Seasprites fly for NZ if not Australia

The New Zealand Defence Force is "very happy" with the performance of its Seasprite helicopters, despite the Australian Defence Department grounding the aircraft because of safety concerns.

In Canberra a key defence lobby group has urged the Australian Government to sue a US contractor over a failed Navy helicopter programme that has turned into a $1 billion mistake.

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson revealed the Government is considering scrapping the Super Seasprite project after the fleet was grounded over safety concerns.

In Wellington, a Defence Force spokesman said yesterday that there had been no problems in New Zealand with the helicopters.

"We're very happy with their performance and capability."

An Australian defence review, due to report by the end of June, may recommend the choppers be replaced at a cost of at least another A$1 billion ($1.61 billion).

The aircraft have now been grounded indefinitely because of software problems that affect flying at night and in bad weather.

The Navy bought 11 of the helicopters from American company Kaman Aerospace in 1997, but they have been plagued by technical problems and have never been in full operational service.

The Australian Defence Association said that if the Seasprite project was scrapped, the Government would have to try to recover its costs.

"If it does come to that there'll be an interesting lawsuit I suspect between Australia and Kaman Aerospace because most of the money for the Seasprite programme's been paid and yet the operational capability hasn't been delivered yet," said association executive director Neil James.

"Unless you start trying to punish some of these defence contractors for not delivering the capability that they were contracted to deliver, you're not really going to solve the problem in the long run."

The anti-shipping and anti-submarine helicopters should never have been bought in the first place, Mr James said.

"The contractor essentially hasn't delivered what they were contracted to provide, so the bottom line of fault lies with the contractor."

Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland said that although the contractor had failed to deliver, the minister had to accept responsibility for the project's failures.

- NZPA