Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nocookies

For those that can't get through the paywall here is an abridged version ...


I am not sure why these two ships need to be sold. They probably aren't worth very much and could easily just be left in mothballs or used as parts for the other four ships.

Minewarfare seems to be the unsexy part of the navy and perhaps it is being somewhat neglected. Now that the decisions on the new subs and frigates are out of the way some more time and effort will be spent on developing Australia's mine-hunting capabilities.
I think MCM has gone beyond a manned vessel flogging along in a minefield popping in divers whenever they see something interesting.
The RAN has upgraded four of the class and only has manning approval for that number. It has also announced substantial funding for remote vehicles and quite a substantial contract was let to Steber for this some time this year.

As far as a sale for the remaining two, their hulls will be in great condition, GRP only gets stronger with age (a pearling company I previously worked for has just sold a GRP ship built in 1974 and worked hard, the hull is perfect) and they should be a target for those countries developing their own MCM capability like either Indonesia or the Philippines for instance.
If NZ ever wished to return to a specialised ship, working in cooperation with the RAN, they would be a perfect acquisition.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One at least would be a good replacement for Manawanui, and there doesn't seem (publicly, at least) any movement on that front recently.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Much negative commentary has been loaded onto the MRH 90 Taipans but the two embarked in HMAS Adelaide seem to coping well with the high tempo of operations during the lengthy deployment including RIMPAC.

Mighty MRH-90s support Exercise RIMPAC
It would certainly appear so.

Love or hate the MRH-90s, I think it's pretty clear to say now that they are here to stay (I just can't see the whole fleet being replaced early, like the SH-2Gs, unless something goes completely pear shaped in the near future!).

Regardless of which MUH the ADF is operating, I still think the RAN is a bit 'light on' for airframe numbers.

Originally when there were a total of 46 MRH-90s, the 'split' between Navy and Army was 6 for Navy and 40 for Army, then the numbers were increased to 47 (still 6 for Navy and 41 for Army), but as of the 2016 DWP, the Government came up with a bit of 'rubber room' for the combined fleet.

Navy nominally now has 6-8 airframes and Army 39-41 airframes available out of the combined pool of 47 airframes.

With the two LHDs, Choules and the soon to arrive two Supply class AORs (plus the potential 3rd AOR or 2nd Choules type ship), I think the RAN could do with at least another 3-6 MUH airframes.

Yes the Government could 'rebalance' the numbers between the allocations, but that would come at a reduction in airframes for Army, so maybe it might be worth ordering another 3-6 MRH-90s (and no I haven't gone crazy, but I'm sure those that don't like the MRH-90 will say I am!!).

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One at least would be a good replacement for Manawanui, and there doesn't seem (publicly, at least) any movement on that front recently.
Nope, not a thing. I've posted in the RNZN thread about Matataua's participation in RIMPAC. I don't see the RNZN acquiring one of the RAN Minesweepers. They use AUVs and pouncing from helos.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It would certainly appear so.

Love or hate the MRH-90s, I think it's pretty clear to say now that they are here to stay (I just can't see the whole fleet being replaced early, like the SH-2Gs, unless something goes completely pear shaped in the near future!).

Regardless of which MUH the ADF is operating, I still think the RAN is a bit 'light on' for airframe numbers.

Originally when there were a total of 46 MRH-90s, the 'split' between Navy and Army was 6 for Navy and 40 for Army, then the numbers were increased to 47 (still 6 for Navy and 41 for Army), but as of the 2016 DWP, the Government came up with a bit of 'rubber room' for the combined fleet.

Navy nominally now has 6-8 airframes and Army 39-41 airframes available out of the combined pool of 47 airframes.

With the two LHDs, Choules and the soon to arrive two Supply class AORs (plus the potential 3rd AOR or 2nd Choules type ship), I think the RAN could do with at least another 3-6 MUH airframes.

Yes the Government could 'rebalance' the numbers between the allocations, but that would come at a reduction in airframes for Army, so maybe it might be worth ordering another 3-6 MRH-90s (and no I haven't gone crazy, but I'm sure those that don't like the MRH-90 will say I am!!).

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,
I agree John and a lot of the NH-90 issues are being sorted out. We have had nowhere near the issues that you have had, but that's just different approaches. I noticed in the latest NZ exercise with them, the RNZAF had door gunners both sides and the grunts exited via the ramp. HMNZS Matataua will use them for mine pouncing once they have been cleared for that and I wouldn't be surprised if they use the ramp, like they did at RIMPAC from the USN CH-53 Sea Dragon. Apparently the helo flies at 10 ft at 10 knots so the divers can safely exit the aircraft and enter the water.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I agree John and a lot of the NH-90 issues are being sorted out. We have had nowhere near the issues that you have had, but that's just different approaches. I noticed in the latest NZ exercise with them, the RNZAF had door gunners both sides and the grunts exited via the ramp. HMNZS Matataua will use them for mine pouncing once they have been cleared for that and I wouldn't be surprised if they use the ramp, like they did at RIMPAC from the USN CH-53 Sea Dragon. Apparently the helo flies at 10 ft at 10 knots so the divers can safely exit the aircraft and enter the water.
Hi Mate (hope things are well on your side of the Ditch!).

I know the general consensus is that Euro procurement is trouble and US procurement is good, but it's not always that black and white, yes the procurement of the KC-30A had it's problems, but I think in the end we can all see it's turned out to be a great capability, and on the other side of the fence the E-7A had it's share of problems, Boeing had to absorb a lot of the costs for the delays and overruns too (anyway, not going to get bogged down on that).

I think the next major purchase of helicopters for the ADF will come, well into the future, when the various phases of the US Future Vertical Lift program become operational (and that's a discussion for a decade or so from now). So in the interim we have to live with what we have now.

It would appear now (as I said earlier), that the MRH-90 fleet is here to stay, like it or not.

I suppose the one 'watch this space' is what happens with the replacement of the remaining Blackhawk fleet for the SAS, will they end up with a 'special forces' variant of the MRH-90 (as France is developing), or will they obtain a version of the H-60s that the US Special Forces is using? Who knows.

Either way, I still think the RAN is a bit light on for MUH airframes, if the SAS ends up using MRH-90s, maybe some more can be ordered, or if the SAS gets a H-60 of some type, more MRH-90s could be allocated to the RAN out of the total pool.

Cheers,
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was just thinking the other day, that since Darwin decommissioned in Dec last year, this would be the first time that the RAN has had a destroyer/frigate force that has been completely Aust built since Perth commissioned in 1965. Cheers.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
John i was under the impression that the SOCOMD Blackhawks are being replaced by MRH-90s and the Blackhawks will be retired next year. Also next year the Lt deployable Helicopter program is due to start.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
It would certainly appear so.

Love or hate the MRH-90s, I think it's pretty clear to say now that they are here to stay (I just can't see the whole fleet being replaced early, like the SH-2Gs, unless something goes completely pear shaped in the near future!).

Regardless of which MUH the ADF is operating, I still think the RAN is a bit 'light on' for airframe numbers.

Originally when there were a total of 46 MRH-90s, the 'split' between Navy and Army was 6 for Navy and 40 for Army, then the numbers were increased to 47 (still 6 for Navy and 41 for Army), but as of the 2016 DWP, the Government came up with a bit of 'rubber room' for the combined fleet.

Navy nominally now has 6-8 airframes and Army 39-41 airframes available out of the combined pool of 47 airframes.

With the two LHDs, Choules and the soon to arrive two Supply class AORs (plus the potential 3rd AOR or 2nd Choules type ship), I think the RAN could do with at least another 3-6 MUH airframes.

Yes the Government could 'rebalance' the numbers between the allocations, but that would come at a reduction in airframes for Army, so maybe it might be worth ordering another 3-6 MRH-90s (and no I haven't gone crazy, but I'm sure those that don't like the MRH-90 will say I am!!).

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,
If we had the money for extra utility helicopters I would buy some more Seahawks, or a variant thereof for the navy and just hand over the MRH-90s to the army.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If we had the money for extra utility helicopters I would buy some more Seahawks, or a variant thereof for the navy and just hand over the MRH-90s to the army.[/QUOTE

Agree a modest increase in numbers is warranted to supply both services.
Either 6 to 8 additional MRH-90's, or introduce this number of Sierra's for the Navy and keep the Taipans for the Army.
As mentioned in the RIMPAC article, the ability to switch from logistic to tactical tasks was an important feature of the helicopter.
I doubt the Special forces will get a new helicopter type when the blackhawks retire,or any time soon after. To be realistic such a purchase would be in the pipeline now pending a decision now. I don't see this happening.
For the immediate future I'd suggest helicopter numbers will be stretched to cater for the various duties of both Army and Navy.

This will be a concern in the 2020's

Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Agree a modest increase in numbers is warranted to supply both services.
Either 6 to 8 additional MRH-90's, or introduce this number of Sierra's for the Navy and keep the Taipans for the Army.
As mentioned in the RIMPAC article, the ability to switch from logistic to tactical tasks was an important feature of the helicopter.
I doubt the Special forces will get a new helicopter type when the blackhawks retire,or any time soon after. To be realistic such a purchase would be in the pipeline now pending a decision now. I don't see this happening.
For the immediate future I'd suggest helicopter numbers will be stretched to cater for the various duties of both Army and Navy.

This will be a concern in the 2020's

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agree a modest increase in numbers is warranted to supply both services.
Either 6 to 8 additional MRH-90's, or introduce this number of Sierra's for the Navy and keep the Taipans for the Army.
As mentioned in the RIMPAC article, the ability to switch from logistic to tactical tasks was an important feature of the helicopter.
I doubt the Special forces will get a new helicopter type when the blackhawks retire,or any time soon after. To be realistic such a purchase would be in the pipeline now pending a decision now. I don't see this happening.
For the immediate future I'd suggest helicopter numbers will be stretched to cater for the various duties of both Army and Navy.

This will be a concern in the 2020's

Regards S
It would be a lot quicker to acquire somewhere between 6 - 10 Sierras thru FMS than acquiring more NH-90. The NHI NH-90 production list is long and slow.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It would be a lot quicker to acquire somewhere between 6 - 10 Sierras thru FMS than acquiring more NH-90. The NHI NH-90 production list is long and slow.
I’m not sure if the Brisbane production line is still open, thought they had finished and too lazy to investigate, just got home from a cruise.
Any offers?
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A key difference between the RAN and the Army with MRH is that the Army needs a battlefield helicopter, not just a helicopter to get from A to B. The MSH role is pretty straightforward, and the MRH has a lot of excellent capabilities (when it is working) that make it very suitable to the role. Conducting air assault is, of course, a much more challenging assignment, with SF needs being a step above even that. This was a key reason why the RAN was able to get more out of the helicopter quicker - the operational role just isn’t as challenging.

An example of this is that the MSH flight on the LHD can’t be used for air assault tasks, or indeed any task that would see the helo land in an unsecured LZ. Even though the airframe is identical to the Army airframes embarked on the same ship, the crew just doesn’t have the skills needed for the role (of course, they concentrate on other skills, like landing/winching from small floating LZs in the middle of the ocean). So you might see a lot of airframes lined up along the deck of an LHD, but if one of those is the ships MSH, then the amphibious assault capability of the ship is much reduced.

There is a similar dynamic with the NZDF, who haven’t really tried to push the envelope the same as the ADF birds, which is one reason you hear far less complaining from that side of the Tasman.

For example, ngatimozart spoke above about an ex in which grunts disembarked down the ramp with door gunners in the doors. That’s workable for air mobility tasks, but isn’t really an option for air assault tasks due to the spinny thing at the back of the helo getting in the way. A single disoriented grunt or patch of uneven ground makes that a disaster waiting to happen. Hence, we’re back to finding a place to put the guns so you can disembark via the doors at the same time.

If we were looking at the Navy getting more MSH, it would make far more sense for them to get more of the Army pool of MRH, with the ARMY backfilling with useful battlefield aircraft instead (more chooks), than with them getting a new buy of MRH or a different aircraft type.

As stated, 6 Avn will be re-equipped with MRH in the near future, replacing the Blackhawk. They were told they could have either new blackhawks or a new light deployable helicopter, but not both. So they chose the light deployable helicopter and the Taipan.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It would be a lot quicker to acquire somewhere between 6 - 10 Sierras thru FMS than acquiring more NH-90. The NHI NH-90 production list is long and slow.
And unlike the MH 90 you could then, at need, embark them in DDGs and FFHs. Plus you'd get the capability to employ ALMDS in the mine surveillance role. Plus much of the logistics would be common.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There is a similar dynamic with the NZDF, who haven’t really tried to push the envelope the same as the ADF birds, which is one reason you hear far less complaining from that side of the Tasman.

For example, ngatimozart spoke above about an ex in which grunts disembarked down the ramp with door gunners in the doors. That’s workable for air mobility tasks, but isn’t really an option for air assault tasks due to the spinny thing at the back of the helo getting in the way. A single disoriented grunt or patch of uneven ground makes that a disaster waiting to happen.
Ah but our grunts have an extensive 6 month course to teach them to stay away from that spinny thingy at the back. It's an expensive course because of the excessive crayon expenditure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top