US Navy is starting to look for MH-60R and Firescout replacement

Nope again ...for US won’t buy From abroad ...the UH-72A Lakota and MH-65D Dolphin dont necessarily count as frontline types if you get my drift.

New kid on the blockH160M Naval variant will replace the French Aeronavale AS565 Panther but that won’t happen for another decade and cannot see that in USN service.

NH90 is good but has issues

H225M too big and tech isn’t evolving , yes there are customers in the next 5-10 years gonna buy , I suspect more of Latin American and / or Mid East customers

i saw the 15rh or 16th H225M for Brazilian Navy albeit more support fo their Marines at Paris Air Show 2015 (my pics below)

View attachment 545489View attachment 545490View attachment 545491View attachment 545492View attachment 545495View attachment 545496View attachment 545494

cheers
Genuine question here. I asked a colleague when I was in AFG why we were still operating chinooks 50 Years after they first flew. His response was ‘how many different ways can you invent a flying box.

With upgrades of rotors, engines, avionics. All of which are becoming lighter and more efficient and therefore better fuel economy.

Does there come a stage when people go full design of a new helicopter = X.
Upgrade of components to an existing design = Y

If X is greater than Y, upgrade. When does X become less than Y.

432 for example. How many times can you design an armoured box? Upgraded to Bulldog and it does the job.

I mean, ultimately, the navy’s after a flying fuel tank that can plop things into the water, lift people out of the water or land on the water/ship/land to transfer people.

I’ll accept that product life cycles mean that if you don’t design new things, you loose the design capability.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
That will teach me to reply in a hurry. I think you will find that there was a long range carrier based mission when the Sea King replacement was looked at. Carriers, Type 23, and some RFAs.

I believe many current Australian warships are American designed, so they are configured to work with the American cab.

if only you couldn't hang long range external tanks on a Seahawk for those rare occasions you need to fly umpteen hundred miles downrange away from fuel and stay up for 7 hours.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
That will teach me to reply in a hurry. I think you will find that there was a long range carrier based mission when the Sea King replacement was looked at. Carriers, Type 23, and some RFAs.

I believe many current Australian warships are American designed, so they are configured to work with the American cab.

I think you will find the Merlin KUR was - must fit on the back of a Frigate, it was never meant to be as huge as it ended up.

Your point two will come as a huge shock to the RAN who's primary surface combatant for many years has been a German MEKO 200 Frigate derivative.
 
I was going to say couldn’t they just stick a dipping sensor on an Osprey.

I’ve been on a fishing trip. Sorry .
Genuine question here. I asked a colleague when I was in AFG why we were still operating chinooks 50 Years after they first flew. His response was ‘how many different ways can you invent a flying box.

With upgrades of rotors, engines, avionics. All of which are becoming lighter and more efficient and therefore better fuel economy.

Does there come a stage when people go full design of a new helicopter = X.
Upgrade of components to an existing design = Y

If X is greater than Y, upgrade. When does X become less than Y.

432 for example. How many times can you design an armoured box? Upgraded to Bulldog and it does the job.

I mean, ultimately, the navy’s after a flying fuel tank that can plop things into the water, lift people out of the water or land on the water/ship/land to transfer people.

I’ll accept that product life cycles mean that if you don’t design new things, you loose the design capability.
Mind you ASW was looked as V-22 in the 80s but too big for destroyer or cruiser or frigate.


You mock, but the Lynx was submitted for US Navy LAMPS II back in the early 70s in a joint bid with a company called Sikorsky.
i mentioned that in my post #12##
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
You mock, but the Lynx was submitted for US Navy LAMPS II back in the early 70s in a joint bid with a company called Sikorsky.

Lynx had its place back in the day, it was a better Wasp to go on very little ships, but now, it’s a very expensive little helicopter in a very crowded market of much more useful sized multi mission helicopters going on much bigger ships. It was of its time, but it’s time has now gone.
 
Top