Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lofty_DBF

Lofty_DBF

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
ari said:
Cheers Lofty, I have checked out this site and it has got some nice images, not sure if you've seen the army one but they have a a uniform page and information regarding each uniform, when its worn, who wears it etc. thats kind of what im after.
Click to expand...
What do you want to know mate ask away??
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ari said:
Does anyone know where I can find images of Royal Australian Navy Uniforms, google only gives me the new AUSCAM looking ones. Im interested in the formal dress for officers. Thanks :)
Click to expand...
Careful saying CAM around officers...its DCPU...i can assure you, its a touchy thing amongst the hill to call them Cams, even though they are based on AUSCAM pattern...and i'm still waiting on mine! If your on 'Seapatrol' your fleet priority for everything but a submarine...and yet theres still season 4:rolleyes:
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
Going by the newly released Defence Capability Plan, it seems the maritime helicopter project seems to be the next major project in the pipeline

from the capability plan:

AIR9000 Phase 8 Future Naval Aviation Combat System

Scope
This phase is intended to provide an organic combat aviation capability to Navy’s surface combatant
fleet. This includes the acquisition of multi-role naval combat helicopters, weapons, synthetic training,
infrastructure, logistics and other support systems.

Background
The Navy’s current tactical helicopter capability is provided by the Seahawk S-70B-2. A surface warfare strike capability was to have been provided by the cancelled Seasprite program. The White Paper indicated that as a matter of urgency the Government would acquire at least 24 new naval combat helicopters. The new aircraft will possess advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities along with an ability to fire air-to surface missiles.

Australian Industry Opportunities

Acquisition
In order to minimise technical, schedule, and financial risks it is envisaged that a Military-off-the-Shelf (MOTS) solution will be sourced from overseas. There may be some opportunity for Australian industry in aircraft assembly, and development of some support systems.

Through-life Support
The retention of an off-the-shelf configuration is considered important for cost effective Australian based deeper level maintenance, engineering and through-life support.

Industry Capabilities and Activities
Capabilities and related activities that may provide opportunities for Australian industry in this phase include:

Acquisition Category (ACAT)
Acquisition Cost Level 1 Very High: $1500m


Planned Schedule Highlights
  • First Pass Approval FY 2009-10 to FY 2010-11
  • Year-of-Decision FY 2010-11 to FY 2011-12
  • Initial Operating Capability 2014 to 2016

any thoughts?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
PeterM said:
any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yep it's going to be an off the shelf acquisition of MH-60R or NH-90 NFH.

AIR-9000 is the ADF helicopter master-plan intended to rationalise the number of types within ADF to 4 or a maximum of 5 helo types including:

1. Heavy-lift helo, to be provided by CH-47D+ and in future CH-47F.

2. Tactical Transport and multirole utility tasks to be provided by MRH-90.

3. Armed recon helicopter capability to be provided by Tiger ARH.

4. Common training helicopter, with perhaps an identified capability requirement for a light utility helicopter of the same type, later.

5. A naval based maritime warfare helicopter. This may be the NH-90 NFH, so in effect the same basic helo platform (with significantly different systems) as the MRH-90.

OTOH, it is urgently required, due to the Seasprite debacle and the rapidly aging extant S-70 B2 SeaHawks, and ADF and Government might decide to procure MH-60R as a rapid FMS acquisition. NFH-90 of course, not being ready yet, so developmental risk would be inherent in such an acquisition.

Personally, I think the MH-60R will get the gig, due to the urgency of the project and the necessary requirement to accept the developmental risk, if the NFH were to be chosen.

The MH-60R will most likely, IMHO, only be integrated with Hellfire missiles, 12.7mm machine guns and the Mk 50 air launched torpedo in the initial stages of RAN service, due to the urgency of the project.

I suspect a follow-on maritime strike weapon might be planned for the helo once the capability is "bedded down" with ADF having a definite requirement for this sort of weapon and plenty of options to choose from...
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
I think it could go either way actually

The MH-60R is the solid choice,and would leverage the USN supply chain; but I suspect the Government would prefer to go with the NH-90 NFH if that is possible.

It could be built in Australia using the experience of Australian Aerospace with the MRH-90 anf Tiger ARH - I think that will be a huge factor in the decision.

The NH-90 NFH is expected to be operational with France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Belgium in the next couple of years; I believe most the the issues with the NFH have been resolved. The in expected in-service date for the RAN is 2014 so that gives plenty of lead time for any kinks to have been worked out.

What is the likely cost differences between the MH-60R and the NH-90 NFH options?

Could the NH-90 NFH airframe be fitted with some Avionics from the MH-60R if required?
 
Last edited:
J

jacktar

New Member
The NH-90 has other considerations that need to be looked at. From what I've been told it is incompatible with the RAST system fitted to Australian ships because of it Tricycle undercarriage arrangement and it is also probably to heavy for FFGs and possibly ANZACS. This would mean a major modification to the ships before they are able to be operated at sea.

The time to introduce the NH-90 would therefore be extended considerably.
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
jacktar said:
The NH-90 has other considerations that need to be looked at. From what I've been told it is incompatible with the RAST system fitted to Australian ships because of it Tricycle undercarriage arrangement and it is also probably to heavy for FFGs and possibly ANZACS. This would mean a major modification to the ships before they are able to be operated at sea.

The time to introduce the NH-90 would therefore be extended considerably.
Click to expand...
I am no expert on (hence why I am askign questions)

as far as weight goes

the NH90 NFH - ASW is listed with a mission gross weight of 9,100kg

the MH-60R is listed with a gross weight of 10,170kg in anti-submarine warfare configuration.

Presumably if the NFH is too heavy then so is the MH-60R
 
J

jacktar

New Member
The problem is that the NH-90 has been nowhere near its claimed weight since inception.

New NH-90 Helicopter Still Too Heavy


(Source: ANP Dutch Press Agency; issued June 11, 2009)


(Issued in Dutch only; translation by defense-aerospace.com)



THE HAGUE --- State Secretary of Defence Jack de Vries on Wednesday had “bad news” for the House of Commons, he said. The NH-90 helicopter ordered by the Ministry of Defence is still heavier than planned.

[Program prime contractor] NH Industries had announced measures to reduce the helicopter’s weight, but these have not had the desired result. The weight of the aircraft has been a problem for years. This is important because the additional weight makes them too heavy to land on the Dutch navy frigates for which they are intended.

The Netherlands decided in 1991 to participate in the NH-90 program, and ordered twenty [of the NFH-90 naval variant] which should have replaced the current Lynx ship-borne helicopters beginning in 2007.

However, because of the recurring weight issue, that date has been moved back several times. The latest date for their initial delivery has now been pushed back to 2011, de Vries said.

It is not possible to rule out further delays, nor to say what extra costs will arise from the delays, he added.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
Masybe the Dutch are having more problems with the weight as they are replacing a much smaller helicopter in the Lynx, whereas ours will be replacing Seakings and SeaHawks.
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
I am very curious as to what the weight issues are that the NFH is experiencing compared to the MRH-90; presumably they are very similar airframes.

I imagine the weight issues would be related to avionics and weapon fits.

Could the MRH-90 airframe be used with the avionics and systems of the MH-60R? That would seem to offer the best of both worlds - ability for considerable Australian involvement (and cost savings) in the construction and maintenance of the airframes leveraging the existing MRH-90 and Tiger ARH programs plus the proven avionics of MH-60R.
 
Last edited:
U

uuname

New Member
PeterM said:
Could the MRH-90 airframe be used with the avionics and systems of the MH-60R? That would seem to offer the best of both worlds - ability for considerable Australian involvement (and cost savings) in the construction and maintenance of the airframes leveraging the existing MRH-90 and Tiger ARH programs plus the proven avionics of MH-60R.
Click to expand...
That sounds rather risky to me.

It would be a unique Australian project with a highly limited number of units and no possibility of further orders.

In addition... while the individual parts may be proven, systems integration is always one of the biggest problems anyway. Remember the Super Seasprite?

I don't see any way such a project would be cheaper than an MH-60R, or ready before the NFH90...
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I am sure that for this they will want something completely off the shelf and already or very near operational. A real safe bet.

It would be worth operating another type for this role to eliminate risk and delays.

However if we were to add to this fleet with NFH90's at a later date then obvious benifits with our existing large NFH90 fleet would be obvious.

Then selling (regionally NZ, etc) on or retiring the MH60R or moving them on to other ships (OCV's/LHD etc). What ever the cost it has to be better than high risk low additional benifit hybrid or prototypes.
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
StingrayOZ said:
I am sure that for this they will want something completely off the shelf and already or very near operational. A real safe bet.

It would be worth operating another type for this role to eliminate risk and delays.

However if we were to add to this fleet with NFH90's at a later date then obvious benifits with our existing large NFH90 fleet would be obvious.

Then selling (regionally NZ, etc) on or retiring the MH60R or moving them on to other ships (OCV's/LHD etc). What ever the cost it has to be better than high risk low additional benifit hybrid or prototypes.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea, it would be somewhat similar to the situation with the Superhornets

The other question is would 24 aircraft be sufficient operationally for 3 or 4 AWDs, the 8 Anzac Replacements and the 20 Offshore Combat Vessels
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Such a deal would not be unprecidented. Either leased or bought with the intention to sell on to a friendly at a later stage.

While it might not be purely the most economical model, it dramatically reduces risk on all fronts and speeds up procurement. Which at this stage with recent massive project failures on rotorary naval assets in the mind of defence, ministers and the public and the fact we are in a bit of a urgent situation.

Also because of the type of helicopter it is more likely to be dependant on US supply/maintence than regular army troop movers. I don't think on that front we should discount US commonality on particilarly naval helicopters.

There is definately a niche that could be filled by a non NFH-90 varient.I think we should end up keeping them even if we do buy NFH-90's.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
PeterM said:
Interesting idea, it would be somewhat similar to the situation with the Superhornets

The other question is would 24 aircraft be sufficient operationally for 3 or 4 AWDs, the 8 Anzac Replacements and the 20 Offshore Combat Vessels
Click to expand...
Nope. That force would only be sufficient to allow for the frigate/destroyer force to have helo flights, though of course the helos could be employed on the OCV's instead.

I'd suggest that ADF will be making a further capability submission for additional helos down the track, if additional helo capable vessels were to be added to the fleet.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Aussie Digger said:
Nope. That force would only be sufficient to allow for the frigate/destroyer force to have helo flights, though of course the helos could be employed on the OCV's instead.

I'd suggest that ADF will be making a further capability submission for additional helos down the track, if additional helo capable vessels were to be added to the fleet.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that the OCV's would get something smaller, such as the Wildcat rather then the NFH 90's or MH-60R's or the frigates though.
 
N

NOMAD

New Member
StevoJH said:
I'm assuming that the OCV's would get something smaller, such as the Wildcat rather then the NFH 90's or MH-60R's or the frigates though.
Click to expand...
A quick bit of research suggests the NFH-90 at 9100kg and the MH-60R at 10,206kg could be operated by a corvette in the 2000t class as outlined in the White Paper, also fits in with AIR9000 's aim to reduce the number of difference of helicopters within the ADF.

Nomad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top