Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[the road runner]

Think 173 Squadron will replace(retire) their Kiowa with Blackhawks.
Army always clings on to it's helicopters.
Some here have said we could do with a couple more Squadrons of choppers.

 

[meatshield]

Think 173 Squadron will replace(retire) their Kiowa with Blackhawks.
Army always clings on to it's helicopters.
Some here have said we could do with a couple more Squadrons of choppers.

Will the army keep the Chook D's when the F's get here? I hope they do...

 

[Volkodav]

Will the army keep the Chook D's when the F's get here? I hope they do...

Or selling them and using the money to buy some more Fs may be a better way to go, common fleet and support structures etc.

Old useful gear can be good but we really need to start crunching the through life numbers a lot better and make sure we are not tying up recourses that could be extremely useful else where.

The other thing that comes to mind is the Blackhawks that are / may be retained to support special forces. Would we be better off in the long terms selling the Blackhawks and D model chooks and getting something more capable and supportable for this role?

 

[the road runner]

The other thing that comes to mind is the Blackhawks that are / may be retained to support special forces. Would we be better off in the long terms selling the Blackhawks and D model chooks and getting something more capable and supportable for this role?

When i was down at HMAS Penguin for the international fleet review i spoke with a pilot form 173 Squadron and he told me they will upgrade with Blackhawks once other squadrons get their MRH-90's.

After seeing all the toys that army operate i have to agree with your above point.
I thought Air9000 major aim was to reduce numbers from 9 different helicopters to 5.

Seeing the sizeof the MRH-90 in person , i wonder if they would be to big for operating in an Urban environment for special forces.The Blackhawks seem like a great size for that tasking

 

[winnyfield]

.....Would we be better off in the long terms selling the Blackhawks and D model chooks and getting something more capable and supportable for this role?

SOCOMD reportedly wants their own Chinook sf variants. Chinooks can carry Nary supacats, RHIBs and internally Zodiacs .

2007 article
http://198.170.107.43/download/Services/ADBR on New Chinooks.pdf

•The Department of Defence is understood to have funded an engineering study to modify its new C-17A strategic airlifters to enable the aircraft to undertake in-flight refuelling utilising wing mounted pod/hose & drogue technology.
•Defence has reportedly lodged a proposal with Government seeking approval to purchase a batch of latest-build CH-47F ‘Chinook’ helicopters customised for special operations, or in full US Army MH-47G special forces fit out.
•The acquisition of new capability ‘Chinook’ helicopters is expected to be funded via Joint Project 2097 (‘Redfin’), and will
complement the longer term phase 5B.2 of project Air 9000 upgrade of the Army’s existing CH-47D helicopters

 

[Volkodav]

Giving some more thought to it, with the RAN FAA going for Romeo the S-70 family will not be the orphan it would have become otherwise. The UH-60, especially with the current infrastructure and army support structure, would be supportable just depends on how much money is in the kitty to retain the necessary personnel.

Maybe look into the Sierra (MH-60S) or Knighthawk as a longer term replacement for the UH-60 in the SOF support role. Along with its CSAR and MCM capabilities, not to forget its commonalities with the Romeo, the Sierra could be a very attractive and versatile option for the ADF in general.

http://defensetech.org/2013/12/18/navy-arms-mh-60s-helicopter-with-gatling-gun/

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mh_60s/

Looks better and better

 

[Navor86]

I somehow fail to grasp the reasoning behind the idea to replace 173rd Sqn LUH capability with MTHs. I thought the ADF was to purchase a dedicated LUH for training and other tasks?

 

[Volkodav]

I somehow fail to grasp the reasoning behind the idea to replace 173rd Sqn LUH capability with MTHs. I thought the ADF was to purchase a dedicated LUH for training and other tasks?

173 Sqn are being oriented specifically towards special operations support, a set of missions which I believe a LUH is too little and the MRH90 to large. Basically the existing Blackhawks are still the best in service platform for the job.

This is why I have postulated the Sierra as being a suitable replacement for the legacy Blackhawks. It is the right size, it shares many commonalities with the RANs new Romeos, it is fully marinised (including folding rotors and tail boom), it has been designed with SOF support missions in mind, is armed and is capable conducting other missions that the ADF is currently deficient in, I.e. CSAR. It is also a FMS system fully suppported by the USN.

 

[the road runner]

This is why I have postulated the Sierra as being a suitable replacement for the legacy Blackhawks. It is the right size, it shares many commonalities with the RANs new Romeos, it is fully marinised (including folding rotors and tail boom), it has been designed with SOF support missions in mind, is armed and is capable conducting other missions that the ADF is currently deficient in, I.e. CSAR. It is also a FMS system fully suppported by the USN.

What about the RAN's S-70B-2's ,i read an article a while back that they have very low flight hours on them?

I assume the Army's Blackhawks have been flogged,flight hour wise?

Edit. Could you see Government splurging on new helicopters for 173 Squadron?

 

[Volkodav]

What about the RAN's S-70B-2's ,i read an article a while back that they have very low flight hours on them?

I assume the Army's Blackhave been flogged,flight hour wise?

Edit. Could you see Government splurging on new helicopters for 173 Squadron?

The B2 with its single door and restricked internal volume wouldn't be as useful as the current Blackhawks. My thinking was when it comes time, or if there is money available, the Sierra would make more sense, considering the recent Romeo buy, than anyother new build option.

Don't get me wrong, Osprey, Raider, MH-47G etc would all be nice, but in terms of something that would slot in with the minimal additional support footprint, while adding to overall capability and flexibility, I can't see anything else that offers so much for so little additional investment.

 

[Monitor66]

Based on some conversations I've overheard, I wouldn't be surprised if the Abbot government ressurrects the SPG soon after taking office, with an off the shelf buy from the US.



The push for new AGLs has slowed down, due to more buys of Mk-19 and the infantry no longer really pushing the capability (AGLs and their ammo are really heavy, who knew?). Funnily enough, the greatest push for AGLs is now coming from the artillery. Due to the demise of the SPG, they have successfully lobbied that their towed gun lines need for more protection, which includes AGLs. Expect a buy of the off the shelf AGLs and sights whenever the money is available.

Latest word from industry is that an RFT for the LWAGL under Land 40-2 is now due around mid year, calling for up to 200 systems.

Candidate solutions are the same as round one: HK GMG with Vingmate FCS and General Dynamics Mk 47 with Raytheon Lightweight Video Sight. High-velocity airburst ammunition will also be part of the package. Both thoroughly MOTS systems and operationally proven.

Let's hope the tender evaluation and contract negotiation process is straightforward this time around and the capability gets delivered in short order.

 

[hairyman]

Latest word from industry is that an RFT for the LWAGL under Land 40-2 is now due around mid year, calling for up to 200 systems.

Candidate solutions are the same as round one: HK GMG with Vingmate FCS and General Dynamics Mk 47 with Raytheon Lightweight Video Sight. High-velocity airburst ammunition will also be part of the package. Both thoroughly MOTS systems and operationally proven.

Let's hope the tender evaluation and contract negotiation process is straightforward this time around and the capability gets delivered in short order.

It is many years (over50) since I was wearing a slouch hat, so be kind to me fellas. Dont use so many abbreviations l.ike RFT LWAGL etc. Is that Hong Kong General MotorsGun? Sheeze

 

[t68]

It is many years (over50) since I was wearing a slouch hat, so be kind to me fellas. Dont use so many abbreviations l.ike RFT LWAGL etc. Is that Hong Kong General MotorsGun? Sheeze

RFT= Request for tender
LWAGL= lightweight automatic grenade launchers

 

[Monitor66]

It is many years (over50) since I was wearing a slouch hat, so be kind to me fellas. Dont use so many abbreviations l.ike RFT LWAGL etc. Is that Hong Kong General MotorsGun? Sheeze

RFT: Request for Tender

LWAGL: Lightweight Automatic Grenade Launcher

HK GMG: Heckler & Koch Grenade Machine Gun

MOTS: Military-Off-The-Shelf

 

[hairyman]

Thanks for that fellas.

 

[Monitor66]

The Army’s LARC-Vs were built in 1964-65 but were stored from 91 to 98 and then rebuilt with new engines. We have 64 LARC-Vs with only 12 in use at anyone time so plenty of life in the fleet. They are used to support the Army’s Amphibious Beach Team (aka Beachmaster) which controls the beach for landing craft and over beach liquid. The 14 LCM8s were built 67-71 (18 built but four disposed since) and have been rebuilt since. Both the LARC-Vs and LCM8s are to be replaced under JP 2048.

Three years on from this post, does anyone have a clearer idea as to what the future of the LARC-V fleet will be? It is almost 15 years since their life-of-type extension.

Are they being replaced? JP2048 has no scope for replacing them that I can see (Phase 6 of that project was looking at riverine craft - which are not LARC-V replacements - but that now appears to have been shelved).

My understanding is that they perform an important albeit unglamourous role in the ship-to-shore transfer of minor cargo (engines, parts, palletised loads etc) and personnel. It is worth noting that the LHDs have nothing smaller than the LCM-1E with which to bring loads ashore; there is no mention of the smaller LCVP craft built in the early 1990s and which are attached to Tobruk (2) and Success (1) with one held in reserve. If you don't want to use or have available a helicopter, do you really want to bring, for instance, engineers, HQ staff or a single rifle section ashore using a 50 tonne capacity LCM-1E?

Renderings of the LHDs continue to show four RHIBs in the well dock behind the LCM-1E landing craft, to what end I'm not sure. If they are SF RHIBs then where is their corresponding trailer and tow vehicle to get them from the vehicle deck, across the steel beach and into the flooded dock? If they do have a future as part of ADAS I'd much rather see LARC-Vs depicted instead - at least they're actually amphibious and can carry meaningful loads.

The LARC-V is unaffected by lack of infrastructure, surf zones or tidal variations, can operate in high sea states and deliver cargo and troops to a transfer point inland. No other ADF platform enjoys such capabilities.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The LARC-V is unaffected by lack of infrastructure, surf zones or tidal variations, can operate in high sea states and deliver cargo and troops to a transfer point inland. No other ADF platform enjoys such capabilities.

The LHD's will most likely use the LCM's for pretty much everything (or a RHIB). Travelling between LHD and shore at 7 knots in a LARC-V would be quite painful if the LHD is located further off shore (lets say 37 km OTH but could be more).

But they would serve a useful purpose for aid (particularly in flooded/tsunami areas), littorals, island hopping, antarctic missions etc. Not operating from the LHD, but from other ships (OCV's, LPD), flying in with C-17's/C-130 for aid distribution and rescue etc. Im not sure if the LARC-V are going to be disposed of, but its unlikely they will partner with the LHD's as a regular thing. I would imagine they are the sort of useful thing that will probably get used from time to time, even with the LHD.

I wonder if there will be an identified need for something like a Griffon 2400TD that the UK marines call a LCAC(L). A small hovercraft, able to carry 20 or couple of tons of payload (non vehicle except for maybe a motor bike). 35kt speed, much faster over mud flats etc.

I think the idea of the RHIB's is more about assisting in dock/sea operations etc than shifting material to shore.

 

[Goknub]

Actually, I would say almost the opposite.

The LARC-Vs are the sort of vehicle I would imagine would have a regular presence on the LHDs.
They are able to be parked out of the water so don't take up space needed for LCMs and are useful in all operations, particularly non-combat/low-intensity operations that are likely to be the primary operational use of the LHDs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Actually, I would say almost the opposite.

The LARC-Vs are the sort of vehicle I would imagine would have a regular presence on the LHDs.
They are able to be parked out of the water so don't take up space needed for LCMs and are useful in all operations, particularly non-combat/low-intensity operations that are likely to be the primary operational use of the LHDs.

Well once the LHD are up an operating it will be interesting to see what they find useful and what they don't. We still have and operate the LARC-V so it might be one of those old flexible things that is just perfect for the job in a new way. I agree that I think they would be highly useful in non-combat or logistics missions.

But I would imagine some of what the LARC-V and the LCVP do will be taken over by mexflotes

But as part of the new concept of amphibious operations, there really is no beach head. Helos move troops exactly where they are needed, supported by air. LCM and helicopters travel so much faster, and the LHD will be based OTH making amphibious tanks, vehicles etc unsuitable as crawling across the open sea for 40 km at 5 kt is not what most amphibious craft are designed for.

It will be interesting if in reality in the type of missions Australia is most likely to undertake how this will work. Given the different type of environment we will most likely operate by ourselves or lead a mission, I would imagine bring the LHD much closer to shore might be very useful. Obviously for a non-combat mission, there would be less issues being much closer relying more on sea based connectors than on air.

 

[Monitor66]

The LHD's will most likely use the LCM's for pretty much everything (or a RHIB). Travelling between LHD and shore at 7 knots in a LARC-V would be quite painful if the LHD is located further off shore (lets say 37 km OTH but could be more).

But they would serve a useful purpose for aid (particularly in flooded/tsunami areas), littorals, island hopping, antarctic missions etc. Not operating from the LHD, but from other ships (OCV's, LPD), flying in with C-17's/C-130 for aid distribution and rescue etc. Im not sure if the LARC-V are going to be disposed of, but its unlikely they will partner with the LHD's as a regular thing. I would imagine they are the sort of useful thing that will probably get used from time to time, even with the LHD.

I wonder if there will be an identified need for something like a Griffon 2400TD that the UK marines call a LCAC(L). A small hovercraft, able to carry 20 or couple of tons of payload (non vehicle except for maybe a motor bike). 35kt speed, much faster over mud flats etc.

I think the idea of the RHIB's is more about assisting in dock/sea operations etc than shifting material to shore.

Agree that moving from an LHD siting OTH to shore in a LARC-V would not be ideal (and slow and arduous), and that the bulk of combat force will come ashore on the LCM-1Es and dropped on or near the objective via helo.

With their expansive vehicle decks, the LARC-V is however very well suited to become organic to the LHD and Choules as they can be parked on the heavy vehicle deck until needed. Taking up a bit more space than an ASLAV for instance, they would be the only platform able to cross the shoreline regardless of tide, beach gradient or surf and transfer cargo/troops considerable distances inland. On Choules the option would exist to store them on the upper deck forward of the flight deck, where they could be craned off as needed, much like HMA Ships Kanimbla/Manoora used to do with the LCM-8s.

Can't see the RAN taking up hovercraft. They are a very conservative navy in many respects and have shown little interest in hovercraft as far as I know. With hovercraft you can get to shore quickly and regardless of tides etc, but won't be able to move cargo/troops inland past the beach. Any hovercraft would have to fit in the LHD well dock with the centreline divider in place.