Aussie MRH-90
 

Are the Australian Army/Navy MRH-90's back in the air after their grounding with engine issues.:confused:

This chopper seems like yet another French "dud"...:uhoh:

The Oz Tigers are not operational either I hear. Big issues with low power engines in hot wx and avionics issues big time.

I note the "off the shelf" projects aka C-17/F-18F/Ch-47's are going great..:D

Or is something wrong with their ability to bring them into service?

In my rather too long experience, there are many reasons (the real ones often hidden from general view) as to why a project has not enterred service as successfully as anticipated or planned - so jumping to conclusions is not always helpful - quite a few customers seem to be using the NH90 quite successfully for such a new type. Often this starts at the top with far too optimistic planning targets particularly if the variant concerned has been modified to meet a customers specific requirements - the manufacturer doesn't always help here in their eagerness to secure a contract within a customers budget timescale. Often the operating environment and usage spectrum is not considered in enough detail either - and the frontline operating customer not given enough early time to see if what the maker is saying is supportable. Funny old thing then when the customer gets its hands on the real kit all sorts of issues emerge. Furthermore, its no use comparing it with other customers who might well have accepted the ac into service on different criteria (and maybe even living with the same issues but not making a song and dance about it - often again for potential embarrasing political cover up reasons). One thing I do know, is the the Aussies have a very rigourous approach to requirements assessment and airworthiness, which (sadly) many other nations do not share. It is almost inevitable therefore that such an approach will show up issues that perhaps have not been so well exposed by other customers. The UK had this approach once...but then that discussion is on another thread!!

Cheers
:ugh::)

It's not that difficult
 

It's the digital age TBM, it might pay to check the great web-of-lies before you bang on like that (Pages 9 & 24).:cool:

Army - The Soldiers Newspaper : June 24th 2010, Page 1 - Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army

BentStick..check your facts. That article was written [page 9] BEFORE the grounding of the aircraft which followed an engine failure of one operating in South Australia....

My question on the MRH-90 is simple; are they back flying?

I was aware of the ARH Tiger movements but much much behind schedule and over $$$$

PS: Maybe the Tiger should be the ARH "Koala"...not to be shot at or exported!:8

A quick question for any AAVN readers of this thread: what percentage of your normal ops would be what I'd call "normal logistical support" for ground units? I'm talking about one or two bodies, small amounts of supplies, maybe a commander's recce of tommorow's area of ops etc.

Is using a 45 million dollar helicopter for such tasks, especially for a country with Australia's limited military budget, even remotely cost-effective? Surely an updated Kiowa/Iroquois for that kind of work makes infinitely more sense than a Tiger or MRH-90?

What do ground units do in today's Army when they require those everyday resup/support tasks with only a VERY SMALL fleet of squillion dollar Rolls Royces available? Do without?

Totally agree, (he he he he) you guess.

By the way how does something become "off the shelf".

"off the shelf" for military hardware is to buy a current mature production model configured per a standard spec instead of some hybrid models where the customer wants to customise it. e.g. fitting completely different systems etc.

RAAF successful purchases as stated are the C-17/F-18F/CH-47D/F [to come] which were purchased from the US production run with US standard options.

I'm amazed that politicians and defence neddies talk about standardisation then don't do it!

Levitation, transportation, gravitation, in that order.

TBM - no, the MRHs are not back flying yet. Engine investigation still underway...:hmm:

ARH is ~2 years late but is not over budget - Eurocopter have paid substantial $$$ and provided EC 135s at DRW for crew training as compensation. French have taken their Tigers to Afghanistan as part of OT. Rumours persist that we're about to do the same, especially as Dutch pull out soon, but no movement yet.

I'd like someone to answer that question too. It's a long time ago now, but I'll bet it's unchanged - I couldn't count the number of times I flew sorties out to some unit in the field with nothing more than new batteries for their radios as the payload. It simply doesn't make sense to use a 45 million dollar helicopter for such tasks.

What do units do in today's Army when they need minor (but vital) resup. that used to be provided by the Kiowas or Hueys?

Hit the nail on the head there. The RAAF considered the Huey too valuable an asset to risk by having it exposed to unsecured areas of operation in Vietnam. Though they did do good work with the SAS.

The Facts
 

TBML - Your question was simple, and I was not attempting to answer it. I was merely providing you with a credible source of information to address the other twaddle.

As for the MOTS projects going great, those you listed are for capabilities already familiar to the ADF. The ARH introduces a totally new capability to Army and I'd guess the inability to "export" ARH has more to do with developing the expertise to apply that capability effectively.

Koala's may look cute and cuddly but are in reality, smelly little buggers with attitude and a decent gouge!

Interestingly, the common platform brigade to simplify the supply chain don't seem to understand that if a serious issue develops with the platform [ie. MRH-90 engines] the whole show could be grounded leaving us with nothing. I see that issue arising in the RAAF F-35 only going forward vs. F-35/F-18F [or whatever] mix. With the MRH we could have had no operational ADF utility choppers if the Black Hawk/ Sea King was retired.

I can't help but feel that too many decisions are reached at Russell Hill (and higher up the political greasy pole) more with an eye to that nice little post-retirement job working for an aircraft or arms manufacturer than to what would be the best fit for the job.

A large proportion if not all of our military commitment over the last 30 years has involved peace keeping rather than full on battle against a well-armed contemporary army. Even the current commitment to Afghanistan wouldn't fit into the 'full on' description. So if ever there was a country that needed a 'cheap and cheerful' second tier helo (like a modern Kiowa or a SuperHuey), it's Australia.

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.

now who was it that said 'he who get's there the fastest with the mostest wins!'...

In the helo world we'll be back to flying the general in an MRH-90 to view the vista rather than a next level down comms/support helo....

NYC
 

TBM-L,

In answer to your original question - my understanding is no they are still grounded and will be for a few months yet! The engine is not fit for purpose.

Sea Sprite Mk 2...*

*at least the engines worked on the SeaSprite!

I wonder why our precious media haven't picked up on this one??

How many billions were written off on the Sea Sprite project?

And probably more importantly, how much FAA ASW experience was lost in the people who sat around year after year unable to pass on their experience to the next generation of naval aviators?

Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm certain you will), but doesn't this engine power some aircraft other than the NH 90. I seem to recall that the Brits selected this engine for some of their medium/heavy aircraft too.

Does anyone here know who called for the Ausstralian fleet grounding? Was it Rolls Royce/Turbomeca or was it the ADF? Has any other operator also grounded their fleet?