Australia to buy 24 Romeo helicopters
Max Blenkin, AAP Defence Correspondent
June 16, 2011 – 1:49PM

Australia is to buy 24 advanced US-built Seahawk naval combat helicopters to replace ageing Seahawks and to do the job that would have been done by the now cancelled Seasprites.

The deal is worth $3 billion, with the new MH-60R (Romeo) aircraft produced by Sikorsky and Lockheed-Martin in the United States.

Romeo was chosen over the European-designed NH-90 after a protracted tender process.

NH-90 – a maritime version of MRH-90 helicopters now being produced as transport helicopters for the Australian army and navy – would have been assembled in Brisbane by the firm Australian Aerospace.

Romeos will not be built in Australia but the prime contractor Lockheed-Martin has promised to make a significant investment in support facilities here.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the Romeos, which would arrive in Australia between 2014 and 2020, had proven capability.

“It’s currently used by the US navy,” he said, adding it also was the updated or modern version of the Seahawk now in use.

“Because of its proven capability, it’s low risk and also we very strongly believe it’s value for money.”

Although a modern design, NH-90 was regarded as more expensive and not as well-developed as Romeo.

The new helicopters will be based at HMAS Albatross in Nowra, NSW and operate from Anzac frigates and the new air warfare destroyers.

Australian aircraft will be little different to the 100 Romeos operated by the US Navy, which have flown about 90,000 hours.

The “military off-the-shelf” acquisition has a lower risk of delay, cost blowout or capability shortfall.

They come equipped with an advanced sonar and radar and can carry Hellfire missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes.

Using an advanced datalink to other warships, Romeos can serve as the eyes and ears of a distant fleet.

“Their job is to hunt and kill submarines,” said Defence Materiel Minister Jason Clare.

They also will also play an important role in attacking small and fast-moving watercraft.

Like the Seahawk helicopters that operate off our frigates now in the Middle East and off the coast of Africa, they will play a crucial role when it comes to anti-piracy and counter-terrorist activities, Mr Clare said.

Mr Clare said Defence would not always buy military off-the-shelf equipment but if it did want to acquire a capability still being developed, it now had to make a detailed business case.

The Seasprite project was cancelled in 2008 when it became apparent these helicopters were unlikely to deliver the promised capability and could not be operated safely.

Wow is this a lack of faith in Australian Defence Industry or Political unwillingness to commit to License Production?

The government is still seeking to unload 11 unwanted Seasprites.

“They haven’t been onsold as of yet,” Mr Clare said.

Nor are they likely too!
We do have a need for expensive lemon targets for RBS-70’s!!

Regards
Pioneer

Didn’t the Soviets deploy a variant of the Yak-25/28 in a SEAD role?

Regards
Pioneer

arquebus: The Grumman Tiger is a possibility. The Delta Dart has serious aerodynamic problems which caused frontal redesign and I doubt it would have been very maneuverable.

I think you might be meaning the Super Tiger (as opposed to the Tiger) my friend?
Also I think you might be thinking of the F-102 Delta Dagger, as opposed to the F-106 Delta Dart, when it came to aerodynamic issues!

PLA-MKII: I’m wondering why the Germans had trouble with it.

I have read that it was not so much the Starfighter design, as opposed to the unskilled and minimally trained pilots of the post WWII West German (Luftwaffe), that was the primary reason behind the Luftwaffe’s high attrition rate!!

ivanotter:Export success: Yes, sure. Strauss, the German defense minister, got 10 million US in”incentive”. belgium prince got 1 million, etc. They also “bullied” the rest of NATO into accepting the F-104.

Agreed ivanotter! Corruption was a big part of Lockheed promotional drive at the time!! A sad fact, which probably denied us ever knowing how effective the Grumman Super Tiger may have been (and its potential export and service opertunities)!!

ivanotter: F-5 could (should?) have been a far better figther cover IMO.

Agreed!! The USAF brass did not like the threat of the lightweight fighter full stop, and would attempt to kill the threat with the F-5C Freedom Fighter as a consequence and at all cost!!

BSG-75: tactical aircraft used on strategic missions “up North”, while strategic bombers (B-52’s) used tactically in the south, so as not to offend by sending the BUFF’s over the North. How mixed up is that !?

Agreed!! This has always confused the s@%t out of me. It was called politics! The U.S political system did not want to be seen using strategic platforms for bombing, so as to not insight the Soviets! But saying this you can not question the physical and psychological effects of the BUFF in the tactical role in South Vietnam and Cambodia!!

IMO, the F-8 was more manouverable, and probably a better all-round fighter, when compared to the F-104 interceptor . I think that the stigma of being a carrier-based design would most defenatly have work against the F-8 Crusader – what with its added dead weight and complication of its wing and wing folding…………… But then again the USAF screamed and kicked like a banshee, when they were forced to take on the Naval designed McDonnell F-4C Phantom II, by McNamara!!
What I would have liked to have seen was the Vought/LTV studied and proposed de-carrierized, simpler and lighter F-8 Crusader come to fruition – then I think we would have seen an export better and still more capable MiG Master!!

Regards
Pioneer

Aspis – That’s a real shame. If you ask me, Britain could spare a lot more money by reducing its presence in Afghanistan

I’m afraid I have to agree:confused:
They have bleed themselves and I am admit, that the powers that be are going to be the cause of a massive moral collapse!
I wonder if the powers that be have financial factored in the Post Iraq/Afghan medical repatriation which going to come out of this??

Regards
Pioneer

Fine by me…

You are a gentleman Bager1968!!
Finished reading your info at 1:30 in the morning (it had me hooked!)

It reiterated to me that the proposed ‘Oz’ Iwo Jima class would have been a big and not so effective compromise!

There were some very interesting snippets of information regards the ‘Oz’ modifications to HMS Invincible – ie:

The Invincible class ships themselves were fine units, and probably superior platforms to either of the final ships selected. However the major problem with the ships was the completely unique (for the RAN) ship systems and weapons on board the Invincible. The RAN by that time had standardised on US systems like the Naval Tactical Data System, the LM2500 gas turbine and an entire range of subsidiary system. Entering the Invincible class ships into the RAN would require the establishment of a complete and separate logistical, training and support infrastructure that would be expensive and difficult.

This is a serious and valid consideration which had to be taken into into account!

On its side the Invincible class ship 2nd hand was much cheaper, with a total project cost, $Au475 roughly half the other options, and the ship would be available for service in the early months of 1984.

“The acquisition of the Invincible should not be seen merely as a replacement for the Melbourne. The Invincible is a very Modern ship with a wide range of capabilities quite beyond those which are available to us now. Firstly the ship is particularly suited to operating and maintaining large numbers of anti submarine helicopters. Investigations have shown that that to counter submarine threats a combination of weapons platforms is necessary. The combination includes land based aircraft, ASW helicopters and warships. Secondly there is a need for a ship capable of planning, commanding and co-ordinating operations by a large group of ships and aircraft. Thirdly the ship has a capacity to carry for a short time a Royal Marine commando – the equivalent of an Australian battalion group. This should be a very useful adjunct to our amphibious ship; HMAS Tobruk. Further the ship is capable of operating short take off and vertical landing aircraft of the Harrier type, although at present it is intended only, I repeat only to embark ASW helicopters. The decision of whether to aquire this type of aircraft will be made at a later date”

Again very valid points, and a lot of flexibility offered, when compared to HMAS Melbourne, it was intended to replace!
The modern C3 facilities/capabilities of the Invincible alone would have been a huge shot in the arm for the RAN!
Whether the Sea Dart system would have been retained? (I doubt it! – on the grounds of cost)

The question of Sea Harrier or AV-8B at a later date, would probably aquired – although it would probably have been the Sea Harrier, rather than the AV-8B, due to its combat proven record, its radar capability and the fact that the AV-8b (let alone the AV-8B Plus was some years off being put into production – let alone operational service!
I can not but think of the likes of HMAS Invincible off the coast of East Timor, with her Sea Kings providing Vertical Replenishment in support of the army, and its Sea Harrier FSR.2’s flying Recon and CAP 🙂

“A limit of cost of $50m is to be allowed for RAN modifications. These will include adding 450tonnes of fuel to increase the ships range to meet our basic requirements”

Hell after seeing the distances that the British Task Force covered to get from Britain to the Falklands, one has to appreciate the range that the RAN required! Out of curiosity to those in the ‘know how’ to gain that 450tonnes of fuel, what had to be sacrificed? and what additional range would this have gained?

Thanks once again Bager1968!!

Regards
Pioneer

Or go for the cheap and chearful solution of Seaking AEW, it would effectively of been a new and welcome capability for the RAN. They already operated the Seaking so it wouldn’t of been a significant logistic pressure to introduce the type.

I like it Fedaykin!
It makes financial and operational sense!
The threat within the region (bar that of the Soviet’s Badger’s, Bear’s at Vietnam bases!) in the 1980’s and early 1990’s would have made the Sea King AEW feasible!

Regards
Pioneer

No expert on the subject by a mile………..but hear is my 20-cents worth

The entire U.S Military, from the Pentagon down needs to take a good and serious look at what is reality.
For too many years the U.S military has been infatuated with fighting terrorists, while the rest of the world grows and develops (in terms of military and economy’s) !
I believe the USMC still has a reason for being (especially when one considers the Korean situation, and probably more relevant is the growing political, economic and military ambitions of the PRC and the PLA!!)
As usual the four branches that make up the U.S military have to be forced to stop competing ($) and mission-garbing, at the detriment of an all over force structure.
The U.S Navy has no idea what it wants or needs in the form of ships (the last decade proving this over and over again, with the loss of billions of dollars, the U.S military and the national economy can no longer afford!
I thought I would never say it, but if the Pentagon can not work it out, nor organize itself as a coherent military force, then the government needs to step in and stop the games and the wastage!
Yes the MV-22 has taken way way to long to develop at way way to much money!
The EFV program has been a disaster, to which only the USMC can be blamed (hey why don’t the USMC look at purchasing the PLAN’s copy of this type of design? It would be far cheaper and put into operational service tomorrow :dev2:) As for the Stryker APC? No not likely and not smart, as it has no amphibious capability!
As for the F-35 – in any form, its to expensive and complicated for the mud moving of the USMC. Why the USMC want’s it I have not really been able to understand. I personally back another modernization of the AV-8B Plus (after all the USMC had the ball’s enough to renege on the pressure of the US Navy’s push for it to acquire the heavier, more complicated and more expensive F-14 Tomcat and LTV A-7 Corsair II designs for modernized existing designs!!
One thing I used to appreciate about the USMC was their use of KISS.
There are few countries or military’s who could withstand a well planned and executed amphibious assault (supported by the USAF and USN!)
What happened?

Regards
Pioneer