Australian Blackhawks replacement

abc123

Banned
I was wondering, can somebody of our Aussie members tell me why did Australian DoD decided to replace their UH-60 Black Hawks with NH90 in late-2000s, when most of them was not even 20 years old and had a lot of service life left?

Because Aussie Black Hawks were mostly produced in 1988-1990 range, so, why so early replacement?
 

Fred the Great

They decided to replace them then but obviously it takes a while to acquire the new aircraft. There are still Blackhawks in service.

IIRC, they also had problems with the Blackhawks in terms of corrosion (they are based near the sea) and also in terms of structural issues caused by continually using the external fuel tank assemblies.

It was a rather controversial decision to go for the MRH-90 (as we're calling it) instead of a more modern UH-60 derivative.
 

Delta Force

Banned
That's not really an alternate history question, but it's a good question. My understanding is that the NH-90 program was initiated to replace the older UH-1 helicopters (better known as the Huey). Later, Australia decided to expand the order to include replacing the Blackhawk fleet, likely later on. Unlike commercial aircraft where the wait for equipment is only a few years, the wait for military aircraft tends to be longer and so procurement has to be planned far ahead of time. It's not unheard of for countries to plan procurement schedules a decade before initial delivery of the first aircraft for major programs such as the Eurofighter and the F-35.

Due to the uncertainties involved in procurement, it's also common for aircraft to receive a modernization of some kind of several years of service, usually a few years before retirement. While that might seem to be wasteful for something that is going to be replaced, keep in mind that problems can and frequently do occur with programs. Modernizing existing aircraft hedges against that.
 

Riain

Banned
The first thing to be replaced was the Navy's Sea Kings, then the Blackhawks. The Army hasn't been able to make the Blackhawks last as well as the RAAF would, apparently you can't scream and swear a Blackhawk into serviceability.
 

abc123

Banned
Fred the Great said:
They decided to replace them then but obviously it takes a while to acquire the new aircraft. There are still Blackhawks in service.

IIRC, they also had problems with the Blackhawks in terms of corrosion (they are based near the sea) and also in terms of structural issues caused by continually using the external fuel tank assemblies.

It was a rather controversial decision to go for the MRH-90 (as we're calling it) instead of a more modern UH-60 derivative.
Click to expand...

OK, so do you, in light of problems with NH-90 ( in general, not only in Australia ) think it was a good decision?

One of main pros of NH-90 is that they are mostly made of composite materials, so that corrosion is less a problem... Also, it seems that Eurocopter offered better deal for Australian helicopter industry?
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
Riain said:
The first thing to be replaced was the Navy's Sea Kings, then the Blackhawks. The Army hasn't been able to make the Blackhawks last as well as the RAAF would, apparently you can't scream and swear a Blackhawk into serviceability.
Click to expand...

You have to hit them too and even then it has to be in a loving way.:p
 

abc123

Banned
So you don't think that the Army isn't so good at maintaining of helicopters like the RAAF?
 

Riain

Banned
No, and the Blackhawk is quite a complex machine for an organisation whose only aviation experience was the Kiowa, Nomad and Pilatus Porter.
 

Fred the Great

abc123 said:
OK, so do you, in light of problems with NH-90 ( in general, not only in Australia ) think it was a good decision?
Click to expand...

Very easy to look in hindsight and say no, but obviously it does raise questions.

One of main pros of NH-90 is that they are mostly made of composite materials, so that corrosion is less a problem... Also, it seems that Eurocopter offered better deal for Australian helicopter industry?
Click to expand...

I think it's the latter that did it. The corrosion isn't such an issue if the aircraft are manufactured with that in mind. I mean, no such issues with the Seahawk, so . . . ?

If industry participation wasn't a factor, then I'd have argued for the latest Blackhawk.

So you don't think that the Army isn't so good at maintaining of helicopters like the RAAF?
Click to expand...

He's just being parochial. There's no evidence the RAAF would have done a better job of maintaining the Blackhawks than the Army. It's just your typical inter-service BS.
 

calmir

abc123 said:
OK, so do you, in light of problems with NH-90 ( in general, not only in Australia ) think it was a good decision?

One of main pros of NH-90 is that they are mostly made of composite materials, so that corrosion is less a problem... Also, it seems that Eurocopter offered better deal for Australian helicopter industry?
Click to expand...

It was one of those decisions where Australia was assured (or deluded themselves into) that it was getting something of a proven, MOTS design, which would be cheaper and offer the same or superior capabilities to other options. As it happened, once again Australia got shafted. Happens a lot when we decide we're going to buy European instead of American. The European stuff isn't bad, sometimes better than comparable US kit, but that's once it's in service and working, which often takes a while. Not to mention the obvious logistical and supply problems dealing with manufacturers half way around the world, who often aren't partners with Australia in coalition operations where commonality in terms of spares and maintenance can come in handy.
 

Riain

Banned
Fred the Great said:
He's just being parochial. There's no evidence the RAAF would have done a better job of maintaining the Blackhawks than the Army. It's just your typical inter-service BS.
Click to expand...

There is anecdotal evidence that the reasons put forward to transfer the Blackhawks didn't occur in practice, and the Army had a huge learning curve which was the major contributor. One example was not using officers to fly the helicopters would lead to a big saving, but that didn't occur because in the RAAF officers tended to hang around longer whereas enlisted Army aircrew had serious retention problems and created a much larger training overhead. I think it would be possible, if one had the time and inclination, to show that the Blackhawks had lower serviceability rates in their first 5 years of Army service compared to their short time with the RAAF.

Of course all the tactical and organisational reasons put forward for the transfer of tactical helicopters to the Army were bullshit. The real reason it was done was to compensate the Army which got a bit of a raw deal from the Dibb report and subsequent 1987 Defence White Paper which postulated a particular scenario and strategy to defend against this scenario.
 

abc123

Banned
calmir said:
It was one of those decisions where Australia was assured (or deluded themselves into) that it was getting something of a proven, MOTS design, which would be cheaper and offer the same or superior capabilities to other options. As it happened, once again Australia got shafted. Happens a lot when we decide we're going to buy European instead of American. The European stuff isn't bad, sometimes better than comparable US kit, but that's once it's in service and working, which often takes a while. Not to mention the obvious logistical and supply problems dealing with manufacturers half way around the world, who often aren't partners with Australia in coalition operations where commonality in terms of spares and maintenance can come in handy.
Click to expand...

I agree that Australia should mostly buy US equipment...

Can also somebody tell me why Australian Army uses Steyr AUG rifle? I thought that M16 is the obvious choice...
 

Crowbar Six

Bullpups have advantages over conventional rifles.

They have a shorter overall length than an equivalent rifle with the same barrel length. This makes them handier for infantry (especially mechanised/airbourne units) or troops operating in built up areas where long barrels can be a pain. The US addressed this problem by issuing M4 carbines which have much shorter barrel lengths and hence overall length whilst incidentally reducing performance. When you consider the relative ineffectiveness of 5.56mm it makes you wonder why the US military would deliberately reduce the effective range and lethality.

Australia is replacing the F88 Steyr based weapon with an unpdated one called the F90.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...f90-assault-rifle-in-low-rate-production.html
 

Riain

Banned
abc123 said:
I agree that Australia should mostly buy US equipment...

Can also somebody tell me why Australian Army uses Steyr AUG rifle? I thought that M16 is the obvious choice...
Click to expand...

Australia does mostly buy US gear, but US gear doesn't always suit Australian doctrine, threats and conditions compared to European gear. In addition the US isn't our only ally nor does it's conditions of sale suit broader Australian objectives in terms of technology transfer, industrial participation and disposal by sale at the end of the life of type.
 

abc123

Banned
Riain said:
Australia does mostly buy US gear, but US gear doesn't always suit Australian doctrine, threats and conditions compared to European gear. In addition the US isn't our only ally nor does it's conditions of sale suit broader Australian objectives in terms of technology transfer, industrial participation and disposal by sale at the end of the life of type.
Click to expand...

No?

Indeed, US isn't your only ally, but it IS your only ally that ( probably ) will and can do something if you are in some serious problems one day... As it was in WW2...

About the conditions, yes, I know that US defence companies aren't really for technology transfer and industrial participation...
 

wietze

abc123 said:
One of main pros of NH-90 is that they are mostly made of composite materials, so that corrosion is less a problem... Also, it seems that Eurocopter offered better deal for Australian helicopter industry?
Click to expand...
tell that to the Netherlands, it very possible that the Netherlands will roll back the NH90 deal. they used the helicopter in mainly a sea (saline) environment (well it is a navy helicopter) and the result is unacceptable corrosion to the Dutch NH90s

abc123 said:
No?

Indeed, US isn't your only ally, but it IS your only ally that ( probably ) will and can do something if you are in some serious problems one day... As it was in WW2...

About the conditions, yes, I know that US defence companies aren't really for technology transfer and industrial participation...
Click to expand...

at least that is what they want their allies to believe, as long the us can use their allies to help them fight their wars the keep up this charade.
don't see a great increase of us forces in europe now there are troubles brewing with russia.

no, the us companies are more about technology theft and patent hijacking (quite a few European patent holders who licensed to lockheed for the JSF have found themselves locked out of control of their patents) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
abc123 said:
No?

Indeed, US isn't your only ally, but it IS your only ally that ( probably ) will and can do something if you are in some serious problems one day... As it was in WW2...

About the conditions, yes, I know that US defence companies aren't really for technology transfer and industrial participation...
Click to expand...

No, the Blackhawk was designed for US Army (not even USMC) doctrine of helicopter assault in huge numbers against opposition, and sized to carry a squad of troops in that role. Europeans and Australia don't really do that, they have less helicopters in their fleets and tend to insert troops where there is no direct opposition on the ground. That's why their helicopters are sized differently.

As for the help, the US didn't do a lot in Timor in 1999, but Thailand did. Australia policy is to not rely on the combat forces of other countries, so a fighter sqn, warship or Army unit from our Allies is a welcome addition to our strength but we're not staking our lives on it.

It's just technology transfer, we sold our Mirage fleet to Pakistan in the 90s, but had to bury our F111s due to US ITARs. I daresay we'll have to do the same with the Blackhawks.
 

abc123

Banned
Riain said:
No, the Blackhawk was designed for US Army (not even USMC) doctrine of helicopter assault in huge numbers against opposition, and sized to carry a squad of troops in that role. Europeans and Australia don't really do that, they have less helicopters in their fleets and tend to insert troops where there is no direct opposition on the ground. That's why their helicopters are sized differently.

As for the help, the US didn't do a lot in Timor in 1999, but Thailand did. Australia policy is to not rely on the combat forces of other countries, so a fighter sqn, warship or Army unit from our Allies is a welcome addition to our strength but we're not staking our lives on it.

It's just technology transfer, we sold our Mirage fleet to Pakistan in the 90s, but had to bury our F111s due to US ITARs. I daresay we'll have to do the same with the Blackhawks.
Click to expand...

If there was no US support in 1999, Indonesia would still rule Timor. US didn't do a lot just because it was clear that they are so powerful that they even don't have to really come there in force, it was enough to look seriously on Indonesia.

No question that larger helicopter is better than smaller, or more cost effective. With 16 soldiers in NH90 and 12 in Blackhawk, that is certainly so. Cost difference is also somewhere around that number 4:3.
It would be intresting to see the comparison of the numbers of operational costs of Black Hawk and NH-90... OK, pilots and support staff aren't the same for 46 and 62 helicopters.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
abc123 said:
If there was no US support in 1999, Indonesia would still rule Timor. US didn't do a lot just because it was clear that they are so powerful that they even don't have to really come there in force, it was enough to look seriously on Indonesia.

No question that larger helicopter is better than smaller, or more cost effective. With 16 soldiers in NH90 and 12 in Blackhawk, that is certainly so. Cost difference is also somewhere around that number 4:3.
It would be intresting to see the comparison of the numbers of operational costs of Black Hawk and NH-90... OK, pilots and support staff aren't the same for 46 and 62 helicopters.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit!

Politicians don't understand the nuances of helicopter size, doctrine and the like, they only see fleet numbers, cost and jobs. If the Blackhawk created Australian jobs for the right price without rocking the diplomatic boat then it would have won despite it not being ideal for doctrine etc. Politics is always king.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top