New Zealand struggles with Seasprite sustainment

[Dave Homewood]

Buy a fleet of Robinsons?

[ngatimozart]

Stuff off where would you fit the BBQ and the fishing tackle? ;D No if the ex RAN Seasprites fit the bill and they are zero timed buy the lot use two or three as spares. That'll get eight or nine in the air. When you look at it we are flying eight NH90s and using a nineth as the spares package. Plus there is a spares package with these Seasprites. As exkiwiforces says rip out the RAN FMS and revert them back to a three person crew; i.e., two pilots and a crewperson.

For the OPVs don't really need a Seasprite with all the ASW / ASuW gears so maybe buy three armoured marinised A109s with a basic search radar and fitted with a fixed .50 cal MG, crew served MAG58 MG and fitted for HVAR Pod(s). That takes pressure off the Seasprites and it still keeps the fleet at three basic types.

[madmac]

Given the A109 have only sufficient payload to carry the flight crew and a couple of VIP's, it would swim rather than fly.

If we had any brains we would ensure that Kaman give a full IP & rights release as a way of ensuring that they offer good aftermarket support. As it would allow us make all the parts if they don't. Done correctly it could start a rotorcraft manufacturing capability in nz.

[htbrst]

Jan 13, 2013 21:25:03 GMT 12 madmac said:

Given the A109 have only sufficient payload to carry the flight crew and a couple of VIP's, it would swim rather than fly.

Indeed, I suspect the Seasprites undercarriage will handle much rougher conditions to the A109 which will be much more useful in the prevailing weather around NZ and the Pacific.

Indeed in the A109 Major projects report under Risks: www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/major-projects-report-2011-volume-2/part-3-project-a109.html#section5

Risk:
Use as a maritime platform. The A109 LUH undercarriage is not designed for deck operations and may not cater for high landing loads or significant deck movement.

Consequences:
Operational Outputs. An undercarriage that proves inadequate for deck operations will limit operations in naval environments.

Treatment Actions
The Evaluation Reporting group were confident that the A109 had in the past been, and had potential in the future, to be used from maritime platforms in a 'naval' role. The use of a similar platform by the US Coast Guard was used as an example.

I don't think many of the 'naval' operators actually use the A109 off ships though? - Sweden is the most obvious but their ocean conditions are likely to be much less rough that the Pacific. The Coast Guard ones mentioned while flying over water were based from shore rather than ships

Jan 13, 2013 21:25:03 GMT 12 madmac said:

f we had any brains we would ensure that Kaman give a full IP & rights release as a way of ensuring that they offer good aftermarket support. As it would allow us make all the parts if they don't. Done correctly it could start a rotorcraft manufacturing capability in nz.

Even if we could produce the rotor blades that would be a good start as they are one of the main supply troubles - given they have the unique servo flap no-one else is likely to want to to produce them. Plus IP that would allow us to integrate new munitions (in particular Hellfire) would be a great start.

As the unit price of a marinised A109 will not be far short - if not more - than these ex-RAN Seasprites i'd much rather take a few Seasprites along with the a much more useful capability of the larger and stronger airframe - though the runnings costs will probably be higher (more fuel, crew etc)

These Seasprites had an RRP of $8-15 million USD in 2010 after cancellation, while The Philippines recently (December 2012) ordered three "Anti submarine" versions of A109 for operation from frigates for $32.8 million USD

Seasprite price source: articles.courant.com/2010-01-19/business/hc-kaman-helos.artjan19_1_kaman-parts-helicopters ,A109 source: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/287901/news/nation/phl-procures-3-naval-choppers-amid-territorial-dispute

[ngatimozart]

Ok leave the A109s ashore then. Was just an idea.

[chis73]

It seems to me that the best use of an A109 at sea would be as a secondary helicopter on one of the larger vessels - ie Canterbury or the Endeavour replacement. Only used when it's not necessary or cost-effective to use something larger for the job at hand, and only if conditions allow (calm weather, good visibility, no threat). The same sort of roles the RAN used the Squirrel for when embarked on their FFGs, or the role of Alouette IIIs in many navies (ie transporting the CO to briefings, mail-runs, at most winching a fisheries inspector to/from a vessel, short range rescue of a downed pilot). It's fine for that kind of work if you can pull out a proper naval helo when the going gets tough. But as for operating from small vessels in rough waters - no thanks.

Could also use a A109 for hydrographic support (ie lidar surveying in very shallow coastal areas). Again, it only flies if conditions are suitable.

The USCG did embark A109s (MH-68 Stingrays) on occasion, but only with one very specific mission in mind (interception of 40-knot+ go-fast drug-smuggling powerboats operating in calm conditions), mostly off the coast of Florida. For more general duties a HH-65 Dolphin would have been embarked instead.

I've only seen one A109 with a search radar (there are plenty with small weather radar though). It was fitted under the belly, so very little ground clearance. Operated by an Italian customs or law enforcement outfit iirc.

Ah yes, here it is:- the A109 G di F
www.hmfriends.org.uk/agustaa109gdf.htm

Chis73

[ngatimozart]

There is supposed to be a naval variant the A109KN but can't find any details about it. The Phillipines navy have just ordered some.

[chis73]

After a bit of digging -

A109KN was the naval version of the Agusta A109K (in service 1991 ?). Since then, Agusta & Westland have become Agusta-Westland - and the A109K the AW109 LUH, so the KN is at least 10 years old as a design. However, the maritime version of the current AW109 LUH is pretty much the same thing as the KN.

The maritime LUH is offered with a '120 or 360'degree search radar as an option. I'm uncertain whether any of the AW109 LUH naval customers have ticked that option though (maybe Sweden?).

The radar on offer is probably the Telephonics RDR-1700. According to the Naval Institute's World Naval Weapon Systems 5th ed. (2006) - edited by the always excellent Norman Friedman - AW ordered up to 23 of these in 2001. It has 120 degree operation if nose mounted (22kg weight) or 360 degree if belly mounted (27kg).

The Seasprite's APS-143 is apparently 82kg by comparison.

Otherwise, the main difference in the maritime version of the LUH seems to be more prominent floats.

I wouldn't get too excited about the Philippines 'anti-submarine' A109s just yet. Think Wasp: ie it might be able to drop a torpedo, but won't be carrying much in the way of sensors.

Chis73

[ngatimozart]

Given htbrsts comments above, it would be interesting to know if AW have strengthened the undercart for the maritime version of the Mako LUH.

[chis73]

Judging from photos of the Swedish Hkp15b and the Nigerian Navy version - no, the landing gear is the same as the standard LUH. But the A109E Power (of which the LUH is the military version) does feature redesigned and more rugged landing gear than the A109A (though still retractable). Fixed landing gear is an option for hot & high conditions (most A109K2s were built in this configuration and operate as air ambulances in Switzerland) - don't know if that makes it any stronger, or lighter, or just preferred because the Swiss like to fit snow-skis.

P.S. Looks like Lynx Wildcat has won its first export order - 8 for South Korea for USD 560M, to be delivered 2015/16. That will be some relief for Yeovil after missing out to the MH-60R in Denmark.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/agustawestland-wins-first-wildcat-export-deal-with-south-korea.html

[htbrst]

Jan 16, 2013 0:15:37 GMT 12 ngatimozart said:

Given htbrsts comments above, it would be interesting to know if AW have strengthened the undercart for the maritime version of the Mako LUH.

I'm just an armchair enthusiast so I could be way off base - it just seems that a purpose-designed helicopter for working off small ships in bad weather will handle things better than a converted civil aircraft.

Another issue could be corrosion in the salt-water environment, points to the Seasprite again?

A while ago we were hunting for photos of the NZ Seasprites cockpits - I don't think we ever found a good one ? There is one in this excellent article by Andy Heap in Seasprite operations.

www.pacificwingsmagazine.com/content/all-sea-rnzns-seasprites-service

Jan 15, 2013 21:25:22 GMT 12 chis73 said:

I wouldn't get too excited about the Philippines 'anti-submarine' A109s just yet. Think Wasp: ie it might be able to drop a torpedo, but won't be carrying much in the way of sensors.

Awesome digging with the info in your last post Chris! The current NZ Seasprites don't have sonar or sonobouys either - do the ex-RAN ones?

[ngatimozart]

Just to put some perspective on costs. The South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration announced on 15th January 2013 that it is to purchase eight AW159 Wildcats at a cost of US$560 million (NZ$670 million at todays rates). That averages out at about NZ$84 million per aircraft but does not reflect actual aircraft costs. So if we bought eight plus one spare, as we did with NH90, would be about the same cost. I also note that the Brits haven't fielded the replacement for the Sea Skua yet because of negotiations with the French over program date changes. It's a joint program.

[exkiwiforces]

Afternoon All,

Found this on the Janes Defence Website via my work computer today in between all the paperwork, 10km Pack march and all the other stuff I do on a Friday.

Sourced From Janes Defence Services:

The New Zealand Ministry of Defence (MoD) is undertaking a final review of SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopters that were previously rejected by the Australian government, in support of a formal bid for the aircraft.
Des Ashton, deputy secretary of Defence (Acquisition) in the MoD, told IHS Jane's that the assessment, a final evaluation of the helicopters' airworthiness, was under way on 31 January before the submission of a proposal to government to procure the helicopters.
"We are looking at that [the purchase of the helicopters] very actively," he said. "We have a gateway review going on right now - today - and basically we are…determining whether we can put a viable proposal through to our government." Ashton added: "We are looking at this [helicopter] as the preferred option for retaining a naval helicopter capability [within the Royal New Zealand Navy]."
The potential purchase could be worth up to about USD200 million and includes 11 helicopters, a flight simulator, training devices, spares, and associated equipment.
New Zealand's interest in the Super Seasprites emerged in early 2012 and was followed by an initial gateway review of the aircraft, assessing any risks associated with the bid, which was undertaken by New Zealand's State Services Commission, which provides oversight of government procurement.
The MoD also undertook flight trials and reviews of the aircraft in 2012 to assess the helicopters' airworthiness, as well as the technical issues that led to the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) cancelling a contract to acquire the aircraft in 2008. Negotiations between the MoD and Kaman took place during 2012 and are understood to have continued in 2013.
The New Zealand MoD views the helicopters as possible replacements for the Royal New Zealand Navy's (RNZN's) own SH-2G Super Seasprites, which have been in service since 2001. New Zealand's 2011 Defence Capability Plan outlined a requirement to upgrade or replace the RNZN's five Seasprites from 2012-16.
The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) terminated the Seasprite procurement programme, which was then worth USD920 million, in March 2008 following software integration and airworthiness problems that had delayed the project by seven years. Under the terms of the cancellation, ownership of the helicopters was transferred to United States-based Kaman, which has since been seeking to sell the aircraft and will share 50% of the proceeds of each sale with the Australian DoD.

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for that. Quite interesting. Now we what and see what happens. I just think that the SSC, Treasury and MFAT have too much say in what goes on in Defence.

[skyhawkdon]

Hear hear!

[jaybee]

Right across Government there is a strong move towards shared services and collaboration - and many skills are being centralized in 'centers of excellence'. SSCs is involved because it runs the Major Project Assurance group who run the ruler over all large state sector projects - this is not unique to defence. See www.ssc.govt.nz/gateway

Sure looks like its getting serious!

[phil]

I wonder if Novopay had to pass a Gateway review?

[ngatimozart]

Feb 3, 2013 20:49:22 GMT 12 phil said:

I wonder if Novopay had to pass a Gateway review?

Doubt it. An opinion piece on govt cost cutting and NZDF civilianisation. Cost-cutter's cleaver leaves deep wounds[/b]

Also of note there's a rumour floating around DT that the Spanish have 20 Eurofighters that they're trying real hard to get rid of.

I still strongly feel that NZDF is the play thing of SSC, Treasury & MFAT with none of those interested in or caring about NZDFs issues or requirements. The SSC shouldn't have control over the senior officer corp promotions and appointments nor should MFAT have a large say in where and what NZDF does, especially in capability. Treasury needs to take two very large steps back and undertstand the uniqueness that are military forces and their operation requirements, culture and needs. MFAT is trying to neuter NZDF as much as it can - it is enamoured with Clarks and Goffs world view, even after 4 years of Key.

[phil]

;D

[meo4]

Good picks of the SH2G(NZ) on the RNZN .

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151897879293009&set=a.10151897874933009.1073741890.317342038008&type=1&theater