Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Is an ARH an essential capability for the ADF? Are there alternatives to this capability that cost less (e.g some combination of Fast jets, Drones (armed or otherwise), artillery - tube and rocket, NLOS etc - all being acquired with the exception of NLOS).

Have wondered the same about the NH90 - could purchasing more CH47 remove the need for an additional type, keep most of the capability, but with significantly fewer airframes?

Given helicopters take up a third of the sustainment budget are we getting a good return on this investment.

Just asking.

Regards,

Massive

A pertinent question, not only with regards to the hostile battle space for rotary wing aircraft both for now and in the future; but also what is the correct mix of helicopter types for an army of our size.

With regards to operations, I feel armed helicopters can still have a part to play. It may not be your cold war tank busting peer on peer conflict of defeating swarms of Warsaw pack tank divisions, but rather the opposite end of military engagement. That of countering insurgency / light infantry without complex defence systems.
But really for such a task do we actually need a single role complex armed attack helicopter. Maybe we would be better off reinventing the bushmaster gunship in the moderns guise of a MRH-90 with add on weapon systems mated to modern sensors and radar.
The Taipan is not your old Iroquois, and no it would not be a Taipan.............It would be better, because it would give flexibility the Taipan does not..
So lets be clear, would a Taipan weapons truck be as good as the Tiger ARH .................Answer No!
So the suggestion is one of flexibility and recognising unmanned systems and other defence assets will be tasked for what we wish to achieve with the in service ARH.

The Taipan does not need to be reconfigured like some Hind gunship from days gone by. Rather utilise the helicopters large internal space and weight carrying capacity to add weapon kits to provide some artillery from the air.
It's the swiss army knife thing ( With all the compromises )................... Gunned up and supporting other troop carrying MRH90's one day, and then another day it is in itself doing HADR .
The compromises may not provide excellence, but with the current number of rotary aircraft within Army the question is.
Would Army be better served ditching the ARH capability and adding another 22 plus MRH 90s to our current fleet or a different combination with some extra Chinooks.

ARH don't do utility work or HADR.
For a bigger Army such speciality may have merit but for the ADF it's a chance to reconsider what best works for us.

Thoughts

Regards S

 

[MickB]

While I agree that unmanned aircraft will take over many of the roles of the ARH, I think there is still a place for an armed Helo.

Eg; Operating from the LHD on some distant stabilization or opposed evacuation mission.

If this is to be a dedicated attack helo or armed utility helo depends on its overall role in ADF conops.

If an armed utility was chosen I would envisage something smaller than the MH 90, such as the UH-1 or a version of the Blackhawk/Seahawk family. Both have a variety of off-the-shelf armament packages.

 

[Stampede]

While I agree that unmanned aircraft will take over many of the roles of the ARH, I think there is still a place for an armed Helo.

Eg; Operating from the LHD on some distant stabilization or opposed evacuation mission.

If this is to be a dedicated attack helo or armed utility helo depends on its overall role in ADF conops.

If an armed utility was chosen I would envisage something smaller than the MH 90, such as the UH-1 or a version of the Blackhawk/Seahawk family. Both have a variety of off-the-shelf armament packages.

Agree something smaller would be better but just working with what we have.
I do like the idea of a smaller utility helicopter for Army.
Maybe the starting point will be to see what the special forces select for their helicopter requirement.
Suggest this platform could provide some " armed utility ". I suspect their choice maybe something to small though.
If something like the EC135T2 off the HATS program is selected then that maybe a good fit on many levels.
If none of the above it's the MRH-90.

Regards S

 

[rossfrb_1]

ADM have an opinion piece by DJAC(??) regarding Land 400 Phase 3 & Land 8112
A closer look at Land 400 Phase 3 and Land 8116 - Australian Defence Magazine

The writer has made the call that the Redback will be the winner along with the K9 based partly on the logic of not having all your eggs in one basket (not being totally reliant on Rheinmetall), cost and use of the Aussie EOS turret.
Also discussed are variants and numbers (including mortar variants).
The idea of Redback's rubber tracks (less noise and stress and presumably weight) is interesting, but unsure of their real world durability.
Isn't there an Aussie company that makes these?
regards
rb

 

[SteveR]

Land 400 Phase 3 Shortlist

Redback and Lynx go forward to RMA:

Defence Connect

But note that a 40mm gun is quoted for the AS21 and 30-35mm for the Lynx. Seems to miss the commonality with the CRV Boxer!

But gun calibre is not in the Ministerial release so maybe it was a journalist guess:

Multi-billion dollar land capability project progresses to next stage | Department of Defence Ministers

 

[ASSAIL]

Land 400 Phase 3 Shortlist

Redback and Lynx go forward to RMA:

Defence Connect

But note that a 40mm gun is quoted for the AS21 and 30-35mm for the Lynx. Seems to miss the commonality with the CRV Boxer!

But gun calibre is not in the Ministerial release so maybe it was a journalist guess:

Multi-billion dollar land capability project progresses to next stage | Department of Defence Ministers

The Redback carries 8 and the Lynx 9, does this make a difference for the Army’s .org structure?

 

[PeterM]

DTR has some early analysis of the two bids down selected for Land 400ph3

https://t.co/b4xudODVM7?amp=1

 

[Stampede]

The Redback carries 8 and the Lynx 9, does this make a difference for the Army’s .org structure?

I guess the vehicles will be in service for a few decades and within that time, Army will trial / develop different structures based on both experience and trends.
A vehicle designed with space for 8 to 9 in the back future proofs the option of dismount numbers compared to a vehicle limited to just 6 + crew.
Six in the back for many nations army's IFV seem to be the popular construct ,but I wonder if this is based on economy or is it deemed the appropriate choice for Mech operations.
Either way extra space is always appreciated.
Both candidates I'm sure would be Stella vehicles and a quantum leap in capability form our current fleet of APC's
As to fire power, I would imagine both phases of Land 400 would have a common calibre canon
I'd prefer 40 mm for all types, but would suggest we have settled on 30 mm as standard across the wheeled / tracked fleet of vehicles.
Certainly Land 400 Phase 2 and 3 are a project of interest

Regards S

 

[buffy9]

DTR has some early analysis of the two bids down selected for Land 400ph3

https://t.co/b4xudODVM7?amp=1

A fair bit of information early on.

Lynx seems to hold the advantage of commonality with the Boxer CRV with Rheinmetall also having a growing presence in Australia (providing the MAN trucks particularly). While having the Lynx win and be built at the MILVEHCOE would provide a centralised and highly capable vehicle facility (closer to the combat BDEs as well), would giving Rheinmetall such a massive presence within defence cause future problems in terms of industry competition? Also would having such large numbers of vehicles built/maintained at the MILVEHCOE potentially make it viable for an MBT replacement in ~two decades time?

The Redback at a glance seems to hold less of an advantage, though it has interestingly targeted commonality with the K9 Thunder (as a likely contender for the PMF project) as well as the M1 Abrams, which is set to stay in service for a few decades yet at this stage. With the commitment to build PMF in Geelong, politics might favour the building of the Redback in the Geelong area in order to maintain that workforce. It may also increase future industry competition, establishing both Rheinmetall and Hanwha as significant defence corporations as opposed to a single, more monolithic Rheinmetall presence.

It should be a good competition with next gen tech also likely to be on show. It's probably going to be a long 24 months though...

As a side note, one cav guy I talked to had the idea of having an APC/IFV SQD actually being a part of the infantry battalion, in the same location and incorporated into the structure. He notes that while buckets may (barely) be operable by infantry, he states the future IFVs (especially with two man turrets) will be a whole different ball game.

 

[Massive]

As a side note, one cav guy I talked to had the idea of having an APC/IFV SQD actually being a part of the infantry battalion, in the same location and incorporated into the structure. He notes that while buckets may (barely) be operable by infantry, he states the future IFVs (especially with two man turrets) will be a whole different ball game.

Alternatively, make the IFV battalion - including dismounts - RAAC.

As there is going to be a dedicated mech inf battalion in the brigade structure I feel this may well make more sense.

Regards,

Massive

 

[buffy9]

Alternatively, make the IFV battalion - including dismounts - RAAC.

As there is going to be a dedicated mech inf battalion in the brigade structure I feel this may well make more sense.

Regards,

Massive

The concept I had was having an IFV SQD being a part of the battalion, albeit operated by actual RAAC personnel. The majority of the battalion would still be regular infantry, though the actual IFV SQD (if based on an APC SQD, will lift a battalion) would be operated and maintained in the same location by RAAC who are still a part of the battalion, just from a different corp.

He gave me a few food stories of broken M113s once they were handed back over to RAAC (for Plan Beersheba before they were given back to infantry for Plan Keogh) before also noting that a two man turret system is not an easy system to operate, especially for infantry who don't specialise in it. He also notes that an IFV SQD requires a lot of manpower and may not be doable by infantry who must also man their own full battalion - whilst also retaining more senior personnel.

This is one guy however. I like the idea and think it would work well with the mech battalions.

I'm curious how the RAAC IFV battalion would work. Would it be a separate role from 'rifleman' (i.e. Cav scout) or would infantry just move to RAAC once they finish the school of infantry? Or would they attend a new school in Pucka all together?

A dedicated "mech infantry" role sounds interesting but I am not sure it will work effectively.

 

[Massive]

I'm curious how the RAAC IFV battalion would work. Would it be a separate role from 'rifleman' (i.e. Cav scout) or would infantry just move to RAAC once they finish the school of infantry? Or would they attend a new school in Pucka all together?

Sorry buffy9 - the details would be for others I'm afraid.

That said, I would have though a separate role with specific training would be the right approach. Armoured Assault Trooper or similar.

Just a thought starter really.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Raven22]

The whole 'who crews the IFV?' problem is an interesting one, and it looks like it is coming full circle again. As was predicted by literally everyone, all the modelling and studies conducted since the infantry got the mechanised capability back as part of Plan KEOGH shows that the infantry can't possibly crew the IFVs using the current system - the individual training burden is simply too high. The amount of training soldiers and, particularly, NCOs would have to do just to get qualified would mean they would spend the majority of their time on course and not at their units. There is also the not un-expected fact that the aptitude of about half the soldiers in infantry don't meet the aptitude requirements for armoured vehicle crewmen, which would make the talent pool very shallow indeed.

The adults have taken control of the problem again, and there is a commitee set up looking holistically at how to crew the future suite of armoured vehicles (tank, CFV, IFV and armoured engineering vehicles). I think what is clear is that the current system wont, and can't, work. Nor is there any appetite to give the IFVs back to the ACRs. I think the solution will be either the infantry corps will split into two (a light stream and an armoured stream), or that the IFVs will be crewed with RAAC personnel embedded in the infantry battalions.

Creating an armoured infantry career stream will solve some of the problems, would be more palatable to the infantry than the alternative, and maintains the advantage that every soldier in a platoon can be employed as a dismounted infantryman if required. It doesn't solve the individual training burdern though - we would still be expecting every soldier to have the mounted skills of an RAAC soldier and the dismounted skills of an infantry soldier at the same time. That is a big ask.

I think the best solution will be embedding RAAC soldiers into the infantry battalions to crew the IFVs. This has the obvious advantage of the mounted experts doing the mounted thing while the dismounted experts do the dismounted thing. If, as is hoped, the CRV and IFV have a common turret, then you could more or less maintain a common career stream in the RAAC across both CFV and IFV, which would make the individual training burden much simpler. This solution has the obvious disadvantage though of making it very difficult to dismount the battalion. Each section would have only six infantrymen rather than nine, which is far less flexible than an all-RAInf battalion.

In this model I would recommend embedding the RAAC soldiers at the lowest practical level, rather than simply allocating an RAAC squadron to the battalion (as Buffy9 mentioned). Doing so wouldn't create he mutual trust necessary for mech infantry work, and would very much result in an 'us and them,' mentality, with an overworked RAAC OC doing all the corporate governance the battalion should be doing themselves. By embedding the RAAC soldiers at platoon level you would create mutual trust and force the cultural change necessary for a true combined arms team

It will be interesting to see what happens. My experience of trying to hand the buckets back to an infantry battalion as part of KEOGH were not positive, and I think it will take command intervention at the highest level to force through the necessary change.

 

[Raven22]

The down select of the Lynx and Redback surprised no-one, and I think it will be a very close contest. You are essentially pitting the capability, sustainemnt and training advantages of the Lynx against the industrial and political advantages of the Redback.

The Lynx has the seeming overwhelming advantage of commonality with the CFV. Having a common (or common enough) turret and systems would see massive savings in training and sustainment. Driver courses would need to remain separate, but you could have common gunner and commander courses for both vehicles. Essentially, crewmen would be dual qualified on CFV and IFV with perhaps only an additional week or so on each course. The flexibiity this would give both the RAAC and the combat brigade is huge. The sustainment savings are huge and obvious as well, as is the savings needed for upgrading the vehicles (as you would only need to upgrade one set of sytems, rather than two).

Compared to this, the Redbacks advantages are seemingly all above the level of Army. Choosing Redback allows the government to have created jobs in both Queensland and Victoria, which would be a big boon come election time. The industrial benefits are substantial as well - you would have two large companies heavily invested in Australia that you could play off against each other, rather than Rheinmetal having a bit of a monopoly. I think the Redback's mooted advantages of commonality with the K9/K10 are overstated though. The K9/K10 are very different vehicles used by different corps in different units and trained at different places, and there will only be ~45 of them compared to 211+ CFVs. I think the practical advantages would be quite minor.

With my armoured corps hat on, and as someone that will have to own the training and sustainment burden of whatever is chosen, I hope the Lynx wins. However, I think the political and industrial benefits of the Redback will win the day.

 

[buffy9]

This solution has the obvious disadvantage though of making it very difficult to dismount the battalion. Each section would have only six infantrymen rather than nine, which is far less flexible than an all-RAInf battalion.

Is the limit of six dismounts still an issue? Both contenders can carry eight dismounts which would be able to revert to some degree back to the eight man section with two four man bricks within. This would bring some allignment with the motorised battalion as (to my understanding) a PMV can carry an eight man section plus 1-2 crew.

This could mean more similar SOPs, as opposed to having two differently organised infantry battalions alltogether.

tank, CFV, IFV and armoured engineering vehicles).

Has the CRV begun to evolve into the CFV? It would make sense considering how quickly it can be modified.

 

[Raven22]

Is the limit of six dismounts still an issue? Both contenders can carry eight dismounts which would be able to revert to some degree back to the eight man section with two four man bricks within. This would bring some allignment with the motorised battalion as (to my understanding) a PMV can carry an eight man section plus 1-2 crew.

It's not an issue of what can fit in the back of the IFV, but simply the number of soldiers that exist. With Plan KEOGH, the section size has gone back to nine, regardless of how the section is employed. If the section is entirely dismounted, then clearly this means there are nine dismounts. If the section is PMV mounted, then there is one driver and an eight-man dismount element. For a future IFV section, there is the three-man crew and a six-man dismount element.

If the entire section remains RAInf, then clearly it is easier to swap between roles. For example, imagine if the Army wanted to send a mechanised battalion on some stabilisation mission somewhere in the pacific where IFVs weren't required. The entire battalion could be dismounted, and maintain its full capability with nine man sections. Now imagine a section with three RAAC crewman and six RAInf dismounts in that same scenario. As the entire section is not infantry you can't have the same dismounted capability. Essentially, having specialist IFV crew reduces flexbility.

Has the CRV begun to evolve into the CFV? It would make sense considering how quickly it can be modified.

Nope, that's just my fat fingers. Apparently I am not smart enough to distinguish between a CRV and IFV.

 

[Tasman]

With my armoured corps hat on, and as someone that will have to own the training and sustainment burden of whatever is chosen, I hope the Lynx wins. However, I think the political and industrial benefits of the Redback will win the day.

A bit like the MRH-90 Taipan winning out over the UH-60M Blackhawk perhaps!

Tas

 

[SteveR]

A bit like the MRH-90 Taipan winning out over the UH-60M Blackhawk perhaps!

Tas

I was working on the AIR 9000 Ph 2 bid back in 2003 and the Blackhawk on offer then was the UH-60L which did not have all the improvements of the UH-60M. Also the UH-60 was not really suitable for shipborne operations and as a main aim of AIR 9000 was to reduce ADF helicopter types i.e to replace both Sea King and UH-60A with one type to reduce support costs, the UH-60 was not that suitable.

 

[Tasman]

I was working on the AIR 9000 Ph 2 bid back in 2003 and the Blackhawk on offer then was the UH-60L which did not have all the improvements of the UH-60M. Also the UH-60 was not really suitable for shipborne operations and as a main aim of AIR 9000 was to reduce ADF helicopter types i.e to replace both Sea King and UH-60A with one type to reduce support costs, the UH-60 was not that suitable.

I hadn't realised that it was the UH-60L that was the Blackhawk on offer at the time the decision was made. I've always assumed it was the M!

Tas

 

[SteveR]

I hadn't realised that it was the UH-60L that was the Blackhawk on offer at the time the decision was made. I've always assumed it was the M!

Tas

Yes AIR 9000 Phase 2 was about quick procurement of 12 extra troop carrier helo's to supplement the existing understrength (~36) UH-60A fleet, but also to allow replacement of the ageing Sea Kings. The next phase (I cannot recall the #) was to extend that purchase to replace all Blackhawks with the same type as Phase 2. I looked up Janes All the World Aircraft 2010 and confirmed that in FY03 UH-60Ls were in full rate production for the US Army whereas a few UH-60Ms prototypes were were only just being ordered from remanufactured UH-60As. To meet ADF rapid delivery request with proven systems the only realistic Sikorsky option was the proven UH-60L which continued in full rate production until FY06 when ADF had hoped for initial delivery. Of course the MRH-90 delivery date promises were not met