|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 25, 2011 10:56:50 GMT 12
Its a sad sad state of affairs and years of cut backs and continued cut backs have really left us with the bare minimum.
I want to know were the leadership is and the vision to move forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Aug 25, 2011 11:57:00 GMT 12
Actually (and without whipping out the DWP to re-read it), the DWP is looking at upgrading or replacing the Seasprites around 2015 from memory. The Value for Money review also noted the Seasprites high operating costs. If you guys check out the MOD website it has the MOD Seasprite report that is the basis of the Flight Global article. The report is very interesting to read and is worthy of further discussion here. Acquiring the ex-RAN Seasprites would help alleviate some of the spare parts shortages and high purchase costs in the short to medium term. But further down the track whether additional Seasprites provides value for money in the long run must surely be giving defence planners sleepless nights. Considering the Seasprite is out of production, no longer in service with major allied powers, the USN training simulator has been decomissioned, NZ has found itself in the unenviable position of being the lead operator and is encountering unforeseen problem after unforeseen problem. This is all in the report. (I say get rid off them at the soonest opportunity when the country's finances allow eg 2015/post 2015 but pick up some ex-RAN examples for spares and extra airframes in the meantime to manage the servicing v tasking issues and corrosion & vibration issues, again covered in the report. The ex-RAN Seasprites are bloody cheap (which is both good for NZ but should also ring alarm bells - they are not wanted by anyone else pretty much like the RNZAF's former Skyhawks and Aermacchis meaning they are fit for the tip): www.generalequipment.info/SH-2G%20SUPER%20SEA%20SPRITES.htm*Price = $180 Million for all 11 that are “fully loaded” = right now all of them are fully loaded and Seller would like to sell them like this * Price can come down a lot if the buyer would like to “strip down” and remove equipment and technology from the Helicopters * Price can be as low as $10m for a “stripped model” or as high as $18m each for “fully loaded” |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 25, 2011 12:40:48 GMT 12
If the Seasprite is that bad and is that hard to keep them airworthy then one must consider the future role of naval aviation in this country all together.
If there is a future for naval aviation in this country and those in power are serious about it then they should bite the bullet and buy the latest version of the Seahawk just as Australia have.
That has proven history.
If the powers that be dont want to invest in this to a serious level then more A109 should fit the role as it would have been made clear by that decision that a naval aviation role would be primary ship based search and rescue and ship to shore transport.
The NH-90 is more capable of bigger transport roles off the Canterbury if required.
New Zealand and it's leaders and decision makers need to decide if they are really serious about a role in naval aviation and if they are then invest in a proven system.....if not move on.
I see no point in more Seasprite airframes no matter how cheap....if it's got issues that cannot be resolved...then the above questions need to be asked and acted on.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Aug 25, 2011 13:22:39 GMT 12
The Navy requires Seasprite or better helos to operate off the Frigates. The Seasprite or better are designed to provide additional ISR coverage for the Frigates & are used together, via the data links and sensors to prosecute targets. A lesser machine such as an AW109 won't be practical, for one they lack the appropriate sensors and on the other hand there's no point spending heaps of money to try and integrate compatible systems into the smaller airframe - NZ would wear the development costs which would be tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. The Frigates need a military off-the-shelf (MOTS) solution already developed and proven, be they Seasprite, or better.
On the other hand the OPV's and Sealift ship don't prosecute surface and sub-surface targets in the same way, so perhaps a lesser type such as AW109 (but something with a survellience radar) or equivalent may suffice.
I suspect these various capabilities/scenarios make life for defence planners difficult, seeing we don't have pots of money to fund different helo types (and associated overheads such as pools of specialist maintainers qualified for a particular type, their training and certification & additional planners and managers above them etc) appropriate for the platforms?
|
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on Aug 25, 2011 14:30:47 GMT 12
I'm pretty sure I read that the OPV's had the A109's in mind when they were being commissioned. Not as a full time solution but substituting them for the Seasprite as the case may arise. I think the NH90's are too big, but I may be wrong.
Do we still have frigates?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 25, 2011 15:53:43 GMT 12
Nige on current and past defense thinking in this country it is hard to see a future for naval aviation as it is.Lets not pretend but when the time comes to replace the frigates it would be hard to see them being replaced by newer frigates more likely the replacement is a slightly bigger version of the opv's.
and in that case the A109 could do the job and keep the NZDF to 2 helo types.
I can only see them keeping the Seasprite going as best they can even if that means reducing the numbers and hours flown.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 25, 2011 15:54:27 GMT 12
I would dare say that the HN-90 is too big for an OPV, weight, maybe, but rotor clearance, probably a definite but I then again maybe wrong.
As for the Mako getting a radar and sensors, I am pretty sure they already have a variant that covers ASW.
do we have Frigates, yes but as of recent times, one less Frigate captain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 25, 2011 16:03:38 GMT 12
Your right there beagle....why is it our leaders fail to get past the buy the cheapest all the time....look where it gets us.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvard1041 on Aug 25, 2011 22:01:49 GMT 12
Not sure where all this negative stuff about the Seasprite is coming from ?? - it's a very capable - radar, FLIR, troop carrying, missile carrying naval helicopter. It's probably the most attack capable aircraft in the RNZAF.
At the time of the selection - 15 years ago - Westlands were looking down the barrel of bankrupcy ( which is essentially what happened - Augusta is the major partner in the present day AW ) and they did not have a Lynx capable of the above - far from it. If you think support costs of Kaman are high - try AW and an ( orpham ) Lynx.
It's not an ideal world, but we have the Seasprite - it works well - and the RNZAF / RNZN need to look at the long term issues - solve them - and move ahead. It's not a super high tech machine- let's solve the blades, dampers, some other 'Kaman only' parts issues...
If these Issues are allowed to blow up out of all proportion - they will loose the helo and it's capability .... sound familiar ( A-4s - Strike ? ) ...not to be replaced.
Cheers
Hvd1041
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 26, 2011 1:02:18 GMT 12
Well said John.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Aug 26, 2011 8:06:58 GMT 12
I agree with Harvard, the Seasprite works & is a very capable machine in the NZDF - second only to the P-3 in terms of sensor systems and like the P-3 has an attack capability. For a helo no other helo in the NZDF inventory matches it (and it is a massive step-change leap in capability compared to its predecessor the WASP). As I've said and alluded to by two people with experience on the type, Phil and Les, acquiring some or all of the ex-RAN models will alleviate most (if not all) of the spare parts issues in the short to medium term.
If I'm to be accused of negativity, it is only for the long term outlook for the reasons stated earlier. But for now that is an issue for the future (I'm thinking post 2020).
Raptor, I'm amazed by your negativity suggesting NZ can't afford its current capabilities and your perception that everything will be downgraded. There's no evidence for this (apart from the ACF demise but that was a one off event forced by a political personality in a time when public discourse was stiffled pre-internet fora and the like - look now how Labour are being teared apart in the bloggersphere to such an extent that MSM is now taking the lead from bloggers and on occassions commentators much like ourselves & joining the fry. As long as we have freedom of speech and its citizens access to the net, we will never ever see politicians put up flimsey arguements to kill off capabilities that affect national security in the same manner as that occured with the ACF).
The other thing is, I don't wish to be imposing my views here all the time (we should be discussing aviation not debating amongst oursleves) but sometimes what you say is not factual at all. For example, what's cheap about pollies buying the NH-90? It is an expensive (but capable) machine? Incidentally the RAN managed to squeeze a NH-90 in to one of their ANZAC Frigates but it was a squeeze and may not really be practical to embark. But why would NZ embark a troop carrying NH-90 onto an OPV or even a Frigate? It's not a naval helicopter, it would be like embarking a UH-1, it would never happen, as it's not an naval aviation helo with the appropriate systems to operate safely at sea and it would take them away from their intended primary support role which is Army support, meaning Army/AF taskings become affected. (Granted they may fly off occassionally for civilian taskings eg DOC re-supply if a Seasprite is not available, but that would be rare if at all).
As for not replacing Frigates, it is current Govt intent to replace like for like. Sure a future Govt may change their minds, but at this point in time this is not the intent, so why assume it won't be? Then give me an example of a bigger OPV anywhere in the world? The NZ OPV's are some of the largest out there and capable for their role. Anything bigger becomes a Corvette or Frigate, but again there aren't enlarged OPV's out there so what makes you think there will be such a vessel in 15 years time when the Frigates are replaced? What can you point to to back up that claim?
As for Naval Aviation being history, we've had it for near 50 years in terms of helos (longer if we go back to WW2 Walrus' and perhaps RNZAF examples) and are integral to Naval operations. Why would something be canned that is part and parcel of contempory naval operations? The only way Naval aviation will be canned is if we kill off the Navy. For a maritime country that relies on 95% of its trading via shipping that will never happen. Even Helen Clark couldn't kill off the Frigates (and Orions) and she was the result of a unique moment in time, the evolution of the 1960's protestor into a leadership role. For the next 2-3 generations at least this situation will not be repeated. In fact I would say the exact opposite will occur, this current generation right now, us and the youngster's growing up, seeing NZ "fighting" under UN mandate to be good international citizens and stabalise the world, will inherit the political leadership in the next 10-30 years and from their experiences will ensure NZ continues to play a (small) leadership role in international affairs. This will rub off on defence policy positively.
Also we are in a world of emerging powers, relationships and dynamics, if anything this has already blown Helen Clark's benign strategic environment viewpoint out of the water, and what we see today is the current Govt investing into the NZDF frontline including combat and associated kit. For the NZDF they will continue to receive capabilities that earlier generations of soldiers, airmen & women and sailors can only have once dreamed off.
The other thing is NZ is back into the fold with the US and enhanced UN mandated peace stabalised missions, this is not the mid-1980's to late-1990's anymore when NZ was cut adrift and pollies had the perfect opportunity to kill defence capabilities for the lack of use, on the contrary now and will only get better.
It's a shame that the ACF was killed, because if it were still around or even in a smaller mode (eg Macchis only) this Govt would have built them up along with everything else spelled out in the Defence White Paper. Alas the cost to reestablish an ACF is huge because it's just not aircraft needed but 100's of personnel and infrastructure etc (I'm not sauing I agree with Govt but see their point of view).
In terms of comments that the RNZAF (and RNZN) will become a Coat Guard is an insult to those serving. Eg Coast Guard's don't put their lives at risk flying C-130's evading ground fire into Kabul etc, Coast Guards don't send their airmen and women to serve in PRT's where there is a threat from insurgents, Coast Guard's don't fly P-3's to the equator and down to Antarctica on missions that potentially could see the P-3's at war in the future. Coast Guards don't send their helicopters into places like Timor or the Solomons where there were opposing forces with heavy calibre guns that could shoot them down etc.
The problem that I do see, in which I do agree with you, is that the NZDF like any Govt organisation or business suffers from the usual periodic reviews and tinkering from Bean Counters and their consultants. With Value for Money they are trying to squeeze ever dollar they can to make things more efficient in their eyes. Realistically this is both good and bad, and time will tell if they got it right. The NZDF is now very lean to cut inefficiences because the budget is tight. The budget has been increasing but slowly to keep up with inflation - see the Budget papers each May etc. The problem is, new capabilities were bought in recent years with higher or unknown operating and support costs, and because the economy is stuffed at the moment the Govt wishes ensure things are efficient before committing the additonal funds to operate the new capabilities. At least these capabilities are not being cut, they are being enhanced and at some point, probably within a few years as alluded to in DWP Review funding will need to increase further. Granted organisational change is happening and like anywhere it is an unsettling time.
I have to go to work but earlier comments by such as their is no soldier enhancement programme is wrong, read the NZ Army site documements and look at what the soldiers are wearing, their new weaponry and other kit, can expand later if interested etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Hamilton on Aug 26, 2011 10:30:54 GMT 12
Well said Nige!
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 26, 2011 12:02:21 GMT 12
I can't imagine what air nz would do with 2 15 year old 757's. Neither can I. It's not like they operate the aircraft now (IIRC). Why would that want the hassle of introducing a new type. The 757 offers a capability (strategic transport) that NZ with our geographical location really needs. Would a seahawk fit onto the deck of an anzac frigate? Yes, that hangar was designed for a Seahawk sized Helo |
|
|
|
Post by nige on Aug 26, 2011 12:41:49 GMT 12
Thanks Andrew, that's kind of you to say! Well I got karma'd negatively for that post, so perhaps I'll not worry about writing long posts in the future in defence of the NZDF, as maybe not everyone agrees with the way I express things! Incidentally I don't use the positive/negative karma system myself, it detracts from people expressing their views good or bad & I'd rather we all discuss and learn, not suppress our views etc (and on other fora it gets out of hand). That includes me and Raptor etc, some of things he says I do agree with! I'll stick to my lame jokes instead!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 26, 2011 13:00:29 GMT 12
Nige, never give up on expressing your valid, well thought out and worthwhile opinions just because one person might not like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 26, 2011 13:19:34 GMT 12
Not sure where all this negative stuff about the Seasprite is coming from ?? - it's a very capable - radar, FLIR, troop carrying, missile carrying naval helicopter. It's probably the most attack capable aircraft in the RNZAF. I’d agree with the above but its a sad reflection on the NZDF that it’s most potent attack platform is the Sea Sprite. And you can’t ignore the supportably issues that have been around since the introduction of the aircraft. It can have the best systems in the world but if you can’t support it it’s worthless (not saying that is the case with Sea Sprite but it must be a concern). At the time of the selection - 15 years ago - Westlands were looking down the barrel of bankrupcy ( which is essentially what happened - Augusta is the major partner in the present day AW ) I was working for Westland as a Sub contractor at the time and I don’t remember there being any concern that they were going under. IIRC they were GKN Westlands then so had the money of GKN behind them when they were bidding for the British Army Apache and RAF HM3 Merlin contract (which they won) along with Super Lynx for Korea (again they won). Augusta didn’t come into the scene until 2000 IIRC. The Westland tech reps I worked with were all very busy guys as they had so much upgrade work on Lynx and sea Kings around the world that they were wondering what would happen after they won Apache. and they did not have a Lynx capable of the above – I disagree. They certainly did have a helicopter capable of the above. Although they offered the Super Lynx, which wasn’t in production it was quite far along the development path. Plus the RN had been operating Lynx’s for years, with a capable anti ship missile (Sea Skua) The Lynx could carry 4 of these and had a useful range to boot. Plus Westland did have some pedigree in complex avionics integration programs so the risk of Super Lynx would be lower than the RAN’s sea Sprite (to get off track) far from it. If you think support costs of Kaman are high - try AW and an ( orpham ) Lynx. All helo’s, are horrendously expensive to support, Naval helos are worse still because of the environment they work in. But Super Lynx (operated by Korea, Oman, Thailand, Malaysia, Denmark, UK is hardly an orphan, especially compared to Sea Sprite Just being part of a large pool of operators ensures much more chance of ongoing support for the platform It's not an ideal world, but we have the Seasprite - it works well - and the RNZAF / RNZN need to look at the long term issues - solve them - and move ahead. It's not a super high tech machine- let's solve the blades, dampers, some other 'Kaman only' parts issues... Buying the Ex RAN SH-2G’s for parts may be wise. But I’m not sure Kaman would like their show piece helicopter bought for spares. Especially when they marketing it as the wonder helo it isn’t. And as for flying the Ex RAN ones I’d be surprised if the RNZAF would be happy to accept the certification risks that the ADF weren’t especially considered the similarity of the RNZAF Airworthiness systems to the ADF’s. The question is what does the NZDF do once the aircraft reaches mid life upgrade time. Replace or upgrade? There is no doubt the RNZN needs a combat helicopter on the ANZAC’s for the reasons in Nige's post above. A Frigate without a helicopter is little more than a large patrol bppat. Perhaps jumping into the end of the RAN MH-60R program would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 26, 2011 13:49:37 GMT 12
Thanks Nige for expressing your point in a nice way and the points have been taken on board.
I agree that everyone should learn from one another as we all have differant views and thats great.
I just wish to clear one thing up the NZDF do big things with very little and bunch well above themselfs and is clearly shown with 40SQN taking out the top prize in my other post.
Over the years we have purchased aircraft well and purchased aircraft that were in large worldwide use and got great value for money and most of these aircraft are the highest houred in the world and that is a credit to those with the forsight to buy them and those that maintain and fly them daily.
You only have to look at the Hercs and Orions,the Hueys and Sioux through to the skyhawks truely fantastic stats and money well spent.
Of recent purchases you have the NH-90 and A109 both class acts and again will be long term value for money.
My disappointment is with purchases that have not cut the mustard and have had issues....the Macchi and Seasprite both only operated in limited numbers around the globe and both having given ongoing problems.
Most of the time we have got it right and you can see this over the past history but you can clearly see sometimes we got it wrong and thats the sad part.
If more airframes of the Seasprite to take parts from will keep the airworthy ones going for the next 10-20 years then it makes sense to do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 26, 2011 14:29:13 GMT 12
Remember when army commanders stood by while the ACF was scrapped?). Who do you think stabbed us in the back?  ?? The only way they were going to get the LAV's!  |
|
|
|
Post by harvard1041 on Aug 27, 2011 4:57:24 GMT 12
Hi Calum
Hey - forget the Lynx mate - it's not an option now - and wasn't selected back then ... I disagree with your opinions on Lynx - which is fine as your points are well made - pretty sure you feel the same - but surely you agree any debate on Lynx / Seasprite is purely academic now ?
The real debate should be on how the RNZAF / RNZN operate the aircraft for the foreseeable future - what balance of in-house and Kaman work is the best option to keep them going - or should money be 'found' to replace them.
I'm advocating doing the max in-house - because simply put, there is no money to replace them - and if they are not maintained in house at a reasonable price - the role will be lost due to cost reasons - the politicians would love to axe an 'expensive' aircraft.
I'd say negotiate very hard, knock the price of the Aussie ones down to 'scrap' value - buy them - strip them down .... and then boost up the Safe Air Team who does the heavy maintenance on them - with the clear understanding that they will be in service for another 15 years.
Any avionics update should be done in-house in NZ as well - money spent on this sort of thing in NZ is - in my opinion - well spent. ( Sending the damaged Seasprite back to Kaman in 2002 for a $7.4m rebuild was a poor decision when the job could have been done in NZ cheaper and boosted our in-house capability. )
The other reason to go down this road I think - is the same situation will arise with the newly modified C-130s & P-3s...both orphans ....
Rgds
Hvd1041
|
|
|
|
Post by mileater on Aug 27, 2011 20:52:57 GMT 12
As I understand it, the Aussie SeaSprites are much lower hour airframes than our current fleet. Buying them for service and scrapping our old ones for whatever parts are useful seems to make sense to me. I also understand that the Aussie difficulties with the craft stem from their specifications for the operation in particular circumstances. I suspect that if our specification and expectancy of the aircraft was to be more in line with current thinking, they would be a perfectly capable unit for a long time.
Regarding support - don't underestimate the ability of the troops to come up with ways to make it work. We know that the RNZAF has a long history of doing just that and we still have a small but dedicated and well motivated force that would only see this as a challenge, not an obstacle.
My dollar is on the Govt purchasing the Aussie helo's.
Cheers,
Allan
|
|
??
