MRH-90 helicopters for Australia
Australian MRH90 not meeting expectations??
Have heard from a couple of guys both in and ex the system the MRH90 is not up to expectations, Floor easily damaged , not up to handling wear and tear of combat troops, can't open ramp in flight , only one soldier on ramp at time on ground (just what you need in a combat zone!!, restricted loading of ramp (have to use spreader boards so as not to damage ramp if loading trailers etc), no storage of equip on ramp when closed-big wasted area in cabin!, cannot open sliding doors in flight (in a combat zone i'd want the bloody doors open to get out in a hurry!)(also can't have doors open in spec ops to fast rope teams into targets), can only open R/H door in a hover to use hoist must be closed for fwd flight, very little ground clearance under A/C (should keep the composite guys busy with repairs when they go bush), limited engine power -the engine control system of the RTM322 will only give you 100% power even if the engine could give you more (hot and high i'd want every bit of power the engines will give me), with tricycle U/C very high chance of tail strike in tactical flying, Limited field of fire with side guns (a/c was not designed initialy to have door/side guns ), what a great A/C a stepup up from the Blackhawk!!! I think not! The UH60-M can do all the things i've listed the MRH90 can't! (except ramp) and it can't carry 20 troops ,but its no use having 20 troops on board if your delivery A/C can't do the job.
Have also heard the NAVY are trying to give there MRH 90's to the ARMY as they don't want them ,hoping to get 6-8 MH60-R's/S-70B's and 6-8 MH60-S's instead and have an all 60 series helos and T-700 engines, let the ARMY operate 4 differant types and 4 differant engines!
I can see another Seasprite saga with the MRH90 and its new!! for the ARMY's sake and the poor grunts or specops in the back and the Taxpayer I hope not.
Have also heard the NAVY are trying to give there MRH 90's to the ARMY as they don't want them ,hoping to get 6-8 MH60-R's/S-70B's and 6-8 MH60-S's instead and have an all 60 series helos and T-700 engines, let the ARMY operate 4 differant types and 4 differant engines!
I can see another Seasprite saga with the MRH90 and its new!! for the ARMY's sake and the poor grunts or specops in the back and the Taxpayer I hope not.
Last edited by Blackhawk9; 26th May 2008 at 12:39.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackhawk9
Please tell me that the same fools who ordered the seasprite are not the same fools who are ordering these new aircraft. Just glad to be a tax payer in this country at the moment.
Banger
Banger
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New South Wales
Age: 55
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've all seen and said it before with almost all the aircraft introduced over the last few years (haven't heard anything bad about C-17 yet). Some people are opposed to new aircraft before they even have a chance to enter operational service and prove themselves. Can anyone thing of an aircraft the ADF has got in the last 20 years that someone hasn't bitched about. We all seem to have short memories when it comes to new aircraft. I personally like Black Hawk but I haven't forgotten the serviceabilty problems, corrosion problems of Sea Hawk, canopy cracking of Squirrels and numerous other problems which have plagued the rotary wing fleet over the years. You just need to look into the history of some of the greatest aircraft of the past (F-14, F-111) and even in the recent past like V-22 and see the problems that these aircraft had through development but how good an aircraft they turned out to be. Who wouldn't defend the F-111, who would say something bad about the F-14, and god forbid, who doesn't still bag the F/A-18 purchase all those years ago. I suppose that in our rotary wing world in the ADF that we expected Apache or Cobra over Tiger, or I would have liked Black Hawk, EH101 over MRH90 (I'm sure the Navy would have for Sea King replacement). I know some of the ex-RN types I've worked with says that Lynx pisses over Sea Hawk, but is that based on fact or the love of you favourite aircraft. My lovely Hueys are gone and I wished the wrath of God onto the Defence Minister for not replacing them with UH-1N's but I sort of knew that the day would come and my last wish of ferrying pilots out after the disposal of Black hawks into the desert would not happen. My time in the RAN, I loved my UH-1B and my Sea King but lots of people bagged them, I suppose you really need to work on or fly the aircraft to like them and if it isn't one you don't fly, its open season. I can recall many a time at Oakey were Black Hawk Loadmasters always bagged Iroquois Loadmasters about their crappy old aircraft BUT always had a little smile and laugh when some of these guys had to then fly in Iroquois and after a while did not want to go back to Black Hawk. I suppose the point is that lets try to keep emotions and bias out of our opinions to other aircraft and give them a bit of time to prove themselves, it'll all work out in the end (sssshh, don't mention Sea Sprite!).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
i heard a rumour that the navy can't use them because the powers that be forgot to order them with blade folding kits, a 300,000,000 dollar mistake.
then there is the tiger, what a disaster.
then there is the tiger, what a disaster.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jessie13
With all due respect. I'm a tax payer and don't want to pay more for bungles these fools make.
Graham, how much do you think these tiger problems are going to cost to fix. I have heard in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.
Banger
Graham, how much do you think these tiger problems are going to cost to fix. I have heard in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.
Banger
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Just west of here
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
imabell
The thread was supposed to be bagging the NH 90 wasn't it, not bagging the procurement folks. If you can't think of anything really bad to add about the helicopter, get in touch with Blackhawk9, he seems to have all the good goss directly from the NH 90 operators.
b'banger and imabell,
Are you free to let us all know the Tiger "disaster"? I've heard that Army don't have enough crew to fly most of them, is that the disaster? Or are the "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" for blade folding kits?
We're tax-payers too and we rely on you folks who really know the facts to let the rest of in on the goings-on that cost us hard-earned dosh. Be aware that its the facts we need though. Yeah we know it's a rumor network but . . . .
The thread was supposed to be bagging the NH 90 wasn't it, not bagging the procurement folks. If you can't think of anything really bad to add about the helicopter, get in touch with Blackhawk9, he seems to have all the good goss directly from the NH 90 operators.
b'banger and imabell,
Are you free to let us all know the Tiger "disaster"? I've heard that Army don't have enough crew to fly most of them, is that the disaster? Or are the "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" for blade folding kits?
We're tax-payers too and we rely on you folks who really know the facts to let the rest of in on the goings-on that cost us hard-earned dosh. Be aware that its the facts we need though. Yeah we know it's a rumor network but . . . .
imabell the Germans may not have cancelled the NH 90 but the Norwegians cancelled the option for 10 SAR NH 90s as the didn't meet requirements only went with the initial order of 14 ,6 x ASW ,8 x Coast guard, The S-92 is favorite to get the SAR contract and the army would like Blackhawks to replace the B412's not NH 90's.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Big Island
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
emergov is spot on with all of those statements and I'll back him up on that!
Blackhawk9, make sure you get better info next time cause it sounds like everything you're on about is nothing but a 3rd hand **** buzz.
Blackhawk9, make sure you get better info next time cause it sounds like everything you're on about is nothing but a 3rd hand **** buzz.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NQ
Age: 60
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergov,
Pretty big call there
Can't recall any black hawk tail rotor strikes onto the ground, and pretty certain that I recall a conversation with the engineer that brought the demo over that went somthing like "No we don't have a plan for where to fit door guns as the original design did not specify them"
Could be wrong, as old age kicks in, but I doubt it
Sag On
Pretty big call there
Can't recall any black hawk tail rotor strikes onto the ground, and pretty certain that I recall a conversation with the engineer that brought the demo over that went somthing like "No we don't have a plan for where to fit door guns as the original design did not specify them"
Could be wrong, as old age kicks in, but I doubt it
Sag On
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tail / rotor / ground / guns
I don't think the possibility of putting the tail rotor into the ground is sufficient grounds to assume the MRH 90 will never be a suitable aircraft for troop lift. Black hawks have had numerous stab strikes, however, and have put the tail into the trees on least one, highly public occasion. I think the furthest you could go on this line is that if you deliberately look to touch down with the tail first, then you need a tailwheel. If you haven't got one, you fly a different profile. the tail rotor on MRH 90 does not extend below the bottom of the boom. Cue endless arguments about dust landings, fast approaches etc. Merlin has a nose wheel, and they're doing quite well in the sand pit, I hear.
The chap you were talking to may have been referring to the number of options being presented by NHI for door gun mounting - central to the doors, offset in the doors, on the ramp, or in an enlarged rear window. If you as a customer didn't ask for door guns, you didn't get them. The ADF had door guns as a primary requirement, and they were offered from the outset.
The chap you were talking to may have been referring to the number of options being presented by NHI for door gun mounting - central to the doors, offset in the doors, on the ramp, or in an enlarged rear window. If you as a customer didn't ask for door guns, you didn't get them. The ADF had door guns as a primary requirement, and they were offered from the outset.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: my happy place....
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Live with it....
I have to say I am with you emergov..
I had my attitudes to MRH changed recenty when the FACTS were presented to me. Keep in mind that there a hundreds of other issues being played out behind the scenes by some very intelegent and experiencd people. Heaven forbid there are even some ex Blackhawk crew amongst them...
The aircraft is here to stay, we just addapt our TTP,s to make it work.
I dare say we have some very cleaver folks in the SPO's as well. If one particular part is not quite right for the needs of the day, we will find a way around it.
Give the thing a chance.
I had my attitudes to MRH changed recenty when the FACTS were presented to me. Keep in mind that there a hundreds of other issues being played out behind the scenes by some very intelegent and experiencd people. Heaven forbid there are even some ex Blackhawk crew amongst them...
The aircraft is here to stay, we just addapt our TTP,s to make it work.
I dare say we have some very cleaver folks in the SPO's as well. If one particular part is not quite right for the needs of the day, we will find a way around it.
Give the thing a chance.
Last edited by slow n low; 7th Jun 2008 at 03:40. Reason: fat fingers....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nth California
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ride Back
Emergov,
One note – you assume that a Black Hawk pilot would want a lift back from the bone yard. No self-respecting BH pilot would be seen dead in a Huey and would rather crawl back……….
One note – you assume that a Black Hawk pilot would want a lift back from the bone yard. No self-respecting BH pilot would be seen dead in a Huey and would rather crawl back……….
CH-53's have been around since Vietnam years and are still going strong.....all of them have nose wheels.
Shame you got the 90 and not the 53 however.
Shame you got the 90 and not the 53 however.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The MRH 90 has been in Australia for 6 months. The Blackhawk has been here for 20 years - and all of the issues you talk about were solved in Blackhawk during that time. MRH 90 will be in service for 30 years. Full capability isn't planned until 2015."
Shouldn't whatever helo is about to replace the old be better, more capable and last longer than what it replaces? And another SEVEN years until it's ready to be held accountable ? And then it is schedule for retirement 15 years later? It doesn't sound like a step forward on most accounts which the BH was when it replaced the Huey.
Shouldn't whatever helo is about to replace the old be better, more capable and last longer than what it replaces? And another SEVEN years until it's ready to be held accountable ? And then it is schedule for retirement 15 years later? It doesn't sound like a step forward on most accounts which the BH was when it replaced the Huey.
emergov and others,
I was one of the crew who assenbled A25-101 (first Aussie Black hawk)at Amberley in 1988 I did time on Iroquios ,Chinooks ,Kiowas and Blackhawks with RAAF and Army units, mates who I worked with then ,when I was in are still in now and are of significantly higher rank than ab's,sargents or lieutenant when I have a beer with them I get the goss , I also worked in Europe and saw alot of the specs on the NH 90 for the Nordic Helo program and alot of the things we got on our MRH90's where NOT in the original design spec., yes we are stuck with the MRH90 and Tiger and we will make them work but why do we make it so bloody hard on ourselves when if we bought UH60-M Blackhawks we wouldn't have to modify the A/C to make the bloody thing work or build new hangars as the MRH90 won't fit in B/hawk hangars/carports or train crews/techos /stores etc from scratch , the MRH 90 will be a good helo but how many millions more over the actual a/c cost will it cost us in support ,building etc to bring it on line when for the same TOTAL cost how many UH60-M's could we have got .
And the Tiger is even worse!! basic cost of 22 Tigers plus cost of intergrating Hellfire system(French are saying thankyou Australian Army we now have the Hellfire System to sell as an option to other operators and the intergration it didn't cost us a cent!!), plus cost of bigger engines as the Tiger can't hover in Darwin with full fuel and Weapon load ,plus cost of partical seperators which takes away the power margines the bigger engines gave us and higher fuel burn of bigger engines give less range , lot of thinking went into buying this gem!! and for all that TOTAL cost we could have had 24 AH64-D in service now.But it is a step up from a Kiowa for Recce!
The one good think at least we bought more Chinooks and hope we buy more at least the Chooks will keep going when the Eurocrap breaks!
I was one of the crew who assenbled A25-101 (first Aussie Black hawk)at Amberley in 1988 I did time on Iroquios ,Chinooks ,Kiowas and Blackhawks with RAAF and Army units, mates who I worked with then ,when I was in are still in now and are of significantly higher rank than ab's,sargents or lieutenant when I have a beer with them I get the goss , I also worked in Europe and saw alot of the specs on the NH 90 for the Nordic Helo program and alot of the things we got on our MRH90's where NOT in the original design spec., yes we are stuck with the MRH90 and Tiger and we will make them work but why do we make it so bloody hard on ourselves when if we bought UH60-M Blackhawks we wouldn't have to modify the A/C to make the bloody thing work or build new hangars as the MRH90 won't fit in B/hawk hangars/carports or train crews/techos /stores etc from scratch , the MRH 90 will be a good helo but how many millions more over the actual a/c cost will it cost us in support ,building etc to bring it on line when for the same TOTAL cost how many UH60-M's could we have got .
And the Tiger is even worse!! basic cost of 22 Tigers plus cost of intergrating Hellfire system(French are saying thankyou Australian Army we now have the Hellfire System to sell as an option to other operators and the intergration it didn't cost us a cent!!), plus cost of bigger engines as the Tiger can't hover in Darwin with full fuel and Weapon load ,plus cost of partical seperators which takes away the power margines the bigger engines gave us and higher fuel burn of bigger engines give less range , lot of thinking went into buying this gem!! and for all that TOTAL cost we could have had 24 AH64-D in service now.But it is a step up from a Kiowa for Recce!
The one good think at least we bought more Chinooks and hope we buy more at least the Chooks will keep going when the Eurocrap breaks!
Last edited by Blackhawk9; 12th Jun 2008 at 03:49. Reason: Spelling!