The Bk 117 was developed by MBB in Germany and Kawasaki in Japan in the early 1980s. MBB joined forces with Aerospatiale on France to form Eurocopter in the late 1990s i think.
It still has the family resemblance, but that would all the similairties it has with the orginal design of the 1980s. The EC-145 is a new design, though with strong family resemplance to the 117.
Taken from their site on the EC145:
kg lb
• MTOW 3,585 7,904
• MTOW with external load 3,585 7,904
• Empty weight, std sales configuration (1) 1,804 3,977
• Useful load std sales configuration (pilot=80kg) 1,701 3,750
• Sling load 1,500 3,307
POWERPLANT
2 TURBOMECA Arriel 1E2 turbine engines
ENGINE RATINGS
Thermic Power in ISA, at sea level:
kW shp
• Max. continuous power 516 692
• Max. take-off power 550 738
• One engine Inoperative (OIE), MCP 550 738
• One engine Inoperative (OIE) 2.5min power 574 770
The BK117 was fitted orginally with 2 Textron Lycoming LTS101-750B-1 rated at 442kW (592 shp)
MTOW is 3895kg as opposed to 3200kg…
Fuselage length was 9.91meters and the EC-145 is 10.1meters
I think d’lacy meant that 24to 28 F-22s should be bought as well as the F-35.
Or should we just buy nukes instead… eh.. dubya?
Lets see…. the P-3 airframe is too old…. too slow…..
The E-2.. again.. too old… too slow… too small (not enough room to upgrade…. no crew comfort)….not enough range…..
The C-130 idea …. (apart from the Us Coast guard versions)…. like the 737 , would mean we were the launch customer… ie… its not an off the shelf system.
E-767…. too expensive…
Like all new systems there is going to be delays, cost over-runs, and systems which simply don’t work!
15% in 15yrs is quite good actually. Given the fact the aircraft had 3 engines, most ejections would’ve no doubt happen during the take-off or landing phase. Those poor lift jets were constantly being turned on and off, which does them no good and probably would not have had much of a TBO.
All he had to do was turn his transponder on!
So glad to see you answered my question……
And for your info the majority of Australians dont see a “yellow” horde (as you put it) ready to invade us……. they are however our neighbours and as such whatever happens over there directly or indirectly affects us…
So having nuclear weapons is a deterant?? I dont see Korea being detered in its nuclear program, having the good ol USA shaking its fist at it (itself a so-called nuclear “power”).
I didn’t see the USA detered at invading IRAQ when it supposedly had “WMDs”….
I recall the USA wasnt detered at starting a war with CUBA during the Cuban missile crisis….. If anyone has a poor knowledge… its certainly isnt us….
Using you method of logic Dubya…. who does the USA intend striking?
I dunno but my memory may be fading but the USA has 40yr old B-52s….. what countries do they intend useing them on? What specific target do they have in mind?
B-1 and B-2s…… again.. why have them?
Lets just retire them all then as there is no specific target “in mind” for those 3 particular aircraft anymore.
I seem to recall the F-111 doing well at RED FLAG also over the past few years coming up against more modern aircraft.
Australia has a vast expanse with very few airbases…. the F-111s range means it can fly across the country unrefuelled without the need for tanker support…. meaning should any hostile force land on our northern shores (not that it will happen, but you would be naive to think it wouldn’t) the “pigs” could reach virtually any point on the continent to support any land forces which is in enemy contact. This scenario has been played out many times before during exercises where F-111 were staged from Amberly and “bombed” targets in and around Scherger and returned to AMB. (Or sometimes Townsville).
These geriatric rust buckets as you put them have served us well and will leave a hole in our capabilites when retired… Practically any type of weapon has been cleared to hang off the aussie pig…. HARM, Harpoon, AIM-9, Popeye, CBUs, GBUs, LGBs and not to mention its Recce role as well.

Not to mention that the USA wont allow technology transfer on the JSF program…. software problems…. etc… (Yes the F-111 was delayed when we first bought them and had to lease F-4Es in the interim…. Are we to do the same again in the meanwhile, while we wait for the problems to be sorted?)….
Dont forget the $150million NON-refundable deposit we payed…..
You missed my point again…..I will quote what i siad…
[I]Buying old airframes (you can argue the point all you like… 20 to 30 yr old airframes are just that!) and then trying to intigrate a whole new weapons system into a limited (11 airframes) amount of helicopters, [/I]
Buying is the key word…. the government bought 30yr old airframes. The airframes we have now were new when we got them. Which means we have looked after them, we know their history (ie… how much fatigue, the environment they have operated in) etc etc…… In other words we have maintained them to our standards not someone elses.
It would be the same as them saying we have bought 30yr old Caribous and are going to modernise them! (And im not a knocker of the DH Bou, i love the aircraft….)
Yes i know we have 30 yr old F-111s and P-3s but we have had them since new.. (And yes i know we bought 2nd hand F-111Gs etc…. for a source of spares mainly).
But again.. why did we waste such an extravigant amount of money on something which will only have a limited service life in the RAN and then try to intigrate a weapons system which obviously doesn’t work.
Does anyone know the difference between the Kiwis Seasprites and the RANs?
As the Kiwi Seasprites have seemingly had a trouble free life so far?
And unlike the USA we dont have the luxury of having bases with tanker support spread all over Australia.
Not having wing tanks will mean more planning and more use of aerial refuelling…. and then escorts for the tankers…etc etc etc…. a combat radius of about 700mile is really not much. (I very rarely see a Hornet without 2 external tanks on a ferry flight.. )
Reading that the Navys’ Sea Sprites may be cancelled altogether and the program written off makes one wonder again as to why such stupid decisions are made.
Buying old airframes (you can argue the point all you like… 20 to 30 yr old airframes are just that!) and then trying to intigrate a whole new weapons system into a limited (11 airframes) amount of helicopters, instead of buying a new machine which has reached IOC was stupid enough.
Now the program is so far behind and over budget (Sounds like a submarine program we all know of) that the minister has murmoured the scrapping of the lot.
It is said to need between $100 to $200million and another 2 more years before they finally become operational….
![]()
Also read with interest that funding for certification of the F-35s external wing tanks (which the RAAF need) has been cancelled!?!?.
Oh the joys of ordering something which still hasn’t reached operational capability……. :diablo:
And who says the F-111 doesn’t play a role in Australia’s defence??
Its one thing being able to defend ones self…. another is to strike back when hit…… I think they call it “Force projection” ???
(Yet another reason as to why we shouldn’t buy one type of aircraft….. especially a small single engine one!)
The one on the right looks like the rear seat of a trainer…. The display would probably be a repeater for the front pilots HUD…..
TinWing the cost per unit isnt $44Million…… You are also forgetting 2 flight simulators and more then likely spares, GSE, Maintainence programs etc etc etc…..
Ha ok Danrh yea i know don’t believe the media…. but at least this time they were right.
As for the Blackhawks going to Holsworthy, i still believe that is the plan as it was reported in the same newspaper article.
My guess is the Seahawks will continue to remain in service…..
Channel Nine also reported that the MRH-90s will only replace the Seakings…. but no numbers as to the split between the services was given….. Have to read the “official” government line in the newspapers tomorrow i guess.
Didnt hear about the airstrips Ja…. Did they say “new” or extend runways??
Which to me sounds odd as the C-17 has good short field performance (for an aircraft of its size)…. Tindal has about 2700m available…while Darwin has 3300m.
A C-17 visited Townsville a few weeks ago which has 2400m Runway and left with almost a full load. (Though it was a bit tight to turn at the ends…. but then again we have had AN-124s and C-5s land here also).
Though i guess they could be worried about summer temperatures reducing take off performances… but one would imagine that it was certified to operate in hot and high conditions…. such as Iraq.
So im stumped as to why 2 new airstrips need to built? 😀
Ever worked on 30yr old peices of crap ??? lol
Anyhoo… In todays local newspaper…..
…”Townsville’s 5th Aviation regiment will welcome 24 new state of the art MRH-90 helicopters, double the number orginally proposed. The new choppers, as well as a flight simulator which will come with 150jobs, are expected to be announced by the Federal Government today as part of a two billion dollar deal”…..
….”Under the Air 9000 project additional helicopters will be purchased, resulting in 46 MRH-90s, of which 24 will be based in Townsville….”
….” The $2 Billion, 46 chopper project will also provide a squadron of the new helicopters at Holsworthy, Sydney, and a number will replace the troubled Navy Sea King helicopters”……
…” The first 12 helicopters will arrive in Australia at the end of 2007….”
There is no mention of which version they are supposedly buying for the navy unfortunately…. but a step in the right direction i guess.
But what now for the Blackhawks ?!?! And still no mention of buying more Chook’s….
I guess its stay tuned for the next instalment of surprise surprise…. look at what we bought!