Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Whilst cost per flying hour is real bad lets go back to 2001 when AIR87 was decided. At that stage the US Marines were just uncovering all the development woes of the AH-1Z - it took another 10 years before they were released for service.
Refer to many UK Defence blogs on the very high cost of operating their UK Apaches .

Finally in 2001 Australia had not decided on many of network standards that it now requires - easy to look back in hind site.

At least they got a capability for their money... We have paid through the nose for something that cannot be deployed except in very limited circumstances, so long as the enemy doesn't object too stridently to us doing so and even then only with a capability that doesn't network well with the rest of Army, let alone ADF...

As to cost, we know pretty much what Apache costs. You cannot look at an effective orphan that the WAH-64 was, as 'the' cost. UK decided to go with their own engines and other major mods afterall and then transpose that onto what it would have cost us to buy the standard AH-64D, minus the Longbow radar as was bid for us.

Furthermore even defence itself now recognises this:

The pricing for [the Apache] (upfront and in sustainment), alongside the capability difference and greater certainty about delivery is attractive and warrants strong consideration as an alternate to upgrading [Tiger]. In fact, a suitably directed business case may establish it is more cost effective to replace [Tiger] earlier than the planned date.

As to capability, this says it all...

 

[Feanor]

Oh yes, it is very impressive and offers very good capabilities both AAA and against surface targets.

They should marry it to a decent AESA radar, a modern optical-electronic eyeball, and ideally a pack of 8-16 short-range missiles. Make it mountable on Boxers or Pumas chassis', and stick a btln into each mech/armored brigade/division.

 

[Volkodav]

Whilst cost per flying hour is real bad lets go back to 2001 when AIR87 was decided. At that stage the US Marines were just uncovering all the development woes of the AH-1Z - it took another 10 years before they were released for service.
Refer to many UK Defence blogs on the very high cost of operating their UK Apaches .

Finally in 2001 Australia had not decided on many of network standards that it now requires - easy to look back in hind site.

What hindsight?

If you read the report you will see that test pilots and t&e engineers who evaluated Tiger in October 2001, before contract signature, highlighted that it was still very developmental and high risk. As far as I can tell much of Australia's defence procurement, the exception being urgent operational requirements and FMS procurements, were more on what appeared sexy, cheap and provided work to appropriate electorates.

 

[ADMk2]

What hindsight?

If you read the report you will see that test pilots and t&e engineers who evaluated Tiger in October 2001, before contract signature, highlighted that it was still very developmental and high risk. As far as I can tell much of Australia's defence procurement, the exception being urgent operational requirements and FMS procurements, were more on what appeared sexy, cheap and provided work to appropriate electorates.

And proceeded based on a large degree of, shall we say 'optimism' based on what certain manufacturers SAID about what their platforms could do, cost etc as opposed to what they could PROVE...

 

[Volkodav]

And proceeded based on a large degree of, shall we say 'optimism' based on what certain manufacturers SAID about what their platforms could do, cost etc as opposed to what they could PROVE...

Glossy brochures and flashy power points.

I recall a 4 Corners report on the F-35 decision back in the mid 2000s were about have of the story was voice overs and interviews of the Dassault salesman who had relocated to Australia to sell the Rafale to the Howard government. The gist was the whole process of simply reviewing requirements and determining that the F-35 was the only suitable option, because it was the only 5th Gen type in development thus the only one that met requirements, was unfair because it denied the French the opportunity to apply their superior sales and marketing skills.

Years ago a "sales professional" told a group I was in how closing the deal is the most important part of the "sale", the example he used was buying a car, he found the exact car he wanted, at a better price, with a higher trade than he expected, but he walked because the salesman didn't "close" the deal. This is where I marked him as a tosser but couldn't help but ask if he found a better deal elsewhere, he didn't answer. This is why I cringe when I hear political types talk about applying commercial principles to government, I have seen just how badly they have applied to many businesses.

I wonder if similar"Trump like" principles were the go in Australian defence procurement from the mid 1990s.

 

[ADMk2]

Glossy brochures and flashy power points.

I recall a 4 Corners report on the F-35 decision back in the mid 2000s were about have of the story was voice overs and interviews of the Dassault salesman who had relocated to Australia to sell the Rafale to the Howard government. The gist was the whole process of simply reviewing requirements and determining that the F-35 was the only suitable option, because it was the only 5th Gen type in development thus the only one that met requirements, was unfair because it denied the French the opportunity to apply their superior sales and marketing skills.

Years ago a "sales professional" told a group I was in how closing the deal is the most important part of the "sale", the example he used was buying a car, he found the exact car he wanted, at a better price, with a higher trade than he expected, but he walked because the salesman didn't "close" the deal. This is where I marked him as a tosser but couldn't help but ask if he found a better deal elsewhere, he didn't answer. This is why I cringe when I hear political types talk about applying commercial principles to government, I have seen just how badly they have applied to many businesses.

I wonder if similar"Trump like" principles were the go in Australian defence procurement from the mid 1990s.

Yep, I well remember the whining from the French when their legacy jet was discarded so early in the competition. If only the same forethought could have been applied to their developmental helicopters, we might have even been able to have an Australian owned land based helicopter operating in support of Australian land based forces where a threat existed over the last decade (plus) of constant operations...

 

[ngatimozart]

They should marry it to a decent AESA radar, a modern optical-electronic eyeball, and ideally a pack of 8-16 short-range missiles. Make it mountable on Boxers or Pumas chassis', and stick a btln into each mech/armored brigade/division.

It will fit on the Boxer and Puma, in fact most 8x8 wheeled IFVs. In fact the Skyranger 35mm turret is already integrated onto the Boxer.

The unmanned turret is equipped with a 35-mm revolver gun, which is based on successful 35/1000 revolver gun. It has a lot of commonality with the previous Oerlikon Contraves 35-mm air defense artillery systems. It has an dual feeding system, which gives the operator choice of two types of ammunition. This air-defense system is optimized to fire the company's proprietary 35-mm AHEAD (Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction) ammunition. It is a self-programming ammunition, developed to improve lethality of the previous *** series of twin 35-mm towed antiaircraft guns. These rounds release a cloud of sub-projectiles just ahead of the target, greatly increasing the probability of a kill. Fewer rounds of ammunition are required per kill, because of its effectiveness, permitting a greater number of engagements. A typical engagement sequence consists of 20 - 24 rounds. It is effective against small and fast moving air targets. Effective range of fire is about 4 km. The AHEAD ammunition is already in service with more than 10 countries.

The Skyranger gun system is also effective against ground targets and can be used as a fire support weapon. It uses Frangible Amour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FAPDS) rounds against ground targets. Range of effective fire is about 5 000 meters.

This artillery system has a selectable rate of fire. A maximum rate is 1 000 rounds per minute. It is also capable of firing mini-bursts or single shots. A total of 220 rounds are carried for the main gun.

The Skyranger unmanned turret has an electro-optical tracking sensor, which automatically tracks the targets, assigned either by the control center, external radars, or targets acquired by its own sensors. The passive sensor system consists of an infrared camera, TV camera, laser rangefinder. It is an all-weather system, which operates in day or night conditions.

The Skyranger unmanned turret is operated by commander and gunner, seated inside the vehicle hull. There is also a vehicle driver.
Skyranger 35mm turret

One option for the SRSAM (Short Range SAM) could be the Starstreak HVM (High Velocity Missile) which the British Army are now using. It can be used as a MANPAD, a Lightweight Multiple Launcher with up to 3 missiles, or a mobile launcher. It's a laser beam rider, so isn't a fire and forget, but Thales claim that it can't be jammed. I wonder if it could be integrated onto the Rheinmetall Skyranger turret. It, like Skyranger, can be integrated into an air defence system. That system would make for a nasty surprise for any flyboys in the area with bad attitudes.

I don't know if you could get an electronically scanned array radar small enough to fit atop the turret. It would have to be either 3 faces or 4 to obtain 360 degree coverage and would need good power generation and cooling systems, plus they would have to be robust. Mind they can fit them to helicopters so may be possible.

 

[rjtjrt]

Tiger the gift that keeps on giving....

Who'd a thunk Airbus group would have under-bid on price, sustainment and capability and development status? It's not like they did the EXACT same thing on MRH-90 or anything...

Wonder where that fellow from Oakey has gone to, to defend this lemon?

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/tiger-armys-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter

From that ANO Report:

3.8 In 2011, for example, Defence wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of Airbus Helicopters expressing concern regarding the cost and sustainment arrangements of the Tiger and Defence’s other Airbus Helicopters helicopter platform—the MRH90. In relation to sustainment arrangements, Defence highlighted that Airbus Helicopters’ tight control over its sub-contractors impacted their ability ‘to work directly with the Commonwealth and hence preventing Australian Defence from achieving value for money by competing work in the market’ and that:

the pace of resolving the technical, reliability and support arrangements has been far too slow. Australia has attempted to be a pragmatic and positive customer, but we continue to find our pragmatism brings few favours or positive responses from European industry.

3.42 The findings and recommendations of the Lessons Learned Report contain valuable insights for Defence on the design and management of its contracting and sustainment arrangements. There was no evidence that these lessons were communicated outside of the Army Aviation Systems Program Office to current sustainment managers of other Defence platforms, or were available to future sustainment managers within Defence. There remains scope for Defence to communicate lessons learned—often painfully—to relevant internal stakeholders.



I hope the people drafting the contract with DCNS for Shortfin Baracuda have an officer from Army 1 Av Regiment seconded in so the Submarine contract learns from the Army real world experience of French defence industry and its attitude to Australia as a customer.

 

[ADMk2]

I hope the people drafting the contract with DCNS for Shortfin Baracuda have an officer from Army 1 Av Regiment seconded in so the Submarine contract learns from the Army real world experience of French defence industry and its attitude to Australia as a customer.

The real problems are that we ignored the pilots and flight test engineers who tested the Tiger and told us it wasn't reliable and was a highly developmental aircraft AND that it wouldn't meet our intended level of capability thanks to it's roof mounted sighting system being far less capable than needed to support the capability of the Hellfire missile.

But despite the fact that we KNEW that, we went ahead and bought the bloody thing anyway...

The next problem is that we could not for the life of us write a contract that required Airbus to deliver what they promised.

Consequently we have had only one single day, October 26, 2015 where Airbus delivered it's contractual requirement of 12 serviceable Tiger helicopters for use by 1 Aviation Regt. A week later, 11 of those 12 were unserviceable and Airbus delivered ONE single helo for use...

One single day in the 12 years since aircraft deliveries started...

Why we would have ANYTHING to do with this mob ever again, is beyond me.

 

[vonnoobie]

Why can't we just skip all the BS and time wasting and just order what we know actually works and has a stable supply chain.

Replace the Tiger's with Vipers and the MRH-90's with mixed fleet of SH-60S's (Naval use) and UH-60M's (Army), Though I wouldnt rule out some MH-60M's for our special forces.

We know all of that stuff works, We know exactly what they will cost so why waste time. Would have the stuff long before any other solution.

 

[Raven22]

The MRH-90s aren't going to be replaced for use by 5 Avn Regiment, but I would be amazed if 6 Avn isn't flying UH-60Ms in a couple of years.

 

[t68]

The real problems are that we ignored the pilots and flight test engineers who tested the Tiger and told us it wasn't reliable and was a highly developmental aircraft AND that it wouldn't meet our intended level of capability thanks to it's roof mounted sighting system being far less capable than needed to support the capability of the Hellfire missile.

But despite the fact that we KNEW that, we went ahead and bought the bloody thing anyway...

The next problem is that we could not for the life of us write a contract that required Airbus to deliver what they promised.

Consequently we have had only one single day, October 26, 2015 where Airbus delivered it's contractual requirement of 12 serviceable Tiger helicopters for use by 1 Aviation Regt. A week later, 11 of those 12 were unserviceable and Airbus delivered ONE single helo for use...

One single day in the 12 years since aircraft deliveries started...

Why we would have ANYTHING to do with this mob ever again, is beyond me.

Was that actually in the report or third party reports, cannot read the report as the pc went down and to small to read on my iPhone

 

[ADMk2]

Was that actually in the report or third party reports, cannot read the report as the pc went down and to small to read on my iPhone

All taken straight from that ANAO report...

 

[t68]

All taken straight from that ANAO report...

Thanks, makes you wonder when those in power decide do they ever read the internal reports from end user, or is it some sort of game with unknown kickbacks.

 

[swerve]

The real problems are that we ignored the pilots and flight test engineers who tested the Tiger and told us it wasn't reliable and was a highly developmental aircraft AND that it wouldn't meet our intended level of capability thanks to it's roof mounted sighting system being far less capable than needed to support the capability of the Hellfire missile.

But despite the fact that we KNEW that, we went ahead and bought the bloody thing anyway...

The next problem is that we could not for the life of us write a contract that required Airbus to deliver what they promised.

Consequently we have had only one single day, October 26, 2015 where Airbus delivered it's contractual requirement of 12 serviceable Tiger helicopters for use by 1 Aviation Regt. A week later, 11 of those 12 were unserviceable and Airbus delivered ONE single helo for use...

One single day in the 12 years since aircraft deliveries started...

Why we would have ANYTHING to do with this mob ever again, is beyond me.

Considering the highlighted sections & the fact that Airbus delivers satisfactorily performing aircraft to many users all over the world, why refuse to deal with them? Just believe your test pilots & engineers so you only buy working aircraft, & write proper contracts.

How are the tankers doing?

 

[SteveR]

Oh yes, it is very impressive and offers very good capabilities both AAA and against surface targets.

FLAK 88 from same area of Europe also adapted very well from AAA to land combat - much to our harm!

 

[ADMk2]

Considering the highlighted sections & the fact that Airbus delivers satisfactorily performing aircraft to many users all over the world, why refuse to deal with them? Just believe your test pilots & engineers so you only buy working aircraft, & write proper contracts.

How are the tankers doing?

I'm sure you are well aware and don't need me to tell you, that Eurocopter didn't build or deliver the tankers...

Subsequent name changes and mergers don't change that fact.

As for the tankers however, they themselves were delayed, over budget and under-developed like every other major French platform we have bought in the last 2 decades, so I'm not certain what your point exactly is?

If anything your post supports my own position. If they won't admit the truth about the development status / risk of their own projects, nor the true cost of acquisition and sustainment, as they repeatedly have not, then no. We shouldn't reward them with additional multi-billion dollar contracts.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm sure you are well aware and don't need me to tell you, that Eurocopter didn't build or deliver the tankers...

Subsequent name changes and mergers don't change that fact.

As for the tankers however, they themselves were delayed, over budget and under-developed like every other major French platform we have bought in the last 2 decades, so I'm not certain what your point exactly is?

If anything your post supports my own position. If they won't admit the truth about the development status / risk of their own projects, nor the true cost of acquisition and sustainment, as they repeatedly have not, then no. We shouldn't reward them with additional multi-billion dollar contracts.

This the reason why I am not keen on our lot going the Airbus A400M way to replace our ancient P3s, Hercs and our B757s. TBH I would far rather them go Boeing and Embrear KC390, along with the Kawasaki C2. Same with new RNZN ships have them built in South Korea. I think we had a slightly easier ride with our NH90 acquisition but it was still very late and well over budget.

 

[ADMk2]

This the reason why I am not keen on our lot going the Airbus A400M way to replace our ancient P3s, Hercs and our B757s. TBH I would far rather them go Boeing and Embrear KC390, along with the Kawasaki C2. Same with new RNZN ships have them built in South Korea. I think we had a slightly easier ride with our NH90 acquisition but it was still very late and well over budget.

I agree. On time, on budget and with (most at least) of the promised capability has not been the hallmark of our experience with many of our modern, non-US defence purchases, although I am the first to admit many of those aren't without issue either.

It is an interesting comparison with the MH-60R or the CH-47F Chinook acquisition, when you look at Tiger and NH/MRH-90.

I can only imagine the state of ADF helo resources if we had gone with the NFI-90...

 

[swerve]

I'm sure you are well aware and don't need me to tell you, that Eurocopter didn't build or deliver the tankers...

Subsequent name changes and mergers don't change that fact.

As for the tankers however, they themselves were delayed, over budget and under-developed like every other major French platform we have bought in the last 2 decades, so I'm not certain what your point exactly is?

If anything your post supports my own position. If they won't admit the truth about the development status / risk of their own projects, nor the true cost of acquisition and sustainment, as they repeatedly have not, then no. We shouldn't reward them with additional multi-billion dollar contracts.

So what you're saying is that you differentiate between divisions of Airbus to make one point, then change to "it's French & they're all the same" when that suits you. Do the tankers work? And how did their purchase compare to the experience others had buying from Boeing? I think you'd find the Japanese critical of their Boeing tanker buy & the Italians very critical indeed: "delayed, over-budget and under-developed" sounds like an accurate description. Almost 200% overrun on development time sound good to you? Much worse than KC-30. But all the buyers of the A330 MRTT after Australia seem content. I think Australia had the sort of teething problems that are common with being the first customer, & everyone else is now benefiting from the resolution of those problems.

See the point? You're complaining that Australia buys incompletely developed products & so runs into the usual problems of that, but attributing it to the supplier when that supplier is French or partly French. What went wrong with Seasprite? The French, again?