NH-90 or MH-60R for the RAN

[donuteater]

Im just wondering about everyone elses view on the decision to purchase 24 Strikehawks for the Royal Australian Navy to fill the ASW role. The NH-90 can carry more cargo and can fall back to the logistics support role if needed. It is also a newer design but the MH-60R is a proven design, more payload, is more advanced and is smaller so it can operate better in the comfined space of a ship. The
MH-60R's were purchased to replace the S-70B-2 Seahawks which were bought when the Seasprite program was cancelled. We don't have enough Seahawks to operate from all of our ships (16), we need at least 24.

 

[Todjaeger]

Im just wondering about everyone elses view on the decision to purchase 24 Strikehawks for the Royal Australian Navy to fill the ASW role. The NH-90 can carry more cargo and can fall back to the logistics support role if needed. It is also a newer design but the MH-60R is a proven design, more payload, is more advanced and is smaller so it can operate better in the comfined space of a ship. The
MH-60R's were purchased to replace the S-70B-2 Seahawks which were bought when the Seasprite program was cancelled. We don't have enough Seahawks to operate from all of our ships (16), we need at least 24.

A few points, the MH-60R is a Seahawk, the name Strikehawk has been dropped from usage by the USN and Sikorsky. Additionally, the MH-60R does not just perform ASW, but also ASuW and limited MPA/AEW.

Basically the MH-60R is designed to perform the roles of both the RAN's S-70B2 Seahawks, as well as what had been the role intended for the SH-2G(A) Seasprites.

The principal differences which I am aware of is that the 'Romeo' has a significantly more advanced acoustic processor, as well as more capable sonobouys and a dipping sonar, which the RAN's current Seahaws lack.

For the ASuW side of things, the sea search radar is the Telephonics APS-147 radar instead of the APS-143 (IIRC), with the later radar also able to conduct at least limited tracking of aerial contacts as well as surface targets. The other is that the 'Romeo' can fire several Hellfire missiles, while the Seasprite was supposed to carry a larger Penguin AShM.

In terms of my thoughts on the 'Romeo' selection, I felt it was the only reasonable option for the RAN at present. Following the cancellation of the Seasprite programme without the naval helicopters ever actually entering RAN service, that left the RAN Fleet Air Arm with a little more than half the number of naval helicopters originally planned and expected in service. Given the utility of helicopters and where/how the RAN operates, 16 were insufficient, especially since they were pushing past two decades of service. As a result, the RAN needs a replacement for the current helicopters and needs it very soon. The NFH-90 has yet to reach IOC, and given some of the basic design and service issues that NH-90 users have encountered, as well as the potential for issues with system design and integration there was just too much risk in terms of both cost and time.

-Cheers

 

[the road runner]

Im just wondering about everyone elses view on the decision to purchase 24 Strikehawks for the Royal Australian Navy to fill the ASW role. The NH-90 can carry more cargo and can fall back to the logistics support role if needed. It is also a newer design but the MH-60R is a proven design, more payload, is more advanced and is smaller so it can operate better in the comfined space of a ship. The
MH-60R's were purchased to replace the S-70B-2 Seahawks which were bought when the Seasprite program was cancelled. We don't have enough Seahawks to operate from all of our ships (16), we need at least 24.

Think the Government made the right choice.i was reading an article last night about the Romeo and why we chose it.You will have to download the article from ASPI

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Then scroll down to page 6 and download the article called

"What goes around—choosing the RAN’s future combat helicopter by Andrew
Davies"

Our 16 S-70B-2 have very low hours on them,i know they will be re furbished and sold.Would the 16 re furbed S-70 be of interest to the RAN?Maybe a S-70 Romeo?

 

[Todjaeger]

Think the Government made the right choice.i was reading an article last night about the Romeo and why we chose it.You will have to download the article from ASPI

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Then scroll down to page 6 and download the article called

"What goes around—choosing the RAN’s future combat helicopter by Andrew
Davies"

Our 16 S-70B-2 have very low hours on them,i know they will be re furbished and sold.Would the 16 re furbed S-70 be of interest to the RAN?Maybe a S-70 Romeo?

Two items which the ASPI paper seems to either miss, or feels is of incorrect importance IMO.

This first is the relevance of helicopter-mounted AShM. It seemed to suggest that the NFH-90 had a capability advantage because it could mount larger AShM that the 'Romeo' since the 'Romeo' would be configured with blast/frag Hellfire AGM's. AFAIK the 'Romeo' could also be configured to carry and fire the Penguin AShM like was planned for the Seasprite, but in the end, such a capability was deemed of little use.

While helibourne AShM exist, at present their ranges are sharply limited. The Penguin for instance has a max range of ~40 km, which would put the launching helicopter well within the range of many current area air defence SAM systems found on warships currently. Yes the warhead of a Penguin could certainly damage a warship more than that of a Hellfire, but given the importance of the sensor footprint a naval helicopter can provide, I just do not foresee an NFH-90 or a 'Romeo' being armed with an AShM and sent out hunting for warships.

The second revolves around the LWT options. Yes, the RAN has/had opted for the MU-90 LWT for the Anzac, and I believe it also did so for the Hobart-class AWD. However, I think (could be mistaken here) that the RAN has also opted to adopt the Mk 54 LWT for the AWD's and future LWT needs. This is in part because the P-8 Poseidon MPA is expected to utilize the Mk 54, but also because upcoming systems are also expected to use the Mk 54 like a new variant of ASROC.

One thing work noting is the basic difference between the MU-90 and Mk 54 LWT's.
The MU-90 is an advanced LWT and a contemporary of the US Mk 50 LWT, with both designs having an advanced sensor system and complex battery & motor system to enable successful engagement vs. high speed submarines. The Mk 54 LWT in US service is most easily described a marriage between the sensors and electronics of the Mk 50 torpedoe while using the motor and power supply of the Mk 46.

The US has largely transitioned from the significantly more expensive Mk 50 to the Mk 54 because the expected need for a LWT to engage high speed submarines (like the Alpha-class SSN) have largely evaporated. In point of fact, the Mk 54 LWT was developed specifically because the USN no longer was felt to have an operational need for the sort of speeds the Mk 50 LWT is/was capable of, therefore there was no longer a justification for the cost per torpedoe yet the USN wished to still have LWT's with a more advanced guidance than was found on the Mk 46 LWT.

In terms of weapon capability, the Mk 54 and MU-90 are in the range with respect to sensors and guidance. It is in torpedoe speed where there is a real difference, with the MU-90 having a significant advantage. However, that speed advantage comes at a litteral higher cost.

Given that the USN has transitioned back to a slower LWT for considerable cost savings, and felt that the decision to do so was appropriate because the speed requirement had changed, it does suggest to me that the RAN and other navies are likely to drop the MU-90 LWT for other models which have a lower cost due to utilizing less expensive and more conventional propulsion systems.

-Cheers

 

[the road runner]

I got the impression the author was trying to show that Australia is better off buying a OTS helicopter that is proven and has an upgrade path shared with the US navy.I would think that an anti ship missile carried on a helicopter and placed in a dangerous position would not be in Navys interest.

I assume the Romeos can guide a ASM,such as harpoon onto an enemy ship.But cannot carry them.Is a ASM carried by a naval helicopter desired by the Navy?
As to penguin ,do we know what will happen to them?

Interesting read about the torpedo option Todjaeger ,could it be that the MU-90 dose not operate as well(or give an advantage) in shallow/Australian environments?

 

[Todjaeger]

Interesting read about the torpedo option Todjaeger ,could it be that the MU-90 dose not operate as well(or give an advantage) in shallow/Australian environments?

The impression I had gotten that the MU-90 LWT is a fair amount faster than a Mk 54 LWT, but given the decline of the Soviet SSN threat and the state of the RuN and SSN fleet, the speed an MU-90 of Mk 50 was no longer essential for a LWT and the range/speed performance of the Mk 46 was sufficient.

Given how expensive the propulsion system on the Mk 50 and MU-90 LWT's are, it would make sense if the speed and therefore propulsion system were no longer required, drop the LWT for something less expensive.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

The impression I had gotten that the MU-90 LWT is a fair amount faster than a Mk 54 LWT, but given the decline of the Soviet SSN threat and the state of the RuN and SSN fleet, the speed an MU-90 of Mk 50 was no longer essential for a LWT and the range/speed performance of the Mk 46 was sufficient.

Given how expensive the propulsion system on the Mk 50 and MU-90 LWT's are, it would make sense if the speed and therefore propulsion system were no longer required, drop the LWT for something less expensive.

-Cheers

The integration of the MU-90 onto our predominantly American sourced platforms has also proven extremely complex and expensive. So much so that the scope of the MU-90 program has been reduced to integration into the ANZAC Class only.

What will happen to them in the longer term is open to debate, but I suspect they have a bleak future. Is RAN going to spend their precious few dollars on maintaining both torpedo types on the same ships or would consolidation on a single type be the better investment?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This first is the relevance of helicopter-mounted AShM. It seemed to suggest that the NFH-90 had a capability advantage because it could mount larger AShM that the 'Romeo' since the 'Romeo' would be configured with blast/frag Hellfire AGM's. AFAIK the 'Romeo' could also be configured to carry and fire the Penguin AShM like was planned for the Seasprite, but in the end, such a capability was deemed of little use.

While helibourne AShM exist, at present their ranges are sharply limited. The Penguin for instance has a max range of ~40 km, which would put the launching helicopter well within the range of many current area air defence SAM systems found on warships currently. Yes the warhead of a Penguin could certainly damage a warship more than that of a Hellfire, but given the importance of the sensor footprint a naval helicopter can provide, I just do not foresee an NFH-90 or a 'Romeo' being armed with an AShM and sent out hunting for warships.

RAN naval aviation split the helicopter anti surface warfare (ASuW) mission into two range brackets in recent years. ASuW Close and ASuW Standoff. ASuW Close was a new addition and in recognition of the anti-swarm boats and the like mission evolving out of contemporary operations. The ideal weapon mix for ASuW Close being modified attack helicopter weapons like Hellfire, HMGs and light cannons.

ASuW Standoff is the helicopter anti ship mission that the Seasprite was purchased for. This used to be called maritime interdiction and includes destroying enemy small vessels: fast missile boats, coastal cargo traffic. And combat kills on larger warships. The ideal weapon for this was Pengiun because it provided the range to be used outside the range of air defences. Try hitting a helicopter at 200 feet altitude 20 NM away. In particular it provided the range to shoot into ports outside the range of land based air defences.

This is still very much a requirement of the RAN’s naval aviation arm but is on the backfoot due to the importance of getting a helo into service and providing ASuW Close for operations in the Persian Gulf.

 

[Wedgetail]

Im just wondering about everyone elses view on the decision to purchase 24 Strikehawks for the Royal Australian Navy to fill the ASW role. The NH-90 can carry more cargo and can fall back to the logistics support role if needed. It is also a newer design but the MH-60R is a proven design, more payload, is more advanced and is smaller so it can operate better in the comfined space of a ship. The
MH-60R's were purchased to replace the S-70B-2 Seahawks which were bought when the Seasprite program was cancelled. We don't have enough Seahawks to operate from all of our ships (16), we need at least 24.

I think the Seasprite debacle left a severely bad taste in the RAN's mouth and any potential risk (as with the NH90) was a hinge factor. Besides, the cost and potential for problems of adapting vessels to accomodate the NH90 were significant. The arrival of the Romeo will be greeted with a huge sigh of relief from the navy.

 

[CAGSATCO]

Why wouldn't we gut the S-70B's and convert them into a utility naval chopper. Ideal for SAR, deployment on non-combat ships, training, add a few as utility cabs on the LPD's as taxis. Keep the MRH90 [g]dog] for heavier work and Army co-op etc and Romeos for primary combat roles.

Cheap solution. Will their "warships" want a cheap logical solution?

RAN naval aviation split the helicopter anti surface warfare (ASuW) mission into two range brackets in recent years. ASuW Close and ASuW Standoff. ASuW Close was a new addition and in recognition of the anti-swarm boats and the like mission evolving out of contemporary operations. The ideal weapon mix for ASuW Close being modified attack helicopter weapons like Hellfire, HMGs and light cannons.

ASuW Standoff is the helicopter anti ship mission that the Seasprite was purchased for. This used to be called maritime interdiction and includes destroying enemy small vessels: fast missile boats, coastal cargo traffic. And combat kills on larger warships. The ideal weapon for this was Pengiun because it provided the range to be used outside the range of air defences. Try hitting a helicopter at 200 feet altitude 20 NM away. In particular it provided the range to shoot into ports outside the range of land based air defences.

This is still very much a requirement of the RAN’s naval aviation arm but is on the backfoot due to the importance of getting a helo into service and providing ASuW Close for operations in the Persian Gulf.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why wouldn't we gut the S-70B's and convert them into a utility naval chopper. Ideal for SAR, deployment on non-combat ships, training, add a few as utility cabs on the LPD's as taxis. Keep the MRH90 [g]dog] for heavier work and Army co-op etc and Romeos for primary combat roles.

Cheap solution. Will their "warships" want a cheap logical solution?

I guess the Navy wants a new helicopter because it has zero hours on the clock. Though 16 Seahawk Bravos sans Observer, sonobuoys and acoustic processer would certainly provide a lot more maritime support than 6 MRH90s. You could keep the radar and have an all weather helicopter with a useful sea search capability. You could give the Seahawk Bravo a cockpit upgrade and they could do all the pilot conversion work as well. The MRH90s could just go to back to the Army as there isn’t much Navy stuff that is too big for an S-70. This idea worked well with the Wessexes, except those that crashed in the 80s.

 

[CAGSATCO]

The "gutted" S-70B's would wind up like the Wessex and Sea Kings after the wind down of their primary roles. Everything is in place including a sim etc. They would be a bit of a hybrid MH-60S Knighthawk....Cheap as we already own them.

 

[Tasman]

The "gutted" S-70B's would wind up like the Wessex and Sea Kings after the wind down of their primary roles. Everything is in place including a sim etc. They would be a bit of a hybrid MH-60S Knighthawk....Cheap as we already own them.

The idea certainly has merit providing the S-70Bs are not too stuffed as a result of their incredibly high workload,

Tas

 

[Volkodav]

The idea certainly has merit providing the S-70Bs are not too stuffed as a result of their incredibly high workload,

Tas

It would be interesting, assuming they have sufficient structural life remaining, whether they could have Penguin integrated for a reasonable cost.

 

[CAGSATCO]

The Brazilian Navy operate the Penguin missile on their S-70B's why can't we?

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace signs a contract with the Brazilian navy for an unspecified number of Penguin Mk 2 MOD 7 anti-ship missiles and associated equipment, valued at about NOK 140 million/ $20 million. The Navy’s official notice refers to the Marinha do Brazil’s new S-70B Seahawks as the designated platform. Kongsberg release | Brazilian government [PDF, Portuguese].

The Penguin Mark 2 Mod 7 is a relatively small anti-ship missile with a very distinctive profile. Its boost-sustain solid fuel rocket motor gives the 120 kg/ 260 pound sub-sonic missile a maximum range of 34 km/ 21 miles, using inertial navigation and a passive infrared seeker for no-warning guidance. It can take an oblique path to the target, turning up to 180 degrees around a waypoint. It can also can perform random weaves before striking the target at the waterline, or executing a pop up and dive attack. The Penguin Mark 2 Mod 7 is operational on helicopters of the Norwegian, US (AGM-119B), Australian, Greek, Turkish, and South Korean navies, and is also qualified for use on Brazil’s “AH-11” Super Lynx helicopters.

 

[ADMk2]

The "gutted" S-70B's would wind up like the Wessex and Sea Kings after the wind down of their primary roles. Everything is in place including a sim etc. They would be a bit of a hybrid MH-60S Knighthawk....Cheap as we already own them.

AS long as we could zero-life and modify them locally, such an idea might actually get a leg up. If they needed work overseas, forget it. "We'll go with an off the shelf helicopter that's far more expensive thanks..."

As to Penguin, ADF looked at the idea when SeaSprite was cancelled andwe had an existing inventory of Penguin missiles.

It was decided that the cost to integrate them onto the Seahawk would be too much for the remaining time we had the Seahawks for.

Sounds like they just didn't get the cash to me... Last I heard we were going to sell the Penguin missiles to Greece for them to operate off their Seahawks...