Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped!

[Tasman]

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.

_ _ _ _ _

[URL="http://www.defence.gov.au/news/NAVYNEWS/editions/4911/topstories/story01.htm"]MRH90 to replace Sea Kings and Blackhawks

Interesting post enghave. Once the number of helicopters required had shrunk to just 11 (I can't find the source but IIRC something like 29 airframes were on option at one stage) it just didn't make sense, IMO, to invest funds in a technically risky project when so few aircraft were involved.

I have similar concerns about Wedgetail and I really hope this project succeeds because we are so far down the track with it. For a purchase of just 6 aircraft surely the RAAF would have been better going for an established design like the E-3 Sentry. No doubt there would be some features that would not be as good for the RAAF as those offered by Wedgetail but at least we would have the aircraft in service!

Re the Penguin missile it seems to me that this would complement, rather than replace Harpoon. The loss of the helo would leave a frigate without an AShM if Harpoon was not carried. Also the Seasprite (or any helo) is limited as to how many missiles it can carry on a sortie. However, for taking out fast moving targets like fast attack craft I think the helicopter launched missile is ideal. However, why not fit Penguin to the Seahawk?

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

Having been part of that project, and still involved with sub warfare technology, I am curious as to where your expertise lies in this project? Are you making informed comments based on the Aust mass media? If so, then you've shot your credibility down the nearest dunny.

Enlighten me so that I can get an idea of what inside knowledge you have on this. I'm more than curious. Esp as the bulk of the problems with Collins lay with the Swedes in making claims that were unsupported, and by the Swedes for absolutely stuffing their part of the construction process. In fact, we had to fix their problems or risk losing Number 1 completely in the event of chain collision with anything bigger than a groper.

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.

LOL, Bushmaster was a classic electioneering project. Right up until 2001 the Govt was ready to ditch it. It only got airtime because the Gvt wanted to secure a borderline seat at election time. In real terms, the other contenders offered superior product (I was involved with the JRA S-400 bid)

You should really be more cautious with your comments in case others accept your words as informed and factual -when they are clearly not.

 

[abramsteve]

LOL, Bushmaster was a classic electioneering project. Right up until 2001 the Govt was ready to ditch it. It only got airtime because the Gvt wanted to secure a borderline seat at election time. In real terms, the other contenders offered superior product (I was involved with the JRA S-400 bid)

You should really be more cautious with your comments in case others accept your words as informed and factual -when they are clearly not.

I dont think rjmaz1 was saying anything about the bushmaster itself, mearly pointing out how our large automotive industry could benifit from this type of defence program.

About the wedgetail, how bad are the problems? Does anybody know? Or should I say does anyone know who is willing or able to tell....

 

[gf0012-aust]

I dont think rjmaz1 was saying anything about the bushmaster itself, mearly pointing out how our large automotive industry could benifit from this type of defence program

The problem is that we fail the critical mass test when we talk about getting these typesof projects into mainstream milvehicle purchases

eg catch -22
ADI were never going toget leverage intoan established market as they lack clout.

the dutch sales were ones of reciprocity and convenience.
they only hit stride when Thales bought them out. Thales obviously bring critical mass to the table, and there will be more sales announced soon out of central europe

the down side is that any work that "ADI" may have picked up pre-ADI
is now compromised as the US has embargoed Thales from participating in some projects due to sensitivity issues.

Bushmaster has to be looked at "pre ADI" and "post ADI"

 

[Todjaeger]

I dont think rjmaz1 was saying anything about the bushmaster itself, mearly pointing out how our large automotive industry could benifit from this type of defence program.

About the wedgetail, how bad are the problems? Does anybody know? Or should I say does anyone know who is willing or able to tell....

Not claiming any special knowledge of the project (I'm not a USAF BrigGen )
but I believe Wedgetail has fallen something like 2-3 years behind schedule IIRC.

From what I remember about the reported delay, it was due to software code conflicts with the MESA radar. Having done coding, it can be a bear to debug.

As for acquiring E-3 Sentries instead, I don't think that was an option. As I remember, the 737 & 767 based AEW aircraft are being developed because the production line for 707/C-135 aircraft has been closed.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

As for acquiring E-3 Sentries instead, I don't think that was an option. As I remember, the 737 & 767 based AEW aircraft are being developed because the production line for 707/C-135 aircraft has been closed.

-Cheers

That has almost certainly been the case in recent years but the RAAF first set out its AWACS requirement a long time ago when the program was very much alive. My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that the cost of the E3 Sentry was prohibitive at the time whilst other aircraft like the E2C Hawkeye didn't meet some of the RAAF's needs. Still that is water under the bridge now. Hopefully the problems with the Wedgetail project will be resolved and not drag on like the problems with the Seasprite.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

...
I have similar concerns about Wedgetail and I really hope this project succeeds because we are so far down the track with it. For a purchase of just 6 aircraft surely the RAAF would have been better going for an established design like the E-3 Sentry. No doubt there would be some features that would not be as good for the RAAF as those offered by Wedgetail but at least we would have the aircraft in service!...
Cheers

Yeah, but Wedgetail development was always backed up by the intention (& realistic expectation) of selling it to other countries. Australia was always seen as the launch customer, not the only customer. IIRC the Turkish AEW buy is for basically the same system, albeit with local tweaks.

 

[Dr Phobus]

I can answer that questrion, it was not american, thus, not an option. This is my perspecitve, on this waste of australian tax dollars. The Lynx family would have been excellent, smaller, light for the Meko class, what a waste...

 

[Waylander]

And now the Aussies are going for two euro helo designs?
Your theory has some holes there.

Or maybe this is a result of the Seasprite problems.

 

[Dr Phobus]

And now the Aussies are going for two euro helo designs?
Your theory has some holes there.

Or maybe this is a result of the Seasprite problems.

and now.. yes, now... not then. Seasprite was a poorly conseved idea and its resulted in failure.

F-35, delays, how the small RAAF will have a mixed fleet.

 

[Waylander]

But what exactly was the difference than?

Overconfidence? Other political will to go US or own industry?

I'm just asking because also for me it is rather hard to understand what ruled out the Lynx and what changed by now.

 

[rossfrb_1]

But what exactly was the difference than?

Overconfidence? Other political will to go US or own industry?

I'm just asking because also for me it is rather hard to understand what ruled out the Lynx and what changed by now.

Others may know for sure, but my take was that the ADF thought it could get a bargain priced (cheap) helicopter by getting Kaman to rebuild old frames. I have heard that Kaman underestimated the amount of work ($$) required to rebuild them.
You have to understand the ADF mindset at the time (~1993?) - precious few dollars were being thrown their way for equipment purchases so the promise of more helicopters (any sort of helicopter) was keenly sought. Once the OPV deal was cancelled the seasprites should have gone too, but I suspect that there were those within the ADF who probably lobbied long and hard to make sure that this didn't happen. After all the ADF was going to get some choppers CHEAP! Then there somehow evolved this glorious idea to cram them full of gee whiz gadgetry and use them on the ANZACs instead.

rb

 

[enghave]

I'm just asking because also for me it is rather hard to understand what ruled out the Lynx and what changed by now.

Partly a new defence minister, Brendan Nelson, who wants to clear the decks of all these old projects, instead of continuing to spend more and more money fixing problem after problem.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks.

 

[Todjaeger]

Seasprite replacement & Seahawk upgrade?

Reading a back issue of AW&ST (Oct. 9, 2006) there was an article on a new variant of the Seahawk, the MH-60R "Romeo" Seahawk. Given the proposed specs, I couldn't help but wonder if the RAN might be interested in them, or something similar.

The new variant is expected to replace the ASuW and ASW roles that are performed by the SH-60B and SH-60F variants. The MH-60R is equipped with 25 sonobuoys and a dipping sonar, a multi-mode radar, FLIR turret in the nose, Link 16 and can carry Mk 46 or Mk 54 torpedoes, 0.50 cal HMG, 7.62mm MG, or upto 8 Hellfire missles.

Expect for carrying Hellfire missles, I think the design makes sense. I'm rather leery of the Hellfire due to the sort range, being within MANPAD range IIRC, particularly when with the advanced sensors it would seem to be able to detect targets from farther away.

Assuming the appropriate datalinks are installed/upgraded in RAN vessels, would the RAN see this as a possible replacement for the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites? Or as a possible upgrade program for the existing Seahawks that were acquired for the Adelaide FFGs? Lastly, if they are purchased, do people think that the RAN would have them modified to carry the Penguin AShM, or leave them with the Hellfire, since that is now being gotten for the Tiger ARH (Hellfire II I think).

-Cheers

 

[Magoo]

Reading a back issue of AW&ST (Oct. 9, 2006) there was an article on a new variant of the Seahawk, the MH-60R "Romeo" Seahawk. Given the proposed specs, I couldn't help but wonder if the RAN might be interested in them, or something similar.

The new variant is expected to replace the ASuW and ASW roles that are performed by the SH-60B and SH-60F variants. The MH-60R is equipped with 25 sonobuoys and a dipping sonar, a multi-mode radar, FLIR turret in the nose, Link 16 and can carry Mk 46 or Mk 54 torpedoes, 0.50 cal HMG, 7.62mm MG, or upto 8 Hellfire missles.

Expect for carrying Hellfire missles, I think the design makes sense. I'm rather leery of the Hellfire due to the sort range, being within MANPAD range IIRC, particularly when with the advanced sensors it would seem to be able to detect targets from farther away.

Assuming the appropriate datalinks are installed/upgraded in RAN vessels, would the RAN see this as a possible replacement for the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites? Or as a possible upgrade program for the existing Seahawks that were acquired for the Adelaide FFGs? Lastly, if they are purchased, do people think that the RAN would have them modified to carry the Penguin AShM, or leave them with the Hellfire, since that is now being gotten for the Tiger ARH (Hellfire II I think).

-Cheers

Trouble is, the ADF is trying to rationalise its helicopter types from 10 to 4 or 5, so buying a new variant of the Seahawk which will be in service for another 25+ years doesn't help that.

What is likely is that the Seasprites will be scrapped, and the RAN will pick up a few ex-USN SH-60B/Fs and baseline them and our current S-70Bs to a common standard and equip them with a non-datalinked Penguin missile capability.

These aircraft will in turn be replaced by NFH-90s early next decade.

Read the April issue of Australian Aviation for more info... (shameless plug there, sorry! )

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Todjaeger]

Trouble is, the ADF is trying to rationalise its helicopter types from 10 to 4 or 5, so buying a new variant of the Seahawk which will be in service for another 25+ years doesn't help that.

What is likely is that the Seasprites will be scrapped, and the RAN will pick up a few ex-USN SH-60B/Fs and baseline them and our current S-70Bs to a common standard and equip them with a non-datalinked Penguin missile capability.

These aircraft will in turn be replaced by NFH-90s early next decade.

Read the April issue of Australian Aviation for more info... (shameless plug there, sorry! )

Cheers

Magoo

I'm aware of the ADF plans to rationalize the helicopter fleet, and I have to agree I think the idea makes sense. How well it executes... That remains to be seen. Hopefully the DMO will be up to the task and it won't be a stuff up like the Seasprite.

What I'm interested in finding out, is what the RAN plans on doing for a heli fleet, until the adoption of the NH-90 by the RAN. If memory serves, I think that is supposed be to around 2016 for retirement of the Seahawk/Blackhawk heli. With the smashing success of the Seasprite program as well as the delays in fielding the Tiger ARH I have to wonder about any heli upgrade plan.

Given that the RAN already fields the Seahawk, and most likely will need a replacement for the Seasprite, I agree that additional Seahawks will be purchased. Most likely second-hand machines, given the expected replacement in about ten years. Without the Seasprite, there isn't an ASuW heli in the RAN. Adoption of the mission systems being used aboard the
MH-60R would give RAN Seahawks both ASW and ASuW capabilities. I wasn't so much thinking that the RAN would upgrade the physical/mechanical aspects of the Seahawk, rather that the mission systems would be part of whatever new baseline becomes adopted.

Not having the project costs, I don't know whether the idea is a good one, but, at least for the mission systems, does that appear something the RAN would want? After all, it was problems with the mission systems & FCS IIRC that caused problems on Seasprite. I would think the ADF would prefer to make use of an existing upgrade path if possible. Particularly if attempting to cover an 8-10 year coverage gap.

-Cheers

 

[Magoo]

I'm aware of the ADF plans to rationalize the helicopter fleet, and I have to agree I think the idea makes sense. How well it executes... That remains to be seen. Hopefully the DMO will be up to the task and it won't be a stuff up like the Seasprite.

What I'm interested in finding out, is what the RAN plans on doing for a heli fleet, until the adoption of the NH-90 by the RAN. If memory serves, I think that is supposed be to around 2016 for retirement of the Seahawk/Blackhawk heli. With the smashing success of the Seasprite program as well as the delays in fielding the Tiger ARH I have to wonder about any heli upgrade plan.

Given that the RAN already fields the Seahawk, and most likely will need a replacement for the Seasprite, I agree that additional Seahawks will be purchased. Most likely second-hand machines, given the expected replacement in about ten years. Without the Seasprite, there isn't an ASuW heli in the RAN. Adoption of the mission systems being used aboard the
MH-60R would give RAN Seahawks both ASW and ASuW capabilities. I wasn't so much thinking that the RAN would upgrade the physical/mechanical aspects of the Seahawk, rather that the mission systems would be part of whatever new baseline becomes adopted.

Not having the project costs, I don't know whether the idea is a good one, but, at least for the mission systems, does that appear something the RAN would want? After all, it was problems with the mission systems & FCS IIRC that caused problems on Seasprite. I would think the ADF would prefer to make use of an existing upgrade path if possible. Particularly if attempting to cover an 8-10 year coverage gap.

-Cheers

Trouble is, the 'Romeo' program is partially a remaunfacturing program where the helos get new booms, engines etc and cost almost as much as the new-build airframes! That is also a problem for the RAN as it means there are few good second hand SH-60B/F airframes around, as these will either be transferred to reserve/guard units, will be retired as they are almost time-expired, or will be inducted into the remanufacturing program!

Seasprite was a cockup because of piss-poor project management, whether by the prime, the DMO, or a combination of both, and hasn't been helped by the six year delay in initiating a certification process. The helo was killed by an overly ambitious integration plan, unrealistic timetable, and again, piss-poor project management.

Tiger has actually been a good project, right up until the Germans and French started dragging the chain with their certification work which has left us swinging in the wind waiting for them to get their $hit together. We successfully integrated a US made misisle system onto a French helo in-country with few issues. If only we could get sufficient aircrews for the damn things!

MRH90 will replace Blackhawk from 2010, and hopefully will be a more successful process as the Germans are further along with their NH90 TTH program than they were with Tiger at the equivalent stage. Our first four MRHs are in various stages of constrcut in Marignane in France, while the remainder will be built in Brisbane.

NH90 NFH will likely replace the Seahawk from about 2013 onwards, although its commonality with the MRH90 is restricted mainly to airframe, engines, basic avionics and EWSP. There are alot of non-common systems as well, so it may come to pass that we end up with Romeos instead as that may be a slightly easier transition from S-70B-2 and allow a two-phased acquisition of Romeos to replace the Sesprites now...

The decision to combine the Army and Navy training helos is a good one, and will see a light/medium twin with some LUH capabilities (to replace the Huey) acquired instead of a light single which is what Navy orginally wanted. This has just been through first pass approval and should be downselected in 08 for service entry in 011. Best bets are EC145, Bell 429 or AW109.

While we're talking about helos, it looks increasingly likely that our six CH-47Ds will be remanufactured into CH-47Fs, and as many as six additional airframes acquired.

So, looking forward, our helo force may look something like...


2007...............2012

S-70(A)............
........................MRH90
UH-1H..............

Tiger ARH..........Tiger ARH

Kiowa...............
........................Common Training helo (EC145/Bell 429/AW109)
AS350..............

Sea King..........
S-70B-2...........NH90 NFH/MH-60R
SH-2G(A).........

CH-47D............ CH-47F

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

Hi Magoo,

Interesting info about the MRH90! I had thought it was just about a 'lay down misere' that the RAN would replace the Seahawks with this helo. However, it sounds as though there are substantial differences over the base NH90 so maybe the competition will be a two horse race with the MH-60R having a real chance. I can see some merits in the navy making a reasonably early decision about this because a decision in favour of the MH-60R would enable the RAN to get in early and order some now to replace the Seasprites with a supplementary order later to replace the existing Seahawks.

BTW the helo mixture you describe looks like a good mix to me. The value of the Chinook can be seen by the fact that a third of the fleet has been deployed to Afghanistan so an extra 6 looks to be a sensible idea, IMO.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Trouble is, the 'Romeo' program is partially a remaunfacturing program where the helos get new booms, engines etc and cost almost as much as the new-build airframes! That is also a problem for the RAN as it means there are few good second hand SH-60B/F airframes around, as these will either be transferred to reserve/guard units, will be retired as they are almost time-expired, or will be inducted into the remanufacturing program!

Cheers

Magoo

Hmmm... Would it be possible for a "Romeo" type upgrade to be applied, without the remanufacturing? Or are parts of the remanufacturing needed (i.e. new engines) to allow the fitting of the "Romeo" mission systems? Given the updated sonar, radar, ESM and other avionics, I can see where the existing powerplant used for the Seahawk might not be sufficient. And from looking at pictures of the "Romeo" I believe the tailrotor has bee moved to the front of the tail assembly. But how much do such changes really effect the helicopter, from a flight perspective?

My interest in the "Romeo" upgrade is more that the USN is already engaging in it, therefore Australia doesn't need to spend time and money designing the upgrade. Therefore, reducing areas that can cause project issues like with the Seasprites. Are there other naval helicopters that might have mission systems the RAN would be interested in? Particularly that could be fitted to Seahawks?

Or as an alternate idea. Selling the current Seahawks back to the US, selling the Seasprites to whoever will buy them. And then leasing upgraded Seahawks from the USN until 2013-ish, when the NFH-90 should be ready. Or lastly, are the 16 (last # I have) Seahawks in RAN inventory sufficient?

-Cheers