Australia to sell the Seasprite for spares.....

[Fox3snapshot]

I was miffed when the Seasprite turned up on the Oz defence inventory. The Kiwi's have enjoyed the operational service of a more basic version of the platform for a good few years now, whilst the Oz Seasprite project is still a festering mess (lets hope the NH90 doesn't go the same way!).

The latest from Flight International article sums it up!

"Australia is studying the option of selling its 11 Kaman SH-2(G)A Super Seasprite naval helicopters for spares as Canberra prepares to decide on the future of the troubled project, writes Peter La Franchi.

Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) chief executive Steve Gumley told Senate hearings on 14 February that the returns from selling the aircraft for spares "would be small we are not talking A$500 million [$390 million]". The cost of the programme so far has been A$894 million.

The DMO had planned to spend another A$64 million on the project this year, but has cut this to about A$9 million. Defence budget documents released as part of the Senate hearings reveal that the cut is due to "technical issues encountered during the year, primarily associated with software integration and the automatic flight-control system".

The documents also say that "test flying of a limited number of aircraft will continue in Australia through 2007-8 to resolve the safety issue with the flight-control system and ultimately certify the full-capability configuration".

The Australian government ordered a review of the project cancellation option last year, with Eurocopter and Sikorsky asked to submit proposals for replacement aircraft.

Nine Super Seasprites have been certificated by the Royal Australian Navy, which plans to operate the aircraft from its Anzac-class frigates.

DMO director of naval aviation systems Cdre Mark Campbell told the Senate that on current schedules the lead helicopter would not reach operational capability until 2009-10 and only if the government approves additional funding."

:D Well done to our fine tuned project teams......

:hmm:

[Willi B]

And will DMO heads roll for yet another monumental blunder with taxpayers' funds?

I await with interest the departure of Porcine Squadron from Russell Offices. Given DMOs appalling track record on procurement, with virtually no day of reckoning or accountability, I suspect I might be waiting for quite some time.

[Fox3snapshot]

Have to agree.....

It is so entertaining when you think how the government has to cut corners with so many other issues and yet this 'The Lemon of all Lemons' continues to evolve into a major co*k up!

Duck and weave they will, and in years to come it will be one of those reeeeaaaaallly funny procurement jokes.......

:ugh:

[GreenKnight121]

'The Lemon of all Lemons'


Well, if you bother to actually research, you will find that the real problems have all been solved.

All systems now work fine, and the SeaSprite has a temporary flight clearance because it now meets all of the contracted requirements.

This last issue is simply whether the RAAF will pay for the changes in the flight-control software that are required by the changes in certification requirements that have been made in the last couple of years... after the flight-control software was written, verified, and tested.



The RAAF does not want to pay the 35million $Aus for the last-minute changes... they want Kaman to eat the bill for customer-required changes in system requirements that have nothing to do with what Kaman contracted to provide.

[Argus]

The RAAF does not want to pay the 35million $Aus for the last-minute changes...

I'm not surprised. The RAAF doesn't operate helos, and hasn't done so for at least 15 years.

[donpizmeov]

I believe that just removing the pilots leg will enable sufficient cyclic movement to allow the aircraft to fly safely. Seems this would be a lot cheaper than any software mod. That would probably even allow the center console to widen more if needed for future mods. Win Win solution if ever there was one.

Don

[oldpinger]

Greenknight- so which company do you work for????? :hmm: a trifle one sided assessment I feel.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Is this a comparable situation to that which the British procurers have created with the Chinook HC3?

[Frazzled]

This year Seasprite, next year Tiger!...:ugh:

[GreenKnight121]

1. I do not work for any company involved in any way with the SeaSprite.

2. I meant RAN, don't know why I typed RAAF.

3. That was 35million $US (45M $Aus)

4. My comments were developed from several recent public statements regarding the situation, but mainly from what was said in this article (posted on another forum, I wish they had included the name of the publication) [I have bolded the sections I was referring to]:

Seasprite program headed for the scrap heap
Patrick Walters, National security editor
February 10, 2007

THE navy's ill-fated Seasprite helicopter program is almost certain to be scrapped after a decade of problems, leaving taxpayers with losses of more than $1 billion.
The Defence Department has recommended that the contract with US manufacturer Kaman Aerospace Corporation be terminated.

And senior government sources say the axe could fall on the project to refurbish the Vietnam-era helicopters as soon as next Wednesday's meeting of federal cabinet's National Security Committee.

The Seasprite helicopters have been dogged by software engineering glitches and airworthiness issues, with the project running more than six years behind schedule.

The twin-engine SG-2G(A) Super Seasprites, equipped with Penguin anti-ship missiles, are designed to operate from the navy's Anzac-class frigates, providing a maritime strike and surveillance capability for the surface fleet.

If the Seasprites are dumped, Defence will buy a new helicopter for the Anzacs, choosing between the US Seahawk, which is already in service with the navy, and the European NH-90, in an investment likely to cost at least $1.5 billion.

The failure of the project will be an embarrassment for the Howard Government, which is extolling its virtues as a superior economic manager against new Labor leader Kevin Rudd.

The Government is expected to counter that it was burdened with the project by the previous Labor government of Paul Keating.

Kaman executives have been in Canberra this week lobbying hard for the retention of the project, arguing that the Seasprites are safe to fly, with only Australian airworthiness certification procedures yet to be met.

But the latest estimate from Defence is that the navy will now not have a fully operational Seasprite squadron until 2010, at the earliest.

The original $667 million contract with Kaman, signed in 1997, called for the supply of 11 helicopters. The one-off project involved fitting a wholly new avionics package designed for the Royal Australian Navy into a 1960s airframe.

Ten of the Seasprites have been delivered to the navy but were grounded last year after concerns about their airworthiness and problems with their flight control systems.

If the project is scrapped, it is likely Defence will attempt to sell the remaining Seasprites.

More than a decade in development and now running six years late, the Seasprite has been one of Defence's most troublesome "legacy projects" - those that originated before the election of the Howard Government in 1996 and before major reforms of the Defence Materiel Organisation, the organisation that manages new equipment purchases.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has made no secret of his unhappiness at the state of the Seasprite program and his readiness to consider an alternative solution for the navy.

Dr Nelson met senior Kaman executives in Washington in December to express his concerns at the continuing delays in achieving an operational capability for the navy's Fleet Air Arm.

"The company has failed to understand that they have lost the confidence of the customer," one senior government source told The Weekend Australian.

A decision to scrap the Seasprite would come as a bitter blow to the helicopter's manufacturer, which maintains that all the major hurdles to achieve a fully operational capability have been met.

Kaman estimates that meeting Australia's current airworthiness certification regulations, which fall outside the original contract specification for the Seasprites, will take a further 29 months and cost $US35 million ($45million).

Kaman is confident that it has solved all technical problems associated with the Seasprites' flight control system. This includes the handling glitches in the Seasprite's air data computer before last year's grounding of the machines.

"We have really done all of the testing to this point to convince us that the aircraft meets all of its specified requirements," Kaman Aviation's vice-president of engineering Mike Bowes told The Weekend Australian.

This included bench and flight testing of it and its sensors and weapons systems, including the Penguin anti-ship missile.

"We have just completed an enhancement of the flight control system which the commonwealth asked us to do to allow us to get an interim airworthiness certificate," he said.

Mr Bowes said Kaman had agreed a statement of work with the commonwealth to achieve full air certification by mid-2009.

The additional $US35 million cost will cover further software engineering and installation of additional redundancy in the Seasprites' flight control system as well as new software to comply with regulations.

Kaman is confident it has satisfactorily resolved a list of outstanding concerns presented by Defence last year relating to the performance of the Seasprites. These included the helicopter's performance when it was equipped with the Penguin missile and its stability when the missile was fired.

Dr Nelson has compared the ambition of the program, in which the latest avionics have been incorporated into an older airframe, to trying to put a "2010 motor vehicle into an EH Holden". "If this were a domestic purchase and you had the project in your garage, you would be sitting around your kitchen table with your wife saying, 'Look, do you think we should be continuing with it?"' he told The Weekend Australian last year.

"If it was my money, my project, and it involved my domestic arrangements, I know what I would be doing."

[evilroy]

And so after much ado, the decision is..........




Not to make a decision yet.

[BlueWolf]

As I understand it, New Zealand bought new airframes while Australia opted to refurbish old ones, which is where many of the problems have stemmed from.

Where we sourced new airframes from I'm not sure, since the type was apparently out of production, maybe they were unused but of original manufacture, or perhaps the dies still exist.

[evilroy]

The problems aren't with the airframe per se, it's with the systems integration.
The ITAS just won't work properly (though Kaman claims it's all fixed now); Litton knew this was going to be a high risk project years ago, and opted (IIRC) to accept a penalty & pull out rather than face continuing problems with the ITAS.

[XV277]

My memory isn't what is used to be, but weren't the Aussies sort of railroaded into the Seasprite, having decided on a common airframe with NZ, who then announced they were choosing the SH-2 before the RAN had finished their evaluation.

Maybe they could buy some Future Lynx?

[Octane]

At the Melbourne grandprix I asked the Seahawk pilots where were the Seasprites and they laughed, loudly..:}

[Two's in]

because it now meets all of the contracted requirements.

Any Project that establishes the measure of success by examining the contract has already failed long ago. Contracts are quoted when one side has failed to deliver or meet the expectations of the other. As in this case. Being right legally is not the same as doing the job you were asked to do

[sunnywa]

Greeknight 121 - you were correct when you said the the RAAF as the RAN has handed over all engineering airworthiness to the RAAF in late 90's, early 2000. The RAAF then said the a/c must meet the FAA regs (FAR 35 I think but don't yell at me the actual number). This meant the simplex software in the SeaSprite AFCS was inadequate and then Kaman had to devise a duplex solution. The problem with this whole project that it has been going so long, the goal posts have changed many times and thus the manufacturers have had to keep moving as well.

The initial purchase was supposed to be for the joint Aus/Malaysian Offshore Patrol vessel (OPV) but this was scuttled before the SH2 was sighned for. One of the reasons I left the RAN was this poorly designed and run project- the only people who thought it was a good idea was the project team. The SeaHawks 10 years before were a similar sh*tfight.

[YesTAM]

The Seahawks were such a mess of a project that HdeH walked away and gave it all back to those idiots at Sikorsky.

Defence purchasing seems to be administered by complete morons, or political hacks, or both.

I still remember a marine engineer colleagues disbelief when we discovered (after the fire) that flexible fuel injection lines were fitted to Westralia.

He explained that the steel lines always fatigue because of the pressure pulses produced by the injector pumps. Sulzers solution is to use double walled steel lines with pressure gauges fitted to the cavity between.

When pressure appears on the gauge it indicates that the inner line has cracked and you have a decent interval of still safe operation to purchase a new assembly. His language about the flexible lines was unprintable.

[ORAC]

Australia to Continue Effort to Develop Troubled Seasprite Copter (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2792225&C=asiapac)

The Royal Australian Navy will persist with its troubled SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite helicopter program despite a six-year delay in the 1 billion Australian dollar ($820 million) project.

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson had been expected later this year to cancel the project to acquire 11 of the helicopters, manufactured by Kaman Corp., Bloomfield, Conn. They were ordered in 1997 to equip the Navy’s eight Anzac-class frigates and were due to enter service in 2001, but have been delayed by software integration difficulties with their custom-built Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS).

Last year, other problems emerged with the helicopters’ new digital Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) and the aircraft were grounded. Ten of the Super Seasprites had been delivered to the Navy air base at Nowra, near Sydney, for initial training. The eleventh was retained by Kaman to complete ITAS development and flight testing.

“In April 2006, I initiated a full examination of the Seasprite project following grounding of the aircraft due to concerns over the reliability of the Seasprite’s automated flight control system,” Nelson said in a statement May 25. “The review paid particular attention to the reliability of the flight control system and its associated safety implications; the ramifications to Naval aviation of the project being six years late; and the performance of the integrated sensor system. After detailed consideration of the issues involved, the government has decided to continue the Seasprite project, subject to satisfactory contract arrangements.”

The aircraft will be returned to flight status “within the next several weeks,” according to Steve Rutter, Kaman’s Australian project manager. He said May 25 the company had remedied errors in the ITAS software, and with the Navy’s agreement, the Super Seasprites should start a final four- to five-week flight test and demonstration program at Nowra around the middle of the year.

But in a written response to questions May 28, the department stated that “due to the meticulous process designed to ensure adequate safety, it is unlikely that Seasprite flying will recommence before late 2007.”............

[Wiley]

A bit negative of me, I know, but I have this awful suspicion that when the A330 tanker arrives, the journous who are interested will be able to save themselves an enormous amount of keyboard tapping simply by dredging out the (hopefully by then) old Seasprite articles and hitting CTL+H ('replace') on their MS Word keyboards and deleting 'Seasprite' to insert 'Airbus A330 tanker'.

[MarkD]

Wiley

strip the tanker stuff out of an A330K and you've got something you can use. What else can you do with a Seasprite?

[Flyingblind]

Mount them as (Bloody exspensive) Gate gurdians? 1 or 2 for NAS Nowra and a couple at DMO plus one leading up the Defense Ministers office.

:ugh:

[control snatch]

A bit negative of me, I know, but I have this awful suspicion that when the A330 tanker arrives, the journous who are interested will be able to save themselves an enormous amount of keyboard tapping simply by dredging out the (hopefully by then) old Seasprite articles and hitting CTL+H ('replace') on their MS Word keyboards and deleting 'Seasprite' to insert 'Airbus A330 tanker'.

Please explain....?

It hauls trash and pumps gas, we're not talking about anything ground breaking here.

[baffy boy]

never understood why they didn't buy Lynx.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Is there an issue with the design of the MRTT A330 that limits the floor load thereby reducing its potential max. cargo weight?

I seem to recall reading something about the modification of it from a pure airliner to the tanker role. Thats probably what Wiley is talking about.

[MTOW]

we're not talking about anything ground breaking hereGod, we all sincerely hope not - "ground breaking", I mean... perhaps not the most appropriate phrase to use when talking about aeroplanes.

[evilroy]

Yes, it's like talking about a 'crash programme'!

[Frazzled]

Given the recent history of Seasprite and Tiger I can't imagine that MRH90 is going to be any different.

Work with Americans, fight with Americans, buy European....go figure!

Arrrhhh!!:mad:

[Wiley]

One could almost be tempted to ask where the commission went or who got what job post retirement.

Nah, it couldn't be that, 'cos that sort of thing only happens in 3rd World countries and Banana Republics.

[Pegasus#]

Frazzled,
I am a bit confused by your last comment: I thought that SeaSprite was a US helicopter?

[Wiley]

I think he's referring to the Tiger and MH-90 buy, Pegasus. He's not the first to express reservations about the ADF operating equipment, however good, that would not be able to make use of the huge US logistics system should spares/repairs/replacements be required for the Australian helicopters when they would most likely be operating alongside US forces in most planned for scenarios.

The ADF is buying the Abrahams tank with a view that spares would be easily accessible from the Americans and comms equipment etc would be seamlessly compatible - and if necessary, the Australian crews could be deployed to a remote theatre and be plonked into a US Abrahams.

Many would have thought the same thinking might have been applied to the chopper buys, to say nothing of the strength of the Euro versus the weakness of the USD, which has mede the European helicopters that much more expensive for the Oz taxpayer.

Is there also any truth to the rumour that the version of the Tiger the ADF is getting is, shall we say, not exactly compatible with what most would think its most likely role will be?

[griffinblack]

Is there also any truth to the rumour that the version of the Tiger the ADF is getting is, shall we say, not exactly compatible with what most would think its most likely role will be?

What rumour would that be, Wiley?

What is the role of the Tiger?

Why is it not compatible for its likely role?

[Roller Merlin]

From Minister for Defence Website: Media Announcement, 25 May 2007 (MIN44/07)

SEASPRITE HELICOPTERS

In April 2006, I initiated a full examination of the Seasprite project following grounding of the aircraft due to concerns over the reliability of the Seasprite’s Automated Flight Control System.

The review paid particular attention to the reliability of the Flight Control System and its associated safety implications; the ramifications to Naval aviation of the project being 6 years late; and the performance of the integrated sensor system.

The review examined how to resolve these issues so that the best possible capability can be provided to the Royal Australian Navy.

After detailed consideration of the issues involved, the Government has decided to continue the Seasprite project, subject to satisfactory contract arrangements.

The return to flying will involve a series of controlled steps to assess the contractor’s performance, and to ensure the safety, performance and reliability of the Seasprite.

The Government will take steps to ensure that the contractor’s progress is measured against milestones during the course of the additional work.

[GreenKnight121]

FYI, Wiley

"The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) is the namesake of the late General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and commander of the 37th Armored Battalion."

[Dragon79]

Sea Sprite GO
Sea King NO - is there an inservice date for the MRH-90(or is ours NH), any idea on the number of frames that will replace the Sea king out of the 48 ordered?

[evilroy]

The planned in-service date for the MRH90 is 2010, but it will probably slip a little to 2011 as these things have a habit of doing.

IIRC, Navy will be using 8 of the airframes but they aren't dedicated hulls. Both the Army and Navy will share from a rotatable pool. This means (gakk!) the Navy will have can't-see-me colours rather than the traditional low-viz grey.

[reacher]

Will the RAN put a nice sticker on "their" aircraft in a branding exercise like the RAF?

[Dragon79]

Assume they will all be up to operating off the new LHDs?

Now if only the government would re-look at the $6 Billion super hornet spend and do something more sensible with that money.

[Wiley]

... like A10s?

[Dragon79]

I am sure there is a wish list a mile long, and I don't think if the gov't had of said, heres an extra 6 billion, anyone would have said, we'll have 24 super hornets thanks.

Why not ask the USAF to base some F-15s out here for for a few years, a much better deterant that 24 hornets.

Spend the money on additional AWD or when the time comes, a small number of F35C to operate off the spanish LHD, if we buy them, replacement for the Carbiou, additional Chooks, C-17's, tankers etc etc etc.

[antipodean alligator]

Dragon what are you smoking??

Scrap 2 SQNs of Strike jets for one more floating radar target???

Please..

As for VTOL Daves to operate off your LHD....Where are we getting the $$$ for that?? RAAF not like the Navy - 1 type, 1 loggie tail.

The basic garden variety Dave is risky enough, without waiting for a small fleet within a fleet of VTOLs.

Look at the UK...The SHAR was the best AD jet they had...But it was killed to save $$$$

[The Helpful Stacker]

Will the RAN put a nice sticker on "their" aircraft in a branding exercise like the RAF?

Surely it'd be more suitable to compare the RAN with the RN, after all it was the RN that started the whole aircraft branding thing in the UK.:rolleyes:

[havick]

Couldn't they re-coupe some of the costs by turning them into one of those rides at shopping centres for $2?

[reacher]

Surely it'd be more suitable to compare the RAN with the RN, after all it was the RN that started the whole aircraft branding thing in the UK.

Only heard the latest with the RAF getting the sh!t$ for being confused with Army because their cabs are green.

When were the RN doing / did it?

[Dragon79]

antipodean alligator - what ever I am smoking I am sure glad it isn't what you are.

Did you even bother to read my post?

The pretense was that if the defence forces were given an additional $6 Billion to spend (proposed budget for the 24 super hornets), then the choice would not have been the super hornets. As I said, there would be a wish list a mile long, I didn't say I had the answer.

The F-111 will never be deployed in anger, why not scrap it now, save some money there. It aint a new capability gap if its always been there, which is the false pretense under which the super hornets are being purchased.

The point about the LHDs, is that if they are ever deployed into a war zone, they will need air defence, who is going to provide this, the floating radar, as you put, only 3 of them, land based aircraft, can't always guarantee coverage from them, unless your in the RAF in the late 70s, and want to move Australia to suite. If we are going to do it, at least lets do it right.

"Look at the UK...The SHAR was the best AD jet they had...But it was killed to save $$$$" and as a result we got the Sea jet thread.