MARKMILES77
Active Member
News | BAE Systems and ADF showcase autonomous vehicles for Australian Army | BAE Systems | Australia
Also might be useful converted to the tracked load carrier version carrying extra fuel, ammunition etc behind an IFV.
Also might be useful converted to the tracked load carrier version carrying extra fuel, ammunition etc behind an IFV.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Finding a new role for existing kit is a good outcome but I guess there is the cost issue involved. How much would the conversion to unmanned cost? Are there other newer platforms that could be converted that might offer additional benefits over the M113?
The point of converting the M113's to unmanned, is that they have only comparatively recently been upgraded and re-furbished - engines, drivetrains, armour etc.
So the vehicles are in good order.
Adding unmanned ability might well be a cheaper option
MB
Not aimed at any one in particular, be careful about the M113 APC autonomous vehicle discussion because if it heads into fantasyland stuff, us Mods don't like fantasyland stuff & it's also against the rules, so we get real twitchy. Green ink at the moment, but if pushed can soon change to the grumpy red.
Australian Army vet and VC winner Ben Roberts Smith has unloaded on ADF Brass on this mornings breakfast television.
He has complained that instead of looking after vets the Brass have instead massaged their own careers and he calls for a Royal Commission into vet suicide and VA generally.
He further suggests that this could be easily rectified by changing Army leadership.
He further calls for potential recruits to the ADF to carefully consider their options before joining up.
I found this outburst extraordinary from someone with such a public profile and highly respected by the public.
Does anyone have a back storey here? Has Roberts Smith got an issue with CDF Angus Campbell, both of them ex Special Forces?
Or maybe Roberts Smith is bitter about how the inquiry into civilian killings in Afghanistan is proceeding?
Whatever the issue it’s a bad look for all concerned.
He has complained that instead of looking after vets the Brass have instead massaged their own careers and he calls for a Royal Commission into vet suicide and VA generally.
He further suggests that this could be easily rectified by changing Army leadership.
He further calls for potential recruits to the ADF to carefully consider their options before joining up.
I found this outburst extraordinary from someone with such a public profile and highly respected by the public.
Does anyone have a back storey here? Has Roberts Smith got an issue with CDF Angus Campbell, both of them ex Special Forces?
Or maybe Roberts Smith is bitter about how the inquiry into civilian killings in Afghanistan is proceeding?
Whatever the issue it’s a bad look for all concerned.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
For those that haven't heard much about it or seen the article:
CONTACT 64
A fair amount of info in regards to Land 159. I was expecting a new small arms system, but it seems the project is far wider than just that. The project is aiming to provide entire systems as opposed to individual pieces of equipment. For example in regards to the sniper system (one of the systems to first be looked at and updated):
"Apart from a rifle and optics, each solution must include ammunition, ballistic computer, weather station, observation optics, threat-detection sensors, sniper suit, sniper shelter, personal cam net, sniper packs, special LBE - right on down to camouflage tape."
He is a bit critical of the program and gives his reasons. I'll let others read in depth but I'm inclined to agree that some of the requirements are a bit out of reach or "fantastical." I'm more concerned that units will start making it mandatory to start using a less suitable piece of kit (i.e. cam tape) rather than the more capable one people buy themselves.
CONTACT 64
A fair amount of info in regards to Land 159. I was expecting a new small arms system, but it seems the project is far wider than just that. The project is aiming to provide entire systems as opposed to individual pieces of equipment. For example in regards to the sniper system (one of the systems to first be looked at and updated):
"Apart from a rifle and optics, each solution must include ammunition, ballistic computer, weather station, observation optics, threat-detection sensors, sniper suit, sniper shelter, personal cam net, sniper packs, special LBE - right on down to camouflage tape."
He is a bit critical of the program and gives his reasons. I'll let others read in depth but I'm inclined to agree that some of the requirements are a bit out of reach or "fantastical." I'm more concerned that units will start making it mandatory to start using a less suitable piece of kit (i.e. cam tape) rather than the more capable one people buy themselves.
The latest edition of APDR is out today.
Many interesting articles, but as suggested on the front cover of this edition, some coverage of the ARH Tiger replacement.................or not.
Make of it what you like but a good read across a range of subjects.
Enjoy!
https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-dec-2019-jan-2020/flipbook/1/
Regards S
Many interesting articles, but as suggested on the front cover of this edition, some coverage of the ARH Tiger replacement.................or not.
Make of it what you like but a good read across a range of subjects.
Enjoy!
https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-dec-2019-jan-2020/flipbook/1/
Regards S
Just had a thought ref the Tiger interim replacement.
A type already in service or planned for service could be an option as an interim replacement for, or supplement to Tiger.
MRH is probably too large but a CSAR version could be suitable.
Romeo would likely not be suitable but Sierra could well fit the bill.
The AH-1Z would be a step backwards.
The AH-64E is both more complex and difficult to maintain than Tiger, while still being inferior in a number of areas.
An upgraded Tiger has its advantages but there are insufficient airframes to meet the stated requirement.
The AH-64E is both more complex and difficult to maintain than Tiger, while still being inferior in a number of areas.
An upgraded Tiger has its advantages but there are insufficient airframes to meet the stated requirement.
A type already in service or planned for service could be an option as an interim replacement for, or supplement to Tiger.
Whatever is selected as a light helicopter to support SOF in 6AVN comes to mind. The issue here would be lack of range and payload.
A version of another type in service could be suitable supplement to an upgraded Tiger, i.e. MRH or Romeo, with the type still being of use once the new generation of helo arrives in the 2030s.
MRH is probably too large but a CSAR version could be suitable.
Romeo would likely not be suitable but Sierra could well fit the bill.
IIRC you have 22 Tigers. Isn't the new requirement 29? You have 2 choices:
- Acquire 29 new build Tiger Blk III, Or
- Undertake an MLU on the current Tigers upgrading them to the Blk III standard and acquiring the required number of new build Blk 3 to bring the complement up to 29.
- However, IIRC from the article, they said that it would be better VfM to acquire new builds.
Airbus have already proposed a solution to meet the numerical requirement:
H145M purchase combined with Tiger upgrade to save $3 billion
Airbus offers upgraded Tiger + H145M for Land 4503 - Australian Defence Magazine
Last edited:
H145M lacks the range and payload required and is a contender for the SOF mission.
I was putting forward the MH-60S as it has significant commonality with the MH-60R and would be more suitable in an offensive role than the MRH.
Apache and Venom both have issues when compared to Tiger and the newer better stuff hasn't flown yet.
That's the issue, neither Apache or Venom is a step up from tiger and new build tigers are not on offer.
A fully marinised CSAR capable type with good sensors and a range of stand off weapons would be a good complement to Tiger through to life of type. It also works as a replacement for the RAN MRH fleet when Tiger is replaced, allowing the MRHs to bolster the 5AVN fleet through to MRH life of type.
Certainly merit in what you suggest re the MH-60S.
Extra Taipan's for the Army and significant numbers of the Sierra, would well serve both Army and Navy.
CSAR as mentioned, but just as importantly its a logistics truck and many other tasks.
I'm also open to the fact that the Arafura class may not just employ UAV's, but also carry a helicopter more times than what is currently envisaged.
Will see how that evolves over time, but should this eventuate the Sierra would be a good choice.
Something I found of interest in the APDR article was the suggestion that the US Army are committed to the Apaches out to 2060.
Regardless of our helicopter preferences, I would of thought a manned aircraft would have been made redundant within that time frame.
Anyway one to watch.
Regards S
In the comparison of the Tiger and Apache there was some mention of the differences in how they were operated ,the Apache in some respects may have been using stand off weapons like "Hellfire" and not being up and close with a 30ml ,I have read that later versions of the Tiger are to include laser guided rockets so its up to the operator for for how its to be used
there is more reading in this article suggesting other long term alternatives
Eye on the Tiger: A look at the Army's Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter to the 3 helicopters previosly mentioned
there is more reading in this article suggesting other long term alternatives
Eye on the Tiger: A look at the Army's Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter to the 3 helicopters previosly mentioned
Takao
The Bunker Group
Random quick points:
The AH-64A was significantly behind Tiger, with the AH-64D (minus Longbow) about the same. The AH-64E is a significant step forward.
The AH-1Z appears to be no real change to the aircraft that lost AIR 87 (twice....)
A MH-60S is a utility aircraft - and even a land-based MH-60R would be a poor choice. The requirement is for an ARH, and that's not what utility frames like the H-60 do. A purpose built platform is significantly better and more survivable (the proof in the pie, IMHO, being the Mi-28 / Ka-50 that were developed despite the Mi-24, partially in response to the size, weight and lack of manoeuvrability of the latter).
The first FVL platform will be an OH-58 replacement, and while the second one is due to be a UH-60 / AH-64 replacement, it'll focus on the former (with consequential mission compromises for the AH-64 replacement). I'd expect the US Army to hold on to AH-64 for as long as possible to minimise the risk of that gap opening; but 2060 is unlikely. I know there is commitment for the H-47 to 2060, but nothing about the AH-64 out that long. At a guess, I'd say no latter than 2040, maybe 2050.
Our Tigers use AGM-114 and laser-guided 70 mm. The biggest difference between AH-64 and Tiger when it came to Hellfire is that ours only fired one type while the AH-64's could fire two or three types (obviously the AGM-114L being restricted to Longbows). But that was a logistics decision relating to what ammunition types we wanted to hold, not a technical or design consideration. A Tiger (other than a UHT) can fire all Hellfire (minus the Lima).
CSAR is a mission, not a type. At this point, neither the RAAF nor the Army can do CSAR, not at least if someone is missing beyond ~50 nm. Do actually do CSAR requires significant investment in time and money and kit that isn't available nor needed at the moment.
There has been a significant amount of work within and across the Army, ADO and significant allies about the process by which uncrewed platforms replace crewed ones (obviously). Most results tend to show that the crewed attack helicopter will likely be one of the last to convert to purely uncrewed due to the flexibility and redundancy the crew provides. The use of uncrewed platforms to team with the crewed ones will be essential and increase the range, scope and survivabilityof the squishy meat bits - but it's more likely to have crewed ARH escorting uncrewed transports than the other way around first.
The AH-64A was significantly behind Tiger, with the AH-64D (minus Longbow) about the same. The AH-64E is a significant step forward.
The AH-1Z appears to be no real change to the aircraft that lost AIR 87 (twice....)
A MH-60S is a utility aircraft - and even a land-based MH-60R would be a poor choice. The requirement is for an ARH, and that's not what utility frames like the H-60 do. A purpose built platform is significantly better and more survivable (the proof in the pie, IMHO, being the Mi-28 / Ka-50 that were developed despite the Mi-24, partially in response to the size, weight and lack of manoeuvrability of the latter).
The first FVL platform will be an OH-58 replacement, and while the second one is due to be a UH-60 / AH-64 replacement, it'll focus on the former (with consequential mission compromises for the AH-64 replacement). I'd expect the US Army to hold on to AH-64 for as long as possible to minimise the risk of that gap opening; but 2060 is unlikely. I know there is commitment for the H-47 to 2060, but nothing about the AH-64 out that long. At a guess, I'd say no latter than 2040, maybe 2050.
Our Tigers use AGM-114 and laser-guided 70 mm. The biggest difference between AH-64 and Tiger when it came to Hellfire is that ours only fired one type while the AH-64's could fire two or three types (obviously the AGM-114L being restricted to Longbows). But that was a logistics decision relating to what ammunition types we wanted to hold, not a technical or design consideration. A Tiger (other than a UHT) can fire all Hellfire (minus the Lima).
CSAR is a mission, not a type. At this point, neither the RAAF nor the Army can do CSAR, not at least if someone is missing beyond ~50 nm. Do actually do CSAR requires significant investment in time and money and kit that isn't available nor needed at the moment.
There has been a significant amount of work within and across the Army, ADO and significant allies about the process by which uncrewed platforms replace crewed ones (obviously). Most results tend to show that the crewed attack helicopter will likely be one of the last to convert to purely uncrewed due to the flexibility and redundancy the crew provides. The use of uncrewed platforms to team with the crewed ones will be essential and increase the range, scope and survivabilityof the squishy meat bits - but it's more likely to have crewed ARH escorting uncrewed transports than the other way around first.
I'm aware the Sierra is not an attack helo but was looking outside the square and what it could bring to the ADF, intially supporting the Tiger as the UH-1Y supports the AH-1Z. Also aware that CSAR is a mission and that the ADF doesn't currently conduct it, using contracted civilian SAR support instead.
My thinking is the Tiger "replacement" is actually a legacy of the poor initial performance of the contract, including under estimating the number of airframes required. Things have moved on and Tiger is performing well, but the lack of sufficient airframes remains an issue.
As I see it giving Tiger a MLU would be the best value for money but that leaves the fact there are only 22 of them, meaning a supplement is required. Airbus are pushing a light attack / scout option for this, while I see a more combat capable, flexible and longer ranged type would be a better fit.
Lynx Wildcat would be a great supplement to Tiger, but it would introduce a completely new supply chain and support structure. The Sierra in the other hand has high levels of commonality with Romeo and could slot straight into the FAA as an MRH replacement once the Tigers long-term replacement comes on line.
So why wouldn't a Tiger MLU of the existing airframes plus the acquisition of additional airframes solve the problem, without creating the need for another completely different supply chain, training regime, parts inventory, support apparatus, support personnel etc etc?
Go with the simplest solution
It usually works
MB
I'm not sure a supplement would cut it. The entire reasoning for 29 aircraft is to sustain two squadrons able to deploy one at a time and still have your training aircraft. Sticking to 22 aircraft wont allow for this thus the entire army plan is thrown out the window and will be forced back to the drawing board. It would be like the Army giving a requirement for ie: 70 tanks but rather getting 55 tanks and 15 ASLAV's. Just doesnt work.
Now while it would be cost prohibitive for the ADF to new build just 7 aircraft and perhaps even 29 as I understand it Germany may have some spare with there fleet being cut back to 51 Tigers. Thats 14 surplus Tigers that while likely needing a full rebuild just ripe for a quick buy.
Now while it would be cost prohibitive for the ADF to new build just 7 aircraft and perhaps even 29 as I understand it Germany may have some spare with there fleet being cut back to 51 Tigers. Thats 14 surplus Tigers that while likely needing a full rebuild just ripe for a quick buy.