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?

The NH-90 can be ordered with either of two engine types:
2Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-01/9 or
2 General Electric T700-T6E

MRH-90 uses the RTM322-01/9.

This engine also powers the AW101 (Merlin) and the AW-built Apaches.

Pretty well sums up the current situation except for one thing - the giant, inappropriate 777s (or most of them) are almost permanently grounded.

Army/Navy needed new choppers.

For Army; Off the shelf Mike's from Uncle Sam would have been a low risk proven solution.
For Navy; Off the shelf Knight Hawks

Forget building this stuff in Oz. The cost goes thru the roof to keep a few bods in jobs for a few years only..

Interesting to see how the Sea Hawk replacement goes...

TBM

UH-60Ms would have provided no appreciable capability increase over the current Black Hawk. Army chose the MRH because it had appreciable increases in range, payload and flexibility over the 'Mike'. The fact that it isn't working at the moment doesn't mean the original decision was necessarily a bad one - it's more to do with the program's painfully slow industrial ramp up in Europe and a corresponding lack of spares here, combined with an overly cautious (re airworthiness and IOC criteria) ADF.

By Knight Hawk I assume you mean the 'Romeo'...looks like an almost done deal. Notification of possible MH-60R sale to Australia | Australian Aviation Magazine

The MRH/ARH build program will transition to through life support for both types - all DM work and upgrades through to life of type will be done by the workforce at Pinkenba, so it's more than just a few years.

TBM,

Slightly off thread but the R in Romeo actually means reworked/refurbished/refitted B. ie new avionics, but same Old design airframe.
At least the MRH shouldn't rust as fast being mostly plastic.

FA18

Yes the BlackHawk has a slightly smaller cabin, no ramp and carries less gas, so cabin and range not as impressive as the NH90 with standard fuel, but the 701D powered UH-60M’s operating with a vastly improved cockpit and wide chord blades are knocking the spots of their predecessors with regards to performance at hot and high ops and dispatch reliability in the Stan. So to suggest the combat proven UH-60M would have provided no appreciable capability increase over the ageing Australian Army’s S-70A’s is simply ludicrous.

The U.S. Army BlackHawk’s in Iraq and Afghanistan have accumulated more than 1 million fleet flight hours without a single Class A material failure.........Not bad for an old technology [sic] platform.

If you placed UH-60M’s and NH-90’s side by side on the pan and told the grunts and crews alike to pick a cab to go fight in, I’ve no doubt the Hawk would be the platform of choice every time.

When the NH90 has proven combat experience and reliability under its belt, then let it stand side-by-side with other war fighting helicopters, but the introduction of the NH90 in any variant to any of the five or six nations with inventory has been a sorrowful tale to date, which might explain why many are looking elsewhere for their next acquisition.

Actually Foxtrot is pretty close to the money. The M can still only fit 8 troops in Marching Order, even if it can lift as much as an MRH90. After all the messing about, the MRH90 will fit 12 pax (marching order) in proper, crashworthy seats. That's a 50% capability increase.

Now, if they would just do that 'flying' thing a bit more often...

having a machine that is entirely compatible with big brother when you're fighting with them is a big plus. All the talk about the NH-90 series being composite therefore not corroding belies the fact that we've operated Sea Kings for 30+ years and the Black Hawk for 25 years without them 'rusting out'! [don't mention the Huey]

More Chinooks and newer Black Hawks was the correct answer. This combo seems to work real well in ops.

Re keeping a few bods employed at Pinkenbah; well these work for the dole schemes are not cost effective...

You sure there are UH-60Ms deployed to Afghanistan yet, Hilife?

I'm sure the NH 90 vs Black Hawk preference argument is a valid one, same as it was 35 years ago for the Black Hawk vs Huey...

Ask one of the MRH 90 guys what they think of their new steed (granted, when it actually flies!), and you'll get overwhelming praise for it...anyway...

TBM, I believe the blame for whole Tiger/NH-90 debacle can be laid at the door of some very senior idiot at Sikorsky who was so sure that the Australians would see the absolute commonsense of your argument that he made absolutely no effort to sweeten the pot when Australia came looking for a deal. (I'm told the offer made to the Australians by the Americans was utterly ridiculous.)

The Australians went away and bought the opposition's product.

I hope and pray the day never comes to cause our helicopter units and the units they (currently don't) support to curse that nameless American. Some might say that day is already long past.

Yeah, well...sort of...

Sikorsky don't have an ARH equivalent, but I guess the same claim can be made of the Boeing/US Army team pitching the Apache (plus the Longbow radar was going to be extra!)

The other problem with the UH-60M program at the time of the MRH decision was that it was substantially a remanufacturing program with (I think) less than a quarter of the total planned buy scheduled to be new builds.

My understanding is that not a lot of effort was put into marketing the new-build program to the ADF by the US Army and Sikorsky at the time and there wasn't a lot of certainty about whether Australia's S-70s could be 'remanned' to UH-60M standard because of their differences to the US UH-60A/Ls.

Anyway, right or not, Army wanted something A) bigger and longer ranging (read: flexibility) than the Black Hawk, and B) with some commonality to the ARH, hence the choice of MRH.

another myth is Tiger and MRH-90 commonality. Completely different model engine Tiger MTR390 - MRH-90 MTR322,,,,

The Army wanted the AH-64 by the way until DMO got involved in the benefits of local manufacture etc. More like better trips to France..

So who will win the next Naval chopper contest?

They didn't rust out because we spent a gazillion dollars on deeper maintenance! Composite airframes involve much lower DM costs, allowing you to spend more of your finite defence budget at the sharp end.

Only if the question starts with "If money were no object..." and ends with ".....an unlimited supply of TRGBs".

No one said Tiger and MRH90 had the same engines! They have the same EWSP fit - and that's a significant plus.

"Army wanted AH-64..." There are 25000 people in 'Army' Not all of them say the same thing, let alone the right thing. Perhaps "some people in the Army wanted AH-64" would be more accurate. Some people in the Army want jet boots and nuclear hand grenades; doesn't mean they're a good idea.

And trips to France are pretty much like trips to America, except that it's France, and not America. People are still going to have to travel overseas. I really don't think the location of the factory was much of a player when cabinet sat down to make the decision.

Quite sure

The UH-60M first arrived in Afghanistan with the 101st Aviation Regiment, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade in March 2009 as part of operation Task Force Thunder.

the same but different
 

Black Hawk Vs MRH 90
 

BH can 'only' fit 8 where as MRH can fit 12. This would have to be one of the most ridiculous arguments out there.

2012 infantry construct is now 8 men per Sect (down from 9) so a BH can carry a full sect in marching order. If that's not enough take the seats out and OCL will take 18.

In the BH troops can at least wear their webbing in the seats, something that can not be done in the fantastic crash-worthy seats of the MRH.

Even with the craftiest use of numbers you'll find that the MRH can only give you about 10% more than the BH M/L.

This is all before the tactical aspect of splitting Sections and bump plans (losing a Sect vs a Sect-and-a-half)

Let’s not start on the cabin floor or the door guns!

And the Mikes seem to be doing pretty well in Afghan.

New Army Black Hawk succeeds in combat

S64

emergov

Crashworthy seats!!! - I couldn't get my slender ass in there in DPU let alone with any marching order, let alone with the amount of bang our boys will need in Uruzgan.

Stop selling the party line, the M S70 and F CH47 are bloodied already!! The wrong decision was made.....

HPT

Slender ass? I think not if it wouldn't fit.

Those advocating OCL have obviously never sat in a BOI, or senate estimates, or an AWB.

If you're wearing belt webbing (which won't fit) then you don't need to hit the ground running. If you do need to hit the ground running, you'll be wearing MCBAS, or the newer armour, and you'll fit in the seat.

The acft was acquired, in part, because it beat the Blackhawk in a DSTO-study modelling Amphibious force generation. The only acft that actually met the requirements of the study was Merlin.

If we followed the argument that 8 is all we need, and losing a section and a half would be awful, then we'd have bought Bell 412 and our Chinooks would only have nine seats in them - unless we're OCL, which apparently is tops, and we'd forget all our previous arguments and have 85 pax standing back to back.

No argument Black Hawk would have been easier to bring into service. MRH90 will end up giving better capability to the ADF.

The acft was acquired, in part, because it beat the Blackhawk in a DSTO-study modelling Amphibious force generation. The only acft that actually met the requirements of the study was Merlin.


Buy the right equipment then......
Australia – MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters
July 12, 2010
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress July 7 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of 24 MH-60R Seahawk Multi-Mission helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.1 billion.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 MH-60R Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopters, 60 T-700 GE 401C Engines (48 installed and 12 spares), communication equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, US government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services. The estimated cost is $2.1 billion.
Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have served US national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.
The proposed sale of the MH-60R Seahawk helicopters will improve Australia’s anti-submarine and surface warfare capability and provide an improved search and rescue and anti-ship surveillance capability. Australia will also use the enhanced capability in future contingency operations encompassing humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and stability operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these additional helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors are Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut, Lockheed Martin in Owego, New York, General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts, and Raytheon Corporation in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of ten contractor representatives to Australia to support delivery of the MH-60R helicopters.
There will be no adverse impact on US defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.