The ANZAC helicopter program was unfortunately something we should have dropped long ago.
I see a lot of talk about a single common airframe and things of that nature, but this raises two problems for the "man on the war canoe". I don't know if this has been raised before (I couldn't see it on my quick flick through).
First, the double edged sword:
Purchase, Supply Lines and Maintenance might be cheaper when you only have one type of thing to repair. However, this throws back a massive problem when you have a maintenance issue. Say you have a suspected issue that grounds the whole fleet. Not very common, you say? Sure, when they are new they are the shiny toy and all that, but a few years down the track when some unforseen mechanical gripe shuts down all helicopters until they can be inspected/tested/have part XXYYZ replaced.
I dread this ever happening: Imagine Sikorsky doing such a thing to the S-60/70 line, and what that would do to our current fleet. A common helicopter airframe replacing the 'Hawks and 'Sprites and also the 'Kings would completely ground almost
every airborne asset we have.
So, in short, never put all your eggs in one basket - two seperate airframes, sure. Two similar airframes, sure. But never, never, never all the same.
---
Secondly:
Maintenance itself. I am absolutely horrified at the outsourcing of maintenance in any way shape or form. Certain stances point towards a common airframe being the cheapest way and allows maintenance to be outsourced.
Cheaper now, but if you need to take a significant capability overseas (say to the Sandbox or Afghanistan), where is your maintenance crew? Sure, you take the airframes with the most hours left - but that doesn't cover you against things that break. So...
Do you pay the civilian contractors a 3000% 'danger money' bonus to go into a warzone? (costs a lot of money, and thay don't necessarily have to go)
Do you throw each aircraft that requires major repair/servicing onto a C-17 and transport it home and fly back a replacement (costs a lot of money)?
Do you keep and train your own maintenance crew under the supervision of the civilian company so they can repair them themselves (and when something breaks the second time, the finger-pointing party begins)?
Quite simply, civilian maintenance should only be allowed on training airframes. Anything painted green or grey, and/or anything that hangs a weapon off belongs to the guys in uniform.
There are other issues, but I won't go into them.
---
What we should have done was buy a proven airframe to fill the ANZAC Frigate Helicopter role, and wouldn't you know, the darndest thing? It was for an
attack helicopter. Now IIRC, an attack helicopter wasn't something the world was short of. Particularly, ones that were proven and have a nice array of weapons we could actually employ reliably.
Attack helicopters in this modern age need to have a few certain characteristics to be effective. Here are some that the RAN should have considered (again, there are more, but heres a snippet):
1) Low radar signature / low radar cross-section: Look at your modern fore-and-aft seating helicopters. The Seasprite looks like a flying wardrobe. (Additionally, this means they take up a little less space in the hangar so the maint crew can bring their bikes along
)
2) Flexibility with launched weapon types: The Penguin missile is a nice touch, but as AGRA stated earlier (quite correctly) we can't actually rely on a Penguin to take out medium range fast attack craft. If our LHD's are to be protected, we need the capability to take out a full spectrum of surface threats, not just some cargo ships carrying 5,000 troops and 600 civilian vehicles. Hellfire is the choice here.
3) Flexibility with role: No good calling it an attack helicopter if it can only attack one thing. If you ask a Seasprite to do support of amphibious operations, you'll be hanging a MAG58 out the door and hoping the bad guys don't get too close to your guys or it'll be blue-on-blue paperwork at the very least. A
proper attack helicopter would perform this function with ease, even if it had been converted to a shipborne ASuW weapons platform.
4) Ruggedness/Reliability/Ease of maintenance: In other words, get something that either you can fix on the go, or something that has such a proven track record you can account for anything that would go wrong.
5) An accurate and effective projectile weapon: To use a Mag58 or .50 side mounted, you need to sit pretty still or fly smoothly, and last time I checked most helicopters - unless they are proper attack choppers - tend to dislike being peppered with small and medium arms fire. Attack helicopters with helmet-mount sights and chin/belly guns are effective, cheap to use and have plenty of bells and whistles to make sure you can find hidden enemy at night, etc etc. Engagement is easier while manoeuvring, they can be effective on small craft and can be used in support operations ashore. As a plus, they make a pretty good deterrent if you point them at something. We don't exactly need a 30mm antitank cannon as the Apache has, just a 20mm or even a heavy barrel .50 calibre could be enough.
...amongst others.
---
So what is my point? We need two seperate helicopters.
The NH-90 is okay I guess. Don't expect miracles of the maintenance crew if they need to repair any of those composites though: Can't do any of that while you are at sea or sitting in the lee of a sand dune. Other than that, it is a sexy platform for ASW and heavy lift/transport, with the added bonus of having some nice flexible add-ons. But that should fill the role of the Sea Kings and Seahawks. Bold move, but I think the -90 should fill the ASW roles given it's payload/carrying capacity. By the time we replace the Seahawks, they'll be ready to take on that role. The use of a dipping sonar would be pretty sweet, although I doubt the money would ever materialise for that capability.
The other type should be a proper attack chopper.
-The Tiger would be nice, in an effort for the two-common-airframes across the ADF but it lacks blade folding. So that's out.
-(The fictional Sea Apache would also be nice, although they went right down the path of the SeaSprite and turned it into a missile carrier. The nose mounted radar is a good idea, but retention of the TADS is something that needs to be sorted, as is a decent projectile weapon (read cannon).)
-AH-64D with the new folding blade system is getting close, although they are pretty pricey and are a little on the large side from memory.
-AH-1Z SuperCobra is the only alternative, although I am yet to see if the four blade AH-1Z has a blade fold. It pretty much does everything right, except for the fact it is missing a decent surface search radar. If we were to approach Bell about it, I'm sure they can work on it. Also, a FLIR system
a la TADS would be a fantastic addition.
---
What is the rationale?
Looking strictly from a deployment situation, assume that we purchased the AH-1Z. The aim is to deploy ships/helicopters thus:
Air Warfare platform: Carry one MRH-90 (Multi-role).
ANZAC Frigate: Carry one AH-1Z (ASuW).
Adelaide class (or their replacement): One MRH-90 (ASW), with the ability to carry an additional AH-1Z (ASuW).
LHD's: MRH-90 (Transport/Heavy Lift, Multi-role), plus a detachment of AH-1Z (Littoral/Amphibious Support, ASuW)
Other support vessels: Obviously the MRH-90.
That's a lot of money, I know. Very unlikely to happen, but it would increase capability far beyond that which is currently offered by our airframes in service. Also, I'm not bagging out the Seahawk - it's a fantastic machine - this is purely a projection into the future where we will be spending money on new aquisitions. I just can't see money being spent on Seahawk when the MRH-90 is theoretically able to do the same job
But the reality is thus: If you place a fistful of Army into an LHD and send them somewhere without air cover of any sort, you are doing nothing but inviting diaster. Tiger isn't up to it, the RAAF might be a little too far away to provide instant response and good loiter times, and as previously stated you cannot rely on a flying bathtub with a machine gun hanging out the door with nothing better than a Mk 1 eyeball for target selection and prosecution.
So: we need something along the lines of the SuperCobra to realise the potential. Amphibious warfare, fleet defence and interdiction is where these aircraft would shine.
