"Australia changing rotorcraft again" Topic

YouTube link

When you've made a deal where you have to send repaired assemblies back to Europe for approval before they can be reinstalled in the airframe….

MRH90 Taipan,,,the Merlin?

Not the AW101, mate, the NH-90. All the below is in the civil domain.

Bought to replace the Army UH-60's and RAN Seakings, 40 or so were assembled here but, as chironex says, there were some contractual requirements and CASG-required modifications which have contributed to a poor availability rate. When the aircraft's actually working there's some other basic issues that limited usefulness as well- such as the door gunners not being able to provide covering fire as the troops deplaned.

But considering the trains we bought, that are too big for some railway tunnels, or the Manly (sea-going) ferries that can't sail safely in a swell of over 2m, I suppose we could class it as a reasonably successful project…..

The buy was also meant to provide employment opportunities and re-build lost industrial capability. But, like the Naval Group and new submarines project, NH Industries was looking at providing domestic jobs from the sale, so the Australian involvement was pared back. So the project wasn't wholly effective in doing re-establishing an aircraft industry, either.

From my experience I believe that if you sent an Australian project manager out to buy some KFC then there's a ~75% chance they'd come back with a can of dog food- and a jack-hammer to open the can.

Well Dal, defense acquisitions haven't been carefree in the states either. Witness the Admiral Zumwalt "super destroyers" and the LCS program. The F-35 is no picnic either.

True, George. What gets my blood pressure up is that if someone spots a problem and tell the PM or an engineer, they'll ignore them. So we buy 20 "elevation tools" for some terminals, for $1,291 USD each, when all it is is a Stanley socket and 3/8" drive, 6" extension bar- which I could buy (same make and model) for a total of $10.00 AUD at a local hardware shop. Or they refuse to have the OEM rotate a distribution box 90°, so the indicator LED's can be seen and the cables easily reached for connection or disconnection- because "that's the way it's designed".

I'm ecstatic that I only have 12 days left until retirement. While shiny new diplomas and degrees count more than experience and common sense then things aren't going to change, either.

I think we belong to the same choir. I work in aerospace and I've seen plenty of designs and decisions that convince me we exist in a bell-shaped world. I'm currently working on a project with the Navy and I sure hope we don't end up in a shooting war with the Chinese. Ever

As an Australian Taxpayer I'm with Dal – our Defence procurement people are morons.

Why cant we just buy off-the-shelf gear that is already battle proven and tested? Whats so hard? I'm an Engineer too and you always go with simple, clean, proven solutions, always, or it will end in tears as it has in this case!!

We are now going to replace these fangled, custom modified, low availability choppers with a fleet of tried and tested and battle proven Blackhawk/Seahawks – choppers we had already used and proven for ourselves for many years now. Why didn't we just choose them for this new need in the first bloody place? $%&^%$#

Its exactly like the submarine debacle. We had offers of off-the-shelf proven reliable models from Japan and Germany back in 2016 and no, our stupid Navy procurement people were just dumb enough to select a unique, custom modified, un-tested, un-proven option operated by no other Navy in the world. It was never going to work and now look whats happened with it all. $%$#@&^

George- any choir with my voice in it would soon be out of business. Sometimes I wonder if there is any thinking involved in the decisions I've seen.

Nick, I've worked with some excellent engineers, but with few exceptions they were all in private industry or uniform. I'm not impressed by the bulk of those in CASG, who are often freshly minted from the grad programmes and working well above their experience levels. Eg- we are currently looking to do sound pressure-level testing on a commercial telephone handset, passed as safe for sale in Australia by ACMA, because the engineering cell can be that risk-averse. So $5.00 AUDk to $20.00 AUDk to second-guess the national testing authority and delay tech cert for another ~12 months- luckily it's not needed for OPS.

As for the chopper issue- apart from the jobs to get votes element, which has worked "so well" in the past- I have no idea why CASG feels the need to "Australianise" everything it buys, nor why the recent push towards buying European (as distinct from British/US) gear. Sometimes there's good reasons to modify the platform/kit, but other times…..? I have an (extremely cynical) idea, but it's not for this board.

Cheers.

"I sure hope we don't end up in a shooting war with the Chinese. Ever"

Well, me, too but that's because I'm sensible.

However, anyone who thinks planning major projects is a problem for Western governments, should watch this informative video.

YouTube link

The guy who wrote is an economist (don't hold that against him) & an Australian (also, don't hold that against him).

So forget Evergrande…..the Chinese high speed rail network may bring Beijing to its knees (& I have no doubt that a lot of the shiny, new Chinese armaments may prove to be less than great, for what that's worth).

And if this video seems OK, watch others he's made on all sorts of economic issues. I don't know him, he doesn't pay me but I like the cut of his jib.

Interesting comment about "elevation tools" Dal. Many years ago I saw a similar subject in an article about the USAF. Possibly it was in Flight magazine? It listed a whole range of similar things; hammers that were billed at hundreds of dollars, labels for the cockpits that must have been printed on gold plate from the cost etc. Wish I cold find a copy of that. So, nothing changes, government procurement, especially in defence, is open to abuse and idiotic managment (and I speak as someone who has spent nearly 30 years in UK public sector spending).

"As an Australian Taxpayer I'm with Dal – our Defence procurement people are morons."

Let me assure you that Australian defense procurement are rank amateurs when compared to Canadian defense procurement.

Imagine the necessity of having to be a be a moron in both official languages and then putting out defence procurement proposals in woke-speak. There is a reason that our Sea king helicopters served for some sixty years.

We seem to buy our kit based on the idea of vote generating, and then once the forces get the kit in use we then decide on the doctrine and use of whatever we have been saddled with.

In the mid sixties we bought F101 Voodoos only two years after the US shut down their production line.

In the seventies, we finally replaced our arthritic Centurions with the last production off the line of Leopard Ones, only because the Germans told us to get new tanks or would kick us out of their country as being too many mouths to feed.

In Afghanistan our leaders had to beg, borrow and steal rides on Dutch Chinook helicopters that we sold to them two years before, as never going to need these for anything.

Again in Afghanistan, those Leopard Ones we were forced to buy in the seventies, we had to take the brass plaques of them because they were all being used as monuments, put the engines and kit back in them to fly them over to support our troops on the ground.

Don't even get me started on submarines and Tony Blairs Used Car Lot Deals.

Other countries may have us beat on how much they squandered financially.

Canada takes the lead for rank stupidity.

Likewise, counting down the days after thirty seven years in,,,.

D6Craig, I can't really fault the businesses that super-charge their prices (even though it seems a tad unethical to me), they are a business and they exist to make someone money (building things is just a step towards that prime objective). It's the rank incompetence of PM's and Log Mgr's, not even checking the recommended parts lists for items (like the example above) that they can strike off the list or haggle down, which ticks me off. They should have the cost of those items deducted from their pay, to help them focus on their jobs- but that will never happen.

TroopWO, at least your troops got tank support. We didn't even send over our gunships (for various reasons- we're replacing them with AH-64). All the diggers had for immediate fire support were the MG, or sometimes a Mk 19 40mm, on their vehicles and (fortunately available nearly all the time) some good air support from the Danes, Dutch and US.

Barring the two official languages, the rest sounds all too familiar. We also sold off our Chooks- and later had to buy more to fill their gap. Our Leo I's replaced the Cent's in '78, and we got the M1A1 in about 2007- well after the Leo's predicted end of LoT. Using new capability buys to create jobs (and buy votes) may work somewhere else, but here it usually just means huge delays and cost over-runs.

Please "plan" your retirement, mate. I thought I could rely on my hobbies and chores around the house to keep me busy, but was wrong. After about 18 months hobbies had become chores and I was getting less done than when I was working. So I ended going back to work again.

A lot of ex-military here find they need to do something "outside" themselves, either volunteer work or a part time job, to both give them something to do and to keep the black dog at bay.

Cheers.

Area where I grew up is mostly automotive. Most guys do their twenty-five or thirty years and then retire. After six months at home with the wife, the great majority are dead from stress related issues.

Got to find something to keep you occupied and away from being with the Mrs 24 hours a day.

My old man is still kicking at 91 and relatively healthy. I suspect a lot has to do with being deaf and not having to listen to her bother him for the past 35 years.

Write some war games rules that will keep you interested for a few thousand hours.

recently I saw a documentary about how RCAF was equipped until F18s arrived in service, it's really a miracle that they didn't went in a shooting war, because btw F101(50% losses), F104(another 50% losses) and F5As, their force was really abismal (not that Italian air force fared better, with their old F104s).
It's incredible how such a delicate matter as defense it's so mistreated by politicians and military brass