:rolleyes:
Here we go again, *sigh*

The SH-2G was selected for the OPV’s and the Anzacs because these ships had smaller decks then the FFG’s currently in service. Since the cancellation of the OPV it has been proven that the Seahawks can operate off the deck of the Anzacs.

I know full well that the SH-2G fiasco was put in motion by the abortive attempt to build up to 12 OPVs for Australia and 27 for Malaysia. In reality, the plan was poorly conceived, as was the actually OPV design, and Transfield Shipbuilding (now Tenix) couldn’t compete with Blohm und Voss for the Malaysian order.

Is it ironic that Freemantle class patrol boats will finally be replaced by patrol boats of similar size? Perhaps irony is the wrong word.

I probably shouldn’t mention that the 81 meter Aussie OPV had an astoundingly small flightdeck, even for a 1,400 ton ship. I also should mention the stupidity of operating a specialist anti-submarine helicopter like the SH-2G or Lynx from a ship that would only perform a coast guard function.

Read up on Air 9000 and it will tell you mate, most of the current helo fleet in the ADF are to be replaced with a new single type offering commonality and logistical support on a scale never before seen in the ADF. S-70’s are to be replaced under that same article (phase 7 IIRC). The MRH-90 offered the best deal of upgrading the amount of personel/cargo over larger distances whilest still operating off the current sized decks. All the other contenders could not meet these critical goals (SH-60 Battlehawk not enough range and not enough troops/cargo, EH-101 far too big to operate off the deck of an FFG). This is why we went for it.

I’ll be first to admit that the S-70 has a small cabin. However, the 3:1 cost differential between the S-70 and the NH-90 more than makes up for this shortcoming.

I should also point out that the NH-90 might very well be out of production by the time that Australia actually seeks to procure naval S-70 replacements

Ummmm ok well we have spoken about this before as well mate, go look in the thread on the Modern Military Aviation section at the thread on the Rooivalk currently running. Basically we chose the Tiger because it being the newest kid on the block, offered the most amount of design growth potential over it’s rivals. Which would you have prefered we got (please don’t tell me the AH-64)?

The Tiger is the European equivilent of the cancelled RAH-66 Commanche – and RAH-66 cancellation was right on the money.

I would have argued in favor of the Hellfire equipped S-70, for the sake of fleet commonality, or even the AH-1Z – an excellent choice for amphibious deployments from the upcoming LHDs.

Australia bought the Tiger because Eurocopter was willing to build to Australian specifications. Buying a small number of bespoke attack helicopters is an expensive proposition.

Mate seriously, what are you on? It is questionable if the CH-53K program is ever really going to get going. Australia is happy with the Chinook and to give them up for the CH-53 is insane to even think of because it is adding a new type to the inventory that we are trying to cut down on, I mean didn’t you just say:

And here you are talking about a new helo, no way. We’ve had the Chinook in service for a long time, we love them and know them in-side-out. More of the same type is acceptable, converting them over to a new machine and more of them is insane.

As previously stated, the CH-47 is unsuitable for sustained amphibious deployments. I could ennumerate the many shortcomings of the Chinook, but that might be better material for a non-naval thread.