Kaman SH-2G(A) Seasprite

Sorry you are right mate.

No, Ja… you know better than that!! Kaman did NOT walk off… they were still there until the end.

It was Litton (prime sub-contractor for the avionics system) that bailed, forcing Kaman to get a new avionics contractor.

New life for an old sprite
Sea Power, Dec 1997 by Burgess, Richard R
The SH-2G(A)s will be equipped with the Litton Guidance & Control Systems-built Integrated Avionics System (ITAS), a “glass cockpit” that, according to Kaman officials, will make the SH-2G(A) the “most sophisticated, most integrated rotary-wing platform flying.”

Northrop Grumman Receives Integrated Tactical Avionics Development Contract for Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Program

HERNDON, Va., July 29, 2002 — Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) was selected by Kaman Aerospace International to develop a critical component of the Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS) that will allow the Royal Australian Navy Super Seasprite SH-2G(A) helicopter to perform its multi-mission role.

The ITAS capabilities include real-time combat information management, real-time mission planning with coupled navigation, and real-time fusion of information from the SH-2G(A)’s vast sensor and communications suite. The helicopter uses advanced “glass cockpit” avionics systems, which provide information on computer displays that give crew members complete and up-to-the-moment awareness of the tactical situation.

Northrop Grumman Information Technology is responsible for design, development and acceptance testing of combat information and coupled navigation subsystem software for the color multifunction display and mission data processor. This includes a Tactical Data Management System, which correlates data from the SH-2G(A) sensors and data link contacts and processes requests and commands from the operator. A Data Link Management System controls message exchange so that the SH-2G(A) can participate in operations with the United States and other allied nations. The tactical navigation component helps navigate the helicopter, enabling the SH-2G(A) to automatically fly selected routes.

As you say, others also joined in… but note that Kaman was there all the way: this statement for example http://prnwire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-16-2006/0004362735&EDATE= of 16 May 2006, and it was with Kaman, and no other, that the Australian Government negotiated the termination of the contract.

Thanks, tiddles, it was a good read. Post #207 in that thread was really an answer to what I was looking for as far as what their current status is and what was still wrong with them.

Logan Hartke

Hey Logan,
I wasn’t going to jump in on this because I have been over it so many times before, but this is actually a new question so I will. Basically there is nothing wrong with them as they are- having said that, I must stress that that is on the perspective of bringing them back to the standard three person crew, or dumbing down the automation in the avionics used for this project.

During manual flight ops they still work and perform great, it’s just that some boffin in Russell saw a pic of a single crewed Ka-32 flying with the pilot sitting ouut the back door waving his head off and thought, dam we should have something like that! Considering the work it was going to do, two person crew allowed the SH-2G(A) to have a max pax aboard for VBSS ops (Visual Board Search and Seizure). In the standard 3 crew role, the SH-2 can carry 7 fully armed crew for VBSS, in the planned two person crew, the number jumped to 12 (would have been rather cramped in there too).

Basically if you dumb down the avionics involved but retain the two person crew, then you should have a half decent machine. Throw the old three person crew back in and you have a great machine, only problem is- who’s going to want a half finished job? You have to pay to either finish the job and dumb down the avionics or pay to pull all the advanced stuff out and put the old stuff back in, not going to happen either way.

My understanding was that at at least one point in the program, there was a revision (read toughening) of the required flight-safety standards the aircraft had to meet… which required a major re-work of the flight-control software, etc… so it was not all Kaman’s fault… hence the awarding of the aircraft to Kaman without their having to re-fund Australia for funds already paid.

You have it half right mate, yes there was a change in the program intentions (well several really- the brass wanted maximum effect with minimal expenditure). But the fault doesn’t all lay in the RAN.

24 months after gaining the contract signature, Kaman walked off the project without even giving notice that the project was too difficult for them to handle. Several companies then put their hands up to have a go in succession with the last being CSC computer solutions of Australia (a major local group who are hq’ed where I live). They tried but the system requirements were just that complex that even the boffins here couldn’t do it (these included former big wigs from IBM, Microsoft and Olivetti, so that gives you an idea of how complex the requirement was)!

The fact of the matter remained, Kaman walked out without any explination and as such they should have been penalised for it!

The crux of the issue here isn’t the machine- this would have happened if we had of gone for the Lynx or even the Panther (the other two contenders in the competition). The main thing is that basically Kaman did the dodgy used car sales man act on us, promised us bang for our buck, but delivered us a fizz and moved on before the ink was dry.

Hi Logan – Here is a link to a thread on the T5C Australian Mil Forum ,it is rather lengthy at 269 posts but as you can imagine as an OZ problem it was a big point of conjecture over the [too many] years. If you can be bothered ploughing your way thru the posts you should find the info you are after.
Good reading
Tiddles

http://www.t5c.biz/showthread.php?t=4286&highlight=kaman+seasprite

Thanks, tiddles, it was a good read. Post #207 in that thread was really an answer to what I was looking for as far as what their current status is and what was still wrong with them.

Logan Hartke

My understanding was that at at least one point in the program, there was a revision (read toughening) of the required flight-safety standards the aircraft had to meet… which required a major re-work of the flight-control software, etc… so it was not all Kaman’s fault… hence the awarding of the aircraft to Kaman without their having to re-fund Australia for funds already paid.

Sea****e problems

Hi Logan – Here is a link to a thread on the T5C Australian Mil Forum ,it is rather lengthy at 269 posts but as you can imagine as an OZ problem it was a big point of conjecture over the [too many] years. If you can be bothered ploughing your way thru the posts you should find the info you are after.
Good reading
Tiddles

http://www.t5c.biz/showthread.php?t=4286&highlight=kaman+seasprite

Thanks, bgnewf, that tells me some. Weren’t the airframes rebuilt to like new standard, though? The airframes the other countries are using don’t seem to be having any trouble. Also, Kaman said that when the contract was canceled they were only months away from delivering the certified, working product (although admittedly they’ve been saying that for years).

If the potential customer was fine with a 3-man crew, how hard would it be for Kaman to deliver them to the SH-2G(E) or SH-2G(NZ) standard, for example? Would that avionics change be more expensive than just fixing what they have?

Was this all Kaman’s screw-up? If so, Kaman must’ve had an ironclad contract and the world’s best lawyers for how they came out of this. They get most of what they’ve been paid so far, they get to keep the product they were supposed to deliver, and they split any potential profits from reselling the aircraft Australia already paid for. If Australia came away like that, then it almost seems to everyone that they’re admitting some fault for the outcome.

Thanks in advance again,

Logan Hartke

The Aussies ITAS system was designed to essentially automate a three cremember bird down to a two crewmwmber bird via automation. Kaman could not get the birds certified to a minimal safety standard. The Aussies also took the route of using surplus airframes that needed to be stripped down to the bare frames and re-built rather than going with new build like the New Zealanders did.

The Poles, Egyptians and Kiwis took the route of essentially using the basline Seasprite that was previously in service with the USN. The only discernable difference between the Kiwi version and the USN version was the integration of Maverick missile capability.

Bottom line here I think these helos have a very limited appeal. Who needs old airframes with faulty avionics?