New Helos for the RAN

[oldpinger]

The long awaited decision is out- from the ABC website today-

Australia is buying 24 Lockheed-Martin Seahawk combat helicopters at a cost of over $3 billion, Defence Minister Stephen Smith has announced.

The MH-60R 'Romeo' choppers will replace the existing Seahawk fleet and will come into service over the period 2014 to 2020.

Announcing the purchase, Mr Smith said the US-built Seahawk was chosen ahead of a rival bid from Australian Aerospace, which offered the European-designed NH90 NFH.

"It's a proven capability - it's currently being used by the US Navy. It is the updated version of the Seahawk that we currently use which it is replacing," Mr Smith told reporters at Parliament House.

"It is interoperable with our alliance partner the United States and because of its proven capability it's low risk and we very strongly believe it's value for money."

"This has been through a competitive process - the competitor was Australian Aerospace with the NATO Frigate helicopter, but we have decided to choose the 24 Romeo Seahawks."

Dipping Sonar is back again:ok:

[cj0203]

Betcha Army is wishing it could do the same with upgraded Blackhawks. :{

[industry insider]

At last, Defence uses our hard earned tax $ wisely.

[500N]

Don't forget to add another $1 billion for the wasted Seasprites.


I also wonder if the Army will scrap the Nato's and go upgraded Blackhawks
and just try to have some sort of commonality with the US.

The other good thing about buying US at the moment is they are a heap cheaper than they were a few years ago !!!

.

[oldpinger]

I.I,
I think you'll find the debate over wise expenditure of tax dollars is pretty heavily skewed towards political point scoring rather than defence stuff-ups. :ugh:And the stuff ups that did happen were probably caused by the pollies inluencing procurement decisions by deciding which electorate needed the votes!:*

[BBadanov]

Yes. At last, sense prevails.

A main reason given was compatability with US in operations, and MOTS with no mods. This is the problem with the European choppers we have bought: Tiger still not achieved IOC, and MRH-90 a developmental design.

[500N]

Let's hope sense continues into the future and more decisions are based along these lines mentioned above instead of votes or some perceived "good deal" as determined by DMO.

[Turkeyslapper]

Now that the ADF are sticking with the 'Hawk' frame in some capacity, would this open up the possibility of 171 sticking with a new Hawk frame as well as opposed to the MRH for the spec ops role?

Logistically is the Romeo similiar to the latest Blackhawks - engines, drive trains et al (realise the avionics/mission suite is different)?

[oldpinger]

Maybe one or two of those stealthy ones!;)

[500N]

oldpinger

"Maybe one or two of those stealthy ones!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif"

No use to us, we need our helos to go into combat for that and our pollies won't allow it (or at least these one's).:)


We need to buy another Chinook anyway to replace the one we have just lost
so why not make it 2 or 3 of them - just wishful lateral thinking !!! LOL

[BBadanov]

500N: We need to buy another Chinook anyway to replace the one we have just lost so why not make it 2 or 3 of them - just wishful lateral thinking !!! LOL

Good idea 500, as 7 x Fs is not a viable force. At least a further 3 are required.

I don't think it is certain that the 5 x Ds are to be kept anyway - bear in mind 4 of these were 1973 C models, upgraded to Ds. :eek:

[500N]

BB

Is that all we have. Not good, especially now we don't have the Caribou either.

I spoke with an Ex Inf Sgt yesterday, he was in the Air Mobile Inf Regt (2 RAR ?).
In all the years he was in, they only ever did one Air Mobile exercise with real helo's !!!

[reacher]

Hmmmm, Isn't there a few Canadian D models going cheap somewhere hot and sandy?

[MightyGem]

Betcha Army is wishing it could do the same with upgraded Blackhawks
What, dip sonar?? :p

[500N]

Could this be the start of the Gov't actually buying OTS hardware without major mods and understanding that what the US Def Forces do is more than what we are likely to ask the equipment to do.

or is that really wishful thinking ?

I suppose it could depend on how close t an election we are !!! LOL

[oldpinger]

500-
I think we're there already, C17, Super Hornet, some of those UAV thingies and that Gray thing arriving from the poms the Largs Bay.

Not sure if we've mucked up the new tankers that much:confused:

At least with the MRH90 the navy and army are using exactly the same aircraft...even if it doesn't quite work.

[500N]

We'll know for sure when they make the decision on the subs.

If it goes off shore, they will have turned the corner.

.

[TBM-Legend]

The RAN has refused to accept the MRH90 todate and it is a very bad decision for them. Lots of issues identified including lack of "plastic" repair facilities afloat vs. fixing a sheet metal "ding" for one. No auto blade fold for ops off smaller ships. Not fully compatible with Navy radio world. No radar like Sea King. The list goes on...:{

[cj0203]

read this not long ago about MRH-90;

According to a 2010 Bild report, German Army experts deem the helicopter to be utterly unusable for the transportation of combat troops. Among other things they complained that the seats are only suitable to carry 110 kg (240 lb) maximum weight—not enough for a fully equipped soldier. Weapons cannot be sufficiently secured during transport. The floor is too weak and can be damaged by dirty combat boots. The helicopter can only land on firm ground, with obstacles not exceeding 16 cm (6.3 in). Troops carrying full equipment cannot board/leave the helicopter, as the access ramp is too weak. Adding a doorgun is not possible due to the lack of space

:ugh:

[500N]

That's not good. Most SF packs would weigh 40kgs min and soldiers now are heavier than ever with the ballistic plates. .

[TBM-Legend]

Sweden has ordered the NH90 [high cabin mod] but now urgently is buying 15 x MH-60M model Blackhawks because they NH90's are not usable in A/Stan or other coalition ops..

That says it all...

[Jaggs]

I think sense has prevailed at last. But, $3bn sounds pretty expensive for just 24 Seahawks. Along with Super Hornet , and the AWD's($8bn for 3 units), it seems to me that Australia is paying about 3 times what it should for these things.

[Buster Hyman]

proven capability
Since when has that been a consideration? :hmm:

[meg17]

i havent been on this website for a couple of years and they used to have afor sale section
how do i get to that or do you know any other forum site that has for sale items as i am desperate for a headset bag

[Lonewolf_50]

Insofar as logistics and parts commonality between the Seahawk and Blackhawk, things like Tail Rotor Gear box, drive shafts, the same. Engines, being T-700 variants, mostly the same, with a few subtle differences. Transmission on the new Seahawks have an additional appendage to run the hydraulic system powering the dipping rig. You won't find that on the Blackhawk transmission, M or L.

Don't believe the Navy went with Wide Chord blade that UH-60M uses ... but I'd need to check on that. They may have.

As with the original Seahawk, the "parts commonality" wasn't quite as high as originally advertised ... but it is substantial.

[wessex19]

here's the sales pitch, finally the RAN has its dipping sonar back

YouTube - ‪Sikorsky MH-60R Multimission Helicopter - Lockheed Martin‬‏

[500N]

This is from the media - which I don't think gets it all right but .....

Mr Smith said the Romeo was proven technologically, the updated version of the Seahawk, and was already in use by the United States.
The decision is a major blow to Australian Aerospace, which ran a vigorous media campaign suggesting there would be job losses at its Queensland headquarters if it failed to win the contract.


Australian Aerospace's successful campaigning forced the Defence Materiel Organisation to open a competitive tender process for the helicopter contract.


However, problems with the Defence Force's existing fleet of Australian Aerospace's MRH-90 helicopters - which narrowly avoided being put on Defence's projects-of-concern list - meant it was always an uphill task for the company to win the contract.


Romeos will not be built in Australia but the prime contractor, Lockheed-Martin, has promised to make a significant investment in support facilities here.
The purchase of the helicopters also draws a line under one of the most infamous episodes in Defence procurement history - the Seasprite debacle.

[500N]

I like this from The Australian.

THE Gillard government has gone for a no-risk option by buying 24 Seahawk naval combat helicopters for $3 billion "off the shelf" from the US, instead of the rival European NATO frigate helicopter still under development. The decision is causing consternation among European manufacturers who had invested heavily in Australia in the expectation of winning long-term manufacturing and maintenance contracts for the Australian Defence Force's substantial helicopter fleet.
"This will be read in the boardrooms of Europe as a clear warning not to invest in Australia," a defence industry source told The Australian yesterday.




Might be worth suggesting to the "boardrooms of Europe" that if they had something that worked and came in on time and on budget, they might have a chance of winning.


Good to see "off the shelf" mentioned.

[Andu]

I'd be guessing there'd be quite a few in the Army who are wishing (if only privately) that a similar decision would be made PDQ to dump the MRH-90 for 'off the shelf' Blackhawks.

[Bushranger 71]

Not trying to spoil the party here, but a bit of a reality check seems appropriate.

Going for the H-60 airframe instead of the NFH90, a big YES; but a few months back, Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky offered to upgrade RAN Seahawks for sale to third parties as part of the deal. Nothing mentioned re that in the current DoD announcement.

That begs the question: if pretty low time airframes (by world standards) can be refurbished/optimised and are an attractive proposition for other nations, then why not go down that track for the Seahawks in service and save maybe $2billion dollars to outlay on other desirable capabilities? Refurbished/optimised Seahawk, and Sea Kings for that matter, could be easily equipped with type certified dipping sonar and weaponry to adequately perform the ASW and ASUW roles. Same argument valid of course for regaining/maintaining utility helicopter capability.

The MH-60R is one damn expensive helicopter at $3.2billion project cost for just 24, which probably reflects a unit cost around $80million. And it seems to me the airframe is so stuffed with systems, that it will not have the capacity of the Sea King or even the Seahawk for boarding party roles. Arguably, it may be too specialised as the USN use other Seahawk derivatives for some differing roles. The ANZAC frigates have RAST compatible with Seahawk and I guess the Romeo; but the AWDs will apparently be fitted with ASIST so will that be an issue?

Like it or not, the defence money tree is going to have to be pruned as the taxpayer is not a bottomless source of funding to subsidise the major arms conglomerates. If the hardware emphasis does not change from all bright shiny new stuff to more cost-effective capability solutions, then it seems inevitable to me that all 3 Services will be faced with curtailment of some roles downstream, due to escalating operating costs and financial constraints.

[500N]

Bushranger
I noticed that their was no mention of the offer of refurb in the announcement.
It will be interesting to see if anything like it was included in the overall cost.

One thing that was mentioned in the announcement of the offer of refurb
was that it makes the potential sale to other countries easier as it comes under
Sikorsky who would handle all the paperwork US end which they are used to doing.


Re Budgets, maybe if we cut back on our foreign aid ........... LOL
Same argument as the UK thread !!!

[Andu]

Wouldn't it make sense to refurb. the older Blackhawk/Seahawk airframes to as much commonality as possible with the 'R' model and configure them as a Naval utility model?

I've been in a USN ASW Seahawk and can attest that there's little to no room in them for anything like troop carrying. However, with a gutted interior and some folding webbing seats, it would probably be a very good - and importantly, affordable - compromise for fleet resup. and and the boarding role.

[500N]

Andu
I think our Gov't is a bit wary of "refurb" of helicopters.


Re folding seats, wasn't one of the recommendations from one of the crash reports that Helo's should have better seats for crash protection of soldiers ?

[500N]

The $3b covers:-

Total project costs for 24 aircraft, weapons, simulators, support equipment, facilities and the first seven years of support.

That answers a few questions.

[Flyingblind]

I think some have gotten a bit carried away with the whole anti MRH-90 thread, yes, it has quite a few problems that require $$$$ to be spent, when has a new aircraft and it's systems not?

But, it's at the start of it's life cycle and (with the aformentioned $$$) should be a good workhorse in due time.

The 'hawk frame is a robust and trusted machine, the fifttment of new systems etc should see it through for it's intended role, and provide the RAN with years of stearling service.

But. It is not the pannacea some wish it to be.

Remeber gents, the original airframe is a capable (70's) design and the R should be seen as a mid life upgrade. However, the R version delivers some welcome capabilites previously lost to the RAN.

The RAN loses out somewhat with this choice due the 'hawks small cabin volume, lift capability and unit price.

The lack of a serious Sea King replacment is yet to be adressed.

[Turkeyslapper]

The lack of a serious Sea King replacment is yet to be adressed.


Isn't that what the MRH (the ones that say Navy on the side) are for - general fleet utility helo?

[Flyingblind]

Turkeyslapper.

I beleive that was the original intent of the selection for the NHF-90 proposal, would not have been my choice, but hey, the dice has been thrown etc.

Rather than reinvent the wheel perhpas DMO (and to be fair to the proffessionals that work there, they would) have conducted an exhaustive review of the capabilities of various offerings from arond the world and presented their findings to those that control the purse strings.

Blame, as ever, lays squarely at the feet of those 'politicians' who (may have) distortorted the recommendations of the DMO at the time.

Would prove very insightfull if the RAN were to publicly voice their choice of a 'systems provider' preference. I might take a punt and bet that it may have been at odds with what was chosen?

Then again, who else is flying a Sea King replacement sucessfully? Canada? UK?

Is there such a thing or has that requirement evolved as per the current offerings?

[TBM-Legend]

The US Navy is flying their successor to the Sea King....it's the MH-60S

[reacher]

Seahawk = Single pilot
R = Single pilots
MRH-90 = 2 x pilot

Anything to do with the selection?

[TBM-Legend]

Indeed, another + for the Romeo....

Big issue according to my matelot friends is the ability to field repair composite damage on the MRH90. The Seahawk structure can be repaired in many circumstances easily at sea.

All the talk of corrosion vs. plastic is a furphy really. The Seahawk/Sea King fleet have stayed aloft for 20+ years .

[Jaggs]

If the UK newspapers are to be believed,wait a few weeks and get some RN Merlins second-hand to replace Sea King. Try haggling and you could pick up another Bay-Class thrown in!

[industry insider]

Bush, 500 and Jaggs

Refurb and resale of all Aussie Hawks is part of the deal. The $3bn includes TLS.

[500N]

Flying blind
Re "I think some have gotten a bit carried away with the whole anti MRH-90 thread, yes, it has quite a few problems that require $$$$ to be spent, when has a new aircraft and it's systems not?

But, it's at the start of it's life cycle and (with the aformentioned $$$) should be a good workhorse in due time."

It shouldn't be up to us to spend $$$ working problems out. We as a country and our armed forces are not big enough to warrant it as well as we shouldn't have to do it and we don't have the excess money to spend fixing problems.

OK, if it was a proven system and VASTLY better than anything the US made, then buy it, otherwise we should buy off the shelf, already proven and US made gear that already has a support system in place world wide and that's not / without counting the big plus of interoperability factors with the US with has to account for $$$$$.

"should be a good workhorse in due time."
Leave the due time to NATO, while we get on with what we should be doing, training and operations.


Look at the big picture - we buy 24 helo's. That is a piss ant amount in the scheme of what the US operates so why be different. Then look at how many Tigers we bought ? It's a bit of a joke.
It almost seems to me that some people DON'T want us to buy US just to be different.

Just my HO.

.

[oldgrubber]

Flying Blind,
The Canadian replacement for the Seaking is the "Cyclone" (S92 derivative), that ain't exactly going as planned if you read the "Rotorheads" forum.

Cheers now

[TBM-Legend]

500N

You're right about buying Euro. The Tiger/MRH90 buy will go down in history as quick as the dud subs [also from Euroland]..

Our small numbers need to be bought from the guys who build the biggest fleets in our AOO...Uncle Sam.

The Seasprite debacle was more to do with DMO/Navy specking something that was not off the shelf. An experiment really... We had the full R&D over 11 frames. The same R&D in the USA would be over hundreds of frames. Simple economics really..

[industry insider]

More details of the remanufacture plan here

Team Romeo | MH-60R (http://www.mh-60.com/team-romeo/)

[ARRAKIS]

According to a 2010 Bild report [...]Ah, the famous Bild article, which one can find all over the net:
Bundeswehr NATO-Hubschrauber NH90: Modernster Helikopter der Welt hat viele Mängel - Politik - Bild.de (http://www.bild.de/politik/2010/soldat/modernster-helikopter-der-welt-hat-viele-maengel-11556734.bild.html)


The bird has for sure teething problems, and more than just what is in that article, but having seen it, I'm sure the ground clearance is much more that just 16 cm. In fact it's 40 cm. The size of the tyres on the main landing gear is 615 if I recall.
Who had the smart idea of putting those blade antennas just behind the front gear on a military helicopter, that's another story.
The most reliable of sources.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif


The ANZAC frigates have RAST compatible with Seahawk and I guess the Romeo; but the AWDs will apparently be fitted with ASIST so will that be an issue?Bushranger, I think that Zumwalt class destroyers will also be fitted with ASIST, so there shluldn't be a problem here.

Arrakis

[Bushranger 71]

Consider these time-honoured Principles of War: Economy of Effort, Flexibility, Versatility; also the following extracts from Defence White Paper 2009:

Operational Flexibility

Chapter 8.61 - Australia cannot afford to maintain a large number of narrowly applicable capabilities. The future development of the ADF is to emphasise, wherever possible, operational flexibility and multi-role employment in the ADF's systems, platforms and organisations. This might involve, for example, achieving greater platform flexibility by way of inter-changeable modular design and construction techniques.

Interoperable Capability

Chapter 8.65 - Interoperability is principally concerned with the ability of personnel and systems of different nations and agencies to work effectively together, safely and securely. Where it makes sense to do so, and it is cost-effective and in keeping with the policy settings in this White Paper, capabilities and systems should be designed to be interoperable from conception, not as an afterthought in the capability development process.

Cost-Effective Capability

Chapter 8.66 - Defence will continue to drive down the costs of ownership of military capability...

See these links concerning configuration options for the Romeo and Sierra versions (view Missions): MH-60R (http://www.sikorsky.com/Products/Product+Details/Model+Family+Details/Model+Details?provcmid=null&mofvcmid=5a1bebb600e98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=4a1bebb600e98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=a16769a3a73a8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=916769a3a73a8110VgnVCM1000001382000a)____, MH-60S (http://www.sikorsky.com/Products/Product+Details/Model+Family+Details/Model+Details?provcmid=null&mofvcmid=5a1bebb600e98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=4a1bebb600e98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=ea8769a3a73a8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=da8769a3a73a8110VgnVCM1000001382000a)____

Relating the configuration options to fore-mentioned DWP2009 criteria begs the question: Why was the Romeo selected instead of the Sierra?

The versatile Sierra performs the broadest roles, including fleet replenishment, within the US Navy. A whole range of certified modular systems and weapon kits are easily adaptable to the Sierra, so it would have made much more sense to acquire 8 new Sierra and upgrade the remaining 16 Seahawk S-70B-2 to Sierra standard. This would have enabled much broader application of the Seahawk fleet, whereas the Romeo has too narrowly applicable capabilities and is quite unsuited for boarding party and general fleet replenishment roles. Fitment of modular weapon systems to the Sierra on an as required basis would comply with the 'Operational Flexibility' guidelines in Chapter 8.61 of DWP2009, whereas the MH-60R will contravene these principles.

Regarding dipping sonar capability; this was removed from the RAN Sea Kings some years back, presumably to make that aircraft more usable in utility and fleet replenishment roles. But the Seahawk without dipping sonar was inadequate for ASW training and no effort seems to have been made over time to equip either aircraft with a modular type-certified dipping sonar system, like the L3 Ocean Systems AQS-18V-3 (see: L3 Communications - Ocean Systems, Products - Airborn Systems/Seaborn Systems (http://www.l-3com.com/os/products/aqs-18v-3.html)). Justifying the Romeo in part on this basis is not a credible argument and the selection of this model aircraft virtually scorns foregoing DWP2009 criteria.

Interoperability is much vaunted in DoD hardware acquisition media releases, somewhat inferring that Australia should operate the same equipment assets as allied forces. As implied in the foregoing Chapter 8.65 of Defence Policy; interoperability is more about compatible doctrine, communications, weaponry, ammunition and meshing of supply sources than commonality of platforms. The US especially may have differing equipment fits to hardware compared with export versions that they make available to other nations (see this link: http://elpdefensenews.********.com/2011/06/that-f-35-export-stealth-issue.html).

So why is $3.2billion project cost for 24 x Romeo a bad deal?

One billion dollars is a vast amount of money. Converting dollars to seconds; $1million = 11.57 days, whereas $1billion = 31.71 YEARS. The collective cost of the Seasprite fiasco and Tiger, MRH90, MH-60R acquisitions will approximate $8billion.

The ongoing ADF Helicopter Strategic Master Plan (HSMP) or Project Air 9000, now grandly bureaucratically re-termed the Aerospace Capability Implementation Roadmap – Rotary Wing (ACIR-RW), is driving this hugely wasteful strategy which is materially degrading ADF military capacity. Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk, Seahawk, Chinook; which all have relatively low airframe hours compared with similar types operated by other nations, could have all been cost-effectively progressively optimised through ongoing manufacturer upgrade programs, which would have saved billions of taxpayer dollars. Instead, the essential battlefield utility helicopter role - hitherto performed by Iroquois, Blackhawk, Sea King and partially by Seahawk - is being progressively shed and cannot be adequately replaced by the medium lift MRH90, which can only be viewed as a reckless failure of defence planning.

Apparently, as part of the MH-60R deal, Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky will refurbish 50 ADF Blackhawks and Seahawks for prospective sale to third parties and split the proceeds of sale with the Australian government (Team Romeo | MH-60R (http://www.mh-60.com/team-romeo/)). So; LM/S will make a huge killing on the MH-60R and also benefit from prospective sale of potentially very adequate helicopter assets! How can the Australian DoD justify shedding about 75 helicopters that are cost-effectively upgradable (Iroquois, Blackhawk, Seahawk) and spend $3.2billion on just 24 complex new aircraft that will have narrowly applicable capabilities?

[Bushranger 71]

Hi Arrakis.

A Navy EngO recently alerted me to differences between RAST and ASIST systems at a Garden Island wake for an aviator colleague. Somebody on another forum also provided this reference document: INDAL Technologies: Product Technical Papers - Sample technical documents on product and services for your convenience (http://indaltech.cwfc.com/products/spokes/07_techpapers.htm)

It does seem that RAST equipped MH-60R will not be fully compatible with ASIST configured AWDs, nor Romeos modified for ASIST able to fully utilise RAST on the ANZAC frigates without modification..

I hope we are not going down the track of 2 separate versions of the Romeo!

[Subversive1]

Expect some BIG announcements WRT the MRH, Tiger, Sik Hawks and Army Aviation later this year. Stuff is really moving.

Tiger, particularly, is finally doing very well.

[reacher]

During the day at least.....

Bring on TopOwl and it's 13 mirrors.

[Subversive1]

Even at night now Reacher...

Pigs must be flying somewhere....

[tiger73]

There is no requirement for separate ASIST and RAST versions of the MH-60R.

The differences between RAST and ASIST from an aircraft side are:

1. RAST uses a messenger cable (lowered through the centre of the Main RAST probe) to winch the hauldown cable up to the aircraft for conducting Recovery Assist (RA) landings. ASIST doesn't use a hauldown cable and hence no messenger cable. However the probe themselves are virtually identical. An ASIST aircraft, without the messenger cable, is fully cable of conducting Freedeck, landing into the RAST RSD without hauldown, and Cleardeck, direct to filght deck with no RSD on deck. With the messenger cable winch fitted to the probe an ASIST aircraft would be fully RAST capable. Straightening of the aircraft is conducted by connecting cables to the aft tie down fittings once the aircraft is shutdown.

2. ASIST has IR beacons fitted to the aircraft to enable the ASIST system to track the aircraft above the flight deck. RAST doesn't track the aircraft so this is a non issue. Straightening of the aircraft to stow it in the hangar is done via the ASIST RSD.

Thus with two relatively straightforward additions (messenger cable and tailwheel probe) an ASIST aircraft is fully compatible with RAST and ASIST.


MH-60S is not a good option for the RAN as it would require longer flight decks (60S tailwheel is in the same location as Blackhawk) and whilst you can still fit the 60S on to the AWD, FFG and FFH flightdecks, in order to ensure that the tailwheel will be on the deck you would need to land further forward and more accurately as you would be reducing the clearance forward from the hangar door. The main way to achieve this safely is to reduce deck motion limits (and thus capability). Also 60S is not fitted with RAST or ASIST (the 60S is primarily operated from CVN not FF/DD). Fitting the RAST probe to a 60S would be a significant modification to primary structure. The Maritime Utility role is to be filled by MRH90 operated by 808 Sqn, from SUCCESS and LHDs, thus this a secondary role for the 60R.

The $3.2 Billion is not just purchase of aircraft and spares it also includes simulators, infrastructure work at both ALBATROSS and STIRLING and mods to FFH and FFG.

As for converting S-70B-2 to MH-60R standard, that could make the Sea Sprite project look simple.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Sikorsky's proposal to remanufacture and sell Army Black Hawks and Navy Seahawks was a side issues to the Romeo bid and was not something which carried much weight in the decision. The proposal was to reman them to a near common config for parapublic roles i.e. Coast Guard etc, or as second tier maritime/transport capabilities to approved nations.

Sikorsky has done similar work on old S-61/H-3 platfirms in transforming them to S-61T standard, and I'm sure they'll be interested in the four Sea Kings we'll have on offer early next year!

Any such deal for the Black Hawks and Seahawks (and Seakings) is a direct commercial agreement between Sikorsky and the Commonwealth and is subject to US State Dept approval, and will be negotiated entirely separately to the Romeo buy contract.

In other words, don't hold your breath! :rolleyes:

[Bushranger 71]

Hi Tiger 73; see the Operational Flexibility guidelines from DWP2009, Chapter 8.61 (my post #48). Also consider the variety of warships that the RAN found it necessary to deploy to the Middle East over the past few years to maintain commitments.

Embarking a single highly complex helo with narrowly applicable capabilities on both ANZAC Frigates and the AWDs will greatly inhibit Navy flexibility for multiple roles, whereas MH-60S would have enabled broader use of warship platforms.

As for the maritime utility role being performed by MRH90; they are medium lift helicopters and the version being acquired is unsuited for shipboard roles. Your reasoning would mean always deploying platforms other than FFH and FFG for adequate performance of boarding party and replenishment roles.

Australia has only a small navy compared with the USN so some compromises on capabilities are necessary to acquire best value for the defence dollar. In reality, that means some affordable adequate second tier capabilities because the nation simply cannot afford to keep splurging on very up-market hardware. I did not suggest the S70B fleet be upgraded to Romeo, but reasonably close to more versatile Sierra standard as the airframes are sufficiently similar.

If the Romeo project includes a whole bunch of peripheral costs including ship modifications, then those aspects should be made clear to the taxpayer. The DMO website (Top 30 Acquisition Projects: Defence Materiel Organisation (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/tap/index.cfm)) of course includes very little detail of project parameters and costs, so hardware acquisitions listed thereon are naturally viewed by most as somewhat murky.

[500N]

Seems Smith is putting a nice spin on it.


AUSTRALIA'S highest paid public servant, the head of the beleaguered Defence Materiel Organisation Dr Steve Gumley, has resigned. The DMO is responsible for purchasing everything the Australian Defence Force needs, from toothbrushes to tanks, jet fighters and warships.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has been highly critical of the organisation's performance, in particular over the maintenance of naval supply ships and problems with major projects including the building of three air warfare destroyers.
It is understood the government wants to bring the DMO more directly under the control of the Department of Defence and defence force commanders.
Dr Gumley will be replaced by one of two associate secretaries - effectively super deputies - who will report directly to Defence Secretary Ian Watt.


Full article here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-materiel-organisation-chied-steve-gumley-quits/story-e6frg8yo-1226089635356


It will be interesting to see if they manage to "bring the DMO more directly under the control of the Department of Defence and defence force commanders."

[Buster Hyman]

Not a big fan of this Government, but if they can strike that balance between DoD restrictions & the defence forces requirements, then credit to them.

[Andu]

He might have fumbled the ADFA Skype bonk rather badly, but Stephen Smith is about the only man (or woman) on the Labor front bench who gives me any hope in Labor. He seems refreshingly free of spin.

Some would say he doesn't have enough experience yet, but I'd say Smith as leader is the only hope for Labor. If he can sort out DMO - unlikely, I think - he'd really have achieved a major victory, both for common sense and for the poor grunt in the field.

[500N]

Andu

Agree, although a few other up and comers MIGHT have the goods but to be seen.

Even if Smith can't sort out DMO, if his only legacy is "bring the DMO more directly under the control of the Department of Defence and defence force commanders.", then that is a good thing.

BUT, the defence force commanders had better focus on it if it is their lap as the ball will then end up with them if things don't improve, they won't be able to duck and blame DMO.

Anyone's thoughts on this ?

[Andu]

Hopefully the new CDF won't be as keen to have the pollies love him as the recently departed one appeared to be. They need to be told the painful truth about the dreadful state the ADF is in thanks in large part to DMO screwups, although a few who wear - or wore - uniforms should share in the blame as well.

[Doors Off]

Upgrading some old kit is bound to be cheap, capable and successful.:yuk: Australia has a great record on that front.

Look at Seasprite, Popeye on F111, HMAS Minoora/Kanimbla, M113 AS4 etc etc:D

Doors Off

[Bushranger 71]

Hello DoorsOff.

The costly Seasprite fiasco was not an airframe upgrade issue, as camouflaged by Defence; but an absurd attempt to gut an in-service aircraft cockpit and weapon system to replace with an Australian-designed flight management and combat system. That was a totally unrealistic objective considering the years and expertise required for Boeing and Airbus to develop their computerised flight management systems.

AGM-142 'Popeye' was mooted for the RAAF primarily to provide a supersonic 50nm stand-off missile capability for the F-111 in a maritime strike role. At that time, there was broad intent to re-engine the aircraft and optimise further with digital avionics. Enhancement of the F-111 was estimated at around $2.5billion to provide a very adequate capability to well beyond 2020, whereas scrapping and knee-jerk acquisition of the Super Hornet has cost taxpayers about $6.5billion.

Shortcomings in progressive maintenance on all RAN warships are now the subject of close scrutiny.

As for the 10 year delayed M113 APC enhancement project; it seems Defence were largely conned by Tenix/BAE Systems/DMO into questionable stretching of the basic vehicle in lieu of just optimising what was pretty standard kit. The program also failed to embrace a combined cannon/mortar fire support vehicle which would have given the Army much enhanced flexibility/versatility for operations in remote areas like Afghanistan and PNG.

There is continually an abundance of optimisation options for in-service military hardware paralleling the peddling of new platforms. Adequate military capabilities can be maintained in multiple respects by progressively enhancing in-service hardware, where cost-effective. There seems no good reason why Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk, Sea Hawk, Sea King, Chinook or whatever else should not have been put through manufacturer upgrade programs where applicable and conduct of such work negotiated in Australia. That is an entirely different proposition than having whoever meddle with unique Australianisation.

While the Defence organisation is dysfunctional and DMO out of control, the military leadership have also been culpable in the generation of increasing capability gaps. It is really their collective responsibility to assure maintenance of continual adequate and credible military preparedness, even if that means falling on swords to resist poor hardware decisions.

The reality is ambitious funding for the mythical Force 2030 will simply not be available, so there will have to be some effort toward recovering diminishing military capacity at modest cost, if the ADF is to regain credibility.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

*Sigh*...The Super Hornets DID NOT cost $6.5 billion! :ugh:

The aircraft, spares, weapons, sensors etc cost about $3.2 billion. The rest is for about a decade's worth of operations, new basing infrastructure, simulators, personnel costs, oil, tyres, fuel and even windscreen washer liquid, all of which (and probably more) would have had to have been paid for the F-111 anyway!

[Bushranger 71]

Okay FA18; tell us where transparency is for taxpayers pre-purchase regarding overall project components and detailed breakdown of projected costings for any hardware acquisition. Certainly not on the DMO website. This info may of course be available, under the cloak of 'classified' information, but the taxpayer is entitled to know just how the defence dollar is being spent. Unit costings for particular bits of hardware seem pretty vague and perhaps that is intentional - e.g. how much each for Tiger, MRH90, MH-60R helos? There will be no public confidence in Defence while equipment acquisition dealings seem murky.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Hey, I'm not defending the DMO nor the government, I'm just stating a fairly well know fact within Defence and Industry re that particular project. To say that 24 Super Hornets cost $6.5 billion (suggesting they cost $271 million each) is ridiculous.

For projected project costs, the public DCP is a good place to start - it lays out the projected cost of each project (admittedly, within a fairly broad band), and what is included in that.

And then the DMO major projects report which is published each December-ish clearly reports on finished projects, or on projects that are under review, delayed, on the POC list etc, and what needs to be done to complete them. It may not always make for pretty reading, but it's all there.

[500N]

"In December 2006, therefore, The Australian reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft around 2009-2010. A move that came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government’s later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase rather than pay cancellation fees, and ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs."

We still outlayed A$ 6.6 billion, regardless.

And some of that 6.5 billion can be spread across future purchases of Super Hornets as it is infrastructure et al.


"And then the DMO major projects report which is published each December-ish clearly reports on finished projects, or on projects that are under review, delayed, on the POC list etc, and what needs to be done to complete them. It may not always make for pretty reading, but it's all there."

DMO has been hiding crap for years, that's why Smith is so cranky.

IF it was all nicely published for all to see, why is it the Gov't couldn't get Defence force assets when it wanted for Cyclone Yasi and other ventures.

IF DMO (and defence chiefs) had kept the minister informed, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Someone, at some point needs to be in charge and acept responsibility for good and bad and people not be afraid to speak up when something stuffs up. Create the culture so we don't keep blundering onwards with $$$ being wasted.

Maybe at last the chook is coming home to roost.

Just my HO.

.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

We still outlayed A$ 6.6 billion, regardless.

And some of that 6.5 billion can be spread across future purchases of Super Hornets as it is infrastructure et al.

Yes, we did, but about $3.4 billion of that would have had to be spent on F/A-18Fs, or F-111s (at least!), or JSFs (had they been on time) regardless.

The infrastructure being built for the Super Hornets - new squadron HQ, maintenance hangars etc - have all been designed with JSF in mind, i.e. they have the necessary compartmentalisation for the increased security required on the JSF (and the Rhino), so they will not need to be redone when the JSF finally arrives.

[ozbiggles]

I enjoy a lot of what you write B71 but every time I see some one writing how spending more billions on the F111 would have been a good investment I begin to wonder.
That much money to maybe have 6 aircraft on line as an orphan capability just makes no sense.
Its like an old car, fix the engine, then the hydraulics break, fix them the suspension breaks etc etc, (let alone wings, rudders, elevators)
No body I know who flies it has anything bad to say about it in fact when they compare it the the F111 I haven't heard anyone say they would take it over the Rhino into a modern combat zone.
Kinda like updating a 40 year old seasprite for a modern combat zone.....

[Bushranger 71]

Hi again FA18. Thank you for the feedback and sorry, but I did not mean to come across tersely. I do acknowledge that some broad brush info on defence expenditure can be ascertained through ferreting; but detailed project costings ought to be more transparent for the public in my view and exposure on the DMO website, with say quarterly updating by project managers, would seem appropriate.

There seems a phobia about enhancement/optimisation of early design platforms, but that goes on continually being a secondary means of how the aircraft/arms industry makes money - consider the DC3/Dakota (BT-67), B-52, C-130, Iroquois/Huey II, etcetera. But Australia of course sheds low time adequate capability airframes for upgrading and further utilisation around the world, which is rather asinine!

The new airframe component of the Super Hornet buy is perhaps around $2billion whereas the F-111 airframes were wholly-owned and adequately supportable for another decade or 2 considering components available from AMARC in the US. That unique platform, appropriately optimised, would have adequately fulfilled a long range maritime strike capability now requiring SH with tanker support. Being a sole operator of type would not have mattered for Australia's regional requirements, pending downstream development of a more suitable replacement platform than a fighter-bomber. Regarding what aircrew might prefer to operate in a combat environment; you have to be prepared to go to war in what the nation has in service at any point in time. A former Chief Defence Scientist and the now retired CDF were instrumental in forfeiting that great capability, but it is of course history now.

Justifying high outlay on the Super Hornet as forward planning for the JSF is a huge gamble considering the very parlous state of the F-35 project, which could even founder. Such thinking seems to run counter to the supposed risk minimization strategy underlying Australian defence acquisition planning. Similarly, shedding proven capabilities that could (and should) have been progressively optimised and introducing relatively unproven hardware with delayed operational capabilities (Wedgetail, MRTT, Tiger, MRH90, etcetera).

In a nutshell, my beef is the somewhat reckless outlaying of billions of dollars toward a mythical downstream force structure instead of cost-effectively maintaining adequate ongoing military preparedness. While some top shelf capabilities are appropriate (like Global Hawk), optimised hardware that is affordable and adequate for regional operations deserves more emphasis; and especially now to recover some diminishing military capacities, as in battlefield support helos.

The foreseeable shrinking money pot just has to be better spent, but Australia is going somewhat down the unaffordable US track. In 2008, defence expenditure was 7.6 percent of government revenue, but has since climbed to over 9 percent. That is a huge percentage increase in a short time-frame and clearly an unsustainable trend considering other national expenditure imperatives.

[spoz]

Bushranger


Relating the configuration options to fore-mentioned DWP2009 criteria begs the question: Why was the Romeo selected instead of the Sierra?

(sigh) Because one of the two primary operational roles of the aircraft is ASW, which the Romeo is capable of performing and the Sierra sadly isn't.

[Bushranger 71]

Hi Spoz. Have to disagree with you regarding the versatility of the MH-60S platform - consider adaptations of Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk, Chinook over the years and the myriad of certified modular bolt-on systems to enable flexibility, versatility and economy of effort.

The Sierra could be just as easily fitted with various already certified systems a la Blackhawk. Re ASW and ASUW; FLIR, modular dipping sonar (like http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/docoutput.aspx?id=1134), torpedo racks, Penguin, Hellfire, podded cannon, etcetera are all available options. Just because the large US Navy has not gone down that track does not mean it is inappropriate.

Granted the Sierra would not be quite as sophisticated for those roles as the Romeo, but certainly a darn site more usable militarily in a broader sense for the smallish ADF.

Having already reckelssly squandered around $5billion on ill-conceived helo projects, DoD cannot justifiably splurge about another $3billion on an aircraft with narrowly applicable capabilities in contravention of DWP2009 policy. Adequate ASW/ASUW capabilities could be provided by acquiring some adaptable Sierra and sufficiently enhancing S-70B-2 in service, perhaps saving around $2billion. That is a vast amount of money that could be better utilised to remedy other capability gaps that have been created by flawed planning.

Continuation of reckless defence spending just has to be curtailed and some second tier capabilities accepted. It that does not happen, then ADF military preparedness and capacity will continue to shrink in my view.

[Doors Off]

The whole fitting of sonar, penguin missile, avionics on an old platform was tried. It failed drastically, but still it is still professed by some to try that foolish attempt again:rolleyes: Seasprite!

Now that was a waste of taxpayers money! You can creatively suggest that is has been done with UH1Y and AH1Z, but do some research and check the project and unit cost on that one. It aint as cheap as some think. Plus decision is made and contract signed. :rolleyes:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Intersting BR71 that you advocate using tried and proven tech (Huey II etc) over new development programs (MRH, ARH), and yet you also support a dramatic upgrade of the F-111 (now THAT'S a development program!) over the Rhino, or going it alone in developing capabilities for the Sierra which no other service will want or use instead of getting the bog stock standard Romeo. :8

[Bushranger 71]

Hi Doors Off, FA18.

Re Seasprite; the Navy was absolutely foolish to attempt gutting of a certified aircraft which was in service with the USN Reserve and also introduced successfully in the RNZN. Orphan building of digital flight management and associated weapon systems required complete airworthiness recertification with no benchmark version in service elsewhere. The Seasprite fiasco was a far cry from adaptation of multi-role airframes with modular and bolt-on systems/weaponry that have been type certified by manufacturers for many aircraft types.

The RAAF adapted the XM-23 weapon system designed for Charlie model Iroquois gunships to the Hotel model which had additional airframe hard points enabling differing fuselage positioning of weaponry. Because the weapon system was already certified, simple aircraft wiring was accomplished within hangar resources. ARDU visited the squadron and ran the ultimate design configuration through a US Navy test schedule for operational proving. The concept enabled adaptation of a standard utility aircraft to gunship configuration within about 90 minutes, including weapons system harmonisation, and reconfiguration for utility roles in just 30 minutes.

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/Gunship773-LeftBreak6x4.jpg


That feat was accomplished in the late 1960s, yet complied with the Operational Flexibility intent of DWP2009, Chapter 8.61 - Australia cannot afford to maintain a large number of narrowly applicable capabilities. The future development of the ADF is to emphasise, wherever possible, operational flexibility and multi-role employment in the ADF's systems, platforms and organisations. This might involve, for example, achieving greater platform flexibility by way of inter-changeable modular design and construction techniques.

The Blackhawk has been widely adapted for varying roles through fitment of certified modular systems and weaponry. For example, the 'Direct Air Penetrator' is a MH-60L Blackhawk which has been configured to act as a gunship. A range of ordnance can be fitted to the DAP's various hardpoints. This bird is armed with 2xfixed M134 miniguns, 4 AIM-92 stinger air-to-air missiles, 1x M230 30mm chain gun and a pylon holding 2 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The bulge under the DAP's chin is a FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) pod which includes a laser designator for the Hellfires. When so configured, the DAP is unable to carry passengers as all the cabin space is taken up with ammunition.

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/mh-60l-dap-bg.jpg


The MH-60S uses the Blackhawk airframe, which provides the larger cabin volume and double-doors needed for cargo and passenger transport, enabling troops to embark and disembark quickly. The MH-60S retains the Blackhawk's provisions for mounting the external pylons to carry stores and equipment, providing added capability to carry out a wide range of missions. The MH-60S has replaced the aging HH-60H in the combat search and rescue role. Mission equipment includes a digital map, AN/AAS-44 FLIR, the electronic warfare self-defense suite fitted on the MH-60R and additional pylon to carry HELLFIRE air-to-surface missiles. Crew-served weapons include 7.62 mm guns from port and starboard cabin windows and .50-calibre guns from port and starboard cabin doors. See this link for baseline configuration: MH-60S (http://www.sikorsky.com/Products/Product+Details/Model+Family+Details/Model+Details?provcmid=null&mofvcmid=5a1bebb600e98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=4a1bebb600e98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=ea8769a3a73a8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=da8769a3a73a8110VgnVCM1000001382000a____)

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/mil_MH60S_csar_arm_ovr_a.jpg


The Sierra could be configured for ASW and ASUW roles by fitment as required of modular systems and weaponry in military service. No costly R&D should be necessary considering many desirable systems have already been type certified and can be adapted through manufacturer programs. Going down the Romeo track will limit multi-role helo capabilities for RAN warships and the MRH90 is not suited for shipboard roles like the Sea King so the broader helo potential for the Navy will shrink.

Regarding the F-111. 'Tis history now; but given Australia's regional strategic scenario, that bird arguably provided an adequate maritime strike deterrent for maybe another decade, even without optimisation. Although Australia remained the sole operator, the aircraft was not an orphan having seen operational service with the USAF and substantial component support still available through US stored reserves. The government was seemingly stampeded into the Super Hornet acquisition on the basis of a perceived capability gap due to unnecessary intended decommissioning of the F-111 and further delays in a largely unproven JSF that has hitherto not yet achieved 10 percent of necessary test flying and operational evaluation.

Much F-111 engineering research had already been done for adaptation of other type cockpits, weapons systems and improved engines. Alas; all that good work was forsaken when a former Chief Defence Scientist and the now retired CDF advocated F-111 retirement based on a false outcome from wing structural testing. On present indications, the JSF might not even emerge so the ADF will then be locked into the Super Hornet that does not have the unique long range capability of the F-111, requiring appreciable tanker support. A rather costly step backwards in my view, although some will disagree.

[TBM-Legend]

why is the fin flash on the Huey on back to front?

Red is at the leading edge always...:uhoh:

[Bushranger 71]

Aye TBM-L, you are correct.

Just prior to operational introduction of the Bushrangers, we belatedly realised we had not adequately recorded the project photographically and got airborne on a dull day for some camera work. A2-773, the original prototype gunship, was being flown by the late Flight Lieutenant Rex Budd, DFC with me flying the camera ship. The images taken were all black and white and that shown in post #74 was 'Photoshopped' by a friend and the error subsequently corrected; but I inserted an older image which I will now dump.

[Bushranger 71]

Further to posts #71 and 74.

See this interesting snippet: ADM: LM develops MH-60R variant (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/lm-develops-mh-60r-variant)

The RAN unwisely removed the dunking sonar from Sea Kings years back and have not hitherto added a type certified modular dipping sonar to the Seahawk. Lack of this capability has been argued a serious limitation for submariner training in particular.

A range of type certified bolt-on modular weapons systems might be fitted as required to a more versatile MH-60S rather than reinventing the MH-60R, for which Australia yet again might be a first non-US customer!

[tiger73]

Look at the location of the tail wheels on 60R and 60S and also look for the RAST probe....

MH-60R has RAST, MH-60S doesn't. The location of the tailwheel on the 60S will restrict the space available for landing on the flight deck of frigates meaning that in order to make landing ALARP it would be necessary to reduce either SHOL or Deck motion limits to derisk the Wheel Landing Area going over the stern, which in turn would increase the number of days you can't fly. These reasons alone mean the 60S is not a serious candidate for a frigate based navy (like the RAN)

The USN doesn't embark 60S in FF/DD for those very reasons.

[BluenGreen]

I wonder if anyone can shed light on a snippet of info I heard recently.

The USN MH60R is certified as a two-pilot aircraft. This is important because it affects things like IFR clearance, Minimum Equipment Lists etc. The Australian Navy has insisted on operating it with one Pilot and one Aviation Warfare Officer (Observer) in the front.

I heard recently that the USN training squadron has refused to let the AvWO's in the front seat of the USN Romeos being used for training the RAN crew because it is contrary to the certification baseline. This will have significant implications for the introduction of the Romeo?

I understand that there was a study done regarding the crewing options for RAN aircraft a number of years ago by one of the Fleet Air Arm's most experienced pilots, and the recommendation he came up with was to go to a two-pilot crew (plus Senso in the back). This plan would have halved training times, reduced the number of people required and saved bucket loads of money (i.e tens of millions per year). The Senior sirs in the FAA didn't like it because they thought it would be unpopular, and most of them were Observers. The pilot who did this study eventually resigned in disgust, as I understand.

Adopting this plan would have prevented the FAA being in a pickle today, perhaps?