Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Crusader2000]

Well, here are the spec for the NH-90 vs the H-92 and Naval CH-148. Seem very close to me? Plus, the fact the latter two share a great deal with the UH-60 Blackhawk and SH-60 Seahawk!



Specifications

NH-90
General characteristics

Crew: 2 pilots (and possible sensor operator on NFH)
Capacity: 20 troops/12 stretchers
Length: 16.13 m (52 ft 11 in)
Rotor diameter: 16.30 m (53 ft 5¾ in)
Height: 5.23 m (17 ft 2 in)
Empty weight: 5,400 kg (11,900 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 10,600 kg (23,370 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-01/9 turboshaft, 1,662 kW (2,230 shp) each, or:
Powerplant: 2× General Electric T700-T6E turboshafts, 1,577 kW (2,115 shp) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 300 km/h (162 knots, 186 mph)
Range: 800 km, 497 mi (TTH); 1,000 km, 621 mi (NFH) ()
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (20,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 480 m/min (1,574 ft/m)

__________________________________________________________________________

S/H-92
General characteristics

Crew: 3 (pilot, co-pilot, observer)
Capacity: 19 passengers
Length: 56 ft 2 in (17.10 m)
Rotor diameter: 56 ft 4 in (17.17 m)
Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.71 m)
Disc area: 2,650 ft² (246 m²)
Empty weight: 15,500 lb (7,030 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric CT7-8A turboshaft, 2,740 shp (2,043 kW) each
Fuselage length: 56 ft 2 in (17.1 m)
Fuselage width: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m)
Rotor systems: 4 blades on main rotor
Performance

Maximum speed: 165 knots (190 mph, 306 km/h)
Cruise speed: 151 kt, 174 mph (280 km/h)
Range: 539 nmi (999 km)
Service ceiling: 14,000 ft (4,270 m)
Disc loading: 9.8 lb/ft² (48 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.23 hp/lb (0.38 W/kg)


CH-148 (Naval S-92)
General characteristics

Crew: 4 (2 pilots, 1 tactical officer, 1 sensor operator)
Capacity: 6 in mission config, up to 22 in utility config
Length: 68 ft 6 in (S-92) (20.9 m (S-92))
Rotor diameter: 58 ft 1 in (S-92) (17.7 m (S-92))
Height: 15 ft 5 in (S-92) (4.7 m (S-92))
Disc area: 2,650 ft² (S-92) (246 m² (S-92))
Max takeoff weight: 28,650 lbs (12,993 Kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric CT7-8A turboshaft, 3,000 shp (2,238 kW) each
Fuselage length: 56 ft 2 in (17.1 m)
Fuselage width: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m)
Performance

Maximum speed: 165 knots (190 mph, 306 km/h)
Cruise speed: 137 knots (158 mph, 254 km/h)
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,572 m)

 

[Todjaeger]

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.

Not sure if this will clear matters up, or make them more confusing. The UH-60 Black Hawk is currrently in Army service, in the process of being replaced by the MRH-90, which is an Australianized version of the NH-90 TTH. The S-70B-2 Seahawk is currently in RAN service.

As part of AIR 9000, the ADF was looking to rationalize helicopter types, reducing the number of different helicopters in service from 11, to potentially as few as 4 but more likely 5-6. With respect to RAN FAA helicopter inventory, it was set to reduce the different types from four, to two or three instead. At the time the programme started, the RAN operated aging Westland Sea King Mk 50's, Eurocopter AS350BA Squirrels, "Kaman SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites", and Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawks. When the programme was started, it was thought that the two naval helicopters (Seasprite and Seahawk) would see service in ASuW and ASW roles respectively until ~2016, when they would be replaced by a future naval helicopter.

As things stand now, the RAN still operates the Sea King for lift ops, which is due for replacement by the MRH-90 in the very near future. The Eurocopter AS350BA Squirrel and Agusta 109E Power both are used in training roles. Lastly, the S-70B-2 Seahawk is used as a naval helicopter for ASW, surveillance, etc.

Given that the current S-70B-2 Seahawks are themselves something like 20 years old, and that the RAN only has 16 instead of the originally expected 27 naval helicopters, the RAN does not seem to think it can wait until the originally planned ~2016 Future Naval Helicopter replacement date. I tend to agree.

I also agree with the selection of the MH-60R 'Romeo' as the replacement naval helicopter. I have mentioned my thinking on this in previous posts earlier in this thread, but I will reiterate some of why anyway. As mentioned, then RAN does not have the desired number of naval helicopters, the goal is to have 24 of the Future Naval Helicopter, so 16 of the current helicopters are insufficient. Particularly since the current ones are ~20 years old, configured for ASW ops and in need of systems upgrades. In short, the RAN needs additional or new naval helicopters now or in the very near future.

With respect to the NFH-90, IIRC they are currently expected to reach IOC with the first customer in 2011. Given that, I do not believe that the RAN could reach IOC with the NFH-90 by then if that was selected as the Future Naval Helicopter. In all likelihood, a RAN order placed now for NFH-90 would likely take a minimum of 5 years to reach IOC, with FOC coming even later. Additionally, the NFH-90 is a new design, which means there are still some service and development risks that the initial customers will be exposed to. Following the whole Seasprite debacle, the ADF has opted for more MOTS systems to reduce programme risk, and a further delay in deploying a Future Naval Helicopter would just exacerbate the current situation with the S-70B-2 Seahawks.

By chosing the MH-60R 'Romeo' the RAN would be getting a variant in service with the USN (and therefore MOTS) of a design the RAN already uses. This would suggest that there would be less needed to be done by the RAN to have them enter service. RAN pilots, crew, mechanics and technicians are already trained to operate and maintain the Seahawk, they would just need uptraining onto the new variant. Similarly, RAN vessels are already fitted to operate the Seahawk from, so the existing fittings and tools might only need minor changes for the new version.

The RAN and ADF also has a good working relationship with the US DoD/USN, which means the RAN might be allowed to jump ahead of some USN production slots, as was done with the RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornet order. Between this and the fact that aircrew and support personnel are familiar with the basic design, IMO IOC could be reached more quickly than with an NFH-90 order.

Ultimately, with RAN naval helicopters needing replacement the overriding question is which design can deliver the needed capabilities soonest.

-Cheers

 

[hairyman]

It would be good if the defence people who are making these decisions were to make public their reasons. If, as per the last poster, it is because it is slightly smaller and therefore more suitable for operating from ships, that would make more sense to me than because "The US" operates it, whereas our own Army is operating the MH90.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the explanation.
But I knew that.

It is about Crusader arguing against the NFH-90 with the weird argument that a Seahawk would be the better option because it would have had more commonality with the rest of the fleet if Australia wouldn't have made the mistake of ordering the MRH-90.
This is just strange.

For sure the the Seahawk may enter service earlier and it offers commonality with the USN.

 

[PeterM]

From a purely external point of view, without a detailed knowledge of the details (and the devil is always in the detail)


It seems to me that the


RAN seems to favour the MH-60R because

1. it is currently in service
2. it can be procured alot sooner if we can arrange with the USN to use some of their production schedule
3. Commonality with the USN

The Government seems to favour the NH-90 because

1. it can be build in Australia, supporting/developing the local industry (and jobs)
2. it has a common airframe with the MRH-90 which is Australia's core future helicopter capability, hence cheaper support and maintenance (replacing Sea King and Blackhawks)
3. it is a new airframe design, not a variant of a legacy platform
4. it likely has a wider range of weapon systems
5. there is considerable political and economic advantage in having australian industry involvement

I am not sure of the difference in capabilities between these aircraft, but I expect the NFH would be slightly more capable.

The scheduled timeframe for this project.

1. First Pass Approval FY 2009-10 to FY 2010-11
2. Year-of-Decision FY 2010-11 to FY 2011-12
3. Initial Operating Capability 2014 to 2016

I can understand the RAN wanting to get the MH-60R. The MH-60R might well be a better option from an operational (ie RAN) point of view.

There have been issues with the NFH, but these seem to have been resolved and it is starting to enter service with European Navies. Considering the expected in service date is 2014 to 2016, this shouldn't be an issue.

Having Australian industry involvement helps support and develop local defence industries (which has been a priority) and will have cost savings. Using similar airframe to the MRH-90 (and components with the Tigher ARH) will also have cost savings; both have political advantages.

Politically I could see this as a defacto stimulus package for the industry. The project is worth around $1.5bn; for example if an NFH aquisition has 2/3 Australian industry involvement, that is $1billion being spent here rather than overseas.

Given the current economic climate (unless there are huge issues in the detail), I would expect the NH-90 to get the nod.

 

[stoker]

It seems to me that the


RAN seems to favour the MH-60R because

1. it is currently in service
2. it can be procured alot sooner if we can arrange with the USN to use some of their production schedule
3. Commonality with the USN

All of the above will be the reason that the MH-60R will most probably be selected.

Basically, the Navy we will go to any future war alongside with, will be the USN.

Adopting the MH-60R as our ASW helicopter will mean we can seemlessly operate in conjunction with any USN ASW units.

The other benefit will be in the ability to crossdeck each others helicopters and more important plug-in to the USN logistical/maintenance network. Plus the USN is incorporating a anti-mine system in to the MH-60 airframe, this would also be of interest to the RAN.


I certain agree the NFH 90 would be the most practical way to go, but the Navy got very badly burnt in the Seasprite debarcle and aren't game to be involved in any possible re-run.

 

[PeterM]

I certain agree the NFH 90 would be the most practical way to go, but the Navy got very badly burnt in the Seasprite debarcle and aren't game to be involved in any possible re-run.

That is certainly true, but as always it will come down to political and econmic factors, particularly in the current global economic climate. A good example of this recently that we we ended up going with the Navantia design for the AWD when RAN wanted the "baby Burke" design

I agree that this is the perspective of Defence Chiefs, but it comes back to a politcal decision.

from the previous article

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.
....
Mr Combet, the Defence Materiel Minister, said last night that the government would consider both options for the navy's new combat helicopters.
....
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.

The defence ministers are making it clear that the NFH is very much in the running despite the extensive endorsement of the MH-60R by defence chiefs.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

[the road runner]

Intresting debate guys,and one that has been going on,ever since the government annonced a goal of commonality for the heli fleet of the ADF.

I would assume if time constraints,and common platforms with the USN are the main drivers to aquire a new naval helicopters then the Seahawks would be chosen

If the ADF wants to stick with its plan of a Common heli platform for the ADF,with the probability of manufacturing it in Australia,then the NFH-90 would be chosen

It must be very difficult,for the people involved deciding our new Naval helicopter , to balance all the information at hand, then make a decision on what helicopter should be chosen for Navy

Im backing the NFH-90,but it would not suprise me,or upset me, if we were to recieve Seahawks.

The reason i am backing the NFH-90 is because the government wants to reduce the number of helis in service.It never looks good when a Government,changes its view on a topic as it shows there decision making was incorrect.Also gives Ammunition to the oppisite political party.

Regards

 

[Todjaeger]

One item I noticed that citing strengths of the MH-60R left out, is commonality with RAN Seahawks. While commonality with USN naval helicopters is nice, IMO it is not too important until RAN helicopters being operating from USN vessels.

Another thing which people have left out with regards to the decision making process, is the service needs. While there are political and economic considerations which play a part in the decision making process, the service needs still need to be met. I believe that is the real reason why the MH-60R appears to be the favourite at present.

IMO it appears that the cockpit and mission systems in the MH-60R are a little more advanced, with the MH-60R using the Telephonics APS-147, and the NFH-90 currently being fitted with either the Thales ENR or the Telephonics APS-143B(V)3. Presumably though, once both aircraft are in service the avionics fitout of both will be comparable. Of greater concern though is the fact that the NFH-90 does not appear to be able to enter RAN service until the 2014-2016 timeframe. I am not certain that the current S-70B-2 Seahawk fleet can provide the needed level of service to the RAN for that long. It appears that the service chiefs do not think that either.

-Cheers

 

[PeterM]

Of greater concern though is the fact that the NFH-90 does not appear to be able to enter RAN service until the 2014-2016 timeframe.

That is is the timeframe the government set for this program in the DCP and what has been planned for in future budgets. Given the current economic situation, I am not sure if $1.5bn+ or so could be found much earlier in order to fast track this procurement (it certainly would be challenging).

Whichever platform is chosen, I wouldn't expect to see it operational before 2014.

 

[StevoJH]

NFH-90 is currently selected for 9 European Navies.

The differences in Payload and Endurance will probably be key, and Australian workshare (0% in SH-60R), in both cases the mission systems will be different to those currently fitted to the SH-70B's.

 

[Crusader2000]

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.


If, the ADF wanted to reduce the numbers of types it operates. It shouldn't have purchased the H-90 in the first place. Now instead of decreasing the number of types. They just increased the number instead...........

Clearly, the ADF should have replaced both types with a common design years ago. Then they wouldn't be it the place they're in now.........

 

[Todjaeger]

If, the ADF wanted to reduce the numbers of types it operates. It shouldn't have purchased the H-90 in the first place. Now instead of decreasing the number of types. They just increased the number instead...........

Clearly, the ADF should have replaced both types with a common design years ago. Then they wouldn't be it the place they're in now.........

Not true. The RAN already operates a version of the Seahawk. By selecting the MH-60R instead of an Australianized NFH-90, the RAN will be utilizing a more advanced variant of a type already in service instead.

What this really means for the ADF helicopter rationalization plans is that the ADF does not reduce the number of different types of helicopters quite as much. To be honest though, IMO the NFH-90 and MRH-90 do for the most part count as two different helicopters. While the engines are going to be the same, and perhaps some of the control systems, the mission systems, hardpoints and even elements of the airframe are going to be quite different. I would expect that the difference would be sufficient so that a MRH-90 tech would not be able to work on an NFH-90 without either re-training or cross-training, and vis versa.

-Cheers

 

[Crusader2000]

Not true. The RAN already operates a version of the Seahawk. By selecting the MH-60R instead of an Australianized NFH-90, the RAN will be utilizing a more advanced variant of a type already in service instead.

What this really means for the ADF helicopter rationalization plans is that the ADF does not reduce the number of different types of helicopters quite as much. To be honest though, IMO the NFH-90 and MRH-90 do for the most part count as two different helicopters. While the engines are going to be the same, and perhaps some of the control systems, the mission systems, hardpoints and even elements of the airframe are going to be quite different. I would expect that the difference would be sufficient so that a MRH-90 tech would not be able to work on an NFH-90 without either re-training or cross-training, and vis versa.

-Cheers

The problem is the Australian Army and Navy are not on the same page. Which, will cost the Australian Government (and taxpayer) alot more money Really, the ADF should have made sure both services worked together on a joint system to consolidate both Helicopter Fleets. Thereby reducing the number of types, infrastructure, logistics, training, etc. etc.

 

[the road runner]

Of greater concern though is the fact that the NFH-90 does not appear to be able to enter RAN service until the 2014-2016 timeframe. I am not certain that the current S-70B-2 Seahawk fleet can provide the needed level of service to the RAN for that long. It appears that the service chiefs do not think that either.-Cheers

Agree that Time is a major issue,and this may give the an Advantage to the Seahawk bid.

Very well thought out and informative post Todjaeger,keep em comming......

Regards

 

[Aussie Digger]

If, the ADF wanted to reduce the numbers of types it operates. It shouldn't have purchased the H-90 in the first place. Now instead of decreasing the number of types. They just increased the number instead...........

Clearly, the ADF should have replaced both types with a common design years ago. Then they wouldn't be it the place they're in now.........

For your information, Project AIR-9000 was designed to rationalise ADF helo types from 10x types to a smaller number of airframe types.

4x helo types was chosen as a POSSIBILITY, it was never confirmed that "4" was the maximum number of types that WOULD be chosen.

Even if MH-60R is chosen, and despite Patrick Walters article, it is by no means certain that it will, Project AIR-9000 will still achieve it's aim of overall rationalisation of ADF helo types.

Even if MH-60R is chosen, that will provide 5x airframes for ADF helo operations. Significantly reduced from 10x, I hope you will at least agree?

1. Multi-role helo - MRH-90 (For RAN and Army transport operations).

2. Heavy-lift helo - Upgraded Chinook D models intially, F models eventually.

3. Armed Recon Helo - Tiger.

4. Maritime warfare helo - MH-60R.

5. Common Army/Navy training helo. (Yet to be chosen. May also be selected as a light utility helo, to replace the Squirrel, Kiowa and Iroquois in this role, however LUH capability has not yet been approved).

If you don't believe me, here is what AIR-9000 is officially meant to deliver:

Capability Development Executive - AIR 9000 - Project Overview


Keep attempting to troll if you wish, but try and get your facts somewhat correct at least. Saves embarassment for you...

 

[ThePuss]

The MRH-90 and the MH-60R are both very capable naval helicopters, Excellent ASW capability on each airframe. Each has more than sufficient in ASuW. However only one can carry a boarding team as well as the ASW consol and dipping sonar. Whilst the SH-70B can carry a boarding team in ASW configuration, unfortunately the MH-60R uses the legacy airframe and when you put a dipping sonar into it you only have two spare seats left. Configuring a Helo from transport / ASW-ASUW configuration (or Vice Versa) is not a simple task and is very time consuming and for this reason I hope they RAN chooses the MRH-90 as it can carry the full ASW/ASuW load out AND a full boarding team at the same time. I agree the MH-60R could be in service sooner and yes the RAN needs more Helos ASAP after the Sea Sprite debacle, but I believe it worth waiting an extra 2/3 years for a modern airframe not one that is several decades old.

 

[Navor86]

Abou how many Airframes to we talk for this Joint LUH/Training Programm?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Abou how many Airframes to we talk for this Joint LUH/Training Programm?

Under Phase 7, up to 32x helicopters are to be acquired, either through traditional "direct" acquisition or through Private finance options.

This does not yet encompass a "light utility" role, which remains unapproved, but is apparently included in the capability requirement put to government.

Additional airframes would be required, to provide an operational LUH capability.

Types mentioned as possibilities, include A-109, EC-635 and AW-139.

Time will tell...

 

[Crusader2000]

The MRH-90 and the MH-60R are both very capable naval helicopters, Excellent ASW capability on each airframe. Each has more than sufficient in ASuW. However only one can carry a boarding team as well as the ASW consol and dipping sonar. Whilst the SH-70B can carry a boarding team in ASW configuration, unfortunately the MH-60R uses the legacy airframe and when you put a dipping sonar into it you only have two spare seats left. Configuring a Helo from transport / ASW-ASUW configuration (or Vice Versa) is not a simple task and is very time consuming and for this reason I hope they RAN chooses the MRH-90 as it can carry the full ASW/ASuW load out AND a full boarding team at the same time. I agree the MH-60R could be in service sooner and yes the RAN needs more Helos ASAP after the Sea Sprite debacle, but I believe it worth waiting an extra 2/3 years for a modern airframe not one that is several decades old.

Clearly, it would be far more economical with a common design for both fleets. Either, a whole fleet of H-90's (Which, is not shared with its allies!) or a H-60/S-92. The latter would have made far greater sense........Regardless, I've expressed my opinion more than once. So, I've said all that I am going to on the subject.