We can play war games all day and night and easily come to a different conclusion. Obviously, an amphibious or naval task group would attempt to take out as many of the opposing air force's fighters on the ground before the enemy mounted a 50 aircraft strike force. All of a sudden that 50 aircraft strike force could be only ten aircraft....
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
i agree..:kar
For example, an hostile awacs coordinating the waves that goes the wrong way in the storm, did he expect an amraam at 600 km from the lhds, or 800 km with a 4 hour move of the spy? anyway who is going to protect their awacs? a couple of jets and a tanker, and the 4 can shooted by a few jets.
The spanish heroe "el cid", the sole presence of his body (dead) was enough to scare the hostiles that were thinking that he was alive, with 3 jet hulls parked in the flick deck can make the hostile awacs guard to employ items and jp5 etc...
Are we going to share a common air awareness zone? are we going to use our helos in our own awareness zone or fully antisubmarine role? do we need raaf at all? do we need more submarines a bit smaller or less submarines and bigger?
Cheers.
For example, an hostile awacs coordinating the waves that goes the wrong way in the storm, did he expect an amraam at 600 km from the lhds, or 800 km with a 4 hour move of the spy? anyway who is going to protect their awacs? a couple of jets and a tanker, and the 4 can shooted by a few jets.
The spanish heroe "el cid", the sole presence of his body (dead) was enough to scare the hostiles that were thinking that he was alive, with 3 jet hulls parked in the flick deck can make the hostile awacs guard to employ items and jp5 etc...
Are we going to share a common air awareness zone? are we going to use our helos in our own awareness zone or fully antisubmarine role? do we need raaf at all? do we need more submarines a bit smaller or less submarines and bigger?
Cheers.
Last edited:
Rival choppers fight for navy deal[/[/B]B] Mark Dodd From: The Australian February 06, 2010 12:00AM
COMPETITION is intensifying between the two main contenders for the $3.5 billion navy combat chopper contract, a deal made urgent by the 2008 decision to junk the troubled Seasprite program.
The choice to replace the navy's ageing fleet of 16 S-70B Seahawks is between a modernised variant, Sikorsky's MH-60R, and Eurocopter's fly-by-wire NH90-NHF.
At RAAF Fairbairn yesterday, an NH90 borrowed from the Italian navy was put through its paces in front of senior defence officials and Canberra-based NATO ambassadors. On the tarmac and under a stormy Canberra sky, Australian Aerospace chief executive Jens Goennemann spruiked the NH90 chopper's cutting-edge capabilities.
"This is the most modern naval helicopter, it's full-composite construction, corrosion resistant, fly-by-wire," Dr Goennemann said. "It's a true multi-role helicopter. It can be used in its primary role of anti-ship and anti-submarine, but it is also a transport helicopter because you can take the (anti-shipping) equipment out in less than four hours."
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The helicopter has a formidable weapons system and is able to sink large warships, with its Marte Mark2-S anti-shipping missiles able to be fired from a distance of 35km.
Unlike its competitor, it incorporates some of the latest advances in aircraft safety and is able to float for up to 15 minutes in rough seas in the event of a ditching - time enough to allow the crew to escape.
But while the NH90 is the most advanced of its type in the world, it is also more expensive, about $50 million each compared with $30m-$40m for the US-built competitor.
In service for barely two years, the aircraft are already operating in Italy and The Netherlands, with other customers including France, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Norway.
For the past week, the aircraft has been conducting weapons and performance appraisal tests at Nowra naval base.
While rival Sikorsky is expected to pitch the benefits of a cheaper, fully imported chopper, Australian Aerospace says at least 700 full-time jobs will be created if the Royal Australian Navy buys its aircraft.
The RAN desperately needs an anti-submarine and anti-shipping strike capability after the Rudd government axed the Seasprite project - a decision that cost Australian taxpayers more than $1bn.
Under Project Air 9000-Phase 8, the RAN is set to purchase 24 anti-submarine helicopters.
COMPETITION is intensifying between the two main contenders for the $3.5 billion navy combat chopper contract, a deal made urgent by the 2008 decision to junk the troubled Seasprite program.
The choice to replace the navy's ageing fleet of 16 S-70B Seahawks is between a modernised variant, Sikorsky's MH-60R, and Eurocopter's fly-by-wire NH90-NHF.
At RAAF Fairbairn yesterday, an NH90 borrowed from the Italian navy was put through its paces in front of senior defence officials and Canberra-based NATO ambassadors. On the tarmac and under a stormy Canberra sky, Australian Aerospace chief executive Jens Goennemann spruiked the NH90 chopper's cutting-edge capabilities.
"This is the most modern naval helicopter, it's full-composite construction, corrosion resistant, fly-by-wire," Dr Goennemann said. "It's a true multi-role helicopter. It can be used in its primary role of anti-ship and anti-submarine, but it is also a transport helicopter because you can take the (anti-shipping) equipment out in less than four hours."
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The helicopter has a formidable weapons system and is able to sink large warships, with its Marte Mark2-S anti-shipping missiles able to be fired from a distance of 35km.
Unlike its competitor, it incorporates some of the latest advances in aircraft safety and is able to float for up to 15 minutes in rough seas in the event of a ditching - time enough to allow the crew to escape.
But while the NH90 is the most advanced of its type in the world, it is also more expensive, about $50 million each compared with $30m-$40m for the US-built competitor.
In service for barely two years, the aircraft are already operating in Italy and The Netherlands, with other customers including France, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Norway.
For the past week, the aircraft has been conducting weapons and performance appraisal tests at Nowra naval base.
While rival Sikorsky is expected to pitch the benefits of a cheaper, fully imported chopper, Australian Aerospace says at least 700 full-time jobs will be created if the Royal Australian Navy buys its aircraft.
The RAN desperately needs an anti-submarine and anti-shipping strike capability after the Rudd government axed the Seasprite project - a decision that cost Australian taxpayers more than $1bn.
Under Project Air 9000-Phase 8, the RAN is set to purchase 24 anti-submarine helicopters.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,304
Ahh Politics, the ultimate decider in military choices. Forget capability or performance, we need 700 jobs created for these helos to work!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Politics might not have anything to do with the final decision on this one though... It might well depend on who can reliably deliver the helicopters first. Somehow I do not think that Australian Aerospace would be able to setup an NFH-90 line, commence production, and start deliveries before Sikorsky could...Ahh Politics, the ultimate decider in military choices. Forget capability or performance, we need 700 jobs created for these helos to work!
That also ignores any possible systems integration issues than an Aussie NFH-90 might encounter unless it is exactly the same as one of the already in-service NFH-90 variants. An MH-60R order would IMO be a MOTS order with the possible exception of some changes to instrumentation (i.e. from Imperial to metric)
Unfortunately there still does not seem to a real, or at least obvious, indicator of what is most important to the Future Naval Helicopter programme. Is it IOC/FOC dates, total capability, cost or jobs? Without that, it seems all we can do is make guesses and state our preferences.
-Cheers
From ausairpower.net:
"Very important ship and aircraft modification may be required if the ADF is to embark the MRH90. Will the RAN modify its MRH90 for RAST? Or will its RAST fitted ships be modified for probe and grid and a wire-based traversing or some other system? Both questions could drive procurement risk and therefore costs and schedule down the familiar path followed by the RAN’s previous aviation projects. Both possibilities have the potential to affect the RAN’s ability to operate with the USN.
My fast comment:
In case they prefer mhf90 helo its "rast" system, already in service in many ships, it says, should be able to fitted in new awd´s or frigates, the norwegians also have a different system to rast or a different rast system than f100, i dont remeber what helo they have.
Antisubmarine detection capacities it is very important, then weaponry-air electronics, because bothh have automatic folding, floating capacities, secure linked for landing system.
Interoperability with usn crossing deck it is not really important... datalink and comms should be nato standars, f100 is thought for the sikorsky but should be adaptable, any more issues on iinteroperability? Does that mean that netherlands helos have less interoperability with usn?
The land projection capability can be filled by both helos with some minor ranges, plus the tigers and chinooks etc.
I could say american helo is more thought for a fleet utility than the nfh90 just for their experience etc..
Australia might need helos for two fleets!
Good luck!
"Very important ship and aircraft modification may be required if the ADF is to embark the MRH90. Will the RAN modify its MRH90 for RAST? Or will its RAST fitted ships be modified for probe and grid and a wire-based traversing or some other system? Both questions could drive procurement risk and therefore costs and schedule down the familiar path followed by the RAN’s previous aviation projects. Both possibilities have the potential to affect the RAN’s ability to operate with the USN.
My fast comment:
In case they prefer mhf90 helo its "rast" system, already in service in many ships, it says, should be able to fitted in new awd´s or frigates, the norwegians also have a different system to rast or a different rast system than f100, i dont remeber what helo they have.
Antisubmarine detection capacities it is very important, then weaponry-air electronics, because bothh have automatic folding, floating capacities, secure linked for landing system.
Interoperability with usn crossing deck it is not really important... datalink and comms should be nato standars, f100 is thought for the sikorsky but should be adaptable, any more issues on iinteroperability? Does that mean that netherlands helos have less interoperability with usn?
The land projection capability can be filled by both helos with some minor ranges, plus the tigers and chinooks etc.
I could say american helo is more thought for a fleet utility than the nfh90 just for their experience etc..
Australia might need helos for two fleets!
Good luck!
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would say to take any information found on the ausairpower.net site with a grain of salt. Unfortunately the sheer size of the grain required would likely cause people to choke...
In other words, the "information" from that site and the analysis/conclusions reached are considered suspect. In some ways, I would consider anything there less reliable that what can be found on wikipedia.
-Cheers
its never too late to flog off 3 refurbished invincible class carriers off to australia at a bargain price........adapt 2 of them to operate the jsf's and one for heli ops and all of a sudden the australians have the most potent sea force in asia........
.if bought at the right price,it would surely be a great solution.they could be refurbished with the latest data link and electronics and would give australia some force projection it has lacked for years....
.if bought at the right price,it would surely be a great solution.they could be refurbished with the latest data link and electronics and would give australia some force projection it has lacked for years....
While this would be an interesting idea, I'd be a bit worried about maintenance issues. They're aging hulls, and even with upgrades, they would be expensive to repair and operate.
This was, IIRC, one of the reasons HMAS Melbourne was ultimately retired.
t68
Well-Known Member
We where originally slated to acquire HMS Invincible prior to the Falklands War but the idea was scraped when UK need her.
If they gave them to us for nothing it might be feasible, but if they were of any use why don’t you keep them instead of building Queen Elizabeth class.I remember the RAN said we should not have bought the ex Newport class ships from the US as they were rust buckets and cost us a small fortune to refurbish the ship, it would probably have been better to build new than second hand at the cost.
We are getting two LHD in Canberra class which can also take F35B if we so desired but is not the case they will be solely used in the amphibious assault ship role.
Canberra class landing helicopter dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If Australia did decide to get into the light carrier business i would expect to see an America class, it is designed from the start as a small carrier to accommodate F35B and the expected needs regarding bunkerage, munitions handling and maintenance support.
Last edited:
Pass.
We have to be savvy about driving cost and operational efficiencies in every platform we operate. It sounds like a black hole on many levels to me. Its not as much about the upfront bargain costs its the life cycle operational costs that play on my mind.
As a side note:
"The most economical choice between the small and large air wing is the large air wing due to cost efficiency. E.g., in relative terms, a carrier with an air wing of 75 would have a lifecycle cost of 100, whereas a carrier with an air wing of 55 would a lifecycle cost of 92."
Future USN aircraft carrier Analysis of alternatives
by Dr D. A. Perin and J.D. Raber
Naval Engineers Journal (May 2000)
vol. 112, no.3, pp. 15-25
t68
Well-Known Member
The other answer option is we buy one of the Queen Elizabeth carrier’s at a reduced price with the UK budget in dire straight regarding funding keep HMS Ark Royal and use as back up carrier.
Australia converts the second built to a conventional carrier with a mix of F/A18F Super Hornets and F35B, with F35B being capable of using a Canberra class LHD as a back up, same way as the Spanish do with Principe de Asturias and Juan Carlos as back up when the other is in refit.
Not likely to happen but unless there’s a big change in direction from PM Rudd, but it would be good to see.
PS
I wonder if the government of the day would have accepted HMS Ark Royal when she was being built instead of the UK government changing there mind and offered HMS Invincible instead.
Australia converts the second built to a conventional carrier with a mix of F/A18F Super Hornets and F35B, with F35B being capable of using a Canberra class LHD as a back up, same way as the Spanish do with Principe de Asturias and Juan Carlos as back up when the other is in refit.
Not likely to happen but unless there’s a big change in direction from PM Rudd, but it would be good to see.
PS
I wonder if the government of the day would have accepted HMS Ark Royal when she was being built instead of the UK government changing there mind and offered HMS Invincible instead.
The lhd from home port to deployment is in fleet task, the spanish use 12 antisubmarine helos in the carrier pda, plus the escorts helos, let´s say that minimum in a canberra, let´s say a deployment of 12 asw helos plus all the rest:
-heavy deck: 6 supercats, 4 beach boats, 20-30 abrahams, 2-6 amphibious vehicles.
-light load area: 40 hummers, 20 lorries, 15-20 containers and others.
-hangar and flight deck parking: hangar 12 helos asw size, 8 parking places harrier size in fligth deck, plus 6 medium spots that when the ship is loaded with deployment items, we can use two spots for 8 tigers sizze parking places, and still we have 4 medium spots por helos operations in transit. So total of 12+8+8=28, maybe 3 spots are enough, so 28+4= 32, a considerable land projection per canberra. We will need an oiler!
-up to 27000 tonnes.
Permanent undersea perimeter is more efficient with subs, as more subs bigger perimeter, complemented with the helos.
Cheers.
-heavy deck: 6 supercats, 4 beach boats, 20-30 abrahams, 2-6 amphibious vehicles.
-light load area: 40 hummers, 20 lorries, 15-20 containers and others.
-hangar and flight deck parking: hangar 12 helos asw size, 8 parking places harrier size in fligth deck, plus 6 medium spots that when the ship is loaded with deployment items, we can use two spots for 8 tigers sizze parking places, and still we have 4 medium spots por helos operations in transit. So total of 12+8+8=28, maybe 3 spots are enough, so 28+4= 32, a considerable land projection per canberra. We will need an oiler!
-up to 27000 tonnes.
Permanent undersea perimeter is more efficient with subs, as more subs bigger perimeter, complemented with the helos.
Cheers.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Er, not to be a conversation killer, but we AIN'T buying Carriers and we AIN'T buying F-35B's to operate off ANYTHING.
Defence can't even get Government to authorise a 4th AWD or 3rd LHD to give us a true, supportable amphibious capability, the hideous expense of a carrier will NEVER get a leg up in Australia in the forseeable future.
Move on...
Defence can't even get Government to authorise a 4th AWD or 3rd LHD to give us a true, supportable amphibious capability, the hideous expense of a carrier will NEVER get a leg up in Australia in the forseeable future.
Move on...
Let me point a couple of things:
-there might be modern jet stealth small boats, armoured with a bunch of heavy missilles, able to rest in the heavy deck...
-there might be a situation in afganistan where a one way fligh of an harrier av8plus is useeful to bomb or persuade something, temporary basing in afganistan or refuelling is easy.
-6 bigger subs should be inferior to 9 smaller subs with the same electronics.
Thanks.
-there might be modern jet stealth small boats, armoured with a bunch of heavy missilles, able to rest in the heavy deck...
-there might be a situation in afganistan where a one way fligh of an harrier av8plus is useeful to bomb or persuade something, temporary basing in afganistan or refuelling is easy.
-6 bigger subs should be inferior to 9 smaller subs with the same electronics.
Thanks.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Australia does not and will not operate the Harrier of any sort. It has been out of production for years and all current airframes are wearing out quickly.
Please stick to topics of relevance to the AUSTRALIAN navy on this thread.
If you are going to talk about small missile boats, please relate it to the Australian navy somehow.
Thanks.
AD
I pulled the above quote from the Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011.
There is a degree of synergy in our development timelines between RAN Sea 1000 and the SSBN(x). Despite degrees of divergence in technological areas (propulsion et al) there is just too much value (from our perspective) to be had by working as tight as possible with our US mates.
The US dont roll over their SSBN's everyday of the week so its a "long run in" project (effectively similar to where we are at with Sea 1000 now). The importance of getting the right technology set is imperative given the long service life.
We dont have to mirror the platform (and clearly we wont be) but there just has to be so many synergies to be exploited (and lessons learnt) by helping each other solve problems in a developmental sense as our project timelines run somewhat parallel.
I would almost be tempted to hold over the Collins a little longer and 'shadow' the SSBN(x) recapitalisation by the US with the Sea 1000. Invest heavily in supporting their development path and taking (if they let us) any and all ship building lessons (to minimise any mistakes we might make implementing "bleeding" edge platforms).
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep i know that it’s never going to happen when we have other more urgent needs for the RAN..
Just responding to Jaffo4010 about his suggestion on getting the three Invincible class carriers’ at a reduced price, but it would be nice getting a Queen Elizabeth carrier on the cheap, if it is sold to India as the scuttle bug suggests to help with the budget.
Its not like we are at disadvantage with regards to aircraft to fly off the carrier when we will have carrier capable aircraft already on the books.. With speculation of f35 slipping further down the line we may have to order more bug’s in the near future.
Last edited:
Ok, i think all has been said, at least from me, thank you.
Let me correct, spanish pda, ordinary config 12 helos, not necessarily all 12 antisubmarines, i suppose.
I paste i type of boat that could fit in the heavy dock-deck:
Skjold Class Missile Fast Patrol Boats - Naval Technology
regards.
Let me correct, spanish pda, ordinary config 12 helos, not necessarily all 12 antisubmarines, i suppose.
I paste i type of boat that could fit in the heavy dock-deck:
Skjold Class Missile Fast Patrol Boats - Naval Technology
regards.
- Status