Australia rejects Ukraine helicopter request

[BigMike]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/unjustifiable-top-security-experts-slate-the-governments-rejection-of-ukraines-dire-request-for-military-helicopters/news-story/5f49142bde47fc3b315aff0943d7e8fc

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x366/5be3b4e1d0766ba5d03377f56c9d72f2_539dff2fe19866f1ca4b14a9d96 da54fc58116e2.jpeg

[Tickle]

Their request was 3 months too late apparently, after disassembly for disposal had begun.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Their request was 3 months too late apparently, after disassembly for disposal had begun.
It's a pretty thin excuse. If you're disposing of a useful military asset at the moment, the first question you should be asking is "would this be useful to UKR", not "can I sell it for parts to make some money back"

[Bravo73]

“before suggesting it was simply the "cheapest thing to do" to disassemble and bury the choppers on a defence site.”

Wow. Someone in Oz really hates those things.

[bigglesbutler]

Could we not sell them cheap to the companies fighting fires around the world? Justa thought.

[Ascend Charlie]

We have an idiot as minister for Defence and a PM who doesn't want to upset China, Russia or any muslims. They couldn't get them fully serviceable in how many years, but manage to get them all totally unserviceable in a few months. So poor.

[ericferret]

We have an idiot as minister for Defence and a PM who doesn't want to upset China, Russia or any muslims. They couldn't get them fully serviceable in how many years, but manage to get them all totally unserviceable in a few months. So poor.

What Australia has done is to stick two fingers up to the defence of western europe.
Fair enough their choice.
Our choice when China comes knocking on Australias door.

[Lonewolf_50]

eric, I appreciate the sentiment (I too find the choice to bury them unfortunate) but I am pretty sure that Oz isn't looking to the UK as their primary ally/support if and when China comes knocking, all AUKUS considered.

Based on some of the nuttier logistics and systems decisions that over the years have happened over here in the land of Yanks, I am going to guess that someone ran a spread sheet / calculation on what it would cost to box them up and ship them to Ukraine from OZ, along with spares and tools, etc.
It was discovered that it would cost more money than they wanted to part with.
(And maybe someone knew someone who could bury them at a certain price and a deal was in the works?)

Getting someone else to cover the shipping may not have occurred to the functionary who was looking into this...

There's a supply/logistics nuttery thread in MIl Aviation with similar stores of "Wait, you did what?" as regards that side of mil aviation. This seems to fit in a similar category.

[hargreaves99]

they would sell well on ebay, for people converting them into AirBnB places.

eg

https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/20923814/helicopter-stay-airbnb-army/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11020727/Heir-BNB-Prince-Williams-helicopter-turned-159-night-glamping-pod.html

[Lonewolf_50]

Is there an option for the beds to start a one-per vibration if one puts a coin in the slot? :E

[ericferret]

eric, I appreciate the sentiment (I too find the choice to bury them unfortunate) but I am pretty sure that Oz isn't looking to the UK as their primary ally/support if and when China comes knocking, all AUKUS considered.

Based on some of the nuttier logistics and systems decisions that over the years have happened over here in the land of Yanks, I am going to guess that someone ran a spread sheet / calculation on what it would cost to box them up and ship them to Ukraine from OZ, along with spares and tools, etc.
It was discovered that it would cost more money than they wanted to part with.
(And maybe someone knew someone who could bury them at a certain price and a deal was in the works?)

Getting someone else to cover the shipping may not have occurred to the functionary who was looking into this...

There's a supply/logistics nuttery thread in MIl Aviation with similar stores of "Wait, you did what?" as regards that side of mil aviation. This seems to fit in a similar category.

Not just U.K whole of Europe.
Who is going to be Australias primary support, America?
Looking less and less likely with America not wanting to be the worlds fireman.

[FloaterNorthWest]

If they had given them to Ukraine and the Ukrainians had demonstrated high serviceability in a combat environment, how red faced would the Australians be?

Like a cheap crime drama, best to bury the evidence.

[Mee3]

The part out already has an end user, that's why.

[West Coast]

Not just U.K whole of Europe.
Who is going to be Australias primary support, America?
Looking less and less likely with America not wanting to be the worlds fireman.

I love your sense of optimism but getting the entirety of Europe to respond to aid Australia is naive.

[ericferret]

I love your sense of optimism but getting the entirety of Europe to respond to aid Australia is naive.

That is not what I meant.
Europe is a major arms supplier and I suspect it's order books will be getting full. Where in the queue do you want to be.
Maybe the British might get involved, however unlikely as our armed forces have been run down so badly by the incompetents running the show that we can hardly defend ourselves.

[T28B]

Not just U.K whole of Europe.
Who is going to be Australias primary support, America?
Looking less and less likely with America not wanting to be the worlds fireman.
As Neither Mod nor Admin
While they may be feeling overburdened in Washington of late, does not the recent AUKUS activity suggest that the Americans are prioritizing their relationship with Australia and the Pacific?
(And didn't they conclude an Apache (AH-64) sale to Australia recently?)
Europe is a major arms supplier and I suspect it's order books will be getting full. Where in the queue do you want to be.​​​​​​​
Fair enough.

[Tickle]

Update on these helicopters, of note is the high-up maintenance chief who said he'd volunteer his personal time to get them back to being serviceable, but lots of parts are already gone and sold off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEYMovGb9ys

Ukraine was also offered 41 Australian F-18 Hornets but rejected them as "flying trash".

[212man]

Ukraine was also offered 41 Australian F-18 Hornets but rejected them as "flying trash".

Where is the source of that? Is it referring to the RAAF ones specifically, or the type in general. If the latter then it’s certainly an incorrect statement!

[megan]

It was the RAAF ones.

[Sir HC]

If they had given them to Ukraine and the Ukrainians had demonstrated high serviceability in a combat environment, how red faced would the Australians be?

Like a cheap crime drama, best to bury the evidence.

This is the only logical explanation, along with the slight risk that something would happen in a Taipan and our bleeding hearts would blame Australia for the loss, no matter the benefit it brought. The Ukrainians would have those machines running and working great and it would expose how useless all levels of Australian military and government are compared to the rest of the world, nobody in the top brass wants that.

[60FltMech]

“This is the only logical explanation, along with the slight risk that something would happen in a Taipan and our bleeding hearts would blame Australia for the loss, no matter the benefit it brought. The Ukrainians would have those machines running and working great and it would expose how useless all levels of Australian military and government are compared to the rest of the world, nobody in the top brass wants that.“

I’ve held back making any further comments on this thread since this line of thinking has been expressed a few times now, and I’m pretty sure I’m going to take heat for my own opinion here but that’s what makes the internet so fun.

In my opinion, “the most logical explanation” for the Australian decision to dismantle and bury their NH90 fleet and to also reject the Ukrainian request is super simple: Money.

They are done spending money on this program. And they weren’t going to spend money for Ukraine to have them either, because that would be more Australian money that would be lit on fire. It’s that simple.

And now the part that folks are not going to like: Ukraine would not have been able to “show up Australia” by magically making this fleet viable. This isn’t meant to diminish the courage and tenacity of the Ukrainian people, this is the cold reality of the situation and to pretend otherwise would end, in my opinion, a r “most logical scenario” of more dead Ukrainians.

This wouldn’t be due to any mechanical faults or perceived fault of design of the NH90. These aircraft and crews unlucky enough to be operating them would face the same tragic end as the brave Ukrainian soldiers who rode Leopard tanks and other western armored equipment into battle. This has nothing to do with them or the NH90 or any other helicopter they can get their hands on, it’s just the reality modern warfare, especially in this context.

I’m sure that last bit will get me labeled a pro Russian troll or something and it won’t be worth trying to argue that I’m not.

I can understand disagreeing with a government’s decision to dispose of equipment that feels wasteful, I cannot however understand believing that another government, with zero resources, could take that same equipment and magically have a better outcome, in the middle of a war, and then successfully operate the same equipment in a threat environment where they have no functioning air defense capability, and it NOT result in more needless death and destruction.

I guess that’s it. I’ll go put on my fire suit now and await the inevitable firestorm.

FltMech

[ericferret]

“This is the only logical explanation, along with the slight risk that something would happen in a Taipan and our bleeding hearts would blame Australia for the loss, no matter the benefit it brought. The Ukrainians would have those machines running and working great and it would expose how useless all levels of Australian military and government are compared to the rest of the world, nobody in the top brass wants that.“

I’ve held back making any further comments on this thread since this line of thinking has been expressed a few times now, and I’m pretty sure I’m going to take heat for my own opinion here but that’s what makes the internet so fun.

In my opinion, “the most logical explanation” for the Australian decision to dismantle and bury their NH90 fleet and to also reject the Ukrainian request is super simple: Money.

They are done spending money on this program. And they weren’t going to spend money for Ukraine to have them either, because that would be more Australian money that would be lit on fire. It’s that simple.

And now the part that folks are not going to like: Ukraine would not have been able to “show up Australia” by magically making this fleet viable. This isn’t meant to diminish the courage and tenacity of the Ukrainian people, this is the cold reality of the situation and to pretend otherwise would end, in my opinion, a r “most logical scenario” of more dead Ukrainians.

This wouldn’t be due to any mechanical faults or perceived fault of design of the NH90. These aircraft and crews unlucky enough to be operating them would face the same tragic end as the brave Ukrainian soldiers who rode Leopard tanks and other western armored equipment into battle. This has nothing to do with them or the NH90 or any other helicopter they can get their hands on, it’s just the reality modern warfare, especially in this context.

I’m sure that last bit will get me labeled a pro Russian troll or something and it won’t be worth trying to argue that I’m not.

I can understand disagreeing with a government’s decision to dispose of equipment that feels wasteful, I cannot however understand believing that another government, with zero resources, could take that same equipment and magically have a better outcome, in the middle of a war, and then successfully operate the same equipment in a threat environment where they have no functioning air defense capability, and it NOT result in more needless death and destruction.

I guess that’s it. I’ll go put on my fire suit now and await the inevitable firestorm.

FltMech

As is where is and up to the Ukrainians to deal with it.. Costs Australia nothing.
Other European operators I am sure would offer assistance.
Given that the Ukrainians accepted old British Seakings to fill gaps. That shows they have a need.
Not all aircraft are operating on the front line.
E.U just voted 50bn euros in aid to the Urainians. They may be broke this was why we had American lend lease in WW2.
To fund a gap and we ended up paying for it for the next 50 years. The price of freedom.

Something stinks in this Australian decision which has a whiff of cowardice about it..

[Blackhawk9]

60FltMech, is pretty close. Once the decision was made to get rid of them then the thought was how can the ADF get back as much as possible for them and keep techo's employed till they can be rolled onto the UH-60's?
Up till the decision to scrap them all operators approached didn't want them, but value was in the parts market. This recoups cost and keeps techo's and contractors employed till the 60's come on line.
The Fuselages will be buried because they are composite, if they were sold and turned into cubbyhouses etc with time if they broke down and released fibres etc the Govt would be libel.

All this BS about cowardly retirement no one want to remember etc is crap, once the decision was made to retire the chain of events to dispose of them was set in place.

It's funny the people who are defending the MRH (bar one or two) have never worked on or with them; yes when they worked they worked well unfortunately that wasn't very often.
I was just talking with some fitters who were ex MRH and Chinook. They are very much looking fwd to BH's and the same parts and support network the Chinooks have.
Most guys I know are happy to see the back of the MRH and Tiger. One guy I talked too who is a Cpl said with BH, Apache and Chinook he actually see's a future for him now in Army Aviation.

[60FltMech]

Unfortunately for all of us, wherever we live, these procurement failures are the rule, not the exception. When you strip this whole chain of events down, at the base level, procurement failures are what lead to this whole discussion we are having now. The plug probably should have been pulled on this program on multiple occasions over the years, but the tendency of government is to keep on throwing cash on the fire instead of cutting losses early.

Why that happens will be investigated (not by the governments that failed in the process, of course) for many years to come. Our governments/militaries propensity to screw up are manifest, I’m sure everyone here has a personal experience of that.

I know that doesn’t help the taxpayer who is trying to square with their govt stripping down aircraft for parts when another one could (potentially) benefit from them.

The fact is, other allied(very important) governments will benefit from this situation, allies that need spares the oem can’t supply in a timely fashion perhaps, or items out of production. And this is important, because, let’s face it: we simply don’t have an “Arsenal of Democracy” in back of most front line combat systems at the moment in the west, or for war material in general for that matter.

Why that is will likely also be studied for many years, especially if all the regional conflicts currently ongoing merge into something more global in scale. It will take time and will to build(rebuild?) the industrial base that has either atrophied, or completely disappeared over the years in our countries, due to off shoring certain capabilities, or not investing in them as a matter of national security.

The last anecdote from Blackhawk9, regarding the Cpl stating that he now sees a future for himself in Australian service due to some of these changes is also of great importance, especially given the current climate of recruiting and retention issues in military service.

I think history will show the last decision made by Australia re: NH90 was the best thing for Australia and their allies, it won’t be so kind to the process that ultimately lead it to that decision. Hopefully lessons learned will have informed the process of procuring their shiny new fleet of AH-64E and UH-60M. Time will tell.

FltMech

[rrekn]

Meanwhile, we are apparently going to 'lease' 5 of the UKs unwanted H135 Junos (irony anyone) to put in Oakey while we wait for the additional Blackhawks?

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/defence-gets-more-helicopters-adds-maintenance-jobs

[Blackhawk9]

Meanwhile, we are apparently going to 'lease' 5 of the UKs unwanted H135 Junos (irony anyone) to put in Oakey while we wait for the additional Blackhawks?

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/defence-gets-more-helicopters-adds-maintenance-jobs
H135's are already used in the basic Helo training role at the joint helo school at Nowra, these 5 aircraft will be used for advanced training for Army ops at Oakey for not just BH but lead in to all three types, 60,64,47. Cheaper to use the 135 for basic Army ops then go onto the three operational machines, this path has been wanted for some time.

[gsa]

Meanwhile, we are apparently going to 'lease' 5 of the UKs unwanted H135 Junos (irony anyone) to put in Oakey while we wait for the additional Blackhawks?

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/defence-gets-more-helicopters-adds-maintenance-jobs

Wonder if those are the 5 new ones that were bought to replace the Gazelle in NI before the role was no longer there. They’ve been trying to move them on.

[RVDT]

H135's are already used in the basic Helo training role at the joint helo school at Nowra, these 5 aircraft will be used for advanced training for Army ops at Oakey for not just BH but lead in to all three types, 60,64,47. Cheaper to use the 135 for basic Army ops then go onto the three operational machines, this path has been wanted for some time.

There are H135's and then there are H135's - HATS uses EC135T2+ (CPDS) and the Juno HT.1's will be EC135 T3H (Helionix). Granted if you squint from a distance they are similar but assumption can be the mother of all..............

[Blackhawk9]

There are H135's and then there are H135's - HATS uses EC135T2+ (CPDS) and the Juno HT.1's will be EC135 T3H (Helionix). Granted if you squint from a distance they are similar but assumption can be the mother of all..............
No biggy, the Juno has uprated engines for better hot/high and diff avionics, really stuff all between learning on the T2 at Nowra and then advanced flying on the T3 at Oakey, then 47/60/64 , just another type or type variation in a pilots learning path.

[helispotter]

It was the RAAF ones.

But the source of the "flying trash" remark? I can't imagine the ex-RAAF ones would be in a poor condition? Ukraine is progressively getting ex-European F-16's so perhaps more a case of difficulty in absorbing various different fighter types, all of which would need their associated training, logistics support, etc.

[megan]

the source of the "flying trash" remarkFrom the netA senior Ukrainian Air Force official refused an offer from two Australians to receive 41 of the country’s decommissioned F/A-18 Hornet fighters, bluntly stating that "we do not need your flying trash," reported the Australian Financial Review (https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/ukraine-to-australia-we-don-t-want-your-flying-trash-20240130-p5f0zo) on Jan. 30

[helispotter]

Wonder if those are the 5 new ones that were bought to replace the Gazelle in NI before the role was no longer there. They’ve been trying to move them on.

ADM also report / speculate: "In 2022 the MoD ordered five more helicopters from Airbus to replace British Army Aerospatiale Gazelle light helicopters deployed in Northern Ireland. However, in February 2023, it was reported that the aircraft had been mothballed before entering service due to the security situation in Northern Ireland improving... It is likely therefore that these five helicopters, which are almost-brand-new, will enter service with the Australian Army as part of the lease", see:

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/army-to-lease-surplus-british-helicopters

My guess is that these are not so much intended as 'training' helicopters rather, as a gap filler between the 'early' retirement of the MRH90 and the acquisition of the full fleet of UH-60M simply to keep Army pilots 'current'. In the following article the ABC reports "Three Black Hawks are already here, and all 40 of the new fleet are expected to arrive by the end of the decade."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-07/last-ditch-offer-to-divert-taipan-helicopters-help-ukraine/103434286

Would be interesting to hear about the complete timeframe for the "accelerated" delivery of the UH-60M. Australian Aviation reports "...Army will have a fleet of 12 this year" (2024) and provides further commentary on the H135 lease from the UK in this article:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2024/02/us-accelerates-black-hawk-deliveries-to-australia/

At such a delivery rate, it could be expected the full 40 could be delivered by around 2027 unless the 'acceleration' of delivery is just an initial burst of activity by redirecting helicopters intended for the US military?

Incidentally, it seems from the ABC and other media reports that there are at least some in the Army aircraft maintenance ranks (while perhaps retired) who are willing to put time into sustaining the MRH90 / NH90, even their own time. I still feel there is more to this story than is out in public view. In my career, I have seen people favouring a particular capability (supplier) with no clear justification almost as if they are obsessed. I have also proposed seeking out alternative supplier options where we had struggled with one of our suppliers even acknowledging any fault with their (non-aviation) equipment. In the latter case, another defence force ditched that same supplier over the same equipment while we have persisted. So I can see there can be at least two sides to the MRH90 / Blackhawk story.

[petit plateau]

the source of the "flying trash" remark
From the net
Quote:
A senior Ukrainian Air Force official refused an offer from two Australians to receive 41 of the country’s decommissioned F/A-18 Hornet fighters, bluntly stating that "we do not need your flying trash," reported the Australian Financial Review (https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/ukraine-to-australia-we-don-t-want-your-flying-trash-20240130-p5f0zo) on Jan. 30

From the net

In other places I have seen it reported that the 'quote' originates with Russian trolls seeking to create dissension within the Western allies, rather than being a genuine Ukraine view.

[helispotter]

...In other places I have seen it reported that the 'quote' originates with Russian trolls seeking to create dissension within the Western allies, rather than being a genuine Ukraine view.

I am inclined to agree that is a more likely source. Either that, or the "senior Ukranian Air Force official" is now no longer a senior official and has perhaps been sent to the front line with a rifle.

[helispotter]

Following on from my previous question about the timing of the (re)introduction of the Blackhawks, I noticed two new threads under the "Military Aviation" forum that also discuss MRH90 retirement and apparent stop gap measures. One contains article by Daniel Hurst from The Guardian which indicates: "While 12 of them (UH-60M) will be here by the end of 2024, the remaining 28 will arrive in staged deliveries between 2025 and 2029".

That is a long time to return to full strength, if measured purely in terms of helicopter numbers. You have to wonder what case was made by the Army hierarchy to the government about managing the capability gap during those years given the withdrawal and then apparent swift parting out of MRH90s?

Government apparently wasn't impressed by Navy not being able to field an amphibious response to Cyclone Yasi years back. Will it this time be Army that isn't able to field a capability? But with government this time having fairly obvious prior knowledge of a gap?

[Lonewolf_50]

absorbing various different fighter types, all of which would need their associated training, logistics support, etc. They are already juggling the logistics support from variuos tank and APC models, and Surface to air systems, artillery of varying kinds.
Helicopters are even more "logistics tail" intensive then jets ... they have more parts. I can see how the decision in Australia to sell off the spares eligible parts (harvesting them) and striking them from the record is a sensible approach to their transition to the Blackhawk.

[Blackhawk9]

Following on from my previous question about the timing of the (re)introduction of the Blackhawks, I noticed two new threads under the "Military Aviation" forum that also discuss MRH90 retirement and apparent stop gap measures. One contains article by Daniel Hurst from The Guardian which indicates: "While 12 of them (UH-60M) will be here by the end of 2024, the remaining 28 will arrive in staged deliveries between 2025 and 2029".

That is a long time to return to full strength, if measured purely in terms of helicopter numbers. You have to wonder what case was made by the Army hierarchy to the government about managing the capability gap during those years given the withdrawal and then apparent swift parting out of MRH90s?

Government apparently wasn't impressed by Navy not being able to field an amphibious response to Cyclone Yasi years back. Will it this time be Army that isn't able to field a capability? But with government this time having fairly obvious prior knowledge of a gap?


We barely reached 40-50% serviceability with the MRH anyway so even if we have lesser numbers of UH-60's we will probably still have a better number of assets on line compared to MRH.

[helispotter]

We barely reached 40-50% serviceability with the MRH anyway so even if we have lesser numbers of UH-60's we will probably still have a better number of assets on line compared to MRH.

Well in the next few years, hope the Army gets 200%+ serviceability out of the UH-60M then... :)

[Doors Off]

Well in the next few years, hope the Army gets 200%+ serviceability out of the UH-60M then... :)
Surely you must realise Blackhawk “Nein”’ is overstating the serviceability of the MRH, “new” Blackhawk only 783.33 times better than MRH?….Codswallop!

We all know that the 3 x UH60M already in Oz, are far better! They are at 100% serviceability 24/7 (Their presence alone is worshiped like a deity) the 47 x MRH90’s 40-50% serviceability that Blackhawk Nein refers to, is based upon the lazy quantum of a 38.5 hr working week. The Mike’s work 24/7 therefore, their serviceability is 3418% better than that of the MRH!

[DHC4]

We barely reached 40-50% serviceability with the MRH anyway so even if we have lesser numbers of UH-60's we will probably still have a better number of assets on line compared to MRH.

Any chance of a breakdown on what the serviceability rates were at each of the sites operating the aircraft. Buying new toys will not resolve the underlying issues that Army Aviation has, for example where are all these trained ready to go personnel going to come from. Both from an Army and contractor perspective, lots of people moving out of the areas where these new aircraft will be based.

[SLFMS]

I know it’s a pipe dream but I would like to see some accountability in the decision makers that went with the MRH 90.
We have Tiger = flop Seasprite = flop. It’s literally half the helicopters procured. Billions and billions of tax payers money just wasted and yet again no one is held to account. There should be a public investigation and people named and shamed to incentivise future success.
I don’t think it bodes well that this isn’t publicly demanded. The mind boggles at the waste which is probably prevalent across all the government departments not just defence.

[ericferret]

I know it’s a pipe dream but I would like to see some accountability in the decision makers that went with the MRH 90.
We have Tiger = flop Seasprite = flop. It’s literally half the helicopters procured. Billions and billions of tax payers money just wasted and yet again no one is held to account. There should be a public investigation and people named and shamed to incentivise future success.
I don’t think it bodes well that this isn’t publicly demanded. The mind boggles at the waste which is probably prevalent across all the government departments not just defence.

Welcome to the U.K experience, billions wasted and no one accountable.

[helispotter]

I know it’s a pipe dream but I would like to see some accountability in the decision makers that went with the MRH 90.
We have Tiger = flop Seasprite = flop. It’s literally half the helicopters procured. Billions and billions of tax payers money just wasted and yet again no one is held to account. There should be a public investigation and people named and shamed to incentivise future success.
I don’t think it bodes well that this isn’t publicly demanded. The mind boggles at the waste which is probably prevalent across all the government departments not just defence.

SLFMS: Depends on whether you seek accountability of individuals in project management team leadership, or accountability of government departments more broadly? Also depends on what sort of 'accountability' you are seeking:

At least in the Australian Department of Defence, there has been an internal 'whistleblower' system in place to report on suspected cases of fraud, favouritism, conflict of interest etc. But this didn't really address cases of poor or badly informed decision making. It probably didn't even address cases where there was possible bias towards one bid or another for projects if that was difficult to clearly demonstrate.

For 'accountability' of Australian Federal departments as a whole, there is of course the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). In my opinion, from ANAO reports I have browsed, they do a reasonable job of pointing out departmental shortcomings. But as far as I know, ANAO isn't responsible for taking matters they report on any further. The reports are for Government to act upon, and for the public to have visibility of departmental performance (whether good or bad) in things like project management.

The MRH90 acquisition is an interesting case. Initial recommendation to government seems to have been to acquire Blackhawks (to replace Blackhawks, or perhaps to replace Seakings initially) but at some point, decision was made to acquire MRH90 instead, initially this was for one phase but then with follow-on orders for more. I have never really understood what went on behind the scenes for this apparent change of acquisition plan. Was it political influence? Was it an internal tussle within the Department that changed the outcome signed off by the then government? I have previously posted a link to the relevant ANAO report in another thread (perhaps the "NH90 Problems" thread?), but even the ANAO can't see into all the internal manoeuvrings of Defence or Federal politicians, which I suspect is often not documented so their is no trail left behind.

For the Tiger acquisition, is this a case of "benefit of hindsight"? The key issue seems to be logistics / parts supply. How can it be established at the start of a project that this will become a problem for one option or another? Or is the Department forces to only ever select 'vintage' equipment where there is already a well proven supply chain, but not so old that the supply chain is about to come to an end? This same issue seems to also apply to the MRH90 / NH90. Yes, there also seem to have been some technical issues to deal with on MRH90 such as machine gun mount arrangement, but this should have been addressed up front with comprehensive requirements definition followed up with evaluation of prototypes (configured as MRH90 in this case). Actual comparative evaluations seem(ed) to be the norm for the US military before an acquisition decision is made.

For the Seasprite acquisition, was it a case of excessive optimism on the part of both the Defence project team and Kaman that a helicopter originally intended for three crew could be 'upgraded' with 'tech' to be able to operate with only two crew? Or is this a massive over-simplification of the issues that project faced?

Lets also not forget that when responsibility for managing army support helicopters was shifted from RAAF to Army, the Army took over the Blackhawks but initially thought that the remaining RAAF Chinooks were no longer required. So those went back to the USA. Later, Army realised that Blackhawk simply wasn't a suitable substitute for Chinook, so ADF has in the meantime had two further generations of Chinook (including, in part, some of the former RAAF Chinooks once they were upgraded). This is my summary interpretation, but I have always wondered about what seemed like a lack of understanding of what the Chinook and Blackhawks were respectively capable of when the original decision to retire the Chinook was made.

Addition: Years back, it was also typical practice for Project Directors within the Department to write a "lessons learned" document towards the end of a project to share what they learned with future Project Directors / Managers such that hopefully same mistakes were not repeated while positives were carried over. Some of those reports seemed to be fairly open and honest appraisals of how a project had faired. But I am not sure if this is still common practice within the Department? Certainly, when I looked at one for a more 'recent' major project a decade or more back, it seemed aimed more at self-promotion of the author or the project team, but didn't necessarily reflect the reality of the project.