Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Goknub]

Beyond the bad blood over the Tiger's issues, there is logic in moving to a US platform. Australia is essentially lead nation when it comes to pushing new capabilities & upgrades. Its cost a fortune just to get them to a minimum standard and with the desire for greater interoperability including manned/unmanned teaming it'll cost another fortune. It makes more sense to link with the US and their greater development budget.

In addition, it's been a long time since the Apache was a pure tank-buster. 20 years hunting militia/insurgents/Taliban/etc demonstrate this. The bleeding edge of recon will be a drone task, army needs a multirole system with a reliable upgrade path. Particularly when peer-on-peer conflict is back as a high priority.

 

[ngatimozart]

Since the Army works quite a bit with the USMC and considering that the focus is turning towards the Asia Pacific, would not the AH-1Z be a better choice? It's already marinised and it's only downsides in my eyes would be the cannon calibre and the skids when it's shipboard.

 

[Takao]

Word is US Army aviation are not exactly enamoured with the Guardian (AH-64E), its availability, support costs, even some aspects of its capability and would prefer something like the Tiger in the scout / cav role. The maintainers in particular apparently have issues with the Guardian.

Mainly because of the large presence of OH-58 crews still in the role. It's not a Kiowa, and treating it like one doesn't work. But I can't throw too many stones, we were like that with Kiowa/Tiger and we are already seeing that with Boxer/ASLAV. Hell - I've even seen it Leopard/M1!

At least with Apache it's likely we will get honest data and be able to make risk trade offs from that

Since the Army works quite a bit with the USMC and considering that the focus is turning towards the Asia Pacific, would not the AH-1Z be a better choice? It's already marinised and it's only downsides in my eyes would be the cannon calibre and the skids when it's shipboard.

The aircraft that lost out to AH-64A and Tiger? Twice? And the ADF tiger crew helped get through its IOC? And a miniscule fleet compared to AH-64? No thanks...

In addition, it's been a long time since the Apache was a pure tank-buster. 20 years hunting militia/insurgents/Taliban/etc demonstrate this. The bleeding edge of recon will be a drone task, army needs a multirole system with a reliable upgrade path. Particularly when peer-on-peer conflict is back as a high priority.

What @Goknub said....

 

[Goknub]

Would not the AH-1Z be a better choice?

I would assume the AH1 would be getting a serious look at for the reason you mention but I can also understand why the AH64 would still come out on top. The army is/has shifted focus from being a light force to a heavier one capable of surviving the brutal slugging matches seen in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Karabak and Philippines; including the numerous recent urban fights. In the same way the RAAF have focused on becoming a 5th Gen high-end fighting force.

In this light, operating off the LHDs is just one task and not something to base the capability around. Most operations in our region have quickly transitioned to being land-based from an army perspective so the best platform is the one most likely to survive high-end, high-tech warfighting. The AH64 has the greater likelihood of being the correct choice.

 

[Stampede]

Word is US Army aviation are not exactly enamoured with the Guardian (AH-64E), its availability, support costs, even some aspects of its capability and would prefer something like the Tiger in the scout / cav role. The maintainers in particular apparently have issues with the Guardian. Note that the USMC have consistently gone for improved and upgraded AH-1s over Apache, procurement cost is a factor, but sustainment, availability and costs are probably a bigger issue.

I wonder if another factor is when you have dozens of aircraft to generate the required sorties lower availability is worth the capability, but when you only have a small fleet and small numbers deployed on board ships etc. availability becomes critical as you don't have the spare airframes, extra stores and larger numbers of maintainers.

I have nothing in concrete but whispers around the aviation world is Guardian might face similar issues to the MRH, great when it works but a maintenance hog with patchy availability, especially in small fleets.

The availability / capability question is pertinent to most platforms.
If a platform is not available, its capability is really just a potential capability.
Like many platforms across the ADF numbers are tight. So this affects our true capability.
As usual when out shopping for high tech stuff. bang for buck is an important consideration
Suggest some increased realism of expectation should be applied for both numbers purchased to achieve an end, and whether that end is truly achievable to the extent we desire.

Will be very interested in the Tiger outcome.


Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

I believe the tiger was the wrong platform to have bought at the time. Only my personal opinion, but I believe a simpler, intermediate armed platform would have made more sense, something, sorted, in service elsewhere, something that just worked. A platform that army aviation could have sunk their teeth into, developed and honed their skills while working out what was really needed, what would be the best fit going forward, that platform was not tiger, and probably not Apache.

Well this didn't happen, we went the bleeding edge, still developmental option and suffered as a result.

The capability finally got there, but very late, and way over budget, but it got there. The logical way forward from this point is to fill the gaps in the current capability and the evolved requirements, while keeping an eye on the future.

What I feel is happening is we are instead going to start from scratch with a new platform that does some things better but others worse. Instead of looking forward, we are going back to what some think we should have done in the first place.

 

[the road runner]

Boxer CRV Block one recon variant... that lance turret looks so schmick !

 

[Stampede]

Boxer CRV Block one recon variant... that lance turret looks so schmick !

A question regarding the Boxer configured to carry the Lance Turret.
How may troops can it carry in addition to the crew of three.
Is it four passengers in the back?
Not talking about other variants

Thanks S

 

[ADMk2]

If the ADF were going for a heavy attack helo to equip multiple attack helicopter battalions tasked to wipe out attacking armoured brigades the Guardian would be my top choice. If they were aiming to, do as the US Army have done, use an existing attack platform to provide an interim attack reconnaissance capability, by all means use existing Apaches. Neither is the case, a political decision from a couple of years ago, based on even older and now totally outdated information, was made to replace what was seen as an irredeemable failed procurement.

Inertia is pretty much the main reason this replacement is still going ahead. Just like Kocums weren't considered for the submarine replacement, Tiger is not being considered for upgrade. The ADF is after a networked reconnaissance platform with a substantial attack capability, an upgraded Tiger meets this requirement and an additional seven airframes.

Leaving the MUM-T stuff aside for a bit, this mindset I think ignores how the platform has actually been used for most of it’s operational history.

I believe the tiger was the wrong platform to have bought at the time. Only my personal opinion, but I believe a simpler, intermediate armed platform would have made more sense, something, sorted, in service elsewhere, something that just worked. A platform that army aviation could have sunk their teeth into, developed and honed their skills while working out what was really needed, what would be the best fit going forward, that platform was not tiger, and probably not Apache.

Well this didn't happen, we went the bleeding edge, still developmental option and suffered as a result.

The capability finally got there, but very late, and way over budget, but it got there. The logical way forward from this point is to fill the gaps in the current capability and the evolved requirements, while keeping an eye on the future.

What I feel is happening is we are instead going to start from scratch with a new platform that does some things better but others worse. Instead of looking forward, we are going back to what some think we should have done in the first place.

I agree with this, with the caveat though that reportedly Army recommended Apache under AIR-87 to Government in the first instance, as it also did with UH-60M over NH-90, but the Government with stars in it’s eyes over the Eurocopter promises, which were ludicrous with the benefit of hindsight, over-ruled Army and chose the Eurocopter options...

To me, this rumoured sole-source selection for Apache, is little more than getting Army back to where it wanted to be, in the first place.

 

[Volkodav]

Leaving the MUM-T stuff aside for a bit, this mindset I think ignores how the platform has actually been used for most of it’s operational history.


I agree with this, with the caveat though that reportedly Army recommended Apache under AIR-87 to Government in the first instance, as it also did with UH-60M over NH-90, but the Government with stars in it’s eyes over the Eurocopter promises, which were ludicrous with the benefit of hindsight, over-ruled Army and chose the Eurocopter options...

To me, this rumoured sole-source selection for Apache, is little more than getting Army back to where it wanted to be, in the first place.

The issue I have with that is it pretty much the same as deciding to replace the F/A-18A/B with F-15 instead of HUG, or the Hobart's with Flight III at midlife, maybe the Collins class with Upholders instead of replacing the combat system.

And by the way, while undoubtedly a better rec platform than Apache, the Tiger is no slouch as an attack platform either and I believe (as opposed to knowing) that the Apache needs Longbow fitted to offer anything the Tiger doesn't in the attack mission.

 

[Takao]

I agree with this, with the caveat though that reportedly Army recommended Apache under AIR-87 to Government in the first instance

Nope. We recommended Tiger. And Tiger, on paper, provided what we asked for better than the other two - Apache by a bit and Cobra by far.

And by the way, while undoubtedly a better rec platform than Apache, the Tiger is no slouch as an attack platform either and I believe (as opposed to knowing) that the Apache needs Longbow fitted to offer anything the Tiger doesn't in the attack mission.

Yep - especially with what was offered too.

Perhaps in retrospect we may have been better off going AH-64. But there would have been similar amounts of pain in learning how to operate and support the platform. While TLS may have been easier, the lower number of airframes we could have afforded would have made online numbers just as hard to reach.

What is amusing to ponder is that under an 'accelerated Army' construct, Apache and Cobra would never have got a look in at all, nor would Black Hawk for AIR 9000. There's going to be some interesting discussions in 20 years...

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The Paladin as it is, is indeed surplus crap. But the M109A8 standard brings it to a level of capabilities that exceeds all current in-service systems.

The G6, IIRC, does not comply with NATO standards which could make ammo management problematic.

 

[Redlands18]

If

Australia is not going to buy a Weapon system from such an unconventional source as South Africa, irrespective of how good it is and as @Big_Zucchini says its not Nato compliant and it has been out of production since 1999,
I would also be careful doing a 2 letter post here, the Mods are very tough especially when you are a new Member, you probably need to expand a bit on your post.

 

[Boagrius]

Erm... not sure what happened here but this is a misquote. Comments on the G6 are not mine.

 

[Redlands18]

Erm... not sure what happened here but this is a misquote. Comments on the G6 are not mine.

The Post has actually been posted twice under 2 different names, seems to be a touch confusing. Our friendly Mods will sort it out I’m sure.

 

[AshBrad]

Australia is not going to buy a Weapon system from such an unconventional source as South Africa, irrespective of how good it is and as @Big_Zucchini says its not Nato compliant and it has been out of production since 1999,
I would also be careful doing a 2 letter post here, the Mods are very tough especially when you are a new Member, you probably need to expand a bit on your post.

Unconventional source , not going to buy, Where do you think rocket assisted shells came from? South Africa has has more production ability in one black South African engineer (never mind a white engineer) , than the entire Australian Army. There have been umpteen versions the latest being the G -6 52 L , one version may have come out in 1999. I say and it is NATO compliant having fired for example Excaliber rounds. Paladin M109A8 is a different version 40-80 mile range, once again cost should play a role what with the K9 needing support vehicles to carry around its shells . Paladin looks mighty clumsy, expensive.Cost $ USD 14,4 million per unit for a lesser variant.*

SOURCES PLEASE. RULE #14 APPLIES.

NGATIMOZART

 

[Morgo]

* This post is proudly brought to you by Denel SOC Ltd.

 

[Redlands18]

Not quite sure why you are comparing it to the Paladin for anyway, Australia has ordered the South Korean K-9 SPH.
I am not going to get into a slinging match over which Country produces the best Engineers, South Africa has had to be more self sufficient then Australia in developing its own systems due to Political reasons leading to Sanctions.
My comment about Australia not buying Military equipment from SA is not about the quality of the product but the fact that Australia does not buy from outside NATO, ANZUS, Europe or close Aust/US Allies such as South Korea or Japan.

PS When posting, you write your comment below the *[/QUOTE] at the end of the previous comment, not inside it, that will separate your comments from the other posters.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Something about going bankrupt, unconventional source etc.

That's actually a very effective argument AGAINST buying any Denel product.
When government agencies buy services/products, they're looking at 2 main parameters:
1)Trust.
2)Quality.
3)Cost.

Trust and quality have a substantial weight, while total cost is only occasionally important and rarely trumps the other two (unless it's an incompetent agency).

If your company is about to go bankrupt, why on earth should any government agency be buying from you?
Eventually they'll need constant contact with the OEM for both technical support and an execution of an upgrade roadmap.
Occasionally companies will also provide constantly updated training services to create independent maintenance capabilities, and keep the tech guys up to date on updates.

Only way to overcome this when the OEM is bankrupt is to create complete local production capability.
Usually, a line is profitable when making roughly 30 AFVs of the same family, per year. If an AFV remains in service for 40 years and get a mid life upgrade at 20, that means you'll need in the region of 600 AFVs in the armed forces.

Does the ADF keep 600 SP howitzers in inventory at any given time?

 

[AshBrad]

One could argue if you had one of those new Paladin's it would still only match the G-6 in terms of range/ firing zone.Which would surely have been a cost consideration. Paladin's would cost at least $ USD 11 million / unit more. That's without a support vehicle. The G-6 does require a support vehicle , the K-9 does. 1 and2: If Denel got an order for 100 G-6's , the South AFrican government would bail them out. The G-6 is well known and in terms of quality for the few approved users second to none, going back to the 1980's. 3.Cost: Please don't talk to me about cost when you say Australia has 600 SPH On standby or operational ( one G-6 can cover a 1000 sqare miles) . Besides it is USD$ 3.3 million vs USD $ 3.9 for the SPH only without support vehicle. You will find that as costs have increased like the F_35, that your pardner in the US has already started looking outside the conventional field. Knowing that their stuff is just too expensive and doesn't cut it anymore. Countries like Sweden , Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan -South Africa will be increasingly relied upon to develop new products as the US like Trump run out of ideas.

SOURCES PLEASE. RULE #14 APPLIES.

NGATIMOZART