Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Coincidentally I came across a reference in Norman Friedman’s “U.S. Destroyers, an Illustrated Design History” to LAMPS in which the SH-2 was described as “an elderly airframe with limited potential, even though it was thoroughly rebuilt (and re-engined) for LAMPS use.”

He was wrong about that and a good many things. Many SH-2Hs were built in the mid 1980s so hardly old. The basic design is as old as the UH-1 and that is still going strong in new forms this decade.

This was referring to the type in 1969/70 not 2007 so why we not only selected it for the RAN but decided to opt for reconditioned airframes over new build ones is beyond me.

Because there was no difference between new build or refited airframes except the cost. In fact Defence considered new build airframes at an additional cost of $32m just to counter negative public perception. So the opinion of people with no knowledge of the airworthiness of the airframes would have cost us all over $30 million.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've got a couple of ex Sesprite people in my team - they're mightily pi$$ed off at how the govt killed off the platform at the stage it was at. the platform was not far off being certified, and was more than able to do its mission.

there was one aspect that the govt forcibly ignored at selection, but it was govts choice - noit the militaries.

seasprite has taken a bath - but the govt is happy to ignore all the projects that they signed off on and which are going to cost us more money to fix.

political intervention into these projects is a joke - they get a free run because no one is able to respond and defend the decisions in public.

and seriously, having had to explain basic decisions to ANAO in the past I wouldn't be putting too much stock into the sanctity of their competency in writing these reports.

if they were any good they'd be screaming their lungs off about other things happening and which they're fully aware of.

The ANAO report on the Seasprite isn't that bad. All of the Seasprites problems (and there were a few) can firmly be placed at the feet of Government/Defence management.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This was referring to the type in 1969/70 not 2007 so why we not only selected it for the RAN but decided to opt for reconditioned airframes over new build ones is beyond me.

thats one of the urban myths running about on the seaspritres though.

those aircraft were zero framed, in absolute terms everything on those platforms (except for one single component) were new build, or NOS

the single component that was not new was a significant issue except close to end LOT, but govt was well aware of it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The ANAO report on the Seasprite isn't that bad. All of the Seasprites problems (and there were a few) can firmly be placed at the feet of Government/Defence management.

I'vw dealt with ANAO through 3 different departments.- every time we've had to "assist" in helping them understand the job that they're supposed to be "experts" in...

when they can't understand basic FMS issues, or TLS issues then you have to start wondering about whether they're approp skilled....

 

[Volkodav]

He was wrong about that and a good many things. Many SH-2Hs were built in the mid 1980s so hardly old. The basic design is as old as the UH-1 and that is still going strong in new forms this decade.



Because there was no difference between new build or refited airframes except the cost. In fact Defence considered new build airframes at an additional cost of $32m just to counter negative public perception. So the opinion of people with no knowledge of the airworthiness of the airframes would have cost us all over $30 million.

I was reading from the 1982 edition.

There are differences between new build and refitted airframes, the biggest being materials science and materials quality. What should be a difference is ergonomics, i.e. the freedom of movement of flight controls (I believe this was an issue with the SH-2G(A)).

I suppose my biggest issue with the SH-2G(A) is the fact we bought an intermediate sized ship based helicopter at all.

At the time that project was initiated the RAN was deploying Squirrels on FFGs in addition to Seahawks and Sea Kings on Success and Tobruk, was there a need for another type? I know the Seahawk was too large for the conceptual OPC and that the Squirrel was not a combat type but it could be argued that the Squirrel could do most of what would be required for the EEZ security role. Additionally it would have been comparatively easy to design facilities to operate a Seahawk into the OPC, (a number of commercial design concepts around at the time for 1000-2000t OPV / Corvette / light frigates had Seahawk facilities). In fact it would have been comparatively easy to have a hanger large enough for a Seahawk, a flight deck large enough for a Seaking and to usually (economically) deploy a Squirrel on a vessel the size of the OPC concept.

Again why bother with a new helo type, why not just buy more aircraft the same or similar to what we already operated and design the new ship to use what we already had?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I suppose my biggest issue with the SH-2G(A) is the fact we bought an intermediate sized ship based helicopter at all.

It was however the best and approp choice for the initial intended platform - its still had relevance even when the smaller vessels were abandoned.

Having seen the internal docs, and having had 2 ex seasprite project staff on my current team, I am far more supportive of them, in the end they were killed off based purely on the fact that the govt wanted to appear decisive and to be holding projects to account - the fact that the assets were actually a camels hump away from end user certification meant squat.

I'd love to see ANAO go through some other projects, but you can bet that they'll be "directed" to look at others that are not as damaging to the govt....

never underestimate the power of symbology in govt.- and don't believe the tosh that agencies have independence of action...

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'vw dealt with ANAO through 3 different departments.- every time we've had to "assist" in helping them understand the job that they're supposed to be "experts" in...

when they can't understand basic FMS issues, or TLS issues then you have to start wondering about whether they're approp skilled....

I'm surprised by the amount of people who thought the ANAO report was 100% factual.

 

[Volkodav]

It was however the best and approp choice for the initial intended platform - its still had relevance even when the smaller vessels were abandoned.

Having seen the internal docs, and having had 2 ex seasprite project staff on my current team, I am far more supportive of them, in the end they were killed off based purely on the fact that the govt wanted to appear decisive and to be holding projects to account - the fact that the assets were actually a camels hump away from end user certification meant squat.

I'd love to see ANAO go through some other projects, but you can bet that they'll be "directed" to look at others that are not as damaging to the govt....

never underestimate the power of symbology in govt.- and don't believe the tosh that agencies have independence of action...

Well I have noticed that auditors tend to find what they are told to find and blame those already singled out to take the fall.

On the basis I know there is a lot I don't know and that I have seen some very inaccurate reporting on areas in which I have some knowledge I will take what you are saying onboard about the Sea Sprite. I have also seen a very impressive flight display by a NZ SH-2G so at least I know they can fly.

Another take then, why buy the Seahawk and modify the first batch of FFGs to operate them. Would it not have been better to buy LAMPS I SH-2Ds or Fs along with the initial FFG buy in the late 70’s? We could have had a helicopter in service over a decade earlier than we did and save a very substantial amount of money at the same time. The aircraft could have been progressively updated to SH-2G standard through the acquisition of additional airframes from the USN to create a larger maintenance / reserve pool.

At the time they were purchased the SH-60B (at A$32m a piece) was the second most expensive type in the ADF behind the P-3C (A$40m). Add to this the cost of modifying the first three FFGs and the money saved becomes great enough to have perhaps bought a small SCS type carrier to operate the Seakings and Wessex still in service with the RAN FAA. Pair this flight deck with Tobruk’s vehicle deck and bow ramp and we have no need to buy the LPAs. Not buying the LPAs means the Govt aren’t poisoned against the prospect of buying ex USN Kidd Class DDG or Ticonderoga Class CG to fill our AWD requirement …… ah what if…..:wink:

 

[ThePuss]

Well I have noticed that auditors tend to find what they are told to find and blame those already singled out to take the fall.

On the basis I know there is a lot I don't know and that I have seen some very inaccurate reporting on areas in which I have some knowledge I will take what you are saying onboard about the Sea Sprite. I have also seen a very impressive flight display by a NZ SH-2G so at least I know they can fly.

Another take then, why buy the Seahawk and modify the first batch of FFGs to operate them. Would it not have been better to buy LAMPS I SH-2Ds or Fs along with the initial FFG buy in the late 70’s? We could have had a helicopter in service over a decade earlier than we did and save a very substantial amount of money at the same time. The aircraft could have been progressively updated to SH-2G standard through the acquisition of additional airframes from the USN to create a larger maintenance / reserve pool.

At the time they were purchased the SH-60B (at A$32m a piece) was the second most expensive type in the ADF behind the P-3C (A$40m). Add to this the cost of modifying the first three FFGs and the money saved becomes great enough to have perhaps bought a small SCS type carrier to operate the Seakings and Wessex still in service with the RAN FAA. Pair this flight deck with Tobruk’s vehicle deck and bow ramp and we have no need to buy the LPAs. Not buying the LPAs means the Govt aren’t poisoned against the prospect of buying ex USN Kidd Class DDG or Ticonderoga Class CG to fill our AWD requirement …… ah what if…..:wink:

Very interesting point about buying the Sprog's back in the 80's, I have to be slightly predantic though. We bought the S-70B not the S-60. The fit out of our Hawks is very different to the Yanks....maybe thats why they cost so much and took so long to deliver.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are differences between new build and refitted airframes, the biggest being materials science and materials quality. What should be a difference is ergonomics, i.e. the freedom of movement of flight controls (I believe this was an issue with the SH-2G(A)).

What you are talking about there is a new design. You don’t build the airframe out of a new material without significantly changing it and requiring redesign. Metal fatigue may be an issue but can mostly be addressed in the reconditioning process. Anyway it was considered a significant issue because of the condition the selected donor SH-2s were in. By using the existing SH-2Fs (and one SH-2G) the RAN was able to save $32 million with no effect on the delivered product.

As to flight controls the SH-2G(A) had a new cockpit anyway and a new digital AFCS. The problem with ergonomics was to do with very small pilots taking over control of the aircraft in an extreme flight attitude if the AFCS was to fail (a very unlikely event with mature avionics). There was some concern the midget aviator couldn’t reach the right controls. Of course the Seasprite was extremely easy to fly without the AFCS.

At the time that project was initiated the RAN was deploying Squirrels on FFGs in addition to Seahawks and Sea Kings on Success and Tobruk, was there a need for another type? I know the Seahawk was too large for the conceptual OPC and that the Squirrel was not a combat type but it could be argued that the Squirrel could do most of what would be required for the EEZ security role.

The Seasprite was far more effective than the Squirrel as a naval helicopter. The Seahawk – as brought – was very much an ASW helicopter. Its sensors were customised for ASW, it lacked a FLIR, and it carried around a big expensive acoustics processor for that job. The Seasprite was the supreme maritime interdiction helicopter. With its excellent Telefonics radar integrated with a FLIR and brace of Penguins it was death to enemy navy craft and ships. It could also provide the utility support a frigate (or corvette) at sea needed. None of which a Squirrel could do except collect the odd mail bag and provide an eye in the sky for boarding ops.

Sikorsky did offer the Seahawk for SEA 1411 (Seasprite program) as an unsolicited bid but it was ruled out for not being tender quality. Even without the OPC the Navy insisted the intermediate helicopter (Seasprite) was still the type it needed for the Anzacs. There is certainly a lot of evidence to support this. The SH-2G(A) would be the ideal naval helicopter for border security and Persian Gulf operations. With a LD module fitted to the FLIR it could carry and shoot Hellfires making it even more suited to current ops.

 

[aussienscale]

So what would be your opinions on the NZ Seasprite with the Mav's ? Did they go the right way about it ? Is there something for us to learn from our neighbours across the ditch

 

[Abraham Gubler]

On the basis I know there is a lot I don't know and that I have seen some very inaccurate reporting on areas in which I have some knowledge I will take what you are saying onboard about the Sea Sprite. I have also seen a very impressive flight display by a NZ SH-2G so at least I know they can fly.

Half a million flight hours from US Navy frigates was also a pretty good indicator that they were a good sea bird.

Another take then, why buy the Seahawk and modify the first batch of FFGs to operate them. Would it not have been better to buy LAMPS I SH-2Ds or Fs along with the initial FFG buy in the late 70’s? We could have had a helicopter in service over a decade earlier than we did and save a very substantial amount of money at the same time.

An interesting idea but doesn’t fit the various capability requirements of the time. The reason the S-70B-2 Seahawk with onboard acoustic processor was purchased was to replace the ASW capability of HMAS Melbourne and the S-2G Tracker aircraft. In the 1970s the capability requirement for what became the FFG purchase (originally the DDL) was very much about putting a force of helicopters to sea for maritime interdiction – the same role the Seasprites were purchased for. The initial DDL buy was also to include 8-12 Westland Lynxes for this role (can’t remember the exact number but they were very cheap in the 1971-72 cabinet submission). DDL got replaced by FFG for cost reasons and the helicopter – the very reason we needed more than a gun boat corvette – forgotten as well (cost).

The SH-2F LAMPS was an ASW helicopter with limited maritime interdiction capability. The USN was looking at a version of the Apache for this role (frigate based maritime interdiction) in the early 1980s but never found the money for a production order. Anyway at this time (early 1980s) the RAN’s budget for frigate helicopters was being reserved for replacing Melbourne and her air wing. After this was cancelled by the Government the Seahawk was purchased.

 

[mattyem]

IMHO one thing I think that made the NZDF seasprite acquisition and following operational program of the seasprites so successful was they didn't try to over engineer the Airframe. Admittedly the funding afforded to the NZDF only would allow for limited upgrades to the seasprite, but the old adage 'if it aint broke dont fix it' has allowed the sprites to operate as a relatively successful organic aircraft on the frigates.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So what would be your opinions on the NZ Seasprite with the Mav's ? Did they go the right way about it ? Is there something for us to learn from our neighbours across the ditch

The big difference is the RNZN didn’t require an AFCS. Defence’s initial concept for the AFCS was that it would only require around ~100,000 lines of software code. It ended out requiring around five times that. Also the initial sub contractor didn’t have any liquidated damages clauses in the contract so happily ran the program at costs far below their payments so keeping it way behind schedule. The AFCS was an awesome piece of capability but perhaps best included as part of a Block II capability. So the SH-2Gs could have been introduced to service around 2001/02 and then Block upgraded 10 years later. Of course that’s with the benefit of hindsight…

 

[sandman]

Your probably mistaken about the 90 in an Anzac hanger, no way would fit. Nor do I think they've even done the trials yet to even land on.

I assure you that late last year an MRH-90 did land on PARRAMATTA alongside FBE and was squeezed inside the hangar. But thats not the be all and end all of the question.

While pylons, antennas and the like are different the MH-60R is still the same sized airframe to the S-70B-2. The hangar on the Anzac is offset to starboard and there are rooms on the port side that do not contain magazines or machinery critical to ship operation. While no doubt important to the people that use them these spaces could be relocated to somewhere else in the ship and the hangar could be made wider. There is around 3m of extra beam here before you start to lose length due to the lengthwise angled superstructure sides at this point.

You realise that the two compartments you are talking about relocating are the Air Weapons Magazine and the Helo Firefighting Room? Neither of which can be re-located and both of which are critical.

Also you'd be messing with the structural integrity of the mezanine level, which houses an assortment of compartments that you would not find any space for elsewhere.

Simply put, it's not posssible to widen the hangar.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Now with photos:


HMAS Perth with new AESA radar mast.
http://images.navy.gov.au/fotoweb/G...=and&SF_FIELD3_GROUP=1&SF_FIELD3=&doSearch=Go

Now with working link.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Now with photos:


HMAS Perth with new AESA radar mast.

Navy Imagery - FotoWeb 7.0))

dont see it.

okie dokes see it now,thanks.

 

[spoz]

Now, that is just ugly; especially with the topmast ahead of 49. Not as bad as Nansen, but not good. I've heard good things about the outcome in capability terms, but you can't call it pretty. Anybody know why they've plated in the AX - stability?

 

[ThePuss]

Now, that is just ugly; especially with the topmast ahead of 49. Not as bad as Nansen, but not good. I've heard good things about the outcome in capability terms, but you can't call it pretty. Anybody know why they've plated in the AX - stability?

To increase the reserve battle stability of the design. Once part of the weather deck goes under, your water plane area goes south as well and you are in trouble, big trouble.

Both the RAN and the RNZN are boxing in the AX, though some of the Kiwi Zac's AX will remain open.

It was strange to have a look in Perth AX. Totally lagged and air conditioned, even the old wave break around the 2/3 Mike hatch is gone with the hatch now being flush with the deck.

Beside the main reason they enclosed the AX there is A lot of pro's and cons to the change.

PRO's

More internal space, in a surge/ emergency situation you could turn some of the space into austere accommodation.

Con's

We lose the "Veranda", nice place to "Chill"
Where do the smokers smoke?
Where do we put the bins.?
Will we need a life buoy sentry now that there is nowhere you can go external at night with no chance of falling overboard? (The the AX always had nets rigged at sea that make it impossible to fall over).
We lose out external but largely protected from the elements "Holding Pen"

 

[Pusser01]

To increase the reserve battle stability of the design. Once part of the weather deck goes under, your water plane area goes south as well and you are in trouble, big trouble.

Both the RAN and the RNZN are boxing in the AX, though some of the Kiwi Zac's AX will remain open.

It was strange to have a look in Perth AX. Totally lagged and air conditioned, even the old wave break around the 2/3 Mike hatch is gone with the hatch now being flush with the deck.

Beside the main reason they enclosed the AX there is A lot of pro's and cons to the change.

PRO's

More internal space, in a surge/ emergency situation you could turn some of the space into austere accommodation.

Con's

We lose the "Veranda", nice place to "Chill"
Where do the smokers smoke?
Where do we put the bins.?
Will we need a life buoy sentry now that there is nowhere you can go external at night with no chance of falling overboard? (The the AX always had nets rigged at sea that make it impossible to fall over).
We lose out external but largely protected from the elements "Holding Pen"

Bins will probably go onto the waists like on FFG's I guess.
Smokers, who cares GDP is the only splace left for them.
How many ships have a life buoy sentry closed up during normal steaming, on Toowoo we don't.
Have they changed the messing for the PO's and Chief's on there yet?
Cheers