Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

The true irony is that UAVs have completely taken over the tactical recon role the Tiger was supposedly bought for. Everyone acknowledges that helos will be driven from the skies over a modern conventional battlefield, hence using cheap, essentially disposable UAVs is the way forward. What is needed now in an attack helo is standoff armament and endurance, which the Apache has in spades.

If we had of bought Apaches they would been deployed to Iraq in 2006 and Afghanistan in 2008. The Tiger was finally supposed to be operational in a high threat environment by day and night by the end of this year, but this has again been postponed.

 

[the road runner]

Why is Euro copter not held accountable for lying to the Australian's.IE they stated their offering was cheaper to operate/purchase and IOC would be in 2005 or so, plus the fact they had a mature helicopter?

I am at a loss to understand why they were not held accountable/prosecuted for this.I am starting to realise that if Australia dose not purchase an off the shelf (that has major numbers made of the product and a upgrade path with our allies) solution we get major time delay or we get a product not suited for our need's? Or am i wrong on this outlook?

I recall time was a major issue when selecting the ARH for Australia.Isnt that why the Zulu was knocked back because IOC would be in 2011 time frame?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I recall time was a major issue when selecting the ARH for Australia.Isnt that why the Zulu was knocked back because IOC would be in 2011 time frame?

Because at the tender selection the schedules offered for the Tiger and AH-1Z were based on their parent programs. The Tiger schedule at that time of the French Army allowed an IOC of 2005 while the USMC were planning a later date for the AH-1Z. Of course after the Tiger was selected the program schedule was delayed by the French and Germans to save money and then ran into technical problems for more delays. The problem was that Defence did not make a proper risk assessment of the Tiger’s schedule as being a developmental aircraft. Under the then definitions (which have since been changed) type approval by the French Army of the Tiger was enough for it to earn an off-the-shelf label. Even though of all the aircraft bid only the AH-64D was actually in service and in production (and had been for four years).

The Tiger won the contract for one reason: cost. It was the cheapest offer in both acquisition and TLS. In TLS it was around $400m for 13 years which was around 30% cheaper than the nearest rival. This was clearly a low balled offer as they later had to renegotiate without the 35% saving. While Eurocopter were inflicted with some penalties for late deliveries they obviously haven’t suffered too much for their unrealistic tender, wining the MRH program.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The true irony is that UAVs have completely taken over the tactical recon role the Tiger was supposedly bought for.

Recce is only part of the mission set for the ARH. AIR 87 wasn’t just to replace the Kiowas in the recce sqns but also the Iroquois Bushrangers in the escort/attack role. The capability requirement for the ARH included “airmobile escort missions; support to covering force missions; deliberate massed helicopter attack missions; support to a special recovery mission”. All of this is why the Hellfire missile and LD was integrated with the Tiger. Otherwise there would be no guided missile capability because at the time the French escort version (HAP: which is what the Australian version is based on) was only to be armed with the gun, 68mm unguided rockets and air to air Mistral missiles.

What is needed now in an attack helo is standoff armament and endurance, which the Apache has in spades.

The Tiger actually has better endurance than the Apache. And apart from the MMW radar and missiles the same kind of armament. The MMW radar and missiles could be added to the Tiger via the same pylon mounted system proposed to add it to the Cobra Zulu.

The Tiger is a great aircraft and has some more advanced systems than the current Apache (HMD for one). The only problem is of course it’s not in service! A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Tiger is a great aircraft and has some more advanced systems than the current Apache (HMD for one). The only problem is of course it’s not in service! A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

It's got a few more issues than this though.... one of which would never have been a problem if we'd gone with the apache (any version).

In fact IMO its enough of an issue to knock it out of contention in the first draft.

But risk assessment in Govt is not necessarily the same as in some areas of the private sector...

but thats an offline issue, all statements here are personal etc....

 

[Raven22]

Recce is only part of the mission set for the ARH. AIR 87 wasn’t just to replace the Kiowas in the recce sqns but also the Iroquois Bushrangers in the escort/attack role. The capability requirement for the ARH included “airmobile escort missions; support to covering force missions; deliberate massed helicopter attack missions; support to a special recovery mission”. All of this is why the Hellfire missile and LD was integrated with the Tiger. Otherwise there would be no guided missile capability because at the time the French escort version (HAP: which is what the Australian version is based on) was only to be armed with the gun, 68mm unguided rockets and air to air Mistral missiles.

Yeah, of course. But the key role of the ARH is the reconnaissance role, for which it obviously has to be armed to enable it to fight for information. As I said though, no helicopter is going to survive forward of the FLOT in any future conventional war so UAVs will continue to take on the tactical recon role. Take away the armed recon role and the Tiger is left with the security and precision engagement roles, to which it is not as well suited as a heavier helo.

The Tiger actually has better endurance than the Apache.

Not with any sort of payload it doesn't. Equip a Tiger with nothing but a pair of Hellfires, seven rockets and 120 cannon rounds for a recon mission it has pretty good endurance. Load it up for bear and it will lucky to be able to fly out of sight. The Apache is much better at this, which is no surprise as it is a much bigger helicopter.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not with any sort of payload it doesn't. Equip a Tiger with nothing but a pair of Hellfires, seven rockets and 120 cannon rounds for a recon mission it has pretty good endurance. Load it up for bear and it will lucky to be able to fly out of sight. The Apache is much better at this, which is no surprise as it is a much bigger helicopter.

Well that’s all that was required for AIR 87. The operational scenario used to judge the tendered capabilities was a rather ridiculous search and destroy against a landing in north west Australia. Between the crazies running defence strategy (at the time), the Army willing to sign off on this nonsense and the Howard govt. cost capping the project to $1.2 billion this is what you get.

What is interesting is the only offer recommended for serious consideration other than the Tiger was the AH-1Z. It was the next cheapest but couldn’t meet the IOC of December 2004. They could handover the first unit in mid 2005 so suggested they could arrange the leasing of six AH-1Ws from the USMC to cover this slight delay in IOC. Defence rejected this offer because the AH-1W didn’t meet the capability requirement of AIR 87!

If we had chosen the AH-1Z we would have a delayed full in service acceptance like the Tiger but not as long (AH-1Z is fully operational now with USMC) but we would have had one recce sqn equipped with an attack helicopter for the past 10 years. Which would be a far better net position. Since Eurocopter had to raise their cost considerably after winning the contract there wouldn’t have been too much difference in the total spend. But we would have had a far better helicopter in service quicker, integrated with US logistics with a bridging capability.

 

[icelord]

But it looked cool and ready to go in Goldeneye, surely that was used as the selling video and it would have driven home good Force Protection...
The steyr obviously came from Die Hard, hollywood made them both look so cool and easy to get

 

[Raven22]

Well that’s all that was required for AIR 87.

That was pretty much my whole point.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sort of related to the AIR 87 ARH program discussion is the recent DSCA FMS announcements for South Korean attack helicopters. While separated by 10 years and looking for 36 rather than 22 aircraft it does provide a useful indication of the difference in price between the AH-64D and a AH-1Z. The later is some 30% cheaper.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Korea_12-26.pdf
AH-1Z

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Korea_12-32.pdf
AH-64D

 

[Massive]

... if Australia dose not purchase an off the shelf (that has major numbers made of the product and a upgrade path with our allies) solution we get major time delay or we get a product not suited for our need's ...

While accepting that this debate keeps on cropping up it is odd that in the first instance the ADF does not look at what the US is buying and only buy something different if there is a very strong reason not to do so.

Who is the ADF most likely to conduct joint operations with?

As a simple example: Infantry weapons

MAG
Minimi
Austeyr (Why?)

Regards,

Massive

Ps. I understand why Austeyr (very expensively) chosen - just wanted to illustrate the point.

 

[icelord]

While accepting that this debate keeps on cropping up it is odd that in the first instance the ADF does not look at what the US is buying and only buy something different if there is a very strong reason not to do so.

Who is the ADF most likely to conduct joint operations with?

As a simple example: Infantry weapons

MAG
Minimi
Austeyr (Why?)

Regards,

Massive

Ps. I understand why Austeyr (very expensively) chosen - just wanted to illustrate the point.

Could have done what the canadians did. they conducted trials on a ranges of weapons, the AK47 passed nearly all with flying colours, once the US found that out, they freaked at having the AK as a standard issue weapon with a western nation and its neighbour and offered the M16 modified at a very reduced price through a deal with colt.
Next time we should just look at what china offers and then see what the US will slash their price on to ensure we dont use their gear.

 

[ADMk2]

Well that’s all that was required for AIR 87. The operational scenario used to judge the tendered capabilities was a rather ridiculous search and destroy against a landing in north west Australia. Between the crazies running defence strategy (at the time), the Army willing to sign off on this nonsense and the Howard govt. cost capping the project to $1.2 billion this is what you get.

What is interesting is the only offer recommended for serious consideration other than the Tiger was the AH-1Z. It was the next cheapest but couldn’t meet the IOC of December 2004. They could handover the first unit in mid 2005 so suggested they could arrange the leasing of six AH-1Ws from the USMC to cover this slight delay in IOC. Defence rejected this offer because the AH-1W didn’t meet the capability requirement of AIR 87!

If we had chosen the AH-1Z we would have a delayed full in service acceptance like the Tiger but not as long (AH-1Z is fully operational now with USMC) but we would have had one recce sqn equipped with an attack helicopter for the past 10 years. Which would be a far better net position. Since Eurocopter had to raise their cost considerably after winning the contract there wouldn’t have been too much difference in the total spend. But we would have had a far better helicopter in service quicker, integrated with US logistics with a bridging capability.

In addition to which, the Top Owl HMS is fully integrated onto the AH-1Z, AND you can get the Apache's Longbow radar system in an already integrated pod for the AH-1Z... Best of all worlds, thought the Top Owl helmet has been demonstrated on Apache if anyone really wanted it.

The best option would have been the early 90's AH-1W offer for $150m. Establish a domestic re-lifing program in the early 00's and upgrade our AH-1W's to AH-1Z standard.

We'd have zero-lifed AH-1Z's now, a well bedded down armed helicopter capability that would have been available for any of our operations over the last 13 years, an improved aerospace industry with plenty of jobs to keep the politicians happy and it may have even been cheaper than what we've ended up with...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We'd have zero-lifed AH-1Z's now, a well bedded down armed helicopter capability that would have been available for any of our operations over the last 13 years, an improved aerospace industry with plenty of jobs to keep the politicians happy and it may have even been cheaper than what we've ended up with...

The Cobra Whiskey was a major lost opportunity. However I doubt we could rebuild those airframes into Zulus because the ones the USMC was offloading in the 90s where ex AH-1Js built in the 70s that had been rebuilt into AH-1Ws in the 80s. They kept the 80s fresh newbuilt AH-1Ws with much lower hours and they were the ones planned for the AH-1X rebuild.

However most AH-1Zs are new build if not all because it worked out to be easier and only marginally less-cheaper that way. But it meant the AH-1W aircraft could stay in service up until the day the new AH-1Zs arrived. Otherwise the USMC would have to disband several attack helo squadrons to free up the airframes for conversion. Army with four (rather than two) attack helo sqns would have had to do the same if we could rebuild AH-1W (ex Js) into Zulus.

Another element of the AH-1Z program that could have been of interest to the Army was the replacement of UH-1Hs with UH-1Ys via the Additional (ie Amphibious) Trooplift Helicopter (ATH) program. This is the program that gave the Army the NH-90 and 24 UH-1Ys would be much better suited to this role than 12 NH-90 TTHs, cheaper and easier to introduce into service. The Black Hawk fleet could be recapitalised with UH-60Ms for land based trooplift and the UH-1Ys provide a better fit for amphibious and SOF transport. Since the UH-1Ys had very high commonality with the AH-1Z it wouldn’t bust the ADF’s helo sustainment model like having any other two different types in the trooplift role.

 

[aussienscale]

Just curious if anyone has heard any info on how the Hawkei is fairing in testing ? Heard a few things, saw the couple of obligatory Youtube vids and then since it has gone into the next stage nothing ?

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

The Cobra Whiskey was a major lost opportunity. However I doubt we could rebuild those airframes into Zulus because the ones the USMC was offloading in the 90s where ex AH-1Js built in the 70s that had been rebuilt into AH-1Ws in the 80s. They kept the 80s fresh newbuilt AH-1Ws with much lower hours and they were the ones planned for the AH-1X rebuild.

However most AH-1Zs are new build if not all because it worked out to be easier and only marginally less-cheaper that way. But it meant the AH-1W aircraft could stay in service up until the day the new AH-1Zs arrived. Otherwise the USMC would have to disband several attack helo squadrons to free up the airframes for conversion. Army with four (rather than two) attack helo sqns would have had to do the same if we could rebuild AH-1W (ex Js) into Zulus.

Another element of the AH-1Z program that could have been of interest to the Army was the replacement of UH-1Hs with UH-1Ys via the Additional (ie Amphibious) Trooplift Helicopter (ATH) program. This is the program that gave the Army the NH-90 and 24 UH-1Ys would be much better suited to this role than 12 NH-90 TTHs, cheaper and easier to introduce into service. The Black Hawk fleet could be recapitalised with UH-60Ms for land based trooplift and the UH-1Ys provide a better fit for amphibious and SOF transport. Since the UH-1Ys had very high commonality with the AH-1Z it wouldn’t bust the ADF’s helo sustainment model like having any other two different types in the trooplift role.

The AH-1W's could have been zero-lifed if enough was spent on them. Just because it's uneconomical doesn't mean the Australian Government won't do it...

It seems to me that almost $9b is a bit excessive for 3 Destroyers, yet we are paying it.

Out of interest, what do those 3 Zumwalts cost again?

 

[hairyman]

The Zumwalts are about $3b apiece are'nt they?

And they do have a heap more capabilities than the AWD's.

 

[JPiper]

The Zumwalts are about $3b apiece are'nt they?

And they do have a heap more capabilities than the AWD's.

Agree, However can anyone advise me what is happening with he new trucks for army, and when and what models.:

 

[aussienscale]

The Zumwalts are about $3b apiece are'nt they?

And they do have a heap more capabilities than the AWD's.

$3b under who's aquisition pricing ? That would be the American pricing structure, so under ADF pricing it would be very much higher per hull because of how we cost aquisitions, but a moot point though, how many are being built ?

For the money we are paying for the AWD's would rather we just brought into the AB Flght IIA/III program instead but back to Army

 

[kiwi in exile]

LAV and bushmaster mobility

I was wondering if someone with knowledge/experience on this thread could give any kind of comparrison between the ASLAV and the bushmaster in terms of off road/rough terrain mobility.

Sorry if this has allready been covered.

Thanks