I have primary school aged children, one of who is on the autism spectrum, no spare time, but lots of involuntary learning by osmosis.You have far too much spare time
The were all being used on Ex HAMEL
Thanks Raven, digging further I’ve found a series of pics which make it obvious why none were sent to Hawaii.
Maybe we need more.
Exercise Hamel 2018, Task Group “Griffin” – Aviation Spotters Online
When you look at it, the army actually has very small fleets of high end equipment and it is a credit to the operators and maintainers that as many are available as there are.
This is not just the MRH, but also the Tiger, Chinook and even the Abrams. Small fleets not only can cause availability issues due to total numbers but also in terms of supply chain, critical mass of trained and experienced personnel, as well as overall economies of scale.
On Collins it was determined the only way to save money, and maintain the capability was to spend more money. There is a minimum baseline of support that any capability requires, whether you are talking a half a dozen platforms, or two, perhaps three dozen. Sometimes the minimum overhead costs to effectively support half a dozen could actually, more efficiently, support two or three times the number of platforms.
Takao
The Bunker Group
No, some were being used.
That excuse doesn't hold up. If we can only generate 8 out of a fleet of 47 then we have bigger issues.
Happy if none were needed on RIMPAC because the scenario and force design planning indicated MRH-90 was not needed, but blaming HAMEL is (I think) spurious.
My eyes fail me,
Navy uses them too, only discernible by signwriting "NAVY" on those airframes rotated to Navy.
Are the ones at RIMPAC simply the ones assigned to the Navy?
t68
Well-Known Member
Rule of threes gives us 15/16 operational airframes at any one time pending the issue of the spares with Airbus, once the Hawkes are gone Army Aviation will feel the pressures.
But overall agree if 8 airframes is all we can muster for major ex then we have a problem.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Even if more can be mustered, the MRH90 might still be a problem given the ANAO report about them from 2014 which has been referenced before. The MRH90 can lift ~twice the number of personnel as the Black Hawk, or a comparable weight of cargo. However, the costs per flight hour are approximately five times that of the Black Hawk, and while I have not been able to confirm this, I strongly suspect the maintenance hours per flight hour ratio for the Black Hawk and the Taipaon is similar to the operating costs ratio.
Unless the numbers required to support the Taipan can be improved, then I think long and hard before purchasing any additional units.
As a side note, if the serviceable rate of 48% from the ANAO still holds true, then the rule of threes would not be valid, and one should instead apply the rule of fours.
Thanks Raven
Assail's link-Exercise Hamel 2018, Task Group “Griffin” – Aviation Spotters Online
Mentioned a total of FIVE Taipans on exercise Hamel.
I wonder what is the highest number of Taipans deployed to an exercise, be it on land or at sea.
Thanks and regards S
CarbonZero
New Member
There were 5 Taipans on land, the rest were aboard the Canberra.
Hamel exercises the readying element, it isn't meant to be about putting as many helos as possible on exercise. If anything having higher availability means you can bring less helicopters not more.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
Hamel exercises the readiyng element of the Army - not the Defence Force. So again, it cannot be used as an excuse to not send airframes to RIMPAC.
And no, availability has nothing to do with what deploys. I'd expect to see one Troop or one Squadron worth (and I thought it was indeed the latter), not a piecemeal number of frames. The importance of this is due to C2 arrangements, not maintenance.
CarbonZero
New Member
I agree, my comments were just responding to those above suggesting more than a squadron should be deployed to Ex HAMEL. I can't speak to why they did not do RIMPAC. I can say that MRH availability and ROE has increased substantially in the last 2 years, hence I would doubt that is the reason why they didn't go.
Cheers,
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We got 39 Blackhawks to replace the Hueys in the late 80s, then 40 MRH-90s to replace the Blackhawks so despite getting the LHDs there has been no increase in the Battlefield Utility Helo fleet. So why are People surprised that the LHDs are not consistantly full of Choppers. For Australia to do that we would have to raise a new Aviation Regt with an increase in Helo numbers, not cheap and currently not planned for.
blueorchid
Member
The Army received 47 MRH-90s to replace the Blackhawks, although six rotate thru the Navy, the 47th was provided as a freeby because of late delivery and other problems with the contract..
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
They were also ordered to rationalize the helicopter fleet and as a replacement for the Wessex Sea Kings, in addition to replacing the Black Hawks. Honestly I think it would have been better for Australia to gotten money to cover the late deliveries and any/all issues with meeting the terms of the contract. Long-term, an extra helicopter just means more support and sustainment costs which end up going back to the manufacturer.
I understand that Army still intends to use the Taipan for the special operations role with the final retirement of the Blackhawk in the early 2020's. While I concede there is speculation that a smaller helicopter may be purchased at this stage this is the current plan.
I'm curious as to how 47 Taipans will provide service to Four army SQN's ( 5th Aviation A and B Sqn + 6th Aviation 171 and 173 Sqn ) and also Navy's 808 Sqn
Regardless what anyone may think of the Taipan are there enough helicopter numbers to go around?
The attached is an older article re aviation which may have some interest. What I find puzzling is trying to get a number as to how many helicopter platforms constitute a Squadron.
As explained in the article it seems some what elastic.
Air: MRH90 Taipan - reaching for 2016 milestones - Australian Defence Magazine
Maybe some more Taipans?
Thoughts and Regards S
With the army going to a more mech/motorised role, I can see the MRH 90,s being used in resup, SF, Arty mobility role more than an infantry taxi.
Although, I'm sure there would still be plenty of flexibility to use them and the Chinooks as air mobile when required.
The LHDs will have more room for Tigers and other assets. I'm just speculating, but I'm thinking, the LHDs won't be chokka with choppas unless that is what is required.
Although, I'm sure there would still be plenty of flexibility to use them and the Chinooks as air mobile when required.
The LHDs will have more room for Tigers and other assets. I'm just speculating, but I'm thinking, the LHDs won't be chokka with choppas unless that is what is required.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Regarding the question of whether there are 'enough' helicopters to go around, the answer is heavily dependent on the helicopter itself. If the Taipan's serviceability rate is still hovering around 50%, instead of the required 65% serviceability rate, then the answer is muddled further, since the service outputs themselves need to be specified.
If the requirement is to be able to lift a certain number of troops nn operationally and/or during exercises, then the answer might be, "yes" because the Taipan can lift nearly twice as many troops per helicopter as the Black Hawk. OTOH if the focus is more on meeting certain levels of cargo lift or in fact anything where the number of helicopters available has to be higher, then the answer might be, "no."
Take for example a possible domestic Army response for CT/special operations support. If there is a requirement for a single bird to be available for rapid response, and that Army personnel train for the CT response (whether they are Commando, SASR, TAG or TAG-East, etc.) using the helicopters, then a serviceability rate of 48% could easily require a total of 4 Taipans to be required to meet the requirements for operational availability, training, and maintenance when in the past three Black Hawks would have been sufficient.
There is also the question of operational costs, which if not successfully addressed to significantly reduce those costs, could lead to the Taipan being prohibitively expensive to operate in numbers.