Technicians are currently – and in secret – disassembling all 45 Army Taipan Multi Role Helicopters and will bury the components on a Defence site. Worth around $20 million each on the second-hand market, the decision has been taken to instead destroy them on the quiet in the hope that no one notices. Ironically the 10-tonne, twin-engine Taipans are being pulled apart rather than cut up because their carbon fibre construction is so robust.
After the publication of the original story – and the shocked reaction to it – Defence Minister Richard Marles now says that the helicopters will be disposed of in a manner that maximises their value, whatever that means. APDR understands that the Federal government has recently received a request for the retired and unwanted Taipans from Ukraine.
The decision to dismantle and bury the Taipans was taken at the same time as an announcement was made on September 29 that they would not return to service following a crash during Exercise Talisman Sabre that claimed the lives of four service personnel. Defence has informally ruled out the helicopter itself as being the cause of the accident.
The Taipans are in excellent condition – and if the Army had been capable of maintaining them, they would be doing valuable work in Far North Queensland right now. As it happens, all that can be deployed are two CH-47 Chinooks that are unsuited to low level rescue work because of the huge down draft from their twin rotors – though they have undertaken huge numbers of disaster relief missions – and some AW139s that operate from fixed airfields.
With the withdrawal from service – and now destruction – a huge capability gap exists for both the Army and Special Forces. Only three replacement UH-60M Blackhawk helicopters have arrived in Australia and none of them are currently operational. Rather than an expedited delivery – as claimed by the government – they were four weeks late.
Army is paying almost $3 billion for 40 Blackhawks.
More than 500 helicopters in the Taipan family have been sold to 14 countries. They outperform Blackhawk in all key metrics – speed, range, payload and cabin volume. Taipan is an extremely modern, fully digital fly-by-wire machine with features such a four-axis flight control system, advanced avionics and world-leading night vision equipment. By comparison, an Army insider described Blackhawk as the aviation equivalent of a “farm tractor.”
Another vital feature for amphibious operations from a safety viewpoint is that Taipan is fitted with flotation devices while Blackhawk is not. This was on display in March when due to pilot error a Taipan ditched in Jervis Bay with everyone exiting the aircraft safely.
It is understood that the accident was due to a senior, but inexperienced, officer at the controls – and because of his rank no one attempted to correct the mistaken emergency procedure being implemented after an engine overheated. If proper protocol had been followed there is enough reserve power on a single engine to get out of trouble. In similar circumstances a Blackhawk helicopter would have sunk, possibly within seconds.
The cause of the Talisman Sabre crash is still being investigated – and the results will probably remain secret because it is already clear that the cause was operator error. That is not necessarily to blame the pilot – who might also have been involved in the Nowra incident – because the weather was bad and the training mission was conducted at low level.
Why senior levels of Defence – and Ministers Richard Marles and Pat Conroy – have gone along with this multi-billion-dollar travesty is unknown. It has been an open secret that the enthusiasm for Blackhawk comes from a small cadre of officers who formed an overly sentimental attachment to them during deployments in Afghanistan.
Rather than sell the Taipans to a competent user, such as Indonesia, Defence instead has offered New Zealand some pieces of hardware – for free. These are likely to include some expensive items such as main, intermediate and rear-rotor gearboxes.
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
It’s not like Ukraine wouldn’t mind a few of those Taipans (supported via France/ Europe).
Would also give the Australian government a public relations bump
Exactly. The situation is completely insane.
The insanity started when the Srmy took control of helicopers from the RAAF . Having spent time training army personnel to maintIn them I came to the con lusion you cant inculcate army with the expertise to correctly manage aircraft so that you always have something to rely on
The entire problem summarised on one comment. Spot on Len.
“Soldier first, aircraft technician second” mentality of Army will never keep aircraft in the air. The RAAF is in the business of making equipment fly, the Army, well, not so much.
Oh lord……typical comments from the Airforce.
The protracted process to secure support from the then RAAF helicopters to be utilised in there primary role in battlefield support. If and when they where released by higher.
Do you say the same of the Navy.
Sailor first, tech next with their air fleet.
Totally agreed. This government is 100% incompetent and utterly useless. What a complete waste of a precious resource. Ukraine would have been fully appreciative of the offer and this blind government would have reaped such great publicity for Australia.
Clearly, it would have been a Win-Win situation for all!
They’re not all being dismantled, two are going to the museum.
Thanks for the additional information.
I worked with Airbus Australia for almost 18 years on both ARH and MRH. We had a saying you should have never given an airwing to the Army as they were scared to fly. The MRH and Tiger were too advanced for the pilots. I am currently working in the middle east still on NH90 but on TTH and NFH variants we currently have 14 aircraft running at around 85% serviceability rate including scheduled maintenance. I have been in the middle east for over six years now and have never seen the issues Australian Army claimed
Thanks for the input – that’s very interesting.
Why would they want a hangar queen?
I completely agree we can give them to Ukraine or sell them to a country that wants to use them. Are we limited by the license? I can’t think of any other reason why we would just scrap our birds without looking at alternatives.
They would need engineers in country from Europe to maintain, they are way too advanced machines compared to the Russian dinosaurs they are used to
Believe me, that’s not a problem at all
This article is clueless on so many levels. You love a taipan love in piece with no actual facts.
Please identify any errors of fact.
You are the investigative reporter, maybe you should do some.
Snappy come back James.
Taipan has never adhere to designed reliability and availability. They were more unreliable under hot weather conditions. They may well operate in Europe as they have cooler climate but not for Australia. Your old mate James is right, may be you should have done a bit more research and spoken to some engineers and technicians who actually worked on this platform.
“They were less reliable in warm weather conditions” Excuse me? Either Spain, France, Belgium or Germany have or have had NH-90s and Tigers deployed in the Sahel (Mali). The Spanish have been there for 6 years. Is this area warm enough for you or not? Furthermore, we must add the added difficulty that the fine sand of the Sahara represents for its maintenance and the temperatures close to 50º C.
Indeed, the NH90 performed very well in the austere environment of Mali. No problem whatsoever regarding performance.
There are so many I don’t know where to start. This aircraft does not out perform the old black Hawk never loved nd the new one. I was qualified on the MRH as well as many years on Black Hawk. The best thing they can do with them is dig a big hole.
Great, intelligent reply with lots of facts listed. Thanks Carl.
Well no offense to the great articles Kym has produced. But Kym does like some of his articles to be purposely controversial and often stupidly so. I recall when he had a National Press Club event (with iirc a defence/aukus spokesperson). And he wasted his question with a stupid “ahah gotcha” question/comment that just went unsurprisingly unanswered.
My understanding is that the MRH program is seriously flawed and as a commenter below already stated being dropped by other countries. Where as the Black Hawks have many users including the super power country, USA. Which means until the Black Hawks replacement is in FOC the Black Hawks will be further developed and funded well. Unlike the handful of NH90 operators. Same story as the Eurocopter Tiger ARH, just not enough users with large enough fleets to warrant decent funding for future developments.
I’m not sure how MRH/NH90 could be considered a failed program when more than 500 of them have been delivered – and they are still being built. Also the US Army is scaling back the use of their Blackhawks / Black Hawks by about 7% this year because they will all be replaced via the Future Vertical Lift Program. The sensible option for Australia would have been to continue operating Taipan and then buy into FVL when it was sufficiently mature.
Faster, greater range, greater payload, bigger cabin – but ” does not out perform the old black Hawk”.
Thanks champ
…and you know Davo…? Have you worked on MRH or Blackhawk?
Seeing the back of this failed platform and imminent replacement with a real battlefield helicopter is a great outcome. The issue to be resolved is how to fix the broken procurement process that delivered Taipan and Tiger
I disagree. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Taipan – and Tiger – it has all been about inadequate Army support processes.
Is that why Norway has retired their fleet early and demanded a refund, with Sweden and Belgium following their lead and looking for a replacement aircraft? Germany and it’s chief of defence has also been extremely critical on it’s under performing and over budget NH90s. It is obtuse to think that the issues with MRH90 are limited to the Australian Army.
Add Greece to the list now. And all (except Belgium) are being replaced by MH/UH-60’s. What a shock…
Weird, given that Germany (one of the countries that form the OEM) had similar experiences as both the RAN (who handballed their MRH, and it’s associated unsustainable maintenance liability onto the) Australian Army.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/germany-pans-nh90-and-tiger-helicopters-for-low-availability-rates/147121.article
Norway also canned their NH90’s in favour of Romeo model Seahawks
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.janes.com/amp/norway-to-replace-nh90-helicopters-with-mh-60r/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
So either all three countries militaries aviation contingents are completely clueless and incompetent with respect to the operation of military helicopters, or you are.
Overall readiness rates in those countries are improving. Germany, Spain, France, Qatar, Oman etc… are currently satisfied with their patterns.
The problem with their fleets was that they were cheaping out on support. If you order spares on demand, rather than keeping stocks, if you outscorce even basic maintenance to the industry, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that you’ll get a very low readiness rate.
France and Germany signed new NOS contracts with NAHEMA in June 2022 and the readiness rate drastically improved. You get what you pay for.
As far as Sweden and Norway are concerned it’s the same issue: you want a tiny fleet of special snowflake NH-90s, that have almost no components in common with the rest of your “Nordic Standard Helicopter” partners, and you keep making major changes during the production process, you’ll end up getting your aircraft late and not within budget.
Well said – that’s a very good summary of the situation.
Kym, how many times have you flown missions in them? Just wondering where your opinion is coming from? Not a single pilot in support of special operations ever wanted the taipans. They are only good in peace keeping support. That was the opinion of all aviation specialists I worked with and flew with. EVERYONE wanted Mike model Blackhawks.
Why would SF pilots have the sole say in selection of a battlefield helicopter?
Their pax wanted a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.
Grunts wanted a bigger cabin.
Starlight wanted a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.
Non SF pilots wanted FLIR and weather radar.
Pussers wanted something that was marinised.
The Mike model wasn’t on offer at the time, the Lima was.
We clearly have a different view of what EVERYONE is..
Or taipan and tiger has poor support processes and the platform is difficult to integrate with the rest of the army architecture.
Did you ever work with the Tiger or the MRH90?
Rubbish
Couldnt agree more.
Then why would the army want them replaced?
I can guarantee you that it’s not Army’s fault. The lack of logistical from the manufacturer was astounding, parts were in seriously short supply and would take for ever to arrive.
Kym I agree with you that they should sell the MRH 90 aircraft and spares. But as usual only part of the story, of the 14 orders , 4 countries have binned the aircraft. Sweden , Belgian , Norway and Australia. Germany may still. As mentioned previously the aircraft are ok for countries that may never use them in combat. You cannot fire the door gun in all operational scenarios because the door slides in front of it! Thats important in combat. Re the floods in FNQ, the CH47’s are not being used to pick people off roofs they are being used for large transport tasks, which they are well suited for. If you need to pick people off the roof then the QEMS and other emergency rotary aircraft are better suited and should be used for those tasks. But we live in a country that allows us to have different options and thats the best thing!
I wish you and your family all the best for Christmas and have a safe new year!!!!
What will happen to explain things in Defence when the new Blackhawks won’t or can’t do missions because of their limitations, that a Taipan alternative would be capable of?
This information is completely incorrect. Fact check before you publish misinformation.
..your article is a pure fan boy piece. Seeing as 4 nations are scrapping or cutting back on the Taipans and that several more have all reported issues in availability due to a lack of spare parts yet you are trying to throw mudd at the ADF when others also have had these issues…. you are making assumptions in your article when other militaries have reported same issues as the ADF so either they all magically became incompetent or there is an issue with the aircraft and manufacturer support of it….
From an outsiders perspective, how many other nations utilise the MRH90 v’s Blackhawk? You have stated it is superior and that only a small number of decision makers who have an afinity for the blackhawk formed during Afghanistan. Australia never deployed Blackhawks to Afghanistan. Surely such a superior platform would be the preference over the ‘average’ blackhawk?
If the taipan is such a great machine, why can’t I get out the door while the gunner covers me?
Why did the crash during Talisman Sabre bring their use to a stop?
They are not battle proven.
The soldiers, which I was want a proven platform.
Why does defence Australia have to mess with everything. The latest is the Hunter Frigate. We have added so much gear to it, it would be beaten by a manly ferry.
The sea sprite acquisition suffered exactly the same issue.
Look at what our closest allies use and buy that.
There is equipment that is optional and the machine guns are chosen by the government of the purchasing country https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zxczrhM8lFA?feature=share
Thanks Pedro. My understanding is that Airbus have made several proposals to the Australian Army about options for mounting machine guns and other weapons on Taipan. All have been rejected. I’m investigating this further and hope to have more details early in 2024.
I agree with Gary having worked for 34 years in Defence procurement with Industry, Capability Development and ADF training. One issue that stands out is the problematic procurement process that delivers capital equipment. The way the Hunter class was selected appears tobe the latest victim in a long and shamefull waste of Defence dollars. (Don’t mention the Seasprite). There continues to be total inconsistency across procurement in attempting to meet ADF customer requirements in accordance with value for money principles.
Why not sell them to recoup some tax payer money. This is beyond belief, no common sense. (CDF) Someone needs to be accountable, that is sacked and sent to hard labour in prison. Words cannot convey the anger of the serving and veteran community.
No body wants them is why…
You cannot gift them to Ukraine either. The manufacturer would have to sign off on them and any associated tech from other countries, they also have a say.
I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with them going to Ukraine. If no one wants them, why have more than 500 been sold, with more to come?
WTF is wrong with this government and the Army’s ‘top brass’?!? You can’t make this stuff up. Yeah the Taipan program has had its issues but surely any decision other than this one would have been better. Marles, Conroy and Albanese are a bunch of clowns and their government is a circus…bring on the next federal election already so we can turf these idiots out!
If it was pilot error then why trash them all?
They’ve had trouble with them from the start
Defence have confirmed – a bit indirectly – that the cause of the TS crash had nothing to do with the helicopter.
I trained on the Taipans and was asked to join as wia crew member, but I declined. These choppers are hated within the service with many dedicated and talented engineering staff leaving the service when they were introduced. Interesting though have heard many are coming back now the Blackhawks are coming back. The Taipan is nothing more than a long range bus suited for disaster relief. The Blackhawks are attack helicopters that are fit for purpose for fighting wars. You wouldn’t take your Tesla traversing rivers in the remote Kimberly in the middle of the wet season, just as you wouldn’t take a Taipan into a war situation
It was never designed to do what army wanted and that is a fact. Not this rubbish
It’s not that “secret” if we’re publishing an article about it, is it?
You’re a moron. There’s a reason they are hated throughout the ADF.
Too complex for Army and Navy “aircraft technicians” to maintain?
Weird how all units supported by industry had higher serviceability numbers than the ones operated by Army and Navy.
The MRH90 demonstrated a high maintenance liability coupled with an OEM unable to provide the parts required to support consistent ROE. Whilst that may not be a fundamental flaw with the aircraft (though the issue with door gun conflicting with fast rope operations could be considered one) mechanical unreliability and OEM logistical shortfalls equates to a failed capability. The sense to disassemble and bury them is debatable, but the decision to acquire the UH60M is based of more than sentimentality, and it’s worth noting that Australia is not the only country to have issues with the NH90.
One has to wonder where all these kudos for the Blackhawk comes from. Their safety record is nothing to be proud off and have many short comings compared to the Taipan. Just because it is used by the U.S. is no recommendation, remember the U.S. is obliged to buy U.S. made equipment , so if it isn’t made in the U.S.A. They have to get Congressional approval to buy it. The whole thing reeks of shady goings on, if the Taipan was as bad as they say why is it successfully operated by so many countries and why is the Government so concerned that they are willing to take a $900 million hit to make sure they aren’t sold off and being proven wrong and why is it being done amid so much secrecy.
I have to take issue with another of the Airbus cheer squad’s comments.
“Just because it’s used by the US is no recommendation” And the same can’t be said for Euro nations with Airbus products?
Blackhawk losses are nothing to be proud of? versus numbers produced/hours flown?
As for “successfully operated by so many countries”, that number is getting smaller all the time, Greece being the latest. And all, except Belgium, are replacing them with the MH/UH-60 family. Funny that. The rest are either Airbus co-dependency Euro countries, countries that cant afford to dump them (NZ) or haven’t figured out for themselves yet they are no good (Qatar) call Finland the first option and Oman could be any one of the other two…
Yeah.. some great armchair quarterbacking from a no. Combat perspective. It like listening to a dude drone on about books he only read that back cover of in the book store. Brutal. Till
You’ve tested this stuff for real, lay off these pieces mate, could have real impact for those making decisions who don’t know betters. These coppers were known to be complete trash by the operational
Community for years
Seriously, Kim. What sort of journalist are you when you can’t even spell (take notice) Black Hawk (two words, not one)…and don’t get me started on the whole “Special Forces” (NOT a proper noun and only idiots who think words are capitalised because they are “important” capitalise it). Given you can’t seem to spell (even though that’s kind of a skill your trade is supposed to have mastered…makes it hard to believe anything else you write, right?), I’m sure you won’t mind me misspelling your name, right?
…you’re also hedging around the “cadre of senior officers” bit a little too daintily. State it up front, Kim, you’re a journalist, not a soldier who is scared for his career. Go on, you can say it: The Hon. Andrew Hastie, former SASR captain and, when the decision was made by him, Assistant Minister for Defence. He’s actually the one who pushed Dodo Dutton (when he was actual Minister for Defence) to approve the purchase. That’s your actual “cadre of senior officers”…any uniformed personnel involved were mere puppets.
Minister are just the ‘rubber stamp’ part of the process. They rely on the depth and integrity of the the testing, proving, and procurement processes that should have been done properly long before it crosses their desk. That is where the problems so obviously were and now the Australian Public have to foot the bill. The efforts now should be towards minimising the financial damage but that doesn’t seem to be a very high priority.
Ukraine requires weapons and to keep their country from Putin. Are you so insensitive about what has been occurring for just under two years in Europe.
Yes! we are far away with also China on our doorstep. Think we should be developing being more initiative with top graded stuff and fordging a greater alliance in the world, remote Australia.
You should get your facts straight before you post your opinionated garbage online. I’m a retired Army helicopter aircrewman with over 2000hrs on Blackhawk and over 300hrs on MRH. You must be getting some kickbacks from Eurocopter to be selling the MRH and Tiger so hard. The fact is, the MRH is comparable to our existing Blackhawks with only marginal increases in performance. The problems we had with the MRH had nothing to do with the our “maintenance capability” but rather the supply of spare parts from the contractor. Other than endurance, the capabilities of the MRH are comparable to that of the Blackhawk with the same Max lift capability due to all up weight limitations. Yes, the MRH is a technically advanced aircraft comparable to a sports car, however not suited to hard work. In comparison the Blackhawk is a proven battlefield helicopter with an excellent safety record. You should stop making assumptions about something you know nothing about. You call into question the competence of Army Aviation aircrew and maintainers to operate and maintain our aircraft sighting Indonesia as a component user…have you ever worked with the Indonesian military? I could go on. I’ll leave you with one last FYI…Army Blackhawks have never deployed to Afghanistan.
Cheers
Steve Lawson
.
2000 hours worth of opportunity to spell Black Hawk correctly..
Excellent safety record? Mark Bingley’s and Joshua Porter’s families would disagree with that, just for starters.
You seem to suffer from some confusion re facts and opinions..
LOL…you got me there peanut…you must be a journalist.
The NH90 has been retired early or problematic in Norway, Sweden, AU, Germany and the Netherlands. The problems seem to be part supply chain, corrosion, and some system issues (fire extinguisher system). I have no doubt there are concerns on the AU side but lets be fair here. The NH90 is a lemon mostly due to it not being properly supported by the manufacturer.
The OEM supply chain has been problematic, but corrosion and fire extinguisher? Corrosion is a problem on all aircraft, exacerbated by the banning of chromate primers across the world more recently, the MRH was not exceptional in this case; corrosion rarely grounded MRH aircraft. And fire extinguishing problem was a thing for about a minute.
Many of the main fleet grounding have been a result of CAMM2 and trying to squeeze a modern aircraft’s policy into a stone age piece of ‘software’ the ADF insists on.
The lemons are the Army maintenance organisations being under resourced, poorly trained and well out of their depth trying to maintain a complex aircraft
I’ve done my best to explain this a few times before. The Norwegian helicopters were always a mess because they wanted to install their own sonar and use their own torpedo – an integration nightmare. The Swedes ordered a much higher cab for the MEDEVAC version of the helicopter which always seemed strange as the cabin is already roomy. If I understand the Belgian situation, they have eight NH90s in two different configurations – and they are finding one of those very expensive to operate, which for such a small fleet is not a surprise. The overall picture is much more positive, with more than 500 of the helicopters delivered. The majority of users are happy and the helicopters are still in production.
Two main factors leading to weak serviceabulity of NH-90/Tiger:
1. development of programs gathering 20 countries to get the necessary economies of scale when US or China only need their domestic market = additional complexity (often unnecessary).
2. as mentionned by Kym inadequate support processes for complex programs (asking the question of the place of outsourcing when miliatry organizations have neither resources nor time or focus to build these competencies).
I have a bit of experience/knowledege and it makes me sad to read Gary’s comments about these programs which he doesn’t really know, I suppose that it is what it is.
Why would the army want and prefer blackhawk helicopter over the NH90 Taipan if the Taipan is better as tou state? I smell bullshit in this guys ramblings as several countries who operate the Taipan saying they all having difficulty with them and are replacing them also.
Mate IF there was nothing wrong with the Tiger, why did they not get working to be able to support the Grunts in Afghanistan?
Vietnam Grunt with 7RAR 1970-71
France deployed their Tigers to Afghanistan in 2011. I know because I was there at KIA. It’s a question for our Army why ours sat on the ground back here.
Yes I am aware of the French use of the chopper in Afghanistan, as a former Grunt incountry (Vietnam) I know first hand the effects of having 100% chopper support on active service.
My question has been asked for 10 years.
I am yet to receive a satisfactory response?
Oink, Tony 7RAR
And in Mali.
But still, the Tiger is indeed more difficult and costly to operate than Apache.
Especially when your troops lack the skills and supplies to do it properly.
Same with the NH90, on paper, it’s a great heli, and when it is available it’s a beast, but the complexity behind it in maintenance makes it a not-that-great workhorse.
However, it would be preferable to resell them in Europe rather than waste them.
But Australia and waste have become synonymous over the last two decades.
Because it didn’t reach FOC until 2016 and there was no requirement for its inclusion in Operation Slipper.
The same reason Australia didn’t send Black Hawks when they were still in service?
The Government wanted to deflect all liability to soldier safety to someone else.
Very happy to allow ADF members to fly in MIL-17 by a military contractor on the cheap.
An interesting thought.
wow … as french Australian now i can give my point of view and i will try to not be too biased.
for start YES the nh90 had huges maintenance issues Eurocopter didn’t do enough for theirs customers that’s for sure but now it seems they are more aware about the problem and try to fix it maybe too late for our army/navy still not enough as far i know 40%of the french fleet is technically operational there is 27 aircraft for the navy and 57 for the army so for a big fleet it’s not too bad but on a Small fleet it is definitely not enough.
BUT yes all the crew are agree this helicopter outperform the other in any points the french army/special forces use the nh90 in very arsh conditions in Africa day and night never had a crash from a technical issue (yet) the navy use it as sar and sub hunting apparently it’s excelling in this field too.
hopefully one day oz will realise they have to fly with there own wings furthermore the Taipan was assembled in Brisbane what killed the Taipan and soon the Australian tigers is the huge lobbying from uncle sam with the green light from our politicians, let’s talk about submarines now?
The Army is not resourced nor adequately trained or skilled to maintain a large fleet of complex aircraft. And there have been noted supply issues from the OEM, no doubt.
A really good solution which would have made everyone happy (except our bedfellows, The US): retire 10-15 aircraft, reducing the fleet to about 30, use spares from the retired aircraft to alleviate current OEM supply issues, and have industry do the heavy lifting in the Maintenance Organisation side of things. In units where industry have run the maintenance, serviceability was high compared to Army/Navy units. This approach would have saved the country $3b for new technically sub-par Black Hawks.
Also, maybe I missed an article Kym, but anything about how the CoA is buying Apaches and Black Hawks, both of which are being scrapped by the US soon? Lot of talk from armchair experts about how procurement got Taipans and Tigers wrong; what about buying soon-to-be redundant Apaches and Hawks?
I agree with your logic – it’s certainly better than burying them. Yes, the US is reducing their fleets.
The did that with the C17 It ceased production in 2015
I believe Papua New Guinea would greatly benefit if they were given them. There any many areas inaccessible by road. It is mountainous and poor.
Indonesia is relatively wealthy and certainly should not be made any more powerful.
Sorry mate but you’re talking rubbish. The black hawk is a proven and developed platform that is robust and reliable. The MRH90 has had nothing but issues, not just in Australia but internationally. I see you mentioned in comments that the tiger was subject to the same supposed lack of adequate maintainance and that’s why its a failed platform, you are largely incorrect about this also.
You make a lot of claims as a “journalist” on very sensitive subjects that you could not possibly be privy too, due to security clearance and need to know, which you do not possess.
What this article is, is misinformation.
Why is it that NZ has been able to operate their fleet of 8 MRHs without problems? The current availability of the Taipan fleet is >70%, which is better than Blackhawk will ever achieve.
Bumped into a Kiwi NH90 Loadie on a course earlier this year and had a good chat with him. RNZAF did have a bunch of servicability issues, mostly around support from the manufacturer, but mostly resolved close to a decade ago.
Thanks – that’s also my understanding. The RNZAF has one of the highest availability rates in the world and it has always surprised me that no one in Army or CASG has ever shown the slightest interest in finding out how they have achieved that result – and then replicated it.
Funny that the Australian Navy had the Seasprites for years spent squillions then sold then to the NZ Gov and they had them flying in a week
Wow, I can’t believe people aren’t seeing the wood through the trees.
The issue at hands is not the Army shouldn’t have replaced the Taipans with UH-60ms, that ship has sailed, it’s a sink cost.
The issue here is that the government and defense have no respect for tax payers money.
There are plenty of options available to disposing of the helicopters in a responsible manner, from selling the helicopters in whole or for parts or even giving them away.
In other words making an attempt to recoup at least some of the billions of dollars of tax payers money wasted in this venture.
The article seems to suggest that these options were only paid a cursory glance if at all.
Correct – burying them seems like an appalling waste of money.
Maybe the Federal Government doesn’t want anyone else to die using these pieces of crap. I used to work for Airbus and they were problematic from acquistion. Death traps.
16 years of ADF flying, one recent fatal crash (cause yet to be published), but they’re ‘death traps’.
Cool story bro.
It is not our fault!
We are only following orders!
Luigi, Dick and Conroy.
Heil Klaus!
No matter what the ADF or anyone else in Australia thinks of the Taipans surely there is a better option than simply scrapping them?
Sell them on an “as is, where is” basis.
Even at a bargain basement price a sale will go close to $0.5B.
This is just layers of stupidity upon stupidity
Couldn’t agree more.
Things that nobody seems to take in account is the fact that Australia wanted to adapt designs to Australian needs(dream?) and to build locally ….even they do not have the know how and capabilities so they failed.
History us repeating with fregates and many current derailing military programs (I do not talk about submarines …)
In the end it seems politics do not want to build capabilities anymore in Australia as they cannot ascertain they will succeed so they prefer to buy US (overpriced or subquality is never important when it is US made). Is US defence transforming in something like Wagner, you can hire for protection.
Buying U.S.A. Doesn’t automatically mean buying the best. The Blackhawk will be Australia’s Helicopter of choice because the U.S. wants it that way, and all the Sikorsky, Lockheed and MacDonald Douglas sycophants will be happy . Untill they start breaking down and it will all be someone else’s fault.
From what I hear no one disputes they’re a Great aircraft… the 5% of the time you can get them the air.
The current Taipan availability rate is >70%.
As Australia is the only country to call them Taipan’s the current availability is 0%
Kym, the NH90/MRH90 worldwide fleet has never exceeded 50% availability for any significant period of time. It currently sits somewhere around 38-43%
and NHI and NAHEMA have admitted this publicly.
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/low-nh90-availability-pinned-on-contract-failings-but-programme-chief-sees-causes-for-optimism/148757.article
Subsequent public articles have quoted NHI executives stating the targets are not being met as promised in the article above. It’s all open source and it doesn’t take much in the way of research skills to find reputable information.
Your previous articles on the topic have also been littered with mistakes and falsehoods and this current article should overall be considered a work of fiction!
Your continual defence of the aircraft and baseless accusations of incompetence within the ADF only serve to show how little you understand the core issues and clearly demonstrates your biases and that you are unable to differentiate fact from rumour.
Check the serviceability rates between industry supported units and those run by army! … oh wait, army doesn’t publish that one!
Baseless accusations my taint!
LOL. Exactly
Pot / Kettle Tim.
You accusing Kym of not knowing the facts – as the previous comment said, it’s a well known fact around the platfom that Army and Navy serviceability rates weren’t even half of what Airbus units had.
In fact Airbus supported MRH units had some of the best rates across all ADF platforms in the country.
Maybe school yourself before pretending to know facts.
Maybe school yourself before
The main airmobile task for the new Blackhawks will be to/from the LHD. Blackhawks have no floats. If the Jervis Bay accident had been in a Blackhawk and not an MRH90, we would have likely lost soldiers. As it was, the MRH – a superbly safe aircraft, remained upright, afloat, and no-one was injured.
Correct.
Completely agree.
Bring back the S61!
Farrkin rock solid, and performs quite nicely with composite blades. 👍
Just took me longer to read the comments, than the article. Certainly a lot of passion in this discussion.
The decision has been made, the down payment made: we are getting Black hawks. That discussion is over, but the very idea of disassembling and burying TAXPAYER money? Everyone reading this should immediately contact all news outlets, and their local MP. This is completely nuts. Give them to each State SES, or sell them for parts, or whole on the open market.
Seriously, this idea of scraping and burying in a hole (also environmental concern about that) should face criminal charges. As far as I am aware these assets are owned by the Australian Government, via the ADF. In other words, we do. Please give me my 10c deposit back.
Kym, Len, et all,
Having worked with Air Force and Army, in flying roles, I did not see a significant difference between the two services and their focus on flight. Both could pull their head out of the sand and take their critical role more seriously. There’s a lot of raging on Army for their system but it was just as robust and the issues being experienced were generally at a tri service level. Defence leadership and command pressures, procurement processes and service governance rather than flight safety.
The article makes so many leaps and has a very one eyed approach to facts. For example “Aren’t being cut because carbon fibre is so robust.” 🙄
Have you seen the news about silica. Do you understand what cutting composite compounds and carbon fibre does? Creates a massive risk. Read “Hazards at a Crash Site”. Stripping an aircraft down doesn’t need to include physically cutting panels.
Investigate harder Kym.
It would appear that Marles’ refutes your article in a media conference.
***
MARLES: We made the decision in relation to the grounding of the Taipan fleet. We are looking at all the options available for maximising the value which sits within the Taipan fleet.
***
Burying it in a hole is not maximising value.
Maybe next time try this thing called asking, not just running a sensationalist and stupidly easily rebuffed headline that calls into question your impartiality.
The story is correct. Minister Richard Marles is (belatedly) trying to save face – and he didn’t address the issue directly. The Department of Defence has refused repeated requests for comment because they have been busted. There’s a lot more on this to come out.
Probably should check your sources Kym. There are many inaccuracies here. Not sure where you are getting your information from?
One simple example being your facts on the AW139. A simple google image search of the Army machines shows they fitted with a hoist. They also have weather radar and are easily the best machines for flood response in the ADF inventory.
Thanks. You are correct about the AW139 and I’ll correct the story. The main point remains about the appalling decision to bury the Taipans – a decision that I suspect has now been put on hold because of the exposure.
As an Australian that lives in Ukraine and see how so many Ukrainians are losing their lives while defence bureaucrats argue over live cung and training etc. Makes me sick. It’s clear the a Labor party has a supporter base still supporting Russia and communist nostalgia. Useful idiots for sure. This is a disgrace to hear they are being chopped up. When I hear Ukrainian women being anally raked until “bleeding and foaming “ fuck the Australian defence department and the defence minister . In a few years after the dust settles and all stories are known , I will make sure that all the bureaucrats involved in stopping defence equipment to Ukraine are outed .
Hi Kym, your work is an inspiration to those who work and fly the Taipan. The truth on what is happening to the MRH90 needs to be told. I spent 11 years working on the MRH90, and yes, there were some minor technical issues. The aircraft is cutting edge technology. The aircrew I serve with, love to fly them. To those who serve/ed in the ADF and say the platform was unsafe, shame on you. Australian Defence aviation is heavily regulated, airworthiness safety management systems and a reporting culture are the backbone of maintaining all our aircraft in the ADF. If you had grounds for concern, what actions did you take? (BASELESS) Those that sit back and post in this forum about safety issues are the toxic ADF culture of “we can’t do”. I didn’t see any ASRs, EARs or safety alerts, high- lighting all these inherent safety issues that warant the label “unsafe”.
I have worked within Navy and Army MRH90 units and met some extremely professional, talented technicians, and then there are those who have no interest in doing the job. The earlier blackhawks, the MRH90s and the new Mikes, will go through the same poor serviceability rates and the public will not remember. Army should not have an aviation component. Check your historical serviceability rates.
CASG, Gen Stuart and CofA, well done in deceiving the Australian public and wasting billions of dollars scrapping a brilliant machine in the MRH90. I wish I could say so much more, but I signed a security act non-disclosure when I lost my job last week. Kym, keep up the good work in getting the word out on the criminal disposal of multi-million dollar assets owned by the Australian public.
There is enough information in the public domain, that the aircraft was not the cause of the Jarvis bay and Hamilton Island accidents. The MRH90 has been scrapped at a huge cost to the tax payer. Will there be any ADF disclosure into the actual root cause of the accident, lessons learned and changes to operational procedures, that will better safe guard our airmen…I doubt it. The ADF will blame the platform, not their operational procedures.
My 2 cents worth
Thanks Stu – I appreciate the feedback. The decision to retire and now physically scrap the Taipans is completely appalling. I have several more stories in the pipeline that will shed more light on this idiocy.
Regardless of the Black Hawk Fan Club prattles on about, the only reason the MH90 is being replaced is that some people in high places are playing politics and pandering to U.S. industrial and U.S. Political pressure. They have no idea what they are doing, so they just blindly follow what they are told..
Ukraine? We would never punish them with these S$@t boxes. We should give these to the Russians, now that would funny!
You are making a habit of posting stupid comments.
Fact is Black Hawk is suitable for Australia and everyone in the Army wanted the Mike model.
Then they asked the pilots what they wanted and MRH90 was more suitable, but what they should have said was we wanted Black Hawk. So they got MRH90
Fact is Australia has the longest supply chain in the world so we should get the product with the simplest supply chain and operating concept that still meets our requirement.
MRH90 is awesome and Black Hawk is good enough.
Definitely should have taken an extra 12 months to allow foreign partners time to approve purchase to reduce financial losses to Australia.
But now we are aligned with the biggest kid if the Pacific and will be safer.
They are just machines and if you have the drive and desire to make a machine work you and can and will. Black Hawk, MRH90, Viper or Supper Puma we would make it work.