Not sure this fits under Australian army But would be of interest here I think? Germany looking into purchasing Aussie built Boxers. Germany to possibly buy large number of Boxer armored vehicles made in Australia | Defense News March 2023 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2023 | Archive News year
Don’t agree one bit I am afraid and if your ‘smoking gun’ is Army choosing Taipan, then think again.
Army didn’t. John Howard did…
Army recommended Blackhawk, but was over-ruled.
What missions would RAAF fly with those aircraft do you suppose that Army wouldn’t, just out of interest? You routinely see Army flying disaster relief in support of other agencies. Besides direct support to them and Army what mission exactly does RAAF have for these aircraft?
Modern helicopters certainly are complex machines. I wonder how much more complex than Abrams tanks, Boxer CRV, networked air defence systems and so on, though?
Last edited:
Hello ADMk2.
Yep, I too understand that it was a political D by the Liberals. Then again, RAAF got F-18A/F/G, F-35, MC-55A, P-8, Triton, E-7A, KC-30A ... because of good Staff Work and resisting political Ds; some MOTS and some not. They also got C-27J b/c 'it's better than nothing' as a purely political D by ALP during a dry procurement period (ah, Mr Smith; prosecutor-general v ADFA); my point is that when it was a critical procurement, which presumably ARH/MRH was and Spartan is not, then Air had the with-all to fight for it.
You forgot to mention that it was purely bloody-minded Army politics and ignorance that caused this. Bugger the fact that it took decades to regain lost capability and that Air Power is best utilised via centralisation.
Msn's besides local civil spt and direct Army: Air Mobility; SAR; VLR insert; AAR receiver; JPR/CSAR; EW; Communications/Relay; ISR; SEAD/DEAD; Interdiction; CT; Counter-Drone; Counter-helo
A lot; noting that only the simple M1A2 is currently in service
Yep, I too understand that it was a political D by the Liberals. Then again, RAAF got F-18A/F/G, F-35, MC-55A, P-8, Triton, E-7A, KC-30A ... because of good Staff Work and resisting political Ds; some MOTS and some not. They also got C-27J b/c 'it's better than nothing' as a purely political D by ALP during a dry procurement period (ah, Mr Smith; prosecutor-general v ADFA); my point is that when it was a critical procurement, which presumably ARH/MRH was and Spartan is not, then Air had the with-all to fight for it.
You forgot to mention that it was purely bloody-minded Army politics and ignorance that caused this. Bugger the fact that it took decades to regain lost capability and that Air Power is best utilised via centralisation.
Msn's besides local civil spt and direct Army: Air Mobility; SAR; VLR insert; AAR receiver; JPR/CSAR; EW; Communications/Relay; ISR; SEAD/DEAD; Interdiction; CT; Counter-Drone; Counter-helo
A lot; noting that only the simple M1A2 is currently in service
Yes we get it, the RAAF are perfect, everyone else is a numpty.
Rant time.
Reality check, while the RAAF has some absolutely brilliant people, the other services do as well, and while I have encountered some absolute drop kicks from army, navy and civilian back grounds, the RAAF often takes the cake.
What the RAAF have is a level of institutionalised, delusional arrogance I have never encountered anywhere else. Total certainty that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Passive aggressive superiority bred from inferiority.
Yes their staff work is fantastic, that's how so many dumb arse defence decisions have gotten over the line, they are sold by RAAF staff work. This is actually taught in some post grad studies I have done and has its origins in the RAAFs and RAFs early years and their struggle for survival.
The RAAF has had a succession of procurement blunders, basically every program they have had, that wasn't FMS, has faced major, unanticipated hurdles. But then, that's where staff work comes in, it probably should be called PR and marketing.
I have encountered more blind conservatism and bloody minded refusal to fix obvious problems in aviation, in particular RAAF than anywhere else. I have seen more work arounds and refusal to acknowledge that they are workarounds. I have seen more refusals to follow procedure and use new tools correctly, to adapt and change than anywhere else.
You only need to look at how stressed and over worked their competent people are to realise the organisation has issues.
Oh final note, I have personally witnessed more bullying, harrassment and victimisation by RAAF and ex RAAF personnel than any other group. Considering I have spent far more time working with army and navy, that says something.
Volks, no worries for ranting. Its good for us apparently. In some ways I agree with what you say from my own experiences which do match with some of your descriptions. I laugh again at the assumption of what I said is that RAAF is perfect. I specifically said it is not. On leaving, my biggest takeaway was that RAAF needed to double its personnel for any number of resilience reasons.
However, this is a helo/LAND thread. As before, I am suggesting that air power efficiency would dictate a particular approach. I also mentioned that Army is far from blame.
Cheers.
However, this is a helo/LAND thread. As before, I am suggesting that air power efficiency would dictate a particular approach. I also mentioned that Army is far from blame.
Cheers.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Air power is being centralised for Army and Navy within Aviation Command and Fleet Air Arm respectively. Yes its not all under single service, but these are arguably necessary tradeoffs in order to provide the most prepared (not necessarily most efficient) rotary-winged force for their requirements. Each is informed by land and sea power SMEs and can contribute to that goal with less overhead/single-service beaucracy.
Attempting to reorganise aviation under RAAF now would imho be a distraction. Aviation works now; attempting to move it all back under RAAF (with no or little helicopter experience) would induce years of inefficiency that really doesn't add or help anything. (Especially when time isn't in enormous supply).
Instead of trying to place entire units or commands back under single services just after we got them working, we should embrace what is meant to be a Joint Force and just work to achieve the endstate in the most efficient manner possible. Its less about the unit and structure and more about the people running the show and whether they are working ('integrating') with one another.
Last edited:
God, indeed. I prefer Richard Williams over Trenchard for a bit of local flavour but then I see some still believe in tradition over meritocracy. Big guns and the Light Horse all around and bugger technology!
In the interests of O' Jointiness, the threat, and not being a little beeich, how about we concentrate on making things better for the ADF.
In the interests of O' Jointiness, the threat, and not being a little beeich, how about we concentrate on making things better for the ADF.
At the risk of being too pedantic here, but it wasn't John Howard who overrulled Army, it was the almost completely forgotten Defence Minister Robert Hill (Defence Minister 2001-06). IT was Robert Hill that discarded Army preference for UH-60M and selected the NH-90 Tactical Transport Helicopter for Air 9000 2 (Additional Battlefield Mobility) due in part to its Australian industrial content. Very expensive and painful decision indeed. He also signed off on Tiger, but Army could have been forgiven for that as we did not understand how difficult it was to deal with the French military industrial complex at that stage.
Stanley Gobell all the way, he was in favour of a separate fleet air Arm, understood tactical air power and while on exchange to the RAF, commanded a Group larger than the entirety of the RAAF of the time.
Interesting you mention the Light Horse as the war time commander of the Light Horse, Harry Chauvel was a keen proponent of motorisation, mechanisation, air power and combined arms.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
As an aside, after the recent cyclone the RNZAF was able to provide 4 NH-90s immediately after the event and a 5th after 24 hours. How long that was sustainable I’m uncertain. But I was impressed. The Seasprite not so much, they had one deployed on Canterbury and were able to sortie 1 more over the next few days.
The politicians did not choose NH-90 over Blackhawk. That was what the Department recommended. No politician had be en involved at that point. As a result of the Air 9000 approach, they were also choosing a Sea King replacement so Navy, as well as Army, was part of the recommendation, although the Army requirement set was the more extensive.
Last edited:
Robert Hill refered to himself as the Minister assisting the Prime Minister of Defence. He was very much sidelined when defence became the key political issue of the day.
He was also part of the SA mafia, Hill, Downer and Minchin, Defence, Foreign Affairs and Finance all SA. Flash forward to the Abbott years, Johnston, Bishop, and Corman, all WA, see a pattern.
And the 3 not deployed? I mean, deploy 4 for disaster relief in Vanuatu, and you only have 4 at home, with floods,earthquakes and who knows what, Godzilla?
It's good that NZ can get the serviceability of the NH90 at a high rate, you have a 9th to cannibalise, but with a small fleet, NZ should be able to achieve that to. So if you had a fleet of 24, you would need 27. 48 and you would need 54 airframes to do that. Australia had a fleet of 46.
I found this an interesting commitment from Birdon re LAND8710 Phase 1A - Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium (LMV-M).
It's one thing to have some plans and make a model, but building an actual vessel just in the hope that you get the gig shows commitment and suggest confidence.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
At 50m in length this is quite a large vessel compared to what's publicly available re the other three contenders.
Having seen up close the two Land 400 phase 3 contenders the other day you really get to appreciate the massive size of these vehicles up close. Redback and Lynx are basically a house on tracks!!!!!!!!!!
If Army want to move there future fleets of vehicles around the coast then the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium (LMV-M) will need some serious capacity to lift weight and volume.
Trust this project gets the support needed to deliver capability to Army ASAP.
Cheers S
It's one thing to have some plans and make a model, but building an actual vessel just in the hope that you get the gig shows commitment and suggest confidence.
Keel laid for new class of Army landing craft - APDR
A keel-laying ceremony took place recently at Henderson in Western Australia for the prototype of a new class of military landing craft specifically designed for the Australian Army to rapidly deploy crew and vehicles across the Indo-Pacific.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
At 50m in length this is quite a large vessel compared to what's publicly available re the other three contenders.
Having seen up close the two Land 400 phase 3 contenders the other day you really get to appreciate the massive size of these vehicles up close. Redback and Lynx are basically a house on tracks!!!!!!!!!!
If Army want to move there future fleets of vehicles around the coast then the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium (LMV-M) will need some serious capacity to lift weight and volume.
Trust this project gets the support needed to deliver capability to Army ASAP.
Cheers S
Another 255 Javelin missiles on the way for Army, did we end up sending any Javelin's to Ukraine, I know they were on the cards, not sure what we did or did not send ?
Cheers
Cheers
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Javelin Joint Venture finishes production of first F-Model missile (army-technology.com)Another 255 Javelin missiles on the way for Army, did we end up sending any Javelin's to Ukraine, I know they were on the cards, not sure what we did or did not send ?
Cheers
It is actually an upgrade to the latest FGM-148F missile, which only entered service in 2020.
Much has been posted about the problems experienced by Army Aviation re the NH 90 and comparisons made with our friends across the ditch on the same subject.
This report seems to put to bed many myths and it seems the Taipans have Oz achieved many more flight ours than many other users.
However, it seems cost is the driving factor and Army can reduce cost by 2/3rds by changing to Blackhawk
www.defenceconnect.com.au
This report seems to put to bed many myths and it seems the Taipans have Oz achieved many more flight ours than many other users.
However, it seems cost is the driving factor and Army can reduce cost by 2/3rds by changing to Blackhawk
Exclusive: MAJGEN King sets record straight on Black Hawk acquisition
MAJGEN Jeremy King, outgoing Head of Land Capability at the Department of Defence, sits down with Defence Connect’s Liam Garman to dispel the myths surrounding the Australian Army’s acquisition