Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

What do people feel the appropriate numbers of CH-47s would be? I am personally trending towards a total of 12-14 helicopters. This would allow for 3-4 to be in for maintenance at any given time, 2-3 to be away on deployment, and the rest available for training use as well as a deployment surge if needed. I do understand that given the current budgetary/financial situation one should not expect the number to increase, at least not right away, but how viable would it be for a gradual increase in numbers with perhaps one aircraft added every 18 months to two years?

-Cheers

Possible to get more then 1-2 every 18mths if they are selected to replace the caribou. Adding numbers and then bringing in new aircraft is pain in the rear for defence to put to treasury and Govt. so by saying "we will save by getting more chooks" you can add what you need. 12-14 would give a better number for rotations and work, plus possibility of 3 deployed means more maintance in theatre is available compared to just 2.

 

[Todjaeger]

Possible to get more then 1-2 every 18mths if they are selected to replace the caribou. Adding numbers and then bringing in new aircraft is pain in the rear for defence to put to treasury and Govt. so by saying "we will save by getting more chooks" you can add what you need. 12-14 would give a better number for rotations and work, plus possibility of 3 deployed means more maintance in theatre is available compared to just 2.

True, if the CH-47 is the DHC-4 Caribou replacement. It still could end up being the CN-235, the C-295 or C-27J though...

The reason I mentioned getting 1-2 every 18 months though was I had gotten the impression from GF that Government was opposed to any additional kit being ordered aside from what has already been placed or will be ordered to replace existing kit. Thus no 4th AWD, additional Tiger ARH, etc.

From what I recall it had already been decided to have the 6 CH-47Ds sent back to the US to be upgraded and/or replaced with 7 CH-47F+, to incorporate some of the elements found in US Army MH-47 Chinooks. Assuming this contract with Boeing has not already been signed, it might (emphasis on might) be possible to include options for additional aircraft. This could potentially give Government/the ADF enough flexibility to slowly expand the Chinook fleet. Given their sole position as the ADF heavy lift helicopter, their usefulness in that role, as well as the limited number in inventory, such an expansion would IMO be a good thing. Whether or not it is possible or palatable to Government is another story...

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

We need more Chinooks. 12-14 is a realistic number but is still small for the requirement and compared to many other comparible forces (Singapore eg). 18 would be a much healthier number.

We are aquiring a number of items that can only be effectively moved around by the Chinooks. On the LHD I think the chinooks will be further invaluable (being the heaviest lift aircraft that can operate from it). RAA and RAN might work together on that one. Afg has demonstrated why its important for Australia to have this capability and not rely on others (as there is a shortage NH-90 or Blackhawk would really struggle to move any artillary (even lighter ones) at mountainous altitudes esp in a conflict zone).

There is some scope under AIR 8000 to possibly provide part funding. It would also be a very low risk buy as we have operated them for decades, so do all our allies and we are definately shorter than we should be in numbers, even if Air 8000 wants something like a 27J.

Australia Ordering CH-47F Chinooks

April 13/09: The USA’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces Australia’s official request for 7 CH-47F CHINOOK Helicopters with 14 (2 per aircraft) T55-GA-714A Turbine engines, 7 Dillon Aero M134D 7.62mm Miniguns, 16 AN/ARC-201D Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radios (SINCGARS), 7 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below Blue Force Trackers (FBCB2/BFT), 2 spare T-55-GA-714A Turbine engines, plus mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, ground support equipment, spare and repair parts, special tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $560 million, but a DSCA request is not a contract.

So I would assume someone is definately thinking about it (as Todjaeger suggested). Is it replacement or additional? Im sure the RAAF thinks we need the 27J, but honestly that is something I think we could hold out on if we must, with the Hercs, KC-30A we have and the C-17 we are doing okay in fixed wing lift for now. With current deployments now would we be even able to move a 777 today in Australia to a remote unairfielded/unroaded location?!

 

[Aussie Digger]

So I would assume someone is definately thinking about it (as Todjaeger suggested). Is it replacement or additional? Im sure the RAAF thinks we need the 27J, but honestly that is something I think we could hold out on if we must, with the Hercs, KC-30A we have and the C-17 we are doing okay in fixed wing lift for now. With current deployments now would we be even able to move a 777 today in Australia to a remote unairfielded/unroaded location?!

1. The M777A2 guns will be air-drop capable from C-130J-30, C-17 aircraft and probably whatever airlifter eventually replaces the Caribou (C-27J etc) and word on the street is that a rifle company from 3RAR and A Battery will be keeping their parachute qualifications...

2. Gun tractors are not restricted to roads...

 

[Marc 1]

Possible to get more then 1-2 every 18mths if they are selected to replace the caribou. Adding numbers and then bringing in new aircraft is pain in the rear for defence to put to treasury and Govt. so by saying "we will save by getting more chooks" you can add what you need. 12-14 would give a better number for rotations and work, plus possibility of 3 deployed means more maintance in theatre is available compared to just 2.

Hmm, sort of 'acquisition by stealth' - add one here and there LOL.

How many Ch-47C's did we operate before we traded them in on the D's, was it 11? I'd see around 11 or 12 to be a good number.

GF, yes, the M777 will be airdroppable, but that may not be of much use in Afg where the Arty is operating from firebases. You cannot extract a 155 from a firebase using fixed wing unless there is a runway available. Dragging things out by road judging by the reports on convoys in Afg doesn't sound too promising either. More Ch-47's please!

As an aside the Osprey is supposed to be able to carry a 6800kg slung load, the M777 is supposed to weigh 3175kg's - both figures are probably optimistic (gun heavier, CV-22 probably able to lift a lot less in hot and high conditions), but would the CV-22 be useful to carry the M777's about? Could a purchase of CV-22's be a better bet than more CH-47's? More speed and range than a CH-47, still retaining the ability to vertical land (better than the 'bou's legendary STOL capabilities). Immediately, of course this would mean adding another eggbeater airframe (or could it be considered a fixed wing replacing the 'bou?) - and the policy is to reduce the large number of different types... but... Thoughts anybody?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hmm, sort of 'acquisition by stealth' - add one here and there LOL.

How many Ch-47C's did we operate before we traded them in on the D's, was it 11? I'd see around 11 or 12 to be a good number.

GF, yes, the M777 will be airdroppable, but that may not be of much use in Afg where the Arty is operating from firebases. You cannot extract a 155 from a firebase using fixed wing unless there is a runway available. Dragging things out by road judging by the reports on convoys in Afg doesn't sound too promising either. More Ch-47's please!

As an aside the Osprey is supposed to be able to carry a 6800kg slung load, the M777 is supposed to weigh 3175kg's - both figures are probably optimistic (gun heavier, CV-22 probably able to lift a lot less in hot and high conditions), but would the CV-22 be useful to carry the M777's about? Could a purchase of CV-22's be a better bet than more CH-47's? More speed and range than a CH-47, still retaining the ability to vertical land (better than the 'bou's legendary STOL capabilities). Immediately, of course this would mean adding another eggbeater airframe (or could it be considered a fixed wing replacing the 'bou?) - and the policy is to reduce the large number of different types... but... Thoughts anybody?

A Bushmaster will be able to tow an M777 and carry the gun crew. Are Bushmasters not safe enough on Afghanistan roads?

My god, the RTF is in mortal danger!!! (Just jokes)...

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, yes, the M777 will be airdroppable, but that may not be of much use in Afg where the Arty is operating from firebases.

I think you might mean AD.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Could a purchase of CV-22's be a better bet than more CH-47's? More speed and range than a CH-47, still retaining the ability to vertical land (better than the 'bou's legendary STOL capabilities). Immediately, of course this would mean adding another eggbeater airframe (or could it be considered a fixed wing replacing the 'bou?) - and the policy is to reduce the large number of different types... but... Thoughts anybody?

The V-22 are attractive. I could see them being very useful off the LHD for a variety of missions and in our region where island hopping etc may mean greater distance coverage over open water than helos would normally perform. Any vids of a V-22 moving a USMC M777?

But I don't think Australia really has the need for them or have them in significant numbers. I don't know how they compare to costs to a Chinook. While the Osprey can carry a useful load, the Chinooks can carry more, are more proven, fit in with our existing fleet and training. We had ~12 before, when we had the bous as well, they don't have to be exclusive of each other.

Are Bushmasters not safe enough on Afghanistan roads?

I would say survivable not safe. When you start moving arty around of road I think you will make yourself a very good target because IED are going to have a greater effect slowing down or disabling artillary instead of merely hassling patrols and supply convoys. Afghanistan doesn't have the best road network reaching high into mountains where it would be ideal to place artillary. PNG also doesn't exactly excel in road networks either. Nor are bushmasters going to be quick covering mountainous/muddy ground in case of movement or withdrawal. Nor can bushmasters directly deploy from the LHD amphibiously, we are then moving them out the dock with trucks, tanks, APC's, SPA, or amoungst islands in the pacific etc.

The argument for Chinooks goes beyond moving 777's around.

 

[icelord]

Hmm, sort of 'acquisition by stealth' - add one here and there LOL.

Sir Humphrey would be proud!

As an aside the Osprey is supposed to be able to carry a 6800kg slung load, the M777 is supposed to weigh 3175kg's - both figures are probably optimistic (gun heavier, CV-22 probably able to lift a lot less in hot and high conditions), but would the CV-22 be useful to carry the M777's about? Could a purchase of CV-22's be a better bet than more CH-47's? More speed and range than a CH-47, still retaining the ability to vertical land (better than the 'bou's legendary STOL capabilities). Immediately, of course this would mean adding another eggbeater airframe (or could it be considered a fixed wing replacing the 'bou?) - and the policy is to reduce the large number of different types... but... Thoughts anybody?

I would love to see Aus be the first export of the Osprey, but that will never happen. They would need none to crash, be shot down or having maintanence bugs...(nvm on that last one-seasprites>?) but basically, the Govt. of the day would be way too scared to buy a platform thats copped so much flak at any stage. Critics would be swinging from the rooftops even if its proven, "citing the first flight or 5th one after a oil leak" of the prototypes. As stingray said they are nice and all, but we have proven airframes we can increase the numbers of rather then a whole new line of aircraft and capability, not to mention training for VTOL. off the LHD would be ideal as the americans are planning with their LHDs to carry V22 for Marine forces, the V22 would give a beyond the horizon option which would reduce the risk of placing a ship in hostile waters, or even allowing further infield of the target nation. giving much larger range over a helo. But hell will have to freeze over and the bunnies will need to win a Grand Final before that happens

 

[mickk]

Too much jungle in our AO if war came, too much civilian relief other times, better off with choppers IMO.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would say survivable not safe. When you start moving arty around of road I think you will make yourself a very good target because IED are going to have a greater effect slowing down or disabling artillary instead of merely hassling patrols and supply convoys. Afghanistan doesn't have the best road network reaching high into mountains where it would be ideal to place artillary. PNG also doesn't exactly excel in road networks either. Nor are bushmasters going to be quick covering mountainous/muddy ground in case of movement or withdrawal. Nor can bushmasters directly deploy from the LHD amphibiously, we are then moving them out the dock with trucks, tanks, APC's, SPA, or amoungst islands in the pacific etc.

The argument for Chinooks goes beyond moving 777's around.

I'm not arguing against the notion that we need Chinooks, clearly we do and the more the better but the points you are raising are countered by reality.

1. We do not have Chinooks or artillery in Afghanistan in direct support of Australian forces. Therefore we have precisely NO need to move any artillery capability.

2. The Chinooks that we deploy to Afghanistan join the multi-national pool of helicopters and are not soley engaged in supporting Australian forces.

3. How often are towed artillery pieces moved from fire support bases in Afghanistan? Unless you know that, you cannot with any reliability argue against a particular method of moving an artillery piece. Do you think that movements of force critical platforms are telegraphed to the enemy? Do you not think that the movement of an artillery piece would not occur with an escort? Route clearance is a principal task of armoured forces in Afghanistan, along with engineers. Any movements will be cleared as best as is possible.

Some Australian Bushmaster vehicles have been struck by IED in Afghanistan. Some special operations vehicles too. How many engineer plant vehicles have been hit though? They are too heavy to be moved by helo and must rely on transporters and yet how many have been hit by IED?

4. Australian forces are supported by a mix of self-propelled guns (Dutch PZH-2000) and towed guns. The PZH-2000 cannot be airlifted by ANY helicopter and are at risk from IED's. Apparently the threat is considered safe enough to move these though the region. Is the loss of an M777 worse than the loss of a PZH-2000?

Bushmasters and towed artillery are at risk from IED? Chinooks are at risk from direct and indirect ground fire. The maker of defensive IR systems the other day was boasting of how a Chinook fitted with same managed to fend off multiple ground launched SAM's. Is that a risk you are willing to take for Australia's precious few Chinooks?

A Chinook is a force critical platform. It deserves and is afforded the greatest amount of force protection that Army can provide it. A single towed artillery piece is not as critical.

A shot down Chinook is a FAR greater loss than a Bushmaster or even an M777A2 from an IED threat. For all the talk about air movement of artillery, by far the greatest amount of movements of these pieces happens by gun tractor.

Where appropriate, air movement or air drop will occur. Overwhelmingly however, ground movement will be used, simply because there is insufficient tactical air transport available and it is much more efficient and cost effective to do it by gun tractor.

 

[riksavage]

Aus should stick with the tried and tested Chinook, Osprey is expensive to buy and maintain and is still going through teething problems. The great thing about Chinook is it's all things to all men - long range, great load carrying ability and very quick. It is the workhouse of Afghanistan delivering everything but the kitchen sink. One of the main issues with Osprey is its tremendous downdraft, I would hate to try and exit / enter one in an arid, dusty environment - brownouts everytime! Plus you can get knocked on your ass if you enter the rear ramp at the wrong angle by the shear force of the rotors.

The PZH-2000 or equivelent will be there to support the M1's creating a true heavy armoured brigade capable of rapid deployment. With the world caught up asymmetrical warfare the need for mobile lighter artillery is of greater need. Most FOB's in A-Stan now have indigenous light guns in direct support, some crewed by Aussie gunners. The M777 is ideal for this role, particularly if combined with guided artillery rounds and co-located with 81mm or 120mm mortars. If cash became tight I would opt for increased numbers of M777's over PZH-2000's in the short term based on the current threat to Aussie interests

I wonder if it would be feasible to fire a battery of M777's from an anchored LHP in calm weather?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Aus should stick with the tried and tested Chinook, Osprey is expensive to buy and maintain and is still going through teething problems. The great thing about Chinook is it's all things to all men - long range, great load carrying ability and very quick. It is the workhouse of Afghanistan delivering everything but the kitchen sink. One of the main issues with Osprey is its tremendous downdraft, I would hate to try and exit / enter one in an arid, dusty environment - brownouts everytime! Plus you can get knocked on your ass if you enter the rear ramp at the wrong angle by the shear force of the rotors.

The PZH-2000 or equivelent will be there to support the M1's creating a true heavy armoured brigade capable of rapid deployment. With the world caught up asymmetrical warfare the need for mobile lighter artillery is of greater need. Most FOB's in A-Stan now have indigenous light guns in direct support, some crewed by Aussie gunners. The M777 is ideal for this role, particularly if combined with guided artillery rounds and co-located with 81mm or 120mm mortars. If cash became tight I would opt for increased numbers of M777's over PZH-2000's in the short term based on the current threat to Aussie interests

I wonder if it would be feasible to fire a battery of M777's from an anchored LHP in calm weather?

Cash is tight for Australia, but we will be acquiring both M777A2 and a new self propelled gun (either PZH-2000 or K9 Thunder) for our artillery replacement project. Government has already decided not to go down the route of a larger towed artillery force and instead taken the more expensive route of SPG/towed artillery.

As to firing M777 from LHD, I doubt it. But it may be possible to fire them from C-27J Spartans at some point in the future...

 

[ddub321]

As to firing M777 from LHD, I doubt it. But it may be possible to fire them from C-27J Spartans at some point in the future...

I did hear some rumours (can't remember where) about a possible AC-130 style capability for the ADF on the 'wish list'.

Perhaps this could eventuate?

 

[mickk]

I did hear some rumours (can't remember where) about a possible AC-130 style capability for the ADF on the 'wish list'.

Perhaps this could eventuate?

Our Chinooks are old crap. Old and crap. Old engines, old systems, cant do jack against a slug gun. We need new ones, I think they are on order.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Our Chinooks are old crap. Old and crap. Old engines, old systems, cant do jack against a slug gun. We need new ones, I think they are on order.

Actually they are not all that old. The engines have been upgraded to the same standard as the "F model" and they feature many new systems, including the M134 "Dillon" 7.62mm mini-gun and a very new EW self protection system.

They have proven their worth in Iraq and now Afghanistan over many years. Don't be surprised to see them re-manufactured into the F model airframe and continue on in ADF service.

I won't be...

How do you reckon your slug gun will go against this?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ELhy4_0hM&feature=fvw"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[Marc 1]

A Bushmaster will be able to tow an M777 and carry the gun crew. Are Bushmasters not safe enough on Afghanistan roads?

My god, the RTF is in mortal danger!!! (Just jokes)...

Good point. Particularly if we get the 'Copperhead' (?) Bushie Ute. (space for ammo too)

I think you might mean AD.

Doh!

Sir Humphrey would be proud!

Indeed...

I would love to see Aus be the first export of the Osprey, but that will never happen. They would need none to crash, be shot down or having maintanence bugs...(nvm on that last one-seasprites>?) but basically, the Govt. of the day would be way too scared to buy a platform thats copped so much flak at any stage. Critics would be swinging from the rooftops even if its proven, "citing the first flight or 5th one after a oil leak" of the prototypes. As stingray said they are nice and all, but we have proven airframes we can increase the numbers of rather then a whole new line of aircraft and capability, not to mention training for VTOL. off the LHD would be ideal as the americans are planning with their LHDs to carry V22 for Marine forces, the V22 would give a beyond the horizon option which would reduce the risk of placing a ship in hostile waters, or even allowing further infield of the target nation. giving much larger range over a helo. But hell will have to freeze over and the bunnies will need to win a Grand Final before that happens

Three years ago when the inevitable caribou replacement options were again being touted, I would have agreed with you - they were pretty much a development item with a then very recent history of falling out of the sky and killing people. Now however, with operational deployments to both war theatres by the septics, I'd say they have moved from a far too risky option to being a realistic choice. Sure there will still be reliability and maintainability improvements to be made (at 80% availability and rising) and provided we DON'T do a Seasprite and try to redesign the whole box and dice (purchase them much like the C-17's - identical to USMC spec) they could be a very valuable asset. Our SF guys do not have the long range MH-47's that the septics use to deploy - our standard chooks lack range or A/A refuelling capability, the osprey at least could overcome the range/speed limitations of our fleet of chooks. As Stingray pointed out the airframes should be operable from the LHD's too.

So, Instead of ordering more CH-47's we leave the order at 7 - and let them do the heavy lifting role they do so well. Purchase 12 or so CV-22's (same people carrying capacity as a chook, so no need to tie up the heavy lifter chook as a bus, and gives our military far more flexibility. The fact that if pressed the CV-22 seens to have the capacity (if not demonstrated ability yet?) to lift the M-777 is a bonus. Problem as I see it - mainly cost (far more expensive to fly and maintain than the chooks)

Just a few thoughts.

 

[winnyfield]

Three years ago when the inevitable caribou replacement options were again being touted, I would have agreed with you - they were pretty much a development item with a then very recent history of falling out of the sky and killing people. Now however, with operational deployments to both war theatres by the septics, I'd say they have moved from a far too risky option to being a realistic choice. Sure there will still be reliability and maintainability improvements to be made (at 80% availability and rising) and provided we DON'T do a Seasprite and try to redesign the whole box and dice (purchase them much like the C-17's - identical to USMC spec) they could be a very valuable asset. Our SF guys do not have the long range MH-47's that the septics use to deploy - our standard chooks lack range or A/A refuelling capability, the osprey at least could overcome the range/speed limitations of our fleet of chooks. As Stingray pointed out the airframes should be operable from the LHD's too.

So, Instead of ordering more CH-47's we leave the order at 7 - and let them do the heavy lifting role they do so well. Purchase 12 or so CV-22's (same people carrying capacity as a chook, so no need to tie up the heavy lifter chook as a bus, and gives our military far more flexibility. The fact that if pressed the CV-22 seens to have the capacity (if not demonstrated ability yet?) to lift the M-777 is a bonus. Problem as I see it - mainly cost (far more expensive to fly and maintain than the chooks)

Just a few thoughts.

M777+CV22 proof of concept has been done. Not sure if it has been used on ops yet.
Osprey carries M777 howitzer for first time

The Osprey is a big aircraft. It barely fitted on HMS Invincible's flight deck (it had to land on the stern), the Canberra class is not that much bigger.

 

[stoker]

Tiger & M134 Dillion

including the M134 "Dillon" 7.62mm mini-gun

That is one awesome bit of fire power, I appreciate the use of tracer at night heightens the effect, I would hate to be on the receiving end of it.

Are we going to standardise on the M134 as a CIWS on our navy ships too, certainly beats the Brens we use to use. I think the new 'Hobarts' are going to have a mini CIWS port and strb either side of the bridge?

And silly question for the day, is it practical to fit the M134 port and strb on the stub wing of a Tiger.

I appreciate it has been mooted to bring back the OV 10 Bronco for our LHD, personally I don't believe this will ever happen, the LHD are not Carriers, they purely for soldiers.

A Tiger with a pair of M134 Dillions and Hellfire/70mm air to ground missiles would be a far
better prospect than a fixed wing aircraft ( which we will never get).

 

[icelord]

[
Are we going to standardise on the M134 as a CIWS on our navy ships too, certainly beats the Brens we use to use. I think the new 'Hobarts' are going to have a mini CIWS port and strb either side of the bridge?
.

Highly Highly unlikely. The M134 has not be mentioned at all in any capacity for the future. RAN use the 50 Cal for last resort against anti-air defence and surface contacts. The F89 is used for Force protection in harbour. The UK i believe use a M134 for close protection.
And at this stage no mention of a "mini-CIWS" for the Hobart Class, but there is a Phalanx CIWS Block 1B
http://www.ausawd.com/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=16&id=21