The February issue of DTR Magazine has an article on the specific numbers of Land 400 vehicles which may be of interest.
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1
Well, Redlands18 wasn’t as far off as my suggestion of the MR60S. Having looked into it a bit more, I can see this is a different requirement. Light helicopters are missing from the order of battle since the Kiowa was retired.
For what it is worth, my interest in the MR60S relates to the need for a helicopter with folding rotor blades for use at sea. While the SF needs helicopters, the same helicopters can fill the combat jet pilot recovery mission. As an added bonus, they would do the fleet logistics role. Possibly the MRH90 could be converted to folding rotors. There is, I believe, a naval variant. Furthermore, the UK AH64 has folding rotors.
Anyway, these light helicopters are for a different purpose. The AH6 looks like it might do the job. But it is not exactly a new design. Maybe we should have kept the Kiowas?
There are some interesting facts regarding the Land 400 Phase 3 in the latest issue of "Defence technology Review"
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1
Some details
Mech Infantry platoons will have 3x9 squads (3 vehicle crew+6 dismounts)+ Platoon HQ (I assume also 9 soldiers)
12 vehicles each will go to the respective ACR
13 vehicles will go to the respective engineer units to from an armored squadron.
(Question: Will the regiments still have 2 field squadrons, in this case one field squadron and one armored, or will they gain a 3rd sqaudron+ support and operational support squadron?)
87 vehicles each to the Mech Bn (How do they come to those numbers?)
2 to CSSB
In total 114 vehicles to each Brigade:
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1
Some details
Mech Infantry platoons will have 3x9 squads (3 vehicle crew+6 dismounts)+ Platoon HQ (I assume also 9 soldiers)
12 vehicles each will go to the respective ACR
13 vehicles will go to the respective engineer units to from an armored squadron.
(Question: Will the regiments still have 2 field squadrons, in this case one field squadron and one armored, or will they gain a 3rd sqaudron+ support and operational support squadron?)
87 vehicles each to the Mech Bn (How do they come to those numbers?)
2 to CSSB
In total 114 vehicles to each Brigade:
Takao
The Bunker Group
Quickly - WAH-64 has blades that can fold, but not automatically. Likewise Tiger and Taipan. It may sound semantic, but there is a critical and significant difference (unless I am missing a significant upgrade for the WAH...?)
But back to my main point, the missing link isn't a Kiowa replacement, it's an Iroquois replacement. The Kiowa command and liaison role (C&L) was more of convenience because they were there supporting the Brigade and Army didn't (until the 1990s) have the utility aircraft. Even then, Kiowa couldn't lift the Bde Comd and more than one staff. An Iroquois on the other hand, could lift the Bde Comd, a CO or two, CPP, Int / Sig / BM etc. A command element of 4 - 5 (especially with BMS and the like integrated) could actually do C&L that a Kiowa (or H-6) couldn't.
Past that, there is a need for a smaller utility aircraft. Iroquois went to Aceh because the Black Hawk was too big and there was too much debris around. A EC145 sized aircraft can do everything from C&L up to the medium-lift provided by Taipan / Chinook. It's also small enough to operate in cities and complex terrain like mountains. The ability the means for the Joint Force is all those niche roles that are too expensive to run a Taipan in or the Taipan's are otherwise tasked can be filled by a useful, cheap and easy to support option. The H-6 can - not.
There is significant data that shows people strapped to the outside of helicopters have their efficiency significantly affected when they hit the deck. That plus the uselessness of an AH-6 beyond its niche role (especially compared to a EC145 sized frame) suggests to me that following our kit fetish and SO's desire to be a JSOC will bite us. They'll get the pretty (but sub-optimal) frame and the conventional joint force will still miss the small utility airframe. Sometimes my brethren in black cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to "we must have that because the US do" or "we must have that because the conventional force doesn't". A fleet of EC145 sized aircraft split across the Joint Force allows for a wide pool of pilots and airframes already spread around Australia (minimising domestic response time) and some anonymity for when they go somewhere to train or do a job. It also increases the avaliability of the fleet and lowers risk...
PS - while I normally dislike comparing kit, it is worth looking to see what the EC145 does in service. I know there are concerns with Eurocopter, but the fleet size of the EC145 is pretty large (~1300 meaning it isn't developmental) and there are options for C&L, AME, SAR, training, rapid response and high altitude already in existence. It's availability is also bloody impressive. Oh, and for subtleness, an EC145 can be made to look like a civilian helicopter. A H-6 - can't. It also lifts twice the MH-6 and has ~50% extra range. All dramatically increases flexibility and options.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Note that some of the units (ACR, Engr and Arty especially) will also run Boxer. It won't be IFV + B veh. That allows the CER to have protected and armoured options.
Thanks, Takao. That makes it much clearer.
On a related subject, what is happened with the attack helicopter replacement?
Interesting article that raises many questions about Land 400 Phase 3 and its composition for the future.
I'll ask just one.
What is the current structure today for the in service M113a4.
Has each vehicle moved to SIX dismounts while maintaining the existing crew of TWO with a view to the future.
IFV - 3 crew and 6 dismounts ?
Regards S
Each rifle section is nine strong, regardless of how it is mounted. For the AS4, two are crew and the rest are the dismount element. Obviously once the IFV comes in, three will be crew with a dismount element of six.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My take, for whatever that is worth... is not so much that there are concerns about Eurocopter in some circles, but more that there are concerns about Euro-sourced kit in general. One of the major concerns being that kit getting hawked to Australia has been advertised as farther down the development path, and/or series production, than is actually the case. The Tiger, Taipan, and MU90 are all examples of this happening.
Now Australia selecting a piece of kit that is in development is not inherently a problem, provided that the developmental status is known. What has caused Australia a number of issues in terms of entry into service, developmental costs, availability, etc. is that Australia had thought a finished or nearly finished piece of kit was selected, only to find out well after the fact that a great deal of further development was needed before the selected kit would really be ready for service.
There has also been instances where the planned for or projected service capability/availability following completion of development had fallen short of the programme targets. In some cases, I suspect either the performance targets, or the projected data provided to potential customers was overly optimistic.
For an in-service helicopter like the EC145, these concerns are essentially moot since the major development has already been completed and the helicopter is well into serial production.
Thanks Raven
Just for clarity re Mechanised Infantry today. AS4
Section of nine - Two crew and Seven dismounts?
I guess platoon lift - 4 vehicles for a total of 28 dismounts.
Regards S
You have to wonder how much due diligence Australia actually did prior to the approval and signing of the contracts. What were the quality of the business cases (if any) that were submitted to Cabinet?
Thanks again
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect that, for a number of the cases, the issue was not really a matter of whether due diligence was done or not. The reason I say this is because I suspect that in a number of the selection decisions which settled on Euro-sourced kit, the deciding factors were political in nature.
IIRC for either the Tiger, Taipan or possibly both orders, the kit selected was other than what was recommended by the services. Part of the justification for the orders is that an Australian company could be involved in the assembly and/or partial component production, and that Eurocopter would use that Australian company to support Eurocopter customers in the Asia-Pacific region. Those sorts of offers are sure to attract politicians, even if they are not going to work out.
The MU90 was selected at least in part because it was not a US-sourced piece of kit, and IIRC some of the decision-makers in defence for some reason did not want to select US kit.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Taipan.
Tiger was exactly (slightly more on paper) that what Army wanted and was a clear preference. The assembly in Australia was part of the sell, but the platform itself met all the criteria.
There is plenty to ask about due diligence during aspects of acquisition and TLS though....
t68
Well-Known Member
Taken up from the RAAF thread,
In regards to modifying I think at one stage the were talking about making additional windows for the guns or something similar I havnt heard anymore since there was to be a joint study by FR/AU
I suspect its going to be some years before a SOF light helicopter will be in service, irrespective of that outcome Taipan will have to go in the role as the new helicopter may not always be available on short notice tasking. So it is wise to prepare/practice using the Taipan.
In regards to modifying I think at one stage the were talking about making additional windows for the guns or something similar I havnt heard anymore since there was to be a joint study by FR/AU
Nurse
New Member
With the suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, how would that potentially effect Land 8113 (long range arty)? Is it a fire support platform, a strategic defence weapon or both? ATACMS goes out to 300km but could now go further if developed given the suspension.
Whilst still not a fully realised project, a wait and see approach I feel may give us a little bit more edge, assuming we go with HIMARS.
Cheers
Whilst still not a fully realised project, a wait and see approach I feel may give us a little bit more edge, assuming we go with HIMARS.
Cheers
Nurse
New Member
A few pics of the Lynx in Australian colours coming through on twitter. Amphibious and mortars. Some users are very excited about the amphib version...
DTR Magazine on Twitter
DTR Magazine on Twitter
Nurse
New Member
HIMARS? I mentioned that platform as a good idea for the army some years ago and got shot down by the defence pros. Rather that using it for salvo rockets, I was thinking about the idea of launching small diameter bombs and/or SAMs, as part of an intergrated land/air doctrine. Bare in mind though, that artillary needs lots of munitions to make it worthwhile, which in turn requires a solid supply line to bring lots of those munitions to the area of operation.
Is there any plan to acquire HIMARS for the army?
That is a surprise! This sort of vehicle is exactly what is required. Hopefully the ADF will see fit to acquire them in good numbers.