Why no helo transport? Are we condemning our diggers to an easy victimology?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Age: 83
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collins class - slight diversion
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 ?
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 ?
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.
Recently promoted Maj Gen Tony Fraser should be the one on trial for driving this stupidity.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Defence cuts cripple the nation's options | The Australian
...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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andu
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the many comments that follow this article, Defence cuts cripple the nation's options | The Australian, 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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 500N
Every infantry regiment would like Battlefield Helo transport and fire support.
Take a billion here (Sea Sprite); a few hundred million there (M113 upgrade); Tiger, MRH90, Collins .... soon mounts up, doesn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greatcoats on, Greatcoats off
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
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
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Age: 83
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mistakes repeated
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...
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Andu; 24th May 2011 at 11:26. Reason: typo