![>](style_images/1/nav_m.gif)
ADF Serials |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Brendan Cowan |
Posted: Apr 29 2011, 04:25 PM
|
Messageboard Co-ordinator ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 2,458 Member No.: 48 Joined: 20-September 05 ![]() |
From the Defence Media Centre today........
Diagnostic Review of MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program A full diagnostic review of the MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program has now been completed. The review was ordered in February by the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare to address delays to the project. It was chaired by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation Mr Warren King supported by a number of independent specialists. The review has recommended that the project should not be added to the Project of Concern list at this time. It has recommended that Defence work with the contractor, Australian Aerospace, to implement a remediation plan to improve the availability of the helicopters by addressing engineering and reliability issues. The project will be the subject of a further diagnostic review later this year to examine the effectiveness of the action taken and whether further action is necessary. The diagnostic review was ordered to address delays to the project due to a series of key issues including engine failure, transmission oil cooler fan failures and the poor availability of spares. As reported in both the Defence Annual Report and the ANAO Major Project Report released last year, the project has suffered delays of 12 months for the Navy’s helicopters and 18 months for the Army’s helicopters. To date, 13 MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted by Defence and are currently being used for testing and initial crew training. Media contact: Korena Flanagan – 02 6277 7620 |
Dave Masterson |
Posted: May 1 2011, 08:07 PM
|
C-17A Globemaster III (A41) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 528 Member No.: 25 Joined: 24-June 05 ![]() |
Here we go again...just buy the tried and tested Sikorsky!
|
Brendan Cowan |
Posted: Sep 17 2011, 12:55 PM
|
Messageboard Co-ordinator ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 2,458 Member No.: 48 Joined: 20-September 05 ![]() |
And now for a second dignostic review announced yesterday:
Diagnostic Review of MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program A second diagnostic review of the MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program will begin next week, Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare said today. This follows a review conducted in April which recommended that Defence work with the contractor, Australian Aerospace, to implement a remediation plan. At that time, Mr Clare said a second review would be undertaken this year to examine the effectiveness of the action taken and whether further action is necessary to remediate the project. This review will be Chaired by DMO’s Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer Harry Dunstall and will report back by the end of October. The first diagnostic review was ordered to address delays to the project due to a series of key issues including engine failure, transmission oil cooler fan failures and the poor availability of spares. To date, 13 MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted by Defence and are currently being used for testing and initial crew training. Media contact: Korena Flanagan – 02 6277 7620 |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
I understand that a new design will take some bedding down and ironing out per reliability issues, but I still can't get my head around the issues of fuselage clearance on landing, need for strengthen floors, fitting and use of aircrew served weapons problems in certain configurations etc.
No one had a check list of things off the requirements when picking these aircraft???? Basically a clipboard and a sheet with "yes/no" and a pencil???? Sure its harder then that,..but really,...some basic requirements and a tape measure? Is it because of the revolving door of Army management every few years and not wanting to upset the promotion ladder before them? They're a great aircraft and has a higher load factor and range over the Blackhawk, and will be equipped with, not for, all countermeasures from the start. Spain has only received its first NH-90 last month, with its own version of the ARH taken flight fo the first time. We've been the lead customer it seems, along with several other types that have suffered the problems of going from prototype to promised type. ARH, MRH90, KC-30A, Wedgetail, SH-2G, etc. The gestation period of getting them from Order to IOC is,...in all cases, a non-event, mainly due to the underestimation and promises of the supplier or its subcontractors to fullfill the stated "can do's" The Army is starting to realise the capability of the ARH Tiger now as it has overtaken some its problems it once had. Again, a known requirement was for certain types of accessories/requirements which were not available until some way into its production (Sand Filters, certain communications suites come to mind). I imagine that the MRH-90 will travel the same course. It will require a different or variance in doctrine of flying in the airmobility role to the Blackhawk S-70A9 (Flairing on landing first), but at least it will have "ďnservice"counter measures from the start unlike the Blackhawk ( Only 12 are receiving a limited system for use) I just hope that unlike in 1989, that some idiot in Canberra doesn't say that a MRH-90 can do the job of a CH-47F cheaper, and we do without Speaking of which, there are four ex 408 Sqn CH-47Ds sitting in a hanger at Kandahar being held for sale by the Canadians (who have 15 new CH-47Fs on order) I imagine that they're priced to "go" CH-47Ds 89-0130/87-0081/84-24154/86-1651. Aside form drive trains, they have the same equipment fit. Would make sense to obtain these since we have trouble spending the Defense Budget for spares and perhaps get at a minimum two of these in service to bring our total up to "7" as per the requirements of CH-47Fs we have on order. Opportunity knocks!!!!!! If only to keep the two ex Canucks in Oz for training Afterall we need some extra lift till the MRH-90's can fill the requirements in 2016!! Best Gordy |
Mick Raftery |
Posted: Nov 26 2011, 04:00 PM
|
Lockheed Hercules (A97) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 309 Member No.: 144 Joined: 25-May 06 ![]() |
Deed of agreement as reported in the Australian.
" AUSTRALIAN Aerospace and the Defence Material Organisation have signed a deed to get the MRH90 helicopter program moving again. The company says the agreement initiated a remediation plan to bring the program back on line after "a number of challenges". Australia is buying 46 of the European-designed MRH90 helicopters for the army and navy but only 13 have been delivered and the project has had delays of up to 18 months. It also has suffered a series of problems, including a serious engine failure. The signing of the deed means MRH90 stays off the government's "projects of concern" list. " This post has been edited by Mick Raftery on Nov 26 2011, 04:01 PM |
Mick Raftery |
Posted: Nov 28 2011, 08:04 PM
|
Lockheed Hercules (A97) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 309 Member No.: 144 Joined: 25-May 06 ![]() |
Today's Ministerial Statement on POC List Update
Statement " Multi-Role Helicopter (MRH-90) This project will provide Army and Navy with 46 new helicopters to replace the existing Black Hawk and Sea King fleets. The project is running late, primarily due to technical issues affecting the aircraft. The project has suffered delays of some two years to date. There remains a risk that the program will be further delayed. In April this year, the project underwent a comprehensive independent diagnostic Gate Review. This review recommended a remediation strategy which was agreed to by the prime contractor, Australian Aerospace. At that time, Mr Clare said the project would be reviewed again this year. That review was conducted in September. The MRH project has encountered a number of significant technical issues, which have now triggered early indicators and warnings thresholds for schedule and contractor performance. On the basis of the latest review, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation has recommended that the project be listed as a Project of Concern. The Government has agreed to this recommendation. To manage any capability gap with the retirement of Navy’s Sea King helicopters in December 2011, Navy will generate an additional short term Seahawk flight. Army’s Black Hawk fleet is also able to be extended to cover the capability gap in the short term. " |
cj0203 |
Posted: Nov 29 2011, 06:44 PM
|
Hawker Sea Fury (RAN) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 59 Member No.: 256 Joined: 13-January 07 ![]() |
This was the aircraft that was among other things, supposed to replace the Huey which was retired in 2007. 25 less airframes as a result of that retirement and no replacement operational 4 years later . Army is recruiting next to no pilots at the moment. SSO entry has been halted entirely. I know this for a fact as I'm in the pool again for the second time since 2009 awaiting the call up.
|
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
With the last production Tiger signed over yesterday, the focus is now on the MRH-90. Maybe a few oldies will have to be rotated back for sand filters
Shown on Channell 7(BTQ-7) last night was MRH-90 A40-022 (being the highest number seen), along with A40-018& A40-019 in the Hanger)sitting on the tarmac at Brisbane. I imagine the non-delivery of airframes post November 2010, would number nearly 10-13 airframes being held there. Can anyone confirm the number? If so, would it also include the two German built airframes?(A40-15 etc) The current list of projects of concern with the MRH-90 becoming #9 Current projects of concern: 1.Collins Class Submarines (only three operational)(One wonders what problem levels we'll suffer when we're building 12 new ones!!!!) 2.Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft 3.Lightweight torpedo replacement (Another European Problem) 4.Overlander replacement field vehicles, trailers and modules (Medium Heavy class)(Another European Problem) 5.Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Not sure whether this is the mid tir element) 6.Multi-role Tanker Transport aircraft – Air to Air Refuelling Capability (Boom, flight sytems and LARCMs)(Another European Problem) 7.Electronic Support Measures upgrade for AP-3C Orion aircraft 8.Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) (This will be resolved soon) 9.Multi-Role Helicopter (Floor/Engine and transmission and more)(Another European Problem) Back to the MRH-90, one wonders whether the headsheds dream about the missed oportunity of getting 40 UH-60Ls; a solid in production warhorse in use in Afghanistan and service provided to our illustrious SOTG Force element at Camp Russell from the 101st AA, All American. Wonder what 817, sorry 808Sqn FAA will be flying in January 2012 off the deck of HMAS Choules? Alot said about single sole sourced contracts(C-17 etc) per specification, not price :P Best Gordy |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Brisbane-based Australian Aerospace delivered the 15th MRH90 (Multi-Role Helicopter), A40-014, to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) earlier this week, marking the second such hand-over in two weeks.
Capable of carrying two pilots, two loadmasters and 18 combat troops up to 900km at speeds in excess of 300km/h, the MRH90 is a fly-by-wire, all-composite construction, medium-lift helicopter with the highest crash-worthiness standards. Things are picking up Gordy :blink: |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Australia adds MRH90 helicopter to Projects of Concern list joining several other high profile defence aerospace projects, the NH Industries MRH90 transport Deliveries stand at 15 out of 46 to the Australian Army (12/40) and Navy(3/6), but its heartening to know that one of the joint manufacturing countries, France, is at last getting the NH-90 TTH The French Army has just received its very first!!!!! :ph34r: |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Status
Currently the accepted fleet is now numbered as 16 with another 3 to be delivered by years end. Program is now dragging three years behind past original set date, but since November 2011 the contractor, EADs, has worked hard to rectify the issues outlined previously. As a result of the poor inmature manufacture support systems, affecting both the MRH-90 and the ARH Tiger, the number of flying hours have been far below expectation. However, this means that the Navy doesn't reach IOC until mid 2013, and the Army, mid 2014. But the final Full Operational Capability(FOC) won't be reached until early 2014 and late 2016 for the Navy and Army respectively. The army, in some quarters, is still whispering concern that the airframe is not robust in the air assault role, especially in hard combat assault landings. Further "rumours" abound that the Army is becoming very pessimistic or lack confidence about the ability of the type to withstand the rigours of our dust and heat on prolong operations in the "bush". This lack of confidence has initiated discussions between the Army and Senior Defence Staff on cancellation of the program, transferring the accepted 18 MRH-90s over to the Navy, and ordering additional UH-60Ms from the US of A. The point is made that the Helicopter type should have been made on established capability then "job"s, not the other way around. Whetehr the European crisis contributed to this issue is a mute point. Having to rely on US Army, US Marine and USAF Choppers in Afghanistan "because" they have an abundance is not really a acceptable response to a Government who wanted to be on the UN Security Council in a role that really amounts to a "hill of beans" when one of the big five can veto anything or everything. If only to establish a cadre of combat experience within 6AAv Reg with their deployment with suitable modified S-70A9s or hired MH-60Gs per national prestige. Sic One wonders where it will all end,..or in the FOC status, when it will start. In the meantime, the first six Italian Army NH-90s are to be deployed to Afghanistan as I bash these keys. So maybe they'll care less about scratching paint and hull dents and make a name for their NH-90s in combat? Best Gordy |
Brendan Cowan |
Posted: Oct 24 2012, 10:11 AM
|
||
Messageboard Co-ordinator ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 2,458 Member No.: 48 Joined: 20-September 05 ![]() |
Thanks for the update Gordy,
That we have to contemplate another helicopter a volte face is plain embarrasing. :( BC |
||
Mick Raftery |
Posted: Nov 30 2012, 08:15 PM
|
Lockheed Hercules (A97) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 309 Member No.: 144 Joined: 25-May 06 ![]() |
Noticed this one on the VH register last month.
Reports that it was A40-020. Attached Image ![]() |
Mick Raftery |
Posted: Nov 30 2012, 08:18 PM
|
Lockheed Hercules (A97) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 309 Member No.: 144 Joined: 25-May 06 ![]() |
AA magazine reports civil registration enables flight testing of avionics and software upgrade prior to delivery.
Attached Image ![]() |
Grumpy Cobra |
Posted: May 9 2013, 01:08 PM
|
||
GAF Mirage III (A3) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 125 Member No.: 1,724 Joined: 30-October 08 ![]() |
An extra 47th airframe to be delivered at no additional cost
see http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2013/05...ern-progress-2/ This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on May 9 2013, 01:08 PM |
||
Aardvark |
Posted: May 9 2013, 07:39 PM
|
General Dynamics F-111 (A8) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 241 Member No.: 3,706 Joined: 1-October 10 ![]() |
So they are buying their way off the list by giving the ADF a freebie airframe.
|
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Amen
About 18 MRH-90 delivered and accepted as of last month; but whether that includes the PP1 and PP2s early birds that are back in Brisbane to be converted to PP3 level is unknown by me. 808Sqn is supposed to have 6 MRH-90's now and is service leader. They only got their modern LPD floating platform back this month! Aside from MRH-90, ARH, MU-90 and KC-30A Programmes, has any other Euro programme we bought recently in the 90/00/10's that have been trouble free in programme delivery in the ADF lately. Exclude Spanish, Swedish and Italian, pls. CRAMS was good. Its not fair to include AWD or Swedish Knockums products built in Oz. Pic: when things were simple,...2008, some five years ago expectations were high Amazing Gordy Attached Image ![]() |
Grumpy Cobra |
Posted: May 15 2013, 08:23 AM
|
GAF Mirage III (A3) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 125 Member No.: 1,724 Joined: 30-October 08 ![]() |
Did we purchase the external fuel tanks for our fleet (and the external stores pylons)? These Eurocopter pics illustrate the tanks fitted on an Omani bird (also check out the jump seat!)
(IMG:http://www.helicopassion.com/images/NH90/Oman/NH90254h.jpg) (IMG:http://www.helicopassion.com/images/NH90/Oman/NH90329h.jpg) One of the 808 Sqn birdies (aboard HMAS Choules) was recently involved in the search for 2 persons that went over board a cruise ship off the NSW coast ... I would think operating a Navy squadron with only 6 aircraft is a touch limiting both in capability and availability - could we not get at least a dozen for 808 Sqn with 2 X LHDs, Choules, Tobruk (or future replacement) and 2 future Cantabria type AOR's we would appear a touch light on... and for heavens sake paint them grey or blue so we can distinguish them from the Army :rolleyes: This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on May 16 2013, 11:31 AM |
Warhawk |
Posted: May 16 2013, 07:15 PM
|
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Nice #629 Pics, Dave. In 2004 Oman ordered 20 NH.90 helicopters
Recently one of their NH90s forced landed in Oman and was being picked up by a USMC CH-53E. All hell broke loose and the pair crashed back to terra firma and were destroyed,.....the CH-53E went up in smoke sadly,.. and not sure if the crew were safe either. Another, US NAVY MH-53E crashed there last week crashed 58 miles southwest of Muscat, Oman The Sand colour must be the base coat per #1 Omani. The Flir is quite different to ours, and reversed with the radar (larger?) on top. She looks fully kitted and,.... with "duel" winches and hooks on one arm!! Best Gordy Attached Image ![]() |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Updates:
Official Type Certification and Service release, was granted 17/04/2013. That means after some 4000hrs of testing and training, the MRH-90 (A Sqn 5th Aviation) will be used in 3rd Brigade's CATA training exercise this year, and later Talisman Sabre Exercise Apparently as of this month's start, 19 delivered to-date, less 6 to NAVY, and 4 to be modified, leaves some 9 available plus any further deliveries since, for 5 AAv. Wonder what the final allocations are: A Sqn, B Sqn (5thAAv)/171Sqn (6AAv) and 1AAv numbers? 10/10/10/6? with balance for maintenance (4) ? Back to colours as mention in threads,....maybe a plain olive drab per Chooks or C-130J Mid Grey maybe the best colours for both sides over the beach (water and land). Saves on paint costs at the minimum. |
Dave Masterson |
Posted: May 19 2013, 09:25 PM
|
C-17A Globemaster III (A41) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 528 Member No.: 25 Joined: 24-June 05 ![]() |
Just read that Eurocopter is giving us a free helo due to time overruns! They sure are having problems with this aircraft...it appears.
This post has been edited by Dave Masterson on May 19 2013, 09:25 PM |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Personally, since the Germans are slashing their numbers and the French failing to order their next NH-90 batch, I'd say give us another 4 for free or we'll cancel post #24 numbers.
Three years late and won't reach Operational Levels until 2019. Fair go,.....lets not even mention the slashing of both the French and German per Tigres. Perhaps some thought into recapitalising some of the S-70A9 fleet may still be required in the end, as a bridging the gap as in F/A-18F to F-35 style. Or,..lets do the Swedish thing,........they ordered 15 UH-60Ms whilst waiting for their ever troubled high cabin NH-90s to reach IOC Spec Op boys love their repelling tactics to be continued and taking the nimble S-70A9s through the concrete canyons of our cities. Wild ride! I know, as a armchair expert, what would I know,...but I have a balanced Home budget and my travelling is done the same way as a new shiny Army Mercedes 4WD(@250K a copy) can, with my 10 year old V-6 4WD Pathfinder (@ 34K on the day of purchase in 2002). The current Army 110 Land Rovers are being sold with only 110K on the clock What nonsense is that? The Pathie has 140K on the clock with a projected life of another 260K before a major rebuild Just an example where money could be saved for a extra five years of deferment of just one 4WD Army project!! Do the maths, 2800 German Built Mercedes at $250K a piece!! $700 Million alone!!! Enough for 30 UH-60Ms sans operating costs perhaps Anyway the point is, why buy a non smoking European steel can, when you can have a ashtray equipped hunk of smokin American Aviation metal that works extremely well! Cheers,..just letting off steam But the facts are: UH-60M, itself a newer and versatile version of the S-70A9, incorporating a digital cockpit, GPS, up-rated T700-GE-701C engines, wide cord blades, upgraded troop seats, folding composite tail boom, digital flight controls, and improved IR suppression along with a host of improvements (seating thirteen instead of eleven, able to lift externally 4080kgs against the S-70A9’s 2727kg, Speed 295kmh against 270kmh and range 650km verses 595km). Airframe life would be 8000hrs. A new build was priced at Aus$18.5 million a unit, and should the earlier Phase Purchases be upgraded and rebuilt zero-timed into UH-60Ms, their price would be Aus$13.0 Million per airframe. The only drawback was the new airframe was not designed to undergo lengthy use of shipboard life. Even the MRH-90s can't fold their blades automatically either! Gordy ;) |
Sydhuey |
Posted: Jun 2 2013, 03:10 PM
|
Hawker Hurricane (A60) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 30 Member No.: 3,859 Joined: 8-December 10 ![]() |
I was told Eurocopter has a team of 20 people here to try and make the MRH 90 work and they have a team of 40 in Oman to get the Omani NH-90 to try and meet servicability and op specs!!! , give it a year or two and watch a quiet order for about 15 UH-60M (spec op fitted out) will happen and 6th Avn Regt will quietly trasition to new Black Hawks and the rest of the Army will plod along with the MRH-90 , watch the new Chinooks take up the slack from the non capability of the MRH-90, also don't be suprised to see another couple of F models ordered, not to increase heavy lift but suppliment MRH-90's.
And don't even start on the Tiger , our distant neighbours and allies Indonesia, Singapore ,Thailand, South Korea, Japan and the US all operate now or have on order AH-64's , while our near neighbours France , Germany and Spain all have the Tiger and are all cutting numbers!!!! and look at the KC-30 fiasco, thank god we didn't buy Rafael or Eurofighter!!! This post has been edited by Sydhuey on Jun 2 2013, 03:16 PM |
Dave Masterson |
Posted: Jun 3 2013, 04:19 PM
|
C-17A Globemaster III (A41) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 528 Member No.: 25 Joined: 24-June 05 ![]() |
Yep..this aircraft is rubbish. We should have bought the latest Sikorsky..and saved a heap of money! The MRH-90 in my opinion will only be good for hauling mail and other mundane duties. Another Seasprite saga on the horizon.
|
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Picked up on the fact that funding in FY2011-12 was cut in the Budget which also contributed to the 7 Ps Process and results.
Apparently a total of 16 MRH-90's are to be returned to the Factory for rectification from PP1 and PP2 standard, to PP3 IOC Level. Thus out of 19 delivered at that time, only 3 are of PP3 standard. No wonder the process is so long. Seven years on,........................ Mind you, just looking at pics alone, they really need also to re-site those underneath belly Blade aerials as they would be the first casualty of damage when landing on uneven ground higher then 200 mm of height undulations. Still, mean looking show pony compared to the Work Horse UH-60M or MH-60S( fully navalised with folding rotors) Best Gordy :P |
Grumpy Cobra |
Posted: Jun 13 2013, 12:00 PM
|
GAF Mirage III (A3) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 125 Member No.: 1,724 Joined: 30-October 08 ![]() |
Quite right Gordy - the location of those belly blades is a shocker - cannot believe they designed a junglie with blades there - that must really restrict the types of terrain and clearances when landing :rolleyes: The Omani bird appears not to have any underside belly arials?
|
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
You know, quite frankly, I feel sometimes they used the ADF who has been the first customer on quite a few types, to pay for the R & D. MRH-90 originally didn't have sand filters etc before our specs,...more stronger floor etc,...not to mention the Hell fire and weapons set up per ARH, now used for French Army etc
Spain's Army only just got their first MRH 90 the other month,...per order that's been now reduced too down to 38. Lets not go where the KC-30A started from and ended,...using our bird to sell the idea to the Americana's and then trying to flog us the non flown ex Prototype. Then again,....one can't say Boeing was all that better,. We basically paid for the E-7A development too for Turkey and South Korea Airforces as well. Still the P-8A or P-8I can be stated as a success( even though we paid into the R&D) Thankfully if we want to now, the Indians have paid for the MAD But Boeing's F/A-18F a winner, eh. Thankfully. 71 F/A-18A/Bs, 36 F/A-18Fs/ EA-18Gs,..all are "goers" Lets not forget about Kaman,...originally for the Offshore Patrol Boat saga at least I know where the Penguin ASMs went,.......finally! Part of the RNZAF SH-2G deal Best Gordy |
Grumpy Cobra |
Posted: Jun 13 2013, 06:27 PM
|
GAF Mirage III (A3) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 125 Member No.: 1,724 Joined: 30-October 08 ![]() |
Now that is something that astounds me - our stock of Penguin ASM's sold to NZ!
I thought Romeo could take the Penguin? Surely it is a better stand off weapon against ships than the short range hellfire? :o Probably something in the terms of the Kaman settlement? |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Supposition only on my part, though it was tied up with SH-2G (Aus) purchase: circa 115-140 Rounds
The SH-60B/F could and did, but the US Navy did not qualify or add the requirement to the SH-60R or MH-60S programme, apart from Hellfire. RANFAA can pay for integration and use refurbished old USN Sea Hawk Penguin Pylons to carry them. Minimal costs under $20 million R&D for IOC Same per the RAAF's AGM-142 Raptor ex F-111AUP,...110 plus Rounds that supposedly can be used on F/A-18B+ or F/A-18F, though not cleared or tested to date. Need a 5000lb rated pylon apparently and a second crew member, along with a data link pod on top of this, on another pylon. Only Turkish Air Force ( F-4E )and Israeli Air and Space Force ( F-4E and smaller version on F-16D) use them now, with USAF now no longer an active user per B-52G/H arsenal ( Only used in 90's Balkans war use) More information per the Penguins would be always appreciated! Best Gordy |
F/A-18 Super Bug |
Posted: Jun 29 2013, 03:14 PM
|
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 173 Member No.: 6,742 Joined: 30-July 12 ![]() |
Quick question but are we going to arm our MRH90s with say any door guns or missiles for the Navy version like Mark 46 torpedos or Mk-54s for ASW?
Cheers. |
Dave Masterson |
Posted: Jun 30 2013, 12:28 PM
|
C-17A Globemaster III (A41) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 528 Member No.: 25 Joined: 24-June 05 ![]() |
No they'll be armed with slingshots,cause that's all they are good for. The Navy one will only be used to haul mail and potatoes....
|
F/A-18 Super Bug |
Posted: Jul 1 2013, 11:36 AM
|
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 173 Member No.: 6,742 Joined: 30-July 12 ![]() |
Wow I thought at least some potato door guns and maybe a couple PVC tubes as frozen orange cannons with a little hair spray to charge it? :P
All Jokes aside we according to Wiki have two in service today so have they been marinised with things like sonar equipment or torpedoes? According too Janes: NH Industries - NH-90 (EU consortium countries) Medium Transport/Naval Helicopter. Two versions are being developed. the tactical transport helicopter (TTH) and the NATO frigate helicopter (NFH). 346 firm orders and options for 64 have been places. Australia has chosen the NH90. Specifications: Crew/Accomodations: 2 flight crew plus mission specialists (NFH): bt 18-20 troops (TTH) Max-Speed: 167 Kt. (291 km/h) Range: 650nm. (1,203 km) Armament: Internal Guns: 7.62mm MGs in door mountings. Hard points: two pylons Max-weapons load: 4,000 kg (10,143 Ibs) Representative weapons: ASV: Marte Mk 2/5 ASMs; ASW: Torpedoes, Depth charges Features: side-by-side cockpit. port tailed rotor. starboard tailplane. two RTM 322 or GE T200-T6E turboshafts. fuselage sponsors for retractable wheeled undercarriage. Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-defe...l#ixzz2XkzRFr4r So have the two we have in service been armed? :unsure: Another line on Wiki had me confused: In June 2011, the NFH variant lost to the Sikorsky MH-60R in competition to replace the Royal Australian Navy S-70B Sea Hawks.[29] By January 2013, a total of 46 had been ordered NH90 Click on Australia So we're getting more upgraded Sea Hawks it looks like? :unsure: This post has been edited by Cold Dawg on Jul 1 2013, 12:34 PM |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Hi there Dawg To help clear things up The (29) refers to article source ^ Gunner, Jerry. "MH-60R beats NH90 for Australia Navy contract". Key Aero Aviation News, 17 June 2011. That was a comment per Army Purchase ( Now 47) The armament per "Navy" drops are per NH-90 ala NFH not TTH The MRH-90 ability to carry MAG58s ,....or L7A2s in the Aust Army Vernacular and later Auxiliary Tanks, still to be actioned due to development issues. Main issue per the first is arcs and access to disgorge or board troops whilst using them, other then just the rear ramp. Navy chose the MH-60R over the NH90 (NFH) because of it's maturity and over all of the other problems the NTH had. Lets call the NTH, the Cayman, from now on. You can read more in our Navy Threads Given the delay of three years the Army are experiencing,...we'd have been mad to go the NTH,...let alone in 20/20 hindsight. The MRH-90 will be a great chopper when it beds down and the supply backup strengthens,.........its just not there at this stage due to the manufacture lag and service, not the design issues. Best Gordy Attached Image ![]() |
F/A-18 Super Bug |
Posted: Jul 3 2013, 12:22 PM
|
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 173 Member No.: 6,742 Joined: 30-July 12 ![]() |
Thanks Gordy for answering that for me. OK so let me get this mess straight:
1. In 2005, Australia ordered 12 aircraft to replace their aging fleet of Army UH-1 Iroquois helicopters. 2. The number was revised in June 2006 when the Australian Defence Force announced plans to replace its UH-60 Black Hawk and Westland Sea King helicopters. Australia ordered 34 additional NH90s, taking their total order to 46. 3. On 20 April 2010, an Australian Defence Force MRH-90 suffered an engine failure near Adelaide. On 18 May the ADF announced that all of the Australian MRH-90 fleet were grounded due to engine issues since the April incident. 4. In June 2011, the NFH variant lost to the Sikorsky MH-60R in competition to replace the Royal Australian Navy S-70B Sea Hawks. By January 2013, a total of 46 had been ordered. 5. So currently the Fleet Air Arm (RAN) has 2 MRHs in service with 4 more to come. Whereas the Army currently has 16 MRHs in service as 16 TTH MRH-90s have been accepted by the Defence Materiel Organisation so far, part of the total of 46 on order. So the Army is still waiting on another 30 helos which does anybody have an estimated time of completion? I'd be interested to know why the NH90 won the contract? My guess would be they would be built locally when we should have just bought the latest version of the Sikorsky UH-60. So did the RAN break the contract with NHIndustries and give it to Sikorsky because of the delays? Cheers, Simon This post has been edited by Cold Dawg on Jul 3 2013, 12:28 PM |
batman |
Posted: Jul 4 2013, 08:32 PM
|
Lockheed Hercules (A97) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 381 Member No.: 3,524 Joined: 7-April 10 ![]() |
"I'd be interested to know why the NH90 won the contract? My guess would be they would be built locally when we should have just bought the latest version of the Sikorsky UH-60."
I have heard anecdotally that Sikorsky were a bit too confident, and they came in with a too high a cost for the UH-60L/M. In addition, the then Govt were on a bit of a European ordering spree of defence hardware, and the NH90 was cheaper than the new UH-60. I think that about sums it up. |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
True,..though to be balanced, the Canadians aren't happy with their 28 soon to be built Sikorsky Cyclones based on the S92 airframe. Years away from FOC.
They originally picked the Merlin, then cancelled it, though stuck with it in the ASR version. They bought the prototype USA PotUS Merlins for spares only, but are now thinking to put some of those in service to expand the fleet. Knee jerking polly stuff is at fault when confronted with numbers/cost and final product and voter backlash. The Sea Sprite debacle, where 1 billion dollars wasted could have been averted by having a third salary crewman included to fly in them, which would have led to a project a success! RNZAF figured that out, and its their gain. Mind you the original ship type was never bought, much like the current 20 ship project to replace their replacements, the now worn out 14 aluminium patrol boats in use that crack. They say our subs can go for another 7 years,..reason being is that they've spent almost half of their lives out of water getting fixed up!! I think if the Cold war was on again, development of all types would have been funded better and in service years earlier. ARH is running nearly 4 years behind ( Oldest airframe is nearly 9 years old!!), as well as the MRH-90, which is circa 3 years behind. A point in question of equipment currency, is that for example, the new AWDs will be floating some 8-10 years after the first Spanish one, and that the AWD SPY-1D/E Radar is being replaced from 2018 by a new one for follow-on USN DDG-51 Flight IIIs. The world rolls on while the pollies remain out of sync! :rolleyes: One good thing though, both the MRH-90 Naval and the MH-60R are waiting dockside to be loaded on the new ships when they are commissioned this time. Remember the Squirrel "Shark" Naval Attack Helios armed with formidable MAG 58s sitting on the 6 Adelaide Class for the first ten years of their service????? |
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Just an update: The 47th MRH-90 will be a flyable, giving the ability for the 1st Aviation Regiment to rotate a "live" MRH-90 Aircraft for ground training purposes from the 41 Army airframes held.
Cheers Gordy ^_^ |
rockdropper |
Posted: Sep 23 2013, 04:43 PM
|
CAC Sabre (A94) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 71 Member No.: 3,608 Joined: 17-August 10 ![]() |
That's a good bit of info Gordy.
I've heard that the MRH-90, just like the Tiger, is not marinised. If that is the case then we are going to have all sorts of dramas in the future that will make the Sikorsky look like a bargain! |
Luig |
Posted: Sep 23 2013, 06:09 PM
|
FA-18F Super Hornet (A44) ![]() Group: ADF Serials Team Posts: 2,011 Member No.: 80 Joined: 8-March 06 ![]() |
|
Warhawk |
![]() |
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Per Rockdropper,...
I think they are, by virtue of the carbon fibre construction and design per model family. One of the selling points. All maritime helicopters suffer corrosion regardless. Its like the old "water proof" verses " water resistance" argument. Even fish have to have tight ars,..oops, .... external hatches to be water proof Helicopters aren't fish as they do have open all-round parts on the fuselage. Same can't be said about the deck of L100 HMAS Choules. See the rust on those tie down points per helicopter deck in some recent ADF pics? Just weeks at sea! Must be low grade steel. The ARH float system trials per a iron pig rig is being tested too, along side the docks, pending integration on an actual ARH. Need to get some folding blade ex SH-90 Cayman type mechanisms for both for a core deployment element for the 808 Sqn and future 173 Sqn 6th AAv Reg MRH-90 Taipans (16) Best Gordy |
rockdropper |
Posted: Mar 21 2014, 07:46 AM
|
||
CAC Sabre (A94) ![]() Group: Members Posts: 71 Member No.: 3,608 Joined: 17-August 10 ![]() |
With regard to my earlier comments on marinisation;
The largely composite airframe panels aside, the issues relate to rotor head, drive train, engine and non-composite structural components (including the aircraft floor). The Australian Army are not currently using the aircraft for embarked ops, nor are SOCOMD units tasking the machine. There is a solution for defensive armament, but it involves airframe rebuild over an extended period and is tre expensive! :ph34r: This post has been edited by rockdropper on Mar 21 2014, 07:48 AM |
||
Luig |
Posted: Jun 27 2014, 02:43 PM
|
FA-18F Super Hornet (A44) ![]() Group: ADF Serials Team Posts: 2,011 Member No.: 80 Joined: 8-March 06 ![]() |
The 6Mb PDF Oz Auditor General Report June 2014 on the MRH-90 is available here:
Multi-Role Helicopter Program: June 2014 http://anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit Reports/2013 2014/Audit Report 52/AuditReport_2013-2014_52.pdf (6Mb) |
Warhawk |
Posted: Jul 5 2014, 11:22 AM
|
ADF Serials Research Co-ord ![]() Group: ADF Serials Admin Posts: 1,989 Member No.: 82 Joined: 9-March 06 ![]() |
Crikey that was an eye opener to read.
IE: in 2012 with a fleet of just 15 MRH-90's, it cost to operate those some 5.5 times per hour against existing Blackhawk hr./maintenance costs ,.. The real problem was that they were all different PPB versions and in the development curve. But,... in layman terms,..15 MRH-90s flew at the same cost of 34 Blackhawks! Nice aircraft though,.... |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |