SeaSprite Faces Axe...Again

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
pascaly	SeaSprite Faces Axe...Again	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1461 ( 4-Feb-2008 07:09:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	From Aus Aviation; 04/02/08 SEASPRITE FACES AXE…AGAIN: Word out of last week's PAC 08 naval exposition and sea power conference in Sydney suggests the Navy's ailing Seasprite program is again facing the axe, this time one wielded by new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon. The minister identified Seasprite as one of two examples of troubled programs currently under review during a January 29 media doorstop. Industry officials later confirmed that both Sikorsky and Eurocopter were asked in mid January to prepare proposals for 27 helicopters to replace the Seasprite, as well as the Navy's Seahawk under Air 9000 Phase 8. A decision on whether to perform a mid-life upgrade or replace the Seahawks was due this year. Sikorsky has proposed a mixed fleet of proven MH-60R 'Romeo' ASW/ASuW and MH-60S 'Sierra' transport helicopters based on the proven Seahawk and Black Hawk airframes respectively but with advanced Lockheed Martin cockpits and upgraded engines and drive trains. Both types are in service with the US Navy. The fact that the Sierras have been proposed suggests Navy's MRH-90s, themselves intended to replace the Sea King from 2010, may subsequently be returned to Army. Eurocopter, despite having the advantage of incumbency with the similar MRH-90 helicopter entering service with both Army and Navy, may ultimately be at a disadvantage due to the timing of the RFP, as it may not be able to offer an operational naval NFH-90 capability in the relatively short time frame required due to extensive delays in getting that program going in Europe. Eleven Seasprites were acquired in 1997 to equip the RAN's Anzac class frigates, and were due to have entered service by 2001; however ongoing certification issues have seen the aircraft grounded since 2006. A remediation program proposed by prime contractor Kaman last year would see these aircraft enter service in 2011 at the earliest, and not achieve a full operational capability until 2014. EDIT: Stopped the title from shouting Last Edited By: pascaly 6-Feb-2008 01:32:53. Edited 1 time.
jim3au	2014!	#1	[-]
Posts: 1299 ( 4-Feb-2008 13:36:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That is just sad. That far away it should be possible to have a different warship under the helicopter. If the program had worked as it was supposed to, it would have made the ANZAC Frigates and the Super Sea Spites a pretty potent weapons system. It does not. Someone certainly needs to have a think about the program. maybe it should be axed and maybe it shouldn't, but it certainly needs looking at.
CliffS		#2	[-]
Posts: 439 ( 4-Feb-2008 14:55:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jim3au wrote: That is just sad. That far away it should be possible to have a different warship under the helicopter. If the program had worked as it was supposed to, it would have made the ANZAC Frigates and the Super Sea Spites a pretty potent weapons system. It does not. Someone certainly needs to have a think about the program. maybe it should be axed and maybe it shouldn't, but it certainly needs looking at. The Seasprite appears to be the only option for the space-strapped ANZACs. We seem to be paying the price for our eclectic defence acquisition policies: marrying European hulls with US weapons & support systems. (That's an oversimplification, I know - but the US-built FFG-7s never had this problem with the US-built Seahawk.) AFAIK, the Seasprite is the only multi-role helo which (a) fits into the ANZACs' hangar, and (b) lifts all the stuff the RAN wants to lift when we want to be nasty to someone at sea. Jim WH: What's your info on this? Cheers, Cliff.
skipper101		#3	[-]
Posts: 1481 ( 4-Feb-2008 20:37:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CliffS you info is a little inaccurate, the Anzac's are capable of operating both Seahawk and MRH 90. The only reason Seasprite's were acquired was for the Tenix OPV that was proposed once upon a time. The Answer here is simple, Super Seasprite is a joke and a 2014 in service date is absolutly whoeful, and by the time we get them they will be extremly out of date and not capable of doing what they were intended to do. Kill the Super Seasprite's, forget a Sikorsky design that would be just stupid we are trying to slimline our helo fleet, we have MRH 90's and are getting more they are a very capable helo. Simply order more MRH 90 airframes, KISS (keep it Super Simple) fit what ever combat system you want but keep the same airframe. This is really the only logical choice.
bager1968		#4	[-]
Posts: 2788 ( 4-Feb-2008 21:36:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yes, but the previous administration ordered the MRH-90s, which means this one will NEVER buy more. This lot seems to be governing by one principle only... whatever the old one did is wrong and will be reversed or abandoned... regardless!
Jim WH		#5	[-]
Posts: 841 ( 5-Feb-2008 01:59:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Skipper is right, the Anzacs fly SeaHwak right now and an NH-90 will easily fit aboard an Anzac. If needs absolutely dictate, there is additional width in the hanger section of the superstructure which (at present) is used for gym which could be taken over, but I really can't see that being necessary. But I disagree about time frames Skipper: even if DoD orders NH-90 today, we wouldn't see the first of them before 2011, and if we're being sensible probably not for a couple of years after that either. The best solution will be to commit to NH-90 nice and early, set Australian Aviation and Eurocopter the task of developing the Australianised avionics package now (i.e. more than enough time to find any problems before they're due in service), and aim to have the first fully mission capable birds on-line around 2014. Concurrently, we reduce the scope of the SeaHawk MLU so that they reach the end of their useful lives between 2014-2016, and we continue with the SeaSprote program, and hope to expidite it as far as possible. The transition between types starts with getting the first NH-90 into service, then decommissioning the SeaHawk, and then selling the (fully working and low houred) SeaSprite once the NH-90 have fully replaced the SeaHawk. Should all be done by about 2018-2019. Granted, we get less than a decade out of the SeaSprite, but hopefully we can recoup some of the cost by selling them (RNZAF, I'm looking at you), and 8-9 years of service is still nothing to be scoffed at. Alternately, one could reasonably ask what we gain by scrapping them now without ever having got any service out of them... Ultimately the end state for ADF rotary aviation is fairly bright. SeaHawk has sod all chance of getting up (NH-90 NFH is the better aircraft, with local industrial involvement, a competitive price tag, and the advantage pf economies of scale with the MRH-90), which means the ADF will have a four cornered helicopter fleet: -Heavy lift: Chinook (hopefully 9+ birds upgraded to CH-47F standard by the middle of next decade) -Medium lift and ASW: NH-90 (46 MRH-90 lift, 27 ASW/MP, maybe a couple more MRH-90 down the road) -Armed Recon.: Tiger (I still hold out hope of more than 22, but odds are against it) -Training + ?LUH?: ??? (the Helicopter Aircrew Training System will be procuring a helicopter for advanced training, some operational training (e.g. FLIR and Radar), and would be suitable for LUH) All in all a very sensible fleet covering all bases. Conveniently, all of the types will be in production for some time, which makes supplementary orders possible (it's cheaper to supplement a fleet than introduce a new type). I've seen inside the hanger of an Anzac and a Halifax (the Halifax use a SeaKing). Can't remember the space being greatly different.
pascaly	More on SeaSpud	#6	[-]
Posts: 1464 ( 6-Feb-2008 00:04:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This article from Flight scares me a little; the last line makes me realise these guys have their heads further up their backsides than I first thought http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/05/221234/australias-new-government-questions-seasprite-viability.html Australia's new government questions Seasprite viability By Emma Kelly Australia's recently elected Labor government has put the spotlight on the navy's troubled Kaman Super Seasprite programme once again, with defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon questioning whether upgrading the helicopter was ever viable. Australia ordered 11 SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites in 1997, with first deliveries scheduled for 2001. The programme involved upgrading former US Navy SH-2F helicopters with new sensors and the Litton (now Northrop Grumman) Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS). But the programme has been dogged by problems, mainly involving the ITAS, which resulted in the Royal Australian Navy provisionally accepting 11 Seasprites with limited capability in 2003/4. Delays and a problem with the automatic flight control system (AFCS) led to the navy grounding the helicopters in May 2006. A government review resulted in a decision to continue the programme subject to "acceptable contracting arrangements for an AFCS remediation programme". It is believed the decision was influenced by a lack of suitable alternatives, the A$1 billion ($890 million) already spent and the possibility of legal action if the programme was scrapped. But Fitzgibbon says a number of Australia's defence acquisitions are unlikely to achieve their desired capability and are being reviewed, including the Super Seasprite. The RAN has provisionally accepted nine of the helicopters in an interim training configuration, and two are with Kaman for flight testing. Kaman says the AFCS problem, involving an anomalous signal from an airspeed sensor, has been resolved and the ITAS software is in the final stages of formal qualification testing. Kaman and Australia's Department of Defence have been negotiating a two-phase AFCS remediation programme. The first phase, expected to result in a return to flying for the type this year, involves software error checking of flight-performance inputs. Phase two will involve AFCS hardware and software changes to improve its safety and reliability and bring it up to date with current airworthiness standards, says the Department. Australia does not expect all 11 Super Seasprites to have full ITAS functionality until 2010-11. Fitzgibbon says the previous government made a number of ad-hoc decisions on force structure and capability that were not based on strategic guidance. The new Defence White Paper, which Labor plans to release by the end of 2008, is intended to reconnect the country's strategic needs and force planning, outlining the Australian Defence Force's roles, responsibilities and structure and allowing decisions to be made on equipment, he says. The government hopes this will allow it to avoid the delays, budget over-runs and capability issues that plagued its predecessor.
Freedom Eagle		#7	[-]
Posts: 167 ( 6-Feb-2008 02:31:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Scrape the Seaspite. In my opinion instead of the MRH-90, the Sikorsky S-92 should have been bought along with upgrades and S-92 common avionics to the Blackhawks and Seahawks. Eventuallly older aircraft would be phased out stetching out delivery rates and cost and making good use of available airframes. Eurocopter EC-365s or Agusta a109s would fulfil a traning role for the navy (which A-109s are already being leased) and would be used for a OPV and would provide the army with a usful more cost effective lighter helicopter. Last I heard is that Australia purchased 4 CH-47F Chinooks, which is probably good considering the aircraft good range, speed, payload and HOGE ability which is essential in type of warfare facing modern forces.
Jim WH		#8	[-]
Posts: 842 ( 6-Feb-2008 10:57:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay, several thing Freedom Eagle: -We have not purchased 4 CH-47F, just prior to the election Dr Nelson gave first pass approval to purchasing 3 CH-47F. The Army News reported it as a purchase and then had to publish a retraction in the next issue. That being said, I live in hope that the extra Chooks make it through, possibly with further additions (i.e. "9+ birds"). A further point to make, the new Chook would be delivered early next decade, but almost instantly we'll probably send out our existing birds to have them upgraded the F standard, so we wouldn't have a fleet of 9 Chinook until mid next decade at the earliest. -NH-90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) won't be ready until early next decade at the earliest, and it'd be damned difficult to have them on strength in Australia until some time after that. Concurrently the Seahawk will be running out of airframe life, which would make life very difficult without SeaSprite. Far better to run up the SeaSprite, skip the SeaHawk MLU, and transition to the NH-90 NFH after it's proven (e.g. 2014 or so). -S-92 is the wrong bird for Australia. S-92 is a good deal bigger and more expensive than NH-90 which would also mean that you'd almost certainly need a lower tier of helicopters to make up numbers. So, you'd need to purchase both S-92 and Blackhawk/Seahawk, which kind of miss the point of AIR 9000 (reduction of the number of types in service). Basically, this is the same reason that Merlin didn't get picked. -NH-90 is the right bird for Australia: far better capacity than Blackhawk/Seahawk, better physically organised (e.g. ramp), still cheap enough that it can be afforded is good numbers, very nearly identical version for utility and naval applications (Blackhawk and Seahawk actually have a surprising number of difference in the airframe). -I'd agree that using the training helicopter (A109 is looking like a hot favourite) to introduce/reintroduce a LUH/BLUH capability into the Army is a good idea. But there isn;t a hurry just yet (the Kiowa will still be available for a while yet). Since the requirements for HATS (Helicopter Aircrew Training System) emphasize the type having some operational features to facilitate mid-level training (e.g. radar and FLIR), such a BLUH squadron could conceivably include a mix of straight utility types (i.e. totally unarmed) and lower-tier-ARH types (e.g. FLIR and laser designator with 2.75" laser guided rockets). Of course the main point of the BLUH is still straight utility work (e.g. transport for a couple of guys, visual recon. etc.), so just about any helicopter would be suitable.
Freedom Eagle		#9	[-]
Posts: 169 ( 6-Feb-2008 11:37:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks for the info Jim WH. The S-92 is in the same weight catagory and has simuliar external dimesions as the MRH-90 according to Janes and is supposedly cheaper. I guess the Australian Navy could get onboard with the Canadian Navy's S-92 they call the Cyclone. The army could continue using Blawkhawks with upgraded engines and blades just like the UH-60M which is coming off the production line using the uprated T-700 engines and blades from the S-92. Throwing in another helicopter type like the MRH-90 along with the Aussie Tiger and your left with 3 different engines to support. Well its just my opinion if you want more bang for the buck.
skipper101		#10	[-]
Posts: 1482 ( 7-Feb-2008 12:00:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Im reasonably convinced that a small and simple life of type extention limited to keeping the Seahawk Safe for flight for a few more years is altimatly the best idea until the new NFH can be delivered. SSS is still gonna cost barrals and won't acheive anything and who the hell would want to buy them? We should go all NH90 ASAP, keep the Seahawks as long as nessary trash the SSS they are no good. and the RAN helo requirement is reduceing now anyway as there are only 4 FFG's and the 3 new DDG's will be single bird ships we don't need as many so some of the Seahawks could be cut up to maintain the rest while NFH comes online with little to no effect on fleet operations. Freedom Eagle as we have already commenced the NH90 (AIR 9000) programe there is no logical reason in any alternate universe for the RAN to get S 92. Sikorsky has no future in Australian Aviation once the Seahawk and Blackhawks are gone, that simple. We have other birds now and they are more suiteable. Any Future descisions on Helos in the ADF are plainly academic.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

SeaSprite Faces Axe...Again

SeaSprite Faces Axe...Again

Quick Reply