Helo for the navy...
-
i am wondering if anyone could tell me how many helos are the navy looking to purchase...
So.. far, the impression i got is for 6 helos for the new delta frigate project...
BUT i am wondering if the navy might actually be looking at more helos... for 2 reasons..
1.... the 6 helos need to have some on standby and some on maintainace... thus... shouldnt the navy take into consideration of a few maybe 2 to 3 helos being sent for either trainning or maintainance at any one time....
2.... the navy currently operates 4 LPDs... and from wat i gathered... the LPD can operate 2 to 4 helos as well... shouldnt the navy then have a few on those LPDs as well??
3.... the navy's newest base at changi is next to an airforce base... thus it shouldnt be too hard to envisage the navy air wing sharing some facilities with the RSAF at CAFB right??
4.... assuming that the navy's newest helo can conduct ASW or other missions including anti-ship and amphibious landing... cant they operate afew of these helos out of CAB instead of a ship??
5.... CAFB is so near 9th division... the combine helo units of RSN and RSAF could make 9th div a super rapid helo deployable division... would it not?? -
The Endurance class has the US Navy LPD Design, but the RSN prefer to call these vessels LST - Landing Ship Tanks.
The helos used on these LST will be different from those used on board the new Frigates.
The helos used on the new Frigates will serve as outer defense against submarines, as well as extending search and rescue radius of operation, and other missions included.
The helos used on the LST will normally be of the heavy lift type, to ferry personnel and equipment to shore, or used as search and rescue as well.
Although, similar sub-hunters can also be operated from the LST, it is unlikely to be used, as the Frigates will normally provide escort to the LST that will be carrying high value assets, and will need the wide array of defense system installed on board the Frigates. -
that may be so... but surely a helo can be found that satisfy both sides... like the black hawk...
the SH60 for ASW and the UH-60 black hawk for troops and heavy lift....
so... maybe the RSN can get like 24 helos... 12 with ASW function and 12 with heavy lift/ gunship capability...
or is the RSN gonna get a different helo for the LPDs? that would run against economical sense and somewat similar to malaysian approach.. towards their RMAF...
IN fact... the RSN and RSAF seems to become more and more integrated... why not simply combine the 2 arms and streamline the non-army part of SAF ... we can call them RSANF... republic of signapore aerial naval forces...
-
120 sqn will operate the new naval helicopter. that means there will be a land and naval version with much similarity(eg s-70, uh-60). Hueys will phase out in 2005. 120sqn will sail with the navy and maintain the helos out in the sea for up to 2 weeks each time.
-
In its choice of a helo to be used on board the Frigate, the weight factor will have to be the priority in the choice of a naval helo to work with the Frigate; while the LST will have less restrictions to weight, by will need a helo to provide heavy lift and mass movement of personnel and equipment from ship to shore.
The most popular naval helo used in commonly in an ASW role by many navies, is the Westland Super Lynx 100
-
For the LST, the choice can be much wider from a range of helo manufacturers that offer the :
BOEING CH-42 Chinooks
To the BELL-BOEING V-22 Osprey
-
i don't think it'll be the osprey... since Sg seems to prefer "proven" platforms... the osprey is still kinda experimental isn't it? and the associated bad press about it being a promising platform, but not very air-worthy...
-
The initial negative publicity seem to be due to the inexperience with the transition stage between vertical lift and horizontal flight, which caused a few serious incidents.
It seems that despite the initial negative publicity, the US Marine Corp is very much in favor of the OSPREY V-22, working with the Chinook C-47, Longbow Apache Ah-64, and the Harrier AV-8B VSTOL Jump Jets, they provide quite a lethal combination for an expeditionary amphibious force.
-
The contenders for the naval helo programme are the SH-60, NH-90 and a navalised version of the super puma/cougar.
I personally prefer the NH-90, the best and most advanced of the three. Moreover, there is a army tatical helicopter version of the NH-90 which can replace the Hueys. The SH-60/UH-60's design is a bit too old. However, Eurocopter has also offered to fit NH-90 advanced equipment onto the Super Puma/Cougar. If this is chosen, it can provide some commonality with our RSAF super puma fleet. -
USMC operated Cobras not Apaches. Also no CH-47s with them. Just CH-53 and CH-46.
-
"eurofighter", you are correct.
The US Marine do operate the CH-53 Sea Stallion, and is retiring the very old CH-46 work horse - (which is near similar to the Chinook CH-47 used by the US Army, but both built by BOEING) - in favor of the newer OSPREY V-22
CH-46 Sea Knight with a CH-53 Sea Stallion hovering in the background.
The monstrous size of the CH-53
-
The new "Delta" Frigates that will be owned by the RSN, is a shorter version of the "La Fayetter" Class of Frigates built by DCN for the French Navy.
With a smaller compressed size, it is doubtful if the RSN will select a naval helo of the size of a NH-90, let alone a 'marinized' version of a Puma - both of which are considered to be a medium lift helo.
The naval helo will have its primary mission envelope to cover ASW, extended anti-ship attack role, extended air patrol, air-sea rescue, and if equipped for "Airborne Early Warning" role as well.
The choice will be more in favor of the SUPER LYNX than the NH-90 if one compare the size and weight ratio of both helo, given the mission envelope to be performed.
GKN Westland SUPER LYNX 100
Fuselage Length 13.33 meters
Cabin Length: 2.05 meters
Cabin Width: 1.78 meters
Cabin Height: 1.42 meters
Overall Weight: 3,291 kg (w/o external equipment)
Maximum Take Off Weight: 5,330 kg
SIKORSKY NH-90
Fuselage Length: 15.88 meters
Cabin Length: 4.80 meters
Cabin Width: 2.00 meters
Cabin Height: 1.58 meters
Overall Weight: 6,430 kg
Maximum Take Off Weight: 8,700 kg - 10,000 kg
-
not true, the 'cut' area may not be the helicopter deck. it could be from another part of the la fayette. close look at the photo from mindef shows a fairly sizeable deck.Originally posted by Atobe:The new "Delta" Frigates that will be owned by the RSN, is a shorter version of the "La Fayetter" Class of Frigates built by DCN for the French Navy.
With a smaller compressed size, it is doubtful if the RSN will select a naval helo of the size of a NH-90, let alone a 'marinized' version of a Puma - both of which are considered to be a medium lift helo.
-
Checked the Mindef and DCN web sites and got the following comparative information on the La Fayette used by the French Navy, Taiwan Navy and the RSN.Originally posted by cavsg:not true, the 'cut' area may not be the helicopter deck. it could be from another part of the la fayette. close look at the photo from mindef shows a fairly sizeable deck.
La Fayette - French Navy (in brackets: Taiwan Navy, otherwise the same as the French Navy)
Overall Length: 125 M
Beam at Waterline: 15.5 M (15.4 M)
Draught: 5.85 M (4 M)
Standard Displacement: 3,500 tons
Engine Rating: 21,000 H.P. (17.8 mW)
Max Speed: 25 Knots
Range @ 12 knots: 9,000 nautical miles (7,000 nm @ 15 knots)
Flight Deck: 430 sq M (N.A.)
Single 10 ton Helicopter: NH-90 or Super Frelon (1 x S-70 C)
La Fayette : RSN
Overall Length: 110 M
Beam at Waterline: 16 M
Draught: N. A.
Standard Displacement: 3,200 tONS
Engine Rating: N. A.
Max Speed: 25 knots PLUS
Range: 4,000 nm
Helicopter: Medium Size Helicopter
If you click on this html site, you will note that the French La Fayette has a longer flight deck:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/lafayette8.html
RSN data taken from Mindef Web Site:
http://mindef.miw.com.sg/display.asp?number=1665 -
The RfP issued out to manufacturers has been shortlisted to 3 helos: SH60s, NH90, Super Puma (likely to be a marinised version of EC725). SuperLynx has been ruled out (reason likely to be its lower payload, or even growth potential). EH101 is too big and SH-2G too old a design. If you look at the picture released by Mindef, you could make out the design of the helo on the aft deck as a Sikorsky S-92, although selecting this design is too risky, and we would unlikely want to be the launch customer (Ireland was supposed to be the launch customer, but I think has changed its mind due to budgetry reasons). So the size of the NH90 or Super Puma would not be a hindrance. As for CH47D and V-22, too big, unable to fit into the habgar of our LPDs (aka Endurance "LST"). Moreover, V-22 's future is still hanging in the balance in lieu of the outcome of the latest trials.
-
mi think is either seahawk or nh-90Originally posted by warspite:The RfP issued out to manufacturers has been shortlisted to 3 helos: SH60s, NH90, Super Puma (likely to be a marinised version of EC725). SuperLynx has been ruled out (reason likely to be its lower payload, or even growth potential). EH101 is too big and SH-2G too old a design. If you look at the picture released by Mindef, you could make out the design of the helo on the aft deck as a Sikorsky S-92, although selecting this design is too risky, and we would unlikely want to be the launch customer (Ireland was supposed to be the launch customer, but I think has changed its mind due to budgetry reasons). So the size of the NH90 or Super Puma would not be a hindrance. As for CH47D and V-22, too big, unable to fit into the habgar of our LPDs (aka Endurance "LST"). Moreover, V-22 's future is still hanging in the balance in lieu of the outcome of the latest trials. -
given the poor history of super puma operations in the RSAF, its difficult for the aircraft to be selected although training and logistics is easier. the helo in the mindef pic seems to show a nh-90, could be becos its ordered by france who happens to be the ship builder too.Originally posted by duotiga83:mi think is either seahawk or nh-90 -
What's wrong with the Puma's history with the RSAF?
-
too sensitive to talk about, one incident was when tony tan was watching an army exercise supported by pumas, 4 took off but only one arrived. the rest had to rtb due to techincal faults. its speaks volume on the reliability of french aircraft. that aircraft is a civilian converted for military use. its design is not optimal for military envir esp with the intro of nvg. only the cougars were designed for military but you can't tell the difference on outside and rsaf choose to call them all pumas too.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What's wrong with the Puma's history with the RSAF? -
Many countries, including Switzerland, is using the super puma without problems. In fact they have returned for addition purchases. That chopper is Singapore's main copter. If it is so lousy, they should have solve the technical problems or replaced them. I know quite a number of them crashed though.
According to Tim Huxley's book, they fitted a sonar to one of the super pumas. -
Surprised to hear that the RSAF "Pumas" has such an unreliable record, especially when some of the "Pumas" were added into the fleet after having flown in the RSAF for about five years.Originally posted by cavsg:too sensitive to talk about, one incident was when tony tan was watching an army exercise supported by pumas, 4 took off but only one arrived. the rest had to rtb due to techincal faults. its speaks volume on the reliability of french aircraft. that aircraft is a civilian converted for military use. its design is not optimal for military envir esp with the intro of nvg. only the cougars were designed for military but you can't tell the difference on outside and rsaf choose to call them all pumas too.
In any case, the "Pumas" have been with the RSAF since the early 1980's and it has kept a clean "crash free" record sheet since then, which speaks volume for the technical standard of the RSAF and the Singapore Aerospace Industry that may have been involved in its maintenance. -
If the final selection leans in favor of the Sikorsky NH-90, it only confirms the SAF is continuing a trend to have common equipment with the US Armed Forces.
The reasons are quite obvious, as spare parts will be assured when the aircraft is also similarly selected for use by the US Armed Forces.
Unit production cost will be lowered when sizeable orders are placed by an Armed Force that has a bigger requirement than our SAF.
Training of our Pilots to operate these aircrafts will be available, and which a benchmark of excellence can be compared with. -
NHIndustries is the Prime Contractor for Design & Development, Industrialisation, Production, and Logistic Support for NH90 Helicopters.Originally posted by Atobe:If the final selection leans in favor of the Sikorsky NH-90, it only confirms the SAF is continuing a trend to have common equipment with the US Armed Forces.
The reasons are quite obvious, as spare parts will be assured when the aircraft is also similarly selected for use by the US Armed Forces.
Unit production cost will be lowered when sizeable orders are placed by an Armed Force that has a bigger requirement than our SAF.
Training of our Pilots to operate these aircrafts will be available, and which a benchmark of excellence can be compared with.
NHIndustries signed the NH90 Design & Development Contract on 1st September 1992 with NAHEMA.
NAHEMA (NATO Helicopter Management Agency) represents the Four Participating Nations: France, Italy, Germany and The Netherlands.
NHIndustries was established in 1992 by the 4 Companies sharing the D&D of the NH90 Programme: AGUSTA (Italy) 28.2%, EUROCOPTER (France) 41.6%, EUROCOPTER DEUTSCHLAND 23.7%, and FOKKER (The Netherlands 6.5%).
What is the sikorsky link? -
'crash free'?? what about the crash in early 90's when one crashed in pandan reservoir when its doing a noe exercise, rsaf concluded that 1)aircrew inexperience 2)poor design of cockpit which obstruted view of pilot. 3)inadequate equipment, one pilot died from drowning, now all helo pilots got to go for egress training in changi once a year.Originally posted by Atobe:Surprised to hear that the RSAF "Pumas" has such an unreliable record, especially when some of the "Pumas" were added into the fleet after having flown in the RSAF for about five years.
In any case, the "Pumas" have been with the RSAF since the early 1980's and it has kept a clean "crash free" record sheet since then, which speaks volume for the technical standard of the RSAF and the Singapore Aerospace Industry that may have been involved in its maintenance.
another one crashed in thailand when taking off cos the engine cowling unlatched which caused the aircraft to become unstable, the pilot is still in the airforce now when all his peers had retired, and still a captain after 30 years, cos he forgot to preflight carefully.
another incident when a loud bang was heard when a puma was landing, postflight check show that one of the main spar holding the main rotor cracked, whole entire rsaf was shutdown, cos there is no sar aircraft when puma & huey fleet grounded for inspection.
talking about the "technical standard of the RSAF and the Singapore Aerospace Industry". u know why a puma crashed in sembawang from the loss of tail rotor, cos the techs in rsaf changed the grease of the tail rotor without removing all the previous grease. a/c goes up and got vibration. techs cannot fix so call in samero, who sent a newbie to changed the tail rotor. a/c goes for test flight and the rest is history. -
What about the one the crashed in Taiwan years ago? Bad weather or technical fault?Originally posted by cavsg:'crash free'?? what about the crash in early 90's when one crashed in pandan reservoir when its doing a noe exercise, rsaf concluded that 1)aircrew inexperience 2)poor design of cockpit which obstruted view of pilot. 3)inadequate equipment, one pilot died from drowning, now all helo pilots got to go for egress training in changi once a year.
another one crashed in thailand when taking off cos the engine cowling unlatched which caused the aircraft to become unstable, the pilot is still in the airforce now when all his peers had retired, and still a captain after 30 years, cos he forgot to preflight carefully.
another incident when a loud bang was heard when a puma was landing, postflight check show that one of the main spar holding the main rotor cracked, whole entire rsaf was shutdown, cos there is no sar aircraft when puma & huey fleet grounded for inspection.
talking about the "technical standard of the RSAF and the Singapore Aerospace Industry". u know why a puma crashed in sembawang from the loss of tail rotor, cos the techs in rsaf changed the grease of the tail rotor without removing all the previous grease. a/c goes up and got vibration. techs cannot fix so call in samero, who sent a newbie to changed the tail rotor. a/c goes for test flight and the rest is history.
Isn't the NH90 replacing the Lynx in some European countries already?