Why no helo transport? Are we condemning our diggers to an easy victimology?

[500N]

Shark

For our size, I think Australia does “punch above their weight”, not only the military in Afghan / Iraq but also i other areas of the world stage.

Part of aussies just getting on with the job with what they have at hand
plus being good at what they do. In particular the SF forces.

I also agree that since the pollies and senior staff are told by the us that the Aussie troops do a such good job, "politicians and senior officers who should know better have relied on this mantra of “They can punch above their weight” to avoid their responsibilities by adequately equipping the ADF at all levels."


If the DMO was a private or public company, it would have been shut down by now and it is disgusting that so many wrong decisions over so many years regarding equipment have been so wrong.

We, as in Australia / ADF / DMO, seem to create a unique set of requirements
for our equipment yet we do nothing that the US doesn't do and at a far less demanding activity level in exactly the same environment so I have yet to see why we always decide on "other" than off the shelf gear.

I think it may come down to the Aussie tight arse way of thinking we can save a few $$$ by doing it this way.

Just my HO.

[Shark Zero Six]

I'll just explain this a little so I'm not taken out by an Aussie hit squad delivered by choppers to my compound!

I agree Australia does punch above their weight. The fear however, is that making it a PR spectacle creates false expectations, especially among those who should know better. Your politicians (and others) rely on service chiefs who roll over to have the tummies tickled, and don't put up solid arguments supporting the troops. Too many of them are "schmoozed" by this type of flattery - after all it would be a litle like complaining about Mom and apple pie.

Armed forces everywhere will always complain about lack of resources, but the Australian Defence Department (Inc DMO) have turned it into an artform. And yet the head blithely blunders on - why? I'm told he knows where the skeletons are buried. It's been widely reported amongst the military here, and we're waiting for a senate committee or whatever you have, to go after him and bring the critter to justice. But I doubt it will ever happen.

Meanwhile the troops go muzzled. (and persecuted - re the courtmartial of those diggers for the night action in Afghanistan. A disgrace that they have to face this)

About time some of your service chiefs grew some hair on their chests and spoke out publicly. But the higher up they get the more politically correct they become. Those not quite at the top won't speak out in support of troops complaints because they are hoping to be next to get the head guernsey and are too busy polishing their resumes. Besides they'd have to take the 5th to protect themselves.

But this is nothing new.

Happens everywhere.

[Andu]

Shark Zero Six, you quite obviously have a bug planted in my living room!!!

Far from sending a hit team to silence you, there'd be many on this side of the Pacific who'd agree with your observations 101%.

For too long now, very, very few get past one star in Canberra unless they have proven themselves to be 100% trustworthy - i.e., guaranteed not to rock the boat. This has led to the sorry - (let's call it for what it is - scandalous) - state we have today, where apart from a nominal pair of Chinooks, our troops in Afghanistan must rely upon foreign rotary wing assets for any support at all. And that's just one example of many.

But everyone gets a nice little earner after retirement as the rep. for one of the multinational arms companies - and let's face it, that's the important thing.

[Shark Zero Six]

Andu,

Great to see others in OZ are aware of what goes on. You'd be amazed (or probably wouldn't be...) at who have their snouts in the trough in the way you describe.

The result is submarines that can't go to sea and are being considered being asigned as fishing reefs to tourist areas. Imagine being the defence minister at the time and phoning around to submarine manufacturers -

"Hello Sweden? What sort of deal can you do for us on submarines? How much experience in submarine warfare have you had?"

The answer of course is none, but every submarine kit comes in a flatpack with a free Allen key. So Beazley decided to buy a Swedish-ish Design.

Compare this with the response to the phone call to Germany...

"Haff we had experience in submarine warfare? Gott in Himmel! Who do you think invented the wolf pack! I'll transfer you to our sales manager. His name is Doernitz..."

Then of course there's all the other clunkers that Defence is now acquiring, including the Tiger and MHR 90...

But I guess that's free enterprise for you.

Not sure how you solve this riddle.

[Redback20]

I've followed this forum for a while, and until now have been reluctant to join as I was in the Australian Army. Just been discharged after serving my 5 years and deciding that reinlisting just wasn't worth it. So now I can talk freely.

What's been siad in here re politicians, aircraft and equipment procurement is true. The Australian Aviation corps is really screwed up today. They are great guys don't get me wrong, but let down by clowns at the top. We know of former "honchos" who have made decisions on equipment and now are in positions with those same companies as has been described in here.

The Tiger program is thouroughly screwed up. They have good men working hard to fix stupid problems caused by purchasing an unproven design, and the whole situation is a mess. Even the airframe is suspect as the corrosion proofing is not up to the standards required in the tropics - once they used to "tropicalise" aircraft, but this European designed bag of bolts, didn't have sufficient corrosion spec. Why because Europe is not the tropics. Some idiot forgot to think that one through when Australia purchased the aircraft.

The software is buggy to say the least. They are having problems keeping them flying. Enough said.

As for being gagged, the forces have almost become a Nazi state, defence PR is everywhere "spinning" every article that goes out. They have lawyers looking over shoulders. Check out what happens if anyone dare kill an enemy in Afghanistan! Every action has an investigation following it.

The MHR 90 is following the same path. Why the went for these aircraft remains a mystery, we won't be fighting in places where the European supply line is active, we'll be mainly associated with US logistics. The French will boycott spares at the drop of a hat. Chek their record.

But of course none of this will be made public. The Nazi PR machine will see to that.

[Shark Zero Six]

As Redback 20 indicates, the war in Afghanistan has become so politically correct with the Australian government, that they put their own soldiers on trial as some type of demonstration to the world how "responsible" they are. It's almost a form of self flagellation.

More will die, politicians will utter hollow words, then hop in their VIP jets and return to Canberra - the soldiers forgotton.

By the time they clear the MHR 90 and Tiger for IOC the Australian forces will be out of Afghanistan...

Maybe that was the idea in the first place?

[500N]

"Not sure how you solve this riddle."

Stop dreaming up / creating "out of this world" specialist Australian requirements that just add complexity and cost to the items being purchased.
We don't have a large enough military and we don't go into combat enough by ourselves to warrant it.

Stop buying jobs using Defence contracts by having the equipment built here
at a higher cost than buying off the shelf OS. It's false economy IMHO.

Buy as much "off the shelf" "combat proven" gear as possible.

With a LEANING towards US manufactured / US Interoperability /
with guaranteed access to the world wide US supply chain of spare parts.
(That doesn't mean we automatically buy US but I think some positive weighting needs to be applied to US made, off the shelf, combat proven equipment).

And then spend the money that has been saved on flying hours of the aircraft (or in the case of subs, ocean time) so that the crews actually have a high level of skills ready for combat if and when needed (and actually let them go and don't be afraid of losing a few in the process).

I may be way off target but that's my HO.

.

[Shark Zero Six]

Methinks 500N has hit nail on head.

I know one person in DMO who tells that too often over 50% of the additional cost to many items that are "customised" is attributable to a requirement that adds maybe 5% additional capability. A generalisation perhaps but on the surface true.

Have a look on WikiPedia about the saga of the Collins class submarines...a very good account of the difficulties in that project. Check out how someone decided to configure the periscope's optics - against advice from more experienced operators. The $30 million cost overrun getting this sorted out was just petty cash. Also the prop seals came adrift and the boat takes on water - the cure after submerging - run the engine in reverse for a minute to reseat the seal. (otherwise the sub sinks ) Great when you're trying to bug out.

So what 500N says has a lot of merit. Get the equipment, put more $$$ into training, and maybe then consider mods if they can be justified after you've learned the item thoroughly.

I think Chuck Yeager would agree with him.

[TBM-Legend]

in WW2 we were removing the US gunsights and radios from P-40's and replacing them with UK stuff...

We said the Sherman tank was no good. Our US/UK Allies operated thousands successfully including in the Pacific..

nothing has changed..:bored:

[Turkeyslapper]

Gday all, interesting thread and I certainly agree with many of the above comments...slight drift however since I keep reading about those "dud" Collins class subs here.

The whole Collins debacle is well documented and yes it has been a hugely expensive exercise plagued by many developmental problems. However, despite many of the well known issues of the past (and present - lack of crews etc) I am led to believe that the Collins boats have actually developed into extremely capable assets which are out there doing some very good (and interesting) work.

Sorry for the drift...continue:E

[Shark Zero Six]

The Collins class subs are a good example of how the Australian equipment acquisition system shouldn't function.

At the time of writing only one out of six subs are serviceable. Unfortunately they have not been a success and your govt is considering early retirement of the entire fleet.

Some in the navy are calling for off the shelf submarines (as much as possible) to be built overseas (preferably in Germany) as replacements. At last some common sense - after expenditure exceeding $8 billion.

While the theory of building in Australian with the retention of (some) funding there, the flow on to the labor force etc, the reality of it is that these items are large, complex projects requiring extensive practical knowledge and skills that aren't readily recreated or learned with only limited production. The disadvantages of this philosophy produced submarines that the government (Particularly your present govt) desparately doesn't want to admit was a huge waste of money (as it was a labor minister Beazley) who initiated the whole fiasco.

The problem was compounded by sweetening the deal with the navy by offering a huge wish list of mods that overly complicated the situation.

Perhaps if Australia was going to establish itself as a major builder of conventional submarines, the initial Collins experiment might have been cost effective as a starter. But it hasn't been, an attempt to do just that fell over some years back with the SA sub corp being rejected as a source of vessels for other nations because the Collins are duds (despite the best efforts of Defence PR).

So while this part of the thread may be a diversion, it demonstrates the dangers of faulty thought processes in trying to continue that ethos of "we can do anything" mentioned earlier. I'm sure you can - eventually. But too often this results, as in the case of the Collins subs, the Tiger and the troop lift helos, in equipment that is second rate and not available where and when they are needed. Tiger for example should have been in Afghanistan years ago supporting your troops, but because of sheer stupidity it hasn't been.

Why the Aviation Corps simply didn't take advantage of the US offer to lease the latest Marine Cobras and have pilots train and fly with US units to get them up the learning curve quickly so they could then go and support the Aust forces is an example of stupidity than begars belief.

Check out how the Australian army converted form Sioux to turbine recon helos during the Vietnam war - by working with the US then leasing OH58 Kiowas in SVN even before they were purchased in Australia. Might be simpler aircraft but the principle worked and would work now. Bulk of training stateside then fly with US units first.

Another point I just remembered from the selection process. Part of the assessment of available types included the Apache. It was a front runner - however because some "bright" person in either defence of Army Aviation realised that they would need an Aust compatible avionics fit - which was said would delay acquisition by 6 months - they opted for the Tiger, which then was assessed at being able to be brought to IOC within the specified period.

And what is the time frame now for Tiger? 7 or 8 years overdue???

As for the 90, well time will tell.

[500N]

"The whole Collins debacle is well documented and yes it has been a hugely expensive exercise plagued by many developmental problems. However, despite many of the well known issues of the past (and present - lack of crews etc) I am led to believe that the Collins boats have actually developed into extremely capable assets which are out there doing some very good (and interesting) work."

Think of it this way.

If we had purchased the boats "off the shelf", we would have had "extremely capable assets" years earlier with spare cash to spend on paying sailors a heap more which means we might actually have the crews to crew them. !!!

And we could have paid dole money to all the people involved in South Australia for the whole period and still come out in front.

And how many are actually operational out of the whole 6 ?

[TBM-Legend]

The other issue with the Tiger was that the original numbers for the funds allocated was 18 x Apache = 22 x Tiger. Of course once again fools gold. The Tigers costs blew out and they still don't work. Biggest issue is the targeting helmet that I'm told will never work. The Army is quietly looking at adapting another helmet! More bucks and who knows when....

Recently promoted Maj Gen Tony Fraser should be the one on trial for driving this stupidity.:yuk:

[500N]

TBM

"fools gold"

I think that is a very apt description of what the ADF always seems to be chasing with purchases.

Again 18 vs 22, so they thought they were getting more for the $, of course it doesn't matter if it was 5, 10, 15 or 20 if non are combat ready.

Sounds like someone in the Euro sales team picked the Aussie hot button that would get them over the line - a few more aircraft - and the Aussies fell for it.

[emergov]

TBM,

which helmet, and how quiet?

[Andu]

The first cut. Don't for one moment think this will be the last cut Defence will suffer as the government attempts to fulfill at least one promise - a surplus by 2013. And since the Army has been content to do without an operational helicopter gunship for the last seven years, you can guarantee there'll be some within the civilian Defence establishment who'll ask why they need one in the future.

Defence cuts cripple the nation's options | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/defence-cuts-cripple-the-nations-options/story-e6frgd0x-1226057808643)

...despite this darkening security horizon the Labor government appears to have a different view. It is now betting that the country will not face a major security crisis for at least 25 years.

Some will argue the government is asleep at the defence wheel. Unfortunately, the reality appears worse. The government has made a deliberate decision in this budget that Australia will not have the key defence capabilities required to defend the country in a serious crisis until about 2035.

[Like This - Do That]

And since the Army has been content to do without an operational helicopter gunship for the last seven years, you can guarantee there'll be some within the civilian Defence establishment who'll ask why they need one in the future.

Is that the Ghost of Dibb rattling around in there, I wonder? Andu the DOA fetishists are still there, & I bet they still get a sympathetic (albeit very quiet) hearing from many in positions of influence. They're still seething that World War Timor kicked off, which in many ways saved the Army from the excesses of the DOA era - eg A21, RTA.

In April 1954, The Times of London wrote of Australia:
no nation acquits itself so valiantly in war, no nation takes so little pains in peace-time.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[7x7]

Reading the many comments that follow this article, Defence cuts cripple the nation's options | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/defence-cuts-cripple-the-nations-options/comments-e6frgd0x-1226057808643), you could be forgiven for thinking you were on this thread on Pprune. (Bushranger71 is even to be found there.)

As funds dry up, (as the recent budget has shown they will), I wonder if there are not just a few currently wearing green who wish the huge amount of money already spent on a succession of Ferrari-style projects (none of which have delivered anything near to what they've promised) had been spent on utility equipment that (a) worked and (b) the ADF could afford to operate in meaningful numbers - i.e., something closer to what Bushranger71 has been calling for?

[500N]

I would say more than a few.

Every infantry regiment would like Battlefield Helo transport and fire support.
SF would like some ships to operate from.
AAV would just like some choppers that fly and are combat capable

[Like This - Do That]

Every infantry regiment would like Battlefield Helo transport and fire support.

Soldiers would settle (in the short term) for issued boots & packs that don't cripple them, and pouches that fit the magazines of the in-service rifle. :ugh:

Take a billion here (Sea Sprite); a few hundred million there (M113 upgrade); Tiger, MRH90, Collins .... soon mounts up, doesn't it?

[500N]

"Soldiers would settle (in the short term) for issued boots & packs that don't cripple them, and pouches that fit the magazines of the in-service rifle."

Absolutely, Soldiers should be the first priority.


I find it hard to believe that they still don't have pouches that fit Steyr Mags
considering it has been in so long.

[Like This - Do That]

500N

The so called 'LAND 125' magazine pouches, often issued to members about to deploy, don't really fit the F88 magazine. These fit the STANAG magazines as used by the M4 / M16 family. We can fit F88 mags if a little knick is made in the top of the side wall of the pouch .... but that is forbidden.

And speaking of forbidden - in 2009 (? late 2008) it became forbidden to modify the standard F88 pouch as worn on belt rig (ie not the LAND 125 pouches, but the old-style pouches). Most soldiers cut out the dividers in the F88 mag pouches, and up till 2009 CPLs at Kapooka almost universally told the recruits to cut the dividers out. Thousands upon thousands of pouches had to be sent back to Q Stores all over the country, to be replaced with new unmodified pouches.

Skip forward a year or so, and LO AND BEHOLD Chief of Army again permitted soldiers to cut out the dividers from their F88 pouches :ugh:

Sounds like a petty little thing, doesn't it? But it's a great example on a small scale that affects almost EVERY soldier in our curious little army. But it's an example of idiocy repeated again and again on far more frightening scales.

From pouches to boots to packs to cold / wet weather ensemble to replacement tactical medium B vehicles to the M113 debacle to Sea Sprite.

AND I WANT MY *#%&ING BERET BACK :mad::mad::mad:

[500N]

Greatcoats on, Greatcoats off :ugh:

Same happened when OC's / CO's changed every 2 years, one would allow "purchased" gear to be added to webbing etc, the next one said it had to be stock standard.

However considering what we had to carry wouldn't fit into the issued pack, it soon got reversed.

I didn't have a problem with using non issued gear as long as it didn't interfere with the soldier doing his job. And some "young" soldiers needed to be told that all that was "u beaut" new did not have to be taken on every exercise !!! LOL but most sorted it out over time.


Re Berets, SF were exempted from the ban;)

[Shark Zero Six]

Funny how history repeates itself.

Scroll back to 1966. Australian infantry. Basic pouches on webbing. US patern.

Designed for m16 or m14 magazines - try cramming in standard 7.62 SLR mags. Very tight fit...too tight.

Same thing as mentioned in posts before. And would the "system" budge?

One would think they'd learn, but no...

[SASless]

How does this happen......really?

If a Junior Officer experiences such foolishness....why upon reaching Very Senior Rank do they not put an end to such crap?

Oh...I forget myself....the "cream" is not the only stuff that gets to the top!

It would appear a guerilla warfare campaign would be in order....take the fight to the "enemy" by all means possible and legal. The power of the press properly harnessed can achieve amazing things.

[500N]

SASless
It's interesting what you say.

I found it was either the RSM / CSM who wanted stadardisation or the CO/OC.
Either way, whoever ordered it, it was the other group that managed to persuade them to change back.

And why do they never learn ?

Lack of common sense and practical experience in procurement at the procurement stage, well before it even gets to the end users, even for testing. By the time it does, they are too far down the track to change too much.
They buy a "product" or item based on price instead of looking what it is actually going to be used for in a practical sense.

That's why places like SORD and Plat-a-tac / Platypus have done so well.
Design, make, sell, modify design, make, sell. Plus a heaps of experience in using it.

As we have seen, price does not equal performance.

That's just my HO.

.

[Shark Zero Six]

we used to have a saying...

"Turds float too..."

[Andu]

Getting back to a more or less aviation theme whilst remaining very much in tune with the last few posts, I heard a story some years ago that someone here might be able to confirm (or tell me it's not true).

Apparently, Australia was about to ditch Non Directional Beacons (NDBs) quite some years ago, resulting in a savings of some $20 million a year (in 'quite some years ago' dollars).

However, CASA(?) was unable to do so because....?

Because when the RAAF (=DMO) bought the 'J' model Hercules, the rocket scientist who decided upon the GPS fit for the aircraft chose one that was only good for enroute navigation and not the one that was suitable for terminal (approach and landing) navigation - and the Herc needed diversion capability to remote civil airfields that were getting (and have by now long ago got) GPS approach approval but which were fitted only with NDB ground aids.

So, thanks to some unknown civilian bureaucrat who didn't take the time to check what the uniformed people who'd be using the equipment would need, with just about every civil pilot carrying an approach-capable GPS in his navbag, Australia is one of the few countries that continues to use -and maintain, at great expense - NDBs, which few civil operators ever use today.

Is it true, or an urban myth?

[Brian Abraham]

Sounds more than possible Andu. It was rumoured (this a rumour mill, right?) that A model Hercs came off the production line with TACAN fitted. RAAF decided no tacan in Oz, therefore rip them out. Going to cost you $x for us to take them out Lockheed says. Money duely paid, TACAN ripped out, and guess what a few years down the road?

Can vouch for this one. Navy Hueys came with the standard US digital tuning radio fit. Not compatable with Vampires, Venoms, Wessex etc which had 5 channel crystal tuned crap. Not only were the beaut US radios removed, they cut the wiring looms so they couldn't be reinstalled without a major rewire. A few years later of course we got the S-2 and A-4. :{

[Andu]

Yes Brian, I saw myself the cut looms on the Navy Hueys. I suppose credit should be given where it's due - we're consistent, (if distressingly so).

Off the subject, I know, but there were other examples of the Navy doing things differently to the RAAF. Quite possibly the biggest fright I ever had in a Huey was when an RAN instructor (doing my deck landing qual.) handed over to me in the hover alongside the ship with the pitch trim on - (it was never used in Ronnie) - and when he saw I was wondering WTF!!!, (for a moment there, I thought an irreversable valve had gone on me), he disconnected it. Next thing I saw was HMAS Supply, very close and closing - through the main rotor disc.

The deck landings, pitching deck and all, (not very much pitch, I must admit),after that, were a bit of an non event.

[Shark Zero Six]

People with their snouts in the trough.

Anyone heard of a retired Aust Avn Brigadier named Mellon or similar?

Heard he has a "consultancy" peddling wares back to the Aust Defence dept?

Anyone got any info?

[500N]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/overdue-and-over-budget-8bn-destroyer-plan-in-crisis/story-fn59niix-1226063739830

Overdue and over budget: $8bn destroyer plan in crisis

BITTER infighting has erupted between government and industry over the nation's largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, which is two years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The government was yesterday forced to admit publicly that the flagship project was badly behind schedule after it became aware The Australian had the story and was planning to publish it today.
Insiders say the plan to build three 6500-tonne destroyers is in crisis barely a year after construction of the ships' steel hulls began in Melbourne, Newcastle and Adelaide. They warn that the AWD project threatens to become the biggest defence industry bungle since the Collins Class submarine construction in the 1990s.
Unless rectified quickly, it could cruel the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia.
A series of engineering mistakes, poor project management and lack of naval shipbuilding expertise has delayed the construction of the first warship, HMAS Hobart. And it has sparked a heated internal dispute between the government's Defence Materiel Organisation and one of the AWD sub-contractors, BAE Systems, over who should be blamed for the debacle.


The Australian understands BAE has accused DMO chief Stephen Gumley of making exaggerated claims about BAE's culpability, and that relations between several key partners in the project have become badly strained.
BAE has accused the main AWD shipbuilder - the Australian Submarine Corporation - and the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia, of contributing to the mistakes by providing poor-quality drawings and information about the hull construction. The government has tried to conceal its problems with the AWD project, refusing to place it on Defence's public "projects of concern" list, despite knowing for months the project was in deep trouble.
The Australian last October revealed the AWD project's first serious setback when BAE's Melbourne shipyard in Williamstown botched the central keel block of the first warship. The 200-tonne central keel block was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding. At that stage, the projected delay was only six months. Since then, the project has continued to slip, with BAE now predicting a 12-month delay on its hull blocks. Mr Gumley insists BAE's actions have caused a two-year delay on the project.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith moved yesterday to prevent further delays by stripping BAE of some of its AWD work.
"The advice of (project manager) AWD Alliance is that if no action is taken to relieve the pressure on the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard, the first ship would be two years late, approximately 25 per cent over schedule," Mr Smith said.
He said up to 13 steel hull blocks would be reallocated among the Australian shipyards, and up to five more would be reallocated to Navantia's shipyards in Spain.
"The AWD Alliance has advised that this action will reduce the delay of the completion of Ship 1 by up to 12 months, and of all three AWDs by up to 12 months," Mr Smith said.
The long delay means the three destroyers, based on the Spanish F111 boats, will not enter service from 2014 as planned.
Mr Smith said the decision, which will be widely viewed as a punishment of BAE, would have minimal impact on about 300 workers at the Williamstown shipyard because the yard is also helping to build the navy's Landing Helicopter Dock ships.
The AWD Alliance includes the government-owned ACS, the DMO and Raytheon Australia. Its critics say the structure is cumbersome and ineffective, with no clear lines of responsibility.
The AWDs will be the most potent warships built in Australia and will be armed with Aegis combat systems, allowing them to provide theatre ballistic missile defence over a wide area.

[Andu]

See my post # 77 on this same thread, dated 17 Oct 10.

TBM-Legend, if what a Navy friend has told me is true, there's much more to be uncovered about the Spanish Air Warfare Destroyer than just what you have mentioned. Much, much more. And it's going to cost many, many millions to fix (if indeed it's fixable).

The way he tells it, it's a classic example of the people doing the purchasing never having once stepped aboard a warship in their lives and if the Navy could get away with doing day cruises, and put the crew to beddybyes ashore every night - or crew it with pygmies who are happy to bunk up in racks four bunks high, they might be able to get it up and running - one day. However, most agree that that isn't a very practical option for a country with a 12,000 NM coastline.

[500N]

Andu

Exactly why I posted the article as when I read it I remembered
your post.

Smith really is clearing out the cupboard.

[TBM-Legend]

Sorry, not exactly aviation but....

QUOTE: The Australian , 25th Oct 2010

AUSTRALIA'S largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, has had its first serious setback.

A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.

The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.

The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.

The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.

The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.
:hmm:


Nothing's changed from last year. Another DMO/ADF f4ck-up with our $$$$$$$:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[ozbiggles]

OK TBM
Explain how the ADF is responsible for the companies who are contracted for this job not being able to read some plans and do the job they said they could?
The ADF seems to cop a lot of blame for these things when its the companies involved not being able to complete the job as THEY said they could.
I'm sure the Navy wanted off the shelf American DDGs
I'm sure the army wanted off the shelf American choppers (to bring it back on to topic).
The blame here lies with companies who can't complete contracts as promised and politics choosing platforms for jobs/votes and not proven records.
If the ADF has any blame here it is for not standing up to those decisions.

[Dragon79]

The blame lies with the politicians and bureaucrats that decided on the AWD, and then giveo the job to the AWD alliance who in turn gave the most of job to the ASC. The same people that gave us the Collins class submarines. This all comes back to learning from the past.

Just wait and see what happens when the LHDs arrive here, and BAE try and put the islands on top. The whole thing has gone swimmingly so far because Navantia has been there and done it before with Juan Carlos. Now with the AWD, Navantia could have pretty much built the whole thing, but no, lets build a bit here and a bit there, and hope it all comes together.

Really why haven't they learnt;
1. Don't buy the first of anything
2. Don't buy European
3. Buy off the shelf

Back to aviation;

Delay the JSF 15 years, ask Boeing for 70 more Supers and 30 F15SG, bin the MRH90 now, buy the Blackhawks and a HueyII so BR71 is happy. All sorted.

The real travesty is the amount of funding that has been wasted over the past 10 years, and Defence's inability to manage this funding. Can't see the opportunity they had coming back around anytime soon. You really can't blame the current government for cutting back funding, given the appalling management.

[MTOW]

Labor warned of air warfare destroyer delays and blowouts | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-warned-of-air-warfare-destroyer-delays-and-blowouts/story-fn59niix-1226064452880)

Submarines, helicopters, air warfare destroyers, basic infantrymen's webbing (FF'sSake!!!) ... There's a pattern to be found here, which should lead any observer to look for the common denominator. It reads, in part, Dee... eeM... Oh...

The media loves to blame 'Defence' for all these incredibly expensive screwups, and somehow that always translates (in Joe Public's mind, at least) to senior military officers in Defence. I'll admit that the military officers who've occupied those senior positions within Defence over the last decade or more are not without blame, but such people are merely 'passers through'. The real culprits are the set in stone civilian mandarins within Defence (ably abetted over many years by a succession of self-serving politicians from both Labor and the Lib/Nats) who've overseen (to use Bushranger 71's apt term) turning the Department of Defence into the Department of Defence Industry.

The provision of jobs and big defence projects (usually in favoured electorates) - all too often temporary in nature and almost always hugely uneconomic in the long run - have long ago overtaken the provision of realistic and timely defence capability to the long-suffering ADF as the primary aim of the people deciding upon many if not most of the major defence projects.

That, and the always present 'nigger (am I allowed to use that word?) in the Canberra woodpile' - "who's going to be offering the best well-paid consultancy after I retire?"

Andu has already mentioned that the seamen's bunks in the Spanish AWDs are four high - adequate, apparently, for Spanish conscripts who'll maybe do the odd night at sea every year but whose ship will almost always return to port every night, but totally inadequate for the average Australian volunteer seaman who might well spend months at sea each year.

I heard recently from someone who should know that those same bunks are 1.8m long and positioned between structural bulkheads that can't be extended without a major re-design of the ships. (Would you would fit into a 1.8m bed space, let along one stacked four high?)

The same source told me that there are major, major issues marrying the American radar and comm. gear into the space available in the Spanish ship.

FF'sS, they couldn't even get the dimensions of the bloody keel right.

[TBM-Legend]

What the ADF lacks at the highest level is a clear picture. DMO is incompetent but so are many of those from Defence having inputs like Tony Fraser.

The Navy [and others] wish-list often confuses the issue where they spec something for DMO to buy on their behalf that hasn't been built. Somehow the air, water and land here are unique!

If indeed senior ADF master are true to their beliefs then they should stand up [publicly if necessary] and be counted. I would expect that of them.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The same source told me that there are major, major issues marrying the American radar and comm. gear into the space available in the Spanish ship.

Even though the Spaniards have already built four (or is is five now?) ships of the same class with the same SPY-1D systems?

This is NOT a first of type people!

[7x7]

Defending homegrown costs | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/defending-homegrown-costs/story-e6frg71x-1226065935835)

In the end, some hard decisions need to be made about the comparative benefits of buying tried and tested equipment off-the-shelf from overseas, especially with more projects on the books, including the $36bn plan for 12 next-generation submarines.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith should concentrate on rigorous consideration of these issues, instead of resorting to unfortunate media-management ploys to try to stifle our stories and minimise public scrutiny.


Can't find a link to the report on this morning's ABC news of a US Colonel addressing the Lowey Institute and basically saying we're getting it very, very wrong with our high tech, all too often one off defence acquisitions. It would be interesting to read that report in full.

[500N]

Is it the one tommorrow ?

Wednesday
1 June 2011 Dangerous Luxuries: Australia’s Flawed Defence Strategy

Colonel John Angevine
US Army Colonel and the Federal Executive Fellow,
Brookings Institution

Upcoming Events - Lowy Institute for International Policy (http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Upcoming-Events.asp)


I also read with the rise of China and India, our relationship with the US and the US with us will become even more important in the future, more so even than NATO.

Even more reason to buy "off the shelf" US Equipment if we are going to operate with them even more.

Further to that, doesn't the US want to pre-position equipment here in Aust
like they do in Israel and other places ?

.

[TBM-Legend]

bit like the sad events of today. The Chinook lost was embedded in a US Army unit. With our few numbers of everything it ain't rocket science to be able to work out the rationale for buying US equipment 'off the shelf' with no Oz mods unless minor.

* RIP those lost today in A/Stan

[7x7]

Thanks 500N. That's the one. http://www.lowyinstitute.org/events-docs/WLL_2011-06-01_John-Angevine.pdf

[500N]

"With our few numbers of everything it ain't rocket science to be able to work out the rationale for buying US equipment 'off the shelf' with no Oz mods unless minor."

I agree re buying OTS.

It wouldn't worry me if we had 1 or 100, they are only metal machinery and it's only money. Even though we only have a few, more can easily be purchased. Plus the fact that losing one or more should have been factored into the war attrition tables.

The above is not the case for the people.

.

[Andu]

That unnamed senior executive at Sikorsky who tried to squeeze Australia unreasonably over the replacement for the Blackhawk, refusing to budge on price or offsets because he could see that Australia had no other option than to buy American certainly has a lot to answer for.

[500N]

Andu

Why does he have a lot to answer for ? Why should he budge on price ?
It's cost us (Aust) a lot more than them.

Australians are tight arses and are becoming like Asian's in always "wanting a deal" (I am NOT being racists, just pointing out how they operate) as opposed to buying the gear and getting on with the job.

We (Aust) might punch above our weight in a few things but not when
it comes to buying gear as we just don't have the numbers so we need to
wear it.

Just my HO.

[Peagasus]

The anonymous senior Sikorsky executive was a retired Reg Army Colonel - he thought he'd double his Military pension.

[500N]

US colonel dismisses defence paper as myopic

Deborah Snow, Dan Oakes

June 1, 2011

THE Rudd government designed its 2009 Defence white paper in a ''myopic'' way that ''hobbles'' the army, potentially compromises its contribution to the US alliance and puts too much emphasis on sea and air power, a leading US army critic says.
And it might have done so deliberately to avoid being drawn into more deployments such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a penetrating critique to be presented in Sydney today, Colonel John Angevine detonates many of the assumptions underlying the 2009 white paper, which remains Labor's defence planning document.
Advertisement: Story continues below
He argues that contrary to the idea that China will be the main threat in the decades ahead, there was a ''significant disincentive for Beijing to resort to conventional war with Australia'' because of its economic interdependence with Australia.
He says the white paper's emphasis on boosting Australia's submarine and air strike capacity at the expense of investing in the army erodes the nation's ability to put troops in regional trouble spots.
These distorted priorities risk signalling ''Australia's lack of commitment to co-operatively work with the region's countries to secure stability'', he says.
Colonel Angevine will tell the Lowy Institute that Australia's defence planners are making the same mistake US defence planners made after the Cold War, by assuming there was ''no longer a need for large land forces'' because wars could be fought instead using precision strikes.
But the world since the terrorist attacks of 2001 had shown the opposite, that ''only troops on the ground … will be able to determine where and why a target is holed up in a hut amongst many other families' homes''.
Australia's strategists had designed a defence force that would ''sit on the shelf'' unless a war broke out, while undercutting Australia's ability to deal with small contingencies and build regional partnerships. This could also undermine its ability to contribute to the US alliance.
The planned defence line-up would instil ''fear into Polynesians and Micronesians'' but would not be fearsome enough to ward off a big aggressor. It would leave Australia more dependent on the US for lower-level crises.
His assessment is particularly controversial coming from a senior US army officer, although he stresses his views are personal.
Colonel Angevine, an intelligence specialist in Kabul who is on the military staff of General David Petraeus, has written the paper as part of a 12-month fellowship with the Brookings Institution in Washington.
His criticism of the white paper will reignite questions about the purpose and affordability of its $275 billion defence equipment program, particularly the acquisition of 12 submarines.
Colonel Angevine says the US and Australia should '' complement'' each other's strengths and that Australia could get more value by leasing US submarines. He urges the expansion of the army by between 2000 and 4000 troops, who would be trained in amphibious assault operations.
He suggests the thinking behind the paper was to ''make just enough of a military contribution to preserve the US alliance, without bearing the risk to Australian lives on the ground''.



Read more: US colonel dismisses defence paper as myopic (http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-colonel-dismisses-defence-paper-as-myopic-20110531-1fesv.html#ixzz1NySfDpak)

[Tibbsy]

I heard him interviewed on the ABC yesterday. He has some interesting ideas, particularly about complementary capabilities between the US and Australia.

[500N]

Maybe the Gov't has learnt and is buying off the shelf, proven systems.

Australia is to buy 24 Lockheed Martin Seahawk combat helicopters at a cost of more than $3 billion, the government says.
The Seahawk, known as Romeo, was chosen in preference to the European designed NH90 NFH.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the American helicopters would fill a role now performed by ageing Seahawk helicopters.
"We very strongly believe it is value for money," Mr Smith told reporters in Canberra.
"This has been through a competitive process - the competitor was Australian Aerospace with the NATO (NH90 NFH) helicopter, but we have decided to choose the 24 Romeo Seahawks."
Mr Smith said the new helicopters would do the job which would have been performed by the Seasprites, had that $1 billion project not been cancelled.
"We expect that to occur over the period 2014 to 2020," he said.
Mr Smith said the Seahawk was in use with the US Navy and a proven capability. It's also the latest version of the Navy's 16 S-70B Seahawks which have been in Australian service since the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Defence Materiel Minister Jason Clare said this was a big and important decision.
"These helicopters will replace our existing Seahawk helicopters and they will be based at HMAS Albatross at Nowra," he said.
"They will operate off the back of our Anzac frigates as well as our new air warfare destroyers and their job is to hunt and kill submarines."
Mr Clare said the new helicopters would also be used in counter-piracy and counter-terrorist operations in the Middle East.

[cj0203]

Does this mean Navy will not be getting any MRH-90 at all? Did they never fully commit to the deal? I thought some of the 46 ordered were going to RAN? :confused:

I wonder if the Army will follow suit and get updated Blackhawks? :ok:

Chris

[Tibbsy]

I wonder if the Army will follow suit and get updated Blackhawks?

N F L ! :{

[TBM-Legend]

Great buy with the Romeos.

Buy some Sierras for the RAN and bin those MRH90's....then we have the 'matched' pair.

Hey we'd be like the USN then..:ok:

[fleebag]

Seems the French Tigers only fly at night!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot6ER23p8Iw&feature=related

[500N]

This is from the media - which I don't think gets it all right but .....

Mr Smith said the Romeo was proven technologically, the updated version of the Seahawk, and was already in use by the United States.
The decision is a major blow to Australian Aerospace, which ran a vigorous media campaign suggesting there would be job losses at its Queensland headquarters if it failed to win the contract.


Australian Aerospace's successful campaigning forced the Defence Materiel Organisation to open a competitive tender process for the helicopter contract.


However, problems with the Defence Force's existing fleet of Australian Aerospace's MRH-90 helicopters - which narrowly avoided being put on Defence's projects-of-concern list - meant it was always an uphill task for the company to win the contract.


Romeos will not be built in Australia but the prime contractor, Lockheed-Martin, has promised to make a significant investment in support facilities here.
The purchase of the helicopters also draws a line under one of the most infamous episodes in Defence procurement history - the Seasprite debacle.

[500N]

I like this from The Australian.

THE Gillard government has gone for a no-risk option by buying 24 Seahawk naval combat helicopters for $3 billion "off the shelf" from the US, instead of the rival European NATO frigate helicopter still under development. The decision is causing consternation among European manufacturers who had invested heavily in Australia in the expectation of winning long-term manufacturing and maintenance contracts for the Australian Defence Force's substantial helicopter fleet.
"This will be read in the boardrooms of Europe as a clear warning not to invest in Australia," a defence industry source told The Australian yesterday.




Might be worth suggesting to the "boardrooms of Europe" that if they had something that worked and came in on time and on budget, they might have a chance of winning.


Good to see "off the shelf" mentioned.

[Shark Zero Six]

At last someone is thinking clearly. Huge mistakes in equipment purchasing have been made eg Tiger, MHR 90, Collins Class fishing reefs, the air warfare destroyers, the A330 refueling tankers (which will now be orphans) etc etc...billions down the drain.

As for the European huffing and puffing - when was the last time they came to Australia's assistance in any conflict?

Australia must have interoperability and compatibility with its major allies, and that includes the USA whether some like it or not.

You have defence heads who need drawing and quartering - and I note several mentioned previously in here are retiring. (one was farewelled last night at a function...)

Too hot in the kitchen and snatching it before the fat hits the fire?

[500N]

Shark

In looking at your list, excluding ships, over the last 10+ years,
it would have been so easy to have purchased OT Shelf gear
and been up.

Even if it only did 90% of what we wanted them to do, we would still be way ahead and that is not even taking into account that we seem to put requirements in that are beyond / more than others require.

.

[BBadanov]

500N: "Even if it only did 90% of what we wanted them to do, we would still be way ahead..."

90% has to be good enough, probably 80%. We have to stop dreaming for unique capabilities, which end up as orphans and we pay for the R&D NRE for a handful of platforms.

We are a small player, and should only look away from US forces MOTS if there really isn't anything that comes close. AEW&C was one, and KC-30A another - as E-3 didn't fit, and there was no other tanker.

Wedgetail will hopefully prove a good capability (since ordered by Turkey, S Korea, and another). I think KC-30A will prove to be a good buy and not be an orphan, as it was really what the USAF wanted and has been ordered by RAF (although no boom), UAE, France, Saudi.

C-17A and F/A-18F have been great buys, with a smooth acquisition - simply easy FMS procurements. Hopefully MH-60R will be the same, as it is being accelerated with first a/c for T&E here in 3 years.

If Navy is unhappy with MRH-90, perhaps they could gut and refurbish the S-70Bs as Sea King replacements.

[500N]

BB
"stop dreaming for unique capabilities"

Thanks, those are the words I was looking for.


I am not sure why we seem to dream up these things when we are so small
and NOT unique.

[Andu]

Two comments by BBadanov bear comment:

I think KC-30A will prove to be a good buyGod I hope so, but if the years I spent flying its civil equivalent (or a slightly earlier model) are anything to go by, I'm very doubtful. I fear it will become the third triplet in the Tiger and MRH-90 stable.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

If Navy is unhappy with MRH-90I'd like to hear what the Army think about it.

[herkman]

There are so many factors that seem to come into play, when we are looking to buy new equipment.

However the one that should be on the top of the list is proberly the most important. IS IT FIT FOR PURPOSE. That has to be the first consideration.

Whilst delivery is important it can be seen by our record that standard military equipment has the best chance of being the best value for money.

One only has to look at the Super Hornet and the C17 buys to see that services when left alone with no interferance can get equipment into service quickly.

The problem is that the higher ups have also another concern to keep our political masters happy. The average troop in parliament would not know crap from clay about what was put up to them. So they become concerned with things like offsets, which are not always in the purchasers interests.

The staement that the high ups in defense should be hung out to dry, is not really correct as much of the contract details are not even under their control.

What we should be insisting on is that the ADF discontinue this pie in the sky wish lists and buy what will do the job without it costings the earth with changes that whilst nice to have cost the earth and also make field support much harder.

The whole of life costings should be closely looked at, as often what looks good, during the in service life may be very expensive.

European products (not just aircraft) have a reputation of expensive parts, poor support, poor docuementation, and poor product support, and late delivery.

People who do not support well their products really have no place in our market. They can huff and puff as much as they like about investment and loss of jobs, but at the end of the day that does not make it a good product. They often have a captive market once they have it where as with many of the products we use there is an alternate we can use.

You can blame the ADF chiefs as much as you like, but often they do not have the final say and we have some behind door factors which also impact onto the final decision.

Perusal of the ADF inventory, clearly shows that the standard model purchases, out perform the pie in the sky models and serve well. We can look from the Catalina and C47, through to the C130 and C17 they have done very well. The back door one that comes to mind which was just a total waste of money, was the Mark 1 Bloodhounds that the RAF would not accept and were fobbed off to us and were useless. They were so bad that when some were to be fired as a training exercise they were considered to be too dangerous.

The choppers for the army should be canned and some more CH47's bought along lighter helicopter, perhaps like the Navy that long term will be good value for money.

How anyone in Canberra can consider sending our service people off the fight with second rate equipment is beyond understanding.

Regards

Col

[rjtjrt]

herkman
Lets also not forget the European approach to 30mm DEFA cannon ammunition, Carl Gustav ammo or parts, and 1000lb bombs for the Canberra, all of which were unilaterally turned off during the Vietnam war.
Lest we forget! (And we do seem to have forgotten given our recent order history).
Fair weather friends - once the money is in the bank their demeanor suddenly changes.
The Europeans are not to be trusted ever again. They want the money, but don't have the ethics of an ally.
John

[500N]

rjtjrt
That is a very good point (turn off supply during the Vietnam war).
I think other examples exist as well - plane parts or something for Army spotter planes ?

herkman
"The problem is that the higher ups have also another concern to keep our political masters happy."
The root of the problem and shouldn't influence decisions on equipment as it costs lives which the same said "political masters" then have to attend the funerals of as has been shown recently. Maybe someone should use that as a point when talking to them.


One more good example of the ADF was when they needed to raise 2 Brigades and transport one. they leased the Catamaran which worked well and has spawned a whole new fleet for the US Navy who took note, improved and developed.

[Shark Zero Six]

Here's a few more:

Mirage spares, and diplomatic protest by French when RAAF asked to provide MIGCAP at Ubon. Mirage denied, so the RAAF sent F86 Sabres

Pilatus Porter. This was the Cessna 180 replacement, around 1969 used by the Australian Army recon squadron at Nui Dat. The Swiss freaked out...but some cunning moves by then Aust Army Aviation got around it, after all the Porter was hardly a high tech aircraft. They laid in plenty of spares prior to deployment, and could also get back-up in country as the US forces were also using them - inc the CIA (Air America) It became a great recon bird loved by its pilots, and was heavily armed with such things as two x 18 rocket pods (each with 17lb warheads) This was against "regulations" of course, the RAAF at the time insisted that "ground attack" was their role, but were never available to do it!

While only a minor acquisition, the Porter was perhaps an example of a succesfull European product, however its deployement was attempted to be stopped - the Swiss ambassador in Canberra at the time was told in no uncertain terms what they could do by several very snakebit Aussie generals at the time.

Lots more examples as to those already mentioned by others, and one would have thought the lesson had been learned...but no.

some interesting articles here

Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc (http://www.fourays.org/features_2005/features_index.htm)


Porters in SVN
Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc (http://www.fourays.org/features_2005/547sig/547_1.htm)

Tiger fiasco - Koalas, not to be exported or shot at
Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc (http://www.fourays.org/features_2005/chickenhawk/chickenhawk6.htm)

extract:

As for my reasons against buying anthing French, I assure you these are very practical ones. Those of you who can remember, cast your minds back to the fabulous 'Karl Gustav' Infantry Anti Tank Weapon, a wonder of Swedish armaments bought in the 60s in preference to the humble old US 3.5" 'Bazooka". This was just before 'Abba" went number one and, unbelieveable as it may seem, square Volvos were fashionable, along with Swedish furniture.

Came Vietnam and the Grunt's mouths watered at the thought of busting Charlie bunkers with this hot Skandinavian number.

The Svens in Gottenburg shook their heads, though. Vietnam was a naughty war and we could not, under any circumstances, allow our Georg Jensen recoiless jewellry to be used - NO AMMUNITION FOR YOU WAR MONGERING AUSSIES!

Yes, the originators of free love and blonde pornography were aghast that the Australians, who bought the bloody thing thinking they could use it in a war because they owned it now wanted to actually use it! After all, Volvos were driving here, there, everywhere - even in Vietnam by some misguided fools - all without letters of permission from the Swedish Foreign Office, so why not use a bit of weaponry that was actually designed for war?

Oh my God no! That's not what it's for! (said the Swedish Ambassador.)

So, no Karl Gustavs in Vietnam - bunkers went unbusted and, yet another orphan weapon in our inventory. Years later (about 2002) the Aust Army had a shoot off of old Carl Gustav rounds at Lake Eyre, so at least the grunts got some entertainment out of it. Old rounds worked perfectly after more than 30 years in storage.

A great weapon for its time, but as useless as an ash tray on a Harley in reality.

[rjtjrt]

In case my post is interpreted as attacking the companies or staff this is not so. It is the European Politicians who come along and do the later banning of spares support, often much to the disgust of the company staff (I don't thing too many Brits in the company or RAF were impressed by the ban on supply of 1000lb bombs!).
Unfortunately I doubt there are any current ADF or Defence Dept staff who were around during the Vietnam War so they are presumably totally unaware of the disgusting European bans on supply of parts and ammo during Vietnam, but I sure as hell remember.
John

[Bushranger 71]

Hello Shark 06; re your post #316. Your information is astray and truth a casualty in some of your references.

An 8 aircraft detachment of RAAF Avon Sabres was deployed from Butterworth Malaysia to Ubon Thailand in 1962 under SEATO obligations to provide air defence of that base for USAF offensive air operations during the Vietnam War. The commitment was terminated in 1968 when replaced by US capabilities.

Deployment of Sabres to Vietnam would have been superfluous as huge USAF tactical air resources, such as F-4, F-100, A-37, were available at Saigon/Bien Hoa within 10 minutes flight time of the 1ATF AO, which was principally within Phuoc Tuy Province; although operations were also conducted further afield. The runway at Vung Tau was also too short for fighter-bomber ops and the Mk. 32 Avon Sabre only had 4 wing pylons and a maximum 335 rounds of 30mm HE cannon ammunition, a much lesser weapons load than larger capacity USAF types.

The first 50 Australain Mirage IIIO were pure interceptors and deliveries began in late 1963. Ground attack versions were progressively introduced from late 1966 to end of 1968; but there would have been no point in Vietnam deployment, for foregoing reasons. Like the Sabre, the Mirage was somewhat limited in air to ground weapons loading as both aircraft were initially designed purely for air defence and later adapted for close air support. Australian Canberras were deployed to Phan Rang and sometimes conducted radar directed interdiction and 'close air support' bombing in Phuoc Tuy Province.

The RAAF began development of a helo gunship capability in March 1968 at behest of the Australian Army and the UH-1H Bushranger version was introduced operationally in April 1969. The configuration comprised 12,600 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition for miniguns/doorguns plus 14 x 2.75inch FFAR with M229 17 pound warheads, which was superior firepower to the early model AH-1G Hueycobra.

If I recall correctly, AAAvn Pilatus Porter only carried 2 x 7 round rocket launchers; not 18 (19) round launchers, as you imply: see Pilatus Porter (http://www.161recceflt.org.au/UnitAircraft/Porter/history_of_pilatus_porter.htm)

Re bunker busting; a 750 pound bomb plonked about 3 metres or so from a very well constructed earth bunker might only make any occupants ears ring, so whatever ordnance is employed needs to be got 'through the slots'. Maybe easier with laser designation but also problems with that in dense jungle.

[TBM-Legend]

The USAF deployed the F-102 and F-104 to SVN so Mirages might not have been out of place.

[Bushranger 71]

Hi TBM-Legend, Shark 06; let's consider the bigger picture regarding what was happening in the SE Asia/Australasia region during the 1960s.

The RAAF had 2 fighter squadrons (3&77) deployed to Butterworth Malaysia as part of the British Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve manned by Britain, Australia, New Zealand (over the period 1955 to 1971) for the defence of Commonwealth interests in the SE Asian region (see: Far East Strategic Reserve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_East_Strategic_Reserve)). Additionally; a bomber squadron, an Iroquois squadron, a transport support flight, 4 RAAF Hospital, a large base squadron, sundry communications and headquarters elements. The composition of the flying components varied as Air Force Vietnam War commitments emerged. A smaller fighter squadron (79) drawn from Butterworth-based resources, was also deployed to Ubon Thailand as part of SEATO commitments, supporting USAF early Vietnam War operations.

Half of the RAAF fighter force was based remote from Australia, and during the period of Confrontation with Indonesia (1963 to 1966), another half squadron detachment of fighter aircraft (initially Sabres and later Mirage) was deployed to Darwin, manned from Williamtown based squadrons (75&76) for air defence to counter known intrusions of IAF Badger aircraft over mainland Australia. Sabre aircraft and pilot reinforcements were also sent to Butterworth and Singapore during 1963. The primary role of the fighter force during that era was air defence; but air to ground weapons training has always been a high priority activity since WW2 and is ongoing at the same tempo today.

The Vietnam War RAAF commitment (1966 to 1971) embraced 3 flying squadrons (Caribou, Iroquois, Canberras) and 2 sizeable base support units including airfield defence components, plus other joint headquarters elements. There was very frequent C-130 aeromedevac (558 Australians/New Zealanders killed and 2,485 wounded) and logistic support from Australia and LRMP aircraft were also pretty solidly committed to largely unspoken activities in the SE Asian region and escort for the logistic support aircraft carrier, HMAS Sydney.

Arguably, the regular Air Force was then the most heavily committed of the 3 Australian armed forces considering Army deployment of a brigade size force to Vietnam was only enabled by conscription applicable solely to that Service. Had Army conscription not been invoked, then maybe deployment of only a battalion group may have been sustainable over the 6 years of involvement.

[Shark Zero Six]

Bushranger 71 is wrong. 161 recce flight used Porters with the 2 x 18 tube rocket pods. They even tested them on the C-180, however although the aircraqft could handle them, they normaly used the 4 tube set-up. The Porter proved excellent in this role - a role forbidden by the RAAF, however by this time the army was fed up with RAAF posturing and doing what it had to do to be able to engage the enemy when they found them, rather than the RAAF's perception that they should always wait for support to arrive. As B71 has obviously rarely been involved with VR of the nature that 161 performed, tree top level and below, he probably doesn't realise that when you find the enemy (or they find you..) and have the opportunity to engage, that one needs immediate response rather than waiting round for help to arrive (the RAAf was at Vung Tau remember...) . It was a logical development that army recon aircraft should be armed, and one that the RAAF continually tried to deny the army claiming the ground support role as exclsuively theirs.

Maybe if he'd flown the type of mission 161 flew, unarmed and in Sioux or C180's at tree top level, he'd realise this.

And re the Mirage - again B71 misses the point - the French threatened a spares embargo and complained about using the Mirages in a war they didn't approve of (ironic isn't it since French obstinancy by De Gaul in returning SVN to independency after WW2 precipitated the conflict) as soon as they learned that the RAAF was considering deploying them to UBON for Mig Cap. They weren't being considered for use in the ground support role for obvious reasons.

Also according to the official history, the Canberras did not support operations in Phouc Tuy province as B71 suggests:

Perhaps he should read this paper originally printed in the Defence Journal 1992. An excellent read.

Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc (http://www.fourays.org/features_2005/air_support/closeair3.htm)

See extract below:

"A request from COMAFV for RAAF Canberras, based at Phan Rang, to perform a photo-reconnaissance of Phuoc Tuy province was rejected by Department of Air on the grounds that 'the Canberras were there (in Vietnam) to give the pilots combat experience before they went to the United States to convert to Phantoms'. The Canberra squadron was effectively part of the USAF's strategic arm, in that service's often remote and unsynchronised operational environment which fitted the RAAF's strategic role perception of how a war should be fought.. "

[ozbiggles]

Once again a good thread descends into a few people with a grudge going into this RAAF vs Army thing.
Its no wonder that there are still young officers out there who succumb to this petty stuff and then go on to be a thorn in the side of joint ops and become poorer officers because of being exposed to bias and old venom.

[herkman]

I watch all the bickering going on about who is the greatest and I feel that little is achieved. Most of this being done by officers who held the queens commision, and should have been leading.

The RAAF had the sad task of bring home over 500 men who never saw Australia and their loved ones again. The also had the task of bring home the sick and wounded many of which will never live a normal life. As a ex SNCO I cannot understand what the pissing in the wind is proving. What I do know is alot of us were proud of what we did and further more under some very trying conditions.

Maybe all of this is a smoke screen to cover the fact that the army has bought some preety average equipment, when we should have had the experience to know and do better. Too many pipe dreams and the servicemen of Australia deserve better and are not getting it.

I will not sit idealy by whilst the arm chair staff try to justify their mistakes instead of taking action so they do not occur again.

Those of us who served are unlikely to allow you to steal ourservice. The sacrafices made should not be painted over so the aces of today look better.

We should move on, equip our ADF staff with better equipment and allow them to get on with the job with plenty of support.

Regards

Col

[Andu]

Well said Col.

I really hope that with their draw down in Afghanistan - against the advice of his military advisors and only so Mr Obama can get himself re-elected - the Americans have enough helo support on hand for our guys should a major crisis occur that finds the Australians needing helicopter support 'stat', to borrow a medical term.

Let's all hope and pray it never comes to that, for if it does, there are quite a few who should squirm over the part they have played in the sorry state our armed forces find themselves in today in regard to its lack of helicopter support. 45 years ago, we could provide indigenous helo support to our troops. Not so today.

And before someone goes off at those comments, please look again at the title of this thread.

[Bushranger 71]

Sorry; but I have to counter some more personal sledging.

Vietnam tours in 1968, 1969, 1971; 4,360 sorties and much of it at low level, which was my preferred method of operating. Also spent a few months at Nui Dat in the 1ATF Command Post.

I assure you Shark 06 that RAAF Canberras did sometimes operate in Phuoc Tuy Province using the 'Combat Skyspot' radar bombing system that was located at Bien Hoa; but also some FAC directed close air support (see: RAAF Association National Council - Special Topics - 2 SQN Canberras in Vietnam (http://www.raafa.org.au/crew/vietnam.html)). Like Air Force Caribous, they functioned as part of USAF tactical air resources and were not under OPCON of 1ATF.

There are quite a few inaccuracies in accounts by so-called historians and other writers, such as in the paper to which you refer. As Joseph Goebbels opined: 'The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it.' Anti-RAAF misinformation has more or less become folklore now and no amount of evidence in rebuttal, presented by myself or anybody else, will sway false beliefs.

[Shark Zero Six]

As usual B71 tap dances around the truth.

Low level I said "unarmed VR" - unarmed due RAAF policy prohibiting weapons to be fitted to army aircraft (except for marker rockets..even that was a battle to obtain). Your low level transits weren't unarmed. The army's recons were - especially their OH-13 RW.

see video of part of a recon at low level here.
Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc (http://www.fourays.org/features_2005/flywithme/flywithme_1.htm)

Sorties...ah yes, having been there and knowing how your lot fudged statistics...two sorties per day transiting to and from Nui Dat. Multiply that by aircraft used and leght of engagement. And Kanga Pad to Nadzab pad,,,,400 metres - one sortie. Nadzab to the refuel point, 300 meters, another sorties and so on.

Canberras: Combat skyspot was not direct support of the ground troops. Radar directed bombing from 20-30,000 ft.

For those expressing dismay about old farts having a pissing contest, remember this, the truth of the RAAF involvement in SVN should not be hidden otherwise it can happen again ie the service (including army aviation) becomes remote and detached from the realities of the ground war as happened in SVN.

And BD, we met in SVN at Nui Dat.

[BBadanov]

Shark 06: "Canberras: Combat skyspot was not direct support of the ground troops. Radar directed bombing from 20-30,000 ft."

I too was there Shark, flying Canberras on FAC directed bombing and CAS. You are right the low-birds would get down into the trees to look down at the bunkers and trenchlines for the Jade FACs. Not much of my work was conducted around the 1ATF area, as the Canberra were tasked ('fragged') - as has been noted - centrally by the ATM from 7th AF. And, we didn't do many, if any, radar-directed CSS in that area.

Also, the quoted 'history' is wrong:
"A request from COMAFV for RAAF Canberras, based at Phan Rang, to perform a photo-reconnaissance of Phuoc Tuy province was rejected by Department of Air on the grounds that 'the Canberras were there (in Vietnam) to give the pilots combat experience before they went to the United States to convert to Phantoms'."
I know that is clearly crap. Initially the crews sent over 1967-68 only did a 6-month tour in preparation of the F-111 pick-up in 1968. That was postponed. By the time I went to SVN in 1969, we were all on 12-month tours. With delays in the F-111, in 1970 the Govt made a snap decision to lease F-4Es, and the crews that went to get them in 1970 were the guys at Amberley that had down SVN tours over 67-68. No-one ever went "...to give the pilots combat experience before they went to the United States to convert to Phantoms'."

I want to correct those errors...and I do not see the need for the vitriol you are pouring out to B71.

[ozbiggles]

What some of these posts have achieved is to narrow down where this cancer of feuding stems from and in some cases even give names of those who created it.
Fortunately only the immature carry it on and only the stupid believe it.
Apart from friendly banter and the odd plonker people just get on with the job.
As for sortie stats from Vietnam, caution handbags at 20 feet ladies.....:ugh:
(in regards to how many T/O and LDGs that is and distance between them, the details of actual sorties I could listen to all day, example visit the Falklands thread where old enemies conduct themselves in a much more Gentlemanly way)

[Andu]

It would seem Bushranger 71 isn't alone in thinking the current ADF policy on helicopters isn't the way to go.

http://elpdefensenews.b l o g s p o t.com/2011/06/useful-helicopters-needed-for-defence.html (Remove the spaces to make the link work.)

[500N]

I know the main thrust is related to ships but some interesting comments about the process.


Ship-buying method haphazard: auditor
Dan Oakes
DEFENCE'S method of buying ships and other navy assets is disjointed and haphazard, causing confusion, delays and cost blowouts, according to the government auditor.

The audit, which cost almost half a million dollars, examined the labyrinthine process of procuring ships, helicopters and other equipment.
It assessed 20 projects costing more than $23 billion, including a $7.9 billion warship contract, the upgrade of navy frigates worth $1.5 billion, and two helicopter projects worth a combined $5.8 billion.
Advertisement: Story continues below
It came as Defence took its first step towards building a new fleet of 12 submarines, putting out a tender for a blueprint of how to avoid the problems that have bedevilled the Collins-class boats.
The auditor found that lack of communication between the Navy, the arm of Defence that identifies what equipment is needed, and the arm that buys the equipment, can result in the later stage of a project becoming a ''voyage of discovery''.
''Opportunities to identify and mitigate cost, schedule and technical risks have been missed, resulting in chronic delays,'' the auditor says.
''Experience in the USA and the UK underscores the importance of the acquisition organisation and navy working together to ensure that handoffs to navy do not become 'voyages of discovery' in the final stages of the project.''
Over the past three decades, the responsibility for choosing and buying equipment has been taken away from the Navy and handed over to other Defence agencies formed specifically for the purpose. The auditor found that the business case and planning for some projects do not make clear what the government's time and cost limits are, which means Defence does not know whether it is complying with the government's wishes.
Records of testing are not properly kept by the Defence Materiel Organisation - which buys everything from paper clips to helicopters - potentially putting Defence personnel, the public and the environment at risk, the auditor found.
Criticism has been building over the perceived lack of progress on the future submarine project. There was no funding for the project in May's federal budget, which was shaped by the government's determination to bring the budget back into surplus. The project was a product of the 2009 Defence white paper, which also included fighter jets and warships on its ambitious wish list.
Cost estimates for the future submarines range from $9 billion for an off-the-shelf option to $36 billion for an Australian designed and built boat.
However, Defence has asked companies to suggest the best way to test a propulsion system for the new submarines. ''The government announced with great fanfare over two years ago that we're going to have a fleet of 12 new submarines, and publicly hasn't done much to make that happen, but now there's some movement,'' the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies said yesterday.
''What they're talking about doing is setting up a testing facility so all [the components] can be … bolted together on dry land, to test how they work together.''

Read more: Ship-buying method haphazard: auditor (http://www.theage.com.au/national/shipbuying-method-haphazard-auditor-20110628-1gp3x.html#ixzz1Qb3N4pcv)

[Subversive1]

Big announcements coming this year for Blackhawks and MRH. Tigers will soon be signed off as operational.

[Doors Off]

Saw this clip on the news last. Looks like the Tigers are supporting the soldiers, well at least in Australia.

6.30 with George Negus | Channel Ten - Watch Full Episodes and Video (http://ten.com.au/630pm-with-george-negus.htm?movideo_p=44243&movideo_m=115286)


Subversive 1's comment about them soon being declared operational must mean they are ready. Hopefully the Australian government will provide their soldiers with the support they need as capabilities become available.

Doors Off

[Andu]

Let's hope Subversive's announcement about the Tigers being ready to go operational isn't like the last half dozen 'done and (definitely NOT) dusted' announcements our esteemed Prime Minister has given us on a succession of not done and dusted government programmes.

Last time I was at Shoalwater Bay, (a very long time ago, I'll admit), the operative word in far too many instances was 'notional', from fighter support to fuel supplies. I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes that's not the case with the Tigers.

[BBadanov]

...reminiscent of 'fitted for but not with'.

[Bushranger 71]

See this for a possible knee jerk reaction to flawed hardware acquisition planning:
Defence holds fire sale to fund new projects (http://www.theage.com.au/national/defence-holds-fire-sale-to-fund-new-projects-20110628-1gp3y.html)

[500N]

The guns will be crushed or handed to an overseas country (PNG/Timor) as part of an "aid" package as the Gov't won't let them onto the market here.

How many of the ships have US hardware / software on them which
requires US Gov't approval prior to export ?

The same goes for the planes and helicopters, how much paperwork needs
to be done for a sale to go ahead to a foreign country ?

[Andu]

No problemo, senor.... They can all go the way of our Mirages and Hercs - to Pakistan. Or if not Pakistan, then to the Pakistani Intelligence Agency.

I'm sure they have a client or two (if not necessarily a client state or two) they'd be happy to hand our weapons and comms gear on to, where they'd be put very quickly to good use.

Shades of 'Pig Iron Bob' Menzies.

[BBadanov]

We gave 50 Mirages away at a cost of $1m each, what a deal.

Then the Paks left us with the shipping bill. What great negotiators we are. :ugh:

Last I had heard, about 40 of the 50 went through the Kamra rework facility to become fully operational - and with the Rose III mod they got a good radar and some have been modded for AAR. :rolleyes:

[500N]

Our Gov't procurement sounds like a case of "Can't buy and can't sell" :O


Is Smith just posturing with all this media hype or is he really tearing apart procurement once and for all with the hope that good processes are put in place so these stuff ups don't happen again.

After all, it's often said that DoD always outlast Def Ministers !!!

IMHO, we'll see when we get close to a Federal or State Election !

[500N]

Something in one of the numerous articles at the moment on the Australian Procurement cock ups and cost over runs over the last 10 years or so (cost over runs by us adding extra whatever to the requirements and then being the guenea pigs)

If you take the TOTAL cost of these cock ups and cost over runs and then over this period do a list of "if we purchased this, this and this off the shelf, got it in service and it did 90% of what we wanted" then 3 questions.

1. In reality, by choosing something OTS that did 90% of what we thought we wanted, is that supposed 10% loss of capability such a loss considering a lot less heart ache occurred in bringing the item into service.

2. How much would we have saved over all or how many more of an item (ie Chinook, Blackhawk or whatever) could we have had.

3. And IMHO importantly, how many extra flying hours would have been available for the Helos, planes etc with the flow on effect of the people who use them (ie troops) get to actually practice with them.

In regards to the equipment such as Subs, well maybe we could have had more out there on patrol when they should have been.

Anyway, just food for thought.

.

[TBM-Legend]

Are these the same people who sold the Trackers/A model Hercs/Mirages,,,:ugh:

[500N]

Seems Smith is putting a nice spin on it.


AUSTRALIA'S highest paid public servant, the head of the beleaguered Defence Materiel Organisation Dr Steve Gumley, has resigned. The DMO is responsible for purchasing everything the Australian Defence Force needs, from toothbrushes to tanks, jet fighters and warships.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has been highly critical of the organisation's performance, in particular over the maintenance of naval supply ships and problems with major projects including the building of three air warfare destroyers.
It is understood the government wants to bring the DMO more directly under the control of the Department of Defence and defence force commanders.
Dr Gumley will be replaced by one of two associate secretaries - effectively super deputies - who will report directly to Defence Secretary Ian Watt.

Full article here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-materiel-organisation-chied-steve-gumley-quits/story-e6frg8yo-1226089635356


It will be interesting to see if they manage to "bring the DMO more directly under the control of the Department of Defence and defence force commanders."

[Daughter of Frank]

Hello Everyone
Frank Riley is my Dad. He died in 1981. He was a very brave man and I am proud of him. I can imagine him bucking the system as reported in these posts. Thank you for remembering Frank.
Have you any other stories about Frank that can be shared?
Regards
Judy

[Daughter of Frank]

Hello Brian
The Riley you refer to is my Dad. He was brave. Thanks for remembering him.
Judy

[Bushranger 71]

This has been a thought provoking thread in multiple respects, although a bit marred. The subject question has perhaps been circuitously answered, but here is my crystallisation.

The principal reason has been failure to progressively upgrade/optimise in-service hardware to maintain a continual adequate and credible level of military preparedness. For example; what upgrades have been necessary to Chinook and Blackhawk before they could be deployed on operations?

A secondary reason has been the decline in on-line availability of battlefield helo resources since those assets were transferred from Air Force to Army Aviation in 1989, which has had wide-ranging negative consequences concerning Army field units helicopter training in particular. According to Canberra sources, AAAvn has at times struggled to continually maintain the Chinook detachment in Afghanistan, Blackhawks in East Timor and at Holdsworthy NSW.

The military capacity of all 3 Services was materially weakened by deliberate technical de-skilling and outsourcing of maintenance, as evidenced by the prevailing diabolical situation regarding availability of RAN warships. The RAAF generally does better in terms of aircraft assets availability; but so it should, having been created 90 years ago to provide air services for all 3 armed forces.

The absurd Aerospace Capability Implementation Roadmap – Rotary Wing (ACIR-RW) - a new grandly bureaucratic title - has created glaring capability gaps. This deficient planning was spawned by the Helicopter Systems Division of DMO when headed by AAAvn and completely forsakes operational readiness and cost-effectiveness considerations. That it has been allowed to progress reflects poorly on ADF leadership.

Comments this thread by some from whatever Service regarding 'a pissing contest', handbags, Officers, immature, etcetera are pretty tawdry. For decades now and when still serving, my historical efforts have been directed toward countering a plethora of misinformation concerning Air Force operations in general, including 9SQN activities during the Vietnam War. The problem is thousands of documents have since been generated - including by so-called historians - somewhat based on higher level commander opinions (often seen differently at operating levels), hearsay and third hand accounts which become further distorted when they are used as reference material by authors of publications downstream. If misinformation is repeated often and long enough, it becomes the accepted truth.

Shark 06; I mentioned my times in Vietnam to indicate that I got a fairly broad overview of that campaign, which lasted longer than WW2 for Australian forces. I have seen heated arguments between colleagues regarding how things were done because happenings during their (mostly) single tours in differing time-frames are indelibly imprinted in their brains. War is seldom static and they usually failed to realise that a whole bunch of things changed regarding operating practices or whatever as the campaign moved along.

9SQN enjoyed good rapport with Australian Army aviators - except for a few older corps members - and many enduring friendships evolved. Of course we understood the nature of their operations and they were most welcome to stay with us at Vung Tau, some doing so when they could escape from Nui Dat. And; those of us who represented the Task Force Air Commander at HQ 1ATF were obliged to appreciate the broad nature of how all the air components functioned.

Some seem enthralled by writings on the Fourays website: www.fourays.org (http://www.fourays.org/). Suffice to say here that some misinformation propagated there regarding the Air Force has already been discredited on this thread and you will find presentation of a Fourays feature articles paper by Wing Commander Martin Sharp, RAF on this more appropriate thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/421418-raaf-army-relations-history.html at posts #1,2,3; with my critique at posts #16,20,31. See also the first-hand account of the helo transfer decision by Air Marshal Jake Newham at post #12.

Consider the following statement from another Fourays feature article The Tactical Air Support Group, Part 3:'...It could be said that apart from the Caribou Squadron, RAAF involvement in Vietnam was almost inconsequential to the conduct of Australian ground operations in a war that was essentially a ground conflict...' Air Force Caribou did a great job during almost 8 years in Vietnam, largely in support of US Special Forces/Vietnamese military activities; and about 4 years of Canberra bombing involvement, including close air support for 1ATF, is outlined here: RAAF Association National Council - Special Topics - 2 SQN Canberras in Vietnam (http://www.raafa.org.au/crew/vietnam.html) . The C-130 squadrons also contributed substantially in medevac and logistic support roles, as did LRMP aircraft in largely unspoken activities. 9SQN flew, 58,768 hours over 5.5 years (2,000 days), the highest effort for any RAAF unit in any campaign during the entire 90 year history of the Service. That effort was overwhelmingly in support of 1ATF.

The credibility of The Tactical Air Support Group paper is thus called into question.

End of my engagement this thread and I will soon post some more enlightening material at: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/421418-raaf-army-relations-history.html, for public record purposes.

[PNVS]

From Courier Mail 22 Jul 11

THE Federal Government and Australia's military brass are under growing pressure to send the Australian Army's Tiger attack helicopters to Afghanistan after the machines proved during high-level war games they are ready to fight.

The new Tigers are not fully accepted into operational service, but they have performed so well at this month's biennial military exercise with US forces at Shoalwater Bay that one senior officer has pronounced them "ready for war".

The key sticking point remains the controversial issue of night vision equipment, but the choppers are more than ready for daytime operations in Afghanistane.

However, senior officers are refusing to consider deploying them until that night vision capability is fully integrated and operational.

"This aircraft is capable of fighting in Afghanistan - by day - right now," said the officer in command of the Darwin-based 1st Aviation Regiment's 162 Reconnaissance Squadron, Major Hayden Archibald.



"This exercise shows that the capability is mature and can integrate seamlessly into the army's battle field systems," he told The Courier-Mail.

"We have fired and deployed all our weapons with a high level of success and we are ready to support our troops."

Built in Brisbane by Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace, the Aussie Tiger is one of the most advanced attack helicopters in the world.

Eight Tigers from the 1st Aviation Regiment's force of 12 have deployed to Rockhampton with Battle Group Cavalier.

That group also includes 10 Blackhawks from the Sydney and Townsville based 6 and 5 Aviation Regiments and seven Kiowa helicopters.

According to Major Archibald, the Tiger has performed brilliantly during the intense exercises and he rates it above the much heavier US-built Apache attack helicopter.

The Tigers have "live" fired all three of their weapons systems, the 30mm canon, rockets and Hellfire laser guided missile, to great effect at ranges from 1000m to 8000m.

The sleek, tandem machine is designed for attack, reconnaissance and security roles and flies with a pilot up front and a gunner behind and above.

Both crew are qualified pilots but the front seat is the pilot station and he also operates the "self protection" 30mm canon that is linked to his helmet mounted sight display so that whatever the pilot sees is what the gun hits with high precision.

The gun can fire 660 rounds a minute and the Tiger typically carries about 400 rounds as well as 33 rockets and four missiles.

"We can deal with most threats," Major Archibald said.

Talisman Sabre has thrown up some spare parts challenges for the Tigers, but that is unlikely to be a problem for any machines deployed to a war zone.

"I would love to go to Afghanistan tomorrow with the Tigers," Major Archibald said. "This machine is good to go. It is a wonderful aircraft to fly and is so well built for the attack role."

One of the $40 million Tigers had a taste of combat yesterday when an anti-war protester broke into Rockhampton airfield and attacked a $40 million helicopter with a garden mattock.

The protester, Bryan Law from Cairns, allegedly pierced the skin of the high-tech machine - made from composite material - just below the pilot's side window.

The machine will be out of action for repairs.

The protester was arrested in Rockhampton last week for threatening to damage military helicopters. Despite this, he was able to breach a wire fence and cover more than 50m of open ground to the machine.

Charges are yet to be laid.

The security breach has prompted the army to move all its helicopters from the regional airport to the Shoalwater Bay training area.

Security at the airport is provided by Queensland police, private security contractors and RAAF security staff.

Australian military spokesman Brigadier Bob Brown said the attack was a major security breach but it would not affect the huge Talisman Sabre military exercises.

"It is radical, it is unlawful and it is dangerous and we take this extremely seriously," Brigadier Bob Brown said. "Clearly there has been a security breach."

Mr Law and an accomplice were arrested following the attack and were last night helping police with their inquiries.

[Bushranger 71]

Hi Judy; please see my private message for contact details.

[500N]

"Talisman Sabre has thrown up some spare parts challenges for the Tigers, but that is unlikely to be a problem for any machines deployed to a war zone."

Strange comment.

Why not sort out the problem during the exercise ?

Good to see that they are ready to go operational.

Question for those in the know.
1. Why has it taken so long ?
2. Why is the night vision a problem when other countries are using it already ? (or have we gone for something obscure ?)

.

[ozbiggles]

Hopefully the story has some basis in fact.
However after the Collins class submarine story that proved to be faked provided by defence PR then how could one tell these days?

[rh200]

Mr Law and an accomplice were arrested following the attack and were last night helping police with their inquiries.

One can only wish they will end up spending some quality time in prison, biting a few pillows, and helping the inmates with their stress levels. But alas it will be a smack on the wrist.

[Doors Off]

Any news on the individual who has cost the taxpayers a fair bit of extra money after putting the axe through the side of the Tiger in Rockhampton?

[Andu]

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has just announced that the MRH-90 has been placed on the "projects of concern" list.

Many would say, about five years too late.

And they're "rearranged blocks" in the Air Warfare Destroyer project. Is that like rearranging deckchairs... on the Titanic?

[500N]

I like this bit re the list.
"and all companies involved, including multinationals such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are barred from further taxpayer-funded contracts until their project is removed from the list."


All we need now is for defense to write in substantial financial penalties in all future contracts for non delivery !!! It MIGHT stop some people over promising.
.