Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped!

[Tasman]

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

I'll leave it to Magoo or someone else in the know to answer your other questions. So far as numbers are concerned the RAN determined it needed 16 Seahawks for a force of 6 FFGs, each of which could carry two. So for 12 helos assigned to the FFGs a further 4 were needed for training, deep maintenance and attrition. By 2015 the projected force is 2 x AWDs, 3 x FFGs and 8 x FFHs. Between them they could carry 18 helos. On that basis it seems to me that approx 24 are needed. The RAN is getting over the present shortage by not always assigning helos on ships not deployed to operational areas or exercises. In addition the FFGs sometimes carry only one Seahawk, sometimes supplemented by a utility Squirrel helo.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I'll leave it to Magoo or someone else in the know to answer your other questions. So far as numbers are concerned the RAN determined it needed 16 Seahawks for a force of 6 FFGs, each of which could carry two. So for 12 helos assigned to the FFGs a further 4 were needed for training, deep maintenance and attrition. By 2015 the projected force is 2 x AWDs, 3 x FFGs and 8 x FFHs. Between them they could carry 18 helos. On that basis it seems to me that approx 24 are needed. The RAN is getting over the present shortage by not always assigning helos on ships not deployed to operational areas or exercises. In addition the FFGs sometimes carry only one Seahawk, sometimes supplemented by a utility Squirrel helo.

Cheers

The figure I came up with was a total of ~28 helicopters needed. That allows for a third of fleet to be down for training, maintenance, etc. Initial delivery for the NFH-90 is supposed to start in 2013 (give or take) so that will start to cover needs then. It just becomes a question of what is used to cover the gap until then.

Given that NZ has Seasprites, any chance that a new mod. program could be started, to convert the SH-2G(A) to the SH-2G(NZ) standard? And would the SH-2G(NZ) meet Australian specs for flight operations? I seem to remember that being a sticking point on RAN acceptance. In addition, the RNZAF is looking at a training/LUH program, given that Army & RAN are looking at replacing and consolidating the LUH fleet, any chance of a joint airframe buy? From what I remember, the NZ reqs are similar.

-Cheers

 

[Magoo]

Hmmm... Would it be possible for a "Romeo" type upgrade to be applied, without the remanufacturing?

After the Seasprite debacle...yeah, that'll happen!!! nfloorl: Seriously though, I doubt it...it's more than just adding new systems to an old airframe, besides, there's not a whole lot wrong with our Seahawks' current systems.

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?

Not sure sorry. I'd need to do more reading up, but it sounds troublesome to say the least.

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?

Again, the current ASW systems are quite good already. The most likely option is we'll acquire about six SH-60B/Fs to use as training airframes, and upgrade the 16 S-70B-2s with ASuW Penguin missiles and perhaps a Link-11. The 16 airframes will be stretched, but should get us through to 2013ish.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

The figure I came up with was a total of ~28 helicopters needed. That allows for a third of fleet to be down for training, maintenance, etc.
-Cheers

My estimate of 24 is probably at the low end but is based on what is happening now. 27 (16 Seahawks and 11 Seasprites) were ordered for a planned surface fleet of 6 FFGs (12 helos) and 8 FFHs (8 helos) so a reserve of approximately one third was allowed. The force planned for 2015 will have one ship less than that, hence the figure of 24, which allows a one third reserve for training, maintenance and attrition. I think that this probably would be sufficient when we consider the fact that some of the frigates will also be undergoing refit, etc, at any one time. I would be more comfortable, however, with around 27 helos. This would provide a 50% reserve and would enable some of these helos to deploy from the LHDs when required for specific operations.


Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Again, the current ASW systems are quite good already. The most likely option is we'll acquire about six SH-60B/Fs to use as training airframes, and upgrade the 16 S-70B-2s with ASuW Penguin missiles and perhaps a Link-11. The 16 airframes will be stretched, but should get us through to 2013ish.

Cheers

Magoo

Todjaeger and I were discussing Link 11 and 16 on another thread. Are you saying that the S-70B-2s don't currently have Link 11? I'd made the assumption that they probably did, but I have to admit that it was 'educated speculation' which now seems a bit 'uneducated'!

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Todjaeger and I were discussing Link 11 and 16 on another thread. Are you saying that the S-70B-2s don't currently have Link 11? I'd made the assumption that they probably did, but I have to admit that it was 'educated speculation' which now seems a bit 'uneducated'!

Cheers

Okay, here are the specs I have on the current RAN Seahawks, it's from Jane's Fighting Ships 2001-2002 so it's a little dated.

16 Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawk (derivative of SH-60F) for ASW ops.
Planned upgrades from 2002 to include Raytheon AAQ 27 FLIR, Tracor ALE 47 countermeasures and Elisra AES 210 ESM. Sensors: MEL surface surveillance radar, CDC Sonobuoy Processor and Barra Side Processor, CAE MAD set controlled by Tactical Display/Management System.

The Adelaide FFG, which the Seahawk was purchased to operate from originally (I believe, early USN OHP started with helolink before Link 11) had Link 11. Link 16 was planned for 2003 as part of FFG Upgrade. With that, it's quite possible the current Seahawks still have a helolink.

Re-reading the AW&ST article, I came across a few additional things. The expected program cost is US$10 billion, for 254 helicopters. That would put the purchase cost at just under US$40 million per helicopter, or around (with current exchange rates) A$50 million. Unless the ADF decides not to get the NFH-90, I don't see that happening. Another thing is that the upgrade program is a joint LockMart-Sikorsky effort, with Sikorsky building (or re-building) the airframe, and LockMart handling mission systems/avionics integration. It appears that there are some significant differences in avionics between a SH-60B and MH-60R in terms of cockpit displays. Sufficient so that the S-70B-2 cockpit would probably need to be gutted to make the changeover.

It might be worthwhile to check the MH-60R avionics package for the planned NFH-90 though. Swedish NFH-90 will be equipped with Telephonics AN/APS-143B(V)3 Ocean Eye multi-mode surveillance radar with SAR & ISAR imaging modes. The MH-60R has a Telephonics AN/APS-147 multi-mode radar with short & long range detection, periscope detection and ISAR modes.

Given the costs, not to mention the apparent structural work needed, I don't think the upgrade could be applied. Too bad, since there would presumably be a minimum of risk with the upgrade in progress already for the USN.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Would Australia sell the SH-2G(A) to NZ?

I was wondering what Australia plans on doing with the 10 SH-2G(A) that have been delivered, now that it appears the program will be cancelled. Given that NZ uses a slightly different version, would Australia be willing to sell their SH-2G to NZ, less the troublesome avionics? I would assume that Australia probably wouldn't be able to get the best price for them, given they are re-manufactured airframes and need the avionics replaced. Still, it could allow the ADF to recoup some of the money spent on them already. Does anyone know how long it would take to have the SH-2G(A) converted over to the SH-2G(NZ) standard, or how much it would cost? Given the apparent "crunch" the NZDF might run into, with more Seasprites needed for maintenance, training and deployment, the addition of several Australian versions for conversion might be welcome.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I was wondering what Australia plans on doing with the 10 SH-2G(A) that have been delivered, now that it appears the program will be cancelled. Given that NZ uses a slightly different version, would Australia be willing to sell their SH-2G to NZ, less the troublesome avionics? I would assume that Australia probably wouldn't be able to get the best price for them, given they are re-manufactured airframes and need the avionics replaced. Still, it could allow the ADF to recoup some of the money spent on them already. Does anyone know how long it would take to have the SH-2G(A) converted over to the SH-2G(NZ) standard, or how much it would cost? Given the apparent "crunch" the NZDF might run into, with more Seasprites needed for maintenance, training and deployment, the addition of several Australian versions for conversion might be welcome.

-Cheers

Even though they have been a disaster for the RAN they have been rebuilt as new so they just might be a good buy for the RNZN. This would all depend of course on how much it would cost to fit them out in the same way as the Kiwi helos. I do think it would be worth the RAN, the RNZN and Kaman talking together about this possibility. I understand that some of the airframes are substantially younger than others (I know they have been rebuilt 'as new' but I would still go for the newer airframes - I just don't understand or trust concepts like 'zero timing'). Costings would need to be worked out by experts.

Cheers

 

[Ths]

I have a sneaking suspicion, that there has been a fundamental change in requirement, which a Seasprite cannot meet.

If you look at what others are doing:
The Norwegeans are taking the Nansen class into service, and Denmark is building a new class of "patrollers" - in reality high endurance frigates. The Norwegeans did choose the MH90, whereas Denmark picked the Merlin as a replacement of their SeaKing SAR plus as transports. The new frigates seem to be accomodating the Merlin.

The reason I point to this distant place o the globe is that the requirement must be somewhat similar:
There is the question of fighting what remains of Russian submarines plus the odd Chise sub. I should be very surprised if the same technology being used in the far North Atlantic is not used around Australia - The Danish Thetis class ship Vædderen has paid Australia a "research" visit. Why? Probably because it the hull best known to the system, thus an excellent platform to use for calibration.
Back to heloes: I have a sneaking suspicion that the heloes have to carry some odd black boxes they aren't telling anybody about, and the SeaSprite cannot be made to carry them.

 

[Tasman]

I have a sneaking suspicion, that there has been a fundamental change in requirement, which a Seasprite cannot meet.

If you look at what others are doing:
The Norwegeans are taking the Nansen class into service, and Denmark is building a new class of "patrollers" - in reality high endurance frigates. The Norwegeans did choose the MH90, whereas Denmark picked the Merlin as a replacement of their SeaKing SAR plus as transports. The new frigates seem to be accomodating the Merlin.

The reason I point to this distant place o the globe is that the requirement must be somewhat similar:
There is the question of fighting what remains of Russian submarines plus the odd Chise sub. I should be very surprised if the same technology being used in the far North Atlantic is not used around Australia - The Danish Thetis class ship Vædderen has paid Australia a "research" visit. Why? Probably because it the hull best known to the system, thus an excellent platform to use for calibration.
Back to heloes: I have a sneaking suspicion that the heloes have to carry some odd black boxes they aren't telling anybody about, and the SeaSprite cannot be made to carry them.

Hi Ths - good to hear from you.

The NZ requirements are different in that ASW is not a priority. NZ is very satisfied with their existing Seasprites and all that would be needed with the Australian helos would be to give them the same 'off the shelf' avionics as those already in service.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I have a sneaking suspicion, that there has been a fundamental change in requirement, which a Seasprite cannot meet.

Back to heloes: I have a sneaking suspicion that the heloes have to carry some odd black boxes they aren't telling anybody about, and the SeaSprite cannot be made to carry them.

The issues with the RAN Seasprites revolves around the avionics. An ambitious avionics package was selected to give the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite credible ASuW capabilities. However there was poor project management issues which led to, or perhaps made, system integration issues worse. The RNZN felt a less complex avionics package would be sufficient, and adopted one that didn't require the development work spent on the RAN version. Also, the RNZN Seasprites are in service, while the RAN ones aren't...

I do wonder if the if the avionics package used by NZ could be backfitted onto the SH-2G(A) Seasprites. And if that was done, would the RAN accept them for service. Or, if some of the development work done for the SH-2G(A) could be used in a (slightly) upgraded SH-2G(NZ).

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

The issues with the RAN Seasprites revolves around the avionics. An ambitious avionics package was selected to give the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite credible ASuW capabilities. However there was poor project management issues which led to, or perhaps made, system integration issues worse. The RNZN felt a less complex avionics package would be sufficient, and adopted one that didn't require the development work spent on the RAN version. Also, the RNZN Seasprites are in service, while the RAN ones aren't...

I do wonder if the if the avionics package used by NZ could be backfitted onto the SH-2G(A) Seasprites. And if that was done, would the RAN accept them for service. Or, if some of the development work done for the SH-2G(A) could be used in a (slightly) upgraded SH-2G(NZ).

-Cheers

I think the RAN has enough egg on its face already over the Seasprites without now deciding that the 'off the shelf' Kiwi version, which could have been delivered 6 years ago at a cheaper price, would have been suitable all along!

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I think the RAN has enough egg on its face already over the Seasprites without now deciding that the 'off the shelf' Kiwi version, which could have been delivered 6 years ago at a cheaper price, would have been suitable all along!

Cheers

There's alway room for more egg...

My thoughts currently are more around trying to salvage what the RAN/ADF can out of the failed Seasprite program. Whether it's biting the bullet, and going with the Kiwi version so that it can be deployed, and having to accept that time and money were wasted. Or, trying to find another buyer for the helicopter, to recover some of the amount spent. I find the notion of just letting the Seasprites sit on a tarmac somewhere, collecting dust unappealing.

While not the best uses, perhaps the ADF could use the Seasprites as additional training helicopters, in daylight only flights. Or perhaps as a daylight SAR or transport heli. It wasn't cleared for Night ops IIRC. Something will need to be done with them at some point. The question becomes, what, and what is Australia's best option.

-Cheers

 

[Magoo]

There's alway room for more egg...

My thoughts currently are more around trying to salvage what the RAN/ADF can out of the failed Seasprite program. Whether it's biting the bullet, and going with the Kiwi version so that it can be deployed, and having to accept that time and money were wasted. Or, trying to find another buyer for the helicopter, to recover some of the amount spent. I find the notion of just letting the Seasprites sit on a tarmac somewhere, collecting dust unappealing.

While not the best uses, perhaps the ADF could use the Seasprites as additional training helicopters, in daylight only flights. Or perhaps as a daylight SAR or transport heli. It wasn't cleared for Night ops IIRC. Something will need to be done with them at some point. The question becomes, what, and what is Australia's best option.

The issue is now one of timing.

Perhaps this may have been an option a few years ago, but not any more. In order to certify the aircraft to FAR Part 29 standards as is required by the ADF, a further 26 to 29 months work of development work THEN further flight tesing is still required to be carried out. During this development period it is unlikely the aircraft would be cleared to fly for crew training purposes.

So, even in their current config, we're still looking at a mid 2010 service entry at best. If you start removing avionics boxes and changing the aircraft's config, you can also start adding major chunks of time to this.

Navy needs a helo as soon as possible, i.e. by the end of 2008, and the only real possibility is diverted USN MH-60Rs to form a new capability, or ex-USN SH-60B/Fs which can either be baselined to our current S-70B-2s or used purely as training and airframes. I'm told integrating the Penguin to the current Seahawks would take about two years depending on level of intergation.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

The issue is now one of timing.

Perhaps this may have been an option a few years ago, but not any more. In order to certify the aircraft to FAR Part 29 standards as is required by the ADF, a further 26 to 29 months work of development work THEN further flight tesing is still required to be carried out. During this development period it is unlikely the aircraft would be cleared to fly for crew training purposes.

So, even in their current config, we're still looking at a mid 2010 service entry at best. If you start removing avionics boxes and changing the aircraft's config, you can also start adding major chunks of time to this.

Navy needs a helo as soon as possible, i.e. by the end of 2008, and the only real possibility is diverted USN MH-60Rs to form a new capability, or ex-USN SH-60B/Fs which can either be baselined to our current S-70B-2s or used purely as training and airframes. I'm told integrating the Penguin to the current Seahawks would take about two years depending on level of intergation.

Cheers

Magoo

It sounds from what you have said that selling them for whatever they can get ASAP is the RAN's best option. Can anyone advise whether the NZ Defence Force's certification requirements are as stringent as FAR Part 29, which the ADF now demands?

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

It sounds from what you have said that selling them for whatever they can get ASAP is the RAN's best option. Can anyone advise whether the NZ Defence Force's certification requirements are as stringent as FAR Part 29, which the ADF now demands?

Cheers

I am not sure the NZDF would actually want them, The cost of up-grading (or de-grading I guess) the software and systems would not be cheap.

 

[Tasman]

I am not sure the NZDF would actually want them, The cost of up-grading (or de-grading I guess) the software and systems would not be cheap.

Given what Magoo has said I suspect you are right. It doesn't look as though its going to be easy to 'unload' them.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

Given what Magoo has said I suspect you are right. It doesn't look as though its going to be easy to 'unload' them.

Cheers

The only scenario I can think of is if the NZDF bought them for 'Basic' for operation off the OPVs in the region.

By that I mean, flight controls, nav, search radar, FLIR, etc.. and only use them for SAR and civil enforcement, stripped of all real warfighting capabilities.

Not being an expert in the area, that may be 'easier' and cheaper. But then again maybe not.

 

[Todjaeger]

The issue is now one of timing.

Perhaps this may have been an option a few years ago, but not any more. In order to certify the aircraft to FAR Part 29 standards as is required by the ADF, a further 26 to 29 months work of development work THEN further flight tesing is still required to be carried out. During this development period it is unlikely the aircraft would be cleared to fly for crew training purposes.

So, even in their current config, we're still looking at a mid 2010 service entry at best. If you start removing avionics boxes and changing the aircraft's config, you can also start adding major chunks of time to this.

Navy needs a helo as soon as possible, i.e. by the end of 2008, and the only real possibility is diverted USN MH-60Rs to form a new capability, or ex-USN SH-60B/Fs which can either be baselined to our current S-70B-2s or used purely as training and airframes. I'm told integrating the Penguin to the current Seahawks would take about two years depending on level of intergation.

Cheers

Magoo

Regarding current RAN S-70B-2s, would arming them with the Penguin require taking them all offline for 2 years? Or could one or two be taken offline to develope the required modifications in two years, and then the modification could be applied as Seahawks are brought in for maintenance/overhaul? If the whole sqd needs to be down simultaneously for two years to arm them with Penguin, I can't see that happening, it's wouldn't be worthwhile IMV. Now, if the two year timeframe to arm Seahawks with Penguins involves a gradual phase in, i.e. 16 Seahawks progressively armed one by one over the course of two years. That would work out to one and a half months for each Seahawk. That I think could be acceptable. Particularly if additional Seahawks (SH-60B/F) were added to the Navy, either for training or deployment as baselined S-70B-2.

As for NZ buying, trading or otherwise making use of the SH-2G(A). How close are to being in "acceptable" flying operations for the NZDF? And what would need to be changed to make them acceptable? If the situation is similar to what needs to happen for the RAN to field them, 26-29 additional months of development before flight testing for approval, then I don't see NZ being interested, unless the ADF was offering to GIVE them to NZ, as is. As for outfitting, I would prefer the RNZN use as much of the already aboard equipment as possible, with the additional Seasprites armed with a sniper rifle and 0.50cal MG like USCG helicopters. Additionally, it would be nice if the were armed either with Penguin or Maverick missiles. Still, seeing either Australia or a close ally get some use out of them is most wanted.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Regarding current RAN S-70B-2s, would arming them with the Penguin require taking them all offline for 2 years? Or could one or two be taken offline to develope the required modifications in two years, and then the modification could be applied as Seahawks are brought in for maintenance/overhaul? If the whole sqd needs to be down simultaneously for two years to arm them with Penguin, I can't see that happening, it's wouldn't be worthwhile IMV. Now, if the two year timeframe to arm Seahawks with Penguins involves a gradual phase in, i.e. 16 Seahawks progressively armed one by one over the course of two years. That would work out to one and a half months for each Seahawk. That I think could be acceptable. Particularly if additional Seahawks (SH-60B/F) were added to the Navy, either for training or deployment as baselined S-70B-2.

As for NZ buying, trading or otherwise making use of the SH-2G(A). How close are to being in "acceptable" flying operations for the NZDF? And what would need to be changed to make them acceptable? If the situation is similar to what needs to happen for the RAN to field them, 26-29 additional months of development before flight testing for approval, then I don't see NZ being interested, unless the ADF was offering to GIVE them to NZ, as is. As for outfitting, I would prefer the RNZN use as much of the already aboard equipment as possible, with the additional Seasprites armed with a sniper rifle and 0.50cal MG like USCG helicopters. Additionally, it would be nice if the were armed either with Penguin or Maverick missiles. Still, seeing either Australia or a close ally get some use out of them is most wanted.

-Cheers

In relation to the Penguin ASM onto Seahawk issue, there are apparently two separate methods that could be used to do so.

One is a full integration of the weapon onto the Seahawk.

The other is a standalone weapon control system mounted in the "back" of the seahawk. I think Lt Gen. HURLEY (in charge of ADF capability development) mentioned this to a Senate Estimates Committee in late 2006.

At that point ADF were still unsure as to what will eventually happen and were studying this issue.

Of the 2 I suppose the "standalone" integration would provide a quicker operational capability...

Magoo?