Scrappy Indian Navy Copter Bid Nears End

[Abingdonboy]

There is no need for two platforms as both the 60R & 70B perform virtually the same ASW & ASuW missions.
In addition, the MH-60R is not in the current tender for 16 MRH aircraft for the Indian navy. The S-70B is & should win that competition. The Indian Navy, I believe, will be happy with that choice and it would then make no sense to procure another aircraft for the obvious reasons (training, maintenance, logistics, etc.) The S-70B can also be configured in a utility version to offer the same capabilities as the MH-60S.
As far as major differences:

1. S-70B has the Penguin Anti-Ship missile already integrated, the 60R does not.
2. Both have the American MK-46 & MK-54 torpedoes already integrated. The 70B also has the Eurotorp A244 mod 3 torpedo integrated.
3. The 70B AFCS is a new system that represents a significant improvement over earlier Seahawk systems.
4. The new WMS facilitates integration of indigenous systems or unique customer required stores or weapons.
5. The 70B employs a "federated systems architecture" meaning major functions are dispersed to centralized subsystems. Modification enhancement has typically proved to be easier, cheaper, and less risk for systems of this type, while the 60R employs a "centralized architecture" with a primary and backup mission computer that performs all mission related functions ( mission management, flight management, weapons management, navigation, etc.)
6. Both have integrated FLIR, ESM, counter measures, Radar, EGI (embedded GPS with inertial) navigation and attitude reference systems, and AFCS systems. I believe the 60R does not currently have a VOR/TACAN navigation capability.
7. The mission and avionics systems for the 70B are designed and tested by Sikorsky Aircraft. The 60R systems are done by Lockheed Martin. Sikorsky makes both airframes. My opinion is that Sikorsky has fielded a greatly superior avionics & mission system in the 70B.

For this reader, the S-70B is the clear choice.

Yes, but what you have to understand is that the N-MRH procurment (for which MH-60R is a part of) has already started and is quite far down the road as such it is not easy to cancel it as such a descion would evoke a strong response from the other conteders especially HNIndisteries who are looking to get back in the game after having apparently lost the first ASW deal that the S-70B looks favorite to win.As such there is the very real possiblty we will see the S-70B and MH-60R flying for IN in the not to distant future. I'm not too bummed out by this though as the two machines are so incredibly similar the training and logisitac disparity will be minimal to non0existent so not as much of a headache as,say, the NH-90 winning one competition and the MH-60R/S-70B winning another.

 

[jamesbaldwin]

Seriously by 2020 the Indian navy will look completely different and will be in top 3 of world's navies no doubt!!

 

[Rikbo]

Abingdonboy,
Similarity in equipment carried & missions performed but it ends there. The airframes are different, flight control systems are different, and the avionics and mission systems are a completely different design. This would certainly have a big impact on training, logistics, maintenance and so on. I believe for the next MRH RFP both the 60R & 70B would be offered but that is only my opinion. Knowing the history of both designs I believe the Sikorsky designed mission system in the S-70B is the better system and would serve India's needs well.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Abingdonboy,
Similarity in equipment carried & missions performed but it ends there. The airframes are different, flight control systems are different, and the avionics and mission systems are a completely different design. This would certainly have a big impact on training, logistics, maintenance and so on. I believe for the next MRH RFP both the 60R & 70B would be offered but that is only my opinion. Knowing the history of both designs I believe the Sikorsky designed mission system in the S-70B is the better system and would serve India's needs well.

Mate their is a high degree of commonality, the computers have open architecture the differences are going to be very minimal.

 

[Rikbo]

I worked on the S-70B mission & weapons management systems for over 15 years during my career at Sikorsky. I am sorry but you are misinformed. What I said is correct. My previous posts on the "central" versus "federated" system architectures provides more info.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I worked on the S-70B mission & weapons management systems for over 15 years during my career at Sikorsky. I am sorry but you are misinformed. What I said is correct. My previous posts on the "central" versus "federated" system architectures provides more info.

Okay, fair enough- I thought differnces would be minimal and easily overcome but you are clearly more qualified than me! But you say the S-70B is the better choice for IN? If true why does USN operate the MH-60R/SH-60 then? And can you highlight the exact differences between the MH-60R and S-70B and the advantages of the later over the MH-60R? I assumed the MH-60R was the superior machine based on news clippings and the like.

 

[Rikbo]

First, read my previous post on the differences.
OK, let me start by saying that Lockheed Martin and the USN have had a long relationship with the Sikorsky Seahawk for many years with Lockheed (Owego, NY facility) producing the mission and avionics systems for that aircraft. Politics has played a huge role with the Lockheed lobbying efforts to keep the USN under its control. The USN was offered the 70B cockpit but Lockheed prevailed using its influence to maintain control over the cockpit. This has resulted in huge costs for the USN and American taxpayer when
they could have had a better cockpit for much less. My contacts in the fleet have described the 60R cockpit as difficult to use and continues to have problems. The overall human factors and systems/software design make the 60R mission and avionics systems much less user friendly. Capabilities are similar, but each aircraft can have different systems. For instance, both have FLIRs and sonar but the systems are made by different manufacturers. The 70B excels in how it integrates these systems and provides the capabilities of these systems to the operator. The 70B has a more advanced flight control (AFCS) system and weapons management system. An upgrade is in the works for the 60R cockpit including adding CDUs and a track ball for easier interface with the graphics display capability but the 70B has had the multi-slew controller (MSC) for many years and it continues to be an excellent device for graphical selection and operator interface. The track ball has received only luke warm reviews by the evaluation crews flying the new 60R prototype upgraded cockpit. Australia chose the 60R due to the Seasprite fiasco and the fact they wanted a "certified" aircraft and they recognize the USN as a certifying authority. They also wanted the comfort of the USN logistics and planned life cycle upgrades. Good reasons but Sikorsky can and has provided these for the 70B for a variety of international customers. Australia also accepted an FMS sale which India does not want. Both the 60R & 60S were removed from their initial OPEVAL (operational evaluation) due to a variety of issues with the ability of the aircraft to perform its missions. Even today I hear of problems with the mission systems. Lockheed, in my opinion has proven itself to be a poor designer and integrator for these systems. Not to mention being 3 to 5 times as expensive as Sikorsky to integrate complex mission equipment and capabilities. The 60R is still a superior aircraft to the NFH-90 in my opinion since it has been fielded for quite some time but why buy two different aircraft when one will do? It would take too long to elaborate further and granted some of what I have said represents my personal opinion, but that is based on my extensive experience and not any favoritism. Look on the web and you should find a wealth of information. The 70B cockpit has been continually updated over the years to keep it current and address obsolescence issues and is now in its 5th generation. The basic architecture of the modern 70B glass cockpit was originally provided to the Australians many years back for their 70B purchase and has changed very little other than upgrades and additions of new capabilities. Unfortunately the 60R decision was made by politicians and not the operators who actually played a key role in the design of the 70B systems architecture along with Rockwell Collins and would have preferred the newer 70B had they been able to play a role in the decision.
So the biggest difference comes down to the manner in which the avionics and missions systems were integrated, in other words, system design and software implementation.

 

[Abingdonboy]

^^^ thanks for the reply. And going by what you have said the S-70B does seem like the logical choice for the IN and I am unsure why the IN has sent out two separate tenders for 2 different platforms.


Also in your opinion would different equipment have to be procured by IN to support the MH-60R and S-70B on ships and on land and would maintenance crews have to be trained differently in support the different machines?

+ the RAN (Aussies) operate the S-70B I thought and they also operate the MRH-90 so similar to what IN are doing expect it looks as if the US contenders will win in both cases.

 

[Rikbo]

Yes, different MFDs, CDUs, flight control, stores/weapons management, FLIR, sonar and other equipment mean different maintenance and logistics. Different system and software design mean completely different operator and crew training.
Australia chose the NH-90 over the Blackhawk in that countries tender to replace the aging Blackhawks the Aussies have. Gives a clear picture of how much confidence the Aussies have in the NFH-90 (naval variant) when they chose the MH-60R. No doubt a contributing factor was their recent experience with their new NH-90 aircraft.

 

[Rikbo]

God I wish the MOD would get on with this and make an announcement! Wonder what is holding this up!!

 

[Abingdonboy]

God I wish the MOD would get on with this and make an announcement! Wonder what is holding this up!!

I think we can expect this news,at best, in Q4/late Q3 of 2012 and in the same time period we will see a lot of defence deals being sighned by India- Apache, Chinook, P-8I follow-on, this one etc