Acquisitions, in hindsight..

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
770
NH90 seems to be troubled at the maintenance / flight rate level. More Super Pumas (whatever its current name, Caracal, EC-something) might have been a better bargain.
Super Pumas and Rooivalk.
Same engines and dynamic components such as main rotor, tail rotor, gearboxes...etc.
Maintenance, procurement and spares commonality.
The Rooivalk was excluded in many decisions due to political processes mainly, not due to ability.
As a result, it's an orphan, starved off.
It could and should have been different.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
275
Reaction score
451
LCS. What the USN wanted was an Absalon, only with 45 knot speed. What they got was 45 knots, without the Absalon. They should have just got Absalons. Maybe with the Iver Huitfeld powerplant for fleet speed, but still, Absalons.

Concered with Iranian boats? Replace the Millenium guns with OM 76mm SuperRapides with DART, which works agains boats as well as missiles. Put AH-1Zs in the hangar, and send them and their Hellfires out to hunt down the boats while they are still far out of range. Make a Stanflex module for Hellfires (or Brimstone). By weight a StanFlex module could support around 5 times as many of either as ESSMs, so instead of 12 ESSMs around 60. Fit two for 120. Add four to a Carrier group and use them as your anti-boat screen.

Really, really concerned with the boats? Buy Absalons, and half a dozen Hyugas, which since they are destroyers have destroyer speed. Put a squadron of AH-1s on each, and have a couple act as your anti-boat force, with some Absalons as a surface screen. Add some davit mounted Jurmo class landing craft with Nemo mortars and guided rounds to use as interceptors closer to the fleet, and I think you'd be good against boats. And when you're not using your Hyugas against boats, use them as Spruance replacements in the ASW role for Carrier groups.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
6,955
NH90 seems to be troubled at the maintenance / flight rate level. More Super Pumas (whatever its current name, Caracal, EC-something) might have been a better bargain.
Super Pumas and Rooivalk.
Same engines and dynamic components such as main rotor, tail rotor, gearboxes...etc.
Maintenance, procurement and spares commonality.
The Rooivalk was excluded in many decisions due to political processes mainly, not due to ability.
As a result, it's an orphan, starved off.
It could and should have been different.

I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
334
Reaction score
208
I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

Mi-28 was bigger, heavier and with more engine power than Rooivalk. The Rooivalk is in same weight class with AH-64.
Puma was not a oversized transport helicopter.
 
Last edited:

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
1,890
on the subject of Puma...
I'm surprised France doesn't really have a medium weight helicopter?

the Puma, Cougars, etc seem to be Mi-8 size.. but the Alouettes, etc are quite light.. I'm surprised they never developed something in between those two sizes. the NH-90 is close to that but still a bit big compared to the Blackhawk series and other similar helicopters
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
334
Reaction score
208
on the subject of Puma...
I'm surprised France doesn't really have a medium weight helicopter?

the Puma, Cougars, etc seem to be Mi-8 size.. but the Alouettes, etc are quite light.. I'm surprised they never developed something in between those two sizes. the NH-90 is close to that but still a bit big compared to the Blackhawk series and other similar helicopters

Dauphin is 40+ years old now: link
Puma was probably a medium weight helicopter, the Super Frelon being the big one?
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
1,890
on the subject of Puma...
I'm surprised France doesn't really have a medium weight helicopter?

the Puma, Cougars, etc seem to be Mi-8 size.. but the Alouettes, etc are quite light.. I'm surprised they never developed something in between those two sizes. the NH-90 is close to that but still a bit big compared to the Blackhawk series and other similar helicopters

Dauphin is 40+ years old now: link
Puma was probably a medium weight helicopter, the Super Frelon being the big one?
you're right.. totally forgot about the Dauphin.. but I associate it with the French Navy.. not the army.. (do they even use the Dauphin in the army?)
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,931
Reaction score
1,697
Arguably what has been achieved with CAMM, could have been done earlier and should be done much more comprehensively.

A varient that matches Jumper (an INS/GPS based light artillery rocket) is and was quite feasible too.

Equally Brimstone/Sea Spear, ought to have been rolled out as widely as possible.

The loss of ALARM from the inventory is frankly more parsimony and folly. Until SPEAR EW comes ISD , the RAF is a bit lacking here.

The French AdlA seems to sometimes consider Brimstone.....

Having brought into air launched SCALP/Storm Shadow, it seems strange and incoherent to not acquire the ship and submarine variants. Was it worth the political and industrial benefit to increase the logistics and training burdens?
Was it just a fear of upsetting Russia to acquire TLAM and Anti-Ship Tomahawk for land and ship?

But has Sea Venom been worth it?
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
276
Reaction score
519
Arguably what has been achieved with CAMM, could have been done earlier and should be done much more comprehensively.

A varient that matches Jumper (an INS/GPS based light artillery rocket) is and was quite feasible too.

Equally Brimstone/Sea Spear, ought to have been rolled out as widely as possible.

The loss of ALARM from the inventory is frankly more parsimony and folly. Until SPEAR EW comes ISD , the RAF is a bit lacking here.

The French AdlA seems to sometimes consider Brimstone.....

Having brought into air launched SCALP/Storm Shadow, it seems strange and incoherent to not acquire the ship and submarine variants. Was it worth the political and industrial benefit to increase the logistics and training burdens?
Was it just a fear of upsetting Russia to acquire TLAM and Anti-Ship Tomahawk for land and ship?

But has Sea Venom been worth it?
Probably has more to do with fear of upsetting the Treasury more than the Russians.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
6,955
I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

Mi-28 was bigger, heavier and with more engine power than Rooivalk. The Rooivalk is in same weight class with AH-64.
Puma was not a oversized transport helicopter.

I didn't said any of that. I said that the Puma (being an helicopter transport) subsystems were oversized for an attack chopper, and made Rooivalk too large and lacking agility.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
770
I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

Mi-28 was bigger, heavier and with more engine power than Rooivalk. The Rooivalk is in same weight class with AH-64.
Puma was not a oversized transport helicopter.
I agree with Tomo Pauk here.
The Rooivalk is squarely in the same size and weight bracket as the Cheyenne, AH-64 Apache, the Mi-28, Ka-50, and the Bell AH-1Z Viper.

The S-67 Blackhawk and Hind are physically larger than these above, particularly length, due to a troop carrying component. The Blackhawk was as long as a Super Frelon for example.

The Tiger is in the lighter bracket below these, squarely in the bracket weight and size wise with the original AH-1 Cobra, the Agusta A129 Mangusta, HAL Light Combat Helicopter.

The Rooivalk is not based on an oversized transport helicopter. It has merely the same engines and dynamic components as the Puma.

Archie, look at it like the US Army requirement that the AAH (which led to the Ah-64-Apache)be fitted with the same GE T-700 engines and drivetrain as the UTTAS (which resulted in the Uh-60 Black Hawk).
I think this is extremely sensible. Boeing themselves on their website state this was done to reduce costs and simplify logistics. An excerpt below by General McNair before Congress explains it better.

 
Last edited:

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
770

I didn't said any of that. I said that the Puma (being an helicopter transport) subsystems were oversized for an attack chopper, and made Rooivalk too large and lacking agility.
See my post above.
This is the first time I've ever heard the claim that the Rooivalk lacks agility. I've seen statements and videos of the opposite.
Do you have any further info?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
6,955
Red that a while back in a magazine.

 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
770
Yip.
It goes over the timeframe, and does delve into whether a lighter, less sophisticated attack helicopter should have been pursued. But with hindsight.
I think the path chosen was the correct one, as no-one predicted the rapid collapse of the USSR and the subsequent slashing of the defence budget.
The Rooivalk has first class agility btw, with a faster climb rate than the Tiger (by 30%) and has a side speed of about 100km/h, and has demonstrated the ability to perform a loop. It had a higher power-to-weight ratio than the Ah-64A Apache.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
2,886
Website
beyondthesprues.com

As to whether there was any 'pressure put on Australia to select the P-8', I don't know. All I recall is the then PM Tony Abbott seemingly pulling a rabbit out of his hat, which seemingly appear to be another PM Captains Picks to me, for I wasn't aware of any RfP by the RAAF
The P-8 was not a surprise for anyone in the know. I remember briefings on it (well really the then Multimission Maritime Aircraft/Broad Area Maritime Surveillance programs) back in the late 1990s when I was still with 92WG RAAF. The RAAF was already talking to USN and the like then. The following article gives you somewhat of a snapshot of some of the history:


Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.

I was under the impression that the P-8 still didn't have a ASW torpedo capability due to its high speed to deploy existing air to sub-surface ASW torpedoes - so if this is correct, then it can't really be deployed in its principle role of ASW.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking one platform has to be an exact replacement for a former. The CONOPS of the P-8 is different to the AP-3C/P-3 before it, just as the P-3's was different to the P-2 Neptune before that and Avro Lincoln and so on. Different technologies, threats, expereinces etc all contribute here. Also, don't think that ASW is the primary role of the current P-8 fleet. The very fact that these are part of the RAAF's Surveillance and Response Group (SRG) kind of gives the game away. The RAAF already has four stated primary missions of Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Maritime Surveillance and Search and Rescue and I would argue that theMaritime Survellance is the one that has the greatest use by far.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
275
Reaction score
451
The Rooivalk looks bigger than it is. It looks tall and long, but it is also exceedingly narrow. In terms of weight it's closes to the AH-1Z. AH-64 has a heavier MTOW, Mil-28 and Ka-52 are heavier both empty and MTOW. The problem isn't performance. I think you could make an argument that Oryx and Rooivalk were best in class circa 1993.

The problem is industrial support. Unless they get exported just after the end of Apartheid the industry that designed and built them is going to die on the vine, like it did.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
275
Reaction score
451

Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.

Kawasaki P-1. Also a product of the P-7 fiasco, since Japan had planned on the P-7 as their P-3 replacement as well.
 

Lascaris

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
160
Reaction score
161
Greece: Buy 100 F-18C (I understand F-18L was off the table by then) and join Rafale as a junior partner in 1985. I would also say buy Rafale in 1999 but I understand it was not on offer, there must had been a lot of gritted teeth in Paris when Greece had announced a commitment to Eurofighter back at the time ,although Dassault had the final laugh with a 20 year delay.

whats wrong with the Greek buy of the F-16 and M2K?
That it is two different types bought piecemeal and as a result could not be locally produced, cost more to procure and also cost more to maintain. Besides F-18 had come first in the HAF evaluation at the time, not surprising when it had things like BVR while two engines when operating mostly over sea was thought preferable. But to return to local production and costs, the contracts for the initial 40+40 cost the same with 100 aircraft of a single type... and 100 was the minimum to allow local production. Since Greece bought afterwards another 145 airframe there is something to be said about industrial benefits lost from not locally building ~250 aircraft.

Now Greece has something of a policy by now, or excuse rather, of not wanting to rely solely on US made aircraft, but if we were not really trusting the Americans not to cut off spares in case of a crisis then the way to go would be to buy only Mirages and join Rafale early not to be buying part American and part French.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
2,886
Website
beyondthesprues.com

Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.

Kawasaki P-1. Also a product of the P-7 fiasco, since Japan had planned on the P-7 as their P-3 replacement as well.
As I stated, realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8. On price alone I believe the P-8 wins with the P-8 going for ~US$100M ea (based upon the German acquisition) and the P-1 quoted at between US$141M and US$167M ea.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
6,955
Austria - instead of Typhoons, Gripen

D@mn right.
Croatia is falling in the similar trap with Rafale purchase.

This is perhaps a little unfair to Rafale... and Croatia.

I see what you mean (twin jet, expensive,4.5th generation fighter is rather overkill for a small country) - but the Austrian case is... peculiar, to say the least. Special.

In the sense their procurement process was truly atrocious - in fact it turned into a major politicians-and-bribe scandal, AFAIK.

Also German Luftwaffe, 1st generation Typhoons were probably not a good bargain. At least the Rafales are F3R standard, even if second-hand.

Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters and support services

Austrian Typhoons were closer from Rafale F1 standard, vintage May 2001 - stripped down, rushed-to-IOC early production machines.

Note that French Navy Crusaders to be replaced were as antiquated as the Austrian Drakkens. In both cases, the Rafales and Typhoons that replaced them were seemingly "modern" but the devil was in the detail: the standard was an interim one... with all the according caveats.

Of course Croatia could still head toward an Austrian -like nightmare... we shall see.
 
Last edited:

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
334
Reaction score
208
This is perhaps a little unfair to Rafale... and Croatia.

Rafale's maintenance cost and time will be 70-80% greater than on the Grippen. Fuel cost will be double. Our BDP is 1/7th of Austrian BDP. Our working population is shrinking due to a lot of people emigrating to richer countries of the EU, Switzerland and Norway.
Grippen would've been a better choice, not because it is somehow a better fighter (it is not IMO), but because we can afford it better in the years to come.
 

Lascaris

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
160
Reaction score
161
Austria - instead of Typhoons, Gripen

D@mn right.
Croatia is falling in the similar trap with Rafale purchase.

This is perhaps a little unfair to Rafale... and Croatia.

I see what you mean (twin jet, expensive,4.5th generation fighter is rather overkill for a small country) - but the Austrian case is... peculiar, to say the least. Special.

In the sense their procurement process was truly atrocious - in fact it turned into a major politicians-and-bribe scandal, AFAIK.

Also German Luftwaffe, 1st generation Typhoons were probably not a good bargain. At least the Rafales are F3R standard, even if second-hand.

Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters and support services

Austrian Typhoons were closer from Rafale F1 standard, vintage May 2001 - stripped down, rushed-to-IOC early production machines.

Note that French Navy Crusaders to be replaced were as antiquated as the Austrian Drakkens. In both cases, the Rafales and Typhoons that replaced them were seemingly "modern" but the devil was in the detail: the standard was an interim one... with all the according caveats.

Of course Croatia could still head toward an Austrian -like nightmare... we shall see.
No Rafale is wrong for Croatia... it's used airframes Greece could be getting instead!
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
6,955
No grippe, please. I will make drakkonian efforts to correctly write the name of these Swedish aircraft.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
2,886
Website
beyondthesprues.com

Rafale's maintenance cost and time will be 70-80% greater than on the Grippen. Fuel cost will be double. Our BDP is 1/7th of Austrian BDP. Our working population is shrinking due to a lot of people emigrating to richer countries of the EU, Switzerland and Norway.
Grippen would've been a better choice, not because it is somehow a better fighter (it is not IMO), but because we can afford it better in the years to come.
That raises an interesting subject that many forget - it is no point having the 'best' platform/system in the world if you cannot support/sustain and thus operate it. Gripen does come with some advantages in this regard as they offer a lease deal with, as I understand it, all major maintenance done back in Sweden. I believe the Hungarians and Czechs both use this as do the Thais to an extent even though they purchased their Gripens rather than lease. The flip side of this though is that while one might get lower sustainment cost demands, one is also tied to an external party for ongoing operational capability to a larger extent.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
6,955
Tomo pauk, Archibald. Draken with one K. Gripen with one P. Have pity on me. Please.

I understand, but you have no idea how many times I've seen RAFALE (which means SQUALL, damn it) written RAFAEL.

Maybe it's because of the Israeli aerospace company (maybe because France sold Mirages back then ?)

Or like the name, Rafael
(reminds me of two songs... excepts it writes Raphael, damn it)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riXYWLo622w


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJoY0oSD_Y


To complicates matters even more, Carla (Sarkozy) Bruni's Raphael is NOT the Raphael singer, but another Raphael, an older one and not a singer: a philosopher.



Dear God... my brain is bleeding in pain.
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
334
Reaction score
208
I understand, but you have no idea how many times I've seen RAFALE (which means SQUALL, damn it) written RAFAEL.

It is very easy to me.
'Rafale' as a burst of fire from a machine gun, that was called 'rafal' in the ex-Yu army. (they have had a lot, a lot of borrowed words in their vocabulary). 'Rafael' is yet another name from the Bible.
 
Top