Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped!

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
In what can only be classed as the biggest defense spending fuck up of all time, our plans for the Seasprite Helicopter programme have been torn up.

Can anyone confirm this??

http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,21200395%5E421,00.html

May this be a lesson to those who ever though the evolved F-111 had a chance of seeing the light of day ;)
I agree with your description! It is indeed an unhappy story if it is confirmed 'as early as next Wednesday' as suggested in the article, which also appeared in The Australian website. At the moment it is still speculative but the reporter quotes 'senior government sources' as providing the information and we should soon know for certain.

It seems to me that the comparison with an 'evolved F111' program has already been made by the Defence Minister who seems to have totally ruled out this option.

So what will the replacement be, the Seahawk or the NH90?

Cheers
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
From Australian Aviation Express, Wed Feb 7

* SEASPRITE - COMMONWEALTH "MOVED THE GOALPOSTS": The prime contractor for the RAN's troubled SH-2G(A) Seasprite program has accused the Commonwealth of moving the goalposts late in the game, meaning the earliest the aircraft can now achieve IOC is mid 2009, eight years later than planned.
The claims come amid rumours Defence Minister Nelson is ready to dump the Seasprite program, which is currently running almost six years late, and instead opt for an interim acquisition of about half a dozen ex-USN Seahawk airframes as training aircraft, thus freeing up the Navy's 16 S-70B-2 Seahawks for operational duties aboard its 12 FFG and Anzac class frigates.
"The aircraft's airworthiness certification issue is a problem," Kaman Aerospace's vice president of engineering, Michael Bowes, told Australian Aviation on February 5. "The certification process falls within the Commonwealth's area of responsibility, and despite Kaman warning them back in 2000/01 that it could be done but would take a lot of work, they didn't approach it with enough vigour."
"Kaman weren't engaged until mid 2006 to prepare an engineering change proposal (ECP) to cover all the technical specifications to meet the FAA Part 29 compliance," Bowes added. "We submitted our proposal in July 2006, and agreement was reached very late last year that the airworthiness certificate could be achieved, however the contract is still unsigned and is in the Commonwealth's hands right now."
All ADF aircraft were previously the responsibility of their owner service with regards to certification, however in late 1999 this was centralised with the RAAF, with the Chief of Air Force becoming the certifying authority. The RAAF has declared that the Seasprite must meet the FAA's Part 29 standard which covers civil registered transport helicopters.
Kaman says in order to comply with Part 29, the Seasprite's single-channel flight control system (FCS) computer must be made redundant with a backup unit, and that most of the aircraft's FCS software will need to be re-written, a process it estimates will take 26 to 29 months to complete.
In the meantime, Kaman says it has addressed earlier issues with the aircraft's flight control system. It says that, despite the Minister's insistence that the nine SH-2G(A)s at Nowra remain grounded until additional redundancy can be built into the FCS, the test aircraft flying in the US has demonstrated the entire flight envelope both using the FCS and in manual mode should the FCS fail.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Whether the stuff up was made by Kaman or the Commonwealth (Government, RAN, RAAF) I don't think it can be argued that it has not been a stuff up of monumental proportions.

The suggestion of acquiring half a dozen ex USN Seahawks for training to free up the navy's present Seahawks for operational use makes sense as an interim measure.

Cheers :shudder
 

rjmaz1

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Back when the original seasprite upgrade was proposed, someone could have easily done a worst case scenario regarding delays and cost blowouts. As the program always had high risk delays should not have come as a surprise.

Similar could be said about the Evolved F-111, sure it could all work perfectly but things could go wrong.

What happens if they try to add stealth and it doesn't even reduce the RCS by half?

What if they add new engines and it fails at a flight test?

What if they tried to integrate the APG-80 into a twin seat cockpit and half way down the track they realise it just cannot work?

It is very good for Australian industry to get contracts for military equipment, however we should walk before we run. The collins class submarine is also another example of an unsucessful Australian program, it ended up costing much more than planned yet it was completed in the end. It wouldn't have taken many extra problems to push the submarine program over the edge.

Australia should concentrate on getting contracts for parts of high end items. It should use its manufacturing capabilities to build lower technology vehicles, cars and ammunition in Australia.

The bushmaster IMV is a perfect example of what we should be making. Its not too difficult and we have a large automotive industry that can lend a hand making larger military equipment.

Remember if it costs twice as much to buy an Australian made car compared to a Koreans car, most civilian people in Australia will buy the Korean car as it is money in their pocket. However if the government buys the Australian car it will get tax's from the Australian employee's that made the car, the profit from the company and get more money from the employee's when they spend their money. So the car that costs twice as much on paper will actually cost less, yet our government continues to go with the cheaper oversea's options.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Its a funny thing, but the story goes that the RNZN wanted to get the Lynx, but was told to go with the Seasprite to 'enhance' jointness with Australia.

The RNZN ordered them in 1997 and first was delivered in 2001. And while they are not as advanced as the RAN models they are still compare favourble to other naval helos around the world. Just wish a proper ASM was available for them.

Hopefully the Seahawk purchase goes ahead soon, it would also consolidate the ADF Helo fleet I guess.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Its a funny thing, but the story goes that the RNZN wanted to get the Lynx, but was told to go with the Seasprite to 'enhance' jointness with Australia.

The RNZN ordered them in 1997 and first was delivered in 2001. And while they are not as advanced as the RAN models they are still compare favourble to other naval helos around the world. Just wish a proper ASM was available for them.

Hopefully the Seahawk purchase goes ahead soon, it would also consolidate the ADF Helo fleet I guess.
I only wish the RAN had also ordered 'off the shelf' Seasprites, like the RNZN. I think the Kiwis did much better than Oz with this one! The Australian version can hardly be called more advanced when it can't even operate! :rolleyes: It would be interesting to know how hard it would be to integrate the RAN's Penguin ASMs with the NZ Seasprites and also how difficult it is going to be to fit them to the Seahawks.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

abramsteve

New Member
Back when the original seasprite upgrade was proposed, someone could have easily done a worst case scenario regarding delays and cost blowouts. As the program always had high risk delays should not have come as a surprise.

Similar could be said about the Evolved F-111, sure it could all work perfectly but things could go wrong.

What happens if they try to add stealth and it doesn't even reduce the RCS by half?

What if they add new engines and it fails at a flight test?

What if they tried to integrate the APG-80 into a twin seat cockpit and half way down the track they realise it just cannot work?

It is very good for Australian industry to get contracts for military equipment, however we should walk before we run. The collins class submarine is also another example of an unsucessful Australian program, it ended up costing much more than planned yet it was completed in the end. It wouldn't have taken many extra problems to push the submarine program over the edge.

Australia should concentrate on getting contracts for parts of high end items. It should use its manufacturing capabilities to build lower technology vehicles, cars and ammunition in Australia.

The bushmaster IMV is a perfect example of what we should be making. Its not too difficult and we have a large automotive industry that can lend a hand making larger military equipment.

Remember if it costs twice as much to buy an Australian made car compared to a Koreans car, most civilian people in Australia will buy the Korean car as it is money in their pocket. However if the government buys the Australian car it will get tax's from the Australian employee's that made the car, the profit from the company and get more money from the employee's when they spend their money. So the car that costs twice as much on paper will actually cost less, yet our government continues to go with the cheaper oversea's options.
I partialy agree with what your saying. But there is no reason why we should simpily produce low tech vehicles and ammunition. It is excellent that we strive to produce the very best in the world. You mention the problems with the Collins, but they turned out pretty dam good in the end. Walk before you run is very true, but we can already walk, so lets try to jog...:)
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I partialy agree with what your saying. But there is no reason why we should simpily produce low tech vehicles and ammunition. It is excellent that we strive to produce the very best in the world. You mention the problems with the Collins, but they turned out pretty dam good in the end. Walk before you run is very true, but we can already walk, so lets try to jog...:)
Funnily enough I go along with what both you and rjmaz1 have said to a certain extent even though they appear contradictory. I like the idea of Australia developing high tech gear to complement off the shelf purchases. I've argued before about the dangers of relying on a single platform but in the case of the Seasprite we had a backup in the existence of the Seahawk.
The problems, IMO, were that:
1. Too much was attempted - trying for perfection is often an enemy,
2. The purchase of such old airframes was a mistake (if anything went wrong the media would point straight at this and say that this was the problem),
3. The program was allowed to drag on too long without additional Seahawks being purchased, and
4. The Penguin ASM was not fitted to the Seahawks which left the Anzac FFHs without one of it’s a major surface warfare weapons.

I do give credit to the present Defence Minister for stepping in to fix the problem.

It seems apparent that Kaman may not be completely (if at all) to blame for the fiasco and it will be interesting to see where blame is ultimately placed (I guess it may well be determined in court).

I would have supported the Evolved F111 option if Australia had already introduced an interim combat aircraft to squadron service (F15E or FA18E/F). With the F35 timetable and the availability for purchase of the F22 uncertain, and many unknowns about the extent of work needed to keep the FA18A/Bs operational, I think it would have risked too much to rely on an Evolved F111 for our strike force. Had we had a couple of squadrons of F15Es or FA18E/Fs in service then the risk would have been lessened and just maybe could have been justified. We would also have been in a better position to push the US to sell Australia the F22! This may have produced a 5 squadron force of say 1 x Evolved F111, 1 x F15E or FA18E/F (eventually converting to F35s) , 1 x F22 and 2 x F35. But this is all just what might have been.

All in all the Seasprite failure suggests to me that we should never put all our eggs in one basket if it involves risky development work and we should buy of the shelf when we can only afford one platform because of budget constraints or the fact that the numbers are small (e.g. the C17 purchase).

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Its a funny thing, but the story goes that the RNZN wanted to get the Lynx, but was told to go with the Seasprite to 'enhance' jointness with Australia.

The RNZN ordered them in 1997 and first was delivered in 2001. And while they are not as advanced as the RAN models they are still compare favourble to other naval helos around the world. Just wish a proper ASM was available for them.

Hopefully the Seahawk purchase goes ahead soon, it would also consolidate the ADF Helo fleet I guess.
Even funnier...

When Kaman proposed to NZ in 1997 that they specify an avionics suite the same as Australia's, they said 'no way' and predicted at the time the Australian version would enter service more than five years later than theirs...how right they were!

Folks - the Seasprite debacle is not a result of adding modern gear to an aged airframe, so (although the Minister and senior RAAF officials already seem to have done so in the case of the F-111), don't let this example taint your views on upgrading as an option. If done with the appropriate level of risk analysis and management, the resuts can be as rewarding and more cost effective than buying new types.

It's more a case of poor project-management of the part of the ADF which has a recent history of letting projects which are already far from 'off-the-shelf' getting away from them, and thus running years late or millions over budget, e.g. Tiger ARH, AGM-142, Army's M113 etc. I still have fears for the KC-30B tankers and Wedgetail AEW&C, both of which are already two or ore years later than planned, and Phase 3.2B/C (centre-barrels) of the HUG program.

Cheers

Magoo
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I've argued before about the dangers of relying on a single platform but in the case of the Seasprite we had a backup in the existence of the Seahawk.
Not necessarily - the Seahawk's main mission is anti-submarine warfare (ASW), whereas the Seasprite was anti-ship (ASuW). There are those who argue that putting the Penguin missile onto the Seahawk would have been easier, but we would have also had to put the appropriate Link-11 datalinks and mission systems in order for the Seahawks to be able to 'talk' to the Anzac ships.

Tasman said:
I do give credit to the present Defence Minister for stepping in to fix the problem.
Don't give him too much credit - word is he's trying to kill off as many troublesome "legacy programs" as possible so they're not hanging over his head when he makes his run for the lodge in a few years time!

Tasman said:
It seems apparent that Kaman may not be completely (if at all) to blame for the fiasco and it will be interesting to see where blame is ultimately placed (I guess it may well be determined in court).
It may not go to court - Nelson may be happy to just drop the whole thing and get as much as he can for the 10 airframes which have been delivered to offset the losses.

Tasman said:
All in all the Seasprite failure suggests to me that we should never put all our eggs in one basket if it involves risky development work and we should buy of the shelf when we can only afford one platform because of budget constraints or the fact that the numbers are small (e.g. the C17 purchase).
Amen, although fortunately the eggs are not all in one basket with Seasprite, as we do have the Seahawks to fall back on.

Cheers

Magoo
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Is it true that the reason why the RAN ordered Seasprites was because they found the FFGs they'd bought were too short to operate Seahawks from? The US Navy was aware of this and so their FFGs had extended hulls after the first half-a-dozen to accomodate the larger chopper. The RAN decided apparently not to rebuild the FFGs and so needed a smaller chopper in the Lynx/Seasprite class.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Is it true that the reason why the RAN ordered Seasprites was because they found the FFGs they'd bought were too short to operate Seahawks from? The US Navy was aware of this and so their FFGs had extended hulls after the first half-a-dozen to accomodate the larger chopper. The RAN decided apparently not to rebuild the FFGs and so needed a smaller chopper in the Lynx/Seasprite class.
No, the earlier RAN FFGs had their hulls extended and the later ones were built from the start with extended hulls for the Seahawk. Seahawks operated from the FFGs in GW1 even before the squadron was operational.

My understanding is that the RAN wanted a smaller helicopter for the Anzacs because they were also looking at the time to buy offshore patrol vessels (corvette size) which were to operate the same helos as the Anzacs. These vessels, though, were never ordered.

Cheers
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Why didn't Australia opt for Lynx? Proven ASW & Anti-shipping platform (Falklands and Gulf I & II), plus continues to be produced (UK Future Lynx Maritime Contact plus others for example). Enough NATO / Western and ASEAN Navy's currently use the Lynx (UK, Germany, Malaysia etc.), plus the size of airframe would have been ideal for the AUS FFG's -

Absolutely crackers, interviews without coffee at the highest level I fear!
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Why didn't Australia opt for Lynx? Proven ASW & Anti-shipping platform (Falklands and Gulf I & II), plus continues to be produced (UK Future Lynx Maritime Contact plus others for example). Enough NATO / Western and ASEAN Navy's currently use the Lynx (UK, Germany, Malaysia etc.), plus the size of airframe would have been ideal for the AUS FFG's -

Absolutely crackers, interviews without coffee at the highest level I fear!
A very pertinent question! It probably would have pleased the Kiwis and I'm certain it would have been able to perform all that was required by the RAN. Perhaps one of our professional members could throw some light on this decision. :confused:


Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
A very pertinent question! It probably would have pleased the Kiwis and I'm certain it would have been able to perform all that was required by the RAN. Perhaps one of our professional members could throw some light on this decision. :confused:


Cheers
Indeed, I would be interested in the answer as well. One thing I've heard, and would like clarification on if possible. As I understand it, most American made/designed helicopters have the main rotor spin in one direction, and that results in the heli tending to move to one side/vector unless that motion is compensated for. Euro designed helis have the rotor spin in the opposite direction, requiring the same sort of compensation in the opposite direction while in flight. Any truth to this? And if so, would think effect ADF helicopter aquisitions? Also, reviewing ADF heli assets in my head, isn't the source primarily the US? And with the addition of the Tiger ARH and the pending MRH-90, is Australia moving away from US helicopters?

-Cheers
 

abramsteve

New Member
Interesting points. However those recent purchase are to complement current units, so Im not sure if its the begining of a move towards euro choppers.

Correct me if Im wrong but I think the thinking behind the Seasprite purchase was sound, but the managment of the project was the problem...
 

enghave

New Member
How a helicopter deal flew into trouble
"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.

"There was a problem with not connecting the helicopter purchase to the OPV purchase," Mr Borgu said. "When cabinet decided to kill off the OPV nobody thought about the Seasprites. It's adding an additional helicopter platform to the ADF unnecessarily as the Anzacs could take the Seahawks."

A senior member of the Seasprite project agrees the deal should have been scrapped. "It's smarter to get 27 Seahawks rather than 16 Seahawks and 11 Seasprites," he said.

Mr McLachlan said he has no recollection of the Defence Force ever telling him of the pivotal link between the patrol vessel project and the Seasprites.

Despite the belief that the patrol vessel the Seasprites were designed for would never be built, Defence - never keen to reject already-committed funds - went ahead and signed the $660 million helicopter contract with Kaman.

That contract contained the seeds of today's fiasco, Defence insiders admit. Ever ambitious, Defence wanted to build a high-tech helicopter at a bargain price. The number of helicopters ordered had shrunk to fit under the price cap and it was determined to go for an option that would cut costs further, rebuilding surplus US navy helicopters up to 40 years old.

Expecting Kaman to install a new, sophisticated weapons and avionics system into these "old birds" is where the project came to grief, insiders said.

Too much was expected of Kaman in too short a time. The Seasprite deal was Kaman's biggest ever and the company was no big-time defence player. Founded by eccentric inventor Charlie Kaman, who also designed the Ovation electric guitar, it has made more in recent years from musical instrument sales than aerospace. "The Commonwealth has signed up to an unachievable contract at an unachievable price," said one senior member of the project team. "The whole thing was set up for failure."

It was unfair to blame Kaman, said one official who played a key role in the contract. "Defence has to realise you can't lay all the risk and blame on this little company," he said
_ _ _ _ _ _

MRH90 to replace Sea Kings and Blackhawks
 

abramsteve

New Member
I admit to not know that much about the project. So what was the original aim of the project. As the seasprite was brought with the intention for use on an OPV, was the upgrade to make them better suited to operations in littoral waters? Or was it to simpily modernize a chopper for use from a small ship? If the latter is so, why not just design the landing pad to be bigger?
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
thank christ this debacle is almost over, i've always wondered how operating this aricraft from ANZAC would give a good utility option. My problem with it was how does a 4 seater replace 8 on a Seahawk, especially in a combat situation or rescue. On board the Adelaides and future AWD, this is not a problem as a medium lift NH-90 will also be available as there are 2 hangers, but to have a smaller transport on an ANZAC, compared with Adelaide is futile. Range for a seahawk is listed on Navy.gov as 1295KM while a seasprite is 830KM.(note RAN has Anzac aircraft as Seasprite, guess that one week they flew was upgrade week for the systems info.)

I don't really care whose fault it is like most people, as long as it gets fixed and we get a bloody good helo to replace. Lynx does come to mind, and i believe the next upgrade of Seahawk is being put into the USN now. A few more Nh-90 would give the Navy a single operating fleet of Airframes, much like what the Army and Airforce is trying to do, so it would be in line with many current projects, and lower the risk of further blow out and could be tagged onto current orders.
 
Top