Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[t68]

i have never managed to see what was so wrong with UH-60s carrying the troops and their kit and CH-47s carrying anything bigger. could we not of just bought/upgraded blackhawks and a couple more CH-47s? rather than this half and half stuff.

Yeah i thought they would be a better idea of rebuild the current fleet to MH-60 Knighthawk spec, which would make the entire fleet marine capable off the LHD or wherever they wanted to put them. Plus the Romeo that the RAN is keen on would have made logistic a bit easier as it is already in service.
Quote,
The MH-60S is based on the UH-60L and has many naval SH-60 features. It is deployed aboard amphibious assault ships and fast combat supply ships. It has two missions: troop transport and vertical replenishment (VERTREP), but can also perform search and rescue (SAR). The MH-60S has no offensive sensors but can carry the ALQ-144 Infrared Jammer. The MH-60S will, in the near future, deploy with the AQS-20A Mine Detection System and an Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) for identifying submerged objects in coastal waters. The S-model is the first US Navy helicopter to field the glass cockpit whereby the flight data information is relayed to pilots using four digital screens rather than electromechanical gauges and dials. The primary means of defense is with the M60D, M240 or GAU-17/A guns. A "batwing" refit (Armed Helo Kit) based on the Army's UH-60L was developed to accommodate Hellfire, Hydra 70 2.75 inch rockets, or larger guns or cannons.
The MH-60S is unofficially known as the "Knighthawk", reflecting its role as the designated successor of the Sea Knight, though this name was formally disapproved in favor of the "Seahawk" name. A standard crew for the "Knighthawk" is one pilot, one copilot and two others depending on mission. With the retirement of the Sea Knight, the squadron designation of Helicopter Combat Support Squadron (HC) was also retired from the Navy. Operating MH-60S squadrons were re-designated Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC).
Unlike all other Navy H-60s, the MH-60S is not based on the original S-70B/SH-60B platform with its forward-mounted twin tail-gear and single starboard sliding cabin door. Instead, the S-model is a hybrid, featuring the main fuselage of the S-70A/UH-60, with large sliding doors on both sides of the cabin and a single aft-mounted tail wheel; and the engines, drivetrain and rotors of the S-70B/SH-60.

MH-60S Seahawk (Knighthawk) Multi-Mission Naval Helicopter - Naval Technology

 

[StevoJH]

i have never managed to see what was so wrong with UH-60s carrying the troops and their kit and CH-47s carrying anything bigger. could we not of just bought/upgraded blackhawks and a couple more CH-47s? rather than this half and half stuff.

The '90 was supposed to be able to carry more troops then the Blackhawk....if they ever get it working...

Was it supposed to be better hot/high as well?

 

[SASWanabe]

The '90 was supposed to be able to carry more troops then the Blackhawk....if they ever get it working...

Was it supposed to be better hot/high as well?

"was" is the word there. the floors arnt strong enough, nor is the ramp and i believe even the seats have problems, on top of that hight is an issue aswel.

i would imagine the MH-60S would learn from Afghanistan/iraq and be equaly good hot/high.

 

[t68]

The '90 was supposed to be able to carry more troops then the Blackhawk....if they ever get it working...

Was it supposed to be better hot/high as well?

Yeah that’s right, the hawk has a max of 14 pax compared to 20 for the NH 90, also has the rear ramp. Was the AW101 Merlin ever considered if they were looking for more pax/stores lift, it could move 24 seated or 45 standing combat equip troops and the rear ramp is rated at 3t, a land rover could drive up the ramp. AW101 rated -40 to t50c

 

[SASWanabe]

it makes you wonder what exactly will be flying off the LHDs. The Tigers are still having marinisation problems and the NH-90 TTH dont have auto folding rotors.

 

[Aussie Digger]

it makes you wonder what exactly will be flying off the LHDs. The Tigers are still having marinisation problems and the NH-90 TTH dont have auto folding rotors.

Neither do the Blackhawks IIRC. They've operated off the LPD's for years...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With only 8-10 helicopters per LHD they won't have much of a problem with automatic folding rotors. Plenty of room. They may have a problem with rotor tie downs, radhaz and a range of other naval helicopter issues

 

[SASWanabe]

i guess its too late for defence to cancel the contracts isnt it? no chance of them becoming even bigger lemons like the Seasprites?


IMO a MH-60S + AH-1Z/WAH-64 combo would probably already be entering service and in forsight would more than likely have ended up being cheaper.

 

[PeterM]

i guess its too late for defence to cancel the contracts isnt it? no chance of them becoming even bigger lemons like the Seasprites?


IMO a MH-60S + AH-1Z/WAH-64 combo would probably already be entering service and in forsight would more than likely have ended up being cheaper.

That would have been a better mix in my opinion, much lower risk, much quicker in service and we can leverage the US supply train.

Oh well, that is all water under the bridge. Hopefully the Tiger/MRH90 combo will become everything we expected.

 

[winnyfield]

.... Was the AW101 Merlin ever considered if they were looking for more pax/stores lift, it could move 24 seated or 45 standing combat equip troops and the rear ramp is rated at 3t, a land rover could drive up the ramp. AW101 rated -40 to t50c

Maybe considered for Sea King replacements but 90s offers Sea King like performance (USN replaced Sea Kings with Sea Hawks).

AW101 Merlin sits uncomfortably between Hawks/90s and Chinooks. Better off with more Chinooks. They're the troop lifter of choice in Afghanistan.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The MRH90s were first ordered under AIR 9000/2 "Additional Troop-Lift Helicopters" to acquire another squadron for operation from amphibious ships in 2005. Two years later this contract was expanded from 12 to 46 to replace the Black Hawks and Sea Kings. The AW101 could have been a serious contender for AIR 9000/2 but was waved off by the Army. They wanted 12 units and the program was not funded for this number. Sure eight AW101 Model 410/411s would be more capable than 12 MRH 90s but the Army couldn't see past its current force structure.

 

[lopez]

Hk417

is their any publically avalable information on what varient of the HK417 was purchased? natuarlly you would think we got the accurised version but was it the 16' or 20' inch barrel?

does anyone have any pictures of them in use ?

 

[Volkodav]

The MRH90s were first ordered under AIR 9000/2 "Additional Troop-Lift Helicopters" to acquire another squadron for operation from amphibious ships in 2005. Two years later this contract was expanded from 12 to 46 to replace the Black Hawks and Sea Kings. The AW101 could have been a serious contender for AIR 9000/2 but was waved off by the Army. They wanted 12 units and the program was not funded for this number. Sure eight AW101 Model 410/411s would be more capable than 12 MRH 90s but the Army couldn't see past its current force structure.

I remember reading way back when, that the AW101 was eliminated due to disinterest by the army rather than any technical issues. They just didn't want it and weren't interested in letting it be evaluated in any depth. I wonder if part of the issue is they saw it as a threat to getting additional Chinooks down the road, or that the intention was always to increase the order to replace the Blackhawks, for which the AW-101 would not have been suitable.

On the Blackhawks I remember hearing that ours are shagged due to excessive use of the ferry tanks, i.e. they flew with them all the time, which resulted in fatigue and I believe some cracking. I also heard that the tropical and often marine environment we operated them in caused corrosion issues. If this is the case it may go some way to explaining why the composite MRH-90 found favour with the ADF.

The really sad thing about the AW-101 is the T-700 powered derivative would likely have slotted into army aviation more easily than the MRH-90. It would also have been a better replacement for the Seakings, its just too bad our frigates dont have bigger hangers as there probably isn't a better ASW helo out there at the moment.

 

[Kirkzzy]

If this is the case it may go some way to explaining why the composite MRH-90 found favour with the ADF.

While right now I would much rather have the defence force go with the UH-60M (from a pure defence perspective, overall I still think MRH-90 was the right decision which I will explain below) I think people seem to forget the circumstances of the times. All the problems these helis have had in development weren't originally intended, and it is easy to have two helis in front of you and pick the one that is better on paper (carries more people).

Another issue I see floating around the forum is the whole capability over local industry. While capability is the most important factor, and the one that is taken into consideration the most, all decisions on defence procurement will have had passed the key criteria that defence has set, its not like we are going to buy something that is completely opposite to our needs. (AWD, the current choice although not the most capable, suits Australia's needs. And $9b for three ships, cost would have definitely been the key factor)... sort of gone off on a tangent, but what I am trying to get at is all we need is a product that can do the job we set, we don't need the best (although preferable) we need something that can do the set task in the most cost effective manner. And investing in the local industry is at times a much better option, even if something else is a little more capable and could have been delivered on time. It creates jobs, helps the economy, and a lot of the money spent eventually goes back to the government through taxes.

...In short, this whole Blackhawk over MRH-90 thing, I would prefer MRH-90. From a pure civilian perspective I would much definitely rather choose local rather than off the shelf in a multi billion dollar purchase (even if there were delays and cost blow outs.)

 

[Aussie Digger]

While right now I would much rather have the defence force go with the UH-60M (from a pure defence perspective, overall I still think MRH-90 was the right decision which I will explain below) I think people seem to forget the circumstances of the times. All the problems these helis have had in development weren't originally intended, and it is easy to have two helis in front of you and pick the one that is better on paper (carries more people).

Of course the problems weren't intended. That hardly excuses the fact that they have happened and the aircraft are still plagued with problems, the support provided by the manufacturer is lousy and the cost of the helicopters to operate is far greater in reality than the manufacturer advised they would be in their proposal.

Carrying people is one requirement. Both helos met the Army's requirement and the upgraded Blackhawk was Army's capability choice overall. Yet they didn't get their way, nor did they get a helicopter they've been able to use for anything more strenuous than basic pilot training and can't even fly in this role as much as the Army needs it to, let alone the other roles Army needs it to do.

Another issue I see floating around the forum is the whole capability over local industry. While capability is the most important factor, and the one that is taken into consideration the most, all decisions on defence procurement will have had passed the key criteria that defence has set, its not like we are going to buy something that is completely opposite to our needs. (AWD, the current choice although not the most capable, suits Australia's needs. And $9b for three ships, cost would have definitely been the key factor)... sort of gone off on a tangent, but what I am trying to get at is all we need is a product that can do the job we set, we don't need the best (although preferable) we need something that can do the set task in the most cost effective manner. And investing in the local industry is at times a much better option, even if something else is a little more capable and could have been delivered on time. It creates jobs, helps the economy, and a lot of the money spent eventually goes back to the government through taxes.

And that's exactly what we have not got with the MRH-90. It is not effective and the apparent cost was at best optimistic and at worst a downright lie as they are far more expensive to operate than the tender promised. The same "trick" that happened wth the Tigers, built by the same basic manufacturer and with virtually the same result.

Massive schedule blowouts, significantly greater support costs and supply difficulties and capability the Army can't use. Now the same tenderer expects ADF to believe all these problems have been magically overcome with NFH-90.

Except as we can see with the Netherlands, they haven't overcome that all, quite the opposite in fact and the Dutch have been forced into accepting a 'tiered' delivery schedule where they have a new helicopter flying basic flight training missions and their old Lynx helos flying much longer than intended. The same situation with our Blackhawks...

...In short, this whole Blackhawk over MRH-90 thing, I would prefer MRH-90. From a pure civilian perspective I would much definitely rather choose local rather than off the shelf in a multi billion dollar purchase (even if there were delays and cost blow outs.)

I'd prefer a helicopter that can do the job we need it to. I don't care who manufacturers it.

I'd rather a manufacture who has a demonstrated history of delivering capability with it's product, who can provide confirmed support costings and one who states that their package offered at least as much for 'local jobs' as it's rival...

I'd prefer a manufacturer actually be held to their promises and if they prove unable to do what they say they can, TWICE, then we shouldn't be giving them a third opportunity to take us to the cleaners...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think in hindsight we should have gone with the yanks on both counts, as by now we would have had something operationally ready, highly capable able to hook into the US supply chain, for realistically same outlay etc.

How much manufacturing is done in Australia anyhow, isn't it just local assembly of a knock down kit? I doubt we are making significant portions of the composite airframe here, which is the part we do want to actually do as carbon fibre and other advanced composite production is what we want to maintain Australia's competitive edge and true manufacturing capability. As it can be used in commerical component production, automotive, aerospace, etc. To be really efficent it needs to be done F-35 project style where people and countries specialise and make components in bulk for the whole project.

As I recall the lifts on the LHD's are big enough to move most helos with the rotors unfolded. So most of the time they can move moved around with rotors. In an all out mission in transit your might remove them, and then as you draw near assemble them and have them ready on deck.

We really should be choosing more marine capable stuff. I wonder if we should have gone with something like a Viper.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think in hindsight we should have gone with the yanks on both counts, as by now we would have had something operationally ready, highly capable able to hook into the US supply chain, for realistically same outlay etc.

How much manufacturing is done in Australia anyhow, isn't it just local assembly of a knock down kit? I doubt we are making significant portions of the composite airframe here, which is the part we do want to actually do as carbon fibre and other advanced composite production is what we want to maintain Australia's competitive edge and true manufacturing capability. As it can be used in commerical component production, automotive, aerospace, etc. To be really efficent it needs to be done F-35 project style where people and countries specialise and make components in bulk for the whole project.

As I recall the lifts on the LHD's are big enough to move most helos with the rotors unfolded. So most of the time they can move moved around with rotors. In an all out mission in transit your might remove them, and then as you draw near assemble them and have them ready on deck.

We really should be choosing more marine capable stuff. I wonder if we should have gone with something like a Viper.

We got offered a package of 40 AH-1W Super Cobras, along with a training, weapons and support package back in the early 90's for $150m.

We could have set up a local re-manufacturing capability and re-lifed and upgraded these to AH-1Z standard, gaining a fleet of 40, fully marinised and an (arguably) more capable armed helicopters in the process for a price that is likely several hundred million dollars less than we have paid for our fleet of 22 Tigers.

The AH-1Z has also recently reached FOC in the USMC, whilst we are still struggling to achieve IOC on our Tigers...

And we would have had a very useful AH-1W capability in-service in time for Timor and all the deployments since then, instead of relying on un-armed and non-sensor equipped Kiowas all that time...

Clearly this path was not an acceptable one to someone however...

 

[SASWanabe]

looks like were getting another 100 bushmasters

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Stephen Smith MP

 

[Kirkzzy]

We got offered a package of 40 AH-1W Super Cobras, along with a training, weapons and support package back in the early 90's for $150m.

We could have set up a local re-manufacturing capability and re-lifed and upgraded these to AH-1Z standard, gaining a fleet of 40, fully marinised and an (arguably) more capable armed helicopters in the process for a price that is likely several hundred million dollars less than we have paid for our fleet of 22 Tigers.

The AH-1Z has also recently reached FOC in the USMC, whilst we are still struggling to achieve IOC on our Tigers...

And we would have had a very useful AH-1W capability in-service in time for Timor and all the deployments since then, instead of relying on un-armed and non-sensor equipped Kiowas all that time...

Clearly this path was not an acceptable one to someone however...

Wow your kidding me. That would have effectively replaced the Kiowa's then and there. why didn't we take it?

 

[SASWanabe]

Wow your kidding me. That would have effectively replaced the Kiowa's then and there. why didn't we take it?

i would imagine because it was around the time we got K&M and found out the hazards of 2nd hand american gear....


tho if there was ever a time to just cancel the 90s and tigers to buy American now would be the time with our dollar as strong as it is atm.