Navy may push for US helicopters
by Jason Clout A push to get a naval combat helicopter into service quickly may give the US contender an edge over its European competitor.Outfitting the Royal Australian Navy with combat helicopters is one of the major projects expected to be announced soon by the federal government, with a probable order of about 24 aircraft.The choice is between the Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky Romeo, which is a version of the US Navy's Seahawk, and NHIndustries' NH90, developed by a number of European countries.Australian Strategic Policy Institute program director for operations and capability Andrew Davies says the US helicopter has a long track record of flying, which may be very appealing to the navy.
"The Romeo has 80,000 flying hours with the US Navy and that could be a big factor whereas the frigate version of the European helicopter is still some time away.
"Given there is a push to get the helicopters soon, that gives the Romeo an edge. Also, some problems have occurred with existing versions of the European helicopter.''Utility and transport versions of the NH90 are in service with a number of countries, including Australia. But Davies says there are a number of issues with those aircraft, which won't help the cause of the NH90.He says the decision on the winning helicopter could come in April or May this year. One of the reasons for choosing soon is the poor state of Australia's anti-submarine warfare capability.
Davies says, as with any major weapons program, there are questions about the relative importance of being able to easily operate with allies, the real total cost of the acquisition when maintenance and servicing is calculated and the risks inherent in buying an unproven aircraft.It is important to consider the decision from as many angles as possible, he says.But given the choice between a less risky off-the-shelf solution from the US or waiting for the NH90 to become fully developed and tested, the government may well select the Romeo.Should that be the choice, US Department of State figures from last year show Australia would pay $US2.1 billion for the acquisition of the helicopter and $US1.6 billion for the 10-year maintenance contract.
Davies says the US government approach is to charge the cost of production for overseas weapons systems and then add 3.8 per cent on top of that figure, as a way of recouping some of its research and development expenditure on a program.When the Navy finally receives its naval combat helicopters, it will close the page on one of the worst procurement incidents, the failed Super Seasprite program. Ultimately cancelled by former minister for defence Joel Fitzgibbon
, it cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion."Super Seasprite was a fiasco, that's the right word for it. That happening has clearly been part of the thinking behind buying a mature system,'' says Davies.In some respects the Romeo is the opposite of the Super Seasprite, he wrote in a recent ASPI analysis paper: "It is here, now and proven.''
The naval combat helicopter purchase has been accelerated under this federal government. That could be due to the perception that Australia's anti-submarine warfare capability is unsatisfactory.That weakness could lead to vulnerability in a region where other countries have been purchasing submarines.The plan could be to fit the new US Mark 54 torpedo to the Romeo to enhance the navy's anti-submarine warfare capability. Australia acquired around 200 of those torpedos for about $US169 million last year.Equipping the Romeo with Mark 54 lightweight hybrid torpedos could cause logistical problems because the navy also operates the MU90 EuroTorp torpedo, so it will mean both will have to be stored and their systems maintained. But that problem may just have to be dealt with for the medium term.
Romeo does not have significant anti-ship capability. Davies explains the US Navy does not use helicopters in that role because of the substantial strike capability it has in other assets.The Romeo can use its Hellfire missiles to attack smaller vessels, such as may be used by insurgents.