Versatile helo concepts are essential for the small ADF
Some good discussion here and elsewhere on another PPRuNe thread re the MH-60R & S. Perhaps worth reviewing a bit of history re the Australian military helo fleet without digressing too much from the MRH90 theme.
Post-Vietnam, joint Army/RAAF planning determined there would be 3 utility helo squadrons, 1 MLH unit and some Hueycobras (11). Air Force aviators on the Air Board pushed for the very versatile CH-53, but 2 AVMs (an Engineer and EquipO) sided with Army who wanted the CH-47C. A bad mistake as it turned out and had the big Sikorsky been acquired, we might have then progressed to long range search and rescue and submarine support capabilities with C-130 flight refuelling. Army had also pushed for the Hueycobra; but when budgetary pressures emerged downstream, the Air Force rightly decided that the well-proven versatile Iroquois Bushranger concept was adequate for intimate close air support.
Navy subsequently removed the ASW kit from Sea Kings to make them more employable in utility roles; but that of course created a deficiency in dipping sonar capability not fitted to Seahawk, despite proven modular systems being in service elsewhere.
Unquestionably, the Howard/Rudd Force 2030 vision cemented in DWP2009 would never have been affordable and Australia is now facing a decade or so of austerity in defence due foreseeable shrinking government revenue. As General Peter Leahy (whom I respect) indicated yesterday, there is no point in trying to progress the Force 2030 structure – as intended by MinDef Smith for DWP2013 – if there will not be adequate funding available. So; all acquisition planning ought to be frozen pending a comprehensive review of what might be economically achievable.
Because helicopters are inherently versatile and flexible platforms, there is obviously scope for reshaping the ADF HSMP more on versatile concepts than airframes too specialised, like Tiger and MH-60R. Just how much the force structure could be untangled would require open-minded address including what types might be put in storage, if appropriate.
As outlined on the MH-60R thread, there will be differing helo restraint systems on some RAN warships and compatibility of some aircraft types may be an issue, also with hangars. The MRH90 in particular does not seem suited for smallish warship operations including boarding party functions, replenishment, etcetera. The Navy would have been better off acquiring some MH-60S (instead of MH-60R) and upgrading the existing Seahawk fleet as far as practicable toward Sierra standard. That would have enabled wide-ranging flexibility for fitment of modular weapons systems as required and retained capability for essential utility roles at sea.