engineering fix. So far there is no solution. I will say, however, that my former colleague is not posted to that type at the moment.
Last edited by Trojan1981; 1st Apr 2012 at 13:38.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The floor fix for the MRHs is in hand - at Eurocopter's expense too!
The lack of a door gunner position and other issues will limit to the MRH to a pure transport role, and it will likely never be employed in the battlefield assault mission.
Low-key representations have been made to US Army/Sikorsky for some UH-60Ms...but there is no money to progress this at the moment.
The lack of a door gunner position and other issues will limit to the MRH to a pure transport role, and it will likely never be employed in the battlefield assault mission.
Low-key representations have been made to US Army/Sikorsky for some UH-60Ms...but there is no money to progress this at the moment.
Thread Starter
I'm told from a good source that they are not suitable for the counter terrorism/special ops role and that Blackhawks will be retained for that and that they hope to crossover to UH-60M for that role.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here is a question.
Was the original specification / tender before the purchase written with specs that included the use of the MRH for
- counter terrorism/special ops role
- battlefield assault mission
- door gunner (although it looks like this will be fixed)
If it was envisaged that the first two were part of what the MRH was supposed to do, then where did such a big stuff up occur ?
Surely the people who are purchasing know before they hand over the contract or the $$$ that it will do what we want ?
Was the original specification / tender before the purchase written with specs that included the use of the MRH for
- counter terrorism/special ops role
- battlefield assault mission
- door gunner (although it looks like this will be fixed)
If it was envisaged that the first two were part of what the MRH was supposed to do, then where did such a big stuff up occur ?
Surely the people who are purchasing know before they hand over the contract or the $$$ that it will do what we want ?
The lack of a door gunner position and other issues will limit to the MRH to a pure transport role, and it will likely never be employed in the battlefield assault mission.
Low-key representations have been made to US Army/Sikorsky for some UH-60Ms...but there is no money to progress this at the moment.
Low-key representations have been made to US Army/Sikorsky for some UH-60Ms...but there is no money to progress this at the moment.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trojan
What a waste of time AND money - for what, a few jobs up north
to keep some pollie happy ?
Would have been cheaper to pay them the dole and to buy the right helo
in the first place.
Oh well.
What a waste of time AND money - for what, a few jobs up north
to keep some pollie happy ?
Would have been cheaper to pay them the dole and to buy the right helo
in the first place.
Oh well.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the AAVN blokes are getting as little flying as I'm told they are, what in the hell do they do with themselves all day? And how scary is it for all concerned when 2Lt Bloggs gets his/her knees on each side of a cylic?
The lack of a door gunner position and other issues will limit to the MRH to a pure transport role, and it will likely never be employed in the battlefield assault mission.
If the AAVN blokes are getting as little flying as I'm told they are, what in the hell do they do with themselves all day?
Cheers
If the AAVN blokes are getting as little flying as I'm told they are, what in the hell do they do with themselves all day? And how scary is it for all concerned when 2Lt Bloggs gets his/her knees on each side of a cylic?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not any more Trojan.
The choc graduating class in Feb 2008 (and all that followed) went straight to LT. I believe the only 2LTs are now AAAvn pre-ROBC SSOs.
The choc graduating class in Feb 2008 (and all that followed) went straight to LT. I believe the only 2LTs are now AAAvn pre-ROBC SSOs.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lead-up to the Australian MRH90 decision
It has been suggested I rejoin the debate this thread.
Why did Australia acquire the MRH90? It was a 'going away' present by then PM John Howard as a virtual last act before Election 2007 - along with 2 x LPD aircraft carriers - for his former MinDef Peter Reith who was working for Tenix post-political life; that outfit later being absorbed by BAE Systems. Tenix of course were driving the prospective LPD and MRH90 acquisitions. But what had happened in the 30 or so years preceding that decision?
'At the end of the Vietnam War, the argument was made in the United States, as well as Australia, that it would be sheer folly to become involved in distant, extended, Asian counter-insurgency campaigns or to structure the armed forces for such contingencies.' - Professor Alan Dupont, The Lowy Institute.
Embarkation on the thinly-veiled unified ADF experiment (a la Canada) initiated in 1974 also saw loss of focus on maintaining the military capacities and operational expertise hard won during the Vietnam War where, contrary to folklore, the independent armed forces functioned well jointly, as in prior conflicts wherein Australian forces had mainly conformed with British Joint Planning doctrine.
Pre-ADF formation, political oversight of the military was appropriately exercised but that morphed into Public Service domination, subsequent dismantling of a system whereby the armed forces had pretty well managed their own hardware acquisitions and the growth of monstrous substitute bureaucracies under 3 separate ministries now dominating defence matters. For years now, the central plank of Australian defence policy has been support of defence industry (largely foreign-parented) at the expense of military preparedness.
Since 1974, little effort was made to progressively optimise military hardware in service in Australia; but, majority of the aircraft platforms employed by Australian forces during the Vietnam campaign and subsequently have since been continually employed operationally by other nations and are still being optimised via ongoing manufacturer upgrade programs. For example; enhanced Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk versions and turbo engined ex-RAAF Caribou are now operating in Afghanistan with more of that discarded herd being re-engined.
Alan Dupont again: 'While our defence strategy must incorporate plans for dealing with a major conventional military attack against sovereign Australian territory (deterrence Yes, defence No - BR71), this remains a low-probability scenario and the ADF should not be primarily structured for such a threat. It makes no strategic sense to allocate the lion’s share of the defence budget to capabilities that have little or no utility for the conflicts most likely to engage the ADF, or which cannot be used because they do not have the necessary protection to survive in a high-threat environment (a failing of many past acquisitions). We need to give much higher priority to maintaining and sustaining the equipment we have by elevating the importance of logistics and remediation.'(my emphasis – BR71).
Maybe some more soon re Post #214 and 'remediating' the ADF helo force.
Why did Australia acquire the MRH90? It was a 'going away' present by then PM John Howard as a virtual last act before Election 2007 - along with 2 x LPD aircraft carriers - for his former MinDef Peter Reith who was working for Tenix post-political life; that outfit later being absorbed by BAE Systems. Tenix of course were driving the prospective LPD and MRH90 acquisitions. But what had happened in the 30 or so years preceding that decision?
'At the end of the Vietnam War, the argument was made in the United States, as well as Australia, that it would be sheer folly to become involved in distant, extended, Asian counter-insurgency campaigns or to structure the armed forces for such contingencies.' - Professor Alan Dupont, The Lowy Institute.
Embarkation on the thinly-veiled unified ADF experiment (a la Canada) initiated in 1974 also saw loss of focus on maintaining the military capacities and operational expertise hard won during the Vietnam War where, contrary to folklore, the independent armed forces functioned well jointly, as in prior conflicts wherein Australian forces had mainly conformed with British Joint Planning doctrine.
Pre-ADF formation, political oversight of the military was appropriately exercised but that morphed into Public Service domination, subsequent dismantling of a system whereby the armed forces had pretty well managed their own hardware acquisitions and the growth of monstrous substitute bureaucracies under 3 separate ministries now dominating defence matters. For years now, the central plank of Australian defence policy has been support of defence industry (largely foreign-parented) at the expense of military preparedness.
Since 1974, little effort was made to progressively optimise military hardware in service in Australia; but, majority of the aircraft platforms employed by Australian forces during the Vietnam campaign and subsequently have since been continually employed operationally by other nations and are still being optimised via ongoing manufacturer upgrade programs. For example; enhanced Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk versions and turbo engined ex-RAAF Caribou are now operating in Afghanistan with more of that discarded herd being re-engined.
Alan Dupont again: 'While our defence strategy must incorporate plans for dealing with a major conventional military attack against sovereign Australian territory (deterrence Yes, defence No - BR71), this remains a low-probability scenario and the ADF should not be primarily structured for such a threat. It makes no strategic sense to allocate the lion’s share of the defence budget to capabilities that have little or no utility for the conflicts most likely to engage the ADF, or which cannot be used because they do not have the necessary protection to survive in a high-threat environment (a failing of many past acquisitions). We need to give much higher priority to maintaining and sustaining the equipment we have by elevating the importance of logistics and remediation.'(my emphasis – BR71).
Maybe some more soon re Post #214 and 'remediating' the ADF helo force.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 10th Apr 2012 at 20:49.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ...
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professor Alan Dupont seems to make some very commonsense points, BR71. It doesn't seem to make any sense to have too small numbers of the best kit if we can't afford to operate it - or, because it is so expensive, politically, we can't afford to lose one unit, so commanders are forced to keep it away from high, een medium risk situations.
Looking forward to your next offering.
Looking forward to your next offering.
Thread Starter
The last press release from Gilard and co talked about cancelling 33 multirole helicopters!
Does this mean the end of the MRH90 and that we will keep around 15-16 for Navy etc and rebuild the existing Blackhawk fleet?
I'm aware that Army wants to keep 12 Blackhawks for special ops in Sydney as MRH90 doesn't do the job. Maybe our new helicopter fleet could look like this:
22 Tiger ARH
24 MH-60R
15-16 MRH90 shared Army/Navy
30+ S70A's rebuilt for Army.
*12+ S70B's as utility cabs.
I personally think the S70B's that Navy has should be converted to fleet "cabs" by removing ASW etc gear and using them the way we used the Wessex/Sea King. Make excellent fleet utility aircraft stripped out. Can land aboard all classes of ships if and when required and we own them.
Also Chinooks, when the new F models are delivered upgrade the D's to D+ or F models so we have a decent fleet with enough for maintenance/ops and training.
Does this mean the end of the MRH90 and that we will keep around 15-16 for Navy etc and rebuild the existing Blackhawk fleet?
I'm aware that Army wants to keep 12 Blackhawks for special ops in Sydney as MRH90 doesn't do the job. Maybe our new helicopter fleet could look like this:
22 Tiger ARH
24 MH-60R
15-16 MRH90 shared Army/Navy
30+ S70A's rebuilt for Army.
*12+ S70B's as utility cabs.
I personally think the S70B's that Navy has should be converted to fleet "cabs" by removing ASW etc gear and using them the way we used the Wessex/Sea King. Make excellent fleet utility aircraft stripped out. Can land aboard all classes of ships if and when required and we own them.
Also Chinooks, when the new F models are delivered upgrade the D's to D+ or F models so we have a decent fleet with enough for maintenance/ops and training.
Last edited by TBM-Legend; 6th May 2012 at 06:59.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NH90s: Defence Paper Questions Helicopter Lifespans... | Stuff.co.nz
The paper says there is a "medium" risk the "fatigue life modelling utilised by NHIndustries may not be accurate, and may not take the Defence Force's statement of operating intent into consideration".
It warned Defence might have to reduce either the annual available flying hours, or the desired 30-year lifespan.
The paper also revealed a "high" risk that some core equipment, including fuel tanks, chaff and flare dispensers, ballistic protection, liferafts, rope rappelling devices and machine-gun mounts, would not be ready before the choppers were handed over. Those delays would "prolong the time" it took for the NH90s to reach their "directed level of capability".
It warned Defence might have to reduce either the annual available flying hours, or the desired 30-year lifespan.
The paper also revealed a "high" risk that some core equipment, including fuel tanks, chaff and flare dispensers, ballistic protection, liferafts, rope rappelling devices and machine-gun mounts, would not be ready before the choppers were handed over. Those delays would "prolong the time" it took for the NH90s to reach their "directed level of capability".
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 500N
Question for those in the know.
Can the RAAF still do para load follows of Boats / soldiers
like the Zodiacs. I would assume yes but since we are talking
dropping supplies, thought I would ask.
Can the RAAF still do para load follows of Boats / soldiers
like the Zodiacs. I would assume yes but since we are talking
dropping supplies, thought I would ask.
Originally Posted by FoxtrotAlpha18
500N - yes, this capability is maintained in the C-130H.
Updates of lots of friends' Bookface status this evening are skirting dangerously close to "inappropriate use of social media" ...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTDT
I haven't had a chance to have a good read and won't for a few days.
What did the budget say that makes you say that ? (According to tonight's budget, not for much longer).
I haven't had a chance to have a good read and won't for a few days.
What did the budget say that makes you say that ? (According to tonight's budget, not for much longer).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early retirement of H models. In fact, next FY has "withdrawn" in the 2012-13 budget estimate column for the H model fleet hours. No increase to any other ALG fleet to compensate (modest increase for C-17 to account for the extra aircraft).
I can't help thinking that this hasn't been thought through ... but that wouldn't be unusual, would it?
I can't help thinking that this hasn't been thought through ... but that wouldn't be unusual, would it?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodea
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offical word from hierachy today in 37SQN briefing. C130H retirement in 6 weeks !!!!!!
That's short notice although to be honest the fleet has been facing the axe for some time, we did expect more notice though. No word on BFA although we're assured it's coming. All training / upgrades cancelled unless a single flight remaining on course etc.
That's short notice although to be honest the fleet has been facing the axe for some time, we did expect more notice though. No word on BFA although we're assured it's coming. All training / upgrades cancelled unless a single flight remaining on course etc.