ADF, and currently in the majority of cases 99.9% tri-serviceWho is the primary driver for establishing Conops government or ADF?
ADF, and currently in the majority of cases 99.9% tri-serviceWho is the primary driver for establishing Conops government or ADF?
there's no one for one replacementI am not sure we have enough helicopters for our current fleet ... Particularly after the Adelaide enters service next year.
Just curious, I thought we got +1 MRH-90, as compensation (essentially x7 outside the AA sqdn 'pool')? Wonder if this is airframe is operational or did we use this as a supply parts/ attrition platform?..far more simpler and cost effective too, to add a couple more airframes of the 'same' type as is already in use, eg MRH-90?
I'll answer the NFH / NH90 questions. The MRH is basically a marinised NH90 TTH with some Aussie specific items. The NFH is the NATO Frigate Helicopter which is the NHI "equivalent" of the MH60R. In a utility role, IF it is determined that extra helos are required for the role, AND it is determined that the current pool of 46 is not enough to cover all required roles, then it would make practical sense to order another tranche of the MRH. That way you are not introducing a new type into service, so that has taken care of your Q4.Question..
1. How big are the differences between the MH-60R and MH-60S?
2. How big are the differences between the NFH (NH-90) and TTH?
3. Is the TTH adequate in naval operations? (Im talking about deployed aboard a ship for a full deployment) or would a navalized variant be more suitable?
4. If a navalized variant is more suitable then a general purpose helicopter then is the MH-60S or NFH better?
As I understood it at the time it was announced, the '47th' airframe that was provided as compensation is not actually a 'flying' example, it's basically a ground based trainer, if someone else has any info to the contrary, let me know.Just curious, I thought we got +1 MRH-90, as compensation (essentially x7 outside the AA sqdn 'pool')? Wonder if this is airframe is operational or did we use this as a supply parts/ attrition platform?
Agreed with keeping number of types down.
Cheers John. I just checked ADF serials and you could be right.As I understood it at the time it was announced, the '47th' airframe that was provided as compensation is not actually a 'flying' example, it's basically a ground based trainer, if someone else has any info to the contrary, let me know.
Sort of like the 'Bromeo' example that the RAN has obtained as a ground and instructional trainer for the 24 'active' MH-60R's.
As best I know, there are (or will be), 46 'active' MRH-90 examples, nominally 6 for Navy and 40 for Army out of the combined pool of airframes.
Question? - Answer, as has been said by many people here on DT over the years "Google is your friend, use it" Do a bit or research and you can find a lot of answers to many questions, not always 100% accurate, but if you look at enough web articles, you can generally get the picture, ok?Question..
1. How big are the differences between the MH-60R and MH-60S?
2. How big are the differences between the NFH (NH-90) and TTH?
3. Is the TTH adequate in naval operations? (Im talking about deployed aboard a ship for a full deployment) or would a navalized variant be more suitable?
4. If a navalized variant is more suitable then a general purpose helicopter then is the MH-60S or NFH better?
I wasn't aware that our bird's were marinised, Thanks for clearing that up for me. That being the case then it would make more sense to order a larger fleet of MRH-90's as they could fill the naval requirements (if needed) and cost saving's would be greater in operating a larger fleet of MRH-90's then two medium fleets of three differing variants..I'll answer the NFH / NH90 questions. The MRH is basically a marinised NH90 TTH with some Aussie specific items. The NFH is the NATO Frigate Helicopter which is the NHI "equivalent" of the MH60R. In a utility role, IF it is determined that extra helos are required for the role, AND it is determined that the current pool of 47 is not enough to cover all required roles, then it would make practical sense to order another tranche of the MRH. That way you are not introducing a new type into service, so that has taken care of your Q4.
However this is all really moot because there are far too many unknowns in the public domain at present for any of us to really have any informed discussion on what may or may not happen.
I'm not 100% sure (put it this way, I wouldn't bet my left nut!), but from memory at the time when it announced that we were getting that 47th airframe, I'm sure it was reported that it was to be a 'ground/instructional' airframe, not an active airframe (again, similar to the Bromeo airframe).Cheers John. I just checked ADF serials and you could be right.
That's not compensation IMV, tight buggers!
the danger is in doing a frame per frame comparison.In regards to the number's, To me does seem to be our fleet of choppers is shrinking when the roles that are being used for is increasing seeing as we are having 47 MRH-90's replace 12 UH-1's, 8? Westland Sea Kings and 35 Black Hawks..
Mate, up until recently I used to think exactly the same thing, give those 6 airframes to the Army (gives them a bigger pool) and the Navy can get 6 or so MH-60S to fill the utility role, all seemed to make sense to me too.The MH-60R and MH-60S have common cockpits and engines.
Gift the MRH-90 helicopters that the Navy owns to the ARMY and buy some Sierra's for the navy i say
Yes, but the MRH / NH90 has a greater lift capacity than the Blackhawk and Iroquois hence the numbers of helos required for the lift capacity that those helos provided is less.I wasn't aware that our bird's were marinised, Thanks for clearing that up for me. That being the case then it would make more sense to order a larger fleet of MRH-90's as they could fill the naval requirements (if needed) and cost saving's would be greater in operating a larger fleet of MRH-90's then two medium fleets of three differing variants..
In regards to the number's, To me does seem to be our fleet of choppers is shrinking when the roles that are being used for is increasing seeing as we are having 47 MRH-90's replace 12 UH-1's, 8? Westland Sea Kings and 35 Black Hawks..
NG, great example mate!Yes, but the MRH / NH90 has a greater lift capacity than the Blackhawk and Iroquois hence the numbers of helos required for the lift capacity that those helos provided is less.
Do you think the ADF gets better capability from one frame type ?someone has worked out that there are better efficiencies in going to one frame (type) over multiple frames (types) etc,,
I did look at the and on one hand it does make sense, I got stumped though when looking at the very first order which was a one for one replacement of the UH-1's with the MRH-90's.. Oh well, I'll just accept it for what it is.Yes, but the MRH / NH90 has a greater lift capacity than the Blackhawk and Iroquois hence the numbers of helos required for the lift capacity that those helos provided is less.
it's not always the magic pudding answer for all acquisition, but in aviation (esp transport) you can realise some decent efficienciesDo you think the ADF gets better capability from one frame type ?
the tiger is a good example of the services preferred choice not getting up. apache was the better choice. i suspect the polluting hand of industry seducing local politicians overselling state based benefitWhen we look at the MRH-90 i assumed we would have selected the NFH but instead went with the Romeo. The Tiger was selected because it has alot of common systems the MRH-90 had. Now the ARH is a bit of an orphaned fleet.Rumors have it we may go for an Apache over a mid life upgrade of the ARH.
Kiowas will soon be retired with talk of some kiowa squadrons getting Blackhawks.
I can understand the logic of having a common fleet ,for a small defence force as the ADF ,but it seems reality has set a different course .
Good to see you back GF
great example - and also gets back to the issue that for RAAF to get those frames they ran the same argument on efficiencies in front of the steering committee (which is chaired by central agencies and is a tough nut to crack)NG, great example mate!
Another example of that is the RAAF's C-17A's and comparing them to C-130's.
Depending on how it's measured (volume and/or payload), it been reported that the C-17A's have between three to four times the capacity/capability of the C-130's, if that's the case the soon to be fleet of eight (8) C-17A's are the equivalent of between 24 and 32 C-130's!!!
Sort of puts it in perspective??
thats one of the things that body count comparisons just don't getYes, but the MRH / NH90 has a greater lift capacity than the Blackhawk and Iroquois hence the numbers of helos required for the lift capacity that those helos provided is less.
Thanks GF!great example - and also gets back to the issue that for RAAF to get those frames they ran the same argument on efficiencies in front of the steering committee (which is chaired by central agencies and is a tough nut to crack)
RAAF were prepared to cull hercs to get the 17's - and meant additional savings
add in the fact that thet ran the dual use argument also made them come out winners