Ahh right, thanks for clearing that up mate. Seems like people use SSK interchangeably with "diesel submarine" sometimes.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Thats (unfort) correct.
However, conv subs that have an inherent guided missile launch weapons capability are referred to as SSG's. SSK's do not.
Combat Fleets of the World and Janes (if you're desperate for another source) also refer to Collins as SSG's.
Is the "SS" attack submarine designation used as far as conventionals go? I can't remember seeing it anywhere, really...
I was under the impression that the "guided missile" part of the SSG designation referred to land attack capability a la Tomahawk, didn't know it referred to any guided missile capability so thanks for making me aware.
(edit: Just remembered the Oscar's SSGN designation, with no land attack capability of course... silly me *slaps forehead*)
Last edited:
I'm not sure that there can be much of the Barbel design left. Apart from totally different propulsion, electronics, etc., the latest Japanese subs are 50% heavier, larger in every dimension, etc.
if there are any gatos left in service, or romeos or whiskeys, then they would be SS.
It's basically a redundant term nowadays
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,747
no quite true. if there is a requirment for inderpendant RAN Escort of LHDs, whether it be both Canberra and Adelaide then there will be at the time of both operational, enough vessels to escort and protect each while other vessels carry on Indepandant patrols. Theres at present 12 Surface Combatants in the Fleet, with it to be 11 (8FFH, 2FFG and 1AWD, 2nd on the way). If Canberra and Adelaide are on time...
...you have enough vessels to provide escort while carrying regular patrols in other regions, although at present it is hard to see this type of event neccesary for ADF.There should be plenty of escorting ships when you consider an Evolved Sea Sparrow equipped Anzac has a similar area air defence capability of a SM-1 equipped Perry. An Anzac won't have the same area air defence capability of a SM-2, but that is what the new Hobart class will deliver, not to mention the improved Perry.no quite true. if there is a requirment for inderpendant RAN Escort of LHDs, whether it be both Canberra and Adelaide then there will be at the time of both operational, enough vessels to escort and protect each while other vessels carry on Indepandant patrols. Theres at present 12 Surface Combatants in the Fleet, with it to be 11 (8FFH, 2FFG and 1AWD, 2nd on the way). If Canberra and Adelaide are on time...
Frankly, in the Southwest Pacific the only nation which may confront an area amphibious operation with significant air opposition is Indonesia. I can;t imagine Australia facing alone any amphibious operation air opposition outside the Southwest Pacific area. One would assume the USA would be involved as well, or other allies....
winnyfield
New Member
Lots of land in the SW Pacific. Assuming there are friendly airfields, land based air cover is available.
Military opts for US chopper | The Australian
"Military opts for US chopper
AUSTRALIA'S military chiefs favour the US over Europe in a planned $4 billion naval combat helicopter buy that is generating high-level concern among senior government ministers and local defence industry leaders.
In a classified submission sent to defence ministers John Faulkner and Greg Combet, the military chiefs have opted for the US Navy's MH-60R Seahawk as the best choice for the Royal Australian Navy's new rotary wing anti-submarine warfare platform.
The military chiefs favour an early decision on the Sikorsky MH-60R, arguing that it represents a cheaper, risk-free solution for Australia compared with its competitor, the European NH90 naval frigate helicopter.
The NH90 is a maritime version of the MRH90 now entering service with the Australian army. Its maker, European defence giant EADS, has established a strong industry presence locally with a workforce of 1000.
The clear military preference for a US solution troubles ministers, given the multi-billion-dollar investment in European combat helicopters by the Australian Defence Force in recent years.
Another concern is that selecting a new US helicopter will fly in the face of Defence's goal of reducing the types of helicopters flown by the ADF.
Senior Defence figures are querying the wisdom of a "sole source" decision in favour of the US in what will be the biggest defence purchase in the Rudd government's new defence capability plan, which details the main equipment proposals to be finalised over the next four years.
Mr Combet, the Defence Materiel Minister, said last night that the government would consider both options for the navy's new combat helicopters.
"This is an extremely important acquisition, one of the most significant in the DCP.
"The government would be concerned to approach such an acquisition after very carefully looking at the options which, at least, include both a US and a European capability."
At a media briefing yesterday Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin officials stressed their belief that the MH-60R represented the lowest possible risk as well as lowest cost solution for the RAN's naval helicopter arm.
They have also promised $1bn of investment in local industry if the deal goes through. Australian Aerospace, the local subsidiary of EADS which also supplies the army's Tiger helicopters, argues that big cost savings will be realised by a common baseline for the ADF's rotary wing, removing the need for multiple training and logistics systems.
Stung by the $1.4bn Seasprite helicopter procurement debacle, Defence chiefs want an accelerated purchase of the Sikorsky MH-60R in a foreign military sale purchase via the US Navy.
They believe there are clear advantages in buying proven American technology, including better interoperability between the two navies.
Sikorsky says it could deliver the first MH-60R to the RAN by late 2011 and points to four fleet squadrons already operating with the US Navy.
Cabinet's national security committee is expected to consider the Defence Department submission before Christmas as concerns mount in the navy about the run-down of the RAN's anti-submarine capability.
Not only did the RAN not get its now-junked Seasprite helicopters but the 16 elderly S-70B machines in service are not delivering the vital operational availability the navy needs.
The RAN wants to buy 24 helicopters that would enter operational service by 2014. They will be equipped with missiles and torpedoes, and perform both anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare roles.
"
************************
All other issues aside: LWT type, deck winching systems... etc.
The way I see it, the big question is whether RAN could get a naval helicopter in the required time frame (asap),
It is this criteria that i believe skews the selection in favour of the MH-60R.
That and maybe the APS-147 with ARPDDs that comes with the MH-60R. However I believe some initial ARPDD trials were performed with the APS-143 - which is being (or already has been) integrated into Swedish NFHs.
So does APS-147 integration into NFH present such an issue?
However given the seasprite fiasco,
I would imagine any attempt at getting something that isn't already plug'n play would be difficult to get past selection, especially in a naval helicopter purchase!
rb
"Military opts for US chopper
AUSTRALIA'S military chiefs favour the US over Europe in a planned $4 billion naval combat helicopter buy that is generating high-level concern among senior government ministers and local defence industry leaders.
In a classified submission sent to defence ministers John Faulkner and Greg Combet, the military chiefs have opted for the US Navy's MH-60R Seahawk as the best choice for the Royal Australian Navy's new rotary wing anti-submarine warfare platform.
The military chiefs favour an early decision on the Sikorsky MH-60R, arguing that it represents a cheaper, risk-free solution for Australia compared with its competitor, the European NH90 naval frigate helicopter.
The NH90 is a maritime version of the MRH90 now entering service with the Australian army. Its maker, European defence giant EADS, has established a strong industry presence locally with a workforce of 1000.
The clear military preference for a US solution troubles ministers, given the multi-billion-dollar investment in European combat helicopters by the Australian Defence Force in recent years.
Another concern is that selecting a new US helicopter will fly in the face of Defence's goal of reducing the types of helicopters flown by the ADF.
Senior Defence figures are querying the wisdom of a "sole source" decision in favour of the US in what will be the biggest defence purchase in the Rudd government's new defence capability plan, which details the main equipment proposals to be finalised over the next four years.
Mr Combet, the Defence Materiel Minister, said last night that the government would consider both options for the navy's new combat helicopters.
"This is an extremely important acquisition, one of the most significant in the DCP.
"The government would be concerned to approach such an acquisition after very carefully looking at the options which, at least, include both a US and a European capability."
At a media briefing yesterday Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin officials stressed their belief that the MH-60R represented the lowest possible risk as well as lowest cost solution for the RAN's naval helicopter arm.
They have also promised $1bn of investment in local industry if the deal goes through. Australian Aerospace, the local subsidiary of EADS which also supplies the army's Tiger helicopters, argues that big cost savings will be realised by a common baseline for the ADF's rotary wing, removing the need for multiple training and logistics systems.
Stung by the $1.4bn Seasprite helicopter procurement debacle, Defence chiefs want an accelerated purchase of the Sikorsky MH-60R in a foreign military sale purchase via the US Navy.
They believe there are clear advantages in buying proven American technology, including better interoperability between the two navies.
Sikorsky says it could deliver the first MH-60R to the RAN by late 2011 and points to four fleet squadrons already operating with the US Navy.
Cabinet's national security committee is expected to consider the Defence Department submission before Christmas as concerns mount in the navy about the run-down of the RAN's anti-submarine capability.
Not only did the RAN not get its now-junked Seasprite helicopters but the 16 elderly S-70B machines in service are not delivering the vital operational availability the navy needs.
The RAN wants to buy 24 helicopters that would enter operational service by 2014. They will be equipped with missiles and torpedoes, and perform both anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare roles.
"
************************
All other issues aside: LWT type, deck winching systems... etc.
The way I see it, the big question is whether RAN could get a naval helicopter in the required time frame (asap),
It is this criteria that i believe skews the selection in favour of the MH-60R.
That and maybe the APS-147 with ARPDDs that comes with the MH-60R. However I believe some initial ARPDD trials were performed with the APS-143 - which is being (or already has been) integrated into Swedish NFHs.
So does APS-147 integration into NFH present such an issue?
However given the seasprite fiasco,
I would imagine any attempt at getting something that isn't already plug'n play would be difficult to get past selection, especially in a naval helicopter purchase!
rb
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Sounds like a logical choice.......
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Hopefully someone will put their foot down and order the NFH-90.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Hopefully someone will put their foot down and order the NFH-90.
I see little advantage in the NFH-90. As the Seahawk is already in Widespread Service with in the RAN and throughout the region. (US, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, etc.)
Yeah, commonality with the US and other countries in the region is more important than commonality with one's own army.I see little advantage in the NFH-90. As the Seahawk is already in Widespread Service with in the RAN and throughout the region. (US, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, etc.)
The pilots and mechanics training as well as the purchase of spare parts speaks in favor of the NFH90.
But hey it is not US made...
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Really, a bad choice in my opinion along with the much maligned Seasprite! Especially, considering the Seahawks and Blackhawks were already in service. Plus, the fact the latter two are also in widespread service among Australia's Allies with in the region. Which, is likely why Australia is reconsidering purchasing new Seahawks!
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Yeah, commonality with the US and other countries in the region is more important than commonality with one's own army.
The pilots and mechanics training as well as the purchase of spare parts speaks in favor of the NFH90.
But hey it is not US made...
Sorry, Blackhawks were already in service with the Australian Army way before the NH-90 came into the picture. Also, the Army could have selected a model of the S-92 and still shared many of the same parts and infrastructure with the RAN Seahawks.
Now Australia will have to live with a mixed fleet. Which, will be harder and more expensive to support both with parts and logistically.
Huh?
You are not making an argument (or sense) at all. You say that Australia should have procured Blackhawks and because of that they should now buy Seahawks. Commonality is your argument here.
But hey, they procured the MRH-90. So if they would now procure Seahawks there wouldn't be a commonality at all.
So in the end the only argument you maid was for procurement of the NFH-90.
And why do you say that they have to live with a mixed fleet? As I understand it no final decision has been taken.
You are not making an argument (or sense) at all. You say that Australia should have procured Blackhawks and because of that they should now buy Seahawks. Commonality is your argument here.
But hey, they procured the MRH-90. So if they would now procure Seahawks there wouldn't be a commonality at all.
So in the end the only argument you maid was for procurement of the NFH-90.
And why do you say that they have to live with a mixed fleet? As I understand it no final decision has been taken.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
First, I am just expressing my personal opinion.
The H-90 was a poor choice for a number of reasons. Further, it would have made far greater sense to purchase a combined fleet of SH-60's, UH-60's, and H-92's. Which, besides sharing a common platform. Are used by the majority of Australia's Allies. This would make them far easier to support. Especially, in times of conflict or crisis.
Regardless, I think we are getting a little off topic.
Feel free to start another topic for the subject or send me a PM.
Sincerely,
Crusader2000
I am no expert on aircraft, I tend to listen to my cousin. He says the NH-90 is a better army helicopter because its a tad larger, whereas its not a great naval helicopter because of its larger size. He prefers the MH-60 as a naval helicopter. Sometimes bigger isn't better.
- Status