+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 88
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 871

Thread: Australian Army 2011 onwards

  1. #21

    Now if only we had a world class SAM to go with the simulator...

  2. #22

    This is the Army version of "Fitted For But Not With..............................."

  3. #23

    Diagnostic Review of MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program

    (Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued April 29, 2011)


    An inquiry panel has recommended that Australia implement a remediation plan to improve the availability of the MRH-90 helicopter. (NHI photo)

    A full diagnostic review of the MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program has now been completed. The review was ordered in February by the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare to address delays to the project.

    It was chaired by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation Mr Warren King supported by a number of independent specialists.

    The review has recommended that the project should not be added to the Project of Concern list at this time.

    It has recommended that Defence work with the contractor, Australian Aerospace, to implement a remediation plan to improve the availability of the helicopters by addressing engineering and reliability issues.

    The project will be the subject of a further diagnostic review later this year to examine the effectiveness of the action taken and whether further action is necessary.

    The diagnostic review was ordered to address delays to the project due to a series of key issues including engine failure, transmission oil cooler fan failures and the poor availability of spares.

    As reported in both the Defence Annual Report and the ANAO Major Project Report released last year, the project has suffered delays of 12 months for the Navy’s helicopters and 18 months for the Army’s helicopters.

    To date, 13 MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted by Defence and are currently being used for testing and initial crew training.

    -ends-

  4. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by buglerbilly View Post
    Diagnostic Review of MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program

    (Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued April 29, 2011)


    An inquiry panel has recommended that Australia implement a remediation plan to improve the availability of the MRH-90 helicopter. (NHI photo)

    A full diagnostic review of the MRH-90 Multi Role Helicopter Program has now been completed. The review was ordered in February by the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare to address delays to the project.

    It was chaired by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation Mr Warren King supported by a number of independent specialists.

    The review has recommended that the project should not be added to the Project of Concern list at this time.

    It has recommended that Defence work with the contractor, Australian Aerospace, to implement a remediation plan to improve the availability of the helicopters by addressing engineering and reliability issues.

    The project will be the subject of a further diagnostic review later this year to examine the effectiveness of the action taken and whether further action is necessary.

    The diagnostic review was ordered to address delays to the project due to a series of key issues including engine failure, transmission oil cooler fan failures and the poor availability of spares.

    As reported in both the Defence Annual Report and the ANAO Major Project Report released last year, the project has suffered delays of 12 months for the Navy’s helicopters and 18 months for the Army’s helicopters.

    To date, 13 MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted by Defence and are currently being used for testing and initial crew training.

    -ends-
    Good to see that these helicopters are finally coming online.
    Interesting that NAVY are using the ARMY cam paint scheme.
    I thought they would be the usual grey like the Seahawks.
    MB

  5. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Milne Bay View Post
    Good to see that these helicopters are finally coming online.
    Interesting that NAVY are using the ARMY cam paint scheme.
    I thought they would be the usual grey like the Seahawks.
    MB
    Army and Navy MRH-90's will all come from the same pool, navy helicopters when due for a major service will be replaced from the "pool".

    Cheers

  6. #26

    Soldiers' case not war crimes related

    May 17, 2011 - 2:04PM .

    AAP

    Two Australian Army Reserve soldiers charged with manslaughter in Afghanistan won't be facing war crimes charges, a judge advocate has been told.

    The soldiers are being charged with offences under Australian law over the 2009 incident, Lieutenant Tom Berkley, for the prosecution, told a pre-trial hearing in Sydney on Tuesday.

    "We are not charging war crimes, we are charging offences against Australian law as so applies," Lieut Berkley said.

    Charging the accused under the War Crimes Act "does not apply to the current situation", he said.

    Lieut Berkley was responding to an argument put forward by the defence on Monday that the course of action taken by the men during the incident, which resulted in the death of six people, may not have been unlawful under the War Crimes Act.

    Judge Advocate Brigadier Ian Westwood is conducting a hearing on pre-trial issues relating to the men's court martial, which has been set down for July 11 in Sydney.

    The charges relate to a February 12, 2009, incident, when members of the Special Operations Task Group, operating in Oruzgan Province, undertook a compound clearance operation.

    Six civilians, including five children, were killed as a result of the operation.

    The Army Reserve soldiers, identified only as Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D by order of the judge advocate, have been charged with manslaughter and, in the alternative, with two counts of dangerous conduct, with negligence as to consequence.

    The defence has argued the prosecution failed to define what standard of care the accused men should have met.

    In response, Lieut Berkely argued section 5.5 of the Criminal Code showed a person was negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if their conduct involved such a falling short of a standard of care that a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

    It was therefore not necessary to find a duty of care, he maintained.

    "The code imposes a standard," he said.

    Judge Advocate Westwood noted there was a difficulty in applying Section 5.5 without a duty of care.

    "I cannot see how one can answer the question of what a reasonable person would have done unless the reasonable person is under some sort of legal obligation to act in a certain way," he said.

    The hearing is continuing.

    © 2011 AAP

  7. #27

    Soldiers may face more charges, JA hears

    May 18, 2011 - 3:34PM .

    AAP

    Evidence shows two Army Reserve soldiers charged with manslaughter in Afghanistan knew civilians were present during an operation, a judge advocate has been told.

    The two accused Army Reserve soldiers had a duty of care to civilians during the February 2009 operation, Lieutenant Colonel Tom Berkley for the prosecution told a pre-trial hearing in Sydney on Wednesday.

    Judge Advocate Brigadier Ian Westwood is conducting a hearing on pre-trial issues relating to the men's court martial, which has been set down for July 11 in Sydney.

    The charges relate to a February 12, 2009 incident, when members of the Special Operations Task Group, operating in Oruzgan Province, undertook a compound clearance operation.

    Six civilians, including five children, were killed as a result of the operation.

    The prosecution has proposed increasing the charges against the accused to five counts of manslaughter, to account for the deaths of five children killed during the operation.

    The Army Reserve soldiers, identified only as Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D by order of the judge advocate, have been charged with manslaughter and, in the alternative, with two counts of dangerous conduct, with negligence as to consequence.

    The prosecution has argued the charges against the accused should be increased, "while making clear they arise out of one act".

    The charges do not relate to the death of a man who exchanged fire with the soldiers.

    Judge Advocate Westwood heard the soldiers had entered the compound with the task of looking for a weapons cache, when there was an exchange of fire with an Afghan national.

    Lt Col Berkley said there was evidence the accused "did know civilians were there and did appreciate the likelihood" they were in the building at the time of the operation.

    By engaging with the Afghan national, the accused "created danger to the civilians and gave rise to a duty of care to them at common law", Lt Col Berkley argued.

    Lt Col Berkley submitted a duty of care to civilians during armed combat could also be extracted from the military rules of engagement.

    However, he noted it was difficult to find comparable cases concerning the duty of care on the battlefield.

    "This case we are currently involved in is apparently the first case of its type in our history," he said.

    The hearing is continuing.

    © 2011 AAP

  8. #28

    This has already been posted in the Aussie Special Forces thread.............posted here to end posts about the case previously posted above..................

    Soldier manslaughter charges won't proceed

    May 20, 2011 - 2:10PM .

    The case against two Army Reserve soldiers charged with manslaughter in Afghanistan will not proceed to a court martial, a judge advocate has decided.

    This means the case has been dismissed and the charges will be referred back to the Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP), Judge Advocate Brigadier Ian Westwood said at a pre-trial hearing in Sydney today.

    A court martial set down for July 11 will now not proceed and the prosecution will have to decide whether to bring further charges against the pair.

    Judge Advocate Westwood was delivering his judgment on pre-trial issues relating to the men's case.

    The charges had related to an incident on February 12, 2009, that involved members of the Special Operations Task Group undertaking a compound clearance operation in Oruzgan province.

    Six civilians, including five children, were killed as a result of the operation.

    The Army Reserve soldiers, identified only as Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D by order of the judge advocate, had been charged with manslaughter and, in the alternative, two counts of dangerous conduct, with negligence as to consequence.

    ‘‘The ruling does not detract from the personal tragedy inherent in the prosecution’s allegations or diminish the importance of the lives concerned,’’ Judge Advocate Westwood said.

    Judge Advocate Westwood said the issue of whether there was a duty of care was of ‘‘fundamental importance’’.

    He noted there must be a duty of care in order to determine negligence.

    But in considering the case, he found there was an ‘‘absence of plain words’’ in relation to a duty of care to non-combatants in the Defence Force Discipline Act.

    He upheld the defence’s objections to the charges on the basis they ‘‘did not disclose service offences’’.

    Judge Advocate Westwood noted soldiers were in a unique position when engaged in armed combat.

    Commonwealth law authorised the application of force, including lethal force, in armed combat, he said.

    Soldiers were compelled on ‘‘pain of penalty’’ to conduct offences against the enemy and members of the armed forces couldn’t simply decide not to take any further part in hostilities, he said.There was rarely time for ‘‘calm reflection’’ in armed combat situations which often had ‘‘life or death consequences,’’ he said.

    The prosecution’s inability to find similar cases where manslaughter charges were brought in an active combat situation illustrated the difficulties in proving a duty of care, Judge Advocate Westwood said.

    The case has been described as the first of its kind in Australian history.

    Judge Advocate Westwood indicated the court martial would be dissolved pending any further action by the DMP.

    AAP

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/soldi...#ixzz1MrtDBKIQ

  9. #29

    BAE Systems wins Elbit Systems vehicle contract

    June 07, 2011

    BAE Systems has been awarded a $4.9M AUD contract from Elbit Systems to upgrade 777 military vehicles, as part of the Australian Army's Land 200 Program (Land 75/ Land 125).

    As a major subcontractor to Elbit Systems, BAE Systems will prepare these vehicles, including Macks, Unimogs, Bushmasters and M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs), for the installation of a Battle Group and Below Command, Control and Communications (BGC3) system.

    BAE Systems Australia will carry out the installation activities on the Mack, Unimog and Bushmaster vehicles at the Meeandah Military Facility in Brisbane, and on the M113 APCs at the new 7RAR Facility at Edinburgh Parks in northern Adelaide.

    Managing Director of Elbit Systems in Australia Shlomo Weizer said: "We have selected BAE Systems Australia because of the company's vehicle systems installation capabilities. It demonstrated the technical capability, skilled workforce and capacity to deliver this work across two states."

    In March 2010 Elbit Systems, Elbit Systems was awarded an Australian Government contract for the supply, integration, installation and support of a BGC3 system for the Land 200 Programme.

    This programme will enable the Australian Army to achieve a major portion of its network centric warfare milestone.

    BAE Systems contract with Elbit Systems runs from December 2010 to January 2013.

    "BAE Systems is pleased to be working with Elbit Systems. We believe our experience in vehicle systems integration and engineering design, plus the ability to use the capability of our Defence Logistics team in Brisbane, makes us the right fit," said Kim Scott, Director Land and Integrated Systems.

    Source: BAE Systems

  10. #30

    US special forces kill rogue Afghan soldier who shot dead Aussie cook

    Rafael Epstein
    June 20, 2011 - 3:58PM .

    Afghan rogue soldier shot and killed

    Australian Defence Force confirms the rogue Afghan soldier who murdered Lance-Corporal Andrew Jones has been shot and killed by Coalition soldiers.

    American Special Forces in Afghanistan have shot and killed the Afghan soldier who killed Lance-Corporal Andrew Jones.

    The Australian soldier, aged 25, was shot on May 30 in Afghanistan by the rogue member of the Afghan army who was in a watchtower on sentry duty.

    The circumstances of the Lance-Cpl Jones’s death are not clear, but it seems the Afghan soldier - Shafied Ullah - had only been at the patrol base for a few weeks.


    Lance Corporal Andrew Jones has been remembered as gregarious, popular, cheeky, a true gentleman and a "great cook".

    He shot the Australian three times, as Lance-Cpl Jones stepped out of his tent, and then fled the patrol base, evading shots from another Afghan soldier and a search.

    Australian troops were on a long term deployment with the American Special Forces unit that tracked the Afghan soldier to his home village in Khost Province, close to the Pakistan border.

    It’s understood he was shot after a warning was given for him to surrender.


    Tribute ... mourners carry Lance Corporal Andrew Jones's coffin. Photo: Craig Sillitoe

    Defence Minister Stephen Smith said Shafied Ullah was with his brother at time Coalition forces approached him. He drew his pistol before being shot and killed. His brother was been detained and is being questioned, he said.

    Mr Smith said he was confident Coalition forces had got the right man.

    "We are proceding conclusively on the basis that the murderer of Lance-Corporal Andrew Jones has himself been killed," he said, adding Shafied Ullah had been biometrically scanned to confirm his identity.

    Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston said despite intentions to detain Shafied Ullah, his death could not be avoided after he posed a direct threat to the Coalition Special Forces team carrying out the mission.

    “I understand from reporting received this morning that Shafied Ullah drew a pistol when confronted by the Coalition Special Forces team and was shot and killed,” Air Chief Marshal Houston said.

    “Across the Coalition and the Afghan National Security Forces, there has been tremendous efforts directed towards bringing the man suspected of the shooting to justice and for that support I personally thank General Petraeus and General Karimi.

    “While it gives me no great pleasure that Shafied Ullah is dead, I am pleased that this man no longer poses a threat.

    “The family of Lance Corporal Andrew Jones have been advised and they have requested that the media respect their privacy at this time.”

    The Age has confirmed that since 2001, Australians from the SAS and Commando regiments have served on ''third country deployments'' and in turn have fought alongside some of the most highly classified and best-trained combat groups in Afghanistan. Crucially, the Australian troops have been refused permission to participate in cross-border raids into Pakistan.

    Australia’s Defence Minister will give more details at a press conference shortly.

    Lance-Cpl Jones, from Victoria, was the cook with the 9th Force Support Battalion and the 25th Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan.

    His funeral was held in Melbourne earlier this month.

    -With Dan Oakes in Canberra

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-speci...#ixzz1Poa5dyn3

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts