Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Interesting. Would this not be complicated by our unwillingness to field DU armour? Presumably US models will have it, but I imagine there may be some additional expense to ours being delivered without it?

On a side note, the rumblings about an early Tiger replacement have got me wondering if the AH64E might get a look in? My understanding is that the Apache lost out originally due to expense weighed against perceived deficits in the recon role, along with marinisation issues. Now, however, it looks like the US is moving towards making their Apaches much more active in the ARH role, mainly by networking with unmanned systems. Given this and the fact that I could have sworn the E model involves some degree of "marinisation", I would have thought it should beat out the Viper hands down (at least capability wise)?

AH-64E would be great, especially if the UK go for it too and certify a marinised configuration. The only way I can see the Tiger being replaced is if there is a coherent economical alternative that brings something to the show that Tiger either can't, or modifying it to deliver would exceed the commonwealths risk appetite. For example the US has trialled Apaches as drone control nodes, both the Apache and Zulu are FMS with the associated logistics andTLS benefits, the core engine is common to the Romeo.

If, and this is a big if, the ADF acquires additional utility / assault helicopters and they are either Mike model Blackhawks, Sierras or even Yankees then this could make a coordinated buy of Echos or Zulus to replace Tiger even more attractive. The main thing will be taking a holistic view across fleets and services to find the best long term option.

 

[Boagrius]

^ I suppose I am taking it for granted that the Echo would be a more expensive option than the Zulu, if for no other reason than it is probably a larger, more complex/capable platform (not to mention possible "marinisation" expenses?). That said it would be really interesting to know how the two would actually stack up cost wise - I honestly have no idea. Either way you would have to think that either option - both being longstanding, essentially MOTS designs - would be a lot more painless than what we've had with the Tigers... one can only hope.

EDIT: I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on the Abrams question - would our aversion to DU complicate matters?

 

[Volkodav]

^ I suppose I am taking it for granted that the Echo would be a more expensive option than the Zulu, if for no other reason than it is probably a larger, more complex/capable platform (not to mention possible "marinisation" expenses?). That said it would be really interesting to know how the two would actually stack up cost wise - I honestly have no idea. Either way you would have to think that either option - both being longstanding, essentially MOTS designs - would be a lot more painless than what we've had with the Tigers... one can only hope.

EDIT: I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on the Abrams question - would our aversion to DU complicate matters?

I recall DU being an issue as far as ammunition is concerned and seem to recall it mentioned in relation to tank armour but I don't know how much of a problem it would really be as it is sealed in the armour system. Really don't know whether it would be an issue for anyone but the Greens and others who would object to us having a defence force at all.

 

[Boagrius]

I recall DU being an issue as far as ammunition is concerned and seem to recall it mentioned in relation to tank armour but I don't know how much of a problem it would really be as it is sealed in the armour system. Really don't know whether it would be an issue for anyone but the Greens and others who would object to us having a defence force at all.

Haha, fair enough. I raise it because I understand that we opted to go without DU armour for our current Abrams fleet and imagine we might want to do so for any future acquisition of the type (if only for political reasons). I don't know if this could undermine the affordability of new builds...

 

[Todjaeger]

AH-64E would be great, especially if the UK go for it too and certify a marinised configuration. The only way I can see the Tiger being replaced is if there is a coherent economical alternative that brings something to the show that Tiger either can't, or modifying it to deliver would exceed the commonwealths risk appetite. For example the US has trialled Apaches as drone control nodes, both the Apache and Zulu are FMS with the associated logistics andTLS benefits, the core engine is common to the Romeo.

If, and this is a big if, the ADF acquires additional utility / assault helicopters and they are either Mike model Blackhawks, Sierras or even Yankees then this could make a coordinated buy of Echos or Zulus to replace Tiger even more attractive. The main thing will be taking a holistic view across fleets and services to find the best long term option.

I could be mistaken, but IIRC there have been projections that indicated the cost to modernize and upgrade the Tiger ARH's (which due to their long/delayed development, essentially need a MLU despite lack of use) which would cost more and likely be of higher programme risk, than purchasing new build helicopters from the US. I do not recall whether or not it was specific about costing more than AH-1Z, or an AH-64 variant, but it was rather telling, from my POV.

At this point, for as much money as has been sunk into the Tigers, spending more would be wasteful IMO, since there are less expensive options to achieve the same or better results. This also serves to highlight the dangers of treating something as a MOTS or near-MOTS purchase, when in fact it is still very much in development.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This also serves to highlight the dangers of treating something as a MOTS or near-MOTS purchase, when in fact it is still very much in development.

CREF mine and Volks comments about historical french claims and actual capability - as it applies to Tigers it also applies to some other gear we have been unfortunate in acquiring

let alone their current push to flog a paper submarine onto us

the lesson with french acquisitions should always be - you claim that it does X Y Z or that function A B C is underway - well show me the working artifact when you've finished testing and development - don't buy it until you see it in operation

 

[Todjaeger]

CREF mine and Volks comments about historical french claims and actual capability - as it applies to Tigers it also applies to some other gear we have been unfortunate in acquiring

let alone their current push to flog a paper submarine onto us

the lesson with french acquisitions should always be - you claim that it does X Y Z or that function A B C is underway - well show me the working artifact when you've finished testing and development - don't buy it until you see it in operation

The impression I have formed, is that a number (not all, be more than just one or two) of the relatively recent defence acquisitions which have gone pear-shaped in/for Australia have been that the kit being selected was still in development. Or more importantly, that it was still in development while the Australian decision-makers seemed to think development had already been completed at the time of selection. For whatever reason, this seems to have happened much more with Euro-sourced kit.

The ADF has definitely been placing orders for US kit that is still being developed, but the impression I have gotten is that, by and large, the status of US kit is very well understood. Except for kit Australia wants/needs Australianized, the US kit under development is known to still be in development, or it is FMS if already in series production. For example, when Australia ordered the Boeing E-737 Wedgetail, it was known that development would need to be done before it could enter service.

There is definitely good kit available from Europe, but there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between what is sold (in terms of cost, capabilities, and timeline/availability) and what is actually received.

 

[ADMk2]

CREF mine and Volks comments about historical french claims and actual capability - as it applies to Tigers it also applies to some other gear we have been unfortunate in acquiring

let alone their current push to flog a paper submarine onto us

the lesson with french acquisitions should always be - you claim that it does X Y Z or that function A B C is underway - well show me the working artifact when you've finished testing and development - don't buy it until you see it in operation

Not to mention taking their 'support' costs with a very large 'grain of salt...'

We got sold absolute pups with the NH-90 and Tiger.

Should have gone with a fleet of UH-60M, MH-60R and AH-64D that would soon be going towards AH-64E and we'd have had an operational fleet of great capability for the last ten years, rather than 10 years of developmental hell that has delivered no operational outcomes for that entire period.

 

[rjtjrt]

Not to mention taking their 'support' costs with a very large 'grain of salt...'

We got sold absolute pups with the NH-90 and Tiger.

Should have gone with a fleet of UH-60M, MH-60R and AH-64D that would soon be going towards AH-64E and we'd have had an operational fleet of great capability for the last ten years, rather than 10 years of developmental hell that has delivered no operational outcomes for that entire period.

One of the things we missed is getting combat operational experience with the ARH. A lot could have been learned.

 

[Volkodav]

One of the things we missed is getting combat operational experience with the ARH. A lot could have been learned.

Very good point, but worse than that. If the equipment concerned has not achieved the required capability and availability in the intended time frame the performance of the operators will be seriously impaired. They will not be able to do the job they joined and trained to do, their skills development will slow or perhaps decline, their careers will be adversely affected, reducing promotion and training opportunities and separation rates will increase, further affecting the capability.

 

[Boagrius]

Very good point, but worse than that. If the equipment concerned has not achieved the required capability and availability in the intended time frame the performance of the operators will be seriously impaired. They will not be able to do the job they joined and trained to do, their skills development will slow or perhaps decline, their careers will be adversely affected, reducing promotion and training opportunities and separation rates will increase, further affecting the capability.

Yikes, how depressing. Anyone know if the NH90's are likely to face a similar fate in future, or are they more salvageable? It's such a shame that we've ended up "here". One can only hope that a decent capability can be constructed out of the mess... Curious to know whether an all Blackhawk and Apache/Viper fleet may lie ahead anyway.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yikes, how depressing. Anyone know if the NH90's are likely to face a similar fate in future, or are they more salvageable? It's such a shame that we've ended up "here". One can only hope that a decent capability can be constructed out of the mess... Curious to know whether an all Blackhawk and Apache/Viper fleet may lie ahead anyway.

Regarding the MRH / NH90. Why are there two almost opposite sets of experiences between the ADF and NZDF with the introduction of the aircraft into their respective fleets? It cannot all be just the Europeans fault, because if that was the case then both forces experience would be similar. There has to be something else as well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Regarding the MRH / NH90. Why are there two almost opposite sets of experiences between the ADF and NZDF with the introduction of the aircraft into their respective fleets? It cannot all be just the Europeans fault, because if that was the case then both forces experience would be similar. There has to be something else as well.

the decision to pick some assets gets defined by aust industry capability - and the bigger the vendor the bigger the effect

eg a helo industry in QLD has far more clout than combat boots in SA

 

[ngatimozart]

the decision to pick some assets gets defined by aust industry capability - and the bigger the vendor the bigger the effect

eg a helo industry in QLD has far more clout than combat boots in SA

Cool thanks for that GF. That does make a difference. The NZ ones came direct from France and the RNZAF Helicopter Development Unit aircrew and technies were trained in France by the manufacturer.

 

[Volkodav]

Cool thanks for that GF. That does make a difference. The NZ ones came direct from France and the RNZAF Helicopter Development Unit aircrew and technies were trained in France by the manufacturer.

The Australian acquisition was earlier, assembling what were still uncertified developmental aircraft locally, with very limited support. This was primarily because the launch customers were not happy meaning NHI / Eurocopter were totally preoccupied on pacifying and supporting the Germans (who were seriously considering cutting or cancelling order) and to a lesser degree the French and had no resources left to support their Australian contract.

Australia was delivered the original still uncertified, highly developmental, non-conforming baseline that had to be progressively fixed (with an added layer of an Australian subsidiary to work through) where NZ bought the later, actually genuine MOTS configuration. Basically NZ did better because they got what the early customers were promised.

 

[t68]

Goverment at the time wanted a MOTS solution but If I remember correctly from the ANAO report was that at the time the US were introducing S70M as at that time it was still in devolpment variant of the Blackhawk family which one would have thought that even though it was still an in devolpment it really was just an evolution of the current in service airframe, we're as the NH90 had no pedigree to begin with.

Unfortunatly politics got involved what should have been a straight forward program. If the wanted enhanced capabilty should have gone Merlin EH101

 

[old faithful]

wants vs needs.....again.
need a new bike. = View attachment 6635






wants =View attachment 6636

 

[old faithful]

and then there is the CAT.



"So, defence wants to buy a dog for 50 bucks. DMO says no, not when we can buy a cat for 30. DMO goes ahead and purchases a cat. After years of field trials, it is decided that the cat cannot perform the function of a dog. Defence says look, we can still get a dog for 50 bucks, it's all good. DMO says no, we've already got the cat, and we can retrofit it out to perform the function of a dog for only 45 bucks! Thats still cheaper than the dog! DMO kit the cat out, and with a lot of screaming and shouting, the cat almost passes the tests. DMO decide to lower the standard of the test because it is unfair on the cat, who is feeling belittled because it is expected to pass the dog test. DMO hire a cat specialist for 30 bucks to design a testing process for the cat. Once the testing process is tailored to suit the cat, it passes with flying colours! DMO supply defence with the upgraded cat. Once in use, defence discovers that the cat is not functional as a dog, and demands a dog. DMO have no money left to purchase a dog after project cat blew out the budget, and defence has no choice but to put up with the cat."
The scary thing is that this is funny only because it is sooooo true…

 

[gf0012-aust]

and then there is the CAT.



"So, defence wants to buy a dog for 50 bucks. DMO says no, not when we can buy a cat for 30. DMO goes ahead and purchases a cat. After years of field trials, it is decided that the cat cannot perform the function of a dog. Defence says look, we can still get a dog for 50 bucks, it's all good. DMO says no, we've already got the cat, and we can retrofit it out to perform the function of a dog for only 45 bucks! Thats still cheaper than the dog! DMO kit the cat out, and with a lot of screaming and shouting, the cat almost passes the tests. DMO decide to lower the standard of the test because it is unfair on the cat, who is feeling belittled because it is expected to pass the dog test. DMO hire a cat specialist for 30 bucks to design a testing process for the cat. Once the testing process is tailored to suit the cat, it passes with flying colours! DMO supply defence with the upgraded cat. Once in use, defence discovers that the cat is not functional as a dog, and demands a dog. DMO have no money left to purchase a dog after project cat blew out the budget, and defence has no choice but to put up with the cat."
The scary thing is that this is funny only because it is sooooo true…

whats is often conveniently ignored is that in that old model - it was CDG who basically defined the acquisition as a cat - DMO can only act on whatever CDG and the users accepted - DMO couldn't determine what would be defined as the final acquisition without any of the other groups blessing. (and there were uniforms embedded within CDG, and the old DMO to assist the process)
The capability manager has various gates along the way where they can stop what they see as a deviation from the users reqs as they defined it and signed off on it in the first place. What gets left out of the above model is that CDG and the Users agreed to a cat - but ultimately never accept the baseline and want a tiger (no pun intended)

 

[40 deg south]

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/singapore-airshow-airbus-prioritises-aussie-tiger-/

In possibly the least surprising news to come out of the Singapore Air Show, Airbus announces improving performance of the Aussie Tigers is a top priority. Amazing how that happened just after the proposal was floated to replace the type with AH1's.