Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I would suggest really thinking through the idea as a whole.

In a nutshell, you are proposing that Australia should gift Ukraine with troop transport helicopters that Australia has deemed not fit for purpose and has retired them early and is in the process of getting the replacement into service.

As I understand it, and as has been discussed on this thread previously, there seem to have been a few reasons why the ADF (and other armed forces) have decided to retire the MRH90 fleet. Some of those reasons involved their limited availability rates, maintenance demands, high cpfh and limitations/restrictions on operation.

Now also consider both Ukraine's helicopter lift needs are, what their CONOPS is or might be, as well as what their ability is to support and sustain a new type of helicopter in operations.

Lastly, consider what would likely need to be done to them in order to make them 'safe' in an Australian security context, for sale or gifting to the Ukraine, and then also have them delivered in a fit state to be used by Ukraine. I rather doubt that Australia might want to leave some of the more sensitive comms systems and/or EW/air defence countermeasures suites on board, as doing so could compromise existing ADF kit by revealing the capabilities (or lack thereof). Further, I would expect that any helicopters Ukraine would seek to operate would also need some decent decoy or self-defence suite systems due to the potential for being engaged by hostile GBAD and/or air systems.

Or to put it another way, Australia found that the MRH90 was not the right system for it, which means it likely is not the 'right' system for Ukraine either.

The demilitarisation of the Blackhawks prior to sale was a quote complex, time consuming and expensive process.

In fact of the Blackhawks, had they not already been disposed of, despite their greater age and higher hours I would not hesitate supplying them to Ukraine. For that matter nor would I hesitate supplying them Iroquois or Kiowas I'd we still had any.

 

[Rob c]

No one is happy with the NH 90, every operator has had issues. NZ has an entire non operational airframe to support their tiny fleet.

The spare airframe was purchased to provide parts as it was found to be cheaper than buying the parts separately. That an airframe purchased with the original operational aircraft is still the reason that NZ has a 73% availability over a decade later, is a little hard to believe as any military will by parts when acquiring a new fleet of aircraft.

 

[Volkodav]

The spare airframe was purchased to provide parts as it was found to be cheaper than buying the parts separately. That an airframe purchased with the original operational aircraft is still the reason that NZ has a 73% availability over a decade later, is a little hard to believe as any military will by parts when acquiring a new fleet of aircraft.

In the Australian context that would be equivalent to an entire non operational squadrons worth of aircraft to serve as nothing but spare parts, think on that.

It also illustrates why it may have been more economical to convert Australias fleet to parts.

Canabalisation is a long established method of supporting obsolescent and orphan capabilities. It is not a good thing, it is a sign RAM is not up to scratch and your supply chain is underperforming, if not broken.

Canabalisation is what collectors and restorers do to keep vintage and veteran vehicles operating to a limited extent. It's what Australia did with the F-111, 707, Orion, Oberon's, Collins, Perth class DDGs, and FFGs to an extent. It's what will happen with the ANZACs. It's what you do when your supply chain doesn't get you the spares you need when you need them and when your fleet is consuming them faster than you can get them.

 

[Volkodav]

Canabalisation is an established process, however it is strictly controlled and considered to be of last resort.

Assets in deep maintenance are often canabalised but this is not a good thing as, at best, it distorts the picture for those tracking support data, giving an overly optimistic impression of the capability to those above.

If you are relying on canabalisation during low intensity peace time operations, how will you do when dealing with battle damage, increased operational tempo and interdicted supplychains?

 

[Todjaeger]

Canabalisation is an established process, however it is strictly controlled and considered to be of last resort.

Assets in deep maintenance are often canabalised but this is not a good thing as, at best, it distorts the picture for those tracking support data, giving an overly optimistic impression of the capability to those above.

If you are relying on canabalisation during low intensity peace time operations, how will you do when dealing with battle damage, increased operational tempo and interdicted supplychains?

I would also add in consideration given to the impact of not necessarily interdicted but lengthened supply chains.

If a service or supplier has encountered difficulties with managing parts and consumables deliveries to main bases, imagine what issues deployed units might encounter if operating from FOB's, on remote/distant deployments, or in/near contested areas.

 

[Maranoa]

All of this misses the point, the aircraft were disposed of in a hurry for political reasons not rationale investment recovery. Hastily destroying a fleet of 45 plus multi million dollar low hours aircraft, even when problematic in the extreme like the MRH-90, defies logic.

 

[Volkodav]

All of this misses the point, the aircraft were disposed of in a hurry for political reasons not rationale investment recovery. Hastily destroying a fleet of 45 plus multi million dollar low hours aircraft, even when problematic in the extreme like the MRH-90, defies logic.

Stopping them of parts and disposing of the carcases is likely cheaper and more efficient than preserving them in hangers.

Those things absorbed resources while doing absolutely nothing.

 

[Bob53]

I would suggest really thinking through the idea as a whole.

In a nutshell, you are proposing that Australia should gift Ukraine with troop transport helicopters that Australia has deemed not fit for purpose and has retired them early and is in the process of getting the replacement into service.

As I understand it, and as has been discussed on this thread previously, there seem to have been a few reasons why the ADF (and other armed forces) have decided to retire the MRH90 fleet. Some of those reasons involved their limited availability rates, maintenance demands, high cpfh and limitations/restrictions on operation.

Now also consider both Ukraine's helicopter lift needs are, what their CONOPS is or might be, as well as what their ability is to support and sustain a new type of helicopter in operations.

Lastly, consider what would likely need to be done to them in order to make them 'safe' in an Australian security context, for sale or gifting to the Ukraine, and then also have them delivered in a fit state to be used by Ukraine. I rather doubt that Australia might want to leave some of the more sensitive comms systems and/or EW/air defence countermeasures suites on board, as doing so could compromise existing ADF kit by revealing the capabilities (or lack thereof). Further, I would expect that any helicopters Ukraine would seek to operate would also need some decent decoy or self-defence suite systems due to the potential for being engaged by hostile GBAD and/or air systems.

Or to put it another way, Australia found that the MRH90 was not the right system for it, which means it likely is not the 'right' system for Ukraine either.

No. To the contrary. I am not proposing anything at all. The Ukrainian Government ( who I would assume have a fairly good understanding of their needs) is proposing this.

They would also have a fairly good understanding of their ability to employ and maintain the MRH90 and the CONOPS they would use them for. Possibly a greater understanding than anyone in Australia Or anyone outside of the Ukraine. I don’t really think anyone in Australian defence should be telling them how to execute their war nor tell them what they are and are not capable of.

Any decision of the need, capabilities, maintenance would really be best left to the Ukrainians. Same for any equipment being removed. That’s up to the Ukrainians to replace or not. Their call. In the ABC article they state they understood and were prepared to accept a higher risk on the safety. If they asked for them and there was no other compelling reason then why not? They are in an all out war. I would hazard a guess that covering ground in a stripped out MRH 90 beats walking over frozen ground.

I just asked why and based on the answers in the public domain it just looks like someone decided that the Ukraine can’t have them and the media team were left to come with the answers.

My question was around how the pull them apart and bury them (and why do that…put the airframes in a park or the yard of the local RSL) decision was arrived at and what would be the real financials on doing so. I suspect the financials of the spares may be significantly in favour with @Milnebay suggested but it doesn’t seem to stack up from what’s public so far.

 

[Volkodav]

No. To the contrary. I am not proposing anything at all. The Ukrainian Government ( who I would assume have a fairly good understanding of their needs) is proposing this.

They would also have a fairly good understanding of their ability to employ and maintain the MRH90 and the CONOPS they would use them for. Possibly a greater understanding than anyone in Australia Or anyone outside of the Ukraine. I don’t really think anyone in Australian defence should be telling them how to execute their war nor tell them what they are and are not capable of.

Any decision of the need, capabilities, maintenance would really be best left to the Ukrainians. Same for any equipment being removed. That’s up to the Ukrainians to replace or not. Their call. In the ABC article they state they understood and were prepared to accept a higher risk on the safety. If they asked for them and there was no other compelling reason then why not? They are in an all out war. I would hazard a guess that covering ground in a stripped out MRH 90 beats walking over frozen ground.

I just asked why and based on the answers in the public domain it just looks like someone decided that the Ukraine can’t have them and the media team were left to come with the answers.

My question was around how the pull them apart and bury them (and why do that…put the airframes in a park or the yard of the local RSL) decision was arrived at and what would be the real financials on doing so. I suspect the financials of the spares may be significantly in favour with @Milnebay suggested but it doesn’t seem to stack up from what’s public so far.

Ukraine was also requesting Hawkeis despite Australia saying they were not suitable or ready.

Having been exposed to some of the OT&E of that platform I can understand the government's reluctance to provide that platform. While I have no doubt it will eventually be a great capability, there are issues that need to be sorted before you send them where people's lives will literally rely on them.

Examples, initial mass deployment of Tigers and Panthers in WWII were disastrous. The USN initially had serious issues with the Corsair, the USAAF with the Marauder. The Churchill was initially an unmitigated disaster. M-16? Initial introduction of the F-88 Steyr was far from smooth.

Some capabilities come good, initial problems are solved or at least mitigated. Other assets require an ongoing effort out of all proportion with the capability they deliver.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ukraine was also requesting Hawkeis despite Australia saying they were not suitable or ready.

Having been exposed to some of the OT&E of that platform I can understand the government's reluctance to provide that platform. While I have no doubt it will eventually be a great capability, there are issues that need to be sorted before you send them where people's lives will literally rely on them.

Examples, initial mass deployment of Tigers and Panthers in WWII were disastrous. The USN initially had serious issues with the Corsair, the USAAF with the Marauder. The Churchill was initially an unmitigated disaster. M-16? Initial introduction of the F-88 Steyr was far from smooth.

Some capabilities come good, initial problems are solved or at least mitigated. Other assets require an ongoing effort out of all proportion with the capability they deliver.

The development of the M2/M3 Bradley armoured vehicle comes immediately to mind, with the first units entering US service in 1981. Development cost some USD$14 bil. and took 17 years (yes, development started back in 1963...) and even after production had commenced there were still flaws, vulnerabilities and limitations found in the design.

No. To the contrary. I am not proposing anything at all. The Ukrainian Government ( who I would assume have a fairly good understanding of their needs) is proposing this.

They would also have a fairly good understanding of their ability to employ and maintain the MRH90 and the CONOPS they would use them for. Possibly a greater understanding than anyone in Australia Or anyone outside of the Ukraine. I don’t really think anyone in Australian defence should be telling them how to execute their war nor tell them what they are and are not capable of.

Any decision of the need, capabilities, maintenance would really be best left to the Ukrainians. Same for any equipment being removed. That’s up to the Ukrainians to replace or not. Their call. In the ABC article they state they understood and were prepared to accept a higher risk on the safety. If they asked for them and there was no other compelling reason then why not? They are in an all out war. I would hazard a guess that covering ground in a stripped out MRH 90 beats walking over frozen ground.

I just asked why and based on the answers in the public domain it just looks like someone decided that the Ukraine can’t have them and the media team were left to come with the answers.

My question was around how the pull them apart and bury them (and why do that…put the airframes in a park or the yard of the local RSL) decision was arrived at and what would be the real financials on doing so. I suspect the financials of the spares may be significantly in favour with @Milnebay suggested but it doesn’t seem to stack up from what’s public so far.

I certainly do not know what CONOPS Ukraine had in mind, if they were gifted (cursed?!) with MRH90's. I also do not know what operational limitations Australia found and experienced with the MRH90's, and therefore I do not rule out the possibility that what Ukraine wanted the MRH90's for might not have been possible.

As a practical matter, if significant portions of an aircraft's avionics have been removed, they are going to have to be replaced before the aircraft is kitted out for operations. A helicopter, particularly one operating in a combat zone, is going to need to have avionics to detect/respond to threats, communicate with others, navigate, and so on. I suspect this would be even more of a consideration for an aircraft like the MRH90 since it was fitted with a fly-by-wire system meaning the flight controls were managed by software.

Lastly, one needs to remember the potential environment a helicopter flying over Ukraine is going to be operating in. Whilst one might think a helicopter ride somewhere is better than walking a distance over cold, wet, or frozen ground, I personally would much rather walk than be 40 metres or more above the ground in a helicopter that gets hit by Strela, Igla or Verba MANPADS missiles, or even RPG's, or be on the receiving end of one or more Russia SAM systems.

 

[Stampede]

No. To the contrary. I am not proposing anything at all. The Ukrainian Government ( who I would assume have a fairly good understanding of their needs) is proposing this.

They would also have a fairly good understanding of their ability to employ and maintain the MRH90 and the CONOPS they would use them for. Possibly a greater understanding than anyone in Australia Or anyone outside of the Ukraine. I don’t really think anyone in Australian defence should be telling them how to execute their war nor tell them what they are and are not capable of.

Any decision of the need, capabilities, maintenance would really be best left to the Ukrainians. Same for any equipment being removed. That’s up to the Ukrainians to replace or not. Their call. In the ABC article they state they understood and were prepared to accept a higher risk on the safety. If they asked for them and there was no other compelling reason then why not? They are in an all out war. I would hazard a guess that covering ground in a stripped out MRH 90 beats walking over frozen ground.

I just asked why and based on the answers in the public domain it just looks like someone decided that the Ukraine can’t have them and the media team were left to come with the answers.

My question was around how the pull them apart and bury them (and why do that…put the airframes in a park or the yard of the local RSL) decision was arrived at and what would be the real financials on doing so. I suspect the financials of the spares may be significantly in favour with @Milnebay suggested but it doesn’t seem to stack up from what’s public so far.

The Taipan helicopter is yet again a topical subject.
I still don't know the fact or fiction of its withdrawal, or what to make of the recent news re it's disposal.
Whatever that reality , it should not have become the public shit show that it has become.
Kym B from APDR is getting some traction with this and whatever I / you may think of that publication, this subject will not go away. any time soon.
It may well be the case that the Taipan needed to have been retired and that retirement prudently brought forward with the recent fatal crash.
It may well be that the defence are disposing this aircraft in the most environmental, economic and timely manner appropriate to this situation.
It may well be that the Taipan would of been more liability rather than asset for the Ukrainian defence force.

That said, there are times when our elected representatives who govern and police the departments they represent need to , for the sake of public confidence articulate the what and why!.
The Taipan saga very much needs a please explain!

It looks bad domestically and internationally.
It's not good enough and it would have served the government well to have explained the reasons for the various steps that have brought us to this space.

Had they done so,we on this forum and others , plus the general media would not be having this conversation.

Cheers S

 

[MickB]

No. To the contrary. I am not proposing anything at all. The Ukrainian Government ( who I would assume have a fairly good understanding of their needs) is proposing this.

For the purpose of clarity could you show which Ukrainian official (their office and title would help my understanding) made formal contact with Aus Gov re the MH 90s. And how long ago.

I was of the impresion that no such contact was made and this is all a media beat up.
So any real established facts would greatly help my understanding.

 

[Todjaeger]

For the purpose of clarity could you show which Ukrainian official (their office and title would help my understanding) made formal contact with Aus Gov re the MH 90s. And how long ago.

I was of the impresion that no such contact was made and this is all a media beat up.
So any real established facts would greatly help my understanding.

I have seen a media entry from VOA (Voice of America) that Ukraine had made such a request, but it had absolutely no details on who the request came from. There was also an ABC (Australian, there is also an ABC in the US...) article recently about there having been an official request from Ukraine on 19 December 2023 but did not mention who in Ukraine the request came from. Most of the people named in the article (found here btw) appear to be Australians of Ukrainian descent who rally/lobby for Australian support for Ukraine. AFAIK the only Ukrainian official named in the article was Ukraine's Ambassador to Australia.

The article has a curious admission made by one of the people trying to coordinate support, which I think most readers would completely miss the significance of. The paragraph involved is quoted below, please note the bolded text.

The co-chair of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Kateryna Argyrou, said, "the Russian federation has complete air superiority over Ukraine and those 45 Taipan helicopters could end up on the Ukrainian front line, it would go a very long way to help Ukrainians fight for freedom and democracy."

Now to my way of thinking, if an opposing side has complete air superiority then giving the the side one is attempting to aid helicopters which some might describe as 'lemons' would do little more than divert precious and limited resources and deliver platforms which would likely be neutralized if not outright destroyed in fairly short order.

 

[Rob c]

In the Australian context that would be equivalent to an entire non operational squadrons worth of aircraft to serve as nothing but spare parts, think on that.

Yep, but it would have supplied in a lot of major parts one or two of each, which would in most cases be used as rotatable parts, (parts that are rotated in and out of service cover for repairs/ reconditioning)
This is entirely reasonable and as I pointed out it was a fair number of years ago. The airframe itself is clamped to the wall of the hanger and unless one is crashed, is were it will stay. Not really a game changer, just a money saver.

 

[MickB]

I have seen a media entry from VOA (Voice of America) that Ukraine had made such a request, but it had absolutely no details on who the request came from. There was also an ABC (Australian, there is also an ABC in the US...) article recently about there having been an official request from Ukraine on 19 December 2023 but did not mention who in Ukraine the request came from. Most of the people named in the article (found here btw) appear to be Australians of Ukrainian descent who rally/lobby for Australian support for Ukraine. AFAIK the only Ukrainian official named in the article was Ukraine's Ambassador to Australia.

The article has a curious admission made by one of the people trying to coordinate support, which I think most readers would completely miss the significance of. The paragraph involved is quoted below, please note the bolded text.



Now to my way of thinking, if an opposing side has complete air superiority then giving the the side one is attempting to aid helicopters which some might describe as 'lemons' would do little more than divert precious and limited resources and deliver platforms which would likely be neutralized if not outright destroyed in fairly short order.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sounds like people with good intentions but little knowledge throwing out thought bubbles and the media (dare I say it ) doing a beat up.

Still does not look like a formal Gov to Gov request to me.

 

[Volkodav]

Yep, but it would have supplied in a lot of major parts one or two of each, which would in most cases be used as rotatable parts, (parts that are rotated in and out of service cover for repairs/ reconditioning)
This is entirely reasonable and as I pointed out it was a fair number of years ago. The airframe itself is clamped to the wall of the hanger and unless one is crashed, is were it will stay. Not really a game changer, just a money saver.

Canabalisation should be the last resort, not the first. There is also the issue that canabalised airframes need to be preserved and maintained at far greater difficulty and expense than warehoused spares.

 

[Rob c]

Canabalisation should be the last resort, not the first. There is also the issue that canabalised airframes need to be preserved and maintained at far greater difficulty and expense than warehoused spares.

AS has been said before, the purchase of this airframe was always because it was the cheapest way of obtaining the parts require an it was never intended to fly this aircraft and as far as I am aware ot never even got its manufactures test flights. So it was never more than a bundle of parts. this is not a case of canabalisation.

 

[InterestedParty]

The spare airframe was purchased to provide parts as it was found to be cheaper than buying the parts separately. That an airframe purchased with the original operational aircraft is still the reason that NZ has a 73% availability over a decade later, is a little hard to believe as any military will by parts when acquiring a new fleet of aircraft.

Never really understood the logic with this.
The need for parts varies from daily/weekly to effectively, never. Once you have consumed the part from the spare airframe you presumably have to replace it through the normal spares purchasing organisation.
Why not just buy the recommended comprehensive spares kit.
Was the spare airframe an actual assembled aircraft or a metaphorical box of 100% of the components required to build a helicopter

 

[Rob c]

Never really understood the logic with this.
The need for parts varies from daily/weekly to effectively, never. Once you have consumed the part from the spare airframe you presumably have to replace it through the normal spares purchasing organisation.
Why not just buy the recommended comprehensive spares kit.
Was the spare airframe an actual assembled aircraft or a metaphorical box of 100% of the components required to build a helicopter

It is quite simple, Rotable parts, are the parts that are in them selves fixed and returned to service and this is what the the spare airframe supplied, as an example a control power pack, when it reaches its life expectancy or develops a fault like a hydraulic leak, is removed and replaced with a serviceable unit. it is then sent to a servicing unit and repaired or reconditioned and returned to the supply system were it will enter service again when required. A large proportion of parts fall into this category, anything from a landing gear strut to a cockpit LCD screen, an altimeter to an air-conditioning cooling turbine, brakes radio's ETC. This was the type of unit that the spare airframe provided at lower cost and they would have been used as required so that the parts they replaced could be repaired or reconditioned and return to service. It is an ongoing cycle and is used down to anything that is repairable. Parts that cannot be repaired were known as consumables in my day and these include Nuts, bolts ,seals, small fittings etc and these are disposed of and new ordered.

 

[Volkodav]

It is quite simple, Rotable parts, are the parts that are in them selves fixed and returned to service and this is what the the spare airframe supplied, as an example a control power pack, when it reaches its life expectancy or develops a fault like a hydraulic leak, is removed and replaced with a serviceable unit. it is then sent to a servicing unit and repaired or reconditioned and returned to the supply system were it will enter service again when required. A large proportion of parts fall into this category, anything from a landing gear strut to a cockpit LCD screen, an altimeter to an air-conditioning cooling turbine, brakes radio's ETC. This was the type of unit that the spare airframe provided at lower cost and they would have been used as required so that the parts they replaced could be repaired or reconditioned and return to service. It is an ongoing cycle and is used down to anything that is repairable. Parts that cannot be repaired were known as consumables in my day and these include Nuts, bolts ,seals, small fittings etc and these are disposed of and new ordered.

This is what gets me with this whole concept, the ADF had to rotable parts and repairable parts, then still had to resort to canabalisation.

The issue was RAM, the platform simply never achieved the required level of reliability, or maintainability to achieve the necessary availability.

You can get away with it on small fleets but large fleets the problems compound and you rapidly end up with no spares.

There are set overheads for platforms of personnel, tools, support equipment, spares etc. that are required, no matter how small the fleet. That means, for example, when you have a fleet of five, you need an overhead that would support 15. This is why tiny aircraft carriers don't work, three or five Harriers have the same overheads as ten or more.

When you have a tiny fleet you never see the efficiencies that can be achieved with larger fleets. Conversely, you have more resources than you need so you don't see the true effects of reliability and maintainability issues.

With small sample sizes you can't even collect enough data to accurately determine reliability.