Australian Army Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Strange it has been released by the Minister but nothing on FMS as yet,

Last lot of E’s listed was for Kuwait with 8xnew build and the 16x remanufactured for $4B I am assuming the notifications are in USD.

Wonder if ours will be new builds or not


It may not have been published by DSCA at the customer's request until the customer has made the announcement. I think that was done with both the recent NZ acquisitions of the P-8A and C-130J-30. I would suspect that a DSCA announcement will be forthcoming in the near future.

A good and sensible acquisition for the Army. It or the AH-1Z were the least riskiest of all the options. I would suggest that the ADF look at its support logistics across the board with recent events illustrating the problems inherent with the just in time model.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Another example on how inefficient, wasteful and incompetent defence procurement was from the late 90s until the late 2000s when Brendan Nelson started to turn things around. Then again if you look at the procession of seat warmers who preceded his tenure it explains a lot. Hill did try his best but his discription of his portfolio as the "Minister Assisting the Prime Minister of Defence" says how much autonomy he thought he had.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Not a bad platform but a bit like buying F-15E to replace our F/A-18F fleet. It is better in some ways, worse in others, and at the end of its development with it replacement only a decade off. By the time the Apache has achieved FOC with the regiment relocated to QLD, everyone else will be introducing new capabilities.
G’day Volk,


the only thing which may help is that like any bleeding edge project, FVL entails risk of running late. The other thing to remember is that the US is so large they will retain Apache for some time, so there will be interest in upgrades for some time to come.

Take F-35 for example, by the time that the RAAF have converted completely to F-35, the USAF will have a bunch of wings still operating F-16C, and the USN will have a ration of 3:1 Superhornet to F-35.
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
The timing is certainly awkward in some ways, but I think it is quite a promising acquisition. The clear path ahead with MUM-T in particular is a good one - recent Turkish experience with the Bayraktar TB2 suggests that lower cost UAS may offer a useful way of dealing with modern SHORAD systems without subjecting valuable manned assets to them directly. Combine this with the Longbow radar or its rumoured AESA evolution/replacement and we should have a pretty robust and survivable ARH capability. In the mean time Army is left in no hurry to jump on the FVL bandwagon until it is has sufficiently matured.
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not a bad platform but a bit like buying F-15E to replace our F/A-18F fleet. It is better in some ways, worse in others, and at the end of its development with it replacement only a decade off. By the time the Apache has achieved FOC, everyone else will be introducing new capabilities.
It’s development plan with US Army alone stretches to 2040... In ten years time I’ll be happy to see how it‘s replacement is going...
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Another example on how inefficient, wasteful and incompetent defence procurement was from the late 90s until the late 2000s when Brendan Nelson started to turn things around. Then again if you look at the procession of seat warmers who preceded his tenure it explains a lot. Hill did try his best but his discription of his portfolio as the "Minister Assisting the Prime Minister of Defence" says how much autonomy he thought he had.
Yep, so much of the capital defence acquisition back then was completely screwed up. Somewhere the lightbulb moment clicked and we started buying Romeos and whatnot and haven’t looked back...

I wonder what / where changed?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, so much of the capital defence acquisition back then was completely screwed up. Somewhere the lightbulb moment clicked and we started buying Romeos and whatnot and haven’t looked back...

I wonder what / where changed?
It was probably seeing how smoothly C-17 and Rhino went in comparison to the acquisition of supposedly less complex capabilities. FMS is not perfect but having someone else do all the back ground engineering that we decided was unnecessary tail / bloat during the 90s probably helped.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It was probably seeing how smoothly C-17 and Rhino went in comparison to the acquisition of supposedly less complex capabilities. FMS is not perfect but having someone else do all the back ground engineering that we decided was unnecessary tail / bloat during the 90s probably helped.
Absolutely, not to mention a user base of some 700 odd platforms, with 18 other countries buying the same capability (more or less) must have given some confidence...
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Another example on how inefficient, wasteful and incompetent defence procurement was from the late 90s until the late 2000s when Brendan Nelson started to turn things around. Then again if you look at the procession of seat warmers who preceded his tenure it explains a lot. Hill did try his best but his discription of his portfolio as the "Minister Assisting the Prime Minister of Defence" says how much autonomy he thought he had.
V (long time no speak, how are you mate?),

Certainly agree we’ve had some dud Def Ministers (on both sides of the political fence too), but it does appear that today the decision to go with mostly off the shelf FMS procurements has resulted in far less problems and much quicker entry to service dates.

When I look at Tiger ARH and MRH90 today, it’s easy to ask why? Why did we go down those paths?

The old ‘20/20 hindsight’ is a marvellous thing, and it’s easy today to forget why.

If we go back in time the competing aircraft of ‘today’, AH-64E and UH-60M, did not exist, were not in production, the versions available then were older versions, older tech.

At the time of decision making I was impressed that the Government has decided on such ‘modern’ aircraft, cutting edge tech (or so it appeared then), but in hindsight it was less ‘leading edge’ and more ‘bleeding edge’ and we ended up being the lead operator (and taking all the risks that entails too).

But let’s not forget that a couple of other ‘bleeding edge’ projects caused huge amounts of delays and problems too, KC-30A and E-7A, fortunately we persisted and look at the result.

Anyway, Tiger is on the way out, I still can’t but help to think it could have delivered much more that history will show.

Cheers,
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
V (long time no speak, how are you mate?),

Certainly agree we’ve had some dud Def Ministers (on both sides of the political fence too), but it does appear that today the decision to go with mostly off the shelf FMS procurements has resulted in far less problems and much quicker entry to service dates.

When I look at Tiger ARH and MRH90 today, it’s easy to ask why? Why did we go down those paths?

The old ‘20/20 hindsight’ is a marvellous thing, and it’s easy today to forget why.

If we go back in time the competing aircraft of ‘today’, AH-64E and UH-60M, did not exist, were not in production, the versions available then were older versions, older tech.

At the time of decision making I was impressed that the Government has decided on such ‘modern’ aircraft, cutting edge tech (or so it appeared then), but in hindsight it was less ‘leading edge’ and more ‘bleeding edge’ and we ended up being the lead operator (and taking all the risks that entails too).

But let’s not forget that a couple of other ‘bleeding edge’ projects caused huge amounts of delays and problems too, KC-30A and E-7A, fortunately we persisted and look at the result.

Anyway, Tiger is on the way out, I still can’t but help to think it could have delivered much more that history will show.

Cheers,
UH-60M was available. It competed against NH-90 and was Army’s choice, before being over-ruled by Mr Howard, if I remember aright...
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
UH-60M was available. It competed against NH-90 and was Army’s choice, before being over-ruled by Mr Howard, if I remember aright...
Was it? I seem to remember that at the time of the decision being made, UH-60M was not in production, it was still a year or two away.

We’re talking 15 or so years ago, but that was my memory from the time.

Cheers,
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
UH-60M was available. It competed against NH-90 and was Army’s choice, before being over-ruled by Mr Howard, if I remember aright...
AND

Was it? I seem to remember that at the time of the decision being made, UH-60M was not in production, it was still a year or two away.

We’re talking 15 or so years ago, but that was my memory from the time.

Cheers,
You are both sort of correct. The UH-60M was still in development and had not yet entered serial production for the US yet, which IIRC was part of the reason why the MRH90 was selected by gov't, as that was a "developed" solution as opposed to the still developmental UH-60M.

It was also the preferred choice of Army, but I believe that the MRH90 had already been selected as the Sea King replacement and gov't wanted to reduce the types of helicopters in service, to rationalize and reduce overall costs...

It seems that it was not until after the fact, that it was discovered that while the UH-60M was still completing development, so to was the NH90. Of course there were also industrial angles involved, with IIRC Australian Aerospace being an Airbus-owned subsidiary doing the assembly of MRH90's in Australia and possibly some of the composite aero structures. If memory serves, part of the plan sold to Australia was that Aerospace Australia would become Airbus's support centre of a Eurocopter design for the entire greater Asia/Pacific region as well. For some reason the EC135 springs to mind as the design. Unfortunately, it seems that Eurocopter design never really took off regionally, so an Australian support centre to service other nations' helicopters never happened. Once the Australia MRH90 order was finished, I believe that the staff and production at Aerospace Australia moved onto other projects, which meant no sustaining a domestic helicopter production capability. For some reason, I also seem to vaguely recall that an ex-ADF senior sir had been hired as a spokesman on behalf of the MRH90 and that might have also played a role.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Was it? I seem to remember that at the time of the decision being made, UH-60M was not in production, it was still a year or two away.

We’re talking 15 or so years ago, but that was my memory from the time.

Cheers,

UH-60M including local production, local software facility and a remanufacturing program for S-70B2 was bid for both ‘additional squadron’ and main purchase phases of AIR-9000.

I expect however Mr Howard wished to leverage the existing Australian Aerospace infrastructure already built for Tiger. Unfortunately they didn’t realise what problems the Tiger and NH-90 really had, nor their development status...
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group

UH-60M including local production, local software facility and a remanufacturing program for S-70B2 was bid for both ‘additional squadron’ and main purchase phases of AIR-9000.

I expect however Mr Howard wished to leverage the existing Australian Aerospace infrastructure already built for Tiger. Unfortunately they didn’t realise what problems the Tiger and NH-90 really had, nor their development status...
Yeah well 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing, ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda!’.

Anyway, just about to give my crystal ball a rub and find out what next weeks 6 winning lotto numbers are!
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
For those concerned about the FVL timeline, this was deconflicted early with 4503. FVL is five separate programs, at the attack helicopter frame is scheduled as 4th or 5th (depending on how the super heavy option goes). The first one is a OH-58 replacement, the second a UH-1 replacement. AH-64's of some marque will be escorting FVL transport helicopters in the US Army after 2035.

It was also the preferred choice of Army, but I believe that the MRH90 had already been selected as the Sea King replacement and gov't wanted to reduce the types of helicopters in service, to rationalize and reduce overall costs...
One minor clarification - while the common view is that Black Hawk was Army's preferred choice, there was a small paperwork error in the package provided to Government...

We didn't give a recommendation...

So Government had to make the choice themselves...

Ooops.

Almost always Government accepts the Department's recommendation - in theory we are the SMEs. When the SME doesn't help, and you have to make a decision....

For some reason, I also seem to vaguely recall that an ex-ADF senior sir had been hired as a spokesman on behalf of the MRH90 and that might have also played a role.
GEN Gillespie ended up at AA - but I think that was after selection.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For those concerned about the FVL timeline, this was deconflicted early with 4503. FVL is five separate programs, at the attack helicopter frame is scheduled as 4th or 5th (depending on how the super heavy option goes). The first one is a OH-58 replacement, the second a UH-1 replacement. AH-64's of some marque will be escorting FVL transport helicopters in the US Army after 2035.



One minor clarification - while the common view is that Black Hawk was Army's preferred choice, there was a small paperwork error in the package provided to Government...

We didn't give a recommendation...

So Government had to make the choice themselves...

Ooops.

Almost always Government accepts the Department's recommendation - in theory we are the SMEs. When the SME doesn't help, and you have to make a decision....



GEN Gillespie ended up at AA - but I think that was after selection.
So we are back to the lack of technical depth in defence, too much work for the ( totally useless and underworked apparently) uniformed and civilian technical people to complete so the pollies decide what to buy on who has the best power point and cocktail parties.

The various defence reviews (started under Hawke and carried on even as far as Gillard) gutted defence department institutional knowledge, out sourcing to industry, who predominantly hired from the ADF and APS. Now everyone's fighting over a shrinking pool of technically competent people with many senior roles going to technically incompetent people.

I don't know if there are even enough good people to train and mentor the people required going forward thanks to the false economies of the 90s and 2000s.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
One minor clarification - while the common view is that Black Hawk was Army's preferred choice, there was a small paperwork error in the package provided to Government...

We didn't give a recommendation...

So Government had to make the choice themselves...

Ooops.
A small paperwork error? Sounds very much like a ‘cover your arse’ error, lol!

Sounds very much like if it all turns to $hit refer back to the ‘non’ recommendation, very good, very good indeed.

As the old saying goes, ‘rule No 1, cover your arse! What’s rule No 2? See rule No 1, cover your arse!’
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Hi Guys
Most abreveations I google. Please explain GOAT. When I looked it up I got a goat gamma used in Vietnam war
regards
DD
DD - my apologies. I hate over use of acronyms and not writing in plain English. As @Redlands18 said, Gun on a Truck. Please don't hesitate to ping me (publicly or otherwise) when I don't make sense in the future!

I was only referring to Archer. It would not be as survivable in the event of a close hit but it’s a lot more than a gun on a truck. As for shoot and scoot times it’s comparable and in some ways better as speed to next position would be superior.
For Archer they may be* comparable, but for all GOAT's that are / were likely contenders, any SPH beat them when non-manufacturer details were compared, especially across multiple terrains. The lesser mass, higher CoG, and thinner frame demands external supports to be used that the SPH doesn't have to.

The speed to next position is slower - a truck just does not have the mobility of a wheeled or tracked system. Furthermore, its routes are a lot more predictable, even more than a Boxer chassis. Unless you want to drive on roads, the scoot part will always go to the SPH, with tracked having additional advantages as they are able to access all parts of their allocated battlespace.

* I say may be because I don't recall the details and all the wiki data is quotes from the manufacturer. I don't usually trust those.

My argument was only around the logistics of getting to the fight. Vehicle transport and crew transport are all additional movements and resources. Drive the last 4-500kms and devote the transport to fuel and ammo.
Strategically there is no difference, although the extra length of a GOAT works against it more than the extra width of the SPH when it comes time to loading an LHD.

Tactically the GOAT does have an advantage, as you say it's self-deployable along the same routes that the tank transporters are working. Which is fine, except that this is the only pro. When it comes to the fighting it works against it.

There's also an interesting, although separate, arguments to be asked about self deployment. (a), it's still yet to happen despite all the "Yay!" about Boxer and STRIKE in Europe, and (b), what threat will allow such easy self-deployment?

As for the heavy formation argument I don’t see that as all that valid for the guns as they would/should be far behind the front lines. Even far behind the front lines, the outcomes in Donbas for stationary armoured and logistics vehicles suggest a sweeping change to thinking is either happening or coming.
Maybe. Traditional thinking and doctrine has the guns 1/3 of their range behind the front line. But there have been times where even Australian artillery has operated in direct fire areas. On a more dispersed battlefield, against an enemy with reasonable to good counter-battery fire, the guns are going to be operating across a wider area, which may mean coming forward more than normal. And the indirect fire zone (which is where the protection of the SPH comes into play) is going to cover almost all of that, especially against a force using Soviet style doctrine.

For the cost of the 30 guns the AU army is getting ($1.3b) and the trucks required to move them we could have had 60-80 tubes ($4.5m each cost plus 2x that in support...sorry can’t copy the Wikipedia link for some reason) and the adage quantity has a quality all of its own still applies these days. If we are not on a budget these days it’s certainly coming.
You are missing the fact that $1.3 b doesn't buy 30 guns, it buys 30 guns + sustainment + a bunch of other stuff. And to keep the .... "optimistic assessment" ... of manufacturers in line, the Archer wiki page has a gun listed at $4.5 m and the K9 wiki has it at $3.9 m. Based on wiki, the SPH is cheaper...

Takao .....you said Overall, a GOAT is less flexible, less capable, slower and less resilient to a SPH - tracked or wheeled..... I’d argue otherwise on all bar the resilience under fire.
All a bit moot but we have discussed moot points plenty of times on this thread.
So it's one party trick is able to get to the fight quicker once landed. It dies quicker though, as it's not as mobile, not as protected, shoots slower and has more restricted terrain. In regional areas like PNG or SE Asia, these become even more stark. Against more capable enemies (let alone peer or above-peer), these become more stark. As I said, it's only good if you are comparing to a towed system - which at 155mm is worse in every single aspect.
 
Last edited:

Takao

The Bunker Group
A small paperwork error? Sounds very much like a ‘cover your arse’ error, lol!

Sounds very much like if it all turns to $hit refer back to the ‘non’ recommendation, very good, very good indeed.

As the old saying goes, ‘rule No 1, cover your arse! What’s rule No 2? See rule No 1, cover your arse!’
Ha!

It was a point of discussion at the last posting - so the big boss pulled the actual submission as part of our "lessons learnt when dealing with Government". There was much mortification...

One job!
 
Top