|
Post by phil82 on Apr 24, 2012 8:09:00 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 25, 2012 18:37:06 GMT 12
Now show me where the funding is mentioned! Proposed is notional, not factual: Quote "Given the need for rigorous fiscal management, the capability programme proposed for the next five years and thereafter will need to be carefully prioritised and phased". Which means, there is no funding allocated! Meat raffles on Friday nights in the bars on every base
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Apr 29, 2012 13:29:06 GMT 12
Now show me where the funding is mentioned! Proposed is notional, not factual: Quote "Given the need for rigorous fiscal management, the capability programme proposed for the next five years and thereafter will need to be carefully prioritised and phased". Which means, there is no funding allocated! Wasn't the whole civilianising rear echelon jobs and rationalizing non operational units suppose to save money to invest into front line units and capabilities. The first aim or priority of the latest defence capability plan 2011 is CREDIBLE COMBAT CAPABILITIES . Last paragraph states embarked naval helicopters provide extended reach, surveillance, and air-delivered weapon capabilities (air-to-surface missile and anti-submarine torpedo) for the frigates. i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Airshow068.jpg [/img] www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/defence-capability-plan-2011.pdf
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 30, 2012 18:35:40 GMT 12
You'd be surprised how advanced this project is within Defence. A lot of work is under way to write up the business case and tick all the boxes... the biggest problem for the NZDF is countering the many arguments for NOT buying them, most of which have been pointed out here. Once the deal is announced expect this one to become a real political football...
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 30, 2012 21:52:47 GMT 12
Some people better start cleaning their boots and putting them on. Hopefully the mesh in the net is big enough to let the no hopers fall through.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 12, 2012 17:26:48 GMT 12
Any more news on the I models coming here
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on May 14, 2012 6:34:28 GMT 12
Any more news on the I models coming here Yup - looks like a goer: www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805700Reject Aussie choppers on Navy shopping listBy Ian Stuart 5:30 AM Monday May 14, 2012
The Navy's troubled fleet of five Seasprite helicopters may soon be replaced by up to 11 refurbished older helicopters rejected by Australia in 2008 because they were considered unsafe and unsuitable.
But Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman said the air worthiness issues the Australians identified had been corrected and there were still plenty of "off-ramps" before any deal was done.
Australia ordered the helicopters in 1997 under the John Howard Government but the project was delayed when modifications ordered by Australia failed to meet performance standards or were too difficult to implement in the refurbished air frames.
According to AAP, seven of the 11 helicopters were originally built in 1963 to 1965 and the other four in the mid-1980s.
Dr Coleman said that what was on offer was up-to-date capability overall, not second-hand capability.
"The reality is we wouldn't buy it if it's not state-of-the-art capability that fits our need. We not going for 'this is cheap, let's grab it.' There's been a hell of a lot of work that has gone into it."
He was not sure how old the air frames were but the technology on military aircraft was upgraded "and that is actually the key functionality".
The Cabinet has given Defence officials approval to negotiate with the American manufacturers, Kaman Corporation, for the SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopters and a flight simulator in what a Navy source said was a "very good deal".
He would not be specific about the price but it is thought the 11 helicopters, worth $1.4 billion in 2008, would cost New Zealand between $130 million to $230 million depending on numbers and extras.
That compares with the nine NH90 helicopters that are under delivery for $770 million.
The present Seasprites operate from the Navy's two Anzac class frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, and the multi-role ship Canterbury.
The Defence Capability Plan released last year foreshadowed a programme to upgrade or replace the Seasprite fleet over four years from 2012.
The botched deal cost Australian taxpayers more than $1 billion in 2008 when the Australian Government told the Kaman Corporation it was pulling out of the deal.
The helicopters were a vital part of the defensive role in the Australian Anzac-class frigates and were meant to protect the frigates from hostile ships and submarines.
Kaman's vice-president of investor relations, Eric Remington, said last week that as part of the settlement with Australia Kaman "took title to the 11 aircraft so that we may offer them for resale".
He said the company was in discussions "with a number of nations" to sell the helicopters but refused to confirm New Zealand was one of the countries in negotiation.
Kaman had earlier said it was focusing on the three countries flying Seasprites: New Zealand, Egypt and Poland. It was also talking to three unnamed potential buyers, Nato and some nations in South Asia, South America and Eastern Europe.
The company denied allegations in Australia that the Seasprites were ever unsafe and said the United States military had operated an earlier version for decades without any serious problems.
Rumours have been circulating in Navy and Defence circles for weeks that the deal was about to be settled.
New Zealand has five Seasprite helicopters which were bought new.
The fleet had been troubled by corrosion and a lack of staff to keep them flying.
Last year then-Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said the New Zealand Seasprites were safe and very capable.
A Ministry of Defence report had earlier indicated only one of the five helicopters was serviceable in October 2010 and earlier last year only two were flying.
The first of Australia's Seasprites arrived in 2003 but within two years many deficiencies had been identified, including an inability to fly in bad weather and low light and a failure to meet Australian airworthiness certification standards. The Australian machines were grounded in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 14, 2012 13:50:42 GMT 12
According to the NZ Herald the current Seasprites are going to be replaced by more Seasprites. The Minister has given Defence approval to negotiate with Kaman for some, or all of, the 11 SH2G Super Seasprites that the RAN rejected (at a cost of $1.4billion), plus a flight simulator for total a cost of between $130 million and $230 million depending upon numbers and options taken. According to the Minister they have been refurbished and modernised. Eleven is a good number and considering that we now have the ability, to put five flight decks to sea at the same time, this means that we will theoretically be able to fly off all five. If they can keep two or three of the current five flying by cannibalising the others then we have a really good naval aviation component. It also means that we should have a minimum of three to four aircraft fully operational at all times, three to four in training and/ or light maintenace and three in deep maintenance. Now that's numbers that make sense and brings capability back to where it should be. At another place where I lurk at it has been suggested to think of this as an interim purchase until we get something better. It also say's that these ones have glass cockpits now. www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805700
|
|
chasper
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 80
|
Post by chasper on May 14, 2012 14:14:02 GMT 12
Some of our aircrew tried these out about a year ago and I understand were very impressed with them, a big capability step up from our existing version and the general view was that the Australian rejection was more political than anything else. It would be great to have adequate numbers of airframes for a change.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on May 14, 2012 14:17:31 GMT 12
Airframes are fine, next hurdle would be enough aircrew to fly them.
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on May 14, 2012 14:56:02 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on May 14, 2012 15:24:48 GMT 12
m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805700Reject Aussie choppers on Navy shopping list Monday 14 May 2012 EmailFacebookTwitter Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman. Photo / NZPA By Ian Stuart The Navy's troubled fleet of five Seasprite helicopters may soon be replaced by up to 11 refurbished older helicopters rejected by Australia in 2008 because they were considered unsafe and unsuitable. But Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman said the air worthiness issues the Australians identified had been corrected and there were still plenty of "off-ramps" before any deal was done. Australia ordered the helicopters in 1997 under the John Howard Government but the project was delayed when modifications ordered by Australia failed to meet performance standards or were too difficult to implement in the refurbished air frames. According to AAP, seven of the 11 helicopters were originally built in 1963 to 1965 and the other four in the mid-1980s. Dr Coleman said that what was on offer was up-to-date capability overall, not second-hand capability. "The reality is we wouldn't buy it if it's not state-of-the-art capability that fits our need. We not going for 'this is cheap, let's grab it.' There's been a hell of a lot of work that has gone into it." He was not sure how old the air frames were but the technology on military aircraft was upgraded "and that is actually the key functionality". The Cabinet has given Defence officials approval to negotiate with the American manufacturers, Kaman Corporation, for the SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopters and a flight simulator in what a Navy source said was a "very good deal". He would not be specific about the price but it is thought the 11 helicopters, worth $1.4 billion in 2008, would cost New Zealand between $130 million to $230 million depending on numbers and extras. That compares with the nine NH90 helicopters that are under delivery for $770 million. The present Seasprites operate from the Navy's two Anzac class frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, and the multi-role ship Canterbury. The Defence Capability Plan released last year foreshadowed a programme to upgrade or replace the Seasprite fleet over four years from 2012. The botched deal cost Australian taxpayers more than $1 billion in 2008 when the Australian Government told the Kaman Corporation it was pulling out of the deal. Advertisement The helicopters were a vital part of the defensive role in the Australian Anzac-class frigates and were meant to protect the frigates from hostile ships and submarines. Kaman's vice-president of investor relations, Eric Remington, said last week that as part of the settlement with Australia Kaman "took title to the 11 aircraft so that we may offer them for resale". He said the company was in discussions "with a number of nations" to sell the helicopters but refused to confirm New Zealand was one of the countries in negotiation. Kaman had earlier said it was focusing on the three countries flying Seasprites: New Zealand, Egypt and Poland. It was also talking to three unnamed potential buyers, Nato and some nations in South Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. The company denied allegations in Australia that the Seasprites were ever unsafe and said the United States military had operated an earlier version for decades without any serious problems. Rumours have been circulating in Navy and Defence circles for weeks that the deal was about to be settled. New Zealand has five Seasprite helicopters which were bought new. The fleet had been troubled by corrosion and a lack of staff to keep them flying. Last year then-Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said the New Zealand Seasprites were safe and very capable. A Ministry of Defence report had earlier indicated only one of the five helicopters was serviceable in October 2010 and earlier last year only two were flying. The first of Australia's Seasprites arrived in 2003 but within two years many deficiencies had been identified, including an inability to fly in bad weather and low light and a failure to meet Australian airworthiness certification standards. The Australian machines were grounded in 2006. - additional reporting Audrey Young Hopefully goes as well as the last ex RAN aircraft purchase of A4Gs. Not enough for another squadron would have good to have a 800 series squadron with links back to RNZNVR fleet air arm.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 14, 2012 15:34:43 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 14, 2012 15:51:51 GMT 12
As the Seasprites belong to the NAVY, not the RNZAF, this is the place for the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on May 14, 2012 15:58:33 GMT 12
We dont have a bottomless pit of money to go about buying risky aircraft that have been rejected by a bigger Country who spend big $$$ on Defence....if this goes ahead and turns to custard then those pushing for it need to be held accountable....career ending accountable!
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on May 14, 2012 20:43:48 GMT 12
They say the same about Army MH90 but this project is only a fraction of the cost. Alot of it is a media and political beat up this will big capability jump over current model. Wounder if the RAN will offer surplus penguin AGM119B when the MH60R is introduced.
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on May 14, 2012 20:55:12 GMT 12
Seems a big risk.....however it will become a hot potatoe of debate
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 14, 2012 20:56:19 GMT 12
As the Seasprites belong to the NAVY, not the RNZAF, this is the place for the discussion. Dave, a suggestion. Why not move this thread to the main RNZN page because that IMHO is it's more logical home. This thread is more about the RN Fleet Air and other foreign naval air arms per se. Arm etc. I did a Google search of the forum for a Seasprite thread before I started the thread in teh RNZAF page and this never came up. Just a thought. NM.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 14, 2012 21:25:02 GMT 12
As the Seasprites belong to the NAVY, not the RNZAF, this is the place for the discussion. Dave, a suggestion. Why not move this thread to the main RNZN page because that IMHO is it's more logical home. This thread is more about the RN Fleet Air and other foreign naval air arms per se. Arm etc. I did a Google search of the forum for a Seasprite thread before I started the thread in teh RNZAF page and this never came up. Just a thought. NM. How much more explicit does the description on the board have to be? I quote: "New Zealanders in the Fleet Air Arm and other Naval Air Services - This board is for the discussion of NZ Fleet Air Arm units such as the Wasps of No. 3 Squadron, the Seasprites of No. 6 Squadron, New Zealanders who flew or served in either the Royal Navy Air Service or the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, and flyers with the US Navy and other air arms of the naval services thoughout history."That description has been there ever since the board was created. This board is for naval aviation, the other board is for ships and wider navy politics. Simple enough, isn't it??
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 14, 2012 21:33:23 GMT 12
Dave, a suggestion. Why not move this thread to the main RNZN page because that IMHO is it's more logical home. This thread is more about the RN Fleet Air and other foreign naval air arms per se. Arm etc. I did a Google search of the forum for a Seasprite thread before I started the thread in teh RNZAF page and this never came up. Just a thought. NM. How much more explicit does the description on the board have to be? I quote: "New Zealanders in the Fleet Air Arm and other Naval Air Services - This board is for the discussion of NZ Fleet Air Arm units such as the Wasps of No. 3 Squadron, the Seasprites of No. 6 Squadron, New Zealanders who flew or served in either the Royal Navy Air Service or the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, and flyers with the US Navy and other air arms of the naval services thoughout history."That description has been there ever since the board was created. This board is for naval aviation, the other board is for ships and wider navy politics. Simple enough, isn't it?? Ok. Just though because we don't have a Fleet Air Arm that is all. No probs. And even if we did it'd be grounded because not enough crew.
|
|