Sierra is also Hellfire comparable, can be set up for CSAR and special forces support. If it's in the inventory it may be a better option for 6 AVN than the MRH90.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I remain frustrated with DoD media. As indicated in the the link below NUSHIP Arafura appears to have some of its super structured fitted but there is nothing much in the media about progress. You would think it is a good news story.
Defence Media do their best to provide imagery regularly for the 4th estate to use, but they can't make them use it. There is also a time delay in getting imagery published obviously in such a large organisation. BTW that shot was from 29th May so would think construction has progressed further since then.
LSET Jimmy Savage in front of NUSHIP ArafuraI don't think the 82kg is going to make a difference between the two options.
I see the benefits of the sierra being it already being marinised and that is can carry missiles and fuels pods.
Otherwise the NH-90 is fine. Especially the new mtt
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Another issue, which was recently raised in the RNZN thread, is the operating and maintenance cost differences between a Sea Hawk and NH90. If the information regarding the cost per flight hour is accurate, then unless there was a need for lifting ~20 personnel at a time, I would go with more Sea Hawks vs. keeping the MRH90.
I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding the Sierra is no longer in production?
I guess that leaves one option...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Or purchase S-70i Black Hawks which are available from Sikorsky, and select options which would make it most suitable for embarking on/deploying from ships.
One thing I do feel needs to be pointed out is that there can be training and support synergies with two different Sikorsky Black Hawk/Seahawk helicopters in service if they use a Common Cockpit, and they already use the same engines. Given that the US Army is expecting to keep versions of the Black Hawk in service until ~2054 then I would anticipate production would continue for at least several more years (10+ if I had to guess) and that new developments/upgrades will continue to come out for years to come.
One thing which does irritate me, is that the MRH90 purchase (again) seems to have been a selection that on paper looked good, but now with hindsight it seems as though either not all the relevant information was examined, or some of the data was more aspirational as opposed to actual.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Sort of like the H-92/ CH-148 Cyclone which didn’t even need to look good on paper as the sole criterion was no EH101 which would have embarrassed Chrétien. When it comes to horrible helicopter acquisition, Canada takes a back seat to no country.
These articles suggest that the government did not receive a strong enough argument against the MRH90, but its not likely that there was not a tender process that included evaluation so perhaps that evaluation would be of interest.
ts also likely that the ongoing sustainability costs to have these aircraft operational would be high
www.aspistrategist.org.au
www.abc.net.au
ts also likely that the ongoing sustainability costs to have these aircraft operational would be high
The curious case of the MRH90 | The Strategist
Last week saw the release of the latest Australian National Audit Office report into defence acquisitions. In the firing line this time is the multi-role helicopter program. Like most audit reports, the ANAO has carefully ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
$3.5b helicopter rollout is among Defence's secret 'projects of concern'
The Defence department's secret list of "projects of concern" includes a $3.5 billion helicopter rollout and a system designed to prevent aircraft accidents in conflict zones.
www.abc.net.au
There was indeed a tender process, in 2005 and 2006 under Air 9000 phases 2, 4 and 6. It was thorough and fair. Two aircraft ended up being shortlisted. The Government received a very thoroughly researched case for the aircraft selected, and a very strong case was mounted for the alternative. Initially the buy was only to be for Army under 2 and 4 and maritime operations, while included, was not a driver of the requirement. The maritime utility role, phase 6, was added part way through the process. Given it was for 6 aircraft versus the 36 for the Army roles, and the Army roles were direct combat support with high potential for involvement in actual combat whereas the MUH was unlikely to involve that, Army’s needs were paramount and the adaptations for MUH were deemed acceptable. 808 seems pretty happy with the result.
This report provides some more detail on the mistakes made in this program
www.anao.gov.au
Multi-Role Helicopter Program | Australian National Audit Office
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One thing that the report mentions, was that in 2003 Defence's preference was for for the S-70M Black Hawk for Phases 2 & 4, yet in 2004 the MRH90 was selected for Phase 2 by gov't due to "other" considerations. I would be very curious to know what those other considerations were, and whether they proved accurate. One I do recall is that the MRH90's were built (assembled, really) in Australia by the Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace from full kits provided by Eurocopter.
Having checked recently to confirm, Australian Aerospace is still around, but does not seem to be in the business of building helicopters. Instead it seems to operate as an MRO and parts/component supplier for aviation. Which does sort of illustrate an issue I have with some countries wanting to do domestic aircraft builds. Unless the country manages to get enough demand for their aircraft, once the national order is completed the capability fades away, with all the resources building the infrastructure and skilling the workforce getting squandered.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The majority of Both the Tiger 18/22 and MRH-90 42/47* were assembled in Australia, and that would definitely come under other consideration.
* A 47th Aircraft was added to the fleet at no further expense to Australia as reparations for ongoing problems, but don’t know where it was assembled.
For a country that has quite a relatively large number of Civil Aircraft, we have a pretty poor record when it comes to designing and building Aircraft.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The 47th was also assembled by Australian Aerospace. I seriously question whether or not that was value for Australia though. I suspect it might have been better to take a reduction in cost instead of an additional helicopter which Australia would need to pay to operate and sustain.
Both Tiger and the MRH90 had domestic Australian assembly, but what is the status of that capability, the infrastructure/plant where the assembly and testing took place, and the workforce involved in doing it? Unless it still is around, then IMO Australia did not get much more out of the selection than it would have had the order been a straight import. As it was, the components assembled by Australian Aerospace were exported to Australia, which would suggest to me that while there likely was some Australian content, and certainly Australian labour involved, but I have doubts on whether that amount would be sufficient to make up for the increased costs to acquire and sustain.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The 47th MRH-90 would only be about extending the overall Fleet life more then adding extra capability, increasing Aircraft availability, the planned number of hours the fleet as a whole spend operating and in maintenance wouldn’t change.
You would definitely have to question the viability of assembling 61 Helicopters over a 10 year period, i think there were plans to assemble some for export if the orders had come in but even NZ said no to having their’s assembled in Brisbane.
The issue is building or assembling in Australia is expensive up front, Australian Governments get some of that money back in Taxes and money going back into the Australian economy, but that does nothing for export orders.
Last edited:
Spent some considerable time dealing with ANAO when I was working in Defence Security, lets just say they are a "different" type of people
The UK can at least get a dishonourable mention for the Chinook Mk 3 fiasco. Eight SF Chinooks bought, to have British software unique to them. Couldn't be certified. Entirely foreseeable. Spent over 10 years in storage IIRC. Ended up being downgraded to standard utility CH-47s, & a load of brand-new CH-47s bought for SF.Sort of like the H-92/ CH-148 Cyclone which didn’t even need to look good on paper as the sole criterion was no EH101 which would have embarrassed Chrétien. When it comes to horrible helicopter acquisition, Canada takes a back seat to no country.
Hundreds of millions of quid thrown away.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Of course the worst bad procurement for Australia is not the MRH-90 but the Seasprite which ended up being cancelled and left the RAN low on Helicopter numbers until the MH-60R was procured.
- Status