|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 16, 2012 13:37:42 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. Yep Calum it does. I haven't come across that before so is quite interesting and fills in gaps for me. It states what was being said elsewhere I lurk, by people who were involved in parts & knew the history. Ok this is a link to the Kaman sales blurb for the sale of the SH2(I) Super Seapsprites: oaktree-ilst.com/Seasprite_Helicopters_for_sale-v1.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 16, 2012 21:33:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on May 17, 2012 0:38:06 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... I reckon the boards should be arranged like so..... Little Civil Planes Big Civil Planes Little Military Planes Big Military Planes Helicopters Other Stuff ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 17, 2012 1:21:55 GMT 12
This is why I don't like to leave you in charge too long Craig. ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 17, 2012 8:14:01 GMT 12
The link in post 125 in this thread pretty much covers it. One hell of a read Callum.... So what does the (I) mean now that the (A) has been dumped? |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 17, 2012 8:33:35 GMT 12
One hell of a read Callum.... So what does the (I) mean now that the (A) has been dumped? Isn't Australian! (actually, International) |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 17, 2012 9:19:29 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on May 17, 2012 14:34:32 GMT 12
This is why I don't like to leave you in charge too long Craig. ;D ;D But Dave - you know my idea makes sense! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 17, 2012 15:54:18 GMT 12
What about the medium-sizd planes, had you thunkof them? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on May 17, 2012 15:56:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 17, 2012 15:58:28 GMT 12
Yes I would say it is a done deal but confirmation doesn't look like being announced till late June or July. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 17, 2012 17:42:24 GMT 12
Okay - Referring to this excellent article: rumourcontrol.com.au/?p=95. Seasprites for Dummies...... So we will replace a 3 crew aircraft where the pilot just flies it with a 2 crew (possibly 3) where the pilot also has other responsibilities??? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 19:11:42 GMT 12
Just a bit of light reading there macfire haha ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on May 17, 2012 19:16:17 GMT 12
Yes I would say it is a done deal but confirmation doesn't look like being announced till late June or July. To quote an old saying "It aint over until the fat lady sings" and I aint heard no fat lady singing. This deal is not done and dusted. There are escape clauses in the proceedure as certain criteria have to be met. The other thing that has to be considered is are the aircraft still in the RAN configuration for sensors and weapons? Or have they been reconfigured to the same configuration as ours which was the same as the USN MH60 Seahawk in 2002? We do not want the problems created by the RAN. |
|
|
|
Post by raymond on May 17, 2012 19:47:43 GMT 12
Okay - Referring to this excellent article: rumourcontrol.com.au/?p=95. Seasprites for Dummies...... quote] What a good article and a compelling reason for buying systems "off the shelf" ie proven designs esp when you are buying a limited/small number. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 18, 2012 8:52:56 GMT 12
The other thing that has to be considered is are the aircraft still in the RAN configuration for sensors and weapons? Or have they been reconfigured to the same configuration as ours which was the same as the USN MH60 Seahawk in 2002? We do not want the problems created by the RAN. That was going to be my second "Dummies: question once the piloting thing (issue) had been answered... |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 18, 2012 10:26:02 GMT 12
I believe they are as-built for the RAN but we won't get Penguin, instead the AGM-65G will be integrated into the weapon system as with our current aircraft. From what I have heard the avionics system is VERY capable and a huge step up in capability from our current Seasprites (assuming all the bugs have been sorted!).
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 18, 2012 10:59:21 GMT 12
I believe they are as-built for the RAN but we won't get Penguin, instead the AGM-65G will be integrated into the weapon system as with our current aircraft. From what I have heard the avionics system is VERY capable and a huge step up in capability from our current Seasprites (assuming all the bugs have been sorted!). So does the stick have full movement now? |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 18, 2012 11:13:18 GMT 12
You couldn't reconfigure the SH-2(I) model, which is just the SH-2G(A), to a SH-2G(NZ). It would be rebuilding the whole aircraft.
And what would be the point, you'd be introducing all the logistics issues you're trying solve by buying the SH-2G(I). I remember hearing back in the early 2000's that the RNZAF was having issues supporting certain components (instruments in particular) in their new Seasprite’s.
The ITAS (integrated tactical Avionics System) is light years ahead of the current SH-2G(NZ) assuming it works (which I believe it pretty much does).
How Kaman have addressed the AFCS issue will be interesting, obviously the RNZAF are happy with what they have done, but for professional interest I’d like to know what they did.
The lateral C of G issues and HMI for the left hand crew member I doubt will have been resolved.
Integration of the maverick will cost the RNZAF/RNZN. But I guess that is considered cheaper than buying Penguin (which IMHO is a better missile) and having to modify the ANZAC's to accept it. As an aside both those missiles are to large for most of threats that a Naval helicopter will encounter today (think Pirates, fast small terrorist boats). Hellfire or 50 cal gun is a better solution (Another reason for the MH-60R/Lynx, although lynx doesn’t have hellfire only has Sea Skua)
You have to remember these aircraft are so cheap for a reason.... Kaman appear desparate to get rid of them. Time will tell whether this is a good buy for the RNZN/RNZAF.....
|
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on May 18, 2012 12:29:19 GMT 12
That was a hell of a read. The 2007 decision to not shelve the project in favour of making the coalition not look dumb was incredible. There would appear to have been plenty of opportunities to can it but they just kept on banging at it.
I can see the point of the Penguin but given the weight/balance issues that arose I'm not convinced it would be a good option. It also seems to highlight to me that NZ keeping 3 crewmen was as simple a solution as the Russians using a pencil in space.
|
|
