Australia may have gotten rid of the old Huey, but that does not mean we still don’t need its utility.
It is a shame that Defence almost always reaches for the gold-plated answer when procuring something.
In operations other than war and even low intensity conflicts, the new Huey UH-1Y could provide a lot of use for a variety of Australian operations. That includes home/regional disaster events.
It has done well in Afghanistan.
The Y is powerful in its class; made to meet the requirements of the United States Marine Corps and as an off-the-shelf buy has low procurement risk, even for the DMO.
It is not a super helicopter for every solution. It is a very good and proven helicopter for a lot of situations that don’t require the big and more expensive machines.
14 comments:
The DMO would, project manage it into something with hundreds of modifications resulting in a machine costing $100 million each, the same as the Seasprite.
The latest regarding DMO.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/navy-procurement-under-fire-in-new-audit-of-major-projects/story-e6frg8yo-1226083568216
And this project ran WAY over time and over budget...it works now, but there was a time when there was doubt it ever would
UH-1Y Venom (Super Huey) unit cost is unknown as majority are new airframes after earlier upgrading of some UH-1Ns. The main difference with the Venom is a fuselage stretch of 533mm. Unit cost for the UH-60M Blackhawk is apparently at least $20million and the UH-1Y Super Huey is probably significantly cheaper.
The Huey II upgrade of the single-engine UH-1H Iroquois beats the much heavier twin-engine UH-1Y Super Huey, UH-60M Blackhawk, MH-60S Seahawk for hot and high performance, with all capable of lifting a 4 man crew and 10 troops. Operating costs for the Huey II seem only 20 percent or less of the other types.
Buying 25 Huey II from Bell Helicopter at cost of just $50million overall would be the most cost-effective way of recovering forfeited utility helicopter capability. The cost would be less if ADF Iroquois not yet disposed of were put through the Bell Helicopter Huey II factory upgrade program.
It'll never happen, if only because it makes so much sense.
Utility helicopters should be just that - utility helicopters, and not the ridiculously expensive, underperforming,overly complex plastic Ferraris we've bought that the ADF can't get (and I suspect will never get) to work to their promised performance levels.
Bushranger you are of course sadly right,
Even if the UH-1Y cost $5 million a piece they would still be a steal. But as has been pointed out this all makes too much sense.
Good point. I imagine if you had a Y without the guns, rockets and E/O gear you may have some better performance too.
See my post #48 regarding MH-60R at this link: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/454686-new-helos-ran-3.html
The principles embraced in Defence White Paper 2009 concerning 'Operational Flexibility' and Cost-effective Capability' should be applicable to the majority of ADF hardware acquisitions, but especially military helicopters considering the broad nature of their roles.
Hey guys, don't know if it will happen, but there are moves afoot for the Kiowa training helicopter replacement - Helicopter Aircrews Training System, to fulfill a light utility role for the Army, there's no formal project but Army is flying a flight of Kiowas in Sydney with 173 Sqn, doing that light utility stuff that a Blackhawk or MRH-90 is overkill for.
The replacement for the Kiowa under the HATS project will be something like the Bell 429, AW109 or EC-635 and there is a push to get additional examples of this help for light utility tasks fr Army, replacing the role to some degree that the Huey performed once it was replaced by the Blackhawks in the front line role.
Again, whatever the merits of the Huey, it too is gone and unlikely to return.
Thank goodness we had Angus and the DMO to help us get to where we are now?
Gobsmacked, reading your last comment, my "ironyometer" just went off scale, as I assume you meant it to. Given the disaster for the ADF that the man has overseen and underwritten, the nickname he was given by his peers during his boggie days, "The Goose", was perhaps more than a little prescient.
Just imagine if this person had been in private enterprise, he would have been litigated to the n'th degree.
Seems like the absurdities of the Aerospace Capability Implementation Roadmap – Rotary Wing (ACIR-RW) will continue, irrespective of shortcomings and cost.
The 3 types mentioned by Bonza are twin-engine whereas basic helicopter training requires single engine platforms, like fixed wing.
The so-called light utility helo role vaunted by arms manufacturers and the US Army forsakes a combat crew and thus compromises the ability to perform a range of basic battlefield support roles, which the Huey did (does) far more cost-effectively than the Blackhawk.
There seems almost a complete lack of operational acumen in this foolish strategy which was conceived by the Helicopter Systems Division of DMO when headed by Army Aviation. What needs to happen now is suspension of ridiculous helo disposal/replacement planning and modest cost efforts made to regain lost capabilities.
The reason integral utility helo support could not be provided for ADF elements in Afghanistan was failure to progressively optimize in-service assets to maintain a continual adequate and credible military preparedness. That is a serious indictment of the outgoing military leadership and if intent outlined by Bonza transpires, then the incoming leadership will likely be no better.
Twin engined basic rotary wing trainers? The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
Post a Comment