Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Of course the worst bad procurement for Australia is not the MRH-90 but the Seasprite which ended up being cancelled and left the RAN low on Helicopter numbers until the MH-60R was procured.

Which the RNZN thank you kindly for. Sweetest deal we ever got.

Hmmm but where do we start? HMNZS Charles Upham would have to be up there. HMNZS Canterbury L421, NH90TTH - lack of marinisation and to few numbers.

 

[protoplasm]

Which the RNZN thank you kindly for. Sweetest deal we ever got.

Hmmm but where do we start? HMNZS Charles Upham would have to be up there. HMNZS Canterbury L421, NH90TTH - lack of marinisation and to few numbers.

Seasprite was a massive stuffup from beginning to end, with billions wasted, but I reckon Canada still has to be the winner with Cyclone.

 

[spoz]

Actually the total spent on Seasprite was just under $1 billion AUD. Still intensely annoying, particularly as the Kiwis are now flying those self same aircraft, but not “billions”.

 

[protoplasm]

$1.4bn wasted on cancelled Seasprite

I always thought it ended up being well over the billion for the whole failed program. Happy to be corrected.

 

[John Fedup]

Seasprite was a massive stuffup from beginning to end, with billions wasted, but I reckon Canada still has to be the winner with Cyclone.

Absolutely, especially when the half billion cancellation fee for the EH101 that occurred before the Cyclone order happened.

 

[spoz]

You need to net that out by the amount recovered from Kaman and the resale of the helos, missiles, spares etc if you are going to include the associated expenses in the project cost.

 

[protoplasm]

You need to net that out by the amount recovered from Kaman and the resale of the helos, missiles, spares etc if you are going to include the associated expenses in the project cost.

Ahh, I get it. Didn’t realise we recovered as much from the sales

 

[seaspear]

With the fire on the U.S.S Bonnehommerichard how likely is the R.A.N to reassess damage and fire response in its larger ships as a review process

 

[DDG38]

With the fire on the U.S.S Bonnehommerichard how likely is the R.A.N to reassess damage and fire response in its larger ships as a review process

Of course it's likely, but not until several investigations into the onboard fire have been completed. The issue will be how to manage alongside manning balanced against leave/maintenance/training requirements for every fleet unit and if current procedures for fires while berthed are still appropriate.

 

[Todjaeger]

With the fire on the U.S.S Bonnehommerichard how likely is the R.A.N to reassess damage and fire response in its larger ships as a review process

Not sure that situation with the still ongoing fire aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard is necessarily all that applicable to the RAN. The RAN might re-examine and re-evaluate processes, procedures and policies in terms of crewing during and after maintenance and upgrade periods, but current information regarding the fire suggests that a number of factors came together which is why it has been such an issue.

The RAN would most likely respond best by working to ensure that the factors which contributed to the shipboard fire, as well as the difficulties in fighting/containing it are at least minimized if not eliminated.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ahh, I get it. Didn’t realise we recovered as much from the sales

NZ paid NZ$241 million for the ex RAN Seasprites from Kaman and that included modifications, spares etc., so you wouldn't have got much back from the sale of the aircraft. Also the actual Australian problems with the aircraft were self inflicted caused by unrealistic expectations of a software solution for a crewing decision that was unworkable at the time.

 

[t68]

NZ paid NZ$241 million for the ex RAN Seasprites from Kaman and that included modifications, spares etc., so you wouldn't have got much back from the sale of the aircraft. Also the actual Australian problems with the aircraft were self inflicted caused by unrealistic expectations of a software solution for a crewing decision that was unworkable at the time.

Yes from an outsiders point of view it seemed like they were trying to reinvent the wheel, but I’m also lead to believe that Sikorsky priced themselves out of a deal when things started to go pear shaped, inthat it was cheaper to continue with the SeaSprites

But as they say hindsight is a wonderfull thing

 

[aussienscale]

NZ paid NZ$241 million for the ex RAN Seasprites from Kaman and that included modifications, spares etc., so you wouldn't have got much back from the sale of the aircraft. Also the actual Australian problems with the aircraft were self inflicted caused by unrealistic expectations of a software solution for a crewing decision that was unworkable at the time.

And the funny thing is that those issues were actually all but sorted and had been overcome and the canning of the program was more of a political decision ! There in lays the real waste because if it were not for the political interference it is a capability that we would actually have today which would not look so bad when you look at it

Great bargain for NZ though

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

And the funny thing is that those issues were actually all but sorted and had been overcome and the canning of the program was more of a political decision ! There in lays the real waste because if it were not for the political interference it is a capability that we would actually have today which would not look so bad when you look at it

Great bargain for NZ though

Cheers

As I recall it, there was a decision on the part of gov't to adopt a US FAA rule regarding backup systems for digital flight controls with a single pilot. IIRC the two-crew cockpit system that Kaman had developed for the SH-2G(A) had the main flight control system used by the pilot as a digital system, and in the event of failure there was a manual system the pilot could use. The FAA rule which Australia adopted after launching the Seasprite programme required a digital backup system for a digital flight control system. Also IIRC, once the was determined as an issue (shortly before Australia binned the whole programme) it was determined that a digital backup system could be developed and put in, for something like $24 mi. but would delay the then already very overdue Seasprites an additional 18 months. Shortly after that, the plug was pulled.

 

[Redlands18]

As I recall it, there was a decision on the part of gov't to adopt a US FAA rule regarding backup systems for digital flight controls with a single pilot. IIRC the two-crew cockpit system that Kaman had developed for the SH-2G(A) had the main flight control system used by the pilot as a digital system, and in the event of failure there was a manual system the pilot could use. The FAA rule which Australia adopted after launching the Seasprite programme required a digital backup system for a digital flight control system. Also IIRC, once the was determined as an issue (shortly before Australia binned the whole programme) it was determined that a digital backup system could be developed and put in, for something like $24 mi. but would delay the then already very overdue Seasprites an additional 18 months. Shortly after that, the plug was pulled.

Labour Cancelled them shortly after returning to power after 11 years, whether the Libs would have also cancelled if they had stayed in power I’m not sure.

 

[Todjaeger]

Labour Cancelled them shortly after returning to power after 11 years, whether the Libs would have also cancelled if they had stayed in power I’m not sure.

From what I recall, the main issue was that the requisite system which needed to be developed would take another 18 months, assuming nothing else happened. As it was, the programme was already something like a decade behind schedule and having just checked, the projections were that the inservice date would not have been until ~2010, when Labor axed the programme in 2008. It had been reported previously in 2007 that the programme was likely to be cancelled due to how behind it already was, that it would be several more years and even more funding before it would be able to enter service, and that AUD$1.1 bil. had already been spent on the naval helicopter.

 

[Bob53]

Navy highlights for new items/confirmations:

• 2x multi-role sea-lift and replenishment ships
• Up to to 8 new vessels for mine-countermeasure & hydrographic survey (potentially based on the Arafura design)
• Pacific SPT Vessel ($180-280m)
• Replacement for ADV Ocean Protector
• Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (crewed & uncrewed)
• Large Army Landing Craft

A few of our favourite discussion points here confirmed. It will be interesting to see the Large Army Landing Craft details after much hand wringing over the lack of LCH replacements.

Has anyone got any information on the large Army Landing Craft and any of the designs that would come into consideration? I've seen a lot of commentary about the larger support ships but nothing much on the Landing Craft?

 

[Morgo]

Has anyone got any information on the large Army Landing Craft and any of the designs that would come into consideration? I've seen a lot of commentary about the larger support ships but nothing much on the Landing Craft?

This piqued my interest as well.

I had presumed they were something along the lines of this:

Landing Ship Transport 120

or this:

If we were to acquire 5 - 10 of these they would potentially provide a tremendous capability boost in terms of projecting power immediately to our north. They could act alone, as part of a larger group (including both initial landings and as a ship to shore connector for LHS/AOR/JSS) and could provide standalone ongoing sustainment of forces ashore, running a ferry / resupply service from Australian ports to deployed forces and back again.

It would also mean we could land a much heavier force in an initial landing, and provide much better theatre mobility for it afterwards. A great capability boost for a pretty reasonable price I reckon.

 

[Redlands18]

This piqued my interest as well.

I had presumed they were something along the lines of this:

Landing Ship Transport 120

or this:

If we were to acquire 5 - 10 of these they would potentially provide a tremendous capability boost in terms of projecting power immediately to our north. They could act alone, as part of a larger group (including both initial landings and as a ship to shore connector for LHS/AOR/JSS) and could provide standalone ongoing sustainment of forces ashore, running a ferry / resupply service from Australian ports to deployed forces and back again.

It would also mean we could land a much heavier force in an initial landing, and provide much better theatre mobility for it afterwards. A great capability boost for a pretty reasonable price I reckon.

Damen will definitely be a strong contender, though i suspect the 120 might be a bit bigger then what they are looking at, my money would be more on the LSL 70 or 80.
Some of the ex RAN members on here have some reservations concerning the SVL and driving your back end up onto a beach, and the above Video doesn’t really show how you protect your propellers.

 

[Redlands18]

Damen will definitely be a strong contender, though i suspect the 120 might be a bit bigger then what they are looking at, my money would be more on the LSL 70 or 80.
Some of the ex RAN members on here have some reservations concerning the SVL and driving your back end up onto a beach, and the above Video doesn’t really show how you protect your propellers.

Technically this conversation belongs in the Australian Army thread as at this stage this proposed project is for Army Water Transport.