Talk:SH-2 Seasprite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Need for editing

This page needs to be edited to comply with WikiProject Aircraft page content guidelines. This also means the page needs to be cross-linked from "Kaman Seasprite" to be consistant with the Manufacturer-Aircraft_Name format preferred by the project, although the page name is consistant with the entries for other U.S. armed forces aircraft. --Ray Trygstad 19:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Cross link done (not quite 2 years later :-) - Winstonwolfe 01:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the category U.S. ASW aircraft 1950-1959 from this page as the H-2 was not used in an ASW role until 1971; consequently this is an incorrect categorization. --Ray Trygstad 21:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I did some minor reorganization for readability. BillCJ 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Major revamp

I have been attempting a major restructuring of the article to comply with WikiProject Aircraft page content guidelines. These changes include:

  1. Adding the {{Infobox Aircraft}} template; still needs dates added. This replaced the old specs infobox, which is now under the Specifications section for info purposes.
  2. Added the current {{Aircraft specifications}} template to replace the old text-only template, which is also still included on the page. Data needs to be added to the new template, which can be copied from the old one. The old ones will be removed once the new specs are completed. Will probably split the History section into Development and Service, or something like that, after adding more info.
  3. Add more info on service of the pre-ASW models (HH and UH) covering the 1960s in more detail. I do not currently have a detailed source, so it may be awhile on this one.
  4. Add more info on the upgrade and use of the SH-2G. Article currently makes it seem as the SH-2F was the last variant in USN service.
  5. Add information on Egypt's use of the type. Please don't delete its sub-heading at this time.
  6. The text still may have errors/typos; I am correcting them as I find them, but some areas will need a major rewrite.

This is just a plan, so I welcome any other suggestions for improvement.

Any assistance is welcome, but please don't undo a major change without discussing it here first. If you know how to hide the old specs while leaving them in the article, that would be fine. Thanks. -- BillCJ 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

I added a new comment that has emerged on the 15th May 2006, that the Australian government is now considering scrapping the entire fleet, rather than trying to fix the main problems that exist. lturner80, 15th May 2006.

5 March 2008 - the scrapping of the fleet has been announced. : http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Fitzgibbontpl.cfm?CurrentId=7480 203.36.107.146 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not surprising, as the new government seems intent on undoing everything the previous government did, especially if it involves breaking contracts and paying large fees to do it. Say goodbye to new Super Hornets, and goodbye to old F-111Cs as they start falling from the sky in a few years. I at least hope the ejection seats still work by then. If they keep breaking contracts like this, they'll may find that all the good manufacturers won't want to deal with them anymore. - BillCJ (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the F-111s will still have younger airframes than the Seasprites. I'm not certain that the article makes it clear enough that the problems were related to the software rather than to the aircraft as such. Re-read it and see what you think. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are a bit rich don't you think, BillCJ? I for one do hope that the Super Hornet contract is cancelled. It is an overpriced multi-role airplane, that no other country outside the US has chosen (yet - at the time of me writing this) to buy. Maybe Australia could follow the Royal Singapore Air Force in purchases for Strike Eagle derivatives which IMHO are much more superior to the Super Hornet. As for the F-111, well, there's still alot of spare parts from AMARG that the RAAF can use, in addition to the already designated hulks that are currently used for reclaimation purposes. As with everything it is a question of funding. Probably the best aircraft that is cost effective while yielding more returns is the long range bomber; it can conduct long range land attacks against any target with a large ordnance load and, as evidenced by such types as the B-52, can also be used as a maritime interdictor. The service longevity and ability to accept new avionics/weapons as demonstrated by these kind of aircraft is also a plus, as again, proven by the B-52 and TU-95/142 Bear. Yes I know there are no western long range bombers currently in production but the USAF is trying to get a new design into service by 2018. However the purchase of such aircraft for Australia would see little likelihood of going ahead due to initial purchasing costs and political considerations, as well as clearance by the US Congress. With regards to your comment about breaking contracts, well, I'd rather not have contractors holding a gun to my head and say "Buy my stuff or else"! If the contractors do not deliver on promised items then it is quite right that they be given the boot. Are you suggesting otherwise? Too much taxpayers money has been wasted on the Seasprite program already, and the fact that it never will comform to requirements set by the customer means the customer in the end won't get what they payed for, obviously. In light of the govt.'s realisation of this the termination of the Super Seasprite program was the right decision. Manufacturers should be held accountable for the products they peddle, and they'll never snub anyone (mostly) if there's money to be made; We are talking MONEY! After all, it's all part of business. Signal Buster (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Signal Buster, are you kidding? Do you honestly think that the Aussie Government would even consider using the Boneyard after this debacle? I certainly hope not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie Observer (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specs errors

A rate of climb of 631 m/s, whilst impressive, is certainly incorrect. 203.36.107.146 (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. My printed sources don't list the m/s, so I just removed it. ALso, there were several other errors in the specs that I've fixed, including one that caused the engine info not to show.

631 FEET per second sounds better is someone could verify

631 M/S is faster than most fighter jets (My calculations say about 1,000 M.P.H (I know of planes can beat that, but not too many... and not one heli that goes about 200 Knts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.241.112 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political spin removed

I've removed the following section:

In a media release, the new Minister for Defence, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon said that the Government was left with little option. "The decision taken by the Rudd Labor Government is one that should have been taken by the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, when he had the opportunity last year, but his Government decided to put its own political interests ahead of the national interest. Consequently, the responsibility of cleaning up the mess they created falls to us."Department of Defence (5 March 2008). "Seasprite Helicopters top be Cancelled". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-03-05.

It's far too long, and really adds nothing about the article that's not already covered. Instead, it's mostly political spin and lashing out at a previous government. Political leanings aside, it has no place here. Perhaps it belongs in the RAAF or ADF page, but certainly not here. - BillCJ (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a shorter comment that to the effect that the minister has announced that the project has been cancelled. The article should cite the official announcement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually planning to keep the announcement, and then I read it! There's really nothing of substance there at all, and that honestly surprised me. Official or not, I don't think that's something we should link to. Two alternatives: One is to find a good, balnced news story covering the issue from a neutral point of view, and then remove the official link.. The other is to post a link to the opposition's statement on the issue. I haven't looked for one yet, but after reading what the minister said about them, I'm sure there is one. - BillCJ (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been big news here today but the first internet stories are just rehashes of the Minister's announcement. So give me 24 hours to obtain one. Tomorrow's papers should contain good articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The Liberal Party's statement is at: [1]. In it they support the cancellation and confirm that the then-defence minister (and now opposition leader) wanted to axe the program last year but was over-ruled by cabinet. Of course, this is their own political spin: at the time most neutral observers thought that the project was a disaster and the government was throwing good money after bad by trying to make it work, and that as a result Cabinet made a poor decision. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree the whole program's been a disaster, and that cancellation was inevitable at some point. My major objection here was that including what amounts to a political statement in an article about a helicopter is irrelevant to the helicopter or even the section. Also, I really don't buy the criticism that the refurbished airframes are the root of the problem here, as new avioncis are integrated into old airframes all the time without such extreme difficulties. The choice of avionics themselves seems to be the source of the problems, and weren't those chosen by Australia, not Kaman? Anyway, though are just my observations, and my analysis could be wrong. - BillCJ (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The article quietly contrasts New Zealand, which bought five brand new Seaprites and has been operating them successfully for years, with the Australian experience. Mick Roche decided that the aircraft would be much cheaper to operate if they had a crew of two instead of three. This required new avionics. Because only airframes were required, refurbished ones were chosen but this was the least of their problems. The new avionics required new computer software to integrate them and this is where the real problems began. The software subcontractor, Litton, was unable to deliver and ultimately walked away from the deal. The software subcontract was then awarded to an Australian company, CSC, which found it easier to start over. However, problems with the software continued. Kaman delivered the helicopters but they were not flyable. In one sense, Kaman has done well out of the project, as it also had the contract to maintain the helicopters and this can be done very cheaply when the helicopters are not being flown. Kaman's loss is less financial than the damage done to the reputation of the company and the helicopter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Government scraps $1b Seasprite deal Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That lines up with what my gut instinct has been on this deal. Poland and Egypt have SH-2Gs also, with few problems, though the WP article is unclear as to whether they are rebuilt or new models. (I'll try to clear that up soon.) Nothing in life is ever perfect, and the Austrailian exprerience is proof of that! And I'll give the Rudd governemt its due in that they don't seem to be shooting at Kaman for the all mistakes here, when that would also be the politically-easy thing to do. One other thing not mentioned as yet: THe Seasprite is a small airframe, and even with modern miniturization, I'm sure that was a top limit on exactly what could be done with the avionics. - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H-2 Seasprite

How about moving this site and renaming it H-2 instead of SH-2, as there were originally only UH-2s, then also HH-2s and finally SH-2s! - Cobatfor 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)