US DCSA Approves Potential Sale of 40 x UH-60M To Australia
 

guess that mean the MRH-90 is now officially dead, apparently airbus was given 6 months to get their servicability rate to a decent level. Guess they couldn't manage it

My assumption was the the MRH-90 was dead when the previous government announced it was making an enquiry last December, I assume this is the response to that enquiry. There is no corresponding news/announcement as yet on defence.gov.au
Presumably the last rites won't be read until the 'relevant information' has been evaluated and Messrs Albanese, Marles and Conroy may have a different point of view and also want to see concrete offset deal agreements.

Apparently airbus pacific requested and was given a 6 month grace period to prove that they could, at their own expense, they could get the serviceability rate up to a reasonable level. Also note not a 1 for 1 replacement on for them. Theres 46 MRH-90, 40 army and 6 navy (navy takes 6 from the pool of 46 as required). But yes think this application was done by the previous government and will be up to the new one to make the final decision one way or the other

Word is that even though US approval is in place, Australian government approval isn’t. Lots of money to be spent across Defence, but not a lot of money going around and this isn’t seen as a high priority. At least it won’t be as expensive as the Submarine cancellation.

They have a defence white paper being done atm for release early next year, at or around the same time as the nuclear submarine committe. Betting there wont be anything announced until that gets released

Not so much a 'low priority' more to do with no approvals until the Force Posture Review is tabled/released.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0228f0f14.jpeg
Things looking bad for the Mike “deal”

How much money and other resources were wasted on the MRH-90?

Bad decisions by government always seem to find a way of being whitewashed and no one ever gets taken to task for those bad decisions.

I have no information on amounts. Waste is a matter of perspective. However, you are on the money with “accountability”. That said, it isn’t just Government (per se) that has no accountability for decisions/waste etc. Defence itself is but a mirror of Government/Bureaucratic culture - there is no assessment of accountability for liability or legacy in the Australian Army.

The NH90, culturally, had zero chance of success in the Australian Army Air Corps. Whiners whinged and handbraked it from the start. Is it a good aircraft? Absolutely! Does it have the industrial might behind it like Blackhawk? No! Unfortunately, the negativity by the few (whom have stained the system for decades) have brought about a decision that no longer has the funds to follow it through.

Will be interesting to see how much better the RAAF handles the capability of Attack Aviation capability of AH-64E and it’s associated increase in MUMT/Link capabilities along with the increased maintenance penalties and infrastructure compared to Tiger. Thankfully, they are equipped with the culture and attitudes to make it work.

Considering the RAAF doesn't operate the Tiger, I don't think they'll have to worry about operating the Apache.

RAAF hasn't operated helicopters since 1990 when all rotary wing was transferred to the army. There might have been some edge cases or 2 but anything of note became the army.

Whiners whinged? about what? The colour.