It’s my understanding, based on the wonders of Wikipedia, that the reason the disastrous SH-2G(A) program got underway at all in the 90s is because the existing Seahawks were too large to operate from the joint Malaysian-Australian OPVs that were then proposed.
So here we are a couple decades later, buying more Seahawks, when pencilled in for the early 2020s is the introduction of a new class of OPVs significantly larger than the existing vessels they’ll be replacing, and potentially including facilities for the operations of helicopters and UAVs.
As I understand it the chief competitor for the recent Seahawk contract was the NH-90, which happens to be more than three metres shorter than the American helicopter. By selecting the Seahawk again aren’t we just setting ourselves up to encounter the same problem, i.e. that they won’t fit on the ships, again?
What am I missing here, or is this another example of the same lack of foresight that delivered us non-marinised Tiger attack helicopters that we’ve now decided (per the Canberra-class LHD project) will need to be able to operate from ships after all when the marinised AH-1Z was right there all along? :confused:
By: Ja Worsley - 30th November 2011 at 09:42
one reason the tiger was selected was due to the fact that one crashed with an Aussie crew and although the tiger was totally destroyed the crew escaped without injuries about 6 months before the decision was made for which type. the Ah-1Z was because it was still in early development. the tiger was chosen over others because it was the only aircraft that fitted into replace the gunship equipped Huey’s and the Kiowa’s roll in the role of recon.
The Tiger crash had no bearing on the choice. It crashed while trying to go inverted… The pilot ws showing an Aussie pilot what it could do, many had see it do a loop over the Sydney opera house. The crew didnt let a full crew fly the bird as that is just silly, it was a French pilot and an Aussie in the gunners seat.
Bell brought a mock Viper down and a Whiskey which was new off the line. Even then the RAN and the government had issues with the skids. Bell was asked if they could put wheels on the airframe instead of the skids, this was when Bell challenged the competition and said it was biased against Bell for offering a skidded helo. Air87 was susspended pending the court outcome. The court found in favour of the government and Bell refused to participate again.
By: marage1 - 29th November 2011 at 11:38
one reason the tiger was selected was due to the fact that one crashed with an Aussie crew and although the tiger was totally destroyed the crew escaped without injuries about 6 months before the decision was made for which type. the Ah-1Z was because it was still in early development. the tiger was chosen over others because it was the only aircraft that fitted into replace the gunship equipped Huey’s and the Kiowa’s roll in the role of recon.
By: John Symons - 28th November 2011 at 15:01
Witcha: not yet mate but there is a lot of interest in the podded system.
John Symons: carefull planning and management of projects can illiminate issues that cause problems that we had with the Super Seasprites… Notice how all the other operators of the SH-2G haven’t had issues, including the kiwis. The main problem we had was that we didn’t really know what we wanted from this system, we should have settled on a path, locked in a project definition and set to work from there.
Tru dat, if only capability was the primary determinate of which platform was chosen, acquisition would be easy indeed, (tru dat except for the Kiwis bit.) They’ve had their share of problems with Seasprite, though their problems have been caused by sustained under-investment, insufficient numbers of airframes and insufficient training more than anything to do with the aircraft itself.
Unfortunately we’ve got vendors over-bidding and under-performing, a Government that sticks it’s nose into the procurement process for politcal reasons (usually a Minister or important back-bencher looking for votes) and a myriad of competing voices in the DoD all trying to defend their own turf to muck up procurements that aren’t entirely off-the-shelf. Even then ways can be found to stuff up acquisitions The Abrams tank project is a good example. Entirely off the shelf, including the Blue Force Tracker system which Army touted.
Except when they started operating the tanks they found their BFT didn’t work.
They then realised someone forgot to tell them that the SATCOM capability that underpins BFT wasn’t included with the Abrams (because it was provided by someone else) purchase.
Because GD didn’t provide the Service, it wasn’t in the list of off-the-shelf options and no-one thought about how it was going to be delivered until they found BFT didn’t work in trials (without it)…
By: Ja Worsley - 28th November 2011 at 11:48
Witcha: not yet mate but there is a lot of interest in the podded system.
John Symons: carefull planning and management of projects can illiminate issues that cause problems that we had with the Super Seasprites… Notice how all the other operators of the SH-2G haven’t had issues, including the kiwis. The main problem we had was that we didn’t really know what we wanted from this system, we should have settled on a path, locked in a project definition and set to work from there.
Tribes: is it wonder?
Badger: email me mate- gotta keep threads on track 😉
By: Bager1968 - 28th November 2011 at 10:44
Badger: mate check out a book called Australian Forces of the 80’s. It has the info you are after. I have it, but it is in storage atm, so no ISBN… sorry.
This covers the state of the Aussie army in 1955? As well as from then to the 1980s?
By: Tribes - 28th November 2011 at 07:48
Looks like the MRH90 has been added to the projects of concern list:
By: John Symons - 27th November 2011 at 09:54
John: indeed, but the NFH offered job creation, so its surprising that the government would throw votes like that.
More like “job extension” in reality. 20-24 NFH-90’s would have kept the assembly and painting facility at Australian Aerospace going for a few more years. I doubt it would have created many “more” jobs…
As the MRH-90 project has turned out so murky, couldn’t really see NFH-90 getting the gig no matter the local workshare, especially with it’s well reported issues overseas. Government in the last few years has taken a decidedly risk free approach
RAN hardly needs yet another “problem child” helicopter project regardless of your views on how difficult it may or may not be to bring NFH-90 up to an operationally suitable configuration.
Regards,
JS
By: Witcha - 26th November 2011 at 19:26
Witcha: thats right.
And is the podded system available for export?
By: Distiller - 26th November 2011 at 15:15
No, he’s right.
The Sikorsky Battlehawk has a good deal of plug’n’play elements, plus there are more permanent things on it, like the sensors and the optional belly gun. The Battlehawk is alive and well, since it has a customer and is paid for.
And then there is still the option to go to Elbit for a package that is very similar to the Sikorsky Battlehawk.
By: Ja Worsley - 26th November 2011 at 14:09
Witcha: thats right.
Wan: hahaha. If anyone missed me more than you, I don’t know them
Badger: mate check out a book called Australian Forces of the 80’s. It has the info you are after. I have it, but it is in storage atm, so no ISBN… sorry.
John: indeed, but the NFH offered job creation, so its surprising that the government would throw votes like that.
Comoford: mate the Battlehawk offered for Air87 was not a kit, but an actual attack helo, one of two “wide body” attack helos proppsed, (the other came from Kamen with a beefed up version of the SH-2G, later dropped). I’ve looked at the kits the Israelis have, impressive, but it’s not like what we had offered.
By: comoford - 24th November 2011 at 11:35
That reminds me; has Sikorsky offered the Battlehawk to any other customer or did they shelve the idea after Australia refused it in the first round?
The Battlehawk is more of an add on kit nowadays.
MH-60 Sierra – the utility version of the newer Sea Hawks on Libya ops
Black hawk
By: John Symons - 24th November 2011 at 08:04
I have flowen in Seahawks-both RAN anf USN models and they certinally are a capable machine, I just feel that we have given away a good thing with not going for the european model, not to mention giving up on the original scope of the requriement to reduce airframe types in service.
The AIR-9000 helicopter strategic master plan intended to rationalise ADF’s helicopter fleet to 4 or 5 types. It was identified there was a way that it could be as few as 4 types (if NFH-90 was chosen) but 4 types wasn’t a specifc goal as such, so one can hardly say they have “given up” on reducing airframes types in-service.
In coming years we’ll have MRH-90, MH-60R, Chinook, Tiger and whichever platform is chosen for HATS.
Instead of: Seahawk, Squirrel, SeaKing, Blackhawk, MRH-90, Chinook, Tiger and Kiowa…
By: Bager1968 - 24th November 2011 at 04:43
Badger you salty old seadog, how you been mate?
That reminds me; has Sikorsky offered the Battlehawk to any other customer or did they shelve the idea after Australia refused it in the first round?
I don’t know about the BattleHawk, haven’t heard anything… although that very lack of hearing anything probably means no one was interested and the proposal was shelved.
I’m doing OK… any chance of you steering me to a source of info on the Aussie army from the end of the Korean War until ~1975 or so?
I’m looking for general equipment lists & numbers (tanks, APCs, heavy trucks, artillery, crew-served medium weapons & individual weapons), general troop numbers & unit organizations… the kind of info you need to work out what might have been done differently if priorities had changed or different “buy from/work with” policies had been in place.
I don’t need exact info, just “~x of tank model XYZ were purchased between 195V and 196L to equip N armor companies” kind of thing.
By: Wanshan - 24th November 2011 at 00:56
Hey guys… Who’s missed me?
:rolleyes:
By: Witcha - 23rd November 2011 at 14:19
Witcha: to my knowledge, the mine hunters will be a specific version fitted with the LANTIN II equipment. Though the LANTIN III equipment will be in pod form available for almost all helo fits.
Thanks. Which means potentially every helo in the US Navy’s fleet can have mine-hunting capability?
By: Ja Worsley - 23rd November 2011 at 13:33
Batman: you are correct- the Apache was overkill, even without the Longbow radar. To let you in on the plan… The Tiger was also planned to be fitted with a millimetre radar. The plan has slipped a little, but the Army does still hold hopes of it being fitted later.
We all like different things- personally I don’t like the AH-64 in any varient, though I wish they had of went with the Sea Apache.
I don’t mind MOTS, but you can’t deny that some COTS systems are of acceptable standards.
By: Batman - 23rd November 2011 at 10:13
Wilhelm: at the time the Redhawk was still being built form the SAAF, it was felt that there was a lot of risk in this design and with only 12 built for one customer, the ADF felt that the Redhawk offer represented a poor choice . One was tested here in Australia and it did score very high in the competition. Perhaps if Malaysia bought their 40 as they originally planned to, we would have them in service here now.
Correct, Roivalk would have been a disaster – 12 ordered by SAAF and 20 odd by us – the total run!! We have been stung enough with orphans. What the Army here liked about Roivalk was you could operate it (on the velt/outback) like a truck – want a new bit of kit? Bolt it on. Don’t worry about configuration management.
AIR87 was a disaster from start to finish, for its sorry 20 years (yes 20 years!!) of the project. Apache was an overkill, but in retrospect from a Coalition perspective, it -without Longbow – or AH-1Z, would have been preferable to the Tiger, Roivalk or Mangusta. :rolleyes:
Do I like US kit? Yes, MOTS please. 😉
By: Ja Worsley - 23rd November 2011 at 04:30
Badger you salty old seadog, how you been mate?
Yeah just been reading about the Turks buying the T129 for ATAK. Interesting deal, they now own the entire program- though they propse a few changes over the Italian models and that differs again from what was offered in AIR87.
That reminds me; has Sikorsky offered the Battlehawk to any other customer or did they shelve the idea after Australia refused it in the first round?
By: Bager1968 - 23rd November 2011 at 00:01
Of course, if the Italians had convinced you guys that they could easily fit that gun (and improve the “H&H” capacity), both you & the Turks would have the same attack helo.
By: Ja Worsley - 22nd November 2011 at 16:55
Witcha: to my knowledge, the mine hunters will be a specific version fitted with the LANTIN II equipment. Though the LANTIN III equipment will be in pod form available for almost all helo fits.
Wilhelm: at the time the Redhawk was still being built form the SAAF, it was felt that there was a lot of risk in this design and with only 12 built for one customer, the ADF felt that the Redhawk offer represented a poor choice . One was tested here in Australia and it did score very high in the competition. Perhaps if Malaysia bought their 40 as they originally planned to, we would have them in service here now.
The A-129 was aslo tested down here, and though scoring very well, the lack of a gun at the time, it was thought that this machine was noting more than a slight step up from the Kiowas currently in service. Incidently the Italians took this on board and retro fitted all their machines with a gun under the nose with the amo pack running along the outside of the cockpits along the port side and tweeked the engins for better hot and dry performance. Finally they also changed from a four bladed main rotor to a five bladed one. The lessons learnt from the Australian deal were put in to effect with Itally so quick that they made two offeres to the Turkish for their original competition… The A-129A and the A-129I.
Sign In
November 11, 2011 at 8:26 am