There are very good reasons why they have been overlooked. They are high drag and heavy (due to the hull strength required to land in water) so use a significantly greater amount of fuel to an equivalent land plane, they tend to be high maintenance as salt water and airplanes are a bad mix.They are also restricted in to what sea state the can land so seldom can routinely land in the open sea, being normally confined to lakes, rivers,coves bays and harbors. Finally due to the thumping and banging they get on takeoff and landing they use up their fatigue life quickly so don't last as long as land planes. Except for some very restricted roles land planes do most things very much better and cheaper, that is why seaplanes/amphibians have largely been bypassed.
This is quite a generalisation. The previously mentioned Grumman Mallards used by Paspayley Pearls fly every day of the week, land, always in salt water, have been to offshore rigs on medivacs, have landed on grass without wheels when hydraulics failed (once the wheels are half down and stuck you can't land on water) and, did I mention it, they were all built from 1950 to 1953. I guess that makes them 65 + years old!
They certainly have their place but under military service they tend to have shorter lives than land planes. The RNZAF Cats lasted about 12 years, their replacement the Sunderland about the same. ( they were low hour second hand when acquired) t This I think is because they are not cossetted by the military, were civil operators are careful on their use for commercial reasons.The P5 was considered early on as a Sunderland replacement but dropped as the numbers needed to equal the abilities of the P3 were too high. I would not be a fan of us acquiring any as I think that the circumstances were they do show flexibility are very limited and in general use out side of these circumstances their usefulness is beset by range, payload cost and availability issues. Some large air forces could justify them due to a niche use, but we need a lot of other thing s first. I remember being told in my early years in the RNZAF of the huge amount of work required just to keep a few Sunderland's flying towards the end of their lives ( yes they were still flying) The work over an above normal servicing was mainly structural and I heard several tales of how the rapid use of pumps was required to stop them sinking after landing. I was told by the old hands that the Cats were similar at the end of their short lives.
It is my belief that the same reasoning that saw the acquisition of the P3B Orion will see the the acquisition of the P8 Poseidon. The Orion turned out to be an excellent acquisition and the Poseidon has the potential to do so as well. At the time of the Orion acquisition the NZG was being its usual stingy self with regard to defence having already knocked back AVM Morrison's F4 Phantom recommendation as being to expensive. It took them another four years to decide on the A4 Skyhawks all because of cost. Don't get me wrong the A4's were a good acquisition but really only become truly viable after Project Kahu and the acquisition of the RAN A4s in the 1980s.
Totally agree with the the first para. but some would be surprised with what was achieved with the pre Kahu A4s. Yes I smoked like a train (two packs a day) until year 12 when I quit. up to then still passed fitness test but it was a breeze after I stopped. Made up for it in the mess .
I think you'll find that the $2.2 Billion is through life costs. Initial purchase fees,Facilities upgrades, Maintenance, Simulators etc etc etcJust noted that the RAN has received the last of their 24 new MH-60R Seahawks, and stated a total acquisition cost of at least A$2.2 billion.
An inevitable comparison with the RNZAF/RNZN purchase of 10 SH-2(I) machines for NZ$242.2 million (according to the MinDef website).
Even without adjusting for different currency values, indicates that NZ's cost of NZ$24.2 million per Seasprite was 3.8 times cheaper than Aust's cost of A$91.7 million per Seahawk.
Not being a capabilities expert, but I'm moderately confident that the Seahawks are not 4 times as good as the Seasprites. Kudos to NZDF for grabbing this bargain!
The Sprites were at bargain prices and are reconditioned airframes. A one off. They are less capable than the Romeos. You will also find that the acquisition costs are not the flyaway price. The NZ$242.2 million includes spares, manuals a simulator etc. The Australian acquisition cost will include similar plus possibly a maintenance contract. The RAN Romeos are also new builds and have the potential to last at least 20+ years whereas our Sprites will have to be replaced by 2030 which is 14 years away. If the SH2G(I) were not available we would have been looking at around a possibly a NZ$700 million - 1 billion acquisition to replace the old Sprites.Just noted that the RAN has received the last of their 24 new MH-60R Seahawks, and stated a total acquisition cost of at least A$2.2 billion.
An inevitable comparison with the RNZAF/RNZN purchase of 10 SH-2(I) machines for NZ$242.2 million (according to the MinDef website).
Even without adjusting for different currency values, indicates that NZ's cost of NZ$24.2 million per Seasprite was 3.8 times cheaper than Aust's cost of A$91.7 million per Seahawk.
Not being a capabilities expert, but I'm moderately confident that the Seahawks are not 4 times as good as the Seasprites. Kudos to NZDF for grabbing this bargain!
In the eye's of the politicians yes. They have been shown to be hard to budge in replacing like f or like capabilities, Wanting 6 larger, more capble and more expensive aircraft is all but certain not to happen not unless they can get a bargain deal from either Spain or Germany for some of there excess A400M's.
They were a indeed bargain. Kaman quoted $9m an airframe to do the next 7yr DLM back in 2009. So we got on the lucky side of the coin for that one. The actual MDE value of the contract was around US$120-150m mark if I recollect correctly. The rest coming through the support package of spare parts, a full mission flight simulator, training and related logistics support & documentation from Kaman. Frigate based helicopters are very expensive too keep airborne.
A more realistic assessment of procurement costs would be to look at what the Danish have paid for their 9 MH-60R airframes.
And.....importantly nearly 2 years of aircrew and maintainer trading in the US.
If we acquired six A400M that's NZ$1.5 billion plus NZ$750 million for spares, simulator, manual, training etc., which amounts to NZ$2.25 million. That does not include any infrastructure projects that would have to be done as well. Now because it is European we would also acquire an attritional airframe so if you want to have six birds flying you have to acquire a seventh, so that takes the flyaway cost from NZ$1.5 billion to $1.7 billion and total cost to around NZ$2.4 - 2.5 billion. Those values are calculated on the French flyaway price of €152,400,000 obtained from the French Senate budget records for 2013. Now you also have to factor in the B757 replacement which could be in the region of NZ$300 million per aircraft including spares, manual, training etc. So that is around NZ$3 billion for eight aircraft. Of the $20 billion maybe, just maybe, we will have enough to replace about 80% of our current kit and not to the level it is at now.
Unless we are offered some really good deal, possibly of surplus aircraft I cannot see us going bigger than the C130/kc390 size range, unless a there is a change in the governments thinking ( a rearrangement of the political make up of the government may be required to achieve this)I don't think an attrition airframe would be on the cards as we don't tend to loose too many large aircraft these days. Helicopters are different as, apart from the Sprites we have manage significant fleet reductions over the years of other types.
We have to get the A400m now because the Cabinet took to long to make a decision about the C17s. Two C17s, maybe even three, would have been the better solution along with say five or six C130J as tactical airlifters. Now we have to acquire the A400M instead. The C130 and KC390 aren't big enough dimensionally to carry the gear we need to move by air. It's because the cargo holds aren't wide or high enough nor can the aircraft lift the required weights. This has been repeated on here ad nauseum and I do not like repeating myself.
