Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks GF!

But it does go to show that what can appear on the surface as a 'loss' in terms of overall total airframes (if people want to measure it that way), can actually turn out to be a winner in all sorts of other ways.

unfortunately you see that logic demonstrated elsewhere

eg replace 500 F-15's with 200 F-22's is seen as a degradation of capability - and yet there is no appreciation that in some combat scenarios the F-22 is more effective than 6 of another type.

ditto with P3's and P8's

body count comparisons just aren't relevant or realistic

 

[aussienscale]

unfortunately you see that logic demonstrated elsewhere

eg replace 500 F-15's with 200 F-22's is seen as a degradation of capability - and yet there is no appreciation that in some combat scenarios the F-22 is more effective than 6 of another type.

ditto with P3's and P8's

body count comparisons just aren't relevant or realistic

Good example GF, and would it also be fair to say that the increase in reliability and availability rates also increase capability requiring less frames ?

We seem to be stuck in the thinking of a certain amount of frames for a given capability/availability from days gone by, but that ratio has changed in modern times to a fair extent, along with increases in the actual capability of each piece of kit, one being the example above of the "light and day" difference in the capability jump going from the P3's to the P8's

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Good example GF, and would it also be fair to say that the increase in reliability and availability rates also increase capability requiring less frames ?

yep eg time on station rates for a P8 looking for MH370 were basically double that for the P3

so instead of having to sort out mission overlap for 2-3 P3's you only need 1 x P8

so 8 x P8's is actually going to result in a squadron that across the various mission sets will outperform a 12 x P3 squadron.

add in common components etc and the cost benefits head north.

a mixed smaller squadron of P8's and GHawks will outperform across the board 2 squadrons of P3's. Numerically there are less frames, but capability levels start to become exponential - especially on endurance events

 

[John Newman]

unfortunately you see that logic demonstrated elsewhere

eg replace 500 F-15's with 200 F-22's is seen as a degradation of capability - and yet there is no appreciation that in some combat scenarios the F-22 is more effective than 6 of another type.

ditto with P3's and P8's

body count comparisons just aren't relevant or realistic

I'm sure that you above most others here, have a greater knowledge and appreciation of the capabilities of the P-8's over the P-3's.

Whilst on the surface eight (8) and possibly another four (making 12) P-8's is a significant reduction in the 'number' of airframes compared to the 18-19 P-3's operational at one time, but it's not just 'numbers' as you well know, it's capability and availability too, and when you 'also' add 6-7 Triton's to work alongside the P-8's, well that another ball game altogether!

 

[ADMk2]

it's not always the magic pudding answer for all acquisition, but in aviation (esp transport) you can realise some decent efficiencies



the tiger is a good example of the services preferred choice not getting up. apache was the better choice. i suspect the polluting hand of industry seducing local politicians overselling state based benefit

ditto for the romeo

There was a definite 'appearances' argument made in favour of Tiger as well. Army was terribly anxious to talk up the 'recon / surveillance' aspect and not so much the 'gunship' aspect of the AIR 87 project.

Obviously ISR is an easier sell than 'kinetic' capability amongst some elements of Govt and a smoother path.

Despite Apache thanks to Longbow actually having a significantly superior ISR capability, it is widely seen as a 'tank killer' and therefore easily portrayed as less suitable, when ISR capability is the argument being advanced...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm sure that you above most others here, have a greater knowledge and appreciation of the capabilities of the P-8's over the P-3's.

Whilst on the surface eight (8) and possibly another four (making 12) P-8's is a significant reduction in the 'number' of airframes compared to the 18-19 P-3's operational at one time, but it's not just 'numbers' as you well know, it's capability and availability too, and when you 'also' add 6-7 Triton's to work alongside the P-8's, well that another ball game altogether!

unfortunately a lot of the debate revolves around gucci gear and not much attention gets applied to the capability deltas between the old and the new.

The search for MH370 was a good example of the capability gaps between old and new.

 

[ngatimozart]

yep eg time on station rates for a P8 looking for MH370 were basically double that for the P3

so instead of having to sort out mission overlap for 2-3 P3's you only need 1 x P8

so 8 x P8's is actually going to result in a squadron that across the various mission sets will outperform a 12 x P3 squadron.

add in common components etc and the cost benefits head north.

a mixed smaller squadron of P8's and GHawks will outperform across the board 2 squadrons of P3's. Numerically there are less frames, but capability levels start to become exponential - especially on endurance events

Which is really good in the context of having the actual number of platforms to do all the required taskings without creating excessive overuse of the assets. The danger is whilst these are good efficiencies the bean counters and pollies will not necessarily see the reasoning that quantity also has an intrinsic value of its own. So one has to be cautious where platform numbers decrease to a point where the taskings required can themselves be far greater than the platforms available. This also can happen another way where there is no foresight by the political class around major increases in taskings and not enough platforms are acquired to cover that increase. What results is overuse of the platforms and unless more are acquired, then the planned life of type for the existing one decreases as their operating hours increase rapidly. c.f., the ACPB or the RNZN SH2G(NZ) issues.

 

[Stock]

Yes, but the MRH / NH90 has a greater lift capacity than the Blackhawk and Iroquois hence the numbers of helos required for the lift capacity that those helos provided is less.

The MRH90 certainly has greater everything than the UH-1H but is actually very similar in both troop lift and underslung load to the UH-60M BHawk, against which it competed for Air 9000.

The MRH90's larger cabin was (back in 2004/05) advertised as carrying 18 troops, but when the deep analysis was done and the manner in which Army calculates its troop loads (weight per soldier) taken into account that number came down to 13. Not much more than the BHawk's 11.

Both aircraft can carry more under OCL conditions of course.

The MRH90's rear ramp was thought to offer more versatility than BHawk's side door and even allow internal carriage of small tactical vehicles. But in reality the ramp opening height restriction of 1.52m limits that to the smallest of ATVs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The danger is whilst these are good efficiencies the bean counters and pollies will not necessarily see the reasoning that quantity also has an intrinsic value of its own. So one has to be cautious where platform numbers decrease to a point where the taskings required can themselves be far greater than the platforms available.

thats the punchline.....

 

[John Newman]

unfortunately a lot of the debate revolves around gucci gear and not much attention gets applied to the capability deltas between the old and the new.

The search for MH370 was a good example of the capability gaps between old and new.

And I think it would also be fair to say that the capabilities of the P-8's is only going to improve and increase as various block/spiral(?) upgrades are made and applied to the airframes over the coming years.

And not wanting to wander off too much into RAAF matters (this is the RAN thread after all!) then its not just that capabilities are being replaced with more modern 'capable' aircraft, but in many respects capabilities (in respect of the number of airframes), are actually being maintained on an almost 'one for one' basis, so the overall capability is actually significantly being increase too!

So many other Western nations have significantly reduced the number of airframes replacing the previous airframe (obviously partly due to the increase in capability), fortunately on the other hand we seem to be having both our cake and eating it too, both overall capacity and capability too!

God!! That was a mouthful!!!

 

[vonnoobie]

Why cant more of the media do reporting like this? Four myths about Australian naval shipbuilding Personally I think the article is spot on in pointing what we did right but also where we have gone wrong (Does not go into depth, Just a scratch of the surface)

 

[t68]

Why cant more of the media do reporting like this? Four myths about Australian naval shipbuilding Personally I think the article is spot on in pointing what we did right but also where we have gone wrong (Does not go into depth, Just a scratch of the surface)

Interesting read puts it into more perspective, I do recall reading somewhere that this new plan is/was bring forward the next gen frigate by three years. By that article it does not seem to be the case.

 

[Volkodav]

I have previously suggested the Sierra as an option to replace the remaining Blackhawks, currently used for special operations support, rather than as an additional type. This is because it had been suggested that the MRH90 had been found unsuited to the role and in need of modifications to be able to adequately conduct the required missions.

To me the Sierra offered a number of advantages to other types that may be considered, even over a modified MRH90. First is the fact that special operations support was one of the missions the Sierra was designed for, second it's commonality with the Romeo, then its full marinisation. In addition it would also add other capabilities to the mix other options likely would not, it is designed for CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue), it is fully armed (with systems also used by the Romeo), it is designed to be configured for mine countermeasures, as well as for maritime attack missions.

Overall I saw it as potentially an opportunity to not just replace an existing capability but to fill a number of holes in the ADF, as well as back up existing, stretched capabilities, at minimal outlay or risk

 

[Todjaeger]

the tiger is a good example of the services preferred choice not getting up. apache was the better choice. i suspect the polluting hand of industry seducing local politicians overselling state based benefit

ditto for the romeo

Question about the Romeo. I had been under the impression that the Romeo was selected in part due to the 16 S-70B-2 Seahawks getting flogged since they were the only actual, in-service naval helicopter, and the NH90 Industries contender the NFH90 not yet having a model in service, and that each NFH90 model is a bit different, so that there would be potential developmental issues.

Did the RAN and/or other services want something other than the MH-60R as a replacement naval helicopter?

Also, I honestly could see some justification for the MH-60S in RAN service. While the MRH90 is already in RAN service, it is also too large to operate from the FFH's, and depending on just how the AWD hangars are sized and kitted out, might have problems fitting there too. If RAN vessels smaller than the amphibs need a lift/transport component, then the Sierra's might be appropriate/needed.

It is still too soon to tell though, since there is a great deal of info we lack.

 

[Nick underscore]

Also, I honestly could see some justification for the MH-60S in RAN service. While the MRH90 is already in RAN service, it is also too large to operate from the FFH's, and depending on just how the AWD hangars are sized and kitted out, might have problems fitting there too. If RAN vessels smaller than the amphibs need a lift/transport component, then the Sierra's might be appropriate/needed.

It is still too soon to tell though, since there is a great deal of info we lack.

Good points. Add in space required, for what I think will be a purchase or at the very least a plan to integrate the MQ-8 Firescout and you probably right (especially if the C model becomes available and selected). I wouldn't be surprised if a few were budgeted and desired through the DWP & DCP.

Still not a really a fan for another type in the fleet, regardless of commonalities. With the recent EC-135 addition into ADF mix and discussion on the MH-60S, we seem to be proliferating and not rationalising, as first intended.

Maybe V is right and you dump the Blackhawks, with a view to replacing them with the MH-60S platform and assuming the Taipans don't fit the bill for the specials.

 

[Muar River]

And I think it would also be fair to say that the capabilities of the P-8's is only going to improve and increase as various block/spiral(?) upgrades are made and applied to the airframes over the coming years.

And not wanting to wander off too much into RAAF matters (this is the RAN thread after all!) then its not just that capabilities are being replaced with more modern 'capable' aircraft, but in many respects capabilities (in respect of the number of airframes), are actually being maintained on an almost 'one for one' basis, so the overall capability is actually significantly being increase too!

So many other Western nations have significantly reduced the number of airframes replacing the previous airframe (obviously partly due to the increase in capability), fortunately on the other hand we seem to be having both our cake and eating it too, both overall capacity and capability too!

God!! That was a mouthful!!!

I believe the capabilities the RAAF has achieved with addition of the Wedgetail, MRTT, Super Hornets, Growlers, C17s, C27Js, P8s and F35s can be attributed to the foresight and leadership of that service. The new air chief, Leo Davies is certain to carry on the good work. There is a great article about this in Australian Aviation magazine.

 

[ngatimozart]

The MRH90 certainly has greater everything than the UH-1H but is actually very similar in both troop lift and underslung load to the UH-60M BHawk, against which it competed for Air 9000.

The MRH90's larger cabin was (back in 2004/05) advertised as carrying 18 troops, but when the deep analysis was done and the manner in which Army calculates its troop loads (weight per soldier) taken into account that number came down to 13. Not much more than the BHawk's 11.

Both aircraft can carry more under OCL conditions of course.

The MRH90's rear ramp was thought to offer more versatility than BHawk's side door and even allow internal carriage of small tactical vehicles. But in reality the ramp opening height restriction of 1.52m limits that to the smallest of ATVs.

However the NH90 can carry IIRC two pallets internally which the Blackhawk can't and of course troop loads are calculated by weight and since 05/06 the equipment that troops are required to carry has increased, hence an increase in weight. 13 is 2 more than 11 but after you work the numbers out over multiple numbers of troops / airframes, it soon makes a difference. That's what's important so the argument you present so runs into the just arguing semantics arena.

 

[Stock]

However the NH90 can carry IIRC two pallets internally which the Blackhawk can't and of course troop loads are calculated by weight and since 05/06 the equipment that troops are required to carry has increased, hence an increase in weight. 13 is 2 more than 11 but after you work the numbers out over multiple numbers of troops / airframes, it soon makes a difference. That's what's important so the argument you present so runs into the just arguing semantics arena.

Theoretically perhaps. I've never seen them with pallets loaded but that's certainly not to say they don't. Maybe the NZDF does this. All evidence of load carrying by ADF MRH90s is underslung.

Begs the question though: how would you get a heavy pallet up the ramp if you can't get the loader/forklift under the tail and into the ramp opening? A pallet jack would not work - great for flat ground but up a ramp not so. Same for offloading.

Not saying it cannot be done but would be interesting to find out how exactly.

 

[Raven22]

However the NH90 can carry IIRC two pallets internally which the Blackhawk can't and of course troop loads are calculated by weight and since 05/06 the equipment that troops are required to carry has increased, hence an increase in weight. 13 is 2 more than 11 but after you work the numbers out over multiple numbers of troops / airframes, it soon makes a difference. That's what's important so the argument you present so runs into the just arguing semantics arena.

You've also got to remember that the MRH-90 is not supposed to be a transport helicopter, it's supposed to be a battlefield helicopter. Advantages in carriage of troops is all well and good, but if the helicopter can't get those soldiers to where they need to go, it's irrelevant. This is where the MRH-90 loses out badly to the Blackhawk (and just about everything else).

Simple things like not being able to use the machine gun when the door is open dismounting troops (pretty much the entire reason it is there) shows the MRH-90 might be a good transport helicopter, but it is a pretty terrible battlefield helicopter. The pilots I know who fly it call it the Lego helicopter, which isn't a term of endearment.

The MRH-90 is like a lot of European kit - it has lots of advantages that sound good in brochures, but doesn't translate into capability on the ground. That is the advantage of US kit - it might not be as good as its competitors in some key metrics, but it is designed as part of a larger system that works together to make a capability.

 

[Bluey 006]

Good points. Add in space required, for what I think will be a purchase or at the very least a plan to integrate the MQ-8 Firescout and you probably right (especially if the C model becomes available and selected).

On the VTOL UAV front it might not be the MQ-8 Firescout. RAN recently tested the S-100 Camcopter link which is not quite as capable but significantly cheaper. I'd be interested to hear how the RAN felt about it if anyone knows?