Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Waylander]

Isn't that song becoming a bit tiresome?

Pick the right equipment to buy and the right program to participate and you get good results wether it's with European or US companies (or hybrid ones like BAE despite the British in it's name).

There is plenty of blame to go around for everyone with the myriad of bad run defense projects on both sides of the pond.

 

[SteveR]

Ironically one of the delays with Wedgetail was the EWSP/ECM systems from BAE which were the cause of the additional delays following the original eighteen month extension in 2008. The reason I recall this is because a project I was on went through a similar issue of being delayed by critical work subcontracted to BAE and having to wear the heat for their non performance.

As I have told you before a bad prime always blames its subcontractors. As a former BAE employer I can remind you we were often blamed for poor subcontractor performance and were told by the Commonwealth that the Prime is responsible for Subcontract management.
BAE did a much better job of managing its subcontractors on the LHD than ASC did on the AWD!

 

[Volkodav]

As I have told you before a bad prime always blames its subcontractors. As a former BAE employer I can remind you we were often blamed for poor subcontractor performance and were told by the Commonwealth that the Prime is responsible for Subcontract management.
BAE did a much better job of managing its subcontractors on the LHD than ASC did on the AWD!

There were only problems with one subcontractor on the AWD and those problems went away when that subcontractors head office became involved and made major changes in senior and critical personnel. How late was Canberra again, and how many defects was she delivered with? Whoops, I almost forgot, that was after Navantia delivered the basically complete hull early and Williamstowns new work force had produced (f'd up beyond all recognition) multiple blocks for AWD.

As for managing contractors, no one, not even the ex Tenix personnel on the project, wanted to use BAE but there was no choice once NQEA was forced out by circumstance. BAE were well aware that they were the only option and as a result were greedy, demanding and condescending, the even refused to accept updated build data because they were"Australia's premier shipbuilder" and resented being told how to"suck eggs". The total excrement they produced, behind schedule and over budget was a total shock and made it cheaper to accept incomplete and rework in Adelaide. The initial work was so bad that Bath Iron Works experts suggested there may have been deliberate sabotage involved in a misguided attempt to discredit the ASC. Another term I heard used was malicious compliance, personally I believe it was a combination of incompetence and cockiness resulting from very poor management.

I wish I still had the videoscope photos of the rags, welding gloves, weld spatter etc. from inside multiple pipe segments, fabricated, installed, tested and certified by BAE. There were even valves that were inoperable because of weld spatter in the valve body, others that could not be operated due to orientation, some directional valves were even installed back to front! All signed off and certified by BAE. I wont bother going into weld inspections, tank and bulkhead testing, stuff you would expect a"competent" shipbuilder to know.

As for the commonwealth blaming the prime, there was no prime, there was an alliance, that they the commonwealth, were an integral part of, as well as the small fact they own ASC and regularly interfere with its management. The main effect being ASC would be gagged and it was only the involvement of BIW, Lloyds and Raytheon, that saw BAEs stuff ups come into the open, ASC could be gagged and slandered but those other parties refused to be.

This is miles off track for the army thread but, as I have stated before, I will not let bs go unchallenged.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Queensland aerospace company to fix Australian Army's tank engines on home soil - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

thats some serious savings on rebuilds....

 

[vonnoobie]

Queensland aerospace company to fix Australian Army's tank engines on home soil - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

thats some serious savings on rebuilds....

Was wondering when the site would be ready after the announcement back in 2014 for the cooperation between TAE and Honeywall.

On top of the cost savings mentioned in the article the original release from TAE mentioned a much quicker turn around time from memory down to around 1/3 to 1/4 of the time which should help with M1 availability and shut up the anti M1 croud on the net that think's because only a portion are apperantly active that they are crap.

 

[rjtjrt]

Australia Considering Further Shortening Tiger Service Life - Aviation Week article.

Australia Considering Further Shortening Tiger Service Life | Combat Aircraft content from Aviation Week

I can't get past the firewall to read past the intro.

 

[vonnoobie]

Australia Considering Further Shortening Tiger Service Life - Aviation Week article.

Australia Considering Further Shortening Tiger Service Life | Combat Aircraft content from Aviation Week

I can't get past the firewall to read past the intro.

Read the entire article, fair bit is already known other stuff I have not personally seen in the news yet.

- Defence has accepted a recommendation from an audit into the Tiger's for the planned $500 - $700m upgrade to take place soon to be scrapped and consider a much sooner replacement to which the article list's the AH-64 and AH-1Z as contenders.

- Benefit in earlier replacement is if we choose the Viper we wont run the risk of missing out on an active production line as the AH-1Z on current orders would shut down around the current planned replacement time frame (ie: would be cutting it too close to the bone)

- Earlier replacement may be influenced by the Armys desire to vastly improve aeriale networking in regards to reconnaissance. So far the Tiger is only compatable with it's own ground station which is absolutely useless with the way the rest of the ADF is moving.

- The ADF is pushing hard, More so then most at what the Chinese termed "informationization" including the widespread, automatic sharing of tactical pictures and fire-control data. The RAN and RAAF have generally been well ahead of the ball on this but the Army is keen to catch up. With the Tiger meant to be it's main recon asset and not being able to share it's recon data has left them army a decade behind the other services (In my opinion).

- An unmanned replacement option has not been ruled out. With the time frame and possibility of early replacement (fingers crossed) I don't see an unmanned option being chosen 'yet' but I wouldn't rule out a later expansion in the recon fleet with a squadron of unmanned helicopters added later of an Apache or viper acquisition. With the talk amongst the ADF I see Australia taking big steps into the Drone warfare field in the 2020's and beyond.

- The unmanned option was hinted at being a combination of systems that the article speculated at also including fixed wing drones which would be a change for the ADF as the RAAF has been the one to operate fixed wing combat aircraft (at least since the FAA gave there's up).

- Apperantly some fault does lie with Australia as we only allocated 36% of the purchase price to keep them flying for 15 years when we should have allocated 100%.

- Hourly cost's in 2015 for the Tiger was $41,000, In June 2016 it had dropped to $30,335 but the ADF is not happy when compared to the UH-60 that is heavier but less complex cost just over $10,000 an hour.


Perhaps the Tiger is improving but unless they can show an actual improvement in the network intergration with the rest of the ADF then any other improvement with the Tiger is a mute point as it does not and will not fit into the current and future ADF.

The ADF is a small military in a world that is getting more volatile with a great many nations all increasing there military sizes and capabilities. We need to and are taking the next step that will allow asset's within the ADF to respond to a situation almost instantly.

Regards, vonnoobie.

 

[Boagrius]

Read the entire article, fair bit is already known other stuff I have not personally seen in the news yet.

- Defence has accepted a recommendation from an audit into the Tiger's for the planned $500 - $700m upgrade to take place soon to be scrapped and consider a much sooner replacement to which the article list's the AH-64 and AH-1Z as contenders.

- Benefit in earlier replacement is if we choose the Viper we wont run the risk of missing out on an active production line as the AH-1Z on current orders would shut down around the current planned replacement time frame (ie: would be cutting it too close to the bone)

- Earlier replacement may be influenced by the Armys desire to vastly improve aeriale networking in regards to reconnaissance. So far the Tiger is only compatable with it's own ground station which is absolutely useless with the way the rest of the ADF is moving.

- The ADF is pushing hard, More so then most at what the Chinese termed "informationization" including the widespread, automatic sharing of tactical pictures and fire-control data. The RAN and RAAF have generally been well ahead of the ball on this but the Army is keen to catch up. With the Tiger meant to be it's main recon asset and not being able to share it's recon data has left them army a decade behind the other services (In my opinion).

- An unmanned replacement option has not been ruled out. With the time frame and possibility of early replacement (fingers crossed) I don't see an unmanned option being chosen 'yet' but I wouldn't rule out a later expansion in the recon fleet with a squadron of unmanned helicopters added later of an Apache or viper acquisition. With the talk amongst the ADF I see Australia taking big steps into the Drone warfare field in the 2020's and beyond.

- The unmanned option was hinted at being a combination of systems that the article speculated at also including fixed wing drones which would be a change for the ADF as the RAAF has been the one to operate fixed wing combat aircraft (at least since the FAA gave there's up).

- Apperantly some fault does lie with Australia as we only allocated 36% of the purchase price to keep them flying for 15 years when we should have allocated 100%.

- Hourly cost's in 2015 for the Tiger was $41,000, In June 2016 it had dropped to $30,335 but the ADF is not happy when compared to the UH-60 that is heavier but less complex cost just over $10,000 an hour.


Perhaps the Tiger is improving but unless they can show an actual improvement in the network intergration with the rest of the ADF then any other improvement with the Tiger is a mute point as it does not and will not fit into the current and future ADF.

The ADF is a small military in a world that is getting more volatile with a great many nations all increasing there military sizes and capabilities. We need to and are taking the next step that will allow asset's within the ADF to respond to a situation almost instantly.

Regards, vonnoobie.

You'd have to think AH64E is looking more and more like a no-brainer here. Potential "marinisation" issues aside, it seems almost tailor made for the kind of highly networked manned/unmanned recon capability mix being sought (perhaps alongside MQ9?).

Strikes me that the U.S are in the process of fielding precisely the kind of capability we are after in a mature and relatively low risk form at a very opportune time for us. I imagine we would be well served by simply plugging in to their capability set and remaining in lock step with it ala Growler or even Abrams down the track.

One hopes we can get moving on it quickly and put the whole AIR87 mess behind us ASAP.

 

[t68]

Wonder if existing users would be intersted in them as a source for parts?

Don't think they would be any good for the Kiwis for the JATF

 

[ngatimozart]

Don't think they would be any good for the Kiwis for the JATF

Who said that we wanted them?

 

[t68]

Who said that we wanted them?

No one, but it's not unheard of you guys buy our cast offs, A4 SH-2G

In the context of the whole post it mainly had to do with existing users and in my opinion you Kiwis would not like another orphan machine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

No one, but it's not unheard of you guys buy our cast offs, A4 SH-2G

In the context of the whole post it mainly had to do with existing users and in my opinion you Kiwis would not like another orphan machine.

the egyptians can use them on their new expeditionary units.

 

[t68]

the egyptians can use them on their new expeditionary units.

Now that's an idea!

In all seriousness any stumbling blocks in selling to a non existing user, ITAR's?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now that's an idea!

In all seriousness any stumbling blocks in selling to a non existing user, ITAR's?

any US capability would be stripped unless covered by an existing TAA - or they would have to negotiate with the US under a new TAA to keep any capability identified

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder if Egypt would be interested in a trade for a couple of squadrons of Abrams? Tongue in cheek mostly but it could be an interesting possibility that would fill a current, unfunded, need.

 

[Waylander]

I am not sure if Egypt got the same armor package made available as Australia.

If yes then only in their new orders with which they may not want to part with.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the AH-64E and AH-1Z with Link 16 didn't the USMC actually start testing the AH-1Z's with Link 16 last year? Depending on how that work's out would depend on if it is a possible Tiger replacement.

The AH-64E is the safe bet with what we want in it and actually working with a number of close allies fielding them but AH-1Z would have it's own advantages too as it is operated by a force that we will have increasingly close cooperation with.

Either way will be one or the other and either one will be miles ahead of the Tiger so it's a win for us anyway .

What any company providing the replacement will have to do is either A. Stock a decnt complement of complete engines in Australia while others are being maintained or work with a local company (TAE?) to have a local maintenance facility for the engines as that was one of the issues with the Tiger and until recently the M1.

I don't see us being able to give the Tiger's to any current operator much as I'd like to see them do a straight swap and gain some A-400M's . I don't see Egypt as being a possibility either as they do have a decent fleet of Apaches. Actually thinking about it I'm not sure if we could even give them away as any possible users already have there own asset's that they are happy with or have more Tiger's then they need or want. Best bet would be to park them in Alice Springs where a boneyard was established and try and sell part's off over time.

 

[MARKMILES77]

I think the angle of the photo makes it seem worse than it is. With the Hawkei already being a pretty low vehicle (compared to something like a Bushmaster) having an RWS on top shouldn't make it particularly top heavy.

I'd still like to see the Hawkei with an RWS with Javelin bolted to the side.

Will be interesting to see what weapons mounts will be used on the Hawkei.
Hawkei's have been displayed with the Kongsberg RWS in Australia and another RWS in Poland.

Options would seem to be:

Swing Mount e.g. Platt Swing Mount. No gunner protection. Basic aiming.

Shielded Ring Mount. e.g. Platt MR655 (as I think used by USMC in their Weapons Companies.) Gunner protected but basic aiming.

RWS such as Kongsberg or EOS 400S. Advanced Aiming with thermal imaging/camera, high first hit probability. One intriguing option, as demonstrated on JLTV, is fitting an EOS 400S with a 25/30mm cannon.

Probably most Hawkei will have a swing mount but what about this as an option which could make some of the Reserve Armoured units a valuable ( in demand) asset.
Currently the Reserve Armoured Squadrons are either equipped with the Bushmaster for troop lift or Machine gun equipped G Wagons for a light Recon role.
How about swapping the G Wagons in the Recon Squadrons for Hawkeis equipped with RWSs so that these ARMOURED Squadrons are actually armoured!
Some of the Hawkei s with a 25 or 30mm EOS 400 RWS and some with a Kongsberg RWS with a Javelin and 7.62/12.7mm Machine gun.

The old Regular Cavalry Squadrons used to have 3 troops with four ASLAV 25s and 2 ASLAV PCs. And additional ASLAV 25s/ASLAV-PC in the HQ troop.

Equip the Reserve Armoured (Recon) Squadrons with three troops each with four Hawkei 25/30s and two Hawkei with Kongsberg Javelin/12.7. Plus some HQ Hawkeis.
You would only need 25 or fewer of the 1,300 ordered Hawkeis for each Reserve Armoured (Recon) Squadron.
Between the two Reserve Brigades attached to each Regular Brigade, there should be at least one of the Reserve Armoured Squadrons equipped as a Hawkei Squadron.
Each Regular Brigade could expect to be reinforced by at least one Hawkei Squadron as part of the Reserve Battle Group when the Regular Brigade is the On-Line Brigade.

This would be a very valuable unit with many possible uses.
It could function independently as an additional Brigade Light Armoured Recon asset.
It could be attached to an Infantry Battalion as a Direct fire support asset.
A "Light" Infantry Battalion with one Hawkei Squadron would now have nine 25 or 30mm Cannons, six 7.62 or 12.7mm machine guns and six Javelin Launchers as Direct Fire Support Assets. (Plus whatever weapons the HQs troop Hawkeis are equipped with).

 

[Stock]

Will be interesting to see what weapons mounts will be used on the Hawkei.
Hawkei's have been displayed with the Kongsberg RWS in Australia and another RWS in Poland.

Options would seem to be:

Swing Mount e.g. Platt Swing Mount. No gunner protection. Basic aiming.

Shielded Ring Mount. e.g. Platt MR655 (as I think used by USMC in their Weapons Companies.) Gunner protected but basic aiming.

RWS such as Kongsberg or EOS 400S. Advanced Aiming with thermal imaging/camera, high first hit probability. One intriguing option, as demonstrated on JLTV, is fitting an EOS 400S with a 25/30mm cannon.

Probably most Hawkei will have a swing mount but what about this as an option which could make some of the Reserve Armoured units a valuable ( in demand) asset.
Currently the Reserve Armoured Squadrons are either equipped with the Bushmaster for troop lift or Machine gun equipped G Wagons for a light Recon role.
How about swapping the G Wagons in the Recon Squadrons for Hawkeis equipped with RWSs so that these ARMOURED Squadrons are actually armoured!
Some of the Hawkei s with a 25 or 30mm EOS 400 RWS and some with a Kongsberg RWS with a Javelin and 7.62/12.7mm Machine gun.

The old Regular Cavalry Squadrons used to have 3 troops with four ASLAV 25s and 2 ASLAV PCs. And additional ASLAV 25s/ASLAV-PC in the HQ troop.

Equip the Reserve Armoured (Recon) Squadrons with three troops each with four Hawkei 25/30s and two Hawkei with Kongsberg Javelin/12.7. Plus some HQ Hawkeis.
You would only need 25 or fewer of the 1,300 ordered Hawkeis for each Reserve Armoured (Recon) Squadron.
Between the two Reserve Brigades attached to each Regular Brigade, there should be at least one of the Reserve Armoured Squadrons equipped as a Hawkei Squadron.
Each Regular Brigade could expect to be reinforced by at least one Hawkei Squadron as part of the Reserve Battle Group when the Regular Brigade is the On-Line Brigade.

This would be a very valuable unit with many possible uses.
It could function independently as an additional Brigade Light Armoured Recon asset.
It could be attached to an Infantry Battalion as a Direct fire support asset.
A "Light" Infantry Battalion with one Hawkei Squadron would now have nine 25 or 30mm Cannons, six 7.62 or 12.7mm machine guns and six Javelin Launchers as Direct Fire Support Assets. (Plus whatever weapons the HQs troop Hawkeis are equipped with).

My understanding is that about a quarter of the vehicles will receive a RWS for 7.62mm/12.7mm/40mm AGL. The majority will receive the Platt MR550 ring mount, with shield kits as an option.

 

[MARKMILES77]

My understanding is that about a quarter of the vehicles will receive a RWS for 7.62mm/12.7mm/40mm AGL. The majority will receive the Platt MR550 ring mount, with shield kits as an option.

So all of them will have the potential of a protected gun.
Better than I expected.

Didn't the Australian Government fund the development of the 30mm Cannon capability for the EOS 400 Remote Weapon Station. Was that for an Australian need or to improve the export potential of the 400 RWS?