Aussie MRH-90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
TAIpanESE
'oldpinger' G'day. You were probably not at the 'Tross when 'TAIPAN' was the callsign as shown below and also used by a former RANHFV pilot turned to A4Gs where he used 'TAIPAN' as his tactical (self-selected) callsign. His tactical callsign did not conflict with any others because as shown the callsign was used in Vietnam. By the time Rick Symons was flying A4Gs I think everyone was back from 'Nam.
In Vietnam RANHFV2 1968-9: Rick Symons on far left - Tom Supple mit beard, both went on to A4Gs later on VC-724 OFS No.4 & 5 late 1970 & early 1971 respectively, then together on VF-805. Click de thumbnail:
Yes I understand about the 'Taipan' RAN Squirrel c/s - my reference was more about Vietnam but at the time of my offhand remark I did not want to go into details on this UK-centric forum. But anyway.... A lot of helo stuff of olden tymes is in the 4.4GB PDF online. I could make a helo specific PDF excerpt but that may take some time. Used to have a bunch of 'out of date' ones online at various now defunct places. If interested the most recent of these 'out of date' helo PDFs could be uploaded. Anyhoo... You will note the ARMY have referred to the 'TAIPAN' whilst the RAN perhaps use the 'COBRA' callsign. Is this the case today. Does Navy/ARMY refer collectively to the 'TAIPAN' as you say? I have no idea - I have not been in the RAN FAA for about 38 years now.
Are you going to be able to join the new 'dipgang subzappers'?
___________________________
“The 135th‘s call signs were EMU (an acronym for Experimental Military Unit and ironically also the name of a flightless Australian bird) and TAIPAN (a deadly Australian snake). As was common in most Assault Helicopter Companies throughout the war, the 135th differentiated its slicks and gunships by assigning one call sign (EMU) to the slick platoons and another (TAIPAN) to the gun platoon. Each aircraft commander was assigned a separate number to use with the call sign. These numbers would reflect the number of the platoon plus a second digit from 0-9. Call signs would therefore range from EMU 10 to 19 and EMU 20 to 29. Taipans used any free number. The company commander’s call sign (as throughout much of the Army) was always simply the company call sign plus 6 (EMU 6). Unit aircraft were always identified by their commander’s call sign when in the air. Only on the ground were aircraft known by their names, the last three digits of their tail number.”
Huey Vets - EMU, Inc. 135th AHC
______________________________
5 Avn Regt hosts Defence families: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armyn.../1246/1246.pdf
“DEFENCE families were given the opportunity to fly in a Black Hawk or Chinook at the 5 Avn Regt family day held on October 2, 2010 in Townsville. More than 500 visitors were able to inspect the unit’s helicopters and vehicles, handle unit weapons and meet RAAF military working dogs. They were also able to meet members of the RNZAF preparing to participate in Exercise Hamel & inspect the MRH-90 Taipan trooplift helicopter.”
NHIndustries NH90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operators - Australian Army: 40 MRH 90 (TTH), 8 delivered in 2009 with the remainder to be delivered by 2014.
MRH90 nickname : ‘Cobra’ Royal Australian Navy: 6 MRH 90 (TTH).
________________
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...144078_150.jpg
&
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...144078_210.jpg
"MRH 90 'Cobra 08' conducts serials during the First of Class Flight Trials, on HMAS Manoora, off the coast of Hobart, Tasmania (Australia) 02 Nov 2009"
&
"MRH 90 'Cobra 08' comes in to land on the flight deck of HMAS Manoora during the First of Class Flight Trials at sea.
(Date taken: 27 October 2009)"
In Vietnam RANHFV2 1968-9: Rick Symons on far left - Tom Supple mit beard, both went on to A4Gs later on VC-724 OFS No.4 & 5 late 1970 & early 1971 respectively, then together on VF-805. Click de thumbnail:
Yes I understand about the 'Taipan' RAN Squirrel c/s - my reference was more about Vietnam but at the time of my offhand remark I did not want to go into details on this UK-centric forum. But anyway.... A lot of helo stuff of olden tymes is in the 4.4GB PDF online. I could make a helo specific PDF excerpt but that may take some time. Used to have a bunch of 'out of date' ones online at various now defunct places. If interested the most recent of these 'out of date' helo PDFs could be uploaded. Anyhoo... You will note the ARMY have referred to the 'TAIPAN' whilst the RAN perhaps use the 'COBRA' callsign. Is this the case today. Does Navy/ARMY refer collectively to the 'TAIPAN' as you say? I have no idea - I have not been in the RAN FAA for about 38 years now.
Are you going to be able to join the new 'dipgang subzappers'?
___________________________
“The 135th‘s call signs were EMU (an acronym for Experimental Military Unit and ironically also the name of a flightless Australian bird) and TAIPAN (a deadly Australian snake). As was common in most Assault Helicopter Companies throughout the war, the 135th differentiated its slicks and gunships by assigning one call sign (EMU) to the slick platoons and another (TAIPAN) to the gun platoon. Each aircraft commander was assigned a separate number to use with the call sign. These numbers would reflect the number of the platoon plus a second digit from 0-9. Call signs would therefore range from EMU 10 to 19 and EMU 20 to 29. Taipans used any free number. The company commander’s call sign (as throughout much of the Army) was always simply the company call sign plus 6 (EMU 6). Unit aircraft were always identified by their commander’s call sign when in the air. Only on the ground were aircraft known by their names, the last three digits of their tail number.”
Huey Vets - EMU, Inc. 135th AHC
______________________________
5 Avn Regt hosts Defence families: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armyn.../1246/1246.pdf
“DEFENCE families were given the opportunity to fly in a Black Hawk or Chinook at the 5 Avn Regt family day held on October 2, 2010 in Townsville. More than 500 visitors were able to inspect the unit’s helicopters and vehicles, handle unit weapons and meet RAAF military working dogs. They were also able to meet members of the RNZAF preparing to participate in Exercise Hamel & inspect the MRH-90 Taipan trooplift helicopter.”
NHIndustries NH90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operators - Australian Army: 40 MRH 90 (TTH), 8 delivered in 2009 with the remainder to be delivered by 2014.
MRH90 nickname : ‘Cobra’ Royal Australian Navy: 6 MRH 90 (TTH).
________________
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...144078_150.jpg
&
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...144078_210.jpg
"MRH 90 'Cobra 08' conducts serials during the First of Class Flight Trials, on HMAS Manoora, off the coast of Hobart, Tasmania (Australia) 02 Nov 2009"
&
"MRH 90 'Cobra 08' comes in to land on the flight deck of HMAS Manoora during the First of Class Flight Trials at sea.
(Date taken: 27 October 2009)"
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 19th Jun 2013 at 04:50. Reason: add photie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Small RAN FAA OLD HELO PDFs
On the Microsoft SkyDrive SpazSinbad Page in the folder:
Various RAN FAA Aircraft PDFs are various small PDFs about 'old' RAN FAA Helos (which info is part of the background info for the main topic A4G Skyhawks):
http://tinyurl.com/kv6m9y7
OR
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd6...340707E6%21438
Various RAN FAA Aircraft PDFs are various small PDFs about 'old' RAN FAA Helos (which info is part of the background info for the main topic A4G Skyhawks):
http://tinyurl.com/kv6m9y7
OR
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd6...340707E6%21438
Naming the thing 'Taipan' is just a bunch of advertising type spin, same as how the new F-18 magically became the 'Rhino'. Who dreams this crap up? Who knows.
I like a good aeroplane or helicopter name as much as the next person, but it's all too, I don't know, wanky these days. Or am I just getting old and grumpy? No, don't answer that!
I like a good aeroplane or helicopter name as much as the next person, but it's all too, I don't know, wanky these days. Or am I just getting old and grumpy? No, don't answer that!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One flew low over Malanda at about 0630 this morning heading NNW. A few Blackhawk sorties around the Tablelands this week as well. AOTW, bringing back some memories? 
Last edited by Delta_Foxtrot; 19th Jun 2013 at 22:07.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRH90 Name vs Callsign
COBRA is the callsign used by the RAN Aircraft Maintenance and Flight Trials Unit (AMAFTU). It can equally apply to a Seahawks as an MRH90. The callsign for 808 Squadron is "Poseidon" a reference to the Squadron crest - "Trident" was not available as it is a little used RAAF MPA formation callsign.
The name TAIPAN was not universally popular (who names an aircraft after a snake?) but was decided by a committee of senior Army personnel.
The name TAIPAN was not universally popular (who names an aircraft after a snake?) but was decided by a committee of senior Army personnel.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Originally Posted by BluenGreen
who names an aircraft after a snake?
One flew low over Malanda at about 0630 this morning heading NNW. A few Blackhawk sorties around the Tablelands this week as well. AOTW, bringing back some memories?
Will be getting airborne tomorrow in something at least reminiscent of the old days, a Jet box ... don't freeze the arse off down south now!
Cheers mate
BlueGreen: thanks for the points on airworthiness and certs.
I will also note that a lack of floats does not seem to have stopped the USN from operating Seahawks for about thirty years.
The idea is to operate from ships, not from the surface of the ocean. 
As to fuel, from a few posts back:
Blackhawk has less fuel than Seahawk. (~2600 pounds versus ~4000 pounds, roughly). One of the numerous cases of the "not quite the same" roots of Seahawk as a "common airframe" to Blackhawk.
MRH-90 comparisons, in the maritime milieu, need to take that into account when discussing the matter of "legs" on a given model of S-70 or the other.
Then again, since the Block 1(B) Seahawk, as well as the F and H, provision for external tank is built in. Likewise for the R (Operational choice to use it or not).
I will also note that a lack of floats does not seem to have stopped the USN from operating Seahawks for about thirty years.
The idea is to operate from ships, not from the surface of the ocean. As to fuel, from a few posts back:
Blackhawk has less fuel than Seahawk. (~2600 pounds versus ~4000 pounds, roughly). One of the numerous cases of the "not quite the same" roots of Seahawk as a "common airframe" to Blackhawk.
MRH-90 comparisons, in the maritime milieu, need to take that into account when discussing the matter of "legs" on a given model of S-70 or the other.
Then again, since the Block 1(B) Seahawk, as well as the F and H, provision for external tank is built in. Likewise for the R (Operational choice to use it or not).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: N/A
Age: 36
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that was an interesting read.... A rather stark and blunt assessment of the program to date, with not much good news for the future. MRH was doomed from the start because of poorly defined requirements, a poor comprehension of the level of development of the aircraft and even more poorly written contracts. The end result is that the Commonwealth took on far to much risk with few protections. Ever since then it has been trying to play catch up.
Not only that, but the Commonwealth even outsourced the purse strings for maintenance functions, resulting in maintenance costs exponentially exceeding fair value. Pages 179 onwards detail some of the outrageous prices being charged for parts and fleet running costs. Who would have thought????
Off the shelf purchases have their time and place, as do developmental purchases. The risks attributed to each though have to be thoroughly understood and protected against. MRH is a classic example of not knowing what you want, accepting a risk here, one there, one over there. Eventually you're over-exposed, having only hope to rely on, and then get taken to the cleaners.
I have serious reservations about DMOs ability to handle developmental acquisitions (or basically any acquisition). How do you think designing and building our own subs will go? Between DMO and our 'fantastic' ship building industry, there is no hope in hell of ever being able to pull it off.
Not only that, but the Commonwealth even outsourced the purse strings for maintenance functions, resulting in maintenance costs exponentially exceeding fair value. Pages 179 onwards detail some of the outrageous prices being charged for parts and fleet running costs. Who would have thought????
Off the shelf purchases have their time and place, as do developmental purchases. The risks attributed to each though have to be thoroughly understood and protected against. MRH is a classic example of not knowing what you want, accepting a risk here, one there, one over there. Eventually you're over-exposed, having only hope to rely on, and then get taken to the cleaners.
I have serious reservations about DMOs ability to handle developmental acquisitions (or basically any acquisition). How do you think designing and building our own subs will go? Between DMO and our 'fantastic' ship building industry, there is no hope in hell of ever being able to pull it off.
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
Yes, could be a blue print for reforming DMO ???
As much as jobs are important here, why not get things done at the main factory when things are built ?
And as you say re the Subs, just another money pit to pour Gold into.
As much as jobs are important here, why not get things done at the main factory when things are built ?
And as you say re the Subs, just another money pit to pour Gold into.
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
You have to wonder if Australia will ever sort out Defence purchasing and learn from the good one's - C-17 etc.
Hopefully the CAS and CDF can over haul the system.
Hopefully the CAS and CDF can over haul the system.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: N/A
Age: 36
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not biased either way towards developmental or off the shelf. There are pros and cons to both, however developmental is incredibly more complex, difficult and risky. A small country such as Australia cannot afford an unprotected developmental purchase.
I'm not biased towards Black Hawks or MRH. They're two different types of aircraft with different capabilities. Each do some things well, others poorly.
There was a fundamental shift in the direction of the ADF in the early/mid 2000s and (potentially) MRH (on paper) supported that new direction better. There were also the extra political sweetners that followed (or were supposed to). The Commonwealth only has itself to blame for the mess it is in today. It ultimately was the one that signed away its protections. Australia should have been far more rigorous and self-protective in this transaction. Although that would have increased the price for us, or made it unacceptable to the seller, we would have a far better outcome. We now have an aircraft that although may perform in accordance with the contract, is not fit for purpose. It is significantly late and costs significantly more. To cap it off, the transition from S70 to MRH has been a horror show that has destroyed significant operational experience - something that you cannot put a price on.
I'm not biased towards Black Hawks or MRH. They're two different types of aircraft with different capabilities. Each do some things well, others poorly.
There was a fundamental shift in the direction of the ADF in the early/mid 2000s and (potentially) MRH (on paper) supported that new direction better. There were also the extra political sweetners that followed (or were supposed to). The Commonwealth only has itself to blame for the mess it is in today. It ultimately was the one that signed away its protections. Australia should have been far more rigorous and self-protective in this transaction. Although that would have increased the price for us, or made it unacceptable to the seller, we would have a far better outcome. We now have an aircraft that although may perform in accordance with the contract, is not fit for purpose. It is significantly late and costs significantly more. To cap it off, the transition from S70 to MRH has been a horror show that has destroyed significant operational experience - something that you cannot put a price on.
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
ryano
I do wonder whether not having the Tiger or the MRH available or willing to be sent to Afghanistan hasn't cost us some operational experience.
Was any real reason given for not using Tiger to support Aussie troops
or was it that it really was not ready ?
I do wonder whether not having the Tiger or the MRH available or willing to be sent to Afghanistan hasn't cost us some operational experience.
Was any real reason given for not using Tiger to support Aussie troops
or was it that it really was not ready ?