asiapacificdefencereporter.com
More to the point, who pays and provides freebies to Kym Bergmann to write this stuff?Hmmm......
UPDATED: Ukraine requests unwanted Army Taipan helicopters - APDR
Technicians are currently – and in secret – disassembling all 45 Army Taipan Multi Role Helicopters
If true, what a waste
I agree with you about Kym.
KB certainly is an ambassador for the Taipan and Tiger helicopter.
One thing I feel people need to keep in mind is that the Australian MRH90 version of the NH90 TTH is that the Australian fitout might very well be different enough from other NH90 TTH operators that the aircraft are not particularly useful as a source of spares. It has been my understanding that the way the NH90 consortium has operated, the avionics fitout was customized per customer specification with different users having different companies provide some of the avionics and avionics integration. Something else to consider is that I suspect the Australian NH90 fleet is one of the older fleets, having entered service in December 2007, roughly the same time as deliveries were made to the Italian Army, about a year after the first NH90 deliveries were made (to Germany) and about four years before the first deliveries to the French Army and New Zealand. For those that recall, there had been a number of reported defects with some of the early production NH90's in German service, though some were reportedly issues encountered in prototype as opposed to production versions. It does however raise the specter of whether other users would really value (or be willing to devote the resources to ensure systems are up to spec) early production composite airframes that are now starting to get close to 15 years old, when the airframe components themselves would have been cast at a time when there apparently had been some design and/or QC issues. From my POV realistically the only value I would have in such airframes without extensive testing to ensure that there are no remaining design or production defects, would be for static ground testing/training.
Short answer; Yes.
I will await the whole story.
Yep, for example NZ could've acquired some to alleviate our helo shortage and provide spares until we assess our needs in the future. It would be a medium term solution and I think the timeline for the NH90 MLU decision is around 2029 - 30. In a way I would like this rather than an acquisition of the UH-60M because if we went that way, we would be acquiring a capability, arguably, nearing obsolescence rather than waiting five - ten years and see what the US Army future rotary wing projects brings online.Hmmm......
UPDATED: Ukraine requests unwanted Army Taipan helicopters - APDR
Technicians are currently – and in secret – disassembling all 45 Army Taipan Multi Role Helicopters
If true, what a waste
I am not so certain that various iterations of the H-60 Black Hawk can be honestly described as nearing obsolescence. IIRC the US is planning on starting to acquire the next gen rotary airlifter starting in ~2030 but the planned retirement of the various H-60 lift helicopters is not until ~2045 for US service. It will be six to seven years or more before the first of the next gen helicopters becomes active in US service and it might be later still before any examples might become or be made available for export. It would likely be at least a decade before most countries might be able to get an order in to whatever the US is bringing into service, and that is also assuming that no programme difficulties are encountered which delay the replacement's entry into service, or even just outright cancellation. If there were existing examples already active in US service, there would be less risk, but right now I feel that trying to plan around what the US will be operating in the future is not a wise move.
I was looking to the future when new advanced rotary wing and tilt wing capabilities become available. Unlike Australia, NZ tends to keep capabilities for 30+ years before upgrading them, so if we acquired Blackhawks in the 2029 - 34 period, we would not look to replace them until 2060 -2070. By waiting the tens years we would be in a far better position to move to new capabilities.
NZ does have to replace the Seasprite in the next couple of years and a move to a consolidated fleet on one airframe would make sense. There are 3 realistic options for a Seasprite replacement, the NFH-90, AW-159 and MH-60R. The RAN conducted trials for fitting the MRH-90 inside the Anzac Hangars, they fit but it is extremely tight, so any future NZ Frigate would probably require a larger Hangar for the NFH-90.
Of course there is the danger that in waiting a decade, one might end up finding that the only available platform (if looking to a US design anyway) still ends up being some version of the UH-60 or MH-60 Black Hawk. Looking back at some of the history of the Sikorsky S-70, it entered US service in 1979, with the first export versions I could come across being "civilian" variants exported to the PRC in ~1983 whilst the first military versions not being exported until 1986. Given the numbers the US would need to have produced to replace the various H-60's already in US service, it could easily be a number of years before any production slots might become available. This might mean that in trying to wait for whatever the US ends up bringing into service, it might be 15 years from now before the replacement could be ordered by others. Again, this is also assuming that there are no programme issues encountered by the US which either delay the entry into service, or just outright prevent it altogether.
I think that you can discount the NFH. Problems it's having in other navies make it extremely risky and it's not operated by a FVEY navy. Since 2015 the NZG has become quite risk adverse WRT defence acquisitions. If we were like this when we acquired the NH90 and SH-2G(I) Seasprites, neither of those acquisitions would've been approved. Most likely we would have gone with the Blackhawk and either the Seahawk or the Lynx / Super Lynx. I suspect that the MH-60R will be the preferred platform because it's operated by two FVEY navies and it's the least risky option.
It doesn't happen very often, but have to disagree (mostly) here.
Apart from the expense of rolling out a fix across a fleet of Helos (with low serviveability rates at the best of times) that are expected to retire in a year, what if it is declared safe, put back in service and goes down with a dozen or so civilian evacuees on board?
My understanding is that the March accident was determined to have been neither pilot or mechanical, but rather was a software issue which was to have been resolved with a patch. I cannot recall whether the software issue was specifically involving the engine, or the fly-by-wire flight control system, or possibly both. I do wonder though whether the ditching event back in March was the result of an issue similar to a fatal accident the Dutch experienced off Aruba in 2020.
Are they being dis-assembled for parts, or merely junked?