That's true, Guess we shouldn't do as New Zealand did in ww2 and make a corrugated iron body on a tractor chassis and call it a tank :hehe (Bob Semple tank)the over arching issue for any platform is its conops
bolting a first aid kit and a camping tent onto a prawn trawler doesn't make it a hospital ship
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
We actually did have a helicopter suitable for an decent sized OPV for which we were to get an OPV back in the 90's which was why the SH-2G Seasprite was bought, but we all know the end result of that little caper.
http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf
They are being replaced with the MH60R which are being acquired now. IIRC the first one is already in the country.
Thanks.
My understanding is the 24 MH-60R is sufficient to have 8 simultaneously deployed on DDGs/FFGs.
It does not seem like 6 MRH90 is enough for the two LHDs unless they will be primarily hosting Army helos
Normally the LHDs will embark only a single Navy MRH90. The rest of the embarked helicopters will come from the Army.
t68
Well-Known Member
I guess depending on maintenance cycles of the Romeo we could surge the airframes(6-9) out on the LHD to make a potent ASW carrier, cant see 8 ASW/AWD out at once for long periods of time.
INTERFET being the expectation with 6x 1st line ships available from 19 September 1999 and 23 February 2000
t68
Well-Known Member
if you want it armed id guess AS565 Panther or AW159 Wildcat would fit the bill
I was going to bring up the Belknap but you beat me to it.
:The Belknap was an extreme, first thousands of gallons of jet fuel rained down on it from the JFK after they collided then an overly large 76mm ready service magazine blew during the fire. I doubt a ship with a steel super structure would of faired much better.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Again, the answer to the question is entirely dependent on the conops.
If the patrol asset will potentially be deployed to threatened areas of operations, and have to contend with FAC swarms and/or land-based threats (think shore-based artillery and mortars firing into littoral waters) then additional MH-60R 'Romeos' would IMO be the way to go. Extra examples of the same helicopter would reduce the time needed for their entry into service since the FAA would already have support and training systems in place.
OTOH if future patrol assets are only expected to operate in benign environments, with an embarked helicopter to extend the 'eyes' of the vessel, conduct boarding and SAR ops, logistics, etc. then a more basic helicopter might be suitable.
IMO any/all future RAN vessels that are ocean-going should at least be fitted with a helipad large enough to land a medium-lift helicopter, and have a hangar sized for at least the MRH90. Not so much because I feel or even think the RAN will operate the MRH90 or NFH90 from every/any/all ocean-going vessels, but because adding that in during the design phase allows for more options in the future.
King Wally
Active Member
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, but my worry is the Conops is being dictated by government expenditure rather than by what the ADF really needs?
Who is the primary driver for establishing Conops government or ADF?
Our future PB or OCV should have the ability to act independently, or it contribute to a broader effort of other Australian or international civilian agencies or military forces, we have an uncertainty of the future operating environment of the future PB/OCV, but as you said that comes down to conops
That could also be conducted using Customs and boarder protection assets, in my view it was short sited to not equip Boarder force with the capability as an extension to RAN when needed in a similar fashion to the USCG
Agreed, just because the PB/OCV has the ability to incorporate a helicopter does not mean it has to have it 24/7 and having its own additional expense in another airframe type it should be easily able to accept a MRH, ARH or Romeo
I imagine they would be handy aboard the LHD's though as issues are sorted out with the MRH-90's they also could make a viable candidate. Ignoring which would be better as other's more knowledgeable on here will be able to give better insight on the costs front the MH-60R and MH-60S cost $42.9 and $28.1 million FY2012 respectively. The NFH-90 Support (What I can gather is closest to the MH-60S in role) cost FY2013 $50 million.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
But then you are introducing yet another helicopter type into ADF service, yes there is a degree of commonality of certain systems between the S and the R, but still it would be another type to manage and maintain.
With the 24 MH-60R's (I believe that around half have now arrived in country), the plan to have eight (8) always available (and a surge capability when required too), is going to be more than sufficient to equip the AWD's and Frigates.
With only 11 AWD's / Frigates for the foreseeable future, yes if a 9th Future Frigate is built it's still a maximum of 12 hulls, there probably wouldn't be anymore than 2/3rds of that fleet operationally deployed at any one time, (say around 7, 8 max), then it would appear there are sufficient MH-60R's.
As for the utility role covered by the Navy's 6 MRH-90, well maybe that might be cutting it close to the bone a bit. In the not too distant future when the two replacement AOR's enter service, I could imagine that they could end up being deployed with one each, and of course Choules, so that makes three (3) and possibly one each in a utility role on the LHD's.
So maybe there is a justification for a couple more MRH-90's to be available for Navy use, that could be achieved a couple of ways, reduce Army MRH-90 numbers by a couple of airframes or order another couple.
As for the OPV's, well as others have stated, it will depend on what the extent of their role is, obviously until the DWP and DCP we won't know for sure, but I'd imagine that it will still be at the lower end of the capability spectrum, and I can't imagine that they would have a helicopter regularly deployed.
Now that's not to say they shouldn't have an aviation capability that was capable of accepting an MRH-90 size helicopter (such as the various Damen designs), but there is far more likelihood that those ships would probably be regularly operating a UAV capability.
If there was a requirement for a smaller utility airframe (for both Army and Navy), then maybe a follow on order of a number of additional EC-135's would appear sensible to me, increasing the fleet size of an existing type would seem a far more practical solution.
Anyway, just my opinion!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Gov't expenditure at the very least heavily influencing conops, if not outright dictating it would be different from normal, how?
From my POV Gov't sets the overall strategy and policy, with the ADF working to determine what assets (current and future) are needed to meet the strategic and policy goals set by Gov't.
If the current and/or future assets already in the pipeline are believed to be insufficient to meet the objectives set by Gov't, the ADF can of course go to Gov't and request changes either in strategy, policy, or resources. However, Gov't is in charge, able to change, modify, or override basically anything the ADF comes up with or determines.
I would not expect Gov't to change things for specific pieces of kit, but could very well feel that the ADF needs more of one type of kit, vs. another. As has also been determined, repeatedly, that the various Gov'ts of the day will oft make acquisition decisions based upon what is good for the Gov't and it's members, vs. what the ADF feels is best/good for it.
And the army wants to retain some black-hawks for the SAS. So we are going to have 2 systems: the NH-90 family and the S-70/SH-60R family co-exist (on board the LHD) for quite a while.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Talking of the cost of the AEGIS system, just saw this yesterday.
The US DSCA has just approved two (2): AEGIS Combat System (ACS), Underwater Weapon System (UWS), and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) for Japan. Total cost of the package is estimated at US$1.5 Billion (or at the current exchange rate A$2.05 Billion):
Japan – DDG (guided missile destroyer) 7 and 8 AEGIS Combat System (ACS), Underwater Weapon System (UWS), and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
The US$1.5B (A$2.05B) package price includes:
-Two (2) AEGIS Weapon Systems (AWS) MK 7
-One (1) J7 AWS Computer Program
-Two (2) ship sets Multi-Mission Signal Processor (MMSP)
-Two (2) ship sets AN/MK8 MOD4 AEGIS Common Display System (CDS)
-Two (2) ship sets AN/SPQ-15 Digital Video Distribution System and Common Processor System (CPS)
-Two (2) ship sets AWS Computing Infrastructure MK 1 MOD4
-Two (2) ship sets Operational Readiness Test System (ORTS) hosted in AWS computing infrastructure
-Two (2) MK 99 MOD 8 Fire Control Systems
-Two (2) ship sets AN/SPG-62A Radar, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) including Mission Planner blade server processors hosted in the CPS
-Two (2) Kill Assessment System/Weapon Data Recording Cabinets (KAS/WDRC)
-Two (2) ship sets Mode 5/S capable Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) System
-Two (2) ship sets MK 36 MOD 6 Decoy Launching System
-Two (2) ship sets AN/SQQ-89A (V) 15 Underwater Surveillance and Communication System
-Two (2) Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Navigation systems with OE-553/U antenna
-Two (2) ship sets AN/SSN-6F (V) 4 Navigation Sensor System Interface (NAVSSI)
-Two (2) ship sets WSN-7(V) Inertial Navigation System (INS)
-Two (2) ship sets AN/URC-141(V) 3(C) Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) Radio Set
-Two (2) ship sets AN/UYQ-86(V) 6 Common Data Link Management System (CDLMS)
-Two (2) ship sets AN/SQQ-89A (v) 15J UWS
-Two (2) ship sets Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplex System (GEDMS)
-Two (2) ship sets Maintenance Assist Modules (MAMs) cabinets for Fire Control and Combat Systems equipment
-Two (2) ship sets Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA) and associated
OK-410(V)3/SQR handling equipment
-Two (2) ship sets of Vertical Launching System (VLS)
-MK41 components for Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) launcher to support BMD missions employing the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3)
-Two (2) ship sets Launch Control Units (LCU) MK 235 Mod 9 with Vertical Launching System (VLS) Global Positioning System (GPS) Integrator (VGI)
-VLS launcher components including twenty-four (24) MK 448 Mod 1 Motor Control Panel
-Four (4) Programmable Power Supplies MK179 Mod 0
-Twenty-four (24) Launch Sequencers MK 5 Mod 1
-Four (4) Fiber Optic Distribution Boxes (FODB)
-Twenty-four (24) Single Module Junction Boxes
-Two (2) ship sets Gun Weapon System MK 34
-Two (2) ship sets MK 20 Electro-Optical Sensor System (EOSS)
-Two (2) ship sets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
-Two (2) ship sets Global Command and Control System-Maritime (GCCS-M)
-Two (2) ship sets AN/SPQ-9B Radar
-Two (2) ship sets Enhanced AEGIS Combat Systems Trainer (ACTS) with communication suite
-Two (2) ship sets technical documentation
So if Australia was going to build a couple more AEGIS capable ships (based on a modified Atago-class, as Japan is planning) for example, well there's a bit over A$2 Billion to be spent if we went down an identical path, and that's 'apart' from the actual construction cost of the ships themselves!!!
John Newman
The Bunker Group
And?
But how does that justify adding yet another type, eg, MH-60S, to the ADF inventory as well? That just doesn't make sense.
If, and I repeat 'if', there was a need for an increase in the size of the RAN's utility lift capability, wouldn't it be far more simpler and cost effective too, to add a couple more airframes of the 'same' type as is already in use, eg MRH-90?
That's the logical approach. I am totally agree with you about that. In fact, I am also against buying SH-60S as medium utility chopper.
What I mean is that, as the navy will stick on the SH-60 family anyway (SH-60R), "if" our army really don't want to switch to NH-90 for the SAS, buying some black hawk (either SH-60S/MH-60) for the army may not totally impossible.
Question..
1. How big are the differences between the MH-60R and MH-60S?
2. How big are the differences between the NFH (NH-90) and TTH?
3. Is the TTH adequate in naval operations? (Im talking about deployed aboard a ship for a full deployment) or would a navalized variant be more suitable?
4. If a navalized variant is more suitable then a general purpose helicopter then is the MH-60S or NFH better?
1. How big are the differences between the MH-60R and MH-60S?
2. How big are the differences between the NFH (NH-90) and TTH?
3. Is the TTH adequate in naval operations? (Im talking about deployed aboard a ship for a full deployment) or would a navalized variant be more suitable?
4. If a navalized variant is more suitable then a general purpose helicopter then is the MH-60S or NFH better?
- Status