Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but gives an insight on where Army sits at the moment. I havnt read it all yet hopefully I'll get a chance over the weekend sometime.

Intersting to see that going forward that Bushmaster is being labeled a marginal capabilty, wonder what they see considering if you put a big enough IED in the ground a Namer AFV will still suffer,

https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...y/SI100_ADF_capability_snapshot_2015_Army.pdf
They are considering the PMV a marginal capability against direct fire, not IEDs. Since the PMV is not a combat vehicle, it is largely irrelevant.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that ASPI report. It's an incredibly superficial treatment of the subject, with lots of factual errors spread through out (despite having been put out for comment to Army before release, which at least caught most of the more glaring errors). It provides no real insight whatsoever as to where the capability gaps lie, why they exist and what could be done to fix them. A keen 12 year old who reads internet sites like this could do a better job.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They managed to sneak these chooks in because there was a bit of spare money and the FMS case was still open, which meant extra airframes could be bought very cheap and delivered very quickly. It is a good example of Army/Defence taking advantage of a fleeting opportunity, which is nice to see for a change.

There is every chance the Force Structure Review will recommend the purchase of yet more airframes (a dozen is generally seen as the minimum number to deliver the required capability), although if that happens they will have to be bought through the normal deliberate process, not a dodgy deal like this.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
They managed to sneak these chooks in because there was a bit of spare money and the FMS case was still open, which meant extra airframes could be bought very cheap and delivered very quickly. It is a good example of Army/Defence taking advantage of a fleeting opportunity, which is nice to see for a change.

There is every chance the Force Structure Review will recommend the purchase of yet more airframes (a dozen is generally seen as the minimum number to deliver the required capability), although if that happens they will have to be bought through the normal deliberate process, not a dodgy deal like this.
Where these actually additional options under the original FMS deal?

If not and we have a requirement for more airframes and which may cost us more in the long run why not make a supplementary funding requirement to take advantage of the cheaper costs?
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Where these actually additional options under the original FMS deal?

If not and we have a requirement for more airframes and which may cost us more in the long run why not make a supplementary funding requirement to take advantage of the cheaper costs?
If we wanted to take advantage of cheaper costs then realistically we should have gone on a buying spree around 2011/2012, in those years our currency was above parity with the USD which could have resulted in savings of around 30% on acquisition costs.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Where these actually additional options under the original FMS deal?

If not and we have a requirement for more airframes and which may cost us more in the long run why not make a supplementary funding requirement to take advantage of the cheaper costs?
They're not additional options. There was just a few airframes left unspoken for as part of the big US multi-year contract that we were able to grab as part of our existing FMS case.
 

rjtjrt

Member
What is the disposal plan for the D models?

Nice to see Army now appear to support fairly whole heartedly the Chinook - at first with the C models that were inherited from RAAF, seems Army saw them as expensive luxury. Now see the utility is worth the cost and slowly are building a more robust capablility.
Can't blame army , as they have always been the least well funded arm of the services.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
What is the disposal plan for the D models?

Nice to see Army now appear to support fairly whole heartedly the Chinook - at first with the C models that were inherited from RAAF, seems Army saw them as expensive luxury. Now see the utility is worth the cost and slowly are building a more robust capablility.
Can't blame army , as they have always been the least well funded arm of the services.


Thanks for the info on the FMS of three extra Chinooks for Army
.
A fleet of 10 is much better than 7 and I'm sure the increase in fleet numbers will not go to waste.
A good decision, and yes would'nt it be nice to have 12. On reflection we could have gone for a big shopping spree when the exchange rate was to our favour with the US for extra Chooks and other bits of kit, but decisions right or wrong were made at that time, and that time has pasted. A well done to those who have taken up the current oppertunity for the 3 extra units.
A nice little Christmas present for C Squadron, 5th Aviation Regiment.

Regards S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes good news, I was wondering how defence planned to meet training and operational requirements with only seven airframes. This was especially as the number of hours needed for training and support during exercises was sure to increase with the delivery of the LHDs, as they would add to the certification burden of crews / maintainers (i.e. hours per year) needed as a minimum to fly off the Canberras.

Throw in a future deployment of two airframes to Afghanistan or else where I could see the fleet being pushed to meet required obligations at home.
 

meatshield

Active Member
Do you think there will be a permanent chinook based on the Canberra class when they go to sea or only when the mission requires it?
 
It is a good example of Army/Defence taking advantage of a fleeting opportunity, which is nice to see for a change.

...not a dodgy deal like this.
:)

Nice surprising change, that Army has had a look-in with a unique opportunity that has presented itself.. Would be nice to see more Land-capability 'focus' in the upcoming releases. Pat on the back for the smart bugger spotting this, or perhaps the U.S. made the suggestion?

Shame opportunities such as these, are rare.. i.e. Choules and the C-17 line prod closing to name just a few
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Do you think there will be a permanent chinook based on the Canberra class when they go to sea or only when the mission requires it?
I can't see it being the case, I have not seen any real thought into a permanent force of size stationed aboard the ships to justify a chinook not to mention we just dont have enough of them. More likely it will be based on mission requirements as such large natural diasters or a specified armed military operation.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yes good news, I was wondering how defence planned to meet training and operational requirements with only seven airframes. This was especially as the number of hours needed for training and support during exercises was sure to increase with the delivery of the LHDs, as they would add to the certification burden of crews / maintainers (i.e. hours per year) needed as a minimum to fly off the Canberras.

Throw in a future deployment of two airframes to Afghanistan or else where I could see the fleet being pushed to meet required obligations at home.
Volk

Your right to ask

How many Chinooks are operationally available with a fleet of seven?
A guess only, but I would say a fleet of 10 would give Army at least six in service for opperations. Others may be able to advise if correct.
I'm sure the LHD's helped influence the increase in numbers so quickly.
Looking forward to seeing four Chinooks lined up on Canberra's flight deck.

Regards S
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Do you think there will be a permanent chinook based on the Canberra class when they go to sea or only when the mission requires it?
There will be no Chinooks permanently attached to the amphibious force, they will only be embarked when required. However, there will always be a small element of chinooks that are 'amphibious ready', so to speak, so they can embark at short notice if required. As Volk said, this means an extra training burden as Chinook crews have to be certified each year to operate from Canberra.

One thing to consider with the Chinooks and availability is that Australia doesn't actually conduct any type conversions onto Chinook. All our pilots are sent to the US and they conduct their type conversion over there. This quote obviously saves a number of airframes and a huge amount of flight hours to be used elsewhere. Essentially, we can get far more operational use out of our fleet compared to a nation that does their own type conversion.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
One thing to consider with the Chinooks and availability is that Australia doesn't actually conduct any type conversions onto Chinook. All our pilots are sent to the US and they conduct their type conversion over there. This quote obviously saves a number of airframes and a huge amount of flight hours to be used elsewhere. Essentially, we can get far more operational use out of our fleet compared to a nation that does their own type conversion.
Actually I think that is changing now with the introduction of the CH-47F's.

From what I understand, previously the Army didn't have flight simulators for the D's (and probably not for the C's either).

I did read that as part of the package when the 7 F's were purchased, two flight simulators were purchased too, so no doubt the introduction of simulators will take a load off using operational airframes for training purposes and probably eases (or eliminates) the need to send pilots for training in the US too.


And talking of advances in simulator training, the recent announcement of the purchase of 49 PC-21's also includes seven (7) flight simulators. (There were originally 67 PC-9's, now 63 after 4 losses).

So even with 14 less airframes, the ADF is planning to increase the number of graduates from 77 to 105 each year.
 
Last edited:

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually I think that is changing now with the introduction of the CH-47F's.
Even for the -Fs type conversion will still be conducted in the states, if for no other reason that it is cheaper to do it that way than to do it domestically (economy of scale and all that). I'm pretty sure the RAAF will be doing the same with conversion to Super Hornets, for the same reason.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Now that all the CRV bids are in and being assessed, I wonder how important the bidder's choices of main gun will be in deciding the eventual winner. Most of the focus has been on the various hulls offered but to my mind the choice of main gun is shaping up as an area where one of the bidders clearly stands out. Three of the bidders are offering 30mm main guns but the AMV35 will come with a 35mm Bushmaster III cannon. Although a 5mm diameter difference seems trivial the increase in kinetic energy of the 35mm round over the 30mm round is enormous.
The CRV tender protection requirements themselves indicate how important this difference may be. CRV is aiming for protection from 30mm AP but will be vulnerable to 35mm AP. Very few IFV/APCs would offer protection from rounds larger than 30mm. This extra lethality, along with the availability of a 35mm KETF round, which allows the 35mm cannon to effectively put a MBT out of action at ranges up to 4000 metres would seem to offer it a decisive advantage over 30mm guns.
If I was choosing the CRV winner, I think I would take a lot of persuading that the AMV is not the best choice and that mainly comes down to it's 35mm gun.
All 4 offered hulls seem "reasonably" similar in design. It is only in the choice of main gun that one option stands out from the others.

Interested to hear what other people think?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Now that all the CRV bids are in and being assessed, I wonder how important the bidder's choices of main gun will be in deciding the eventual winner. Most of the focus has been on the various hulls offered but to my mind the choice of main gun is shaping up as an area where one of the bidders clearly stands out. Three of the bidders are offering 30mm main guns but the AMV35 will come with a 35mm Bushmaster III cannon. Although a 5mm diameter difference seems trivial the increase in kinetic energy of the 35mm round over the 30mm round is enormous.
The CRV tender protection requirements themselves indicate how important this difference may be. CRV is aiming for protection from 30mm AP but will be vulnerable to 35mm AP. Very few IFV/APCs would offer protection from rounds larger than 30mm. This extra lethality, along with the availability of a 35mm KETF round, which allows the 35mm cannon to effectively put a MBT out of action at ranges up to 4000 metres would seem to offer it a decisive advantage over 30mm guns.
If I was choosing the CRV winner, I think I would take a lot of persuading that the AMV is not the best choice and that mainly comes down to it's 35mm gun.
All 4 offered hulls seem "reasonably" similar in design. It is only in the choice of main gun that one option stands out from the others.

Interested to hear what other people think?
Based on the Danes experiences using their CV-9035s in Afghanistan, the 35 mm cannon proved to be very effective.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While I agree the 35mm gun gives the AMV an advantage, I think the bigger advantage when it comes to the gun is commonality with the Phase 3 vehicle. I would prefer a common turret between the CFV and IFV, even if this meant getting 'only' a 30mm gun as opposed to the 35mm gun of the AMV. The training and support advantages with this are huge. The choice of CRV will have to be done in a way that doesn't prejudice the choice of Phase 3 vehicle (ie, picking a vehicle from a manufacturer that doesn't offer a competitive IFV would be dumb).

Based on what I have seen of the returns from the RFT, I predict the Boxer and AMV will be shortlisted for the CRV. Personally I think the CV90 is a far more competitive vehicle for the IFV requirement than the Boxer; so I think the AMV will still have a pretty big advantage for the Phase 2 tender. I would certainly be happy with an AMV/CV90 mix (pending funding being available).
 
Top