Chinook Lifting Wessex
 

Anyone here carry around a broke Wessex? HS-817 Line book page + TOUCHDOWN 2/98 story:

RAAF Chinook Wessex Lift Bowen Island JB | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
&
WessexDunkHS817linebook | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Off track slightly, but reading back over the thread I saw this one:

State aircraft aren't subject to the Civil Aviation Act, except where particularly specified, so if it's operating as a state aircraft and flown by military crews it can do so if it complies with applicable military orders.

Aussie MRH-90
 

." It seems a no-brainer that a virtually as new enhanced platform (with glass cockpit, contemporary avionics and other niceties) for about $2million and operable for less than $5,000 per hour"

Are you high?

Part of the story B71.

The Army came to the Navy with a request to use the Wessex for a dawn insertion off the carrier onto Beecroft. They were to engage in other naval exercises such as launching kayaks from subs. It was explained to the Army that using the Wessex would require stripping the anti sub gear, and refitting later, so why not use the Huey? We were told that the RAAF had been approached, but declined due to the lack of shipboard clearance. When the RAAF found out that the Navy had committed to the task using Hueys, the RAAF then decided to participate.

Best to end the story there because the rest is not too edifying.

Side order of UH60M?
 

The question has been asked, quite recently, and the decision was to stick with MRH90. This was a decision taken by Army and not just based on politics or financial considerations.

The NH90 has been introduced much quicker in other countries - I have dealt with these other customers, and whilst they all share similar frustrations with this aircraft, others have developed temporary fixes (Finns use plywood floor covers - who would have thought?), and others have a more liberal risk acceptance regime. Australia (read DMO) is so risk averse that they want a 100% solution prior to acceptance - no aircraft in the world, fixed or rotary, could satisfy the ridiculous standard being applied by DMO with regards to the MRH90. Yet DMO are happy to "subcontract" airworthiness oversight on the SH60R program to the USN and accept an exponentially lower safety standard than is being applied to the NH90. Go figure.

Would you care to spell out your airworthiness concerns regarding NAVAIR and the SH-60R? "Exponentially lower" airworthiness? I smell something here, something like digested oats.
Or did I misunderstand you? :confused:

MRH90 helicopter Project of Concern progress 09 May 2013

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel ? MRH90 helicopter Project of Concern progress

"...Included in today’s agreement is the delivery of a 47th aircraft, at no additional cost, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy aviation technicians who undergo MRH90 training at the Army’s Aviation Maintenance school at Oakey, Queensland...."

MRH performing?
 

I heard some good rumours about the MRH performance on CATA recently. Appears the fundamental strengths of the platform are finally being realised. Good speed, handling, operational payload and endurance led to the ability to keep trooping whilst the Black Hawks had to refuel.

Any other news from the lads?

Smackhawk,

Yeah, nearly 2 tonne of fuel will do that for you :ok:. Maybe finally someone will realise that this very capable aircraft could work. And before B71 launches off again, I do acknowledge that it was a rather expensive buy, however we have them now and there are a lot of very dedicated people :D trying to get the most out of this for the Aussie taxpayer.

I also heard lots of action with MRH's about to take place at sea as well:)

Oldpinger, well said!

Romeo Seahawk Airworthiness
 

LoneWolf - I am not suggesting it is in any way "un-airworthy". It is simply a case of there being very different standards that the MH60R and the MRH90 are certified to.
The Romeo must meet the "10 to the minus 6" standard inherent in MilSpec (and other standards) whilst the MRH90 is certified under FAR29, where the safety case is at the "10 to the minus 9" standard. MRH90 has exceeded the 10-6 standard in all cases, but was unable to meet the 10-9 case in some specific areas, thereby requiring dispensations, exceptions and some risk acceptance by the ADF Airworthiness Authority. Some of the Introduction Into Service heartache was due to this shortfall - it exceeded the standard by which the Romeo is being judged, but fell sort of FAR29 - a much more stringent standard. It is an interesting observation that there has been much focus on the shortfalls of the MRH90, but little discussion on the very concerning characteristics of the Romeo (e.g. No Floats - Navy helicopter? plus other capability shortcomings).

I'll guess this photo was taken recently? Cantabria here we come....

Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...iaSydneyGI.jpg

Ummm last week?

Also 2 on Choules apparently:D:D

CATA - Getting the job done!
 

All Images - FotoWeb 7.0

There are some good shots in the gallery above of CH47, S70 and MRH in a 12 Aircraft form, plus some nice M1A1 in action.

Tapain?
 

Thanks 'Smackhawk' - I guess the argybargy about using the olden revered RAN FAA / RANHFV callsign 'Taipan' has been won and lost - never mind - but this is just silly... One of the photo captions at above URL....

All Images - FotoWeb 7.0

What's a Tapain??:hmm:

Polite greeting: Tapain sanchai hunuhuncha?
 

Polite greeting: Tapain sanchai hunuhuncha? = Are you well?
&
Tapainharulai bhetera khusi lagyo = I am glad to have met you!

Nepali Useful Phrases

I'm glad you cleared that up. I'm all for naming the MRH-90 after a Nepalese word. It fits in with the idea of buying something built by those who use another funny language.:D

Spazsinbad-
Taipan isn't actually the aircraft Callsign it's the ADF name for it.:8 as in the EC655 "Tiger"
Probably because as Eurocopter call the MRH90 the TTH and that isn't a name as such.

723 Sqn of RANHFV fame at Nowra still use the "Taipan" callsign as in "Taipan 19 finals rwy 26" for the Squirrels.

Clear as mud??:ok:

I'm going to use that Nepalise in day to day conversation!

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: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...namHeloPDF.jpg

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)"

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

No 3 Sqn RAAF used Taipan as a formation callsign in Butterworth when I was there. Sqn callsign Prison!

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!

TREPANNING
 

Some 'arm' needs a hug.... If I was a helo pilot these days I would choose 'TREPAN' - for the necessary hole in the head. :}

Taipan is also a Cold Chisel song. Shoulda called the MRH90 a Barnsey.

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? :)

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.

Thanks 'BluenGreen' - good to know.

Ans: Bell [Huey Cobra/ Kingcobra/Airacobra] who has produced the largest number of attack choppers so far...

Add "Viper" for the AH-1Z (and "Venom" for the UH-1Y).

Sorry DF, just a bit tardy on my reply! There has been a fair bit of rotary activity of late, including the welcome sound of a Chinook wokking around the place. Good to see.

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. :cool::}:E

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).

Multi-Role Helicopter Program audit report

http://anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Aud...13-2014_52.pdf

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.

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.

Ryano

The Canadians would love this program compared to the S-92. $200m per for not one in service seven years late.

The Sultan

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.

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.

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 ?