The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: $1.4bn wasted on cancelled Seasprite
Volkodav    6/18/2009 7:48:25 AM
Patrick Walters, National security editor | June 18, 2009
Article from: The Australian

MORE than $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money was wasted on the Defence Department's botched acquisition of the Super Seasprite helicopter, 47 per cent more than the $953 million claimed by the Defence Department last year.

The Auditor-General is highly critical of the Defence Materiel Organisation's management of the US-manufactured helicopters, which were ordered for the navy's Anzac frigates but were never accepted into operational service.

The long-awaited final report by the Australian National Audit Office found the Seasprite had a potential catastrophic failure rate calculated at 20,000 times greater than the US aviation standard.

The Seasprite's crash worthiness was below contemporary standards, it could not be flown in bad weather, the pit was too small for some crewmen and the advanced computerised combat system never worked properly.

But most worrying, the computerised flight control system tended to make unpredictable movements of flight controls, known as hard-overs. During flight testing, that occurred four times in 1600 flying hours. The aircraft design specification was for one potentially catastrophic failure in a million hours.

The Rudd government cancelled the project to give the navy an anti-submarine capacity in March last year, terminating the prime contract with US firm Kaman Aerospace Corporation and handing the Seasprites back to them for an eventual sale.

The project ran for 12 years, with a $746m contract for 11 Seasprites being signed by the Howard government in 1997.

Equipped with Penguin anti-ship missiles, the Seasprites were designed to operate from the Anzac frigates, providing maritime strike and surveillance for the RAN's surface fleet.

The ANAO report reveals that extra expenditure of at least $448m was incurred by Defence in establishing the Seasprite capability on top of the $953m spent on the prime contract. This included $201m spent on Penguin missiles, which cannot be used on any other aircraft, and $135m on in-service support. An extra $59m went on spare parts and $47m on last year decommissioning 805 squadron, which was destined to operate the Seasprites.

The handling glitches and stability issues led to the Seasprite's grounding by the navy in March 2006 after it had been provisionally accepted by the RAN.

The ANAO found the decision to cancel the project could not be attributed to any individual factor.

"If there is an overriding message from this project it is that risks to project outcomes need to be better managed and related accountability for managing project performance strengthened," it said.

The DMO's Seasprite project office had experienced "ongoing difficulties in attracting and retaining appropriately qualified personnel which inhibited its capacity to manage a large and complex project".

Right from the start, an inadequate understanding of the risks associated with the acquisition was not attained through the requirement definition and tender-evaluation processes.

"Poor contract management practices within Defence and DMO, over the life of the project, contributed to ongoing contractual uncertainty," it said.

The Auditor-General said the risks associated with the project were increased by the decision to fit upgraded systems "into a smaller helicopter than the Anzac ship is designed to operate".

The navy is now looking to buy a fleet of up to 24 combat helicopters at a cost of well over $1bn to replace the junked Seasprites and provide its surface fleet with a capable anti-submarine warfare platform.

Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet said last night that Defence had accepted all seven recommendations from the ANAO designed to prevent a repeat of the Seasprite.

"The lessons learned from the Seasprite project have already been incorporated in reforms which have enhanced Defence project management practices and are taken further in the implementation of the Mortimer review as recently announced by government," Mr Combet said.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Herald12345       6/20/2009 8:25:49 PM
 
The DASH was over ambitious for the era, but given the right Human oversight, even that primitive robot worked.  Question is can we build one inexpensive enough today to be a throwaway weapon if it has to be?  Fire Scout   suggests nope.
 
Maybe we will see a Japanese cropduster do the job?
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/20/2009 9:58:46 PM

According to Eurocopter and Australian Aerospace, the NFH 90 will fit onboard the ANZAC's. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether we go for the NFH or MH-60R as either will provide a quantum leap in capability in both ASW (courtesy of the dipping sonar) and ASVW.
The NFH-90 would give the ADF that common airframe they were looking for though, while a purchase of MH-60R would not, especially with the Blackhawks already being retired by the ADF, to be replaced by the MRH-90.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       6/20/2009 10:17:36 PM
With the Harpoon system yes it can land and do so in (I believe) sea state 5.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    DASH   6/21/2009 12:43:32 PM
It's only Wiki but from there it indicates DASH was built with off the shelf components with no redundancy or backup and that 80% of all losses were from "single point failures of the electronics" so one could argue it was tried in the least expensive manner.
 
That said it was only a torpedo delivery vehicle.  Difficult to believe they could not build a follow on to ASROC with greater range at less cost than a cheap drone.
 
The utility of a helo at sea for search and rescue, replenishment, anti piracy, and myriad other roles would seem to indicate that the manned asw helo is not in big danger of being replaced by a UCAV anytime soon.  That said be interesting to see a modern DASH with a dipping sonar and long loiter time supported by a long range VL-ASROC.  The asw search mission is what aircraft really do 99.99% of the time with actual engagment of enemy submarine being very rare.
 

 

The DASH was over ambitious for the era, but given the right Human oversight, even that primitive robot worked.  Question is can we build one inexpensive enough today to be a throwaway weapon if it has to be?  Fire Scout   suggests nope.


 

Maybe we will see a Japanese cropduster do the job?

 

 

 





 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/21/2009 6:49:55 PM
The utility of a helo at sea for search and rescue, replenishment, anti piracy, and myriad other roles would seem to indicate that the manned asw helo is not in big danger of being replaced by a UCAV anytime soon.  That said be interesting to see a modern DASH with a dipping sonar and long loiter time supported by a long range VL-ASROC.  The asw search mission is what aircraft really do 99.99% of the time with actual engagment of enemy submarine being very rare.
 
I don't want to sound like some UAV enthusiasts, who post way too much out of ignorance, but I would like to look at why you might want a specialized robot helo to lug around torpedoes and cruise missiles.
 
First, there is an effective telemetry range limit you can exploit. At 1000 meters altitude you can use it as a flying radar that can look out 130,000 meters. Cruise missile heaven.  Sonar dipping effective positive control radius is a lot tougher. Given that you can ensure an effective control radius of 30,000 meters, you can justify a robot as a near zone hunter for a convoy defense if you are short of helo operating frigates. The dipping sonar is the important.thing, as if you can put three or four into the water and do a quick triangulation you can then maneuver the robots to corral  a plotted contact and then drop weapons around the contact to play chase the sheep. .   
 
Manned helos can reach out much farther; as far as 150,000 meters easy, but then you have SIZE. That usually means one manned helo per frigate. A modern DASH-sized drone might take up 1/3 that space. Makes a difference. If an ANZAC can operate three drones for near defense or a FREIGHTER with a quick added fly off platform and a couple of shipping canister sized control vans? (You need to mount a telemetry aerial mast). I would look at that as a possible robot application. Definitely the cruise missile launcher as well. The banazia jammer decoy option is also there as long as you don't expect the drone back. In that case its no telelink at all, fly on pure autopilot, radiate as a decoy,  and BANZAI.!  .   

 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       6/22/2009 6:03:51 AM
What about an aerostat?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Aerostat antenna   6/22/2009 9:28:39 AM

What about an aerostat?

I presume you mean a captive balloon supported transmitter aerial or tele-link transmitter?. The object would probably be a radar target (the aerial and or transmitter) for a searching radar. But if that problem can be solved, then why not? Have to be careful about the transmissions, (RDF) but at that point you are probably tracked if you are sub hunting anyway, so it might not matter..
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy