Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future Common Helicopter Fleet AC/CG/NS/Ambulance/Garda

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Future Common Helicopter Fleet AC/CG/NS/Ambulance/Garda

    Given our small size would a future common helicopter fleet, along the Dutch or Danish model, offer substantial advantages?

    Realistically, is this the only structure that would be able to generate two medium utility/medivac helicopters for deployment on UN peace keeping/peace enforcement missions overseas?

    As a former NH90/AW101 enthusiast, the following article makes a sobering read.

    Helicopter scandals for everyone, Black Hawk to the rescue.

    If we had to make a decision in the short term, and the Naval Service wanted to inclue an option for six future ASW capable helicopters, would the leading contender be the MH-60R/S?

    An initial fleet structure for consideration might be..

    6 MH-60-Sierra Air Corps General Operations/Garda ASU
    6 MH-60-Sierra Coast Guard/Air Ambulance

    .. with options for.

    2 MH-60-Sierra Shipborne SAR/Deployable Utility/Medivac
    6 MH-60-Romeo ASW/Shipborne SAR

    The common cockpit across the Romeo and Sierra models is a huge operational advantage, compounding all the other system commonality advantages.



    US Navy paying millions of dollars to store dozens of Sikorsky MH-60R helicopters it has no need for.
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 1 May 2019, 18:59. Reason: Updated link

  • #2
    Shock a helicopter with 3 engines is harder and more expensive to maintain (AW101 / EH101)

    What’s the problem with the NH90? Open to correction, but every country’s ones are different so they have to be certified as such, which pushes up the cost. It also means no 2 countries aircraft are the same and it designed that way so the customer can have what they want on it.

    Some of Australia’s problems https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defaul...13-2014_52.pdf

    Comment


    • #3
      The size of the AC fleet means that every aircraft has to be multi-role. We can’t buy 6 of the same helicopter but only 2 can be used for air ambulance work, etc

      Comment


      • #4
        There are many errors in the story especially in relation to the cost per hour.
        If the values are to believe the MH60 cost per hour are lower than the UH60. This would be a first that the naval helicopter with all its expensive avionics has lower costs than the much simpler land based troop transporter.

        Also what has to be taken into account is that the NH90 and AW101 have much large troop carrying capacity. This does not mean the either NH or Leonardo can be let off for the extremely poor spares supply or reliability.

        That the USN is storing MH-60R is not new but it is a little higher than planned as they have over-estimated the number of LCS vessels they wold have in-service.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DeV View Post
          Shock a helicopter with 3 engines is harder and more expensive to maintain (AW101 / EH101)

          What’s the problem with the NH90? Open to correction, but every country’s ones are different so they have to be certified as such, which pushes up the cost. It also means no 2 countries aircraft are the same and it designed that way so the customer can have what they want on it.

          Some of Australia’s problems https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defaul...13-2014_52.pdf
          You hit the nail on the head, every country different: French NH90's can do fast roping but the Australian NH90's cannot..............

          Comment


          • #6


            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            We can’t buy 6 of the same helicopter but only 2 can be used for air ambulance work, etc
            Sure, numbers shown are merely illustrative of how an appropriately sized common MH-60S fleet might be arrived at. The whole point is to maximise commonality across all aspects of operation to enhance availability, utility, and cross-mission support for all taskings. In practical terms, the only difference between Coast Guard/Ambulance/Garda/General Ops helicopters would be the presence/absence of high-visibility day-glo vinyl on the side doors.

            If the Rangers are given the option to cancel a training mission because of an availability issue, or use a reserve aircraft from elsewhere, I don't think for a moment they'd bat an eyelid.

            The NH90 is a sad and sorry tale indeed, with reported flight availability in the range of 40% and a Typhoon-like cost per flight-hour of €19,000. The AW101 appears a star by comparison with 66% availability and a cost per flight hour of €14,000. Source.

            Lockheed-Martin claim a modest Grippen-like cost per flight hour of €3,000 for the MH-60R/S.

            Total interoperability may be a fantasy, but on the face of it, the MH-60 Romeo and Sierra appear to come as close as may be practicable.

            Plus, the Romeo model in particular, might just be available for a song.

            Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            If the values are to believe the MH60 cost per hour are lower than the UH60. This would be a first that the naval helicopter with all its expensive avionics has lower costs than the much simpler land based troop transporter.

            Also what has to be taken into account is that the NH90 and AW101 have much large troop carrying capacity. This does not mean the either NH or Leonardo can be let off for the extremely poor spares supply or reliability.

            That the USN is storing MH-60R is not new but it is a little higher than planned as they have over-estimated the number of LCS vessels they wold have in-service.
            Noted
            Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 1 May 2019, 21:17.

            Comment


            • #7
              You won't get an MH 60 as an export customer.
              You'll get an S-70 to your local specifications. The cabin space is smaller than the AW139, who seem to have a pretty good service record with us. Also, the power by the hours figures provided by sikorsky were much higher for a S70 if I recall correctly.
              As for even considering using them in the GASU role, even the LAPD don't use S70 variants. LAFD do though, presumaby because the downdraft can extinguish most small fires. You don't want the whole county knowing you have an eye in the sky. The H135 is far better suited to this role.

              We don't want to offend our European overlords. Read about why we don't have S92s in the Air corps if you are wondering why. Buying surplus stock is bad for business.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • #8
                The last time you had a helicopter that satisfied everyone, it was the Bell UH-1D. Bell said, "here is a hole, into which you can fit twelve men or x pounds of cargo. In front is a smaller hole for up to two pilots. The hole is surrounded with aluminium and magnesium, has a simple turbine on top, on top of which is a simple two-blade main rotor. Bringing up the rear is a small rotor, again a simple two-blader. Out of this aircraft you can hang a multitude of weapons, pylons and hoists, as required. There is a large sliding door on either side of the hole, so that you can conduct any operation from either side. It can be flown or maintained by any person who has passed through an appropriate teaching facility. It can, for the most part, be serviced and maintained in the field with simple hand tools and a few electrical tools such as a multimeter, a battery charger, a fuel pump and a generator and it can be supplied from any Army truck. It can be repaired by anyone who knows how to buck rivets or operate a ratchet." The nearest equivalent were / are the Alouette III and the Mi-2, with the UH-60 as a worthy successor. Every helicopter company that makes helicopters and every armed force that aspires to be a competent helicopter operator should be forcibly issued a UH-1 and told to start again.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post




                  Sure, numbers shown are merely illustrative of how an appropriately sized common MH-60S fleet might be arrived at. The whole point is to maximise commonality across all aspects of operation to enhance availability, utility, and cross-mission support for all taskings. In practical terms, the only difference between Coast Guard/Ambulance/Garda/General Ops helicopters would be the presence/absence of high-visibility day-glo vinyl on the side doors.

                  If the Rangers are given the option to cancel a training mission because of an availability issue, or use a reserve aircraft from elsewhere, I don't think for a moment they'd bat an eyelid.

                  The NH90 is a sad and sorry tale indeed, with reported flight availability in the range of 40% and a Typhoon-like cost per flight-hour of €19,000. The AW101 appears a star by comparison with 66% availability and a cost per flight hour of €14,000. Source.

                  Lockheed-Martin claim a modest Grippen-like cost per flight hour of €3,000 for the MH-60R/S.

                  Total interoperability may be a fantasy, but on the face of it, the MH-60 Romeo and Sierra appear to come as close as may be practicable.

                  Plus, the Romeo model in particular, might just be available for a song.



                  Noted
                  What I mean is that you would end up with helicopters that are very good at 1 mission but are limited in other ones, eg there is a special air ambulance version.... where not everything is removable so really it can only be used in that role.

                  Also currently the IRCG don’t own the helos (the service being contracted out)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Both S70 and MH60 versions have been sold abroad.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      At least for the MH/UH-60 there are figures available as to their costs is US service:
                      For the MH060R the cost per hour is about $12,500; this is based upon the yearly cost of $5.1m per A/C and around 400 hours per year. The airframe has a design life of 10,000hrs.
                      For the UH60M the cost per hour is about $1,100; this is based upon yearly cost of $1.1m per A/C and around 1000 hours per year. The airframe has a design life of 25,000hrs.

                      Details can be found at the end of the "OFFICIAL" SAR reports (not some jurno!)
                      https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...C_2015_SAR.pdf
                      https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...C_2015_SAR.pdf

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                        The last time you had a helicopter that satisfied everyone, it was the Bell UH-1D. Bell said, "here is a hole, into which you can fit twelve men or x pounds of cargo. In front is a smaller hole for up to two pilots. The hole is surrounded with aluminium and magnesium, has a simple turbine on top, on top of which is a simple two-blade main rotor. Bringing up the rear is a small rotor, again a simple two-blader. Out of this aircraft you can hang a multitude of weapons, pylons and hoists, as required. There is a large sliding door on either side of the hole, so that you can conduct any operation from either side. It can be flown or maintained by any person who has passed through an appropriate teaching facility. It can, for the most part, be serviced and maintained in the field with simple hand tools and a few electrical tools such as a multimeter, a battery charger, a fuel pump and a generator and it can be supplied from any Army truck. It can be repaired by anyone who knows how to buck rivets or operate a ratchet." The nearest equivalent were / are the Alouette III and the Mi-2, with the UH-60 as a worthy successor. Every helicopter company that makes helicopters and every armed force that aspires to be a competent helicopter operator should be forcibly issued a UH-1 and told to start again.
                        And is still being built today in an updated form as the Bell UH-1Y Venom

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by apc View Post
                          And is still being built today in an updated form as the Bell UH-1Y Venom
                          Aren't they made from recycling UH1 airframes?
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            Aren't they made from recycling UH1 airframes?
                            It was to be, but in '05 they moved to new build airframes instead.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              At least for the MH/UH-60 there are figures available as to their costs is US service:
                              For the MH060R the cost per hour is about $12,500; this is based upon the yearly cost of $5.1m per A/C and around 400 hours per year. The airframe has a design life of 10,000hrs.
                              For the UH60M the cost per hour is about $1,100; this is based upon yearly cost of $1.1m per A/C and around 1000 hours per year. The airframe has a design life of 25,000hrs.

                              Details can be found at the end of the "OFFICIAL" SAR reports (not some jurno!)
                              https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...C_2015_SAR.pdf
                              https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...C_2015_SAR.pdf
                              A thousand hours a year is busy for a helicopter, so it'd use up quite a bit of downtime in that year for maintenance. You do a thousand hours and you are getting into serious part changes, of lifed items and into deep inspections.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X