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

Aardvark Fury

New Member
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? ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
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

Member
Aussie Digger said:
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
rossfrb_1 said:
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

Member
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
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

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Cootamundra said:
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

Member
Rocco_NZ said:
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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
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... :eek:hwell

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

New Member
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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
soviet said:
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Magoo said:
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... :eek:hwell

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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
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

New Member
rossfrb_1 said:
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

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Rocco_NZ said:
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Whiskyjack said:
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. :(
 
Top