Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[the road runner]

Government have never seen a need for a special forces helicopter .... i would assume that view has not changed.As out Special Forces usually work with coalition forces namely the USA i imagine we will just be using US assets for insertion

 

[rjtjrt]

Government have never seen a need for a special forces helicopter .... i would assume that view has not changed.As out Special Forces usually work with coalition forces namely the USA i imagine we will just be using US assets for insertion

I agree - the prospect of an order for new helicopters for special forces is probably not a high priority.
However, polies like special forces a lot and they are the go to for cosying up to US and keeping us in their good books. So keeping some Blackhawks for them is a smart move, as it will put a toe in the door of eventually convincing government that a new special forces helicopter is essential (to replace Blackhawks in future).
I must say the suggestion of MH-60S is appealing, as it has commonality for spares, tools and training, it is in use with USN for CSAR, and it has been designed to be land or sea based - great for use on the LHD, or from a frigate if you want a lower profile insertion.
Not sure if it has the range needed, or if it can be fitted with extra tanks if needed, on a temporary basis.

 

[Raven22]

I think that determining what helicopter replaces the Blackhawks supporting special forces will simply come down to the art of the possible. If the MRH90 proves itself capable, even marginally, of fulffiling the requirement than it will be the answer. If not, than something else could conceivably be purchased.

At the moment the Army has postponed the problem. All effort is being spent simply developing the MRH90 into a suitable helicopter for conventional use, with 6 Avn happily continuing to fly the Blackhawk until the end of the decade. Once the MRH90 has reached a mature level of capability to support the conventional army, effort will be switched to seeing if it can be developed into a workable helicopter for special forces use.

This may well be a test of the power of special forces. SOCOMD and 6 Avn don't want the MRH, but if it can be proven to be a workable platform than it will be forced on them. If the studies show, however, that adapting the MRH is too high risk, or won't ever reach an acceptable level of capability, you can bet your unbloused Merrells that SOCOMD will be pushing for something else. They may well get it too.

 

[vonnoobie]

One of the reasons that the MRH would have been chosen is that it can lift more than the Blackhawk.

Except that that Army didnt choose the MRH, They did actually choose the Blackhawk. They had the MRH foisted upon them.

As to the replacement time frames of the Blackhawks (and others) with the JMR aircraft considering our current Blackhawks had been intended with a 20 - 25 year lifespan (likely similar for current variants) and an in service date of 2010 had we gone for them (being a matured design that we already had experience with we would have gone through the acquisition flawlessly) we would end up replacing them around 2030 - 2035, With the JMR utility planned to be introduced at the earliest of 2027 - 2028 that would have fit in nicely with the time frames

 

[Volkodav]

I should add that one of the reasons I like the Sierra for the ADF is its out of the box ability to replace the legacy Blackhawks but adding full marinisation, while slotting into an existing supply chain and support system. These advantages alone make them worth looking at but when their additional capabilities are considered, CSAR, Hellfire, guided and unguided rockets, cannon and machineguns, FLIR, 4tonne cargo hook, ESM and airborne mine sweeping.

Designed to replace the Seaknight in the VERTREP role they were also developed to cover CSAR, SOF support and mine countermeasures. They are also integral with the LCS mine warfare, special operations and anti-surface warfare mission modules, which would be of interest should Australia decide to go for the LCS mission module types on our proposed OPV/OCVs or the corvette/light frigates we keep hearing about. Should the ADF decide to acquire additional aircraft for the RAN to fill these roles the Sierra would be the logical choice and could become part of a combined force with army.

 

[John Newman]

I should add that one of the reasons I like the Sierra for the ADF is its out of the box ability to replace the legacy Blackhawks but adding full marinisation, while slotting into an existing supply chain and support system. These advantages alone make them worth looking at but when their additional capabilities are considered, CSAR, Hellfire, guided and unguided rockets, cannon and machineguns, FLIR, 4tonne cargo hook, ESM and airborne mine sweeping.

Designed to replace the Seaknight in the VERTREP role they were also developed to cover CSAR, SOF support and mine countermeasures. They are also integral with the LCS mine warfare, special operations and anti-surface warfare mission modules, which would be of interest should Australia decide to go for the LCS mission module types on our proposed OPV/OCVs or the corvette/light frigates we keep hearing about. Should the ADF decide to acquire additional aircraft for the RAN to fill these roles the Sierra would be the logical choice and could become part of a combined force with army.

V, agree with your logic on this. Here's a 'what if', a real big what if:

The Government agrees (or is forced to agree) that the Special Forces need their own dedicated helicopter support to do their job effectively.

The Government approves the order of, say, 20 MH-60S.

The RAN hands back to the Army their 6 MRH-90's out of the 'shared' pool of 46 airframes, Army now has an increase of a bit over 10% to it's lift capabilities, should cover all current and future contingencies, and for many years to come.

The RAN takes delivery of 8 MH-60S, will fulfil all current responsibilities, especially since the two new AOR's have the ability to both carry a fulltime VERTREP capability and not to mention Choules and possibly able to be based on two LHD's if and when required too.

The other big benefit for the RAN is that the 'S' shares many of the same systems as the 'R', common cockpit, many of the major systems too, and the fact that aircrews can transition quickly from both with a minimum of effort (all despite the fact that the basic airframe of the 'R' and 'S' is fundamentally different).

The Special forces are allocated the remaining new 12 MH-60S as a dedicated support helicopter to assist with their tasks. The 'S' has the ability to support them on land and at sea too.


Back to reality!!!

The big 'what ifs' is, when the DWP is released, if the Government accepts that the Special Forces require dedicated support, and also that that support can't be supplied by the existing MRH-90 fleet, then other options have to be studied, and of course that might include the MH-60S.

All a bunch of 'what ifs' on my behalf, just have to wait and see what the new DWP and DCP might have to say.

Will be interesting!!!

 

[Volkodav]

V, agree with your logic on this. Here's a 'what if', a real big what if:

The Government agrees (or is forced to agree) that the Special Forces need their own dedicated helicopter support to do their job effectively.

The Government approves the order of, say, 20 MH-60S.

The RAN hands back to the Army their 6 MRH-90's out of the 'shared' pool of 46 airframes, Army now has an increase of a bit over 10% to it's lift capabilities, should cover all current and future contingencies, and for many years to come.

The RAN takes delivery of 8 MH-60S, will fulfil all current responsibilities, especially since the two new AOR's have the ability to both carry a fulltime VERTREP capability and not to mention Choules and possibly able to be based on two LHD's if and when required too.

The other big benefit for the RAN is that the 'S' shares many of the same systems as the 'R', common cockpit, many of the major systems too, and the fact that aircrews can transition quickly from both with a minimum of effort (all despite the fact that the basic airframe of the 'R' and 'S' is fundamentally different).

The Special forces are allocated the remaining new 12 MH-60S as a dedicated support helicopter to assist with their tasks. The 'S' has the ability to support them on land and at sea too.


Back to reality!!!

The big 'what ifs' is, when the DWP is released, if the Government accepts that the Special Forces require dedicated support, and also that that support can't be supplied by the existing MRH-90 fleet, then other options have to be studied, and of course that might include the MH-60S.

All a bunch of 'what ifs' on my behalf, just have to wait and see what the new DWP and DCP might have to say.

Will be interesting!!!

Yes very much what if but it does fit the aims of minimising the number of different helicopters in service, while increasing the flexibility and capability of 6 Aviation Regiment well beyond tactical assault, so not really that far fetched. One thing that does stick in my mind is the fact we did not feel able to deploy any of our helicopters but our CH-47Ds that had been acquired under FMS and had appropriate self defence systems, the Sierra could provide the same.

It may be what if but not really that far fetched.

 

[Stampede]

Yes very much what if but it does fit the aims of minimising the number of different helicopters in service, while increasing the flexibility and capability of 6 Aviation Regiment well beyond tactical assault, so not really that far fetched. One thing that does stick in my mind is the fact we did not feel able to deploy any of our helicopters but our CH-47Ds that had been acquired under FMS and had appropriate self defence systems, the Sierra could provide the same.

It may be what if but not really that far fetched.

Many good suggestions by all regarding rotary aviations future for Army and Navy..
Maybe the question is not what will be flown but is there scope for an increase in helicopter numbers. If there is no budget to expand upon what is already planned I don't envisage any great changes, however if numbers grow overall then 6 MRH 90s to Army with MH-60s for both Navy and Special Forces sounds good. I'm not sure how many MRH90 s make up a transport squadron of 5th aviation Regt, but I feel there would be merit in having three such Squadrons to mirror Plan Beershebas cycle of ready ,readying and reset.
It all sounds very nice, but I'm realistic that the above is a serious financial investment, however fingers crossed we get more than the recent announcement of three extra Chinooks.
Regards S

 

[MARKMILES77]

Now that the CRV candidates are to be narrowed down from 4 to only 2
(or maybe 3) for more detailed assessment, prior to a final selection decision.
It is hard to see the Sentinel making the cut.
As I see the main selling points of each candidate:

Boxer: The most highly protected, but probably also the most expensive.
If survivability matters most then this is the one.

AMV35: The most lethal main gun and widely used in multiple countries.
If firepower matters the most then this is the one.

LAV 6.0: Can sell itself as closest to the current ASLAV and related to close ally American, Canadian and NZ vehicles. Possibly cheapest. On the other hand the lightest, probably by some margin, which likely means least protected.
Can sell itself as the "Good Enough", low risk option.

Would not surprise me if these 3 make the final cut.

Sentinal: Not sure that this offers anything that would make it a possible winner.
Not widely used, not best protected, not most lethal, not low risk.

Will be interesting to see who makes the cut.

(Personally think that whoever wins should be offered the IFV contract as well, with a variant of their CRV vehicle. Would make a 650 vehicle fleet.)

 

[ngatimozart]

Bell Helicopter and BAE Systems have teamed up to offer the AH-1Z Viper as replacement for the Tiger ARH, if it is decided to replace it, instead of continuing with the Tiger – AIR 87 Phase 3 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Capability Assurance Program (ARH CAP). This will not be known until the Integrated Investment Program is released, which is thought to be at the same time as the DWP. The article suggests that a Viper acquisition would be of a similar cost excluding the infrastructure upgrades, simulators, training aids etc. It remains to be seen if this is a fortuitous move by Bell and BAE. If the decision is to replace the Tiger, then the main competitor would have to be the Apache. The only advantage that the Viper has over the Apache is that it is already marinised.

 

[meatshield]

I read something similar to that article awhile back. Where there is smoke there might be a fire???

 

[Volkodav]

I read something similar to that article awhile back. Where there is smoke there might be a fire???

Makes sense and we should be doing it with a lot of our gear. Compare its cost, availability and capability to the requirements generated by the current strategic environment. Is it still fit for purpose, can it be upgraded or would replacement be a more logical solution.

 

[ngatimozart]

Makes sense and we should be doing it with a lot of our gear. Compare its cost, availability and capability to the requirements generated by the current strategic environment. Is it still fit for purpose, can it be upgraded or would replacement be a more logical solution.

Which would work fine if pollies could be kept out of the decision making process Now that's a revolutionary idea. :ar15 :whip

If the Tigers are deposed maybe they could find a home across the ditch.

 

[vonnoobie]

Which would work fine if pollies could be kept out of the decision making process Now that's a revolutionary idea. :ar15 :whip

If the Tigers are deposed maybe they could find a home across the ditch.

On one hand it would make all the investments for the Tiger not a complete loss, on the other hand would be better having NZ operating the same assets as us if and where possible.

That aside if you want the Tigers we can do you a sweet deal, Will even throw in Tasmania and some sheep .

On a serious note with the benefit of hindsight (and less political interferance) we should have gotten the Blackhawks and Viper along with the Seahawk, Would have made maintenance easier with them all using the same engine.

 

[Volkodav]

On one hand it would make all the investments for the Tiger not a complete loss, on the other hand would be better having NZ operating the same assets as us if and where possible.

That aside if you want the Tigers we can do you a sweet deal, Will even throw in Tasmania and some sheep .

On a serious note with the benefit of hindsight (and less political interferance) we should have gotten the Blackhawks and Viper along with the Seahawk, Would have made maintenance easier with them all using the same engine.

One of the key tenets of Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma and probably every other data and analysis based continuous improvement system, is once it becomes apparent that a project has been over taken by events, technology or some other factor, you must be prepared to cut your losses and walk away. This is, no matter how much time effort and money, or perhaps more to the point prestige, reputation and / or political capital has been invested in something, that alone does not justify continued investment, effort and funding.

I find it interesting that governments have attempted to or even succeeded in divesting capabilities because updating or replacing them was seen as too expensive or unnecessary, even though this has rendered related capabilities useless, gutted as well as unbalancing part, or all of the affected service or whole ADF. Think of the carrier replacement, attempts to drop MBTs, NZs ACF, the UKs MPAs etc. yet when there is discussion of replacing a disappointing or under performing capability with one that has proven more suitable it becomes about not wasting what we have already spent.

 

[ngatimozart]

One of the key tenets of Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma and probably every other data and analysis based continuous improvement system, is once it becomes apparent that a project has been over taken by events, technology or some other factor, you must be prepared to cut your losses and walk away. This is, no matter how much time effort and money, or perhaps more to the point prestige, reputation and / or political capital has been invested in something, that alone does not justify continued investment, effort and funding.

I find it interesting that governments have attempted to or even succeeded in divesting capabilities because updating or replacing them was seen as too expensive or unnecessary, even though this has rendered related capabilities useless, gutted as well as unbalancing part, or all of the affected service or whole ADF. Think of the carrier replacement, attempts to drop MBTs, NZs ACF, the UKs MPAs etc. yet when there is discussion of replacing a disappointing or under performing capability with one that has proven more suitable it becomes about not wasting what we have already spent.

V, you have illustrated what I believe is classic political short sightedness and narrow mindedness, driven by political ideologies that may not necessarily reflect the strategic realities of the wider world. A good example is the NZG belief in 1999 - 2008 that we live in a benign strategic environment. The Helen Clark Labour govt held what some would call a blinkered view regarding the strategic environment, so that was one of the excuses used for the axing of the ACF. The other argument most commonly used by the pollies and encouraged by Treasuries, is that we cannot afford that particular capability, which may be valid if it was something extravagant and not necessarily needed by the nations defence forces. However when it is an existing capability, or set of capabilities, that are central to the structure, CONOPS and functions of the defence forces, such as an ACF or MBTs, then it is very much short sightedness and political manoeuvring by the pollies and the Treasuries, because defence is perceived by them as being easy to cut back, with the least amount of resistance and opposition from voters, compared to other portfolios such as justice, health or social welfare. They ignore the lessons of history and treat defence and the strategic environment as figures on a balance sheet, with the expectations that they operate the same way and react to the same stimuli that businesses or economics do. As some of us know, this is not the case, because strategic concerns and the great game have and use a completely different set of rules.

It is my view that defence per se is generally not perceived by the pollies as being sufficiently vote catching and / or vote generating to be worth significant effort. The second part is that the pollies temporal vision is fixed to the electoral cycle so any defence capability related long term vision or plan is generally foreign to them, almost abnormal so to speak. This is an unfortunate byproduct of our political system and whilst no system is perfect, I think in this case there is room for improvements. However getting the pollies to agree to that, let alone act upon it is a completely different story.

 

[Volkodav]

Actually thinking on it if I recall correctly the UK is considering the acquisition of AH-64E as a replacement for the WAH-64. This isn't even because there are problems with the existing fleet but because a cost benefit analysis apparently indicates replacement will provide greater capability, lower costs and definitely better value for money than an upgrade.

I read an article making a similar suggestion in regards to the Australian M-1A1 SEP Abrams and their proposed mid life upgrade, it described how the money budgeted for the upgrade is actually sufficient to replace the entire existing force plus procuring sufficient extra vehicles to raise an additional squadron. It was even suggested that the new vehicles could actually be new build M-1A2 or possibly even M-1A3, depending on when the buy happens as the key factor in the new build option being better value for money than a rebuild or modernisation is hooking into a volume run.

 

[vonnoobie]

Actually thinking on it if I recall correctly the UK is considering the acquisition of AH-64E as a replacement for the WAH-64. This isn't even because there are problems with the existing fleet but because a cost benefit analysis apparently indicates replacement will provide greater capability, lower costs and definitely better value for money than an upgrade.

I read an article making a similar suggestion in regards to the Australian M-1A1 SEP Abrams and their proposed mid life upgrade, it described how the money budgeted for the upgrade is actually sufficient to replace the entire existing force plus procuring sufficient extra vehicles to raise an additional squadron. It was even suggested that the new vehicles could actually be new build M-1A2 or possibly even M-1A3, depending on when the buy happens as the key factor in the new build option being better value for money than a rebuild or modernisation is hooking into a volume run.

Funny how that works, Just need to explain that to the pollies. In regards to the M1's why didnt we actually get the M1A2 from the start? and if we do choose to get new build A2's/A3's what will happen with the old stock.. sold back to the US or stored here as a parts pool? (We are getting an airplane graveyard built up in Alice Springs, Wouldnt hurt for the military to make use of its dry climate to store equipment).

 

[Volkodav]

Funny how that works, Just need to explain that to the pollies. In regards to the M1's why didnt we actually get the M1A2 from the start? and if we do choose to get new build A2's/A3's what will happen with the old stock.. sold back to the US or stored here as a parts pool? (We are getting an airplane graveyard built up in Alice Springs, Wouldnt hurt for the military to make use of its dry climate to store equipment).

At the time of our buy the US were refurbishing and upgrading much of their M-1 fleet to a couple of clearly defined common baselines, the model we selected was on of these (probably the cheapest option too) and was in mass production. Come MLU time for the fleet it is likely the US will be in another extensive upgrade cycle producing new build and zero timed upgraded M-1A2 and A3 with it being highly unlikely that an upgraded M-1A1 would be part of this project. Realistically if we want to stay line step with the US bread and butter vehicles we will likely have to rebuild or replace our current fleet.

 

[Boagrius]

At the time of our buy the US were refurbishing and upgrading much of their M-1 fleet to a couple of clearly defined common baselines, the model we selected was on of these (probably the cheapest option too) and was in mass production. Come MLU time for the fleet it is likely the US will be in another extensive upgrade cycle producing new build and zero timed upgraded M-1A2 and A3 with it being highly unlikely that an upgraded M-1A1 would be part of this project. Realistically if we want to stay line step with the US bread and butter vehicles we will likely have to rebuild or replace our current fleet.

Interesting. Would this not be complicated by our unwillingness to field DU armour? Presumably US models will have it, but I imagine there may be some additional expense to ours being delivered without it?

On a side note, the rumblings about an early Tiger replacement have got me wondering if the AH64E might get a look in? My understanding is that the Apache lost out originally due to expense weighed against perceived deficits in the recon role, along with marinisation issues. Now, however, it looks like the US is moving towards making their Apaches much more active in the ARH role, mainly by networking with unmanned systems. Given this and the fact that I could have sworn the E model involves some degree of "marinisation", I would have thought it should beat out the Viper hands down (at least capability wise)?