Posted on 06/17/2011 8:46:57 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Seahawk deal ditches Europeans
Brendan Nicholson, Defence editor
From:The Australian
June 17, 2011
THE Gillard government has gone for a no-risk option by buying 24 Seahawk naval combat helicopters for $3 billion "off the shelf" from the US, instead of the rival European NATO frigate helicopter still under development.
The decision is causing consternation among European manufacturers who had invested heavily in Australia in the expectation of winning long-term manufacturing and maintenance contracts for the Australian Defence Force's substantial helicopter fleet.
"This will be read in the boardrooms of Europe as a clear warning not to invest in Australia," a defence industry source told The Australian yesterday.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason Clare, announced yesterday that the 24 new choppers would replace the navy's 16 older Seahawks.
They said the aircraft would also fill the anti-shipping strike role once intended for the failed $1 billion Seasprites program, which was cancelled in 2008.
The Seahawks will be equipped with Hellfire missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes.
"Their job is to hunt and kill submarines," said Mr Clare. They also would be able to destroy small and fast-moving warships.
The Seahawks would play a crucial role when it came to anti-piracy and counter-terrorist activities, Mr Clare said.
The NATO frigate helicopter, or NH-90, is the naval version of the MRH-90s already bought as transport helicopters for the army and the Royal Australian Navy.
If the Europeans had won the contract, the aircraft would have been assembled in Brisbane by Australian Aerospace.
The Seahawks will be manufactured in the US but aerospace company Lockheed-Martin
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
And here I was thinking it was the Seattle Seahawks ...*sigh*
No they won't. Anti-shipping strike with Hellfires falls into verloren hoop territory
Heck, the Brits and Kermits even go halvsies on carrier(s).
yitbos
It is a little further advanced than that. In service: Italy, Netherlands, Norway, France.
Basically it came to going for a heli tailored to Aust needs or go the MacCopter and hope it covers what comes up in the next 20 years.
With a risk averse government and a number of recent failed projects they went with the decision least likely to cause future embarassment to the politicians.
In service? All weapons systems certified? Don’t think so. The Australian Government has been down the European helicopter path twice before, with the Tiger recon/attack helicopter (picked over AH-64 and Zulu model Cobra) and MRH90 (Australian version of NH90, picked over Blackhawks). In both cases the product is yet to work as advertised. The Tiger contract was signed in 2001 and the Tigers are still not up to a suitable standard to operate in a combat area, almost a decade later.
This was the only logical choice - buy a proven, in service platform. Further, Australia has far closer ties, culturally, historically and strategically, with the United States than it does with France.
Maybe in five or ten years, the NFH90 will prove itself to be a better platform than the Romeo. On paper, it certainly appears that way. But the Royal Australian Navy needs a potent anti submarine warfare capability right now.
Fool me once, shame on you,
fool me twice - d’oh shame on me,
fool me thrice - not bloody likely!
So Sikorskys are made by LockMart now? Is there anything LockMart doesn’t own?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.