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 theechidna.com.au
Login or signup to continue reading
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........
© The Examiner
