Can you clarify what you mean here McTaff?
What aviation farce are you talking about (Seasprites come to mind :shudder ) and what might we have for the Anzacs?
Tas
Ok, I'm going to write a very very long diatribe. I hope you have a thermos of hot coffee, a comfy chair and an alarm clock.
I'll start off at the easy part...
-------------------------
SH-3 Sea King:
Look, a brilliant airframe. It is a real workhorse and we love them. I've been in one and it was awesome. I've seen them do some hellishly cool stuff. They are built like Hercules himself - the sheer size of some of the components boggles the mind. They were built for strength-strength-strength.
Only thing is, they ain't new. The constant on/off status is simply a reflection of the age of the airframes and components. If they made these things brand new, several of us would go out on a personal crusade to get the NRH-90 booted. The trouble is, we have to let them go soon, regardless of how good they are.
The US F-14's had to go for a number of reasons similar; for every hour of flying, those aircraft required 40-odd hours of ground maintenance towards the end of their flying life. We can't let the Sea Kings get to that stage.
-
Replacement:
Sorry, I'm not feeling it for the NRH-90. Composite material build simply equals unfixable at sea. Get a few bullet holes from a couple of angry smugglers or pirates (or anyone higher on the food chain) and you may just have to ground your aircraft until you can get a replacement. Doesn't work in 'the real world'. It's a great airframe, looks cool, has great performance and lifts a lot - but it's just not the gravy when it comes to maintenance. Depending on what happens, the finger-pointing starts after a few changeovers between Navy and civilian techos....
The ol' KISS rule. A simple airframe is a simple job to fix. At sea, ruggedness and fixability are paramount.
Blade fold is another consideration. I have not heard a sufficient amount of talk regarding an automatic blade fold system. At least a semi-automatic blade fold is required, optimally a complete automatic system is the best safety system (which negates the need for enlisted crew running around on the quarterdeck at night with the safety rails in the 'down' position).
However, their primary airlift/utility role calls for a good sturdy platform and I can't be too nasty to the Eurocopter entry. At least it works.
-------------------------
S-70B-2 Seahawk:
Go search for 1405 Seahawk upgrade you just take a look at how many revised dates there have been. We are years past the first date set. The last update on the Sea Power Centre
four years ago is after the date of the original agreement to be finished!
There are some reasons why it is this way, but in the real world,
contracts should be written so that if the conditions are NOT met, then the supplier gets a big ol' butt-kicking.
- Not delivered on time? Smack on wrist.
- Not delivered with full capability? Big smack.
- Tried again and still can't get it together? You'll be on the slippery slope to doing all this work for free. (More on this later)
One thing the government should be asking is "How many of these upgraded Seahawks are finished?" They won't like the answer.
I love Seahawks, but the disaster that has been 1405 is choking 816 Sqn at lunchtime. They want their airframes, and they want them now.
-
Replacement:
The Seahawks are mid-life soon, and will eventually be replaced. My suspicion is that once an all-round decent forward capability hits 805 Sqn, and the MRH-90's are up and running, 816 Sqn will switch to the same airframe. This is assuming we keep the MRH-90 until well past the use-by date of the Seahawk, as "single aircraft type" is likely to be cited once the replacement contract is activated. If it were sufficiently into the future, then a whole new 816 + 817 entire replacement contract may be instituted.
However, once the new aircraft is in service with both Sqadrons, the roles will be simply be different: 816 will firstly be an ASW platform, with a secondary airlift/transport capability (same roles as performed now).
-------------------------
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.
The options for an attack helicopter were (last time I casually looked):
The SeaApache concept.
Pro--> If you ditched the nose radar and stuck with the cannon and the TADS, it'd have everything.
Cons--> It doesn't exist.
AH-64 Apache.
Pros-->Awesome platform. Does everything you'd want it to. Some systems would even need to be downgraded (30mm cannon is a bit much, we only need 20mm). Rugged, reliable, has a great history.
Cons-->Freakishly expensive. Would need a blade fold (which is not in production at this time, although prototypes have been made).
ARH Tiger.
Pros--> We already see those in the ADF. Easy to integrate ADF-wise as the hard work is already done.
Cons--> No blade fold to speak of. Maintenance difficult aboard due to composites.
Westland Lynx.
Pros-->Proven ASuW and ASW, can be converted to attack role. Loved by operators. Flexible, can carry loads internally.
Cons-->Attack role isn't 100% wonderful. Very patchy history. Side-by-side arrangement. Supporting amphibious forces may prove difficult. No cannon.
AH-1Z Super Cobra.
Pros-->Cheaper than Apache. Does everything we need, apart from have a radar worth mentioning. Blade fold, rugged and reliable. Has almost every weapons system already as standard, apart from Penguin.
Cons-->Pricey still - IIRC this is why the Army went with ARH Tiger.
So my pick? Cobra.
Definitely. The system has been perfected over many many years and still works. One pilot, one observer as crew, and although you completely remove any lift capability, this fails to move me away from the idea. Besides, once you figure out what ships are doing what and where, you don't really need the carrying capacity, and can afford to do away with it.
However cost is the driving force here. If the gov't were to lash out and actually purchase such a weapons platform, the capability increase would be enormous, and would negate the need to attempt embarking Army ARH Tigers or attack Blackhawks on LHD's, as the capability would already be there.
Of course that would be idealist of me to expect such a thing to happen, but the whole point of ANZAC Helicopter project was to have an embarked helicopter to provide a remote sensor platform, and the ability to investigate things beyond visual range. There are other Sea Sprites out there dropping missiles and shooting off flares and whatnot, but there is just no comparing the role that they are trying to fill with a purpose-built, functioning aerial recon/combat aircraft.
Furthermore, we have so far paid a lot of money and got zero/zip/nada/nothing capability.
-----------------------------------
So to answer the inevitable question. In the future, what would the RAN look like if I was in charge? (with regards to embarked aviation assets?)
This is only to paint the true picture of what the RAN should be aiming for.
Assuming that
a) The Seahawks were replaced with the MRH-90 or similar airframe, and
b) The Cobra was purchased for 805 Sqn,
... the squadrons would be as follows:
805 Sqn.
Attack Squadron, fielding AH-1Z.
816 Sqn.
ASW Squadron, fielding MRH-90.
817 Sqn.
Airlift/Utility Squadron, fielding MRH-90.
--
SHIPS -
Aircraft embarked (Sqn):
LHD -
2x-6x MRH-90 (817 Sqn)
1x-2x MRH-90 (816 Sqn) if no Army detachment.
1x-2x AH-1Z (805 Sqn) if going outside territorial waters.
ANZACs -
1x AH-1Z (805 Sqn)
FFGUP -
1x MRH-90 (816 Sqn)
1x AH-1Z (805 Sqn)
Sirius (and/or other Replenishment Ship) -
1x MRH-90 (817 Sqn)
Tobruk (and/or other Sealift Ships TBA) -
1x-2x MRH-90 (817 Sqn)
That is a lot of airframes at sea, and unlikely to all be at once, but that is the surge capability we would be looking for.
(Webmaster can move this to a new thread if it causes too much issue)
), 8 x Anzacs and 2 x FFG's would provide that number.
