The ADF buys another Lemon
 

Deleted by AFGAN.

Found it . It's over here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(apologies to the naked vicar show)


Four Corners

I understand where you are coming from AFGAN but the Seahawk Blackhawk fleet is not without politics and problems.

The ADF has struggled for years to get the same level of support and spares availability as the US counterparts but were basically held to ransom.

If I remember correctly HDH at Bankstown were overhauling the engines for these aircraft but couldn't hoour the contract because GE would not supply parts to allow the job to be done, in the end all engines have ended going back to the states for overhaul at no doubt a higher cost.

Then there is the problem of a lack of main rotor blades. This hae been in the media a number of times inyears gone by. Do you remember seeing a row of grounded Blackhawks on the news at Townsville all waiting rortor blades.

While the MRH helicopter is new and unproven maybe the ADF is sick and tired of being taken for a ride ny the US military and its suppliers.

I think going to the MRH and Turbomeca engine is a good thing. Australia has been overcharged and screwed by Boeing, GE, Kaman the US navy in recent years. Cost overruns, delivery dates 2 years late or no delivery at all, someone with balls made a decision to go away from the yanks. Good on them. At least 1 person inCanberra has a set of balls.

It seems the US president is over the American suppliers as well.The next presidential helicopters are going to be based on the European EH101, I bet Sikorsky wasn't happy with that.

Totally agree with you superlame.
It is not that long ago that the Blackhawk was the 'lemon' on four corners. To many issues to mention in one post. with regard to survivability, there was a time (very recent) when BHs could not deploy due to lack of EWSPS. This may have changed now.
I don't understand, however, why the ADF is not purchasing MRH-90s with blade-folding capability like the NFH-90. I know this adds weight and expense but it also adds versatility.

Fifteen countries have now ordered or optioned over 650 of the €16,000,000 NH 90 series helicopter.

Should one assume all those countries also made a mistake in ordering that aircraft?

:confused:

I don't recall any ADF aircraft purchase in the last 30 years, which has not been controversial!

Deleted by AFGAN

Not necessarily tailwheel, it is after all a multi role helicopter. It may well fit the roles envisioned for it in other countries. It obviously doesn't fit the envisioned role in this country. Whether we do or don't get "ripped off" by US companies or not isn't really the point. Whoever the supplier is, the equipment should at least do the job it is bought for......... Keeping in mind of course, that this country has a sad history of speccing one thing, and then requiring changes and modifications to the design to encompass roles, uses and integration of equipment not envisioned by the manufacturers. Blame usually being apportioned to someone else, depending upon who you ask!!!

It is not just the MRH. The Tiger has more than a handful of issues as well.

Eventually, both types will be able to produce a moderately effective capability. The MRH will not be able to do some of the roles they do in the S70. It will however be able to do some that the S70 can not. The Tiger is a capability that we have never had and so is a substantial improvement.

The key for both types is the timeline, which remains the great unknown.

In the meantime, because the Army is conducting so much R&D on both types the corp is hurting. Both the MRH and ARH are sucking up so much manpower that the rest of the corp is in a massive hurt locker.

Apart from the SO role which is all hush hush, the only output of the entire core is a couple of CH47's for about 8 months of the year in the sandpit.

If the politicians had listened to the advice provided we would have all the extra capability (Whisky model cobra and S70M) stood up and operational by now.

The tax payers of Australia should be extremely upset at the politicians for foisting these two lemons on the country.

Hell, I'm a taxpayer and I'm pissed! You should be to.

tsalta

Ya gets wot ya vote for

Ah, yes. I think that was what I was alluding to? :E

A perfectly good helicopter but an expectation (by ADF) that it will do something the manufacturer never intended it to do?

Definitely not an expectation by the ADF. The two types which have been purchased were not those recommended to cabinet. These were political decisions which have turned into disasters.

tsalta

Those who made the decision were toppled in the 'Rudd revolution':}.

Army Avn is hurting for a number of reasons, not just project overuns. Although from the outside ARH looks to be a a bit of a nightmare. Do we need that capability (if no ops in the sandpit)? Is it cost effective?

I understand the MRH is virtually off the shelf so hopefully it will all come together in the end. Remember, the F-111 was once considered a 'lemon'.

Do we need it? YES
Is it cost effective? NO, not with the present aircraft

The MRH is still a developmental airframe. All the glossy photos and magazine covers don't mean much. It is producing no output and has no prospect of doing such within 2 years.

tsalta

^ Tsaltsa, are you sure on that? This article from Flight International in May says that they are operational in Germany (as the TTH). I believe that it is the ASW version which is facing some issues, rather than the transport one.

Dead set certain. Army Aviation does not have the manpower required to introduce two new developmental aircraft at the same time.

The Army has accepted several airfames so far. However, just like the Tiger, they are still develepmental.

The 5 or 6 airframes which have been accepted so far produce about 5 flight hours per month each. Most of that is test flying. As a battlefield helicopter, when compared to the S70, they are truly hopeless.

tsalta

How did the MRH perform up north with the jet guys recently?

The French, Germans and Spanish are all working through development of their versions as well. Thats what you get when buying the latest tech. It has always been that way with every new aircraft aquisition. Nothing new.

Manning problems are the Army's problem, not the helicopters.
There are plenty of areas in which the department could trim fat from the ADF and redirect funds to where they are needed. Indications are this will probably happen over the next twelve months.

The S-70 has had its share of problems. Anyone remember aircraft having to be re-skinned (particularly Seahawks)? What about fatigue cracking adjacent to BH stores pylons and rotor delamination? There were also accute spares shortages and reductions in the acceptable operating temp of the turbines.

Take a step back....'Those who choose to ignore history are destined to repeat it'...Ok not quite the quote I was thinking of, but let's cast our minds back to the Iroquois. Developed in the 50's to be a Medevac, adapted to be a ground attack, electronic warfare, troop carrier, and gun-ship...all in a very short period. Sure things were a little simpler back then, but the lesson to be learned is don't take a 'frame at face value. The NH-90 has the potential to be all of the above, all it wil take is a little Aussie ingenuity, aka some bungy cord for the door gun, and you will have a very capable utility helicopter.

.

nah those days are long gone... changing ANYTHING on a state aircraft requires a mountain of engineering proposals,approvals, ammendments ect .. I am pretty sure we need SPO approval just to change seat covers theses days :bored: Mounting anything on the airframe that does not come from the OEM forget it. It would be about a simple as planning a space shuttle mission :{

Thanks DMO :ok:

That's because the Army, in spite of - (because of???) - strident RAAF opposition, insisted on flying them around with the *** external fuel tanks permanently fitted!

Any AAVN recce drivers out there care to give their opinion of using the Tiger for recce as opposed to a Kiowa or its modern day equivalent?

Deleted by AFGAN

:D True that.

I would like to hear about Tiger v Kiowa for recce too if someone is really in the know.

Just how much baggage do you have in that barrow you seem to be pushing AFGAN:p?

AFGAN, I don't really think the headshed really give a **** about aviation specific problems with new aircraft. They see aviation as an expensive waste of resources, and the blame for any failure to bring capability to the service gets landed squarely at AAVN's feet. All the rest of the Army cares about is 'can you lift x troops from A - B at this time?' or 'can you provide recce on this area?' When the answer is no for whatever reason -confidence is lost. Fair enough too I think, after all they are the customer. There is only so many times one can approach CA and say ' well er sorry sir will still cannot give you a recce/lift capability this week because of a broken thingamabob':uhoh:

Tiger v Kiowa, IMHO apples and oranges. Loose flexability and gain sensor reach / weapons capability. Army doctrine is see's ARH as an important part of the big picture, network centric warfare and all that stuff, we are heavily invested in its future. Most non avo types see ARH with a big "A" and little "R" however.
I got into the Sqn after the golden years of Kiowa. Our brothers in years gone by could achieve exraordinary things with the little fella. And they flew there arses off, when some one needed recce support just yell out and they were there. :{ An unarmed helicopter on todays battlefeild is a liability. The days of camping with armour or cav in a hole in the tree's are gone me thinks. Lots of pers/equipment to support ARH, thats about all I can say. I can say once they do finally sort it, it will provide great capability but not all day and night. nuff said

Gee, you mean those RAAF "brylcreem boys" might have had a point way back when when they said it wasn't sensible to leave multiple Hueys, (which required considerably more manpower, spares, POL and God only knows what else than a Sioux) right up on FEBA with everyone living rough "like real men" in a shellscrape?

Unarmed Helicopter
 

slo n lo you make some excellent points. This one in particular.

All helicopters when operating have a rotor disc. Have any of you seen the strength of a helo return on a modern fighter PD radar? It is quite a sight to behold. Doesn't matter if you are a BH dude, an MRH-90 hero or a Tiger king.

Not a helo mate myself, and I really appreciate the job you all do. Not much point in knocking either the MRH-90 or the BH. Military has to get on and do what it's told. There is no doubt that helicopters are important, but the job is really dangerous. I understand helo operations will involve much mutual support from surface and airborne friendlies, but somewhere in this debate you need to realise everything close to the ground over the battlefield is at risk from all sides these days. An AMRAAM or similar is so attracted to a helicopter they should get a room together... their relationship will be explosive!

Wasn't there a headshed bloke who got a job with the manufacturer just after MRH-90 was signed for?

Deleted by AFGAN

Geeeesh! Yers reckon if we sell 'em to the RAAFies they'll let us buy some more armoured vehicles?:}

Seems to me AFGAN that your only issue with the MRH so far is its lack of a door gun... anything else?

What about the things it does better than a Black Hawk?

Deleted by AFGAN

Surely everyone realises that the decision to buy this platform or that platform has less to do with what the ADF wants and more to do with what votes can be won and where?

It all has a great deal to do with industrial cooperation/offset programs. I imagine the makers of the NH-90 simply offered a better program than the rest. (perception being reality in a politician's mind of course)

AFGAN you need to move on. I am not a fan of any government but at least this government had the balls to cancel the seasprite project. I hope they do have their fingers in the pulse with other contracts as well so this doesn't happen again.
Time will tell.

But while we are talking about ADF aviation lets mention the Wedgetail and the KC30 tanker. Both behind schedule, not sure about budget.

The Wedgetail is just another broken promise from Boeing, they promise everything to everyone but in recent times have failed to deliver, ie 787 ,767 tanker.

I think the RAAF made the right move with the 330 tanker, seeing that the 767 fiasco with showed Boeing to be the thugs they are.
I know the 330 is late as well, but now Qantas is on the job things will all come good (said with tongue in cheek)

Hey Wiley, I do think the RAAF guys make some good points about Aviation logistics, after all they are the subject matter experts. I believe the Army was pretty successfull in treading the line between servicibilty/safety and op flexibility with Kiowa. They operate from the up near the FEBA as long as they had to and would shoot back to a FOB to get maint done if they had to. The RAEME guys are a clever bunch and could do most things with a tarp a tool roll and some heavy lifting. There are heaps of photo's/old Army pilots around to back that up. (yes this is all in peacetime conditions) I understand the Huey lads live in "basic" conditions for months in the Solomans as well. The fact is the airframes were basic enough to live out for up to a month or so. Plus the ground guys have you and the machine right there ready to go ;)

DBTW, yep wouldn't be surprised, gota be honest I would likely take a job as well if were offered. Having said that, Army still have some very clever folks up top in aviation. (much more betera than me) I assume you mean it was an Avo guy?

Chronic Snoozer, you hit the nail on the head there. Plus the bad publicity with BH would no doubt influence things in the Govt's mind I suspect.

The Wedgetail and KC-30 are fixed price contracts, so they won't cost us a cent more than that signed for.

Yes, Wedgetail is late, but it will eventually come good. The fact that MIT has been brought in to 'baseline' the radar's performance means they're getting close. :ok:

KC-30 is only eight months late, and only because the mod process for the first jet took longer than expected. While the first jet will be late, the remaining four will be more or less on time. And while Qantas is providing support to the mod process at BNE, the work is still being project managed by EADS.

And, whilst Boeing has had a bad run of late, almost all major contractors have a habit or over promising, so it's not unique to Boeing! :D

slow n low, I admit I was taking a snipe at an attitude that was pretty widespread in the Army in the days when the RAAF operated the Hueys. Many of the (mostly non aviation) green machine couldn't get it into their heads that a Sioux (or later, a Kiowa) with one pilot and a single groundie, not a hell of a lot more than a tool roll, a hand pump and a 44 gal drum, was a very different kettle of fish for a front line unit to support than (usually multiple) Hueys, with four air crew (OK, only three - no gunner - if we 'pretending' to fight a war, which we all too often were) - one, but usually as many as three or four groundies for a multiple ship detachment, a (if you wanted to keep 'em flying) relatively bulky spares/maintenance package, and (compared to a Sioux/Kiowa) a relatively voracious appetite for avtur. Having all this right up with a forward unit was a big logistics drain, and one that in my experience, was simply not sustainable.

This sillyness, post Vietnam, even extended to Caribou crews having to dig themselves shellscrapes every night to sleep in the field beside their 'mortar magnets'. If there'd been real bad guys out there on those ops, we 'blue forces' would have run out of tac air, both FW and rotary, within a matter of days, with damn near every one of them destroyed where they were parked overnight. (Ever tried to effectively cam. a parked Caribou's tail from a ground level observer who was within a two - make that five - mile radius of you?)

The AAVN guys did a superlative job with equipment well suited to their task – simple, robust and (I don’t think I can overstress this last point) easily maintained in the field. Recce, in the olden days I refer to, was best done from ultra low level with the door off. The pilot was not unlike an airborne stock musterer – he could stick his head out the window and SEE (and sometimes smell) what he was looking for.

I accept the argument from people who are currently in the business that the days of unarmed helicopters in the modern battlefield might be gone. However, I can’t believe a Tiger pilot, even with all his electronic sensors - (when they’re working!) – will see, from his enclosed, air conditioned, elevated cockpit, what a Kiowa pilot would see. I also don’t believe that AAVN will be able to field enough Tigers to actually have one, available for even a small proportion of the tasks that will be demanded of it. A ‘cheap and cheerful’ light recce helo, (perhaps with nominal on board anti air defence when required), that can be backed up with heavy gunship support when needed, would seem to me a far more efficient use of the very limited budget the ADF has always been forced to operate under.

The Tiger, in my humble opinion, risks becoming not unlike the battleship of WW2 – too valuable to commit to many areas it will be needed because, with having so few available, (and no simpler alternative platform), the ground commander simply can’t risk losing one. I also believe that serviceability, particularly in the remote north of the country, (and where else, apart from the ‘Stan or somewhere similar overseas, let’s face it, will it be needed?), will be such a huge issue that it will become a multimillion dollar ‘hangar queen’, if not before high intensity ops, then certainly soon after they start.

I know many will disagree with me, but I can’t help but think we’d be a lot better off (and offer a far superior product to the customer) with a lot of ‘cheap and cheerful’ airframes that will continue to work with minimal tech support for the many jobs that don’t require a ‘high end’ aircraft like the Tiger.

Wiley

Wouldn't a combination of UAV's and modern, sensor equipped helicopters be the way forward ?

A Kiowa type capability in a place like Afganistan would be homicidal.

Why didn't the army buy the Apache BTW? Isn't that what our troops work with in Afganistan? Dutch, British and US use it.

Was about twice the cost of the Tiger, and the price didn't include the Longbow radar!

Fair enough. I seem to recall at the final play-off, 16 Apache being the numbers to be procured. So 16 Apaches is double the program cost of the Tiger.

As a taxpayer you have to ask a few questions. Firstly, 16 Apaches would have been in-service and with the ability to have deployed to Afganistan with good support in place.

Secondly, all the banging on about a network hardened army, how does this figure with a European helicopter. Wouldn't have Apache been already integrated in the US and a less high risk project?

Seems ludicrous that the RAAF doesn't have the ability to deploy fast jets in a close air support role ( Afgan' ) and the army bought a troublesome, un-proven battlefield helicopter. It seems structurally out of balance.

I hear the Singaporians bought the Apache. Got a good deal on the radar and the Israelis are involved in consultancy on training and deployment.

COST
 

I'm pretty sure with the cost increases Oz Aerospace have been able to squeeze out of defence post contract the cost difference between Apache and Tiger is now nil or minimal.:ugh:

Not sure exactly why many here are so suprised about another untried, flawed in design procurement.

The list is long and distinguished ( in terms of wasted tax payer dollars, please add more ), JSF, ANZAC ships, Seasprite, Collins class, what was that poxy Army RADAR system ? and LST's.

I believe the more technology they bolt into these machines the less suitable for extended deployment and greater amount of down time will be seen.