the M16 is a long weapon with a short batrrel, the AUG, the HK or even the L85 provide longer barrels in a shorter weapon. IIRC the carbine M16s are longer than the 'full fat' Aug or L85 and the carbine L85 (L22) has a similar length barrel to a standard M16
Australian Blackhawks replacement
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
the M16 is a long weapon with a short batrrel, the AUG, the HK or even the L85 provide longer barrels in a shorter weapon. IIRC the carbine M16s are longer than the 'full fat' Aug or L85 and the carbine L85 (L22) has a similar length barrel to a standard M16
abc123
Banned
Yep, far better to finance US defence industry with British taxpayers money than Westland...
Yep, far better to finance US defence industry with British taxpayers money than Westland...
which they are now on the way to getting with the Merlins moving to the CHF
however it doesn't address the puma fleet not the RAF managed but DSF managed aircraft , and the transition to a civilian owned SAR fleet has quietly butterflied that issue
the RAF sees SH as part of Air Transport, the FAA /CHF has a different view ( don;t forget the RAF rtexcruits pilots on the basis of their suitability to be FJ pilots and the 'near failures' as FJ or unlucky ones get ME or RW jobs)
Military helicopter operations is something which will allaways suffer from interservice rivalry / different world view
Riain
Banned
Yep, far better to finance US defence industry with British taxpayers money than Westland...
That's the difference between the Blackhawk and MRH90, the Blackhawk would have been an FMS buy whereas the MRH90s were built/assembled and will be maintained in Brisbane in the same facility as the Tiger. If it's good enough for the British,its good enough for us.
However, my point was that the EH101 isn't a replacement for the Blackhawk because its more like a Chinook in capability, according to the RAF.
abc123
Banned
There's nothing inherently wrong with the NH90 or their production/assembly in Australia. Even if that requires higher cost.
OTOH, when you buy a helicopter that has so many problems that his full operational capability will be 15 years after the signing of contract ( and even that is not sure ), that is problem, if you had cheaper and more reliable solution at hand... Also, Sikorsky offered some benefits to Australian aerospace industry too, including mainteinance in Australia, production of some products for Sikorski helicopters etc...
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
How do we then maintain our defence relationships with the Europeans? Sweet talk and promises?
abc123
Banned
Buying PROVED design that's allready in service of country-of-origin's military for years...
the latest generation of the Puma family in the case of a medium Support helicopter then ...
The question there is do you buy direct from the french or stick out for AW to reactivate their licence or ask for a licence ot build them yourself given the Puma family has had a number of licensees and work share agreements .
Supposedly AW also have a licence ot build Blackhawks just UK policy at the time favoured larger and smaller aircraft as the next procurements (incremental improvments to Lynx and the introduction of Merlin )
Riain
Banned
Yes and no. Australia is just large enough to want to and be able to manufacture major equipment for itself, but not large enough to be able to keep an aircraft factory and naval shipyard open at all times. So we lurch from local production arrangement to direct purchase with each procurement, never following a consistent path that we can perfect.
That said the MRH90 is a good helicopter of modern design that suits Australia in a 'Whole of Government' way, which is why it was chosen.
Not to go completely off topic, but Australia has the requirements to keep naval ship building going consistently (helicopters we don't, I agree). The problem is a distinct lack of long term planning and incessant usage of it as a political football by Labor and the Liberals. We could keep yards going, but that would take the foresight, pragmatism and interest in something other than short sighted political aims that most politicians in Australia lack. Of course, this is on the provision that RAN surface ship numbers aren't cut further than they already have been in the last 20 years.
Only in the sense of political interference in things. The MRH-90 isn't a bad result and it's definitely not anywhere near the same level as screw up as the Seasprites were for Australia. Personally, I just think it was the wrong decision, not necessarily a bad one. The Tiger procurement on the other hand... The only reason I can think of for that decision over Apaches or Cobras/Vipers is that the Tiger is less warlike. But maybe I'm being unfair.
Riain
Banned
I'd suggest that we almost have a big enough aviation element (fixed wing and helicopter) in the ADF to keep an aircraft factory going, naval shipbuilding is the same. However we have to be careful that the tail doesn't wag the dog, to keep a factory or shipyard open it has to receive constant work, this then becomes the driving force behind defence procurement rather than national strategy and ADF doctrine. Perhaps there is a touch of this in the Tiger/MRH90, having a factory in Brisbane was one of the non military factors in the decision, not that this is a bad thing since we may perhaps be able to do major repairs that wouldn't otherwise be possible, but it is a thing.
abc123
Banned
Agreed. Naturally, it will cost more than buying foreign built ships, but I think that Australia can have ONE shipyard buissy...
But when you only have one operational shipyard you are subject to monosupply pressures and you are always going to end up with a terrible deal.
abc123
Banned
Indeed, but you can allways turn to buy ship from abroad if they go too far...
Also, in France you have a DCNS that is allmost a monopoly, but they do rather fine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCNS_(company)
Last edited:
Technically you certainly can, politically not so much. Any government of the day is going to be under enormous pressure to keep orders going to domestic concerns under the "If we don't get X amount of business then Y amount of people in Z constituency will be made redundant", at which point you get the relationship the British government has with BAE or Westland.
abc123
Banned
OTOH, you will have pressures not to pay too much because foreign built equipment is cheaper...
As I say again, the French have DCNS as their only military shipbuilder, and yet they have managed just fine for last 50 years...
Very true. My thing with naval shipbuilding is that between frigates, destroyers, logistics vessels and OCVs we have enough ships we could be building to keep yards going. A lot of that is contingent on the RAN finally getting the corvette sized ships it needs instead of PBs though. It might require slightly early retirement of some vessels initially to get things rolling, it might require a few more DDs or FFs but it would be cheaper over the long run. Not to mention we could probably get NZ orders if it was done right. And if we did need to retire ships a little earlier--all the better, lower fleet life and we could even provide smaller vessels to our smaller neighbours ala the Pacific Patrol Boat scheme.
Undoubtedly wishful thinking though.