Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Why all the bloody digs? Is this the well-balanced ocker, with a chip on each shoulder? : If you're going to give it out, don't act hurt when someone kicks back.

I said fill her up. 24 F-18F is a lot less than a full ship load, & would only allow a token contingent most of the time. With an air force the size of the RAAF & a carrier the size of QE, the only sensible thing to do would be to have the entire fighter force carrier-capable.

Great idea but I can hear Air Marshals popping gaskits and having coronaries from here.

The RAAF like the RAF is the junior service and has a major inferiority complex, hence the continal need to claim they are the most important and that land based air power can do everything on its own.

Personally I believe airpower is critical but it has to be intergrated and actively support the other arms. Having the entire RAAF fighter force carrier capable is infact the current situation all they need is the training. ( that is of course if they have or can refit the previously deleted cat gear to the nose wheel of our classic Hornet fleet)

 

[Kirkzzy]

Why all the bloody digs? Is this the well-balanced ocker, with a chip on each shoulder? : If you're going to give it out, don't act hurt when someone kicks back.

I said fill her up. 24 F-18F is a lot less than a full ship load, & would only allow a token contingent most of the time. With an air force the size of the RAAF & a carrier the size of QE, the only sensible thing to do would be to have the entire fighter force carrier-capable.

24 F-18F.. no it is not a lot less, as an average ship load for fixed wing is 32.. so all we would need is 8 extra Shornets... And the RN wouldn't have 32 fixed wing aircraft on board all the time anyway. I get that the RN needs 2 to maintain 1 at all times, but with the budget cuts going at the moment one can only assume another maybe up for sale later on. Hell ones going to be tide up while the others out and about anyway, so you can't really go off at someone for only assuming that they could sell one. This is all hypothetical as well remember.

 

[SASWanabe]

ok, off topic for a second.

Are the Collins SSKs or SSGs? the RAN website calls them both

 

[swerve]

24 F-18F.. no it is not a lot less, as an average ship load for fixed wing is 32.. so all we would need is 8 extra Shornets... And the RN wouldn't have 32 fixed wing aircraft on board all the time anyway. I get that the RN needs 2 to maintain 1 at all times, but with the budget cuts going at the moment one can only assume another maybe up for sale later on. Hell ones going to be tide up while the others out and about anyway, so you can't really go off at someone for only assuming that they could sell one. This is all hypothetical as well remember.

I'm not going off at you for assuming that the UK could sell one, but for assuming that we will sell it, & also other ships that definitely aren't for sale.

You haven't thought this through. Your total force should be significantly more than is needed to fill the ship, not significantly less, or you're wasting the ship.

You can't rely on having 24 F-18F forever. They sometimes crash. They won't all be airworthy all the time. In practice, you're talking about half a shipload of usable aircraft.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

ok, off topic for a second.

Are the Collins SSKs or SSGs? the RAN website calls them both

They are primarily SSG's,

everytime I see them on planning docs they are down as SSG's

 

[aussienscale]

They are indeed, they're in the running along with the NFH-90 as the new Navy heli. I don't know enough about the acquisitions process to know if the link on the previous page is a big-time indicator that the Romeo is running ahead but from what I understand both helicopters have their pros and cons. Given where the NFH-90 is at and size concerns etc, I tend to think the MH-60R would be the less complicated choice, but I'm sure other more well informed people around here could give you a better idea.

Just to clear up for Kirkzzy the MH-60R is in the running for the ASW replacement (24 to be ordered) and it is the MRH-90 that is currently being purchased for the Army and Navy General purpose/transport Helo

A DSCA to the US is a standard thing and is required by the US for any potential foreign military sale. Australia placed a DSCA last year, around Oct/Nov IIRC ? for the Romeo's which is nothing out of the ordinary during the RFI & Selection stage, but I thought a DSCA for the TLS (Through Life Support) was a little unusual ? but with the recent reports on the MRH-90's, is this a potential indicator that the Romeo has just got its nose in front ?

 

[Bonza]

ok, off topic for a second.

Are the Collins SSKs or SSGs? the RAN website calls them both

From what I understand, Collins was designed as a fleet submarine rather than an SSK or "hunter killer" (thus the size relative to the Vastergotland on which it was based) due to range and operational requirements in replacing the Oberons, so the term SSG seems more accurate to me as per the previous post.

I'd say the above with the caveat that it's subject to correction from GF and the RAN guys in here, who obviously know far more on the topic than I.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Just to clear up for Kirkzzy the MH-60R is in the running for the ASW replacement (24 to be ordered) and it is the MRH-90 that is currently being purchased for the Army and Navy General purpose/transport Helo

A DSCA to the US is a standard thing and is required by the US for any potential foreign military sale. Australia placed a DSCA last year, around Oct/Nov IIRC ? for the Romeo's which is nothing out of the ordinary during the RFI & Selection stage, but I thought a DSCA for the TLS (Through Life Support) was a little unusual ? but with the recent reports on the MRH-90's, is this a potential indicator that the Romeo has just got its nose in front ?

Ahh thanks for that, I am still concerned though of the Army's NH90s and what options they got. Remembering Black Ops even though they are over 30 years old are still the prime military transport helicopter. The most tested and battle hardened. So I am wondering if we get a newer variant or go with the NH90s. Thing is when this newer variant enters retirement age we would have a transport heli that has an airframe that is about 50-60 years old.

 

[winnyfield]

Weapons not being considered as part of the mh60r vs nfh90 competition.

Appears that Navy wants MH-60R but the NH90 being given every opportunity to win.

Weapons out of helicopter tender

A $3 BILLION contract to replace much of the navy's ageing fleet of Seahawk helicopters will be awarded without taking into account the weapons supplied by the competing bidders.

....
the idea that weapons systems could be acquired separately from the airframe and fitted was a ''very poor approach''.

 

[Bonza]

Weapons not being considered as part of the mh60r vs nfh90 competition.

Appears that Navy wants MH-60R but the NH90 being given every opportunity to win.

Weapons out of helicopter tender

This helps out the NH90, you reckon? I thought weapons fit would be an area where it had a clear advantage over the Romeo. It operates the MU90 torpedo, which is already in the RAN's inventory (albeit with its own teething problems), and it can employ an actual anti-ship missile in the form of the Marte MK2, as opposed to the much smaller Hellfires used by the MH-60R. Considering the winning design must replace the current helicopter-based ASuW capability provided by the 340kg Penguin missile, it seems (to me anyway) that the Marte would confer a natural advantage in this area, unless the RAN is undergoing a pretty major change in their approach to the ASuW mission.

But then I don't think weapons fit was ever going to be the deciding factor in this competition, so I'm not sure how this will affect the choice of helicopter (though I can see it potentially messing up costs/operating capability down the track). Maybe I'm missing something - I'm not very well versed when it comes to naval stuff - but how do you see this decision as helping the NH90's cause?

 

[Todjaeger]

This helps out the NH90, you reckon? I thought weapons fit would be an area where it had a clear advantage over the Romeo. It operates the MU90 torpedo, which is already in the RAN's inventory (albeit with its own teething problems), and it can employ an actual anti-ship missile in the form of the Marte MK2, as opposed to the much smaller Hellfires used by the MH-60R. Considering the winning design must replace the current helicopter-based ASuW capability provided by the 340kg Penguin missile, it seems (to me anyway) that the Marte would confer a natural advantage in this area, unless the RAN is undergoing a pretty major change in their approach to the ASuW mission.

But then I don't think weapons fit was ever going to be the deciding factor in this competition, so I'm not sure how this will affect the choice of helicopter (though I can see it potentially messing up costs/operating capability down the track). Maybe I'm missing something - I'm not very well versed when it comes to naval stuff - but how do you see this decision as helping the NH90's cause?

IMO non-inclusion of the weapons fitout would be advantageous to the NFH-90, for a variety of reasons.

The MH-60R 'Romeo' is fitted with the Mk-54 lwt, which IIRC is something that the RAN is looking at for future operational use. Granted the MU-90 lwt was adapted for use from the Anzac-class FFH, as observed, it had/has some teething troubles. IIRC the future growth path for the Mk-54 is supposed to be somewhat greater than that for the MU-90, amongst others a new variant or version of ASROC comes to mind.

The Penguin AShM has been retired from RAN service if memory serves, partially because it was sort of a 'missile without a mission', yes, those are my words for it. The sort of missile which can be deployed from a helicopter for an ASuW role is typically rather small or short-ranged. While the Penguin did pack a rather large punch/warhead, the max range was ~37 km IIRC. That would put the heli within SAM range of a number of Area Air Defence systems. OTOH, a significantly smaller missile like the AGM-114 Hellfire II with a blast/frag warhead can have several carried aboard, and such a package would seriously damage or destroy small FAC. A loitering helicopter with something like the APS-147 on overwatch could inflict significant damage vs. a swarm attach.

Anyway, more later. Back to work.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It operates the MU90 torpedo, which is already in the RAN's inventory (albeit with its own teething problems),

But not in an air launched version. And the MU90 costs significantly more to buy and own than the Mk 54.

and it can employ an actual anti-ship missile in the form of the Marte MK2, as opposed to the much smaller Hellfires used by the MH-60R. Considering the winning design must replace the current helicopter-based ASuW capability provided by the 340kg Penguin missile, it seems (to me anyway) that the Marte would confer a natural advantage in this area, unless the RAN is undergoing a pretty major change in their approach to the ASuW mission.

The RAN now has close and standoff ASuW mission requirements. Hellfire meets close and Marte meets neither. Since all frigates now carry Harpoon the requirement for standoff ASuW is less so. Close ASuW against fast boats, pirates and the like is of far higher need.

But then I don't think weapons fit was ever going to be the deciding factor in this competition, so I'm not sure how this will affect the choice of helicopter (though I can see it potentially messing up costs/operating capability down the track). Maybe I'm missing something - I'm not very well versed when it comes to naval stuff - but how do you see this decision as helping the NH90's cause?

Weapons are a major part of the operational cost. Mk 54s and Hellfire are much cheaper than MU90 and Marte. However despite this not being contracted at the same time the cost differential will be considered as part of the life time costs in the helo system assessment.

 

[Bonza]

Tod, Abe, thanks very much for the explanations. I didn't realise the MU90 was much more expensive than the Mk 54, does it offer a particularly good capability for what it is?

Interesting that the Marte meets neither close nor standoff ASuW requirements. I guess Harpoon and Standard cover a fairly broad range of surface threats, so why worry about putting a mid-size AShM on the helis too. The MH-60R is sounding better by the minute...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Tod, Abe, thanks very much for the explanations. I didn't realise the MU90 was much more expensive than the Mk 54, does it offer a particularly good capability for what it is?

The key difference in design is in the energy system. The MU90 and the Mk 50 torpedo (US equiv) use exotic high power batteries which are ridiculously expensive to achieve high underwater speeds. Then someone realised that since the Soviet Navy had decommissioned its Alpha class submarines there was no need for this speed and you could stick the forward end of a Mk 50 torpedo on the rear end of a Mk 46 torpedo with an Otto fuel engine for a torpedo (the Mk 54) that is much cheaper and just as capable. Plus of course you can buy Mk 54s for US dollars at parity and the MU90 is brought at Euros with a / 0.7 to the cost.

Interesting that the Marte meets neither close nor standoff ASuW requirements. I guess Harpoon and Standard cover a fairly broad range of surface threats, so why worry about putting a mid-size AShM on the helis too. The MH-60R is sounding better by the minute...

The Marte Mk 2/S missile still lacks the 20 NM range requirement used for the standoff missile in SEA 1411. It only has a range of 14 NM. There are longer range versions of the Marte in development (using a turbojet) but the Mk 2/S is the version integrated on the NH90. Only the Penguin has this ‘radar horizon’ reach for <600 lb helicopter launched. This type of range requirement allows a helo flying low to the sea to engage a ship or protected port on the horizon without having to come close and risk being shoot down. Marte Mk 2/S does not provide this capability.

Penguin was integrated on the Seahawk before MH-60R and could always be added to the newer model with a lot more ease than an entirely new missile. That is if the RAN wants a rather limited by 2010 standards standoff capability. A multi mode missile with data link like the Delilah would provide a lot more capability for standoff and loiter and engagement of complex targets.

The standoff missile on a helicopter is a far better solution than any ship mounted missile for ASuW – a lot more reach, flexibility and so on. It’s the same as sticking ASuW missiles on a carrier when you could just carry a squadron of strike fighters with missiles.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Marte Mk 2/S missile still lacks the 20 NM range requirement used for the standoff missile in SEA 1411. It only has a range of 14 NM. There are longer range versions of the Marte in development (using a turbojet) but the Mk 2/S is the version integrated on the NH90. Only the Penguin has this ‘radar horizon’ reach for <600 lb helicopter launched. This type of range requirement allows a helo flying low to the sea to engage a ship or protected port on the horizon without having to come close and risk being shoot down. Marte Mk 2/S does not provide this capability.

Penguin was integrated on the Seahawk before MH-60R and could always be added to the newer model with a lot more ease than an entirely new missile. That is if the RAN wants a rather limited by 2010 standards standoff capability. A multi mode missile with data link like the Delilah would provide a lot more capability for standoff and loiter and engagement of complex targets.

The standoff missile on a helicopter is a far better solution than any ship mounted missile for ASuW – a lot more reach, flexibility and so on. It’s the same as sticking ASuW missiles on a carrier when you could just carry a squadron of strike fighters with missiles.

Another possible development (for either the MH-60R or NFH-90) would be Kongsberg adapting the NSM for carriage aboard helicopters. The missiles are comparable to the Penguin in weight, being ~40kg heavier, but about 1 m longer. The warhead size is also comparable, but the real difference is range. Whether of not is there would really be occasion for a naval helicopter to need to fire from ~100 n miles, I do not know.

-Cheers

 

[OPSSG]

Big fan of the Delilah and it's precision deep strike loitering mission sets.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlZuPWou7Z8"]YouTube - Future Weapons Israel special part 6 - Delilah missile[/nomedia]

A multi mode missile with data link like the Delilah would provide a lot more capability for standoff and loiter and engagement of complex targets.

Abe, does someone have the 'fly' the Delilah in certain missions sets (on a Naval Helicopter)? I understand that on the F-16Is, the WSO flys the ordinance (or have I got it wrong?).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, does someone have the 'fly' the Delilah in certain missions sets (on a Naval Helicopter)? I understand that on the F-16Is, the WSO flys the ordinance (or have I got it wrong?).

There is no flying of Delilah. The missile flies itself to GPS derived waypoints and targets. The seeker head can identify a target and engage it or the human operator liniked via radio can identify a target in the seeker view and designate it for attack. What gets interesting in Delilah is a little bar in the symbology that gets smaller and smaller as the missile gets closer to the target. Until the bar is exhausted the operator has an option for an automatic ‘fly around’ where the missile will climb out of its dive, gain altitude and fly around for another approach or fly to another waypoint. This gives the human operator more time to visually recognize or find a target. It can also do multiple approaches depending on fuel reserves. One video of an attack I watched from an F-16 during the 2006 war saw the operator order 3-4 approaches as he was trying to find a missile laden truck hidden under camouflage inside a courtyard. He eventually found it right under the original GPS target point but provided the confirmation to ensure destruction.

 

[Bonza]

The key difference in design is in the energy system. The MU90 and the Mk 50 torpedo (US equiv) use exotic high power batteries which are ridiculously expensive to achieve high underwater speeds. Then someone realised that since the Soviet Navy had decommissioned its Alpha class submarines there was no need for this speed and you could stick the forward end of a Mk 50 torpedo on the rear end of a Mk 46 torpedo with an Otto fuel engine for a torpedo (the Mk 54) that is much cheaper and just as capable. Plus of course you can buy Mk 54s for US dollars at parity and the MU90 is brought at Euros with a / 0.7 to the cost.

Ah I see, thanks for the info.

The Marte Mk 2/S missile still lacks the 20 NM range requirement used for the standoff missile in SEA 1411. It only has a range of 14 NM. There are longer range versions of the Marte in development (using a turbojet) but the Mk 2/S is the version integrated on the NH90. Only the Penguin has this ‘radar horizon’ reach for <600 lb helicopter launched. This type of range requirement allows a helo flying low to the sea to engage a ship or protected port on the horizon without having to come close and risk being shoot down. Marte Mk 2/S does not provide this capability.

Penguin was integrated on the Seahawk before MH-60R and could always be added to the newer model with a lot more ease than an entirely new missile. That is if the RAN wants a rather limited by 2010 standards standoff capability. A multi mode missile with data link like the Delilah would provide a lot more capability for standoff and loiter and engagement of complex targets.

The standoff missile on a helicopter is a far better solution than any ship mounted missile for ASuW – a lot more reach, flexibility and so on. It’s the same as sticking ASuW missiles on a carrier when you could just carry a squadron of strike fighters with missiles.

Oh right, I misunderstood again, I thought you were indicating the close and standoff ASuW capabilities would be split between ship and helicopter, rather than there being a requirement for helicopters to cover both. Airborne standoff ASuW makes sense, although the 600 lbs figure you mention is interesting - is that anything to do with carriage limitations or were you just describing the Penguin's capabilities?

I'm reading about Delilah, sounds like a very impressive capability for its size and well suited to a naval helo. I was previously thinking the Kongsberg NSM might be suitable, but given your comments above I get the impression it may be too heavy? Presumably quite a bit more expensive than the Delilah, too.

The British/French effort to develop the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) sounds interesting, although it'll be quite a bit smaller than the weapons discussed above (100 kgs, 40 kg warhead). From what I've read, they want to keep the dimensions similar to Sea Skua while doubling the range and introducing a precision aim point system to broaden the range of effects on the target. They're pegging it for targets up to 1000 tons but if the guidance system works out to be as accurate as they say I imagine it would retain some effectiveness against larger vessels, and a doubling of range would just about be pushing the 20 nautical mile mark (going by publicly available data). A bit small for what we're discussing, I just mention it out of interest - the development of new Western anti-ship missiles seems relatively rare.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Penguin AShM is ~370-385 kg, depending on which version, so that pushes the missile to ~800 lbs, which is a big missile for a helicopter. NSM would push that a further ~100 lbs.

One thing I have observed, is that while there is less of a push for dedicated 'Western' AShM, many of the missiles in service, slated to enter service, or in development are of various Joint or multi-role designations. IMO this is a good thing, as it allow weapons to still be utilized of ASuW, but also simply maintenance and logistics by rationalizing munitions inventory, and therefore rationalizing all the underlying supply chains as well.

One area of potential US development which could have an impact on future Naval helicopter missile armament is the JCM programme. While I am uncertain as to the status at this time (it seems to be one of those programmes which gets killed, and then resurrected after a year or so...) the US is still looking for some kind of replacement for some of the TOW, Hellfire and Maverick missile inventories. Include some of the newer missile/seeker features like target recognition, loitering and multi-mode seekers, pack it into a missile larger than a Hellfire (~110 lbs) but smaller than a Maverick (~670 lbs) and get the range extended to 20+ n miles, and then there is a possible contender. Particularly if the JCM can be carried in a triple missile configuration, like the Brimstone or SDB.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Oh right, I misunderstood again, I thought you were indicating the close and standoff ASuW capabilities would be split between ship and helicopter, rather than there being a requirement for helicopters to cover both.

The FNACS requirement as written by Naval Aviation (which is probably very different as to what comes through the tendering process by CDG/DMO) has the helo being able to be reconfigured for a range of missions. Two of these are close ASuW and standoff ASuW. Using SEA 1411 as a base neither the NH90 or MH60 seem to meet the RAN’s requirement for standoff ASuW. The Penguin meet a very specific requirement the RAN had for being able to cause a lot of damage to an enemy fleet and range was an important part of that. However at the core capabilities level the Penguin was to provide an Anzac class with the mainstay of its ASuW capability. With the delays in Seapsrite the RAN leadership got a bit jumpity about operating Anzas exclusively with a Seahawk and sending these ships to see with no ‘hull loss’ ASuW capability. Therefore the installation of Harpoons.

FNACS still has a standoff ASuW *need* but it is not as pressing as it would have been without all of the surface combatants now carrying Harpoons. So in the DCP is a program for a next generation anti ship missile. Likely the RAN would like to acquire something that can be fired from ships and helicopters.

Airborne standoff ASuW makes sense, although the 600 lbs figure you mention is interesting - is that anything to do with carriage limitations or were you just describing the Penguin's capabilities?

This is pretty much the upper end of most naval helos two missile carriage capability. With the modular fit out nature of FNACS you could probably carry more than 1,200 lbs of missiles because all the ASW gear (sonars, processors) and the like will be removed.

I'm reading about Delilah, sounds like a very impressive capability for its size and well suited to a naval helo. I was previously thinking the Kongsberg NSM might be suitable, but given your comments above I get the impression it may be too heavy? Presumably quite a bit more expensive than the Delilah, too.

The NSM has some of multimode, data link capabilities as the Delilah and the evolved NSM with Lockheed (the JSM) should exceed its capability. These missiles also carry a much larger – hull loss – type warhead.