. | . |
Engineers investigate grounded MRH90s
Canberra, Australia (UPI) May 20, 2010 Engineers from Turbomeca and Rolls-Royce are in Australia investigating a major engine failure on one of the new MRH90 helicopters that are now all grounded. The Australian Defense Force's army has 11 MRH90s purchased from European manufacturer EADS and the defense ministry awaits delivery of another 29 as part of the $4 billion deal. But the ministry quietly grounded all 11 in late April after a pilot struggled to land his ailing aircraft due to what the defense department called a "technical incident." The pilot had one of the aircraft's twin engines fail but managed to return to Edinburgh Air Force Base near the city of Adelaide. Defense procurement minister Greg Combet was not available for comment but the grounding of the aircraft was confirmed to media by his office. Australian media also are speculating that the secret grounding was an effort by the federal government to avoid further defense procurement embarrassment. In 2008 the Labor government of Kevin Rudd canceled a deal for Seasprite naval helicopters that cost the defense ministry around $1 billion. The Super Seasprite project was canceled after falling seven years behind schedule and almost 50 percent over budget. The MRH90 engine troubles come as Australia is still deciding between EADS and a Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky bid for a $2 billion contract for 25 ship-borne helicopters for its navy. Last October Australian military chiefs said in a leaked classified document that they were leaning towards the Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter over its NH90 rival, EAD's marine version of the MRH90 that was just entering service with the army. The military claimed that the Sikorsky is a cheaper, risk-free option for Australia instead of the EADS naval frigate helicopter. EADS's subsidiary Australian Aerospace, which already supplies the army's Tiger helicopters, has argued that purchasing the NH90 would save money by removing the need for multiple training and logistics systems. Also, EADS says that the 80 per cent commonality in avionics and airframe between the NH90 and MRH90 is an economic advantage for the government. Both EADS and the Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky say they would invest upward of $1 billion in local industry if they secured the deal. A decision is expected on a naval helicopter in 2011 with deliveries starting in 2014. The official government opposition Defense Spokesperson Bob Baldwin slammed the defense department's secrecy over the grounding of the MRH90s, saying that the issue should be in the open for safety reasons. Baldwin acknowledged that technical problems with new equipment are common and it is important that a warning be sent out to other militaries around the world that might be using similar helicopters. But Baldwin also said he will be demanding answers from the government. "We don't know what has occurred there," he said. "It will be pursued because the government has tried to hide from the public an issue affecting air safety, an issue affecting our air force personnel safety and we need answers."
Share This Article With Planet Earth
Related Links The latest in Military Technology for the 21st century at SpaceWar.com
Northrop Grumman Teams With EOS For CROWS 3 Huntsville AL (SPX) May 20, 2010 Northrop Grumman Corporation and EOS Technologies Inc. have teamed to pursue the U.S. Army's Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station 3 (CROWS 3) program. The CROWS vehicle-mounted stations allow soldiers to locate, identify and engage targets with better accuracy and improved range, while the gunner remains safely inside an armored vehicle. Under the agreement Northrop Grumman will ... read more |
|
The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2010 - SpaceDaily. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement |