Not all RAN helos are or need to be at the capability level of an MH-60R...
Also the existing MH-60R numbers are designed to support operational taskings for the present fleet. Future requirements are likely to be quite different, IMHO...
I know AD,
You seemed to have missed the gist of what I was posting about. That was in order for the RAN to have a capability of 8 operational MH-60R Seahawks for the fleet, 24 had to be ordered to ensure sufficient numbers available for service. IMO it would be great if the RAN had 60 MH-60R's, assuming of course that the funding was there to maintain and operate them, and that such costs did not come at the expensive of other ADF capabilities. I do not see that happening though.
I don't understand why standflex is so highly thought of in here being quite small, old and odd for ships of considerably smaller size for systems that are decades older. I would imagine you would get much better capability/value out of having something able to take LCS mission packages. While we may not want or need the LCS packages, I would imagine having something that would at least be size compatible with the LCS packages would be a lot more useful than stanflex.
It’s All Package: Littoral Combat Ship’s Mission Modules
MCM/MIW/ASW packages would most likely be of interest. As per the LCS concepts weapons would actually be located on helicopters more than the ships themselves. 20' containers would also be useful for HADR, army support etc. Hangers while compatible with helicopters are more likely to see use with UAV's and as storage.
I readily admit, I have a number of issues regarding LCS mission modules at present. I will get into that later on in my response.
From my POV, I am not quite sure that calling Stanflex modules "small" is really accurate. They can certainly be carried and operated aboard small/compact vessels like the ~450 ton
Flyvefisken-class PCFG and the larger ~2,000 ton
Knud Rassmussen-class OPV. However, one of the available Stanflex modules is an OTO Melara 76 mm/62 cal Super Rapid gun, complete with a munitions carousel. Another Stanflex module carries a pair of Mk 141 quad Harpoon AShM cannisters. Again, not exactly something I would consider "small". Compact I think might be a better descriptor for them, which can be beneficial aboard vessels were space might be at a premium. Especially if the modules are comparatively easy to swap out. Even if not done so that vessels can be re-roled, the ability to swap specific guns or launchers in/out so that the weapons can undergo maintenance or upgrades which are completely independent of the vessel IMO has merit.
Take one of the RAN's
ANZAC-class FFH's with their Mk 45 Mod 2 127 mm/54 cal. gun. If the decision was made to upgrade the FFH guns to the improved Mk 45 Mod 4, which would require changing to the long 62 cal. barrel, as well as some changes to the FCS given the improved performance available with the longer barrel, then the frigate would essentially be out of service until the upgrades were completed, including any requisite testing. Now granted, I doubt a 127 mm gun could be made 'modular' given their ~21 ton weight. However the Mk 75 Mod 0 76 mm/62 cal. Compact gun aboard the FFG would fit in a Stanflex container. In a case like this, if the decision were made to upgrade those guns from the Compact to the Super Rapid version, instead of an FFG being out of service while the gun is upgraded, if they were using modules instead, an in-service module could be inserted, and the one about to commence the upgrade removed.
From my POV, an advantage Stanflex has, is that modules exist and are in active service, and have been for some time. There is minimal developmental risk for the system itself, the only potential risks I see would relate to either developing modules for new and emerging weapons and systems, and/or incorporating the Stanflex architecture into the vessels and systems the RAN like using. Then again, such systems integration happen any time a new design is selected. As it is, examples of modules for several different naval roles already exist.
Some of the issues I have with the LCS mission modules, is that at present they seem to be largely aspirational, and at this point are essentially adapting systems and weapons already in service with the USN into ISO container modules, because the new systems being specifically developed for the mission modules were deemed either failures, or too expensive to overcome the developmental costs to deliver working mission modules. The ASuW mission module is a very good example of this. Instead of getting Netfires with an ~24 mile range, or even the AGM-176 Griffin with ~5 mile range, due to prior difficulties, the mission module is now being developed using a version of the AGM-114L Hellfire, which should provide ~3.5 mile range. About the same, even perhaps a little bit shorter than then effective range of the Mk 110 57 mm gun aboard an LCS. Well short of various available AShM like Sea Skua, never mind some of the larger and/or new AShM like Harpoon, or NSM. The impression I have gotten with why some of mission modules are being developed, is to provide the LCS with more firepower and capability than they currently have available, and that the desired systems and capabilities are still deemed a bridge too far to reach at present. The USN is going with what it think it can get, now, vs. waiting and risking continued development which might very well never deliver.
I do wonder just how much of the overall modular system architecture had/has been set, as that could easily be one of the stumbling blocks, if each new module requires designing new interfaces between the vessel, module, and weapon/sensor system. An area I believe that the Stanflex system had already largely covered, with the only requirements being designing new interfaces between weapons and modules, if/when new weapon modules get designed.
I also do wonder why the US chose to attempt to develop their own modular system, instead of incorporating at least some of what the Danes had already developed and tested. Lastly, I have to wonder just how much the LCS and modular mission systems were the idea/brainchild of USN service members, and how much was dictated to the USN by civilian decision-makers in the Pentagon, and other named buildings in D.C.
