Australia switches from Taipan to Black Hawk

[Slater]

Being a newer design, I would have thought that Taipan would have the edge over a 40-year old design: 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/australian-military-switches-european-us-042650272.html

[Head in the clouds.]

Well, if you supply a product that spends more time on the ground than in the air you can't complain if your customer ditches you, the BlackHawk may be a 40 year old 'base' design but it at least gets airborne on a regular basis.

 

Fair play the government of Australia.

[Slater]

Australia recently ordered a batch of MH-60R's, so they're evidently satisfied with the "Hawk":

 

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/Press Release - Australia 21-61 CN.pdf

[exdraken]

The MH-90 seems a bit ofa fled design... at least if you do not buy into sufficient maintenance.... Australia has similar issues with the Tiger.

Sweden also bought Blackhawks by the way on a quick track, because their MH-90 did not perform in time....

I hope someone learn from this experience.... especially with the new European Steath Fighters on the design boards ar different consortia currently...

[Devo]

🤣🤣.....I'm not surprised. SH-2G, MRH-90, Tiger, expensive crap decision making from the get go by people above my pay grade.

 

 I remember (just), aircrew and maintainers talking about why don't we (ADF) get more Seahawk/Blackhawk variants with dipping sonar(really...sonar.....not just sonar buoys...wow thats new isn't it....🤣😂....ASW, ASuW....gee what a concept for Naval aircraft🤪) and whoosh bangs and proper door guns etc etc........ more chooks and Apaches for the Pongo's instead of any of the Eurocrapters......

Oh well at least the Navy guys got a  good jolly to France out of it.

 

 I guess we are only the end-user's....what do we know?

 

Please note that my sarcasm meter is turned up to 11. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Devo

[Slater]

8 hours ago, exdraken said:

The MH-90 seems a bit ofa fled design... at least if you do not buy into sufficient maintenance.... Australia has similar issues with the Tiger.

Sweden also bought Blackhawks by the way on a quick track, because their MH-90 did not perform in time....

I hope someone learn from this experience.... especially with the new European Steath Fighters on the design boards ar different consortia currently...

Were the Swedish Black Hawks bought as a gap-filler until a permanent solution could be found or are they permanent kit?

[exdraken]

5 hours ago, Slater said:

Were the Swedish Black Hawks bought as a gap-filler until a permanent solution could be found or are they permanent kit?

I think Sweden operates both now .. I guess time will decide which one performs better overall....

[Seahawk]

Sounds as if the Australian government is putting out a strong message that it is no longer prepared to be taken for a ride /bled dry/played for a fool by contractors.  You never know, it could catch on elsewhere.

[upnorth]

Nothing wrong with the Blackhawk.

 

It's clearly one of those aircraft like the Huey or C-130 Hercules, It's so adaptable that's there's practically no stopping it.

 

A few years ago, Slovakia replaced their Mi-17 fleet with Blackhawks and are quite happy so far.

 

On a similar note, the Czech air force will start training next year for their UH-1Y and AH-1Z fleets that will replace their Mi-17s and Mi-35s. While the latest iterations or the Huey and Huey Cobra don't have much in common with earlier generations of the types, it speaks volumes for the quality of the designs that they can keep going.

 

My understanding of the issues with the Australian Tiger purchase is that the Tiger is a component of a larger integrated system and needs a lot of gear stripped out and replaced for someone to be able to use it effectively as stand-alone gear outside of that system. Similar to when Saab Drakens were exported, all the gear in the aircraft that was connected to the integrated STRIL defense network that Sweden used had to be stripped out and replaced so export customers could make the aircraft workable in their own systems or as stand-alone machines. A quite expensive proposition when it comes right down to it.

[Whitewolf]

The UK is looking to replace its Pumas, hopefully with Blackhawks......it makes sense to use a proven design in service with multiple countries in multiple forms!

[Blimpyboy]

I do like the rather telling first sentence from the following statement, in 2017, by the then CO of the 5th Aviation Regiment, LTCOL Gilfillan:

 

"In the end, Taipan is the aircraft the Australian Government chose to acquire, and we have a duty to make it work,” said LTCOL Gilfillan in closing. “What I’m trying to do is to be positive about the aircraft, because positive thinking is far more likely to bring success than negative thinking. But it’s a fantastic helicopter – I am not only very positive about the aircraft itself, but also in our ability to make it work. It’s been a journey and we have positive momentum, and I’m excited about what the possibilities are.”

 

Says it all, I think!

 

From: https://adbr.com.au/into-a-rhythm-the-mrh-90-taipans-long-journey-to-success/

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Blimpyboy

[Seahawk]

17 minutes ago, Whitewolf said:

The UK is looking to replace its Pumas, hopefully with Blackhawks......i

Is it looking to replace its Pumas or saying it's looking to replace its Pumas?

 

Let me polish my crystal ball and see how this will pan out:

 

1.  The Pumas will be summarily withdrawn and their squadrons disbanded.  Those who bemoan the resulting capability gap will be pacified by vague unatrributable statements that the MOD is "looking to" replace them.  In political terms I believe this is called an "aspiration" rather than a "commitment".

2.  There will be a couple of years of studies and feasibility surveys to give the illusion of activity, during which the money for the project (if there ever was any) will be diverted elsewhere.

3.  After a decent interval, ie once the decision-makers reckon everyone has forgotten that we ever had any Pumas, it will be announced, preferably on a day when the journos' attention is distracted by another story (i), that, surprise, surprise, the Pumas' role can be perfectly well fulfilled by other assets: this will either be not true or fail to take account of the fact that those assets are already fully committed to being somewhere else doing something else at the time and are unfortunately unable to be in two places at the same time.  Case in point: Bloodhound was supposed to be replaced by a new Medium Range SAM until someone came to the dazzling insight that the role could be fulfilled by RN AD destroyers (which themselves got cut from the planned 12 to 6).

 

(i)  December 23rd is always a popular day: journos already have packed up for Christmas and by New Year no-one will care.

[Whitewolf]

That's a pretty good account of what will probably happen lol. But as the UK seeks to boost its position on the worlds stage, new kit will be required, so it might be a case of having to actually get and buy some. 

[upnorth]

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

Is it looking to replace its Pumas or saying it's looking to replace its Pumas?

 

Let me polish my crystal ball and see how this will pan out:

 

1.  The Pumas will be summarily withdrawn and their squadrons disbanded.  Those who bemoan the resulting capability gap will be pacified by vague unatrributable statements that the MOD is "looking to" replace them.  In political terms I believe this is called an "aspiration" rather than a "commitment".

2.  There will be a couple of years of studies and feasibility surveys to give the illusion of activity, during which the money for the project (if there ever was any) will be diverted elsewhere.

3.  After a decent interval, ie once the decision-makers reckon everyone has forgotten that we ever had any Pumas, it will be announced, preferably on a day when the journos' attention is distracted by another story (i), that, surprise, surprise, the Pumas' role can be perfectly well fulfilled by other assets: this will either be not true or fail to take account of the fact that those assets are already fully committed to being somewhere else doing something else at the time and are unfortunately unable to be in two places at the same time.  Case in point: Bloodhound was supposed to be replaced by a new Medium Range SAM until someone came to the dazzling insight that the role could be fulfilled by RN AD destroyers (which themselves got cut from the planned 12 to 6).

 

(i)  December 23rd is always a popular day: journos already have packed up for Christmas and by New Year no-one will care.

 

 

And someone will remember the "Westland Affair" of the mid-late 1980s and remind all and sundry that the UK forces could have been using British built Blackhawks for years by now.

[Graham Boak]

2 hours ago, upnorth said:

 

 

My understanding of the issues with the Australian Tiger purchase is that the Tiger is a component of a larger integrated system and needs a lot of gear stripped out and replaced for someone to be able to use it effectively as stand-alone gear outside of that system. Similar to when Saab Drakens were exported, all the gear in the aircraft that was connected to the integrated STRIL defense network that Sweden used had to be stripped out and replaced so export customers could make the aircraft workable in their own systems or as stand-alone machines. A quite expensive proposition when it comes right down to it.

This is why the term "weapon system" came to better describe what was going on.  Where the aircraft is simply part of the whole thing, a platform and a carrier for the really important kit.

[junglierating]

11 hours ago, Devo said:

🤣🤣.....I'm not surprised. SH-2G, MRH-90, Tiger, expensive crap decision making from the get go by people above my pay grade.

 

 I remember (just), aircrew and maintainers talking about why don't we (ADF) get more Seahawk/Blackhawk variants with dipping sonar(really...sonar.....not just sonar buoys...wow thats new isn't it....🤣😂....ASW, ASuW....gee what a concept for Naval aircraft🤪) and whoosh bangs and proper door guns etc etc........ more chooks and Apaches for the Pongo's instead of any of the Eurocrapters......

Oh well at least the Navy guys got a  good jolly to France out of it.

 

 I guess we are only the end-user's....what do we know?

 

Please note that my sarcasm meter is turned up to 11. 

 

 

Same in the RN shippers .....cast off crab Merlins.....still at least the Roger Nigel gets more hours out of them than our light blue friends 💙 

[alex]

2 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:

I do like the rather telling first sentence from the following statement, in 2017, by the then CO of the 5th Aviation Regiment, LTCOL Gilfillan:

 

"In the end, Taipan is the aircraft the Australian Government chose to acquire, and we have a duty to make it work,” said LTCOL Gilfillan in closing. “What I’m trying to do is to be positive about the aircraft, because positive thinking is far more likely to bring success than negative thinking. But it’s a fantastic helicopter – I am not only very positive about the aircraft itself, but also in our ability to make it work. It’s been a journey and we have positive momentum, and I’m excited about what the possibilities are.”

 

Says it all, I think!

 

 

 

 

Actulally, he sounds quite happy about the capabilities of the NH90. I guess it's just Mr. Morrison trying to find out how bad the relationships between Australia and France can get.

 

Alex

[Slater]

Using the phrase "make it work" twice in one statement suggests (to me, anyway) that things aren't going to be that smooth. 

[Blimpyboy]

7 hours ago, alex said:

Actulally, he sounds quite happy about the capabilities of the NH90.

Hmmm, maybe… 🤔

Methinks a LTCOL and CO would hardly give any negative line to the press - military discipline ‘n’ all!

 

My interpretation (and trying to read between the lines) is that the good LTCOL was definitely being a good leader/soldier and following orders while being factual to both aspects!

 

My understanding is that people really do like flying and working on the MRH, but capability managers  (and therefore the services and Government) are frustrated that it just cannot be made to do what it needs to do - an awesome paper capability is no capability if the real life performance doesn’t stack up.

 

Ultimately, all soldiers have to work with what they are issued!

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Blimpyboy

[Shane]

12 hours ago, upnorth said:

Nothing wrong with the Blackhawk.

 

It's clearly one of those aircraft like the Huey or C-130 Hercules, It's so adaptable that's there's practically no stopping it.

 

A few years ago, Slovakia replaced their Mi-17 fleet with Blackhawks and are quite happy so far.

 

On a similar note, the Czech air force will start training next year for their UH-1Y and AH-1Z fleets that will replace their Mi-17s and Mi-35s. While the latest iterations or the Huey and Huey Cobra don't have much in common with earlier generations of the types, it speaks volumes for the quality of the designs that they can keep going.

 

My understanding of the issues with the Australian Tiger purchase is that the Tiger is a component of a larger integrated system and needs a lot of gear stripped out and replaced for someone to be able to use it effectively as stand-alone gear outside of that system. Similar to when Saab Drakens were exported, all the gear in the aircraft that was connected to the integrated STRIL defense network that Sweden used had to be stripped out and replaced so export customers could make the aircraft workable in their own systems or as stand-alone machines. A quite expensive proposition when it comes right down to it.

 

Somewhat the reverse of actuality.  Tiger is a good aircraft but suffered from God awful support by Airbus Helicopters including a reluctance to assist with integration into the ADF networked Defence structure.  RAAF  is already leading development of the E-7 P-8 to tightly integrate Army, Navy and Airforce assets and the European systems on Tiger were better stripped out and replaced with systems common to or fully interoperable with our US sourced equipment.  Poor logistics support, excessive cost and inability to keep up with the leading edge doomed them.

 

Which is a pity. I like the Tiger

 

S

[Blimpyboy]

10 minutes ago, Shane said:

Poor logistics support, excessive cost and inability to keep up with the leading edge doomed them.

Amen to that.

 

It is a shame, as both Airbus types were very modern and had such promise.

It is a real pity that the designers couldn’t work out their long-term logistics and general customer support issues in a timely fashion.

 

[Slater]

Blackhawk has been around for so long that any hiccups/serviceability issues have probably long since been addressed.

[Whitewolf]

11 hours ago, upnorth said:

 

 

And someone will remember the "Westland Affair" of the mid-late 1980s and remind all and sundry that the UK forces could have been using British built Blackhawks for years by now.

We could have been  and should have been! It would have solved so many issues over the years!

[Bandsaw Steve]

Just out of interest, does anyone have any information or thoughts  on how the RNZAF is getting on with its NH90s?

 

If the kiwis are getting on OK with their’s, perhaps they might pick up some surplus Aussie units?

[hairystick]

22 hours ago, upnorth said:

Nothing wrong with the Blackhawk.

 

It's clearly one of those aircraft like the Huey or C-130 Hercules, It's so adaptable that's there's practically no stopping it.

Even the chinese have their version, the Harbin Z-20 or "Copy Hawk".

 

The blackhawk/Seahawk is the common standard for utility helicopters and have proved their worth around the world.