Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Sideline]

Breaking Defence report that the MQ-9B can now be fitted with a STOL kit allowing its operation from carriers and assault ships.

This would open up A LOT of capability

Janes says that the MQ-9B STOL upgrade will utilise a wing and tail kit that can be installed on the platform in the hanger or on a flight line in less than a day. The kit can be removed to return the aircraft to conventional operations. The Mojave STOL prototype has been able to launch and recover in less than 300 ft during tests. The STOL kit suffers from a approximately 50 per cent drop” in endurance between the MQ-9B and MQ-9B STOL, however, the options for launching, recovering, and basing the aircraft are radically increased, changing the value for many missions.

FYI - The Canberra class 230.82 m /757 ft 3 in, the flight deck is roughly 80~85% of that but with added ski jump

SOURCE : General Atomics announces MQ-9B STOL upgrade for carrier operations

(edited for poor spelling)

 

[Unric]

This would open up A LOT of capability

Janes says that the MQ-9B STOL upgrade will utilise a wing and tail kit that can be installed on the platform in the hanger or on a flight line in less than a day. The kit can be removed to return the aircraft to conventional operations. The Mojave STOL prototype has been able to launch and recover in less than 300 ft during tests. The STOL kit suffers from a approximately 50 per cent drop” in endurance between the MQ-9B and MQ-9B STOL, however, the options for launching, recovering, and basing the aircraft are radically increased, changing the value for many missions.

FYI - The Canberra class 230.82 m /757 ft 3 in, the flight deck is roughly 80~85% of that but with added ski jump

SOURCE : General Atomics announces MQ-9B STOL upgrade for carrier operations

(edited for poor spelling)

I think you're mixing up your feet with metres. 300 feet is well less than 230 metres.

 

[Redlands18]

Breaking Defence report that the MQ-9B can now be fitted with a STOL kit allowing its operation from carriers and assault ships.

With zero transit time from bases, such a drone would greatly enhance the persistence of ISR around an RAN task force.

Since the MQ-9B seems to be the way forward for the USMC the ADF could attach itself to its upgrade path.

Edit After posting I seem to remember that the ADF cancelled its MQ-9 order.

Labour did say they will look at overturning the MQ-9B cancellation during the election, nothing heard since though. The RAAF nor the RAN* currently have any publicly announced plans to operate any Aircraft off the Canberra's so it would constitute a major change in CONOPS.
The only exception being a single RAN Logistics Helicopter.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Labour did say they will look at overturning the MQ-9B cancellation during the election, nothing heard since though. The RAAF nor the RAN* currently have any publicly announced plans to operate any Aircraft off the Canberra's so it would constitute a major change in CONOPS.
The only exception being a single RAN Logistics Helicopter.

May I ask a dumb question about this? I assume the MQ-9B operating in STOL configuration would not have the same impacts on the Canberra Class deck as an F35B? So I assume there would be no need to treat the deck or modify or other parts of the ship. Then there would be no interference in the ability to use the Canberras in their original role as an LHD.

If that is the case - that the MQ-9B STOL operation capability could be achieved while still retaining its troop landing capability, then that seems like a genuine and substantial increase in capability. It would increase the range of choices of what the RAN could load on board, and hence the range of missions. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding.

 

[Redlands18]

May I ask a dumb question about this? I assume the MQ-9B operating in STOL configuration would not have the same impacts on the Canberra Class deck as an F35B? So I assume there would be no need to treat the deck or modify or other parts of the ship. Then there would be no interference in the ability to use the Canberras in their original role as an LHD.

If that is the case - that the MQ-9B STOL operation capability could be achieved while still retaining its troop landing capability, then that seems like a genuine and substantial increase in capability. It would increase the range of choices of what the RAN could load on board, and hence the range of missions. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding.

The operation of any Aviation assets off the Canberra's seems to be a relatively low priority for the ADF, the Army's could at best be called a part time capability considering how often and how few helicopters they actually deploy to the LHDs. Other then the CH-47F, the Army hasn't increased its Helicopter numbers since taking over the battlefield role in the late 80s, its actually less Helicopters(though far more capable). The Army simply could not deploy 6 MRH-90s to RIMPAC for instance because other of other commitments.

 

[seaspear]

There are other options should the A.D.F decide on drones for instance instead of rotary assets or to boost , Im not suggesting they should convert either of the Canberra class to a U.A.V carrier full stop but if a few could be deployed without circumventing its primary role it could provide more capability
Turkey's future LHD Anadolu Starts Sea Trials - Naval News
Will Turkey modify its future LHD to Carry More UAVs? - Naval News

 

[AndyinOz]

@ADMk2 Thank you kindly for the link it would seem that progressing capability is definitely on the agenda then. I had seen previously deck landings of these types of aircraft on the Canberra class an a possible evolution to using something akin to an Osprey is more than I had imagined we would consider. I have a lot more reading to do before commenting around here it seems.

 

[ADMk2]

@ADMk2 Thank you kindly for the link it would seem that progressing capability is definitely on the agenda then. I had seen previously deck landings of these types of aircraft on the Canberra class an a possible evolution to using something akin to an Osprey is more than I had imagined we would consider. I have a lot more reading to do before commenting around here it seems.

Yep, it’s far too early to suggest types that ADF may be looking at, could be a Blackhawk or Chinook variant that ADF is eyeing off as the ‘reference’ aircraft for example, but an Osprey type capability would certainly fit within the broad description of the capability.

 

[Volkodav]

Yep, it’s far too early to suggest types that ADF may be looking at, could be a Blackhawk or Chinook variant that ADF is eyeing off as the ‘reference’ aircraft for example, but an Osprey type capability would certainly fit within the broad description of the capability.

I have observed a definite bias against tiltrotor types in army aviation but have wondered if an MV-22 sized option would be viable as a supplement/replacement for the C-27J (more to the point the more boutique special forces support capability once provided by the Caribou) as well as providing a CSAR capability for the ADF.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have observed a definite bias against tiltrotor types in army aviation but have wondered if an MV-22 sized option would be viable as a supplement/replacement for the C-27J (more to the point the more boutique special forces support capability once provided by the Caribou) as well as providing a CSAR capability for the ADF.

Possibly, but there would certainly be some questions about doing so. I forget what V-22 Ospreys cost, but IIRC the per aircraft cost was either roughly equal to, or even exceeded that of C-130J Hercules aircraft. From a 2020 DSCA announcement about a potential sale of 8 MV-22C Ospreys to Indonesia, the entire package (including training, spares, support, etc.) was estimated at USD$2 bil.

With that in mind, whilst possible for the ADF to add Ospreys into the force structure, it could become quite expensive very quickly. At that point it would really depend on just how much value was placed on capabilities which are unique to the Osprey.

 

[Volkodav]

Possibly, but there would certainly be some questions about doing so. I forget what V-22 Ospreys cost, but IIRC the per aircraft cost was either roughly equal to, or even exceeded that of C-130J Hercules aircraft. From a 2020 DSCA announcement about a potential sale of 8 MV-22C Ospreys to Indonesia, the entire package (including training, spares, support, etc.) was estimated at USD$2 bil.

With that in mind, whilst possible for the ADF to add Ospreys into the force structure, it could become quite expensive very quickly. At that point it would really depend on just how much value was placed on capabilities which are unique to the Osprey.

That's why I see them as a boutique addition to 6 AVN or as a RAAF capability in special forces support and CSAR. The fact they could deploy from the LHDs and the versatility that adds, justifying the cost.

 

[Todjaeger]

That's why I see them as a boutique addition to 6 AVN or as a RAAF capability in special forces support and CSAR. The fact they could deploy from the LHDs and the versatility that adds, justifying the cost.

Honestly I am not sure that the lift capability which would be provided would really justify the rather high costs. Australia purchased four CH-47F Chinooks last year for $259 mil. with an already existing Chinook capability in Australia and all that entails. Even if half of the USD$2 bil. estimated for Indonesia in 2020 involved establishing a new aircraft capability, one would still be looking at a per aircraft price that is twice (or more) that of Australian Chinooks. The question then becomes what is better, one Osprey or two Chinooks, or even potentially three Black Hawks...

Now if an EV-22 variant of the Osprey did end up getting successfully developed to provide a AEW&C capability, then I would absolutely be in favour of such an addition since that would significantly increase the organic sensor footprint available to RAN TF's.

As for potential ADF usage for a CSAR role, I would really need to know and understand more about how it was expected to operate. A major reservation I would have about long-range CSAR ops is the problem of ingress into, operation in, then egress from contested and/or hostile airspace. The USAF can use them for CSAR ops, but the US military significantly more assets and enablers available.

 

[Volkodav]

Now an EV-22 is an interesting possibility. Pure pie in the sky, but a scaled CAE PAR would be very interesting.

 

[Todjaeger]

Now an EV-22 is an interesting possibility. Pure pie in the sky, but a scaled CAE PAR would be very interesting.

No, not pie in the sky. More like radar eye in the sky...

IIRC the Brits had considered the Osprey platform for potentially replacing their Sea King AEW helicopters but ended up going with Merlins. I had asked Gary at one point about the V-22 being developed into a viable MPA/ASW aircraft replacement for S-3 Vikings, but IIRC he mentioned that the aircraft noise made them unsuitable for ASW work. I took that to mean that the onboard aircraft noise was such that sonar operators were unable to function effectively.

 

[Stampede]

The operation of any Aviation assets off the Canberra's seems to be a relatively low priority for the ADF, the Army's could at best be called a part time capability considering how often and how few helicopters they actually deploy to the LHDs. Other then the CH-47F, the Army hasn't increased its Helicopter numbers since taking over the battlefield role in the late 80s, its actually less Helicopters(though far more capable). The Army simply could not deploy 6 MRH-90s to RIMPAC for instance because other of other commitments.

ADF embarked aviation at sea puzzles me.

Is it a lack of need or lack of numbers.

To my knowledge, I've yet to see significant numbers of helicopters deployed on one our LHD's
The Defence RAN site claims up to 18 helicopters can be carried within the hangar / vehicle deck while the flight deck can support many more.
Even making the assumption theses figures are generous for an aviation operational centric mission, I do wonder are we doing justice to the potential of these ships.

Today the ADF has

23 x MH-60R
14 x CH-47F
46 x MRH-90 - Availability problems acknowledged
22 x Tiger ARH - Availability problems acknowledged

= 105 helicopters.
Plus EC-135 training Helicopters.

These fleet numbers will increase in the future

Could we not today deploy 20% of our aviation inventory on exercise at Sea shared across the fleet with the LHD being the main aviation support platform........................................... 20 x Helicopters


Or maybe this has already been done

Please advise


Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

ADF embarked aviation at sea puzzles me.

Is it a lack of need or lack of numbers.

To my knowledge, I've yet to see significant numbers of helicopters deployed on one our LHD's
The Defence RAN site claims up to 18 helicopters can be carried within the hangar / vehicle deck while the flight deck can support many more.
Even making the assumption theses figures are generous for an aviation operational centric mission, I do wonder are we doing justice to the potential of these ships.

Today the ADF has

23 x MH-60R
14 x CH-47F
46 x MRH-90 - Availability problems acknowledged
22 x Tiger ARH - Availability problems acknowledged

= 105 helicopters.
Plus EC-135 training Helicopters.

These fleet numbers will increase in the future

Could we not today deploy 20% of our aviation inventory on exercise at Sea shared across the fleet with the LHD being the main aviation support platform........................................... 20 x Helicopters


Or maybe this has already been done

Please advise


Cheers S

Whilst the Defence site does mention that the LHD's can fit up to 18 helicopters internally, this is split between the dedicated hangar (with eight IIRC) and then 10 more helicopters occupying the adjacent light vehicle deck which is accessible to the hangar. Such a potential capability might be useful in specific scenarios, such onboard aviation assets would be at the expense of transporting light vehicles and therefore reducing the amphibious sealift capability. It would therefore very much depend on the circumstances that a LHD was being deployed.

 

[Redlands18]

For Australia to realistically maintain a flight of 4-6 Helicopters permanently deployed for ops off the LHDs, the Army would need to raise a Maritime Aviation command with at least 1 regt equipped with its own Helicopters(preferably fully marinised) then the air and ground crews will become experts in operating of the LHD. Only then would we see the full aviation capabilities of the LHDs. We don't have enough aircraft nor personnel to be able to do this at this time. The Battlefield Helicopter numbers have not increased since the 1970s in any real terms, LHD deployment has just been added to everything else that is req of them.

 

[ngatimozart]

The timeframe should fit within America!s FVL program.

If the USN was running the program I would have some faith in it being achievable, but since it's a US Army program I am not holding my breath. They don't have a very good record record for successful completion of acquisition programs.

 

[Tasman]

For Australia to realistically maintain a flight of 4-6 Helicopters permanently deployed for ops off the LHDs, the Army would need to raise a Maritime Aviation command with at least 1 regt equipped with its own Helicopters(preferably fully marinised) then the air and ground crews will become experts in operating of the LHD. Only then would we see the full aviation capabilities of the LHDs. We don't have enough aircraft nor personnel to be able to do this at this time. The Battlefield Helicopter numbers have not increased since the 1970s in any real terms, LHD deployment has just been added to everything else that is req of them.

In the many images of the LHDs that have been published during the last 2 - 3 years, the absence of army MRH-90s has been noticeable. In this time period only CH-47Fs and Tiger ARHs seem to have been embarked by Army Aviation. I realise that fleetwide MRH-90 groundings caused their absence from the last two Talisman Sabre exercises but I am wondering whether the ADF currently lacks confidence in embarking Taipans operationally at sea. If this is the case the sooner they can be replaced by Seahawks (navy) and Blackhawks (army) the better.

Tas

 

[Redlands18]

If the USN was running the program I would have some faith in it being achievable, but since it's a US Army program I am not holding my breath. They don't have a very good record record for successful completion of acquisition programs.

Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche - Wikipedia
Yes there last major new Rotary Wing project was soooo succesful. @$4B each those 2 prototypes were worth every cent