Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

I was under the impression that the Avanti was low noise and all of the cabin windows are between the mid mounted wing and the canards. I do like the Learfan now you mention it, I hadn't thought of that option. An alternative layout is that used on the Fantrainer.

How would an evolved small bizjet go?

The position of the wings is important for not obstructing the view to the ground. On the Avanti the wing is mid mounted so if you look out the side and to the rear all you can see is the wing. An airborne commander needs to be able to orientate themselves to the ground and keep as much of a view of things below as possible. Certainly the view from a wide window on the side of an Avanti would be much better forward and aft as a SKA or PC-12.

As to noise the aft engines would make the cabin much quieter than a SKA but the propellers would generate extra noise like a SKA outside as their turbulence hits the tail compared to a tail or nose mounted propeller. We want to make it quiet so the bad guys on the ground can’t hear it from as far away. Also the wing pusher mount creates a square wave noise as turbulent air and exhaust gas enters the propeller. The square wave makes a pattern in the noise of a frequency that we can identify rather than normal propeller noise of equal or stronger loudness.

 

[Volkodav]

The position of the wings is important for not obstructing the view to the ground. On the Avanti the wing is mid mounted so if you look out the side and to the rear all you can see is the wing. An airborne commander needs to be able to orientate themselves to the ground and keep as much of a view of things below as possible. Certainly the view from a wide window on the side of an Avanti would be much better forward and aft as a SKA or PC-12.

As to noise the aft engines would make the cabin much quieter than a SKA but the propellers would generate extra noise like a SKA outside as their turbulence hits the tail compared to a tail or nose mounted propeller. We want to make it quiet so the bad guys on the ground can’t hear it from as far away. Also the wing pusher mount creates a square wave noise as turbulent air and exhaust gas enters the propeller. The square wave makes a pattern in the noise of a frequency that we can identify rather than normal propeller noise of equal or stronger loudness.

Ok fair enough.

What about a modified bizjet?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ok fair enough.

What about a modified bizjet?

They tend to be optimised more for covering ground than loitering and I don't know of any high wing bizjets. Apart from that the source of thrust isn't that important and hush kits can be pretty effective and easier to apply than low speed nose or tail propellers and the like.

 

[Volkodav]

They tend to be optimised more for covering ground than loitering and I don't know of any high wing bizjets. Apart from that the source of thrust isn't that important and hush kits can be pretty effective and easier to apply than low speed nose or tail propellers and the like.

Getting a little large but how about the Fairchild Dornier 328JET, or a derivative of the LM X-55. The podded arrangement of the engines could be an issue with the field of view.

That said how about a LR version of the prop 328?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Getting a little large but how about the Fairchild Dornier 328JET, or a derivative of the LM X-55. The podded arrangement of the engines could be an issue with the field of view.

That said how about a LR version of the prop 328?

These are very big planes for this role. I still think a purpose designed aircraft is the way to go so you can at least make it survivable from a few bullet hits. Most commercial aircraft are made from stressed skin semi monocoque to save weight with little allowances for damage. So you can suffer structural failure just from bullet holes even without damage to spars. A military aircraft will have multiple spars and much better tolerances to such damage also better agility, climb rate and excess power. Design from clean sheet means attention to cabin view and noise signature can be better integrated. I just suggested the Lear Fan because it looks like having the right kind of configuration (with a high wing) and size for the role. A purpose designed aircraft could also have a narrow fuselage variant with a tandem cockpit for light attack.

 

[Volkodav]

These are very big planes for this role. I still think a purpose designed aircraft is the way to go so you can at least make it survivable from a few bullet hits. Most commercial aircraft are made from stressed skin semi monocoque to save weight with little allowances for damage. So you can suffer structural failure just from bullet holes even without damage to spars. A military aircraft will have multiple spars and much better tolerances to such damage also better agility, climb rate and excess power. Design from clean sheet means attention to cabin view and noise signature can be better integrated. I just suggested the Lear Fan because it looks like having the right kind of configuration (with a high wing) and size for the role. A purpose designed aircraft could also have a narrow fuselage variant with a tandem cockpit for light attack.

You could almost be specifying a cabin version of the A-10 with a high wing.

A thought on a new design is something in the same configuration as the Edgley Optica. You would need a much larger (longer) cabin but that could be counterbalanced by longer tail booms. Composite construction would save weight and improve structural integrity, if designed properly could be more resistant to combat damage and more easily repaired in the field.

A larger Bronco could also be an option. This thread has really got the old brain ticking over and the best thing is it has nothing to do with work so I can speculate to my hearts desire. Anyway back to work in the morning so I'm off to bed, look forward to continuing with this when I get the chance.

Night Abe.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You could almost be specifying a cabin version of the A-10 with a high wing.

The A-10 is about three times bigger than a SKA type aircraft (24 tonnes vs 6 tonnes MTOW) and has as much structural survivability that you can build into a plane. I’m only talking about the basic minimum of structure survivability that any milspec aircraft has. The SKA/PC-12 and similar don’t even have this kind of base level survivability and a single bust of fire into the fuselage doing nothing more than making multiple bullet holes could actually lead to the whole tail coming off and catastrophic loss of the aircraft. I think anyone deploying to a war zone deserves at least a basic level of survivability including things like structural robustness and not sitting on oxygen bottles and the like.

A thought on a new design is something in the same configuration as the Edgley Optica. You would need a much larger (longer) cabin but that could be counterbalanced by longer tail booms. Composite construction would save weight and improve structural integrity, if designed properly could be more resistant to combat damage and more easily repaired in the field.

But the downside of this aircraft is it doesn’t have the cruise speed and endurance of a SKA and with all that glass would be very difficult to fit modular electronics fitouts for a range of ISR roles beyond visual surveillance. Also you wouldn’t be able to redesign it by lengthening the nose. With the central mounted engine in the Optica the weight of the cockpit pod needs to be balanced by the boom tails to maintain a longitudinal centre of gravity near the wings (centre of lift). Replacing the two man cockpit pod with one able to carry 6-8 men plus a tonne of mission systems is an 8-10 fold increase. Its just not feasible to increase the weight of tail by 8-10 times.

A larger Bronco could also be an option.

The Bronco configuration doesn’t fit the bill as well. It is a high noise aircraft with too much drag. It was designed for STOL so sacrifices a lot for that capability.

 

[hairyman]

The main appeal of the Skyvan GA8 and GA18 for me is the fact that they are Australian. They are the only Aussie aircraft out there. That fact is being ignored by all of the other posters on this subject.

 

[SASWanabe]

so you would rather buy something thats Australian than something thats the best for that role?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The main appeal of the Skyvan GA8 and GA18 for me is the fact that they are Australian. They are the only Aussie aircraft out there. That fact is being ignored by all of the other posters on this subject.

We’re actually talking about what would be the ideal airborne C2 and ISR aircraft to replace all those Super King Airs and PC-12s flying around the world on operations. This aircraft we are talking about doesn’t exist and we are exploring multiple configurations for either new build or conversion. So therefore this aircraft doesn’t have a nationality except perhaps “Imaginationland”. The reason we haven’t touched on the GA8 or any other GAF or Gippsland product is they don’t fit the criteria. This has nothing to do with Australian or not Australian.

 

[hairyman]

My original question that started this discussion was about the GA8, but I will include the GA18 in it as well. "Could it fill a place in the Army inventory?" If we can just stick to the subject and not worry about other planes.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My original question that started this discussion was about the GA8, but I will include the GA18 in it as well. "Could it fill a place in the Army inventory?" If we can just stick to the subject and not worry about other planes.

LOL. You can stick to that topic if you want, in fact please do and leave us alone. You have no right, moral or factual to limit what the rest of us talk about. To try and do so is actually quite insulting.

 

[Marc 1]

My original question that started this discussion was about the GA8, but I will include the GA18 in it as well. "Could it fill a place in the Army inventory?" If we can just stick to the subject and not worry about other planes.

I'll bite - As much as I admire the gumption of Gippsland Aeronautics (wasn't it recently purchased by Tata or some other large overseas conglomerate?) and talked with one of the blokes who designed it. I think it would have very limited roles (mainly peacetime) IMO.

Too slow, not quiet enough, not large enough for a decent payload. It would have uses in light liason tasks at a much cheaper price than using a Blackhawk. If you did try to arm it as a light COIN aircraft it would suffere from a lack of protection etc. The armoured Airtractor design would do much better - and probably at an equivalent price to an airvan after they have had to add inerting fuel tanks hardpoints etc.

The reborn Nomad? If they invested the dollars in reengining it with PT6's* - it could provide a useful mix with the King Airs. Want to take a general and small staff 1000km Canberra to Brisbane - use the pressurised biz plane. When he needs to go from Canberra to a bush strip on Pucka range - take the next gen Nomad.

* Apart from the inflight detatchable tail, the Alison 250's (basically a helicopter engine) were probably the reason not more were sold. I've read elsewhere that with PT6's it should have sold like wildfire. Dunno how the two types compare in terms of installed size/weight though.

 

[hairyman]

Thank you MArc 1 for having a go at my question.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Hypothetical Question

Hey just wanted to post a hypothetical question here. Just say you were in a position where you were in charge of restructuring/improving the Australian army. Basically you were given 2 more RAR battalions (can be whatever sort of infantry you want, you can also change other RAR battalions infantry type to suit the needs of the program) and the possibility of more ASLAVS/whatever replacement they are getting and M1s if needed. (Only if it is crucial to the structure of your force.)

How would you go about the structure? You have 3 brigades, 9 infantry battalions specialising in what ever you want and the possibility of more M1s and/or LAVs if need be.

Oh also forgot to mention, we are aiming for a force that can sustain brigade sized operations during conflict and that can still pack a punch during an invasion. (with coalition partners, oh and by punch I mean M1s and LAVs, would you need more to perform the task or do we have enough? Remember it has to be sustainable)

Canada could be looked at as an example with:
9 battalions, 6 mech and 3 light with a paratrooper company each. (Divide them amongst the brigades making them all equally capable deployable forces?)

IMHO I got no idea, I am no expert that's why I am asking.

Also is it worth having motorised battalions?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hey just wanted to post a hypothetical question here. Just say you were in a position where you were in charge of restructuring/improving the Australian army. Basically you were given 2 more RAR battalions (can be whatever sort of infantry you want, you can also change other RAR battalions infantry type to suit the needs of the program) and the possibility of more ASLAVS/whatever replacement they are getting and M1s if needed. (Only if it is crucial to the structure of your force.)

How would you go about the structure? You have 3 brigades, 9 infantry battalions specialising in what ever you want and the possibility of more M1s and/or LAVs if need be.

Oh also forgot to mention, we are aiming for a force that can sustain brigade sized operations during conflict and that can still pack a punch during an invasion. (with coalition partners, oh and by punch I mean M1s and LAVs, would you need more to perform the task or do we have enough? Remember it has to be sustainable)

Canada could be looked at as an example with:
9 battalions, 6 mech and 3 light with a paratrooper company each. (Divide them amongst the brigades making them all equally capable deployable forces?)

IMHO I got no idea, I am no expert that's why I am asking.

Also is it worth having motorised battalions?

Haven't got time to address this in depth. Maybe later, but we have got motorised battalions. 6RAR and 8/9RAR.

The future of the Austalian Army isn't in fixed brigades with force structures designed for a specific role, ie: mechanised warfare or light nfantry based warfare.

The future of the Australian Army is as a light mechansed force as a whole that is able to generate force elementsof battlegroup size, suitable to a particular task at hand and bearing the 'raise, train, sustain' mantra in mind, supporting such force elements on operations for extended periods.

I'd suggest that a brigade group is probably beyond us. The British Army has something like 34 regular infantry battalions and it is looking towards a capability of a singe brigade being deployable for an extended period.

Our 9 battalions are going to be stretched equalling what Britain can only manage with a force effectively 4 times larger...

 

[Raven22]

Just say you were in a position where you were in charge of restructuring/improving the Australian army. Basically you were given 2 more RAR battalions (can be whatever sort of infantry you want, you can also change other RAR battalions infantry type to suit the needs of the program) and the possibility of more ASLAVS/whatever replacement they are getting and M1s if needed. (Only if it is crucial to the structure of your force.)

There’s zero chance of two extra battalions materialising out of thin air, so the point is pretty moot. If it were though, it would be far better to raise just one extra battalion, and use the sum of the second to help raise the CS and CSS units required of a fourth manoeuvre brigade, which is pretty universally regarded as being required for efficient force generation.

Either way, the new objective brigade model is quite similar to the Canadian model, only with one less infantry battalion. The objective brigade has two vanilla infantry battalions and an armoured regiment consisting of a tank squadron and three cavalry squadrons, at least one of which is designed to lift an infantry battalion and turn it into a (mounted/mechanised/motorised/medium/adjective of your choice) battalion. Personally I don’t like the idea of the armoured regiment containing the lift squadron, and think it should remain integral to the infantry battalion to enable an habitual relationship and trust to be developed, but so be it. The only question with this model is what happens to the seventh infantry battalion?

I'd suggest that a brigade group is probably beyond us. The British Army has something like 34 regular infantry battalions and it is looking towards a capability of a singe brigade being deployable for an extended period.

Our 9 battalions are going to be stretched equalling what Britain can only manage with a force effectively 4 times larger...

It’s worth remembering that one of the new British brigades has twice as many manoeuvre units as an Australian (or anyone elses) brigades. Even so, the Brits will still require the capability to have two and a bit brigades deployed in a sustained fashion.

It’s also helpful to know that the Army is ‘cheating’ when looking at the government mandated requirement to have one brigade continuously deployed, one battlegroup deployed elsewhere, and another battlegroup available for contingencies. The way the AOF is looking at enabling that is by assuming that only the first rotation will need a full, 3+ manoeuvre unit brigade with all the bells and whistles, while the subsequent rotations can be drawn down to ~2 lighter manoeuvre units with the Reserves taking on a lot of the ‘easier’ jobs. Also worth noting that to achieve this with only 3 brigades the tour length is assumed to be 12 months, hence the requirement for a fourth brigade to enable a more sustainable 9 month tour.

 

[Volkodav]

There’s zero chance of two extra battalions materialising out of thin air, so the point is pretty moot. If it were though, it would be far better to raise just one extra battalion, and use the sum of the second to help raise the CS and CSS units required of a fourth manoeuvre brigade, which is pretty universally regarded as being required for efficient force generation.

Either way, the new objective brigade model is quite similar to the Canadian model, only with one less infantry battalion. The objective brigade has two vanilla infantry battalions and an armoured regiment consisting of a tank squadron and three cavalry squadrons, at least one of which is designed to lift an infantry battalion and turn it into a (mounted/mechanised/motorised/medium/adjective of your choice) battalion. Personally I don’t like the idea of the armoured regiment containing the lift squadron, and think it should remain integral to the infantry battalion to enable an habitual relationship and trust to be developed, but so be it. The only question with this model is what happens to the seventh infantry battalion?



It’s worth remembering that one of the new British brigades has twice as many manoeuvre units as an Australian (or anyone elses) brigades. Even so, the Brits will still require the capability to have two and a bit brigades deployed in a sustained fashion.

It’s also helpful to know that the Army is ‘cheating’ when looking at the government mandated requirement to have one brigade continuously deployed, one battlegroup deployed elsewhere, and another battlegroup available for contingencies. The way the AOF is looking at enabling that is by assuming that only the first rotation will need a full, 3+ manoeuvre unit brigade with all the bells and whistles, while the subsequent rotations can be drawn down to ~2 lighter manoeuvre units with the Reserves taking on a lot of the ‘easier’ jobs. Also worth noting that to achieve this with only 3 brigades the tour length is assumed to be 12 months, hence the requirement for a fourth brigade to enable a more sustainable 9 month tour.

So to meet the CoA mandated requirement without "cheating" we need four or five brigades which in turn will require eight to ten rifle btns and 4 or 5 Armoured / Cav Regts for the manoeuvre units alone?

How will we cater for the differences between heavy, medium and light scales of equipment? At the moment 1Bde has our Mech Inf and MBTs and eventually (maybe) our SPGs, 7 Bde are our Motor Inf and 3 Bde are LI. If this all going out the window with all units adopting a common structure and role, i.e. All CAV will be MBT, Recce and APC, all Inf will be LI and all RARA will operate a mix of towed and SPGs? Is this the case?

Will the RAAC have to maintain a Heavy (tracked) and Medium (wheeled) capability within each unit or will we still (to a degree) maintain separate Heavy Medium and Light Regts? Or is heavy armour on the endangered list all together?

Oh and one last thing why on earth are BAE offering us the RG31 when we alread have the Bushmaster, its not in with a chance is it?

Just a thought, is there any chance the RAR will operate their own mech wheeled IMVs and the troop lift provided by RAAC will be in the form of a heavier better protected tracked vehicle to be used as the threat requires?

 

[Kirkzzy]

Ahhh k, I was just a little interested in our future force structure as the white paper said we would be aiming for two more battalions. So I was thinking along the lines of the Canadian structure with two mechanised battalions to one light battalion each brigade.

 

[Raven22]

So to meet the CoA mandated requirement without "cheating" we need four or five brigades which in turn will require eight to ten rifle btns and 4 or 5 Armoured / Cav Regts for the manoeuvre units alone?

It's not a CoA mandated requirement, its a government mandated requirement from the White Paper (which also says that the Army will consist of about 31 000, three brigades and ten battlegoups, which limits to a large degree the change the army can make to force structure).

The 'cheating' is just required to enable an efficient force generation cycle. We can easily meet the stated requirements now, it just mean the no one gets to train outside of the deployment cycle and therefore higher level skills degrade. A larger force just enables the requirements to be met and still enable to the training cycle to continue so the army doesn't fall into a heap in the meantime.

How will we cater for the differences between heavy, medium and light scales of equipment? At the moment 1Bde has our Mech Inf and MBTs and eventually (maybe) our SPGs, 7 Bde are our Motor Inf and 3 Bde are LI. If this all going out the window with all units adopting a common structure and role, i.e. All CAV will be MBT, Recce and APC, all Inf will be LI and all RARA will operate a mix of towed and SPGs? Is this the case?

Will the RAAC have to maintain a Heavy (tracked) and Medium (wheeled) capability within each unit or will we still (to a degree) maintain separate Heavy Medium and Light Regts? Or is heavy armour on the endangered list all together?

The break up of tracked/wheeled and the 'heavyness' of the armoured force is yet to be determined, but will fall out of the ground manoeuvre FMR and Land 400. It is almost a certainty that both wheeled and tracked vehicles will be bought though. Heavy armour certainly not endangered because we don't currently have any. The future Land 400 vehicles will certainly be heavier than the current M113, ASLAV and PMV fleet.

Ahhh k, I was just a little interested in our future force structure as the white paper said we would be aiming for two more battalions. So I was thinking along the lines of the Canadian structure with two mechanised battalions to one light battalion each brigade.

The white paper was talking about the existing 'extra' two infantry battalions, being 7 and 8/9 RAR.