|
|
Post by phil on May 15, 2012 0:35:54 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?? I don't know anyone who serves in a naval air service. I don't serve in the Fleet Air Arm. We serve in the RNZAF. 6 SQN Operates the Seasprites, TAA and OAA rests with the RNZAF, so to say they belong to the Navy, while technically correct some of the time is a bit of a simplified way of looking at it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 15, 2012 9:30:57 GMT 12
Over time every time it has come up about the Seasprites in connection with the RNZAF someone pipes up and points out they are Navy. Every time someone mentions the Seasprites are Navy, someone else pipes up and mentions the RNZAF connection. To attempt to eliminate the arguing I created a board that was purely about Naval flying so it covered both - and people are still not satisfied. What do you all suggest? No doubt 30 different options......
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 15, 2012 10:25:17 GMT 12
Over time every time it has come up about the Seasprites in connection with the RNZAF someone pipes up and points out they are Navy. Every time someone mentions the Seasprites are Navy, someone else pipes up and mentions the RNZAF connection. To attempt to eliminate the arguing I created a board that was purely about Naval flying so it covered both - and people are still not satisfied. What do you all suggest? No doubt 30 different options...... The Board Name didn't make me think that the Seasprites were included. Even changing the name to make it clearer won't always help. For instance, if you go to the search function, select the Postwar RNZAF board only (because you don't know or remember that they belong to the Navy), and search for 'Seasprite', you won't find this thread (or a post linking to it). It is a tricky situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 15, 2012 10:40:17 GMT 12
OK, how about now?
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on May 15, 2012 10:48:33 GMT 12
This oldie may be worth reading: www.rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=faa&action=display&thread=14164Poor Dave, you can't win can you? If people don't get it, another option could be to create a board in the RNZAF board, 'RNZN Naval Aviation Support'. Personally I believe simple is best. There could be boards for a variety of things, but just how much time do you guys have to go through everything? It takes ages to get through all the boards, I hardly have the time to do so now. If I want to search for something before posting a news article or suchlike I use the forum search function, or look at the last 100 new posts. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 15, 2012 12:18:36 GMT 12
Some people tell me we have far too many boards (I tend to agree) while others ask for more seperate boards on this and that.
You cannot please all of the people all of the time. It always ends up with people putting threads in the wrong boards, and I'm the one who has to deal with it...
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 15, 2012 12:40:02 GMT 12
Yep, definite improvement (although you ahve an extra 't' in through) typo included to prove that every correction post must contain an error! There is no 'right' answer to the number of boards, only different sets of compromises. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 15, 2012 13:01:23 GMT 12
I just don't get it. We have 5 new build Seasprites that we find it difficult to operate........they want to buys someones 30 year old+ airframes that would be third hand and dumped by the Australians??? Isn't part of the problem that we will be the only operator (other than Egypt and Poland) Although I’ve posted on the issues with the ex RAN S-2G(A)’s to say they are 30 yr old airframes is a bit of misnomer. While technically correct the airframes have been remanufactured and heavily modified so they effectively new airframes. The problems (apparently “solved”) lie with the Avionics and C of G among other things. The RNZAF must be confident they can get it through the certification process (although when you are both the regulator and operator there is always potential for political interference) and the price is exceptionally cheap so it’s easy to understand why they’d go down this route. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 15, 2012 14:56:12 GMT 12
From what I read elsewhere the main problem with the RAN Seasprites was not the aircraft themselves per se, but the electronics that the RAN required to be fitted for ASW and IIRC AsuW. That was where all the problems were. The general feeling was that the RAN Admirals dug themselves a very big hole with the electronics in the end and after AU$900K decided to call it a day blaming Kaman and the electronics manufacturer, when in fact it was really the RANs fault, because their requirements were too complicated. We didn't have the same problem because we had basically retained the standard fit out.
There are structural differences to the 11 RAN Seasprites and hours. IIRC ours have composite rotor blades; theirs don't and some other things that I can't remember offhand. This topic got a very good workout last year on the other place I lurk and IIRC the general opinion was we'd be better off biting the bullet and going MH60 Romeos. The NFH90 wasn't regarded as an option because it wouldn't fit on OPVs and it hasn't attained IOC yet. Similar with the AW159 Wildcat in that it hasn't attained IOC. It was opined that buying the ex RAN Seasprites was a risky option because of the lack of service being provide by Kaman. At present spares are big problem because they aren't held and any have to be custom made, which is quite expensive.
However if the NZG buys the 11 ex RAN Seasprites then we'd be able to canibalise two or three of the airframes to keep the rest flying. We could do the same with the NZ Seasprites, cannibalise one or two to keep three flying. That way we would have the availability of eleven aircraft. Also the simulator reduces the flying hours required for training, so we would gain more use out of the aircraft at the sharp end. We then should be able to get what, 10- 15 years out of them before we have to replace them and it is enough time to build up capital and plan for a replacement. It would come around, or just after the time of the P3K2 replacement with the P8.
Finally having eleven aircraft will be ideal because at present they operate off three flight decks (2 x ANZACs & Canterbury) and they've just started the certification trials for operating them off the OPVs, so in the near future that adds two more flight decks, plus the Endeavour replacement when they get around to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 15, 2012 15:15:20 GMT 12
We could do the same with the NZ Seasprites, cannibalise one or two to keep three flying. That way we would have the availability of eleven aircraft. Also the simulator reduces the flying hours required for training, so we would gain more use out of the aircraft at the sharp end. Would we want to run the G(NZ)s, with a totally different avionics fit as well? Surely not! And does the simulator correspond with the ex-Aussie ones, as re-modified? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on May 15, 2012 16:25:00 GMT 12
With the Navy on the News last night saying they will be only able to crew two of the new in shore patrol boats....and the fact they struggle to crew the current Seasprites is there really any point in buying these lemons....personally mothball two of the current Seasprites for parts and keep flying them until they fall out of the sky.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 15, 2012 16:41:44 GMT 12
anybody got a image of the cockpit of our current G models against these I models
|
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on May 15, 2012 16:42:41 GMT 12
With the Navy on the News last night saying they will be only able to crew two of the new in shore patrol boats....and the fact they struggle to crew the current Seasprites is there really any point in buying these lemons....personally mothball two of the current Seasprites for parts and keep flying them until they fall out of the sky. The IPV's are sidelined because we are short a few key positions - kinda like having an entire aircraft crew apart from the pilot - you aint flying without one. Similarly, when we had issues with the Seasprites not attaining hours it was because 2/5 were under maintenance and another 2/5 were awaiting maintenance so they would be allowed to fly again.... essentially we are short on the number of available airframes to get the required hours every year, something the ex-RAN ones can obviously fix. Does anyone know where the two SH-2G's for Ecuador are coming (or have come) from?- are these SH-2G(I)s leaving 9 available for us or mothballed ex- USN ones ?? |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 15, 2012 16:46:16 GMT 12
anybody got a image of the cockpit of our current G models against these I models And also the console(s) in the cabin of the G(NZ) - remember two crew vs three. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 15, 2012 16:53:45 GMT 12
The Ecuadorian government has requested two SH-2G Super Seasprites to boost the country's anti-submarine warfare capability.
In a statement to Congress by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Ecuador has also asked for associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for the two aircraft. The entire contract is expected to be worth around $60 million.
The refurbished machines will be modified to carry the HELRAS dipping sonar, the AAQ-22 FLIR system, and the AN/APS-143C search radar.
The DSCA said the proposed sale would: 'improve Ecuador’s capability to meet current and future anti-ship threats,' adding that the helicopters will 'perform antisubmarine warfare (ASW), antisurface warfare, search and rescue (SAR), and logistics support missions for the Ecuadorian Navy.'
The DSCA also said that the capabililty would: 'improve Ecuador’s ability to participate in the Maritime Multinational Operations with the US Navy, enhance Ecuador’s control of its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, and will increase the Ecuadorian Navy’s SAR capabilities, further reducing Ecuador’s dependency on the United States in case of emergencies.'
The two aircraft are expected to be from a batch ordered by Australia which was later cancelled because a series of technical problems dogged their entry into service setting the programme back several years. Kaman has since been trying to sell the aircraft to other nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 16, 2012 0:41:51 GMT 12
With the Navy on the News last night saying they will be only able to crew two of the new in shore patrol boats....and the fact they struggle to crew the current Seasprites is there really any point in buying these lemons....personally mothball two of the current Seasprites for parts and keep flying them until they fall out of the sky. And then what? No maritime helicopter capability. Yeah, good plan that. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 16, 2012 0:44:25 GMT 12
Does anyone know where the two SH-2G's for Ecuador are coming (or have come) from?- are these SH-2G(I)s leaving 9 available for us or mothballed ex- USN ones ?? I'd be putting money a little closer to home perhaps. But who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 16, 2012 5:37:58 GMT 12
So did ecuador actually get the 2 or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on May 16, 2012 6:37:00 GMT 12
Not yet, but I did seriously consider adding Phil's option to my question earlier...there are 5 one-careful owner SH-2's that could be available soon  |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 16, 2012 11:13:03 GMT 12
From what I read elsewhere the main problem with the RAN Seasprites was not the aircraft themselves per se, but the electronics that the RAN required to be fitted for ASW and IIRC AsuW. That was where all the problems were. The general feeling was that the RAN Admirals dug themselves a very big hole with the electronics in the end and after AU$900K decided to call it a day blaming Kaman and the electronics manufacturer, when in fact it was really the RANs fault, because their requirements were too complicated. We didn't have the same problem because we had basically retained the standard fit out. There are structural differences to the 11 RAN Seasprites and hours. IIRC ours have composite rotor blades; theirs don't and some other things that I can't remember offhand. This topic got a very good workout last year on the other place I lurk and IIRC the general opinion was we'd be better off biting the bullet and going MH60 Romeos. The NFH90 wasn't regarded as an option because it wouldn't fit on OPVs and it hasn't attained IOC yet. Similar with the AW159 Wildcat in that it hasn't attained IOC. It was opined that buying the ex RAN Seasprites was a risky option because of the lack of service being provide by Kaman. At present spares are big problem because they aren't held and any have to be custom made, which is quite expensive. However if the NZG buys the 11 ex RAN Seasprites then we'd be able to canibalise two or three of the airframes to keep the rest flying. We could do the same with the NZ Seasprites, cannibalise one or two to keep three flying. That way we would have the availability of eleven aircraft. Also the simulator reduces the flying hours required for training, so we would gain more use out of the aircraft at the sharp end. We then should be able to get what, 10- 15 years out of them before we have to replace them and it is enough time to build up capital and plan for a replacement. It would come around, or just after the time of the P3K2 replacement with the P8. Finally having eleven aircraft will be ideal because at present they operate off three flight decks (2 x ANZACs & Canterbury) and they've just started the certification trials for operating them off the OPVs, so in the near future that adds two more flight decks, plus the Endeavour replacement when they get around to that. The link in post 125 in this thread pretty much covers it. |
|
