Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
there's no one for one replacement
assets get shared as needed
just because the LHD can embark x number of helos doesn't mean that all of a sudden she gets a complement of helos in addition to extant fleet ORBAT
(remember that they are a joint asset..... so gear comes from everywhere relevant and available for the mission)
Last edited:
Nick underscore
Member
Just curious, I thought we got +1 MRH-90, as compensation (essentially x7 outside the AA sqdn 'pool')? Wonder if this is airframe is operational or did we use this as a supply parts/ attrition platform?
Agreed with keeping number of types down.
EDIT; Back in 2013, due to the obvious delays by EADS.. - Australia Will Receive One Extra MRH90 Free As Compensation
I'll answer the NFH / NH90 questions. The MRH is basically a marinised NH90 TTH with some Aussie specific items. The NFH is the NATO Frigate Helicopter which is the NHI "equivalent" of the MH60R. In a utility role, IF it is determined that extra helos are required for the role, AND it is determined that the current pool of 46 is not enough to cover all required roles, then it would make practical sense to order another tranche of the MRH. That way you are not introducing a new type into service, so that has taken care of your Q4.
However this is all really moot because there are far too many unknowns in the public domain at present for any of us to really have any informed discussion on what may or may not happen.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
As I understood it at the time it was announced, the '47th' airframe that was provided as compensation is not actually a 'flying' example, it's basically a ground based trainer, if someone else has any info to the contrary, let me know.
Sort of like the 'Bromeo' example that the RAN has obtained as a ground and instructional trainer for the 24 'active' MH-60R's.
As best I know, there are (or will be), 46 'active' MRH-90 examples, nominally 6 for Navy and 40 for Army out of the combined pool of airframes.
Nick underscore
Member
Cheers John. I just checked ADF serials and you could be right.
That's not compensation IMV, tight buggers!
the road runner
Active Member
The MH-60R and MH-60S have common cockpits and engines.
Gift the MRH-90 helicopters that the Navy owns to the ARMY and buy some Sierra's for the navy i say
Gift the MRH-90 helicopters that the Navy owns to the ARMY and buy some Sierra's for the navy i say
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Question? - Answer, as has been said by many people here on DT over the years "Google is your friend, use it" Do a bit or research and you can find a lot of answers to many questions, not always 100% accurate, but if you look at enough web articles, you can generally get the picture, ok?
Anyway .....
1. The main difference between the R and the S, is that the S uses the airframe of the land based UH-60L, but has the engines, transmission, folding blades, etc of the naval Seahawk version (they also share the same 'common' glass cockpit, basically it is a 'hybrid' version, using components from the 'parts' bin of both land and sea based examples, see below:
MH-60S Knighthawk (Seahawk) Multimission Naval Helicopter - Naval Technology
2. I think NG covered most of that, but basically you could look at a TTH as being the equivalent of a Blackhawk and the NFH as being the equivalent of a Seahawk.
3. Again I think NG covered that, but in Australian terms the MRH-90's all come out of the same 'pool' of airframes, Army or Navy, so far I haven't seen any reports that Navy is having any problems with their MRH-90's operating in the marine environment, again as I understand it, the big different between Army and Navy airframes is that Navy airframes are fitted with 'flotation' devices (have a look at a photo of a Navy airframe and you can see the flotation devices in the four corners of the airframe), I'd assume that when the Army MRH-90's get to operate off the LHD's they may also be fitted with flotation kits too.
4. Well that's a very open question, isn't? and I wouldn't know the answer other than to say the Navy appears from all the recent reports to be happy with the performance of the MRH-90's.
I wasn't aware that our bird's were marinised, Thanks for clearing that up for me. That being the case then it would make more sense to order a larger fleet of MRH-90's as they could fill the naval requirements (if needed) and cost saving's would be greater in operating a larger fleet of MRH-90's then two medium fleets of three differing variants..
In regards to the number's, To me does seem to be our fleet of choppers is shrinking when the roles that are being used for is increasing seeing as we are having 47 MRH-90's replace 12 UH-1's, 8? Westland Sea Kings and 35 Black Hawks..
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I'm not 100% sure (put it this way, I wouldn't bet my left nut!), but from memory at the time when it announced that we were getting that 47th airframe, I'm sure it was reported that it was to be a 'ground/instructional' airframe, not an active airframe (again, similar to the Bromeo airframe).Cheers John. I just checked ADF serials and you could be right.
That's not compensation IMV, tight buggers!
As for ADF Serials (one of my favourite websites!!), it has all sorts of valuable and historical information on virtually everything that has ever been in ADF service, the 'MRH-90 Deck Handling Training Aid' mentioned, may in fact not be the 'additional' 47th airframe, I think that might be very much be a 'navy' specific training aid and not the 47th airframe.
I'm pretty certain they are two different things.
the danger is in doing a frame per frame comparison.
eg its a capability issue, and its a conops issue.
someone has worked out that there are better efficiencies in going to one frame (type) over multiple frames (types) etc,,
from a logistics perspective that makes obvious sense
from a training perspective that makes obvious sense
from a capability perspective the evaluation mob would have been obliged to consider the combat capability scenarios and the uniforms across the services would have had to have been confident that the alternatives were up to the job
selection and evaluation is a complex job and way outside normal forum discussions due to being non trivial and complex pieces of work
a frame per frame assessment would be way down the list of requirements....
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, up until recently I used to think exactly the same thing, give those 6 airframes to the Army (gives them a bigger pool) and the Navy can get 6 or so MH-60S to fill the utility role, all seemed to make sense to me too.The MH-60R and MH-60S have common cockpits and engines.
Gift the MRH-90 helicopters that the Navy owns to the ARMY and buy some Sierra's for the navy i say
But, in recent times it appears that, at least 'publically reported' from Navy's point of view, that the MRH-90's are working ok.
So if they are working ok and hopefully they work ok for Army too, then it's starts to get a bit expensive having another type in service.
If things don't work out for the Army with the MRH-90's and they get cancelled (as per Sea Sprite), then the obvious answer would be UH-60M's for Army and MH-60S for Navy in the utility role.
But unless the MRH-90's suddenly fall off the edge off the cliff for the Army, then I can't see anything changing from what it is now!
Yes, but the MRH / NH90 has a greater lift capacity than the Blackhawk and Iroquois hence the numbers of helos required for the lift capacity that those helos provided is less.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
NG, great example mate!
Another example of that is the RAAF's C-17A's and comparing them to C-130's.
Depending on how it's measured (volume and/or payload), it been reported that the C-17A's have between three to four times the capacity/capability of the C-130's, if that's the case the soon to be fleet of eight (8) C-17A's are the equivalent of between 24 and 32 C-130's!!!
Sort of puts it in perspective??
the road runner
Active Member
Do you think the ADF gets better capability from one frame type ?
When we look at the MRH-90 i assumed we would have selected the NFH but instead went with the Romeo. The Tiger was selected because it has alot of common systems the MRH-90 had. Now the ARH is a bit of an orphaned fleet.Rumors have it we may go for an Apache over a mid life upgrade of the ARH.
Kiowas will soon be retired with talk of some kiowa squadrons getting Blackhawks.
I can understand the logic of having a common fleet ,for a small defence force as the ADF ,but it seems reality has set a different course .
Good to see you back GF
I did look at the and on one hand it does make sense, I got stumped though when looking at the very first order which was a one for one replacement of the UH-1's with the MRH-90's.. Oh well, I'll just accept it for what it is.
it's not always the magic pudding answer for all acquisition, but in aviation (esp transport) you can realise some decent efficiencies
the tiger is a good example of the services preferred choice not getting up. apache was the better choice. i suspect the polluting hand of industry seducing local politicians overselling state based benefitWhen we look at the MRH-90 i assumed we would have selected the NFH but instead went with the Romeo. The Tiger was selected because it has alot of common systems the MRH-90 had. Now the ARH is a bit of an orphaned fleet.Rumors have it we may go for an Apache over a mid life upgrade of the ARH.
Kiowas will soon be retired with talk of some kiowa squadrons getting Blackhawks.
I can understand the logic of having a common fleet ,for a small defence force as the ADF ,but it seems reality has set a different course .
Good to see you back GF
ditto for the romeo
great example - and also gets back to the issue that for RAAF to get those frames they ran the same argument on efficiencies in front of the steering committee (which is chaired by central agencies and is a tough nut to crack)
RAAF were prepared to cull hercs to get the 17's - and meant additional savings
add in the fact that thet ran the dual use argument also made them come out winners
thats one of the things that body count comparisons just don't get
if you can realise greater efficiencies in lift, turn around, availability rates, time on station etc then you can have less new frames doing more work than a numerically higher older type
another good example is comparing P3's to P8's. chalk and cheese
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks GF!
But it does go to show that what can appear on the surface as a 'loss' in terms of overall total airframes (if people want to measure it that way), can actually turn out to be a winner in all sorts of other ways.
- Status