Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Goknub

Active Member
Well it's good to hear that's the direction things are going. Blackhawks have been the go-to assets for SOCOMD and AME tasks. Airlifting Little Birds around the place seemed too much Black Hawk Down with a doze of the airlift mania of the early 2000's.
It would certainly save on costs seeing as the experience and infrastructure is all set up for them already.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not saying that IS what is happening, but simply what I've heard.

I'm neither SF nor an aviator, but the idea of throwing 3-4 Little Birds into a C-17 and rapidly deploying somewhere, as per the White Paper, never made much sense to me. What tasks were they expected to accomplish? They could do recon or light attack, or insert very small numbers of people over a very small distance if not armed, but not much else. You can't transport tactically significant numbers of troops, you can't evacuate wounded personnel or other evacuees. Essentially you can't do any of the tasks normally associated with rapid deployment (NEO, JPR, SR, seizing APODs/SPODs etc). For all those tasks you'd need to take a larger helicopter along as well anyway, which pretty much negates the advantages of rapid deployability.

It could just be I'm missing the point, but I don't know.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not saying that IS what is happening, but simply what I've heard.

I'm neither SF nor an aviator, but the idea of throwing 3-4 Little Birds into a C-17 and rapidly deploying somewhere, as per the White Paper, never made much sense to me. What tasks were they expected to accomplish? They could do recon or light attack, or insert very small numbers of people over a very small distance if not armed, but not much else. You can't transport tactically significant numbers of troops, you can't evacuate wounded personnel or other evacuees. Essentially you can't do any of the tasks normally associated with rapid deployment (NEO, JPR, SR, seizing APODs/SPODs etc). For all those tasks you'd need to take a larger helicopter along as well anyway, which pretty much negates the advantages of rapid deployability.

It could just be I'm missing the point, but I don't know.
They are primarily intended for urban direct action assault roles I would suspect. The 16th SOAR use it for inserting operators onto narrow streets, small rooftops etc where larger helos simply can't fit.

In assault roles they carry 4 - 6 operators each on brackets mounted externally on each side of the airframe.

I imagine those where what were intended for the SOCOMD supporting light helo requirement. The other roles, it probably isn't good at, or indeed even intended for.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As the Sierra is already configured and tasked for special forces support as well as CSAR and other roles out of the box, as well as being fully marinised and having (I believe) powered folding, it could be a great alternative for SF, CSAR and replacing the MRH90s assigned to the FAA.

It wouldn't offer the same level of commonality with the Viper as the Venom does but then again its higher than either the LittleBird orMRH90 would be and the Viper hasn't actually been selected yet anyway. Potentially we could end up with Apache and Mikes / Sierras, or even looking right outside the square Mangustas and Wildcats.

Considering recent decisions maybe new Tigers and Dauphins :p
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They are primarily intended for urban direct action assault roles I would suspect. The 16th SOAR use it for inserting operators onto narrow streets, small rooftops etc where larger helos simply can't fit.

In assault roles they carry 4 - 6 operators each on brackets mounted externally on each side of the airframe.

I imagine those where what were intended for the SOCOMD supporting light helo requirement. The other roles, it probably isn't good at, or indeed even intended for.
In what circumstances would we have to rapidly deloy 3-4 Little Birds by C-17 to conduct urban direct action assaults?

I can see the use of a Little Bird, but only in conjunction with othe aircraft types
 

t68

Well-Known Member
In what circumstances would we have to rapidly deloy 3-4 Little Birds by C-17 to conduct urban direct action assaults?

I can see the use of a Little Bird, but only in conjunction with othe aircraft types
I imagine they have their scenario's for which a little bird would rapidly deploy domestically(CT)and internationally, and may not necessarily have SASR riding along. Instance may vary but small versatile helicopter like MH-6 would have practality if the is a rapid intervention in the Pacfic island countries of evacuees or seizing an airport could have a mixed armed and light transport helo's, but that all depends on if they actually fit in the C17 without have to break them down. I suspect a capabilty like that would have came in handy in the inital stages of interfet and Dili airport aswell.

Also the other option with the little bird variant is that the South Koreans have a prototype UCH to work with the AH-64E, with tiger being replace it becomes a ready made ARH with ACH and a low cost CT helicopter.


South Korea Unveils Unmanned Combat Helicopter | The Diplomat


Edit,
Night Stalkers: 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne)
By Fred J. Pushies

On further investigation it appears C130 can transport 3x MH-6 (but dosen't mention how far they have to be broken down) C141 can transport 6x airframes.

C5 & C17 can transport MH-6/AH-6 with a rapid upload/offload capabilty and said to be operational and in the air in 15min's.

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...g MH-6 little bird by C17 globemadter&f=false
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In what circumstances would we have to rapidly deloy 3-4 Little Birds by C-17 to conduct urban direct action assaults?

I can see the use of a Little Bird, but only in conjunction with othe aircraft types
Whenever we intend to deploy SF to conduct such operations I imagine... Historically it has been African, MEA and Asian theatres and I don't see that changing any time soon...

It seems the appetite for rapid, operational deployment of SF is only increasing not decreasing and I would suggest they see this as about the only way they are going to get their own tactical aviation deployed in-theatre, at least in the early stages of any operation.

We had Blackhawks dedicated to support SOCOMD when Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off, yet SOCOMD had to wholly rely upon allied rotary elements in every deployment they have had to the MEA...
 

Goknub

Active Member
I think it is acknowledged that there is a need for SOCOMD to have deployable aviation assets, the question is what that looks like. The Blackhawk is already the go-to asset for SF missions and with the Romeos already in the inventory it would make sense to keep the number of types to a minimum. The ADF has enough C130/C17s to make multiple trips so they don't all need to fit in a single aircraft.
Considering the ADF already operates both types in their given roles it would be a good option to go with.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Whenever we intend to deploy SF to conduct such operations I imagine... Historically it has been African, MEA and Asian theatres and I don't see that changing any time soon...

It seems the appetite for rapid, operational deployment of SF is only increasing not decreasing and I would suggest they see this as about the only way they are going to get their own tactical aviation deployed in-theatre, at least in the early stages of any operation.

We had Blackhawks dedicated to support SOCOMD when Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off, yet SOCOMD had to wholly rely upon allied rotary elements in every deployment they have had to the MEA...
Again, I don't dispute the utility of a Little Bird, I'm disputing the utility of ONLY Little Bird. If you throw 3-4 Little Birds in the back of a C17 and fly them somewhere, what real world tasks can they actually accomplish? I'd suggest not many. For the vast majority of asks you would need to take a larger helicopter anyway, in which case the rapid deployability of Little Bird isn't as handy as might at first glance be the case.

Having Little Birds may still be a good idea, but I'd suggest not for the specific requirement of rapid deployability as outlined in the White Paper.
 

winnyfield

New Member
The Afghans hate their MD-Little Birds

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/w...-its-effort-to-build-an-afghan-air-force.html
U.S. Is Struggling in Its Effort to Build an Afghan Air Force
By ROD NORDLANDSEPT. 26, 2015
...He tossed a map on the table, showing the effective range of the helicopter from its Kabul airfield: It cannot even reach areas where the Taliban normally operate. In summertime, its maximum altitude with a full load of fuel and ammunition is only 7,000 to 8,000 feet, he said — meaning it cannot cross most of the mountain ranges that encircle Kabul, which is itself at an elevation of about 6,000 feet.

“It’s unsafe to fly, the engine is too weak, the tail rotor is defective and it’s not armored. If we go down after the enemy we’re going to have enemy return fire, which we can’t survive. If we go up higher, we can’t visually target the enemy,” Colonel Qalandari said
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Australia recognizes 10 soldiers' courage in Vietnam War
A good and just outcome. A real shame that it has taken so long.
Good to hear. Our family has been trying since WWII to get one of ours recognised, Bill Doolan, whose story is better known as 'Driver Doolan'. See https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/133887/ His daughter Wendy has tried very hard to get some official recognition but has come to naught. The official reason is because the action was not witnessed, but my father thinks it was because his CO didn't like him, he was a bit of a larrikin.
 

Groupie

New Member
Hey Army peeps I need your help :)

Hi,

I was wondering if there is anyway to identify if someone is lying about being in the army.

My boyfriend of 1.5 years apparently signed up for the army when he was 16.
He is now 20. I met him 2.5 years ago- he said he had a bullet wound in his left shoulder with deadman skin covering it. I've seen the scar.

I love my boyfriend and want to trust but he has a tendency to lie. I've always been honest with him but I'm not so sure he has been with me.

Based on what he has said he left the army at 18 due to injury (bullet wound in shoulder).

He apparently went to American, Somalia and other places on humanitarian volunteer work.

He also said he was a support gunner then a medic.

He says that the australian army do not issue dog tags- only america does.

He also claims that he worked alongside American special forces while on humanitarian volunteerwork.

He said he had to clean large tin containers that were below toilets with his toothbrush and they only got one truth brush per trip/deployment.

I just want to know if he is purposely lying to me or is just exaggerating for story-telling effect etc... please help....

Are there any online resources that are trustworthy that I can use to figure this out?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hi,

I was wondering if there is anyway to identify if someone is lying about being in the army.

My boyfriend of 1.5 years apparently signed up for the army when he was 16.
He is now 20. I met him 2.5 years ago- he said he had a bullet wound in his left shoulder with deadman skin covering it. I've seen the scar.

I love my boyfriend and want to trust but he has a tendency to lie. I've always been honest with him but I'm not so sure he has been with me.

Based on what he has said he left the army at 18 due to injury (bullet wound in shoulder).

He apparently went to American, Somalia and other places on humanitarian volunteer work.

He also said he was a support gunner then a medic.

He says that the australian army do not issue dog tags- only america does.

He also claims that he worked alongside American special forces while on humanitarian volunteerwork.

He said he had to clean large tin containers that were below toilets with his toothbrush and they only got one truth brush per trip/deployment.

I just want to know if he is purposely lying to me or is just exaggerating for story-telling effect etc... please help....

Are there any online resources that are trustworthy that I can use to figure this out?
Sounds like wannabe; a walt(er mitty) actively disliked by all current and ex service personnel because they steal others valour and honour. Ask him his service number because he will never forget that and it is not a state secret. If taken prisoner you give it to your captors*. What you want from him is his service number, date of enlistment, rank and trade on enlistment, periods and places of active service etc. Generally a service CV. Then run it past someone who has been in the Australian Defence Force. Speaking from a Kiwi perspective no one is now enlisted here (NZ) at the age of 16&1/2. It is far to young. The boy entrants / regular force cadets ceased in the late 1970s / early 1980s going by memory. All Commonwealth Forces (Australia, Canada, NZ & UK) are issued dog tags, especially when on active service.

A piece of advice from an old airman and sailor who's been around the block, if he is found to be untruthful about this what else is he untruthful about? That is what you need to think about as well and weigh up if you decide to take this further.

*When I was young and mad a cobber of mine was arrested by the local traffic police for drunk driving and all they got out of him was his name, rank and serial number :rotfl So they chucked him in the slammer overnight and did him for DIC (Drunk In Charge). He was late back to base next day and was then in trouble with the RNZAF for being late to work and getting chucked in the slammer. He was charged by the RNZAF for being late to work resulting in a $10 fine and 7 days confined to barracks. His boss had no sense of humour about it after the Base CO (Commanding Officer) gave him a flea in his ear over it.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hi,

I was wondering if there is anyway to identify if someone is lying about being in the army.

My boyfriend of 1.5 years apparently signed up for the army when he was 16.
He is now 20. I met him 2.5 years ago- he said he had a bullet wound in his left shoulder with deadman skin covering it. I've seen the scar.

I love my boyfriend and want to trust but he has a tendency to lie. I've always been honest with him but I'm not so sure he has been with me.

Based on what he has said he left the army at 18 due to injury (bullet wound in shoulder).

He apparently went to American, Somalia and other places on humanitarian volunteer work.

He also said he was a support gunner then a medic.

He says that the australian army do not issue dog tags- only america does.

He also claims that he worked alongside American special forces while on humanitarian volunteerwork.

He said he had to clean large tin containers that were below toilets with his toothbrush and they only got one truth brush per trip/deployment.

I just want to know if he is purposely lying to me or is just exaggerating for story-telling effect etc... please help....

Are there any online resources that are trustworthy that I can use to figure this out?
You have to be a minimum of 17 years of age before you join the ADF...

Eligibility Checklist Navy, Army and Air Force - Defence Jobs Australia

Sorry luv. His claims don't pass the smell test. Hope everything works out for the best.
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
Firstly , I am sympathetic to your situation as I have seen similar before.
You already know that he has a tendency to lie, as you have mentioned it as a precursor to the background that he gave you.
His background is a fabrication.
You will never know when he is telling the truth and when he is lying. In my experience, people like this use others and the end result is always the same, and it always ends badly.
I am sure that you can do better - and as tough as it will be, you need to leave him and move on. He will quickly find someone else to lie to.
Count this as a lesson learned.
I wish you well for your future.
MB
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Havn't seen it posted yet and only just came across it my self but Australia is the first country to sign up to the US FVL program, Have made a name for our selves in our involvement with the F-35, P-8, KC-30 and E-7 and a few others.

As some of America’s most sophisticated airborne weaponry—including the F-35A, EA-18G Growler, P-8A Poseidon, MQ-4C Triton and AIM-120D Amraam—head to Australia, Canberra is now saying g’day to the next generation of military rotorcraft being designed in the U.S. for Future Vertical Lift (FVL).

The Australian Defense Force (ADF) confirmed on Aug. 5 that the U.S. Army has formally invited it to participate in early discussions about FVL as the requirements are still being cemented. The soon-to-launch program seeks to usher in a new era of long-range, high-speed rotorcraft for the 21st century. It will produce a successor for all traditional helicopters in different size classes for all of the U.S. services, including long-serving Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, Boeing AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook aircraft.

Australia—the world’s sixth-largest importer of military equipment and a strategic U.S. ally in the Asia-Pacific region—rivals Israel in its pursuit of high-end American armaments. It is often quick to partner with emerging U.S. programs early in the requirements development stage like it did with the Joint Strike Fighter, Triton and Poseidon.

In this instance, Australia is sending a high-ranking army officer to participate in FVL discussions as the U.S. military rotorcraft community prepares to launch into its first Army-led FVL program of record.

Canberra is not paying to participate and is not a formal member of the FVL group, but as a longtime Black Hawk and Chinook operator, it will probably want whatever vertical-lift aircraft spins out of the program.

“The Australian and U.S. armies share an interest in the development of the future vertical-lift capability. As such, the U.S. Army has invited the Australian army to participate in an exchange of ideas in order to understand and prepare the next-generation of helicopters,” the ADF tells Aviation Week. “This exchange of ideas assists the Australian army to meet our future requirements as outlined in the 2016 Defense White Paper, and is occurring without a financial arrangement, membership or any other commitment from the Australian army. An Australian army lieutenant colonel, in his capacity as a liaison officer, is attending the U.S. Army forums to better understand and inform our army as to the U.S. approach.”

The statement confirms that Australia has become the first nation to dip its toes into the still-cool waters of FVL, seemingly undeterred by its protracted and expensive involvement in the multinational F-35 development effort that will introduce the Royal Australian Air Force’s first stealth fighter.

ADF says it is “privileged to be actively involved in the development of the next generation of the vertical-lift capability,” while making the point that no acquisition decision has been made and the Australian government will make those determinations “at an appropriate time.”

Confirmation of Australia’s participation in FVL discussions comes as the U.S. Army seeks a material development decision from the Pentagon that will trigger an analysis of alternatives for the first tranche of military rotorcraft to be produced under FVL. Once it hits full stride, FVL will be the second-largest military acquisition next to the F-35.

The service is currently partnered with Bell Helicopter and a Sikorsky-Boeing team for flight demonstrations of their competing V-280 Valor and SB-1 Defiant prototypes as a risk-reducing exercise. The military has also teamed with smaller design shops to test innovative vertical-lift concepts in the laboratory, like Karem’s optimum-speed tiltrotor and AVX’s coaxial compound helicopter.

A formal competition for a three-year technology maturation phase will begin in fiscal 2019, to be followed by a full-scale, six-year development effort in 2024. The Army expects to deliver the first war-ready FVL combat squadron in early 2030, although many in industry want the Army to move more quickly.
Australian Army Sends Envoy To U.S. Future Vertical Lift Talks | Defense content from Aviation Week

Will be interesting to see what happens with it, though I am wondering if some people are being to pushy time frame wise wanting to have an operational squadron before 2030.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As a random free advertisement, the Army is having a capability display that will be open to the public in Canberra on Monday, 29 August from 1100 - 1500. The display will be at Blamey Square, in the middle of Russell Offices.

They will have tanks, ASLAVs, helicopters, Hawkei, new trucks, new weapons and personal equipment etc on display. If you live in the Canberra area, it might be a good chance to see the equipment that gets talked about in this thread.
 
Top