Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[T.C.P]

Just from an image point, the Taipan-Ukraine denial is going to do quite the damage.

L'Australie justifie son refus de céder à l'Ukraine ses hélicoptères NH-90 retirés précocement du service - Zone Militaire

Jouer sur l'émotion suscitée par un drame pour faire accepter une décision discutable en enrobant le tout avec quelques libertés avec la véracité des

www.opex360.com

I would counter that the Aus govt believed that if Ukraine failed to maintain the Taipan and couple crashed it would look worse.

Aus has some of the best helicopter maintainance and technicians in the world and they struggled to keep the Tapian running. I personally found the Aus govt statement that the money and resources required to make the Taipans operational worthy was not efficient.

Ukraine said that thye wanted to Use the Tapian for Medevac, I can imagine the headlines if a Taipan with wounded aboard crashes and the Ukrainians then start to blame the helicopter. Ukraine has a history of different govt quarters starting a blame game.

There are so many Mi-8 variants all over the world, it would be much easier and more efficient for Aus to use the money that woud have gone to fix the Tapian to buy up Mi-8s or Mi-8 engines and spare parts and send them to Ukraine instead.

 

[Meriv90]

The Mi-8 has a better crashes track record than NFH-90?

And why fixing them? Couldn't you ship them to Europe and the repairs be done locally ?

 

[T.C.P]

The Mi-8 has a better crashes track record than NFH-90?

And why fixing them? Couldn't you ship them to Europe and the repairs be done locally ?

Mi-8/17 crashes dont look as bad. its just old soviet stuff breaking down. Ex Aus army helicopter crashing is so much worse optically. I would also honestly expect Mi-8/17 crashes to be lower for Ukraine, they know the ins and outs of those types and at this moment, they probably have the most expereinced and battle tested Mi-8/17 pilots/crews/technicians in the world.

As for Europe for repairs, some one would still have to foot the bill to make the Taipans operational, and the Aud govt decided that the funds could be used more efficiently in a different way to support Ukraine.

 

[swerve]

So why not just say "You can have 'em free, but as seen. You'll have to arrange any repairs etc. yourself". Maybe throw in delivery. Would that cost more than destroying them?

 

[aussienscale]

So why not just say "You can have 'em free, but as seen. You'll have to arrange any repairs etc. yourself". Maybe throw in delivery. Would that cost more than destroying them?

Why not indeed, the answer lays in the current government's political allignment !

 

[Volkodav]

FMD!

For better or worse, the decision to retire the type had already been made, and by a previous government at that, to replace an unreliable, expensive to maintain, under performing capability, long before the accident that resulted in the most recent grounding.

This wasn't an out of the blue decision to retire a world class capability without replacement, it was a decision not to return, an already retiring, under performing, capability to service, at great expense, for an extremely short period of time.

 

[Meriv90]

Sorry but didn't an informal request arrive only 2 weeks after the decision to ground them? Mid October vs 29 September?

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry but didn't an informal request arrive only 2 weeks after the decision to ground them? Mid October vs 29 September?

An aledged informal request about a grounded platform.

This whole thing is being spun beyond belief.

 

[Meriv90]

Followed by a formal one ASAP .

They asked us for our broken AS109. We told them they were broken and still sent them. They fixed them and put them to use. We didn't take the decision for them.

I would totally agree with you if the request wasn't coming from an allied country fighting a proxy war in desperate need of hardware. Even with an informal request I would have hold for a month or two on the disposal.

 

[Volkodav]

Followed by a formal one ASAP .

They asked us for our broken AS109. We told them they were broken and still sent them. They fixed them and put them to use. We didn't take the decision for them.

I would totally agree with you if the request wasn't coming from an allied country fighting a proxy war in desperate need of hardware. Even with an informal request I would have hold for a month or two on the disposal.

Ukraine is not an allied nation, they are a nation under attack that many nations including Australia have provided support to.

I confess to a level of suspicion (if that's the right word) to all the various, often contradictory claims being made about the MRH, as well as offers, requests and otherwise surrounding it.

The whole thing has become, let's bash the government of the day to death with it.

Anyone unfamiliar with the topic would be forgiven for assuming the current defence minister bought them in the first place and then deliberately undermined them and maliciously replaced them just to kick Europe, while denying them to Ukraine because he thinks Putin is a nice guy.

 

[T.C.P]

So why not just say "You can have 'em free, but as seen. You'll have to arrange any repairs etc. yourself". Maybe throw in delivery. Would that cost more than destroying them?

The aus govt and military which operated these choppers, deemed them so terrible that they had to be retired quickly and destroyed.

Now I am not Australian, so you guys will know better than me, but I have seen nothing to indicate that Australia is anything other than a wellwisher and supporter of Ukraine. Aus as a nation is as safe from Russia as possible thanks to Geography, but they still have willingly provided Ukraine with lethal gear including drones that allowed Ukraine to attack the territory of Russia itself.

So if Aus decided that these helicopters were so dangerous and useless , that they needed to be destroyed rather than be handed to Ukraine, then I will take their word. The fact that Aus even shopped around for a capable party to purchase these choppers at what I can only imagine was a steep discount and no one came forward, further shows just how terrible a condition these choppers were in.

If the users of a helicopter, who have a proven trackrecord of technical excellence in using other helicopters, deem this particular type of helicopter to be such a terrible liablity, then I will believe their expertise over Ukraine's demands.

 

[Meriv90]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751149834076074371

Considering that Ukraine and Australia overlaps on their exports (just to mention one, 300mln of Rapeseed to Germany alone every year), and that with very high chances UKR is ending up inside EU and the US is going to go Isolationist with Trump. I think the French just gained another ally, and the total cost on the long run for the AUS taxpayer is going to be bigger than just selling them the broken machines.

Regardless of the mechanical reality, just taking in consideration the image damage.

 

[John Fedup]

It is somewhat strange that Australia would destroy them rather than gift them to Ukraine. Perhaps critical parts were stripped off some time ago rendering them useless? Hopefully our Cyclones won't have to be gifted or destroyed due to high cost sustainability issues.

 

[Meriv90]

Its bad that we want to take profit from Ukrainan pain to be honest, but everyone is thinking dumping the failed products on the Ukrainians. After all they are still leaps better than some of the soviet era equipment that they still use
I would have sent the Ariete and Dardo whole batch on Summer 2022 already, exchange them for some gap filler Bradley and Abrams even if older.
I would send them some Mangustas to see them in a AA role against the drones as the Russians are doing.

Russia creates special helicopter units to hunt Ukrainian drones

A number of Russian military reporters' accounts claim that the Russian Armed Forces have created special helicopter units to hunt Ukrainian kamikaze drones. New units on Mi-28N attack helicopters are being deployed in several regions to defeat cheap Ukrainian drones, according to the Military...

defence-blog.com

If it works on land we can implement it on sea as a cheap CAP against slow moving drones.

If germans are sending the Seakings probably the nex thing will be the AB212

If i was Canada i would really consider sending the Cyclones. Yes they got problems but they are way more useful to the Ukrainians, and probably the war is going to end before the structural problems with ground them definitely.

 

[John Fedup]

Its bad that we want to take profit from Ukrainan pain to be honest, but everyone is thinking dumping the failed products on the Ukrainians. After all they are still leaps better than some of the soviet era equipment that they still use
I would have sent the Ariete and Dardo whole batch on Summer 2022 already, exchange them for some gap filler Bradley and Abrams even if older.
I would send them some Mangustas to see them in a AA role against the drones as the Russians are doing.

Russia creates special helicopter units to hunt Ukrainian drones

A number of Russian military reporters' accounts claim that the Russian Armed Forces have created special helicopter units to hunt Ukrainian kamikaze drones. New units on Mi-28N attack helicopters are being deployed in several regions to defeat cheap Ukrainian drones, according to the Military...

defence-blog.com

If it works on land we can implement it on sea as a cheap CAP against slow moving drones.

If germans are sending the Seakings probably the nex thing will be the AB212

If i was Canada i would really consider sending the Cyclones. Yes they got problems but they are way more useful to the Ukrainians, and probably the war is going to end before the structural problems with ground them definitely.

OT The Cyclone problem is that it is an orphan aircraft and it is significantly different from the S-92 which means future modifications will be extremely expensive in order to keep it viable. It is not possible to send them to Ukraine, it would leave the RCN without a helicopter. Furthermore there is no money to replace them at this time. The Cyclone is a complex piece of kit that would require extensive training for pilots and maintenance personnel. Probably not worth the effort given the time needed and then there is the spares issue as well (both expense and availability).

 

[Meriv90]

The Cyclone is a complex piece of kit that would require extensive training for pilots and maintenance personnel.

This could have been said about dozens of systems. But they operated Leo2 after some months, launch SCALP from SU-24, HIMARS was a complete game change. Sooner or later F-16 will arrive. They are operating Patriots. Etc.. etc...

They have showed the ability to adapt and fast learn.

 

[Volkodav]

I've noticed a few ex Army Aviation members coming out over claims and counter claims being made in the media and social media about the MRH and Australia's performance with the capability.

A common claim by armchair experts is that Army and defence as a whole is incompetent, that they somehow stuffed up an outstanding aircraft and are now covering their backsides. Some commentators on LinkedIn have literally claimed this.

The truth is MRH was a complex unforgiving platform, sold as highly reliable it was anything but. The efforts to achieve what the ADF achieved were heroic. What the maintainers were told, 1.5 hours maintenance for each flight hour, reality it was multiple of that.

My first experience with the type was when procuring a video scope for a project I was on and discovering that Army had bought large numbers of them due to unscheduled engine inspections required by the MRH. That is the type required their engines to be inspected more than any other type in the invitory at the time.

The Army operated them, kept them flying, managed to undertake all missions assigned, despite serious questions over the types suitability, and is now being defamed by armchair experts because of a political decision to cut our loses.

What we are talking about is a platform acquired as a utility vehicle requiring the maintenance effort of a big budget bespoke race car, without the performance. So you want it to work reliably in remote areas when you don't even know if it will last a race, after being rebuilt in a workshop the night before and supported by a dedicated pit crew with ever piece of high end equipment and telemetry available.

Army maintainers qualify on multiple types during their careers, those working on Tiger found that easier and better than MRH, yes the battlefield helicopter was more complex and demanding than the gunship.

Even more surprising is during the grounding of Tiger many maintainers were redeployed to maintain their skills, some even working on F/A-18F. They loved it, in comparison to a Euro helicopter this fast jet just worked.

Work on MRH was more like working on a restoration or rebuild project than maintaining an in-service type.

The really informative thing from the ex operators and maintainers. As MRH was grounded timed maintenance continued to accrue, meaning the time, cost and effort to return it to service continued to increase. To return it to service would have taken months and just was not worth the effort.

Saying we could have just given them to Ukraine is fantasy, they would have had to have been reactivated over a period of several months by people who are meant to be converting to a new type.

 

[aussienscale]

I've noticed a few ex Army Aviation members coming out over claims and counter claims being made in the media and social media about the MRH and Australia's performance with the capability.

A common claim by armchair experts is that Army and defence as a whole is incompetent, that they somehow stuffed up an outstanding aircraft and are now covering their backsides. Some commentators on LinkedIn have literally claimed this.

The truth is MRH was a complex unforgiving platform, sold as highly reliable it was anything but. The efforts to achieve what the ADF achieved were heroic. What the maintainers were told, 1.5 hours maintenance for each flight hour, reality it was multiple of that.

My first experience with the type was when procuring a video scope for a project I was on and discovering that Army had bought large numbers of them due to unscheduled engine inspections required by the MRH. That is the type required their engines to be inspected more than any other type in the invitory at the time.

The Army operated them, kept them flying, managed to undertake all missions assigned, despite serious questions over the types suitability, and is now being defamed by armchair experts because of a political decision to cut our loses.

What we are talking about is a platform acquired as a utility vehicle requiring the maintenance effort of a big budget bespoke race car, without the performance. So you want it to work reliably in remote areas when you don't even know if it will last a race, after being rebuilt in a workshop the night before and supported by a dedicated pit crew with ever piece of high end equipment and telemetry available.

Army maintainers qualify on multiple types during their careers, those working on Tiger found that easier and better than MRH, yes the battlefield helicopter was more complex and demanding than the gunship.

Even more surprising is during the grounding of Tiger many maintainers were redeployed to maintain their skills, some even working on F/A-18F. They loved it, in comparison to a Euro helicopter this fast jet just worked.

Work on MRH was more like working on a restoration or rebuild project than maintaining an in-service type.

The really informative thing from the ex operators and maintainers. As MRH was grounded timed maintenance continued to accrue, meaning the time, cost and effort to return it to service continued to increase. To return it to service would have taken months and just was not worth the effort.

Saying we could have just given them to Ukraine is fantasy, they would have had to have been reactivated over a period of several months by people who are meant to be converting to a new type.

Agree Volk, but if they have asked for them as is and know the risk ? We have obvioulsy made it clear to them the condition of the fleet, and what it would take to bring the airframes back to an airworthy state, Ukraine obvioulsy thought they could use them and a risk they were willing to take.

But all academic now though, I would say all the sellable's are already on their way to the spare parts pool.

Cheers

 

[John Fedup]

This could have been said about dozens of systems. But they operated Leo2 after some months, launch SCALP from SU-24, HIMARS was a complete game change. Sooner or later F-16 will arrive. They are operating Patriots. Etc.. etc...

They have showed the ability to adapt and fast learn.

True, but the kit you mention (F-16 excepted) isn't anywhere near as complex as a CH-148 with its fly by wire digital flight control and other options (which albeit may not be required). In any event this is all moot.

 

[Volkodav]

Agree Volk, but if they have asked for them as is and know the risk ? We have obvioulsy made it clear to them the condition of the fleet, and what it would take to bring the airframes back to an airworthy state, Ukraine obvioulsy thought they could use them and a risk they were willing to take.

But all academic now though, I would say all the sellable's are already on their way to the spare parts pool.

Cheers

Ukraine would have required us to bring them back up to operational condition, train their personnel, and get them and their support equipment, parts etc to Ukraine.