Aussie MRH-90
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Introduction Into Service process is very laborious and rigorous, and if the re is not an Airworthiness Instrument in place to allow certain activities, then that aircraft will not do it.
I spent 24/1/73 sailing in circles on the HMAS Moresby in Jervis Bay while Bob Treize of ARDU cleared the Kiowa for shipboard use. The only wind was that provided by the ship and pitch and roll never exceeded 0°. What a waste of time, but it ticked the boxes, and none of those that might interest a naval aviator. And none of it was Bobs fault, just the system.
We went on to learn on the job.
Oldpinger, what't wrong with a Blackhawk?
What's wrong with the comparison? (Other than a tired Sikorsky versus Eurocopter wheeze which never wants for feeding ...)
Blackhawk has set a pretty good standard for what you want out of a helicopter in that class, don't you think?
What's wrong with the comparison? (Other than a tired Sikorsky versus Eurocopter wheeze which never wants for feeding ...)
Blackhawk has set a pretty good standard for what you want out of a helicopter in that class, don't you think?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is mainly referring to BR71 who repeatedly insists (at great length, and with much repetition) that the ONLY fully-functional and sensible light troop helicopter is the 55-year-old UH-1 (Huey) design, and that a warmed-over slightly updated version of the early-1960s UH-1D (now called Huey II) is the best such helicopter in the world (much better than any H-60 or H-90 variant), and anyone who says different is either stupid, brainwashed, or in the pay of Sikorsky/EADS.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 1st Apr 2013 at 21:48.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
'Brian Abraham' said: "...I spent 24/1/73 sailing in circles on the HMAS Moresby in Jervis Bay..." Heheh. I was in Denver CO at Lowry AFB doing a useless Photo Interpreter course (our course security clearance changed at last minute making info less than useful compared to planned course - Labour invaded ASIO causing conniptions in the States!). 
Maybe why I'm so spazzy these days? 
Never saw the A4G MiniPan Perkin Elmer once after that. Oh well.
Maybe why I'm so spazzy these days? Never saw the A4G MiniPan Perkin Elmer once after that. Oh well.
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
Re "first delivery 2007!", certificate 2013
Genuine question re could it have been done any faster ?
Why does it take so long to get these, even for aircraft already
flying in other juristictions ?
Is it a case of Australia always seeming to want to reinvent the
wheel ?
Could an aircraft have been purchased "off the shelf" to be used
solely for getting a certificate ?
Would be interested in the answers from those who know.
Genuine question re could it have been done any faster ?
Why does it take so long to get these, even for aircraft already
flying in other juristictions ?
Is it a case of Australia always seeming to want to reinvent the
wheel ?
Could an aircraft have been purchased "off the shelf" to be used
solely for getting a certificate ?
Would be interested in the answers from those who know.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushranger71
What supposed gunner positions blocking cabin space in the Blackhawk are you referring to? I've flown the H model Huey and the Pavehawk, I dont' really see any difference in cabin space, except that the space between the gunners is not blocked by the transmission in the hawk.
From what I can tell, the hawk is basically a duplicate of the huey, with improvements due to combat experience. Sure, it's heavier (about double in empty weight, both empty and max gross and it has about double the fuel burn as well as capacity) but one troop weighs about one troop weighs and all the extra equipment weighs what it weighs.
I'm more than impressed with what Bell has done to lengthen the lifeline of the Huey, but I just don't see how it offers any significant advantage unless you're currently operating an H model and are looking for a cost effective upgrade.
From what I can tell, the hawk is basically a duplicate of the huey, with improvements due to combat experience. Sure, it's heavier (about double in empty weight, both empty and max gross and it has about double the fuel burn as well as capacity) but one troop weighs about one troop weighs and all the extra equipment weighs what it weighs.
I'm more than impressed with what Bell has done to lengthen the lifeline of the Huey, but I just don't see how it offers any significant advantage unless you're currently operating an H model and are looking for a cost effective upgrade.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRH 90 IS off the shelf - it is 99.?% common to the German TTH.
The delays in service acceptance and certification have been due in part to immaturity in the supply chain caused by having multiple versions being developed concurrently; a few technical issues which may be acceptable to other operators but are not to us, e.g. floor rating, rear ramp, ground clearance; and technical issues which are somewhat (but not wholly) unique to Australian operating conditions and requirements, e.g. cracking windscreens, door gun position.
What has also been discovered and which wasn't fully appreciated when the aircraft was ordered, is its unsuitability for conducting assault landings in dusty/dry environments where brown-outs can occur. This is the domain of the Black Hawk due to its tailwheel configuration and long-stroke main oleos!
So, in summary, as a pure point to point transport or maritime helo, the MRH is a ripper, and when mature, I'm sure will provide sterling and reliable service to the ADF. But if we want to maintain the battlefield assault capability, a small side order of UH-60Ms might be worth considering...
The delays in service acceptance and certification have been due in part to immaturity in the supply chain caused by having multiple versions being developed concurrently; a few technical issues which may be acceptable to other operators but are not to us, e.g. floor rating, rear ramp, ground clearance; and technical issues which are somewhat (but not wholly) unique to Australian operating conditions and requirements, e.g. cracking windscreens, door gun position.
What has also been discovered and which wasn't fully appreciated when the aircraft was ordered, is its unsuitability for conducting assault landings in dusty/dry environments where brown-outs can occur. This is the domain of the Black Hawk due to its tailwheel configuration and long-stroke main oleos!
So, in summary, as a pure point to point transport or maritime helo, the MRH is a ripper, and when mature, I'm sure will provide sterling and reliable service to the ADF. But if we want to maintain the battlefield assault capability, a small side order of UH-60Ms might be worth considering...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, if I assume a slick Huey weighs about 5k pounds and tops out at max gross weight at 10k, and a slick Blackhawk is about 12k empty and 22k max gross: The Huey 2 is hovering IGE at 12k msl at 11* C (ISA +20) typical Huey hover altitudes are 3ft. A slick Blackhawk (UH-60L) is hovering at 10 feet with a torque margin of 6% with the same load with the same fuel duration. In other words, the Blackhawk out performs the Huey 2 in high hot performance with the same conditions.
ETA: I boogered up the math, they end up having about the same performance at those high altitudes as far as hover performance is concerned.
The difference is that with expanded capability, we end up hauling around more new age gear, so our aircraft are just heavier than past aircraft both in real numbers and percentage wise.
ETA: I boogered up the math, they end up having about the same performance at those high altitudes as far as hover performance is concerned.
The difference is that with expanded capability, we end up hauling around more new age gear, so our aircraft are just heavier than past aircraft both in real numbers and percentage wise.
Last edited by busdriver02; 2nd Apr 2013 at 01:13.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me the Blackhawks design is a result of real world war experience (ie Vietnam, etc), and NH90 design is a result of a university educational experience.
John
John
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop teasing
But if we want to maintain the battlefield assault capability, a small side order of UH-60Ms might be worth considering...
Hmm, any one know if it might be being considered?
Last edited by Felix the Cat; 2nd Apr 2013 at 10:13.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Felix the Cat
Hmm, any one know if it might be being considered?
But money being what it is and with the impending withdrawal from the sandpit, I doubt there'll be any movement on it in the short to medium term!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello BA; your post #382 is curious. I was HOPS at RAAF Headquarters Operational Command in 1972/73 and cannot recall any constraints re Iroquois operations from RAN aircraft carriers and Bravo model Iroquois were also operated by Navy. During the Vietnam era, we sometimes did troop moving to and from HMAS Sydney. Limitations began emerging later on, especially post-ADF creation in 1974.
GK121; I endeavour to offer logical debate, mostly from a cost-effective perspective. It seems a no-brainer that a virtually as new enhanced platform (with glass cockpit, contemporary avionics and other niceties) for about $2million and operable for less than $5,000 per hour is a more cost-effective asset than a $20million unit with operating cost maybe 3 to 4 times higher. Somebody might like to offer the specific unit cost of MRH90 (perhaps around $35million?) and its operating cost per hour, both much higher than both predecessor types. And; operational employment hitherto in high DA environs suggests there is no significant payload advantage for Blackhawk or MRH90 above Huey II.
busdriver02; the rear crew stations in the Huey are not corralled as in Blackhawk when cabin volume is fully utilized, such as with logistics stacked right up to the roof and to cargo door opening extremities. Rear crew members are better positioned to supervise loading/unloading, etcetera. Their external visibility is unrestricted compared with forward internal gun positions on other types and the door gunners have greater freedom of movement in their rear stations adjacent to the transmission, not taking up cabin volume like forward stations in Blackhawk. There are of course some configurations of Blackhawk with armaments positioned in rearward cabin space.
FA18; brown-out conditions were pretty common during dry season operations in Vietnam where land clearing had been effected and we could have been mistaken for North American Indians at times. Good forward and downward visibility enabled flying the bird right to ground level with only an occasional minor spreading of skids and rarely a dinged chin window. Regarding so-called combat assault; unlikely to be entertained by good ground commanders and ship to shore trooping is more likely to be streaming, after landing zones have been secured by special forces.
rjtjrtl; re your post #392. The UTTAS competition resulted in overly-protective design in my view, spawning a much heavier and more costly platform to do what the Huey had done. Battlefield survivability of the Huey proved to be very good as outlined in this extract from a comprehensive US Army analysis: ‘...Statistics on relative vulnerability (of helicopters) reveal that out of 1,147 sorties, one aircraft would be hit by enemy fire, one aircraft was shot down per 13,461 sorties, and only one aircraft was shot down and lost per 21,194 sorties. Used properly, the helicopter was not the fragile target some doom-forecasters had predicted...' - Air Mobility Vietnam 1961-1971 by Lieutenant General John J. Tolson. Battlefield survivability is arguably more about operating practices than anti-aircraft threat and I believe this aspect was under-recognized in the UTTAS requirement.
Harking back to my earlier posts; air platforms are being unaffordably priced, operating costs are soaring and defence budgets are being shrunk worldwide. In such circumstances, air forces will have to be tailored to what is affordable to assure adequate aircrew proficiency, a topic now emerging in other forums. Hard to see any other solution than consolidating force structures and maybe putting some costly assets in storage to assure enough money to continue operating some roles at a viable level. Maybe a parallel lessening need for as many military aircrew so a rather dim prospect.
GK121; I endeavour to offer logical debate, mostly from a cost-effective perspective. It seems a no-brainer that a virtually as new enhanced platform (with glass cockpit, contemporary avionics and other niceties) for about $2million and operable for less than $5,000 per hour is a more cost-effective asset than a $20million unit with operating cost maybe 3 to 4 times higher. Somebody might like to offer the specific unit cost of MRH90 (perhaps around $35million?) and its operating cost per hour, both much higher than both predecessor types. And; operational employment hitherto in high DA environs suggests there is no significant payload advantage for Blackhawk or MRH90 above Huey II.
busdriver02; the rear crew stations in the Huey are not corralled as in Blackhawk when cabin volume is fully utilized, such as with logistics stacked right up to the roof and to cargo door opening extremities. Rear crew members are better positioned to supervise loading/unloading, etcetera. Their external visibility is unrestricted compared with forward internal gun positions on other types and the door gunners have greater freedom of movement in their rear stations adjacent to the transmission, not taking up cabin volume like forward stations in Blackhawk. There are of course some configurations of Blackhawk with armaments positioned in rearward cabin space.
FA18; brown-out conditions were pretty common during dry season operations in Vietnam where land clearing had been effected and we could have been mistaken for North American Indians at times. Good forward and downward visibility enabled flying the bird right to ground level with only an occasional minor spreading of skids and rarely a dinged chin window. Regarding so-called combat assault; unlikely to be entertained by good ground commanders and ship to shore trooping is more likely to be streaming, after landing zones have been secured by special forces.
rjtjrtl; re your post #392. The UTTAS competition resulted in overly-protective design in my view, spawning a much heavier and more costly platform to do what the Huey had done. Battlefield survivability of the Huey proved to be very good as outlined in this extract from a comprehensive US Army analysis: ‘...Statistics on relative vulnerability (of helicopters) reveal that out of 1,147 sorties, one aircraft would be hit by enemy fire, one aircraft was shot down per 13,461 sorties, and only one aircraft was shot down and lost per 21,194 sorties. Used properly, the helicopter was not the fragile target some doom-forecasters had predicted...' - Air Mobility Vietnam 1961-1971 by Lieutenant General John J. Tolson. Battlefield survivability is arguably more about operating practices than anti-aircraft threat and I believe this aspect was under-recognized in the UTTAS requirement.
Harking back to my earlier posts; air platforms are being unaffordably priced, operating costs are soaring and defence budgets are being shrunk worldwide. In such circumstances, air forces will have to be tailored to what is affordable to assure adequate aircrew proficiency, a topic now emerging in other forums. Hard to see any other solution than consolidating force structures and maybe putting some costly assets in storage to assure enough money to continue operating some roles at a viable level. Maybe a parallel lessening need for as many military aircrew so a rather dim prospect.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
For interest an RAN FAA Iroquois aboard HMAS Melbourne in the late 1960s to early 1970s (paint scheme on A4Gs):
+ SAR Helos with A4Gs: Wessex Iroquois SAR HMAS Melbourne A4Gs | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/...Flightdeck.jpg
+ SAR Helos with A4Gs: Wessex Iroquois SAR HMAS Melbourne A4Gs | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/...Flightdeck.jpg
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 14th Apr 2013 at 08:01. Reason: another photie
Huey landings were also commonplace on the Tobruk fore and aft decks in the 80s and 90s, with day and night (unaided) training done whenever it happened to be around. A bit of a challenge on a dark night but certainly doable.
I never goggled onto it, but I'm sure that would have been OK too.
(Edit: Can't remember if we used the foredeck at night or not - I think I've still got all the good gen written down in a notebook somewhere).
I never goggled onto it, but I'm sure that would have been OK too.
(Edit: Can't remember if we used the foredeck at night or not - I think I've still got all the good gen written down in a notebook somewhere).
Last edited by Arm out the window; 14th Apr 2013 at 08:59.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Huey No.9 Sqdn RAAF Vung Tau HMAS Sydney
HS 817 Linebook Page shows Iroquois Baggage to MELBOURNE also....
RAAF Huey No9 Sqdn Vung Tau HMAS Sydney | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
895iroquoisMELBOURNE | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
895iroquoisBaggageMELBOURNE1971 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
HS817 Linebook 11sep1971 Drop VF805 Baggage | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
RAAF Huey No9 Sqdn Vung Tau HMAS Sydney | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
895iroquoisMELBOURNE | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
895iroquoisBaggageMELBOURNE1971 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
HS817 Linebook 11sep1971 Drop VF805 Baggage | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 14th Apr 2013 at 10:27. Reason: Add Photo URLs