New Helos for the RAN
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...
That says it all...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: london
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
question
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality check
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!
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 !!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Total project costs for 24 aircraft, weapons, simulators, support equipment, facilities and the first seven years of support.
That answers a few questions.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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 .
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 .