Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Focus-AS]

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.

So what is the problem then? If supply chain stuff is an issue for everything then you cannot only fault Tiger on it. I get that the supply chain was poor; but from mid-11 onwards it has been nigh on faultless.

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?

Yes, as I said. Though AH-64 would have cost more for everything, so the amount of money would be avaliable for MLU is likely to be less (in this fiscal climate and assuming that the extra money had been partially brought forward from the MLU to TLS world).

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.

As with Tiger.

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.

It hasn't been a basket case since about mid-08 and its provided a capability (capably of being deployed) for the past while.

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...

No; but I would say that a fleet of 22 Tiger (when EC has said we need 22 to meet the contract requirement) is more capable than a fleet of X AH-64 when Boeing has said you need X + 6 (especially when we could only afford X).

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...

To some extent (and I wholeheartedly agree about EC / AusAero and their...optimistic views). But I'll note that Zulu isn't fully sorted and ARH suffers a little from the Collins Class symptoms in that the general public and media are not aware of how far along 1 Avn has dragged the beast. It has problems - but nothing that is new or different.

As for Zulu and LHD's, I'll wait until I see gf's stuff about ARH and LHD first. I'm currently unconvinced that a Zulu would be better than an ARH.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

ARH suffers a little from the Collins Class symptoms in that the general public and media are not aware of how far along 1 Avn has dragged the beast. It has problems - but nothing that is new or different.

I agree but another side of the problem in terms of perception is that the ARH may go from being a “Collins Class” to become another “F-111”. That is once in service a very useful and powerful weapon that is rightly lionised as the centrepiece of air force combat power (though in this case land force combat power). However such laurels for the F-111 lose sight that we didn’t have it when we needed it the most (VietNam War) and when it was specifically purchased for (1967-68 squadron service date) and it cost far more than originally quoted. So the alternatives game is more than justified as it is in the case of the F-111.

 

[Volkodav]

I agree but another side of the problem in terms of perception is that the ARH may go from being a “Collins Class” to become another “F-111”. That is once in service a very useful and powerful weapon that is rightly lionised as the centrepiece of air force combat power (though in this case land force combat power). However such laurels for the F-111 lose sight that we didn’t have it when we needed it the most (VietNam War) and when it was specifically purchased for (1967-68 squadron service date) and it cost far more than originally quoted. So the alternatives game is more than justified as it is in the case of the F-111.

Exactly, the F-111 had an opportunity cost that likely damaged the ADF in real terms. A stike aircraft that was on time and worked as advertised would have been great and could have been provided by the A-5, or to be honest even the A-7 and prehaps the best option the F-4. Money saved could have gone towards aditional airframes, tankers, a dedicated reccon capability etc, or dare I say it a strike carrier.

Same for the Tiger, a helo that worked 8 years ago for less money would have been good and could have translated into extra airframes / more units or freed up cash for SPGs etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Exactly, the F-111 had an opportunity cost that likely damaged the ADF in real terms. A stike aircraft that was on time and worked as advertised would have been great and could have been provided by the A-5, or to be honest even the A-7 and prehaps the best option the F-4. Money saved could have gone towards aditional airframes, tankers, a dedicated reccon capability etc, or dare I say it a strike carrier.

The A-7 was a paper airplane in 1962-63 when the decision was made. The A3J-2 (later renamed A-5B) was the RAAF’s choice for the strike aircraft and even the British TSR.2 was far more advanced than the F-111 and would have been in service in time to replace the Canberras in VietNam. But I suspect you are right on the strike carrier hunch. The RAN’s proposal for a Essex class carrier with F-4B Phantoms would have provided more combat power and reach than the F-111s plus improved ASW and fleet AAW compared to the new air wing (Skyhawks and Trackers) and refit for HMAS Melbourne. Combined with RAAF F-4s x 48 to replace the Canberras would probably have cost less than the F-111s. I could look up the actual figures on what it would have costed but stuff it, its Sundya night.

 

[Raven22]

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.

If you can't get a widget for an Apache in Afghanistan, then you wait until you can (or walk across the compound and grab a Yank one). The point is the rest of the time the Apache is in country providing a capability. That's no different to any other equipment in theatre. I once waited a month for an ASLAV engine to be flown out from Australia. For the other six months my ASLAV was providing the required capability. It wasn't perfect but we still achieved the mission. Who cares if the Tiger has all the widgets in the world if it can't actually be used? 100% of nothing is still nothing.

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.

The Kiowas were still simulating after the ARH left - they handed over the Kiowas that were supporting the 3 Bde OPFOR to 1 Bde to provide some sort of capability. Most ARH missions were notional though (one of my vehicles was destroyed by a notional ARH mission. None of the umpires could tell me how I was supposed to defend against a helicopter that didn't actually exist).

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?

How long has the Tiger been capable of deployment to a medium threat environment (Afghan) as opposed to a low threat environment (Timor/Solomons) though? Obviously you can't say it here, but it hasn't been very long. The M1 was capable of being deployed from 2005 on and we could have had 155s in theatre the whole time. They were real options for government. Tiger not so much.

 

[hairyman]

I see where the german Army has 8 Tiger helicopters in Afghanistan, which are due to commence active service in the next month or so.
Did their helicopters suffer from the same deficiencies as our Tigers?

 

[Focus-AS]

I agree but another side of the problem in terms of perception is that the ARH may go from being a “Collins Class” to become another “F-111”. That is once in service a very useful and powerful weapon that is rightly lionised as the centrepiece of air force combat power (though in this case land force combat power). However such laurels for the F-111 lose sight that we didn’t have it when we needed it the most (VietNam War) and when it was specifically purchased for (1967-68 squadron service date) and it cost far more than originally quoted. So the alternatives game is more than justified as it is in the case of the F-111.

Agree. I think (hope?) that a combination of RAInf and RAAC will keep AAAVn honest; likewise I think that the M1 / ASLAV capability will keep ARH from not playing when needed. It helps having the supported Bde next door to drag 1 Avn back to the real Army - in that ARH is just another tool for the Land Force while F-111 was a critical part of the Air Force mission.

 

[Focus-AS]

If you can't get a widget for an Apache in Afghanistan, then you wait until you can (or walk across the compound and grab a Yank one). The point is the rest of the time the Apache is in country providing a capability. That's no different to any other equipment in theatre. I once waited a month for an ASLAV engine to be flown out from Australia. For the other six months my ASLAV was providing the required capability. It wasn't perfect but we still achieved the mission. Who cares if the Tiger has all the widgets in the world if it can't actually be used? 100% of nothing is still nothing.

Hang on. If an Apache doesn't have a widget it doesn't provide a capability. An issue with ARH in 2006/07 was the lack of widgets in the supply system. Your LAV was useless without an engine; as would be the case for my ARH. My point is that American aircraft to not automatically equal a seemless supply chain. Bell, Sikorsky and Lockheed have all had issues in my experience; I also understand that the Hornet, Orion and Herc worlds have also had issues. If the US Army wants something and the Australian Army wants the same thing, guess who wins?

It is also not just a case of taking something of an American detachment; the CH-47s got in a lot of trouble from both ends until something was formalised - nothing that also assumes they have the part you need.

The Kiowas were still simulating after the ARH left - they handed over the Kiowas that were supporting the 3 Bde OPFOR to 1 Bde to provide some sort of capability. Most ARH missions were notional though (one of my vehicles was destroyed by a notional ARH mission. None of the umpires could tell me how I was supposed to defend against a helicopter that didn't actually exist).

Two parts here; the Kiowas were only simulating ARH for 72 h into the ex after D+2 or thereabouts; it was assessed as too hard after that. They then flew their own missions.

Second part is the silly attitude about killing notinal ARH. If you were on BlueFor then it had been part of the threat senario that there were MI-28s about (simulated by Kiowa). Should we say that there are no Mi-28s in Australia and hence they couldn't kill things? Or should we assume that the enemy has Mi-28s and Mi-24s and it would be a good idea to practise against those threats? Likewise, if you were OPFOR wouldn't you image that Australia would bring some ARH (especially if it's bringing M1)? In which case comments stand. Finally; notinal missions were done with Kiowa - so if you saw a helicopter kill it. If you didn't then reality dictates you have a 70mm or AGM-114 comeing your way anyhow.

How long has the Tiger been capable of deployment to a medium threat environment (Afghan) as opposed to a low threat environment (Timor/Solomons) though? Obviously you can't say it here, but it hasn't been very long. The M1 was capable of being deployed from 2005 on and we could have had 155s in theatre the whole time. They were real options for government. Tiger not so much.

It's been deployable for longer than you'd think. Certainly not as long as M1 but enough to have provided an option to government.

 

[Raven22]

Hang on. If an Apache doesn't have a widget it doesn't provide a capability. An issue with ARH in 2006/07 was the lack of widgets in the supply system. Your LAV was useless without an engine; as would be the case for my ARH. My point is that American aircraft to not automatically equal a seemless supply chain. Bell, Sikorsky and Lockheed have all had issues in my experience; I also understand that the Hornet, Orion and Herc worlds have also had issues. If the US Army wants something and the Australian Army wants the same thing, guess who wins?

It is also not just a case of taking something of an American detachment; the CH-47s got in a lot of trouble from both ends until something was formalised - nothing that also assumes they have the part you need.

And my point was that five years ago I'd rather an Apache with supply chain problems than a Tiger that provided zero capability. And who cares about getting in trouble for doing the dodge on ops?

Second part is the silly attitude about killing notinal ARH. If you were on BlueFor then it had been part of the threat senario that there were MI-28s about (simulated by Kiowa). Should we say that there are no Mi-28s in Australia and hence they couldn't kill things? Or should we assume that the enemy has Mi-28s and Mi-24s and it would be a good idea to practise against those threats? Likewise, if you were OPFOR wouldn't you image that Australia would bring some ARH (especially if it's bringing M1)? In which case comments stand. Finally; notinal missions were done with Kiowa - so if you saw a helicopter kill it. If you didn't then reality dictates you have a 70mm or AGM-114 comeing your way anyhow.

Er, what? It is pretty easy to defend against actual ARHs. In the scenario, as soon as actual helicopters moved south our recon let the battle group know, and the battle-group started taking precautions. Every C/S that saw or heard the helicopter gave an indication to firm up the picture. If it came near you - hide. Pretty simple. They are not going to spot static forces under cover. They might pick off the odd something or other, but they are hardly a magic bullet. My troop captured a 1 Bde JFO party that was inserted by Blackhawk this way (captured all the 1 Bde freqs and fills too BTW).

Compare that to simply having an umpire walking up to you and telling you that two of your vehicles have been destroyed by an ARH strike. Hardly realistic. It might exercise the dudes in the 1 Bde/1 Avn HQ that were planning the sorties, but it was hardly a realistic outcome.

It's been deployable for longer than you'd think. Certainly not as long as M1 but enough to have provided an option to government.

It's been deployable for >5 years less than Apache would have been if they were bought instead of the Tiger. Which is the point.

 

[old faithful]

Oh please....we didn't get apache, we got tiger.
we gotta live with it now. Talk to others and its we should a got Leo 11,s not Abrams, sholuda got M16A2 not Styer ....

As for exercise, I got killed by an SAS trooper when he pointed his finger at me and said it was a silenced 9mm, he didn't have one, but would have on ops, so he says.I had challenged him, as he aproached our position in ozcam. The day before, he was on our side as a guide on the DZ.

Exercises suck and are confusing sometimes, just like operations.

 

[Focus-AS]

And my point was that five years ago I'd rather an Apache with supply chain problems than a Tiger that provided zero capability. And who cares about getting in trouble for doing the dodge on ops?.

An AH-64 with supply issues five years ago was pretty close to a Tiger; they'd have offered very similar capability O/S.

Doing the dodg with aircraft parts is inviting a world of hurt - I'd prefer not thanks.

Er, what? It is pretty easy to defend against actual ARHs. In the scenario, as soon as actual helicopters moved south our recon let the battle group know, and the battle-group started taking precautions. Every C/S that saw or heard the helicopter gave an indication to firm up the picture. If it came near you - hide. Pretty simple. They are not going to spot static forces under cover. They might pick off the odd something or other, but they are hardly a magic bullet. My troop captured a 1 Bde JFO party that was inserted by Blackhawk this way (captured all the 1 Bde freqs and fills too BTW).

Compare that to simply having an umpire walking up to you and telling you that two of your vehicles have been destroyed by an ARH strike. Hardly realistic. It might exercise the dudes in the 1 Bde/1 Avn HQ that were planning the sorties, but it was hardly a realistic outcome.

Every notional ARH mission I saw had a Kiowa fly it. If the umpires started making stuff up at D+3 onwards then I'd quote old faithful. Especially since Hellfire was negated from D+3.

It's been deployable for >5 years less than Apache would have been if they were bought instead of the Tiger. Which is the point.

Possibly; but I doubt it. While I admire the AH-64, am impressed with it technically and operationally I belive that it would have been a poor choice for the ADF.

 

[aussienscale]

Anyone know of any exercises around SEQ at the moment involving the Tiger's ? Saw one today buzzing Byron Bay, was pretty low too

Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Anyone know of any exercises around SEQ at the moment involving the Tiger's ? Saw one today buzzing Byron Bay, was pretty low too

Cheers

That was probably the same Tiger that did 4-5 low circles (<500 feet) over the top of Burleigh Heads today at 1130. I enjoyed it, I'm sure the aircrew enjoyed it. I don't know if it served any training purpose but.

 

[aussienscale]

That was probably the same Tiger that did 4-5 low circles (<500 feet) over the top of Burleigh Heads today at 1130. I enjoyed it, I'm sure the aircrew enjoyed it. I don't know if it served any training purpose but.

Yep, was good to see, probably did not serve a purpose, but he had several thousand people stopped in their tracks in Byron when he came through

It was nice to see something other than the SH's down at Evans Head, or the C-17's around Ballina Airport

Cheers

 

[STURM]

Apologies for the off-topic question. Back in the early or mid-1990's a small convoy of lorries carrying members of the Butterworth Rifle Company were involved in a collision with a civllian vehicle, in Malaysia, and at least a couple of Australians were killed.
Does anyone recall the exact year this accident took place, thank you.

 

[Marc 1]

Apologies for the off-topic question. Back in the early or mid-1990's a small convoy of lorries carrying members of the Butterworth Rifle Company were involved in a collision with a civllian vehicle, in Malaysia, and at least a couple of Australians were killed.
Does anyone recall the exact year this accident took place, thank you.

Sadly i think that involved one of the NCO's I worked with at 6RAR - Cpl Mal Rutherford. Top bloke and an excellent JNCO. We left our Butterworth rotation when I was at 6 in Jan '90 iirc. We had 2 of the Hino 4x4 trucks used as troop carriers go into ditches evading the dodgy malay drivers thankfully with no injuries or significant damage in the 3 months we were there. It would have occurred the next time 6RAR did the Butterworth rotation I'd guess 91-92? Can't find dates - anyone got better google-fu?

 

[old faithful]

We (3RAR) relieved 6RAR in 92, there was no talk at all of that incident, don't think it was that year.
Saw a couple of bad road accidents though, one near Ipoh that I remember in great detail, very sad.
I hate those Hino trucks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We (3RAR) relieved 6RAR in 92, there was no talk at all of that incident, don't think it was that year.
Saw a couple of bad road accidents though, one near Ipoh that I remember in great detail, very sad.
I hate those Hino trucks.

I was in Malaysia 1985.

I hated driving the road to Johore. The tuk-tuk drivers used to try and overtake logging trucks going up the hills

They were mad.....

you'd see an accident every trip and usually all within 3km of each other

 

[STURM]

Saw a couple of bad road accidents though, one near Ipoh that I remember in great detail, very sad.

They were mad.....

you'd see an accident every trip and usually all within 3km of each other

Unfortunately, Malaysian driving skills - in general - over the years have not improved and in fact have gotten worse. Many drivers lack even basic driving skills and seem totally oblivous to the fact that there are others on the road. The only other place I've seen with equally bad and mad drivers was Greece but then at least the ones I saw actually knew how to drive ....

 

[Para 3]

RCB Butterworth

3RAR replaced 5/7RAR in 1985. A LCPL from 5/7 was killed two weeks before that rotation ended in a truck v truck accident. It made for a sad handover.