Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Actually, I'll throw another one in there.

Had we built the corvettes and bought the Kidds, we could still have upgraded Melbourne and Newcastle while selling (or offering them to allies, NZ anyone) the first four FFGs, and then licence built three or four Flight IIA mod Arleigh Burkes at Williamstown (still owned and operated by Tenix), for less than it cost to build three less capable Hobarts.

 

[rjtjrt]

Ave

Virtually all modern major programs have problems during development and end up late and over budget.
The US has the resources and will to fix these problems, and keep the systems modernised during service.
As Insee it,,Europe has much less ability and will to do so, especially in mullti national programs where taking into account individual national interest of various members of the program impede applying the best resources to solve a problem.
Also, in Australia's case, US is a much more loyal partner than Europe, and will go further to assist us if we have a genuine problem. Europe regards Australia with some degree of patronisation, more so than US.
Often European equipment is significantly overpriced compared to US stuff.
Lastly, European manufacturers are often light years behind US in after sales support.
Europeans aren't the devil, and they can produce good stuff at times, but overal US is a much better option for us.

 

[t68]

Virtually all modern major programs have problems during development and end up late and over budget.

that's generally what happens when you upgrade with leading edge tech

The US has the resources and will to fix these problems, and keep the systems modernised during service.

well no one else is going to do it for them to there own spec's, also keeps unemployment down and R&D busy

As Insee it,,Europe has much less ability and will to do so, especially in mullti national programs where taking into account individual national interest of various members of the program impede applying the best resources to solve a problem.

Too many cooks come to mind

Also, in Australia's case, US is a much more loyal partner than Europe, and will go further to assist us if we have a genuine problem. Europe regards Australia with some degree of patronisation, more so than US.

US has a vested interest in Australia strategically, and tactically for operational purposes, Europe does not they just see a sale.

Often European equipment is significantly overpriced compared to US stuff.

Economy of scale issues

Lastly, European manufacturers are often light years behind US in after sales support.

That comes down to how they see you as a cash cow or a valued allied

Europeans aren't the devil, and they can produce good stuff at times, but overal US is a much better option for us.

Yep they can when the do the R&D, but that means money

 

[Waylander]

I would interject that this mostly applies to air projects.

NH90, Tiger, A400M and Eurofighter are awfull projects when one looks at budget and schedule.

Naval systems are not as clear cut. The US only has carriers, Burkes and nuke subs in it,s portfolio as well as a plethora of subsystems. But for FFGs, SSKs, corvettes or OPVs one will be hard presses to find a good US offer if at all but there are lots of good and successfull designs from Europe. And programs like RAM have been handled successfully by US/EU cooperations.

And when it comes to land systems the US offers nearly no modern stuff and is whoefully behind the curve. Besides Abrams, Patriot and THAAD there are close to no modern designs coming out of the US while one could equip an army with top notch gear from Germany alone.

 

[CB90]

I would interject that this mostly applies to air projects.

NH90, Tiger, A400M and Eurofighter are awfull projects when one looks at budget and schedule.

Naval systems are not as clear cut. The US only has carriers, Burkes and nuke subs in it,s portfolio as well as a plethora of subsystems. But for FFGs, SSKs, corvettes or OPVs one will be hard presses to find a good US offer if at all but there are lots of good and successfull designs from Europe. And programs like RAM have been handled successfully by US/EU cooperations.

Yeah, for FFGs, they're still large enough you get a fair bit of swapping possible in the design process.

For example, Harpoon, ESSM, MK41 VLS, and even Aegis seem to be popular systems on national custom designs (eg Spain, Germany, Norway, RAN, ROK, etc).

 

[alexsa]

Yeah, for FFGs, they're still large enough you get a fair bit of swapping possible in the design process.

For example, Harpoon, ESSM, MK41 VLS, and even Aegis seem to be popular systems on national custom designs (eg Spain, Germany, Norway, RAN, ROK, etc).

The term frigate and destroyer are certainly becoming vague. Noting the AWD is supposed to be a 7000 tonne frigate where smaller ships around the world are called destroyers.

But you are right in the fact there are a range of 'frigate' offerings around the world where the US production is based on certain platforms. That is understandable given the economies of scale

 

[CB90]

The term frigate and destroyer are certainly becoming vague. Noting the AWD is supposed to be a 7000 tonne frigate where smaller ships around the world are called destroyers.

But you are right in the fact there are a range of 'frigate' offerings around the world where the US production is based on certain platforms. That is understandable given the economies of scale

And it makes developing Coalition TTP's a LOT easier. Real easy when tactics are Releasable to allies since they already got the technical data on the gear it's based on.

Which in turn means there's TTP refinement for the individual Coalition partners as well, since it becomes an issue that is actively worked.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The term frigate and destroyer are certainly becoming vague. Noting the AWD is supposed to be a 7000 tonne frigate where smaller ships around the world are called destroyers.

But you are right in the fact there are a range of 'frigate' offerings around the world where the US production is based on certain platforms. That is understandable given the economies of scale

I don't mind the AWD being called frigates. If the AWD and Anzac replacements are all based off the same or larger 7,000 t hull, all the better. I doubt we would have end up with 12x8000 destroyer hulls.

I do think both US and Euro gear has its place in the ADF. But clearly there are some cases where we should have gone US instead of going euro. I definitely think there have been cases where the Euros were just box flogging and were geniunely perhaps not acting in Australia's best interests.

While US stuff, the problem is its just overkill or just too expensive or manpower intensive. Compare JC1 to America class. Sometimes I think Australia has gotten the raw prawn but its more blurred, certainly there are circumstances the US has bent over backwards to assist with something that wasn't even really their problem.

 

[SteveR]

I don't mind the AWD being called frigates. If the AWD and Anzac replacements are all based off the same or larger 7,000 t hull, all the better. I doubt we would have end up with 12x8000 destroyer hulls.

I do think both US and Euro gear has its place in the ADF. But clearly there are some cases where we should have gone US instead of going euro. I definitely think there have been cases where the Euros were just box flogging and were geniunely perhaps not acting in Australia's best interests.

While US stuff, the problem is its just overkill or just too expensive or manpower intensive. Compare JC1 to America class. Sometimes I think Australia has gotten the raw prawn but its more blurred, certainly there are circumstances the US has bent over backwards to assist with something that wasn't even really their problem.

We went US with Seasprite (rather than UK Lynx) and Wedgetail - both US development systems and look how long we had to wait for those.

Very very ironically the AH-1Z has the same baseline 2 man cockpit computer system as the our proposed Seasprite - and had a 10 year delay to get it fixed.. The US Marines persisted - we did not probably for political reasons and because our Airworthiness regulator changed the ground rules after contact award. If the 2 man AH-1Z is airworthy why wasn't our Seasprite?

 

[t68]

We went US with Seasprite (rather than UK Lynx) and Wedgetail - both US development systems and look how long we had to wait for those.

Very very ironically the AH-1Z has the same baseline 2 man cockpit computer system as the our proposed Seasprite - and had a 10 year delay to get it fixed.. The US Marines persisted - we did not probably for political reasons and because our Airworthiness regulator changed the ground rules after contact award. If the 2 man AH-1Z is airworthy why wasn't our Seasprite?

Can't blame the US on the SeaSprite affair, NZ bought new airframes out of the box wheras we bought 30-40 year old airframes zeroed them and tried to make them something there were not.

NZ refurbished them brought the airframes back to realty and reaped the benefits. Sometimes we try to push the envolope when there is no need to.

Wedgetail was leading edge devoplment always had to expect a hiccup from the program.

 

[vonnoobie]

Wedgetail was leading edge devoplment always had to expect a hiccup from the program.

And well worth it when you take into account the USAF loves it and there have been reports of there squadrons organising missions around availability of the E-7. I'd hazard a guess that it's the best AEW&C aircraft out there especially for future requirements.

Wouldn't be surprised if the US decided to replace the E-3 with the E-7.

 

[SteveR]

And well worth it when you take into account the USAF loves it and there have been reports of there squadrons organising missions around availability of the E-7. I'd hazard a guess that it's the best AEW&C aircraft out there especially for future requirements.

Wouldn't be surprised if the US decided to replace the E-3 with the E-7.

Yes - and in the same vein the French Tiger HAP performed performed very well in Afghanistan from 2009 - with the right spares and training. Our own Army has said so.

 

[Raven22]

Yes - and in the same vein the French Tiger HAP performed performed very well in Afghanistan from 2009 - with the right spares and training. Our own Army has said so.

Of course, the French Tiger didn't have Hellfire integrated, along with a lot of other sub-systems, when it deployed to Afghanistan. By deploying Tiger to Afghanistan, France accepted a delay in the development of the aircraft and the full introduction into service.

Australia could have deployed Tiger with a similar limited functionality, but chose to mature the aircraft towards the desired capability level instead.

 

[alexsa]

Can't blame the US on the SeaSprite affair, NZ bought new airframes out of the box wheras we bought 30-40 year old airframes zeroed them and tried to make them something there were not.

NZ refurbished them brought the airframes back to realty and reaped the benefits. Sometimes we try to push the envolope when there is no need to.

Wedgetail was leading edge devoplment always had to expect a hiccup from the program.

Sorry the Sprite comment in nonsense. The Australian and NZ Sprites were different birds and the issue is more about systems, and systems integration, than airframe. The fact that NZ have bought the Australian birds to replace their 'new builds' is indicative of this fact.

If it were about the airframe then there would be no reason why the 'new build' birds would have been discarded and replace with the Australian project sprites and simulators.

Precisely WHAT refurbishment are you suggesting bought them back into reality???

 

[Volkodav]

Of course, the French Tiger didn't have Hellfire integrated, along with a lot of other sub-systems, when it deployed to Afghanistan. By deploying Tiger to Afghanistan, France accepted a delay in the development of the aircraft and the full introduction into service.

Australia could have deployed Tiger with a similar limited functionality, but chose to mature the aircraft towards the desired capability level instead.

According to a couple of the RAEME bloke I know from tiger land, the only reason the French were able to get away with their deployment was they took multiples of everything, including the kitchen sink, to Afghanistan with them. They basically assumed that anything and everything could or would fail and had multiple spares of everything. This was the exact opposite to the situation in Australia where physical coercion was required to obtain items that had been on backorder for months.

 

[t68]

Sorry the Sprite comment in nonsense. The Australian and NZ Sprites were different birds and the issue is more about systems, and systems integration, than airframe. The fact that NZ have bought the Australian birds to replace their 'new builds' is indicative of this fact.

If it were about the airframe then there would be no reason why the 'new build' birds would have been discarded and replace with the Australian project sprites and simulators.

Precisely WHAT refurbishment are you suggesting bought them back into reality???

In a nut shell RAN bought a proven system and tried to change it with an all new avionics and sensor suite from a 3man crew to 2 and from memory a hands off capabilty. If it worked I imagine it would have been the ducks nuts, but they ran into problems integrating modern systems around a system 30-40 years old.

Where as NZ bought a capabilty straight out of the box, only problem NZ had was they didn't buy enough airframes and they flogged the little sprite for all there worth, it was cheaper to buy the ex RAN birds reconfigure the avionics back from 2 to 3 man crew and reaped the benefits of an airframe which was zeroed for the RAN and had seen little work for all the flight restrictions place on them, NZ know has a larger fleet to which it began so they can spread flying hours over the fleet.

But you know all that just as well as I do, there's been lots of commentary on the subject, and my comment still stands it was no way the fault of the US because we tried to Australianise it.

 

[alexsa]

In a nut shell RAN bought a proven system and tried to change it with an all new avionics and sensor suite from a 3man crew to 2 and from memory a hands off capabilty. If it worked I imagine it would have been the ducks nuts, but they ran into problems integrating modern systems around a system 30-40 years old.

Where as NZ bought a capabilty straight out of the box, only problem NZ had was they didn't buy enough airframes and they flogged the little sprite for all there worth, it was cheaper to buy the ex RAN birds reconfigure the avionics back from 2 to 3 man crew and reaped the benefits of an airframe which was zeroed for the RAN and had seen little work for all the flight restrictions place on them, NZ know has a larger fleet to which it began so they can spread flying hours over the fleet.

But you know all that just as well as I do, there's been lots of commentary on the subject, and my comment still stands it was no way the fault of the US because we tried to Australianise it.

So as I said, a systems rather than an airframe issue. Even if we had bought new airframes the systems issues would have remained so the point stands. At the end of the day it was the changing Flight Management System requirement that was used to kill the project.

Finally NZ did not refurbish the ex Australian aircraft they purchased as fitted the avionics and systems were as provided to Australia. The advantage they had was buying the Sprites at a good price after the project had been killed off in Australia (and good on them)........ It had nothing to do with buying new airframes in the first place so the comparison is moot.

 

[40 deg south]

Finally NZ did not refurbish the ex Australian aircraft they purchased as fitted the avionics and systems were as provided to Australia. The advantage they had was buying the Sprites at a good price after the project had been killed off in Australia (and good on them)........ It had nothing to do with buying new airframes in the first place so the comparison is moot.

NZ is flying the Sprites with a crew of three, so presumably they (or more probably, Kaman) ditched the Australian-specified system that allowed for a two-man crew.

From the NZDF Q&A sheet

Seasprite Helicopter Project Approved

Are these new aircraft?
•Unlike the current New Zealand Seasprite fleet which were new at the time of purchase, Australia chose to refurbish former US Navy airframes.
•The practice of refurbishing airframes is common. It involves a complete re-build of the body to a point where it is regarded as new and the fitting of new avionics, engines, wiring, software, fittings, and weapons and sensor systems. The aircraft have a service life out to 2030.
•Refurbished aircraft are common to all defence forces, and the Seasprite airframes will be no different in age to our upgraded C-130 Hercules and P3K2 Orions, except the entire Seasprite fleet only has a total of 1200 flying hours.

Why would these helicopters be suitable when Australia cancelled its contract?
•At the time Australia bought 11 Seasprites for $1 billion but decided to add bespoke enhancements, including a sophisticated computer controlled flight operating system. After a series of delays, project management issues, and cost over-runs the Australian government cancelled the project.
•A key issue was the Australian Defence Force specified an aircraft that could be flown by a two-person crew and have a computer flight system that could operate the aircraft with “no hands” on the controls.
•The NZDF has a different requirement. It will operate the aircraft with a three-person crew, as is current practice with its standard operating procedure for pilots to retain a hold on the controls at all times. The “no-hands” requirement is not being adopted.
•All other technical issues have been resolved by Kaman who continued to further develop the aircraft after Australia cancelled the contract.

 

[t68]

So as I said, a systems rather than an airframe issue. Even if we had bought new airframes the systems issues would have remained so the point stands. At the end of the day it was the changing Flight Management System requirement that was used to kill the project.

Finally NZ did not refurbish the ex Australian aircraft they purchased as fitted the avionics and systems were as provided to Australia. The advantage they had was buying the Sprites at a good price after the project had been killed off in Australia (and good on them)........ It had nothing to do with buying new airframes in the first place so the comparison is moot.

I think your missing the point, I never said there was anything wrong with the airframes as they were zeroed (RAN)at time of purchase, all I infered too was that NZ got a good deal and that the US was not at fault with the problems the RAN encounted, yes it was my fault looking back at the original post it was a poor choice of words "refurbishing the airframes" was to acknowledge that NZ changed the sensors etc to suit themselves.



I believe that Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS) and Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) was deleted as part of the deal for NZ.

 

[alexsa]

NZ is flying the Sprites with a crew of three, so presumably they (or more probably, Kaman) ditched the Australian-specified system that allowed for a two-man crew.

From the NZDF Q&A sheet

Seasprite Helicopter Project Approved

Same aircraft but different operating practice and, yes a three man crew making the flight management system redundant in its original configuration. However what sensors did they strip out??? I think you will find they have not stripped out sensors as this would happen impact on the weapons system integration.

But it goes back to my original point the comments about airframe age are nonsense as a new build airframe aimed at a two man crew would have suffered the same issues