Latest news with #MRH90Taipan
The Advertiser
01-07-2025
- General
- The Advertiser
It's not how much you spend on defence but how well you spend it
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality."
RNZ News
21-05-2025
- General
- RNZ News
2023 Australian chopper crash caused by pilot disorientation
Royal Australian Navy sailors from HMAS Huon conduct search operations in the vicinity of Lindeman Island, Queensland. Photo: Supplied/ Australian Department of Defence An Australian military helicopter crash that killed all four crew members was caused by the pilots becoming disoriented, a report found Wednesday. Four military aircrew were on board the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter when it plunged into the sea close to the Whitsunday Islands during a multinational military drill on the night of July 28, 2023. The chopper had been taking part in the Talisman Sabre exercise, which brings together 30,000 military personnel from Australia, the United States and several other nations . Australia's Defence Flight Safety Bureau report found the helicopter was waiting to land, flying in a holding pattern with "degraded" viability. During this time, the pilots "almost certainly lost visual sight" of the other aircraft. The helicopter began an "inadvertent and unrecognised climb" to 110 metres before it crashed into the ocean. The main reason for the crash was "a loss of spatial orientation", also known as spatial disorientation, the report found. "This refers to a situation where a pilot is unaware of their actual orientation in relation to the earth's surface and the surrounding environment," the Australian Defence Force said in a statement. "This aviation safety investigation was one of the most complex conducted by Defence in recent history." The investigation did not seek to place "blame or liability" on any individuals or organisations, it added. The report made 46 recommendations to the Defence Force, all of which have been accepted. The Taipans, which have had a troubled history , were already due to leave service at the end of this year, with the Australian military switching to Black Hawks. - AFP
