The Tiger is not equipped to find targets at sea like an MH-60R is. Further the Army has Tigers to fight its battles not the Navy's. In terms of cost you can buy 22 Hellfires for the same price as a Penguin missile. Penguin is an excellent anti ship missile and the Navy still has a requirement for them (stand off ASuW). But the close ASuW is the more immediate need.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I would imagine these things won't be installed until she gets to Australia to reduce the risk of damage during the shiplift.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I remember that IOC had been delayed... I had thought it had at least reached that stage by now.
The fact that it has not reached that yet is perhaps an even greater argument for the MH-60R and against an Australianized NFH 90. I do wonder how ASPI feels about the MH-60R selection. IIRC there had been an ASPI paper arguing for a 'slow down' in the Urgent Requirement for a Future Naval Helicopter, to give Aerospace Australia/the NFH 90 an improved chance vs. the 'Romeo'.
-Cheers
John Newman
The Bunker Group
All of which makes me wonder why the Seakings are slated to be taken out of service in December.
If would have though that "until" a definate in service date was known for the Navy's MRH90's that the Seakings could and should go on for a bit longer.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few reasons why the Sea Kings might still be slated for decommissioning without the MRH 90's having been stood up come to mind. IIRC the Sea Kings first began to enter RAN service in the early 1970's. This means that the aircraft are nearing forty years old. This means that more (and more expensive) maintenance is required to keep them in flying condition, and there is also the increased chance of a particular Sea King being down for maintenance and repair. Also, the Sea King AFAIK can only operate from HMAS Success and the current RAN amphibs. Given that HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Kanimbla are both kept 'close to home' due to potential issues with availability... There are not many platforms left in RAN service for the Sea Kings to operate from, nevermind the potential need to have several aboard ship in order to ensure that at least one Sea King is available for taskings when required.
Also worth noting, there is a significant difference between Should be kept in service, Could be kept in service... While the RAN could find such capabilities are the Sea Kings provide, when operating at least, still useful. That does not mean that the Sea Kings could reasonably be kept in service.
-Cheers
Because the MRH-90 was meant to reach IOC by December 2010.
They will probably stay on for longer. Like the Army has been forced to do with the recce Kiowas of 6 Avn Regt due to delays in the ARH.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Are you sure? With the work being done on Success, and the fact that the other two ships which can operate the Sea Kings are not likely to be sent to sea barring an emergency I would think that they would just be quietly let go at an air station.
Unless the MRH 90 is still not operational by the time HMAS Canberra is in commission. However, if that situation occurs, I would expect there to be a serious Eurocopter beatup.
-Cheers
The Sea Kings are used for more than just shipboard flights on the support ships. And despite the woes of the support ships Largs Bay is coming and the gap fills Canterbury and Aurora would need a RAN helo to provide capability.
The RAN isn't going to give up its maritime support helo (MSH) capability just because MRH-90 is coming in late.
If that happens then the Helitech line for rebuilt ADF S-70s will have a home gown customer. 50 UH-60M standard S-70s, 16 with automatic folding rotors and tails, will equip 5 and 6 Avn Regts very well. Naval Aviation doesn't want a seperate MSH platform and will happily replace its MRH90s with additional MH-60Rs.
Run away? Where to if you are midway through a choke point transit such as the Strait of Hormuz or elsewhere?
Even if that were navigationally feasible, fast attack boats could potentially run down a frigate.
As for typhoon, no frigates are fitted with Typhoon, nor are any planned to be (it would be a major modification).
Mini-Typhooon is fitted, but thats just the commercial brand name for automated 12.7mm, a valuable weapons system, but not a foolproof ring of steel.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Abraham has covered a number of these points in another post, but here's my 2 cents worth.
Yes the Sea Kings are old airframes, but since the problems a number of years ago, I understood that their maintenance standard was quiet high these days.
Two interesting items on the navy.gov.au site:
Rescue on Lord Howe Island (18 May):
Rescue of injured climber on Lord Howe Island by Navy helicopter - Royal Australian Navy
Two Sea Kings flew 700kms, did the job and flew back, not bad for a couple of "old" helicopters.
Preserving the Sea Kings (9 June):
Preserving our Sea King Helicopters - Royal Australian Navy
The article states they WILL be withdrawn in December this year.
My point about keeping them in services longer, or maybe at least not disposing them, till a clear know date for the MRH90's, I think, is valid.
If you look at what has happened over the last few years the current helicopter fleets in the ADF must be pretty stretched.
11 Seasprites handed back, 25 hueys retired from the gunship and utility roles.
The MRH90's are running well behind, the Tigers arnt there yet either, the Chinook's are busy, and a recent loss too will be a strain.
So that basically leaves, come the end of the year, 16 Seahawks and the 34 Blackhawks to do all the roles they currently have to do.
So if there is an emergency during next year, civil or military, I think the Navy and ADF generally could be stretched for utility helicopters.
One last point, maybe with the purchase of the 24 MH60R's, we should also think of getting 6 MH60S's for the navy to cover the utility role.
Very similar aircraft and possibly a lot easier to support for the Navy, and both are in service with the USN.
And let the Army keep the MRH90's.
Good point, had not concidered that, not the best thing to ding or bend unloading from Marlin ? But how would they be able to install the pods in Williamstown, I would have thought it would require a docking ?
Anixtu
New Member
The BBC is reporting explosions and a fire at Falmouth Docks: BBC News - Explosions and fire reported at Falmouth docks
There is no sign of this affecting Largs Bay at present: Falmouth Harbour from the Tower (Out to Sea) | National Maritime Museum Cornwall | Falmouth, Cornwall
There is no sign of this affecting Largs Bay at present: Falmouth Harbour from the Tower (Out to Sea) | National Maritime Museum Cornwall | Falmouth, Cornwall
They are designed to basically bolt on and bolt off. So a pierside, couple of divers and a crane is all you need.
I wouldn't apply capitals to that statement. It is simply the schedule as established before the MRH90 failed to meet the MSH IOC. Things will probably have to change.
Ozymandias
Banned Member
Outfitted prior to leaving Ferrol.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes agree 100% that the scheduled December retirement was established by Defence a long time ago, well before the MRH90's problems.
But the statement from Defence about the December retirement is only a week old, and well after all the known problems and delays with the MRH90's.
So if things are going to "change" about a delayed retirement date, well then, Defence is running out of time to announce it, don't you think?
You're reading way to much into it. It wasn't a statement from defence it was a news story in which the last sentance to flesh it out mentions the planned date for withdrawal. If the Minister had stated "we will withdraw the Sea King in December 2011 no matter what happens" you would have an argument. But all that happened is a reporter added in some additional old information to flesh out the story and meet their word count requirement.
the entire uniform executive has changed in the last few weeks.
everything is subject to change.
eg there is no information in the public domain as to whether part of the conditions to proceed included a central agency directive to retain "x" longer while "y" is bought into service.
if sacred cow projects are under the gun, then prev decisions about fleet disposal certainly are in the same basket.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I take your point about reporters, but its not like I read this as an article in a daily newspaper.
Yes, I originally posted the link from the Navy site, but I did also see the announcement on the Defence.gov.au site and it was an announcement by Jason Clare, Minister for Defence Material, and I'm sure it was virtually the same statement, including the retirement date, I've gone back to archive on the Defence site, but the link appears to be broken!
Not going to argue with you, but that's what I believe I read. Anyway, time will tell.
- Status