NFH90 Arrives in Australia

[tiddles]

Here is a link to the story which has some good pics of An-124 which carried the Helo.
Tiddles
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/russian-monster-wows-crowds-at-brisbane-airport-20100119-mi1q.html

Here is a link to another Helo story but not worth starting a thread ,it tells us the current position of the dreaded Seasprite.
Tiddles
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-kaman-helos.artjan19,0,17456.story


Russian monster wows crowds at Brisbane Airport DANIEL CHALLIS
January 19, 2010 .
One of the world's largest aircraft, the Russian Antonov 124, arrives at Brisbane International Airport. Photo: Daniel Challis

..Aviation lovers gathered at Brisbane Airport today to marvel at one of Russia's greatest engineering feats, the Antonov 124.

The monolithic plane attracted plenty of media and public attention, as did its cargo - a naval combat NH90 NATO frigate helicopter.

Having landed an hour earlier than expected at 2pm, the Antonov eventually opened up its nose to reveal the NH90 glistening in the afternoon sunlight.


Enthusiast Ken Cosgrove, from Redcliffe, witnessed the helicopter emerge from the Russian monster.

"Unfortunately we didn't see it land but I'm thrilled and happy to be here and see this," he said.

"It's the first time I've seen anything quite like it - the size of it is awesome."

The arrival of the aircraft had been organised by Australian Aerospace, Australia's only helicopter manufacturer, and NH Industries, the prime contractor for the NH90 helicopter.


The two firms hope to convince the Australian Navy to replace its fleet of choppers with the new NH90 combat model.

Australian Aerospace spokesperson Nathan Pick said today was the naval NH90's Australian debut but the Antonov had been here before.

"Australian Aerospace brought out the army-version of the NH90 back in mid-2009 on an Antonov,” he said.

The six-engined Antonov strategic airlifter is commercially available to carry over-sized payloads anywhere in the world due to its massive cargo deck.

The Canadian military is currently using an Antonov to carry relief supplies to earthquake-stricken Haiti.


Ads by Google

[torpex]

Hmmm people seem more interested in the Antonov than the significance of this helicopter arriving and the potential outcome of a $4bn (is that the right number?) project...

[torpex]

Got to love this post in the comments re the Seasprite article:

No air traffic controller in Haiti and more helecoptors? Kind of iffy. Air traffic controllers in the mainland have enough to do. No stop lights in the sky, no marked pavement. These thngs fall stright down, no chance to glide.
Better into the hands of police than hunters shooting moose etc from the sky.
They have got to be tricky to fly.

WTF? Didn't realise Kaman was marketing them as moose hunters!

[Gubler, A.]

Hmmm people seem more interested in the Antonov than the significance of this helicopter arriving and the potential outcome of a $4bn (is that the right number?) project...

That’s how Australian Aerospace marketed the day to the media: come see the ‘unique’ event of the world’s biggest plane, etc, etc. I guess they were trying to get TV cameras there and were hoping for the subliminal message with the NFH…

PS. The cost band for this project is *only* $1.5-2 billion.


WTF? Didn't realise Kaman was marketing them as moose hunters!

I don’t think they are. They are still trying to sell the whole kit bag (helos, ground equipment, sim, etc) to a Naval helicopter operator.

That comment appears pure and simple crazy person jibber jabber.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:27/01/10

SOURCE:Flight InternationalEurocopter outlines bid for NH90 in Australia

By Leithen Francis

Eurocopter has sweetened its Australian naval helicopter offer with a pledge for in-country manufacture and support of an NH90 order by its Australian Aerospace subsidiary in Brisbane.

The European company is thought to the underdog in the competition against the Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk for at least 24 naval combat helicopters to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawks.

But Eurocopter is stressing the NH90's multirole capability, fly-by-wire control and low-corrosion full-composite design, which Australian Aerospace chief executive Jens Goennemann says is an advantage for shipborne aircraft.

With Australian frigates carrying one helicopter, and sometimes two, Goennemann points out that an NH90's combat equipment can be removed within 2h to allow it to transport up to 16 passengers.


© Australian Department of Defence
The Royal Australian Navy is already acquiring six MRH90 transports

There would also be some commonality between the NH90 and the 46 MRH90 military transports ordered by Australia, including six for its navy. The first four MRH90s were built in Europe, but the remainder are being assembled at Australian Aerospace, along with most of the Australian army's Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters.

As part of its sales campaign, Eurocopter borrowed a NH90 from the Italian navy and had it shipped to Australia in an Antonov An-124. The helicopter is performing demonstration flights and on 26 January participated in Australia Day celebrations above Sydney harbour.

Detailing the Australian Aerospace role, Goennemann says the Eurocopter unit would "in partnership with Australian industry, also undertake in Australia maintenance support services at operational bases".

Goennemann says opportunities for Australian industry would also include producing composite components for Eurocopter’s global supply chain, and providing sonar, radar and acoustics technologies for the NH90. Other roles could cover maintenance and support activities, the development of ground training equipment and the final assembly of the Eurotorp MU90 torpedo and MBDA’s Marte Mk2/S anti-ship missile.

[Exsandgroper]

Mark Dodd From:The Australian February 06, 2010 12:00AM

COMPETITION is intensifying between the two main contenders for the $3.5 billion navy combat chopper contract, a deal made urgent by the 2008 decision to junk the troubled Seasprite program.
The choice to replace the navy's ageing fleet of 16 S-70B Seahawks is between a modernised variant, Sikorsky's MH-60R, and Eurocopter's fly-by-wire NH90-NHF.

At RAAF Fairbairn yesterday, an NH90 borrowed from the Italian navy was put through its paces in front of senior defence officials and Canberra-based NATO ambassadors. On the tarmac and under a stormy Canberra sky, Australian Aerospace chief executive Jens Goennemann spruiked the NH90 chopper's cutting-edge capabilities.

"This is the most modern naval helicopter, it's full-composite construction, corrosion resistant, fly-by-wire," Dr Goennemann said. "It's a true multi-role helicopter. It can be used in its primary role of anti-ship and anti-submarine, but it is also a transport helicopter because you can take the (anti-shipping) equipment out in less than four hours."

The helicopter has a formidable weapons system and is able to sink large warships, with its Marte Mark2-S anti-shipping missiles able to be fired from a distance of 35km.

Unlike its competitor, it incorporates some of the latest advances in aircraft safety and is able to float for up to 15 minutes in rough seas in the event of a ditching - time enough to allow the crew to escape.

But while the NH90 is the most advanced of its type in the world, it is also more expensive, about $50 million each compared with $30m-$40m for the US-built competitor.

In service for barely two years, the aircraft are already operating in Italy and The Netherlands, with other customers including France, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Norway.

For the past week, the aircraft has been conducting weapons and performance appraisal tests at Nowra naval base.

While rival Sikorsky is expected to pitch the benefits of a cheaper, fully imported chopper, Australian Aerospace says at least 700 full-time jobs will be created if the Royal Australian Navy buys its aircraft.

The RAN desperately needs an anti-submarine and anti-shipping strike capability after the Rudd government axed the Seasprite project - a decision that cost Australian taxpayers more than $1bn.

Under Project Air 9000-Phase 8, the RAN is set to purchase 24 anti-submarine helicopters.

Cheers

[McDethWivFries]

What's everyones thoughts on the replacement, Sikorsky or Eurocopter?

[ADMk2]

What's everyones thoughts on the replacement, Sikorsky or Eurocopter?

Sikorsky for me. Do it right now and get this over with. NFH-90 is still in development hell and ADF needs to minimise this, they've got enough with Wedgetail, JSF, AWD, new submarine etc to worry about. They do NOT need to deliberately sign up for more...

[daniel]

spotted at waterfall, nsw.

[Unicorn]

NH-90, the Romeo is new wine in old bottles, it also is less capable than the NH-90.

The NH-90 acquisition will also help in rationalising the ADFs helicopter fleets.

[buglerbilly]

Ditto...........same reasons

[JimWH]

I'll agree with Unicorn and Bug. NFH-90 has risks, but the pay off is big. It's a better helicopter and it's more versatile, which is important to the RAN. The industrial case is also better (and yes, I do think that is a valid criteria).

[Doohan]

For me rationalisation would be the big issue

A few years ago we had

Squirrel
Kiowa
UH-1H
Blackhawk Seahawk
CH-47D
Tiger
Sea Sprite !!!

Five or so manufactures
Oldest and Newest aircraft (Sea Sprite) built in the 1960s

Now we are looking at the potential to achieve

AIR 9000 Training Aircraft
MRH/NFH
CH-47F
Tiger

Depending on the training helo could be as little as two manufactures to deal with

Oldest aircraft built only a couple of years ago.

Why would you add a totally different fleet to the mix when we have almost achieved as good a rationalisation as we ever will.

Oh that right we are Australia, of course we will buy the Romeo

[tiddles]

There may be risks with the NFH90 but considering the number of Euro Countries that have chosen it the project is in the same situation as the JSF- namely it cant be allowed to fail ,there is too much at stake so really the overall risk to Australia IMO is not all that great, it will work very well - eventually. Articles that I have read suggest that the RAN would like the Romeo but dont really spell out why, that is apart from the fact that it is up & running well which always helps but the Romeo does not seem to have any Technical advantage that has been trumpeted. If I remember rightly the Army wanted more Blackhawks instead of the MRH90 but did not get their way & I suspect the RAN might find the same thing happening to them. The NFH90 will fit the commonality of platforms which has been previously mentioned as well. The only problem I see is the suggestion that the NFH90 will have problems with the hanger size of the AWD but we have not heard a definitive answer on this . If there is a problem then I suggest getting the Romeo would be a very good idea.
Tiddles

[Gubler, A.]

As I said on the previous forum the NFH90 would be a better choice if the project could have a longer schedule but the MH-60R is the best choice for the Navy's needs now. It is so because the MH-60R configuration as available now is better suited to the Navy's needs. Without furthter development (and the delays that would cause) the NFH90 lacks the right kind of maritime interdiction weaponry - ie, Hellfire - which the MH-60R has. If the Sea Sprite had been allowed to fly then the Navy could have an Australianised naval warfare MRH90 with the mission system fully meeting the FNACS spec. But the Navy needs helos now and it needs them to be able to take on bad guys in littoral warfares in small boats with heavy weapons (ie the IRGC). Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

[Milne Bay]

As I said on the previous forum the NFH90 would be a better choice if the project could have a longer schedule but the MH-60R is the best choice for the Navy's needs now. It is so because the MH-60R configuration as available now is better suited to the Navy's needs. Without furthter development (and the delays that would cause) the NFH90 lacks the right kind of maritime interdiction weaponry - ie, Hellfire - which the MH-60R has. If the Sea Sprite had been allowed to fly then the Navy could have an Australianised naval warfare MRH90 with the mission system fully meeting the FNACS spec. But the Navy needs helos now and it needs them to be able to take on bad guys in littoral warfares in small boats with heavy weapons (ie the IRGC). Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

While I too would like to see the NFH90 in Australian Navy service, I agree with Abe that the MH-60R would do. I am interested however in the difference in in-service dates for the two helicopter types. How close or far apart would it be? This is the key question in my mind.

[ADMk2]

For me rationalisation would be the big issue

A few years ago we had

Squirrel
Kiowa
UH-1H
Blackhawk Seahawk
CH-47D
Tiger
Sea Sprite !!!

Five or so manufactures
Oldest and Newest aircraft (Sea Sprite) built in the 1960s

Now we are looking at the potential to achieve

AIR 9000 Training Aircraft
MRH/NFH
CH-47F
Tiger

Depending on the training helo could be as little as two manufactures to deal with

Oldest aircraft built only a couple of years ago.

Why would you add a totally different fleet to the mix when we have almost achieved as good a rationalisation as we ever will.

Oh that right we are Australia, of course we will buy the Romeo

You forget about the Sea King in RAN service...

However the AIR-9000 project was intended to rationalise helo types to 4 OR 5, not simply 4. Even if the Romeo's are purchased AIR-9000 will still achieve it's project aims of reducing 9 separate helo types down to 5, - Tiger, Chinook, MRH-90, MH-60R Seahawk and the Army/Navy training helo.

As Abe says, Navy needs new helicopters NOW, not in 5 years or whenever Eurocopter get their act together on the NFH-90. NFH-90 has a larger cabin true, but it can only just fit inside the hangars of the ANZAC class vessels, it cannot be maintained in them, from all reports. I'm sure the NFH-90 offers better utility capability than the Romeos, I'm not sure it offers better ASW or ASuW capability, beside a longer ranged weapon and ADF hasn't exactly shown an overwhelming interest in the Marte ASM anyway, overlooking earlier editions for the Penguin...

It seems to me as if the largest surface combatant force element in RAN will need to maintain the Seahawk, until the future frigate comes along if the NFH-90 were to be chosen. Hardly a rationalised fleet... Hopefully enough forethought was put into the AWD design to consider the dimensions of the NFH-90 or RAN would be in the rather ludicrous situation of being forced to maintain 2x fleets of helicopters for 2x small classes of vessels neither of which can properly accomodate their choice of future naval warfare helicopter...

:(

[Gubler, A.]

The RAN would like both a close and standoff anti-ship weapon suite for the new helicopter. Close is obviously best meet by something like Hellfire, 70m rockets, big gun, etc (your basic attack helicopter suite). Even for standoff ASuW active homing ‘fire and forget’ weapons like Marte and Penguin are no longer up to scratch. A weapon like the Raytheon NLOS, IMI Delilah or the Kongsberg JSM (NSM) would provide the capability needed because they have a data link and an optical seeker. This is because the target often needs to be found hiding amongst the shoreline and a relatively simple homing, fire and forget weapon won’t be able to engage it.

The problem with NFH while the helicopter it a lot more modern than the MH-60R the weapon system conception isn’t. The NH90 NFH is still basically conceived to be a cold war “NATO frigate helicopter” with a primary anti-submarine mission. While during the long development of the helicopter the ASW system has been able to leverage technology developments to be a capable littoral ASW system the financial frugalness of the program has not allowed for an addition of a far more capable maritime interdiction capability. The NFH can be a great maritime interdiction helicopter – better than the MH-60R because it can carry more payload – but unless someone actually pays (in both money and schedule) to integrate Hellfire, 70mm, BAES Remote Guardian with 12.7mm GECAL, data link missile (Delilah, etc) then it won’t be.

Now if that someone is to be Australia then we won’t have a maritime interdiction capability for several more years on top of the planned introduction to service date of the new helicopter. Which would mean in those years rather than fly a naval chopper (MH-60R) able to safely and effectively defeat the smaller and more complex naval threats we would have to go at them with door guns (NH 90 NFH) and run the risk of being shot down or not engage. Is that more important than having a nice looking homogenous helicopter fleet to satisfy everyone’s collective OCD?

[tiddles]

While I too would like to see the NFH90 in Australian Navy service, I agree with Abe that the MH-60R would do. I am interested however in the difference in in-service dates for the two helicopter types. How close or far apart would it be? This is the key question in my mind.
According to LM Sikorsky they could start delivering the MH60R in the fourth quarter of 2011 but I imagine that an order would need to be made now to achieve that date & not much chance of that. EADS have said that they can meet AIR 9000 Phase 8 requirements interms of in service date [2014-2016]
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html/air/AIR9000_8.html
Tiddles

[tiddles]

There is an article about this subject in the latest AusAviation mag.by Andrew McLaughlin. Several bits of info are in it apart from the expected views on each Helo. Firstly Australian Aerospace CEO Jens Goennemann has said at Pac 2010 that only 21 NFH would be needed by the RAN to fulfill its needs & that the 6 MRH90 SeaKing replacemants could be relinquished but where too is not mentioned in the article .Alternately the RAN could get 18 NFH & keep the 6 MRH to do all the RAN requirements, just how Mr. Goennemann arrived at these figures is not spelled out.
Also according to the article Sen. Faulkner said at Pac 2010 Conference that the Govt. will be considering Air 9000 Phase 8 in the near future and saw the matter as "urgent". "Defence Sources" have told AusAviation that first pass approval will likely take place at the next National Security Committee meeting which is due very soon. According to the article a competition is now the preferred route and a sole source selection of the MH60-R is now unlikely.Just how accurate all this will prove to be I dont know but expect it to be close to the mark.
Tiddles

[Gubler, A.]

Firstly Australian Aerospace CEO Jens Goennemann has said at Pac 2010 that only 21 NFH would be needed by the RAN to fulfill its needs & that the 6 MRH90 SeaKing replacemants could be relinquished but where too is not mentioned in the article .Alternately the RAN could get 18 NFH & keep the 6 MRH to do all the RAN requirements, just how Mr. Goennemann arrived at these figures is not spelled out.

The MRH90s being 'relinquished' refers to the Navy’s preferred plan for the FNACS helicopter. In which there would only be one naval helicopter which would be roll configurable between the different missions. For maritime support all the hardware in the back is removed and just seats fitted (like an MRH 90). The MH-60R can be roll configurable but even with the cabin bay stripped doesn’t have as much volume as the MRH 90.

So the supposition is that by buying the NH 90 NFH – which is basically an MRH 90 but with more stuff bolted to it – the Navy would send its existing MRH 90s back to Eurocopter and they would be upgraded to NFH standard. If the MH-60R was purchased then the Navy might decide to keep its MRH 90s or replace them with Mh-60Rs in which case the Army would probably take them up. Considering they are being run as a single fleet with the Army (why Navy MRH-90s are in AUSCAM) this is not big deal either way.

As to the fleet numbers of 21 NFH or 18 NFH and 6 MRH this would be calculated on how many helicopters with their particular maintenance requirements are needed to provide the number of at sea helicopter flights and training hours the Navy needs. 24 is just an indicative figure. For example the 11 Seasprites were to have provided 6 at sea flights or one for each Anzac class frigate not in a dry dock.

[tiddles]

The MRH90s being 'relinquished' refers to the Navy’s preferred plan for the FNACS helicopter. In which there would only be one naval helicopter which would be roll configurable between the different missions. For maritime support all the hardware in the back is removed and just seats fitted (like an MRH 90). The MH-60R can be roll configurable but even with the cabin bay stripped doesn’t have as much volume as the MRH 90.

So the supposition is that by buying the NH 90 NFH – which is basically an MRH 90 but with more stuff bolted to it – the Navy would send its existing MRH 90s back to Eurocopter and they would be upgraded to NFH standard. If the MH-60R was purchased then the Navy might decide to keep its MRH 90s or replace them with Mh-60Rs in which case the Army would probably take them up. Considering they are being run as a single fleet with the Army (why Navy MRH-90s are in AUSCAM) this is not big deal either way.

As to the fleet numbers of 21 NFH or 18 NFH and 6 MRH this would be calculated on how many helicopters with their particular maintenance requirements are needed to provide the number of at sea helicopter flights and training hours the Navy needs. 24 is just an indicative figure. For example the 11 Seasprites were to have provided 6 at sea flights or one for each Anzac class frigate not in a dry dock.
Thanks for the explanation Abe.The prefered plan to have a single type of reconfigurable Naval Helo also puts an end to another theory that I had.I had thought that if the MH60R was chosen then the 6 MRH90s Seaking replacements could be "relinquished " to the Army and then 6 MH60s purchased in place of them to do the job done by the Seakings at present. This would have provided a basic common type of Cockpit and systems [Not Airframe] at least among Naval Helos & simplified Maintenance Training. This would however not fit with the idea of a single common type as explained. I personnaly dont like the idea of a reconfigurable type as although have no experience whatsoever with anything as complex as a Helo, throughout life and indeed at work I have found that multi role equipment usually spends most of its life doing one function anyhow.I fear that my role as Armchair Naval Procurement Supremo is a bit shaky.
Tiddles

[JKM Mk2]

If the RAN were to relinquish their MRH90s in favor of the MH60s wouldn't it be better to get a mix of MH60R (18) and MH60S (6) rather than all R models?

BTW I personally prefer the NH90 NFH for all the reasons stated earlier by various people. But I also agree with Abe's (and others) opinions regarding cost, timing and suitability to fit with fleet units. So my vote would go to the MH60.

JKM

[Deks]

NFH-90 has a larger cabin true, but it can only just fit inside the hangars of the ANZAC class vessels, it cannot be maintained in them, from all reports.
Just how much of a big deal is this, and how much longer are we keeping the ANZAC's around ?

[Gubler, A.]

Thanks for the explanation Abe.The prefered plan to have a single type of reconfigurable Naval Helo also puts an end to another theory that I had.I had thought that if the MH60R was chosen then the 6 MRH90s Seaking replacements could be "relinquished " to the Army and then 6 MH60s purchased in place of them to do the job done by the Seakings at present. This would have provided a basic common type of Cockpit and systems [Not Airframe] at least among Naval Helos & simplified Maintenance Training. This would however not fit with the idea of a single common type as explained. I personnaly dont like the idea of a reconfigurable type as although have no experience whatsoever with anything as complex as a Helo, throughout life and indeed at work I have found that multi role equipment usually spends most of its life doing one function anyhow.I fear that my role as Armchair Naval Procurement Supremo is a bit shaky.

The Navy currently operates its helicopters in a reconfigurable fashion it’s just not as configurable as they would like. Because each ship has a flight with a single helicopter they are constantly flying different missions. Especially maritime support (ship to shore/ship cargo) and maritime interdiction (finding other ships and potentially shooting them up, landing a board party, etc). Also the need for ASW, anti ship strike and eventually MCM is something the helos will need to do during higher intensity operations.

The Sea King/MRH 90 role has been specifically for shipboard flights on board support ships like the AOR and LPAs. Because they aren’t surface combatants there appears to be less need for the sensors and weapons. But that is changing. The LHDs will have a MCM capability and such ships are also being used for maritime interdiction in support of border protection and counter terrorism. So it would actually be better to replace the MRH 90 with a helicopter capable of the warfare roles for operation from the AORs and LHDs of the future.

As to the MH-60R’s suitability for maritime support it can carry loads pretty much similar to the MRH 90. It has something like 60-70% of the cabin volume but lifting capacity is about the same. Is this significant? How many maritime support missions does the Navy have in which 20 people or an ATV need to be carried?

If the MH-60R is chosen then it could do the maritime support mission in place of the MRH90. However the Government may choose to buy less MH-60Rs than the full 24 (or so) and keep the MRH90 in place or transfer the MRH90s to the Army and have the Navy all MH-60R. Or the various NFH or NFH/MRH mixes being offered by Eurocopter.

[Gubler, A.]

If the RAN were to relinquish their MRH90s in favor of the MH60s wouldn't it be better to get a mix of MH60R (18) and MH60S (6) rather than all R models?

The MH-60S is really designed for operation from bigger flight decks than that of frigates and lacks the pull down gear. A common fleet is a much better idea than six aircraft with slightly more cargo carrying capability and a door on each side that can only operate safely from the LHDs.




Just how much of a big deal is this, and how much longer are we keeping the ANZAC's around ?

The last Anzacs will be in service until the 2030s. So they will need to operate this new helicopter and the NFH does fit into the hangar. Personally I don’t think this argument is such a big deal. The ship’s hangar can always be changed and the Anzac does not have major ship components (that can’t be displaced somewhere else) to port of the hangar (where it would expand into). The hangar on Success was rebuilt to carry the Sea King after the Wessex was retired.

[Deks]

The last Anzacs will be in service until the 2030s. So they will need to operate this new helicopter and the NFH does fit into the hangar. Personally I don’t think this argument is such a big deal. The ship’s hangar can always be changed and the Anzac does not have major ship components (that can’t be displaced somewhere else) to port of the hangar (where it would expand into). The hangar on Success was rebuilt to carry the Sea King after the Wessex was retired.

Good to know, sounds like a good option if that does end up becoming an issue. Thanks !

I would personally prefer we went for the NFH; the benefits of having a fairly common fleet would be huge. I guess it will come down to the through-life cost numbers though. I would have to imagine that in terms of institutional knowledge having navy maintainers current in the main army helicopter would pay dividends on the LHD's as well.

[Gubler, A.]

I would personally prefer we went for the NFH; the benefits of having a fairly common fleet would be huge. I guess it will come down to the through-life cost numbers though. I would have to imagine that in terms of institutional knowledge having navy maintainers current in the main army helicopter would pay dividends on the LHD's as well.

For the operators this isn’t a big deal. It saves paper work for the sustainment agent (DMO’s SPOs) but doesn’t change things much in the field. Certainly there is very little cross over between Army and Navy S-70s. The Navy also argues that the commonality that is important is when they are at sea. Maintaining helicopters ashore in Australia is no big deal. But when deployed in the Persian Gulf or wherever getting spares and maintenance support from allies is often the only option. And what does THE ally operate? MH-60Rs… And the way the Navy will staff the LHDs the crew will not provide maintenance to Army helicopters. They have to bring their own people with them. If the LHD has a naval helicopter flight onboard as well as an Army aviation squadron then the Navy people will be outnumbered 10+ to one so won’t make too much of a difference.

[buglerbilly]

DATE:25/02/10

SOURCE:Flight InternationalAustralia to choose new naval combat helicopter in 2011

By Leithen Francis

Australia plans to select a new naval combat helicopter in 2011 and begin taking deliveries in 2014.

The competition will, as expected, be between the Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky MH-60R and the NH Industries NH90, says the country's defence minister John Faulkner.

The winner will replace the navy's 16 Seahawks and its cancelled Super Seasprite project, which was ditched in early 2008 after falling seven years behind schedule and almost 50% over budget.

Canberra intends to order at least 24 new naval combat helicopters, enabling the navy to provide eight or more aircraft concurrently embarked on ships at sea.

"The new naval combat helicopter will enhance the Royal Australian Navy's ability to conduct a range of maritime operations. It will be capable of undertaking anti-submarine warfare and will be equipped with air-to-surface missiles," says Faulkner.

"The new helicopter will greatly extend the eyes and ears of our surface fleet and allow the conduct of combat and support operations in the complex and demanding maritime environment."

The Defence Materiel Organisation will "cost-cap" the competition, and the decision "will take into account all relevant considerations including capability, cost, interoperability with other ADF capabilities, Australian industry opportunities, risk and value for money", he adds.

[tiddles]

Already on another thread .Helos part Deux

[buglerbilly]

Already posted...........

[tiddles]

This story in my opinion is not going to help the NFH90 bid either,however there is too much at stake for this problem not to be fixed properly.
Tiddles
Defence grounds new chopper fleet
By Sabra Lane

Posted 5 minutes ago

The Federal Government has confirmed its new fleet of Army helicopters has been grounded because of engine problems.

But the decision to ground the MRH90 fleet was kept secret for four weeks, apparently because of continuing embarrassment over the cancellation of the $1 billion Seasprite helicopter project.

The Opposition says it will pursue the issue in Senate estimates hearings in the next two weeks.

Australia has accepted 11 new MRH90 Eurocopters so far. Defence has ordered 40 of the so-called multi-role helicopters at a cost of about $4 billion.

The manufacturer is also bidding to sell Defence another 24 of the machines for the Navy.

But last month one of the choppers experienced what Defence calls a "technical incident". In the aviation industry, though, it is known as catastrophic failure.

The pilot experienced an engine failure but managed to nurse the twin-engine aircraft back to the Edinburgh Air Force Base on Adelaide's outskirts.

Engineers have flown in from Europe but so far have been unable to find the cause of the failure, and as a result Defence has grounded the entire fleet.

The incident happened on April 20 and the news about it and the grounding of the fleet was kept quiet until Defence released a statement on its website last night.

The minister responsible, Greg Combet, was unavailable for interview this morning but his office confirmed the fleet had been grounded.

AM phoned Defence for an interview only to be told it responds to written requests only and it was unlikely anyone would be available for interview this morning.


'Secrecy'

The new acquisitions come after the disastrous Seasprite program commissioned by the previous federal government and cancelled by the current government at a cost of $1 billion.

Opposition spokesman for defence science and personnel, Bob Baldwin, says the issue is not the grounding of the helicopter due to a fault.

"That's to be commended. The issue here is the secrecy that has occurred under this Rudd/Labor Government, where they have hid from the public for 28 days the fact that there has been a problem with this helicopter," Mr Baldwin said.

"Now, Mr Combet has been tagged as Mr Fix It. I'm yet to see one thing that Mr Combet has actually fixed.

"This is the first report of any failure of the engine. There have been issues with the helicopter that have been rectified during the introduction phase and that's normal with new pieces of equipment."

Defence only issued a release about the grounding last night and Mr Baldwin says it is important the warning goes out to all of the helicopter's operators around the world.

"That there is an issue so that all aircraft can be examined to see whether it's an isolated incident or indeed it's spread across the entire fleet," he said.

"We don't know what has occurred there. I can assure you of one thing, that next week in Senate estimates this matter will be pursued.

"It will be pursued because the Government has tried to hide from the public an issue affecting air safety, an issue affecting our Air Force personnel safety and we need answers."

Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, defence-and-aerospace-industries, defence-and-national-security, defence-forces, air-force, army, navy, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia

[buglerbilly]

Already posted on Land Warfare under Army Aviation..........

[JimWH]

What an utter beat-up. Engines fail, that's part of what happens when you use them. The only reason that the fleet will have been grounded is because they're new to service and this'll be the first time this has happened in ADF service.
Got to love the Australian media and their ability to find 'scandals' in the most unlikely of places..

[Raven22]

From what I understand the engine didn't so much fail as basically explode in flight. Very untidy. That's why they build two engine helicopters I guess.

[ADMk2]

What an utter beat-up. Engines fail, that's part of what happens when you use them. The only reason that the fleet will have been grounded is because they're new to service and this'll be the first time this has happened in ADF service.
Got to love the Australian media and their ability to find 'scandals' in the most unlikely of places..

From someon in AAvn...

"You should see the engine. The technical term for what happened to it is 'Shat itself'. The crew were at a very decent clip for a helicopter when it let go, with a subsequent rapid pitch down/roll lateral event. This is also apparently not meant to happen in the digital control era, so that's raised some eyebrows as well. Right now, having an engine spontaneously explode is probably the least of this project's issues. I'd like a journalist to start asking some hard questions on ground clearances, internal floor loading, weapon mounts, ramp access, avionics cooling, cargo hatch access, ramp loading limits, troop seat rating, night flying capability.....

This aircraft IS NOT a Blackhawk replacement. It is a different capability, which means it will be operated in a different manner. More than likely, from airfield to airfield. Hardly the Hardened Networked Army asset that it was originally pitched as. Perhaps the journalists could also ask why we didn't get UH-60Ms whilst they are at it."

[gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP]

What an utter beat-up. Engines fail, that's part of what happens when you use them. The only reason that the fleet will have been grounded is because they're new to service and this'll be the first time this has happened in ADF service.
Got to love the Australian media and their ability to find 'scandals' in the most unlikely of places.."


It's far from being a beat up - there's a bit more to come. the journo's are asleep at the wheel at the moment.

[JimWH]

Well if that's the case gf [1], then fair enough. But if all the journos have is what they've printed (i.e. 'engine failure' as opposed to 'engine exploded') then I'd back my assessment that they're making a mountain out of a mole hill with that story even is subsequent information shows that there is actually a real scandal in there. All the same, I'd go with a point that Stevo made elsewhere: the engine itself has been in service for years now, and to that I'd add that this'd be the first time that this helicopter has done this (and the testing regime for the NH-90 has been none-too shabby).
With regards to what you've quoted AD, I think there is merit in the first part (i.e. the 'this wasn't supposed to happen') and less merit in the second part. The NH-90 isn't a direct replacement for the s-70, it's a new medium transport capability. It's going to take time to work out how to use it to it's fullest potential. Moaning and gripping that it isn't a UH-60M is actually pretty silly unless in the same discussion they also acknowledge the areas in which the MRH-90 is superior to the UH-60M and then justify why that doesn't constitute an overall advantage over the UH-60M[2]. At a bet, in a few years time, we'll wonder why there was ever a question about which helicopter to choose.


[1] Sorry, I have difficulty saying 'Robopimp' was a straight face, awesome though it is as a name
[2] Unipolar analysis are pretty pointless when you're arguing for one capability over another.

[gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP]

Well if that's the case gf [1], then fair enough. But if all the journos have is what they've printed (i.e. 'engine failure' as opposed to 'engine exploded') then I'd back my assessment that they're making a mountain out of a mole hill with that story even is subsequent information shows that there is actually a real scandal in there. All the same, I'd go with a point that Stevo made elsewhere: the engine itself has been in service for years now, and to that I'd add that this'd be the first time that this helicopter has done this (and the testing regime for the NH-90 has been none-too shabby).

There's more than an engine issue to talk about...... apols for being cryptic, but its kind of necessary...

[buglerbilly]

WHY are y'all talking about an ARMY helicopter in a NAVAL thread?

Just asking...............:blah

[gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP]

WHY are y'all talking about an ARMY helicopter in a NAVAL thread?

Just asking...............:blah

one of the Lib MP's was stating that RAAF pilots were at risk.

so we have a joint asset in here. army helo in a navy thread with RAAFies at risk....

go purple... :)

[buglerbilly]

*Groan*

Ya could go off people.................:razz:razz:razz

[JimWH]

There's more than an engine issue to talk about...... apols for being cryptic, but its kind of necessary...

I can appreciate that gf, I'm familiar with OSA as well. Be interested to hear it when it comes out, though for the record I'd still back the decision to hae gone with the MRH-90 over the UH-60M until some massively damming evidence to the contrary emerges.

[Deks]

one of the Lib MP's was stating that RAAF pilots were at risk.

so we have a joint asset in here. army helo in a navy thread with RAAFies at risk....

go purple... :)

Presumably it was being flown by ARDU, which operates out of RAAF Edinbrough. Most certainly not the kind of tests they're used to!

[McDethWivFries]

WHY are y'all talking about an ARMY helicopter in a NAVAL thread?

Just asking...............:blah

i just liek how they said it effects teh Air Force in the last para posted earlier . . . Army chopper being discussed in a Navy thread thats going to endanger Air Force personel . . . hmmm

[edit] - DOH! beaten by gf (o:

[Gubler, A.]

The MRH90 is a joint Army-Navy asset. The 46 helicopters will be divided up 40-6 in Army’s favour but they will be managed and operated jointly. This is why the Navy’s MRHs will be operated in AUSCAM colours rather than haze grey. Though I’m sure Navy will insist on a repaint at some time despite the extra burden this will create just for branding and identity purposes – perhaps they should paint them in the same un-disruptive pseudo camouflage colours as RANCAM?. Also training for all MRH air and ground crew will be conducted at Townsville. While the RAAF is the ADF’s lead agency for air worthiness and air trials even with helicopters (which they no longer operate ) and would be managing the acceptance trials of the MRH most of the flying would still involve Army-Navy personnel. So the opposition defence spokesperson has clearly misspoken on this matter – perhaps we should just file this comment under the Abbott ‘heat of the moment is not truthful’ column and wait for the Liberals’ considered ‘written’ response…

[buglerbilly]

Australian Helicopter Competition Heats Up

May 21, 2010



By Bettina H. Chavanne

Only a month into the Australian government’s competition for new maritime helicopters and still a year away from a contract award, an interesting twist has been introduced into the battle between the Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin MH-60R and the Eurocopter NH-90.

According to reports in the Australian press, the Australian government hid for 28 days the fact that it had to ground its first Eurocopter NH-90s after an aircraft suffered a catastrophic engine failure and had to limp back to base on a single engine.

That aircraft is part of an earlier buy of 46 MRH-90s — 40 of which are for the Australian army and six for the navy. The new competition is to build an additional batch of maritime helicopters.

The ministry of defense said May 18 the engine failure occurred April 20, and that “the full impact of the engine failure on the project schedule is yet to be determined.” Eleven NH-90s have been accepted so far.

The press is accusing the government of playing favorites with the French, with the Courier-Mail noting May 20 that the Australian government has also tried to cover up the fact that its KC-30A tanker program (based on the French-built Airbus A-330) is more than a year late.

Meanwhile, the Finnish army is flying its NH-90 on search-and-rescue operations and expects to reach full operational capacity with the aircraft in 2012. This year, the last two Mi-8s will be retired as the NH-90 fleet grows. The first NH-90s arrived two years ago, and seven are now in Finland on the way to a 20-helo fleet, which will be complemented by seven MD500s for training and other support roles (Aerospace DAILY, May 10).

Credit: Netherlands MoD

[tiddles]

Here is a story from The Age, things are not completely happy with this competition,it will be interesting to hear Sikorskys reply ,if there is one .
Tiddles
Defence accused of bias over helicopter tender DAN OAKES
August 11, 2010

THE battle for a billion-dollar contract to supply navy helicopters has turned nasty, with one of the two bidders accusing Defence of giving the rival company preferential treatment.

Australian Aerospace, a subsidiary of Eurocopter, has pitched its NH90 helicopter against a United States joint venture between Sikorsky-Lockheed Martin and the US Navy. But Australian Aerospace chief executive Dr Jens Goennemann told journalists yesterday that his company had one hand tied behind its back because the US Navy could not be constrained by rigid Australian Government tender guidelines.

''Let me put it this way, I had to sign a deed of undertaking. I raised the question 'how do you make sure that you provide a level playing field, considering there is a foreign military sales organisation whose task it is to sell the products and which you cannot limit like you can limit industry,'' Dr Goennemann said.

He said he had not approached Defence Minister John Faulkner or Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet about the issue. Dr Goennemann said Australian Aerospace was obliged to run any public pronouncement about the tender through the Defence Materiel Organisation for approval, whereas the US Navy had free rein.

Dr Goennemann said that at a recent military helicopter conference on the Gold Coast, a US Navy officer spruiked the capabilities of the American ''Romeo'' helicopter in a way that Defence would never allow Australian Aerospace to do.

Dr Goennemann also attacked recent reporting about two incidents of engine trouble in the Australian Army's Australian Aerospace MRH 90 helicopter fleet, saying the incidents were unrelated, and that the second, which led to the temporary grounding of the fleet, was due to an object being sucked into the engine.

Defence Minister John Faulkner launched the helicopter project in April, inviting tenders from Sikorsky-Lockheed Martin and Australian Aerospace for up to 24 aircraft.

[ADMk2]

An 'FOD' incident was it, Australian-Aerospace?

Well no doubt then you'll be investigating in great detail exactly HOW the inlet screen and debris filter BOTH failed to prevent FOD damage to the engine, eh?


You can't really blame the pilots anymore, like your parent company chief did at Farnborough, because they didn't actually do anything wrong, did they?

Now it MUST have been FOD, because it couldn't possibly be an issue with an under-developed POS helicopter that can NOT do all the things you promise...

Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, the lies that were told about how 'cheap' the Tiger was to operate and how well developed it was...

Snake-oil. Bet you manage to sell it by the keg, too...