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

[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?

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

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..

[fleebag]

Seems the French Tigers only fly at night!

You Tube

[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]

Off the shelf

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 buy

God 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-90

I'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]

Parts boycott during Vietnam war by Europe

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


Porters in SVN
Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc

Tiger fiasco - Koalas, not to be exported or shot at
Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc

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]

Getting military history right

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

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]

The bigger picture re the 1960s

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). 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.