Well that could be where my confusion is stemming from. Thanks for the info and clearing that up.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
With all due respect to those "poor dumb" Army types, if they can get their heads around UAV's, GBAD systems, the systems involved in M1A1 and ASLAV's (thermal imagers, day/night optical sights, laser range finders, blue force tracker etc), ground based surveillance radars etc, than I don't think current generation helo capabilities are beyond them.Yep, being serious now, choppers have developed from low tech battlefield airborne trucks to hi-tech pieces of machinery with full EW suites and all types of electro-optic sensors. It is a huge leap for Army to get their heads around and requires maintainers to be full time specialists and nothing else i.e. not manning piquets or some other stupid duty. I really think the choppers should come home to the RAAF where they belong.
Hooroo
I notice you haven't called for Navy's helo's to be returned to Air Force and they are at LEAST as advanced...
The transport and fire support helo's were transferred from RAAF to Army for a very good reason. I don't see any instances of Army being unable to handle their current and planned helo fleets.
I don't see too many 5 Aviation Regt maintainers being unable to perform their particular role due to other taskings...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The helo's are provided by a civilian contractor, what about the "dogs bodies" who have to wander about the bush looking for those who can't manage to maintain level flight???
ADGies would be perfect for such mindless tasks...
I agree with you that battlefield helos are best operated by the army, just as naval combat helos are best operated by the navy. However, as I said earlier I think the RAAF has a strong case for a number of combat SAR helos to operate in 'hot zones' to extract downed airmen as well as a few utility helos to work with the ADGies.
There are some 'grey' areas like who should operate transport helos from the navy's LHD's. To avoid duplication I think it is best for the army to operate helos that will go ashore with the troops and the navy to operate any that will remain on the LHD's. This might include a couple of utility MRH-90s which, in addition to shipboard tasks, would assist the army choppers in ship to shore transport, plus a couple of Seahawks for self defence.
Tas
Tasman, I think the obvious question is; Why fix something that's not broken?
I might agree if you were arguing that the RAAF should operate Tigers or attack choppers, as these are more likely to be used aggressively and possibly independantly. But really, Australia doesn't have many choppers to spare. I think I would be more than correct to say that the rotory wing of the army is used to support army operations. Therefore why not just leave the choppers in the army, under the same umbrella.
Edit: And why not just leave the choppers in the navy? Seems a lot simpler that way.
I might agree if you were arguing that the RAAF should operate Tigers or attack choppers, as these are more likely to be used aggressively and possibly independantly. But really, Australia doesn't have many choppers to spare. I think I would be more than correct to say that the rotory wing of the army is used to support army operations. Therefore why not just leave the choppers in the army, under the same umbrella.
Edit: And why not just leave the choppers in the navy? Seems a lot simpler that way.
You're missing the point AD. Look at your 60's technology UH-1H with mechanical flight controls and analogue cockpit and compare it to a Tiger or MRH-90 with glass cockpit, fly by wire, optical sensors and EW system. Its chalk and cheese, no comparison, its like comparing a tank to an aircraft. Especially a helicopter, with all those moving parts trying to thrash itself to bits while defying gravity. I never referred to my green friends as "dumb" just pointed out that it is a massive step to take going to such advanced A/C. Especially when you have no prior experience with maintaining or operating some of the more advanced systems. Building that deeper level maintenance and operational level maintenance culture from zero is quite a task. I am sure they will succeed.
Navy have always operated their own helo's and I see no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so. The decision to hand the helo's to Army was political, pure and simple. A study was carried out to see which service was better placed to maintain and operate, which found that the Air Force should carry on. However Beazley had it in his fat head that Army should operate them and that is what happened. If there was ever a "very good reason" I am yet to hear it. There have been both obvious and very public shortcomings in both Army and Navy's maintenance culture and effectiveness over the last 5 or so years. Someone who has their finger on the pulse like you obviously do, AD, will be well aware of what I am alluding to.
I am assuming that you are refering to deployed A/C when talking of ADGies in the CSAR role. Within Aust a SAR chopper would be manned by civilian flight crew and a RAAF medical team. Finding those that have departed from straight and level flight is not that hard. Just look for the smoke and the pilot will not be far away. As for deployed assets CSAR would most likely be provided by the USAF at the moment, it is a hole in the ADF's current capabilities. No-one, not even the mighty SF community, is properly equipped to carry it out. ADGies did not deploy in 2003 with the Hornets, base security was provided by USAF SF and RAF Regiment and CSAR by USAF. ADGies didn't have a role until we took over running Baghdad Airport.
Well I think that just about covers it, I don't seriously think the choppers will be transferred back(in fact rumour has it that Army were keen to give them back during the Blackhawk cracks fiasco in the early 90's but was turned down) I am not that niave or stupid. Just couldn't resist a bit of good old fashioned aussie s@*t stirring.
Hooroo
Navy have always operated their own helo's and I see no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so. The decision to hand the helo's to Army was political, pure and simple. A study was carried out to see which service was better placed to maintain and operate, which found that the Air Force should carry on. However Beazley had it in his fat head that Army should operate them and that is what happened. If there was ever a "very good reason" I am yet to hear it. There have been both obvious and very public shortcomings in both Army and Navy's maintenance culture and effectiveness over the last 5 or so years. Someone who has their finger on the pulse like you obviously do, AD, will be well aware of what I am alluding to.
I am assuming that you are refering to deployed A/C when talking of ADGies in the CSAR role. Within Aust a SAR chopper would be manned by civilian flight crew and a RAAF medical team. Finding those that have departed from straight and level flight is not that hard. Just look for the smoke and the pilot will not be far away.
As for deployed assets CSAR would most likely be provided by the USAF at the moment, it is a hole in the ADF's current capabilities. No-one, not even the mighty SF community, is properly equipped to carry it out. ADGies did not deploy in 2003 with the Hornets, base security was provided by USAF SF and RAF Regiment and CSAR by USAF. ADGies didn't have a role until we took over running Baghdad Airport. Well I think that just about covers it, I don't seriously think the choppers will be transferred back(in fact rumour has it that Army were keen to give them back during the Blackhawk cracks fiasco in the early 90's but was turned down) I am not that niave or stupid. Just couldn't resist a bit of good old fashioned aussie s@*t stirring.
Hooroo
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Me too... I got the point, but wondered if the Tiger and MRH-90 are really all that much of a leap over S-70A9 and CH-47D, for the pilots and maintainers?You're missing the point AD. Look at your 60's technology UH-1H with mechanical flight controls and analogue cockpit and compare it to a Tiger or MRH-90 with glass cockpit, fly by wire, optical sensors and EW system. Its chalk and cheese, no comparison, its like comparing a tank to an aircraft. Especially a helicopter, with all those moving parts trying to thrash itself to bits while defying gravity. I never referred to my green friends as "dumb" just pointed out that it is a massive step to take going to such advanced A/C. Especially when you have no prior experience with maintaining or operating some of the more advanced systems. Building that deeper level maintenance and operational level maintenance culture from zero is quite a task. I am sure they will succeed.
Navy have always operated their own helo's and I see no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so. The decision to hand the helo's to Army was political, pure and simple. A study was carried out to see which service was better placed to maintain and operate, which found that the Air Force should carry on. However Beazley had it in his fat head that Army should operate them and that is what happened. If there was ever a "very good reason" I am yet to hear it. There have been both obvious and very public shortcomings in both Army and Navy's maintenance culture and effectiveness over the last 5 or so years. Someone who has their finger on the pulse like you obviously do, AD, will be well aware of what I am alluding to.
I am assuming that you are refering to deployed A/C when talking of ADGies in the CSAR role. Within Aust a SAR chopper would be manned by civilian flight crew and a RAAF medical team. Finding those that have departed from straight and level flight is not that hard. Just look for the smoke and the pilot will not be far away.
Well I think that just about covers it, I don't seriously think the choppers will be transferred back(in fact rumour has it that Army were keen to give them back during the Blackhawk cracks fiasco in the early 90's but was turned down) I am not that niave or stupid. Just couldn't resist a bit of good old fashioned aussie s@*t stirring.
Hooroo
Doctrine wise with the Battle Captains etc, it's a complete revolution in Army Aviation capability and I think adapting to the new ways of fighting that these new capabilities will bring, will be the difficult part as opposed to coming to grips with the technology itself.
I can't speak for Army's aviation types, I rode in the Blackhawks and Iroquois's (5 Avn Regt and 1 Avn Regt operations) my fair share of times, however I never saw anything other than professionals who loved their kit.
Whether Air Force can maintain them better or not, I think is beside the point. Unless it can be demonstrated that Army is manifestly incapable of operating them and maintaining them, nothing's going to change. Particularly with the added expenditure that is going into Army Aviation at present and in coming years.
I think the Army POV is that the RAAF weren't always willing to do everything Army wished with helo support (in terms of flying to hot LZ's etc) and a few negative stories from Vietnam that were probably misquoted anyway had a lot to do with that...
Yes, whoever operates them is a moot point and in some respects the horse has well and truly bolted anyway. There is no way Army will give up control of its helo's. Army's complaints were well known and it was probably a case of whatever the RAAF could do for them was not enough. Stories of complaints from Vietnam?, really that is an insult to the courage and dedication of the men that crewed and flew them. I bet none of the diggers on the ground ever complained of the service they received from the RAAF. It was more like Beazley playing armchair General at the time, there was no good reason to transfer the helo's to Army other than that they would then come under Army's direct control.
Things may have come full circle anyway, I was talking to some Iroquois pilots just last year who were basically some Brigadeers taxi. They were telling us how they had flown this Brigs wife to Melbourne so she could go shopping!! This is not hearsay, they were very pissed off that this fat arsed brig (could bearly fit in the flying suit Ha Ha) was getting a Hornet ride and not them. Rank does have its privileges it seems.
Hooroo
Things may have come full circle anyway, I was talking to some Iroquois pilots just last year who were basically some Brigadeers taxi. They were telling us how they had flown this Brigs wife to Melbourne so she could go shopping!! This is not hearsay, they were very pissed off that this fat arsed brig (could bearly fit in the flying suit Ha Ha) was getting a Hornet ride and not them. Rank does have its privileges it seems.
Hooroo
I agree with you Brycec. I'm not arguing for removing any helos from army or navy control. What I am saying is that the RAAF could use its own choppers for roles that don't currently seem to be provided by the army such as combat SAR of downed pilots and helo support for ADGies. I'm not fussed by the second role because the army ought to be able to work with ADGies. Combat SAR, however, is a specialist role and the helos ought ideally be assigned to support RAAF combat aircraft not army units. This would be a new role within the ADF.
Tas
Hi Tas,
I agree the only way the RAAF are going to get back into the rotary wing game is by a new aquisition of A/C. I suppose it all depends on how seriously the ADF takes the CSAR role. There is a good case to develope a sqn for this role that would provide deployable assets and take over the current SAR role provided by civilian contractor. 12 ~ 14 MRH-90 fitted out for the role would do nicely, based at Amberley with dets in Tindal, Willy and Pearce. Other options would be MH-47 and CV-22, however for commonality MRH-90 would be the go.
Hooroo
I agree the only way the RAAF are going to get back into the rotary wing game is by a new aquisition of A/C. I suppose it all depends on how seriously the ADF takes the CSAR role. There is a good case to develope a sqn for this role that would provide deployable assets and take over the current SAR role provided by civilian contractor. 12 ~ 14 MRH-90 fitted out for the role would do nicely, based at Amberley with dets in Tindal, Willy and Pearce. Other options would be MH-47 and CV-22, however for commonality MRH-90 would be the go.
Hooroo
As the air combat force has rarely been deployed to a 'hot' situation during the last three decades it is probably not seen as a priority and for peacetime SAR the civilian contract is fine. If RAAF Hornets deploy to Afghanistan, however, I would like to see a dedicated CSAR detachment accompany them. I wouldn't want to be the pilot who came down behind Taliban lines unless the capability was there. Of course CSAR could be provided by the army or by allies but when our pilots' lives are at stake I would prefer to see the airforce with its own CSAR capability.
Tas
I see this a being highly likely(IMPO) once the HUG upgrades are complete, maybe even next year. ACG have been left on the sideline for a few years now, it would be good to see them take on a CAS role for our troops over there.
As for CSAR the problem is you can't just develope that capability overnight and deploy it. The SAR contract to civilians was a way to save money when times were tough and the problem with civilians is they aren't deployable. The cost of deploying civilians is more expensive than service personnel, this is why OLM of the Wedgetails and KC-30B's will be carried out by blue suiters. If the ADF was serious about CSAR then a sqn dedicated to the role is the only way with SAR duties at all fast jet bases as a secondary "bread and butter" role. The only other options are the current ad hoc measures or, as ever, relying on the USAF.
Hooroo
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
For some reason the Australia DoD has released images of a recent contact involving Australian forces and ACM (Anti-coalitin militia)
The footage can be downloaded from here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/images/gallery/20070905/RTF PL CONTACT WEB.wmv
and still images here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/images/gallery/20070905/index.htm
The footage can be downloaded from here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/images/gallery/20070905/RTF PL CONTACT WEB.wmv
and still images here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/images/gallery/20070905/index.htm
I think it is a good thing that these images have been released to the public, the general public need to see stuff like this to make them realise that this is real and our guys are on a two way range. Looks like a good result with the machine gun and AK-47 recovered, noticed no bodies were shown. BTW AD is it "normal" to have a patrol like this videoed?
Hooroo
Hooroo
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No.
I suspect Defence media were conducting a "ride along" and the platoon in question got ambushed to some degree and there wasn't time for the media people to "break contact"...
...on another note...just found out that 3RAR will be maintaining a Company group Parachute capability,in the same way that 6RAR maintained D-Coy as a para group. This really is forward thinking by the ADF, allowing for rapid expansion and keeping a traditional Para capability close to hand. Bear in mind that Comando /SF para roles are significantly different to airbourne infantry. It would be a waste of assests to make the SAS or 4RAR do a traditional infantry role after deployment by parachute.
What was funny about that video was when heavy fire came in the cameraman ducked down further while the platoon commander casually kept giving orders, the worlds calmest under fire and proud of it.OK, just keep your head down and keep filming.
Barra