FA-18
That is a very good point. I am sure the deployed force played a significant role.

Ozbiggles

Yeah, I think we must be on the same page.


500N
Absolutely! Para load follow, either dropping boats on CEPs or as Bundles is still the go. Great fun too :ok:

Doors off
Glad to hear the Tigers are operational. I was told they'd be signed off after TS11, but then heard that they hadn't been due ongoing problems. It would be great to see these machines deploy.

Apologies for the rant, I have very strong views on the subject.

A former colleague recently told me they will struggle to make the MRH operational except as a rear-ech asset, and believes an FMS sale might be on the cards. Apparently the floor problems and lack of a position for door guns presents a problem which will require a very expensive engineering fix. So far there is no solution. I will say, however, that my former colleague is not posted to that type at the moment.

The floor fix for the MRHs is in hand - at Eurocopter's expense too! :ok:

The lack of a door gunner position and other issues will limit to the MRH to a pure transport role, and it will likely never be employed in the battlefield assault mission. :rolleyes:

Low-key representations have been made to US Army/Sikorsky for some UH-60Ms...but there is no money to progress this at the moment.

I'm told from a good source that they are not suitable for the counter terrorism/special ops role and that Blackhawks will be retained for that and that they hope to crossover to UH-60M for that role.

So here is a question.

Was the original specification / tender before the purchase written with specs that included the use of the MRH for

- counter terrorism/special ops role
- battlefield assault mission
- door gunner (although it looks like this will be fixed)

If it was envisaged that the first two were part of what the MRH was supposed to do, then where did such a big stuff up occur ?

Surely the people who are purchasing know before they hand over the contract or the $$$ that it will do what we want ?

AFAIK getting euro was a political decision based on then being built here, the services wanted usa stuff

That is exactly what I have heard. What fix do they have for the floors? Last I saw they were using rubber load spreader but had not devised a permanent fix. What a waste of time if we only end up with a rear-ech aircraft.

Trojan

What a waste of time AND money - for what, a few jobs up north
to keep some pollie happy ?

Would have been cheaper to pay them the dole and to buy the right helo
in the first place.

Oh well.

If the AAVN blokes are getting as little flying as I'm told they are, what in the hell do they do with themselves all day? And how scary is it for all concerned when 2Lt Bloggs gets his/her knees on each side of a cylic?

You have to be F#$%&n S&*^^ing me....thats a joke right? .......where is Bushranger and his Huey II talk :}


Probably doing EC135 endorsements somewhere....good on em, not their fault :ok:

Cheers

Another one was test flying out of Brisbane today.

Most new pilots are flying Kiowas for training or being trained on UAVs so that they can be deployed on token trips. These are badged, but not ROBC qualified pilots at the base rank of LT (2LT only exists in the reserves).

Not any more Trojan.

The choc graduating class in Feb 2008 (and all that followed) went straight to LT. I believe the only 2LTs are now AAAvn pre-ROBC SSOs.

The lead-up to the Australian MRH90 decision
 

It has been suggested I rejoin the debate this thread.

Why did Australia acquire the MRH90? It was a 'going away' present by then PM John Howard as a virtual last act before Election 2007 - along with 2 x LPD aircraft carriers - for his former MinDef Peter Reith who was working for Tenix post-political life; that outfit later being absorbed by BAE Systems. Tenix of course were driving the prospective LPD and MRH90 acquisitions. But what had happened in the 30 or so years preceding that decision?

'At the end of the Vietnam War, the argument was made in the United States, as well as Australia, that it would be sheer folly to become involved in distant, extended, Asian counter-insurgency campaigns or to structure the armed forces for such contingencies.' - Professor Alan Dupont, The Lowy Institute.

Embarkation on the thinly-veiled unified ADF experiment (a la Canada) initiated in 1974 also saw loss of focus on maintaining the military capacities and operational expertise hard won during the Vietnam War where, contrary to folklore, the independent armed forces functioned well jointly, as in prior conflicts wherein Australian forces had mainly conformed with British Joint Planning doctrine.

Pre-ADF formation, political oversight of the military was appropriately exercised but that morphed into Public Service domination, subsequent dismantling of a system whereby the armed forces had pretty well managed their own hardware acquisitions and the growth of monstrous substitute bureaucracies under 3 separate ministries now dominating defence matters. For years now, the central plank of Australian defence policy has been support of defence industry (largely foreign-parented) at the expense of military preparedness.

Since 1974, little effort was made to progressively optimise military hardware in service in Australia; but, majority of the aircraft platforms employed by Australian forces during the Vietnam campaign and subsequently have since been continually employed operationally by other nations and are still being optimised via ongoing manufacturer upgrade programs. For example; enhanced Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk versions and turbo engined ex-RAAF Caribou are now operating in Afghanistan with more of that discarded herd being re-engined.

Alan Dupont again: 'While our defence strategy must incorporate plans for dealing with a major conventional military attack against sovereign Australian territory (deterrence Yes, defence No - BR71), this remains a low-probability scenario and the ADF should not be primarily structured for such a threat. It makes no strategic sense to allocate the lion’s share of the defence budget to capabilities that have little or no utility for the conflicts most likely to engage the ADF, or which cannot be used because they do not have the necessary protection to survive in a high-threat environment (a failing of many past acquisitions). We need to give much higher priority to maintaining and sustaining the equipment we have by elevating the importance of logistics and remediation.'(my emphasis – BR71).

Maybe some more soon re Post #214 and 'remediating' the ADF helo force.

Professor Alan Dupont seems to make some very commonsense points, BR71. It doesn't seem to make any sense to have too small numbers of the best kit if we can't afford to operate it - or, because it is so expensive, politically, we can't afford to lose one unit, so commanders are forced to keep it away from high, een medium risk situations.
Looking forward to your next offering.

The last press release from Gilard and co talked about cancelling 33 multirole helicopters!

Does this mean the end of the MRH90 and that we will keep around 15-16 for Navy etc and rebuild the existing Blackhawk fleet?

I'm aware that Army wants to keep 12 Blackhawks for special ops in Sydney as MRH90 doesn't do the job. Maybe our new helicopter fleet could look like this:

22 Tiger ARH
24 MH-60R
15-16 MRH90 shared Army/Navy
30+ S70A's rebuilt for Army.
*12+ S70B's as utility cabs.
I personally think the S70B's that Navy has should be converted to fleet "cabs" by removing ASW etc gear and using them the way we used the Wessex/Sea King. Make excellent fleet utility aircraft stripped out. Can land aboard all classes of ships if and when required and we own them.

Also Chinooks, when the new F models are delivered upgrade the D's to D+ or F models so we have a decent fleet with enough for maintenance/ops and training.

NH90s: Defence Paper Questions Helicopter Lifespans... | Stuff.co.nz

According to tonight's budget, not for much longer :eek:

Updates of lots of friends' Bookface status this evening are skirting dangerously close to "inappropriate use of social media" ...

LTDT

I haven't had a chance to have a good read and won't for a few days.

What did the budget say that makes you say that ? (According to tonight's budget, not for much longer).

Early retirement of H models. In fact, next FY has "withdrawn" in the 2012-13 budget estimate column for the H model fleet hours. No increase to any other ALG fleet to compensate (modest increase for C-17 to account for the extra aircraft).

I can't help thinking that this hasn't been thought through ... but that wouldn't be unusual, would it?

Offical word from hierachy today in 37SQN briefing. C130H retirement in 6 weeks !!!!!!

That's short notice although to be honest the fleet has been facing the axe for some time, we did expect more notice though. No word on BFA although we're assured it's coming. All training / upgrades cancelled unless a single flight remaining on course etc.