Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Nope they will normally only carry one naval helicopter.

I just find this odd. Given that one of the requirements of the AWD is to have two helicopters (or atleast 1 helo and 1 capable UAV) and all our frigates have two helos, I would expect the LHD to have at the very least 3 naval helicopters as a regular loadout. I would have thought the need for rescue, resupply, personel movement, ASW, ASuW, and some sort of AEW and the like would have dictated 3 for any mission the LHD was likely to participate in.

I suppose in the end many of the armys air assets are going to be pooled together so that in the end the LHD will have as many as required. Which is a smarter way to operate a small number of aircraft. I would imagine operating multiple Chooks is more efficent for troop and equipment movement than multiple NH-90's? Are the chooks would most likely stay on deck at all times (no need to remove the rotors and move the big bastards around) and the NH-90's are only moved up once the chooks are deployed?

Are there varients of the NH-90 that offer ASW/AEW and ASuW off the shelf currently? I thought these are on the maybe list or in development. Or are these duties mostly going to be covered by the UAV? Are they looking at rotory UAV?

But it would be unlikely for each LHD to carry more than 10-12 manned aircraft while also deploying the landing force because there just won’t be room.

Given that the requirement is to deploy both of them simultainously, thats still 20-24 aircraft total on the LHD. I would imagine a combined taskforce including AWD and frigates could push that closer (for the operation) to 30 aircraft total. With a makeup of something like 4x CH-47's (2 per LHD), 6x Tigers, and 10-20 NH-90's (or what ever is choosen) then that is a heck of a great deal of air support for an operation.

Combined with any allied forces deploying (for example that shipping container ferry thing NZ has now or a singaporian amphib ship) thats going a long way to being able to conducting an amphibious assault. Well atleast more so than a leased painted ferry.

 

[sandman]

I just find this odd. Given that one of the requirements of the AWD is to have two helicopters (or atleast 1 helo and 1 capable UAV) and all our frigates have two helos, I would expect the LHD to have at the very least 3 naval helicopters as a regular loadout. I would have thought the need for rescue, resupply, personel movement, ASW, ASuW, and some sort of AEW and the like would have dictated 3 for any mission the LHD was likely to participate in.

The AWDs will only have 1 helo.
And as for "all our frigates having two helos": Well the Anzacs only have room for one each, and although the FFGs have two hangars, when was the last time one went to sea with both full hey?
We just dont have the number of sea going flights to fill up all of the hangars in the fleet.

As for requiring 3 for the LHDs, well that would really degrade the ships troop movement abilities. And you must consider that the more helos onboard limits the army vehicles you can take (2 Deck will have a moveable bulkhead to seperate hangar/vehicle space). Not to mention that if you start loading the magazines with ASW torpedoes there will be less space to carry bullets, grenades, etc for the soldiers.

The air group will be mission tailored so a greater threat from enemy naval forces may mean more naval helos onboard, but really that kind of work is what the DDGs and FFHs will be there for, and its why dedicated escorts will always be a requirment. Thier mission is to protect the fat ships, the fat ships just do thier thing, which might not necessarily be compatible with sending up ASW helos.

And once again it would be impacted by the limited number of FAA flights that can be deployed.

 

[Tasman]

I think the LHDs should operate 1-2 navy NH-90's during peace time /non operational deployments. One of the major roles of these ships is air operations so a permanent embarkation would be required to keep the ship familiar and comfortable in the operation of aircraft.

During wartime / large scale training I believe the ships should operate at least 3 navy NH-90's. With these ships operating up to 24 aircraft it needs it's own SAR capability. Imagine a CH-47 Chook with 50 troops onboard having to ditch at sea and the loss of life that this may cause. Having a NH-90 on the flight deck waiting to react with life rafts that could be air droped to survivors from a low altitude and a small motorised ruber dingy a couple of aircrew men could launch straight from the ramp of the NH-90 if condition allowed so to rescue troops in difficulty would greatly reduce / hopefully stop loss of life.

With the LHD's coming online 6 navy NH-90 is just not enough.

I agree 100% with this.

I accept what Abe says might be the current plan but 1 naval helo is just not enough IMHO. I think a 2 ship flight is the bare minimum - just for SAR and vertrep. When the situation demands it would make sense to embark a second naval flight of 2 for ASW and AsuW although helos embarked un the escorts could do this job if there are sufficient escorts available. I would not like to see reliance placed on Army Aviation assets for the SAR role.

No doubt helos from the AWDs and FFHs will cross deck on the LHDs on a regular basis.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

DT. http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-AWD-Jun-04.pdf "capable of operating two helicopters/" (I am not quoting AP at all just linking to the story).

Okay so the AWD have gone for helo and UAV capability instead. But all the more reason to have real helicopters based on the LHD. I would imagine helos stationed on the LHD will relieve the need to load up other units as it is safer, easier and more practical to operate Helos from the LHD. Given how short we are on FAA helicopters I wouldn't like to make a comment on what we are currently operating given that its an unnatural state due to seasprites and other issues.

Even with troops, you are going to need 3 helicopters to move anything on or off it and maintain station for any reasonable period of time. Even for a peace or training mission.

I do agree that with these flexable ships, there won't be any hard and fast rules about airwings carried but will be dictated by mission requirements. Still I can't see the point of a 30,000t LHD going to sea with just one helicopter. It has six spots on its deck and we wanted to convert it to 7!

and its why dedicated escorts will always be a requirment.

Are they going to be operated this way? I think it would be the preferable way to use the ships but other people have commented that operating the LHD together with AWD and Frigates would be a huge waste of resources and have mentioned up arming the LHD (with all sorts from short range defensive missiles to SM-2's and 5") and having them operate seperately.

 

[Tasman]

Even with troops, you are going to need 3 helicopters to move anything on or off it and maintain station for any reasonable period of time. Even for a peace or training mission.

I do agree that with these flexable ships, there won't be any hard and fast rules about airwings carried but will be dictated by mission requirements. Still I can't see the point of a 30,000t LHD going to sea with just one helicopter. It has six spots on its deck and we wanted to convert it to 7!

These certainly will be flexible ships. Whilst they are primarily an amphibious asset they will be capable of multiple roles including disaster relief and sea control (even though that is not envisaged as a requirement at this stage). Who knows how their roles might evolve in the 30 + years they are likely to be in service.

Whatever the role I agree with Stingray and The Puss that there is a need for a ship's flight of more than 1 helo. Maybe for a cruise to the Hobart Regatta one helo might be sufficient but I see 2 as the minimum and 3 as desirable whenever they are involved in exercises or operations.

Tas

 

[sandman]

DT. http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-AWD-Jun-04.pdf "capable of operating two helicopters/" (I am not quoting AP at all just linking to the story).

Well I never would believe a word of what Air Power Australia write.
I do believe Hobart Class DDG plans however.

Okay so the AWD have gone for helo and UAV capability instead. But all the more reason to have real helicopters based on the LHD. I would imagine helos stationed on the LHD will relieve the need to load up other units as it is safer, easier and more practical to operate Helos from the LHD.

Not disputing the usefulness of naval helos on the LHD. But tactically speaking it is much more practical to operate a limited number from your escorts than your prized unit.

Launching a helo is not always compatible with other aims.

Easier, well that covers plenty of possibilities and can be viewed from many angles. But an evolution like launching a helo isn't that hard for a good worked up crew. Doing it at godforsaken hours can be a buggerance yes, but perhaps with a few exceptions i suspect LHDs will be under similar constraints.

As for safer, i agree the LHD has a larger deck, and presumably will be less affected by sea state, but FFHs/DDGs have RAST haul down systems for heavy weather recovery, LHDs will not.
And having 1000 people on board who dont know much more than the bow from the stern is 1000 potential problems that escorts just dont have to contend with, an all navy worked up crew, each with a place and a purpose.

Are they going to be operated this way? I think it would be the preferable way to use the ships but other people have commented that operating the LHD together with AWD and Frigates would be a huge waste of resources and have mentioned up arming the LHD (with all sorts from short range defensive missiles to SM-2's and 5") and having them operate seperately.

Up arming is not currently in the works, and even if it were to go ahead, a 27,000 ton flexible strategic asset with 1200 people and 12ish helos onboard headed for presumably an important mission should not be protecting itself with no escorts.

They may say its a waste of resources from where they sit here and now, but if the time comes that one of these ships is going to insert troops onto less than friendly soil within range of an enemy airbase and with red force submarines unaccounted for, I guarantee you if they will be singing a different tune.

As the operation of those defensive systems, well it is simpler said than done. With enemy fighters inbound i wouldnt wanna be forced to defend ownship when caught with my pants down (ie: in the littoral conducting stern door loads whilst operating helos from multiple spots on the deck). No, an escort will still be required.

From what I've been told the LHDs will be in company with a frigate for plenty of thier time underway, much more thsn the LPAs are now.
Not because a huge threat exists to an LHD transiting the Great Australian Bight, but rather for interoperability/in company training and as an added bonus to be sure a warry will be available for protection if an LHD has to travel at short notice to a crisis.
Hopefully that is how things operate, time will tell and we've been dissapointed before.

But I should calrify, im not against having more naval helos on the LHDs, i think it would be a good idea, but if you have 1xLHD, 1xFFH and 1xDDG together with 3 FAA flights available, I'd rather see one helo on each than all three to be on the fat ship.

 

[Aussie Digger]

DT. http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-AWD-Jun-04.pdf "

No please, feel free to post these articles. They are tremendous.

I especially enjoy the bits where he states,

"in a cruise missile rich threat environment, all surface warships are confronted with the physics of radar propagation, which hide inbound low flying missiles below the radar horizon".

I especially love how this applies to surface warships, but apparently not to surface based SAM systems, particularly if said SAM systems happen to be S-300 or S-400 systems.

I find it amazing that Western systems suffer from curvature of the earth issues, but Russian systems don't.

Simply amazing.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Whatever the role I agree with Stingray and The Puss that there is a need for a ship's flight of more than 1 helo. Maybe for a cruise to the Hobart Regatta one helo might be sufficient but I see 2 as the minimum and 3 as desirable whenever they are involved in exercises or operations.

The RAN has been doing alright in the NAG with only one Seahawk per frigate. Other users of naval aviation like the RN only operate one shipboard helicopter per frigate. The LHD will operate as a maritime warfare platform and contribute a single flight, its radar, command and control capability and the organic MCM capability. The rest of its capability will be for landing an army battlegroup. They aren't sea control ships, they are LHDs.

I would tend to agree that a larger flight would have its advantages and I would imagine so would the operators. Two helos would provide coverage 24-7 and enable surge capability for twice the footprint. Two helos would also mean twice the flight personnel which would make it a lot easier to run a miniature at sea airport and fueling stop for any friendly passers by 24-7-52, not to mention keep the helos air worthy and crewed.

However the RAN is locked into single helo flights thanks to the physical nature of its frigates and future destroyers. This is probably why NA2020 wants a naval managed UAS of some sort to provide enhanced coverage for at sea task forces and ships. But NA2020 in all its glory is probably about to be railroaded by the White Paper...

 

[Navor86]

Which is why the six MRH-90 MSHs will be replaced by the 36 new FNACS helicopters. Even if the FNACS chooses the NH-90 NFH its unlikely the Navy MRH-90s will be rebuilt so the Army will probably get them. Good thing they are already in Army's colours.

But off wich use could 6 MRH be for the Army?
I mean the whole purchase off MRH for the Navy was to small at least 10-12 would have been necessary to have a valuable Force

 

[Bugs Bunny]

Something I find odd about the order is that there is no real plan for a third LHD to operate a few F-35s. I could understand Aus doctrine, that would argue that Aus forces would never operate without allied air support. But I would think they would think a little more heavily on the idea of being an air support provider themselves.

As for the Hobart flight, 2 would seem to be suitable for a wartime/heavy training. While it would be ideal to have three, that number just seems almost to far fetched for the RAN to really operate on. Even two, is nearly pushing it, just simply because there is no real need for that much. It would seem that only one helicopter, would be enough to deal with ASW operations, once a target is discovered. It's not like the Hobart is going to be deployed to help out with a troop deployment or 24/7 operations, since Australia has no major submarine opposition in the area. And likely it would operate with another frigate or ally in close proximity, and thus ASW would not really be so much of a problem.

 

[Sea Toby]

But off wich use could 6 MRH be for the Army?
I mean the whole purchase off MRH for the Navy was to small at least 10-12 would have been necessary to have a valuable Force

I was under the impression Australia bought these 12 helicopters to increase their number of troop carrying helicopters. They are an addition to, not a replacement helicopter.

You are correct in thinking these 12 won't be enough to supply the LHDs. But you are forgetting about the Blackhawks already in service. While it is nice to have the same make of helicopter, doing so reduces the supply chain, its not absolutely necessary. The Army will use any troop helicopter. If any helicopter is necessary for any mission, I don't see the Navy turning them down.

I can see French forces using French helicopters with the Aussie LHDs. I can see British forces using British helicopters with the Aussie LHDs. Or any other nation's helicopters too. especially in the South Pacific.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was under the impression Australia bought these 12 helicopters to increase their number of troop carrying helicopters. They are an addition to, not a replacement helicopter.

You are correct in thinking these 12 won't be enough to supply the LHDs. But you are forgetting about the Blackhawks already in service. While it is nice to have the same make of helicopter, doing so reduces the supply chain, its not absolutely necessary. The Army will use any troop helicopter. If any helicopter is necessary for any mission, I don't see the Navy turning them down.

I can see French forces using French helicopters with the Aussie LHDs. I can see British forces using British helicopters with the Aussie LHDs. Or any other nation's helicopters too. especially in the South Pacific.

Australia initially bought 12x MRH-90 (Australian designation for NH-90 TTH helos) as the "additional troop lift helo" capability. 5x of these aircraft have been delivered so far.

In reality, that was a nice bit of political sloganism, because in reality these MRH-90's were simply replacing the Australian Army's UH-1H Huey helos that were being retired from service. 12x MRH-90's making an adequate replacement for 25x Hueys, in terms of lift capacity.

Australia subsequently ordered an additional 28x MRH-90 aircraft which will replace our Blackhawk helicopters within Army (between 2010 - 2013) and 6x MRH-90's for Navy to replace the Sea King.

The benefits being obvious, rationalisation of 3x helo types into one, much greater overall lift capacity and a far more modern and capable tactical transport helicopter fleet. With our Chinook fleet being modernised and expanded, plus a new maritime helo capability for RAN in future years and the introduction of the Tiger ARH and the planned new training / light utility helicopter, ADF's helicopter force is in excellent shape.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thanks Digger, I was unaware of the second helicopter order. So Australia will end up with a total of 46 MRH-90 helicopters. In my opinion that should be enough to support 2 LHDs, with plenty to spare for other operations. Adding several Tiger helicopters and a few Chinooks to the mix will make a sound amphibious helicopter lift.

 

[battlensign]

I am hearing from some sources there might be something along the lines of a Squirrel embarked on the LHDs at times for small transport tasks such as movement of the Taskforce Commander (COMFLOT?) - to fly between exercises and headquarters etc. How common this is remains to be seen, but surely, noting the recent costs printed by Dr Davies for Helo ops, it would make some sense to have something beyond MRH-90/NFH-90 onboard for smaller tasks.....?

Brett.

 

[Sea Toby]

Aren't the Squirrels older than the Seahawks? But yes, any corporate VIP helicopter could be used and have the capacity to operate off the LHD.

 

[Navor86]

As we talk off helos.
Is the distribution still as planned? With 2 Sqaudrons for Army Ops,1 for SpecOps. 4 Helos for Training and 6 Helos for the Navy?

Another Factor how Many Helos has the ADF lost over the past lets say 15 Years?. Im aware of 1 Black Hawk and 1 Seaking in the last 4 Years. Any others. Because withe this MRH Procurement and other Helo Programms nobody seems to take attrition into account

 

[Aussie Digger]

As we talk off helos.
Is the distribution still as planned? With 2 Sqaudrons for Army Ops,1 for SpecOps. 4 Helos for Training and 6 Helos for the Navy?

Another Factor how Many Helos has the ADF lost over the past lets say 15 Years?. Im aware of 1 Black Hawk and 1 Seaking in the last 4 Years. Any others. Because withe this MRH Procurement and other Helo Programms nobody seems to take attrition into account

ADF has lost overall numbers, but has increased overall capacity in terms of aircraft capability and airlift capacity.

Army is running 34x Blackhawks at the moment, the Iroquois are all gone and it is gaining 40x MRH-90.

Navy is losing 6x Sea Kings, but gaining 6x MRH-90 (until the new maritime helo comes along anyway, at which time the MRH-90 attached to navy might revert to Army).

The Sea Kings have more airlift capacity than the MRH-90, but the sortie rate is a completely different kettle of fish, as is availability and capability to enter "threat" environments.

With the Chinooks being supplemented with additional airframes (at least 3x at this stage, with more likely to follow) ADF helo capability is one area we are doing quite well. The numbers seem to take attrition into account, as far as I can see.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Hi Stingray, these are the most recent pictures of JCI.
The main developments are, The electronic suite is up, the radar (Lanza-N) and antennae are up, on March 31st JCI goes to dry dock for pods fitting (propulsion) and painting.

www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=13027&start=95

I hope this is helpful.

Soon enough Canberra will start taking shape

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Weird, I thought I was posting a reply to a Stingray post, asking for the latest pics of JCI, and Sting´s post has disappeared from my screen, did you edit it or do I have to go back to the doctor?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Weird, I thought I was posting a reply to a Stingray post, asking for the latest pics of JCI, and Sting´s post has disappeared from my screen, did you edit it or do I have to go back to the doctor?

Not sure mate.

I just fixed up your link, that is all.