Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Much has been posted about the problems experienced by Army Aviation re the NH 90 and comparisons made with our friends across the ditch on the same subject.
This report seems to put to bed many myths and it seems the Taipans have Oz achieved many more flight ours than many other users.
However, it seems cost is the driving factor and Army can reduce cost by 2/3rds by changing to Blackhawk

I wonder what the operating costs are verses those of the MV-22? I am not suggesting we should, or should have acquired MV-22 but rather looking at the opportunity cost of having selected the MRH90 all those years ago.

The figures in the article made me wonder if the size and operating costs made it more akin to a (much) lower performance MV-22.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Much has been posted about the problems experienced by Army Aviation re the NH 90 and comparisons made with our friends across the ditch on the same subject.
This report seems to put to bed many myths and it seems the Taipans have Oz achieved many more flight ours than many other users.
However, it seems cost is the driving factor and Army can reduce cost by 2/3rds by changing to Blackhawk

No, no, no no! It’s a complex system and Army is no good at complex systems is the narrative here, remember? Being 10-15,000hrs in front of ANY other user is clear proof an organisation has no idea how to run ‘complex’ systems…

(Please ignore S-70A9, CH-47F, RQ-8B Shadow 200, M1A1 AIM SA Abrams and so on when making this argument...)
 

Maranoa

Active Member
The MRH90 situation is even worse than the Major General lets on. NHIndustries consortium that produced the NH90 helicopter is a user support disaster. Who knows what the NH/MRH90 could have been it just isn't, no matter how much money the French intelligence service throws around behind closed doors to mount campaigns to protect the EU's industrial reputation and economic interests. The Euro's played Australia for fools selling us an 'operational platform, but forcing Australian Army Aviation to become unwittingly the lead agency in bringing these 'helicopters', and I use that descriptor through gritted teeth, to operational status spending hundreds of millions in the failed attempt to make them operationally employable. From doors placement that precluded defensive weapon usage, to ramps that were unusable to floors that deformed when the average infantrymen walked across them, the MRH90 was a staggering loss and zero gain for AAAvn and has destroyed the careers of a generation of Australian Army aircrew who have a fraction of the 'hours' they would have had if the 'Taipan' worked as advertised.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Operating costs of UH-60M are "1/3" of MRH-90; that 'helicopter' is also unable to do the mission after decades of trying, is what I read.
The MAJGEN displays the ability to crisis-manage, after much wasted effort, but he did not provide evidence that LAND can manage complex machinery.
Plus the small mater of taxpayers AUD going down the gurgla.

@Gooey Withdraw and apologise. This comment of yours is unbecoming and unwarranted.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Operating costs of UH-60M are "1/3" of MRH-90; that 'helicopter' is also unable to do the mission after decades of trying, is what I read.
The MAJGEN displays the ability to crisis-manage, after much wasted effort, but he did not provide evidence that LAND can manage complex machinery.
Plus the small mater of taxpayers AUD going down the gurgla.
You are right. Clearly the Australian Army is unable to manage CH-47F Chinook, was clearly unable to manage the S-70A9 Blackhawk. Clearly can't manage it's EC-135T2 training helicopters (made by Airbus). Couldn't manage it's King Air b200 fixed wing aircraft. Can't manage it's Shadow 200 UAS nor it's Insitu Integrator UAS.

Not to mention it's rather large and complex vehicle fleets, land systems, complex guided missile systems and so forth.

All a complete shambles, obviously...

:rolleyes:
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
At end of the day if was politicians that made the decision and if I recall a decision then ran against advice given by those in uniform. If there is one thing the ADF can't handle is it's bloody politicians that's it.
 

jack412

Active Member
We can add Belgium to the list, making 4 countries. That are useless and unable to do simple things.
The Council of Ministers approved on Friday plans to purchase 20 light helicopters: 15 for the army (to replace their Agusta A109 and the NHIndustries NH90 aircraft) and five for the police. The purchases will be made through a specialised NATO agency.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Hello ADMk2.

Yep, I too understand that it was a political D by the Liberals. Then again, RAAF got F-18A/F/G, F-35, MC-55A, P-8, Triton, E-7A, KC-30A ... because of good Staff Work and resisting political Ds; some MOTS and some not. They also got C-27J b/c 'it's better than nothing' as a purely political D by ALP during a dry procurement period (ah, Mr Smith; prosecutor-general v ADFA); my point is that when it was a critical procurement, which presumably ARH/MRH was and Spartan is not, then Air had the with-all to fight for it.
Most of those have matured to become good platforms. But there is some rose-coloured looking back there for some. The F-35 is not a smooth acquisition, no matter how good it is. Sure, most issues can be laid at the feet of Lockheed Martin, but the RAAF has caused a few issues with their own internal decisions. The P-8 discussions/tactical changes were quite messy, many words were written comparing to the P-3, especially the lack of MAD boom. Furthermore, some of the decisions made were questionable, for many sub-systems no spares were purchased (including no spare engines) that had to be rectified latter at more cost. The KC-30 is arguably the best AAR today, but its initial development work was over cost and overtime, and for a while there it looked like the remote boom would not work.

Then look at some of the other projects. The C-27J is a debacle, it was Army officers who saved MQ-28 after a dedicated (and very senior) effort by AFHQ to turn it off, the air defence projects are very questionable, plus some other issues among some of the other AIR projects not suitable for here. I can assure you, AFHQ brought as many gaps for their projects to ADFHQ as the other services and groups do....


You forgot to mention that it was purely bloody-minded Army politics and ignorance that caused this. Bugger the fact that it took decades to regain lost capability and that Air Power is best utilised via centralisation.

Msn's besides local civil spt and direct Army: Air Mobility; SAR; VLR insert; AAR receiver; JPR/CSAR; EW; Communications/Relay; ISR; SEAD/DEAD; Interdiction; CT; Counter-Drone; Counter-helo

A lot; noting that only the simple M1A2 is currently in service
Operating costs of UH-60M are "1/3" of MRH-90; that 'helicopter' is also unable to do the mission after decades of trying, is what I read.
The MAJGEN displays the ability to crisis-manage, after much wasted effort, but he did not provide evidence that LAND can manage complex machinery.
Plus the small mater of taxpayers AUD going down the gurgla.

@Gooey Withdraw and apologise. This comment of yours is unbecoming and unwarranted.

Ngatimozart.
Noting up front my subaltern time was spent in 16 Brigade, and I've given a significant amount of sleep and blood to the helo fleet, I have no problems questioning if rotary wing aviation should be provided by the RAAF or the Army. I mean, lets look at the key underpinning fact to a aviation fleet that can fight: airworthiness. CAF owns operational and technical; half my officer courses were at RAAF Wagga, Orchard Hills and RAAF Laverton as I was taught the latter. In fact, I have about a year of courses over and above a normal RAEME officer thanks to that. I'd say I've done a dozen audits where the team were mostly, if not all, RAAF; I've done over a dozen Weapons System Review Committees and the like where I helped justify actions to a RAAF 2-star. I've been investigated by a RAAF accident team twice (both times were an Aero and a fighter pilot). Fundamentally speaking, I am as trained, as experienced and as knowledgeable as any RAAF Aero or Armo. So.... there are no issues there. Every year the Army operators and maintainers prove to CAF that they are operationally and technically airworthy.

So, what would a move to the RAAF offer? If Black Hawk, Huey, Kiowa and Tiger were always RAAF assets, what would have changed in my career? I would have spent less time on logistics courses (which would have negatively impacted my engineering skills), I'd have less knowledge of Army supply chains (which would have negatively impacted my ability to work with the Bde's when I deployed), and I'd be a helicopter individual in a service that worships pointy grey fast things. Yes, ACM Houston was a helo pilot initially, but do we honestly think that there would have been many opportunities for the helicopter peeps above SQNLDR?

That's a list of negatives; what positive would there be? You mention aviation is best managed centrally - we already do that with airworthiness (I've had two bosses since day one of being a LT; the CA and the CAF). If you are talking operationally via the AOC....well, that's a separate debate that I am happy to have - but straight up I think the almost dictatorial control of airpower via the AOC will become one of the wrong lessons learnt from Iraq/Afghanistan. Either way, helicopters were never part of that, regardless of nation. That tends to argue that no-one (including the US Army, USMC, USAF or RAF) thinks that central control of fast air and helicopters is needed.

But what about complexity? I have worked in and beside the Army Aviation and Land Army Programs, and DACM is streets ahead of Land. The way that Army Aviation (and this includes the loggies) manages its fleets is indistinguishable to how the RAAF manages its fleets, and should be the exemplar for the rest of Army. I have spent many hours talking to the AFV and Arty Programs at all ranks about how DACM works as they try and step their staff up to that level. I would argue if you cut the AAvn/RAEME staff from any fleet across to, say, the M1 fleet (and allowing for contract differences) than tank would be in a better spot. But, if you remove the helo's from Army, where would Army find the knowledge that there is a better way of managing their fleets? Because last time I checked, there were about 8 Aero's at the O4/O5 level across LCD, all of whom can help bring the fleet management skills of other Land materiel up.

And on complexity, don't get me wrong. Helicopters are pretty easy. I mean, a Kiowa is less complex than an MX-5 for the most part! But Tiger (and prob Taipan)? That's as complex as any RAAF platform. It is slower, and uses less fuel, but it's a digital aircraft with a variety of weapons, comms and a flight envelope that stretches it's physical limit. It may not pull 8G at M1.2; but neither does a KC-30. Now, compare to our current fleet and it's clear that the majority are no-where near a helo. A Unimog? A M113AS4? Bahahahahaha..... An ASLAV though, that's about a Black Hawk. But, an M1? A Boxer? An IFV or SPH? There are going to be equal to any helicopter. Again, I've spent a number of hours with the AFV fleet peeps, operators and maintainers and once you get past one flies and one doesn't, there is no difference between a Tiger and a M1A2. Where do you think Army is going to draw lessons from on managing these fleets? I'll tell you right now, it won't be RAAF or RAN because of Service rivalry....

For all that negativity, there is an excellent question to be asked about the senior management of Army Aviation. At the end of the day, AAvn is pretty much a single FEG. Comparing a FEG HQ to the new Aviation Comd HQ would throw up some interesting questions - straight up, a 1 star v a 2 star? And I am aware that AFHQ had some questions about that. I think that right there is where you would be better off placing your thoughts. I think the above points highlight that there is no real advantage bringing them back under the RAAF at the unit, SPO or DACM levels; but above that? II think there is significant room for discussion.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Is there any reason the IFV winner announcement is being with held for the Defence review announcement? I mean they could announce the winner and put the 10 years of speculation to bed And get things moving. The actual volume of purchase is becoming irrelevant at this point. As some of the pros her have mentioned…I would just like to get the announcement and get the manufacturing base underway ASAP. If we need more later then we at least have the capability like we do with Bushmaster…. and it may be like Boxer where there is a possibility of foreign orders due to manufacturing restraints in other countries within the next few years at least.
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Is there any reason the IFV winner announcement is being with held for the Defence review announcement? I mean they could announce the winner and put the 10 years of speculation to bed And get things moving. The actual volume of purchase is becoming irrelevant at this point. As some of the pros her have mentioned…I would just like to get the announcement and get the manufacturing base underway ASAP. If we need more later then we at least have the capability like we do with Bushmaster…. and it may be like Boxer where there is a possibility of foreign orders due to manufacturing restraints in other countries within the next few years at least.
We will just have to wait and see. There are two interesting bits of information related to the decision that may be worth considering:

Army reportedly prefers Redback and has made that call (according to ANZ Defender referencing an Australian article I can't find).

MAJGEN King, HLC, noted that the IFVs are one of his biggest concerns/regrets going out of the role. I won't quote the actual text (its in the current DTR issue), but he makes a point that it doesn't seem to have captured the minds of many like that of other systems, which is unfortunate.

I won't speculate (I regret doing that with the SSNs), though I hope there is at least recognition of the fact our ability to conduct close combat will be greatly limited without them. PMVs and APCs are just not protected enough for modern combat, imo.
 
Last edited:

Maranoa

Active Member
The Aussie Defender write up was reporting a claim made by The Australian newspaper. The Defender story on March 3 says that it confirms what they had heard from their sources involved with the IFV trials at Pucka in 2020 but don't call the final outcome of the decision. Defender have contacts the other defence mags don't have due to all their trips with the troops in war zones. But Defender says no one really knows because of the DSR. It is all up to Richard Marles and he is no fan of armoured vehicles.
 

Maranoa

Active Member
Kim Bergmann at APDR must be feeling a little foolish today after his nasty column that blamed Australian Army Aviation incompetence for all of the Tiger and Taipan problems. Seems the German Army don't agree with him and are also retiring their Tiger gunship helicopters due to all the same reasons put forward by the according to Kim incompetent Aust Army. It now seems Sweden, Belgium, Norway and now Germany with the same kind of european made helicopter probs. Remember Bergmann's

@Maranoa Please provide a source for your claim about the German army retiring the Tiger.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PHOTOGRAPHER

New Member
From the ANZD article. The headline reads..

"A Deutsches Heer EC665 Tiger UHT aerial fire support helicopter in flight over Germany. The Deutsches Heer (German Army) is following the Australian Army's lead and abruptly withdrawing the Airbus Helicopters EC665 Tiger UHT aerial fire support helicopter from service after recognising that the helicopter will never achieve the service's requirements. Pic Bundeswehr"


https://www.australiandefender.com....german tiger cancel/2303german tiger end.html
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Seems the German Army don't agree with him and are also retiring their Tiger gunship helicopters due to all the same reasons put forward by the according to Kim incompetent Aust Army.
Germany is not retiring Tiger in any way, shape or form.

Germany has had a program to newly procure up to around 64 H145M or similar helicopters (number went down and up a bit over time) for a couple years now, of which 24 have always been intended to be armed in order to supplant the Tiger fleet as light recce/attack helicopters. This procurement project was pushed into the 100 billion fund last year, hence making it more likely to be realized somewhat soon.

The claim that these 24 helicopters would entirely replace Tiger was first brought forward by a Business Insider article last month, with little proof supporting it.

In Germany - and within the Bundeswehr - the project of a light attack helicopter has been met with criticism in particular in recent months as conceptually it is aligned more with crisis intervention and low/medium-intensity warfare and thus not really compatible with the current turn towards national/alliance defence.

It should be noted that Australia has had similar plans in Project LAND 2097 for 16 armed special operations support helicopters, for which Eurocopter was bidding with the H145M as well. The project was cancelled two weeks ago.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Aussie Defender write up was reporting a claim made by The Australian newspaper. The Defender story on March 3 says that it confirms what they had heard from their sources involved with the IFV trials at Pucka in 2020 but don't call the final outcome of the decision. Defender have contacts the other defence mags don't have due to all their trips with the troops in war zones. But Defender says no one really knows because of the DSR. It is all up to Richard Marles and he is no fan of armoured vehicles.
If he does then JHF is extremely “judicious” with his use of those sources, to the poont of never revealing everything.

Every article I’ve seen of his for years, perhaps decades was broken somewhere else, first.

His sources appear to be:

1. DoD websites.
2. Mainstream media.
3. Other defence mags, who he then usually sneers at.

and LAND 400 Ph.3 ain’t up to Richard Marles, he has recused himself from it as the member for Geelong. Pat Conroy has the job of taking the LAND 400 Ph.3 capability submissions to NSC. I see few probity issues in it, if the whole things is to be axed…
 

Maranoa

Active Member
If he does then JHF is extremely “judicious” with his use of those sources, to the poont of never revealing everything.


Totally untrue and absolutely unfair. Only Australian Defender and Contact ever go to the field with the ADF and both have been 'breaking' stories for 20 years or more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top