Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Doubtful, they are all less than 10yo. The last 4 have only been delivered in the last year.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
It’s been common knowledge for years the Army has 14 x CH-47F.
Seven were delivered in 2015, the next three in 2016, and the last four delivered in 2021-22.
I suppose it is yet another way that the Government gets to skimp on defence. Now Marles doesn’t have to worry about those pesky flight hours.
Warning : Political comment. A cheap throw away at that.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
My only surprise is how anyone could be surprised about the results we are seeing now.
Blind Freddy could see this coming a mile off.
You get the Government you vote for and deserve.
Fortunately I didn’t vote for them.
Warning: Political commentary.
Last edited by a moderator:
You'd rather put crews at risk?
This has happened before, tiger was grounded after the German loss in Africa, crews maintained currency, at great expense, flying other (civil) types around the country.
The DSR. Demoralising Strategic Reductions.
No but I would get my crews seconded to US army aviation units so that they keep up their currency. Maybe try and accelerate the blackhawk purchases. All of this would cost money though which the Government is clearly not willing to provide to Army.
I’m not sure you would need continuity training specifically on a NH-90, if they’re no longer going to be operational.
thinking rotary flying training could continue on contracted aircraft, and perhaps start more senior operational crews on Blackhawk conversions early?
thinking rotary flying training could continue on contracted aircraft, and perhaps start more senior operational crews on Blackhawk conversions early?
There’s obviously a limit on how many crews you can push through the US army blackhawk conversion training pipeline but it would make sense to ramp this up as soon as possible.
Yep, that's what they did with the Tiger grounding. Crews went around the country and trained on commercial helicopters.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I agree, Governments don’t want to put aircrews at risk, unnecessary risk.
But let’s be realistic, the loss of the MRH-90 back in July is not the first (or will it be the last) ADF aviation asset to be lost.
Most groundings can last as little as a few weeks, or a few months (max).
Has the global MRH/NH-90 fleet been grounded? In very recent times the US has lost F-35 and F/A-18 Super Hornets, did we see the RAAF ground their respective fleets? No?
This Government has taken the soft option.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Three More Toll Group AW139s for Australian Army (helis.com)
The Australian Army is also currently operating several AW-139 Helicopters leased from Toll group for concurrent trg, wouldn't be surprised to see this fleet expanded to provide ongoing flight trg.
The Australian Army is also currently operating several AW-139 Helicopters leased from Toll group for concurrent trg, wouldn't be surprised to see this fleet expanded to provide ongoing flight trg.
The type was scheduled for early replacement after a succession of maintenance issues. It's not just that an aircraft was lost, it's that it was lost after years of effort on improving reliability and availability.
The problem may well be they don't know what caused the loss, which raises the question of how much of the types remaining 18 or so months in service, would it take to ensure it was safe to return to operational service.
It's a fair question
I was wondering if we could lease a couple of US Chinooks.
The taipan like alot of ADF equipment is a valuable asset for HADR.
While it is often debated as to how / why / should the ADF assets be used in civilian disaster contingency, the reality of the situation is that until this is sorted defence will be called apon to assist when asked by government.
That's just reality.
With a hot dry summer predicted and a challenging bush fire season approaching, we may need a plan B for the lack of service afforded by the Taipan.
I don't know the answer, but this will be a big gap to fill for both defence and civilian contingency.
Cheers S
It is hard to tell at the moment.
I'd like to know what the impact is on manoeuvre element numbers (that is, companies and squadrons) - up, down, the same.
Feel this would be more informative.
Regards,
Massive
Are you asking Army wide or just ARA?
With the loss of 7 RAR, and 2RAR having only one rifle company, we are down to 5 regular Infantry battalions.
Recent history has seen SASR and the Comando regts red lined, and doing a lot of the roles that Infantry should have been doing.
It takes time to bring an Infantry Battalion up to deployment standard, in peace time its a 12 month prep, or work up. To bring A Res up to a battle standard, in war time conditions, would be a nightmare.
1st of all, the battalions we have (A Res) would need to cannibalise each other to bring them up to strength. Meaning of the 20 Reserve infantry battalions, we would likely consolidate them to about 12 to 15. Again, in wartime conditions, a rapid 6 to 8 week work up would be the bare minimum, remembering that of those soldiers not all of them have completed their basic training as infantry.
Same would go for all the other units arty, sigs would take even longer, armoured longer again, to bring the reserve to any real standard as whole, when mobilised would take about 12 months best guess. Leaving the nation with 5 or 6 regular battalions and what we already have with re enforcements coming from the A res to bring them up to strength.
With the loss of 7 RAR, and 2RAR having only one rifle company, we are down to 5 regular Infantry battalions.
Recent history has seen SASR and the Comando regts red lined, and doing a lot of the roles that Infantry should have been doing.
It takes time to bring an Infantry Battalion up to deployment standard, in peace time its a 12 month prep, or work up. To bring A Res up to a battle standard, in war time conditions, would be a nightmare.
1st of all, the battalions we have (A Res) would need to cannibalise each other to bring them up to strength. Meaning of the 20 Reserve infantry battalions, we would likely consolidate them to about 12 to 15. Again, in wartime conditions, a rapid 6 to 8 week work up would be the bare minimum, remembering that of those soldiers not all of them have completed their basic training as infantry.
Same would go for all the other units arty, sigs would take even longer, armoured longer again, to bring the reserve to any real standard as whole, when mobilised would take about 12 months best guess. Leaving the nation with 5 or 6 regular battalions and what we already have with re enforcements coming from the A res to bring them up to strength.
Just ARA.
Nominally under Beersheba there were 28 manoeuvre elements (inc. 2 RAR).
From your post I assume this is now 25.
Given 28 manoeuvre elements was pretty light already (e.g from Takao's example, that a mechanised brigade under current doctrine requires a minimum of 15 manoeuvre elements for instance) this is quite concerning.
Regards,
Massive
Leave aside 2RAR.
We had / have 27 manoeuvre groups.
5/7RAR relink losing one Battalion.
1st Armoured Regt becomes some new evolutionary thing which maybe good. Don't know much about it other than that's a loss of another three sqns/coys I'm guessing.
If correct are we now down to 21 manoeuvre groups?
Does this look correct?
Cheers S