Sea Sprites Grounded
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea Sprites Grounded
Just saw on the news that the Navy's Super Sea Sprites have been grounded.
From news.com.au: 16 May 2006:
On another note, I also heard cracks have been found in the airframe. Something which was not mentioned in the report.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From news.com.au: 16 May 2006:
THE Howard Government is set to abandon $1 billion worth of new navy helicopters and to sue the American supplier for damages.
The navy was buying 11 Super Seasprite helicopters from Kaman Aerospace to deploy on to its eight Anzac frigates, but the machines are unable to fly.
More than $980 million of the Budget has already been spent, nine machines have been delivered and the overall project for the anti-ship/anti-submarine choppers is running almost six years late.
It would cost up to $200 million to fix them and morale in the chopper squadron has hit rock bottom.
The helicopters, based with 805 Squadron at HMAS Albatross at Nowra in NSW, were grounded on March 29 and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has declared "enough is enough".
"I have asked the Department of Defence to consider all options including, if appropriate, legal action against the contractors who have not fulfilled their obligations to Australia and to Australian taxpayers," Dr Nelson said.
[Advertisement:]
"We have had delays and essentially as far as I am concerned the software failures we faced in late March have been the straw that's broken the camel's back."
Dr Nelson has vowed to resist "throwing good money after bad" on defence projects that he believes are wasting taxpayer funds.
He is taking a very close look at other projects including those to provide new army helicopters, upgraded armoured personnel carriers, navy frigate upgrades and the modernisation of the F/A-18 Hornet fighter fleet.
There are also major concerns over the delivery schedule for new US-supplied M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks for the army.
The Minister has drawn a line in the sand on the Seasprite debacle and defence chiefs were ordered to go to Nowra last week to assess the project.
They will report to Dr Nelson later this week and he will then take a proposal to Cabinet's National Security Committee.
Apart from 1950s vintage airframes, the Seasprites have had huge software-integration problems.
The latest computer glitch directly affected flight safety.
The last of the navy's six Anzac ships will be delivered next month and a decision will be needed by then to equip them with a different helicopter.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Seasprites were operating successfully in New Zealand. "The Kiwis can get the Seasprite right, but we can't and that seems to be the theme of the bungling character of this Howard Government," he said.
The navy was buying 11 Super Seasprite helicopters from Kaman Aerospace to deploy on to its eight Anzac frigates, but the machines are unable to fly.
More than $980 million of the Budget has already been spent, nine machines have been delivered and the overall project for the anti-ship/anti-submarine choppers is running almost six years late.
It would cost up to $200 million to fix them and morale in the chopper squadron has hit rock bottom.
The helicopters, based with 805 Squadron at HMAS Albatross at Nowra in NSW, were grounded on March 29 and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has declared "enough is enough".
"I have asked the Department of Defence to consider all options including, if appropriate, legal action against the contractors who have not fulfilled their obligations to Australia and to Australian taxpayers," Dr Nelson said.
[Advertisement:]
"We have had delays and essentially as far as I am concerned the software failures we faced in late March have been the straw that's broken the camel's back."
Dr Nelson has vowed to resist "throwing good money after bad" on defence projects that he believes are wasting taxpayer funds.
He is taking a very close look at other projects including those to provide new army helicopters, upgraded armoured personnel carriers, navy frigate upgrades and the modernisation of the F/A-18 Hornet fighter fleet.
There are also major concerns over the delivery schedule for new US-supplied M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks for the army.
The Minister has drawn a line in the sand on the Seasprite debacle and defence chiefs were ordered to go to Nowra last week to assess the project.
They will report to Dr Nelson later this week and he will then take a proposal to Cabinet's National Security Committee.
Apart from 1950s vintage airframes, the Seasprites have had huge software-integration problems.
The latest computer glitch directly affected flight safety.
The last of the navy's six Anzac ships will be delivered next month and a decision will be needed by then to equip them with a different helicopter.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Seasprites were operating successfully in New Zealand. "The Kiwis can get the Seasprite right, but we can't and that seems to be the theme of the bungling character of this Howard Government," he said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Last edited by Hugh Jarse; 15th May 2006 at 19:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo Bloggs
That's me in the inter-stage section.
I noticed you up on the mast tightening the Jesus Nut
I noticed you up on the mast tightening the Jesus Nut
Last edited by Hugh Jarse; 15th May 2006 at 19:08.
Jarse,
WTF is that? The only "turbines" I know have an effing big hole at the front and a very loud, very hot smaller hole at the back! None of those silly long fan thingees whizzing around! 
inter-turbine
Can anyone explain why the Sea Hawk was not used on the ANZAC frigates? It has some seemingly obvious advantages- in service already, US Navy has integrated the missile and torpedo that Australia must have spent a fortune in doing with the Sea Sprite, infrastructure and simulator in place etc etc.
Another lazy billion down the drain courtesy of defence. Who are these people?
Another lazy billion down the drain courtesy of defence. Who are these people?
Gnad - the Seasprite as I understand it was orginally selected because it had a footprint small enough to operate from the proposed OPC vessel (later cancelled). Effectively they were trying to shoehorn Sea Hawk type capabillity into the smaller airframe - hence the requirement for the systems to be designed from scratch. Defence have never provided an adequate answer as to why the Seasprite wasn't cancelled when the OPC was - probably mostly bureaucratic inertia.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Can anyone explain why the Sea Hawk was not used on the ANZAC frigates? It has some seemingly obvious advantages- in service already, US Navy has integrated the missile and torpedo that Australia must have spent a fortune in doing with the Sea Sprite, infrastructure and simulator in place etc etc.
Another lazy billion down the drain courtesy of defence. Who are these people?
Another lazy billion down the drain courtesy of defence. Who are these people?
Bin the friggin lot of 'em and litigate litigate litigate!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than $980 million of the Budget has already been spent, nine machines have been delivered and the overall project for the anti-ship/anti-submarine choppers is running almost six years late.
It would cost up to $200 million to fix them and morale in the chopper squadron has hit rock bottom.
It would cost up to $200 million to fix them and morale in the chopper squadron has hit rock bottom.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Seasprite as I understand it was orginally selected because it had a footprint small enough to operate from the proposed OPC vessel (later cancelled).
Those 'senior military' somebody was mouthing about wanted Seahawks, they got (well they haven't) Seasprites. The Seahawk fits in the hangar, and on the recovery thingie (which the Seasprite DOESN'T!) I think the problem is bureaucrats not listening to the "I want THAT one" part of the military.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erin Brockovich.........you are a stupid t**t......
ALL contracts for Defence acquisition are written with the assistance of not only the Defence contracting people (NON MILITARY) but the Attorney General's Department as well....
If you don't know the facts - try
ALL contracts for Defence acquisition are written with the assistance of not only the Defence contracting people (NON MILITARY) but the Attorney General's Department as well....
If you don't know the facts - try
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scran
It's not who writes the contracts, it's the quality of the drafting that counts.
And it's not only the quality of contract drafting that leaves a lot to be desired in the Department of Defence.
These days, Defence is a haven for indolent left handed basket weavers; where regression to mediocrity is preferred to the pursuit of individual excellence; where individual worker ‘rights’ ‘permanency’ and ‘entitlements’ take precedence over the duty to do a fair days’ work for a fair days pay; where commercial experience and business acumen is vilified; and where poor performers are retained and even promoted because of an inability to terminate employment without endless counselling, letter writing and other warnings
I used to believe in permanence for public servants to ensure 'frank and fearless advice'. But these days, all permanence seems to represent is a senior bureaucratic 'sheltered workshop' in Canberra, where, in a restricted gene pool, ethical standards of public administration and concerns/accountability for taxpayers' funds have reached a new low.
It's not who writes the contracts, it's the quality of the drafting that counts.
And it's not only the quality of contract drafting that leaves a lot to be desired in the Department of Defence.
These days, Defence is a haven for indolent left handed basket weavers; where regression to mediocrity is preferred to the pursuit of individual excellence; where individual worker ‘rights’ ‘permanency’ and ‘entitlements’ take precedence over the duty to do a fair days’ work for a fair days pay; where commercial experience and business acumen is vilified; and where poor performers are retained and even promoted because of an inability to terminate employment without endless counselling, letter writing and other warnings
I used to believe in permanence for public servants to ensure 'frank and fearless advice'. But these days, all permanence seems to represent is a senior bureaucratic 'sheltered workshop' in Canberra, where, in a restricted gene pool, ethical standards of public administration and concerns/accountability for taxpayers' funds have reached a new low.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear scran,
I might assume going by your location being Canberra and your touchiness, you yourself may have been involved with some of the acquisition debacles.
A defence contractor, Danny Crane or anyone else non military probably wouldn’t know or care about operational specifics for an acquisition other than what is specified to them. Who is ultimately responsible for signing the cheques?
Who would have thought that we would want the Collins Class Subs to be silent in cruise as well. Can’t wait for the JSF (Joint Sh!t Fight). Those income tax cuts will be short lived.
I might assume going by your location being Canberra and your touchiness, you yourself may have been involved with some of the acquisition debacles.
A defence contractor, Danny Crane or anyone else non military probably wouldn’t know or care about operational specifics for an acquisition other than what is specified to them. Who is ultimately responsible for signing the cheques?
Who would have thought that we would want the Collins Class Subs to be silent in cruise as well. Can’t wait for the JSF (Joint Sh!t Fight). Those income tax cuts will be short lived.
I s'pose it things were a lot different when you were a lad, eh Willi B?
None of them left handed basket weavers would've been let in, and if any slipped through the net they'd've been taken out and used as target practice for the others.
Tell that to kids these days, and they just won't believe you!
But isn't it easy to make a few sweeping throwaway statements to stir up an argument, eh?
None of them left handed basket weavers would've been let in, and if any slipped through the net they'd've been taken out and used as target practice for the others.
Tell that to kids these days, and they just won't believe you!
But isn't it easy to make a few sweeping throwaway statements to stir up an argument, eh?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the window
Actually, if you read my post, I'm referring to public servants, not ADF members.
What's so refreshing about Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston is that he immediately understood the gravity of the latest developments in the Private Kovco affair, and took full responsibility.
He could have made any number of excuses, or just not fronted. But instead he accepted that the buck stops with him.
If only government ministers and senior public servants, such as the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, were as quick to accept their responsibilities, and as slow to blame their underlings when things go wrong.
Actually, if you read my post, I'm referring to public servants, not ADF members.
What's so refreshing about Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston is that he immediately understood the gravity of the latest developments in the Private Kovco affair, and took full responsibility.
He could have made any number of excuses, or just not fronted. But instead he accepted that the buck stops with him.
If only government ministers and senior public servants, such as the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, were as quick to accept their responsibilities, and as slow to blame their underlings when things go wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Willi B,
It would appear many others share your views.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...545393043.html
Prospector
It would appear many others share your views.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...545393043.html
Prospector
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: living on top of the bat cave
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i saw this as well , it made me think that maybe the RAN should have gone the way of the RNZN.
The helos were brought from the states as a oin venture between the two goverments. the RAN went for the upgrades these were always going to test the technology that was promised on these Helos.
the RNZN went the way of Zero hours on the airframe, after working on the airframes and hearing the stories from the guys at SAFE air in New Zealand (sub contracted for the Airframes upgrades)
It would not surprize me if it was the airfames that might be the problem with the RAN helos, if i am wrong i would be intrested in hearing the reasons why the Helos were grounded for.
The helos were brought from the states as a oin venture between the two goverments. the RAN went for the upgrades these were always going to test the technology that was promised on these Helos.
the RNZN went the way of Zero hours on the airframe, after working on the airframes and hearing the stories from the guys at SAFE air in New Zealand (sub contracted for the Airframes upgrades)
It would not surprize me if it was the airfames that might be the problem with the RAN helos, if i am wrong i would be intrested in hearing the reasons why the Helos were grounded for.
Your post wasn't as clear as you may think, Willi B - my tax returns used to name 'Department of Defence' as the employer in my service years.
That's why I took issue with you, as I know a lot of good people who work or have worked within the Dept in uniform.
It would also be quite arrogant to make comments like yours about the civilian side of the organisation without a good knowledge of the intimate workings of it. Do you have that? If so, well and good, but it annoys me to see inflammatory comments like 'haven for indolent left handed basket weavers' rather than useful argument backed up with evidence.
That's why I took issue with you, as I know a lot of good people who work or have worked within the Dept in uniform.
It would also be quite arrogant to make comments like yours about the civilian side of the organisation without a good knowledge of the intimate workings of it. Do you have that? If so, well and good, but it annoys me to see inflammatory comments like 'haven for indolent left handed basket weavers' rather than useful argument backed up with evidence.