Seaking replacement questions

: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.

Ja, I’m probably wrong about the helicopters but I stand by what I said about politicians and civil servants 😀

Steve, you can’t seriously believe that mate can you? We’ve had troubles with the blackhawks for a long time. We should never have bought them. The Seahawks are good machines I’ll give you that much but what’s the point in having a common fleet if some are to be replaced and others aren’t?

Under the Air 9000 deal, the Seahawks will eventually be replaced (not immediately) by the Naval version of the MRH-90.

Australia’s helicopter procurement policy is a mess. Too many new types have been selected, and logistics will prove to be a nightmare. I still can’t figure out why the profoundly expensive NH-90 was chosen, when Australia already operates a relatively large S-70 fleet. Why was the SH-2G chosen when there were enough extra naval S-70s for half of the Anzac-class? Then of course, you really have to wonder why the incredibly expensive Eurocopter Tiger deal was made?

I agree, more Sea Hawks and Black Hawks would have been the sensible and easy option but politicians and civil servants like to waste time and money on studying the alternatives.

I guess this is because the longer a procurement project team takes to come to a decision, the longer they get paid 😡

: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 still can’t figure out why the profoundly expensive NH-90 was chosen, when Australia already operates a relatively large S-70 fleet.

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.

Then of course, you really have to wonder why the incredibly expensive Eurocopter Tiger deal was made?

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)?

With the U.S. commitment to the CH-53K program, perhaps Australia should start considering a heavylift replacement for its small CH-47D fleet.

Of course, it is questionable whether the CH-53K will be compatible with either the French or Spanish LHD designs that have been downselected.

What isn’t in doubt is that the CH-47 is most definitely not a naval helicopter.

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:

Australia’s helicopter procurement policy is a mess. Too many new types have been selected, and logistics will prove to be a nightmare.

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.

The Government has acknoledged that the navy’s fleet of ageing Westland Seaking Mk.50’s is of a paramount nature.

Funds are being sort for a sizable replacement in the 06/07 budget but questions are arrising as to how long a replacement is going to take to get into service.

If the helos (naval veriants of the MRH-90 already on order for the army) were ordered in this budget, we would not see an in service date for at least four years. The earliest we’d be looking at is 2011 for the Seaking fleet to finally be paid off.

Many are calling the decission to buy the army’s 12 examples a joke while the navy are waiting to fall out of the sky in their work horses. The army doesn’t really need the 12 new helo’s that soon as the Blackhawks are still fit for service. So why is it taking so long for the navy to get their machines?

Under Air 9000 Phase 4 and phase 6, the ADF will replace both the Blackhawks of the army and the Seakings of the navy respectivly. Questions are starting to be asked as to why these two requirements can’t be combined for a one hit solution.

Australia’s helicopter procurement policy is a mess. Too many new types have been selected, and logistics will prove to be a nightmare. I still can’t figure out why the profoundly expensive NH-90 was chosen, when Australia already operates a relatively large S-70 fleet. Why was the SH-2G chosen when there were enough extra naval S-70s for half of the Anzac-class? Then of course, you really have to wonder why the incredibly expensive Eurocopter Tiger deal was made?

Further adding to the Air 9000 deal, more CH-47’s may be aquired in light of the recent Airlift across the board review for the ADF. The current fleet of six CH-47D which are about to be upgraded, is being viewed as being too small for our needs and it is with great haste that a report is being put together for recommendation to the government.

It must be noted that any new Chinooks bought will not be of the same standard as those currently in service as we have rather old models now, even with the upgrade being done the D model has long been surpassed by the F and G models. Thus remains the question as to wether the ADF will buy old examples or new ones and have the old ones upgraded to a similar standard.

With the U.S. commitment to the CH-53K program, perhaps Australia should start considering a heavylift replacement for its small CH-47D fleet.

Of course, it is questionable whether the CH-53K will be compatible with either the French or Spanish LHD designs that have been downselected.

What isn’t in doubt is that the CH-47 is most definitely not a naval helicopter.