Status of the RAN Kaman SH-2G(A) helos?

[Aardvark Fury]

Can anyone update me on the current status of Australia's Kaman SH-2G(A) Seasprite helicopters? I think the last I read was that the problems with their software were nearing resolution and that they will soon become operational with the RAN (in 2006?).

When are they expected to become operational and when can we expect to see them deployed on the ANZAC frigates in place of the S-70s?

Also, I read that, in US Navy service, the Seasprite was infamous for its 30+ hours of maintenance per flight hour. Is the SH-2G(A) expected to be as maintenance-heavy in Australian service? I hope not!

Finally, can anyone give me an idea of the unique capabilities the RAN will receive with this helicopter. I mean, after waiting all these years for software development we must be getting something really special... right? ;)

[Aussie Digger]

According to the latest "Defence Today" magazine, the SH-2G(A) fleet is nearing operational capability. The RAN has received 10 out of it's 11 Seasprites to date, with the last example remaining in the USA, for ongoing testing and development. These aircraft are currently being used for flight training and limited trials (including at sea landing trials on RAN Frigate HMAS Warramunga).

It is still expected the the fleet will be operational in 2006, though no official date has been set.

When they are finally accepted though, they will provide a massive boost to RAN capability.

They are equipped with an APS-143 "Oceaneye" radar system, which will provide surface and subsurface radar scanning capability. A new development which was not originally contracted for but is in the process of being implemented is the addition of air to air search and track modes for the radar. This will enable OTH targetting capabilities for anti-ship missile defence capability.

They are also equipped with the Raytheon AN/AAQ-16 FLIR pod, (which is also being fitted to the Seahawks), the General Electric T700 - GE-400, which are also fitted to the Seasprites and Blackhawks, the Penguin Anti-ship missile and MU-90 torpedo systems and a comprehensive EWSP system.

They are about 5 years late, but at least they will be in-service in time for the Seahawk upgrades, meaning no loss in capability will occur with Seahawks being offline for upgrading.

I'd imagine the fact will be trumpeted loudly when the Seasprites are nearing or have gained full operational capability, it has been a problem child for RAN and DMO and I think they'll be glad to get it over and done with...

[rossfrb_1]

According to the latest "Defence Today" magazine, the SH-2G(A) fleet is nearing operational capability. The RAN has received 10 out of it's 11 Seasprites to date, with the last example remaining in the USA, for ongoing testing and development. These aircraft are currently being used for flight training and limited trials (including at sea landing trials on RAN Frigate HMAS Warramunga).

{snip}

AD, or anyone else for that matter!
I'd read that there were weight issues. In as much as (this is where my memory fails me) - The seasprites couldn't be fitted with a full loadout, or that their flight time would be drastically cut back if they were, because the engine(s?) just aren't powerful enough. This is apparently partly due to the fact that they are already crammed full of gear from all the upgrades.
Any gossip you know of?

cheers
rb

[Aussie Digger]

AD, or anyone else for that matter!
I'd read that there were weight issues. In as much as (this is where my memory fails me) - The seasprites couldn't be fitted with a full loadout, or that their flight time would be drastically cut back if they were, because the engine(s?) just aren't powerful enough. This is apparently partly due to the fact that they are already crammed full of gear from all the upgrades.
Any gossip you know of?

cheers
rb

Haven't heard anything like that. They are fitted with the same engines as the Seahawks and Blackhawks and they are considerably larger and heavier helo's than the Seasprites, so it seems unlikely...

They are certainly crammed full of gear though. I had the chance to closely inspect one at Avalon airshow back in March last year (I uploaded a photo into the gallery) and they are actually bulging with sensors, antennae's etc up close. Inside is a tight fit too, with the 4 glass cockpit screens, etc.

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19136512-601,00.html
"Grounded helicopters facing axe
Patrick Walters
May 15, 2006
THE navy's trouble-plagued Super Seasprite helicopter fleet has been grounded and the $1 billion program is at risk of being scrapped amid concerns the aircraft is unsafe to fly.
Nearly six years after they were due to enter service, the Seasprites -- a vital anti-submarine and anti-shipping aircraft for the Navy's Anzac-class frigates -- have been banned indefinitely from operational flying.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has ordered a review of the project, with options ranging from scrapping the Seasprite and buying an alternative helicopter to persisting with its development.

Dr Nelson told The Australian last night that it was time to look at what was involved in "getting out of the program".

Navy chief Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders and air force chief Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd flew to the navy's aviation base at Nowra, on the NSW south coast, on Friday as part of a high-level review of the program due to be presented to Dr Nelson this week.

They were accompanied by the Defence Department's chief of capability development, Lieutenant General David Hurley, and the head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Stephen Gumley.

Dr Nelson said that after receiving the report he would take a recommendation on the Seasprite's future to cabinet's national security committee.

If the aircraft was scrapped as a ship-borne war-fighting machine, the Government could turn to the US Seahawk helicopter or the European NH-90, at a replacement cost of more than $1 billion.

Dr Nelson told The Australian last night that software problems associated with the Seasprite's electronic equipment had affected flight safety.

"You could not have 100 per cent confidence in the software program that supports the pilot flying the helicopter to 100 per cent safety," he said. "It has required the chief of naval aviation to have it grounded."

Dr Nelson said it was unlikely the aircraft would resume flying, other than for test-pilot evaluations, before the end of the year.

Defence has estimated it would cost a further $100million to $200 million and take another two years to make the planned 11-strong fleet operational and fully equipped for maritime warfare.

Ten of the contracted aircraft have been delivered to the navy's HMAS Albatross base at Nowra but none has been accepted into full operational service. A senior Defence source said last night that the cheapest solution was to finish the Seasprite program.

"The choice is between spending an extra $100 million to $150 million or paying up to $1.5 billion for a new capability which won't be delivered for three or four years," the source said. About $950 million has been spent on the project so far.

Nearly a decade after the contract was signed with US firm Kaman Aerospace, in 1997, the Seasprite project has been dogged by software problems and the failure of earlier sub-contractors to provide the aircraft's sophisticated avionics package.

Dr Nelson said he believed problems with the Seasprite were having a "significant and detrimental effect" on morale at Nowra, particularly in the wake of the 2004 Sea King crash, which killed nine military personnel and led to the temporary grounding of the Sea King fleet.

The Seasprites are regarded as the most troublesome of Defence's so-called "legacy projects", which started before the Howard Government took office and have run years late and failed to meet original specifications.

The grounding of the Seasprites is a particular blow for the navy's 805 squadron, which has been working to train aircrew and ready the aircraft for service on the Anzac frigates. Defence sources say the squadron will now almost certainly have to be downsized."
********

This raises a number of issues. Firstly, just how true is the above?
Are these helicopters capable enough to be worth persisting with (and probably ploughing more money into)? I know it'd be waste of a lot of money to scrap them.
I presume that they would have little resale value given that they are Australianised.
If scrapped would it be worthwhile pulling all the 'black boxes' out and trying to stick them in whatever replaces them, if replacements are actually sought?
Do the RAN seasprites have a sonar dunking ability (I suspect not)? Part of their role is ASW isn't it.
I heard on ABC radio news this morning someone saying that a direct MRH-90 replacement would be a problem as it would be too big for the ANZAC class. They (whoever it was, can't remember) also said (I think) that the Seahawk was also too big, but aren't they already flying Seahawks off the ANZAC?
So what are realistic replacements if the MRH-90 isn't? I ask with the thought that the ADF wants to rationalise the types in its helo fleet.
cheers
rb

[Aussie Digger]

Seahawk's not too big to operate off ANZAC's, they operate off them already (due to the "Seasprog" disaster).

I think it's time to bite the bullet and kill off this project. They want to rationalise our helo fleet's, start now. Replace Seaking and Super Seasprite with new build Naval NH-90's, maintain Seahawk for ANZAC vessels and FFG's until retirement date for FFG's and operate the NH-90 off the AWD's when they come into service.

When the frigate replacement project comes online in 2017-2020, NH-90 can equip the new frigates that will replace the ANZAC's and allow the Seahawk to retire gracefully given the sterling service it has provided.

In the meantime, upgrade Seahawks and incorporate the Penguin missile and an upgraded maritime search radar and you'll have the capability provided by Seasprite inherent in the Seahawk ANYWAY.

[Cootamundra]

Seahawk's not too big to operate off ANZAC's, they operate off them already (due to the "Seasprog" disaster).

I think it's time to bite the bullet and kill off this project. They want to rationalise our helo fleet's, start now. Replace Seaking and Super Seasprite with new build Naval NH-90's, maintain Seahawk for ANZAC vessels and FFG's until retirement date for FFG's and operate the NH-90 off the AWD's when they come into service.

When the frigate replacement project comes online in 2017-2020, NH-90 can equip the new frigates that will replace the ANZAC's and allow the Seahawk to retire gracefully given the sterling service it has provided.

In the meantime, upgrade Seahawks and incorporate the Penguin missile and an upgraded maritime search radar and you'll have the capability provided by Seasprite inherent in the Seahawk ANYWAY.

Bloody disgrace but I think I would have to agree with you AD. Better to cut this off now before it goes even further. I wonder however what 'software' issues they've struck at this stage? There was little mention of this in the earlier commentry. Perhaps DefMin Nelson is really looking to consolidate the helo fleet (to leave his mark). On the Army front I reckon we might find (despite the chatter to the contrary) that they will get NRH-90 over UH-60s and that the Navy will get access to the MRH-90s but in greater numbers than previoulsy thought.

Real shame we wasted $1 billion on these duds, that could've bought another bunch of MRH-90s (improving that original deal) and/or some more SeaHawks. Why or why did we try to trick them up so much, the kiwis have been flying their (less capable on paper) birds for sometime now. Classic ADF procurement f&*k up, this one should go into all the DMO, ADF text books!:(

[alexsa]

Bloody disgrace but I think I would have to agree with you AD. Better to cut this off now before it goes even further. I wonder however what 'software' issues they've struck at this stage? There was little mention of this in the earlier commentry. Perhaps DefMin Nelson is really looking to consolidate the helo fleet (to leave his mark). On the Army front I reckon we might find (despite the chatter to the contrary) that they will get NRH-90 over UH-60s and that the Navy will get access to the MRH-90s but in greater numbers than previoulsy thought.

Real shame we wasted $1 billion on these duds, that could've bought another bunch of MRH-90s (improving that original deal) and/or some more SeaHawks. Why or why did we try to trick them up so much, the kiwis have been flying their (less capable on paper) birds for sometime now. Classic ADF procurement f&*k up, this one should go into all the DMO, ADF text books!:(

I have to agree is is a real disgrace. :mad There would appear to be a silver lining to this one though in that at least it will be one less orphan to deal with if the Sea Sprite goes. It appears we could have bought the off the shelf Lynx III at the time, had this sort of capabiltiy at sea for the last 10 years and still replaced it with the NH-90 in the same time frame for less money.

I wonder if there is anything that can be salvaged in respect of airframe or systems to get back some of the outlay (or sue the bastards responsible)?:teary

[pepsi]

http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,19139565-31037,00.html

LEGAL action might be launched against US suppliers of Australia's troubled Super Seasprite helicopter now grounded with technical problems, the Government said today.

I wonder if they have a strong case, i don't know the exact problems they've had and who the responsibility would ultimately lie with, but surely the fact that for almost 10 years they have never been fully operational is a pretty bad look for the company that sold us them..

[Rocco_NZ]

I wonder what such major differences in the avionics have made them such a lemon. the SH-2G(NZ) seems to be operating very well in NZ service. Perhaps the RNZN should buy the aussie airframes off them for $1 and replace the avionics with the same system the Kiwi ones are flying now!

[rossfrb_1]

I wonder what such major differences in the avionics have made them such a lemon. the SH-2G(NZ) seems to be operating very well in NZ service. Perhaps the RNZN should buy the aussie airframes off them for $1 and replace the avionics with the same system the Kiwi ones are flying now!

I presume that was somewhat tongue in cheek.
Actually, I don't think the Kiwis would really want the aussie sprite frames
The Kiwis bought newbuild sprites, the aussie ones were rebuilt (some airframes were reputed to have started life in 1964) Part of the cost overrun was due in part (supposedly) to the company doing the rebuild, underestimating the % of the airframe components that would need replacing. Why the ADF negotiated a contract with little to no ability to penalise the supplier is beyond me:(

rb

[gf0012-aust]

The problem is not hardware - its a software interface issue.

as a parallel its akin to the stuff ups with the early Collins development. (although No: 1 was also plagued by dud welding done in Sweden)

If there is an issue of recovery, it has to be against the software cutters. I imagine that Kaman have no responsibility for that unless it is at a project oversight level.

[Magoo]

The problem is not hardware - its a software interface issue.

as a parallel its akin to the stuff ups with the early Collins development. (although No: 1 was also plagued by dud welding done in Sweden)

If there is an issue of recovery, it has to be against the software cutters. I imagine that Kaman have no responsibility for that unless it is at a project oversight level.

I guess it depends on whether Kaman are the Prime on the program, and if so whether they engaged the software developers themselves, or whether they were engaged seperately by the ADF.

This is not a project with which I've had much to do, however on face value, canning the Seasprites would go some way towards the government's stated goal of rationalising the ADF's helo fleet down from 10 to 4-5 types, so the 'A$1bn' being spouted about by the opposition and the ADA is probably an exaggerated reflection of what the eventual cost will be.

On the other hand, we persevered with Collins, and due to the work of many excellent and persistant engineers (take a bow gf), the type is now an absolute world-beater. It's very hard to see the Seasprite in the same light though... :ohwell

I understand there's some support within the RAN to pick up some ex-USN SH-60Bs, give them an austere anti-surface and data relay capability, and run these off the Anzacs in a training and limited operational capability. For those Anzacs deploying to the MEAO or other areas of interest, full-house legacy Seahawks can be used while the second-hand helos stay in home waters for Relex and other less-intense operations.

I also understand that, while the Anzacs' flight deck is amply capable of supporting an S-70, its hangar has limitations. However, one could suggest this relatively minor structural issue might easily be remedied during the next yard refit.

I'll leave the opinions to those closer to and more in-touch with the project than I...

Magoo

[soviet]

Was current opposition leader Kim Beazley the defence minister when the decision was made to acquire the Seasprites? If so, is there a political undertone to all this?

[Magoo]

Was current opposition leader Kim Beazley the defence minister when the decision was made to acquire the Seasprites? If so, is there a political undertone to all this?

No. Although the study project and the associated OPV vessel requirement were initiated under Labor in 1994, the order was placed for the SH-2G(A) in 1997 under the current regime.

Magoo

[Aussie Digger]

I guess it depends on whether Kaman are the Prime on the program, and if so whether they engaged the software developers themselves, or whether they were engaged seperately by the ADF.

This is not a project with which I've had much to do, however on face value, canning the Seasprites would go some way towards the government's stated goal of rationalising the ADF's helo fleet down from 10 to 4-5 types, so the 'A$1bn' being spouted about by the opposition and the ADA is probably an exaggerated reflection of what the eventual cost will be.

On the other hand, we persevered with Collins, and due to the work of many excellent and persistant engineers (take a bow gf), the type is now an absolute world-beater. It's very hard to see the Seasprite in the same light though... :ohwell

I understand there's some support within the RAN to pick up some ex-USN SH-60Bs, give them an austere anti-surface and data relay capability, and run these off the Anzacs in a training and limited operational capability. For those Anzacs deploying to the MEAO or other areas of interest, full-house legacy Seahawks can be used while the second-hand helos stay in home waters for Relex and other less-intense operations.

I also understand that, while the Anzacs' flight deck is amply capable of supporting an S-70, its hangar has limitations. However, one could suggest this relatively minor structural issue might easily be remedied during the next yard refit.

I'll leave the opinions to those closer to and more in-touch with the project than I...

Magoo

Did you miss last months AA Magazine and the (excellent) story on HMAS ANZAC's trip to Northern Europe, completed with an S-70B-2 Seahawk in tow, by Tony HOLMES? :)

That trip lasted some 5 months and the Seahawk was operated aboard an ANZAC class frigate just fine for the entire trip.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there's little capability that Seasprite would provide that a Seahawk couldn't. They are already able to operate the Penguin ASM in USN service, so I can't imagine the integration would be TOO challenging.

The only major issue is at present they can only operate 1x missile as the starboard hardpoint is currently occupied by the interim FLIR sensor fitted to the Seahawk fleet for operational deployments.

If the FLIR/ESM upgrade program were to be fastracked, I'd imagine Penguin ASM integration could be conducted fairly quickly and we'd have a viable anti-surface warfare helo in-service.

Further along, a radar upgrade (for OTH targetting and air to air modes for the radar) would provide the Seahawk with the same basic capabilities as is so hyped for Seasprite, PLUS retain the Seahawk's superlative ASW capability. Seasprite in any case was only going to provide very basic ASW capability and would be mainly used for surface attack and cruise missile/air defence (as an OTH targetting platform).

RAN can then move to NH-90 to replace Sea King and to provide a Naval helo for the AWD's. When the frigate replacement project ramps up, a follow-on buy of NH-90's can replace the Seahawk (which will be getting tired by 2020 or so) and everything will fall into place nicely...

[Magoo]

Did you miss last months AA Magazine and the (excellent) story on HMAS ANZAC's trip to Northern Europe, completed with an S-70B-2 Seahawk in tow, by Tony HOLMES? :)

That trip lasted some 5 months and the Seahawk was operated aboard an ANZAC class frigate just fine for the entire trip.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there's little capability that Seasprite would provide that a Seahawk couldn't. They are already able to operate the Penguin ASM in USN service, so I can't imagine the integration would be TOO challenging.

The only major issue is at present they can only operate 1x missile as the starboard hardpoint is currently occupied by the interim FLIR sensor fitted to the Seahawk fleet for operational deployments.

If the FLIR/ESM upgrade program were to be fastracked, I'd imagine Penguin ASM integration could be conducted fairly quickly and we'd have a viable anti-surface warfare helo in-service.

Further along, a radar upgrade (for OTH targetting and air to air modes for the radar) would provide the Seahawk with the same basic capabilities as is so hyped for Seasprite, PLUS retain the Seahawk's superlative ASW capability. Seasprite in any case was only going to provide very basic ASW capability and would be mainly used for surface attack and cruise missile/air defence (as an OTH targetting platform).

RAN can then move to NH-90 to replace Sea King and to provide a Naval helo for the AWD's. When the frigate replacement project ramps up, a follow-on buy of NH-90's can replace the Seahawk (which will be getting tired by 2020 or so) and everything will fall into place nicely...

It was a good article, wasn't it. Tony has some great insights (and contacts!) into naval aviation which I can only dream about getting!

Don't forget though, the Anzac's journey was a flag-waving trip during which no combat operations and less than 100 hours flying were conducted, but I get your drift.

Magoo

[Rocco_NZ]

I presume that was somewhat tongue in cheek.
Actually, I don't think the Kiwis would really want the aussie sprite frames
The Kiwis bought newbuild sprites, the aussie ones were rebuilt (some airframes were reputed to have started life in 1964) Part of the cost overrun was due in part (supposedly) to the company doing the rebuild, underestimating the % of the airframe components that would need replacing. Why the ADF negotiated a contract with little to no ability to penalise the supplier is beyond me:(

rb

Very tongue-in-cheek! I am amazed the RAN managed to pay over twice the amount per aircraft and not have an operational capability. To top it off, their airframes are second hand vs new build NZ ones. I wonder if the RAN could have benefited from some of the knowledge the NZDF has about the relative risks and costs of refurbishing airframes.

[Whiskyjack]

Very tongue-in-cheek! I am amazed the RAN managed to pay over twice the amount per aircraft and not have an operational capability. To top it off, their airframes are second hand vs new build NZ ones. I wonder if the RAN could have benefited from some of the knowledge the NZDF has about the relative risks and costs of refurbishing airframes.

The funny thing is that rumour has it that the RNZN wanted the Lynx, but because the RAN went Seasprite the RNZN was told to go down that road to keep platform capability with the RAN, never mind the different systems on board!

Now it looks like the RNZN may have to operate them alone.

Funny old world.

[alexsa]

The funny thing is that rumour has it that the RNZN wanted the Lynx, but because the RAN went Seasprite the RNZN was told to go down that road to keep platform capability with the RAN, never mind the different systems on board!

Now it looks like the RNZN may have to operate them alone.

Funny old world.


That is just a touch tradgic. The Lynx is a nice helo and would appear to be more capable (albeit smaller) than the sprites they ended up with. :(

[Rocco_NZ]

That is just a touch tradgic. The Lynx is a nice helo and would appear to be more capable (albeit smaller) than the sprites they ended up with. :(


I wouldn't be so sure. As this debacle has demonstrated, avionics choices make a lot of difference :D

[Whiskyjack]

I wouldn't be so sure. As this debacle has demonstrated, avionics choices make a lot of difference :D

I guess the RNZN could take some Penguins off the hands of the RAN, if the cost of integration isn't to high!

Although I guess if the project does not go through money will be diverted to upgrade the Seahawks.

[alexsa]

If the wikipedia verdict on the Super Sea Sprite is in any way valid then maybe the end of this project has some advantages. I quote:

"The SH-2F was infamous with Naval aircrew for its high accident rate and dismal 30+ maintenance-hour-per-flight-hour requirement, the highest of any aircraft in the Navy at the time this type was retired from active service. Many of the accidents and maintenance costs were attributed to the severe environment in which this aircraft was operated. This aircraft was "lovingly" referred to as the "Kaman Coffin" by enlisted Anti-Submarine Warfare System Operators."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-2_Sea_Sprite

I beleive the systems intergration was orginally in the hands of Litton but they were unable to make it work. As GF stated it is a software issue and who ever contracted to provided this should be liable for the stuff up.

[abramsteve]

What could the Seasprite possibly do that the Seahawk couldnt? I never understood that. Were they chosen only because of space concerns aboard the ANZACs, was it a cost based selection, or could they have genuinely been a more capable platform? IMO they were too small and not multi-purpose enough. If it wasnt for the cost and the embaressment I would not have a problem with them being disposed of. Maybe give them to the Kiwis to canniblise?

[rossfrb_1]

What could the Seasprite possibly do that the Seahawk couldnt? I never understood that. Were they chosen only because of space concerns aboard the ANZACs, was it a cost based selection, or could they have genuinely been a more capable platform? IMO they were too small and not multi-purpose enough. If it wasnt for the cost and the embaressment I would not have a problem with them being disposed of. Maybe give them to the Kiwis to canniblise?
Long story short, the sprites were intended for another vessel the RAN was looking at getting which never eventuated!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/16/1023864378971.html

"........We should never have bought them in the first place," said Aldo Borgu, an adviser to former defence ministers John Moore and Peter Reith and now a director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. The plan to build a unique helicopter was unrealistic and poorly executed, and was designed for a proposed Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) to be built jointly with Malaysia. The patrol vessel never got off the ground. "Once the OPV didn't go ahead, the rationale for buying a smaller helicopter disappeared," Mr Borgu said.
The patrol vessel project was a favourite of the Keating government, proposed by major ALP donor Transfield (now Tenix). The Defence Force hierarchy was always wary of a project it believed was driven by a desire for export dollars, and its fears increased after the Coalition's election in March, 1996.
Put simply, said one senior official, the boat was "neither fish nor fowl", too big for a conventional patrol boat, too small to combat a frigate. To expand its range and firepower it needed a helicopter, but the vessel was too small to carry the Seahawks already planned for the Anzac frigates.
Tenders were called for a small, state-of-the-art helicopter. The former chief of navy, Don Chalmers, confirmed that the Seasprites were acquired for the patrol vessels, OPV, although it was also planned to place some on the Anzacs. Despite this, Defence and the government failed to formally link the Seasprite and patrol vessel projects.
In Senate estimates hearings this month, Air Vice-Marshal Ray Conroy attempted to fudge over when the patrol vessel project was dropped. "That was effectively abandoned in February, 1998, when Malaysia selected a German tender over the one submitted by the Australian company," he said.
At that point, the argument for buying the Seasprite instead of more of the larger Seahawk collapsed, Air Vice-Marshal Conroy admitted. But he said the argument was hypothetical as the Seasprite contract was signed earlier, in June, 1997......"



rb

[Aussie Digger]

FYI, Aldo Borgu is now back in as Nelson's primary defence adviser.

As to the Seasprites, they were intended to provide the anti-aurface helo capability of RAN taskforces whilst Seahawk conducted it's main anti-submarine roles.

The Seasprite was envisaged also of providing OTH targetting capability for ANZAC's with it's telephonics radar for Harpoon II missiles, and also incorporated A2A modes to extend the practical range of ANZAC's ESSM capability (the missile has about 50k's range).

Seahawk's could be fairly easily upgraded to cover these roles too though, I'd imagine...

[Magoo]

SEASPRITES FACE CANCELLATION? The RAN's troubled Kaman SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite program is facing possible cancellation after the 10 aircraft accepted to date were grounded two weeks ago by Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson over safety concerns. [FONT=Arial]
Eleven refurbished Super Seasprites were ordered from prime contractor Kaman Aerospace in 1997 under Project Sea 1411 to equip the eight-strong Anzac frigate fleet. The project has since encountered ongoing delays surrounding the integration of the originally Litton-designed Integrated Tactical Avionics System and digital GPS / INS Automatic Flight Control, putting the Seasprite more than four years behind schedule from its planned 2001 in-service date.
The latest setback is believed to be the result of ongoing software problems with the flight control system, leading the Navy to ground the aircraft until a comprehensive report on the program can be presented, and its ultimate future decided.
"You could not have 100 per cent confidence in the software program that supports the pilot flying the helicopter to 100 per cent safety," Dr Nelson told The Australian on May 14. "It has required the chief of naval aviation to have it grounded."
A May 2 statement by Kaman detailing the company's first quarter 2006 financial results details the problem: "During the first quarter, the Royal Australian Navy encountered an anomalous flight condition on one of its training aircraft that it attributed to the ship's airspeed sensor. As a result, the Australian Navy's Operational Airworthiness Authority has suspended routine flying operations pending resolution and has indicated that the final acceptance of the aircraft will not occur until this issue is resolved."
A "senior defence source" told The Australian that the program requires a further funding injection of between $100 and $200 million on top of the almost $1 billion spent to date, and a further two years of development is required before the helicopter can be declared operational. This has led the minister to publicly consider whether to potentially throw good money after bad, or to cancel the whole project and try to recoup some of the money spent from the contractors.
"I have asked the Department of Defence to consider all options including, if appropriate, legal action against the contractors who have not fulfilled their obligations to Australia and to Australian taxpayers," Dr Nelson told a media conference on May 15. "We've been let down seriously by a number of contractors."
"At the moment the government has made no decision at all," he added. "I have simply asked defence to provide me with the three major options that we could consider: that is continuing with the program and at what cost, and when would we get the capability; secondly what modifications could be made to the program and at what cost, and what would we get; and thirdly what would be involved were the government to decide to get out of Super Seasprite altogether." The report is due to be put to the minister before the end of June, with the Seasprites unlikely to be flying again (apart from test and evaluation flights) before the end of the year.
Unfortunately, the legal route may not be open to the government, with the Defence Materiel Organisation's Air Vice Marshal Clive Rossiter telling a Senate committee earlier this year that the Super Seasprite contract did not have provision for liquidated damages.
"I would speculate that it was negotiated away in exchange for some other benefit at the time," AVM Rossiter told the hearing.
Interestingly, the Seasprite has been viewed as something an orphan type in the ADF's stated goal to rationalise its helicopter fleet from 10 different types across the Navy and Army services to just four or five (Chinook, MRH-90, Seahawk, Tiger ARH, and a new training/light utility type) over the next decade. So cancelling the Seasprite project would go some way towards achieving this goal while saving the extra costs of operating another type.
Meanwhile, the New Zealand government has moved quickly to back its own fleet of five Super Seasprite helicopters. The NZ Seasprites are off-the-shelf new build SH-2Gs, and have suffered no such integration issues.

[Padman]

New Zealand could use the extra airframes if Australia ready to make a deal. Our five will soon be expected to operate from two frigates, two OPVs and 1 MPV, a couple extra to allow for type training and maintainance would be great.

New Zealand has had some supply chain issues, Kaman seems less than keen to provide for rapid supply of spare parts to small operator.

[cherry]

Brilliant news as far as I am concerned. The sooner we rid ouselves of these good for nothing pieces of junk, the better. Nelson is doing a great job so far, good to see somebody with some balls for a change. This is just the start of what should have been done many years ago. We will eventually see a true rationalisation of helos leaving us with MRH-90, TIGER, CHINOOK and SOF BLACKHAWK. Firstly, Seakings and Seasprites will be replaced with new build MRH-90, then as the Seahawk finally ends its life, they will also be replaced with MRH-90. This added with SOF Blackhawks, the best trooplift helo being the MRH-90, Tiger attack helos, and an expanded Chinook fleet, we will finally have a great helo fleet. Perhaps the new boat burning slabs up north can be tested with 11 Seasprites.

[soviet]

My understanding is the UK is facing similar software related problems with its Chinook HC3s. Also the Seasprite saga raises the question at what point does a small nation like Australia buy off the shelf equipment that may not entirely match its needs versus taking the risk on Australia-specific modifications I'm of the view that its best to acquire standard equipment that dosn't require too much in the way of ADF specific mods.

[abramsteve]

My understanding is the UK is facing similar software related problems with its Chinook HC3s. Also the Seasprite saga raises the question at what point does a small nation like Australia buy off the shelf equipment that may not entirely match its needs versus taking the risk on Australia-specific modifications I'm of the view that its best to acquire standard equipment that dosn't require too much in the way of ADF specific mods.

I have to disagree with you on that mate. As far as I know Australian modifications to its military hardware have turned our 'off the shelf' equiptment into some of the best in the world. I read on this site somwhere that our Hornets are rated as the best export versions in the world, due to Australian upgrades (correct me if Im wrong). I think that this stuff up is due to political bugger ups more than anything, and that there is still a great deal to be gained from Australian inovation

[Supe]

Brilliant news as far as I am concerned. The sooner we rid ouselves of these good for nothing pieces of junk, the better. Nelson is doing a great job so far, good to see somebody with some balls for a change.

Ditto. It's an embarrassing mess. Any intention to keep tinkering with it in the hopes things will get better smells of delusion. I'm sure I've seen an article tacked on comparing the Seasprites to the Collins. I don't think the two programmes are in the same class, strategically therefore the Govt can walk away from this one. Eat the loss - and put in place procedures that tax dollar loss like this never happens again. Kinnairds? Beazely weighed in on the Seasprites going on about 'the govt has to get in close with contractor and babysit them...' and blaming the current Govt. Pardon the paraphrase, I can't find the original source article.

I wonder if RNZN would be interested in a couple extra Seasprites...

[contedicavour]

Ditto. It's an embarrassing mess. Any intention to keep tinkering with it in the hopes things will get better smells of delusion. I'm sure I've seen an article tacked on comparing the Seasprites to the Collins. I don't think the two programmes are in the same class, strategically therefore the Govt can walk away from this one. Eat the loss - and put in place procedures that tax dollar loss like this never happens again. Kinnairds? Beazely weighed in on the Seasprites going on about 'the govt has to get in close with contractor and babysit them...' and blaming the current Govt. Pardon the paraphrase, I can't find the original source article.

I wonder if RNZN would be interested in a couple extra Seasprites...

If anybody is interested, we're more than happy to supply you with EH-101 or NH-90 helos. The Seasprites are in the same class as the NH-90 but are some 30 years older in terms of concept ... it won't be the umpteenth update from Sikorsky that will make up for the gap.

cheers

[Whiskyjack]

I wonder if RNZN would be interested in a couple extra Seasprites...

Wouldn't think so, not compatable and not working.:)

[Magoo]

I have to disagree with you on that mate. As far as I know Australian modifications to its military hardware have turned our 'off the shelf' equiptment into some of the best in the world. I read on this site somwhere that our Hornets are rated as the best export versions in the world, due to Australian upgrades (correct me if Im wrong). I think that this stuff up is due to political bugger ups more than anything, and that there is still a great deal to be gained from Australian inovation

Not because of Australian upgrades (although the bulk of the work is being done here). Our upgrade program is essentially the same as those of the US and Canada (with a few minor differences - ASRAAM, Litening AT, ALR-2002B, SAAB BOL CMDS etc), but because Canada and the US have dithered over their own upgrade programs, we've forged ahead becoming lead customer for many of them.

Just as a recap, the prototyping work for HUG 2.1 was done in Australia, and the production run is now complete. The prototyping for HUG 2.2 was done at Cecil Field and China Lake in the US by Boeing, and the first Australian 2.2 upgrade is due to be naded over next Tuesday. The HUG 3.1 work was all done here, and the prototype HUG 3.2 jet was sent to Mirabel in Canada on April 16 to be stripped down and assessed. Production on 3.2 will likely be conducted in Australia, but the final numbers (I estimate 55) and actual contractors (Boeing Aust, L-3 & BAESA = Hornet Industry Coalition) are yet to be finalised.

Magoo

[rossfrb_1]

FYI, Aldo Borgu is now back in as Nelson's primary defence adviser.
Point taken, however he hasn't been the only one to say that once the OPC/OPV(?) was cancelled, the sprite acquisition should have been canned

As to the Seasprites, they were intended to provide the anti-aurface helo capability of RAN taskforces whilst Seahawk conducted it's main anti-submarine roles.

The Seasprite was envisaged also of providing OTH targetting capability for ANZAC's with it's telephonics radar for Harpoon II missiles, and also incorporated A2A modes to extend the practical range of ANZAC's ESSM capability (the missile has about 50k's range).

Seahawk's could be fairly easily upgraded to cover these roles too though, I'd imagine...
From my reading, I'm inclined to wonder whether a lot of these capabilities were included/expanded after the decision to keep the sprites despite the OPV demise.
Here's an interesting read from 2003. Explains some of the problems. If it's to be believed then it seems the problem is trying to get a two man helicopter to do the job of a three man helicopter.
http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0503&file=0503sh2G.htm

[robsta83]

Kaman Issues Statement Regarding Its Australian SH-2G (A) Helicopter Program


(Source: Kaman Corp.; issued May 16, 2006)


BLOOMFIELD, Connecticut --- Kaman Corp. today issued a statement regarding its Australian SH-2G(A) helicopter program.

Over the past several years, the company has reported extensively on its SH-2G(A) helicopter program for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), a USD 611 million fixed-price contract for 11 aircraft featuring a new technology-advancing Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS). While the basic aircraft have been completed for several years and nine have been provisionally accepted by the Commonwealth, they have lacked the full ITAS system. The company has reported on the substantial charges it has taken to provide the funding to complete the program, and has reported its progress toward the ITAS completion in its quarterly releases and public filings.

Kaman has been working closely with the RAN and believes the program is close to completion. In May 2006, the company finished the last of approximately 400 pre-qualification software tests of the ITAS software, and is in preparation for the final qualification testing to be witnessed by the Commonwealth. This process is expected to be followed by acceptance of the fully capable helicopters.

In its press release of May 2, 2006, the company reported that the Royal Australian Navy had encountered an anomalous flight condition on one of its training aircraft that was attributed to the aircraft’s airspeed sensor. This anomaly, involving a small component from a supplier, is not impacting the development process for the ITAS. The company also reported that the Australian Navy’s Operations Airworthiness Authority had suspended flying operations pending resolution and that final acceptance of the aircraft would not occur until the issue had been resolved. The company believes that it has determined the cause of the anomaly and has a plan for resolution of the issue.

Paul Kuhn, Chairman, President and CEO said, “Early this week, articles appeared in the Australian media that are critical of the program. At least one article questioned the safety of the aircraft. In fact, there is a significant history of safe operations for this aircraft type with the U.S. Navy and currently with several other naval services including the Royal New Zealand Navy.

“We are confident that the same will be the case for the Australian aircraft, and believe that working through the remaining technical issues is the most timely and cost-effective route to fulfilling the RAN’s mission requirements. We look forward to the introduction of the fully-capable SH-2G(A) helicopters into service with the Royal Australian Navy.”

Well if we listen to Kaman the Helo's will be up soon, hmm doubt, it is a real shame, at Amberly I was chatting to a SH2G pilot he was genuinely keen to get it up and go and was stoked about the capability it was bringing, sure it was an airshow but the projected capability would of made a fantastic Helo force. I don't think they will just scrap them though it would a massive waste, and Im sure Kaman would pull out all stops to get it right now that its hit the fan.

[Brutus Caesar]

I am confused...if these helicopters ever get off the ground fully upgraded and working as they are supposed to, will they be capable helicopters? Will these be like the Collins of the helicopter world or will they just be average?

[Boolag]

It is a pity that the aussies are having such trouble with their seasprites..but if you fill something full of glass, that something is bound to get broken:p: ..probably why the SH-2G(nz) hasnt had the same woes..the RNZAF was smart and stuck largely to analog flight systems,rather than all digital
The Aussie airframes would probably be reasonably compatible with ours as a source of airframe spares..hell the RNZAF used SH-2F's as conversion trainers then sourced them as spares when the SH-G's came along, afterall surely the aussie ones have engine as well as airframe commonality with ours?
It'd give the RNZAF a couple more years before they need to knock on kamans door for spares...I just suppose that Tenix is counting their blessings this whole fraccas had nothing to do with them (for once:D ).

[Boolag]

I am confused...if these helicopters ever get off the ground fully upgraded and working as they are supposed to, will they be capable helicopters? Will these be like the Collins of the helicopter world or will they just be average?

The SH-2G has a greater power to weight ratio than the Seahawk,I've seen the RNZAF SH-2G display team on a No. of occasions + it is no slug in the air. Its also capable of being loaded with a variety of pylon stores, but these are dependant on the requirements of the user-The RNZAF worked jointly with kaman to enable the Seasprites in service to carry mavericks that we bought new(why didnt they use the stock left over from the A-4K's? can someone shed some light..?!?).

I cant vouch for the RAN birds, I do belive they were meant to have a more comprehensive sensor package than the kiwi ones.
The RNZAF SH-2G's dont utilise any kind of sonar(kinda like the wasps) instead they rely on the ANZAC(nz) class to provide sonar plots + detect conacts with their Sephiron B sonar system which is barely adequate for that kind of work.

[Aussie Digger]

The SH-2G has a greater power to weight ratio than the Seahawk,I've seen the RNZAF SH-2G display team on a No. of occasions + it is no slug in the air. Its also capable of being loaded with a variety of pylon stores, but these are dependant on the requirements of the user-The RNZAF worked jointly with kaman to enable the Seasprites in service to carry mavericks that we bought new(why didnt they use the stock left over from the A-4K's? can someone shed some light..?!?).

I cant vouch for the RAN birds, I do belive they were meant to have a more comprehensive sensor package than the kiwi ones.
The RNZAF SH-2G's dont utilise any kind of sonar(kinda like the wasps) instead they rely on the ANZAC(nz) class to provide sonar plots + detect conacts with their Sephiron B sonar system which is barely adequate for that kind of work.

RAN SH-2G(A)'s only have limited ASW capability with their radar system providing the primary targetting system. It's designed primarily for ASuW (ie: maritime strike in open ocean and littorals) and OTH targetting for RAN Harpoon II, ESSM and SM-I/II.

RAN doesn't need a greater ASW platform, it's got Seahawk, widely regarded as amongst, if not the best ASW helo's in the world.

[Boolag]

RAN SH-2G(A)'s only have limited ASW capability with their radar system providing the primary targetting system. It's designed primarily for ASuW (ie: maritime strike in open ocean and littorals) and OTH targetting for RAN Harpoon II, ESSM and SM-I/II.

RAN doesn't need a greater ASW platform, it's got Seahawk, widely regarded as amongst, if not the best ASW helo's in the world.

Dont worry, I was'nt trying to suggest that the seasprite is capable of upsurping the seahawk in its given roles, just that it is a capable( and well regarded) aircraft...when built properly!!!

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19248168-31477,00.html
"Navy's $1bn copter deal back on board
Patrick Walters, National security editor
May 25, 2006
THE navy is now expected to press ahead with its troubled $1billion Seasprite helicopter program following a high-level defence review.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has received a departmental options paper on the future of the Seasprite program, which is running five years late.

It is understood Defence's preferred option is continuing with the program at an additional cost of between $100million and $200million, rather than junking the acquisition and looking for a new anti-shipping helicopter for the ANZAC-class frigates.

Dr Nelson told The Australian last week the time had come to look at what was involved in "getting out of the program", adding that software problems associated with the aircraft's flight system had led to its temporary grounding. "You could not have 100 per cent confidence in the software program that supports the pilot flying the helicopter to 100per cent safety," he said.

Dr Nelson's comments prompted an urgent high-level visit to Canberra this week by senior executives from the helicopter's manufacturer, US-based Kaman Aerospace Corporation. Dr Nelson declined to meet the delegation, which included the president of Kaman helicopters, Sol Borondaro, and engineering chief Michael Bowes.

But after three days of discussions with defence officials, including a robust exchange with Defence Materiel Organisation chief Stephen Gumley on Monday, Kaman executives are confident the Seasprites are on track for delivery in 2006-07.

Defence has received assurances from Kaman that software problems associated with the Seasprite's air data computer will be rectified within weeks.

"We expect to meet 100 per cent of what the commonwealth contracted," a Kaman executive said.

Ten Seasprites have been delivered to the navy's 805 Squadron based at Nowra, on the NSW south coast, with testing of the integrated software due to start next month.

A Kaman spokesman said: "We believe we could deliver the full mission capability this year."

I'm starting to wonder whether this whole episode has been stage managed by Minister Nelson, to put a rocket up Kaman and achieve a speedier resolution for the project. Interesting that he didn't meet with the Kaman delegation...

rb

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19248168-31477,00.html
"Navy's $1bn copter deal back on board
Patrick Walters, National security editor
May 25, 2006
THE navy is now expected to press ahead with its troubled $1billion Seasprite helicopter program following a high-level defence review.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has received a departmental options paper on the future of the Seasprite program, which is running five years late.

It is understood Defence's preferred option is continuing with the program at an additional cost of between $100million and $200million, rather than junking the acquisition and looking for a new anti-shipping helicopter for the ANZAC-class frigates.

Dr Nelson told The Australian last week the time had come to look at what was involved in "getting out of the program", adding that software problems associated with the aircraft's flight system had led to its temporary grounding. "You could not have 100 per cent confidence in the software program that supports the pilot flying the helicopter to 100per cent safety," he said.

Dr Nelson's comments prompted an urgent high-level visit to Canberra this week by senior executives from the helicopter's manufacturer, US-based Kaman Aerospace Corporation. Dr Nelson declined to meet the delegation, which included the president of Kaman helicopters, Sol Borondaro, and engineering chief Michael Bowes.

But after three days of discussions with defence officials, including a robust exchange with Defence Materiel Organisation chief Stephen Gumley on Monday, Kaman executives are confident the Seasprites are on track for delivery in 2006-07.

Defence has received assurances from Kaman that software problems associated with the Seasprite's air data computer will be rectified within weeks.

"We expect to meet 100 per cent of what the commonwealth contracted," a Kaman executive said.

Ten Seasprites have been delivered to the navy's 805 Squadron based at Nowra, on the NSW south coast, with testing of the integrated software due to start next month.

A Kaman spokesman said: "We believe we could deliver the full mission capability this year."

I'm starting to wonder whether this whole episode has been stage managed by Minister Nelson, to put a rocket up Kaman and achieve a speedier resolution for the project. Interesting that he didn't meet with the Kaman delegation...

rb

It's about time someone put a rocket up them. Despite Defence's well publicised procurement problems, at the beginning of this they put out a tender with certain specific requirements. Kaman replied that they could meet it with this helo. The onus IS on them to get it right.

Now defence might have written a contract that was barely worth the paper it was written on and put people in charge of this program who couldn't organise a shag in a brothel with a "fist full of fifties", however Kaman have said they COULD do it. Time to put the "helo" where there mouth is, or admit failure and give defence it's Billion dollars back...

If it didn't seem possible that they could, RAN would be flying Lynx's by now...

[erich hartman]

i dont understand why there would be any software probs afterall, this is nothing new, all modern aircraft have sophisticated computer systems and fly by wire stuff.

one of the probs with the seasprite is that it's a medium sized helo of 6 tons compared to a seahawk's 10 tons.
their trying to stuff so much electronic junk and computer systems and sensors into a limited space and they cant fit everything in so they had to modify and rearrage everything...............this may be where all the probs started.

the original people who made the decision to get this helo didn't think things thru.

[rossfrb_1]

http://tinyurl.com/nxg8e (http://www4.janes.com/subscribe/jdw/doc_view.jsp?K2DocKey=/content1/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2006/jdw30029.htm@current&Prod_Name=JDW&QueryText=) Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - AUGUST 02, 2006 Kaman 'close to completing' RAN Seasprites

Michael J Gething Jane's Air Desk Contributing Editor
London
US helicopter manufacturer Kaman has brushed aside recent adverse comments from the Australian government and insists it will be ready to offer the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite for acceptance by the end of 2006.
Despite having 10 SH-2G(A)s grounded in Australia, Kaman 'is very close to completing its contractual requirements' to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), Mel French of Kaman Helicopters told Jane's on 19 June.
The aircraft were grounded in May 2006, with Australia's Defence Minister Brendan Nelson citing continuing software and technical problems, which, he said, had degraded safety to a point where flight operations had to be banned.
The RAN SH-2G(A) programme's troubles have centred around delays in the development of fully compliant software for the Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS). However, the ITAS entered Formal Qualification Testing at Kaman's subcontractor, CSC-Australia, in Sydney on 8 June. The testing, which is being witnessed by the customer, is going well and, according to French, is expected to be completed 'in a matter of weeks'.
The ITAS offers an impressive system and weapon-management capability that will enable a two-man crew to perform complex missions that would otherwise require a crew of three or four to complete.
'The state-of-the-art sensors and the weapon system have been tested through full flight testing,' French said.
'We are working very closely with the [government] to complete the remaining tasks of the contract.'
Referring to the 'anomalous flight condition' attributed to the aircraft's airspeed sensor that resulted in grounding of the aircraft, French is adamant that it had no connection with the ITAS. The cause of the anomaly has been traced to a hardware glitch and replacement components are now being installed on the 10 aircraft in Australia.
Meanwhile, Kaman has the full through-life support system for the helicopter in place in Australia, much of it coming through the Australian Industry Involvement (AII) element of the contract. According to French, the company will come in AUD100 million (USD185 million) over its AUD230 million AII commitment.
In addition, Kaman has borne the full cost overruns on the whole programme, which French declined to quantify. However, local industry sources suggest this to be in the region of USD100 million.
Following resolution of the airspeed sensor issue and completion of final flight acceptance testing, French told Jane's that 'a full mission-capable capability helicopter will be presented to the [Australian Government] for acceptance this year'.
Australia's Super Seasprite saga
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) selected Kaman's SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite, to be remanufactured from ex-US Navy SH-2F models, in January 1997 for use on its eight new ANZAC-class frigates. The first helicopter made its first flight on 6 January 2000 and was delivered in early March 2001. Deliveries began on a pre-acceptance basis in March 2001 with provisional acceptance by October 2003.
However, development of fully compliant mission software was delayed by technical problems with the Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS) encountered by originator Litton. Kaman then contracted with Northrop Grumman and CSC-Australia to complete the ITAS software development. Although passing its critical design review in March 2003, leading to delivery of fully compliant mission system in late 2004, there were still integration problems.
The first aircraft was provisionally accepted into RAN service for initial pilot and shipboard interface training, along with logistics integration, on 18 October 2003.
By July 2004, the RAN had received 10 Super Seasprites and Kaman reported "completing delivery" in March 2005. Eight aircraft then became operational in ITH (interim training helicopter) configuration, with handover of first fully operational machine then targeted for mid-year. However, by October 2005 the in-service date had slipped again to first quarter 2006 due to the need for additional testing of avionics software.
In May, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson told said that Super Seasprite flight operations had been banned.
Not-so-spritely Seasprite plan still off course (jdw.janes.com, 01/08/05)



Now if you look at the chronology of this, the initial technologies involved would be from 1999.
Granted there has been a lot of tinkering done since, but are the legacy systems still circa 99?
If the RAN is lucky, it may have an operational fleet in 2007. I would imagine that technologically a lot has changed in eight years?



rb

[flyboyEB]

I can update the status:
Seasprites cancelled on safety grounds (The Australian, 5 March 2008)

'A DECISION to cancel the troubled Seasprite helicopter project, after it has already cost taxpayers up to $1.3 billion, was made on safety grounds alone, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said today.

Mr Fitzgibbon said that after a review, the Government had concluded it had no real choice but to cancel the deal, which is now running 10 years late.

"The project had to be cancelled on safety grounds alone," he said.

"The airworthiness and crash worthiness of the aircraft was not up to 21st century standards and it was pretty clear the capability was not likely to be delivered in full.

"Even if it were, it would be another three years and therefore a decade late.

"Capability has moved on so much since then. It's like going to the 2018 Bathurst race with a 2008 Holden."

Under the deal signed in 1997, the navy was to acquire 11 Kaman Seasprite helicopters equipped with modern flight control systems and advanced radar and weapons systems. The first were to be delivered in 2001.

They were to operate from the navy's Anzac frigates.

The helicopters would have had old but refurbished airframes, some dating from the 1960s.

But developing the advanced combat system proved difficult, as did fitting the flight control system, and the project was plagued by delays.

Mr Fitzgibbon said the former coalition government made a decision in May last year to persevere with the project, placing its own political interests ahead of the interests of defence and the taxpayer.

"Importantly, $26 million has been spent on the project since May last year," he said.

"I questioned whether they followed the process which delivered the best value for the taxpayer and the Australian Defence Force."

Mr Fitzgibbon said Australia had already spent $950 million on the project.

"When you add the Penguin missile project to it, we are getting up towards around $1.3 billion," he said.

Australia has already bought the missiles, which are in storage.

Mr Fitzgibbon said that as an interim measure, efforts would be made to boost the navy's fleet of 16 Seahawk helicopters.

The upcoming defence White Paper would examine future options, with the naval version of the NH-90 helicopter, now entering army service, a strong contender to replace the Seahawks, Seasprites and Sea Kings.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said the Opposition accepted today's decision, although some important questions remained about the costs of exiting the contract and the potential gap to naval aviation capability.

He said the Seasprite project was initiated by the Keating Labor government in 1994, with tenders let in 1995. The Howard government inherited the project in 1996 and the contract was signed in 1997.

"Over time the government became increasingly concerned about the prime contractor's ability to deliver the contracted capability."

Senator Minchin said former defence minister, now Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, recommended to the National Security Committee (NSC) of Cabinet last year that the project be cancelled.

"Given the near $1 billion that had been invested in the project, NSC reluctantly decided to continue with the project with strict performance milestones," he said.

"If Mr Fitzgibbon is correct in his view that those performance milestones have not been met, the opposition supports his decision to cancel the contract."'

So there you go, the Seasprite is gone. Not sure whether to :lol2 or :wah

[gf0012-aust]

Senator Minchin said former defence minister, now Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, recommended to the National Security Committee (NSC) of Cabinet last year that the project be cancelled.

"Given the near $1 billion that had been invested in the project, NSC reluctantly decided to continue with the project with strict performance milestones," he said.

"If Mr Fitzgibbon is correct in his view that those performance milestones have not been met, the opposition supports his decision to cancel the contract."'



Minchins a smart boy, he knows that the milestones have been met and that it leaves him (ipso facto, Nelson) in the clear. Kaman will seek legal redress if they can also point out that there has been no milestone failures since the NSC obligos were set.

Fitzgibbon has just given himself a headache - even though the view was leaning towards kaman being a sacrificial cow....

[alexsa]

Fitzgibbon has just given himself a headache - even though the view was leaning towards kaman being a sacrificial cow....

and a yawning capability gap given thye don't seem to have a solution that will be in place any time soon.

I think the "Keating Seaspite" will prove to be more of an embarassment to the ALP than they currently realise, particularly givne the money that has been spent. I could be wrong but they would have been better off getting it into service (if Karman were to be beleived that was quite close with the exception of the dual digital FCS) and replacing it sooner rather than later. This would at least allow time for the NH90 to be assessed and provide the extra capability for the ANZAC.