Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

@Raven22 and @Takao The following is from the 2011 NZ Ministry of Defence Projects Report, pp 3/14 - 15.

So from that you can see my math was definitely off. You would be looking at 70 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH. Although I wonder now if the Sikorski S-92 may have been the better deal. Not the NZ capital cost for 9 NH90 was NZ$771 and of those 9 only 8 are flyable, the 9th being the spare parts bod. By the way these figures are for full aircraft availability, so @old faithful you would definitely need 70 Blackhawks for the same amount of lift of the 47 MRH are required to provide, not what you you are getting at the moment.

 

[John Fedup]

@Raven22 and @Takao The following is from the 2011 NZ Ministry of Defence Projects Report, pp 3/14 - 15.
View attachment 47713
So from that you can see my math was definitely off. You would be looking at 70 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH. Although I wonder now if the Sikorski S-92 may have been the better deal. Not the NZ capital cost for 9 NH90 was NZ$771 and of those 9 only 8 are flyable, the 9th being the spare parts bod. By the way these figures are for full aircraft availability, so @old faithful you would definitely need 70 Blackhawks for the same amount of lift of the 47 MRH are required to provide, not what you you are getting at the moment.

Did you mean the S-92 or its military version which is the basis for Canada’s C-148 Cyclone? The H-92 didn’t exist except on paper in 2006 and hadn’t progressed very much by 2011. I don’t believe Canada has received all 28 units yet after ordering them 15 years ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

Did you mean the S-92 or its military version which is the basis for Canada’s C-148 Cyclone? The H-92 didn’t exist except on paper in 2006 and hadn’t progressed very much by 2011. I don’t believe Canada has received all 28 units yet after ordering them 15 years ago.

The report states the military version.

 

[Takao]

@Raven22 and @Takao The following is from the 2011 NZ Ministry of Defence Projects Report, pp 3/14 - 15.

So from that you can see my math was definitely off. You would be looking at 70 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH. Although I wonder now if the Sikorski S-92 may have been the better deal. Not the NZ capital cost for 9 NH90 was NZ$771 and of those 9 only 8 are flyable, the 9th being the spare parts bod. By the way these figures are for full aircraft availability, so @old faithful you would definitely need 70 Blackhawks for the same amount of lift of the 47 MRH are required to provide, not what you you are getting at the moment.

That's very interesting. Thank you.

Without getting too specific, allowing for servicibility and the like, I would expect a similar number of airframes to be purchased with negliable impact on the wider Army. But I am going to try and remember to ask one of our NZ LO's to try and grab the data behind that.

 

[Raven22]

@Raven22 and @Takao The following is from the 2011 NZ Ministry of Defence Projects Report, pp 3/14 - 15.
View attachment 47713
So from that you can see my math was definitely off. You would be looking at 70 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH. Although I wonder now if the Sikorski S-92 may have been the better deal. Not the NZ capital cost for 9 NH90 was NZ$771 and of those 9 only 8 are flyable, the 9th being the spare parts bod. By the way these figures are for full aircraft availability, so @old faithful you would definitely need 70 Blackhawks for the same amount of lift of the 47 MRH are required to provide, not what you you are getting at the moment.

I’m not sure using numbers from a ten year old New Zealand procurement document going to add much to the discussion. Australia has had both the Blackhawk and MRH in service for more than a decade - I think we have a pretty thorough handle on the numbers. Besides, most of the issue is that the numbers provided by Eurocopter (and that are included in that NZ procurement document) having proven to be wrong.

For example, the real world payload of the MRH-90 is very different to what it says on the box. You can fit 20 seats or whatever it is in there, however that means you can’t use door guns, can’t carry a realistic load of personal equipment and you would only be able to carry enough fuel to fly around the LZ and then land again. If you set up both a Blackhawk and an MRH for a normal combat air assault mission, you would find the payload advantages of the MRH all but disappear.

Plus, experience has shown availability rates for the MRH-90 to be far below both expectations and requirements. 30 year old Blackhawks that have had their service lives extended and have almost no sustainment funding left are putting up better numbers. As a result, if you bought 47 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH, you would be buying more real world capability, not less (there’s just that nasty issue of funding).

 

[ADMk2]

My understanding is replacing the MRH-90 is the role of next generation rotorcraft project.

The other projects however provide immediate capability and Apache aside, are likely to be based on a similar platform with variants acquired that fit the services / roles needed...

 

[swerve]

.... experience has shown availability rates for the MRH-90 to be far below both expectations and requirements. 30 year old Blackhawks that have had their service lives extended and have almost no sustainment funding left are putting up better numbers. As a result, if you bought 47 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH, you would be buying more real world capability, not less (there’s just that nasty issue of funding).

What causes the serviceability problems with the MRH90? Is it something that can be corrected?

 

[Raven22]

What causes the serviceability problems with the MRH90? Is it something that can be corrected?

It’s well outside my area of expertise, but the short answer is it’s complicated. Perhaps in answer to your second point though, if there was an easy solution to the problem it would have been found by now. Despite mountains of cash being thrown at the problem, serviceability is still poor. As time goes on, it will inevitably improve, however even the best forecasts have serviceability never going beyond barely adequate.

This is the biggest problem with the MRH taking on CT duties with 6 Avn. Obviously, the CT duties come with very stringent availability requirements - there must be a certain number of helicopters available 24/7. As a result, with the poor serviceability of the MRH, 6 Avn needs about a million MRH airframes on strength to ensure that the availability requirements can be met. Hence one reason for the push to obtain new Blackhawks for 6 Avn (the other reason being capability, obviously). The Blackhawk would be able to maintain the required availability rates with far fewer airframes.

New Blackhawks for 6 Avn (and replacing the Navy’s MRHs with something else) would also go along way to solving the availability issues at 5 Avn. That way the entire fleet of MRHs (minus the training fleet) could be concentrated at 5 Avn, and therefore the poor individual serviceability of the aircraft could be offset by simply having far more of them on strength, so availability targets can still be met. It would still be very expensive to sustain the capability, but far cheaper than replacing the entire fleet with Blackhawks.

I should add, I have no inside information of what is actually happening (or else I wouldn’t be commenting) but I know where I would be placing my bets if it came to it.

 

[old faithful]

@Raven22 and @Takao The following is from the 2011 NZ Ministry of Defence Projects Report, pp 3/14 - 15.
View attachment 47713
So from that you can see my math was definitely off. You would be looking at 70 Blackhawks to replace 47 MRH. Although I wonder now if the Sikorski S-92 may have been the better deal. Not the NZ capital cost for 9 NH90 was NZ$771 and of those 9 only 8 are flyable, the 9th being the spare parts bod. By the way these figures are for full aircraft availability, so @old faithful you would definitely need 70 Blackhawks for the same amount of lift of the 47 MRH are required to provide, not what you you are getting at the moment.

No offence, but it seems that the requirements set out from the start were aimed at the NH90!
If you had 47 Blackhawks, and 40 were available, and 47 NH 90's and 30 were available, then the blackhawk wins in my books.

 

[Raven22]

No offence, but it seems that the requirements set out from the start were aimed at the NH90!
If you had 47 Blackhawks, and 40 were available, and 47 NH 90's and 30 were available, then the blackhawk wins in my books.

I don’t think the requirement was written for the NH-90, I think it’s more a case of they simply took Eurocopter at their word (just like Australia).

It‘s interesting to read later in those same NZDF reports that “current analysis suggests one NH90 will be able to move up to 12 laden combat troops” and that to lift a platoon of 27 soldiers “it is expected that three NH90 helicopters will be required to complete this task.” If an NH90 can only lift 12 fully equipped troops and a UH-60M can lift 11, it hardly supports the analysis that you need ~50% more Blackhawks to achieve the same lift requirements.

 

[Shanesworld]

I don’t think the requirement was written for the NH-90, I think it’s more a case of they simply took Eurocopter at their word (just like Australia).

It‘s interesting to read later in those same NZDF reports that “current analysis suggests one NH90 will be able to move up to 12 laden combat troops” and that to lift a platoon of 27 soldiers “it is expected that three NH90 helicopters will be required to complete this task.” If an NH90 can only lift 12 fully equipped troops and a UH-60M can lift 11, it hardly supports the analysis that you need ~50% more Blackhawks to achieve the same lift requirements.

My understanding is 20k an hour versus 7k an hour puts them in a different class. I've sat in them tooled up with 9 other guys and have no belief whatsoever the would carry 20 people or 12 soldiers and gear.

 

[SteveR]

The current FVL is not an Apache replacement, it's a Kiowa replacement. There are 5 parts to FVL (Kiowa, Apache, Black Hawk, Chinook, Heavy) and they are happening along separate timelines. The Apache replacement is likely to be the 3rd or 4th one brought online - probably 25 - 30 years away.

My own quibble - my link from Defence News (and also elsewhere that I cannot now source) has the following statement:

"FARA will fill a critical capability gap currently being filled by AH-64E Apache attack helicopters teamed with Shadow unmanned aircraft following the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters."

It appears the Apache was only a temporary replacement in the reconnaissance role once performed by Kiowa and the big non-stealthy Apache does not match the agile and covert observation and targeting capability once provided by Kiowa - and here in Australia by Tiger. In Iraq a flight of Apaches was ambushed at Najaf with the following article adding some comment on its vulnerability:

Ambush at Najaf | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Was it just poor tactics or some deeper problem that caused the failed Apache mission?

www.airforcemag.com

 

[ADMk2]

My own quibble - my link from Defence News (and also elsewhere that I cannot now source) has the following statement:

"FARA will fill a critical capability gap currently being filled by AH-64E Apache attack helicopters teamed with Shadow unmanned aircraft following the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters."

It appears the Apache was only a temporary replacement in the reconnaissance role once performed by Kiowa and the big non-stealthy Apache does not match the agile and covert observation and targeting capability once provided by Kiowa - and here in Australia by Tiger. In Iraq a flight of Apaches was ambushed at Najaf with the following article adding some comment on its vulnerability:

Ambush at Najaf | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Was it just poor tactics or some deeper problem that caused the failed Apache mission?

www.airforcemag.com

Apache is 98cm longer and 4cm higher than the Tiger... Comparative size is obviously a big issue... And these “stealthy” helicopters eh? Hilarious...

As for comparative targetting capability, I’d love to see someone explain how M-TADS - EO/IR + Longbow Radar + radar interferometer, somehow provides less targetting capability than the sole Strix sight fitted to the Tiger that isn’t even sufficiently capable to employ the full stand-off range of it’s primary weapon - the Hellfire...

Should make an interesting read...

 

[Takao]

My own quibble - my link from Defence News (and also elsewhere that I cannot now source) has the following statement:

"FARA will fill a critical capability gap currently being filled by AH-64E Apache attack helicopters teamed with Shadow unmanned aircraft following the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters."

It appears the Apache was only a temporary replacement in the reconnaissance role once performed by Kiowa and the big non-stealthy Apache does not match the agile and covert observation and targeting capability once provided by Kiowa - and here in Australia by Tiger. In Iraq a flight of Apaches was ambushed at Najaf with the following article adding some comment on its vulnerability:

Ambush at Najaf | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Was it just poor tactics or some deeper problem that caused the failed Apache mission?

www.airforcemag.com

Not a quibble - you are correct. The AH-64/Shadow has replaced the OH-58D in the recce role and the first of the FVL projects will replace that. But then the AH-64s go back to their original role, the heavier attack helicopter (which will be the third tranche of FVL).

The OH-58D / Tiger are better reconnaissance platforms than an AH-64A. Physically, the Apache airframe is less suited to the role than the Tiger airframe. But if you have to chose only one airframe, then it becomes more about other aspects than just the reconnaissance role. And these other aspects will probably be weighed more than a simple recce test.....

 

[ngatimozart]

My understanding is 20k an hour versus 7k an hour puts them in a different class. I've sat in them tooled up with 9 other guys and have no belief whatsoever the would carry 20 people or 12 soldiers and gear.

Well I supposed that they are built for those small guys from Europe and not us Maori and Polynesians built like brick dunnies.

What causes the serviceability problems with the MRH90? Is it something that can be corrected?

Actually it would be interesting to compare serviceability rates between the RNZAF and the Aussie Army Aviation over say a five year period. A compare and and contrast analysis would be great. Both are in the NH90 users group.

 

[vonnoobie]

.

Actually it would be interesting to compare serviceability rates between the RNZAF and the Aussie Army Aviation over say a five year period. A compare and and contrast analysis would be great. Both are in the NH90 users group.

Don't imagine it will be much different to to European nations. Norway can't use their tactical ones for tactical missions, can't land their navalized ones on their ships, Sweden no better, Germany often has reports showing 80% the fleet not functionable and Belgium has slashed use of theirs by 40% do to availability and upgrade costs oh and all of them slow to get spares from the NH consortium even in Europe. We at the a** end of the world so even worse off.

Smartest thing NZ did was buy one purely for spares.

 

[Shanesworld]

.


Don't imagine it will be much different to to European nations. Norway can't use their tactical ones for tactical missions, can't land their navalized ones on their ships, Sweden no better, Germany often has reports showing 80% the fleet not functionable and Belgium has slashed use of theirs by 40% do to availability and upgrade costs oh and all of them slow to get spares from the NH consortium even in Europe. We at the a** end of the world so even worse off.

Smartest thing NZ did was buy one purely for spares.

Just to point out that both 1r and 2/1 of nz army are at STILL below critical manning levels so their training requirements from the rnzaf are much reduced.

 

[Volkodav]

Apache is 98cm longer and 4cm higher than the Tiger... Comparative size is obviously a big issue... And these “stealthy” helicopters eh? Hilarious...

As for comparative targetting capability, I’d love to see someone explain how M-TADS - EO/IR + Longbow Radar + radar interferometer, somehow provides less targetting capability than the sole Strix sight fitted to the Tiger that isn’t even sufficiently capable to employ the full stand-off range of it’s primary weapon - the Hellfire...

Should make an interesting read...

Word is US Army aviation are not exactly enamoured with the Guardian (AH-64E), its availability, support costs, even some aspects of its capability and would prefer something like the Tiger in the scout / cav role. The maintainers in particular apparently have issues with the Guardian. Note that the USMC have consistently gone for improved and upgraded AH-1s over Apache, procurement cost is a factor, but sustainment, availability and costs are probably a bigger issue.

I wonder if another factor is when you have dozens of aircraft to generate the required sorties lower availability is worth the capability, but when you only have a small fleet and small numbers deployed on board ships etc. availability becomes critical as you don't have the spare airframes, extra stores and larger numbers of maintainers.

I have nothing in concrete but whispers around the aviation world is Guardian might face similar issues to the MRH, great when it works but a maintenance hog with patchy availability, especially in small fleets.

 

[ADMk2]

Word is US Army aviation are not exactly enamoured with the Guardian (AH-64E), its availability, support costs, even some aspects of its capability and would prefer something like the Tiger in the scout / cav role. The maintainers in particular apparently have issues with the Guardian. Note that the USMC have consistently gone for improved and upgraded AH-1s over Apache, procurement cost is a factor, but sustainment, availability and costs are probably a bigger issue.

I wonder if another factor is when you have dozens of aircraft to generate the required sorties lower availability is worth the capability, but when you only have a small fleet and small numbers deployed on board ships etc. availability becomes critical as you don't have the spare airframes, extra stores and larger numbers of maintainers.

I have nothing in concrete but whispers around the aviation world is Guardian might face similar issues to the MRH, great when it works but a maintenance hog with patchy availability, especially in small fleets.

I’m sure that is something Army is looking at. I’m sure the other 9 current international users besides the US Army are also aware of any issues with it. They are certainly selling like hotcakes for all the alleged issues with the platform with more than 500 aircraft already delivered, whilst 1 of the 4 Tiger users are walking away from it, and no-one else lining up for it...

 

[Volkodav]

I’m sure that is something Army is looking at. I’m sure the other 9 current international users besides the US Army are also aware of any issues with it. They are certainly selling like hotcakes for all the alleged issues with the platform with more than 500 aircraft already delivered, whilst 1 of the 4 Tiger users are walking away from it, and no-one else lining up for it...

If the ADF were going for a heavy attack helo to equip multiple attack helicopter battalions tasked to wipe out attacking armoured brigades the Guardian would be my top choice. If they were aiming to, do as the US Army have done, use an existing attack platform to provide an interim attack reconnaissance capability, by all means use existing Apaches. Neither is the case, a political decision from a couple of years ago, based on even older and now totally outdated information, was made to replace what was seen as an irredeemable failed procurement.

Inertia is pretty much the main reason this replacement is still going ahead. Just like Kocums weren't considered for the submarine replacement, Tiger is not being considered for upgrade. The ADF is after a networked reconnaissance platform with a substantial attack capability, an upgraded Tiger meets this requirement and an additional seven airframes.