Attack vs. Naval Helicopters

[Todjaeger]

Was reading through the RAN category and spotted this post #712 and had some slightly different thoughts on it.

SH-2 Sea Sprite:

Oh lordy be. This has got to be the biggest train wreck I've ever seen, starting with one of the daftest decisions, and ending with an all out lose-lose legal battle.

Firstly, the requirement was for an "Attack" helicopter. Kaman trots out an absolute fiasco, hardly suited to attacking the weeds in my front garden. (I will shine a light on the obvious choices later; I gotta finish this first.) Australia says "Oh yeah, we could take this if (ticks everything on the options list, and adds a few more) it was like that".

Secondly, (as stated above) contracts should be "Deliver this, finished and working, then you get paid". This debacle has seen many frustrated and angry people in and out of the RAN. Contracts unfortunately don't always work that way, but next time I hope those who sign the cheques simply sort out the obligations of all involved before they start throwing money around.

--

The role specified calls for an attack helicopter with the ability to categorise, identify, prioritise and prosecute surface targets. However, attack helicopters need a few more things than just that to be effective at their jobs:
They need a smaller radar and targeting cross-section;
They need a rugged and tough airframe;
They need the ability to engage multiple fast-moving targets;
They need the ability to engage all types of craft (including aircraft), and;
They require a capability to provide air cover for amphibious forces.

...They also need even more things, but I'm trying to limit myself here.

Let's examine these points.

Small cross section would entail a tandem seating arrangement, and an effort in construction. A flying barn door is pretty easy to hit, but if you take a look at normal land-attack helicopters they look skinny from the front, and not very bulbous. I shouldn't need to labour this point I suppose, but you get the idea.

Rugged and tough airframe. Okay, this is something I can't comment on specifically from the Sea Sprite, but I surely can tell you there are a lot of Cobra and Apache pilots out there who have flown a block of swiss cheese home and lived to tell the tale. I'd go with a proven airframe on this one, for sure. Something that has been shot at and still flew on many occasions.

Ability to engage multiple fast-moving targets. Penguin is not the weapon for this. Hellfire on the other hand, is. Combat has changed to the point where this is the likely scenario to be faced in certain areas of the globe.
Penguins are designed to smash a large Ro/Ro or container ship before it offloads on the northern reaches, or to cripple/sink an enemy weapons platform.
Small boats are not so easy, and at one or two Penguins per weapons loadout (as opposed to eight Hellfires) seems like overkill, but strangely not enough of it.
If you're using your door gunner to engage an enemy fast mover, I'm telling you that you are writing cheques you can't cash - If you are close enough to engage with a MAG 58 or a .50 Calibre, then you are close enough to be shot at by them with pretty much the same weapons, or worse still, any hand-held SAM you care to mention. Besides, door guns are not precision weapons, there is a little bit of "spray and pray" involved unless you are sitting nice and still. Anyone can tell you that's not a great idea, sitting side on to an enemy.

Ability to engage all types of craft (including aircraft). They should also be possibly fitted with AA missiles and a projectile weapon, to vastly increase flexibility.
A gimbal type arrangement with FLIR, Visual, radar overlay and threat detection similar to the venerable TADS makes the job of the TACCO a lot easier, faster and intuitive. Couple this to an underbelly gun (20mm is a good size for this, .50 Calibre may be just enough) that tracks the same (like most traditional attack helicopters), and you now have the ability to fire at or near enemy targets without throwing the entire book at them with a Penguin. Hey, the excuse "I only thought that helicopter was coming to look" even when the most aggressive flying is displayed, still could potentially fly in court. A quick 3 round burst from a 20mm, and all of a sudden there is absolutely no confusing intentions.
AA Missiles have been fitted to many attack helicopters in the past. FIM-92 Stingers are a common system to place on the outer hardpoints, and do not interfere with other weapons on board. Without this capability, there is a serious shortfall in self-defence.
Side note: There is still the possibility of fitting torpedoes to attack helicopters, and although you'd need to work out a cradle system, fitting a Mk 46 to an attack helicopter with the correct computers shouldn't be impossible. It wouldn't be a case of slapping one on the side and grabbing a beer, but if the requirement came about, then why not? On the flipside, anyone spending money on such a capability is ridiculously unlikely.

Capability to provide air cover for amphibious forces
Given the primary focus for the ADF is on amphibious operations, it stands to reason that any helicopter in the RAN would have to be called on to provide cover for such missions. Direct-fire precision targeted projectile weapons, fast response and sustainablity in combat are essential points here. Door gunners on any helicopter are woefully inadequate once trooops are on the ground and things get messy. Going back to the previous point, this is where a belly cannon that tracks with the sensors is the only way to go. Furthermore, the platform must be able to target and prosecute armoured vehicles, and respond to threats to itself. Therefore, ECM / ESM is a requirement, and an ability to respond in kind (Hellfire, cannon, rockets if need be). Placing trooops ashore now carries an additional supporting platform, and has a greater chance of success.

-

Replacement: Let us cut the rubbish and get what we need - an attack helicopter.

I have to agree that the whole Seasprite program has been a stuff up. Given what I have read, I come away with the feeling that the issues stem partially from the manufacturor, but mostly from Defence. What I hope is that the experience serves as a lesson for Defence in what not to do in terms of running defence programs. I can expand on what I mean if someone is interested.

My main point of disagreement though is that an attack helicopter would fufil the role the Seasprite was (is?) supposed to play for the RAN.

As I see it, a ship-based, anti-surface roled helicopter is not the same thing as an attack helicopter, be it ship or land-based. As such, design elements of attack helicopters which assist them in carrying out attack missions can make no difference, or perhaps even hinder an ASuW helicopter.

With an attack helicopter, they are primarily going to be operating over land at relatively low altitude to take advantage of cover, engaging targets that frequently are going to be detected/located by other assets. As such, onboard sensors are of less importance relative to the amount and types of protection and armament carried.

In contrast, a naval helicopter would operate in a different environment and therefore in a different manner as well. These operate largely over open ocean or in littoral areas. I would also expect that they often operate at higher altitudes to allow onboard sensors a larger horizon to operate in. With this in mind, I would expect RCS reduction measures like tandem seating to be relatively limited, since there would be little or no ground clutter for the helicopter to be lost in and it would likely still be detected at long range. Also naval helicopters would have a large area to monitor/search and therefore sensors are likely to be more primary, or at least greater importance than is the case on an attack helicopter. A case in point would be the chin mounting, on naval helicopters there is frequently a search radar mounted there for visibility where as on an attack helicopter a gun mount is located. In addition, naval helicopters undertake other missions aside from just attack missions, like SAR and vertep operations nevermind ASW ops for those type naval helicopters.

As such I cannot see any type of attach helicopter replacing a naval helicopter, even for ASuW ops.

-Cheers

 

[McTaff]

Was reading through the RAN category and spotted this post #712 and had some slightly different thoughts on it.



I have to agree that the whole Seasprite program has been a stuff up. Given what I have read, I come away with the feeling that the issues stem partially from the manufacturor, but mostly from Defence. What I hope is that the experience serves as a lesson for Defence in what not to do in terms of running defence programs. I can expand on what I mean if someone is interested.

We should start a new religion based on this. We have a lot of fervent supporters already

My main point of disagreement though is that an attack helicopter would fufil the role the Seasprite was (is?) supposed to play for the RAN.

As I see it, a ship-based, anti-surface roled helicopter is not the same thing as an attack helicopter, be it ship or land-based. As such, design elements of attack helicopters which assist them in carrying out attack missions can make no difference, or perhaps even hinder an ASuW helicopter.

With an attack helicopter, they are primarily going to be operating over land at relatively low altitude to take advantage of cover, engaging targets that frequently are going to be detected/located by other assets. As such, onboard sensors are of less importance relative to the amount and types of protection and armament carried.

That depends on how you interpret the Doctrine associated with it. In reality, the idea is to use your rotory wing asset to put distance between you and perceived/potential threats. This could be construed almost infinite ways; I am purposely bending it to fit my ideas. Quite simply, the objective can be achieved with several different rationales:
1) A superior sensor and/or EW fit, to detect threats at a longer range, and thus having the ability to remain clear,
2) A superior range and endurance, to place what sensors you have at large distances for long times, and,
3) A superior weapons fitout and good speed for ease of interdiction, to discourage approach.
4) A 'stealth' approach, to minimise detection of your rotary asset and thus be able to detect early, without discovery (allowing you to stay clear)

This isn't an exhaustive list - there would be combinations of ways, and other alternatives beyond these without a doubt.

Some would be more effective than others. Personally, if you didn't mind playing the EW game, a thundering great radar would be pretty sweet, and would provide a nice, large picture of what was going on for the CO of the vessel. Or, if you like playing the numbers, try a long range and endurance chopper to give you more time and distance aloft.

In contrast, a naval helicopter would operate in a different environment and therefore in a different manner as well. These operate largely over open ocean or in littoral areas. I would also expect that they often operate at higher altitudes to allow onboard sensors a larger horizon to operate in. With this in mind, I would expect RCS reduction measures like tandem seating to be relatively limited, since there would be little or no ground clutter for the helicopter to be lost in and it would likely still be detected at long range. Also naval helicopters would have a large area to monitor/search and therefore sensors are likely to be more primary, or at least greater importance than is the case on an attack helicopter. A case in point would be the chin mounting, on naval helicopters there is frequently a search radar mounted there for visibility where as on an attack helicopter a gun mount is located. In addition, naval helicopters undertake other missions aside from just attack missions, like SAR and vertep operations nevermind ASW ops for those type naval helicopters.

As such I cannot see any type of attach helicopter replacing a naval helicopter, even for ASuW ops.

-Cheers

This is an abbreviated answer, which I hope to expand on later in the thread.

What you are saying is generally accepted, that ASuW ops would be better suited to these types of airframe; I'm challenging that very tradition.

'Attack' choppers really don't lose much when it comes to naval operations (provided there is no requirement for ASW or load carrying). In the direction I'm going, there will be other helicopters to take on that role anyway. The real juice is the flexibility it offers.

High altitudes really are great for radar coverage. Other than that, helicopters tend to stay pretty low due to a number of factors which I won't go into.

The littoral environment is where this would shine. The ability to go over land and act like a "Attack Chopper Lite (TM)" would be valuable indeed should it be required. This is the better half of the RCS reduction. Otherwise your RCS in the event of a low-level incursion into a radar-covered unfriendly control zone is worth a how many extra seconds? Ten? Thirty? Five? Longer than a minute? Hard to tell really without hard data, but I'd wager it would be worth something.

You are right about the radar. That's just something that would need to be worked on. The Apache Longbow radar setup is a great idea which would solve the problem (but is the wrong radar for the application, I believe?) Having said that, see where the gimbal system is for the 1405 Seahawks... same type of deal could be used for a surface-search radar fit placed under the nose, and hopefully your belly gun will stay where it is. In the Sea Apache, the gun was deleted, but I think that is a grave mistake as that gun is a hugely versatile system that should be retained.

Weapons will follow later.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Apache Longbow radar setup is a great idea which would solve the problem (but is the wrong radar for the application, I believe?)

I was under the belief that the US had accidentally but actually discovered that Longbow could be used as a defacto picket, and could undertake cruise missile detection roles if shoved into it. ???

 

[McTaff]

I was under the belief that the US had accidentally but actually discovered that Longbow could be used as a defacto picket, and could undertake cruise missile detection roles if shoved into it. ???

OMG! I'd not heard that, but it'd be worth looking into!

I was more concerned with the issue that they are looking for a longer range surface search radar. I wonder exactly an off-the-shelf Longbow radar would cope with moving water above sea state 2 and small craft?

Anyone have any further material on this?

 

[gf0012-aust]

OMG! I'd not heard that, but it'd be worth looking into!

I was more concerned with the issue that they are looking for a longer range surface search radar. I wonder exactly an off-the-shelf Longbow radar would cope with moving water above sea state 2 and small craft?

Anyone have any further material on this?

I'll ask around. The reason why it got my interest was because it was couched in terms of being useful in the Straits of Malacca and the Gulf of Hormuz (which is obviously a bit more benign than open water slopping about).

The Straits reference was wrt to the Sings being able to use it as a baseline picket in greenwater applications.

The Hormuz reference was whether it could pick up 3 figure contacts (eg lots of sea skimmers)

I have to confess it was originally beer talk at a UDT conference I attended in 2004 in Hawai'i - but people were serious about it.

edit:

I've sent out an "ask" to a few people I know who are in a better position to confirm. with a bit of luck they'll get back to me.

 

[McTaff]

I've sent out an "ask" to a few people I know who are in a better position to confirm. with a bit of luck they'll get back to me.

Seriously interested to hear about this, can't wait for you to get back to us GF.

I did see somewhere a blurb on setting up a Longbow radar as an AWACS system (aboard a V-22) but I forgot where I saw that.

-

Going back to my previous post, the Sea Sprites and with a Hellfire mount onboard still doesn't equate to the full flexibility of the weapons available to a proper attack chopper.

Given the 'wing' style mounting systems, inbuilt cannon and purpose-built launchers, it's hard pressed to see the advantage of using an add-on mount to an airframe lacking any of these assets to begin with.

Also, if one was to get picky, the weapons loadout on an attack chopper would be much higher. I'm not sure of the clearance required for a Penguin to be dropped clear, but I'd be pretty sure it'd fit nicely on the outer hardpoints of an attack chopper. Inner hardpoints for Hellfire, and if it is a true attack chopper then potentially there'd be room for FIM-92 Stinger as well. It'd be rare to see any combination of these concurrently loaded onto an airframe, but if we need it, we'd have it. I'd view this as a less important point, but still one worthy of consideration.

The added bonus of a slightly smaller footprint inside the hangar is a definite advantage. Leaves room for work, stores and transit materiel whilst the helo is inside.

One thing: I'm no WEEO, so I have no idea how hard it would to get a Link 16 integrated into, say, an Apache or Cobra. I am equally unsure what extras would be needed to integrate Penguin into an attack chopper either. However, given the project undertaking of the Sea Sprites, it seems like a hell of a lot easier to plop these two into a working platform than what is being attempted with the SH-2.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Seriously interested to hear about this, can't wait for you to get back to us GF.

I did see somewhere a blurb on setting up a Longbow radar as an AWACS system (aboard a V-22) but I forgot where I saw that.

-

Going back to my previous post, the Sea Sprites and with a Hellfire mount onboard still doesn't equate to the full flexibility of the weapons available to a proper attack chopper.

Given the 'wing' style mounting systems, inbuilt cannon and purpose-built launchers, it's hard pressed to see the advantage of using an add-on mount to an airframe lacking any of these assets to begin with.

Also, if one was to get picky, the weapons loadout on an attack chopper would be much higher. I'm not sure of the clearance required for a Penguin to be dropped clear, but I'd be pretty sure it'd fit nicely on the outer hardpoints of an attack chopper. Inner hardpoints for Hellfire, and if it is a true attack chopper then potentially there'd be room for FIM-92 Stinger as well. It'd be rare to see any combination of these concurrently loaded onto an airframe, but if we need it, we'd have it. I'd view this as a less important point, but still one worthy of consideration.

The added bonus of a slightly smaller footprint inside the hangar is a definite advantage. Leaves room for work, stores and transit materiel whilst the helo is inside.

One thing: I'm no WEEO, so I have no idea how hard it would to get a Link 16 integrated into, say, an Apache or Cobra. I am equally unsure what extras would be needed to integrate Penguin into an attack chopper either. However, given the project undertaking of the Sea Sprites, it seems like a hell of a lot easier to plop these two into a working platform than what is being attempted with the SH-2.

An attack helo is not going to be much chop at anti-submarine ops, boarding ops, rescues and utility transport tasks though...

For my mind, something like this:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/scmr.htm

Would seem to be the optimal solution covering the majority of possible roles...

 

[gf0012-aust]

An attack helo is not going to be much chop at anti-submarine ops, boarding ops, rescues and utility transport tasks though...

Agree, except what we're talking about is whether there is sympatico and merged functionality for Longbow to work at the picket level.

If thats the case then its an issue of getting the sympathetic systems onto the preferred platform - I'm not talking about using Apache for absolute maritime rotary roles

 

[Aussie Digger]

Agree, except what we're talking about is whether there is sympatico and merged functionality for Longbow to work at the picket level.

If thats the case then its an issue of getting the sympathetic systems onto the preferred platform - I'm not talking about using Apache for absolute maritime rotary roles

Sorry haven't quite kept up with the thread I think. I was referring to McTaff and the Hellfire equipped utility/naval helo v specialised attack helo discussion we were having earlier...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry haven't quite kept up with the thread I think. I was referring to McTaff and the Hellfire equipped utility/naval helo v specialised attack helo discussion we were having earlier...

No harm no foul, there have been a few crossed lines with me recently...

on another note, I have a response from one of my punters who's a SEAD planner in USAF for a specific "unfriendly" country.

abbreviated and doctored for obvious reasons:
My assumptions are that it is a very short range radar optimized for a mission that's almost the opposite from an air surveillance radar meant to find low-level high speed targets. The Longbow might even filter out high-speed targets as part of its clutter and noise rejection, since I think it's meant for targeting very slow moving and even stationary surface targets.

 

[Tasman]

An attack helo is not going to be much chop at anti-submarine ops, boarding ops, rescues and utility transport tasks though...

For my mind, something like this:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/scmr.htm

Would seem to be the optimal solution covering the majority of possible roles...

For my mind the Lynx is the helo the navy should have acquired for the Anzacs in the first place, instead of the Seasprite (and I thought that before the Seasprite program turned into a fiasco!).

I tend to agree that a naval helo needs to be multi purpose, especially on ships that can only embark one helo. I do think that an attack helo would have a role in operations like those confronting our navy in the Gulf but I would prefer to see them operating from something like an LHD serving in a 'mother ship' role.

Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

Seriously interested to hear about this, can't wait for you to get back to us GF.

another response: (ex 3 Star USMC)

Certainly the radar is capable of both, although special wave forms may
be required to extend ranges and increase prob(ability) of det. An over water mode was being worked when I retired.

 

[Transient]

The Longbow maritime modes for use against FACs/swarm attacks (I think this was a requirement put forth specifically for the anti-Korean scenario in mind) and other range extension upgrades come under Apache Block III.

 

[McTaff]

For my mind the Lynx is the helo the navy should have acquired for the Anzacs in the first place, instead of the Seasprite (and I thought that before the Seasprite program turned into a fiasco!).

I concur.

I tend to agree that a naval helo needs to be multi purpose, especially on ships that can only embark one helo. I do think that an attack helo would have a role in operations like those confronting our navy in the Gulf but I would prefer to see them operating from something like an LHD serving in a 'mother ship' role.

Tas

What you are saying is correct (in the other thread I did mention a detachment should be standard aboard LHD's). In the littoral role, an attack helo with swivel cannon, hellfire and unguided rockets would be a smashing fire-support and escort helicopter, in addition to performing excellently in the primary ASuW role.

Unfortunately the original post is slightly out of context.

My reasoning is to make them a bristling, sneaky and dangerous weapon that can assist in all forms of amphibious warfare, which is currently one of the two main focal points of the RAN today (the other being border protection). My stand on "attack" choppers on ANZACs stems from the two reasons:

-SeaSprites have such limited ASW and Utility capability.
One could argue that you could fit pods containing Sonobouys and receiver, and/or dipping sonars for ASW, but although it is probably fairly cheap to do so, it would be unreasonable to expect such an undertaking. An attack chopper would be devoid of capability entirely, but this doesn't seem to worry the rationale behind the SeaSprite.

-They would be working (most of the time) in an environment where these ships would be operating:
>Singly under air cover from land-based AP-3C's, or,
>In a battlegroup with other vessels with ASW helos embarked, or,
>Singly in a non-hostile zone.
In the case they do not fall into any of these categories, then I'd be very surprised. Put it this way; If the Manoora and Kanimbla wouldn't go there unescorted, then an ANZAC wouldn't go by itself either.

I see the point of the 'one helo only' problem the ANZACs have (IMHO that was a bad move), but the SeaSprites don't cut the mustard when it comes to just about any of the jobs, multi-role or not. ASW is very limited, and the work required to fit torpedoes to an attack helo is not a great deal harder than upgrading from an old torp to a new torp (Mk-46 to Mu90, for instance), once the right systems had been integrated onto the attack helo.

As for 'other' utility roles, a Super Cobra, for instance, has a much lower Empty weight, but a much higher MTOW. Compared to the SH-2, it in fact has almost twice the MTOW - Empty weight difference. This doesn't necessarily mean it carries twice as much, but as a rule of thumb it'd carry 150% more, depending on how the load is distributed (plus you'd need to take into account all the other fancy toys you've installed on the airframe for maritime ops).

So what do I see as other flaws not already mentioned?

You'd miss the addition of a side lift winch, which is in fact a pretty big loss, as it is the saving grace for many SASR, MOB and XFER operations.

You also the ability to carry troops. Given the amount of gear stuffed into the SH-2, I'm skeptical that you'd ever carry more than three troops at a time, so switching to an attack airframe would be no big loss there.

I suppose the greatest shame is the fact that the ANZACs can't embark two helos, otherwise we'd be able to have our cake and blast it to smithereens too.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I concur.



What you are saying is correct (in the other thread I did mention a detachment should be standard aboard LHD's). In the littoral role, an attack helo with swivel cannon, hellfire and unguided rockets would be a smashing fire-support and escort helicopter, in addition to performing excellently in the primary ASuW role.

Unfortunately the original post is slightly out of context.

My reasoning is to make them a bristling, sneaky and dangerous weapon that can assist in all forms of amphibious warfare, which is currently one of the two main focal points of the RAN today (the other being border protection). My stand on "attack" choppers on ANZACs stems from the two reasons:

-SeaSprites have such limited ASW and Utility capability.
One could argue that you could fit pods containing Sonobouys and receiver, and/or dipping sonars for ASW, but although it is probably fairly cheap to do so, it would be unreasonable to expect such an undertaking. An attack chopper would be devoid of capability entirely, but this doesn't seem to worry the rationale behind the SeaSprite.

-They would be working (most of the time) in an environment where these ships would be operating:
>Singly under air cover from land-based AP-3C's, or,
>In a battlegroup with other vessels with ASW helos embarked, or,
>Singly in a non-hostile zone.
In the case they do not fall into any of these categories, then I'd be very surprised. Put it this way; If the Manoora and Kanimbla wouldn't go there unescorted, then an ANZAC wouldn't go by itself either.

I see the point of the 'one helo only' problem the ANZACs have (IMHO that was a bad move), but the SeaSprites don't cut the mustard when it comes to just about any of the jobs, multi-role or not. ASW is very limited, and the work required to fit torpedoes to an attack helo is not a great deal harder than upgrading from an old torp to a new torp (Mk-46 to Mu90, for instance), once the right systems had been integrated onto the attack helo.

As for 'other' utility roles, a Super Cobra, for instance, has a much lower Empty weight, but a much higher MTOW. Compared to the SH-2, it in fact has almost twice the MTOW - Empty weight difference. This doesn't necessarily mean it carries twice as much, but as a rule of thumb it'd carry 150% more, depending on how the load is distributed (plus you'd need to take into account all the other fancy toys you've installed on the airframe for maritime ops).

So what do I see as other flaws not already mentioned?

You'd miss the addition of a side lift winch, which is in fact a pretty big loss, as it is the saving grace for many SASR, MOB and XFER operations.

You also the ability to carry troops. Given the amount of gear stuffed into the SH-2, I'm skeptical that you'd ever carry more than three troops at a time, so switching to an attack airframe would be no big loss there.

I suppose the greatest shame is the fact that the ANZACs can't embark two helos, otherwise we'd be able to have our cake and blast it to smithereens too.

I agree with a lot of this, which is why I believe the Lynx was a better option than the Seasprite.

It can conduct the attack role and has done so for many years. Even the Naval Lynx variants do so, plus they can carry up to 9 troops and do all of the ASuW and ASW roles...

A superior platform overall IMHO.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree with a lot of this, which is why I believe the Lynx was a better option than the Seasprite.

The irony being that Lynx was the preferred option.....

 

[Tasman]

The irony being that Lynx was the preferred option.....

So how on earth did the RAN end up with the Seasprite (not that it is actually in service yet! )?

I agree with AD that the Lynx could perform the attack role as well as doubling up as an effective ASuW/ASW helo. It would also be a useful utility helo for boarding operations, etc.

Tas

 

[barra]

Guys,

While we are talking about naval helicopters here are some photos of the first MRH-90's for Army and Navy. Can you tell which is which? If you look hard one has Navy above the windscreen and the other Army. This will be the livery for all MRH-90's so no more battleship grey for Navy. They are due to be handed over in Brisbane in December. The rumour is they will be called the "kestrel" in Australian service.

Also a drawing of what the Osprey may look like in Oz service, someone obviously has to much time on their hands.....

 

[rossfrb_1]

Guys,

While we are talking about naval helicopters here are some photos of the first MRH-90's for Army and Navy. Can you tell which is which? If you look hard one has Navy above the windscreen and the other Army. This will be the livery for all MRH-90's so no more battleship grey for Navy. They are due to be handed over in Brisbane in December. The rumour is they will be called the "kestrel" in Australian service.

Also a drawing of what the Osprey may look like in Oz service, someone obviously has to much time on their hands.....

Apart from the stickers, are there any other differences between army and the navy MRH-90s?
I'm guessing degree of marinization is the same. (Hopefully they learnt after operating the blackhawks off the LPAs).
What about electronics, surely a one suite variant won't suit all?

rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

Guys,

While we are talking about naval helicopters here are some photos of the first MRH-90's for Army and Navy. Can you tell which is which? If you look hard one has Navy above the windscreen and the other Army. This will be the livery for all MRH-90's so no more battleship grey for Navy. They are due to be handed over in Brisbane in December. The rumour is they will be called the "kestrel" in Australian service.

Also a drawing of what the Osprey may look like in Oz service, someone obviously has to much time on their hands.....

Thanks for the pics mate. I saw the "Navy" helo a while back, but hadn't seen the Army photo.

I don't care what anyone may say about these helo's, they are one GUCCI looking bit of kit...