Aussie MRH-90

[Bushranger 71]

Hi slow-n-low; your Post #263 was enlightening and you raised some very interesting points.

A recent 3 man investigation into the dire situation regarding RAN ship maintenance revealed that a prime cause was the Navy's 'can do' culture. Apparently, warships have often been withdrawn from scheduled maintenance/refits to comply with political requirements resulting in snowballing deficiencies and deteriorating operational functionality. According to a serving member source, some vessels on which millions of dollars are now being spent might not see further service.

I was fortunate to serve in an era when many Officers at the operating level (Wing Commander downwards) had significant operational experience and were quite prepared to question the actions of higher authority, if they thought directions imprudent. Seldom did situations emerge where maintenance schedules and planned flying rates of effort were ignored to achieve unwise rates of effort. That was just sensible management of air resources.

These days, the ADF culture seems to be one of career ending sanctions if anybody dares question directions of higher authority. A 'can do' syndrome may have been a reason for instances post-1989 when Army Aviation appreciably overflew planned maintenance capacity resulting in rows of aircraft just pushed aside at times gathering bird****.

A 'just make it work' mantra for Tiger and MRH90 in particular is unlikely to yield adequate levels of capability, as the Air Force proved with the CH-47C despite the comprehensive RAAF engineering resources then existing. The Charlie model Chinook was really a technical dog that ultimately had extensive systems redesign and power plant enhancements in later models.

An aspect of concern with new platforms is the bent of DoD/DMO to involve in hugely costly whole of life maintenance support contracts which might greatly limit ADF flexibility regarding force structure variations for unforeseen reasons. For example, if the MRH90 proves such an expensive dog that it is not worth keeping in service, might there be contractual cost penalties regarding maintenance support no longer required?

I am with you on spending money in the right direction to assure adequate capabilities that can do the job, ergo my advocating progressive optimisation of proven platforms at modest cost. Maintaining adequate and credible military preparedness ought to be the primary goal, enabling of course enough flying to keep all the boys and girls sufficiently proficient for operational employment.