Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
why would a zeroed airframe make you cringe?

you do understand that the issue of the sea sprite was about trying to automate capability at the expense of a crew member and that it was due to changing scope to meet the technology demands expected by the users and drivers?

a zeroed airframe is not the same as an old airframe
I cringed when I heard remanufactured, but only because i'm not sure how many airframes are available for conversion that the USN hasnt already claimed as their own.

Plus I prefer the NFH-90 as it gives a common airframe with the MRH-90.

edit: I also prefer the NFH-90 more because as it is earlier in its development life I am under the impression that its less of a development dead end then the 60R is come 10 or 15 years from now. However if i'm wrong on that, i'm wrong.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I cringed when I heard remanufactured, but only because i'm not sure how many airframes are available for conversion that the USN hasnt already claimed as their own.

Plus I prefer the NFH-90 as it gives a common airframe with the MRH-90.
fair enough - but the issue is the zeroing process - and not all frames will qualify even when identified. there are baseline requirements to meet before any platform is pulled down.

(didn't mean to appear as jumping on you, but am on my way out)
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
why would a zeroed airframe make you cringe?

you do understand that the issue of the sea sprite was about trying to automate capability at the expense of a crew member and that it was due to changing scope to meet the technology demands expected by the users and drivers?

a zeroed airframe is not the same as an old airframe

btw, the Romeos are not remanufactured.
<insert facepalm here> I checked one of the updates on the MH-60R 'Romeo' programme, and I see where it was originally to have been for 243 MH-60R conversions from the SH-60B and SH-60F Seahawks. It looks like aside from a handful re-manufactures for initial test and prototype aircraft, the MH-60Rs are new-build. So much for my having stated that the -R stood for remanufacture...

In terms of a preference between the MH-60R and the NFH-90, at present I prefer the MH-60R. My reasoning behind my preference is that the H-60 airframe/platform is a known quantity, and in fact the Fleet Air Arm already is familiar with it. More importantly though, is that the MH-60R has advanced and completely updated mission systems which have been tested extensively and are in service with the USN. From my perspective, the mission systems are the most important part of a platform like a naval helicopter (apart from flight crew of course).

It is true that the NH-90 helicopter platform is newer and of more advanced construction than an H-60, however there are apparently still some lingering questions about the long-term servicability of composite helicopter airframes. This means that while the design is new and undergoing some of the initial platform development, there might not be a spiral development future for the helicopter if the composite frame starts development cracks or other structural defects. In the case of mission systems, these are also being newly fitted onto the NFH-90, but here the fact that the NFH-90 is new actually counts against the helicopter. At present, the NFH-90 has not entered service with any air force of navy yet which means there is not a service track record. Additionally, with a number of different European nations planning on ordering the naval variant of the NH-90, there does not seem to be a 'fixed' mission systems configuration as it were. The mission systems fitout varies depending on which nation the specific NFH-90 is intended for. What this means in an Australian context is that the RAN/ADF would be exposed to developmental risks in choosing the NFH-90, and after the SH-2G(A) Seasprite I do not believe that Australia would want that sort of exporsure. The only way to attempt to avoid that would be to wait for the naval variant to enter service with another nation and then choosing the exact same fitout. IMO this is a poor option, as it would push back the IOC date for the Future Naval Helicopter, and the fitout available might not be ideal for Australian service needs. An example of what I mean about the fitout is that the NFH-90s are expected to be equipped with either the Thales ENR 360 which was derived from the Thales Oean Master, or the Telephonics AN/APS-143B(V)3 Ocean Eye MMR. Now, while I do not know the specs of either radar, I do not believe that the Telephonics AN/APS-143B(V)3 is more advanced than the Telephonics AN/APS-147 MMR found aboard the MH-60R.

Another possible area of contention. The NFH-90 is physically larger, which can allow more capabilities like being able to carry a boarding party while conducting a routine patrol. At the same time, the NFH-90 being larger might mean that the helicopter would be dificult to land, contain and maintain an NFH-90 aboard most of the smaller frigates. At this point, I am still waiting to see what the criteria the ADF and/or gov't have placed uipon naval helicopter AoE.

-Cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The NFH-90 is physically larger, which can allow more capabilities like being able to carry a boarding party while conducting a routine patrol. At the same time, the NFH-90 being larger might mean that the helicopter would be dificult to land, contain and maintain an NFH-90 aboard most of the smaller frigates. At this point, I am still waiting to see what the criteria the ADF and/or gov't have placed uipon naval helicopter AoE.

-Cheers
there are more than a few people in RAN worried about how an NFH-90 is going to fit on some of the RAN assets.

the expression that refers to a "bees dick" springs to mind....
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
there are more than a few people in RAN worried about how an NFH-90 is going to fit on some of the RAN assets.

the expression that refers to a "bees dick" springs to mind....
Does this worry also extend to the AWDs? If it does, the IMO it would be better to go with the MH-60R. OTOH if the AWD hangar is large enough to comfortably accomodate an NFH-90, it might make sense for the RAN to enter some form of leasing argeement with Sikorsky and/or the USN for enough MH-60R's to provide heli coverage until ~2020 or so. By this time, the AWDs will be in service and the Anzac II's should begin to enter service. Whether the Anzac II shares a common hull with the AWD does not matter, since it is still in the design stage. If the RAN knows that they want to be able to reasonably fit an NFH-90 sized helicopter aboard the Anzac II, steps can be taken now to ensure the design will accomodate it.

In some respects, this might be the best solution, as it provides interim and replacement naval helicopters, while giving the NFH-90 time to reach design maturity.

-Cheers
 

agc33e

Banned Member
I have to rectify about the nfh90 helo, i past this from the official nh industries site:
Weapons:

•2 Anti-Ship Missiles Marte MK2/S
or
•2 Torpedoes (MU 90, MK46 or Stingray)

So they can carry up to 2 torpedos, or one torpedo and one missile.


And the sikorsky site says 4 four weapons stations for the mh60r, in the asw aspect, so i assume up to 4 antisubmarine weapons but not talking of hellfires as i see in pictures they can carry 4 hellfires in each side of the helo, apart from the sonobuyous that i read the sikorski can carry more than the nfh90.

The norwegians are going to use, if they are not using them now, the nfh90 helo for their frigates.
Spain is looking at buying many nh90´s, but not for the asw from the frigates, for the tactical transport and other missions and for the 3 corps.
And by the way, let me rectify or doubt about my comments on how many torpedos have the f100, i see for the nansen they describe "4 torpedo tubes for torpedos" but that it doesnt mean 4 torpedos only to throw from these torpedo tubes, so probably they have a torpedo magazine, the nansen´s, and the f100´s as well, with more than 4 torpedos.

And it seems sikorsky is selling, at the moment, for antisubmarine helo these 2:
"The S-70B model is a blend of field proven technology and state-of-the-art airframe, avionics and mission equipment making it, like its counterpart the MH-60R helicopter, the worlds most capable helicopter available today."


Cheers.
 

hairyman

Active Member
Why dont we buy both. Buy the smaller American MH-60R to use from the Anzacs. and the remaining OHPs, 12 ships in all, with a view to buy the larger European NFH-90 for use on the Amphibs, and on the AWDs and Anzac IIs, with the MH-60R then being used on the OPV's that will be built in the future.

That way during a large operation, there would be NFH-90's, the Army version for transport, Chinook and Tiger's on the amphibs, whereas if we had only MH-60R's, that would be an extra type the amphib would have to be able to maintain.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Does this worry also extend to the AWDs? If it does, the IMO it would be better to go with the MH-60R.
It does, size and space is a critical set of vectors. these two impact upon bunkerage issues.

There is no shortage of people I deal with who prefer the romeos over the 90's that I've dealt with. I can count the number of people who like the 90 on less than half a hand.

some of the reports from our partners have been less than flattering - be they scandinavian or north of america
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
It does, size and space is a critical set of vectors. these two impact upon bunkerage issues.

There is no shortage of people I deal with who prefer the romeos over the 90's that I've dealt with. I can count the number of people who like the 90 on less than half a hand.

some of the reports from our partners have been less than flattering - be they scandinavian or north of america
The NFH version in particular or the -90 in general? If its the -90 in general, were they selected before the problems became an issue or selected inspite of the problems?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The NFH version in particular or the -90 in general? If its the -90 in general, were they selected before the problems became an issue or selected inspite of the problems?
90 in general. there was some traffic prior to selection. ditto with the AWD's as there was noise coming out of norway on QOS issues.

ultimately noise is noise as long as the recognised issues get fixed.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Why dont we buy both. Buy the smaller American MH-60R to use from the Anzacs. and the remaining OHPs, 12 ships in all, with a view to buy the larger European NFH-90 for use on the Amphibs, and on the AWDs and Anzac IIs, with the MH-60R then being used on the OPV's that will be built in the future.

That way during a large operation, there would be NFH-90's, the Army version for transport, Chinook and Tiger's on the amphibs, whereas if we had only MH-60R's, that would be an extra type the amphib would have to be able to maintain.
The 24 helos are going to be naval helos.
The naval version of the nh90 in the transport mode has 14 seats, while:

Sikorski has 3 naval helos, the mh60r, the sb70, and the mh60s, this one probably sharing lots of things with the mh60r, now i past info on the mh60s from sikorsky:

"The MH-60S helicopter, in AMCM configuration, is equipped with five mine-hunting systems: AN/AQS-20 sonar, acoustic/magnetic minesweeper, remotely piloted anti-mine torpedoes, mine-detecting laser and 30mm mine-detonating cannon."

"The MH-60S helicopter, in VERTREP configuration, is designed to meet the fleet's combat support needs. It does all that and more. The interior is capable of carrying 12 troops and two crew "

From the 24 helos do we know if all of them are going to be antisubmarine? because antisubmarine (mh60r) it gives different compatibilities with other capabilities (vertrep..etc).

Admin: Deleted off topic. You've been advised re OT responses before.

2nd warning


Best regards.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Six of the MRH-90's have already been designated as belonging to the Navy to be used as Sea King replacements in the Utility role. Thats the role the MH-60S does in the USN.

SH-70 is the export varient of the Seahawk/Blackhawk. RAN and Army Seahawks and Blackhawks currently in service are SH-70 varients.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Ok, :hitwall, we know mines are a serious matter, we remember when the kuwait invasion, or the irak invasion, the usn had to deal with mines, you can expect conflicted waters have mines you have to search and destroy, we have countermines small boats which can do the job for eliminating them, but to search and discover is different, i say this for the helos flexibility, speed to act, range and altitude at they fly searching for mines, mine detector in an helo should be more or much more efficient than in a patrol boat, not talking about fuel expenditure, the amount spent with a countermines patrol boat in the trip of the fleet, that to take the helo out to give an scanning pasade in all the way of the fleet.

I know important ships have specific "radars" for searching mines, but with a limited alert, they might discover the mines too late, also there are mines which remain at certain depth and when detect the ship they come up to hit..

I would say as a good idea to have 2 or 3 mrh60s (sikorsky) with the antimines warfare, these helos to be deployed with the fleet, with or without the lhd. Because we can imagine the sceneraio of an international taskforce, without the canberras, where the awd´s, anzac´s, or new anzac´s are keeping a perimeter out of a coast, i dont think many navies have these antimines capacities in helos... actuallly we would thank the future anzacs to have 2 helos hangars...

Have a good webber...
 

stoker

Member
Six of the MRH-90's have already been designated as belonging to the Navy to be used as Sea King replacements in the Utility role. Thats the role the MH-60S does in the USN.

SH-70 is the export varient of the Seahawk/Blackhawk. RAN and Army Seahawks and Blackhawks currently in service are SH-70 varients.
Would it not be more practical at the end of the day, to split the operation of the two helicopters between the two services, i.e. the Army owns and operates ALL the NH90's and the Navy owns and operates all the MH60R's ( and buy 6-12 MH60's to replace the 6 MHR90's which would be handed over to the Army.)

I believe that the RAN would be far bettter served by going down the MH-60 R & S path, basically the RAN will be operating along side the USN in any future conflict, the MH60's would seamlessly blend in operationally and logistically wise with those of the USN.

The Army would be left with the CH47's, NH90's and Tigers.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Would it not be more practical at the end of the day, to split the operation of the two helicopters between the two services, i.e. the Army owns and operates ALL the NH90's and the Navy owns and operates all the MH60R's ( and buy 6-12 MH60's to replace the 6 MHR90's which would be handed over to the Army.)

I believe that the RAN would be far bettter served by going down the MH-60 R & S path, basically the RAN will be operating along side the USN in any future conflict, the MH60's would seamlessly blend in operationally and logistically wise with those of the USN.

The Army would be left with the CH47's, NH90's and Tigers.

Sounds like a sensible solution, no mixed fleet in either service commonality to service but Army might well do with some helo’s that are marineized for long term longer service life when operating off the LHD.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Sounds like a sensible solution, no mixed fleet in either service commonality to service but Army might well do with some helo’s that are marineized for long term longer service life when operating off the LHD.
The MRH-90's are all marinised already. Operating off the LHD's in the transport role was one of their planned roles from the start.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I know important ships have specific "radars" for searching mines, but with a limited alert, they might discover the mines too late, also there are mines which remain at certain depth and when detect the ship they come up to hit..
Ships don't use radar to detect mines. They use capabilities such as sonar, bathymetric sensors, synthetic arrays, laser based systems, ROV's etc....
 

LancasterBomber

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Small update on the new pre enlistment fitness test for Navy which I completed recently. We had about 12 blokes and one sheila go around. The new push up and sit ups requirement caught out a few people. Three of the blokes really struggled and I would of stood them up and sent them home straight away. The Army Sarge was actually really good. He stood them up and grilled them on their training to date and then gave each of them a strategy to get them ready for enlistment day based on his assessment of them.

The poor sheila went last (only 18yo) and all of us blokes standing around watching and she couldnt do one single pushup (had to complete 8 in total to pass). To be honest I felt horrible because obviously you want everyone to pass but I think the sudden implementation of push ups for Navy entry has undone a few.

Its fairly easy to whip blokes into shape for upper body strength but not so for sheila's IMO so this change in policy is probably a smart move to help identify problems of fitness before they lob at Cerberus.

Believe it not but there was also a fashion photo shoot taking place inside Vic Barracks while we waited to be tested. You wont believe how hot this one Swedish chick was....:D

I swear I reckon I was half a chance too! :hehe
 
Last edited:

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Small update on the new pre enlistment fitness test for Navy which I completed recently. We had about 12 blokes and one sheila go around. The new push up and sit ups requirement caught out a few people. Three of the blokes really struggled and I would of stood them up and sent them home straight away. The Army Sarge was actually really good. He stood them up and grilled them on their training to date and then gave each of them a strategy to get them ready for enlistment day based on his assessment of them.

The poor sheila went last (only 18yo) and all of us blokes standing around watching and she couldnt do one single pushup (had to complete 8 in total to pass). To be honest I felt horrible because obviously you want everyone to pass but I think the sudden implementation of push ups for Navy entry has undone a few.

Its fairly easy to whip blokes into shape for upper body strength but not so for sheila's IMO so this change in policy is probably a smart move to help identify problems of fitness before they lob at Cerberus.

Believe it not but there was also a fashion photo shoot taking place inside Vic Barracks while we waited to be tested. You wont believe how hot this one Swedish chick was....:D

I swear I reckon I was half a chance too! :hehe
Sorry I have zero sympathy for anyone not ready for this fitness test or the one in Rectruit School.
Most people waiting to join the Navy (and ADF) have many months to be ready and know what levels are required to pass.

I have been working hard for 6 months to be fit and ready for when I re-enlist.
It plainly written on the Navy website, the level of fitness required.

The whole idea of making the pre-enlistment fitness test harder, with the sit/push ups element, was because too many people were getting to Recruit School not being up to standard.

I don't wish anyone to fail, or to miss a chance to be part of the RAN.
But if you haven't even bothered to get to a pretty easy level of fitness, put in the hard yards to ensure your ready for recruit training, then you shouldn't be applying for the ADF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top