Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped!

[Magoo]

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?

You nailed it AD. Neither option would require the whole fleet being taken down for any amount of time - perhaps one airframe to develop the mod and flight test it, and then the others one at a time to have it installed.

Both Greece and Turkey have done the partial integration mod to their Seahawks quite successfully from all reports. Basically it involves a fire and forget mode for the missile instead of a mid-course correction capability from the aircraft or from the ship (via the aircraft) which would come with the full mod.

Cheers

magoo

 

[Jabber]

....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.

FAR Part 29 isn't an issue for NZDF AFAIK. There is nothing major holding them up flying here for that matter other than compliance with FAR Part 29. FCS issues which led to the grounding last year are sorted. Meanwhile over 6 months of time have passed waiting for a government decision on the project.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have a few questions, yet again.

Does the ADF already have a stockpile of Penguin Mk 2 AShM? If so, then it could make sense to fit them aboard the S-70B-2. Particularly if the 2nd mode of operations, Fire and forget, is not only easy to integrate, be at low cost as well. Dipping slightly OT, with the Penguin Mk 2, can that be fitted to P-3 Orions? If so, then a possibly better option (depending on RAN needs) could be to sell any Penguin stockpile so that a certain other nation can carry them aboard their P-3K Orions. This might make more sense if the RAN plans to start replacing the Seahawk with the NFH-90 in six years. I would imagine that by then Kongsberg would've worked out an integration solution for the NSM to equip Norweigan NFH-90s. The RAN might be able to afford not having a helibourne AShM for that period of time.

Also, I went looking to see what specs the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites had. From what I've seen with equipment, they are quite similar. They both mounted the Telephonics APS-143 radar, though I think Australia was planning on a more sophisticated model, the (V)3, while NZ wanted a PC model. Australia had the Raytheon AAQ-27 FLIR, and NZ planned on the AAQ-32 Safire. The area that seemed to have the largest differences was in ESM/ECM. Australia planned (from what I can make out) on 3 different ESM systems, while NZ had one, and while both had the ALE-47 ECM/chaff-IR dispenser, Australia also would have another ECM. Australia also was planning on having Link 11 and I'm not sure about NZ. Also, NZ would use the Maverick AGM-65B (presumably with the AAQ-32 Safire) while Australia would use the Penguin Mk 2 Mod 5.

In terms of non-acceptance by the ADF, were there specific systems that caused such problems? I'm looking at it from the perspective of being able to sell/give/trade the Australian Seasprites to another nation, which will then be able to get them safely operational with a minimum amount of time, money and effort, and still have a useful capability. As WJ had indicated, removing all the avionics might not be any faster or more cost effective in terms of getting them into service.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I have a few questions, yet again.

Does the ADF already have a stockpile of Penguin Mk 2 AShM? If so, then it could make sense to fit them aboard the S-70B-2. Particularly if the 2nd mode of operations, Fire and forget, is not only easy to integrate, be at low cost as well. Dipping slightly OT, with the Penguin Mk 2, can that be fitted to P-3 Orions? If so, then a possibly better option (depending on RAN needs) could be to sell any Penguin stockpile so that a certain other nation can carry them aboard their P-3K Orions. This might make more sense if the RAN plans to start replacing the Seahawk with the NFH-90 in six years. I would imagine that by then Kongsberg would've worked out an integration solution for the NSM to equip Norweigan NFH-90s. The RAN might be able to afford not having a helibourne AShM for that period of time.

Also, I went looking to see what specs the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites had. From what I've seen with equipment, they are quite similar. They both mounted the Telephonics APS-143 radar, though I think Australia was planning on a more sophisticated model, the (V)3, while NZ wanted a PC model. Australia had the Raytheon AAQ-27 FLIR, and NZ planned on the AAQ-32 Safire. The area that seemed to have the largest differences was in ESM/ECM. Australia planned (from what I can make out) on 3 different ESM systems, while NZ had one, and while both had the ALE-47 ECM/chaff-IR dispenser, Australia also would have another ECM. Australia also was planning on having Link 11 and I'm not sure about NZ. Also, NZ would use the Maverick AGM-65B (presumably with the AAQ-32 Safire) while Australia would use the Penguin Mk 2 Mod 5.

In terms of non-acceptance by the ADF, were there specific systems that caused such problems? I'm looking at it from the perspective of being able to sell/give/trade the Australian Seasprites to another nation, which will then be able to get them safely operational with a minimum amount of time, money and effort, and still have a useful capability. As WJ had indicated, removing all the avionics might not be any faster or more cost effective in terms of getting them into service.

-Cheers

AFAIK the RAN does have a stock of Penguin Mk 2 AShMs.

The Aussie Super Seasprite has a number of unique systems compared with the Kiwi models. As an example it was fitted to be able to be flown by a single pilot using the Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS). The problem with certification has come about because of a decision that it would need to be certified to civil FAR Part 29 standards as mentioned in Magoo's post. My understanding is that the government has been pretty slack in this area and it is something beyond Kaman's control. Perhaps Magoo can correct me or elaborate a bit more re these issues!

I suspect there is enough uniqueness to cause maintenance and logistical problems for NZ (or any other buyer for that matter).

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The Aussie Super Seasprite has a number of unique systems compared with the Kiwi models. As an example it was fitted to be able to be flown by a single pilot using the Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS). The problem with certification has come about because of a decision that it would need to be certified to civil FAR Part 29 standards as mentioned in Magoo's post. My understanding is that the government has been pretty slack in this area and it is something beyond Kaman's control. Perhaps Magoo can correct me or elaborate a bit more re these issues!

I suspect there is enough uniqueness to cause maintenance and logistical problems for NZ (or any other buyer for that matter).

Cheers

I remember that reading that the RAN Seasprites were planned to be more capable than the NZ versions. That's why I was somewhat surprised when I checked the listed equipment and saw how similar they two were. And from what I remember about some of the causes of the delays, there was software integration issues (much like with parts of the Wedgetail project). And then the requirement for a second FCS (for compliance iwth FAR Part 29) which was added after the fact.

Having done software coding, and knowing how much of a bear it can be, that's why I wondered if there were specific devices causing the integration issue. If the ITAS was causing integration issues, switch (if possible) to a different, already tested system, or go back to normal pilot & co-pilot operations. Hopefully, the project hasn't gotten so stuffed that the best option is to just send them to a boneyard.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I remember that reading that the RAN Seasprites were planned to be more capable than the NZ versions. That's why I was somewhat surprised when I checked the listed equipment and saw how similar they two were. And from what I remember about some of the causes of the delays, there was software integration issues (much like with parts of the Wedgetail project). And then the requirement for a second FCS (for compliance iwth FAR Part 29) which was added after the fact.

Having done software coding, and knowing how much of a bear it can be, that's why I wondered if there were specific devices causing the integration issue. If the ITAS was causing integration issues, switch (if possible) to a different, already tested system, or go back to normal pilot & co-pilot operations. Hopefully, the project hasn't gotten so stuffed that the best option is to just send them to a boneyard.

-Cheers

IIRC Kaman claims that the Seasprites are capable of flying safely as they are. I read somewhere that they have good manual backup flight control systems and that Kaman has claimed that in their present state they would be able to at least be used for training. If that is correct they could perform some useful roles.


Cheers

 

[Magoo]

Does the ADF already have a stockpile of Penguin Mk 2 AShM?

Yes, in stock and looking for a launch platform!

Dipping slightly OT, with the Penguin Mk 2, can that be fitted to P-3 Orions? If so, then a possibly better option (depending on RAN needs) could be to sell any Penguin stockpile so that a certain other nation can carry them aboard their P-3K Orions.

I wouldn't want to put a P-3 anywhere near within Penguin range (~25km) of a potential target, as it would then become a target itself with little chance of escape! Better for the P-3 to remain at 100km+ standoff ranges, i.e. Harpoon etc.

Also, I went looking to see what specs the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites had. From what I've seen with equipment, they are quite similar. They both mounted the Telephonics APS-143 radar, though I think Australia was planning on a more sophisticated model, the (V)3, while NZ wanted a PC model. Australia had the Raytheon AAQ-27 FLIR, and NZ planned on the AAQ-32 Safire. The area that seemed to have the largest differences was in ESM/ECM. Australia planned (from what I can make out) on 3 different ESM systems, while NZ had one, and while both had the ALE-47 ECM/chaff-IR dispenser, Australia also would have another ECM. Australia also was planning on having Link 11 and I'm not sure about NZ. Also, NZ would use the Maverick AGM-65B (presumably with the AAQ-32 Safire) while Australia would use the Penguin Mk 2 Mod 5.

The main differences are in the right hand seat, i.e. the avionics and the flight control system, rather than the weapons system. The RAN's Seasprites were designed a two-man crew, whereas the Kiwis wanted a three-man. The integration between the avionics, FCS and weapons systems is quite extensive and not easily 'detuned' for the Kiwis. I would imagine that, apart from airframes, engines and various other hardware items, the RAN's Seasprites would be of little value to anyone else including the Kiwis.

In terms of non-acceptance by the ADF, were there specific systems that caused such problems?

In a nutshell, the acceptance issues were that the RAN wanted the aircraft certifed to the FAA's FAR Part 29 which covers civilian transport helicopters, but specified this two years after the contract for the helos was signed. In order to do be compliant, the Seasprite's digital FCS needs a backup digital system, and almost its entire FCS software codes will need to be re-written. Kaman contends it told the DMO about this back in 2000, but no work was performed by the DMO/project team until mid last year. Kaman says it has issued an ECP for the certification work to be done which will cost about US$38m, but the DMO has not given a go-ahead for this to be done, presumably because the whole project is about to be $hit-canned!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[swerve]

...I wouldn't want to put a P-3 anywhere near within Penguin range (~25km) of a potential target, as it would then become a target itself with little chance of escape! Better for the P-3 to remain at 100km+ standoff ranges, i.e. Harpoon etc. ...

Cheers

Magoo

Depends on the target, surely? Against a ship equipped with Standard, Aster 30, or any other long-range missile, yes, it would be suicide, but not all potential targets have missiles which outrange a Penguin. e.g. RN Lynx helicopters went FAC-plinking in 1991 with Sea Skuas, with a shorter range than Penguin. Score several-nil - no Lynx lost. The Sea Skua comfortably outranged the guns & manpads on the Iraqi FACs.

Of course, you have to have an idea what you're going up against to risk it . . . .

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes, in stock and looking for a launch platform!

I wouldn't want to put a P-3 anywhere near within Penguin range (~25km) of a potential target, as it would then become a target itself with little chance of escape! Better for the P-3 to remain at 100km+ standoff ranges, i.e. Harpoon etc.

I brought up mounting the Penguin AShM on a P-3, since that at least seems a better option than a Maverick AGM-65. Though the info I have is that a Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 (AGM-119B) has a range of 25n miles or ~35km. Certainly better than the ~15km of a Maverick. I also remember reading somewhere that a Penguin test launch managed to reach range of 47km when fired from altitude, but this might have been a Mk 3 version. Anyhoo, no question that Harpoon would be better overall for the P-3, just a question of whether or not it will happen.

-Cheers

 

[Ths]

Tasman: Thanks for the greeting.
You gave a fine bit of information: The NZ requirement is lighter on the ASW side!

It seems to me that the Seasprite is to small a helicopter for the task the Aussies need done. A two man crew indicates an attempt to lighten for dead weight.

There has been a similar discussion in the northern Nato countries: The Norwegeans need new choppers for their Nansen Class - and the Danes for the replacement of SAC SeaKings plus a batch for transport - both requirements heavy on the weight/range parameter.
The Lynx of the Navy has been a fine helicopter; but the steady increase in the weight of gadget put onboard has necessitated a reengining - probably the only reason they have been able to make it this far is that their area of operation is the arctic with VERY cold air. An australian helicopter would have run out of huff a long time ago.

This ends us with the Merlin, whereas the norwegeans have bought the MH90, which they will find out is a bit to small. Significant is that the helo envisaged for the new danish frigates is the Merlin. Wether the Aussies will land on the Seahawk or the Merlin is up for conjecture; but if I'm not terribly wrong the new ASW fighting will demand a bigger chopper.

Sorry Gf-0012: I do foresee the end of the submarine - especially if China makes any progress in the ASW area - which is not a matter of conjecture; but of hallucination. What the chinese haven't understood is that the USA and their consorts is quite happy to let China squander their resources in developing subs and ASW destroyers to combat an enemy that can find the steel lumps anyhow and will not have subs anywhere near China. The Virginias will probably be able to fire their cruisemissiles outside the practical range of their destroyers: The Pacific is a very large ocean.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry Gf-0012: I do foresee the end of the submarine - especially if China makes any progress in the ASW area - which is not a matter of conjecture; but of hallucination. What the chinese haven't understood is that the USA and their consorts is quite happy to let China squander their resources in developing subs and ASW destroyers to combat an enemy that can find the steel lumps anyhow and will not have subs anywhere near China. The Virginias will probably be able to fire their cruisemissiles outside the practical range of their destroyers: The Pacific is a very large ocean.

I don't think I've ever declared the end of the manned submarine .

What I do see, is that the growth of unmanned solutions is going to be far greater than ever thought before. The gains made in the last 18months alone for unmanned solutions are enormous. eg, the length of time on station has almost gone up by a factor of 10, and the fuel solutions efficiencies have also increased in a similar quantum.

Co-operative packages are going to dominate in some areas. that may be 5-10 years away, but the growth in development of US research alone has been considerable. (and they probably have over 60% of the USV/ROV market)

btw, good to see you back. I'm off for a week or so, so my reply may be tardy.

 

[Tasman]

It seems to me that the Seasprite is to small a helicopter for the task the Aussies need done. A two man crew indicates an attempt to lighten for dead weight.

The need for a small helo goes back to the original requirement which was that it was to operate from a new class of OPVs. With the cancellation of the OPV project the Seasprites were then earmarked for the Anzac class frigates even though they can easily operate the larger Seahawk. I don't think there is any doubt that the RAN would have been better off from an operational point of view with 27 Seahawks instead of 16 Seahawks and 11 Seasprites. Training, logistics and maintenance would all have been simplified. But that's water under the bridge!

This ends us with the Merlin, whereas the norwegeans have bought the MH90, which they will find out is a bit to small. Significant is that the helo envisaged for the new danish frigates is the Merlin. Wether the Aussies will land on the Seahawk or the Merlin is up for conjecture; but if I'm not terribly wrong the new ASW fighting will demand a bigger chopper.

From all I have read the Merlin is an excellent helicopter and I am rather sorry it was not selected by the RAN as a Sea King replacement. As mentioned by others the desire to reduce the number of helo types in the Australian Defence Force has led to the NH90 being chosen for the army (Blackhawk replacement) as well as the navy. Because of this it looks to me as though the long term Seasprite replacement will almost certainly be limited to either the MH-60R Seahawk or the navalised NH-90.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

From all I have read the Merlin is an excellent helicopter and I am rather sorry it was not selected by the RAN as a Sea King replacement. As mentioned by others the desire to reduce the number of helo types in the Australian Defence Force has led to the NH90 being chosen for the army (Blackhawk replacement) as well as the navy. Because of this it looks to me as though the long term Seasprite replacement will almost certainly be limited to either the MH-60R Seahawk or the navalised NH-90.

Cheers

The MRH-90 (Australian version NH-90 TTH) is set to replace the RAN Sea King, and starting IIRC in 2010 to replace the Army Black Hawks. Sometime in the 2013-2016 the Seahawks are expected to be replaced with the NFH-90 or an Australianized version. What is in question in the near-term, is what will be done to meet RAN helicopter needs aboard the frigates. Whether it will be re-baselined Seahawks, or the existing Seahawk fleet with additional training only models...

-Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

And let's not forget the RNZN SeaSprites are NZ's latest proven air-combat capability! nfloorl: A recent copy of the RNZN News carried a story of exercises in Aussie late last year. Don't have the story handy & can't recall vessel names. Anyway one of the Kiwi ANZAC's was teamed up with one of it's Aussie sisters when a third (hostile) RAN ANZAC's Seahawk 'shot-up' the Kiwi ANZAC while it's SeaSprite was airborne.

The unharmed RAN ANZAC then vectored the SeaSprite onto the departed Seahawk. The RNZN SH-2G closed in from above & using the sun as cover come down from above & took-out the RAN S70B with the on-board M-60. Awesome - the red baron lives again!:nutkick

But seriously... the recent T/LUH tender doc specified that these new choppers are likely to used for 'light maritime utility tasks' (as distinct to maritime training tasks) so I'd expect to see these in the new OPV's when SH-2G's are unavailable. Chances of RNZN getting (or even wanting) discarded RAN SH-2G's is nill IMHO.

 

[alexsa]

I would not write the Sea Sprite off just yet even if the whole project has been dreadfully managed.

Kaman are indicataing they have resolve most of the issue but the biggest stumbling block is certification under the US FAA FAR part 29 which required redundant FCS. From my limited knowlegde it would appear that Kaman cannot be held soley responsible for this blunder is it arose out of a 1999 defence decision to centralise aircraft certifcation under the RAAF. It appears the Kaman were not tasked with completing this work until very late in the process. Australian Aviation suggests it was mid 2006 which, if true, is pretty poor.

The apparent DoD blunders may explain why the project has not yet been axed despite the announcement the decision would be made in October 2006. We should have grabbed the lynx or extra Seahawks but the fact is we ahve the seasprite and despite the bad press they represent quite a capbility. I hope we just get them into service under a modified air worthiness certificate (even if it is relativley short life) given the money spent to date and the apparent lack of movement.

 

[KH-12]

And let's not forget the RNZN SeaSprites are NZ's latest proven air-combat capability! nfloorl: A recent copy of the RNZN News carried a story of exercises in Aussie late last year. Don't have the story handy & can't recall vessel names. Anyway one of the Kiwi ANZAC's was teamed up with one of it's Aussie sisters when a third (hostile) RAN ANZAC's Seahawk 'shot-up' the Kiwi ANZAC while it's SeaSprite was airborne.

The unharmed RAN ANZAC then vectored the SeaSprite onto the departed Seahawk. The RNZN SH-2G closed in from above & using the sun as cover come down from above & took-out the RAN S70B with the on-board M-60. Awesome - the red baron lives again!:nutkick

But seriously... the recent T/LUH tender doc specified that these new choppers are likely to used for 'light maritime utility tasks' (as distinct to maritime training tasks) so I'd expect to see these in the new OPV's when SH-2G's are unavailable. Chances of RNZN getting (or even wanting) discarded RAN SH-2G's is nill IMHO.

Although with only 6 airframes touted for this purchase not sure there will be alot of spare capacity for OPV operations. especially as Army Co-op / SF support is also listed as requirements, in addition to the training and SAR role. I think it would make sense to standardise on the Seasprite for naval operations, not sure how a A109 would stand up to to many naval deployments.

 

[Jabber]

I would not write the Sea Sprite off just yet even if the whole project has been dreadfully managed.
stumbling block is certification under the US FAA FAR part 29 which require
Kaman are indicataing they have resolve most of the issue but the biggest d redundant FCS. From my limited knowlegde it would appear that Kaman cannot be held soley responsible for this blunder is it arose out of a 1999 defence decision to centralise aircraft certifcation under the RAAF. It appears the Kaman were not tasked with completing this work until very late in the process. Australian Aviation suggests it was mid 2006 which, if true, is pretty poor.

The apparent DoD blunders may explain why the project has not yet been axed despite the announcement the decision would be made in October 2006. We should have grabbed the lynx or extra Seahawks but the fact is we ahve the seasprite and despite the bad press they represent quite a capbility. I hope we just get them into service under a modified air worthiness certificate (even if it is relativley short life) given the money spent to date and the apparent lack of movement.

The most sensible post I've seen on this subject. For all the bad press, the SH-2G(A) is a very capable aircraft, and if it were not for the mismanagement on the FAR Part 29 compliance, they would be at sea undergoing trials now.

 

[riksavage]

Note with interest in this weeks JDW (Vol 44, issue 12) a couple of worrying reports (both by the Australian Strategy Institute) on the state of Australia’s ASW capability in light of an ‘unbroken arc from Pakistan to Russia of countries around the Indian and Pacific oceans acquiring more sophisticated submarines fitted with formidable weapons’. The institute bemoans the following (summarised):

• The lack of operational dipping sonar (once carried on Sea King’s, now obsolete and out of service);
• ANZAC and FFG frigates lacking variable-death frequency sonar’s;
• Tortuous logic in selecting the Kaman SH-2G Seasprite (capable search radar but no dipping sonar fitted);
• Lack of opportunity for RAN submarines to practice consistently against state-of-the-art ASW capabilities (surface and sub-surface opponents), and
• Lack of training / practice for ASW operators, claiming ‘old hands’ lament the decline in skills.

The institute is advocating the new AWDS be fitted with lower-frequency and variable-depth sonar systems and the selected MRH90 helo’s be fitted with long-range active sonar and then positioned on the proposed amphibious ships.

Accept these comments represent the opinion of a single institute, but the current failure to get the Seasprites operational coupled with the above listed RAN shortcomings collectively reduces Australia’s ASW to what appears to be a critical level when compared to the evolving threat.

Do members concur, or is the institute way off the mark?

 

[AMTP10E]

Note with interest in this weeks JDW (Vol 44, issue 12) a couple of worrying reports (both by the Australian Strategy Institute) on the state of Australia’s ASW capability in light of an ‘unbroken arc from Pakistan to Russia of countries around the Indian and Pacific oceans acquiring more sophisticated submarines fitted with formidable weapons’. The institute bemoans the following (summarised):

• The lack of operational dipping sonar (once carried on Sea King’s, now obsolete and out of service);
• ANZAC and FFG frigates lacking variable-death frequency sonar’s;
• Tortuous logic in selecting the Kaman SH-2G Seasprite (capable search radar but no dipping sonar fitted);
• Lack of opportunity for RAN submarines to practice consistently against state-of-the-art ASW capabilities (surface and sub-surface opponents), and
• Lack of training / practice for ASW operators, claiming ‘old hands’ lament the decline in skills.

The institute is advocating the new AWDS be fitted with lower-frequency and variable-depth sonar systems and the selected MRH90 helo’s be fitted with long-range active sonar and then positioned on the proposed amphibious ships.

Accept these comments represent the opinion of a single institute, but the current failure to get the Seasprites operational coupled with the above listed RAN shortcomings collectively reduces Australia’s ASW to what appears to be a critical level when compared to the evolving threat.

Do members concur, or is the institute way off the mark?

They are pretty spot on with the comments on the state of ASW in the RAN.

 

[alexsa]

Dipping sonar disappared from RAN capability wiht the conversion of the Seaking to the utiltiy role. It is alos worth notng that VDS was carried on early River class frigates when first constructed.

The Seahawk uses sonar buoys (as you are obviously aware) and it would be flawed argument to wrtie these off as ineffective. Having some experaince of submarines I am aware of the capabilty and potential of dipping sonar, particualry in the more advances systsm now available, and agree future ASW helecopters should be equipped with this capability. Lets hope NH-90 lives up to expectations and roll on the LHD's.

However, the Sprite is an ASuW platform and it has capbilities that the Seahawk cannot currently match. As such the lack of a dippng sonar is no reason to ditch 1.1 billion dollars worth of effort that is not focused on the ASW threat.

Despite the fact this whole project has been a bit of a mess i can see that a combination or Sprite and Seahawk on and FFG would offer considerable capaiblity to a small task force. Inthe ASuW aspect.

As I ahve said before this platform has come this far lets get into service and then look to the future.