Australia rejects Ukraine helicopter request
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
- “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.“
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
The following users liked this post:
- “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.“
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
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..
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
Last edited by T28B; 6th Feb 2024 at 14:23. Reason: Badly needed grammar and punctuation for a useful post
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
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
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
The following 2 users liked this post by 60FltMech:
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/d...intenance-jobs
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/d...intenance-jobs
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/d...intenance-jobs
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/d...intenance-jobs
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/d...intenance-jobs
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/d...intenance-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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
the source of the "flying trash" remark
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 on Jan. 30
The following users liked this post:
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...sh-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-...aine/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/20...-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.
The following 2 users liked this post by helispotter:
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 on Jan. 30
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.
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 on Jan. 30
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.
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?
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?
absorbing various different fighter types, all of which would need their associated training, logistics support, etc.
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.
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?
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.
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!
The following users liked this post:
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.