Defence News

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:57 am

Taipan response from Army to Senator Fawcett.
youtube.com/watch?v=OP3TeDd25SY

They have nothing so anything is better than nothing and they can source support through European partners (but they still cannot have them).

Hippy Chippy · **Posted:** Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:38 am

Awesome...!!! :yess:

If the Coalition :3some:

don't make David Fawcett Minister of Defence when they eventually turf Albo out, :axe:

they don't deserve to win government...! :supz:

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Thu Feb 29, 2024 1:59 pm

Regarding the Taipan post:

I posted the following comment on the article site:

Defence has a chronic failure of not ordering the number of spares required to maintain any platform due to chronic underfunding by penny pinching accountants

And there was a follow up comment from another poster:

Exactly right and way back at the start of MRH, the OEM suggested spares package to sustain the Australian fleet of MRH, was cut in half by Defence, this was the start of the spares issues.

I believe that the "bury" option is to cover their arses regarding the inability to supply maintained, serviceable platforms through lack of required spare parts. The chance for Ukraine to source the needed spare parts from the European manufacturer would expose this.

Seejay · **Posted:** Thu Feb 29, 2024 2:56 pm

Stroppy Chippie wrote:

Regarding the Taipan post:

I posted the following comment on the article site:

Defence has a chronic failure of not ordering the number of spares required to maintain any platform due to chronic underfunding by penny pinching accountants

And there was a follow up comment from another poster:

Exactly right and way back at the start of MRH, the OEM suggested spares package to sustain the Australian fleet of MRH, was cut in half by Defence, this was the start of the spares issues.

I believe that the "bury" option is to cover their arses regarding the inability to supply maintained, serviceable platforms through lack of required spare parts. The chance for Ukraine to source the needed spare parts from the European manufacturer would expose this.

How very interesting. Tuesday last I was talking to an ex-pilot mate with a very long flying history and the subject of the Taipans came up, along with the burying debacle. His speculation was eactly the same in that the RAAF is burying their mistakes and liabilities.

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:03 pm

Seejay wrote:

Stroppy Chippie wrote:

Regarding the Taipan post:

I posted the following comment on the article site:

Defence has a chronic failure of not ordering the number of spares required to maintain any platform due to chronic underfunding by penny pinching accountants

And there was a follow up comment from another poster:

Exactly right and way back at the start of MRH, the OEM suggested spares package to sustain the Australian fleet of MRH, was cut in half by Defence, this was the start of the spares issues.

I believe that the "bury" option is to cover their arses regarding the inability to supply maintained, serviceable platforms through lack of required spare parts. The chance for Ukraine to source the needed spare parts from the European manufacturer would expose this.

How very interesting. Tuesday last I was talking to an ex-pilot mate with a very long flying history and the subject of the Taipans came up, along with the burying debacle. His speculation was eactly the same in that the RAAF is burying their mistakes and liabilities.

Another response on the post:

This is how NZ was able to solve the issue and bought a 9th complete NH90 specifically to be used as spares as it actually worked out cheaper and so have then been able to keep on top of the "spares" issue by then taking said part off the spare frame immediately and then just ordering and replacing that Part on the spare so as not to impact the operational fleet.

This excuse of no spares doesn't exactly fly (pun intended) here either as the ADF now had 6 spare frames in the even earlier retired RAN NH90s which could/Should have then kept the army Nh90s in a flyable state. The fact that the RAN justification for ditching the 6 naval examples was supposedly the difficulties the small fleet number presented whereas army reasoning for NZs ability to operate their 8 NH90s satisfactorily is exactly the same, a smaller fleet. These guys need to work together on their excuses at least.

Sooooooo, if they cannot give operational platforms to Ukraine, they could give the entire inventory to New Zealand to maintain their inventory.....

BC · **Posted:** Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:00 am

Hear, hear! :ok:

Hippy Chippy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 01, 2024 6:45 pm

Stroppy Chippie wrote:

Regarding the Taipan post:
I believe that the "bury" option is to cover their arses regarding the inability to supply maintained, serviceable platforms through lack of required spare parts. The chance for Ukraine to source the needed spare parts from the European manufacturer would expose this.

Its a bit like burying Alexi Navalny, ( [-X

but not until all signs of the novichok residue have dissolved, :roll:

) then bury the evidence, once and for all... :sleep1:

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:22 pm

Hippy Chippy wrote:

Stroppy Chippie wrote:

Regarding the Taipan post:
I believe that the "bury" option is to cover their arses regarding the inability to supply maintained, serviceable platforms through lack of required spare parts. The chance for Ukraine to source the needed spare parts from the European manufacturer would expose this.

Its a bit like burying Alexi Navalny, ( [-X

but not until all signs of the novichok residue have dissolved, :roll:

) then bury the evidence, once and for all... :sleep1:

Strange, elections coming up and the chance of Navalny being out of jail by that time then, all of a sudden, he dies. Who would have guessed that...

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:25 pm

I just watched a forum on the Strategic Review and they were talking about the build program to include light and heavy landing craft (I guess yet another attempt to replace the long lived LCM8s - after two prior fails). Seejays favourite firm in line to build both the light and heavy vessels (along with more Evolved Class "patrol" boats.

Seejay · **Posted:** Sat Mar 02, 2024 7:15 am

Stroppy Chippie wrote:

I just watched a forum on the Strategic Review and they were talking about the build program to include light and heavy landing craft (I guess yet another attempt to replace the long lived LCM8s - after two prior fails). Seejays favourite firm in line to build both the light and heavy vessels (along with more Evolved Class "patrol" boats.

The word on the street around here is that 'that firm' is in the process of being bought by Twiggy Forest and his intent is to make WA the new centre of shipbuilding in Oz. Given his past successes with whatever he turns his hand to he will probably succed in this as well. After all, money talks and big money talks big, and I think the commonwealth will roll over to accommodate him given the state of current shipbuilding.

With a bit of luck, he'll move that firm away from alloy construction.

Defence News

Who is online