GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
6,887
Reaction score
8,399
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Yep - funnily enough, I think the announcement comes on the day (or close to) that the last 'old' Black Hawk flight was scheduled.
 
That’s pretty bad, so the tigers didn’t work out, and now even the transports didn’t work out. It’s not a good record for any of the parties involved.
 
Sadly, I had my predictions that the MRH 90 was a piece of junk, it always should have been additional Blackhawk's we purchased IMO.
Another purchase by the ADF that wasn't mature, proven and tested.
Again as in the case of the Tiger, who's going to be held accountable for this waste of money? [I think I made a funny]

On top of this is the fact that the selection and operation of the MRH 90 was never operationally comparable with our principle allie in which we've long followed, committed and operated - the US and now Britain as emphasised by AUKUS.

P.S. In truth, I'm wondering if we'll see the same thing with the eventual Land 400 Ph3 (and other numerous non US & British platforms for that matter) - the fact that neither contender, be it German or Sth Korean isn't and won't be US/British comparable....


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Unlike the Tiger, that eventually worked after the sustainment issues were sorted, the MRH has never met requirements, classic over promise, under deliver.

The other difference, as I understand it, (I will happily stand corrected by anyone more knowledgeable), the Army chose the Tiger and it was a great platform, while the Army recommended the Blackhawk, not the MRH, L model at the time I believe.
 
I have been wondering if a minimum readiness should be written into any contract. Fall below a certain readiness level in a set time scale (As long as service requirements are met) and the contract is cancelled. This might encourage companies to get the job done right at the beginning. Just my ten pence worth.
 
The thing that caused issues in Australia wasn't the design itself but rather the poor sustainment support. From the Minister's media release (below):

The MRH90 helicopter fleet has not met contracted availability requirements nor the expected cost of ownership


The Program issues were addressed in this ANAO report from as far back as 2014 and earlier and has been a constant point of discussion.


It has also been a Project of Concern for years.

That all said, I spoke with a number of people at Airbus Asia Pacific yesterday and they were very somber with one comment being "They've killed the company!" Most staff there only found out from the media reports yesterday despite the company execs being told earlier by Defence.
 
I have been wondering if a minimum readiness should be written into any contract. Fall below a certain readiness level in a set time scale (As long as service requirements are met) and the contract is cancelled. This might encourage companies to get the job done right at the beginning. Just my ten pence worth.
There usually are clauses/KPIs like that written into sustainment contracts. That said, outright cancellation isn't always the automatic or practical solution. For instance, if a fleet is grounded because of a lack of spares because there is an issue at the factory of a supplier of key components is that the fault of the prime contractor? What about if parts are delayed because of something...say a global pandemic delaying freight into a country? Should the contract be torn up then?
 
Last edited:
, I'm wondering if we'll see the same thing with the eventual Land 400 Ph3 (and other numerous non US & British platforms for that matter) - the fact that neither contender, be it German or Sth Korean isn't and won't be US/British comparable....
Well both Hanwha and Rheinmetall are closely watching and involved in the US OMFV program so there is still a possibility. If I had my way, I would push for the Land400-3, OMFV and UK Army's armoured vehicle programme (AJAX) to be combined into one common one under AUKUS with a common vehicle family built on 3 different lines.
 
I have been wondering if a minimum readiness should be written into any contract. Fall below a certain readiness level in a set time scale (As long as service requirements are met) and the contract is cancelled. This might encourage companies to get the job done right at the beginning. Just my ten pence worth.
There usually are clauses/KPIOs like that written into sustainment contracts. That said, outright cancellation isn't always the automatic or practical solution. For instance, if a fleet is grounded because of a lack of spares because there is an issue at the factory of a supplier of key components is that the fault of the prime contractor? What about if parts are delayed because of something...say a global pandemic delaying freight into a country? Should the contract be torn up then?
Not as such, certainly the company has to be given time but for an asset to be available for only short periods or at low availability over ten years, there should be something to repair the situation.
 
That all said, I spoke with a number of people at Airbus Asia Pacific yesterday and they were very somber with one comment being "They've killed the company!" Most staff there only found out from the media reports yesterday despite the company execs being told earlier by Defence.
Further to this, I predict that Airbus Asia Pacific will not exist in 6 - 12mths.
 
Here's an idea:

According to the Drive "SIGAR previously reported that 37 Black Hawks that had been destined for Afghanistan were still at an unspecified location in the United States when the country's government collapsed in August."

So there are 37 brand new blackhawks needing new owners sitting un-loved in the US.

How about the Australian army and or RAF share them and can then replace there kit fairly quickly?????
 
The thing that caused issues in Australia wasn't the design itself but rather the poor sustainment support. From the Minister's media release (below):

The Program issues were addressed in this ANAO report from as far back as 2014 and earlier and has been a constant point of discussion.

Well the consecutive Minister's should be kicked fair and square in the arse for allowing the program to get so far for so long IMO

Wow, reading this ANAO report only reiterates to me that our government hasn't and doesn't take such an oversighting body like the ANAO serious!

I found it both interesting and disturbing the given point in the report:

"in June 2004 that the S‑70M Black Hawk be selected as the preferred aircraft for Phases 2 and 4.;

-In accordance with direction provided by the Minister for Defence and government, Defence developed alternate draft submissions, initially to ask ministers to choose between the two aircraft options—the MRH90 and S‑70M Black Hawk—and later recommending acquisition of the MRH90 for Phase 2 only. In August 2004, government formally approved the acquisition of 12 MRH90 aircraft for Phase 2 on the basis that strategic and other government considerations outweighed the cost advantage of the Sikorsky proposal.;

-In June 2005, following protracted contract negotiations, Defence signed an acquisition contract with Australian Aerospace for the supply of 12 MRH90 aircraft and for an interim support system. The interim support system did not include important MRH90 aircraft support elements such as an electronic warfare self protection support cell, a ground mission management system, a software support centre, an instrumented aircraft with telemetry, and Full Flight and Mission Simulators. These support elements are critical for providing training and the ability to operate off ships. They were removed from the MRH90 acquisition contract to ensure AIR 9000 Phase 2 remained within its approved budget, and were added to the contract through later amendments, and at additional cost.;

-The Chief of Army is the lead Capability Manager for all of the ADF’s MRH90 fleet. The Chief of Navy has capability management responsibilities for the six MRH90 aircraft assigned to Navy. These officers are responsible for overseeing and coordinating all elements necessary to achieve the MRH90 aircraft’s full level of operational capability by the date agreed to by government.;

-By March 2014, over $2.4 billion had been spent acquiring and sustaining the MRH90 aircraft, with 27 delivered. However, the MRH90 Program was running some four years behind schedule, with the first Operational Capability milestones for both the Army and the Navy yet to be achieved. Considerable work remains to implement and verify some design changes, and to adjust operational tactics, techniques and procedures, in order to develop an adequate multi‑role helicopter capability for Army and Navy operations.";

-By March 2014, over $2.4 billion had been spent acquiring and sustaining the MRH90 aircraft, with 27 delivered. However, the MRH90 Program was running some four years behind schedule, with the first Operational Capability milestones for both the Army and the Navy yet to be achieved. Considerable work remains to implement and verify some design changes, and to adjust operational tactics, techniques and procedures, in order to develop an adequate multi‑role helicopter capability for Army and Navy operations.;

-The decision by the then Australian Government in 2004 to approve the acquisition of the MRH90 aircraft, instead of the initial Defence recommendation that the S‑70M Black Hawk aircraft be acquired for Phases 2 and 4, has had significant implications as a consequence of: unforseen immaturity in the MRH90 system design and the support system; the continuing need to modify some design elements to meet multi‑role capability requirements; and the high cost of sustaining the aircraft.;

-The following discussion of the audit findings is structured around the key elements of the acquisition: the source selection process, including requirements definition; acquisition progress and remediation; and cost, schedule and capability. The audit also highlights a number of key lessons from the MRH90 Program, which have also been observed in previous reviews of Defence and in previous ANAO audits.;

-Under the 2002 ADF Helicopter Strategic Master Plan, Defence’s strategy was to rationalise the number of helicopter types in service with the ADF through the acquisition of a multi‑role helicopter capability. Defence planned to acquire the capability via a Military‑Off‑The‑Shelf (MOTS) procurement to reduce the risk of cost escalation and schedule slippage. A MOTS helicopter procurement may confidently be undertaken when tests and evaluations are complete; full‑rate production is well underway; and mature sustainment supply chains are in place to support the aircraft. However, when Australia planned to acquire troop lift helicopters in the early 2000s, the solutions offered by the main contenders had not yet achieved these milestones.;

-During the Phase 2 RFP process in 2003, Defence noted uncertainty about development and certification risks for the two main contenders (the MRH90 and the S‑70M Black Hawk aircraft), and had low–medium confidence in cost estimates, as both aircraft remained under development at the time and were not yet MOTS aircraft. However, this assessment did not lead Defence to undertake a thorough analysis of the maturity of the two aircraft options, and associated cost and schedule risks. Defence could have undertaken more thorough analysis of the available options during the remainder of the source selection process, in order to better inform government decision making on the selection of a preferred aircraft.;

-Defence’s helicopter capability requirements definition was inadequate, did not properly inform the source selection process, and led to gaps in contract requirements. Defence also did not effectively assess the maturity of the MRH90 and S‑70M Black Hawk aircraft designs, and the potential implications of immaturity, during the source selection process and to inform the development of contracts. Further, the acquisition and sustainment contracts established by Defence did not contain adequate protections for the Commonwealth.;

-While Defence provided candid advice to its Minister on its preferred option and the possible separation of Phases 2 and 4, in the absence of comprehensive helicopter capability requirements definition, Defence was on the back foot. Defence was not positioned to readily identify areas in need of developmental work for the respective aircraft, and to confidently inform ministers on the respective strengths and weaknesses of the proposals.;

-In June and July 2004, Defence recommended the S‑70M Black Hawk option following the Phases 2 and 4 ODRP on the basis of its cost advantage, robust construction, ballistic protection and crashworthiness. Defence also found that the MRH90 aircraft would meet the capability requirement. Defence considered that the MRH90 was a more marinised aircraft, and that the Australian Aerospace offer had Australian industry capability advantages.;

-Defence has approved many temporary and permanent design waivers for the aircraft with respect to the original requirements. Further, due to the immaturity of the design, DMO has agreed to accept the MRH90 aircraft with three Product Baseline upgrades which are expected to bring the aircraft to their contracted standard; and three software builds which make evolutionary software improvements.

Once again it's clear and obvious to me that Australia's aquisition processes are drastically flawed.
Once again the powers that be - Defence and politicians selected a non mature weapons system / platform and the ADF's capabilities are compromised detrimentally.

There's definitely a pattern here in which government and Defence are so at ease with cancelling or prematurely replacing their stuff-ups with no accountability.
I'm also seeing these cockups being replaced with off-the-shelf replacements - so much for Australian content and participation....



The ADF/Defence Department can't sustain these cockups!


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

The ADF/Defence Department can't sustain these cockups!
Err...you are talking about developments over the space of close to 20yrs, multiple governments (of both sides of politics) and many ADF 'managers'.
 

The ADF/Defence Department can't sustain these cockups!
Err...you are talking about developments over the space of close to 20yrs, multiple governments (of both sides of politics) and many ADF 'managers'.
Exactly GTX
It's obvious that the aquisition process is flawed in my opinion.
Why is Defence so sacrosanct that it can't be criticised and held to account like any other government department?

I concur with the centiment of the following article:


Let's seriously look at the expensive military aquisition blunders of the past twenty years, on which Defence/ADF have simply stated 'ah barlies, we don't need or like this system any more ...please sir, can we have another bite of the cherry?':

-F-35 program, so long and troublesome in its development to an exceptable operational standard, that the ADF had to purchase F/A-18E/F's and EA-18G Growler to fill the operational hap of replacing the F-111, which itself was supposed to be replaced by the F-35.

- C-27 Spartan tactical transport, a troubled and tiresome on again/ off again aquisition program of a couple of decades to replace the DHC-4 only for the ADF to say 'ah, we don't really have a need or want for it anymore!'

-The Collins class submarine replacement program - well I don't think this debacle needs any mentioning......

- The Armidale class patrol boats

- The on again/off again Army SPH program.....


Now I know and appreciate that you'll hit the roof Greg as soon as I mention politics, but I'm sorry and sad to say that the strong and obvious re-emergence of political use and abuse of Defence/ADF as both a business tool and a means of wedge politics by the LNP against it's opposition has long been occurring and contributing to this troubled aquisition problem since 1996 - a problem that has to be seriously fixed.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Oh, how silly of me, these Defence aquisition stuff ups are so prevalent, I'm missed another obvious stuffed up and costly program - The Tiger attack helicopter program

And the Seasprites?
Yes, thank you Agent A, the SH-2G(A) Seasprite.

I guess, at least with the RAN Seasprite debacle, the notion was always to save money by purchasing, modifying and utilising a secondhand helicopter. But alas, trying to accommodate all the wants, needs and capabilities dreamed up by the RAN, they stuffed this up and defeated the intent.
Did the RAN/Department of Defence/Minister's of Defence learn anything from this debacle?

(For the record my money and preference would have been on the purchase of Westland Lynx)

Regards
Pioneer
 
Defence procurement was completely rejigged in the late 90s following the perceived failures of the Collins Class submarine build, and to a lesser extent, the ANZAC frigate program. The irony is, with the exception of a handful of predominantly FMS or joint projects with the US (as opposed to us letting a contract with a US company for a bespoke system), every major project initiated since the "improvements" to the procurement system has had very serious issues, while the Collins and ANZAC have been extensively upgraded and continue to give effective service.
 
How about this for a change. Restrict defence procurement to off-the-shelf equipment, with a moratorium on specification changes. Keep this up until the present political leadership and acquisition staff is dead and buried.
 
How about this for a change. Restrict defence procurement to off-the-shelf equipment, with a moratorium on specification changes. Keep this up until the present political leadership and acquisition staff is dead and buried.
Some times specification changes are necessary, i.e. changing strategic environment, a previously development "nice to have" system enters FOC with an ally and becomes commonsense rather than risky, it becomes obvious that a design change during build, especially during the build of later examples of a platform, is more efficient and cost effective than upgrading after delivery. All of this though should be managed rigorously as new projects and rolled in as contract changes in a controlled manner.
 
You're right. What I proposed would do more harm than good.
 
Last edited:

We're seeing a lot of this recently -- aircraft being retired and replaced by modernized versions of the same airframe. (See especially Chinook).

I suspect we've reached a point where the aerodynamics and general structural design of aircraft (and especially helicopters) is basically a solved problem. So the available advances are basically in engine power/efficiency and electronics. When airframes reach the end of there economic life, it makes sense to replace with more modern versions of the same basic design.

This can go awry when changing engines leads to unintended aero changes (737 Max) but in general this is a more cost effective approach than designing new airframes to accommodate new engine technology.
 
Last edited:

We're seeing a lot of this recently -- aircraft being retired and replaced by modernized versions of the same airframe. (See especially Chinook).
Indeed - when it comes to the likes of the Chinook (and dare I say Hercules since both are in that 60+yrs of service category), we are definitely into the likes of "Old Chinooks never die, they just get remanufactured into the next variant...";)
 

We're seeing a lot of this recently -- aircraft being retired and replaced by modernized versions of the same airframe. (See especially Chinook).
Indeed - when it comes to the likes of the Chinook (and dare I say Hercules since both are in that 60+yrs of service category), we are definitely into the likes of "Old Chinooks never die, they just get remanufactured into the next variant...";)

And at some point, you run into the Ship of Theseus paradox when it comes to remanufacturing. You can only rebuild an airframe so much before the only surviving part is the registration plate.
 

We're seeing a lot of this recently -- aircraft being retired and replaced by modernized versions of the same airframe. (See especially Chinook).
Indeed - when it comes to the likes of the Chinook (and dare I say Hercules since both are in that 60+yrs of service category), we are definitely into the likes of "Old Chinooks never die, they just get remanufactured into the next variant...";)

And at some point, you run into the Ship of Theseus paradox when it comes to remanufacturing. You can only rebuild an airframe so much before the only surviving part is the registration plate.
Fans of ‘Only Fools and Horses’ might remember the sketch when Trigger, the road sweeper, claims to have used the same broom for 20 years….even though it has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles. Also known as the Ship of Theseus paradox – Plutarch asked whether a wooden ship which has had every single piece of wood replaced was still the same ship
 
'Restrict defence procurement to off-the-shelf equipment....'

I've had this same notion for the past couple of decades Arjen. This notion, want and desire of quantum capability over our potential adversary(s) has had hairs on it since the off the drawing board F-111 selection on political grounds, rather than actual military terms.
The obvious rediculous track record of the selection of off the board programs that Australia seems to be wedded to have almost each and every time come back and bitten both the tax payer or dramatically effected the ADF combat capabilities as a consequence.
The 'on again off again' political games of wanting a real and purposeful indigenous defence manufacturing industry hasn't helped either.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
'Restrict defence procurement to off-the-shelf equipment....'

I've had this same notion for the past couple of decades Arjen. This notion, want and desire of quantum capability over our potential adversary(s) has had hairs on it since the off the drawing board F-111 selection on political grounds, rather than actual military terms.
The obvious rediculous track record of the selection of off the board programs that Australia seems to be wedded to have almost each and every time come back and bitten both the tax payer or dramatically effected the ADF combat capabilities as a consequence.
The 'on again off again' political games of wanting a real and purposeful indigenous defence manufacturing industry hasn't helped either.

Regards
Pioneer
The secret is choosing one or the other and sticking to it, most of the cost and risk is associated with switching back and forth rather than just staying on track with one selected path.

There is also the mistaken belief that by buying bleeding edge, instead of simply good enough, you can save money by keeping it in service longer than the good enough option.

The problem isn't so much deciding to build locally as opposed to buying MOTS, its probably more about not making a sustainable choice and sticking to it.

Sticking to helicopters the Seahawk and Blackhawk were acquired in the late 80s early 90s, there were clear requirements for additional helicopters in the late 80s early 90s that could / should have extended the Blackhawk / Seahawk production. Replacement for the Wessex in the utility role, Seaking in the ASW role, and later the utility role and instead of the Super Sea Sprites. This fleet of elated helos could have been progressively replaced from the mid 2000s with new versions, which in turn would be coming up for replacement now.

One of the obstacles was the sustainment costs of the Sea King were erroneously assumed to have plateaued, as such the costs of an aging platform was never factored into the decision to retain, rather than replace them. There were multiple similar decisions like this made during the 90s leaving the ADF with a raft of aging platforms that were becoming more expensive to sustain at the same time as experiencing increased failure rates, lower availability and reduced comparative capability. Production lines went cold, skills atrophied or were dispersed to other areas when simply maintaining a slow but steady build rate of related platforms would have cost no more than what was spent, while ensuring increased capability.
 
The 'on again off again' political games of wanting a real and purposeful indigenous defence manufacturing industry hasn't helped either.
So you're saying that the Govt shouldn't pursue strategies that create jobs?
 
So you're saying that the Govt shouldn't pursue strategies that create jobs?
That is a discussion that has been going on for quite some time where I live. We sometimes lose track of the main objective - is it for providing jobs, or is it for providing proper kit for the users?
There are no easy answers.
 
No
The 'on again off again' political games of wanting a real and purposeful indigenous defence manufacturing industry hasn't helped either.
So you're saying that the Govt shouldn't pursue strategies that create jobs?
No, I'm saying the government should stop playing politics with Defence GTX.
But don't worry mate, for it's very apparent Australian jobs in Defence is safe, because it's now front and centre part of this government's politics and their want to be 'world leaders in Military Exports.'


Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom