Defence has told a parliamentary committee that providing Hawkei Light Protected Mobility Vehicles to Ukraine would “significantly” impact the availability of Australian vehicles and further delay the achievement of Final Operational Capability (FOC).
In response to question on notice from Senator David Fawcett, Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, as part of the committee's inquiry into Defence’s Annual Report for 2022-2023, Defence said that “The capability support system for Hawkei is not mature” and that “gifting of Hawkei to Ukraine would significantly affect vehicle availability for Australia and further impact on the achievement of Final Operational Capability.”
According to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Hawkei is currently expected to achieve FOC in June this year following a 12-month delay. The vehicle has been impacted by issues relating to its braking system, which has been the main issue cited by the government in denying Ukrainian requests for the vehicles.
Throughout last year - following an official request for the vehicles from the Ukrainian Government, and amid an intensive “#FreetheHawkei” campaign led by the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (AFUO) - the government repeatedly stated the braking issues were the primary reason that Australia wouldn’t supply the vehicles.
The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, also told the ABC in June last year the that the vehicles “would not be effective” and that it’s “It's no good sending equipment that is not going to be able to be used on the frontline, that will just create a hindrance rather than a help”.
In early February the government's line began to change. In response to a constituent petition, tabled by Susan Templeman MP, the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles said that “the Hawkei is not yet accepted into ADF operational service. A combination of an ongoing brakes issues, and immature support and sustainment systems make it unsuitable for gifting to Ukraine at this juncture.”
Defence had not responded to questions from ADM prior to publication.