I believe the Australian's M777 howitzers weight exceed the MRH-90s total useful load (fuel + cargo). And, I would think with the Army going to a more mech/motorized role significantly more resupply/logistical support will need to be achieved by ground vehicles.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. In a standard transport role, sure, the NH-90 TTH can carry about 20 personnel. However, that is not in a battlefield/combat configuration. With 20, it has no onboard self defence (no door gunners). In a battlefield lift role, with soldiers in full kit, and 2 door guns, the NH-90 is no better than the UH-60. In fact, the ANAO report found that the initial seating offered was too narrow for most soldiers, and with new wider crash rated seating the total number of seats will drop to about 14. I'm not even sure if that includes seating for aircrew/gunners as well. So for paying a premium, Australia is getting exactly the same kind of capability (in fact, less than) than a comparable UH-60. We got screwed.
On the structure of 16 Aviation Brigade has there been any discussion of moving to three equally structured regiments for force generation purposes (as per Beersheba?)
In this scenario is there a case for moving away from MRH-90 to additional Chinook?
See Australian Army Journal vol. 8, no. 2, Winter, 2011, pg. 101 - "Army Aviation 2030" - https://www.army.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1846/f/aaj_2011_2.pdf
The MRH won’t carry as many soldiers as initially advertised, it it still carries more than a Blackhawk, which only carry 10 soldiers.
There was never an option of moving to three identical Regiments, as 16 Avn will always be bespoke because of its role, but there was an option for 1 and 5 Avn to have the same orbat. It was rejected as it would only exacerbate the servicibility problem.
But tanks, an equally complex platform, we can scatter all over Australia!
I disagree to some extent - I think that the threats forcing us towards a mechanised force will render the MRH increasingly irrelevant. Unable to take the battle damage that a UH-60 an, a large lumbering aircraft and one that cannot really lift anything sufficient or significant - I'm not sure that it works in high-end warfare. It can't lift a M777 (themselves obsolete), the ground forces draw upon tonnes of materiel now, and the GBAD capabilities of any threats significantly outweigh ours or our ability to conduct SEAD.
How is the M777 obsolete? especially when they are the only Arty we have. They are lightweight and Chinooks can lift them into places no SPH Tracked or Wheeled can go. There is also a significant improvement in GBAD commimg for the Army, first with the NASAMS(being developed) and a longer range system later next decade.
Firstly, they are FOB guns that we try and tow around the field and hence damage. An SPH (especially with the greater range) Bty can target more things than a towed Bty. The gun does not have to go where the tanks and IFV do, they just have to hit near them.
Okay, I have to ask what you consider to be a decent stock of 155 mm ammunition? Since a CH-47F Chinook has a useful slung load of ~7,250 kg in a hot/high environment, and up to ~11,700 kg in more favourable flight conditions, at a minimum that should still leave about 3,000 kg for munitions, crew, supplies, etc. Under more favourable flying conditions, there should be ~7,500 kg available to bring in munitions, supplies, etc.
Thats all good but at this time we are not getting SPH and there is currently no plan to get SPH. The problem with SPH is they are Tracked Vehicles unless you go to the Gun on a Truck which still req the Crew to get out of the Truck and set up the Gun before firing. While Tracked SPH are great on the Battlefield itself it still req Low loader Trucks to get them there and like all Tracked Vehicles they req a lot more maintenance than Trucks do. They can't shoot 300ks so useless to you if you don't have enough Low Loaders to carry them.
I'm sure many of you have seen this already but there is of course a newer concept kicking about that might give you the best of both worlds. Boxer based 155mm SPH:
Tanks are no where near as complex as helos, at neither an individual platform nor capability management standpoint. The fact that tanks take up about 2% of the sustainment budget, while helicopters take up about a third, for a similar number of platforms, make that pretty clear. The challenges facing tank sustainability are very different to those facing MRH/ARH sustainability.
