Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped!

[Tasman]

Interesting that Sikorsky have lined up 27 helipcopters to sell the ADF. They'd be more than just sprite replacements then (seahawks?)?

Presumably these would replace the 16 Seahawks (rather than upgrading them) as well as the 11 Seasprites. IMO, there would be some logic in this approach and Sikorsky would no doubt be keen for the RAN to buy new build Seahawks rather than the navalised NH-90.

The downside of this would be $1 bn already spent down the toilet! The RAN would also need to get some of the new helos very quickly or the shortage of operational combat helos will continue.

Tas

 

[barra]

---

Secondly:

Maintenance itself. I am absolutely horrified at the outsourcing of maintenance in any way shape or form. Certain stances point towards a common airframe being the cheapest way and allows maintenance to be outsourced.

Cheaper now, but if you need to take a significant capability overseas (say to the Sandbox or Afghanistan), where is your maintenance crew? Sure, you take the airframes with the most hours left - but that doesn't cover you against things that break. So...
Do you pay the civilian contractors a 3000% 'danger money' bonus to go into a warzone? (costs a lot of money, and thay don't necessarily have to go)
Do you throw each aircraft that requires major repair/servicing onto a C-17 and transport it home and fly back a replacement (costs a lot of money)?
Do you keep and train your own maintenance crew under the supervision of the civilian company so they can repair them themselves (and when something breaks the second time, the finger-pointing party begins)?

Quite simply, civilian maintenance should only be allowed on training airframes. Anything painted green or grey, and/or anything that hangs a weapon off belongs to the guys in uniform.

There are other issues, but I won't go into them.

---

What's this McTaff? Stop making sense please.

I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. The Army and Navy have been more successful at keeping their maintenance positions filled by uniformed personnel. The very nature of the working enviroments ie. onboard ship or near the frontline exempts civilian contractors from taking over these roles. The RAAF has however been less successful in resisting these changes and the old depot style maintenance wings are gone. Maybe it is cheaper for Boeing and BAe to provide these functions, however I am not convinced. Being the profit driven beasts they are though they demand a larger slice of the pie to keep turning a profit. The downside of this is the lack of opportunity and variety for uniformed maintainers. We are being reduced to flightline type duties with limited technical mastery. There are also very few respite posting positions left for maintainers these days. If you want a break from the constant exercises and deployments that are part and parcel of sqn life there is nowhere to go. Often you must choose between your career or your marriage, and they wonder why so many people leave the forces!

Allowing private contractors to take over large slices of our maintenance has been a mistake in my view with little benefit for the ADF. We have very little surge capability meaning we can't pull qualified techs from the workshops to flesh out the flying units anymore. Many of the P3 and C130 guys have been to the MEAO 3 or 4 times. Once again this places a strain on marriages etc.

Must go.

Cheers

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Well with this, the RNZAF will be the only SH-2 operator with 5 in service. I don't know what weapons they carry but they operate on the RNZN's two ANZAC class frigates.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well with this, the RNZAF will be the only SH-2 operator with 5 in service. I don't know what weapons they carry but they operate on the RNZN's two ANZAC class frigates.

Incorrect. It's in service with 3 militaries.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Presumably these would replace the 16 Seahawks (rather than upgrading them) as well as the 11 Seasprites. IMO, there would be some logic in this approach and Sikorsky would no doubt be keen for the RAN to buy new build Seahawks rather than the navalised NH-90.

The downside of this would be $1 bn already spent down the toilet! The RAN would also need to get some of the new helos very quickly or the shortage of operational combat helos will continue.

Tas

Apart from the $1bn sunk, 26 new build seahawks is a great idea, hell 26 NH 90's is a great idea too. 2 types of ASW/SW helo's for what reason again???? Off the shelf and standardization should be the name of the game, and seahawk would provide ample capability for a decent price, NH 90 provides commonality with MHR 90, so theyre both good choices IMO, we just have to live with the wasted sunk cost. Why we decided to go down this path is beyonde me....

 

[Magoo]

Well with this, the RNZAF will be the only SH-2 operator with 5 in service.

Apart from Egypt and I think Peru or one of the latin American countries.

 

[Magoo]

Incorrect. It's in service with 3 militaries.

Hey gf, did you get to PAC08?

 

[Magoo]

Mark Dodd, The Australian journo who reported this is a good operator who does his homework.

He and I were discussing the Seasprite issue yesterday morning and we both agreed to talk with our respective sources. He later came back to me and we compared notes, and everything pointed towards the Seasprites finally being canned, so we both ran it on our respective publications.

Eurocopter was also asked to submit an updated pricing on 27 NFH-90s.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mark Dodd, The Australian journo who reported this is a good operator who does his homework.

He and I were discussing the Seasprite issue yesterday morning and we both agreed to talk with our respective sources. He later came back to me and we compared notes, and everything pointed towards the Seasprites finally being canned, so we both ran it on our respective publications.

Eurocopter was also asked to submit an updated pricing on 27 NFH-90s.

Cheers

Magoo

He doesn't do his homework all that well, what with the Seasprite not boosting Navy's "anti-submarine warfare" capability and it's Penguin "air to underwater" missiles...

Either that or his sub-editor doesn't...

I agree it's likely to get canned. Hopefully an off the shelf helo is bought to replace it and the Seahawks and it's not simply canned and NOT replaced, seeing as how RAN has "made do" all these years without it...

 

[Sea Toby]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Sea Toby]

Any used Seahawks must be coming from the decommissionings of the O.H. Perry class frigates. If so, the Seasprites could be replaced with used Seahawks in weeks, as soon as they are ready for sale. Of course, buying and getting new helicopters will take years. Would Australia have to go through a year long process to buy new helicopters with the bidding process? What about the acquisition process with used helicopters?

I would assume the Sea Sprites went through the acquisition process in the beginning. Something is rotten with that process shown by a few programs and needs to be corrected.

 

[Magoo]

Any used Seahawks must be coming from the decommissionings of the O.H. Perry class frigates. If so, the Seasprites could be replaced with used Seahawks in weeks, as soon as they are ready for sale. Of course, buying and getting new helicopters will take years. Would Australia have to go through a year long process to buy new helicopters with the bidding process? What about used helicopters?

The Helicopter Systems office in DMO has discounted the possibility of buying used Seahawks - most of the US Navy ones not being refurbished or in reserve units are knackered and too different to ours now!

The proposal is for 27 new MH-60R/S models,

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hey gf, did you get to PAC08?

No mate, I missed as I'm in transition. I'm in the middle of coming back to Canberra and have been flat out sorting out relocation issues.

Unless something goes wrong I will be working in R3

 

[Tasman]

The Helicopter Systems office in DMO has discounted the possibility of buying used Seahawks - most of the US Navy ones not being refurbished or in reserve units are knackered and too different to ours now!

The proposal is for 27 new MH-60R/S models,

I would be more than happy to see 27 MH-60R/S or 27 NFH-90s ordered, but I still worry about the short term. I guess that an order for 27 new helos would enable all 16 existing Seahawks to remain on line and be flown at a high usage rate until they drop.

Whoops - I know what I mean but that didn't come out right!

Tas

 

[rossfrb_1]

I would be more than happy to see 27 MH-60R/S or 27 NFH-90s ordered, but I still worry about the short term. I guess that an order for 27 new helos would enable all 16 existing Seahawks to remain on line and be flown at a high usage rate until they drop.

Whoops - I know what I mean but that didn't come out right!

Tas

27 new builds of either sound great, however my one concern with more MRH-90 (or their naval equivalents) would be that a significant proportion of the ADF helo fleet would essentailly be of one type. This would be a good thing logistically/maintenance wise, but also a lot of eggs in one basket as well. Which would mean a flaw discovered at some point in the future could ground a lot of the ADF's helos.

rb

 

[alexsa]

27 new builds of either sound great, however my one concern with more MRH-90 (or their naval equivalents) would be that a significant proportion of the ADF helo fleet would essentailly be of one type. This would be a good thing logistically/maintenance wise, but also a lot of eggs in one basket as well. Which would mean a flaw discovered at some point in the future could ground a lot of the ADF's helos.

rb

Personally I see this as an advantage.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

27 new builds of either sound great, however my one concern with more MRH-90 (or their naval equivalents) would be that a significant proportion of the ADF helo fleet would essentailly be of one type. This would be a good thing logistically/maintenance wise, but also a lot of eggs in one basket as well. Which would mean a flaw discovered at some point in the future could ground a lot of the ADF's helos.

rb

There is allways this trade-off with a one type fleet. The real and significant logistical, cost and maintinance advantages of standardization are weighed against the risk that is some flaw may be found some time in the future that grounds the whol lot. There is the same argument with the F35. IMHO, i will take standardization becasue its advantages are real and are enjoyed every day, were the risk is only conceptual and will probably never happen. The current USAF F-15A~D fleet gounding as the exeption (and remember the age of the aircraft envolved), fleet wide problems are rare. Take the RAAF's BUGs as an example. We only have one type of air defence fighter, and due to the lack of any surface defences if there was a similar problem with the F/A-18C's we would be naked. But the Hornett has served us faithfully for 25+ years now without such a problem. Same could be said for the army's blackhawk fleet, we would have no medium transport/lift helos if they were grounded (which would mean the seahawks would be grounded aswell), but they never have. IMO its real, tangible advantages vs the concept of risk which is small anyway.


On annother note, is there any cource for the govt to persue legal action to any of the companies envolved? Some heads should roll over this one!

 

[Tasman]

Whilst an entire fleet may be grounded to check/fix a problem during normal peacetime operations this would not necessarily be the case in wartime or other emergency when a higher risk would most likely be accepted.

I agree that the possibility of a whole fleet grounding is a disadvantage from having a single platform type but in a small force like the ADF I believe the advantages far outweigh any problems that may arise.

Tas

 

[icelord]

Troubled anti-sub choppers face axe

WOOT!
need i say more?

 

[Reg Shoe]

Apart from Egypt and I think Peru or one of the latin American countries.

And here was I thinking Poland was in Europe ... (Seasprites came with the two OHP frigates the Polish Navy aquired a couple of years back.)