MRH-90 helicopters for Australia
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: lost
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
How late was the UK apache program running, 6 years! ARH is also now off the DMO hit list.http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/C...CurrentId=7756
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two questions.
1. Can the MRH90 fly with full (ie 100%) fuel, and max internal and external load?
2. How many MRH90's will fit in an LPA hangar, compared to S70 (both folded)?
As I understand, the acft is weight limited when put to the test, and from my calculations the footprint is larger than a Blackhawk, even when folded.
These are not necessarily "war-stoppers" but perhaps operational considerations that commanders need to bear in mind.
Look forward to unbiased, factual responses.
1. Can the MRH90 fly with full (ie 100%) fuel, and max internal and external load?
2. How many MRH90's will fit in an LPA hangar, compared to S70 (both folded)?
As I understand, the acft is weight limited when put to the test, and from my calculations the footprint is larger than a Blackhawk, even when folded.
These are not necessarily "war-stoppers" but perhaps operational considerations that commanders need to bear in mind.
Look forward to unbiased, factual responses.
fleebag the UK Apaches run RTM 322 engines not GE T700's and other UK mods they are not AH64-D's , the poms are as bad as us can't leave the bloody thing alone look at the Mk 3 Chinook, all most operators want is a multi use common airframe , not a highly modified hybrid no one else operates , look at us the S70A-9 (yes my favorite is a bitsa!), S70B-2, the Seasprite,Tiger and MRH90 at least the Chinooks are almost the same as a factory standard airframe
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.D.U.
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many MRH90's will fit in an LPA hangar, compared to S70 (both folded)?
The Baffler
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackhawk9:
The NH 90 basic design was offered with a number of options, like engines, comms, ramp, Top Owl, FLIR and a host of others. The airframes are either the TTH variant (ours), the nordic high roof vaiant or the NFH variant (with provision for search radar etc). The MRH 90 for the ADF has very few Australian unique options - mainly radios and ICS fit and door gun configuration. All the other stuff is the same role equipment as designed for other countries.
yes we are stuck with the MRH90 and Tiger and we will make them work - you are on the money there. The challenges will be different, probably greater, but there are a lot of dedicated people working hard to make it work.
The MRH 90 does fit in the Blackhawk shelters it's just that bigger concrete pads were required on the floor. The decision to buy MRH 90 was made on the basis of more bums on seats per acft, and getting an acft at the start of its design life. It will be OK.
The NH 90 basic design was offered with a number of options, like engines, comms, ramp, Top Owl, FLIR and a host of others. The airframes are either the TTH variant (ours), the nordic high roof vaiant or the NFH variant (with provision for search radar etc). The MRH 90 for the ADF has very few Australian unique options - mainly radios and ICS fit and door gun configuration. All the other stuff is the same role equipment as designed for other countries.
yes we are stuck with the MRH90 and Tiger and we will make them work - you are on the money there. The challenges will be different, probably greater, but there are a lot of dedicated people working hard to make it work.
The MRH 90 does fit in the Blackhawk shelters it's just that bigger concrete pads were required on the floor. The decision to buy MRH 90 was made on the basis of more bums on seats per acft, and getting an acft at the start of its design life. It will be OK.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 45 South
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergov -
So the Navy boys will be trying to secure the blades manually on a rolling heaving deck in a storm. Outstanding.
Totaly ill-conceived waste of the tax-payer's money.
I am also led to believe that the entry level training helicopter for up and coming new MRH90 and Tiger pilots is going to be either EC135/A109 twins as we no longer need to teach them how to fly just twiddle knobs and wear funny looking flying fish bowl helmets.
You have got to be joking
So the Navy boys will be trying to secure the blades manually on a rolling heaving deck in a storm. Outstanding.
Totaly ill-conceived waste of the tax-payer's money.
I am also led to believe that the entry level training helicopter for up and coming new MRH90 and Tiger pilots is going to be either EC135/A109 twins as we no longer need to teach them how to fly just twiddle knobs and wear funny looking flying fish bowl helmets.
You have got to be joking
Originally Posted by Max Dover
So the Navy boys will be trying to secure the blades manually on a rolling heaving deck in a storm. Outstanding.
Ducking around the storms, leveling the heaving and rolling deck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergov, you seem to know what your talking about (thank you).
Supplementary question...
The goal of a helmet manufacturer is to reduce the weight as much as possible, ideally below 1kg, while still retaining the protective capability for bird strike, accident, etc. So how much does the ARH/MRH helmet weigh, with the II tubes and the daylight cameras? Is there any thought that this may cause concern for some pilot demographics?
Second supplementary question...
Is there any polyamide insulation (Kapton) in either the ARH or MRH? If so, should Aus require this to be replaced to comply with ADF standards?
Supplementary question...
The goal of a helmet manufacturer is to reduce the weight as much as possible, ideally below 1kg, while still retaining the protective capability for bird strike, accident, etc. So how much does the ARH/MRH helmet weigh, with the II tubes and the daylight cameras? Is there any thought that this may cause concern for some pilot demographics?
Second supplementary question...
Is there any polyamide insulation (Kapton) in either the ARH or MRH? If so, should Aus require this to be replaced to comply with ADF standards?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kapton / TopOwl
There is no Kapton in the MRH 90. A couple of other nations also specified this mod for their NH 90.
I don't know how heavy the TopOwl is, but any extra weight over a standard helmet would be to project flight symbology or FLIR images on the visor. I'm not sure if the IIT are removed for day flight. For NVG ops, which is bread and butter for troop lift missions, the placing of the IIT on TopOwl is supposed to give better weight distribution than having the tubes located in front of the eyes. There is also no requirement for a battery pack and counterweights as used with an ANVIS setup.
I don't know how heavy the TopOwl is, but any extra weight over a standard helmet would be to project flight symbology or FLIR images on the visor. I'm not sure if the IIT are removed for day flight. For NVG ops, which is bread and butter for troop lift missions, the placing of the IIT on TopOwl is supposed to give better weight distribution than having the tubes located in front of the eyes. There is also no requirement for a battery pack and counterweights as used with an ANVIS setup.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nth California
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey emergov,
you seem a wealth of knowledge of all things MRH-90. I dont want to go on about the tendering process as that is been bashed to death and we are stuck with what we signed up to pay for. However, I have always wondered about the crashworthiness of the MRH-90. The Black Hawk is an excellent aircraft with respect to survivability (ask anyone involved in Aust Army Aviation for the last 20 years). The majority of the impact attenuation is due to the fixed undercarriage and the seats. With the retractable wheels of the 90, what is the survivability claimed to be?
HLC
you seem a wealth of knowledge of all things MRH-90. I dont want to go on about the tendering process as that is been bashed to death and we are stuck with what we signed up to pay for. However, I have always wondered about the crashworthiness of the MRH-90. The Black Hawk is an excellent aircraft with respect to survivability (ask anyone involved in Aust Army Aviation for the last 20 years). The majority of the impact attenuation is due to the fixed undercarriage and the seats. With the retractable wheels of the 90, what is the survivability claimed to be?
HLC
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashworthiness
Hi HLC,
I agree that the Blackhawk is probably second to none for crash survivability. The MRH 90 has been certified to FAR29 standards, and I haven't seen any specs or details on what that means for crash protection. It does have crashworthy, stroking seats for all occupants.
If the wheels are up there would be little attenuation from them in the event of a crash. I know that some operators of Puma leave the wheels down for that reason. I'm afraid I don't know much else about this aspect of the aircraft. The MLG struts are quite substantial when you look at them behind the cabin wall.
I agree that the Blackhawk is probably second to none for crash survivability. The MRH 90 has been certified to FAR29 standards, and I haven't seen any specs or details on what that means for crash protection. It does have crashworthy, stroking seats for all occupants.
If the wheels are up there would be little attenuation from them in the event of a crash. I know that some operators of Puma leave the wheels down for that reason. I'm afraid I don't know much else about this aspect of the aircraft. The MLG struts are quite substantial when you look at them behind the cabin wall.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The UH-60M Block II will itself be moving to a composite cabin in the 2013 timescale, likely predicated on technologies developed under the SARAP program, so it looks like crashworthy composite structures are the future.
I/C
I/C
