Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Is it possible that both the taipan and the tiger may get retired in favour of the Apache and new build blackhawks? I mean it makes a lot of sense, in that it would reduce the logistics chain and increase interoperability with the US in a time when the threat matrix has increased. Besides there seems to be a bit of chatter online recently. It may well just be that but, my gut tells me otherwise. Anyway I’m sure we will all know soon.

The problem is that is a huge turnaround in only 3 months, publicly anyway. There was no intention to replace the MRH-90s before the mid 30s in the DWP update released mid year and we are looking at around 80 Helicopters(including the Apache’s) if that is the case, and there is no funding announced for a MRH-90 replacement till the mid 30s, so where will that come from?
Other possibilities is the Lt SF Helicopter or the Navy‘s MRH-90 replacement, i would never right off a modest increase in Chinook numbers, though I’m not sure about the Army would want a split Fleet.

 

[buffy9]

The problem is that is a huge turnaround in only 3 months, publicly anyway. There was no intention to replace the MRH-90s before the mid 30s in the DWP update released mid year and we are looking at around 80 Helicopters(including the Apache’s) if that is the case, and there is no funding announced for a MRH-90 replacement till the mid 30s, so where will that come from?
Other possibilities is the Lt SF Helicopter or the Navy‘s MRH-90 replacement, i would never right off a modest increase in Chinook numbers, though I’m not sure about the Army would want a split Fleet.

I did post an update the other day about army choosing Blackhawks over the lighter SF helicopters. It seems ADBR took down the page, though.

New Black Hawks for Australian Army? – ADBR

adbr.com.au

Perhaps it has something to do with the upcoming news?

 

[ADMk2]

The problem is that is a huge turnaround in only 3 months, publicly anyway. There was no intention to replace the MRH-90s before the mid 30s in the DWP update released mid year and we are looking at around 80 Helicopters(including the Apache’s) if that is the case, and there is no funding announced for a MRH-90 replacement till the mid 30s, so where will that come from?
Other possibilities is the Lt SF Helicopter or the Navy‘s MRH-90 replacement, i would never right off a modest increase in Chinook numbers, though I’m not sure about the Army would want a split Fleet.

There were 5 new helicopter projects, listed in the Strategic Update...

Navy logistics helicopter project.
Special Forces rotary wing capability project.
Long ranged rotorcraft project
Tiger replacement project.
Next generation rotorcraft project.

Some of these appear to be intersecting and being brought forward.

 

[Stampede]

There were 5 new helicopter projects, listed in the Strategic Update...

Navy logistics helicopter project.
Special Forces rotary wing capability project.
Long ranged rotorcraft project
Tiger replacement project.
Next generation rotorcraft project.

Some of these appear to be intersecting and being brought forward.

To the layman it could go many ways.

Tiger replacement I would assume is to be replaced with a like type of platform, so I don't see it intersecting with another project.
If the SF are not fixed on a small helicopter, then some synergy with the navy logistics project may have merit.

Whatever the out come, government may push for what ever helicopter select across as many projects as possible to be assembled locally.
As to the MRH-90 early replacement, I'd suggest in the current fiscal environment it would be politically challenging.



Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

To the layman it could go many ways.

Tiger replacement I would assume is to be replaced with a like type of platform, so I don't see it intersecting with another project.
If the SF are not fixed on a small helicopter, then some synergy with the navy logistics project may have merit.

Whatever the out come, government may push for what ever helicopter select across as many projects as possible to be assembled locally.
As to the MRH-90 early replacement, I'd suggest in the current fiscal environment it would be politically challenging.



Regards S

I would suspect both the Bell 429 and Airbus H-145 would be to small for the RANs logistic Helicopter so i doubt that it would be it. A purchase of H-60 series Helicopters to replace the RANs Logistic Helo and as an alternative to the Lt SF Helo could be an option, LR Rotocraft? The only Aircraft that fits that currently is the CV-22 or the MH-47G/KC-130J combo and the RAAF doesn’t have any KC-130Js. There is no next Generation Rotocraft currently on the Market so that would mean latest models of either the NH-90, H-60s or something else, can’t see much reason to get brand new NH-90s and an all new Aircraft is highly unlikey, so that would mean H-60s.

 

[vonnoobie]

Could they also be thinking some birds (Blackhawks) fitted with ESSS stubs? Adds fair bit of range and opens up weapons options which would also come in handy for SF. Fills in SF needs, long range program and commonality with navy aircraft.

 

[Morgo]

Is it possible that both the taipan and the tiger may get retired in favour of the Apache and new build blackhawks? I mean it makes a lot of sense, in that it would reduce the logistics chain and increase interoperability with the US in a time when the threat matrix has increased. Besides there seems to be a bit of chatter online recently. It may well just be that but, my gut tells me otherwise. Anyway I’m sure we will all know soon.

Buying Blackhawks doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when the Yanks are looking at replacing their own through the Future Vertical Lift program. Now, if we were joining that program that would be very welcome news indeed. But this wouldn't solve any short or medium term issues.

 

[Volkodav]

Buying Blackhawks doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when the Yanks are looking at replacing their own through the Future Vertical Lift program. Now, if we were joining that program that would be very welcome news indeed. But this wouldn't solve any short or medium term issues.

Having related platforms with varying levels of commonality across RAN FAA and Special Forces makes sense, especially as these types will be the last to be replaced when the new generation of aircraft begin to arrive.

The MRH is likely secure because there are so many of them and its next generation replacement is likely to be the first to arrive. It simply doesn't make sense to replace them with an interim type when their ideal replacement shouldn't be much further away.

Sadly the MRH is probably the worst of the current batch in terms of meeting capability, yet types that have delivered more will go first.

 

[SteveR]

Buying Blackhawks doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when the Yanks are looking at replacing their own through the Future Vertical Lift program. Now, if we were joining that program that would be very welcome news indeed. But this wouldn't solve any short or medium term issues.

And on the very same vein the US Army is about to replace its Apache Armed Reconnaissance variants with the FARA program:

Lockheed and Bell will compete head-to-head to build US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

It's Invictus versus Raider in the Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.

www.defensenews.com

So why would we but Apaches unless we now want a design for anti-tank warfare?

I think the answer is the new Army doctrine of 'hardened and networked'. The Tiger ARH was specified and selected before the ADF had developed its network doctrine, which is now mainly US aligned, and the concept of Manned-Unmanned-Teaming (MUMT). Airbus can offer Link 16 in a Tiger upgrade but may not have access to the latest US MUMT networks that are probably specified for the MQ-9B and next Land 129 project.

Oh - and I forgot about Boeings Loyal Wingman being developed here in Oz. That too may co-operate with Apache MUMT but probably not and Tiger network!

 

[Raven22]

A better question to ask yourself would be when was the last time a large US program like FVL or FARA was delivered on time? If we wait for either of those programs, we will almost certainly be waiting a very long time. If you buy Apache/Blackhawk now, you are buying mature platforms with a known cost and capability, and that will still be in service with their primary customer (our largest ally) for decades. You can then transition to a mature FVL platform once all the bugs have been worked out. If we find ourselves purchasing immature FVL platforms before they have been fully developed, we are back where we started with with Tiger and MRH.

 

[ngatimozart]

Is it possible that both the taipan and the tiger may get retired in favour of the Apache and new build blackhawks? I mean it makes a lot of sense, in that it would reduce the logistics chain and increase interoperability with the US in a time when the threat matrix has increased. Besides there seems to be a bit of chatter online recently. It may well just be that but, my gut tells me otherwise. Anyway I’m sure we will all know soon.

I think you and I have been looking at the same crystal ball. Keep a close eye on the news methinks...

That would be a big bail out and replacement cost if they were to get rid of the MRH-90. That's 47 aircraft requiring replacement and they would probably need at least 60 Blackhawks in order to achieve the same lift capability. Not unless LM have another ramp equipped helo around the 11 tonne range. The other option is to persevere with the MRH until the US Army future vertical lift program goes into production, if it gets that far given the US army's track record on introduction of new capabilities.

 

[Boagrius]

That would be a big bail out and replacement cost if they were to get rid of the MRH-90. That's 47 aircraft requiring replacement and they would probably need at least 60 Blackhawks in order to achieve the same lift capability. Not unless LM have another ramp equipped helo around the 11 tonne range. The other option is to persevere with the MRH until the US Army future vertical lift program goes into production, if it gets that far given the US army's track record on introduction of new capabilities.

True, although it may not happen all at once. Initial buy of 29 AH64E and x amount of Blackhawks with Taipan kept in reserve then follow on Blackhawk buy to fill out the numbers. I get the impression the Govt sees something brewing in the next decade or so, so I'm less dissuaded by their willingness to front the cash on this one.

 

[Redlands18]

[

A better question to ask yourself would be when was the last time a large US program like FVL or FARA was delivered on time? If we wait for either of those programs, we will almost certainly be waiting a very long time. If you buy Apache/Blackhawk now, you are buying mature platforms with a known cost and capability, and that will still be in service with their primary customer (our largest ally) for decades. You can then transition to a mature FVL platform once all the bugs have been worked out. If we find ourselves purchasing immature FVL platforms before they have been fully developed, we are back where we started with with Tiger and MRH.

The Next Generation Rotocraft Project as per the update is due to begin in the 2033-35 time period and that is looking a pretty good timeframe for the FVL to be mature enough for export orders.

 

[Raven22]

That's 47 aircraft requiring replacement and they would probably need at least 60 Blackhawks in order to achieve the same lift capability.

I don’t think we’ll see MRH replaced in 5 Avn any time soon, but if it was you would need LESS Blackhawks to achieve the same capability, not more. That is due to the Balckhawks actually being able to achieve decent availability rates, and therefore able to provide more capability even if each aircraft can carry less (in theory, some of the time).

 

[vonnoobie]

In the real world we have put too much money and time into the MRH-90 too replace it early not counting the fact the 2020 update made no mention of replacing them early so any discussion about that is a none starter.

The navy is getting a logistical helicopter and seeing as they operate the MH60R in more numbers then the MRH-90 safe money is on them acquiring a Blackhawk variant which will reduce time, cost and risk with a fair chance of navy MRH90's being transferred in full to the army.

I would also give up thoughts on the FVL as the US themselves are only anticipating to start acquiring them in low numbers in the 30's so no that is not a derisked program but early real world stages of it. Wouldn't imagine anything ready for us to a safe level and cost base till the 2040's in any case the future long-range rotorcraft and next gen rotorcraft programs hardly have enough budget in them to replace our current aircraft. Those programs are either extra future capability or early steps into next gen aircraft.

We aren't making any major changes, too risky and costly and considering the future threat environment the CoA is preparing for the last thing they will want to do is replace a known capability and cost structure with something which is unknown and barely in use by our allies. Too many costly and time consuming mistakes have been made when everything was a known world, we are heading into the unknown so we need to head into it with the gear we know works and not rush into any program ahead of our largest allies.

 

[Takao]

Tiger replacement I would assume is to be replaced with a like type of platform, so I don't see it intersecting with another project.

Quibble - it does. I think I know what you mean (the Tiger replacement can't fulfil any other project needs), but the project intercets with a number of others. Comms, BMS, fuel, etc.

I said quibble!

LR Rotocraft? The only Aircraft that fits that currently is the CV-22 or the MH-47G/KC-130J combo and the RAAF doesn’t have any KC-130Js.

Could they also be thinking some birds (Blackhawks) fitted with ESSS stubs? Adds fair bit of range and opens up weapons options which would also come in handy for SF. Fills in SF needs, long range program and commonality with navy aircraft.

The answer for the forseeable future about V-22s is not likely to be no, but rather hell no. The -47G has more range than the -47F thanks to the bigger saddle tanks and so is a likely contender (plus its a simple addition). I'd also suggest the larger C-130 buy and/or KC-30 replacement allows options for refuelling helos.....

Our Black Hawks already have ESSS. We used to run them regularly - especially when under RAAF colours. The problem with ESSS is that running them with full tanks regularly does some pretty vicious cracking along key stations - we spent a lot of time and $$ in 2002-05 rectifying those cracks.

There is no next Generation Rotocraft currently on the Market so that would mean latest models of either the NH-90, H-60s or something else, can’t see much reason to get brand new NH-90s and an all new Aircraft is highly unlikey, so that would mean H-60s.

For Next Gen Rotorcraft, read FVL. Calling it that allows us to look at options beyond the FVL program. It won't be anything currently operating.

And on the very same vein the US Army is about to replace its Apache Armed Reconnaissance variants with the FARA program:

Lockheed and Bell will compete head-to-head to build US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

It's Invictus versus Raider in the Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.

www.defensenews.com

So why would we but Apaches unless we now want a design for anti-tank warfare?

The current FVL is not an Apache replacement, it's a Kiowa replacement. There are 5 parts to FVL (Kiowa, Apache, Black Hawk, Chinook, Heavy) and they are happening along separate timelines. The Apache replacement is likely to be the 3rd or 4th one brought online - probably 25 - 30 years away.

Also note that advacements in the -64E's avionics and its weapons (AGM-114R and APKWS) makes an Apache so much more than an anti-tank weapon now.

I think the answer is the new Army doctrine of 'hardened and networked'. The Tiger ARH was specified and selected before the ADF had developed its network doctrine, which is now mainly US aligned, and the concept of Manned-Unmanned-Teaming (MUMT). Airbus can offer Link 16 in a Tiger upgrade but may not have access to the latest US MUMT networks that are probably specified for the MQ-9B and next Land 129 project.

Oh - and I forgot about Boeings Loyal Wingman being developed here in Oz. That too may co-operate with Apache MUMT but probably not and Tiger network!

I doubt there'll be the need (perhaps want) for Loyal Wingman and Tiger replacement - but your first para is 100% on point. The networking capability of Tiger replacement needs to be capable and robust.

That would be a big bail out and replacement cost if they were to get rid of the MRH-90. That's 47 aircraft requiring replacement and they would probably need at least 60 Blackhawks in order to achieve the same lift capability.

Not sure the maths adds up there... Have I missed something?

The Next Generation Rotocraft Project as per the update is due to begin in the 2033-35 time period and that is looking a pretty good timeframe for the FVL to be mature enough for export orders.

That's when $$ start becoming available for the project to start. It'd be another ~5 years before the first order was placed and another ~2 for delivery to IOC. Hence you'd be looking at mid 2040s for the first Sqn. Also remember that the first FVL is a Kiowa replacement - we may not choose to purchase that.

 

[Stampede]

Quibble - it does. I think I know what you mean (the Tiger replacement can't fulfil any other project needs), but the project intercets with a number of others. Comms, BMS, fuel, etc.

I said quibble!




The answer for the forseeable future about V-22s is not likely to be no, but rather hell no. The -47G has more range than the -47F thanks to the bigger saddle tanks and so is a likely contender (plus its a simple addition). I'd also suggest the larger C-130 buy and/or KC-30 replacement allows options for refuelling helos.....

Our Black Hawks already have ESSS. We used to run them regularly - especially when under RAAF colours. The problem with ESSS is that running them with full tanks regularly does some pretty vicious cracking along key stations - we spent a lot of time and $$ in 2002-05 rectifying those cracks.



For Next Gen Rotorcraft, read FVL. Calling it that allows us to look at options beyond the FVL program. It won't be anything currently operating.



The current FVL is not an Apache replacement, it's a Kiowa replacement. There are 5 parts to FVL (Kiowa, Apache, Black Hawk, Chinook, Heavy) and they are happening along separate timelines. The Apache replacement is likely to be the 3rd or 4th one brought online - probably 25 - 30 years away.

Also note that advacements in the -64E's avionics and its weapons (AGM-114R and APKWS) makes an Apache so much more than an anti-tank weapon now.



I doubt there'll be the need (perhaps want) for Loyal Wingman and Tiger replacement - but your first para is 100% on point. The networking capability of Tiger replacement needs to be capable and robust.



Not sure the maths adds up there... Have I missed something?



That's when $$ start becoming available for the project to start. It'd be another ~5 years before the first order was placed and another ~2 for delivery to IOC. Hence you'd be looking at mid 2040s for the first Sqn. Also remember that the first FVL is a Kiowa replacement - we may not choose to purchase that.

Quibble accepted

However I will sulk for a while collecting my thoughts.

Regards S

 

[ADMk2]

And on the very same vein the US Army is about to replace its Apache Armed Reconnaissance variants with the FARA program:

Lockheed and Bell will compete head-to-head to build US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

It's Invictus versus Raider in the Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.

www.defensenews.com

So why would we but Apaches unless we now want a design for anti-tank warfare?

I think the answer is the new Army doctrine of 'hardened and networked'. The Tiger ARH was specified and selected before the ADF had developed its network doctrine, which is now mainly US aligned, and the concept of Manned-Unmanned-Teaming (MUMT). Airbus can offer Link 16 in a Tiger upgrade but may not have access to the latest US MUMT networks that are probably specified for the MQ-9B and next Land 129 project.

Oh - and I forgot about Boeings Loyal Wingman being developed here in Oz. That too may co-operate with Apache MUMT but probably not and Tiger network!

Apache is designed to be in service in the US Army until 2070 or so on current plans, so I’m not sure that is much of a worry.

From memory FARA isn’t going to be delivering LRIP platforms until 2035 or greater...

 

[Stampede]

Share an old article from the ADBR regarding a new utility helicopter for navy, which is pertinent to this general helicopter conversation.

Navy to get new utility helicopter | ADBR

The Royal Australian Navy’s 808SQN based at HMAS Albatross near Nowra will soon replace its Airbus MRH 90 helicopters with a new utility helicopter. As forecast in the Government’s 2020…

adbr.com.au

Regards S

 

[old faithful]

I don’t think we’ll see MRH replaced in 5 Avn any time soon, but if it was you would need LESS Blackhawks to achieve the same capability, not more. That is due to the Balckhawks actually being able to achieve decent availability rates, and therefore able to provide more capability even if each aircraft can carry less (in theory, some of the time).

beat me to it boss, was going to post similar.
I would think that a new generation of blackhawks @ 40-48 in number would be a great mix with say another 4-6 Chooks, bring the Chooks up to 12-14 airframes.
When I joined, we (Army) had just taken over the rotary role, and at the time we had 12 CH47's, and 25 UH1H's. The UH1H were replaced with 39 Blackhawks, and they served us very well. Until some idiot ADFA student did an OH&S project for his degree (I actually met this tool, and he was very proud of this) that he pointed out that men seated on the floor without seatbelts was a dangerous practice, and reduced the troop capacity by 4 pax.
Dangerous practice indeed, as opposed to a hot LZ being a dangerous place.....