Australia & US Military Co-operation

[Eeshaan]

Our current strategy is help our neighbours and friends in case someone out there is foolish enough to attack them. This, along with the ongoing counter insurgency in Afghanistan, requires plenty of ground targets to be serviced if the RAAF is deployed.

Thanks. This is the exact scenario that I had in mind when I asked about the ground attack aircraft.

Also, Riksavage, isn't AH1-Z a purely attack-focused helicopter ? Like Mr. Gubler said, the ADF were looking for a helicopter that's firstly a recon chopper & secondly an attack gunship.
Also, AH1-Z is a relatively newer model than the Tiger ARH, so it might not have been offered to ADF at that point. Still, the Viper is a very impressive ( and deadly ) piece of machinery

Fuel capacity and range comparison, AH1Z vs Tiger :

Welcome to Aircraft Compare

Welcome to Aircraft Compare

 

[Bonza]

A variant of the Cobra was considered, along with the Tiger, Apache, Rooivalk, A129, and a heavily armed variant of the S-70 Blackhawk. Of those, the Tiger, Apache and A129 were shortlisted.

Further information here: Defence Materiel Organisation

Seeing the Cobra and Rooivalk perform at Avalon many years ago was quite an impressive sight for a young un...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Though the Apache was never a serious option for Australia,

Don't know where you got that from. The Apache was the front runner of AIR 87 and was Defence's recommendation to Government. They chose the Tiger because they thought it was the better long term investment and didn't realise how severe the short term risks were.

The AH-1Z is probably the best fit for the ADF being full marinised but was considered the most developmental (realistically no more so than the Tiger) and like the Tiger couldn’t have met the required introduction schedule (Apache would have).

Of course AIR 87 had been around for a long time. The best solution would have been to accept the 40 odd second hand AH-1Ws offered in the early 1990s. Would have been very handy in East Timor and could have been replaced with AH-1Zs with minimal disruption to the ARH Regiment.

 

[Todjaeger]

France did actually. Spain chose the Israeli SPIKE-ER for her Tigers.

France To Buy Hellfire Missiles at U.S. Price - Defense News

Cheers,

AD

And here is my reply to that, sir!

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXCbAtkgNMw"]YouTube - Homer Simpson - D'oh![/nomedia]

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Don't know where you got that from. The Apache was the front runner of AIR 87 and was Defence's recommendation to Government. They chose the Tiger because they thought it was the better long term investment and didn't realise how severe the short term risks were.

The AH-1Z is probably the best fit for the ADF being full marinised but was considered the most developmental (realistically no more so than the Tiger) and like the Tiger couldn’t have met the required introduction schedule (Apache would have).

Of course AIR 87 had been around for a long time. The best solution would have been to accept the 40 odd second hand AH-1Ws offered in the early 1990s. Would have been very handy in East Timor and could have been replaced with AH-1Zs with minimal disruption to the ARH Regiment.

Agreed on the AH-1W and correct me if I am wrong but weren't the final two contenders the Tiger and the AH-1W with the Mangusta a close third?

I have a feeling that the Apache was eliminated earlier on cost and Rooivalk as it was seen as a risk due to its limited production run and potential orphan status. I remember some speculation on the Battle Hawk but don't know if it was formally tendered.

There was the suggestion in the mid 90's that the ideal aircraft for the missions envisaged by army aviation was the RAH-66 Comanche however its projected in service date ruled it out from consideration. In light of its subsequent cancellation its probably good we didn't waste any time assessing it. Then again I imagine the US Army is currently wondering if it may not have been worth continuing the project considering the difficulty (and expense) they have experienced fielding an alternative.

 

[Volkodav]

Australia wanted a new build tank back to replace the Centurion and the M48 was not new build, the last one had come of the production line in 1959. Also at this time – 1971, when the Centurion replacement program started - the M48 was only fitted with the 90mm gun. The M48A5 upgrade would come a few years later.

The M48 was designed and first built a full tank generation after the Centurion (~10 years) but the state of the art had not advanced so much during this time. The Australian Army used a few M48s during the VietNam War as part of the combat engineer squadrons.

To replace the Centurion Army reviewed the Chieftan, Vickers medium tank, M60A1, AMX30 and Leopard 1. The Chieftan was assessed by the Army but rejected because of its unreliable engine, higher weight and excessive 120mm gun. A pair each of M60A1s ad Leopard 1s were trialled in over the summer of 72/73 for the medium tank requirement. The Leopard 1 was chosen but the order was delayed a few years due to financing.

The Army does not realistically plan to fight in the centre of Australia because it’s just such an unlikely theatre of operations. The medium tank trial was carried out at Puckapunyal – typical Australian rural terrain – and Tully – high rainfall tropical forest.

I know this is going the oposite direction, but would anyone know any good sources for info on the Churchill Mks VII and VIIIs used by 1 Armored Regt prior to the Centurion?

I know there were 31 Mk VII and 15 Mk VIII (along with 30 Crocodile trailers) delivered out of an initial order for 510 tanks but haven’t found anything on their service history or employment. For instance I am pretty certain they weren’t deployed to Korea, although they would have been quite effective in support of our Infantry against the human wave attacks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

How will Australia make up for the gap between operating only 24 Superhornets and recieving their 100 F-35s ? All F-18s ( As & Bs ) will be retired by 2015, and with F-35 costs going up, have they considered the cheaper and extremely effective ( against ground targets ) A-10 ? For ground attack/fire support role ofc., not air-to-air/air superiority

Australia's Hornets are slated to begin retirement from 2018. Australia has not considered the A-10. It is an older aircraft by far than our Hornets which are retiring in 2018 and cannot provide the full range of capabilities that our current and planned fighters do.

Our F-35' are scheduled to begin entering service in 2014 in the US for pilot training and initial testing and development.

The arrival of F-35 aircraft is scheduled to begin in 2017, so there will be some overlap between the introduction of the JSF and the retirement of the Hornet, just as there was with Hornet and Mirage...

There won't be any significant gap.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Don't know where you got that from. The Apache was the front runner of AIR 87 and was Defence's recommendation to Government. They chose the Tiger because they thought it was the better long term investment and didn't realise how severe the short term risks were.

The AH-1Z is probably the best fit for the ADF being full marinised but was considered the most developmental (realistically no more so than the Tiger) and like the Tiger couldn’t have met the required introduction schedule (Apache would have).

Of course AIR 87 had been around for a long time. The best solution would have been to accept the 40 odd second hand AH-1Ws offered in the early 1990s. Would have been very handy in East Timor and could have been replaced with AH-1Zs with minimal disruption to the ARH Regiment.

Ironically an Australianised version of the British WAH-64 Apache probably would have been the better option for future LHD employment as well as being more capable than our Tigers and probably in-service as planned...

Oh well. Government believed EADS smoke and mirrors. I can't believe after all this they are STILL considering NFH-90....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Agreed on the AH-1W and correct me if I am wrong but weren't the final two contenders the Tiger and the AH-1W with the Mangusta a close third?

I have a feeling that the Apache was eliminated earlier on cost and Rooivalk as it was seen as a risk due to its limited production run and potential orphan status. I remember some speculation on the Battle Hawk but don't know if it was formally tendered.

There were six respondents to the AIR 87 request for proposals (RFP) in May 1998: Agusta with the Mangusta, Bell with AH-1Z, Boeing with the Apache, Denel with the Rooivalk, Eurocopter with the Tiger and Sikorsky with the Battle Hawk. Three (Agusta, Boeing and Eurocopter) were allowed to progress to the request for tender (RFT) stage in December 2000 however a stuff up in the process and an appeal meant the RFT was made open to all six RFP bidders if they wanted to. Only Bell decicded to bid for the RFT after being excluded. Agusta were screened out for being incomplete and Bell, Boeing and Eurocopter screened on cost and schedule. Boeing was removed at this stage (for in service support cost) and Eurocopter recommended with Bell being ‘set aside’ for reconsideration. That is if a deal couldn’t be made with Eurocopter Bell would get a chance to sign a contract. Bell was considered the preferred cost-capability but they couldn’t meet the schedule (2004 in service). They offered a lease of six AH-1Ws as a gap fill until the AH-1Z would be ready.

Anyway the methodologies used during the assessment were pretty week with Defence considering an off the shelf (OTS) helicopter one that had been delivered not in service. So Eurocopter completely failed to meet the delivery schedule and the in service cost because they were in no rational way an off the shelf helicopter. AH-1Z would have been the same but at least we would have had those AH-1Ws on lease. Apache of course would have had no problem meeting the schedule and the “higher” in service cost was based on hard facts not estimates.

Agreed on the AH-1W and correct me if I am wrong but There was the suggestion in the mid 90's that the ideal aircraft for the missions envisaged by army aviation was the RAH-66 Comanche however its projected in service date ruled it out from consideration. In light of its subsequent cancellation its probably good we didn't waste any time assessing it. Then again I imagine the US Army is currently wondering if it may not have been worth continuing the project considering the difficulty (and expense) they have experienced fielding an alternative.

Sure the RAH-66 was based around the same kind of capability as AIR 87 wanted. But it wasn’t tendered because it didn’t meet the OTS requirement and couldn’t meet the 2004 in service schedule even if it wasn’t cancelled by the US Army. The ideal solution (even without hindsight) would have been to pick up the 40 ex USMC AH-1Ws in 1992-94 and then join the Comanche project as a partner nation. But the old school Defence bureaucracy loves its long and inconclusive tender processes and gets pretty irate when they are avoided (look at all the left field crap over JSF from ex bureaucrats and the people that feed off them).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ironically an Australianised version of the British WAH-64 Apache probably would have been the better option for future LHD employment as well as being more capable than our Tigers and probably in-service as planned...

Oh well. Government believed EADS smoke and mirrors. I can't believe after all this they are STILL considering NFH-90....

I think the AH-64 offered to the Australian Army was similar to the WAH-64 in that it had the high end EWSP and the engine power to fly hot and high so it could operate as a COIN gunship rather than just a shoot and scoot hover fire anti tank bird.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I know this is going the oposite direction, but would anyone know any good sources for info on the Churchill Mks VII and VIIIs used by 1 Armored Regt prior to the Centurion?

I know there were 31 Mk VII and 15 Mk VIII (along with 30 Crocodile trailers) delivered out of an initial order for 510 tanks but haven’t found anything on their service history or employment. For instance I am pretty certain they weren’t deployed to Korea, although they would have been quite effective in support of our Infantry against the human wave attacks.

They didn't go to Korea but the British Army used Churchill Crocodiles in Korea for good work.

The best source on Australian Churchills:

Churchill

1 Armd Regt was only a single squadron until the Centurion was delivered, not reaching regt status (with only two sqns) until 1952. So for the three years A Sqn, 1 Armd Regt was active with the Churchill it would have been in mostly a training role. The CMF armd regts were equipped with the Grant/Lee tank until the Centurion was available.

 

[Volkodav]

They didn't go to Korea but the British Army used Churchill Crocodiles in Korea for good work.

The best source on Australian Churchills:

Churchill

1 Armd Regt was only a single squadron until the Centurion was delivered, not reaching regt status (with only two sqns) until 1952. So for the three years A Sqn, 1 Armd Regt was active with the Churchill it would have been in mostly a training role. The CMF armd regts were equipped with the Grant/Lee tank until the Centurion was available.

Thanks for that, next step I suppose is a trip to Puka with my DSLR.

Thats the site I got the numbers from and the only place I have seen a reference to the Mk VIII.

I believe a number of Matilda's saw post war service with the CMF as well.

I read AUSTRALIAN ARMOUR - A History of the RAAC 1927 - 1972 probably about 20 years ago but can't remember much reference to the Churchill but the thing that did stick was the proposal to form a regular tank brigade consisting of 5 regiments of Centurions and two CMF brigades each of 5 regiments of Comets to form an Australian tank division. There was also reference to the Army adopting the US Pentropic structure but that it failed due to our failure to ensure a corresponding increase in the number of vehicles.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me, considering our close relationship with the US, is our failure to acquire any significant support from the US in equipping our forces along the line of MAP. I know there were offers made but it seemed that we always had an excuse or twenty ready why we couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't accept the offered aid, even when our servicemen were shedding blood side by side with the US and other allies through out the Cold War.

The impression I have is that the US through the 50's, 60's and 70's would happily have equipped any force we decided to raise. If we wanted an armoured division they would have transferred the vehicles we needed, if we wanted an airborne brigade the C-141’s would have been provided, strike carrier….was that one or two Essex, would you like a FRAM Gearing with that?

The only obstacle was what? Why didn’t we take advantage of what was offered so freely by the US to other allies, some of whom were not so loyal or reliable?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well Australia never had access to MAP supplies because we didn’t fit the guidelines. MAP was for countries facing a direct threat from the USSR or PRC that couldn’t afford to pay for their own weapons. Australia was expected to pay its own way because we were a partner and maintained viable government finances through and after WWII.

Defence but could get access to US weapons for free for trial and evaluation and operational use under the ABCA treaty. Lots of Army ORBATs have equipment types “to be supplied by ABCA” like the SPHs in the old medium artillery batteries. In VietNam we had lots of weapons supplied under ABCA.

The real reason Australia has struggled to maintain a viable defence capability is underinvestment. If we had spent similar levels to the UK and USA on defence since WWII we would have all that stuff and most of designed and built in Australia.

PS When the RAN approached the Government to replace HMAS Melbourne with an Essex class (most likely USS Philippine Sea) the US was not providing it for free. For cost and with a lot of sweeteners but not for free.

 

[rip]

In this new world of intelligence cooperation is there any consideration of building cooperative SOSUS like underwater sound detection system? That has been of great benefit in both the Atlantic and North Pacific. It seems that submarines are going to be the capital ship of choice in your part of the world. It would seem that a good underwater sound detection system would very useful to the north and west.