Talk:Kaman SH-2 Seasprite/Archive 1

Archive 1

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))

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 {{tl|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)

from 2006 .. and most of the requests is still unnoticed !!! Dr B2 (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Most not?? 1, & 2 have been done. Development info related to 3 was added. 4 & 5 are covered at SH-2G Super Seasprite. 6 has to be be done or nearly so. Operational history is still lacking. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.""Seasprite Helicopters top be Cancelled" (Press release). Department of Defence. 5 March 2008. Retrieved 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)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to move. - BillCJ (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

---

SH-2 Seasprite → 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) refactored by Born2flie (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Opposed.  See comment below --Born2flie (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed - SH-2 is the most common designation for the Seasprite. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed - "SH-2 Seasprite" seems to be the most common title in English-language printed references, and so is most probably the primary title readers will be looking for. I have no problem including the alternate designations in the title filed of the infobox, as is common in such situations on other articles. Also, the Lead should probably be rewitten to at least mention the earlir variants. - BillCJ (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment: The aircraft is better known by the SH-2 designation and it appears to be the most common designation, including export versions. --Born2flie (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retired in USN service?

If this aircraft has been retired in US service, shouldn't that be mentioned in the intro table? Unless there are other variants the USN is still operating. 69.208.228.193 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LAMPS - Cart before the horse?

In the Development section, the paragraph that introduces the LAMPS program says that it was started up in 1972, but the first operation of LAMPS aircraft is listed at the end of the paragraph as being December 1971. Is the article intending to say that LAMPS was started in fiscal year (FY) 72, is there a discrepancy in the dates, or just in how it is presented in this paragraph? --Born2flie (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that date is wrong. Per 2 of my sources the SH-2D was selected for the interim LAMPS platform in 1970. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected/clarified the wording there. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SH-2G split?

While the SH-2G is no doubt important, its coverage dominates the article at present. The UH/HH/SH-2 existed for 25 years before the arrival of the SH-2G, and I do think there is plenty material available to cover those variants adequately. However, I don't want to do so at the expense of the current G coverage, especialy that of the RAN. So, I'd like to make an informal proposal to split off the SH-2G to SH-2G Super Seasprite. This will also enable us to add specs for the earlier variants, including the single-engine A/B models, and the twin F also. While perhaps we could cheat the guidelines and have 2 specs sections, 3 would be hard to get away with. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm leaning against article splits these days. But I can see the justification here. The Dev section should have more on the G-model (and older ones too). I think we ought to work on that first, then look at splitting off the SH-2G. By the way, I read a article a while back that Kaman was looking for a buyer for the SH-2Gs that were returned.[2] -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposed split. Alternately, there are more then enough sources available to support an article on the SH-2G(A) variant - huge numbers of articles have been published in Australian newspapers and defence magazines on this fiasco and it had some minor political importance and, obviously, major lessons for how Australia buys military hardware (the current Defence Minister often refers to the Sea Sprites as an example of Defence at its worst). Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the SH-2G(A), I think an article on the "issues", rather than the variant itself, would probably work best. (Sorry if that is what you meant.) Both would probbly be the best solution, as I do think the Gs need their of aircraft article, but as you said, there are probably lots of info on the fiasco out there. Also, care needs to be taken to be neutral in this, as there are many factors that led to the problems. - BillCJ (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article would probably need to cover both the aircraft and the program which attempted to develop it. There's a general consensus that one of the key problems with the whole program was that the RAN and Kaman tried to get more out of the Sea Sprite airframe than was practical. The end result was an aircraft which was both unsafe and incapable of doing what was required. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the airframe of all the Gs is pretty much identical, meaning the specs are about the same. I don't see the need to cover the exact same airframe and role in two places. Would you agree to start with an article on all the Gs, and add the info on the Australian fiasco we think is necessary? At some later point we can discuss what would be the best way to go, be it creating a separate aircraft article, or just one for the controvery itself. - BillCJ (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, especially as the Australian program can easily be summarised if a few paras. AFAIK, the only difference between the G(A)s and the other Gs was the avionics equipment and the other performance characteristics were pretty much the same. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SH-2F users

So far, I've only been able to confirm that the NZ operated SH-2Fs before receiving the G. Did the RAN use any Fs at any time? I've also found a source, Donald, David (2000). The Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft. NY, NY: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-2208-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), which states that Pakistan had ordered 6 SH-2Fs during the 1990s(?), but these were embargoed, and apparently never delivered.- BillCJ (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Several of the Brooke and Garcia class Frigates were leased to Pakistan from about 1989 to 1994. - Know fact, but zero mention of that within English Wikipedia. With that - also obtaining some SH-2F seems appropriate. To my recollection, when the lease ran-out the US did not offer or listen regarding renewal- Pakistani situation/leadership/ politics had changed a lot. Wfoj2 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll check my sources today. The Eden book was published in 2004 and should have this type info. I'll change the specs here to the SH-2F also. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any info on pre-G model export users. :( The Eden book only cover SG-2G exports. The Frawley directory is the only other one I have with operators listed and you have that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the RAN didn't use Fs. NZ used a few of them to provide a bridging and training capability while they were waiting for their G to be delivered, but the RAN bet the house on the G(A)s. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. I just wanted to be certain. Jeff, I went ahead and added specs on the UH-2A and SH-2F, though some need conversions to nmi/kts, and some fields are blank. Also, we'll need to double-check the specs for the G, in Frawley and elsewhere, because some of them seem way off. In some places, the US customary units seem like they're for the G, but the metrics match the F specs, or vice versa! I doubt Frawley is that far off, but I'm not in the room with it right now, so I can't double-check them myself tonight. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I got the specs fixed here. I'll check the SH-2G specs some more later. I may have a little bit more info in my books that I can add here. I can add some basic info to the SH-2G as well. Anything else to do here related to the split? Let me know if there's any issues with the specs... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected number of NZ SH2Fs with reference. To date the NZDF has actually had 15 Seasprite airframes. The RNZN had 4 and aimed to keep 2 operational - when these were replaced by S2Gs 3 were returned to Kaman but the fourth was gifted to the RNZAF Museum after being badly bent in a crash landing, in the mean time 6 non flying examples were obtained for ground training. 5 SH2Gs replaced the SH2Fs... though teh 2 Frigates that originally were to operate them have been joined by 3 other Seasprite capable vessels. If the 11 Australian airframes are purchased for spares, that will end up being 26 NZ Seasprites, (replacing 19 Westland Wasp airframes... strangely the RNZN is also frequently listed as having only had 2 Wasps too :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.96.151 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've decided after some thought to propose merging together the SH-2 Seasprit and SH-2G Super Seasprit articles together. I've noticed that we're the only language Wikipedia in which these articles have been divided into two such sections; a number of external sites also appears to deal with them as one and the same topic. It is my thinking that a merge isn't necessary but that, due to numerous places dealing with them as the same topic, they may actually be better served by being dealt with together as well. Size alone doesn't provoke me to believe the topics ought to be merged; but neither will the size issue suffer if they are dealt with together. Thoughts, both in support and opposing the motion, are welcomed. Kyteto (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The reasons for the split is covered in the section(s) above. The main one is all the coverage of the cancellation of the Australian order overwhelming everything else. I don;t think I support merging it back here. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have formats/means incorrect. But I am against a re-merger. The SH-2G article is a pretty specific and documented article. AS Aircraft with the US Navy, the Sh-2G suffered some bad timing, some upgrades, but LAMP-III/ SH-60B were getting mature, then the end of the Cold War and US Military draw-down. For the SH-2 plain article - That aircraft had 2 phases of live- original/ utility functions; then became the platform for LAMPS-I. -- Actually if we had enough material I would suggest two articles there. However weh do not, and I find the SH-2 general article of lower quality/content/ rating. I cannot say I ever read compare other languages of Wikipedia. I could live with the SH-2G article, getting relabeled as a article on the Non-US Navy user of the H-2 and their history instead of purely about the SH-2G. Merging the article might improve the Current SH-2 article of quality/content/ rating; but also make article seen awkward with so much material on just the SH-2G/ no-US users. Wfoj2 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge. Given the volume of material in the SH-2G article and the long history of the H-2 in U.S. Navy service prior to that, it would place FAR too much emphasis on a model that is honestly more of a footnote than anything else. Hardly anyone flies them and they are pretty damned insignificant in the big picture of the H-2 SeaSprite overall. Ray Trygstad (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't haveing an entire article dedicated to what is in your own words "model that is honestly more of a footnote than anything else. Hardly anyone flies them and they are pretty damned insignificant in the big picture of the H-2 SeaSprite overall" an even-greater over emphasis of the type, over placing it into a merged context? In my view, they are of such limited numbers, that they don't justify a whole article onto themselves, and that it's undue weight. I can understand it was originally seperated due to the phenominon of WP:Recentism - recent and ongoin events get amplified out of all proportion in comparison to historial events, but I have taken some signficiant redevelopment since your comment to balance the level of content, particularly in trying to give the US Navy a better coverage (Considering they're the main operator of the type, it should have always been this way!). Kyteto (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do have some thoughts based on this feedback - firstly that the proposal is unpopular, and secondly, why - it appears to be widely held that a merged article would put too much emphasis on the later G model. I have previously understaken some corrective editing to take out some of the excesses and ramblings of the G's article as it is. If I were to undertake a program to increase the amount of content here on the non-G models, to make it more balanced, would that lessen the issue? I certainly feel that there could be more detail given here, it was my original intention to make those improvements in the merged article, but as that seems to be publically regarded as putting the cart before the horse, that requires some rethinking. Useful. Kyteto (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Today I've carried out some expansion work on the article, which I think has improved the standing of the inadequite history on the United Station's operational history, and done some good for the throughness of the citations as well. I've decided to create a mockup of what the merged article would look like, combining sigificant elements from both of the current articles - it can be viewed via this link. I've tried to address the stated concerns, in my view, the Australian controversy doesn't look as if it'll dominate the History now, although the US Navy's use still needs growth and development in the long term. Kyteto (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge - For the time being at least. One of the major reasons we have so many variant articles is that WP:AIR/PC recommends only one specs chart for each military type article. The SH-2 combined sandbox doesn;t show the SH-2 G specs, whoch would make three spaces charts if we added that one. Perhaps we need to address that issue at WP:AIR first. It might mean a major revamp of how we do specs on military aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I agree with Bill; there's enough stand-alone material on the "G" variant to justify its own article (the saga around the failed Australian acquisition of these helicopters would also warrant an article in its own right) Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Links for wings

Here are some links for the winged experiments. TGCP (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Need to revise characteristics and performance on the SH-2F

I have a set of characteristics and performance on the aircraft that differ quite a bit from the ones on the page. Mine came from the Navy Public Affairs Library Navy Fact File 1996 but I will try to find my SH-2F NATOPS Manual to get the "book" values and enter them here. (I have 2000+ hours in model so I know I have my NATOPS somewhere.) Ray Trygstad (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)