Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

If they've qualified to land then you'd have to load the odds that they can land on any NATO partners JSF rated landing asset

they can land them on any real estate if trained to do so.
by extension, they can land them on any untreated deck (which will start to include a lot of VSTOL/STOL pads) - the issue about unrated or untreated decks specifically against the hot thrust of the JSF V/STOL is frequency of the event before its a risk and impacts on overall availability and mission req of that platform. eg unless its a hail mary issue I can't see see any unrated asset taking them on as eventually it impacts on its core mission availability. (I'm referring to receiving host, not the plane)

if its about the capacity to do so then any qual'd for environment pilot will be able to land them wherever

Talking of wherever
Some may remember a young british Harrier pilot landing on a 2300t Spanish merchant ship in 1983. Used a couple of containers as a landing platfom and the roof of a vehilce as a brake. A bit embarasing for th RN, but a better outcome with one minute of fuel left than if you had a conventional aircraft..........hail mary!

Stampede

 

[Stampede]

The proof of this is the difficulty the ADF is currently having certifying the MRH90 to operate from Canberra and Adelaide. As it stands one and possibly two spots may not be possible for the Taipans to use, potentially reducing the anticipated single lift by a third. Factor in that Australian Defender is also reporting that ergonomics has reduced the number of fully equipped troops each helicopter can lift in assault mode from eighteen to ten, the assumed lift from a Canberra has reduced from 108 fully equipped troops to only 40.

I wonder if it may not actually prove quicker and easier to certify the F-35B, AV-8B (B+) MV-22, Super Stallion, Yankee and Zulu, etc. than our own types. A bit cheeky, but how much worse / how many more problems before it becomes more sensible / economic to replace the MRH90 than to continue sorting issues.

On Australian Defender, they really don't like ASC do they? They list a litany of issues with a range of projects, ignore or mid appropriate blame for others but specifically hammer ASC in the editorial and two separate articles in a single issue, even stating that BAE and Forgacs are more successful and deserving of future contracts than ASC. They have obviously fallen for the politically inspired ASC bashing hook line and sinker, not realising that they are simply parroting the narrative of the DFAT/WA Mafia Soryu MOTS Japan build. They must have missed the fact that the only Defmins who had an issue with ASC were Sand Gropers who were being wined and dined by ASCs competitors, companies who infact were found by international experts to have performed well below par and have caused the majority of the delays to the AWD project.

Yes succumbed to buying Australia defender. Yes after a quick look at the news agents was curious with the article on the ship to shore off Canberra with Abrams and MRH-90s.
I know this stuff being discussed before but it keeps coming up.
In the black and white of the matter can the LCM1e carry an Abrams MBT from ship to shore. Or is it shades of grey depending on sea state. Or is it just playing it safe as we learn the rope. Or is it not fit for purpose..............?

As to the MRH-90, I am confused about it's lack of capability to operate off all 6 landing zones. Again is it that that we have the traing wheels on or is there some structural problem with the ships design.? Wind over deck issues I don't know.
As to the MRH-90 I can't see us getting rid of them especially after seasprite and early tiger replacement I suggest there here to stay. Are they realy so bad or again are we just at the learning stage. Yes the aircraft has had issues but is it at the point that we are throwing good money after bad or do we persevere with every challenge with the optimism it will eventually be a fine aircraft.
I just dont know what the reality of this aircraft is.............. Maybe its just a case of giving it time. NZ seems OK with it so I'm hoping it comes good.
Thoughts
Stampede

 

[Raven22]

The short answer is an LLC (ie, an LCM1E) can carry an Abrams, albeit in limited sea states. It just hasn't been demonstrated in Australia yet. If Spanish LCM1Es can carry Leopard 2s, ours can carry Abrams. Trials were supposed to happen in the first half of this year, but I think Canberra's trip to Fiji got those trials postponed.

I haven't read the article in Australian Defender ref the MRH-90 and the LHD, but I think they are simply referring to the fact that only four landing spots are certified for use at the moment, which is a function of the number of trained and certified deck crew, not any inherent problem with the ship or aircraft.

Australia is so cautious with any trial and certification activity that I wouldn't read too much into these sort of issues. Both the aviation community and the Navy love saying no and making these sort of things as difficult as possible. There are lots of non-aviation Army people pulling their hair out at being told that things aren't possible, despite the fact it quite obviously is possible as the Spanish have been doing it for years.

 

[Volkodav]

The short answer is an LLC (ie, an LCM1E) can carry an Abrams, albeit in limited sea states. It just hasn't been demonstrated in Australia yet. If Spanish LCM1Es can carry Leopard 2s, ours can carry Abrams. Trials were supposed to happen in the first half of this year, but I think Canberra's trip to Fiji got those trials postponed.

I haven't read the article in Australian Defender ref the MRH-90 and the LHD, but I think they are simply referring to the fact that only four landing spots are certified for use at the moment, which is a function of the number of trained and certified deck crew, not any inherent problem with the ship or aircraft.

Australia is so cautious with any trial and certification activity that I wouldn't read too much into these sort of issues. Both the aviation community and the Navy love saying no and making these sort of things as difficult as possible. There are lots of non-aviation Army people pulling their hair out at being told that things aren't possible, despite the fact it quite obviously is possible as the Spanish have been doing it for years.

There is apparently an issue relating to the MRH90 ref its rotors not having a brake and wind milling combined with previously encountered gearbox durability. This is worse on some spots than others due to airflows around the ski jump and island. A recurring story with the MRH is its surprising fragility and lack of flexibility, especially in comparison with the legacy Blackhawks.

 

[t68]

There is apparently an issue relating to the MRH90 ref its rotors not having a brake and wind milling combined with previously encountered gearbox durability. This is worse on some spots than others due to airflows around the ski jump and island. A recurring story with the MRH is its surprising fragility and lack of flexibility, especially in comparison with the legacy Blackhawks.

Yep remember hearing of the problem thought they had that one sorted though, but I'd rather they be over cautious in certification than rush it.

But if the problem persist and is a problem might be time to look at plane B, either refurbish the current Hawks or buy Serria's.

I seem to remember we were supposed to have the capability to move a combat ready battalion lift and company lift concurrently in two separate mission's, I don't think we ever truly have had that capability, have two separate fleets may solve that problem

 

[Volkodav]

Ironically the original requirement that led to the MRH buy was an additional troop lift capability, primarily to operate from our existing and proposed amphibious ships, Bill, Ben and Tobruk initially then the LHDs, not a Blackhawk replacement per say. I am not sure but I believe this was part of the white paper decision to acquire LHDs, making it very surprising we didn't select a fully sorted / marinised type in the first place.

This additional capability was, I believe, to be in the form of an additional squadron, with no specific type being specified, just "x" number of troops ship to shore in "y" lifts over "z" range, load, sea state etc. Lima Blackhawks and Merlins were offered up with NH90 TTH (tactical transport helicopter) being successful and twelve examples ordered. Then as part of the desire to reduce the number of types in service, a second larger batch was ordered, if memory serves me, without a formal competition to determine whether upgrading the Blackhawks, new Lima or Mike Blackhawks (or another type) was the best way forward, despite the Army's clear preference for Blackhawks. Then the Seaking replacement was brought forward and Aerospace Australia got an automatic, non competed order for an additional six airframes.

The assumption was, even though a multitude of schedule, certification, durability, performance, quality, design and development issues were becoming apparent, that the NH (naval helicopter) variant would be selected to replace the Seahawk and Super Sea Sprite shipboard helicopters, if only for the sake of commonality. Fortunately the government of the day listened to the capability people and operators, ordering Romeo instead, leading to a much smoother acquisition and introduction into service.

In hindsight, the thing that appears to have gotten the MRH across the line was it was newer and had a larger lifting capacity than the Blackhawk, as well as a lower cost of ownership and being small / versatile enough to be considered as a Blackhawk / Seahawk replacement going forward. As it turned out cost of ownership was grossly understated, project status was greatly over stated and on paper performance has been significantly impaired by the actual, layout, ergonomics and durability of the design.

Hindsight is great and I can see why the NH90 concept was so attractive to government at the time but without the plan to reduce the number of types in service it is clear that either an S-70 derivative or even Merlin for the initial increased troop lift requirement would have been much better going forward. Blackhawks (possibly modified for shipboard operation), Knighthawks (Sierras), or Merlins for the additional lift, refurbished / upgraded and / or new Blackhawks to replace the existing fleet, Merlins or Sierras to replace the Seakings and Romeos or a mix of Romeos and Sierras (or even Merlins) to replace the Seahawks and Sprites. Lower acquisition costs, lower through life costs, greater capability and easier, earlier FOC.

 

[Joe Black]

In hindsight, the thing that appears to have gotten the MRH across the line was it was newer and had a larger lifting capacity than the Blackhawk, as well as a lower cost of ownership and being small / versatile enough to be considered as a Blackhawk / Seahawk replacement going forward. As it turned out cost of ownership was grossly understated, project status was greatly over stated and on paper performance has been significantly impaired by the actual, layout, ergonomics and durability of the design.

I believe the rear ramp access rather than just the side doors also made the MRH look better than the Blackhawk/Seahawk in terms of quicker and easier access. Plus as you have said, the heavier load it can carry, more number of troops it can carry, longer range plus higher transit speed. What's not to like about the MRH, except it has multitude of teething problems and have problem achieving FOC.

 

[Volkodav]

I believe the rear ramp access rather than just the side doors also made the MRH look better than the Blackhawk/Seahawk in terms of quicker and easier access. Plus as you have said, the heavier load it can carry, more number of troops it can carry, longer range plus higher transit speed. What's not to like about the MRH, except it has multitude of teething problems and have problem achieving FOC.

And the sad reports that the MRH can only usefully carry ten fully equipped troops due to ergonomic issues, can't flare on landing, is unsuitable for fast roping just makes it better. It appears the ADF have replaced an assault helicopter with a somewhat limited utility helicopter.

 

[ngatimozart]

And the sad reports that the MRH can only usefully carry ten fully equipped troops due to ergonomic issues, can't flare on landing, is unsuitable for fast roping just makes it better. It appears the ADF have replaced an assault helicopter with a somewhat limited utility helicopter.

Hmm, our lot seem to be fast roping out of our NH90TTHs ok without the appearances of major issues. We don't seem to be having the issues that the ADF have, so why is that?

 

[Volkodav]

Hmm, our lot seem to be fast roping out of our NH90TTHs ok without the appearances of major issues. We don't seem to be having the issues that the ADF have, so why is that?

Certification and configuration most likely. I am not sure which version NZ acquired but the type is a mess in terms of the multitude of different options and configurations available.

 

[SpazSinbad]

RAAF Pilot USMC F-35B Exchange News

A few days ago 'gf0012-aust' said on page 1272: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1272/#post310433

"...The clue for any ADF interest in using JSF on the phatships is when RAAF pilots get attached to a USMC or USN JSF squadron for bleed in training.

None of that is happening - JSF training is strictly limited to USAF exchange.

Considering that attachment to these squadrons for bleed in training is usually 3-4 years ahead of IOC - let alone FOC, then one can see that JSF on the phatships as a considered requirement is an absolute fairy story - its not happening and is not even in the long view as there are a few score plus some of ordinary fixed wing pilots to qualify - and to reinforce, the combat trainers and instructors are only involved with USAF - not USN or USMC...."

Over in the F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC) on 19 May 2016 we have this news:

"...So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term"...." LTGEN Jon Davis USMC" http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...air-discussions-usn-usmc-12486-15/#post309843

OOPs I see 'DaveS124' replied with same info on page 1273 at: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1273/#post310455

 

[Stampede]

Ironically the original requirement that led to the MRH buy was an additional troop lift capability, primarily to operate from our existing and and easier, earlier FOC.

I'm actually confident the MRH-90 will get there but maybe, just not in the time frame we expect.
I concur with the history you mentioned. Early days the MRH-90 would seem a good fit for both a naval and army helicopter replacement.Good size,ramp,marinised(allegedly) and modern avionics complete with greater internal space compared to the black/sea hawk family.......... What could go wrong.!
I dont want to look to much at the past for the MRH-90 is what we have and together with other nations we will collectively push ahead and make it work.We are not alone and we can benefit from each others challenges and find solutions.
While it would be nice to have an imaginary Q store to hand inany piece of kit and get a credit note to go shopping for a replacement. I would however be very surprised if treasury were to sign the cheque.
Lets look forward to what the special forces get in a small replacement helicopter and for this naval forum hope its fully marinised.

 

[Stampede]

The short answer is an LLC (ie, an LCM1E) can carry an out at being told that things aren't possible, despite the fact it quite obviously is possible as the Spanish have been doing it for years.

Thanks Raven
Yes plenty of imagery on the net of various Carriers and LHD's with helicopters and Vtol air craft operating / parking / being moved. the whole box and dice.
I get OHaS but it does seem seem a slow process. I guess that we will get it all happening in the end. Certainly pics of spains leo 2 on the LCM-1e and it's to my understanding they have a heavy version similar in weight to our abrams.
Again small steps.

S

 

[gf0012-aust]

A few days ago 'gf0012-aust' said on page 1272: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1272/#post310433


Over in the F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC) on 19 May 2016 we have this news:

OOPs I see 'DaveS124' replied with same info on page 1273 at: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1273/#post310455

I'm not (just) talking about fixed wing CTOL ops - I'm talking about STOL operations - because the training is very different and the CONOPS surrounding same is also different

the USMC attachment is about expeditionary knowledge and support - ie CTOL contribution to the expeditionary event

Its not dealing with STOL operations. For that to happen then people (more than just pilots) would be specifically attached to units which would be raising eyebrows

none of those clues are happening - and there would be a 2+ year lead in alerting everyone to "the difference" over normal exchanges and training

there seems to be a lack of understanding that if there is "real" interest in STOL activity for RAN/RAAF on the phatships then its more than just about sending pilots on exchange to USMC or USN units.

we're still in wishful thinking territory 15 years away from changes to the current force planning obligations etc,....

getting excited over a single pilot rotation is missing the point completely about what other "tells" are needed and that then point to some activity laced with some development intent

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not talking about fixed wing CTOL ops - I'm talking about STOL operations - because the training is very different and the CONOPS surrounding same is also different

the USMC attachment is about expeditionary knowledge and support - ie CTOL contribution to the expeditionary event

Its not dealing with STOL operations. For that to happen then people (more than just pilots) would be specifically attached to units which would be raising eyebrows

none of those clues are happening - and there would be a 2+ year lead in alerting everyone to "the difference" over normal exchanges and training

Nowhere did I mention CTOL ops: "..."...So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term"...."" USMC plan to operate from their Sea Base/DSO Distributed STOVL Ops and NOT be a '2nd Land Army'. For several years now since exiting Afghanistan etc. the USMC have been concentrating on getting back to being Marines operating from the sea.

IF the RAAF exchange F-35B pilot does not go to sea then likely he will at least be trained in the VLs on the LHA ashore practice areas. By all pilot accounts VLing an F-35B anywhere suitable is much easier than with the Harrier of yore. It would not surprise that an effort will be made - even if only on paper - about the suitability of our LHDs for emergency flat deck VLs (and subsequent STO off the ski jump back to F-35B base/ship - without weapons) in future.

The F-35B is apparently easy to land in any Mode 4/STOVL configuration from RVL Rolling Vertical Landing Ashore to Creeping VL to flying backwards at max. of thirty knots and not only but also a plain old conventional landing with aero braking down to about 100 knots (put nosewheel down) as per the F-35A (which approaches at a constant AoA to touchdown with the flare taken care of).

Yes there is a lot for the ADF combination to achieve with two new LHDs and all the new gear so first things first. A lot of material about F-35Bs on flat decks has been collected and is available on the SpazSinbad OneDrive & GoogleDrive pages if anyone interested. Both may be easily reached via the SpazSinbad YouTube page - see links at top right of that YouTube page for both 'drives'. https://www.youtube.com/user/SpazSinbad2/videos

And to add that in the first post by me on the other section one may note that I was 'not excited'. Just reporting the facts ma'am - nuttin' but the facts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nowhere did I mention CTOL ops: "..."...So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term"...."" USMC plan to operate from their Sea Base/DSO Distributed STOVL Ops and NOT be a '2nd Land Army'. For several years now since exiting Afghanistan etc. the USMC have been concentrating on getting back to being Marines operating from the sea.

IF the RAAF exchange F-35B pilot does not go to sea then likely he will at least be trained in the VLs on the LHA ashore practice areas. By all pilot accounts VLing an F-35B anywhere suitable is much easier than with the Harrier of yore. It would not surprise that an effort will be made - even if only on paper - about the suitability of our LHDs for emergency flat deck VLs (and subsequent STO off the ski jump back to F-35B base/ship - without weapons) in future.

The F-35B is apparently easy to land in any Mode 4/STOVL configuration from RVL Rolling Vertical Landing Ashore to Creeping VL to flying backwards at max. of thirty knots and not only but also a plain old conventional landing with aero braking down to about 100 knots (put nosewheel down) as per the F-35A (which approaches at a constant AoA to touchdown with the flare taken care of).

Yes there is a lot for the ADF combination to achieve with two new LHDs and all the new gear so first things first. A lot of material about F-35Bs on flat decks has been collected and is available on the SpazSinbad OneDrive & GoogleDrive pages if anyone interested. Both may be easily reached via the SpazSinbad YouTube page - see links at top right of that YouTube page for both 'drives'. https://www.youtube.com/user/SpazSinbad2/videos

And to add that in the first post by me on the other section one may note that I was 'not excited'. Just reporting the facts ma'am - nuttin' but the facts.

you're taking my response personally - and thats just not the thrust of my response at all

the reality is that periodically we get this wash rinse repeat of pretend aircraft carrier discussions cropping up where the debate invariably derails and heads off into wally world

and then we spend a few days recovering back to the real world

the fact that you have taken my prev responses literally means that people have not recognised the absolute reality that if there was a push towards RAAF pilots flying our own "B's" then it requires a lot more planning than a single pilot attachment

no more, no less

 

[SpazSinbad]

Hmmm 'wally world' where is that. Whilst my post was about your assertion - as noted - that was contradicted by the RAAF USMC F-35B exchange. From little things big things grow - I guess that is wally world. My point is that I posted this news earlier and reposted the news despite the other posting of the same news; albeit with other opinion. Are we clear on that score.

Have I taken anything personally? No. I'm a former A4G pilot well versed in personal crew room point scoring - trained by the RAAF earlier to survive in their wally world - basic/advanced flight training 1968. Personally I like to state the facts as per the mythical 'Dragnet' Joe Friday quote.

 

[t68]

A few days ago 'gf0012-aust' said on page 1272: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1272/#post310433


Over in the F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC) on 19 May 2016 we have this news:

OOPs I see 'DaveS124' replied with same info on page 1273 at: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1273/#post310455

A week or two back there was a write ap about collective training with all three variants, I think this is what is meant when RAAF pilots fly different variants. If I recall correctly the headline was something about a game changer

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmmm 'wally world' where is that. Whilst my post was about your assertion - as noted - that was contradicted by the RAAF USMC F-35B exchange. From little things big things grow - I guess that is wally world. My point is that I posted this news earlier and reposted the news despite the other posting of the same news; albeit with other opinion. Are we clear on that score.

Have I taken anything personally? No. I'm a former A4G pilot well versed in personal crew room point scoring - trained by the RAAF earlier to survive in their wally world - basic/advanced flight training 1968. Personally I like to state the facts as per the mythical 'Dragnet' Joe Friday quote.

For goodness sake

I guess I need to stop being subtle. Please have a crack at understanding what exactly I am on about

you can get me on PM rather than dragging it out on here.

you know as well as I do that there has been a history of posts in the RAN threads where extrapolation about what the phatships will fly gets blown out of whack very very quickly

as ex FAA then you know exactly whats happened in the past when other navies were seriously considering Harriers etc... - and how very quickly reality gets suspended when there is a whiff of any activity that might support the notion that the RAN is heading back to the fixed wing combat role.

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding is when RAAF crews began training on the Rhinos that they also did carrier qualification and unfortunately we didn't end up ordering a CTOL carrier. Tongue in cheek but ADF personnel train on platforms and capabilities that are not part of the ADFs OOB all the time.

That said I would love to see the ADF operating F-35Bs off flat tops, be they the Canberras, or another type in the future. I can see its utility, that the capability would add far more to the whole than the official line admits.

The official story is that to do it properly is unaffordable and the capability costs more than it is worth if you don't do it properly, "properly" is then set at an unattainable level. The truth however is a little different as the F-35B is an additional capability that complements and enhances what we already have rather than somehow impairing or reducing it.