+ Reply to Thread
Page 87 of 87
FirstFirst ... 37 77 85 86 87
Results 861 to 867 of 867

Thread: Australian Army 2011 onwards

  1. #861

    SF light helo is probably something like 6 airframes and single engined. Cost should be nothing -- about 3 x F35 engines worth. As in, inconsequential.

    Still, regardless of cost, it always feels like there is a part of defence trying desperately to stop new capability just in case a politician tries to use it. Still a threat.

  2. #862

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercator View Post
    SF light helo is probably something like 6 airframes and single engined. Cost should be nothing -- about 3 x F35 engines worth. As in, inconsequential.

    Still, regardless of cost, it always feels like there is a part of defence trying desperately to stop new capability just in case a politician tries to use it. Still a threat.
    The WP mentioned a deployment of 3-4 light SF helos at a time, so the fleet would have to be larger than 6. Boeing for instance proposed 15x UH-1Y for that project, so they must have some clue about indicative numbers.
    In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30

  3. #863

    Maybe. But my guess is that a single such deployment is all that our modest, QR SF numbers could ever really support. If the capability managers agree, the numbers of helos required are modest. We are talking 2-3 helos in a C-17 and prob no more than 2 C-17 reasonably available for ready quick reaction stuff like this. Multiple deployments on this scale doesn't seem likely in such a timeframe. And most light choppers will be limited to 2 per C-17. Few will fit 3. On that basis, 6-8 airframes are all that are really needed (depot level maintenance on light choppers doesn't take long to turn around).

    Remember I'm just talking littlebirds or their equivalents here. The rest of the regmt could easily be 20 (larger) airframes. Boeing might have had an eye on that when UH-1Y proposed.

  4. #864

    Quote Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
    Not sure the Viper / UH-1Y solution makes sense in that context. It would just take us back to the past where we have 9 or so separate, small fleets of completely different helo types.

    The differences between MH-60R, MH-60S and UH-60M aren't great in terms of engines, drivetrains and airframes and with AH-64 using largely the same engines, I think the support aspect benefit leans towards this combination.

    I don't see much (if any) operational advantage in adding Venom / Viper into this mix. I also wouldn't be suprised if SOCOMD's light helo project 'rolls into' the UH-60M purchase as a trade-off, for buying additional rotary capability above the MRH-90 capability, so what role a UH-1Y would then have, I am not certain...
    Probably not, although the marinisation out of the box for the UH-1Y is a benefit that apparently the MRH-90 is not delivering all that well (another of Airbus's promises consigned to the rubbish bin)

    I really think we made a monumental cock up when we went MRH-90. We should have standardised on the Black Hawk family derivatives, with latest iterations of the Black Hawk, Sierra, Romeo and Pave Hawk derivation, with Chinook for lifting stuff the others wont.

    The Viper is probably a better buy for the ADF as the Tiger can't really go to sea for very long and the Apache is clearly not marinised. The Brit's Apaches were a one-off home brew modified version that no one else uses. Viper goes to sea on delivery and shares engines with the Navy's SeaHawk Romeo fleet.
    Unicorn

    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
    the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

  5. #865

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercator View Post
    Maybe. But my guess is that a single such deployment is all that our modest, QR SF numbers could ever really support. If the capability managers agree, the numbers of helos required are modest. We are talking 2-3 helos in a C-17 and prob no more than 2 C-17 reasonably available for ready quick reaction stuff like this. Multiple deployments on this scale doesn't seem likely in such a timeframe. And most light choppers will be limited to 2 per C-17. Few will fit 3. On that basis, 6-8 airframes are all that are really needed (depot level maintenance on light choppers doesn't take long to turn around).

    Remember I'm just talking littlebirds or their equivalents here. The rest of the regmt could easily be 20 (larger) airframes. Boeing might have had an eye on that when UH-1Y proposed.
    Except that the 2-3BAUD allocated in the DWP suggest quite a few "light" helo's, unless this is also linked to addressing medium lift concerns.

  6. #866
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    307

    Quote Originally Posted by Smackhawk View Post
    Except that the 2-3BAUD allocated in the DWP suggest quite a few "light" helo's, unless this is also linked to addressing medium lift concerns.
    Either that or someone read the requirement wrong and thought they needed to buy the C-17's as well.

  7. #867

    The supposed 'bands' of funding in the DCPs were made deliberately broad and vague a while back (2009?) to stop vendors bidding to price. They long since stopped making any sense to me. I just don't trust the number-- and more to the point, the capability planners will surely stop spending when the requirement is met.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts