Tyranny of distance--Long, drawn out helicopter projects are unsustainable

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel for the MRH-90 and ARH Tiger helicopter projects?

Is that light a train?

Troops admit they like both the helicopters but looking close shows that this is mostly the new-car-smell factor.

Do both helicopters offer more capability? The MRH-90 carries more with better endurance than the Blackhawk. The same goes when comparing the MRH-90 with the Seahawk. The MRH-90 is supposed to replace both these types.

The ARH Tiger “kills everything it engages”.

In exercises.

The MRH-90 costs $31,790 per flight hour. The Seahawk: $14,760 per flight hour. The Blackhawk: $11,470 per flight hour.

The MRH-90 is still trying to get up to reasonable readiness rates (known in the ADF as “RoE” for rate of effectiveness).

The ARH Tiger is in a similar situation at $33,548 per flight hour.

Where both these new helicopter projects fall down is they are not ready for a sustained war. Today, sustainment for both these systems is far from reasonable. Helicopters sit while some parts have to be sent back to Europe for refurbishment. This isn't always fast. It isn't practical if your supply chain is cut off in war.

Both helicopters have a variety of known problems that, many years after the projects have started, are unfixed. The Navy is uncomfortable with declaring operational capability with their NRH's until the the cargo hook issue gets solved (currently only safely usable at a lower hover). They might fix that one. What defines reasonable corrosion (the Dutch experience) will be another issue down the road.

The services will be getting new helicopters. They will cost much more to operate and have lower flight availability rates. Holding up claims of more capability with the new system isn't much value if its ability to do sustained flying operations is in serious question.

The fix for all of this?

The helicopter roadmap for the ADF needs a complete, long-term review. We might be stuck with the MRH-90. In that case, it may be worth it to create another four-dozen that have more reliable systems, are more corrosion resistant and all of the supply chain is in Australia under-license build to get around intellectual property issues.

If that cannot be done for such an important system, then we need to look elsewhere for helicopters. The era of the foreign-owned Defence solution needs to be reduced as much as possible. It is not war-friendly.

As for the ARH Tiger, a few days of war against a moderately capable enemy could see that squadron completely destroyed or combat ineffective. Not good for a return on the investment.


---


-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-I will wipe out bullying vows new Defence chief (Houston 2005)
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
-The Decay Of Critical Military Thinking And Writing-With Particular Reference To The RAAF
-Newspaper guy gets it right about sub project.... big time
-The great M-1 tank myth
-*UPDATE* Fear and loathing in Canberra - Audit released on MRH-90 helicopter project 
-RAN bullies contractor over Collins sub replacement
-2014-15 ADF budget shocker - Star-ranks
-Air Warfare Destroyer -- Billions, not millions over budget
-Australia's M-1 tanks are... a downgrade compared to what it had
-Weak links put on rubber-stamp Defence panel
-Stop the nonsense (Collins-class submarine replacement)


---