Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Crock8]

Crock, can please provide me with a translator to interpret whatever it is you've written? I'm an intelligent bloke, but I don't have a clue what you are saying. Mind you, I doubt you do either.

Doesn't matter what the the various parts of armed forces are called.
All that matters is their functional roles in the strategic scheme of things.
For Australia this functionality is expeditionary.
The force most identified with expeditionary operations is the USMC
Expeditionary operations are by their vary nature offensive
Within the spectrum of offensive expeditions, and due to the littoral environment, there is a better than 50% chance that over the next 40 years the ADF may be called upon to take the initiative and impose its will on the enemy by assaulting across an opposed beach.
The USMC hasn't got this capability, and neither does the ADF.
This would compromise national security options when the time comes, so needs to be considered now

Is this clear?

 

[Crock8]

Yes Marines is a word and like ALL words it has meaning. A marine is simply a soldier employed by a Navy. You seem to have a real problem with the dictionary.

You’re the dumbest idiot in the internet.

Thank you for your professional reply.

If I have a problem with the dictionary, its probably because I'm using this http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/jp1_02.pdf

Whatever your professional analysis of my mental faculty, its still not going to get the USMC its Landing Vehicle, Assault it wanted in 1974, and they know it because they cut an entire chapter out of the previous Operations manual called Forced Entry Operations.

Could you demonstrate what you think are the weaknesses or errors in my argument?

 

[Raven22]

Is this clear?

No.

Just looks like a stack of assumptions to me.

 

[Crock8]

No.

Just looks like a stack of assumptions to me.

Thank you for your opinion

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Could you demonstrate what you think are the weaknesses or errors in my argument?

Nope it’s easier just to label you an idiot and move on, hopefully without you.

 

[Volkodav]

Crock, the Blue font signifies that the blokes you have been lecturing for the last couple of pages are "Defence Professionals" and some of the points you are debating with them are their bread and butter, i.e. they do it for a living.

Just try taking a deep breath and do a bit more research and I strongly suspect you will start to understand what they are trying to explain to you.

 

[Bonza]

Thank you for your opinion

He's a serving member of the Australian Army (or is that Marines), so I'd be giving his opinion a bit more consideration if I were you. Actually everyone on here with a blue name has either served or is serving at present. You'd do well to remember that before you start lecturing anyone on the ADF.

Or you could keep going of course, and see what happens.

 

[Crock8]

Nope it’s easier just to label you an idiot and move on, hopefully without you.

#2986 QUOTE=Abraham Gubler Well the EFV was designed to be an over the horizon AAV with its >20 knot sea speed.

Before you start commenting, don't be a turkey and go find out what the EFV was designed for, AS A MILITARY NEED, and then you may understand why the design was an absolutely pointless exercise in 'program milking'.
There were three requirements that killed the EFV, but only one of them was beyond the engineers because the USMC INSISTED on it.

 

[Crock8]

He's a serving member of the Australian Army (or is that Marines), so I'd be giving his opinion a bit more consideration if I were you. Actually everyone on here with a blue name has either served or is serving at present. You'd do well to remember that before you start lecturing anyone on the ADF.

Or you could keep going of course, and see what happens.

Thank you for your advice, but opinions are, as the American saying goes, dime a dozen.
I would be happy if my assumptions were a) shown to be assumptions, and b) refuted with facts.
Shouldn't be too difficult for a Defence Professional, right?

As for served or serving, it is their career path. Its the job they chose, and like any other job except they get lectured by politicians after a while. Most of whom by the way only know about the Defence based on what other Defence Professionals tell them. Then they retire and moan in the editorials how the politicians don't understand, and why the Defence budget shouldn't be cut.
There are far too many publicly embarrassing Defence "issues" that suggest not all professionals are so professional, so lets drop the "I'm a professional, so don't argue with me" attitude.

And apparently verbal abuse is ok by the moderators here, that would not be allowed in the civilian unprofessional forums.

 

[Bonza]

Ah right, they're the ones with the problem, not you. Gotcha. Thanks for that pearler, it makes your departure all the more bittersweet.

 

[Massive]

Hi Crock,

I am interested in your comment on the Puma:

It was not designed for expeditionary operations.
Expeditionary operations are generally considered manoeuvre warfare, and therefore offensive. Particularly, the pre-emptive strategy is suggested, that can generate the element of surprise. It suggests agility, flexibility, ease of deployment, etc. To me the PUMA doesn't seem that sort of a system.
Worse, the Puma is designed for a very different logistic set up, not tied to a support vessel. That fine MTU engine is going to need a lot of juice crawling around rain-sodden Asia-Pacific soils, don't you think? Or do you see the 6RAR somewhere less well served by seasonal moisture content?

What would you see as the alternative?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

Hi Crock,

I found this interesting:

b) the incomprehensible strategy of 'Defence of Australia' as if it was ever possible.

Even at current much reduced levels defence spending is a significant impost on the Australian community. Community expectation would be that the ADF can achieve the 'Defence of Australia', and in the current strategic environment I believe this to be true - without the ADF being solely focussed on this task - though this would be debated by many of the particpants on this board.

The question for defence planning (which is often the tenor of this board) is what will the strategic environment look like in 25 to 30 years time given the time it takes to acquire capabilities.

Anyway - I would be interested in your thoughts if you would like to expand further?

Regards,

Massive

 

[the road runner]

Well the AH-64's range was good enough to meet our requirements as one of two shortlisted helos, but range wasn't the reason it wasn't chosen. Lies from Australian Aerospace and Thales about the Tiger's cost and maturity were and here we are 11 years after they were ordered and nearly 9 years after they were first delivered and they STILL haven't reached IOC (AFAIK) and co-incidentally haven proven no cheaper and no more capable, but infinitely harder to support than the Apache...

However, you need to compare apples and apples if you're going to discuss range issues. Range with what payload? The AH-64 routinely carries a huge payload compared to it's contemporaries AND it has a far larger array of sensors, including the high drag Longbow radar sensor, a capability that remains basically unique to the Apache among attack helicopters.

Chuck 16 Hellfires on a Tiger (if it could even carry them) or the Cobra as well as a large, heavy radar mast and let's see how the relative range compares...

I took ADs quote out of the Indonesian thread.Hope you dont mind.
My question is ,in hind sight would Australia have been better off choosing an Apache instead of the Tiger?

I understand that Tigers will be able to take off of our LHD witch would be a positive.
The tiger is also semi marinised ,another positive
We were looking at a reconnaissance chopper but im sure with all the sensors on a Apache it could do this mission.

Did Australia choose the wrong chopper?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My question is ,in hind sight would Australia have been better off choosing an Apache instead of the Tiger?

Hindsight? It was pretty obvious at the time!

I understand that Tigers will be able to take off of our LHD witch would be a positive.
The tiger is also semi marinised ,another positive

Apaches can be marinised too. As was done with the UK’s Apaches and various offers to the USMC to replace their Cobras.

Did Australia choose the wrong chopper?

The Tiger case made two claims that have not been borne out by facts. One that it was an off the shelf helicopter so ready for service. Two that as a more advanced helicopter it would be cheaper to operate in service.

No doubt once the Tiger is fully operational it will probably be better aircraft for aircraft than the baseline Apache. But the Apache would have been operational years ago and also via commonality with the US and UK offer a better upgrade pathway for a full service life.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My question is ,in hind sight would Australia have been better off choosing an Apache instead of the Tiger?

I understand that Tigers will be able to take off of our LHD witch would be a positive.
The tiger is also semi marinised ,another positive
We were looking at a reconnaissance chopper but im sure with all the sensors on a Apache it could do this mission.

Did Australia choose the wrong chopper?

Not just in hindsight - at the time of selection there were clear and obvious benefits choosing Apache.

Its not just about the platform, it also about the systems and subsystems, the integration of them into the broader battlefield comms and C2/3/4 suites

 

[the road runner]

So why do some of these boof heads in charge of defence purchasing get it so wrong?
Im of the opinion that it was a case of" Buy Euro" as it will benefit local work share?
Also note that Eurocopter lied about cost for the Tiger.

"shakes head"

 

[Marc 1]

Not just in hindsight - at the time of selection there were clear and obvious benefits choosing Apache.

Its not just about the platform, it also about the systems and subsystems, the integration of them into the broader battlefield comms and C2/3/4 suites

I think the world realizes that the AH-64 is the 'big dog' of attack helos being originally developed to counter the hoardes of Warpac armour streaming through the famed Fulda Gap (IIRC - happy to be corrected). As our current purchase is labelled Armed Recon Helicopter - perhaps it was an easier sell to the pollies or head shed or whatever that we were only purchasing a smaller (in terms of MTOW) capability capable of fighting for information or being able to defend itself rather than a full on attack capability (which of course would be equally capable of collecting intel - probably better if we bought D's with the microwave on the top).

Perhaps it was the whole 'don't upset the neighbours' factor? Not that it seems to worry the Indons - witness the recent Apache purchase!

Bit like the Navy trying to sell the Zumwalts as OPC's instead of say a corvette sized ship (albeit at the same price).

Am I way off base with this assumption?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So why do some of these boof heads in charge of defence purchasing get it so wrong?

Thats one of the unfortunate things about prcurement - there is no single agency that determines what will be bought

at EVERY stage, and at the final selection, the services provide input into the outcome. I know of projects where the services have said that they will refuse to endorse something that they disagreed with - and in a couple of instances they have chose another platform and it has bitten them on the bum

Govt ultimately decides - and if people don't believe that or understand it then just look at Choules, Growlers, subs, Steyr, various clothing fiascos

Its an unfort urban myth that one agency has carriage. eg Central Agencies can change everything

again, design requirements from the services are determined by their services telling CDG (or equiv capability manager) what they need - and then maintaining their involvement through evaluation and determination. ANY changes in the requirements and capability cannot be changed via the purchasing agency, it has to go to the CM for blessing - and if significant it goes to Govt for change.

In the case of some platforms, the claims made by the vendors to the services about what they could do and what it would cost was absolute rubbish.

it makes it worse when the vendors employ "gun runners".

We need to get over this urban myth that its just one agency/dividion thats responsible - its not. People need to read up on the Kinnaird Process, it was bought in to stop any single agency going in and buying what they wanted without oversight.

Otherwise we would be like indonesia where they once had the very real problem of local commanders buying their own gear and whatever else they thought was good.
Unfort there are quite a few people even within the services who don't understand the process that Govt binds all agencies and the services by.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Am I way off base with this assumption?

I'm going to be more oblique than usual as this is a discussion about extant capability - so its fraught with the opportunity to limit careers and invite more than just the traditional admonishment....

We have recon helos instead of gunships for "a reason"

I could bang on about Tigers for days on end - both from a private sector perspective when I was consulting and contracting - and from what I know now on the Govt side.

from my private sector tour I would dot point the following: (and this was part of some companies strategy)

powerpoint is your friend
target the one stars and above
imply breadth and depth of capability
promise engagement and co-operation
work out where the rub points are - and I have seen companies actively wedge the services against other agencies/divisions
bring in the A Team in the early days
avoid fixed price contracts
infer ongoing development
seduce the state govt and wedge it against the federal - local jobs is always a tear duct filler etc...

/cynical hat off

of course there are a whole pile of bullet points that can be listed against those on the other side, but not something I can discuss in current circumstances....

 

[Marc 1]

I'm going to be more oblique than usual as this is a discussion about extant capability - so its fraught with the opportunity to limit careers and invite more than just the traditional admonishment....

We have recon helos instead of gunships for "a reason"

I could bang on about Tigers for days on end - both from a private sector perspective when I was consulting and contracting - and from what I know now on the Govt side.

from my private sector tour I would dot point the following: (and this was part of some companies strategy)

powerpoint is your friend
target the one stars and above
imply breadth and depth of capability
promise engagement and co-operation
work out where the rub points are - and I have seen companies actively wedge the services against other agencies/divisions
bring in the A Team in the early days
avoid fixed price contracts
infer ongoing development
seduce the state govt and wedge it against the federal - local jobs is always a tear duct filler etc...

/cynical hat off

of course there are a whole pile of bullet points that can be listed against those on the other side, but not something I can discuss in current circumstances....

Thanks GF.