Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Aussie MRH-90

Old 10th Jul 2010, 08:22
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The NH-90 can be ordered with either of two engine types:
2Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-01/9 or
2 General Electric T700-T6E

MRH-90 uses the RTM322-01/9.

This engine also powers the AW101 (Merlin) and the AW-built Apaches.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2010, 12:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What we've bought and are buying is a crazy mix, like buying a Porsche with top of the range trim to haul the sheep carcasses up from the back paddock - or a B777 to fly 30 pax from Sydney to Dubbo four times a day.
Pretty well sums up the current situation except for one thing - the giant, inappropriate 777s (or most of them) are almost permanently grounded.
Andu is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2010, 13:17
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
Army/Navy needed new choppers.

For Army; Off the shelf Mike's from Uncle Sam would have been a low risk proven solution.
For Navy; Off the shelf Knight Hawks

Forget building this stuff in Oz. The cost goes thru the roof to keep a few bods in jobs for a few years only..

Interesting to see how the Sea Hawk replacement goes...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2010, 01:50
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TBM

UH-60Ms would have provided no appreciable capability increase over the current Black Hawk. Army chose the MRH because it had appreciable increases in range, payload and flexibility over the 'Mike'. The fact that it isn't working at the moment doesn't mean the original decision was necessarily a bad one - it's more to do with the program's painfully slow industrial ramp up in Europe and a corresponding lack of spares here, combined with an overly cautious (re airworthiness and IOC criteria) ADF.

By Knight Hawk I assume you mean the 'Romeo'...looks like an almost done deal. Notification of possible MH-60R sale to Australia | Australian Aviation Magazine

The MRH/ARH build program will transition to through life support for both types - all DM work and upgrades through to life of type will be done by the workforce at Pinkenba, so it's more than just a few years.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2010, 04:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TBM,

Slightly off thread but the R in Romeo actually means reworked/refurbished/refitted B. ie new avionics, but same Old design airframe.
At least the MRH shouldn't rust as fast being mostly plastic.
oldpinger is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2010, 06:37
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 359
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
FA18

Yes the BlackHawk has a slightly smaller cabin, no ramp and carries less gas, so cabin and range not as impressive as the NH90 with standard fuel, but the 701D powered UH-60M’s operating with a vastly improved cockpit and wide chord blades are knocking the spots of their predecessors with regards to performance at hot and high ops and dispatch reliability in the Stan. So to suggest the combat proven UH-60M would have provided no appreciable capability increase over the ageing Australian Army’s S-70A’s is simply ludicrous.

The U.S. Army BlackHawk’s in Iraq and Afghanistan have accumulated more than 1 million fleet flight hours without a single Class A material failure.........Not bad for an old technology [sic] platform.

If you placed UH-60M’s and NH-90’s side by side on the pan and told the grunts and crews alike to pick a cab to go fight in, I’ve no doubt the Hawk would be the platform of choice every time.

When the NH90 has proven combat experience and reliability under its belt, then let it stand side-by-side with other war fighting helicopters, but the introduction of the NH90 in any variant to any of the five or six nations with inventory has been a sorrowful tale to date, which might explain why many are looking elsewhere for their next acquisition.
Hilife is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2010, 11:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually Foxtrot is pretty close to the money. The M can still only fit 8 troops in Marching Order, even if it can lift as much as an MRH90. After all the messing about, the MRH90 will fit 12 pax (marching order) in proper, crashworthy seats. That's a 50% capability increase.

Now, if they would just do that 'flying' thing a bit more often...
emergov is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2010, 14:12
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
having a machine that is entirely compatible with big brother when you're fighting with them is a big plus. All the talk about the NH-90 series being composite therefore not corroding belies the fact that we've operated Sea Kings for 30+ years and the Black Hawk for 25 years without them 'rusting out'! [don't mention the Huey]

More Chinooks and newer Black Hawks was the correct answer. This combo seems to work real well in ops.

Re keeping a few bods employed at Pinkenbah; well these work for the dole schemes are not cost effective...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2010, 23:16
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You sure there are UH-60Ms deployed to Afghanistan yet, Hilife?

I'm sure the NH 90 vs Black Hawk preference argument is a valid one, same as it was 35 years ago for the Black Hawk vs Huey...

Ask one of the MRH 90 guys what they think of their new steed (granted, when it actually flies!), and you'll get overwhelming praise for it...anyway...
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 00:03
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TBM, I believe the blame for whole Tiger/NH-90 debacle can be laid at the door of some very senior idiot at Sikorsky who was so sure that the Australians would see the absolute commonsense of your argument that he made absolutely no effort to sweeten the pot when Australia came looking for a deal. (I'm told the offer made to the Australians by the Americans was utterly ridiculous.)

The Australians went away and bought the opposition's product.

I hope and pray the day never comes to cause our helicopter units and the units they (currently don't) support to curse that nameless American. Some might say that day is already long past.
Fubaar is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 04:18
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, well...sort of...

Sikorsky don't have an ARH equivalent, but I guess the same claim can be made of the Boeing/US Army team pitching the Apache (plus the Longbow radar was going to be extra!)

The other problem with the UH-60M program at the time of the MRH decision was that it was substantially a remanufacturing program with (I think) less than a quarter of the total planned buy scheduled to be new builds.

My understanding is that not a lot of effort was put into marketing the new-build program to the ADF by the US Army and Sikorsky at the time and there wasn't a lot of certainty about whether Australia's S-70s could be 'remanned' to UH-60M standard because of their differences to the US UH-60A/Ls.

Anyway, right or not, Army wanted something A) bigger and longer ranging (read: flexibility) than the Black Hawk, and B) with some commonality to the ARH, hence the choice of MRH.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 04:29
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
another myth is Tiger and MRH-90 commonality. Completely different model engine Tiger MTR390 - MRH-90 MTR322,,,,

The Army wanted the AH-64 by the way until DMO got involved in the benefits of local manufacture etc. More like better trips to France..

So who will win the next Naval chopper contest?
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 05:00
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: GAFA - East
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

All the talk about the NH-90 series being composite therefore not corroding belies the fact that we've operated Sea Kings for 30+ years and the Black Hawk for 25 years without them 'rusting out'! [don't mention the Huey]
They didn't rust out because we spent a gazillion dollars on deeper maintenance! Composite airframes involve much lower DM costs, allowing you to spend more of your finite defence budget at the sharp end.

More Chinooks and newer Black Hawks was the correct answer. This combo seems to work real well in ops.
Only if the question starts with "If money were no object..." and ends with ".....an unlimited supply of TRGBs".
BentStick is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 05:18
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No one said Tiger and MRH90 had the same engines! They have the same EWSP fit - and that's a significant plus.

"Army wanted AH-64..." There are 25000 people in 'Army' Not all of them say the same thing, let alone the right thing. Perhaps "some people in the Army wanted AH-64" would be more accurate. Some people in the Army want jet boots and nuclear hand grenades; doesn't mean they're a good idea.

And trips to France are pretty much like trips to America, except that it's France, and not America. People are still going to have to travel overseas. I really don't think the location of the factory was much of a player when cabinet sat down to make the decision.
emergov is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 05:42
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 359
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
You sure there are UH-60Ms deployed to Afghanistan yet, Hilife?
Quite sure

The UH-60M first arrived in Afghanistan with the 101st Aviation Regiment, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade in March 2009 as part of operation Task Force Thunder.
Hilife is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 07:44
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the same but different

It’s a different version of the RTM engine, that’s why we aren’t grounded and haven’t had a front end failure on the Merlins.
oldgrubber is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 08:04
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out There
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Black Hawk Vs MRH 90

BH can 'only' fit 8 where as MRH can fit 12. This would have to be one of the most ridiculous arguments out there.

2012 infantry construct is now 8 men per Sect (down from 9) so a BH can carry a full sect in marching order. If that's not enough take the seats out and OCL will take 18.

In the BH troops can at least wear their webbing in the seats, something that can not be done in the fantastic crash-worthy seats of the MRH.

Even with the craftiest use of numbers you'll find that the MRH can only give you about 10% more than the BH M/L.

This is all before the tactical aspect of splitting Sections and bump plans (losing a Sect vs a Sect-and-a-half)

Let’s not start on the cabin floor or the door guns!

And the Mikes seem to be doing pretty well in Afghan.

New Army Black Hawk succeeds in combat

S64
Super 64 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 09:04
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
emergov

Crashworthy seats!!! - I couldn't get my slender ass in there in DPU let alone with any marching order, let alone with the amount of bang our boys will need in Uruzgan.

Stop selling the party line, the M S70 and F CH47 are bloodied already!! The wrong decision was made.....

HPT
Hydraulic Palm Tree is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 09:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slender ass? I think not if it wouldn't fit.

Those advocating OCL have obviously never sat in a BOI, or senate estimates, or an AWB.

If you're wearing belt webbing (which won't fit) then you don't need to hit the ground running. If you do need to hit the ground running, you'll be wearing MCBAS, or the newer armour, and you'll fit in the seat.

The acft was acquired, in part, because it beat the Blackhawk in a DSTO-study modelling Amphibious force generation. The only acft that actually met the requirements of the study was Merlin.

If we followed the argument that 8 is all we need, and losing a section and a half would be awful, then we'd have bought Bell 412 and our Chinooks would only have nine seats in them - unless we're OCL, which apparently is tops, and we'd forget all our previous arguments and have 85 pax standing back to back.

No argument Black Hawk would have been easier to bring into service. MRH90 will end up giving better capability to the ADF.
emergov is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2010, 13:17
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
The acft was acquired, in part, because it beat the Blackhawk in a DSTO-study modelling Amphibious force generation. The only acft that actually met the requirements of the study was Merlin.


Buy the right equipment then......
Australia – MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters
July 12, 2010
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress July 7 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of 24 MH-60R Seahawk Multi-Mission helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.1 billion.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 MH-60R Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopters, 60 T-700 GE 401C Engines (48 installed and 12 spares), communication equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, US government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services. The estimated cost is $2.1 billion.
Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have served US national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.
The proposed sale of the MH-60R Seahawk helicopters will improve Australia’s anti-submarine and surface warfare capability and provide an improved search and rescue and anti-ship surveillance capability. Australia will also use the enhanced capability in future contingency operations encompassing humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and stability operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these additional helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors are Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut, Lockheed Martin in Owego, New York, General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts, and Raytheon Corporation in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of ten contractor representatives to Australia to support delivery of the MH-60R helicopters.
There will be no adverse impact on US defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

Last edited by TBM-Legend; 12th Jul 2010 at 14:12.
TBM-Legend is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.