MRH90 Going, going. Gone
This article gives an idea of how expensive it had become to operate & the last paragraph summed it up well.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/du...oLVMotWqn5oVrw
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/du...oLVMotWqn5oVrw
VERTREP Chinook
The RAN MRH-90 were more for VERTREP and carrying the Marines so I guess the AAAC CH-47F will be doing this from now on?
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: 45 South
Age: 65
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEFENCE MRH90
Since the MRH was introduced Defence have flown close to 40000 flying hours on the fleet.
If the cost per hour is what the article states plus the acquisition and the replacement cost of a different frame - then how dare they waste the tax payers money to that extent.
I have not read anywhere where this colossal waste has been revealed to the public.
If the cost per hour is what the article states plus the acquisition and the replacement cost of a different frame - then how dare they waste the tax payers money to that extent.
I have not read anywhere where this colossal waste has been revealed to the public.
On another place I go, someone claims that a sweden is considering abandoning thier NH90 due to obscene flight cost, was announced on a radio news show so I have no way to confirm the truth of the claim or not
Wonder where I have heard that before
(thanks mod who moved it, posted in the wrong thread by accident)
Wonder where I have heard that before
(thanks mod who moved it, posted in the wrong thread by accident)
Last edited by rattman; 22nd Dec 2021 at 21:20.
Since the MRH was introduced Defence have flown close to 40000 flying hours on the fleet.
If the cost per hour is what the article states plus the acquisition and the replacement cost of a different frame - then how dare they waste the tax payers money to that extent.
I have not read anywhere where this colossal waste has been revealed to the public.
If the cost per hour is what the article states plus the acquisition and the replacement cost of a different frame - then how dare they waste the tax payers money to that extent.
I have not read anywhere where this colossal waste has been revealed to the public.
Most of the open source Defence and Aviation journals have posted the flying hour costs as well as some News articles in the general media. One thing to remember, whilst we have the upfront costs of the UH60M, over the life of the fleet they will cost just under $2B less to operate than the MRH90.
The figures that are being published need to be put into context. How many soldiers can each platform carry? How much airframe corrosion maintenance is required when embarked? What is the corrosion penalty? What extra infrastructure is required for the new platform? What are the Maintenance Tooling costs? The list goes on! Let us stop the BS, please!
There are strategic requirements, which are valid. There are also cultural brand allegiance desires, which are not valid. Let us recognise the difference.
Mathematics appears simple at the basic level. Statistics are merely an interpretation of preferred facts.
The figures that are being published need to be put into context. How many soldiers can each platform carry? How much airframe corrosion maintenance is required when embarked? What is the corrosion penalty? What extra infrastructure is required for the new platform? What are the Maintenance Tooling costs? The list goes on! Let us stop the BS, please!
There are strategic requirements, which are valid. There are also cultural brand allegiance desires, which are not valid. Let us recognise the difference.
The figures that are being published need to be put into context. How many soldiers can each platform carry? How much airframe corrosion maintenance is required when embarked? What is the corrosion penalty? What extra infrastructure is required for the new platform? What are the Maintenance Tooling costs? The list goes on! Let us stop the BS, please!
There are strategic requirements, which are valid. There are also cultural brand allegiance desires, which are not valid. Let us recognise the difference.
I don't know how 'happy' France or the other operators are, but it is certainly a programme with serious ongoing issues.
Mathematics appears simple at the basic level. Statistics are merely an interpretation of preferred facts.
The figures that are being published need to be put into context. How many soldiers can each platform carry? How much airframe corrosion maintenance is required when embarked? What is the corrosion penalty? What extra infrastructure is required for the new platform? What are the Maintenance Tooling costs? The list goes on! Let us stop the BS, please!
There are strategic requirements, which are valid. There are also cultural brand allegiance desires, which are not valid. Let us recognise the difference.
The figures that are being published need to be put into context. How many soldiers can each platform carry? How much airframe corrosion maintenance is required when embarked? What is the corrosion penalty? What extra infrastructure is required for the new platform? What are the Maintenance Tooling costs? The list goes on! Let us stop the BS, please!
There are strategic requirements, which are valid. There are also cultural brand allegiance desires, which are not valid. Let us recognise the difference.
Yet NZ is happy with the NH-90!
But you also managed to make even more of a mess of the Seasprites - Australian procurement is world leadingly awful!
While the Army might be much more happy to deploy with Blackhawks, Perhaps the military should still field the NH-90 for the biggest and most imminent threat facing the country:
Bushfires!
But you also managed to make even more of a mess of the Seasprites - Australian procurement is world leadingly awful!
While the Army might be much more happy to deploy with Blackhawks, Perhaps the military should still field the NH-90 for the biggest and most imminent threat facing the country:
Bushfires!
NHI (airbus australia) are apparently going to throw a lot of money at choppers to try and convince the govt to keep them.
2019 they had an availability rate of 37%, 2020 they got it up to a 39%. They hope to have an availability rate of 65% mid 2022, dunno how 65% compares to others like the blackhawks, but from memory 65% for jet fighters is considered not great. The F-22 still managed a 55% operational rate compared to a 39% for MRH-90
2019 they had an availability rate of 37%, 2020 they got it up to a 39%. They hope to have an availability rate of 65% mid 2022, dunno how 65% compares to others like the blackhawks, but from memory 65% for jet fighters is considered not great. The F-22 still managed a 55% operational rate compared to a 39% for MRH-90
Yet NZ is happy with the NH-90!
But you also managed to make even more of a mess of the Seasprites - Australian procurement is world leadingly awful!
While the Army might be much more happy to deploy with Blackhawks, Perhaps the military should still field the NH-90 for the biggest and most imminent threat facing the country:
Bushfires!
But you also managed to make even more of a mess of the Seasprites - Australian procurement is world leadingly awful!
While the Army might be much more happy to deploy with Blackhawks, Perhaps the military should still field the NH-90 for the biggest and most imminent threat facing the country:
Bushfires!
Well it does lift more!
I wasn’t seriously suggesting having the fleet of NH-90s for fighting fires though!
I was just pointing out Australia is spending a lot of money on defence.
and only a tiny fraction of this on fire fighting machinery.
Seems more aligned to the politics of your current leadership rather than a risk analysis or common sense
I wasn’t seriously suggesting having the fleet of NH-90s for fighting fires though!
I was just pointing out Australia is spending a lot of money on defence.
and only a tiny fraction of this on fire fighting machinery.
Seems more aligned to the politics of your current leadership rather than a risk analysis or common sense