Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

With introduction of the MH-60 into the Navy, will the Navy MRH90 be transferred to the Army or will they stay with Navy?

I would expect the RAN MRH-90's to stay within the FAA, as they were to replace the Sea King's in a utility/medium lift role.

Unless of course the MRH-90 programme ends up crashing and burning of course...

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

I would expect the RAN MRH-90's to stay within the FAA, as they were to replace the Sea King's in a utility/medium lift role.

Unless of course the MRH-90 programme ends up crashing and burning of course...

-Cheers

The RAN doesn't seem to be having a very good time with helos lately has it.

 

[aussienscale]

The RAN doesn't seem to be having a very good time with helos lately has it.

Why is that ?

 

[recce.k1]

Because most Western politicians somehow "know" more about Defence (and procurement) than the experts?

 

[gf0012-aust]

You've thrown the cat among the pigeons GF! Can you provide a bit of clarification? Are you talking routine maintenance, the upgrades mentioned earlier or something major?


Tas

it's always routine maint

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps there is some confusion here. In RFA service she would have required an annual hull survey, which would often have been carried out in drydock. Are the RAN following the same survey regime?

For 'commercial' certification (call it what you may if commercial is an anathma to you) inspection of the ships bottom is part of the intermediate cycle not the annual. I would not know if RFA would dry the thing out every twelve montsh when it is not required........ certainly docking is not cheap.

Survey cycles are in chapter I of SOLAS.

 

[Anixtu]

For 'commercial' certification (call it what you may if commercial is an anathma to you) inspection of the ships bottom is part of the intermediate cycle not the annual.

Annual requirement for passenger ships. MSN 1751 refers.

An in-water survey would of course be an option, but the preference is usually for drydocking if in UK, possibly IWS if overseas.

 

[Todjaeger]

The RAN doesn't seem to be having a very good time with helos lately has it.

Actually I would say the ADF has not been having a good time with helicopters of late.

The Seasprite having been cancelled after not receiving certification, though that was at least in part due to changes to Australian flight certification rules. IIRC the change was that ADF helicopters had to follow US Federal Aviation Administration reqs for civil aviation flight control systems. Since the SH-2G(A) Seasprite was using a digital primary flight control system, it was suddenly required to have a backup digital flight control system as well, instead of the manual flight control system it already had. Of course that could have been developed, but would have pushed the programme back a futher 18 - 36 months when it was already ~ten years late.

Then there are the issues with the MRH-90's which are impacting both the RAN and Army. The issues here appear IMO to be related to design and manufacturing process flaws which need to be worked out. Issues like the engine fires which had caused a fleet grounding, or cracks in the flooring, or the size/weight limitation for the passenger seating. That last one honestly gets me, as that is the sort of design oversight/error which tells me that the designers decided what the end-users requirements were, instead of asking or listening to the end-users.

Lastly there are the issues with the Tiger ARH where it is/has been late, over budget and the cost/capabilities promised have been off.

My impression is that of the three recent 'problem' helicopter programmes, at least two are due to Gov't involvement, where the services wanted one platform, but Gov't chose another. The Seasprite debacle appears to be at least partially service related, attempting to pack so much capability into such a small and dated design, from a small manufacturer. OTOH part of that could also be Gov't related if it was Gov't that changed some of the certification requirements, and thereby forcing some of the redesign and certification work.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Then there are the issues with the MRH-90's which are impacting both the RAN and Army. The issues here appear IMO to be related to design and manufacturing process flaws which need to be worked out. Issues like the engine fires which had caused a fleet grounding, or cracks in the flooring, or the size/weight limitation for the passenger seating. That last one honestly gets me, as that is the sort of design oversight/error which tells me that the designers decided what the end-users requirements were, instead of asking or listening to the end-users.

Staggering that a helicopter advertised and sold as a troop carrier for battlefield operations has those problems with the floor strength and the weight limitations for soldiers and their equipment... If only the Army had gotten its way and been allowed to order new Blackhawks...


Tas

 

[alexsa]

Annual requirement for passenger ships. MSN 1751 refers.

An in-water survey would of course be an option, but the preference is usually for drydocking if in UK, possibly IWS if overseas.

Ho hum............... Yes it allows in water surveys and sticks to the maximum of 36 months where you must carry out the out of water inspection. The effect is is tis one during the intermediate survey and very few PAX vessel will dock every year due to cost and lost income. As I said I have no ide what the RFA may coose to do, or if thye dock the ship every, but the in water survey is not required. From your own reference.

As a minimum, two of these surveys in any five year period, at intervals not exceeding 36 months, shall be conducted with the ship out of the water.

It is no surprize the Australia, MI, Bahamas etc etc all say the same.
​

​

​

​

​

Finally, last time I looked the ship was not certified as a passenger ship in Australian military service so I doubt we would be following a 12 month docking cycle to maintain the RFA cycle if it is indeed 12 monthly.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Staggering that a helicopter advertised and sold as a troop carrier for battlefield operations has those problems with the floor strength and the weight limitations for soldiers and their equipment... If only the Army had gotten its way and been allowed to order new Blackhawks...

The floor issue is not a real problem. It was something that came up on one of the prototypes that had not been built with a production standard floor and then the Germans trooped grunts in and out of it.

The problem with the MRH 90 is it is still developmental so has all sorts of little things that need fixing. The same issue with the ARH Tiger. Rather than buy a helo that was in operational squadron service (AH-64D, UH-60M) we brought something that was on the cusp of being operational. But as it turns out the cusp is a long way from actually there.

The same problem with Wedgetail. Only six months was provided in the original schedule for test and evaluation for a system that was not in service. Which required 2-3 years for T&E and subsequent fixes. Six months T&E would have been fine for Phalcon and Hawkeye but not the Boeing 737 and Northop MESA.

Now the Navy has no fleet service support helicopter and the Seahawk force is being required to form ANOTHER flight. The good news but is the Navy doesn't have the ships at sea that would usually have Sea King/MRH 90 flights embarked (Success, Kanimbla, Manoora, Tobruk).

 

[ASSAIL]

.

The good news but is the Navy doesn't have the ships at sea that would usually have Sea King/MRH 90 flights embarked (Success, Kanimbla, Manoora, Tobruk).

[/QUOTE]

Tobruk has been deployed here in the north for the past week or so but I haven't seen helos of any description embarked

 

[AMTP10E]

Odd, I thought Tobruk was doing first of class flight trials for the MRH-90.

 

[ASSAIL]

Odd, I thought Tobruk was doing first of class flight trials for the MRH-90.

Sailed right past her in Darwin Harbour last week!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Tobruk has been deployed here in the north for the past week or so but I haven't seen helos of any description embarked

Tobruk may be last man standing but her demand for maritime support helicopter (MSH) flights in the past year (2011) has been much lower than normal... Reducing the burden on the RAN for not having an in service replacement for the MSH capability. As to her apparant lack of a helicopter they rarely stay on board when the ship comes in to berth.

 

[John Newman]

For those interested, an updated pic of Adelaide, she seems to be coming along nicely, not sure what the sched is, but would guess she is ahead on the build as was Canberra.

fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 03 HMAS Adelaide

There are also a couple of Canberra if you go back on the menu, nothing too exciting though

Aussienscale,

Just went back to have look again at the link you put up a few days ago about Adelaide.

You also mentioned that there were some later pic of Canberra, nothing too exciting as you said.

But on the last page (page 5), bottom two shots, in the forground is the latest Spanish F100, Cristobal Colon (F105), see the link below:

fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 02 HMAS Canberra

From what I understand the 3 AWD's are based on her design, which was modifed from the first four F100's.

You can see the "sqared off" funnel behind the bridge superstructure and also the relocation of the "dome" from the small platform jutting out between the SPY panels, to a higher position.

So as you said, nothing too exciting about Canberra, but a closer look at what the AWD's will eventually look like.

 

[aussienscale]

Aussienscale,

Just went back to have look again at the link you put up a few days ago about Adelaide.

You also mentioned that there were some later pic of Canberra, nothing too exciting as you said.

But on the last page (page 5), bottom two shots, in the forground is the latest Spanish F100, Cristobal Colon (F105), see the link below:

fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 02 HMAS Canberra

From what I understand the 3 AWD's are based on her design, which was modifed from the first four F100's.

You can see the "sqared off" funnel behind the bridge superstructure and also the relocation of the "dome" from the small platform jutting out between the SPY panels, to a higher position.

So as you said, nothing too exciting about Canberra, but a closer look at what the AWD's will eventually look like.

If you go to the home page of fotosdebarcos you will find the section for the Spanish Armada and hundreds of pics of the F100's from keel laying all the way through to operational pics
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Índice

 

[John Newman]

If you go to the home page of fotosdebarcos you will find the section for the Spanish Armada and hundreds of pics of the F100's from keel laying all the way through to operational pics
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Índice

Thanks for that,

Actually just after I sent that last post I did have a good look through the fotosdebarcos site, pretty good collection of photos.

I have seen quiet a number of F100 photos before, but I hadn't seen as "complete" a shot of F105, had of course seen early shots of her side by side with Canberra on the building slips.

It was just interesting to see F105 in her final stages of fitting out with Canberra in the background and the external differences between her and the earlier F100's.

Anyway, it will be a sight to look forward to in a few years when Canberra and Hobart are together at FBE!

 

[Anixtu]

but the in water survey is not required.

???

Bottom line: SOLAS requires that passenger ships have an annual bottom inspection. On certain occasions this must be done in drydock, on others it may be done in water.

The detail of what you've written is so confused and contradictory I'm just going to leave it alone.

 

[alexsa]

???

Bottom line: SOLAS requires that passenger ships have an annual bottom inspection. On certain occasions this must be done in drydock, on others it may be done in water.

The detail of what you've written is so confused and contradictory I'm just going to leave it alone.

Sorry since you are struggling with this let me be clear my comments need to be read in respect of your origina asertions

Perhaps there is some confusion here. In RFA service she would have required an annual hull survey, which would often have been carried out in drydock. Are the RAN following the same survey regime?

Often yes, but as we both agree not always as in waters are permitted and normally at the same time as the intermediate.

you comment has rile me as it is both patronising............... the dumb fools are confused and are following the PAX survey......... and is not strictly correct given the ships current certification (military).

To put the ridiculous discussion in context my response is to your initial asertion that the ship could have been docked to maintain survey cycle....... (and there is some confustion), however:
1. The bottom survey is not required to be conducted out of water every 12 months as we both agree, .......... AND
2. The maximum period for PAX and Cargo certifed is 36 months. for most PAX ships (irrespecitive of waht the RFA may do) this is done with what would be an intermediate on a cargo ship ............. and here is the biggy.
3. The ship is NOT PAX certifed so docking is only required in line with cargo ship certification...................... i.e INTERMEDIATE in any case if they harmonise with SOLAS Chapter I......... in other words my original response.

This has been a pointless nit picking arguement. You appear to be RFA but I suggest
- this ship is not currently under RFA certification,
- there may not be any confusion as you so patronisling suggest; and
- the docking id to carry out other work the new owners may deem necessary which has nothing to do with the docking cycle.

I'm just going to leave it alone.

Feel free to do so.

.