The truth is finally starting to come out. It took only 90 seconds and two questions from Senator David Fawcett to Foreign Minister Penny Wong to confirm what many have long suspected – the only thing between desperately needed Taipan helicopters being donated to Ukraine is a veto by the Army, which the government is too weak to overrule.
The following exchange took place on Wednesday 7 February:
Sen Fawcett: The reality is that Ukraine first expressed an interest in using the Taipans for casualty evacuation during a meeting I held with them during a NATO conference in October last year – and I made sure that your government was advised of that interest even before I left Copenhagen and returned to Australia. Minister – why didn’t the Albanese government even bother to pick up the phone to consult the Ukrainians before deciding on a plan to dig a hole and bury the helicopters?
Sen Wong: As I understand it, in relation to these matters the Government has acted on advice from Defence. The advice I have is that the advice from Defence is that these were not the right platform for Ukraine and the Government and Defence made decisions on that basis.
Sen Fawcett: Minister, I think the Ukrainians are well placed to decide what platforms will keep their soldiers alive (shouts of Hear! Hear!). Now that the Government has a formal request from Ukraine – and it has been established that a number of helicopters remain airworthy in Townsville – will the Albanese government reverse its decision and donate the aircraft, even in their current state, to allow Ukraine to work with its NATO partners that continue to safely operate the same type of helicopter to establish an Aeromedical capability to save the lives of their people?
Sen Wong: In relation to this issue, I will continue to take the advice from Defence about the best way forward for this platform, but also I will make the broader point that the government continues to keep under review the nature and breadth of the assistance to Ukraine.
The arrogance of the Australian Army in deciding what is, and what is not, suitable for Ukraine is a level beyond breathtaking.
The last time the Army was engaged in a conflict of the scale and savagery of the invasion of Ukraine would have been during the Siege of Tobruk in 1941 – and even that was a minor skirmish compared with the ongoing assaults being launched daily by Russian forces. Taking into account the static nature of much of the current conflict and the use of massed artillery, and the daily casualty rate, one would need to go back to Passchendaele on the Western Front in late 1917 for a closer analogy.
The armed forces of Ukraine have collected more combat experience in the last two years than the ADF has in the previous six decades. When they say that they can make good use of Taipans it is ridiculous that the Australian Army from the comfort of the offices of Canberra can overrule their request.
Ukraine is well aware that the Taipan/NH90 family have an excellent safety record – and the sensor mix is unmatched in its class.
The motivation is obvious: senior officers in the Army would be highly embarrassed if another nation was able to safely and effectively operate Taipans when they have so mismanaged the program. While prime contractor Airbus Helicopters is not completely without blame, the poor availability of Taipans is explained largely by:
- Not enough trained and qualified aircrew;
- Not enough spare parts ordered;
- Unintegrated logistic data bases such as CAMM2;
- A deliberate unwillingness to learn from successful operators, such as New Zealand;
- Too many geographically diverse centres of support;
- A support contract that gave Defence a perverse financial incentive to ground the fleet;
- Spurious or unnecessary groundings, caused by a failure to implement updates recommended by the manufacturer
This list needs to be combined with an unhealthy, illogical and uncontested obsession on the part of a few senior Army officers to return the good old days of Black Hawk helicopters.
As has been widely reported, the cost to the Australian taxpayer of returning between 12 and 20 helicopters to flying condition will be minimal because there are plenty of volunteers to do the work for free: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-07/last-ditch-offer-to-divert-taipan-helicopters-help-ukraine/103434286
If even that is unacceptable, then the Government should transport helicopters and parts to Europe and let Ukraine’s NATO allies France and Germany – major operators of the Taipan / NH90 family – do the work over there.
At about the same time as Senator Fawcett’s questions, Defence Minister Richard Marles had an extraordinarily softball interview on the ABC’s “Afternoon Briefing” program during which he made a number of inconsistent or misleading claims:
- He said he had no idea how much the Taipan parts would be sold for. How then can he claim that this strategy represents the best value for money for taxpayers;
- Claimed that the dismantling had commenced before the request from Ukraine had been received. This is close to a lie – Senator Fawcett advised the government of Ukraine’s interest around October 10; disassembly started around October 19;
- He said on several occasions that Army faces a major capability gap with the early retirement of Taipans and was unable to say when, or how many, Black Hawks will be fully operational, despite the expedited delivery of 12 of them. Even if the first 12 are operational by the end of 2024 that does not replace 45 Taipans. There is no logical explanation for why this has been allowed to happen;
- Repeated that Australia – not Ukraine – is better placed to decide what is “useful and practical” for the armed forces of Ukraine.
Clearly, the Australian Army has convinced the Government to fully back their strategy of destroying Taipans simply to stop anyone else from using them. In their minds, the fate of Ukraine is far less important than covering up for their own incompetence and mismanagement.
In some remarks at the end of Question Time, Senator Fawcett commented that Army – and the Government – are more interested in saving face than in saving the lives of Ukrainian soldiers. He concluded:
“That is not the Australia that I know. That is not the Australia that has put its shoulder to the wheel many times to support like-minded nations – particularly here, where we are seeing such a great loss of life and injury to their population as they fight against totalitarian regimes in order to protect the democracy that we share and want to preserve.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
Our heads of defence need to get off their high horses and learn how to run their departments properly. Russia needs to lose the war with Ukraine or China is going to alk all over the West. So l would be sending anything l could lay my hands on to help them fight Russia, even our old 303s can still kill. Wake up you textbook soldier bosses. Your actions show you know very little about war.
Thank you,thank for you support from Ukraine!!!!
Congratulations on a well executed story, the digest of information here makes an appalling indictment of the Australian Army’s brass and management, and is well supported with facts, timelines and argument from a deeply experienced journalist…
It’s so bloody difficult to fathom how this was not granted, it’s without question a stain on the character of both government and Army collaboratively.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
David, I suggest you read the senate estimates transcript for yourself before accepting a narrative as silly and as biased as this.
It is an offence to lie to a senior officer as a subordinate, an offence to mislead parliament and an offence to lie to senate estimates. Apparently everyone involved is willing to risk prosecution because they don’t want to be ‘embarrassed’ when the magical Ukrainian maintenance warlocks show us how it’s done. In the middle of a war. With the most expensive and maintenance heavy helicopter in the world.
It’s just such a ridiculous narrative from Kym.
Feel free to provide some evidence that the NH90 family are the most expensive and maintenance heavy helicopters in the world. But even if they are, so what? There’s far more capability in them than, say, a Black Hawk.
The data are there, in senate estimates, and in every country’s reports on their programs. Each country calculates their costs slightly differently, but most use some variation on total sustainment cost / flying hours achieved. That is why small fleets tend to be more expensive than larger fleets, and why costs go down when hours go up.
Secondly, it is incorrect and rather imprecise to say there’s “far more capability in” an NH90 compared to a Black Hawk. The NH90 has around twice the internal fuel of a Black Hawk, but can only move a limited load when full of fuel. When presented with the same cargo weight as a fully loaded Black Hawk, NH90 may actually have less range, depending on configuration. UH60M almost always lifts more on the external hook than NH90, but NH90 has a ramp and a FLIR, whereas a FLIR is an add-on for land Black Hawks.
It’s different, it’s swings and roundabouts, and it’s never, in practical terms, “far morel
For the NH90 try adding that it has a weather radar. Try flying a Black Hawk in poor conditions. Also an emergency flotation system so if it has to ditch it actually floats while a Black Hawk would sink like a stone (ditto Sea Hawks). 4-axis flight control system; EWSP; rear ramp – just a few more things.
Kym, I can’t reply under your latest post but this is a reply to your rebuttal of my statement about NH90 vs MH-60R.
Your “top trumps” framing of capability is not useful. The actual reasons for the painful decision to transition from Taipan early were cost, availability and program performance.
The ADF spent 15 years giving it their best shot with Taipan. I reject utterly the notion that Army was incompetent or that they failed to make it work. They made a rational decision to reduce sustainment cost while simultaneously improving availability and reliability.
Army was able to surge to deploy 8 or 10 Taipans on exercise every year, usually twice. They deployed Taipan over a dozen times on HA/DR ops, embarked in LHD and maintained an excellent aircrew and maintenance training throughput.
But t was a project of concern from 2011. Across those 15 years it never cost less than $27000 an hour and 30 maintenance man hours per flying hour to operate – usually much more. For all that effort, coupled with huge and very good industry support, they got about 50% of the availability they would have achieved with UH-60, while sometimes spending four times as much per hour.
Just like my argument for Ukraine, this is not about NH90. It’s about the RELATIVE cost for the same number of flying hours when you have a choice between platforms.
UH-60M EWSP and AFCS are perfectly fine. Taipan’s ramp was good, but not a critical discriminator. The lack of floats is the only point you made with any weight.
This is crazy, Ukraine want them yet we are going to bury them in a hole. Insanity. Lets see if social media can make them see sense.
It’s important that every Australian be made aware of this lunacy.
As a former soldier, I can attest the brass were reluctant to give our own soldiers the tools they needed to do their jobs. Not surprised they care even less about Ukraine.
Same here as a former soldier I agree with your statement. Never had the tools to do the job, always playing catch up. Buckets of bullet cames to mind! (Must say this in a loud voice when you run out of bullets on exercise because there is no funds available for more! )
Yep, the late 70s were a bad time for the Army, Willy
It seems that this travesty is going to happen whether we like it or not. No one in the Government has even made an attempt at giving a reasonable explanation, preferring to throw Defence under the bus. The shadowy references to “advice from Defence “ is wearing thin. If Marles doesn’t have the stomach to stand up and demand answers he needs to relinquish the Defence Portfolio and get some one who will into the job. Who ever is making decisions on Defence must either work for China or the United States.
Agree.
Really Kym? You agree that whoever is making decisions on defence must be working for China or America?
Any specifics? Is it the minister you think is treasonous, or the CDF?
Come
You should tell your readers which defence decision maker you think is working for a foreign power.
I don’t know what this comment refers to.
You agreed to Michael Allyn’s idiotic assertion that “ Who ever is making decisions on Defence must either work for China or the United States”.
A real credit to you Kym and thank you. Your persistence in pursuing this disgusting Chapter of Australian Army Aviation is commendable. The truth needs to come out about this project and the morons responsible for such incompetence within Australian Army Aviation need to be sacked, yet without doubt the nepotism, scapegoating, lying and incompetence will continue. Sadly, they will repeat the same accidents as before, in their shiny new Blackhawks
Thanks. I dream of the day when someone is finally held to account.
For gods sake let ukrain have these heiicopters and stop being stupid
Exactly.
Maybe it’s high time to revisit the ridiculous decision instigated by the then Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Gration, to remove the helicopters from the RAAF control and transfer them to the Army. The RAAF is far more experienced in airworthiness issues.
Hi Michael,
Perhaps it is. I would be interested to hear what, exactly, you think Air Force would have done differently.
Please avoid generalities and magical thinking in your reply. If Air Force doesn’t bring more money, more people, more tolerance for risk or lower expectations to the situation then the outcomes will be the same.
As an ex member of the ADF I find this behaviour appalling. For goodness sake let Ukraine have these chopper.
I am so ashamed of our government and defense force these days, I use to love the defense force, I blindly supported it, now I can see how rotten it is and I want no part of it
Albanese should have shown leadership and sent the Taipans to Ukraine
I agree. He is meant to be in charge.
As a former member of the Army and Army Aviation who worked on MRH this article didn’t even raise my eyebrows. Nothing new here, situation normal, please don’t look further into this the feathers shall not be ruffled, preening and potentating shall not be interrupted. Marching up and down the parade square crack on.
Good read
Thanks – and nice input.
Hold on Kym, how can you be sure it wasn’t Tom who was deliberately trying to ruin the MRH program?
Surely you must be suspicious that he, as an Army member who worked on MRH was malevolent and incompetent, as seems to be your theme here.
And if Tom’s in the clear, where does the rot start? Was it Tom’s OC? His CO? The Forces Commander? I would like to hear at what level you think the lying and deception and self preservation started so we can get to the bottom of this.
I’m sorry – who is Tom?
Tom is the original poster who worked on MRH and just knows Army Aviation is hopeless.
Your contention is that ADF or Army leaders are incompetent and/or dishonest. Yet the only person who claims to have worked on MRH90 p, Tom, gets a free pass.
So if it’s not Tom, who was it? Where does the rot start, Kym? I am genuinely interested.
This is a shameful indictment of a spineless government and arrogant Senior Army leaders. Australia have embarrassed again by a Government who is unable to think for itself or make the hard (sic) decisions. Aided by Army brass who haven’t got the (brass b****) to admit they were wrong.
Heaven help Australia
The current state of world politics/ warmongering is so comparable to the 1930’s build up from the nazi’s in europe & the japanese in asia.
Only now we have the Russian war machine in action in europe & chinese build up in asia and elsewhere.
How scary is this decade going to be with such idiots in power in Austalian defence force managenent and in government.
Australia is 80% reliant on the US forces to step in and help if & when china starts pushing very hard at us.
When will common sense prevail in our defence management to make timely decisions and ordering for all the weapons our defence forces need.
No more delays, save our country now by making sensible decisions for ordering and give the taipans to Ukraine for gods sake.
A friend of mine was in Avdiivka and made the ultimate sacrifice last year. He was an Australian volunteer (one of many). Such donations of weapons would honour their deeds and sacrifice as well as aid Ukraine. If the situation cannot be saved, then it needs to run its course and create the biggest stir possible. This is a waste in every category, as you’ve shown.
I’ might share this update with my particular Ukraine War reddit, along with my apology on the nation’s behalf.
The situation is a national embarrassment.
This is the type of idiocratic political chicanery that we sadly have become so used to, covering up a top heavy military Cabal that refuses to own their own lack of foresight to enable a massive expense in public funds to be rescued because they are too arrogant to learn from the mistakes they constantly make. These helicopters can save lives and enable the AFU the chance to fight against a tyrannical dictator who wastes lives like the ADF wastes opportunities and the public purse. I suggest a Royal Commission into this fiasco, before the Army buries it’s mistakes much like they have always done. The government is there to lead, not to be led by the nose mush like pigs to the trough of unlimited public funding. BE LEADERS WORTHY OF RESPECT, Not insipid little people unworthy of another term in office. Those responsible must be held accountable, not given a promotion and another chance to colloquially screw the pooch, again.
Even a small amount of accountability would be extremely welcome.
I could not agree with you more, it is a dissgrace that arragance and self importance have the power to let these helicopters be buried when they could be helping to save life’s and stop people of the free world from being buried.
I’ve just been to a media conference with Pat Conroy on a different topic and he said with Taipan “we should all move on.” No we shouldn’t – we need to find out who has been making these appalling decisions and hold them to account.
How many bullets would the cost of Royal Commission buy.
Several people have suggested a Royal Commission. Unfortunately both sides of politics are colluding with this coverup – and even the Greens aren’t particularly interested. At one point I hoped there might be a Senate inquiry, but the Coalition is running from this at a million miles and hour – with the exception of Liberal Senator David Fawcett. Shadow Defence Minster Andrew Hastie seems to have gone into witness protection, probably because he doesn’t want to upset his pals in Army.
Let us remember that the acquisition of these helicopters was vehemently opposed by Defence, including Army Aviation. Despite this our politicians saw fit that the MRH90 was a more strategic choice, bringing jobs and linking to an earlier purchase from Eurocopter, the ARH Tiger. The MRH90 is hands down a more capable platform than any US offering, but lacked the expertise and experience that comes with hundreds of thousands of total flying hours. Airbus also have a lot to answer for when it comes to supply chain support. There were many Defence personnel who dedicated years of sweat and tears into making the project work. It is disgusting that our politicians are now throwing Defence and Army Aviation under the bus. Our leaders are ironically and very predictably showing a distinct lack of leadership. Almost as bad is the Australian public buying their rhetoric and throwing stones at the very people who warned against the purchase and then did everything to keep it flying, including most recently sacrificing their lives. Don’t be so naive to think Defence and Army Aviation are blocking the aircraft from Ukraine.
Thanks Paul. My recollections are quite different. Tiger won the ARH competition by a wide margin, offering the required capability at a lower price and with a far higher level of AIC than anyone else. It was clearly recommended by Defence. Taipan was a slightly different story with Black Hawk judged to be roughly similar – and in that case the decision was left to Cabinet. I agree that Airbus could have done a far better job with both platforms, particularly in the early years, but the bulk of the support difficulties are elsewhere. I don’t doubt that there were many service personnel totally devoted to their jobs.
I wish someone were actually throwing Defence and Army Aviation under a bus. That’s the problem – no one is. There is no accountability whatsoever as far as I can see.
As far as I can tell it is 100% Defence and Army Aviation who are against the transfer to Ukraine – that’s the entire point of my article. If you have any additional information you can contribute, please do so – I think it’s really important to get to the bottom of what is going on. You mention the sacrifice of lives and I hope the findings of the Talisman Sabre crash are made public because they will show that the problem was not with the Taipan. There is blame to go around – but that is at a higher level and for that reason I suspect that the findings will never be released.
Even if it was cheaper to dismantle and bury the Taipans then to transport them to Ukraine. Sending them would be a massive diplomatic win. Not only would we be assisting Ukraine to help save the lives of their people (like South Korea, something they will remember) but we would also send a message to all our current and potential future allies as well as our future potential rivals that we are serious about supporting democracy and upholding the rules based international order.
You can’t put a price on that kind of positive diplomacy. Proceeding with the current state of affairs will have the opposite effect.
Thanks Kym for really pushing this issue.
Thank you for persevering with your exposure of this fiasco. The US loyalists in Defence are so determined to equip us with everything American that they are prepared to deny usable equipment to Ukraine to prevent them showing that Taipans can be used in a real war situation. Heads should roll.
It is time that this country woke to itself. Our Indonesian neighbours are currently building fighter jets using a lot of stolen designs from South Korea. We can’t build a training aircraft we can however build submarines diesel electric if needed. We are clever enough to design our own submarines and if necessary have them sitting on hard blocks awaiting there nuclear engine’s. We could buy a small nuclear power plant from Boeing/Rolls Royce. However this is just to simple a fix. We need more frigates more destroyers 3 aircraft carriers and lots of high speed corvettes to patrol our long borders. Where will we get the crews a by offering excellent service conditions and paying top salaries. If not bring back conscription our current unemployed you would be a place to start. Mr Albanese could also send 500,000 155mm howitzer projectiles and powder charges.
You are correct – there are many things that Australia could and should build. It’s a matter of money – but mainly the political will and determination to get things done. Taiwan with both a smaller population and economy than ours managed to build a modern diesel electric submarine in less than 10 years. There are plenty of other examples of much smaller countries out-performing Australia, such as Sweden and Israel.
There is one small factor to be considered: Unions. The Unions have never been supporters of Defence and if they were then we’d have a far better Defence industry.
I see zero evidence of that.
We do not need conscription, we need National Service, for all. People with missing limbs, in wheelchairs etc. can easily replace the desk bound.
Coupled to this travesty, can APDR shed any light on whether AFR’s claim that Ukraine rejected the 41 legacy ex RAAF Hornets marooned in Guam as ‘flying trash’ is accurate, or more blatant lies circulated by DOD – Government and mainstream media to justify Australia’s indefensible neglect of Ukraine ?
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/ukraine-to-australia-we-don-t-want-your-flying-trash-20240130-p5f0zo
I have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim in the AFR. It doesn’t sound like the way the Ukrainians speak – who in my limited experience are extremely professional and measured – and my guess it’s a very obvious plant from within a very nervous and embarrassed DoD to discredit them.
Congratulations on your campaigning to correct a policy decision that clearly seems completely inappropriate in the context of permantently disposing of a large fleet of modern military helicopters when a pro-Western nation, Ukraine, is fighting for its national survival in the face of overt, brutal, Russian hostility. What is it that motivates Western governments to make ridiculous defence procurement and operating decisions that don’t stand up to any serious examination of key factors? This is by no means restricted to Australia and the awful Taipan saga, as in the UK we have had decades of similar mad decisions, including disposing of the entire Harrier fleet a decade before the first F-35B would be delivered, withdrawing all the Sentry AWACs radar aircraft years ahead of any Wedgetail deliveries, and perhaps worst of all, withdrawing the remaining fleet of C-130Js, the most reliable and flexible modern RAF tactical transports, when there are insufficient A400Ms available and they are too big for many important Special Forces roles! The list of failed UK military projects, over-spending on a vast scale while under-delivering on much-needed new capabilities, has become a national scandal. And this is under a Conservative government that claims to put defence first. It looks as if a new incoming government in London might be Labour flavoured, and that brings little comfort for some of us. Looking at what might emerge in Washington DC regarding new US defence policies at the end of this year is also less than re-assuring! We can but hope that Ukraine is not left without wholehearted Western support when Russian pressure increases. The Taipan story does not send the right messages to Moscow and wider afield to give potential enemies any reason to re-think their own aggressive intentions.
Thanks Richard – particularly for all the additional detail about what is happening in the UK. When it comes to project acquisition and delivery, it might be worth studying how efficient countries do it. South Korea is a case in point, even noting the differences in culture and strategic circumstances.
the US bought Harrier cheaply. Almost stole it. I reckon Harrier could be made new today and still be affective
A very good article Kym I am taking a different slant on this, the Government can override the military in all aspects thus by them saying it was the military who shit canned the idea of sending them to Ukraine, I have my doubts.
Ever since this Government came to power they have placed barriers in the way of defence procurement by their continual reviews with nothing gained, in fact we have gone backwards.
The military are unable to deny this accusation, so to me I still think this is a Government decision.
That’s certainly a valid perspective, but I cannot think of a reason why the Government would have ordered the Taipan fleet to be cut up and buried. What would be in it for them? As I have written, logically the only people who benefit are Army because now they can continue to smear Taipan. People forget that after the RAN Seasprites were cancelled in 2008, after a 2 year gap NZ purchased them – with all of the Australian-specific mods removed – and they have been flying them ever since. I think Defence were and are hugely embarrassed by that and were determined not to repeat that mistake, irrespective of the cost, or the missed opportunity to help Ukraine.
But feel free to elaborate. You are correct about the debilitating number of reviews.
Many years ago i was in charge of maintenance of electronic equipment in a RAAF aircraft squadron. Despite one of my technicians finding and solving a problem that had plagued a radio transmitter/receiver in the Caribou aircraft for several years the hierarchy in Support Command later decided to replace that particular piece of equipment despite me providing an extensive report that we had solved the reliability issues of this equipment.
I can’t help but imagine how huge the holes will have to be dug to bury the Arafura’s and Spartans
Touché Trev 😉
As a kiwi I find it hard to believe how Australian taxpayers can sit back and allow a relative new platform be stripped down and dumped in a whole in the desert, your Government must have one very good money printing press.
In NZ the new Govt wants to align new defence purchases in line with Australia but NZ does not have the printing press you seem to have so I hope we stay more independent defence purchase wise, we made a limited number of NH90 work well and have had good value for money out of your old Seasprites although they are now getting harder to keep airworthy as the type is no longer supported by Kaman, however if rumours are true we are looking to lease 4x Royal Navy AW159 Wildcats with the RN to maintain them. These will be interim measure until the Seasprite replacement is decided.
Thanks Chris. The Seasprites are a good example of what I’m referring to. Australia cancelled the program but NZ bought them from Kaman after the Australian-specific software had been removed. As you say, they must now be running out of life.
Australia has had a habit of modifying any major Defence acquisition to suit its own purposes. The Seasprite being a glaring example. The three best (modern0 acquistion projects were the C-17, Super Hornet and Growler, why? Because they were bought off the shelf.
AW159 very nice bit of kit
Hi Kym now can someone wake up our government and the RAAF and donate the 40 or more FA18 Hornets they have stored in sheds on Guam instead of just sitting there and rotting why can’t we gift them to Ukraine they can’t be that different to fly than the F16 surely and I know they are a damn good plane or why did the RAAF keep the super Hornets and the UAF no doubt could beg the USAF for the upgrades needed
Damn DJT
What’s happening is a disgrace.
My God, what an embarrassment for the Australian people to allow their government and army, to make such a ridiculously stupid decision to destroy any weapon that would be useful to Ukraine, in its heroic battle with one of the monster countries of the world, Russia
I agree – but the government shows absolutely no sign of backing down, for reasons I cannot understand. And the opposition is also completely silent – with the notable exception of Senator David Fawcett. They are all too timid to criticise the Army.
what is the fate of the Australian retired F18’s and our European attack helicopters that are soon to be replaced?
On current trends I assume the Tigers will also be cut up and buried somewhere.
This situation along with the decision to scrap/ sell highly modified F/A-18 jets with low mileage makes me wonder about the decision making process in Canberra. The Ukraine War has demonstrated that in a high intensity conflict the ability to replace lost hardware faster than the enemy is paramount. We have been spoilt with no major conflicts since WW2 – therefore our defence procurement and overriding strategy has been to lovingly tender to a handful of pretty technological toys that will be expended in the first week of a high intensity conflict. The regional tension building up over the South China Seas should see us amassing as much useful hardware as we practically can – instead of storing it, we’re either destroying it or not giving it to those who could use it to put dents in potential future adversaries – unbelievable.
All of the “new” M1A2 tanks countries like Australia and Poland have bought are in fact refurbished and update M1A1s stored by the US since the end of the Cold War. The production line shut in 1996.
yes the US now has a new electric Abrams. Why didn’t we get the new panther?
Although you are probably correct. I’m not buying the shift in responsibility. If it is as the Minister claims then why have the Minister? He is clearly obsolete because he isn’t leading and instructing the Army. The Army are leading and instructing him. Seems utterly pointless position and waste of money to have this Minister at all. In addition, given the Minister is clearly incompetent, where is the leadership from the current PM? None to be seen. Again.
The opposition should be making much more noise about this but every week there seems to be another example of incompetence and lack of ethics from this government. Perhaps the opposition can’t even keep up?
The current Ministers – including the PM – seem to think that their job is to do whatever Defence tells them. I think the Opposition are just scared to criticise the military, ever.
A disgraceful blight on Australia, the government and the army
Indeed.
47 MRH-90s were contracted to provide over 10,000 hours per-annum but in the final 2 years of service, this was less than 3,000 hours per-annum. That can only keep 40 pilots and 40 crewmen flying to a minimum acceptable level of 150 hours. That’s 3 flying hours per week. This is not fair on the aircrew but even less fair on the maintenance personnel who were pouring over 60 hours per week to make these aircraft fly for only 3 hours.
What chance does Ukraine have of being successful with these aircraft with limited resources.
Thanks Charlie – can you confirm that you are a serving member of the Australian Army? As I have written extensively, most of the availability issues of Taipan can be traced to Army’s own support processes and sometimes things as simple as not ordering enough spares. The decision about whether Ukraine can support a small fleet – as New Zealand has been successfully doing for years – is surely a decision for Ukrainians themselves and not some pen pushers sitting in Canberra. Ukraine is fighting for survival – a concept that seems totally alien to Australian decision makers.
Kym, regardless of the operator, regardless of nationality, regardless of messaging, the NH90 is the most maintenance intensive and expensive helicopter to operate in the world, with the possible exception of the CH-53K and the presidential fleet of Sea Kings.
It doesn’t matter whether we have a defunct fleet, the Ukrainians are lucky enough to NOT have a fleet of NH90s right now.
If Australia wanted to help Ukraine we would be seeking to provide them with a reliable aircraft that is cheap to operate. Ideally one they already operate, like additional Mi-17s.
Your fixation with MRH indicates to me that you are motivated more by animus towards Army than charity for Ukraine.
There could be no more expensive option more likely to fail than providing Ukraine with disassembled Taipans.
The reason the minister accepted defence’s advice is because that advice was correct.
Why do people insist on making decisions for Ukraine about what they can and can’t operate? I think the people best placed to make those decisions are the Ukrainians themselves.
No.
The decision on what to do with defence equipment owned by the Commonwealth lies with the Australian Minister of Defence.
If you offered the Ukrainian Air Force a genuine choice, between free MRH90s and free ‘literally anything else’ they would choose the other option.
Your framing of this issue is 180 degrees out
How do you know what the Ukrainian Air Force would do? Do you speak regularly with them? Why did they make a formal request for the Taipans on December 17?
Your tolerance of trolls is quite extraordinary Kym, it’s matched only by said trolls’ selective memory of the Australian Army’s track record re deployment of ‘battlefield helicopters’ in the 21st century. From 2012, Italian Army NH-90s clocked over 5,000 combat hours in Afghanistan AND Iraq, yet over nearly two decades of ADF operations across the Middle East, neither Australian Army Black Hawks or NH-90s were ever capable of supporting ADF members in harms way.
“April 2009 DEFENCE chief Angus Houston advised the Rudd government that army should not deploy its battlefield helicopters to Afghanistan because they lacked protective armour and defence systems. Army never deployed its Black Hawks, despite special forces troops saying the aircraft would have made combat operations more effective and safer.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au.black-hawk-combat-choppers-denied-afghan-aussie-troops
https://www.blogbeforeflight.net/2020/07/italian-army-nh90-helicopters-5000-flight-hours-afghanistan.html
https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/10/italian-nh-90-helos-5k-fh/
Oh and prior to Morrison & Dutton inviting Lockheed Martin to plunder Australian tax payers AGAIN, a top U.S. military watchdog confirmed the Black Hawks the United States was supplying to the Afghan Air Force were less capable and harder to maintain than the Russian-made Mi-17 Hip helicopters they had.
https://www.twz.com/21558/pentagon-admits-afghanistans-new-black-hawks-cant-match-its-older-russian-choppers
Replying to Kym’s post “how do yo7 know what the Ukrainians want?”
I don’t need to know what the Ukrainians want to be able to say they would be better off in every way if Australia found some Mi-17s and donated them instead. That option might even might even be cheaper for Australia.
Also for Mike Sierra re: Afghan Black Hawks.
I agree. Mi-17s are usually* cheaper than Black Hawks, and they are an order of magnitude easier to maintain if you’ve been operating that type for 20 years already, like the Afghans and the Ukrainians.
It is beyond dispute that Black Hawk is cheaper in dollar and maintenance terms per hour than NH90, so what I think you are saying is, for utility and cost effectiveness, Mi-17 > Black Hawk > NH90. Again, I agree.
There are other considerations which would make Mi-17 a better choice for some specific customers, like whether the maintenance manuals have been translated into Dari from Russian. And yet others which would disqualify Mi-17 for some customers, like compliance with modern engineering and crashworthiness standards.
*weirdly, because they could not deal directly with Russia for spares and consumables, for a period the Mi-17 fleet supporting Afghan training in America had the highest operating costs for RW aircraft in the US Army.
Replying to Mike Sierra.
The Australian Army RW contribution to Afghanistan was a detachment of Chinooks, from 2006 – 2013. There was advocacy to deploy Black Hawks to the MEAO instead, but this would have been at the expense of CT support in Australia, and would have competed with the ongoing East Timor deployment (1999-2004 and 2006-2012?).
EWSP was a factor, but you may recall Army solved that problem with Chinooks through a rapid acquisition. That they didn’t do so for Black Hawk would indicate that it wasn’t the primary reason for keeping them out of the MEAO.
The link provided confirms a EWSP project for a dozen Army Black Hawks had the green light, discrediting the premise of Angus Houston’s remarks. Bottom line, Chinooks were deployed because Black Hawk performance is seriously degraded by the inherent density altitude issues of operations in Afghanistan.The size/climate of both the Australian continent and its defence budget coupled with the ADF’s island hopping littoral ambitions, make additional Chinooks the only rational choice for Army until the V280 Valor is made available to foreign buyers. Afghanistan and the Chinook’s power, range, speed and payload proved the Black Hawk’s lower operating cost is a crippling false economy in war time, particularly with special forces work.
Thanks Mike.
Reply to Mike Sierra ref: S-70 EWSP and Chinook.
Every aircraft’s performance is degraded by high Density Altitude.
EWSP was a solvable problem for S-70. I think the main reason for not deploying Australian S-70s was concurrency rather than performance or EWSP, but the CDF at the time chose to emphasise performance issues.
I also agree that Chinooks are an essential element of Army’s Air Assault capability. But I don’t think it would be wise to have no UH capability until FLRAA is available.
Hi Kym
Have you ever considered that Australia’s military (and wider government) now want to bail out of the latest Failed US Coalition War – this one unfortunately being Ukraine?
There is now a trend of no hope destruction and defeat in Ukraine because Russia is now tooled up as a near-war economy with more plentiful artillery shells, missiles and other munitions. Putin knows most of the Russian public (like Dubya Bush was vis a vis American public) back a viable War Leader.
So no Taipans or other long distance airmail Aussie gifts anymore and no Aus Embassy in Kyiv (as it would become a Zelensky complaint ear).
Australia is actually exerting its independence in no longer signing up to American Coalition wars in Ukraine and in the Red Sea (anti Houthis patrols).
All sad but true.
That’s an interesting view, but not one that I share. Unfortunately I see zero evidence of an independent Australian foreign policy. The failure to provide aid to Ukraine seems to be based on inefficiency and incompetence rather than a deliberate change of direction.
Service ceiling Blackhawk : 20,000 ft (6,100 m) at 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) GW all engines operating (AEO)
Density altitude changes due to temperature and humidity changes