|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 14, 2017 12:47:31 GMT 12
That has been the "Aussie Way" with many of their projects over the years. They try to get too clever with customising and "gold plating' things rather than buying something that is off the shelf. When they stick to FMS "off-the-shelf" (e.g. Super Hornet & Romeo Seahawk) things seem to go a lot better.
The same applies to the NZ situation. You can't beat FMS off the shelf!
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jun 14, 2017 14:10:50 GMT 12
Didn't the Aussies change the base model specs quite substantially? Seems they are having more issues than those (like RNZAF) using standard "off the shelf" version! ADF ARH-90s are essentially the same spec as those for the German army. It's actually the RNZAF that slightly customized it's aircraft. The ADF just has a significantly larger fleet, flown from an earlier point in the program's life, with some major exercises like Talisman Sabre 2017 close on the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 14, 2017 19:30:15 GMT 12
That has been the "Aussie Way" with many of their projects over the years. They try to get too clever with customising and "gold plating' things rather than buying something that is off the shelf. When they stick to FMS "off-the-shelf" (e.g. Super Hornet & Romeo Seahawk) things seem to go a lot better. Part of the "Aussie way," especially in Army, has been to divert skilled and valuable tradespeople from core maintenance tasks. Spend the first few hours of the day playing soldier in the sun, the too shagged to maintain aircraft until after lunch. And then complain the aircraft need more maintainers than the manufacturer says. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Jun 14, 2017 21:27:47 GMT 12
The Aussie MRH 90's are off self apart from the radios and something else, but I can't remember what it was when last had a flight in one. The ARH Tiger is one they have stuffed up with alot of integration issues from weapon, ISR targeting and radio issues and Airbus aren't much chop with poorly designed environmental system (in other words the the bloody air con system) along with the previous mention issues. I've been told from my 4SQN CCT mates when the whole thing works it kick's ass and when it doesn't it's useless as tits on a bull. You would surprise on how Raafies are still get posted AAAC units because of their soldier first mentality and they wonder why their helicopters full out of the sky or don't get off the ground.
Early last year I was reading in the Australian Defence Magazine (ADM) that the current CAF had asked the former CAF Angus Houston (a former helicopter pilot and the last CO of 9SQN when the RAAF still had helicopters on strength) to write up at paper on why the Rotor Wing should come back under Airforces control, because of all the Army's problems are having with helicopters. As one senior officer to said to me many moons ago at cocktail party he can't understand why the Army so many problems with their helicopters when we had so few problems when we had helicopters and me being smart ass rock ape at time said when was the last time you saw bloody RAAF tech'o do a green ex (Ground Defence/ Key Point Defence), it's bad a enough when they to do their annual weapons training and by that stage my FSGT step in .............
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 14, 2017 21:47:52 GMT 12
That has been the "Aussie Way" with many of their projects over the years. They try to get too clever with customising and "gold plating' things rather than buying something that is off the shelf. When they stick to FMS "off-the-shelf" (e.g. Super Hornet & Romeo Seahawk) things seem to go a lot better. The same applies to the NZ situation. You can't beat FMS off the shelf! Off the shelf is fine,'FMS off the shelf' is often what someone else returned to the shelf as defective or used condition,not so fine! Buy it, own it (in all meanings of the word 'own'),just do a decent case at the start on what you really need it to do.
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Aug 8, 2017 10:56:49 GMT 12
Above the clouds at Wanganui, there is a MH90. Is it safe to go outside?
|
|
|
Post by isc on Aug 8, 2017 13:12:12 GMT 12
Don't worry it's not an R-22, it wont fall on your head. isc
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Aug 30, 2017 20:00:17 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by atea on Sept 1, 2017 21:13:25 GMT 12
I have seen on MRC that one of the Aussie C17's has been over to transport an un-serviceable NH90 from Wellington to Ohakea. Must be pretty bad if they have had to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 1, 2017 21:28:49 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Sept 2, 2017 17:27:57 GMT 12
I have seen on MRC that one of the Aussie C17's has been over to transport an un-serviceable NH90 from Wellington to Ohakea. Must be pretty bad if they have had to do that. I don't follow the logic here. The servicing facility, tools and equipment are at Ohakea. The maintenance personnel are at Ohakea. The tie down scheme for C-17 is approved and frequently used. Do think think moving equipment and people, putting them in hotels is a better idea? Or developing a tie down scheme for a truck, conducting stress analysis, hiring a crane and moving it by road is easier? SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 2, 2017 19:08:05 GMT 12
Really, you won't get a 737 (let alone a C17) from oz to here & back again for less than 200K, that is a hell of a lot of Hotel room nights or sufficient cash to develop the process to stick them on a truck, given they won't always break beside a runway, but then again if every time they break we use a C17 the pollies might think we really do need a couple.
edit oops 200k is a tad high, 130k is probably closer for a 737, but you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Sept 3, 2017 5:53:32 GMT 12
Really, you won't get a 737 (let alone a C17) from oz to here & back again for less than 200K, that is a hell of a lot of Hotel room nights or sufficient cash to develop the process to stick them on a truck, given they won't always break beside a runway, but then again if every time they break we use a C17 the pollies might think we really do need a couple. edit oops 200k is a tad high, 130k is probably closer for a 737, but you get the idea. yep my thoughts exactly, you will be paying aircraft flight hours.
gives a good indication on which aircraft will get up for FMAC project
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Sept 3, 2017 11:04:06 GMT 12
Really, you won't get a 737 (let alone a C17) from oz to here & back again for less than 200K, that is a hell of a lot of Hotel room nights or sufficient cash to develop the process to stick them on a truck, given they won't always break beside a runway, but then again if every time they break we use a C17 the pollies might think we really do need a couple. edit oops 200k is a tad high, 130k is probably closer for a 737, but you get the idea. The going rate for aeronautical engineers is around $2.5K per day. And there aren't any sitting around waiting for a phone call. It may have been cheaper (I'm not convinced), but only if you don't value the down time, impact on fleet stagger, disrupted taskings. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 3, 2017 13:28:49 GMT 12
But it is a partly capital expenditure masquerading as operational expenditure, once done you have the data to keep sticking them on trucks (it does raise the question why hasn't it been done already). that very rare thing you see in NZ, capital expenditure to drive down operating costs. Plus C17s just sit around all month waiting for a call.
I think you need to shop around a bit more if you are paying $2.5K per day for an aeronautical engineers or stop using large defense contractors (that rate should get a very senior person full time when in reality they are going to fob it off to junior after a hour).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 3, 2017 13:43:27 GMT 12
Have any of you checked to see if the C-17 was already here or coming here for the big exercise that is on? Maybe it didn't cost as much as you think?
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Sept 3, 2017 14:45:48 GMT 12
The question still remains - why did NZ 3306 require transport to Ohakea?
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Sept 3, 2017 15:48:56 GMT 12
The question still remains - why did NZ 3306 require transport to Ohakea? Does seem a little odd , given that they were able to replace an engine in one pretty much in a paddock near Blenheim at Easter Cant help think Dave may be right , the C-17 may have been already coming for other reasons ( it just seems a lot of trouble to go to otherwise )
|
|
|
Post by atea on Sept 3, 2017 16:16:15 GMT 12
The question still remains - why did NZ 3306 require transport to Ohakea? Does seem a little odd , given that they were able to replace an engine in one pretty much in a paddock near Blenheim at Easter Cant help think Dave may be right , the C-17 may have been already coming for other reasons ( it just seems a lot of trouble to go to otherwise ) That's what stuck me as strange about it too. How often is a NH90 going to develop problems at an airport where a C17 is able to airlift from. I wonder if there was also a need to certify so that the Aussie C17 can carry our ones? And I guess if the Aussies had a spare day on their hands that may have made sense to ask them to do that and also help recover the helicopter at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Sept 3, 2017 16:27:35 GMT 12
Have any of you checked to see if the C-17 was already here or coming here for the big exercise that is on? Maybe it didn't cost as much as you think? This is the MRC post about it: "Another Royal Australian Air Force Boeing C17 Globemaster III has visited NZ, this time A41-208 touching down in Wellington early afternoon 31 August from Amberley as "Ausy 663". The heavylift transporter uplifted an interesting consignment - RNZAF NH90 helicopter NZ3306 - and then made the short hop to Ohakea delivering the unservicable fling-wing to its home for continued maintenance activity. "The C17 overnighted at Ohakea and departed mid morning 01 September heading to Townsville."
|
|