Aussie MRH-90
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baling out this thread.
Hello All,
See my final post #46 in the RAAF/Army Relations - History thread which embraces some imagery that should be of interest. I am now aiming to generate some stuff for the Aviation History & Nostalgia forum which might take a week or 2 to begin emerging.
ADDENDUM
This bit from my last in Tiger troubles, for ease of reference.
'To reiterate; we are talking about an enhanced new platform in Huey II adaptable for virtually unlimited roles by outside the square thinking. Glass cockpit options are available and it can be fitted out with whatever modern kit is desired within payload considerations, as for UH-1N and UH-1Y (Penguin or Hellfire missilery also). At around $US2million each and with operating costs less than $5,000 per flying hour, it just has to be the bargain of the century in the 'arms bazaar', especially for smaller nations.'
Cheers for now.
Br71
See my final post #46 in the RAAF/Army Relations - History thread which embraces some imagery that should be of interest. I am now aiming to generate some stuff for the Aviation History & Nostalgia forum which might take a week or 2 to begin emerging.
ADDENDUM
This bit from my last in Tiger troubles, for ease of reference.
'To reiterate; we are talking about an enhanced new platform in Huey II adaptable for virtually unlimited roles by outside the square thinking. Glass cockpit options are available and it can be fitted out with whatever modern kit is desired within payload considerations, as for UH-1N and UH-1Y (Penguin or Hellfire missilery also). At around $US2million each and with operating costs less than $5,000 per flying hour, it just has to be the bargain of the century in the 'arms bazaar', especially for smaller nations.'
Cheers for now.
Br71
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 26th Jul 2010 at 18:24.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a shame to see Wiley's comments about the value of a 'second string' helicopter element lost because his comments about the use of reservists caught readers' attention.
Anyone among those currently serving care to comment on the points he made about the value of a 'second string' element?
Anyone among those currently serving care to comment on the points he made about the value of a 'second string' element?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we take it as a given that the attitude of current senior Army officers is on average more conservative than current senior RAAF officers? If that's accepted, (I know some won't), I recall the attitude of senior RAAF officers 30 years ago to allowing reservists anywhere near their precious aeroplanes, so I can well believe that 'Like This - Do That' is on the money in his comments about the attitude to the current Army brass to the use of reservists.
It's a pity he's right, because surely to God even Blind Freddie can see that keeping people (and not just pilots) semi-current with (at least) an couple of weeks annual commitment for the first five years after they leave full time service is to everyone's advantage.
It almost makes as much sense as having a second tier of cheap, easy to maintain helicopters to do the simple stuff (even if they're not partially manned by reservists) that allows the complex, expensive top shelf Tigers and MRH-90s to be reserved for the tasks where their capabilities are required.
I know if I was a ground commander in desperate (or even not so desperate) need to helo support, I'd rather make do with a not quite suitable Huey (or similar) than do without, as I fear 95% of ground commanders will have to do if we have only a small number of MRH-90s available.
It's a pity he's right, because surely to God even Blind Freddie can see that keeping people (and not just pilots) semi-current with (at least) an couple of weeks annual commitment for the first five years after they leave full time service is to everyone's advantage.
It almost makes as much sense as having a second tier of cheap, easy to maintain helicopters to do the simple stuff (even if they're not partially manned by reservists) that allows the complex, expensive top shelf Tigers and MRH-90s to be reserved for the tasks where their capabilities are required.
I know if I was a ground commander in desperate (or even not so desperate) need to helo support, I'd rather make do with a not quite suitable Huey (or similar) than do without, as I fear 95% of ground commanders will have to do if we have only a small number of MRH-90s available.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helo Performance
Hi zic; re your post #124.
Am just briefly revisiting this thread and then off again for a while.
We have to consider a common benchmark when making performance comparisons so let's make that IGE hover at maximum operating gross weight (MOGW) in ISA+20C conditions. Altitude capability for the Huey II in that respect is 12,000 feet. You guys at Oakey should have the performance manuals for Blackhawk, Tiger, MRH90 and I am sure thread viewers would be interested to see the comparable performance for those types.
The first image is a bit non-specific in that regard and should relate to IGE (not OGE hover) according to other written performance data provided by Bell Helicopter. No crew composition nor weight mentioned for individual passengers so the number of figures illustrated might be less for a 4 person crew; but the table gives reasonable relative comparisons between Huey II and UH-1H. The second image gives some very interesting maintenance comparisons.
It is of course all a bit academic as far as the ADF is concerned because the Australian Government/Defence/DMO/Army Aviation seem determined to shed the true utility helo capability.
Am just briefly revisiting this thread and then off again for a while.
We have to consider a common benchmark when making performance comparisons so let's make that IGE hover at maximum operating gross weight (MOGW) in ISA+20C conditions. Altitude capability for the Huey II in that respect is 12,000 feet. You guys at Oakey should have the performance manuals for Blackhawk, Tiger, MRH90 and I am sure thread viewers would be interested to see the comparable performance for those types.
The first image is a bit non-specific in that regard and should relate to IGE (not OGE hover) according to other written performance data provided by Bell Helicopter. No crew composition nor weight mentioned for individual passengers so the number of figures illustrated might be less for a 4 person crew; but the table gives reasonable relative comparisons between Huey II and UH-1H. The second image gives some very interesting maintenance comparisons.
It is of course all a bit academic as far as the ADF is concerned because the Australian Government/Defence/DMO/Army Aviation seem determined to shed the true utility helo capability.
It almost makes as much sense as having a second tier of cheap, easy to maintain helicopters to do the simple stuff (even if they're not partially manned by reservists) that allows the complex, expensive top shelf Tigers and MRH-90s to be reserved for the tasks where their capabilities are required.
As a former regular turned reservist and relegated to a non-flying role (although with a regular unit) I can see dozens of opportunities for reservists to fill the gaps and support regular units; particularly for ex regulars or those with specialist experience. It is very, very hard for any unit to gain service air support for Ex or Op in our region these days, and this has a detrimental affect on the capability of our forces as a whole.
Reserve units (with regular cadre) operating third line transport support within our own region and DACC when required would free up the more expensive and complex first/second line assets for 'hotter' operations.
It would also provide a skilled pool of personnel for the ADF to access as required at short notice, and provide both training and operational benefit to units that would otherwise be left with no support.
Too much to say....
As for the MRH, it is still an aircraft in development and there will continue to be teething troubles before and after EIS. It is the same with every new asset. It is, however, a great helicopter and substantial improvement over current equipment. I personally think they got it right with this one.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trojan, I'd have thought it made eminent common sense to keep all ex-regular aircrew semi-current with a short annual or even bi-annual reserve commitment. There would be added advantages to the Army in implementing something like this.
There'd be some who'd happily do far more time than the minimum required and there's be others who, with a foot still in each camp, would come back to full time service after they found that civvy street wasn't all they were expecting it to be. A steady stream of such returnees - (I can almost guarantee there'd be a steady stream) - would have a salutary effect on those considering getting out, so it would be a win win win situation of the Army.
Relatively simple, second tier helicopters like the Kiowa or the SuperHuey would be ideal to equip such units. In a similar fashion to the way the RAAF employs the Hawk as a lead-in fighter for graduates of 2FTS before they move on to the F18, it would also allow first tour Army pilots to learn their trade and gain invaluable experience in the more simple aircraft before moving on to the MRH-90 and the Tiger. it would also mean far more land units would receive helo support than can from the very limited number of MRH-90s and Tigers in our inventory - that's if and when they ever become operational and remain serviceable in numbers to fly!
Of course, it'll never happen, because it makes far too much sense.
There'd be some who'd happily do far more time than the minimum required and there's be others who, with a foot still in each camp, would come back to full time service after they found that civvy street wasn't all they were expecting it to be. A steady stream of such returnees - (I can almost guarantee there'd be a steady stream) - would have a salutary effect on those considering getting out, so it would be a win win win situation of the Army.
Relatively simple, second tier helicopters like the Kiowa or the SuperHuey would be ideal to equip such units. In a similar fashion to the way the RAAF employs the Hawk as a lead-in fighter for graduates of 2FTS before they move on to the F18, it would also allow first tour Army pilots to learn their trade and gain invaluable experience in the more simple aircraft before moving on to the MRH-90 and the Tiger. it would also mean far more land units would receive helo support than can from the very limited number of MRH-90s and Tigers in our inventory - that's if and when they ever become operational and remain serviceable in numbers to fly!
Of course, it'll never happen, because it makes far too much sense.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question on whether to employ Reservists in flying positions is possibly muddying the waters. However, there should be no question on the Army providing a second tier helicopter that can provide vital support economically to all the ground units that require air logistic support.
The pitifully small number of MRH-90s Australia can afford to field - (even if they all worked and performed to specifications, which is another question altogether) - is simply insufficient to cover the requirement, and if there's anyone out there who thinks that economy shouldn't feature in Defence planning in the foreseeable future, he's being totally unrealistic.
As a ground commander, I'd prefer there be a second tier helicopter element available that could get me vitally needed logistics, (even if not right to the battlefront), as well as move casualties etc back for treatment than do without any helicopter support because the very few MRH-90s were committed to more pressing tasking. A second tier helicopter element would probably be able to carry out 90, if not 95% of normal tasking, leaving the cutting-edge stuff to the state of the art MRH-90.
The pitifully small number of MRH-90s Australia can afford to field - (even if they all worked and performed to specifications, which is another question altogether) - is simply insufficient to cover the requirement, and if there's anyone out there who thinks that economy shouldn't feature in Defence planning in the foreseeable future, he's being totally unrealistic.
As a ground commander, I'd prefer there be a second tier helicopter element available that could get me vitally needed logistics, (even if not right to the battlefront), as well as move casualties etc back for treatment than do without any helicopter support because the very few MRH-90s were committed to more pressing tasking. A second tier helicopter element would probably be able to carry out 90, if not 95% of normal tasking, leaving the cutting-edge stuff to the state of the art MRH-90.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money, money, money - personnel, personnel, personnel - there is hardly enough Defence dollars/trained personnel around to keep older and usually more expensive per flying hour machinery in service to support new equipment until the new equipment is "in service" let alone to operate these aging assets in parallel once the new machinery is "in service". For example, many people would love to keep the SK50/UH1H in service but it is not practical/cost effective in a Defence Force the size of Australia's. But now, on the other hand, if one Service operated all the aviation assets.....
GAGS
E86
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Offshore somewhere ...
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Vietnam C2 model so strongly disparaged by some, and stated never to happen again, is exactly what happened in OP IRAQI FREEDOM with a few RAAF C130s ....
Canberra authorising sorties seems to be quite the fashion ..
Canberra authorising sorties seems to be quite the fashion ..
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But now, on the other hand, if one Service operated all the aviation assets.....
For myriad reasons, as sensible as that suggestion is, it'll never happen.
But now, on the other hand, if one Service operated all the aviation assets.....
A Jihad on bureaucracy and too many senior officers would also be worthwhile (The US Military has just begun a review/cutback of senior positions). I thought that the ADF has purchased more MRH 90 than they had/have Blackhawks, and given that the MRH 90 can carry a shed load more than the short, stubby older sister (UH1H) and a bit more than the Blackhawk, it would seem that the ADF will have at least the same amount of lift capacity (with the additional capability of the CH47F when they arrive) and be able to take it further and faster, than it could on the UH1H, Blackhawk fleet. I don't have the graphs or flight manuals or glossy brochures, so I could be incorrect.
Wiley, you are correct of course. The reservist issue muddies the waters somewhat, it is the logistic capability or lack thereof that matters.
Chinook, the Canberra authorised sortie issue is whole other can of worms! In Timor I remember a battalion GLO telling me "If we want it done, we'll call the Kiwis!"
Doors Off, the MRH offers quite a substantial payload and range improvement over the Blackhawk. However, I would like to see what they come up with to solve the door gun issue.
Chinook, the Canberra authorised sortie issue is whole other can of worms! In Timor I remember a battalion GLO telling me "If we want it done, we'll call the Kiwis!"
Doors Off, the MRH offers quite a substantial payload and range improvement over the Blackhawk. However, I would like to see what they come up with to solve the door gun issue.
Enough of this trivia.
The big question is, have the MRH-90's got enough hat racks to carry the crew's compulsory slouch hats...?
Soldiers rebel against loss of cherished beret
The big question is, have the MRH-90's got enough hat racks to carry the crew's compulsory slouch hats...?
Soldiers rebel against loss of cherished beret
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise there Tibbsy. Why do Orstayans wear thongs and slip and slide in the sweaty heat? Because Poms wear sandals. Why don't Oz military wear berets? Because Poms wear them. Simple.