Australian Army Discussions and Updates

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just quickly because I've got to run, effectively Army was looking for an SPG capability that doesn't exist and they wanted someone to develop it at no cost to us for a whopping 18 vehicles...

They wanted a heavily protected 155mm tracked SPG, that was equipped with a 155/52 Cal gun, the US AFATDS combat system as part of the Joint Fires System, with rack space for Excalibur, SMART 155, an RWS with 12.7mm / 40mm AGL capability and a whole heap of other Australian unique features.

Effectively a monumental "Australianised" stuff up in the making, which was mercifully cancelled before it got too out of hand.
Cheers for that AD, that got the brain cells firing again, and now I remember the discussions around it, and we basically should have gone for a MOTS sollution. I remember there was a lot of talk on AFATDS, but don't pretend to know much about that side of things.

@Waylander:

I was not suggesting the K10 in and Australian context, even the SK's are only getting 130 ish versus 1,300 of the K9's. Our numbers would never warrant it, was just saying I liked the K9/K10, but obviously only the K9 as an Australian solution

Cheers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Joint fires core concept
Section 2.38 talks about Rocket Artillery for long range but also states Self propelled?

Do you guys think we will still get a SPH system,such as M-109, K9 or PZH 2000 ,seeing the 18 SPH were cancelled by government,or are they talking about a system such as 81/120 mortars? Bit confused here.

Also what would be the go for Rocket Arty?

Cheers
No Smith didn't read the document so doesn't know we were meant to have them which means we wont be getting them.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Joint fires core concept
Section 2.38 talks about Rocket Artillery for long range but also states Self propelled?

Do you guys think we will still get a SPH system,such as M-109, K9 or PZH 2000 ,seeing the 18 SPH were cancelled by government,or are they talking about a system such as 81/120 mortars? Bit confused here.

Also what would be the go for Rocket Arty?

Cheers
Not that I'll realistically expect it to happen, but I think a "Divisional Level" rocket artillery Regiment, structured along the same lines as our current Artillery Regiments, would be a great combat capability boost for Army (which is primarily why it won't happen) and a perfect capability to support the enhanced maneuver force we are trying to create.

The Regiment I can imagine would have an operational battery with 12 launcher systems, several observation post batteries, a combat support battery and a Regimental HQ.

Of the available capabilities, HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) would seem to be the best option for us, with GMLRS, ATACMS (probably a definite no-no as it would be described as "Army wants it's own Scud" by our wanker media types).

HIMARS:

Lockheed Martin · High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)

Bsed on these:

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2009/Jordon_09-32.pdf

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2012/Qatar_12-59.pdf

We'd be looking at a roughly $600m+ acquisition project (including an initial warstock of 60-100 GLMRS rocket pods and 100 ATACMS missiles) plus an unknown sustainment budget, which happens to be dearer than our entire Artillery replacement program (another reason why I think it won't happen).
 

the road runner

Active Member
Thanks guys.So i guess its like having to play a football match with out a Forward pack and expecting to win.It makes the mind boggle that the Government has information on what is needed ,but refuses to pay for the equipment ,training that is needed, for their vision of a defence force.

Bunch of boof heads.
 

Navor86

Member
Plan Beersheba the overall force structure plan can be found in here:

Plan BEERSHEBA - Australian Army

Forces Command structure is in here:

Forces Command - Australian Army

Royal Australian Infantry Corps is here:

The Royal Australian Infantry Corps - Australian Army

The plan - Objective Force 2030 I think provides what you are looking for:

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/~/media/Files/Our future/Publications/Army AOF 2030.ashx
Nope, none of the links offered the information I´m looking for.
Could anyone please provide the information that I´m looking for?
 

Focus-AS

New Member
I would argue the exact opposite. First of all whatever the UK experience with the AH.1 is it has no bearing on the Aussie Apache what if. They rebuilt the aircraft with their own engines, weapons, EW, HRH friendly seating, etc. We were just going to be buying AH-64Ds from the Arizona production line. Maybe some minor changes but nothing like the UK. Further the Block III (AH-64E) represents long term growth where there is nothing similar for the Eurocopter EC 665. Even without Block III we would have the FCR option for growth potential.
I know how much the Brit's modified their Apache's; despite that they are still concerned about support being supplied from the US? So why would we be immune to those same support issues? Especially when all of our helicopter would be American (with no indigenous fallback like the Brits).

As for growth potential, as detailed by Gremlin above the 64E is an impressive aircraft. As is the 64D. But the E would mean nothing to Australia; even with the AIR 87 MLUP do you think there is the money to take D's to E's? (Keeping in mind we've already spent a lot of money on top of AIR 87 for (training and the like), increased the budget to buy extra airframes and using more money for TLS (esp CL 5)).

The EC665 has a number of growth paths avaliable to customers; it's at this point that I usually indicate that the other three nations have just spent money upgrading to ARH - the best Tiger out there. These growth paths can go out to 20 - 25 years, include engineering, operational and logistic improvements and allow various segments to be selected to tailor the upgrade.

As to the size issues smaller may be cheaper to run but is that going to offset the still delayed entry into service. Plus of course the costs of not being able to share TLS in theatre with the US if need be.
Yes; but what would be the point of having no delay on a 75% capability?

And if size is such a crucial issue one can just spin the what if from Boeing and Apache to Bell and AH-1Z. Which despite its entry into service delays for the USMC would still beat ARH Tiger in to service and would have been hugely offset by the Bell offer of eight gap fill AH-1Ws.
And I'd suggest that the AH-1 would have been the worst choice of all three. I've tuned out of Zulu information in the past 12 months; but some of the information I was dealing with in 2011 indicated that AH-1Z has its own issues similar to ARH with the USMC. That's before anything we would have found in Australian service and before differences in the tender came to light.
 

Focus-AS

New Member
Nope, none of the links offered the information I´m looking for.
Could anyone please provide the information that I´m looking for?
I'm not sure there is anything out there below Coy level on the wider internet. Certainly the ORBATs that I saw on course late last year were still restricted and a quick Google search doesn't bring anything up.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I missed this one before xmas :( Thales has handed over the first prototype vehicle and trailer under Stage 2 of Land 121 Phase 4

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence Materiel – Newest Hawkei prototype delivered

Will be interesting to see how she goes over the next 12 months, but would expect lots of talk prior to Oct and the Federal election.

It is, IMO, a good looking piece of kit, would love to see a civvy version in the next few years, Aussie version of the Hummer :)

Cheers
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I know how much the Brit's modified their Apache's; despite that they are still concerned about support being supplied from the US? So why would we be immune to those same support issues? Especially when all of our helicopter would be American (with no indigenous fallback like the Brits).

As for growth potential, as detailed by Gremlin above the 64E is an impressive aircraft. As is the 64D. But the E would mean nothing to Australia; even with the AIR 87 MLUP do you think there is the money to take D's to E's? (Keeping in mind we've already spent a lot of money on top of AIR 87 for (training and the like), increased the budget to buy extra airframes and using more money for TLS (esp CL 5)).

The EC665 has a number of growth paths avaliable to customers; it's at this point that I usually indicate that the other three nations have just spent money upgrading to ARH - the best Tiger out there. These growth paths can go out to 20 - 25 years, include engineering, operational and logistic improvements and allow various segments to be selected to tailor the upgrade.
Who cares how good the Tiger might be if it isn't in service when we need it? Its more than ten years since we selected the Tiger yet we still cant deploy them operationally. If we had of selected the Apache, it would have been in service 5-7 years ago and deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan. Who cares about any RPS/maintenance issues at that point? At least its earning its keep. The same can/t be said of the Tiger. I remember watching the Tigers getting trucked back to Darwin from Hamel this year. Its hardly earning its keep when it can't even take part in a Brigade exercise without essentially falling out of the sky.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not sure there is anything out there below Coy level on the wider internet. Certainly the ORBATs that I saw on course late last year were still restricted and a quick Google search doesn't bring anything up.
There's nothing restricted about the MIB orbat. It has been published in the infantry magazine, contact and all sorts of other public publications. I just don't think anyone is too keen to take the time to explain it all again.
 

Focus-AS

New Member
Who cares how good the Tiger might be if it isn't in service when we need it? Its more than ten years since we selected the Tiger yet we still cant deploy them operationally. If we had of selected the Apache, it would have been in service 5-7 years ago and deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan. Who cares about any RPS/maintenance issues at that point? At least its earning its keep. The same can/t be said of the Tiger. I remember watching the Tigers getting trucked back to Darwin from Hamel this year. Its hardly earning its keep when it can't even take part in a Brigade exercise without essentially falling out of the sky.
Deployment is a political decision, not a military one. ARH is not in AFG because the government does not want it there. As for the question who cares about maintenance issues/RPS when there; well I'd suggest those same politicians, let alone the various Generals, Colonels and Privates.

As for Hamel; the helicopter didn't fall out of the sky. If you watched them being trucked back then you are either 1 Avn, 1 CSSB or AusAero. I'd suggest getting in touch with your chain of command and asking to see one of the senior technical people from TSS or a senior pilot from 161. I know that the missions being flown prior to Hamel impressed both Bde Comd and their staff; certainly enough to be requested to support their exercises in Cultana (where the ARH excelled).

FInally, the road move post Hamel actually allowed a chunk of outstanding engineering to be conducted and it's not the first time a helicopter has been recovered by truck. Hell, 1 Avn Regt was recovering Kiowa by truck in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Were they not sorted enough for you?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Deployment is a political decision, not a military one. ARH is not in AFG because the government does not want it there. As for the question who cares about maintenance issues/RPS when there; well I'd suggest those same politicians, let alone the various Generals, Colonels and Privates.

As for Hamel; the helicopter didn't fall out of the sky. If you watched them being trucked back then you are either 1 Avn, 1 CSSB or AusAero. I'd suggest getting in touch with your chain of command and asking to see one of the senior technical people from TSS or a senior pilot from 161. I know that the missions being flown prior to Hamel impressed both Bde Comd and their staff; certainly enough to be requested to support their exercises in Cultana (where the ARH excelled).

FInally, the road move post Hamel actually allowed a chunk of outstanding engineering to be conducted and it's not the first time a helicopter has been recovered by truck. Hell, 1 Avn Regt was recovering Kiowa by truck in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Were they not sorted enough for you?
One of the key issues, that unfortunately isn't recognised as a problem or a pattern with our procurement choices, is that, after leaving the order to the last possible second, we have selected options that are still highly developmental and expected them to meet our over optimistic schedules.

Yes the Tiger is good and likely will be great but it is still not ready which has left a gap in our ORBAT. Had we selected the AH-64 there would be no gap, had we selected Mangusta there would be no gap. Basically when it was decided we needed the capability instead of using an in-service, proven design to build our new capability we decided to go for risky, developmental design. Not smart really, there was no parent service to learn from, no robust logistics network, the depth of knowledge and experience just did not exist anywhere. We have had to do it all from scratch ourselves based on pretty much zero experience of operating and maintaining armed reconnaissance helicopters. I wonder why there have been issues?
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Who cares how good the Tiger might be if it isn't in service when we need it? Its more than ten years since we selected the Tiger yet we still cant deploy them operationally.
IOC for Tiger was eight years ago just before Xmas. Eight years from IOC and still no full capability release is an outrage.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Deployment is a political decision, not a military one. ARH is not in AFG because the government does not want it there. As for the question who cares about maintenance issues/RPS when there; well I'd suggest those same politicians, let alone the various Generals, Colonels and Privates.
While we will never know now, I am willing to bet a fair chunk of money if we had in service Apaches they would have been deployed to Afghanistan with MRTF-1 in 2008. At the very least, the government would have had the option to do so. That is not an option the Tiger gave us. It might (might) be available now, but there's not much point now when we are pulling out from Afghan.

As to no one caring about RPS/maintenance issues for the Apache, we have had RPS/maintenance issues with the Chinooks, Bushmasters, ASLAV, Macks, Unimogs, Spark mine-rollers, UAVs, PWS, RWS, Mk-19s, thermals etc, yet they have done the job. Smart people just make it work. Apache would be the same. Tiger doesn't give us that option.

As for Hamel; the helicopter didn't fall out of the sky. If you watched them being trucked back then you are either 1 Avn, 1 CSSB or AusAero. I'd suggest getting in touch with your chain of command and asking to see one of the senior technical people from TSS or a senior pilot from 161. I know that the missions being flown prior to Hamel impressed both Bde Comd and their staff; certainly enough to be requested to support their exercises in Cultana (where the ARH excelled).

FInally, the road move post Hamel actually allowed a chunk of outstanding engineering to be conducted and it's not the first time a helicopter has been recovered by truck. Hell, 1 Avn Regt was recovering Kiowa by truck in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Were they not sorted enough for you?
Who cares how good the Tiger went in previous exercises if it wasn't there for the main event? That's not a capability - its just an opportunity for some good photos.

As to the Kiowas, were these the same Kiowas that were taken off the 3 Bde OPFOR on HAMEL this year to give to 1 Bde so they could have some sort of attack helicopter capability after the Tigers were sent home? When 40 year old helicopters provide more capability than the Tigers, it is not a successful program.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Nope, none of the links offered the information I´m looking for.
Could anyone please provide the information that I´m looking for?
Try google searching for:

“Infantry2012”

“Modular Infantry Battalion”

“Manoeuvre Support Section”

Here is an old article from eight years ago when the new restructure was first announced:

Infantry 2012: the new battalion and the rule of four

To meet the demands of complex warfighting the Australian Army will initiate a significant restructure of the infantry battalion. This new ‘modular’ battalion will replace the current conventional battalion structure that has remained effectively unchanged since the end of World War I. Unlike previous restructures such as the ‘Pentropic’ or A21 experiments the new changes focus on the lower levels of the battalion, not radically increasing or decreasing the number of infantry companies. This reorganisation aims to improve flexibility and suppressive firepower so the infantry can survive in the complex battlefields of the present and the future.

Principle of Four and the ‘Arms Room’

The number four will be a dominant theme in the new battalion structure, with each team made up of four people and each command level - battalion, company, platoon – having four sub-units. The principle of four has been identified as a consistent theme in infantry. Having four elements enables a unit to simultaneously fix, assault, echelon and provide a reserve. In non-linear operations four also enables all directions to be covered. Having four sub-units provides a commander more flexibility in manoeuvring in linear operations with significantly more options such as three up, one back, etc.

The new infantry structure will rely heavily on the ‘Arms Room’ approach in which more weapon and equipment types are made available than can be used at once by a unit. This enables the commander to determine the weapons and equipment needed for particular operational and tactical demands. For example, a support weapon operator will have a choice of weapons, either a specialised anti-tank weapon or another system that is less lethal against tanks but more effective in fire suppression or fixed target destruction. This principle is currently used by Special Forces and Direct Fire Support Weapon (DFSW) platoons with a mix of the 84mm Carl Gustav Medium Anti-Tank Weapon (MAW) and 7.62mm Sustained Fire Machineguns (SFMG).

Team based structure

The building block of the new battalion will be a ‘brick’ or team of four soldiers. All combat elements of the battalion will be based on ‘bricks’ so they can easily double as low intensity conflict foot patrols. The basic brick will be the Infantry Team consisting of a team leader, Light Support Weapon (LSW) operator (armed with a 5.56mm Minimi LSW), grenadier (armed with a 40mm grenade launcher attachment to the basic assault rifle) and a marksman (with extra sighting options for his assault rifle). Each platoon will have six Infantry Teams normally organised as three sections, with three senior team leaders doubling as section leaders.

The new addition to the platoon will be three Manoeuvre Support (MS) Teams normally organised as a single section in the barracks. Each MS Team will have a team leader, support weapon operator, grenadier and sharpshooter and will be able to carry out all the tasks of an Infantry Team. However, the MS Team will have more powerful weapons and will generally operate in the fire suppression role. The support weapon operator in each team will be armed with a 7.62mm MAG-58 General-Purpose Machinegun (GPMG) and the sharpshooter with a semi-automatic 7.62mm sniper rifle. As part of the ‘Arms Room’ approach the three MS teams will also have two additional heavy weapons to draw upon if needed. These will be one 12.7mm Heavy Machinegun (HMG) and one 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) along with their required tripods, sights and ammunition to be acquired for the infantry under Project LAND 40. To provide mobility to the MS Teams with their heavier weapons and ammunition loads each MS Team in a light infantry battalion will also receive a small, lightweight vehicle such as the parachute deployable Supacat 6x6 Mk III All Terrain Mobile Platform (ATMP). ATMPs are lightweight, compact vehicles able to carry 1,000kg in a variety of configurations. They are limited to a top speed of 60kph but their low weight and small footprint make them easily deployable.

The flexibility of the new structure will best be seen in the way the MS Teams are deployed, either as their own section per platoon or by adding one team to each infantry section, or even grouping all the MS Teams at company level as a very powerful MS Platoon under command of the Company Weapons Sergeant. The MS Teams will use the appropriate weapon for each particular situation and mission and provide a major boost to the platoon’s combat power. The final team in each platoon will be a four-person command team with the platoon commander, sergeant, signaller and medic.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I know how much the Brit's modified their Apache's; despite that they are still concerned about support being supplied from the US? So why would we be immune to those same support issues? Especially when all of our helicopter would be American (with no indigenous fallback like the Brits).
As Raven mentioned it’s better to have something in service with support issues rather than not have something in service without support issues! Thinking “we can sustain it, but we can’t use it” would make for an excellenet episode of “Yes Defence Minister”…

Anyway AFAIK the problems with US helo support at the moment are because of very high operational tempo. If we had Apaches then those deployed in theatre would be getting the support where and when it is needed. It would be those back in Oz that would have the problems.

As for growth potential, as detailed by Gremlin above the 64E is an impressive aircraft. As is the 64D. But the E would mean nothing to Australia; even with the AIR 87 MLUP do you think there is the money to take D's to E's? (Keeping in mind we've already spent a lot of money on top of AIR 87 for (training and the like), increased the budget to buy extra airframes and using more money for TLS (esp CL 5)).
The Echo is indicative of an upgrade path through the life of the aircraft. At least is has an MLU option rather than just a lifetime CAP. Even within the Delta model there would be room for significant capability upgrade if needed by adding the FCR.

And I'd suggest that the AH-1 would have been the worst choice of all three. I've tuned out of Zulu information in the past 12 months; but some of the information I was dealing with in 2011 indicated that AH-1Z has its own issues similar to ARH with the USMC. That's before anything we would have found in Australian service and before differences in the tender came to light.
Sure the Zulu has similar problems to the Tiger but the whole point is if we had contracted with Bell we would have had a gap fill capability via a squadron’s worth of Whiskeys. That is a fully operational ARH providing capability for training and even deployment. A troop of AH-1Ws would have been very welcome in East Timor in 2006. I would imagine the AAAvn workforce would be in a lot better position with those AH-1Ws as well flying full annual hours during the delays in new build ARH capability.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I know how much the Brit's modified their Apache's; despite that they are still concerned about support being supplied from the US? So why would we be immune to those same support issues? Especially when all of our helicopter would be American (with no indigenous fallback like the Brits).
We are not immune from support issues is the basic answer. We've seen this in ridiculous detail with Tiger and now MRH-90. I think the difference here is worrying more about what might have been an issue, rather than what IS and always has been issue and not just for us, but EVERY user of the capability.

As for growth potential, as detailed by Gremlin above the 64E is an impressive aircraft. As is the 64D. But the E would mean nothing to Australia; even with the AIR 87 MLUP do you think there is the money to take D's to E's? (Keeping in mind we've already spent a lot of money on top of AIR 87 for (training and the like), increased the budget to buy extra airframes and using more money for TLS (esp CL 5)).
There is money for the Tiger upgrade, would that money not be available for AH-64D upgrades, even if we didn't opt for the full Block III capability?

The EC665 has a number of growth paths avaliable to customers; it's at this point that I usually indicate that the other three nations have just spent money upgrading to ARH - the best Tiger out there. These growth paths can go out to 20 - 25 years, include engineering, operational and logistic improvements and allow various segments to be selected to tailor the upgrade.
Growth paths exist for Apache too. Just like the TUSK upgrades we've acquired for the M1A1 fleet, I've no doubt we could pick the options we are most in need of to ensure our capability remains effective and supportable throughout it's service life.

The difference is, we'd have had an operational aircraft for the last 7 years, instead of the basket-case developmental program we've been stuck with.



Yes; but what would be the point of having no delay on a 75% capability?
Do you honestly think an AH-64D only provides 75% of the capability of the Tiger? The AH-64D met our requirements for AIR-87 even in the de-spec'd form that was bid for it...

And I'd suggest that the AH-1 would have been the worst choice of all three. I've tuned out of Zulu information in the past 12 months; but some of the information I was dealing with in 2011 indicated that AH-1Z has its own issues similar to ARH with the USMC. That's before anything we would have found in Australian service and before differences in the tender came to light.
Those programs tracked pretty closely actually. The difference is that Bell acknowledged their development issues, Australian Aerospace did not. Everything was "fine" with the Tiger on paper and it was cheaper than it's rivals too, according to it's manufacturer.

We can all see how those claims turned out...

If we'd chosen the AH-1Z we'd have had much the same problem as the USMC did, the difference seems to be that we COULD have had AH-1W to provide an interim capability to support our training function and provide a limited operational capability to replace the Bushrangers and support tactics development. On top of which, despite their issues, the kinks in that program HAVE been worked out, quicker than the Tiger program has managed.

And the AH-1Z would have been far better suited to operations off our LHD's...
 

Focus-AS

New Member
While we will never know now, I am willing to bet a fair chunk of money if we had in service Apaches they would have been deployed to Afghanistan with MRTF-1 in 2008. At the very least, the government would have had the option to do so. That is not an option the Tiger gave us. It might (might) be available now, but there's not much point now when we are pulling out from Afghan.

As to no one caring about RPS/maintenance issues for the Apache, we have had RPS/maintenance issues with the Chinooks, Bushmasters, ASLAV, Macks, Unimogs, Spark mine-rollers, UAVs, PWS, RWS, Mk-19s, thermals etc, yet they have done the job. Smart people just make it work. Apache would be the same. Tiger doesn't give us that option.
What option? RPS issues are RPS issues. If you cannot get a widget for an AH-64 becuase of the supply chain then it doesn't work; no matter how much your smart people try. ARH is the same. A Mk 19 is the same. The 64 would bring its own issues to the table; I've had Kiowa's and S-70's awaiting parts out of the US that we couldn't get - ARH is no different.



Who cares how good the Tiger went in previous exercises if it wasn't there for the main event? That's not a capability - its just an opportunity for some good photos.

As to the Kiowas, were these the same Kiowas that were taken off the 3 Bde OPFOR on HAMEL this year to give to 1 Bde so they could have some sort of attack helicopter capability after the Tigers were sent home? When 40 year old helicopters provide more capability than the Tigers, it is not a successful program.
Poor wording; the previous ex being Pred Strike. The Cultana ex was in Oct / Nov (after Hamel) and was more important to 1 Bde / JOC than Hamel. Also much more important then just a photo op.

The Kiowas at Hamel placed a helicopter in the sky for ground forces; all simulations relating to their role as an attack helicopter were done by the ARH aircrew. The Kiowa's provided a very poor simulation; by the time the last ARH had left the Kiowa's were no longer simulating.
 

Focus-AS

New Member
IOC for Tiger was eight years ago just before Xmas. Eight years from IOC and still no full capability release is an outrage.
Agreed. And having sorted through issues that arose in 2006/07 I have little good to say about DMO and AIR 87 in that time period.


As Raven mentioned it’s better to have something in service with support issues rather than not have something in service without support issues! Thinking “we can sustain it, but we can’t use it” would make for an excellenet episode of “Yes Defence Minister”…
We have that. ARH has been in service for a while (as in, capable of fielding a Tp+ O/S). If the politicans don't want to deploy it - then it's their call. There is no Australian M1 or 155mm in theater; are they failures?

Anyway AFAIK the problems with US helo support at the moment are because of very high operational tempo. If we had Apaches then those deployed in theatre would be getting the support where and when it is needed. It would be those back in Oz that would have the problems.
With consequental issues relating to floow on forces. And while I've seen some of the activities the CH-47 crews got up to to scrounge parts - not excatly sustainable in the long term.

Sure the Zulu has similar problems to the Tiger but the whole point is if we had contracted with Bell we would have had a gap fill capability via a squadron’s worth of Whiskeys. That is a fully operational ARH providing capability for training and even deployment. A troop of AH-1Ws would have been very welcome in East Timor in 2006. I would imagine the AAAvn workforce would be in a lot better position with those AH-1Ws as well flying full annual hours during the delays in new build ARH capability.
I doubt that the 1W's would have been as useful and avalaible; the crews would have come from 1 Avn and they would have required training; not sure that would have been supported by 2006. Then there was the political angle of putting ARH into TL at that time; I know that they didn't want S-70 to have door guns at the time. Finally, while there was an intensive 2 - 3 month period for the Kiowa's it had already started to taper off by mid-06.

I would agree that now the personnel side of the house would have been sorted better with interim Whiskey's; I doubt that the discussions now about Tiger would have been different with Zulu's.
 
Top