Australian Army Discussions and Updates

R

RegR

Well-Known Member
Rob c said:
It is quite simple, Rotable parts, are the parts that are in them selves fixed and returned to service and this is what the the spare airframe supplied, as an example a control power pack, when it reaches its life expectancy or develops a fault like a hydraulic leak, is removed and replaced with a serviceable unit. it is then sent to a servicing unit and repaired or reconditioned and returned to the supply system were it will enter service again when required. A large proportion of parts fall into this category, anything from a landing gear strut to a cockpit LCD screen, an altimeter to an air-conditioning cooling turbine, brakes radio's ETC. This was the type of unit that the spare airframe provided at lower cost and they would have been used as required so that the parts they replaced could be repaired or reconditioned and return to service. It is an ongoing cycle and is used down to anything that is repairable. Parts that cannot be repaired were known as consumables in my day and these include Nuts, bolts ,seals, small fittings etc and these are disposed of and new ordered.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and IMO on reflection was actually a good idea considering the logistics and spares issues from the OEM. It meant we could use the parts already on hand then just replace those parts on the non-flying frame mitigating the lengthy wait times as obviously then not an issue as the frame is "grounded" already anyway. Australia already had a spare frame as it was and then when they "retired" the 6 navy frames this should have then placed them in a similar situation as us with no effect on the original army squadrons.

WRT logistics for the Taipans I thought it was their generic accounting system that let them down as it couldn't keep accurate, timely and therefore safe, records of all the parts that were inevitably swapped throughout the fleet in terms of hours and time remaining on any given component which is definately not something you want/need in any complex machine with many moving parts. If you lose track of safety margins then grounding/downtime is inevitable.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
RegR said:
Exactly, and IMO on reflection was actually a good idea considering the logistics and spares issues from the OEM. It meant we could use the parts already on hand then just replace those parts on the non-flying frame mitigating the lengthy wait times as obviously then not an issue as the frame is "grounded" already anyway. Australia already had a spare frame as it was and then when they "retired" the 6 navy frames this should have then placed them in a similar situation as us with no effect on the original army squadrons.

WRT logistics for the Taipans I thought it was their generic accounting system that let them down as it couldn't keep accurate, timely and therefore safe, records of all the parts that were inevitably swapped throughout the fleet in terms of hours and time remaining on any given component which is definately not something you want/need in any complex machine with many moving parts. If you lose track of safety margins then grounding/downtime is inevitable.
Click to expand...
I referenced something relevant to this previously in the RNZAF thread in this post here, but back in mid-2022 the global NH90 availability rate was only about 40% and NH Industries was making some changes in attempt to reach the goal of having the global availability rate reach about 50% in 2023. The fact that the manufacturer was making changes to how things were to be done, to boost the availability worldwide, strongly suggests to me that the manufacturer had some significant issues which ended up causing problems for the majority of the operators. It is certainly possible that some Australian-specific systems or issues added to the difficulties but it does appear that virtually all operators have encountered problems with the design, with some (operators) opting to retire and replace them.

It does appear that if Australia had originally attempting to replicate what NZ did to ensure a supply of parts on hand, then Australia would have needed to order & purchase ~52 MRH90 Taipans. I have been attempting to determine how much more that would have increased the flyaway cost, but we are talking about a number that is two-thirds the entirety of the NZ order, just to serve as a source of spares.

That would be a significant amount of coin, with the AUD$50k cpfh just adding to everything else.

EDIT: Found a source for a per MRH90 flyaway cost at time of ordering, and it was AUD$65 mil. so an extra six helicopters would have increased the up front cost by ~AUD$390 mil. just to provide a source of immediate spares. However, even if this had been done, this would not have addressed a number of the capability and service issues the ADF encountered. Apparently the first 15 MRH90's had to be sent back to the manufacturer back in the early 2010's to be remanufactured. Not sure whether this would have been NH Industries in Europe, or Australian Aerospace which was the Airbus subsidiary in Brisbane which did the domestic assembly.
 
Last edited:
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
MickB said:
Thanks for the clarification.

Sounds like people with good intentions but little knowledge throwing out thought bubbles and the media (dare I say it ) doing a beat up.

Still does not look like a formal Gov to Gov request to me.
Click to expand...
There is a report in todays Australia with detail. I’ll extract some here… appears they want them for medivac. I have apple news so unless you have Apple News this link may not work.

apple.news

Richard Marles ignores Kyiv plea for helicopters — The Australian

Kyiv has implored the Albanese government to help ‘save Ukrainian lives’ by donating its fleet of retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters, instead of dismantling and burying them.
apple.news apple.news

extracts …..

The Australian has obtained the official December 17 request to Defence Minister Richard Marles made by Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov, chief of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, in which he said the helicopters would provide a much-needed medevac capability and “dramatically increase the survivability of our frontline defenders”.

Despite the request being made one month ago, Mr Marles, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, has not yet responded to the Ukranians.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy also said this week that it would be “irresponsible for us to move away from the disposal strategy that we’ve locked on in”.

In his letter, General Budanov said “our wounded are dying unnecessarily on the front because we cannot get them from the front to emergency care fast enough.

“The odds of surviving a critical injury in war are substantially increased with helicopter medevacs. We do not have helicopters that can rapidly deploy and evacuate our wounded,” he said.

“This year (2023) Australia announced that it would cease all flying operations with the NH Industries MRH-90 Taipan helicopters. These retired systems could dramatically increase the survivability of our frontline defenders,” he said.

“On behalf of the Defence Intelligence Agency of Ukraine, I would like to formally ask Australia for a donation of the retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters as these aircraft will save Ukranian lives by providing urgently needed medevac capabilities.”

General Budanov also revealed that he had established a taskforce to “research and understand the reasons why Australia retired the MRH-90 Taipans” and that Ukraine, as a result, now understood the “challenges Australia faced”.

“We are confident we can mitigate those challenges by creating a NH90 maintenance hub supported by France and others who currently maintain these helicopters in other countries,” he said. “Ukraine is 13 times smaller than Australia which allows us to create a single defended maintenance hub similar to the New Zealand NH90 operations.

“In addition to the helicopters, we hope you will also be open to sharing your knowledge of the aircraft so we can successfully deploy the MRH-90 Taipans to evacuate our wounded.”

Mr Marles’ office said that Australia was standing with the government of Ukraine “in support of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in the face of Russia’s illegal and immoral invasion.”
 
Last edited:
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
Bob53 said:
There is a report in todays Australia with detail. I’ll extract some here… appears they want them for medivac. I have apple news so unless you have Apple News this link may not work.

apple.news

Richard Marles ignores Kyiv plea for helicopters — The Australian

Kyiv has implored the Albanese government to help ‘save Ukrainian lives’ by donating its fleet of retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters, instead of dismantling and burying them.
apple.news apple.news

extracts …..

The Australian has obtained the official December 17 request to Defence Minister Richard Marles made by Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov, chief of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, in which he said the helicopters would provide a much-needed medevac capability and “dramatically increase the survivability of our frontline defenders”.

Despite the request being made one month ago, Mr Marles, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, has not yet responded to the Ukranians.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy also said this week that it would be “irresponsible for us to move away from the disposal strategy that we’ve locked on in”.

In his letter, General Budanov said “our wounded are dying unnecessarily on the front because we cannot get them from the front to emergency care fast enough.

“The odds of surviving a critical injury in war are substantially increased with helicopter medevacs. We do not have helicopters that can rapidly deploy and evacuate our wounded,” he said.

“This year (2023) Australia announced that it would cease all flying operations with the NH Industries MRH-90 Taipan helicopters. These retired systems could dramatically increase the survivability of our frontline defenders,” he said.

“On behalf of the Defence Intelligence Agency of Ukraine, I would like to formally ask Australia for a donation of the retired MRH-90 Taipan helicopters as these aircraft will save Ukranian lives by providing urgently needed medevac capabilities.”

General Budanov also revealed that he had established a taskforce to “research and understand the reasons why Australia retired the MRH-90 Taipans” and that Ukraine, as a result, now understood the “challenges Australia faced”.

“We are confident we can mitigate those challenges by creating a NH90 maintenance hub supported by France and others who currently maintain these helicopters in other countries,” he said. “Ukraine is 13 times smaller than Australia which allows us to create a single defended maintenance hub similar to the New Zealand NH90 operations.

“In addition to the helicopters, we hope you will also be open to sharing your knowledge of the aircraft so we can successfully deploy the MRH-90 Taipans to evacuate our wounded.”

Mr Marles’ office said that Australia was standing with the government of Ukraine “in support of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in the face of Russia’s illegal and immoral invasion.”
Click to expand...
I stand corrected Thank you
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
I referenced something relevant to this previously in the RNZAF thread in this post here, but back in mid-2022 the global NH90 availability rate was only about 40% and NH Industries was making some changes in attempt to reach the goal of having the global availability rate reach about 50% in 2023. The fact that the manufacturer was making changes to how things were to be done, to boost the availability worldwide, strongly suggests to me that the manufacturer had some significant issues which ended up causing problems for the majority of the operators. It is certainly possible that some Australian-specific systems or issues added to the difficulties but it does appear that virtually all operators have encountered problems with the design, with some (operators) opting to retire and replace them.

It does appear that if Australia had originally attempting to replicate what NZ did to ensure a supply of parts on hand, then Australia would have needed to order & purchase ~52 MRH90 Taipans. I have been attempting to determine how much more that would have increased the flyaway cost, but we are talking about a number that is two-thirds the entirety of the NZ order, just to serve as a source of spares.

That would be a significant amount of coin, with the AUD$50k cpfh just adding to everything else.

EDIT: Found a source for a per MRH90 flyaway cost at time of ordering, and it was AUD$65 mil. so an extra six helicopters would have increased the up front cost by ~AUD$390 mil. just to provide a source of immediate spares. However, even if this had been done, this would not have addressed a number of the capability and service issues the ADF encountered. Apparently the first 15 MRH90's had to be sent back to the manufacturer back in the early 2010's to be remanufactured. Not sure whether this would have been NH Industries in Europe, or Australian Aerospace which was the Airbus subsidiary in Brisbane which did the domestic assembly.
Click to expand...
Oh yes I wasn't suggesting buying more 90s to address the spares issue I was just saying use the extra 90 and the 6 already retired RAN 90s to sustain the remaining army fleet only as technically 1 was already "spare" and 6 had been taken off the books anyway. Theoretically this should have then at least increased availability rates to those of RNZAF assumedly? but yes if there are other problems that are still otherwise insurmountable then having a ready pool of spare parts is still rather a moot point.
 
R

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think that another factor that helped the RNZAF was that a complete new facility was built for the opperation of the NH90's. this included all new workshops to recondition /repair the rotable parts and individual bays for servicing individual aircraft. I may be wrong, but I think that they were given the best of everything by HC to make up for the loss of strike wing and the halving of the P3 update budget, sort of smooth over the ruffled feathers. This would have been ok by HC as she would have seen that they did not carry anything that made a big bang.
 
Last edited:
M

Maranoa

Active Member
The Royal New Zealand Air Force is facing the same problems with NHIndustries as all other NH90 operators. They have no special sauce' and are in the same long queue for prime contractor sustainment as Australia was. NHIndustries even admitted that average global NH90 readiness was approximately 40 percent with the company having aspirational goal of making that 50 percent. Abysmal in any circumstances.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There's a car page I'm a member of, we all own, are getting or want to get a variant of this vehicle.

Some love it, some hate it, the difference how they perceive its quirks and faults.

The thing is, pull out the key facts, everyone is encountering the same problems, to the same extent. The difference is they are deal breakers for some and hardly noticed by others.

People going from a premium vehicle to this one are more critical than those going from a junker.

Australia went from Blackhawk, and Seaking, to MRH, NZ went from Iroquois. That is probably part of it, Blackhawk left Iroquois for dead, MRH in many ways was a step backwards from Blackhawk.
 
Last edited:
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Volkodav said:
There's a car page I'm a member of, we all own, are getting or want to get a variant of this vehicle.

Some love it, some hate it, the difference how they perceive its quirks and faults.

The thing is, pull out the key facts, everyone is encountering the same problems, to the same extent. The difference is they are deal breakers for some and hardly noticed by others.

People going from a premium vehicle to this one are more critical than those going from a junker.

Australia went from Blackhawk, and Seaking, to MRH, NZ went from Iroquois. That is probably part of it, Blackhawk left Iroquois for dead, MRH in many ways was a step backwards from Blackhawk.
Click to expand...
Yep. There are always the Leyland P76 lovers around. People avoid them at parties though.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Reptilia said:
Another article about the Taipans from defence connect.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Taipan disposal offers best value for money, says Conroy

Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy has confirmed the current disposal strategy for the Australian Defence Force’s MRH‑90 Taipan helicopter fleet offers ‘best value for money for
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting.

Interesting after all the angst and carryon to finally hear the facts.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Reptilia said:
Another article about the Taipans from defence connect.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Taipan disposal offers best value for money, says Conroy

Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy has confirmed the current disposal strategy for the Australian Defence Force’s MRH‑90 Taipan helicopter fleet offers ‘best value for money for
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
Click to expand...
Agree or disagree with the Taipan situation ,this is the type of robust response that is necessary.

Cheers S
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
Agree or disagree with the Taipan situation ,this is the type of robust response that is necessary.

Cheers S
Click to expand...
When you consider how long everything seems to take in ADF acquisition …in reverse this disposal is Quite possibly the fastest action I have ever observed. It’s got some really broad comments. Has a real stink about it actually.

July fatal Crash And grounding.
September begin disposal strategy by contacting NHI to determine any interest. assume 4 weeks in this case
Simetime between October and December a contract was issued and awarded and disassembly began Immediatel.
 
W

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
I think that in the end of the day, considering the logistics requirement to supply the airframes, reinstate the airframes to flyable condition, train the aircrew and maintainers, equip the system with logistic supply, just for an A -B transport platform will be ultimately audited to be wasteful application of resources.
perhaps we should send them a C-17 loaded with ration packs instead?
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Bob53 said:
When you consider how long everything seems to take in ADF acquisition …in reverse this disposal is Quite possibly the fastest action I have ever observed. It’s got some really broad comments. Has a real stink about it actually.

July fatal Crash And grounding.
September begin disposal strategy by contacting NHI to determine any interest. assume 4 weeks in this case
Simetime between October and December a contract was issued and awarded and disassembly began Immediatel.
Click to expand...
The replacements had been ordered by the previous government, before either accident.

Three groundings in a very short period, personnel already having to main currency of alternative platforms while preparing for the dominant arrival of the replacement capability.

A very limited window to go through the expensive process of returning to flying ops, if it can be done at all. It was a common sense economical decision to retire them early.

Once it was determined there was no buyer for operational aircraft spending money maintaining them in an airworthy state was a waste of money and personnel. Once that decision was made the aircraft effectively became little more than spare parts that would take months and lots of moneyt to reactivate.

Once it was determined there was no buyer for complete, non operationsl aircraft, converting them to components became the only economical option.

At this point returning them to a safe operational state had become hideously expensive, if not impossible. There are far better uses for the money that would have cost just to send them to Ukraine.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I’m not arguing that they should be returned to an airworthy condition. That horse has bolted. I’m just incredulous at A. Ukraine wasn’t considered in the first place and B the speed at which the disassembly has taken place. Signing off on this subject. Thanks for the input everyone. It’s been enlightening to say the least.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Reptilia said:
Confirms Birdon are also working on a Landing Craft Heavy design on top of the Medium Craft.

www.australiandefence.com.au

US Marines select Birdon to develop Heavy Landing Craft - Australian Defence Magazine

The US Marine Corps has announced the selection of Birdon’s advanced Heavy Landing Craft - H260 design to be part of a future mission test and evaluation exercise.
www.australiandefence.com.au www.australiandefence.com.au
Click to expand...
Birdon Selected By The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MWCL) To Develop Heavy Landing Craft – H260 - Birdon
A better run down on the H260 from the Birdon site, payload is 440 short tons, not 900KG. This H260 shares a common lineage to Birdon's proposed Heavy Landing Craft design for the future Australian Army LMV-H project.
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Redlands18 said:
Birdon Selected By The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MWCL) To Develop Heavy Landing Craft – H260 - Birdon
A better run down on the H260 from the Birdon site, payload is 440 short tons, not 900KG. This H260 shares a common lineage to Birdon's proposed Heavy Landing Craft design for the future Australian Army LMV-H project.
Click to expand...
Im not sure if it is a U.S program but the medium craft in the picture alongside the Heavy craft differs from the Aussie version. The wheelhouse is higher up and it has no helipad.
Also, one has to wonder whether the design elements of the heavy craft could have been applied to the medium, the forward bridge separated from the aft propulsion section and the roll on roll off capability.
On the Heavy, rhibs on the mezzanine above the deck with cranes instead of stern launched ramps either side of the rear gate, the front opening bow over a single or duel side entry/exit gate and the bow itself could have incorporated another smaller helipad for drones etc. Just my thoughts…
Looking forward to seeing the Aussie version.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top