Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Looks like the Apache buy will go ahead but wouldn't surprise me if that changed and the buy was scrapped.
Instead put $5.5 Billion into say the BAE Strix ( or something similiar) to provide rotary ISR and ground attack. Likely get ten Strix for every one Apache.
So 290 Strix or 29 Apache. Which would provide most capability if the budget is fixed and you can spend the money on one or the other?

Australia doubles down on army choppers despite warnings they are ‘obsolete’

Military experts say the war in Ukraine has shown that helicopters are increasingly vulnerable to drone attacks and becoming largely useless in a conflict.

www.theage.com.au

The order for the Australian Apache's has already gone to Boeing as part of an order the Pentagon placed last year for 180 odd aircraft, long lead items for the Australian aircraft would already be ordered, if not construction of the first aircraft started. The financial penalties for a cancellation now, would I suspect be fairly severe.

 

[ADMk2]

Looks like the Apache buy will go ahead but wouldn't surprise me if that changed and the buy was scrapped.
Instead put $5.5 Billion into say the BAE Strix ( or something similiar) to provide rotary ISR and ground attack. Likely get ten Strix for every one Apache.
So 290 Strix or 29 Apache. Which would provide most capability if the budget is fixed and you can spend the money on one or the other?

Australia doubles down on army choppers despite warnings they are ‘obsolete’

Military experts say the war in Ukraine has shown that helicopters are increasingly vulnerable to drone attacks and becoming largely useless in a conflict.

www.theage.com.au

Defence funding also doesn’t work like that. You cancel a capability and the money just doesn’t go to whatever else defence might like to spend it on.

Witness the funding stripped primarily from LAND 400 Ph.3. It hasn’t gone into anything else Army might want.

It is instead, just gone…

 

[Volkodav]

Defence funding also doesn’t work like that. You cancel a capability and the money just doesn’t go to whatever else defence might like to spend it on.

Witness the funding stripped primarily from LAND 400 Ph.3. It hasn’t gone into anything else Army might want.

It is instead, just gone…

It's gone somewhere, i.e. AUKUS.

That is the elephant in the room, the cost of extending Collins has gone up because instead of a couple of boats, serving mostly as prototypes for some systems it's all 6 and they need to last for longer.

Then there is the investment in overseas capability to ensure the US is in a position to provide the Virginia's we need for the bridging capability. There is also the work that has started to get ready for the USN/RN SSN deployments. None of this was in the budget prior to now.

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

Germany ordering Boxer CRVs becomes increasingly unlikely.
The Initial plan was to procure 123 (estimates went from 121-128) sWaTrgInf (Boxer heavy weapons carrier) and 148 Boxer CRV-based IFVs.
The Potential order of 148 Lance 2.0-based IFVs isn't going to happen since KMW pitches a RCT30-based solution & australia decided to favor the Redback.
But it's also becoming increasingly unlikely that we'll see an order for 123 SWaTrgInf since the costs have risen to 2.7 bn €.
The uncertainty regarding Arafura OPVs & the Boxer CRVs with the ADF might be the final nail in the coffin.

Bundesrechnungshof rügt Preissprung bei Panzerdeal

Das Heer soll für 2,7 Milliarden Euro neue Transportpanzer aus Australien bekommen. Zu teuer, zu kompliziert, findet nach SPIEGEL-Informationen der Rechnungshof. Auch die Ampelhaushälter haben Zweifel.

www.spiegel.de

 

[Bluey 006]

Just looking at todays battles, would you want be sitting in a mbt, ifv, crv, pmv against swarms of drones?
The Russians have lost 1,000s of veichles to cheap drones you can buy at Kmart, 1 at a time, not swarms, they are not autonomous, not long range or have the highest military spec. crewed armour is on its way out…

In Ukraine as in previous major conflicts artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield,accounting for perhaps 80% of casualties on both sides. This reinforces the need for protected vehicles and armour (MBT, IFV, PMV etc) in modern conflict. Infantry won't last long without support from armour. This is why we are seeing nations all around the world place orders for new tanks.

Would you like to be walking into gunfire under a heavy artillery barrage without any protection around you?

Drones might be the pin-up but arty is doing the damage.

 

[John Fedup]

In Ukraine as in previous major conflicts artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield,accounting for perhaps 80% of casualties on both sides. This reinforces the need for protected vehicles and armour (MBT, IFV, PMV etc) in modern conflict. Infantry won't last long without support from armour. This is why we are seeing nations all around the world place orders for new tanks.

Would you like to be walking into gunfire under a heavy artillery barrage without any protection around you?

Drones might be the pin-up but arty is doing the damage.

I think anti-drone systems are the priority. Drones have made artillery more effective and have increased battlefield situational awareness making maneuvers much difficult to hide. They are also becoming effective weapons delivery systems.

 

[south]

In Ukraine as in previous major conflicts artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield,accounting for perhaps 80% of casualties on both sides. This reinforces the need for protected vehicles and armour (MBT, IFV, PMV etc) in modern conflict. Infantry won't last long without support from armour. This is why we are seeing nations all around the world place orders for new tanks.

Would you like to be walking into gunfire under a heavy artillery barrage without any protection around you?

Drones might be the pin-up but arty is doing the damage.

I’ve often seen the claim re Artillery and casualty figures, and I don’t not believe you, but I’d love to see the source data to review at for myself. Do you have a link to hand?

 

[Bluey 006]

I’ve often seen the claim re Artillery and casualty figures, and I don’t not believe you, but I’d love to see the source data to review at for myself. Do you have a link to hand?

Given the blackout on casualties on both sides no official sources but consistent reporting of this in media reports 1. LA Times 2, Small Wars Journal 3. Economist 4. Yahoo 5. Times 6.Forbes

You can believe what you like but in this war like all others, not much in the public domain is to be believed anyway

What can be quickly discerned is this is fairly consistent with other conflicts of a similar nature in the past where the data is more reliable - Shell, mortar, cannon, and rockets were the causes of casualties in 53% of the war in Lebanon '82, anywhere between 50-75% in WW2 for the Americans, 60% for Germany in WWI, Iran-Iraq War

Reports are saying 80-90%, historical data says about 50-70%, so perhaps 70-80% is a fair assertion.

Maybe you could cross reference the daily casualties (which are not that reliable) with the numbers of shells fired from various locations, and hospital records of injuries in corresponding locations within a specific range and compare that to total casualties and tell us what you find.

 

[Reptilia]

Looks like 8 Landing Craft Heavy on top of 18 Medium.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-03-01/press-conference-illawarra

‘PAT CONROY: Well, again, there are orders that they can compete for right now or coming very soon. Those landing craft, to give you an example, the landing craft medium, they are around a 5 to 600-tonne vessel, and we’re getting 18 of those. After that the landing craft heavy, they’re going to weigh between 3 and 5,000 tonnes. That’s almost the size of an air warfare destroyer, and we’re going to need eight of those. They’re all going to need steel. I haven’t seen a proposal that involves aluminium. Most of the tenders will involve steel, and the best place to get that steel – and it’s hard for me to say as an Novacastrian – is from the Illawarra. So, yes, I’m getting a lot of support for that behind me.’

 

[old faithful]

I will believe that when I see it!!!
HMAS Tobruk was somewhere around 3400t, and Conroy says we will have 8 of them, only bigger?

 

[OldTex]

I will believe that when I see it!!!
HMAS Tobruk was somewhere around 3400t, and Conroy says we will have 8 of them, only bigger?

Yes it is easy to say, but where is the money and where is the design. There are a whole lot of other questions lurking in the background for the future.
The nearest examplar might be the US Army LSVs (Frank S Besson class and the Kuroda variant) at 4200 t (5400 t for Kuroda variant) with crews of 31.

 

[Reptilia]

Yes it is easy to say, but where is the money and where is the design. There are a whole lot of other questions lurking in the background for the future.
The nearest examplar might be the US Army LSVs (Frank S Besson class and the Kuroda variant) at 4200 t (5400 t for Kuroda variant) with crews of 31.

4 designs so far…

Birdon H260

USMC Taps Birdon Group to Develop Heavy Landing Craft - Naval News

Birdon has been selected by the USMC for "test & evaluation" of its H260 Heavy Landing Craft which shares a lot with Landing Ship Medium LSM

www.navalnews.com

BMT/Austal/Raytheon Caimen Large LCH

BMT's CAIMEN-Large ready to meet Australia's Landing Craft-Heavy

The CAIMEN® Large design is well-positioned to support Australia's Landing Craft-Heavy (LC-H) requirements.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Serco/IMC LCH

IMC LMV-H at Indo Pac – IMC Naval Architects

imcau.com.au

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

SeaTransport LCH

Seatransport pitches Stern Landing Vessel for Land 8710 - Australian Defence Magazine

Gold Coast-based naval architecture and marine engineering company Seatransport is offering a version of its Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) for Army’s Land 8710 Phase 2 (Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel-Heavy) p...

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[Flexson]

I will believe that when I see it!!!
HMAS Tobruk was somewhere around 3400t, and Conroy says we will have 8 of them, only bigger?

Tobruk was about 3400t light and 5800t full load. However I've seen that pushed once to 6040t (according to the trim and stability software she used)

 

[Redlands18]

Stockton Bight Incident

This week was the 70th anniversary of the Stockton Bight Tragedy. 21 vehicles belonging to the Northern Rivers Lancers were conducting a nighttime amphibious exercise when weather conditions suddenly changed for the worse, 6m waves were reported. 8 vehicles sunk and 3 men lost their lives.

 

[Bob53]

APDR this moth another article about the Taipan disposal Vs sending them to Ukraine. I know Kym Bergman is frowned upon by people here but he makes some interesting points about the timeline and the requests from the Ukraine and the many unanswered questions In relation to the Taipans. so putting the personality aside ...

The outstanding questions that are yet to be answered…
Who exactly ( which person) decided that putting them in a hole in the ground was the best option?
How much are we getting for the parts to be sold, That dollar figure apparently justified this course of action?
How was this decision and action executed so quickly?
Can anyone seriously believe that no Existing or new MRH90 operators, no Army, Navy or Airforce operating in the world, anywhere was not interested in the Taipans in any way shape or form?
How can the Australian Army and Au DOD possibly decide what is the right equipment for the Ukraine?
Why is is that the Army and DOD instruct or tell the government what to do? Who is running the place? But that is really a pointed question for the Gov ( Wong, Conroy, Marles) who are giving deadpan responses that the Army told them this was the best option …..Which was apparently accepted without question. Do they they just accept everything the Army or DOD say without question? Of course not so what happened in this case?

I suspect it’s would be incredibly embarrassing for the Australian Army if these airframes went to the Ukraine and were operated successfully …. And subsequently families of servicemen killed or injured used that information in any legal case down track. that said I don’t recall seeing any outcome from the investigation into the Airlie Beach crash. I understood indications from prelim investigation was that the crash may have nothing to do with the aircraft at all…which then begets that question that if it was pilot error, how did they arrive at the decision to send them to the tip in the first place …… a massive and $4 billion dollar costly knee jerk response. The nonsense we were fed that the Taipans would not be safe for Ukrainian operators and we didn’t want to out them at risk. Does anyone on this thread seriously believe that!


https://asiapacificdefencereporter....024/03/APDR-March-2024_InteractiveSingles.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

APDR this moth another article about the Taipan disposal Vs sending them to Ukraine. I know Kym Bergman is frowned upon by people here but he makes some interesting points about the timeline and the requests from the Ukraine and the many unanswered questions In relation to the Taipans. so putting the personality aside ...

The outstanding questions that are yet to be answered…
Who exactly ( which person) decided that putting them in a hole in the ground was the best option?
How much are we getting for the parts to be sold, That dollar figure apparently justified this course of action?
How was this decision and action executed so quickly?
Can anyone seriously believe that no Existing or new MRH90 operators, no Army, Navy or Airforce operating in the world, anywhere was not interested in the Taipans in any way shape or form?
How can the Australian Army and Au DOD possibly decide what is the right equipment for the Ukraine?
Why is is that the Army and DOD instruct or tell the government what to do? Who is running the place? But that is really a pointed question for the Gov ( Wong, Conroy, Marles) who are giving deadpan responses that the Army told them this was the best option …..Which was apparently accepted without question. Do they they just accept everything the Army or DOD say without question? Of course not so what happened in this case?

I suspect it’s would be incredibly embarrassing for the Australian Army if these airframes went to the Ukraine and were operated successfully …. And subsequently families of servicemen killed or injured used that information in any legal case down track. that said I don’t recall seeing any outcome from the investigation into the Airlie Beach crash. I understood indications from prelim investigation was that the crash may have nothing to do with the aircraft at all…which then begets that question that if it was pilot error, how did they arrive at the decision to send them to the tip in the first place …… a massive and $4 billion dollar costly knee jerk response. The nonsense we were fed that the Taipans would not be safe for Ukrainian operators and we didn’t want to out them at risk. Does anyone on this thread seriously believe that!


https://asiapacificdefencereporter....024/03/APDR-March-2024_InteractiveSingles.pdf

Might want to read back through several different sources on the MRH90, particularly after the two accidents last year which caused a lost of aircraft and in one of the accidents, loss of life as well. This article in the Guardian from 30 July 2023 mentioned that a number of people suspected that the MRH90 would not fly in Australian service again, since it was already planned for retirement and replacement starting in 2024 and then the time needed for the accident investigation and to determine if the MRH90 was safe for flight ops.

If memory serves, as part of the accident investigation for the fatal accident, at least some of the MRH90's were to be basically pulled apart as part of the effort to discover the cause of the accident. I could easily see gov't, the ADF and/or Army looking at the state of things not long after the 2nd accident and deciding to immediately kill further MRH90 service for Australia, due to a confluence of reasons. If that is accurate, then I could also see any/all still intact airframes to be stripped pretty much immediately. After all, why waste more money on a lemon?

This could easily lead to here no longer being any sufficiently intact aircraft to be sent to Ukraine without requiring significant work.

 

[d-ron84]

Might want to read back through several different sources on the MRH90, particularly after the two accidents last year which caused a lost of aircraft and in one of the accidents, loss of life as well. This article in the Guardian from 30 July 2023 mentioned that a number of people suspected that the MRH90 would not fly in Australian service again, since it was already planned for retirement and replacement starting in 2024 and then the time needed for the accident investigation and to determine if the MRH90 was safe for flight ops.

If memory serves, as part of the accident investigation for the fatal accident, at least some of the MRH90's were to be basically pulled apart as part of the effort to discover the cause of the accident. I could easily see gov't, the ADF and/or Army looking at the state of things not long after the 2nd accident and deciding to immediately kill further MRH90 service for Australia, due to a confluence of reasons. If that is accurate, then I could also see any/all still intact airframes to be stripped pretty much immediately. After all, why waste more money on a lemon?

This could easily lead to here no longer being any sufficiently intact aircraft to be sent to Ukraine without requiring significant work.

A much more articulate response then I was going to write.

They are a terrible helicopter that never lived up to expectations.
Its not as simple as "Here are some helicoptor's, go forth and fight" they aren't Bushmasters
How could a resource strapped country that has no experience with the platform supposed to make it work in a warzone, when most operators are either scrapping them or reducing their orders.
That doesn't even go into what Aus specific equipment would need to be removed, and what do you then replace it with?

 

[Volkodav]

APDR this moth another article about the Taipan disposal Vs sending them to Ukraine. I know Kym Bergman is frowned upon by people here but he makes some interesting points about the timeline and the requests from the Ukraine and the many unanswered questions In relation to the Taipans. so putting the personality aside ...

The outstanding questions that are yet to be answered…
Who exactly ( which person) decided that putting them in a hole in the ground was the best option?
How much are we getting for the parts to be sold, That dollar figure apparently justified this course of action?
How was this decision and action executed so quickly?
Can anyone seriously believe that no Existing or new MRH90 operators, no Army, Navy or Airforce operating in the world, anywhere was not interested in the Taipans in any way shape or form?
How can the Australian Army and Au DOD possibly decide what is the right equipment for the Ukraine?
Why is is that the Army and DOD instruct or tell the government what to do? Who is running the place? But that is really a pointed question for the Gov ( Wong, Conroy, Marles) who are giving deadpan responses that the Army told them this was the best option …..Which was apparently accepted without question. Do they they just accept everything the Army or DOD say without question? Of course not so what happened in this case?

I suspect it’s would be incredibly embarrassing for the Australian Army if these airframes went to the Ukraine and were operated successfully …. And subsequently families of servicemen killed or injured used that information in any legal case down track. that said I don’t recall seeing any outcome from the investigation into the Airlie Beach crash. I understood indications from prelim investigation was that the crash may have nothing to do with the aircraft at all…which then begets that question that if it was pilot error, how did they arrive at the decision to send them to the tip in the first place …… a massive and $4 billion dollar costly knee jerk response. The nonsense we were fed that the Taipans would not be safe for Ukrainian operators and we didn’t want to out them at risk. Does anyone on this thread seriously believe that!


https://asiapacificdefencereporter....024/03/APDR-March-2024_InteractiveSingles.pdf

Stop trying to turn it into a conspiracy.

Defence funds are limited, we have major gaps in our force structure due not only under investment, but waste.

Now there is this circular discussion suggesting the government should have ignored the advice of defence and spend hundreds of millions, not preserving or increasing ADF capability, but to give the capability to another nation where it may, according to professional advice, be more of a hindrance than a help.

Even worse, there is this ever growing clown club defaming the members of the ADF who spent so long trying to make this capability viable.

It has to stop.

 

[Bob53]

No suggestion of conspiracy. Just outstanding questions. If they just answered the questions there would be no more questions right? Any defamation or conspiracy as you put it (I don’t think it’s unreasonable or a conspiracy or defaming to ask why another $4 billion was sent to the tip) comes from not providing suitable responses to the reasoning Behind the decision. All of this could be avoided by providing numbers and having someone stand behind the decision.

I haven’t seen any suggestion they would be sent to Ukraine without support from Airbus. I don’t see how Australia DOD can make these calls for the Ukraine.

As to the 2 recent accidents that tragically caused injury and loss of life has the investigation outcome been determined?

 

[Todjaeger]

No suggestion of conspiracy. Just outstanding questions. If they just answered the questions there would be no more questions right? Any defamation or conspiracy as you put it (I don’t think it’s unreasonable or a conspiracy or defaming to ask why another $4 billion was sent to the tip) comes from not providing suitable responses to the reasoning Behind the decision. All of this could be avoided by providing numbers and having someone stand behind the decision.

I haven’t seen any suggestion they would be sent to Ukraine without support from Airbus. I don’t see how Australia DOD can make these calls for the Ukraine.

As to the 2 recent accidents that tragically caused injury and loss of life has the investigation outcome been determined?

It is rather simple, Australian Defence absolutely can make such calls for the Ukraine, because Defence is the holder of the Australian kit in question that people have repeatedly raised as being something worth transferring.

One thing about Defence being the holder of the MRH90, that means Defence is going to have a much better idea of what condition those MRH90's are in, as well as what plans Defence and likely wider AusGov has for the helicopters and/or their components.

Something else worth considering is the fact that the RAN retired it's complement of MRH90's from service back in April (I believe, might have month wrong) of 2022, well before the two helicopter accidents experienced by Army in 2023. Of further interest, the seven MRH90's which had been retired by the RAN were being held in preservation maintenance as of November 2022, whilst the fate of the entire MRH90 fleet was being decided upon. Apparently it had been determined by the end of 2021 that the MRH90 Taipans were not fit for Australian service and were in need of replacement.

When one also adds in the fact that on 3 Feb 2023 Australia ordered 40 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, it should be quite obvious that the MRH90 was already well on it's way out of service even before the first accident back in March 2023. With the second accident coming about four months later and the subsequent fleetwide grounding whilst the accident was investigated and the type having been retired from RAN service ~14 months prior, it is little wonder that Defence and/or gov't decided to pull the trigger and just retire the design completely. Once the design stopped being in flying service, why would Australia pay to maintain it in flyable condition? Keep the aircraft in preventive maintenance so that major components which are still useful and could likely be sold as spares and possibly enable Australia to recover some of the funds spent. As already mentioned, the ex-RAN MRH90's had been in this status for over a year before the fleetwide grounding which would suggest that Australia and Defence had the opportunity to determine a course of action which would provide some value to Defence re: disposing of the MRH90's. Now if Ukraine sent a formal request for the donation of ex-Australian MRH90 Taipan helicopters in mid-December 2023, that would be worth SFA if Australia had already decided upon a course of action to dispose of their retired helicopters.

Even if no decisions had been made initially, work to determine what to do with ex-ADF MRH90's would likely have been going on for two years or more before Ukraine's formal request. I would expect any such work to be done to determine what was the best course of action for Australia and/or Defence to take, for the benefit of Australia.