Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Trackmaster

Member
From News Ltd today. The entire MRH 90 fleet grounded, and reading between the lines, does it mean there were a significant number of aircraft flying with compromised components.
Is this a short term problem...long term problem and does it relate to that fleeting story referred to above in ABDR that talked about a Blackhawk order and a top-up Seahawk order?

"Defence insiders claim the Australian Army’s Taipan helicopters are “no longer safe to fly”, revealing “potentially catastrophic” maintenance issues behind their suspension.
The MRH-90 Taipan fleet is used to transport troops and provide fire protection during special operations and counter-terrorism missions. But the entire fleet has been out of action and grounded since the beginning of June.
Australia’s defence department confirmed an investigation has been launched into the reasons behind the maintenance faults, suspending 47 helicopters from flying as a “precaution”.
“Defence has temporarily suspended flying operations of the MRH-90 helicopter fleet,” a defence spokesman said.
“The fleet was suspended as a safety precaution. The issue relates to the application of the helicopter’s maintenance policy in the helicopter’s IT support system.
“Defence and Airbus Australia Pacific are currently working collaboratively to remediate this issue.”
The Army’s MRH-90 Taipan fleet has been deemed ‘no longer safe to fly’.
Speaking to news.com.au on the grounds of anonymity, multiple MRH-90 trained aviators claimed the cause of data mismatches was far worse than a software glitch.
“The aircraft transmission is required to undergo a complete overhaul on every second major servicing,” an insider said.
“That is meant to occur by Airbus in France but there is a global transmissions shortage so they’ve been rotating spare parts and refitting them as zero hours.
“That means there are aircraft flying as if they’re brand new which is a huge issue because there’s no accurate way of ensuring its safety.
“Obviously Defence isn’t getting what they paid for, but a main transmission failure is potentially catastrophic.”
The MRH-90 Taipan helicopters are used to transport troops and provide fire protection during special operations and counter-terrorism missions.
MRH-90 Taipan helicopters no longer being used
A Defence spokesman confirmed members of Townsville-based 5 Aviation Regiment were no longer expected to be flying the MRH-90 Taipan in Australia’s largest bilateral war games with the US, after also missing out on this week’s Exercise Sea Explorer.
The spokesman said army and navy aviation would “continue to support their exercise and operational commitments with Tiger, Chinook, Black Hawk and Sea Hawk helicopters”.
The latest incident comes as defence officials concede a fault found in one of the helicopters in 2019 amid serious concerns about the tail rotor blades – when it was on its way to pick up the Australian Defence Force chief, Angus Campbell – could have led to “catastrophic consequences” if left unfixed.
A spokesperson for Airbus Helicopters said it is working closely with Australia to resolve the situation and end the suspension as soon as possible. They said the integrity and safety of the MRH-90 fleet and the members of the ADF operating them remain their priority.
Townsville-based 5 Aviation Regiment missed out on Exercise Sea Explorer.
Taipan brought in to replace Black Hawk
The Taipan was introduced into the army and navy in 2004 as a replacement for the Black Hawk helicopter which was expected to begin being phased out from August this year. The navy has already moved to offload its share of the aircraft to the army due to lack of spare parts availability and running costs.
Defence sources say that was now unlikely given the Sydney-based 6 Aviation Regiment was already experiencing delays in incorporating the Taipan into its dedicated special forces support role.
“Defence has already begun advertising to sell off Black Hawk which are due to be gone by the end of the year so that leaves no troop airlift capability for Special Operations Command,” the source said.
“That has massive implications on our Special Forces to deliver a counter-terrorism capability domestically.”
Previous figures provided by the Defence Department estimates the total cost of the MRH-90 Taipan program will be $15 billion by the time the helicopters are due to be withdrawn from service in 2037, including $3.7 billion for the purchase and $11.3 billion to sustain them.
Defence has also begun flying two Leonardo AW139 helicopters in Townsville after a contract was signed to lease from Helicorp, known as Toll Helicopters, as an interim measure to ensure pilots remain up to date with flight hours.
“The total cost of the contract, until June 30, 2023, is $37 million,” the department said in questions on notice from Senate estimates hearings earlier this year."

@Trackmaster Can you provide a link to the source as per the rules.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Wow.
The whole euro copter experiment seems to be a nightmare. Tigers.....now Taipans. Both had problems from the start and both were continuously tinkered with to bring them up to speed. Both deleyed entering service. Sell em to Canada and buy proven platforms that work!
Just imagine if they had of bought Apache's and new build Blackhawks in the first place....
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Wow.
The whole euro copter experiment seems to be a nightmare. Tigers.....now Taipans. Both had problems from the start and both were continuously tinkered with to bring them up to speed. Both deleyed entering service. Sell em to Canada and buy proven platforms that work!
Just imagine if they had of bought Apache's and new build Blackhawks in the first place....
Been saying it for years, Tiger is not the problem and not the platform that needed to be replaced.

It took time, and a lot of extra cash, but Tiger made it, I still believe whatever we bought would have had issues as the CoA was not a very smart customer in the 2000s. MRH on the other hand, has never performed anywhere near required or contracted levels.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ADBR's story on the MRH-90 grounding. If it's because of spares unavailability then I think that given the amount of time that the Army has had the MRH-90 they should have sorted out a short term solution to mitigate the spares problem, even if it meant cannibalising some airframes to keep the rest flying.

The other question is how much has the Australisation of the MRH-90, and the Tiger, contributed to the problems that the Army are having with them. Also they tended to go rip shit and bust with the assembly of them in Brisbane and that didn't help either. Are others in the NH90 users group having the same problems as the Army, or is it a uniquely Australian issue? The Army doesn't appear to have anywhere near the availability rate of the RNZAF for the type (72%) so why aren't the RNZAF having the same problems? The French have been using their's in Mali apparently without the same issues either so that begs the question of where the fault and failure actually lies.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Wow.
The whole euro copter experiment seems to be a nightmare. Tigers.....now Taipans. Both had problems from the start and both were continuously tinkered with to bring them up to speed. Both deleyed entering service. Sell em to Canada and buy proven platforms that work!
Just imagine if they had of bought Apache's and new build Blackhawks in the first place....
It has taken almost 30 years to sort Canada’s helicopter fleets. CH-147 and CH-149 are ok and CH-148 seems to be out of the woods now. Euro users are the likely market for Australia’s Taipans unless customization has buggered them.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Wow.
The whole euro copter experiment seems to be a nightmare. Tigers.....now Taipans. Both had problems from the start and both were continuously tinkered with to bring them up to speed. Both deleyed entering service. Sell em to Canada and buy proven platforms that work!
Just imagine if they had of bought Apache's and new build Blackhawks in the first place....
Yeah well... 20/20 hindsight is always a marvellous thing.

But let’s not forget the start of the Tiger procurement process is more that 20 years ago, the AH-64E Apache of today is not the AH-64 of 20 years ago.

And if I remember correctly the same can be said for Blackhawk too, not the UH-60M of today, maybe it was the L model (or earlier?).

Despite the very clear failings of Tiger and Taipan, I’ve always been impressed with them purely as ‘aircraft’.

Anyway, what could have been?

Cheers,
 

Trackmaster

Member
From News Ltd today. The entire MRH 90 fleet grounded, and reading between the lines, does it mean there were a significant number of aircraft flying with compromised components.
Is this a short term problem...long term problem and does it relate to that fleeting story referred to above in ABDR that talked about a Blackhawk order and a top-up Seahawk order?

"Defence insiders claim the Australian Army’s Taipan helicopters are “no longer safe to fly”, revealing “potentially catastrophic” maintenance issues behind their suspension.
The MRH-90 Taipan fleet is used to transport troops and provide fire protection during special operations and counter-terrorism missions. But the entire fleet has been out of action and grounded since the beginning of June.
Australia’s defence department confirmed an investigation has been launched into the reasons behind the maintenance faults, suspending 47 helicopters from flying as a “precaution”.
“Defence has temporarily suspended flying operations of the MRH-90 helicopter fleet,” a defence spokesman said.
“The fleet was suspended as a safety precaution. The issue relates to the application of the helicopter’s maintenance policy in the helicopter’s IT support system.
“Defence and Airbus Australia Pacific are currently working collaboratively to remediate this issue.”
The Army’s MRH-90 Taipan fleet has been deemed ‘no longer safe to fly’.
Speaking to news.com.au on the grounds of anonymity, multiple MRH-90 trained aviators claimed the cause of data mismatches was far worse than a software glitch.
“The aircraft transmission is required to undergo a complete overhaul on every second major servicing,” an insider said.
“That is meant to occur by Airbus in France but there is a global transmissions shortage so they’ve been rotating spare parts and refitting them as zero hours.
“That means there are aircraft flying as if they’re brand new which is a huge issue because there’s no accurate way of ensuring its safety.
“Obviously Defence isn’t getting what they paid for, but a main transmission failure is potentially catastrophic.”
The MRH-90 Taipan helicopters are used to transport troops and provide fire protection during special operations and counter-terrorism missions.
MRH-90 Taipan helicopters no longer being used
A Defence spokesman confirmed members of Townsville-based 5 Aviation Regiment were no longer expected to be flying the MRH-90 Taipan in Australia’s largest bilateral war games with the US, after also missing out on this week’s Exercise Sea Explorer.
The spokesman said army and navy aviation would “continue to support their exercise and operational commitments with Tiger, Chinook, Black Hawk and Sea Hawk helicopters”.
The latest incident comes as defence officials concede a fault found in one of the helicopters in 2019 amid serious concerns about the tail rotor blades – when it was on its way to pick up the Australian Defence Force chief, Angus Campbell – could have led to “catastrophic consequences” if left unfixed.
A spokesperson for Airbus Helicopters said it is working closely with Australia to resolve the situation and end the suspension as soon as possible. They said the integrity and safety of the MRH-90 fleet and the members of the ADF operating them remain their priority.
Townsville-based 5 Aviation Regiment missed out on Exercise Sea Explorer.
Taipan brought in to replace Black Hawk
The Taipan was introduced into the army and navy in 2004 as a replacement for the Black Hawk helicopter which was expected to begin being phased out from August this year. The navy has already moved to offload its share of the aircraft to the army due to lack of spare parts availability and running costs.
Defence sources say that was now unlikely given the Sydney-based 6 Aviation Regiment was already experiencing delays in incorporating the Taipan into its dedicated special forces support role.
“Defence has already begun advertising to sell off Black Hawk which are due to be gone by the end of the year so that leaves no troop airlift capability for Special Operations Command,” the source said.
“That has massive implications on our Special Forces to deliver a counter-terrorism capability domestically.”
Previous figures provided by the Defence Department estimates the total cost of the MRH-90 Taipan program will be $15 billion by the time the helicopters are due to be withdrawn from service in 2037, including $3.7 billion for the purchase and $11.3 billion to sustain them.
Defence has also begun flying two Leonardo AW139 helicopters in Townsville after a contract was signed to lease from Helicorp, known as Toll Helicopters, as an interim measure to ensure pilots remain up to date with flight hours.
“The total cost of the contract, until June 30, 2023, is $37 million,” the department said in questions on notice from Senate estimates hearings earlier this year."

@Trackmaster Can you provide a link to the source as per the rules.

Ngatimozart.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
ADBR's story on the MRH-90 grounding. If it's because of spares unavailability then I think that given the amount of time that the Army has had the MRH-90 they should have sorted out a short term solution to mitigate the spares problem, even if it meant cannibalising some airframes to keep the rest flying.

The other question is how much has the Australisation of the MRH-90, and the Tiger, contributed to the problems that the Army are having with them. Also they tended to go rip shit and bust with the assembly of them in Brisbane and that didn't help either. Are others in the NH90 users group having the same problems as the Army, or is it a uniquely Australian issue? The Army doesn't appear to have anywhere near the availability rate of the RNZAF for the type (72%) so why aren't the RNZAF having the same problems? The French have been using their's inand while Mali apparently without the same issues either so that begs the question of where the fault and failure actually lies.

Ngatimozart,
Thanks for some good questions.
I don't have the answers and trust someone does.
For once and for all I'd like to know fact from fiction for the MRH-90.
I like the platform and want it to work, however you cannot have such consistent unreliability in any key defence systems and not have concerns
Both Army and Navy are compromised while other helicopter types can provide a band aid, this is not a long term solution.
We have had Taipan for some time now.
At this stage we should be comfortable with the aircraft and how it both works and performs.
We should at this stage also be comfortable that it is reliable to do what it is meant to do.
Missing out on two major defence exercises is not acceptable.

The answer

Get it right or get moving on a substitute.
Either way make a decision to get a reliable capability up and running.


Regards S
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
In regards to NZ with their availability rate how much has that benefited from them buying an entire aircraft to use just as a parts source?

Outside of France and NZ it seems most are having issues with availability. I'm thinking it's less on our end and more on the French end. They can't keep up with anyone's maintenance requirements.

Realistically if we want to save it we need to go and buy a half dozen or more airframes as a parts pool and set up for local maintenance on it all just as we have done with our Abrams etc.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting that the articles suggested maintenance system issues because many of the ADF side systems were actually due to be replaced with SAP a couple of years back but I believe this has been pushed into the future some way.

My understanding is the legacy defence systems, many relying on flash etc. were expected to be encountering major supportability issues by now. Depends if the issue is with the defence systems, the contractor systems, or the interface between them.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My observations of the NH 90 family, since being peripherally involved in Air 9000 Phase 2, 4 and 6 some 15 years ago, is that most operators have had problems at some point; but that the problems related mainly to early production aircraft (particularly in the case of Germany) where it appears that the initial configuration wasn't particularly stable, or to the early stages of the aircraft's introduction into the country's inventory (Norway, the Netherlands, Finland are examples). In the latter cases these seem largely to have been related to problems in the logistics chain, unfamiliarity with the needs of a composite air frame, and difficulties with (surprise, surprise) software management. Those problems are some of those which have affected the Australian aircraft; but in the case of the European operators, at least they seem to have been overcome more quickly that we have been able to do. Some of that could potentially be geographically related; our flying environment and regimes tend to be harsher than those experienced around much of Europe. OK, we don't get as much ice and snow but dust, heat, humidity and long distances make up for that.

But one would think that after 10 years or so we should just about have had it sorted - and talking to people who have been flying them, admittedly only for Navy, suggested that they thought it had been so this is a bit of left field. OTOH, military helicopter fleets of all nations occasionally experience suspensions from flying when an issue is discovered and the nature of military flying is that it can take a long period of service before some problems become obvious. This may be one of those; and I'd certainly take any reporting coming out of the News stable on Defence (or most other subjects for that matter) with a grain of salt.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In regards to NZ with their availability rate how much has that benefited from them buying an entire aircraft to use just as a parts source?

Outside of France and NZ it seems most are having issues with availability. I'm thinking it's less on our end and more on the French end. They can't keep up with anyone's maintenance requirements.

Realistically if we want to save it we need to go and buy a half dozen or more airframes as a parts pool and set up for local maintenance on it all just as we have done with our Abrams etc.
WRT the RNZAF I would suspect that the extra aircraft as a spares source has a lot to do with it. When they had the lightning strike on the rotor blades of the helo in-flight a few years ago they replaced the blades and other systems with those of the extra helo whilst ordering replacement parts at the same time. They also ordered a supply of commonly used parts as part of the initial acquisition. Interestingly enough that lightning strike was the first recorded one on a NH90 anywhere.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
WRT the RNZAF I would suspect that the extra aircraft as a spares source has a lot to do with it. When they had the lightning strike on the rotor blades of the helo in-flight a few years ago they replaced the blades and other systems with those of the extra helo whilst ordering replacement parts at the same time. They also ordered a supply of commonly used parts as part of the initial acquisition. Interestingly enough that lightning strike was the first recorded one on a NH90 anywhere.
Then it got hit again after repairs so airbus had it shipped back to France to see what a double lightning strike does to a helo.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
WRT the RNZAF I would suspect that the extra aircraft as a spares source has a lot to do with it. When they had the lightning strike on the rotor blades of the helo in-flight a few years ago they replaced the blades and other systems with those of the extra helo whilst ordering replacement parts at the same time. They also ordered a supply of commonly used parts as part of the initial acquisition. Interestingly enough that lightning strike was the first recorded one on a NH90 anywhere.
If we followed the Kiwi model, 9 airframes total (8 active + 1 spare), we should be able to easily do well with 47 airframes total (40-42 active + 5-7 spares).

But that doesn’t appear to be the case does it?

There is obviously a spares supply issue, but I also suspect it’s more of a ‘technical certification’ issue, could the majority of the ADF aircraft fly? Yes they probably can.

Hopefully we get an official and accurate reason as to ‘why’ sooner than later.

Cheers,
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Are others in the NH90 users group having the same problems as the Army, or is it a uniquely Australian issue?
In Germany the availability of NH90 TTH was relatively low for the first couple years - around 31-35% up till ca 2017, back then we had similarly low numbes of NH90 in service and available as Australia. To a limited extent use in deployments (Afghanistan, Mali) and downtime due to refitting for these, both before and after, was to blame. There were also some minor upgrades in early years causing downtime. However the main reason should be a bit obvious from the below.

In 2019 - after three years of working out the details, or rather strongarming Airbus into it - the Bundeswehr signed the socalled "Standardized Maintenance Service Contract" (SILV) with industry providers. SILV for the next ten years basically runs all the airframes through a standardized framework of regular maintenance packages based on flight hours, age etc; as part of it there's a minimum order number, 12-month preplanned scheduling, fixed pricing per package and slots for taking on urgently required maintenance on non-scheduled airframes.

The big thing about SILV is that these maintenance packages don't just define fixed downtime periods per package but also include both bonus payments and malus fees for early/late delivery to maximize their availability. And suddenly since then availability of NH90 is rising sharply. It's not yet at the 80-85% where it should be, but it's rising with every semiannual report and getting in that direction.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
In Germany the availability of NH90 TTH was relatively low for the first couple years - around 31-35% up till ca 2017, back then we had similarly low numbes of NH90 in service and available as Australia. To a limited extent use in deployments (Afghanistan, Mali) and downtime due to refitting for these, both before and after, was to blame. There were also some minor upgrades in early years causing downtime. However the main reason should be a bit obvious from the below.

In 2019 - after three years of working out the details, or rather strongarming Airbus into it - the Bundeswehr signed the socalled "Standardized Maintenance Service Contract" (SILV) with industry providers. SILV for the next ten years basically runs all the airframes through a standardized framework of regular maintenance packages based on flight hours, age etc; as part of it there's a minimum order number, 12-month preplanned scheduling, fixed pricing per package and slots for taking on urgently required maintenance on non-scheduled airframes.

The big thing about SILV is that these maintenance packages don't just define fixed downtime periods per package but also include both bonus payments and malus fees for early/late delivery to maximize their availability. And suddenly since then availability of NH90 is rising sharply. It's not yet at the 80-85% where it should be, but it's rising with every semiannual report and getting in that direction.
I wonder if this is where the parts the Australian fleet need are going? Sorry to be cynical but over the years I have noticed companies (some types in particular) Rob Peter to pay Paul. Limited number of new transmissions available, we they go to the contract with bonuses and penalties.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
In Germany the availability of NH90 TTH was relatively low for the first couple years - around 31-35% up till ca 2017, back then we had similarly low numbes of NH90 in service and available as Australia. To a limited extent use in deployments (Afghanistan, Mali) and downtime due to refitting for these, both before and after, was to blame. There were also some minor upgrades in early years causing downtime. However the main reason should be a bit obvious from the below.

In 2019 - after three years of working out the details, or rather strongarming Airbus into it - the Bundeswehr signed the socalled "Standardized Maintenance Service Contract" (SILV) with industry providers. SILV for the next ten years basically runs all the airframes through a standardized framework of regular maintenance packages based on flight hours, age etc; as part of it there's a minimum order number, 12-month preplanned scheduling, fixed pricing per package and slots for taking on urgently required maintenance on non-scheduled airframes.

The big thing about SILV is that these maintenance packages don't just define fixed downtime periods per package but also include both bonus payments and malus fees for early/late delivery to maximize their availability. And suddenly since then availability of NH90 is rising sharply. It's not yet at the 80-85% where it should be, but it's rising with every semiannual report and getting in that direction.
Must have gotten worse as in 2019 only 12 of 99 NH90's where available for use and only 8 of 53 Tigers.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If we followed the Kiwi model, 9 airframes total (8 active + 1 spare), we should be able to easily do well with 47 airframes total (40-42 active + 5-7 spares).

But that doesn’t appear to be the case does it?

There is obviously a spares supply issue, but I also suspect it’s more of a ‘technical certification’ issue, could the majority of the ADF aircraft fly? Yes they probably can.

Hopefully we get an official and accurate reason as to ‘why’ sooner than later.

Cheers,
I suspect the issues with the MRH90 Taipan are a confluence of problematic circumstances, some originating from the manufacturer, some from the customer (Australia) and others a mix of the two. I do wish there was a new and/or updated ANAO report or equivalent on the MRH90. The only public one I am currently aware of is dated from 2014, and at this point the information could very have changed (hopefully for the better).

From memory, in that report the ANAO found that after some significant work to increase the availability and decrease/reduce the maintenance and cpfh, there was notable improvement in the MRH90 fleet, but even after the improvements, the situation had effectively become less bad, as opposed to good. IIRC the cpfh and maintenance hours per flight hour were 5x higher than in the Black Hawk fleet, with the availability only being something like 55% as opposed to the requirement of 65% availability.

With respect to some of the costs involved, I suspect there is not much Australia could do about that, though if more information was available regarding the Kiwi NH90 status, that would be good. As I understand it, some of the costs involved in maintaining the MRH90 Taipans involve having to periodically ship parts back to Europe to be re-worked or re-conditioned. I would be interested to know if NZ has to also periodically send components back and if no, why not. If the need to send components back to Europe is accurate, I can certainly see how & why the Australian maintenance and support (both in terms of efforts and costs) is difficult and expensive, particularly if compared to European NH90 fleets.
 
Top