Takao
The Bunker Group
Can it? Weight class is the same; but the wheel base of a UH-60 is about a meter longer. The distance between blade tip and tail wheel is hence longer, even more so as the UH-60 mast is located further forward than the NH-90. The UH-60 tailwheel poses lots of possible trips when doing first-of-class flight trials.
I'm genuinely curious; I dodged MRH-90 time and its been literal decades since S-70 time....
That issue has been discussed 1000 times. It’s not the deck that is issue. It is the RAN specification. It is not “required” to operate helicopters and operating systems for helicopter operations have never been added to the class accordingly.
Lolcake
Active Member
There were rumblings a while back of obtaining Mh-60m's. Looks like they've died down and virtually disappeared. Id like to see our SAS and commando regiments have the best equipment available to carry out their missions that and independent satcoms.
This govt doesnt seem to have any urgency in making our forces ready to tackle strategic threats and worldwide stability deterioration. As we mentioned multiple times air defence prioritisation is proceeding at a snails pace. Local manufacturing and production needs to have greater priority, particularly with what we have learned with fibre optical drones in thr ukriane war.
There was an exercise that pitted ukros vs traditional nato equipped regiments. It was slaughter and embarrassment. Simply put, we are not ready.
Absolute clown show. Wouldn't be surprised if One Nation had better defence prioritisation and policies.
This govt doesnt seem to have any urgency in making our forces ready to tackle strategic threats and worldwide stability deterioration. As we mentioned multiple times air defence prioritisation is proceeding at a snails pace. Local manufacturing and production needs to have greater priority, particularly with what we have learned with fibre optical drones in thr ukriane war.
There was an exercise that pitted ukros vs traditional nato equipped regiments. It was slaughter and embarrassment. Simply put, we are not ready.
Absolute clown show. Wouldn't be surprised if One Nation had better defence prioritisation and policies.
Murse
New Member
Ive always suspected the RAN changed its views on its operation after they realised the problem. We'll never know though.
What is do know is my source is the most experienced Blackhawk pilot in the country.
He may be a Blackhawk pilot, but does he know ships? FOCFT for ships is done by AMAFTU, the Navy flight test organisation, even for Army helos; but we haven’t done any on either Arafura or LCH yet. Arafura is currently on the East coast to do a bunch of trials so let’s wait and see what happens.
For LCH the dimensions look OK at a first glance but of course as yet the work will not have been done to calculate the initial SHOL - what it can actually accept - although that might be in progress as we speak.
SFAI can remember, Blackhawk is cleared for all current decks except the Hydros, which are paying off anyway. Of course, it is going to be more environmentally limited than Seahawk. Chinook for LHD and Choules only, although there is a query in the back of my mind on Supply.
For LCH the dimensions look OK at a first glance but of course as yet the work will not have been done to calculate the initial SHOL - what it can actually accept - although that might be in progress as we speak.
SFAI can remember, Blackhawk is cleared for all current decks except the Hydros, which are paying off anyway. Of course, it is going to be more environmentally limited than Seahawk. Chinook for LHD and Choules only, although there is a query in the back of my mind on Supply.
Last edited:
He may well be, but ships trials for UH-60M are still on-going for the fleet we have today, let alone the fleet we will have in future, including the Arafura class, which hasn’t even completed it’s own RAN sea trials yet.
Whatever his experience with S-70 may be, no-one can give an authoritative opinion on “Blackhawk” (aka UH-60M) SHOL yet, because the trials aren’t even concluded, let alone validated and certified. In any case there was no “changing of minds” on aviation facilities for the Arafuras. They were never planned, let alone ordered. The only planning ever done for aviation for the class, was for a Maritime Tactical UAS to operate from said deck, independently of permanent aviation operating facilities.
And we’ve been waiting years to hear what that supposedly “crucial” part of the OPV’s mission systems might be, let alone see it in-service…
Last edited:
Yes, I should have been specific that S-70A-9 was cleared for all decks, so they will probably be big enough for UH60-M; and strength should probably be alright. BUT that is what FOCFT is all about,
Arafura has no real aviation facilities; however, nor do merchant ships. So helos can operate to them but with probably no landing assistance and certainly no support services. I can’t remember if there are tie downs. But they will undoubtedly be checked out. The concept with the UAVs was for them to bring it all in a container.
Arafura has no real aviation facilities; however, nor do merchant ships. So helos can operate to them but with probably no landing assistance and certainly no support services. I can’t remember if there are tie downs. But they will undoubtedly be checked out. The concept with the UAVs was for them to bring it all in a container.
Last edited:
I’ve no idea why the Defmin can hold a press conference in front of civilian media alongside the Victorian local member and Hanwha executives and announce the completion of 3x AS-9 Huntsman wholly manufactured in Australia on top of the initial 2 manufactured in South Korea and yet defence can’t put together a press release, let alone imagery, but here we are. You’d think they’d take any project acquisition win they can get, but apparently not...
5x production standard AS-9 Huntsman now exist and if not already are due to be in Army‘s hands shortly.
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2026-02-26/doorstop-avalon
5x production standard AS-9 Huntsman now exist and if not already are due to be in Army‘s hands shortly.
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2026-02-26/doorstop-avalon
So Redbacks completed by the end of 2028.
Certainly a much needed addition for army
Not sure when the SPGs finish but it does beg the question of what’s next for this manufacturing precinct and if new orders are to be placed what does that look like for Army
I’d suspect increased numbers would have to be announced sooner rather than later.
Silence would suggest …………. ?
Cheers S
Takao
The Bunker Group
Why?
Ukrainians (and Russians) still rely on AFV to carry the fight. The AFVs getting hit by drones are there because nothing else can push through the defences. Which, in turn, means anything less just kills your own side faster.
Are drones a problem? Of course they are. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a moron. But... if you have to assault through defences with drones, do you want:
(a) to go in with no armour, and hence no other direct fire weapons, comms or shock action?
(b) to go in with the 1950s era M113AS4 that has aluminium armour, a hand cranked, non-stabilised turret with a whole 50cal, no decent sighting system and no real electrical capability to take an EW suite; or
(c) to go in with AS21, with modern composite and layered armour, that has a powerful direct fire cannon (including fragmentary rounds perfect for killing drones and helicopters), a comprehensive electrical system that can take multiple new (and upgradable) EW systems, APS, and enough electrics to run a decent battlefield network that allows automatic engagement from supporting tanks, IFVs, artillery and air support?
You have to pick one of those three, because at some point you have to take the offensive and fight through those defences.
Defences that kill AFVs aren't new. The first tank that is killed happens 40 min after H-Hour of their first battle. This is why the Australian Army (and most decent armies) relies on combined arms. The tanks, IFVs, artillery, engineers, sigs, helicopters, air power all works to cover the weaknesses of the other. Having a good, modern IFV that can deal with the conventional threats (there are still tanks and ATGMs and heavy calibre cannon and obstacles and... and ...) _and_ have the means to grow into counter-drone platforms or work with dedicated counter drone platforms is essential.
Cutting the IFV buy is the same as telling the RAAF to fight over the South China Sea in Mirage IIIs. Or the Navy to tackle a H-6 raid or Luyang in a Daring class destroyer. You'd be rightfully scorned for such a view. But the M113 is ok for our infantry?
You’re absolutely right. We should send our infantry on foot and without armour to face those same drones…
We should also completely ignore all the traditional threats to un-armoured infantry at the same time...
It’s the Deputy Prime Minister’s own electorate. I don’t personally believe they set up factories for 30x AS-9’s, 15x AS-10’s and 129x Redback IFV’s, but time will tell.
What is interesting historically speaking is the batches we tend to buy our vehicles in. We starrted off with 111x ASLAV’s and ended up with 262 all told.
We started off with 370x Bushmasters and we ended up with over 1100x manufactured. (All rough estimates).
I suspect when the current production runs get close to finishing, we may see additional batches bought.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Tanks, APC's and IFV's have always been vulnerable when out matched, out numbered or when up against air power.
I would say that the troops in any of those vehicles would rather be up against a Drone then a Javelin, a Brimstone or Hellfire. The difference is that you can probably get 50-100 drones for the price of one missile.
Consider what Coalition Forces did to the Iraqi Army in 1991 and 2003, why wouldn't the losses be high on both sides in a more contested environment?
If you want to use Ukraine as an example, remember those images from early in the conflict when the Russian were losing armoured vehicles left, right and centre? Many of their armoured units appeared to be missing one thing, their full complement of dismounted troops.
I would say that the troops in any of those vehicles would rather be up against a Drone then a Javelin, a Brimstone or Hellfire. The difference is that you can probably get 50-100 drones for the price of one missile.
Consider what Coalition Forces did to the Iraqi Army in 1991 and 2003, why wouldn't the losses be high on both sides in a more contested environment?
If you want to use Ukraine as an example, remember those images from early in the conflict when the Russian were losing armoured vehicles left, right and centre? Many of their armoured units appeared to be missing one thing, their full complement of dismounted troops.
The USMC were very aware of the ballistic protection limitations of their AAAV-7 during the war on terror so made extensive use of dismounted infantry to support them. This resulted in not only very low loss rates in the vehicled, but also the infantry screening them.