Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Image

On 15 November 2021, No. 37 Squadron conducted an Enhanced Air Mobility Demonstration with C-130J Hercules A97-448. This aircraft has been modified with a number of upgrades including an AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening targeting pod, Ka-Band Satellite Communications (SATCOM) antenna, and augmented crew station in the cockpit. The purpose of this demonstration was to demonstrate the application of these upgrades in a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief scenario, with the aircraft overflying Brewarrina in New South Wales and streaming live footage to senior Defence leaders in Canberra and Sydney. On conclusion of the mission scenario, the aircrew were re-tasked in response to an actual flooding event taking place in Forbes, New South Wales, livestreaming their footage to Joint Task Force 629.
Gallery:http://images.defence.gov.au/s20213726

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

When is the decision on Land 400 due?

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 03:28 When is the decision on Land 400 due?
DTR has a good article on that out today:

Defence Technology Review
More at https://defencetechnologyreview.partica ... 1j6RaokSyY

Basically, the selection is due any time and it's unlikely the government will let an obvious good news story carry over to the next government. Therefore it will be before the next election in May. The budget is due in March, but funds have already been allocated, so any time between now and March still works. Almost certainly no later. My guess would be February/March. There will be other Defence deliverables that keep the momentum rolling through the budget and election campaign, but they won't want to keep this one waiting too long. Contract negotiations still need to take place after the source selection is announced.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

That is an extremely interesting issue of the magazine. In addition to information regarding the Land 400 programme there is an article on the British Army's Ajax programme that shows the programme is really in dire straights, and may only survive because the British Army Top Brass believe it is too big to fail. Finally there is the article on the new 6.8mm Rifle being developed by Thales Australia under the CCFOW programme. It seems they are planning to use the General Dynamics 6.8mm Round for their developmental works, but obviously the actual round to be used will be whichever out of GD and Sig Sauer win the US Army's NGSW programme. Australis does appear to be the only other nation besides the US to be actively developing a 6.8mm weapons family though the UK has been quietly part of the NGSW programme from the start.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

IIRC, that rifle will also come with a swappable 7.62 mm barrel for training (much cheaper ammo).

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 02:16 In addition to information regarding the Land 400 programme there is an article on the British Army's Ajax programme that shows the programme is really in dire straights, and may only survive because the British Army Top Brass believe it is too big to fail
It's just another Fran Tusa speculation piece :lol:

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Jensy »

Australia to scrap both Army and Navy fleets of NH90/MRH90 helicopters and replace with Blackhawk and Sea Hawks (which the NH90 itself was intended to partially replace):



Joins a number of other customers who seem less than delighted with the aircraft.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Jensy wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 18:57 Australia to scrap both Army and Navy fleets of NH90/MRH90 helicopters and replace with Blackhawk and Sea Hawks (which the NH90 itself was intended to partially replace):



Joins a number of other customers who seem less than delighted with the aircraft.

And the ABC article into replacement , wonder why they are not waiting on the US replacement program, to far into the never never perhaps?


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc ... /100688550


https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... elicopter/

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

I wonder if this ties into the speculation on the C130J replacement with an additional buy of KC-130 wonder how many new Hawks will have a refueling probe

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

R686 wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 19:33 I wonder if this ties into the speculation on the C130J replacement with an additional buy of KC-130 wonder how many new Hawks will have a refueling probe
Looks like it. And I wonder if the wholesale dissatisfaction with the EU defence industry demonstrated here gives us some insights into further decisions coming down the pipeline. Defence officials and ADF OT&E folks will call it as they see it, but when it ends up in Cabinet, I wouldn't want it to be close if I was a European.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

R686 wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 19:22 ... wonder why they are not waiting on the US replacement program; too far into the never never perhaps?
Well I suppose the Black Hawk will still be the mainstay for 20 years, so I doubt we'll fall too far behind. There's also nothing stopping them from adding in modest numbers of these aircraft if they really sell themselves. Looking back on this fiasco, it's the safer bet, at least initially while you get to know the aircraft.

Plus, speaking for myself, I'm not sure enormous tilt rotor aircraft are really what you would call "battlefield helicopters" as opposed to "troop lift" helicopters. There is a distinction in Australian Army aviation. A little bit of bias against 'tall' helicopters and helicopters that can't aggressively swoop in with a short, sharp flair at the end, and launch again aggressively with speed. MV-22 especially is too slow and delicate getting in and out and it's a reasonably common criticism. The new tilt rotor variant might have a better profile – who knows – but it will be something to watch. Tall, though. The coaxial helo might turn out a bit better, but it is still taller than a Black Hawk and I've got no idea of its landing profile. But everything will have its niche and probably some part of the ADF will want that utility.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by seaspear »

Another argument for an all American source of airframes is if there is any major conflict having a common source of logistics may make things more efficient, certainly, there is an increased possibility of more U.S forces being rotated and based in Australia

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Lord Jim »

A combination of Blackhawks, Seahawks and Chinooks should more than meet the Australian needs for the foreseeable future. We will have to see how the US Army's future Rotorcraft programmes pan out before we see these being replaced to which the Apache could be added at a later date.

On the new 6.8mm rifle, I believe both the GD and Sig Sauer weapons being proposed for the US military can also be adapted to fire standard 7.62x51 ammunition if needed, the latter certainly can.

As for the piece on Ajax, the key factor is how strong the MoD and Treasury believe the programme is "Too big to fail". If the MoD sticks to its guns and does not spend a penny more then the existing contract, it will be interesting to see how both the Army Top Brass and GDUK act. Would the former be will to accept few vehicles, and how many fewer, as long as those delivered actually worked as planned, or would GDUK be will to make a not insubstantial loss to deliver the number contracted for after any and all design modification are developed and carried out to cure the issues the platform currently has. Anyhow this part should move to the ongoing Ajax thread.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Tempest414 »

It all makes sense to me for them to have Chinooks , Blackhawk's , Apache's as they can plug into the US logistics in war time

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Provided US logistics doesn’t prioritise US forces in war time..

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Tempest414 »

same problem whoever they buy off but I would bet they would get a better supply of parts and replacements of the US if needed

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

I knew the NH90 was expensive to operate but was gobsmacked on what it’s actually costing

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/dumpi ... t-why-now/
The MRH-90 has been costing $35,000 per hour to operate. Last financial year that ballooned to $50,000 and it was probably the final straw.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Jensy »

R686 wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 19:08 I knew the NH90 was expensive to operate but was gobsmacked on what it’s actually costing


The MRH-90 has been costing $35,000 per hour to operate. Last financial year that ballooned to $50,000 and it was probably the final straw.
:shock: That's approaching twin engined fighter money!

I appreciate not an exact comparison but explains a lot about the apparent waste of scrapping a modern fleet.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

Jensy wrote: 11 Dec 2021, 00:03
R686 wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 19:08 I knew the NH90 was expensive to operate but was gobsmacked on what it’s actually costing


The MRH-90 has been costing $35,000 per hour to operate. Last financial year that ballooned to $50,000 and it was probably the final straw.
:shock: That's approaching twin engined fighter money!

I appreciate not an exact comparison but explains a lot about the apparent waste of scrapping a modern fleet.
I think $35000ph is to much

Wonder how much the USMC UH-1Y Venom is per flight hour

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Little J »

R686 wrote: 11 Dec 2021, 02:06 I think $35000ph is to much

Wonder how much the USMC UH-1Y Venom is per flight hour
First reply from a quick Google search (other search engines are available :D )
The cost to fly these two aircraft is thousands of dollars an hour. On average, the MV-22 costs $14,000 and the UH-1Y costs $7,000 to fly per hour
So 1 Osprey + 1 UH-1Y vs 1 '90 :shock:
Or 2 Osprey + 1 UH-1Y vs 1' 90 (after the flight hours cost "ballooned") :wtf:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Tempest414 »

they are not the first Belgium cut NH-90 ops stating lack of support and high operating costs

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

Interesting at the cost shock when according to Hansard merlin was costed as follows and people on here always shout for more

“The acquisition cost of the RAF operated Merlin Mk 3 is around £19 million and for the RN operated Merlin Mk 1 is around £39 million.

The large price differential is due to the inclusion of the sophisticated anti-submarine mission avionics, which are an integral part of the weapons system in the Merlin Mkl.

The total operating cost per hour is approximately £34,000 for the Merlin Mk 3 and is approximately £42,000 for the Merlin Mk 1”


Personally if the MoD makes an appropriate choice on its new medium helicopter there is a market out there for sales.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by TheLoneRanger »

The problem with most of the EU defence industry is that it is centred around job creation and wealth generation, political control and not for developing actual military capability. You only have to look at the number of units procured of EU origin based defence manufactured products in their respective host countries to know that military capability is not their goal. The overall contribution of EU countries to NATO tells you how little they care ( and why we in the UK should also start to care about mainland Europe even less if they cannot be bothered themselves !! ).

So, if you buy EU origin military products, then they will be damn expensive to both buy and then operate and they will be dead-ends as the products will not get midlife upgrades as there will not be the economic case for that given the low number of units sold.

Just look at the economic size of the EU and the number of "Eurodrone" units they plant to procure - it is a vanity project designed to try and sell overseas as the primary goal .. compare that with the number of drone the Americans buy of their products. That is why the UK is better off buying from the Americans and no EU origin countries.

This is why the UK must keep both Germany, and France, Spain away from the Tempest programme at all costs with a view of ensuring economic efficiency, delivery and then the buildup of military capability.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 11 Dec 2021, 10:54 Interesting at the cost shock when according to Hansard merlin was costed as follows and people on here always shout for more

“The acquisition cost of the RAF operated Merlin Mk 3 is around £19 million and for the RN operated Merlin Mk 1 is around £39 million.

The large price differential is due to the inclusion of the sophisticated anti-submarine mission avionics, which are an integral part of the weapons system in the Merlin Mkl.

The total operating cost per hour is approximately £34,000 for the Merlin Mk 3 and is approximately £42,000 for the Merlin Mk 1”


Personally if the MoD makes an appropriate choice on its new medium helicopter there is a market out there for sales.
As we all know the cost per hour is reached in different way by different operators the UK's cost per hour is always at the top end as very thing including the air crews boots are costed in however Australia is not the only unhappy customer of NH-90 Belgium , Holland , France have all been unhappy about supply and cost

Post Reply