Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Toptob]

With 444 deliveries made per the NH90 website, 40+ sub-variants works to an average variant fleet size of about ten. Not sure if this also includes the NFH90 based off the NH90 platform, but either way it would not only make sustainment an issue, but also keeping the variants current as various subsystems need upgrade and/or replacement. Even if the MRH90's in Australia are all the same variant, it now does seem likely that the type itself would not be able to draw upon the support for a fleet of helicopters utilized worldwide which can help boost availability and keep maintenance costs down.

UGH! The NH-90 is one of THOSE programs. The 90's utopian European union "let's work together" problem children. The idea was to design and operate common platforms and safe money on design and operations. But in the end the Brits wanted this and the Germans wanted that and the French didn't want to work with anyone if they didn't get the lead.

The NH-90 is one of the few, if not the only program that didn't completely fall apart. And it still ended up with 40 distinct variants because everyone needs to have their own specific bits and bobs and we end up with a completely unworkable situation where no one got exactly what they wanted and maintenance is a mess. The Tiger is another victim of this approach where France wanted one thing and Germany wanted something else and they ended up with platforms that aren't really that similar, defeating the whole point of working together.

It would probably have been better if these programs had crashed and we all went our own way like with the NFR90 that gave us the T45, Horizon classes, F124 class, the F100 class and the LCF class frigates. Personally I think that both the NH-90 and the Tiger where bad choices for the Australian defense, then again I think the NH-90 was a bad choice for anyone who bought it.

 

[swerve]

It's bizarre that armed forces will acquire off the shelf American kit & be perfectly happy with it, but as soon as they have a say in the design, want it perfectly tailored to their requirements - which half the time, are constantly changing.

 

[Terran]

It's bizarre that armed forces will acquire off the shelf American kit & be perfectly happy with it, but as soon as they have a say in the design, want it perfectly tailored to their requirements - which half the time, are constantly changing.

It’s not a clear cut as that. In many cases quite to the contrary.
Some nations have bought special licenses to kit build American equipment others buy from the American line. Example UK Apaches and Egyptian Abrams. Even when buying direct from the US modifications are often made, for example communications and armor packaging. In some cases the end product is changed so substantially that it’s actually better than US issue examples UAE and IDF F16 blocks. The recent F15EX buy is a case where the export versions was so good it cycled back to US buys. In ground vehicles variants of the M109 SPH has been refitted with 52cal guns by many nations well the US version has retained the 39caliber to this day. The main reason why many will buy from the US or a larger nations line is primarily price point. The US army as a general rule will probably buy far more of something than any potential import buyer. This means that the price point is lower as the US bought the volume paying for the production line and R&D. In cases where someone has decided to push a license build or modified derivatives the end user has to pay more. Mitsubishi F2 as example cost substantially more than F16C.

 

[Toptob]

It's bizarre that armed forces will acquire off the shelf American kit & be perfectly happy with it, but as soon as they have a say in the design, want it perfectly tailored to their requirements - which half the time, are constantly changing.

@Terran makes a good point. However I would add that another factor that makes American gear attractive is that they are very willing to deliver bespoke solutions to cater to a customers demand. If we continue with the example of the F-16 we can see that Lockheed is willing to modify just about anything as long as you pay for it. As another example, I know that Dutch Chinooks had cockpits that where unique to the RNLAF before the upgrade to the CH-47F.

Another advantage with buying American, at least if you intend to work with them, is that it's easier to cooperate if you use similar gear. And the US is the primary ally in the eyes of many defense establishments.

Which is also why I think that Blackhawks and Apache's are a better choice for Australia. The US beside being Australia's most powerful (and most important?) ally they also have much better lines of communication than exist between Australia and Europe. There are several choke points between Australia and Europe while between Australia and the US there's a pretty much uncontested ocean. And even in case of conflict support and supplies from the US will probably still reach Australia. While Europe has mostly lost the capacity to maintain their connections in time of conflict.

 

[Redlands18]

It appears the MRH 90 fleet is grounded again:

ADF MRH 90 fleet grounded again | ADBR

The ADF’s fleet of 47 NHI/Airbus MRH 90 Taipan helicopters has been grounded due to maintenance and safety issues with the aircraft’s support system. ADBR understands the fleet was grounded…

adbr.com.au

An interesting quote from the ADBR article:

“Many of the availability issues are reportedly attributable to European certification standards being different to those of the US from which the ADF sources most of its equipment, as well as difficulties in maintaining configuration management through the more than 40 different sub-variants of the baseline NH 90 helicopter which is built on six final assembly lines and is in service in Europe and the Middle East.”

More than 40 different sub-variants, well that obviously doesn’t help sustainment.

Cheers,

I wonder if this might push up the timeframe for the Navy to get rid of there’s, due to start around 2024., with only a small fleet of 6 Aircraft it would be much easier to find the funding to do so. Those 6 would then be transferred to the Army and a larger fleet would help some with availability.

 

[ngatimozart]

The MRH-90 will be coming up for a MLU at some stage. Maybe replace it with the Sikorsky S-92 which is the same size, is used by the RCAF, has a marinised variant and could be acquired through FMS. It's the S-70 / UH-60 bigger brother.

 

[Bob53]

One needs to remember that the Tiger ARH was ordered back around December, 2001 or nearly two decades ago. First delivery was in December, 2004 and they were supposed to reach FOC in December 2011. While FOC might have been reached (finally!) in April 2016, this was nearly five years later than planned, and nearly a dozen years after first delivery. Basically by the time FOC was reached, the Tiger was nearly ready for a MLU to upgrade/replace avionics and comm systems. In point of fact, discussion among Tiger users started in early 2016 for a series of proposed upgrades which became known as the Tiger Mk 3, with comms and avionics among the elements to be upgraded.

Basically by the time Australia reached FOC with the Tiger, it had already been recognized by other Tiger users (France, Germany & Spain) that upgrades were required to keep the helicopter in service in a useful capacity.

This is then where one needs to look at what the actual cost would likely be/have been, to get the Tiger ARH fleet to be where it needed to be so that it provided the desired capabilities to Army and the ADF. Given that the fleet itself was already determined to be too small, as well as in need of upgrades, it does seem that opting for an earlier fleet replacement makes more sense than it might otherwise at first seem.

Didn't Airbus quote $2.5Billion (quoting off the top of my head here) to update and add another 7 rebuilt Tigers? I guess that is the base line comparison cost for the decision to go to all new AH64.

 

[Volkodav]

The thought crosses my mind that maybe the decision to replace Tiger and retain MRH may relate to current programs to replace the Blackhawk in the US. That is it was decided to do whatever was necessary to keep MRH going so it could be replaced by either Defiant or Valour around the end of the decade.

 

[Redlands18]

The thought crosses my mind that maybe the decision to replace Tiger and retain MRH may relate to current programs to replace the Blackhawk in the US. That is it was decided to do whatever was necessary to keep MRH going so it could be replaced by either Defiant or Valour around the end of the decade.

Totally agree, there can be little doubt that Australia is watching the FVL program with a lot of interest and the mid to late 30s replacement timeline as per the 2020 Update works out very well.

 

[Redlands18]

Didn't Airbus quote $2.5Billion (quoting off the top of my head here) to update and add another 7 rebuilt Tigers? I guess that is the base line comparison cost for the decision to go to all new AH64.

The offer was for 22 upgraded Tigers and 7 H-145s fitted with some Tiger systems. Airbuses inability to offer 29 new or re-lifed Tigers cost them any real chance i would say.

 

[John Newman]

The MRH-90 will be coming up for a MLU at some stage. Maybe replace it with the Sikorsky S-92 which is the same size, is used by the RCAF, has a marinised variant and could be acquired through FMS. It's the S-70 / UH-60 bigger brother.

I think that would be like going from the frypan and jumping into the fire.

Australia and the Canucks would be the only operators of a relatively small global fleet, no thanks.

I think we would be better off soldiering on with the MRH-90 fleet until the US FVL aircraft are ready for service.

Failing that we would be better of with an interim UH-60M fleet.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

The offer was for 22 upgraded Tigers and 7 H-145s fitted with some Tiger systems. Airbuses inability to offer 29 new or re-lifed Tigers cost them any real chance i would say.

That’s correct, the Tiger production line has closed.

But, when the Government knocked that back, Airbus came back with a proposal of 29 Tiger, but it still had to work out who it was going to get those extra seven airframes from, eg, one of the existing Euro operators.

Going with AH-64E was the correct move.

 

[John Newman]

With 444 deliveries made per the NH90 website, 40+ sub-variants works to an average variant fleet size of about ten. Not sure if this also includes the NFH90 based off the NH90 platform, but either way it would not only make sustainment an issue, but also keeping the variants current as various subsystems need upgrade and/or replacement. Even if the MRH90's in Australia are all the same variant, it now does seem likely that the type itself would not be able to draw upon the support for a fleet of helicopters utilized worldwide which can help boost availability and keep maintenance costs down.

It’s almost like going to a prestige car dealer and picking your ‘basic’ car configuration, but then looking at the ‘option’ book and having endless variations on the same theme, looks good in the beginning when you receive your new customised car, but not so good when you need spares and support in future years.

I do wonder if the problem is more to do with paperwork technicalities rather than actual faults with the airframes themselves?

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that would be like going from the frypan and jumping into the fire.

Australia and the Canucks would be the only operators of a relatively small global fleet, no thanks.

I think we would be better off soldiering on with the MRH-90 fleet until the US FVL aircraft are ready for service.

Failing that we would be better of with an interim UH-60M fleet.

Cheers,

I looked at that and considering your guys love of adventurous activity. There is a sizeable civilian fleet of the S-92 in existence and you guys have more nous than our Canadian cousins WRT defence acquisitions.

It was just a thought after a tin of Speights.

I don't have a lot of faith in the US Army getting it's FVL off the ground (pun intended) anytime soon. They don't have a good record for successful acquisition completion.

 

[Volkodav]

The irony is the Super Puma family are fully marainised, in wide spread military, commercial and private service, come in specialist CSAR and SF versions and are still in production. They could even have replaced the Seahawks at a stretch.

I know they are old tech but they would have done the job and given an improvement in performance over existing types.

Ah hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[John Newman]

I looked at that and considering your guys love of adventurous activity. There is a sizeable civilian fleet of the S-92 in existence and you guys have more nous than our Canadian cousins WRT defence acquisitions.

It was just a thought after a tin of Speights.

I don't have a lot of faith in the US Army getting it's FVL off the ground (pun intended) anytime soon. They don't have a good record for successful acquisition completion.

Only one tin of Speights? And how many tots of Rum too? Yeah sure you old Kiwi sheep shaggin piss pot!!

I think we’ll leave the Canucks to continuing playing on their own.

Seriously though, if the MRH-90 issues are terminal, then I do think an interim fleet of UH-60M would be the smart way to go, and a certain degree of commonality with the RAN MH-60R fleet too.

Now where’s my Jim Beam and coke? It is after midday after all....

Cheers,

 

[Toptob]

It’s almost like going to a prestige car dealer and picking your ‘basic’ car configuration, but then looking at the ‘option’ book and having endless variations on the same theme, looks good in the beginning when you receive your new customised car, but not so good when you need spares and support in future years.

I do wonder if the problem is more to do with paperwork technicalities rather than actual faults with the airframes themselves?

Cheers,

It would be like a car... If VW made the engine, Renault the suspension and Fiat the running gear. And you have to service each part at that specific dealer!

As for your question. It's both! Germany despite it's broader issues with availability does blame Airbus's lack of support for the poor availability plaguing both their NH-90 and Tiger fleets. Here the Aeronavale reports that the availability of their NH-90's went up from 40 to a whole 50%! One of the reasons they cite as to why maintenance and upgrade programs are often delayed is:

“That problem comes from the fact that Caïmans were delivered to us in a variety of standards, Step A, Step B, and FRC [full radar configuration], that all need to be updated to MR1 [maintenance release 1].”.

Which is what happens when you start production when the design is not finished, the F-35 program also suffer(ed?) from that. And the Belgians reportedly find the NH-90 expensive to operate and difficult to maintain. A quote from this article:

“I dare to say it: the manufacturer’s support is not adapted to the availability expected of a modern helicopter. We have an availability of 30% to 40%. With a mature helicopter that we have been operating for years, we should do better than that.”

This is another interesting article about Belgian NH-90's.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands we recently lost a NH-90 in the Caribbean through an unfortunate accident. But before that there where many problems with the NH-90's in 2016 the MOD postponed the delivery of the final 7 helicopters citing more than a hundred deficiencies concerning corrosion and excessive wear and tear. Finally this is a report from the Dutch national air and space laboratory about their investigation into the corrosion problems with the NH-90.

I hope that gives some insight into the problems that some NH-90 operators are experiencing.

Only one tin of Speights? And how many tots of Rum too? Yeah sure you old Kiwi sheep shaggin piss pot!!

I think we’ll leave the Canucks to continuing playing on their own.

Seriously though, if the MRH-90 issues are terminal, then I do think an interim fleet of UH-60M would be the smart way to go, and a certain degree of commonality with the RAN MH-60R fleet too.

Now where’s my Jim Beam and coke? It is after midday after all....

Cheers,

I don't know if the problems are terminal. But with an expensive MLU coming up and the poor experiences of many users with maintenance and upgrade work by industry partners... Well let's just say that Blackhawks look like a pretty attractive option to me :O

 

[Todjaeger]

It’s almost like going to a prestige car dealer and picking your ‘basic’ car configuration, but then looking at the ‘option’ book and having endless variations on the same theme, looks good in the beginning when you receive your new customised car, but not so good when you need spares and support in future years.

I do wonder if the problem is more to do with paperwork technicalities rather than actual faults with the airframes themselves?

Cheers,

My take, as someone that works on an auto assembly line which has an unknown (as I refuse to bother to try and keep track of the variants) number of variants of a specific "luxury" SUV (stupid, useless, vehicle) and as someone that regularly has to make a variety of tech work with and talk to each other in the EMS/SAR/DRT-world, is that while it most likely is not mostly an airframe issue, but rather faults which occur within/between the various subsystems.

Something as simple as a pinched/kinked wire might regularly cause an issue with variants that use a particular subsystem, and due to how few specific examples might be in service with a fitout which would be impacted, it could easily take more time and effort to try and run down such a problem.

Now, with the airframes being composite, there is certainly potential for cracking, or other manufacturing failures/defects, but I personally would be more concerned with the specific systems which are different between the variants, as that is likely where support and sustainment issues are likely to occur.

Me being me, I would hope that someone in Defence is (or has) taken a good, hard, serious look at a costs/benefit analysis of retaining the MRH90 vs. replacing them with UH-60M or some other suitable variant of the Black Hawk. Given the numbers of Black Hawks currently in US service, there is some expectation that flying examples will still be serving in the US Army for another 40 years, per a Sikorsky VP here. In short, potential new orders for Australia could very well reach and be retired after 30 years service, before the type goes out of service with the US.

If the MRH90 is still requiring 5x the maintenance per flight hour that a Black Hawk does, and if the CpfH is similarly 5x as high for a MRH90 vs. Black Hawk, then it might just be more economical to retire the MRH90. At this point I think it would really be premature for Australia to try and delay a replacement in the hopes of getting whatever wins the FLRAA project, as the current plan does not call for that to begin entering service until FY2030. As that timeframe is a decade away for a capability to start entering US service, and as mentioned in several articles (including the Courant article linked above) it will take a few decades for the existing aircraft in service currently to be replaced, so Australia might not be able to place orders for FVL aircraft for a number of years because there just might not be sufficient production capacity to fulfill US orders and any additional Australian ones.

 

[Redlands18]

The irony is the Super Puma family are fully marainised, in wide spread military, commercial and private service, come in specialist CSAR and SF versions and are still in production. They could even have replaced the Seahawks at a stretch.

I know they are old tech but they would have done the job and given an improvement in performance over existing types.

Ah hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Now that would be ironic considering they were the losing finalists to the S-70A Blackhawks for the RAAF/Army back in the 80s

 

[Redlands18]

My take, as someone that works on an auto assembly line which has an unknown (as I refuse to bother to try and keep track of the variants) number of variants of a specific "luxury" SUV (stupid, useless, vehicle) and as someone that regularly has to make a variety of tech work with and talk to each other in the EMS/SAR/DRT-world, is that while it most likely is not mostly an airframe issue, but rather faults which occur within/between the various subsystems.

Something as simple as a pinched/kinked wire might regularly cause an issue with variants that use a particular subsystem, and due to how few specific examples might be in service with a fitout which would be impacted, it could easily take more time and effort to try and run down such a problem.

Now, with the airframes being composite, there is certainly potential for cracking, or other manufacturing failures/defects, but I personally would be more concerned with the specific systems which are different between the variants, as that is likely where support and sustainment issues are likely to occur.

Me being me, I would hope that someone in Defence is (or has) taken a good, hard, serious look at a costs/benefit analysis of retaining the MRH90 vs. replacing them with UH-60M or some other suitable variant of the Black Hawk. Given the numbers of Black Hawks currently in US service, there is some expectation that flying examples will still be serving in the US Army for another 40 years, per a Sikorsky VP here. In short, potential new orders for Australia could very well reach and be retired after 30 years service, before the type goes out of service with the US.

If the MRH90 is still requiring 5x the maintenance per flight hour that a Black Hawk does, and if the CpfH is similarly 5x as high for a MRH90 vs. Black Hawk, then it might just be more economical to retire the MRH90. At this point I think it would really be premature for Australia to try and delay a replacement in the hopes of getting whatever wins the FLRAA project, as the current plan does not call for that to begin entering service until FY2030. As that timeframe is a decade away for a capability to start entering US service, and as mentioned in several articles (including the Courant article linked above) it will take a few decades for the existing aircraft in service currently to be replaced, so Australia might not be able to place orders for FVL aircraft for a number of years because there just might not be sufficient production capacity to fulfill US orders and any additional Australian ones.

The problem is finding the funding, it would probably be a $10b+ project. The Army is also going to be extremely busy for the next 10 years introducing a raft of new capabilities as well as replacing a large % of the equipment we have now, including 2 major Aviation Fleets in the ARH replacement and introduction of the Lt SF Helicopter.