Australian Army Discussions and Updates

FormerDirtDart said:

Ummm...No
You're obviously confusing the S-97 with the Sikorsky-Boeing JMR/FVL entrant SB-1 Defiant
The S-97 was eyed as an entrant in the cancelled US Army Armed Aerial Scout program. And, is currently being aggressively marketed as an Attack/Reconnaissance/SpecOps light multirole helicopter

Now, I think it would be seriously unlikely for the Raider to be a candidate. On the 'bigger' side of the light helicopters I could see something like the Panther/Dauphin (before you scoff, the Brits use it in their Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing). But, more likely something (as others have suggested) along the lines of the H134 & H145 or A/MH-6, and if Bell Textron gets off their duff and back in the game with the 407 or 429(doesn't the RAN fly them?)

Click to expand...

My bad you are correct it is the SB-1 Defiant of course, got the 2 mixed up.
The RAN operated 3 Bell 429s in a intermediate trg role(not sure they still are) i think it was part of the plan to give their Aircrews flying hours due to being short Shipboard Combat Helos with the Sea Sprite cancellation, which left the RAN with only 16 Helos when the req is 24-27. They also operated some A-109s before the 429s. We now have a full complement of 24 Sea Hawks so not sure the req still stands.
Australia would not be interested in being a Launch Customer for the Raider and it would take a lot more than $2-3b to get them into service.
Be very surprised if it doesn't come down to MH-6 v Airbus 135,

Stampede said:

Regarding a light helicopter for the Army, is there a need for a limited replacement of the Kiowa for work in permissive environments doing light logistical and surveillance work.
Maybe a class of two of the same platform.
A gunned up special tricks version for the special forces and a basic unit for general duties.
Certainly would have better economy to our larger helicopter platforms and maybe provide as good a service on many missions that a larger helicopter could be classed as overkill. Not a substitute but a compliment to our existing helicopter fleet.

Thoughts
Regards S

Click to expand...

I suspect that the new lt Helos will find themselves doing some Donkey work on top of the SF work.

Redlands

You maybe right though it may be a reluctant give back to the general army from the SF's.
I guess ownership issues will need to be very clear from the start.
If a light helicopter can be reconfigured with modules of weapons / sensors and and other tricks, there maybe some scope in the assets flexibility to cater for all.
Anyway I'm mindful of the budget and the temptation of fantasy's not asked for!!!!

Regards S

Nicholas Drummond on Twitter

Would love to see some of these ideas be adopted by the ADF using the BoxerCRV platform.

Joe Black said:

Nicholas Drummond on Twitter

Would love to see some of these ideas be adopted by the ADF using the BoxerCRV platform.

Click to expand...

With a MRL, SP Mortar and a LR SAM all currently being planned for you may just get your wish.

I thought I was on some of Trudeau’s free pot today! On the way to work I saw not one, not two, not three but six Tigers flying in formation low across the city.
This is the first time I’ve seen more than two airborne at any one time.
Apparently it was Army Aviations Birthday today and they were letting it rip.
Sorry no pics, was driving.

Well here we go.
1RAR has 2 female officers, 9 female soldiers and 7 less males.
Standards have dropped for infantry soldiers because the girls couldn't meet the men's standards, and now we lose 7 guys for trying to get into the girls pants.....I guess when I was an 18 yo grunt (a walking hard on) I would have been sacked too!

Nocookies

Stuff we did 20-30 years ago would make us pirahs today or worse. Given the declining birth rate in most Western nations, females in the military are an absolute necessity and we must adjust to accommodate and keep them from being harassed. The alternative is ships that lack sufficient crew for a starter and numerous vacancies in other sectors as well.

old faithful said:

Well here we go.
1RAR has 2 female officers, 9 female soldiers and 7 less males.
Standards have dropped for infantry soldiers because the girls couldn't meet the men's standards, and now we lose 7 guys for trying to get into the girls pants.....I guess when I was an 18 yo grunt (a walking hard on) I would have been sacked too!

Nocookies

Click to expand...

From what I have seen working with army suggests what they did must have been pretty overthe top to have gotten them sacked, i.e. much more than just talking about getting in their pants.

Banter still happens, talk still happens, and guess what, soldiers even end up bumping uglies and having kids together. The majority or female soldiers are just that, soldiers that happen to be female.

From what I have seen, for them to have been charged what happened must have been of a level that would have seen them sacked from a civilian job, charged or sued.

As for whether women should be in army combat roles, I know a stack of blokes who are more akin to uniformed public servants than soldiers and do not doubt that many of the fit and motivated females leave them for dead.

old faithful said:

Well here we go.
1RAR has 2 female officers, 9 female soldiers and 7 less males.
Standards have dropped for infantry soldiers because the girls couldn't meet the men's standards, and now we lose 7 guys for trying to get into the girls pants.....I guess when I was an 18 yo grunt (a walking hard on) I would have been sacked too!

Nocookies

Click to expand...

When I was in the RNZAF in the 1970's early 1980's bull$hit castle decided that the WAAFs would be instructed in the mysteries of SLR weapons firing and parade drill. This was an interesting exercise because the rifle was longer than some of the young ladies height. However they mastered such skills and some gained their marksmens qualification. Most of us were quite happy for them to go on active service for purely selfish reasons - they could take our place at the front line

In the 1990s when I was in the Navy we had some Jenny's (WRENs) come to sea who were dead keen and weren't able to redraft to seagoing branches because of bull$hit castle rubbish. However they were actually better at the job than some seagoing officers and ratings and we had no problems with them at sea. So my view is whether they are male, female or a bitsa is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not they can do the job and that they have my back like I have theirs. Do I trust them in a life or death situation? That's what matters the most, because there are guys I'd served with who I wouldn't trust as far as I can kick Mt Everest, and there are women I'd served with, who I'd follow through the gates of hell.

old faithful said:

Well here we go.
1RAR has 2 female officers, 9 female soldiers and 7 less males.
Standards have dropped for infantry soldiers because the girls couldn't meet the men's standards, and now we lose 7 guys for trying to get into the girls pants.....I guess when I was an 18 yo grunt (a walking hard on) I would have been sacked too!

Nocookies

Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, they should have treated their own teammates better?

It's not hard - treat people like your own family. What happened to the Pl sticking together? For all the disagreements we have had old faithful; you never struck me as someone who would undermine their own unit.

There are enough mysoginists and bullies still in - I'm happy to see 7 leaving, especially as they couldn't support their own damn Unit's members. Good riddance.

John Fedup said:

Stuff we did 20-30 years ago would make us pirahs today or worse. Given the declining birth rate in most Western nations, females in the military are an absolute necessity and we must adjust to accommodate and keep them from being harassed. The alternative is ships that lack sufficient crew for a starter and numerous vacancies in other sectors as well.

Click to expand...

Having females in just to make the numbers and adjusting standards to make them fit is just plain wrong.
If they reach the standard that’s great, but don’t lower them for numbers sake (or PC sake)
My experience is IET and promotional courses in the late nineties and early 00’s wasn’t great, never carried the gun/radios/extras and lower BFA standards. That said some great characters who fulfilled certain roles brilliantly.

Takao said:

Or, perhaps, they should have treated their own teammates better?

It's not hard - treat people like your own family. What happened to the Pl sticking together? For all the disagreements we have had old faithful; you never struck me as someone who would undermine their own unit.

There are enough mysoginists and bullies still in - I'm happy to see 7 leaving, especially as they couldn't support their own damn Unit's members. Good riddance.

Click to expand...

I’m ex RACT, have worked with my fair share of women when I was in, all I can say is if they can do the job fair enough and i worked with some that would put some blokes to shame, I also worked with some and wonder why they even joined up private barbie doll types.

As for the fraternisation well they could not stop Adam and Eve where there’s a will there’s a way.

Takao said:

Or, perhaps, they should have treated their own teammates better?

It's not hard - treat people like your own family. What happened to the Pl sticking together? For all the disagreements we have had old faithful; you never struck me as someone who would undermine their own unit.

There are enough mysoginists and bullies still in - I'm happy to see 7 leaving, especially as they couldn't support their own damn Unit's members. Good riddance.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't undermine my own unit, but I can tell you this.
If I had a substandard dig in my section when I was a seco, I would try and bring him up to standard. If he lacked motivation, or the actual skills to do his job, he was moved on to somewhere that his strong points would be put to better use. Every one has strong and weak points. It happens to me when I was a "lid" I stuffed up for my first year.
But, you MUST not lower the standards so that someone will fit in. If they can't carry a Mag 58 and the rest of the gear, at the speed required, if they can't man pack a couple of mortar rounds as well as their own gear, when required, if they can't keep up 5km an hour for 8 hours with their kit, they can't be grunts.
There are plenty of suitable jobs that females can do in combat roles. But you can't just have ladies as scouts only, they have to be able to every job an infantry soldier does. Sig, gunner, what ever.
Having said that, if they CAN do it, welcome aboard, and I doubt that many men would find a girl that can do the job properly attractive, and she probably wouldn't find most of the guys attractive either.
I am now a prison officer, and there are some absolutely out standing ladies in this job. There are still a few tasks that all females can not do in this job however, more because of their gender, that means men must pick up the extra work load, and same applies for men working in women prisons. However, the constant recruitment of female officers to work men's prisons does have an effect. Some really good effects and a few not so good.
Common sense needs to apply , not political correctness.

PS , I have a 9 year old daughter, the last thing I would want is for my little girl to want to be a grunt. It is not like the movies, its not gym bodies and laughs. Its aggressive young men and now women doing a very dirty job of living out of a heavy pack, wearing filthy sweat ridden clothes for weeks at a time, training to or actually killing people who are trying to kill you.
It is a job that stays with you for life whether you did 3 years or 30 years.

ngatimozart said:

So my view is whether they are male, female or a bitsa is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not they can do the job and that they have my back like I have theirs. Do I trust them in a life or death situation? That's what matters the most, because there are guys I'd served with who I wouldn't trust as far as I can kick Mt Everest, and there are women I'd served with, who I'd follow through the gates of hell.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, When I was employing people, I wanted the best person for the job It is irrelevant as far as I am concerned as to their gender, religion or any other discriminating factor, you just want the person who can carry out all the functions needed for the job to the level required and simply adding requirements that will never be used to disqualify people is not on. For the same reason I am against ratios or percentages of genders for jobs to make it look PC, just get the best person.

The November issue of DTR has a couple of articles which I found of interest.
November 2018 - Defence Technology Review

There are a couple of articles related to the US Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). Raytheon and Rheinmetall will offer the Lynx KF41 with the Lance 2.0 turret. GDLS will likely offer the Griffin III (based off the latest generation ASCOD). GDLS had a technology demonstrator of the Griffin III (with 50mm Super Shot) at the Association of the US Army show. I am curious on the differences between the Griffin 3 and the Ajax IFV offered for Land 400 Ph3.

Should we select the Lynx KF41 or the Ajax for Land 400, there would be opportunities to leverage the US supply chain/development paths if the respective KF41/Griffin gets up for the US.

The US has expressed a preference for the 50mm Super Shot for future US IFVs. The 50mm Super Shot it s necked up version of 35mm Bushmaster Mk3. If the US is moving this way, does this potentially impact the Land 400 vehicles? Presumably being based on the Bushmaster Mk3, the 50mm Super Shot will fit in the Lance turret (the Lance 2.0 will be offered for the US NGCV); could this be a future upgrade path.

There is also an article on IFVs using UAVs. The Lynx KF41 was at Association of the US Army show with a model of Raytheon’s Coyote UAV. The Coyote UAV is low cost, weighs under 6kg with 80km/1hr endurance. The Lance 2.0 turret has two mission modules; as an alternative to the Spike ATGM, each can be fitted with a cannister launched UAV. This kind of capability could be an interesting option that could be easily leveraged with the Lynx KF41.

PeterM said:

The November issue of DTR has a couple of articles which I found of interest.
November 2018 - Defence Technology Review

There are a couple of articles related to the US Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). Raytheon and Rheinmetall will offer the Lynx KF41 with the Lance 2.0 turret. GDLS will likely offer the Griffin III (based off the latest generation ASCOD). GDLS had a technology demonstrator of the Griffin III (with 50mm Super Shot) at the Association of the US Army show. I am curious on the differences between the Griffin 3 and the Ajax IFV offered for Land 400 Ph3.

Should we select the Lynx KF41 or the Ajax for Land 400, there would be opportunities to leverage the US supply chain/development paths if the respective KF41/Griffin gets up for the US.

The US has expressed a preference for the 50mm Super Shot for future US IFVs. The 50mm Super Shot it s necked up version of 35mm Bushmaster Mk3. If the US is moving this way, does this potentially impact the Land 400 vehicles? Presumably being based on the Bushmaster Mk3, the 50mm Super Shot will fit in the Lance turret (the Lance 2.0 will be offered for the US NGCV); could this be a future upgrade path.

There is also an article on IFVs using UAVs. The Lynx KF41 was at Association of the US Army show with a model of Raytheon’s Coyote UAV. The Coyote UAV is low cost, weighs under 6kg with 80km/1hr endurance. The Lance 2.0 turret has two mission modules; as an alternative to the Spike ATGM, each can be fitted with a cannister launched UAV. This kind of capability could be an interesting option that could be easily leveraged with the Lynx KF41.

Click to expand...

Geezus that 50mm Round on DTR page 8 is a big Mother and that's the problem going with a bigger Gun, much Bigger Rounds taking up more room thus you can carry far fewer. Could see a case for having 1x50mm armed IFV per Platoon and the rest 30-35mm.
Could also see a case for Boxers fitted with Cannister Launched UAVs working alongside the Gun Boxers in the Recce role.

Just wondering if it is really necessary going into such big rounds. With the Boxer CRV, the ADF has gone with the 30mm rather than the 35mm, kinda telling us that 30mm is more than adequate to deal with opposite recon/IFV vehicles. Any chanced meeting with a MBT will be dealt swiftly by the Spike ATGM.

Anyway, here's an interesting pic that shows the different munition sizes for different calibre rounds:

Redlands18 said:

Could also see a case for Boxers fitted with Cannister Launched UAVs working alongside the Gun Boxers in the Recce role.

Click to expand...

There seems to be quite a bit of development around the Lance 2.0 turret. Is there any scope for the Boxer CRV's to be fitted with the Lance 2.0 turret instead of the Lance turret that was initially proposed?

Joe Black said:

Just wondering if it is really necessary going into such big rounds. With the Boxer CRV, the ADF has gone with the 30mm rather than the 35mm, kinda telling us that 30mm is more than adequate to deal with opposite recon/IFV vehicles. Any chanced meeting with a MBT will be dealt swiftly by the Spike ATGM.

Anyway, here's an interesting pic that shows the different munition sizes for different calibre rounds:

Click to expand...

Interesting question.

According to a US presentation (presumably by BGEN Coffman) referred to in the DTR article, the 30mm gun (presumably the 30 x 173mm) offers no advantage over the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 or 30mm gun on the T-15 Armata IFV, however, the 50mm achieved lethality overmatch.

I would suggest there is a significant advantage in the larger rounds. The US are not alone in moving to larger calibres. The British and French are also moving to larger AFV armament with the 40mm CT40 Case Telescoped Weapon System for the Ajax, Warrior and Jaguar AFVs. Other countries have moved to the 35x228mm, so there is obviously tangible benefits to moving larger calibres. This makes sense given the emerging trend of heavier and better protected IFVs.

The real question for Australia is whether we consider a larger calibre at some point; obviously the 30x173mm meets the currently expected future CONOPs as detailed in the LAND400 tender.