AH-64E & UH-60M - Is Australia creating an Air Assault Brigade?
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 08. 2023
- Australia is soon to bring into service AH-64E Apache & UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters. It will also colocate an aviation reconnaissance regiment with an aviation transport regiment and two Infantry battalions. Is this a sign of the formation of an air assault brigade?
The Australian National Audit Office report - Multi-Role Helicopter Program: www.anao.gov.au/sites/default...
Good to hear Australian content from an Australian creator
Thank you. Much appreciated.
@@Strategy_Analysismate, can you do content on why the Tigers and Taipans flopped?
I'll see how much info is out there.
And 🇨🇦 Veterans. BZ
Congratulations Sir! Outstanding Australian Defense plans to procure the AH-64 Apache Guardian version and UH-70 Sikorsky Black Hawks UH-70M!
Sharing maintenance load with all major pacific allies is huge for this. Forward deployment means they can be maintained well close to the operational area, and Australia can take care of larger maintenance jobs outside of range of the vast majority of enemy weapon systems both for us and our allies.
I was told by a lieutenant at Oakey that the Tiger was chosen because it could be integrated into the electronic battlefield, even though it was otherwise inferior to the Apache. Pretty sure it never deployed and not cause we didn’t want to get it dirty. As for the Taipan…. Defence Materiel, when you absolutely positively have to cock it up every time.
Thanks for this. I have heard something similar re the Tiger's ability in that area.
AHR was NEVER deployed in theatre. However, the French Tigers 'were' and still are deployed in Africa as France has a DEEP military/bi lateral and cultural relationship, military 'footprint' and along with the US the French can rapidly deploy into it's former colonies if needed.
Great video mate, thanks for the insights. I'd love to see a briefing on Australia's electronic warfare capabilities including gaps and integration with partner forces in the event of conflict.
Thanks. Much appreciated. I know a little about EW, so that's a possibility.
We retired our tigers?!
AH-64's would have been the wiser choice on the original purchase.
Oh LAWD this is the video I needed... Interested to hear your thoughts cuz this has been on my mind too
early thoughts only. More when we find out more about how the Army will be restructured as a result of the Defence Strategic Review.
Fair, Really hope the next administration can continue to build on the choices Labour has implemented with more budget personally, Lotta good been done but we need a brigade like this for real. @@Strategy_Analysis
I'll definitely do an update briefing.
The Australian Army should never have lost the Airborne capability of 3 RAR. For a country as huge as Australia, an Air Assault brigade makes a lot of sense.
given how the redback ifv has been underordered, it would make sense to have at least an air assault/airborne battalion so that the capability isn't solely with SOCOM. 2 was reroled to amphib so it's not outside the realm of possibility
Just to clarify 3RAR were the core of an airborne group consisting of brigade hq/ signals, a troop of engineers, a battery of artillery and a surgical team plus other elements - like Bravo troop 1st transports Unimogs which were lifted by Chinooks before the government got rid of them!
And I agree an air assault brigade based in Townsville with 3 getting their wings back & 1st being airmobile makes sense. Armour could be based around the Bushmasters & an up rated AUSLAV based on the LAV 6 variant. Similar to the Stryker brigade vehicles.
The M1s could go to 9th brigade or be put in storage and the rest of the armoured fleet used to create a fully motorised brigade based on 7th brigade (who would also loose their M1s to be replaced by a wheeled 105mm platform!) by the way if the Boxers are as air portable as the LAV’s then obviously more of them!
Cheers
@@kenfowler1980Boxers are nearly twice as heavy as the ASLAV.
I think the ASLAV(if nothing new) would be better moving to Amphibious units. Airborne could use Hawkei and Bushmasters.
@@thomasb5600 totally agree mate! Just want to diss a vehicle I’m don’t personally know! Really it was a pity that the whole purchase of the Boxers and upgrades to the M1’s approved before the review cheers
Some interesting ideas there, Ken. 3rd BDE looks very likely to become Air Assault. It does beg the question why Australia is not only upgrading its M1 Abrams, but also enlarging its fleet!
FYI - we have already received x2 Apache E's. They're being used obviously for training.
Thanks for the update.
@@Strategy_Analysis Just to clarify - we bought them off the UK. So they're 'not' brand new however are near enough.
I heard somewhere that due to their experiences I think in Afganistan, that no digger would cheer when they heard that a Taipan was coming, but they would if they heard an Apache was.
as a kiwi I'm cheering you diggers from the sidelines. apaches make a lot of sense and it's good to see your lads getting good modern equipment all around, i do think the french diesel subs would have been a good choice alongside nuc boats. wish we could afford a capable force to help out although most of our politicians are all buddy buddy with China . we'll see! great content mate 👍
Thanks. Much appreciated. I wonder what New Zealand will do with its NH90 fleet?
@@Strategy_Analysisanti submarine role, mate
Given the justification for New Zealand to go with the NH90s, whether ASW or transport, I would think they will be influenced by Australia's recent decision.
i think it would be best for us to keep tradition and piggyback off aussie orders and go for UH60M's but the political will and funding doesn't seem to be there at the moment, which could well change with the new incoming government.. but it cost us $800m for the NH90s and black hawks would be even more, plus they can't really be used as ASW aircraft that i'm aware of.
we really do need to start building closer defence ties with the yanks because our armed forces are a joke at the moment, with the exception of the SAS, personnel leaving in droves due to poor conditions and pay and substandard equipment.@@Strategy_Analysis
Great video mate. I’m a kiwi as well and personally could see us striking a deal to acquire a few of the RAAF MRH90s to supplement our fleet of 8 NH90s. We seem to have good operational reliability with them for whatever reason and this could almost end up being a case of history repeats after the rejected SH2G(A) airframes ended up being a great deal for us and are still in service (soon to be replaced though). Definitely with our low GDP and in turn low military budget I can’t see us scrapping these relatively new airframes when we don’t seem to have the same issues the RAAF has had. Would also be great to see a few Tigers thrown in as well to reintroduce some teeth that our DF has been seriously lacking for the last 20+ years but I think that’s a case of dreams are free 😅
I would hope we re introduced a Parachute capability to match interoperability with all our coalition partners.
the original reason for the tiger over the Apache was the lack of rust proof airframe [ why the marines used the super cobra] once the new models had the rust proof frame than it was fait a comply for the Apache for both the ADF and the USMC
Not getting anywhere near enough helos for an air assault brigade.
Does this herald the end of Bersheeba 3 year readiness cycles for 3 identical heavy Cav brigades? I hope so. It ties in with the under-purchase of IFVs. Perhaps we go back to specialised battalions of air-assault/air-mobile, motorised, and mechanised.
Beersheba was dead as soon as the review was announced- the end of the expeditionary era
We can't stay a light infantry country for ever. Armour support is needed for boots on the ground.
@@Caine1277 yep based on 9th brigade. 10/27th becomes the second mech infantry battalion( maybe even a ARA/ ARES unit). 7th brigade becomes fully wheeled (easier to deploy wheeled vehicles over distance) & 3 brigade air assault, with 1st brigade being water based. Makes sense since the idea is to prevent the bastards landing in force.
Too right, we don't have enough equipment or infrastructure to run three mechanised/armoured brigades. Given time the Army will re-invent the wheel and go back to the old structure with a new name.
About time we got Apache's
Great vid mate. 👏
Thanks, much appreciated.
@@Strategy_Analysis got me beat why they didn’t go with AH-64 and UH-60 in the first place. Proven in battle, larger logistic base with more allies on the same supply chain and greater interoperability of platform and personnel. Same reason we should have gone the latest Arleigh Burke instead of current AWD.
Would love to see a video on the as9 and why it were selected over the American and European designs like the paladin and and pzh 2000
I'll have a look at it.
Great work S&AC.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Seems a sensible move using excellent current platforms available. For the future, I can imagine an ideal combination might be SB-1 Defiant for general utility, an attack derivative of Defiant for reconnaissance and attack, and for medium to heavy lift use Chinook, King Stallion, or an improved V-22 Osprey with technology from V-280. But for right now, Apache and Blackhawk are the best available.
Cool video man
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
FinALLY HAPPY TO SEE OUR COUNTRY MAN DOING THIS . WE NEED A DEFENCE UPDATE VIDEO FOR THE CITIZENS
Thank you.
Thanks. I'll keep across major Australian Defence issues as I can.
Restructure most time comes after or too late to deal with the event.
Removing Airborne 3RAR made sense at the time, they had no copters, vehicles and was light infantry only. We had no needed to deploy troops that we could not reach, big armies could do that better.
Currently only 2RAR as Marine landing and most of that battalion is non combat roles. Is not effective either.
Things change. Air Assault makes sense now because we currently have 2 LHD that could support such units and delivery heavier Marine/Armour support if required.
Though Amphibious functions still need improvements.
Traditional Airborne (light Infantry) might not be required anymore. Vietnam show using copters to support and transport works since then most conflicts have low tech v high tech. However Ukraine shows same level tech capturing objectives using Air Assault needs heavier backup quickly. This is not just planning it is also delivery.
Do we truely have everything needed for Air Assault Brigade? No.
We need Air dropable support vehicles like IFV or Light Tank, light ground transport vehicles like Electric bikes or trucks and more anti-tank infantry weapons.
There is many new ideas that are starting to occur bedside electric vehicles, robots and drones. Such as India buy 48 Gravity Ironman suites or Australia M113AS4 drone launching a swarm of drones.
How a mordern Air Assault Bridage looks is more of what roles it used for. If it is to capture objective and hold to reinforced or create havoc behind lines then we have away to go.
ADF would need 3 Bn's of the 3 airframes. The objective would be to transport the whole assault force in a single lift/sortie. This plan is just a stop-gap since the new defense plan was published. Might want to execute the review before contracts in the future. Makes ADF look unprepared and uncommitted. China is not messing around. Might wanna get this sorted quick
the emus have no chance against that combo
As long as you don't let the Emus get up close. Then you're done for!
Would like to see something on the satellite war. This just seems to be such a big part of defence strategy.
Binkov recently had a video on the Apache stealing sales from the Tiger and the Viper. The Apache buyers seem to prefer the doctrine of a quality over quantity. I also suspect that the Longbow radar and Spike NLOS synergize incredibly well.
the new maritime capabilities on the Longbow would have gone a long way towards its selection, given the new Army fighting doctrine.
@@Strategy_Analysis The maritime capabilities is certainly a strong factor for many. The broad capabilities of the Apache have convinced many countries that attack helicopters still have a place.
I would say with all the military equipment and personal at Townsville. It would defiantly be one of the few nuclear targets in Australia.
The 3 finalists for original Air 87 was the AH-64, AH-1Z and the Tiger, the A129 did not make the final three, Tiger won the competition. The first 3 UH-60M was delivered to 6 Avn Regt in early Aug 2023. Yea I'm not sure Australia is looking at an Air Assault Brigade, seems to go against the current Governments policy of improving stand-off capabilities at the expense of close combat capabilities.
The other thing is, we are not seeing a realistic increase in Army Helicopter numbers. 7 more ARH is going to be more about improving current capability and maybe the Army deciding that 15 years or so of operating a new capability shows that 22 was just not enough, than creating a new capability. 4 more CH-47F was more about covering the shortcomings of the MRH-90 fleet and a close Ally deciding to provide aircraft out of their own fleet at short notice. 40 UH-60M is actually a decrease of 1 aircraft over the 41 MRH-90 in service.
Hello. I have a general question. How serious is manpower an issue for Australian defence forces? Particularly when it comes to procurement. I often see comments saying Australia should just procure a large number warships for example. But would Australia even have the sailors to do so?
Hit the nail on the head there, you don't have to wind the clock back very far to see that we've had similar challenges before. Lots of different equipment spread all over this country requires lots of logistic support. Training and retaining specialist operators, maintainers, suppliers etc is nearly as costly as the machines themselves.
@@dwrhd Exactly my thoughts. Australia is vast, even more so are it’s geopolitical interests. With a population of just 26 million and volunteer only forces, it just seems to be the obvious reason as to why they can’t just procure thousands of pieces of equipment. Let alone the logistical side of things.
@@_..Justin-Case.._ unless recruiting numbers rise and the defence industry expands, buying/making more gear will probably just fill up supply depots with equipment. Look at the current state of Russian fleets.
Manpower issue is huge. ADF has set itself up to fail, with controversy after controversy and no accountability.
Australia will probably employ some sort of skill sharing deal with bugger nations, and rely on migrants to fill out the enlisted ranks.
Its an embarrassment.
I say australia is slowly mimicing a us divison. With 1 Div established with 1, 3, and 7 reconfig to basic 1 x IBCT (1bde), 1x SCBT (7bde) and 1 x ABCT (3bde). Add in a avn assault bde and heavy lift and australia becomes basically a us divison to hold png
Thinking the armies long gone fixed wing arm is a massive loss….perhaps some crop duster style drones could be also considered! Just thinking outside the box
Now that light armed SF helicopter been cancelled now ADF acquired US version W of Blackhawks as for last few years been reported that ADF had been training with US pavehawks. As for Tiger it’s shame by some of operators accounts it was light n had better tactical sensors then AH 64D. I was surprised ADF didn’t purchase AH 1Z Vipers as these were work with US marines with Australian amphibious force, also now NH90 is not Navy big transport helicopter does RAN purchase CH 53K King Stallion?
The 6 RAN MRH-90s are being replaced by 12 MH-60R Seahawks. Other than operating one logistics Helicopter (MH-60R), all aviation assets operating off the LHDs is the Army's responsibility, the Army is quite satisfied with operating the CH-47F off the LHDs so no, we will not be seeing the CH-53 off the LHDs, other than the occasional cross decking by USMC machines. Operating Helicopters off the LHDs is a very much part time capability, for the Army, and they don't have enough aviation assets to be able to do it anyway.
TBH the Army really needs to raise another Avn Regt with their own Helicopters separate to those already in service to get the full value out of the LHDs Aviation capabilities, they have shown no inclination to do so, it is more about supporting the amphibious operations than creating an Air Assault capability.
Mate can you do a presentation on Chinas type 22 fast missile boats please 😊
They are an interesting capability. Originally designed as an asymmetric response to U.S. CSGs, but may have found new value. I'll take a look at it.
That's a possibility. They still have a role to play.
There is talk that ALL UH-60M will go to Special Forces or twenty to SF and twenty to 5th Aviation Regiment, either way 40 is NOT enough
Interesting. Yes, 40 aircraft for 3 squadrons does seem light on.
With the yanks moving away from the Blackhawk’s to the new Bell V-280 you’d think we’d want to do the same. I know the taipans are no good but I wonder if the new blackhawks are just a stopgap.
It makes sense for them as they have larger airborne units.
You could be right, I think LNP jumped and wanted 1 for 1 replacement now.
Besides I don't think a V-280 has even seen Australian shores.
Anyone who thinks Australia should be looking at the V-280 at this time as a replacement for the MRH-90, needs to check this link out.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing%E2%80%93Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche
This is the last attempt by the US Army to launch an all new, high technology rotorcraft, it fell apart fairly late into the development phase, just as they were getting ready to order production models.
What would make more sense than helos would be the latest version of the osprey and Add F16's into our air fleet.
Given how helicopters in general have faired against MANPADS and Medium air defence systems in Ukraine I fear purchasing Apache's is akin to buying more horses before world war 1. Drones and unmanned platforms are the future and you could buy alot of drones (armed and unarmed) for the price of these helicopters. I wouldn't want to be the guys flying these in contested environments. The hellfire missiles are incredibly short ranged and the missiles that can shoot Apache's down can have ranges in the hundreds of kilometers assuming they are able to be targeted.
Then you are talking SAM sites not MANPADS. It is the Air Force's job to take out SAMs. Be the way Apache has drone link ability, missiles should be built to work with such connections.
If you are looking for recon only then yet the Apache is overpriced( Japan) , however if you need fire support too then it makes more sense.
Incorrect, beamriding MANPADS like starstreak and RBS70 have been downing Russian helicopters in Ukraine and the Russians were the ones with the superior airforce. In an A2AD near peer or peer adversary conflict the Airforce wont be able to deal with every surface to air missile threat. You don't need an apache to control drones, you need drones in large numbers at an affordable price. These helicopters are expensive and will not be able to operate effectively in contested environments wasting dollars that could be put to more important priorities. If we can cancel a 2nd order of Self propelled artillery because they are not needed we can cancel this order.
@@MrAlexg1101 There is no MANPADS that have hundreds of kilometres range. Hellfire and Hydra have about the same or better than MANPADS.
Yer, Russian copters are going down in Ukraine. Why? They need to get close and exposed to launch attacks or lack defence methods.
If Australia was going to have 3 Armoured Mechanised brigades sure AS9 makes sense and the Tiger recon ability would be fine. However adaptation is required if Australia needs to do island landings Apache firepower and range will be handy supporting on the beaches and further inland.
The Huntsman appears to be changed to Himars.
If saving money is the issue then cancel the AUKUS and teach Mandarin being a mining outpost for China.
What you are missing is that beam riding missiles are not defeatable by any current helicopter based electronic warfare protection systems. modern surface to air missiles (MANPADS to ABM) are smart and even modern helicopters cannot protect themselves against these threats. Elite airborne helicopter forces with modern EWSP systems lost several helicopters trying to take hostomel airport.
In a near peer war helicopters near the front wont be survivable and will be relegated to back of the front logistics tasks. Instead of risking pilots lives and wasting billions of dollars on platforms that wont be risked on the front line we would be much better served investing those dollars in drone production.
I'm not saying cut Defence, I'm saying spend it properly, there is a limited defence budget, every dollar wasted is a dollar that could have been put towards another capability that will be relevant in a real war. Defence has already shown a reprioritisation of investment and should cancel this one too.
We cut the armoured vehicle orders because they wont be deployed in numbers beyond our shores. The RAN cannot protect the LHDs in the A2AD age, and it is unlikely that we would be doing offensive amphibious operations as ballistic anti ship missiles prevent naval forces from getting near to islands.
@@thomasb5600
@@MrAlexg1101 you have no idea what you are writing about. Of course the helicopter is able to defend itself against other missiles. Do you know anything about modern missiles, their types and capabilities?.Apparently not.
The war in Ukraine is no example in this regard.
The Russians used their attack helicopters badly, but unfortunately they have already learned and Ukrainians without air force can dream of shooting them down.
Way too little and too late, IMO
Decades of ADF buying from Europe, was it wasteful? It seems so
It’s because Europe does offsets and US defense contractors don’t. American military industrial complex only chased foreign orders in the defense reduction of the 90s, otherwise they were very take it or leave it. European contractors were always export focused and were always negotiated with industrial offsets or like in kind purchases of defense purchases from the selling country. Airbus offered offsets while McDo didn’t. In my lifetime, only McDo in Finland and Lockmart with F-35 really offered offsets (McDo offered limited offsets to Switzerland and Spain).
@@zeitgeistx5239 yeah, we optimised for jobs, not capability, lucky we didn't have to go to actual war, I can guarantee you the Europeans wouldn't come to help us, they can barely help themselves
Hopefully this has been a huge lesson for ADF procurement..........NEVER buy euro trash rotary winged assets!!!!
Those in positions of power who made these purchasing decisions should be held accountable, no matter where they now sit.
As an engineer that is building a helicopter, people don't realise how vulnerable they are. You can manufacture a missile for a few thousand dollars with 5km of range. A missile doesn't even require explosives to down a helicopter. Damaging the rotors enough to cause imbalance and it will tear itself apart. Doesn't matter what helicopters we use, if against a country that can manufacture thousands of cheap missiles compared to one helicopter, the helicopters would not stand a chance. All of these purchases are just part of business. The Apache is not actually tested against modern warfare, it is tested against people that have little to no means of fighting back. It's frustrating when people think something is capable just because they think it's cool.
Umm, no. What kind of targeting system and means of propulsion did you have in mind buying for "a few thousand dollars"?
AH64 has highly advanced self protection systems that can defeat the most advanced short range missiles now in production. Your few thousand dollars sky rockets won't work.
"As an engineer"...what kind, steam locomotives?
I tend to agree. Helicopters are vulnerable platforms. However, modern weapons systems make most platforms vulnerable regardless of the sales pitch about their capability.
@@GM-fh5jp propaganda and Hollywood will have you believe anything. Have you actually been in an Apache with 10's of missiles fired at you?
@@GM-fh5jp Little do you know. You don't give naive people knowledge on how to be destructive.
5nuoc tieng anh: noi la anh em 1nha cung ko sai: deu giong nhau het
Great content, but someone buy the man a good microphone.
Thanks. Yes, number 1 priority. Also I'm travelling and will be for the next year.
Most of the Blackhawks will go to 6th Aviation Regiment
Eurocopter products have been a terrible failure for Australia . Huge waste of money and the lives lost
Same as the F35s
You realise far more blackhawks have crashed than Taipans.
Yeah, the Taipans and the Tigers were pure European rubbish… good thing you got out of the Submarine deal…
It’s a huge relief that Australian Army is replacing defective Tigers and Taipans by now. They are not cost effective as a result massive tax payers money were wasted during last 10 years. I bet there is a fundamental issues to be reviewed when it comes to weapon requirement. Acquiring not combat proven equipments must be stopped for the sake of our defence capability and for rhe safety of our servicemens.
Littoral is pronounced like literal. - littoral • \LIT-uh-rul\