Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Reasoning behind MRH-90 ?
Kirkzzy    1/7/2011 12:37:28 PM
Hey I am pretty new around here and have been lurking for a couple of weeks. Sorry to bring back an old topic but, why is the ADF going for the NH-90/MRH-90? I hear there is quite a few issues, regarding weight and landing, although being no expert I am unsure. Not trying to make a VS thread or anything, but would it have been a better idea to stay with the Black Hawks we already have? And spend the money on refurbishing our current ones and getting additional Black Hawks to meet requirements?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
heraldabc       3/7/2011 2:37:45 PM
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsad.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
And I thought Sikorsky was the benchmark for awful. What happened here? 
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       3/7/2011 5:22:20 PM




I am no expert on the subject, but from a layman's point of view it was fairly obvious it was a better choice than the Blackhawk, having much greater carrying capacity plus the rear ramp.  Plus it was more desirable because the Europeans were prepared to allow us to assemble them in Australia, something the Yanks seem reluctant to agree with.   Range etc I am not sure of, but there are plenty of people more knowledgeable than me who can reply on those issues.








We bought the MRH-90 because we got hosed completely and suckered by the lure of large domestic content. In reality thay "domestic content" is assembly and painting of NDK's and this apparently justifies buying a helo that doesn't meet Army's needs and there is a fair chance it never will, no matter what fixes/upgrades the company makes, nor how much more they hose us for, in getting these upgrades. 

 

I admit it looks very nice ferrying Generals from one hardstand to another, but out in the weeds, where AAAvn are using it and where the majority of tactical aviation occurs, it is confirmed as a POS...


 

The rear ramp is a joke and cannot take the weight of the troops, let alone vehicles it is meant to carry. 

 

The floor is another joke and cannot support more than 12 troops in patrol heavy configuration with packs. So the aircraft may well have a larger cabin, but it can only use it to carry air...


 

The machine gun mounts are a complete fiasco. 

 

The ground clearance is abysmal and so on and so on. The operators loathe it. Army never wanted it, the manufacturer continues to struggle with it, but it looks as if we are stuck with it...




Just wondering, what is the whole machine gun thing about, I've heard about it, but never quite found somewhere that explained it. (btw most of what you said is from that German army report correct? I think it was revealed to be a "prototype" of the aircraft.

 

 

 




 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/8/2011 4:31:38 AM

Just wondering, what is the whole machine gun thing about, 


its a load bearing issue related to calibre, rate of fire and likely use parameters.

I don't think that its going to get expanded upon in an open forum
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       3/9/2011 5:33:33 AM
Got to wonder if we would have been better off increasing the number of Chinooks and buying new Blackhawks.  There is still the problem of the Seaking replacement, MH-60 S would have been an option, bundled in with Romeos but I can't help but wonder if there may have been a case for Merlin in utility and ASW variants as a supplement for the UH-60M and MH-60R (and maybe the MH-60S).
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/11/2011 11:39:10 PM

Just wondering, what is the whole machine gun thing about, I've heard about it, but never quite found somewhere that explained it. (btw most of what you said is from that German army report correct? I think it was revealed to be a "prototype" of the aircraft.





I wish. Unfortunately that information has come directly from AAAvn operators before that report ever came out and since the manufacturer has been unable to adequately address these and other issues. 

Other issues have since reared their heads. Windscreen cracking, oil cooler over-heating and other various odds and sods. It may just be written off by the CEO of the local industry assembling these helicopters as teething problems on a new helicopter, but it is an interesting situation that now, years after it was ordered it is a "developmental effort" but it was sold as an "off the shelf" capability when we bought this lemon.  

Now they expect us to believe there are no great issues with the NFH-90 which is also stuck in the middle of "developmental hell" and is even less mature than the "bog stock" MRH-90...

We absolutely need our heads read if we opt for the NFH-90. Commonality be damned. The bloody things don't even fit in our frigate's aircraft hangars properly! 

 

 










 



 



 
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       3/12/2011 4:37:33 AM
Shit, seems pretty serious. When it was put in the list of concerned projects, I was very worried. But then the CEO blew it all off as if it was just some dirt on the shoulder. I am guessing now there is no going back :(

At least the Tiger can fulfilthe role set out for it and the army has no issues with it (apart from marinising) right...? 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/12/2011 10:19:39 AM
Unfortunately not. 

Many of the same problems with MRH-90 are also present in the Tiger, which is why the Tiger is even further behind schedule than the MRH-90... 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/12/2011 10:28:31 AM

Got to wonder if we would have been better off increasing the number of Chinooks and buying new Blackhawks.  There is still the problem of the Seaking replacement, MH-60 S would have been an option, bundled in with Romeos but I can't help but wonder if there may have been a case for Merlin in utility and ASW variants as a supplement for the UH-60M and MH-60R (and maybe the MH-60S).

We would have been a thousand times better off. We'd have had Chinook and UH-60M Blackhawk aircraft able to go to Afghanistan if required and I'd suggest we would have sent them 2-3 years ago when the "aero-medical evacuation" scandal reached it's peak. 

As for AH-64 Apache, well we would have had that in-service years ago too and we'd be beginning to look at Block III upgrades, rather than still fighting to introduce the machine... 

But nope. Getting a little local assembly and painting and a couple of hundred odd people employed for a few years, is a much better use of the billions we've spent and will continue to spend on these duds...
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       3/13/2011 8:26:59 AM
Depending on your opinion what the CEO said can either be good or bad news.

Good news if you think its cool everything is being sorted out and we will only have to wait... a couple more disappointing years.. (okay that's all right news) 

Bad news if you think there has just been too many delays that you're done with it.

Either way hopefully by 2015-16 (probably later) all the issues should be sorted out and the helis will be fine, although completely overdue. 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       3/13/2011 8:59:13 AM




Just wondering, what is the whole machine gun thing about, I've heard about it, but never quite found somewhere that explained it. (btw most of what you said is from that German army report correct? I think it was revealed to be a "prototype" of the aircraft.

I wish. Unfortunately that information has come directly from AAAvn operators before that report ever came out and since the manufacturer has been unable to adequately address these and other issues. 
Other issues have since reared their heads. Windscreen cracking, oil cooler over-heating and other various odds and sods. It may just be written off by the CEO of the local industry assembling these helicopters as teething problems on a new helicopter, but it is an interesting situation that now, years after it was ordered it is a "developmental effort" but it was sold as an "off the shelf" capability when we bought this lemon.  
Now they expect us to believe there are no great issues with the NFH-90 which is also stuck in the middle of "developmental hell" and is even less mature than the "bog stock" MRH-90...

We absolutely need our heads read if we opt for the NFH-90. Commonality be damned. The bloody things don't even fit in our frigate's aircraft hangars properly! 

An interesting alternative would have been to buy the WAH-64 with its more powerful RTM322 inplace of the GE T700 and folding rotors.  In service in Afghanistan, aparantly with out issues and performing better in that hot high environment than the US Army Apaches, as well as operating successfully from HMS Ocean, it would have been an ideal fit for our needs.
This engine also powers the AW101, NH-90 and has flown and been offered the Blackhawk.
 
We could have still had our local assembly or even bought into the Westland project, filled our increased lift requirement with AW101 Merlins and supplemented our existing Blackhawks with an RTM322 powered derivative of the UH-60M.
 
If we really wanted we could have ordered the NH-90 at a later date as a replacement for the Seahawk, but why when a mix of MH-60R and S would have done a better job, we could even power them with RTMs for the sake of commonality with the rest of fleet, especially if we had selected the Merlin to replace the Seakings.  Personally I would like to have seen a mix of Merlins and Superlynx on our surface combatants but there is no way the Merlin would fit on the FFG or ANZAC.

A Fleet of
WAH-64
BlackHawk (RTM322)
Merlin (ASW and Lift)
Chinook
Lynx (T800 Utility and light shipboard)
would have seen us well during the last decade and would have had a logical and affordable upgrade / replacement pathway.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics