StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Osprey costs almost as much as a C-130J, you can probably get 3 or 4 MRH-90's for the same price. This was one of the missions Tiger was purchased to fill.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I discussed this with Abe the other day.
1. Boeing is only going to re-open the line for OV-10 IF it is chosen for the USAF's Light Attack aircraft program.
However USAF Light Attack aircraft program requires that ALL entrants be currently in production...
In addition to which, USAF requires 100 aircraft delivered in a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 4, which suggests a platform with minimal changes and a full production rate.
Even if allowed in, Boeing is going to have to move extremely fast to get the OV-10 up and running and they reportedly want to introduce new engines, avionics, sensors and weapons to the platform.
I have difficulty seeing it happening...
Hi all,
I've been looking for news of the AIR9000 Phase 8 procurement plans. 2-3 months ago, it looked like first pass approval was planned for this month. Since then, the only update I could find are the post above from gf0012 and this article in the Daily Telegraph: Quick-fix chopper plan sunk on Sea Sprite anti-submarine helicopters | The Daily Telegraph
Do you know if a competition will take place? Any idea of the schedule?
Regards
ADBR have an edition slated for release December 2009, titled
Helicopter Wars (Vol 28 Nos 07/08) NFH 90 v MH-60R ADBR - 2009 Editions
Not sure when it will become available.
Given that the current freebie is [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Vol 28 No 04/05[/FONT]
ADBR - Previous Editions
Should make for interesting reading when it does.
Hmmm, wonder who the author might be?
rb
Helicopter Wars (Vol 28 Nos 07/08) NFH 90 v MH-60R ADBR - 2009 Editions
Not sure when it will become available.
Given that the current freebie is [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Vol 28 No 04/05[/FONT]
ADBR - Previous Editions
Should make for interesting reading when it does.
Hmmm, wonder who the author might be?
rb
I didn't know you could fit 32 combat equipped troops into the ARH? It is quite a deceptive size init - must be like the tardis inside....
Yes it is expensive, but unlike the Herc it can vertical land. Unlike the MRH-90 it is faster and has a longer range (and can take a larger slung load). You cannot say that for this one item you can x of that. - For example the one osprey can do the job of a CN235 AND a MRH-90. (range and speed of the CN235 AND the vertical left capability of the MRH. So, one airframe effectively does the job of two. Halves the number of aircrew and saves on maintenance. Its a hard device to classify...
Considering the septics are trying to design a quad tiltrotor to either replace or suplement the hercs, they clearly see an ongoing or future role for these 'planecopters'.
FluffyThoughts
Member
How resiliant is the JCI flight-deck? Is there not an issue with the Osprey's turbos heat signature warping unprepared surfaces?I didn't know you could fit 32 combat equipped troops into the ARH? It is quite a deceptive size init - must be like the tardis inside....
Yes it is expensive, but unlike the Herc it can vertical land. Unlike the MRH-90 it is faster and has a longer range (and can take a larger slung load). You cannot say that for this one item you can x of that. - For example the one osprey can do the job of a CN235 AND a MRH-90. (range and speed of the CN235 AND the vertical left capability of the MRH. So, one airframe effectively does the job of two. Halves the number of aircrew and saves on maintenance. Its a hard device to classify...
Considering the septics are trying to design a quad tiltrotor to either replace or suplement the hercs, they clearly see an ongoing or future role for these 'planecopters'.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yes, there is a massive problem with that and the Canberra Class won't be equipped to deal with same...How resiliant is the JCI flight-deck? Is there not an issue with the Osprey's turbos heat signature warping unprepared surfaces?
Well FBE dose have the submarine wharf (the one just in front of Captain Cook dry dock) and the building that is behind that wharf which was built for sub crews but is now used by port services because subs very rarely visit east. I see no reason why FBE could not support at least two subs, I have never seen that wharf used for anything else.
This opens an interesting discussion of West/East ship distribution for the 2015 time frame.
WEST / EAST
5 FFH / 3 FFH
1 Sea Lift Ship / 2 LPD ( mind you two LPD may not fit at FBE)
1 AWD / 2 AWD
4 SSK / 2 SSK
1 AO / 1 AOR
My rough guess
Can't remember where I saw it but the USMC is retrofitting some heat resistant decking - I realise the whole CV-22 thing is a flight of fancy, but could that not be possible to do on the Canberras?
Found this: http://zerosix.wordpress.com/category/us-navy/
The main difference with landing on small-deck gators is the damage its engine exhaust does to flight decks. An Osprey’s twin nacelles blast heat downward when a V-22 is in helicopter mode. Crew members aboard the small-deck amphibs have taken to setting up metal pads, known as “hot plates,” underneath the nacelles while an Osprey’s engines are running on the flight deck.
“We touch down, they run them in, and then they take them away before we launch,” Faibisoff said.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,232
Idk bout sealift ship in the West, it would make more sense strategically to place it in...wait for it, Darwn! If in the West it could sail east to pick up Mech from Adelaide however.
I truely cant wait to see how Port Services Manager East deals with all these ships. normally at least 2-3 doing craning ops. that doesnt count refits alongside. It may look very empty mid year when the fleets at sea, but times like now, unless you constantly berth outboard it could get a little cramped down here. As for SSK, yeah i think West Wall is only one to handle subs at this point, so would need upgrade of East Wall...Reopen Platypus!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,233
And you'll find it constantly in use with the heavy crane over top and pain in the rear to berth at...still beats the island, long way to work with Dry dock floodedWell I look like a dick!
Thanks icelord I appreciate that! :cheers
I concur. There are a lot of issues surrounding Sea 1000 project that warrant careful consideration. We can absolutely nail the hardware and technological acquisition/production elements but let ourselves down with an inadequate or incomplete assessment of the broader perspective on issues at the periphery of Sea 1000.icelord said:
One of the those issues is the ramping of human capital to meet the needs of the expanded fleet. Although we are not likely to feel the effects of the Sea 1000 expansion (ten/twelve vs six) on the effective size of the fleet until middle 2020s - it is not a tap we can just 'turn on'. I want to also push really hard for a much more stringent 'hurdle' into the sub program (minimum bachelors degree qualified or minimum top 10% in relevant standardized high school results).
I want this because I expect the Sea 1000 platform to have a level of operational complexity that is unsurpassed globally. Obviously higher intellectual expectations on those serving means we shrink our potential pool of applicants - exacerbating the need to find strategies to grow and sustain our human capital into the program.
One strategy (which is probably in unison with a broader national security strategy) is to split the base from FBW to some permutation of asset allocation across FBW and FBE (or other appropriate eastern seaboard location). Relatively speaking this will liking impact more on retention of workforce than any impact on recruitment. Recruitment is a completely different cat - requiring more than just a sustained visual presence in port.
Although I agree in principle with the above 'split basing' (duly noting the downsides of duplicity in support structures etc) I firmly believe a stand alone sub fleet base as a 'spiritual home' is now imperative to take this force element to a new level.
Having only recently navigated the mirky waters of DFR one of the first things I will agitate for from within will be to take sub workforce acquisition outside of the DFR process. I dont have anything against the outsourced DFR process per say (particularly in marketing and media liaison). I just hold the belief that the fragility of the sub force warrants an accelerated and incubated process from within.
I have further points to make illuminating why I believe a stand alone sub fleet base is fundamental to a sustainable workforce and recruitment platform but lets face it i have crapped on long enough for one post! :type
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,235
Here here!:lam hehe
This is kinda what FBW is. Subs have there own section of the base there and are visited by foreign Navies in the knowledge is major purpose is submarine basing. What i would prefer is no longer have a single base for submarines, as this limits the basing path for a Submariner. Where as 'skimmers' can be based. depending on the job, across the country, by become a submariner you pretty much end up in WA. For some, yeah thats great and a sacrafice you have to make for the job, but for others the lack of options if you want to move away from the same group of people and start fresh somewhere is not encouraging.
Take Bosuns for example, the get out of trouble basing is cairns or Darwin. If you get to a stage where Majors is not working out, and wish to move elsewhere FBW or FBE transfers can occur, or the best idea is head north on patrol boats. Same with Stokers, Greenies, Cooks Etc. Most Rates have the ability to apply for transfer at another base for whatever reason, closer to family, or change in lifestyle. For the New Generation Navy, which is looking at the Sailors future and not so much the navys, this would go a step further for the Subs Branch. More Oppurtunitys East and less 'one base for one career' options allow greater personnel to apply knowing that they dont have to be in the west.
And you think you can crap on?:flame
Really?
I'm assuming you are talking of the Seaman Officers going for subs?
Interesting given that some of the worst performing JWACs (aka eternal JWACs) i have seen have not only met the bachelors mark, but have doctorates.
On the flip side some of the best operators have no uni qualifications whatsoever.
Performance on a bridge (and therefore safety of a ship) IMHO doesn't have anything to do with whether or not somebody can critically analyse a piece of garbage.
I guess I just don't see how you arrive at that position.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,237
Agreee. some of our best OOW have no quals as far as officer of a major unit. The ones with degrees tend to be a little more...pretentious and full of their own ability, while the ones who strive to do more withour Uni or ADFA(worse still) have achieved more in their careers.
For ADF uni doesnt mean nothing until you get to the fleet where you require a degree to be of rank as far as commander and above, which is BS considering most only do it out of sheer requirement then learning from their chosen degree. A degree does not seperate you in the RAN from those without in ability wise, but promotion wise it seems a failure in standards.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Gah, i've missed up my topics, posts and forums. Meant to say you can buy several MRH-90's for the cost of a single osprey. And the range/speed advantage of an Osprey is not as big an advantage as you would think as they outrange and outrun the ARH escorts.I didn't know you could fit 32 combat equipped troops into the ARH? It is quite a deceptive size init - must be like the tardis inside....
Yes it is expensive, but unlike the Herc it can vertical land. Unlike the MRH-90 it is faster and has a longer range (and can take a larger slung load). You cannot say that for this one item you can x of that. - For example the one osprey can do the job of a CN235 AND a MRH-90. (range and speed of the CN235 AND the vertical left capability of the MRH. So, one airframe effectively does the job of two. Halves the number of aircrew and saves on maintenance. Its a hard device to classify...
Considering the septics are trying to design a quad tiltrotor to either replace or suplement the hercs, they clearly see an ongoing or future role for these 'planecopters'.
I was thinking about ARH's in response to someone going on about the Navy League suggesting OV-10X or some such for CAS.
ADF get to play with NFH-90
Giant Anatov 124 to land in Brisbane
"...The Russian Antonov 124 will arrive at Brisbane International about 3pm, carrying two naval combat NH90 NATO frigate helicopters on its giant cargo deck.
The arrival of the aircraft has been organised by Australian Aerospace, Australia's only helicopter manufacturer, and NH Industries, the prime contractor for the NH90 helicopter.
The two firms hope to convince the Australian Navy to replace its fleet of choppers with the new NH90 combat model.
The Antonov 124 has a wingspan of 73.5 metres, a little shy of its big brother the Antonov 225, which spans 88 metres.
Australian Aerospace spokesperson Nathan Pick said the NH90 would make its Australian debut today but the Antonov had been here before.
“Australian Aerospace brought out the army version of the NH90 back in mid-2009 on an Antonov,” he said.
“The Antonov is about the same size as the Airbus A380.”
Mr Pick said the public would have a good view of its unloading...."
*******************************
Hey - anyone in Brisvegas with some spare time & a camera!
I wonder what configuration those choppers will have?
Is there a standard radar suite fit out for the NFH?
rb
Giant Anatov 124 to land in Brisbane
"...The Russian Antonov 124 will arrive at Brisbane International about 3pm, carrying two naval combat NH90 NATO frigate helicopters on its giant cargo deck.
The arrival of the aircraft has been organised by Australian Aerospace, Australia's only helicopter manufacturer, and NH Industries, the prime contractor for the NH90 helicopter.
The two firms hope to convince the Australian Navy to replace its fleet of choppers with the new NH90 combat model.
The Antonov 124 has a wingspan of 73.5 metres, a little shy of its big brother the Antonov 225, which spans 88 metres.
Australian Aerospace spokesperson Nathan Pick said the NH90 would make its Australian debut today but the Antonov had been here before.
“Australian Aerospace brought out the army version of the NH90 back in mid-2009 on an Antonov,” he said.
“The Antonov is about the same size as the Airbus A380.”
Mr Pick said the public would have a good view of its unloading...."
*******************************
Hey - anyone in Brisvegas with some spare time & a camera!
I wonder what configuration those choppers will have?
Is there a standard radar suite fit out for the NFH?
rb
If you go to http: //www.strategypage.com/messageboards/board512.asp
Their is a Guy lurking called DropBear. He is a bit off an plane spotting buff and he lives near Brisbane so he may be interested in going for a look. Just create a thread with his name in it and he should check it, never know your luck in a big city!
- Status