$145 million on unmanned spyplanes.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Unmanned spy planes - to Army (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1529371.htm)

Looks like the Airforce will continue to lose roles to the other services.

With the current CAF saying he wants to "give the Caribou capability to the Army" , and army extending further into tactical recon it won't be long until we can just roll the Air Force into the Army and Navy.

Mind you, the funniest thing is the current CAF said he wanted to ditch the Caribou to the army and spend the money on Strike Fighters.

Tell me you don't get to two star thinking you can offload a capability to another service yet keep the money for it :rolleyes:

[donpizmeov]

Might have something to do with his twitch.

Don

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Yes I believe he did start twitching profusely when someone mentioned the Caribou.

I get the distinct impression the man hates the transport world - esp. the caribou which in one speech he described as a "low tech option for benign environments".

I believe he sees tactical transport as an Army role. Unfortunately it only takes one chief to give a capability away and you'll never see it again . (Choppers)

[griffinblack]

Well Angus has experience with both choppers and transport.

I find it a bit strange that he thinks he can give a capability away and still keep the funding. I am sure army would want the RAAF to keep all fixed wing tactical transport. Maybe more CH47’s as a replacement?

As for the tactical UAV. I have no doubt that the army is the right place for this type of UAV. It needs to responsive to the ground commander, probably at the CT level, certainly at the BG level. This will fit into the ISR BOS to provide the commander tactical information in real time or near real time. I am not sure that the RAAF could provide this level of support given C2 relationships.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

CAF is Shep., not Gus - he's CDF :)

Shep is an ex fast jet guy. He was talking of the army buying more Chinook's, and RAAF keeping the Caribou money for JSF / Tankers. :ugh:

I don't see the problem with RAAF maintaining all levels of air ops. It worked in Timor - the Blackhawks came under the Air Component Commander - a RAAF one Star , and were tasked by the COC which was 98% RAAF.

The current CAF gave a speech talking of using JSF's for Battlefield ISR . He wants to provide all support to all areas so long as the platform travels at over 500 knots :p

[Roller Merlin]

These smaller battlefield UAVs are designed for use by Army personnel in the field, to inform on the land situation . It is not Air Force's role to deploy in the field simply so they can operate a UAV.

As for the idea of transferring Caribou to Army, anything is possible, but at the moment the Caribou role is tactical fixed-wing airlift with specialised short field capabilities. Army does not have this capability at the moment, so issues like crew training, logistic support and engineering and airworthiness would need to be sorted. Personally I cannot see the benefit of transferring the lot to Army with no stated reason.

Army Caribou pilots would need to complete a full fixed wing course too with emphasis on command training, not just the short one they now do prior to helo training.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I think he was talking of throwing the Caribou on the scrap heap early, and the army buying more Chinook's to fill the role.

[griffinblack]

PAF – my mistake re Shep vs Angus. “Battlefield ISR” – well, well, well. I guess this is the time when we start networking the battlefield. Call me cynical, but these minor technicalities such as link 16 vs BCSS and talking to the ground command on the ground command net when he is contact are not really that minor. As for command relationships, that part is absolutely vital. Remember tasking for army recce was not conducted through the COC in Timor. The BG commander wants “his” tactical air manoeuvre under at least TACOMD if not OPCOMD. The RAAF simply wont be that responsive in that command relationship. Command and control (that is - appropriate C2) is were tempo can be generated or lost. With the current paradigm of manoeuvre warfare - if you cannot achieve tempo you don’t win the war.

Roller Merlin – not sure what you mean by “command training”, I’m guessing you don’t either. As I said, army don’t want to get into the fixed wing tactical transport. That is a RAAF task. Army does battlefield airmobility and manoeuvre.

My feeling is that airforce should consider how they wish to meet core business. That includes tactical transport and CAS. I think there would be room to improve both roles rather than divesting or taking on additional tasks.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I guess definition is the problem I have.

Airforce's core business is operating "Air Assets" .. That is what the entire organisation was set up to do. It seems we have gone full circle, when you consider the cability the new "Air Force" offered in 1921.

[Point0Five]

Griffinblack

Your post essentially makes sense……….. apart from talking about the "current paradigm in manoeuvre warfare". Why is it that Army people sprout doctrine without giving an indication that they really understand it beyond the relevant command course syllabus?

I agree with Army maintaining tactical control of battlefield airlift, I just don't understand why it needs to be dressed up with jargon. If you understand it, use terms that the average PPRuNer can understand.

Not knocking, it's just one of those little cultural differences :D

[Gnadenburg]

Israeli made. Will they be kitted out with Hellfire missiles to make good the IDF crowd control capability?

And just as important, can you you log UAV time?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

and if you can , will they install a bed in the back of the UAV trailer so you can log captain time whilst a sleep :}

[griffinblack]

0.5. I understand what you are saying about use of throw away terms and military acronyms. I guess the military is like aviation itself in that regard – no? Anyway, manoeuvre warfare is has a set of tenets – tempo or rapid tempo is one of them. I will be careful about future “sprouting” without some explanation.

By the way - the drivers of the UAV will be artillery!!

[tipsy2]

"the drivers of the UAV will be artillery"

Lord protect us. With the Latin motto "Ubique" meaning "Everywhere" much like their fall of shot, I wonder if the U in UAV will mean uncontrolled.

tipsy

[Roller Merlin]

not sure what you mean by “command training”, I’m guessing you don’t either.

Griffinblack - to expand on this, the minimum graduate requirement from the Army pilot training system has traditionally been that of a helo copilot. (Unless this has been changed in the last 2 years) RAAF Graduate minimum requirement from it's system has always been that a graduate must demonstrate skills necessary to achieve an operational command. Navy policy it to train their pilots following the RAAF progression for this reason, as thier role requires an early captaincy offsore with little supervision. If RAAF pilots later prove to be unable to achieve an operational command, their qualification can be reassessed. Although with Tiger on the scene and the BFTS contract finishing in the next few years, the wheels are sure to be spinning again soon.

[griffinblack]

Roller-Merlin. I don’t really know were to begin with your last post. I am on leave and have some time so I will take the time to challenge your understanding of the ADF pilot continuum. I will be digressing a little from the original intent of the thread – sorry PAF.

R-M, you state - “Army pilot training system has traditionally been that of a helo copilot”. I have no idea were you get that understanding. Army pilots graduate to a Category D pilot status. They are not restricted from command apart from specific roles, theatres and NVG. How army pilots are used when they graduate and what progression they require is stipulated in the Unit Training and Assessment Program (UTAP). Army pilot training has limitations, most importantly at the tactical level, not one limited by “command training”.

Furthermore you state – “RAAF Graduate minimum requirement from it's system has always been that a graduate must demonstrate skills necessary to achieve an operational command”. RAAF graduate pilots are captains of PC-9’s. What operational/tactical scenarios have they been involved with? And I don’t mean high/low nav with a TOT – that is not tactics or simulating an operational environment. How have they demonstrated sufficient CRM skills for operational command in a multi crew environment (noting that most graduates end up in multi crew)? When they do there operational conversion many/most only gain a co-pilot category (such as Category D co-pilot). It may take years to gain a “captaincy”. I am sure PAF is well aware of this from his world which is flush with co-pilots.

“If RAAF pilots later prove to be unable to achieve an operational command, their qualification can be reassessed”. That is common to all services. You can’t have professional co-pilots clogging up you crew room.

The Navy progress pilots, at times quite slowly, through 723NAS. Out of all three services they achieve the earliest and most challenging “command” at 816 NAS.

“Although with Tiger on the scene and the BFTS contract finishing in the next few years, the wheels are sure to be spinning again soon.” This statement is amusing because the Tiger training system will actually be a co-pilot graduation standard, apart from ferry and possibly simple day GF stuff. A graduate Cat D Tiger pilot will only be a co-pilot. Progression to Battle-Captain will be the command cut off at about the Cat B stage. I have no idea about the BFTS contract and would be cautious about an all through fixed wing course for army pilots given the current length of time it takes to achieve operational pilots. I hold the view that the navy, since giving up the fleet air arm, have been lucky to maintain an all through fixed wing course.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I wish we had more co-pilots on board.

More co-pilots means more time on bunk :}

[Arm out the window]

Arrgh...I'm out of the loop with some of your acronyms, Griffin black, but the same old situations re operational command and control will always occur when you have a limited number of valuable assets where a lot of users want them.

To say that 'I am not sure that the RAAF could provide this level of support given C2 relationships' is not legit; they certainly could, but as was well proven in the helicopter transfer (watch out, I may start twitching more than Shep), the trained operators (whoever they may be) can only provide as much support as can physically be achieved - the holy grail of helicopters on tap for every battalion commander when he wanted them just didn't eventuate, and there was the drop in capability while the discontinuities inherent in transferring from one service to another were thrashed out.

The helo transfer is of course old news, but the implication that the Army air operators can provide the best service to the Army ground operators ' because they can' is not justified, in my view.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

From an economic stand point you are losing a lot of the "economies of scale" the Air Force offers when you transfer air assets to other services.

With the defence budget always being tight, duplicating organisational structures etc. so the Army can have their own air arm is just not good financial sense.

[ernestkgann]

I'm beginning to understand why my mates tell me I could never go back to the military.

[donpizmeov]

Too right...you are too bloody old Ernie!!!!! You were there for the fun times of the past. And the place is full of collegeboys now.
Sad thing is, I remember drinking beer with Arm out the window (he is such a nice fella, you would never have known he was a rotorhead!!!), when 5av was taking over the old 35sqn HQ. TVL Os mess bar...those were the days.
Caribous, in where it is hot, wet and tight!!!

Don.

[griffinblack]

I think we are migrating further from the original intent of the thread, but here goes…..

Arm out the window – If you are who I think you are, I remember you well and have flown with you a number of times. The issue is not about guys like you and I – the operators. On the whole, they wish to provide the best service they can, they are willing to work hard, push endurance, live in **** conditions and get the job done. Nothing wrong with that. The issue now for battlefield airmobility and manoeuvre, is that the ground commander wants “his” air assets as part of “his” task organization (task org). That means at least under tactical command (TACOMD) or operational command (OPCOMD). That means that he, the ground commander (generally a LTCOL or a BRIG) will set the mission. I would be surprised if air force would be prepared for “grunts” to allocate missions and tasks to its air assets without prior approval. This approval takes time – time you simply don’t have when the battle is running red hot. It’s the ground commander who takes the risks, would airforce (under our present paradigm) be prepared to conduct an air assault fully prepared to suffer the battle damages occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq. The answer is irrefutable no. The operators would, but the honchos would like to remain “in the loop”.

The army don’t have it stitched up. They are an organization run on a shoe string and can thus look …. what? …. Disjointed. Army aviation is still trying to justify its relevance to the broader army (although this is now nearly complete – think 1 Avn Regt moving to Robertson Barracks). As to doubling up, I guess there is some of that, but each FEG (force element group) has its own duplication, the army (and navy?) is just another FEG. So the doubling up is actually not very much at all.

Lastly it is about perceptions. And remember perceptions is reality. Airforce still views tactical transport just above cleaning the bogs (think how have the RAAF gone about replacing the Boo and how they just stopped flying the CH47 in what appeared a hissy fit about the Blackhawks). Remember how we sold off the A4’s?? Has the navy forgotten what support they ended up getting? They needed the Kiwi’s in the end. How is that perceived by the service chiefs and senior command group? It really is not about the right or wrong, or saving money. There is a lot of tribalism (in all services). There is a lot of inefficiencies – I suspect RAAF to have the most fat. It is about getting dirty – how many RAAF squadrons are manned, equipped and prepared to deploy, in toto, at short notice, anywhere in the world for a period of up to 6 months.

[Arm out the window]

Mmmm, beer.....:)

But back to the topic...griffin black, it makes sense that UAVs would be available for tasking by the ground commanders according to their needs, but with the numbers of aircraft and operators that we would be likely to have, there would naturally have to be a system of prioritising and allocation to those with the greatest need.

This does not change no matter who's operating them, and having RAAF air assets under the operational command of ground commanders was commonplace during big exercises when the utility helicopters still 'belonged' to the RAAF, including having pilots and controllers in the Brigade TACP to provide specialist advice and run the tasking to the ground commander's requirements, liaise with artillery etc, and having the aircraft and maintenance crews in the bush ready to work as required.

This is years ago, of course, so things are no doubt different now particularly with regard to quick and secure communications and data transfer, but what I'm getting at is that whoever operates the assets could and should have systems in place to provide the service that's needed, and the RAAF could do this. The role dictates the equipment and procedures, so if readiness to deploy and operate in the field is required, and money is allocated to allow appropriate support equipment to be on hand, the job will be done, and the personnel will get as dirty as necessary.

Shep is a fast jet man through and through, and so may not see things in the same way that Angus, who at FLTCDR and XO level in the helicopter world was intimately involved with the tasking of RAAF air assets by Army commanders, would.
With massive outlays for upgrades and replacement of things like the fighter, strike & maritime patrol assets coming up, I guess he's also forced to think about cutting out anything that he doesn't consider to be a core Air Force role.

Re the Caribou, I guess it really is a 'low-tech option for benign environments' these days, but the good it does in general support and natural disaster relief work in rugged terrain make it something worth having, as proven by the ongoing unwillingness to put it out to pasture, even though it's been rumoured to be about to fall off the twig for decades now, it seems.

[kmagyoyo]

Living proof that if you stay in the firm long enough....:yuk:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

talking of throwing the Caribou on the scrap heap early,

Early?? I remember when their life-of-type was due to end in 1988!

I cringe when I think think of the Army despoiling them..... uuuuuugh.:yuk: ;)

[Roller Merlin]

Airforce still views tactical transport just above cleaning the bogs.... ... they just stopped flying the CH47 in what appeared a hissy fit about the Blackhawks). Remember how we sold off the A4’s?? Has the navy forgotten what support they ended up getting? They needed the Kiwi’s in the end.

Griffin old chap I think you need to take a little lie down and enjoy your well-deserved leave. :p

[Pass-A-Frozo]

GriffinBlack:

So essentially your problem is that you want a person who knows nothing of aviation to be commanding what aviation assets do? There by removing all forms of "aviation risk management" and supervision from aviation professionals?

Aircraft are often assigned to "support" as directed, the service operating shouldn't and from what I've seen doesn't prove problematic.

Of course, air transport assets are just flying unimogs aren't they :}

[DeBurcs]

145 million on unmanned spyplanesCan't they just use google-earth.......:rolleyes:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Can't they just use google-earth.......

Yup.. that's up to date intel for you :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Islander Jock]

Yup.. that's up to date intel for you
PAF, Know what you mean. Latest shot of my place is nearly 2 years old.

Could the army operate and maintain the boos? Just gotta hope they don't outsource the crewing to Transfield. :}

[Pass-A-Frozo]

If it's replacement is fixed wing it will stay with Air Force. However I think you'll find our current chief personally wants the capability to go to Army. :( Poor old gravel truck..

[Wiley]

I'm very much yesterday's man in this argument and by no means current with today's situation in the ADF, but in a previous life, I spent a lot of time working for the Green Machine in a green machine and saw enough then to draw my own conclusions.

I don't think the Green Machine of today is very much different to the one in my day, (at least in its attitudes to air assets), and if I'm right, I believe that if (God forbid) we ever find ourselves in a really nasty, backs to the wall situation a la 1942, the handing over of the rotary wing operation to the Army will then be seen to have been the major disaster many like me thought it to be back in 1988. I think the same argument could be mounted re tac fixed wing.

But if I'm right, who'll know or care? Because the winners write the history books, and I suspect the book in question won't be in English - or maybe even in Roman script.

Not knocking Angus' undoubted capabilities, but I think his getting the CAF position had about as much to do with the part he played in the handover of the choppers to the grunts back in 88 as his very good performance as a rising star in the higher ranks in the years that followed.

As for Shep... I too remember the twitch above all else, (and that's not to say he's not a man of above average abilities too). But I do know his ummm... shall we say "unusual frankness" in expressing his opinions of aeroplanes that don't fly above Mach 1 when speaking to members of RAAF squadrons not of the knuckhead variety has left quite a few officers and airmen of those squadrons somewhat bemused.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

shall we say "unusual frankness" in expressing his opinions of aeroplanes that don't fly above Mach 1 when speaking to members of RAAF squadrons not of the knuckhead variety has left quite a few officers and airmen of those squadrons somewhat bemused
To paraphrase Homer Simpson: "It is as true today... as the day it was written" :ok: :ok:

[MTOW]

This thread would have to give new meaning to the phrase "thread creep", but to add to that creep, I'd have to say that Wiley's apparently all too accurate comment about Shep brings to mind that old ditty about different types of aircrew that dates back to WW2.

The pertinent lines are:

"You can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such,
You can tell a fighter pilot... BUT YOU CAN'T TELL HIM MUCH."

[DeBurcs]

Didn't the ADF plan to buy some Global Hawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk) ages ago?? :confused:

Did they end up getting them?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Don't think so... I remember they were going to get them though too..

As for thread creep - I guess it's because we don't get a military thread much in the Aussie forums :)

[DeBurcs]

From the above article:Australian Defence Force has two major types of reconnaissance planesSo what is the other type then?

Anybody?

Bueller?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

RF-111 and P3?

Although I still can't be bothered clicking on the link :E