It's not just the political classes. The arguments within army about whether the PMV is a combat vehicle or not have been epic. The army still hasn't really worked it out.
I believe it, just means not as much has changed as I thought it had. I found RAINF tended to be a bit over the place depending which btn they had spent most their time in while RAAC had a lot more consistency in thinking.
Fingers crossed Beersheba, with its identical brigades, sees RAINF as a whole develop a more holistic, corps wide, view.
Thanks Raven for the information re the LCM1E and its ability and limitations re transporting the M1.
I do hope that it is only an issue of regulations re Navy learning to opperate our new LHD and associated landing craft up to sea state 2. I also hope that there is scope for opperations in higher sea states as we become more familiar with our new amphibious platforms in the future. While safety should always come first, if there is an issue in the weight carrying capacity of the LCM1E beyond seaworthy regulations I'm just wondering what would be the way forward?
The Canberra class and LCM1E projects have seemingly being a fairly trouble free project delivering a much needed capability to the ADF. If limitations are to be placed apon what loads can be transported ship to shore this may prove to be quite an issue in the way we conduct future opperations.Not just in our ability to transport a MBT but just as importantly the sort of vehicles we select for land 400.
Plan Beersheba will require a much heavier Army and this force may / will sometimes be needed to be transported to places without a port.
I trust that future vehicles are selected on combat merit and not be restricted in weight to accomodate LCM1E load limitations.
I am very much hoping the LCM1E is not a problem.
Any more information on the LCM1E would be much appreciated as its a very important cog on the ADF's amphibous wheel.
Regards S
Last edited:
Australian Army to extend Black Hawk service lives for special forces use | IHS Jane's 360
So will all the MRH 40 MRH go to the regular Army? And will these Black Hawks be replaced with another Platform dedicated to SOF support?
I wouldn't be surprised if it has more to do with certification issues with the MRH90 as the program is known to be significantly behind schedule. If the Combat Wombat is not expected to be ready in time it only makes sense to extend the current platform.
Now if there are other issues involved, i.e. the MRH90 is no longer being considered for the role I would expect a fairly prompt announcement of an FMS buy of an already certified US type for the mission, maybe the MH-60M SOF support version, HH-60W CSAR model, or the MH-60S.
My pick would be the Sierra which is certified for SOF, CSAR and as well as fully marinised out of the box. There is also the added advantage of its high level of commonality with the RANs Romeos.
yeah, a special chopper just for spec ops...."oh look, there goes 4 aussie blackhawks, SASR or 2 CDO are heading north, must be to where we contacted the aussies yesterday...."
t68
Well-Known Member
That would be no diffrent from the UK keeping C130J for the specials, personaly I would like us keep all the black Hawks and rebuilt to R/S standard and fitted with a refueling probe to extend there range when needed.
Ideally there would be a joint sierra buy to cover SOF, CSAR, MCM and various other combat and utility roles with the ADF.
Ideally, our procurment process would select the correct , riskmfree platform that our small ADF requires in thr 1st place, and stop experimenting.
Specials won't be buying unique aviation assets - they have their own airlift who train for diff flight profiles -- but that's the extent of it
no one in their right mind would be asking for dedicated and unique aviation assets. it just isn't necessary or even needed
Well, atm, it seems we do.
The blackhawks and chooks are mostley dedicated to SF operations, and the PBI get the NH90 taipans...or more correctly, childrens python.....
The blackhawks and chooks are mostley dedicated to SF operations, and the PBI get the NH90 taipans...or more correctly, childrens python.....
I read the article as more of a numbers issue rather then a specific type ie 6 of the 34 currently in service going to navy from a total of 46 (therefore only 28 available for the entire army incl training).
Until all 90s are in service, and more importantly signed off for all tasks, it would not be ideal to limit your assets or capability especially for SOF so keep them ticking over as per to cover and let the regulars conduct IIS and set at least basic SOPs until the full fleet is ready.
RNZAF had the same problem and had to keep a number of hueys operational even longer than anticipated due to conversion, numbers and issues.
Until all 90s are in service, and more importantly signed off for all tasks, it would not be ideal to limit your assets or capability especially for SOF so keep them ticking over as per to cover and let the regulars conduct IIS and set at least basic SOPs until the full fleet is ready.
RNZAF had the same problem and had to keep a number of hueys operational even longer than anticipated due to conversion, numbers and issues.
The SF probably won't get a unique type of helicopter exclusively for them, but they might get their own flavour of helicopter already in service.
If the result of the force structure review is that the Chinook fleet is grown to the size the Army wants, it's possible that a few of them will be delivered in MH-47G flavour and be allocated to 6 Avn in support of SOCOMD. Personally I can't see the fleet growing beyond 12 though, so I doubt that will happen - SOCOMD will just have to use vanilla Foxtrot models from 5 Avn.
Even if the MRH-90 is fully developed and certified for the SF mission, it is pretty universally acknowledged that the MRH90 is simply too big for a lot of SF tasks, particularly domestic counter terrorism tasks. It is possible that a LUH will be bought to bridge the gap left at the lower end of the spectrum when the UH-1H/Kiowa combo was lost, so you don't have to dedicate an entire MRH to simply flying a couple dudes around on admin tasks. If that was to occur, it's almost certain a squadron would be allocated to 6 Avn for domestic SF tasks, with all the bells and whistles needed for that.
If the result of the force structure review is that the Chinook fleet is grown to the size the Army wants, it's possible that a few of them will be delivered in MH-47G flavour and be allocated to 6 Avn in support of SOCOMD. Personally I can't see the fleet growing beyond 12 though, so I doubt that will happen - SOCOMD will just have to use vanilla Foxtrot models from 5 Avn.
Even if the MRH-90 is fully developed and certified for the SF mission, it is pretty universally acknowledged that the MRH90 is simply too big for a lot of SF tasks, particularly domestic counter terrorism tasks. It is possible that a LUH will be bought to bridge the gap left at the lower end of the spectrum when the UH-1H/Kiowa combo was lost, so you don't have to dedicate an entire MRH to simply flying a couple dudes around on admin tasks. If that was to occur, it's almost certain a squadron would be allocated to 6 Avn for domestic SF tasks, with all the bells and whistles needed for that.
And will this review be published?
Parts of it will be, as part of the white paper. Essentially if the white paper announces some new capability or reorganisation etc, it will be because the force structure review decided that was the way to go.
Agree on the helo's, they will likely be something already in service, re-roled or a version of something already in service (or being adopted, i.e. a LUH version of the HATS solution for all three services).
I've always been a fan of the Lynx which in its Wildcat evolution could be a very interesting option for a lighter helicopter for the ADF, not only SOF support for the army but light shipboard helo for the RAN and LUH and SAR for all three services. The same could apply to the MH-60S which has the added advantage of commonality with the RANs MH-60R.
Another thought is the possibility of manned and unmanned versions of the same platform, probably not the MQ-8C Fire Scout / Jetranger, but maybe a similar LUH that has VTUAV version.
Thanks Raven
Meanwhile German Special Forces recevieve the fisrt H145M SOF LUH from Eurocopter.
German special forces begin receiving H145M helos | IHS Jane's 360
I know that the Aussies might not be to keen on European Helos anymore, but this might an option. Especially since this airframe can also be used as a traning helo and a variant of this is in use with the US Armed Forces.
Meanwhile German Special Forces recevieve the fisrt H145M SOF LUH from Eurocopter.
German special forces begin receiving H145M helos | IHS Jane's 360
I know that the Aussies might not be to keen on European Helos anymore, but this might an option. Especially since this airframe can also be used as a traning helo and a variant of this is in use with the US Armed Forces.
The smaller EC135 is the new ADF helicopter training platform under the HATS contract. Some of their stuff, i.e. the genuine MOTS / COTS solutions, is quite good, the issue is their new /bleeding edge stuff. It seems that their marketing people take their critical design review level power points as gospel in terms of certification schedule and pass the message on to prospective customers accordingly.
t68
Well-Known Member
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but gives an insight on where Army sits at the moment. I havnt read it all yet hopefully I'll get a chance over the weekend sometime.
Intersting to see that going forward that Bushmaster is being labeled a marginal capabilty, wonder what they see considering if you put a big enough IED in the ground a Namer AFV will still suffer,
Intersting to see that going forward that Bushmaster is being labeled a marginal capabilty, wonder what they see considering if you put a big enough IED in the ground a Namer AFV will still suffer,
https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...y/SI100_ADF_capability_snapshot_2015_Army.pdf
Would be interesting to see what scenarios they base it off of, The Bushmaster is something more suited towards either peace keeping or occupational situations so i'd imagine they would have based it around that. In those situations I dont see how it is a marginal capability, rather it is a must have asset.