Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Could it be that the company line is correct? After all, we are the operators.

The company line doesn’t change the very real problems that it has and needs extensive further investment if it is to deliver what it is we expect from such a capability, all to be retired in less than a decade anyway.

I think related issues to the Taipan and comments from the CO are just as pertinent to the Tiger.

In the end, Taipan is the aircraft the Australian Government chose to acquire, and we have a duty to make it work,” said LTCOL Gilfillan in closing. “What I’m trying to do is to be positive about the aircraft, because positive thinking is far more likely to bring success than negative thinking.

Just imagine if we didn’t ever buy aircraft that came with all these problems and all the capability effort could have instead been put into operational capability enhancement, rather than struggling for a decade or more to even get an operational capability?

 

[aussienscale]

Interestingly they are sent Hawki PMV-L to Iraq for testing, should be an interesting OTE.

For some reason my link won't come up

Very interesting indeed, hope to hear more about this, but to be sending "A number" of them over hopefully speaks volumes of how they have been performing ?

https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...oys_new_hawkei_protected_vehicle_in_iraq.html

 

[t68]

Very interesting indeed, hope to hear more about this, but to be sending "A number" of them over hopefully speaks volumes of how they have been performing ?

https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...oys_new_hawkei_protected_vehicle_in_iraq.html

It's a good idea placeing it in an operational environment before full rate production to tweak the design, from memory they also did this with Bushmaster sent to ET for evaluation.

 

[Takao]

If by chance that they do buy additional Blackhawks for SOCOMD for commonality sake would additional airframes with DAP be an alternative, these also may be fitted with the refuelling probe to match the operational distance of the aircraft

Why would we buy extra Black Hawks when there is already a 'medium' airframe in service? Why not invest in a light or heavy option instead? AAR though - that's something that needs to be considered, especially for a heavy option.

 

[t68]

Why would we buy extra Black Hawks when there is already a 'medium' airframe in service? Why not invest in a light or heavy option instead? AAR though - that's something that needs to be considered, especially for a heavy option.

Because SOCOMD has operational issues with the machine and why they have to decide if they will buy additional Blackhawks or a collaboration with France on Special forces variant which from my understanding is pretty invasive of the aircraft to reposition door gun while maintaining access to the cabin doors, from what I have gathered is the airframe would have to be recertified as these are major modifications to the structural strength of the airframe.

Also a buy has commonality with MH-60R by using the MH-60S as the baseline it can use a number of common equipment as used on the MH-60R for use with SOCOMD, out of the box it can use FLIR and hellfire missiles if so desired.

I would prefer that all MRH-90 helicopter move over to the green on land army with MH-60S being used in the maritime environment for which the have multiple uses.

 

[Takao]

Because SOCOMD has operational issues with the machine and why they have to decide if they will buy additional Blackhawks or a collaboration with France on Special forces variant which from my understanding is pretty invasive of the aircraft to reposition door gun while maintaining access to the cabin doors, from what I have gathered is the airframe would have to be recertified as these are major modifications to the structural strength of the airframe.

Also a buy has commonality with MH-60R by using the MH-60S as the baseline it can use a number of common equipment as used on the MH-60R for use with SOCOMD, out of the box it can use FLIR and hellfire missiles if so desired.

I would prefer that all MRH-90 helicopter move over to the green on land army with MH-60S being used in the maritime environment for which the have multiple uses.

Understood, and I am aware of those limitations and work that has gone into deciding which option for post S-70A-9 for 6 Avn. But with the budget in mind, a H-60/MRH sized platform should be our last choice for SOCOMD. The reason we use Black Hawk now is that it 'fell' into the role; there are a number of areas it fails to meet needs: for instance; a regional deployment would be faster by CH-47 (especially if AAR is used) than H-60/MRH + C-17. A long range reconnaissance mission may need extra equipment / range that a H-60 cannot lift (including vehicles and boats). At the other end; a smaller airframe allows better access in cities, quieter approaches and increased flexibility.

With that in mind; I think it is time for everyone, especially those wearing green, to let the H-60 buy go. SOCOMD has an answer for the 'medium' frame; it should be offered options that compliment the MRH and not keep fighting over this decision that will not be changed.

 

[Volkodav]

Understood, and I am aware of those limitations and work that has gone into deciding which option for post S-70A-9 for 6 Avn. But with the budget in mind, a H-60/MRH sized platform should be our last choice for SOCOMD. The reason we use Black Hawk now is that it 'fell' into the role; there are a number of areas it fails to meet needs: for instance; a regional deployment would be faster by CH-47 (especially if AAR is used) than H-60/MRH + C-17. A long range reconnaissance mission may need extra equipment / range that a H-60 cannot lift (including vehicles and boats). At the other end; a smaller airframe allows better access in cities, quieter approaches and increased flexibility.

With that in mind; I think it is time for everyone, especially those wearing green, to let the H-60 buy go. SOCOMD has an answer for the 'medium' frame; it should be offered options that compliment the MRH and not keep fighting over this decision that will not be changed.

My understanding is that the MRH configuration Australia operates is actually more suited in someways to Special Operations support and CSAR than to the assault / utility role it was acquired for. Again it is not a bad platform but the international fleet's configuration is all over the place making sustainment a bigger challenge and Australia made the acquisition under the mistaken belief it was a fully supported MOTS option.

 

[t68]

Understood, and I am aware of those limitations and work that has gone into deciding which option for post S-70A-9 for 6 Avn. But with the budget in mind, a H-60/MRH sized platform should be our last choice for SOCOMD. The reason we use Black Hawk now is that it 'fell' into the role; there are a number of areas it fails to meet needs: for instance; a regional deployment would be faster by CH-47 (especially if AAR is used) than H-60/MRH + C-17. A long range reconnaissance mission may need extra equipment / range that a H-60 cannot lift (including vehicles and boats). At the other end; a smaller airframe allows better access in cities, quieter approaches and increased flexibility.

With that in mind; I think it is time for everyone, especially those wearing green, to let the H-60 buy go. SOCOMD has an answer for the 'medium' frame; it should be offered options that compliment the MRH and not keep fighting over this decision that will not be changed.

We already have a number of aircraft that can be used as a baseline for MOTS acquisition to flesh out in a variety of SOCOMD roles if they so desired depending on the nature of the task required, all within a reasonable amount of commonalty within the existing fleet such as the EC135 T2+(HATS) with additional H135M, MH-60R with additional MH-60S/M which also should be used within the ARG construct for maritime operations , CH-47F has commonalty between both the MH-47G and MH-60 with the common avionics architecture system with the exception of the Airbus offering can have refuelling probes fitted and if there is a real urgent fast lift requirement they can call on RAAF C27/130

There are a lot of synergies using a MOTS FMS sale to enhance SOCOMD and the wider ARG maritime construct, Using Airbus to modify the MRH involves a lot of risk which can be mitigated to reduce taxpayer exposure.

H135M

MH-60 Black Hawk Helicopters

 

[Raven22]

My understanding is that the MRH configuration Australia operates is actually more suited in someways to Special Operations support and CSAR than to the assault / utility role it was acquired for. Again it is not a bad platform but the international fleet's configuration is all over the place making sustainment a bigger challenge and Australia made the acquisition under the mistaken belief it was a fully supported MOTS option.

The biggest problem with the MRH in the SOCOMD role is the fact that it is a massive maintenance pig. The main role (in the preparedness directive) for the 6 Avn helicopters is in support of domestic counter terrorism. This role has a very demanding notice to move requirement - there needs to be X number if airframes ready to go at all times. This is relatively easily met by the current Blackhawk, but will be very, very challenging (and expensive) with the MRH, due to the incredibly poor availability. 6 Avn will need to be given extra airframes, and need a massively increased number of maintainers, to meet this requirement. Eurocopter, or whatever they are called now, is throwing contractors of their own, for free, at the problem, to try to convince Army to keep the MRH in the role for their own reputational purposes.

However, there is only enough money for one new helicopter type - if 6 Avn get new Blackhawks they wouldn’t be getting a new light helicopter for quick overseas deployments, as per the white paper. Personally I think new Blackhawks would be more versatile anyway, as I dont think the case has been made for a small helicopter.

 

[PeterM]

Understood, and I am aware of those limitations and work that has gone into deciding which option for post S-70A-9 for 6 Avn. But with the budget in mind, a H-60/MRH sized platform should be our last choice for SOCOMD. The reason we use Black Hawk now is that it 'fell' into the role; there are a number of areas it fails to meet needs: for instance; a regional deployment would be faster by CH-47 (especially if AAR is used) than H-60/MRH + C-17. A long range reconnaissance mission may need extra equipment / range that a H-60 cannot lift (including vehicles and boats). At the other end; a smaller airframe allows better access in cities, quieter approaches and increased flexibility.

With that in mind; I think it is time for everyone, especially those wearing green, to let the H-60 buy go. SOCOMD has an answer for the 'medium' frame; it should be offered options that compliment the MRH and not keep fighting over this decision that will not be changed.

I admittedly have a limited understanding of all the technical details involved. However the US Army have the MH-60M which has been customised to meet the specific needs of the US Special Forces.

It seems to me that buying off the shelf the MH-60M through FMS would be simpler and cheaper than trying to develop a new version of the MRH Taipan to meet the operational needs of our Special Forces (particularly considering the issues we have had with MRH/Tiger). It speaks volumes to me that RAN selected the MH-60R and not the NFH (which has commonality with MRH-90).

It isn't like the Blackhawk would be an orphan, we will have the naval MH-60R in service for some time. Additionally we have plenty of experience operating Blackhawks.

Interestingly the US army MH-60M were in Perth in 2016 for exercises, so we will be somewhat familiar with the type.
US Army Special Ops MH-60M Black Hawks in Perth area for exercise

Of course I do not know what the expected CONOPS are for this capability, it easily could be that a smaller aircraft is envisioned.

 

[t68]

There is chatter on the UK threads about a drastic reduction to the UK defence force, and one is the UK Wildcats. I wonder if we pick some of those up cheap would they be suitable to SOCOMD?

 

[Takao]

However, there is only enough money for one new helicopter type - if 6 Avn get new Blackhawks they wouldn’t be getting a new light helicopter for quick overseas deployments, as per the white paper. Personally I think new Blackhawks would be more versatile anyway, as I dont think the case has been made for a small helicopter.

'Medium' frames are less versatile than they appear. It comes back to S-70 having 'fallen' into the SO role because of nothing else, as opposed to the SORW need being actually analysed. I will say it again, with the decision to put MRH into 6 Avn being made, any purchase of a 'medium' frame (as in a frame that can lift two SF teams - MRH / H-60 sized) is a waste of money and undermines the conventional and special forces.

Without too many details, a 'light' frame offers less MH/FH, better strategic deployability, greater stealth and mobility, increased flexibility, increased axis of advance and better logistics support - especially fuel. Its downfalls are carrying capability, range, self-defence capabilities.

 

[ADMk2]

'Medium' frames are less versatile than they appear. It comes back to S-70 having 'fallen' into the SO role because of nothing else, as opposed to the SORW need being actually analysed. I will say it again, with the decision to put MRH into 6 Avn being made, any purchase of a 'medium' frame (as in a frame that can lift two SF teams - MRH / H-60 sized) is a waste of money and undermines the conventional and special forces.

Without too many details, a 'light' frame offers less MH/FH, better strategic deployability, greater stealth and mobility, increased flexibility, increased axis of advance and better logistics support - especially fuel. Its downfalls are carrying capability, range, self-defence capabilities.

I see the USG is soliciting for responses for up to 120 AH-6SA and AH-6i aircraft at present, with 60 of these for non-disclosed FMS customers dependant on whether they execute FMS requests or not... The numbers included ‘known’ customers such as Saudi Arabia and quite a few ‘unknowns...’

US Army seeks 120 AH-6 helos for Saudi Arabia and other FMS customers | Jane's 360

 

[t68]

I noticed at Port Kembla car and machinery wharf today 6 UH-1 Huey's that looked to be either new or refurbished, to far away to see any markings on them and don't know if they where coming or going.

Anyone know if we still have the UH-1 stored or have they been all sold?

 

[CJR]

I noticed at Port Kembla car and machinery wharf today 6 UH-1 Huey's that looked to be either new or refurbished, to far away to see any markings on them and don't know if they where coming or going.

Anyone know if we still have the UH-1 stored or have they been all sold?

ADF Serials suggests that almost all the the fleet was farmed out as museums pieces and gate guards by 2014. Possibly 3-5 still in use as training aids? No indication f half a dozen sitting round ready for sale...

 

[Trackmaster]

I noticed at Port Kembla car and machinery wharf today 6 UH-1 Huey's that looked to be either new or refurbished, to far away to see any markings on them and don't know if they where coming or going.

Anyone know if we still have the UH-1 stored or have they been all sold?

They are imports. Apparently ex-German Air Force that are set for conversion to fire-fighting duties.

 

[Joe Black]

Billion-dollar LAND projects open for business - Defence Connect

Finally, it is good to hear some news on the Abram upgrade. The question remains, will it be M1A2SEP3 or M1A2SEP4 that ADF will be targeting for. The US Army seems to be happy with the SEP3 and getting many of their A2 to the SEP3 standards.

 

[PeterM]

Billion-dollar LAND projects open for business - Defence Connect

Finally, it is good to hear some news on the Abram upgrade. The question remains, will it be M1A2SEP3 or M1A2SEP4 that ADF will be targeting for. The US Army seems to be happy with the SEP3 and getting many of their A2 to the SEP3 standards.

Looking at the program time-frame and approximate investment value from the Integrated Investment Program:

• M1 Main Battle Tank Upgrade, 2018–2027, $750m–$1bn
• Combat, Construction and Support Engineer Capability (Bridging and Crossing), 2018–2031, $1bn–$2bn

As far as I am aware, deliveries the first production M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams to the U.S. Army was scheduled to start in 2017. The SEP v4 variant is scheduled to begin testing in 2021.

Based on the time-frames for the programs and my understanding on where the SEP3 and SEP4 developments are at, I would expect that it will, almost certainly, be the SEPv3 version.

I am curious if the Army might consider other options such as the Abrams “diesel solution” that was reportedly offered by GDLS with the Tognum America/12V883 diesel engine and Diehl 570P3 track as part of the ECP.

• Abrams Dieselization Project: A Modest Proposal | Defense Media Network
• Abrams Dieselization Project: Doing the Math | Defense Media Network

 

[Joe Black]

Looking at the program time-frame and approximate investment value from the Integrated Investment Program:

• M1 Main Battle Tank Upgrade, 2018–2027, $750m–$1bn
• Combat, Construction and Support Engineer Capability (Bridging and Crossing), 2018–2031, $1bn–$2bn

As far as I am aware, deliveries the first production M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams to the U.S. Army was scheduled to start in 2017. The SEP v4 variant is scheduled to begin testing in 2021.

Based on the time-frames for the programs and my understanding on where the SEP3 and SEP4 developments are at, I would expect that it will, almost certainly, be the SEPv3 version.

I am curious if the Army might consider other options such as the Abrams “diesel solution” that was reportedly offered by GDLS with the Tognum America/12V883 diesel engine and Diehl 570P3 track as part of the ECP.

• Abrams Dieselization Project: A Modest Proposal | Defense Media Network
• Abrams Dieselization Project: Doing the Math | Defense Media Network

I am supportive of the Abrams upgrade to include the change of the powerpack to the proposed diesel engine. This has been trialed since 1998. The 12V883 is essentially a German designed, US built variant of the MT 883 engine, an improved version of the engine used in the Leo2. The two articles links you have included tell a compelling story for the swapping of the gas turbine to the diesel.

I would also think that like the US Army adoption of the Trophy APS, the upgraded Abrams should also field an APS system. One thing I would suggest we differ from the US SEPv3 is the use of a locally built EOS RWS rather than the CROWS RWS.

 

[Raven22]

Australia won’t swap the turbine over for a diesel unless the US do so. There’s no point upgrading our tanks the same as the US to take advantage of commonality, only then to spec something completely different. I would also caution against think a diesel upgrade has been trialled properly and is a turn key solution - it would take an awful lot of work (and money) to sort out all the problems inherent with that change. It wouldn’t be even close to economical to do so alone.