# New Helicopter announcement tomorrow



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

Between the Sikorsky H92 and the EH101.   Rumor has it that the H92 bid was less money.   This will be for 28 helicopters.   A reminder that crack smoking Chrétien who got two brand new jets cancelled the contract when he took office and cost us $500 million in penalties.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1583,00.html


http://www.vectorsite.net/aveh101.html


----------



## Yard Ape (23 Jul 2004)

Which bird is better? (no unqualified opinions please)


----------



## ags281 (23 Jul 2004)

My preference would be the EH-101, as it has a slightly larger useful load, 3 engines rather than 2, and a greater range. That being said, I'm slightly biased as I can still remember hearing the Cormorant call in as "rescue" over the radio for the very first time before taking off (seeing the labs sit one out on the apron for the first time in decades drove it home that an era was ending). 

While I'd be happiest with the EH-101, I really don't care which one gets it in the end so long as we finally get going on replacing the poor Sea Kings. It's been far too long, and they've earned their rest.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (23 Jul 2004)

looks like the decision has been made for political reason according to this globe article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040723.wxseakings0723/BNStory/National/
personally i think things could be a lot worse.  it is still is the second best aircraft for the job, behind the eh101, and to be fair the s92 design is about a decade newer than the eh101.  i don't think anyone is surprised that the cdn govt went for the cheaper of the two, as for the compatibilty between the new jss and the h92, my feeling the source is a peeved westland manager.  both companies were slinging crap at each other during the whole process so why would it even come close to ending now.  besides how hard is it to adjust specs on a ship that has yet to even hit the drawing board?


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (23 Jul 2004)

here is a good webpage with a good breakdown of the h92 and what it can do. 
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/index.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2004)

Sikorsky has always been a pioneer in the field of rotary wing aircraft and have decades of experience, while the navy I think was looking more to the EH101 (having a third engine over the North Atlantic is always a nice buffer zone) I think the S92 will prove to be a workhorse as much as the SeaKing did. I know I am looking forward to see what it can do a fewyears down the road. 

As for not being compatible with the JSS, who knows maybe another helo (troop lift) with be sought down the road.


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

I agree with Ex-Dragoon, Sikorsky has been a pioneer in helicopter building since the 50s. The Sea King is a Sikorsky product that's been flying for 40+ years. As for the 3rd engine, as I stated in another post, I for one don't think of it as that big of an advantage.   The H92 can do everything that the EH101 can do with one engine out, and the truth of the matter is, if you lose 2 engines it's probably a fuel problem or something like that and a dozen engines won't prevent an autorotation. The more engines you've got, the more chances you have for an engine failure, either way your mission is over and it's time to go into self preservation mode and head for the ship, either that or get ready for a brisk swim in the North Atlantic.

Cheers


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (23 Jul 2004)

the amount of engines has been something that has been overplayed in modern aviation.  back 20-30 years ago it was a big consideration, but now with improved reliability really makes no difference.  i think for cdn industry the h92 was a far better choice that allows a lot of the firms involved to be the first on the block with h92 experience.  the eh101 already has a set industrial support system whereas canada will become the first nation with a military version of this aircraft and that allows canada to create the infrastructure for any future orders by other nations.  i can almost bet most of the bad press will be generated from the losig bid team and people such as scott taylor.


----------



## tabernac (23 Jul 2004)

But why would the S92 not fit on the JSS?


----------



## Gunnar (23 Jul 2004)

Sikorsky helicopters to replace Sea Kings
Last Updated Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:47:47 EDT 
OTTAWA - Canada will replace its fleet of aging Sea King helicopters with the Sikorsky S-92. Defence Minister Bill Graham announced the selection on Friday at the Shearwater Naval Air Station in Nova Scotia. 

  
Sikorsky S-92  

INDEPTH: Requiem for a Sea King

"The S-92, or Cyclone as it will be called, will enhance our national security by strengthening the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to emerging threats in Canada's maritime areas of jurisdiction," said Graham. 

"It will also help to ensure Canada maintains a meaningful capacity to contribute militarily to collective efforts to safeguard international peace and security." 

The government will spend $3.2 billion to buy 28 helicopters. 

The Sikorsky is "the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians," said Graham. 

"The country will be getting a robust maritime helicopter that will meet our military needs for many years to come." 

The main competition for the contract came from the EH-101 Cormorant, built by a British-Italian consortium led by EH Industries. 

Graham said the Sikorsky met all the military's requirements at a lower cost. 

  
Bill Graham at the Shearwater Naval Air Station, N.S.  
The EH-101 was the helicopter chosen more than a decade ago by the Brian Mulroney government to replace the Sea Kings. The contract was ripped up by the Liberals when they came to power in 1993. 

The government paid $500 million in penalties for backing out of the deal. 

The aging and problem-plagued Sea Kings will remain in service until at least 2012. The first Sikorsky won't be delivered for at least four years. 

Once the first Sikorsky is delivered, Public Works Minister Scott Brison said, the company will deliver one a month over the following 27 months. 

The 1960s-era Sea Kings require an enormous amount of maintenance to keep them flying. There have been four fatal crashes since they were brought into service. 
Written by CBC News Online staff
===========

It's been a while since I compared the challengers, but I figured the gov't would go with the Sikorsky's....they fit most of the requirements, wouldn't cost the government in terms of an embarassing about-face, and Sikorsky is a good name in helicopters.  Guess which one of these three things was most important to the Liberal government, hmmm?

Wonder if they were still cheaper if they factored in the $500 mil penalty that the EH101 guys offered to rebate the gov't?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

Stupid name though.   What is JSS?  Hopefully a new gov't won't axe this although even the NDP said we need new choppers.  How many Sea Kings are currently in servvice?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1415

News Release
Sikorsky H92 Selected as New Canadian Forces Maritime Helicopter
NRâ â€œ04.054 - July 23, 2004


Photo Courtesy of Sikorsky International Operations Inc. 

OTTAWAâ â€ After a thorough pre-qualification and bid evaluation process, the Government of Canada has selected the H92 proposed by Sikorsky as the winner of the Maritime Helicopter Project. 

â Å“The Government of Canada firmly believes that the Sikorsky H92 helicopter represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians,â ? said the honourable Bill Graham, Minister of National Defence. â Å“The Sikorsky H92 provides a world-class robust, multi-role helicopter that will serve our defence needs for years to come.â ? 

â Å“With this completion of the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the winning supplier, the Maritime Helicopter Project has marked an important milestone,â ? said the Honourable Scott Brison, Minister of Public Works and Government Services. â Å“The Government has conducted a fair, open and comprehensive procurement process, and now looks forward to the next stage of the procurement process, the establishment of formal contracts with the supplier.â ? 

"More than simply providing the right helicopter, the Sikorsky bid is a true win for Canadian high-technology industries, particularly the aerospace and defence companies who will partner in the delivery and long-term service of these helicopters," said the Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry. "This project will deliver sustained industrial activity in regions across Canada, in our small businesses and in our Aboriginal businesses, and will showcase our talented work force and innovative companies long after the delivery of the last helicopter." 

â Å“The selection of the Sikorsky H92 helicopter heralds an exciting new era for the men and women who operate our maritime helicopters,â ? said General Ray Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff. â Å“The addition of a cutting-edge maritime helicopter will greatly enhance the ability of the Navy and Air Force to conduct domestic maritime security operations and support international missions.â ? 

Sikorsky will be awarded two separate, but interrelated contracts. The first contract will cover the acquisition of 28 fully integrated, certified and qualified helicopters with their mission systems installed, and will also include modifications to the 12 Halifax Class ships. The second contract will be for a 20-year in-service support contract that includes a training building, and a simulation and training suite. The contract should be finalized and signed this fall. 

Delivery of the first helicopter is required to be no later than 48 months from contract award with the remaining helicopters to be delivered at a rate of one per month thereafter. The contract has a series of bonuses for early delivery but also imposes penalties for late delivery, making it very much in the company's interest to deliver the helicopters as soon as possible. 

- 30 - 

For additional information on the Maritime Helicopter Project, please refer to our Backgrounder entitled â Å“The Maritime Helicopter Projectâ ? or contact the Department of National Defence at (613) 996-2353/2354. 

For information on the procurement process, please contact Public Works and Government Services Canada Communications at (613) 956-2310. 

For information on industrial and regional benefits, please contact Industry Canada Media Relations at (613) 943-2502.


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Stupid name though.   What is JSS?   Hopefully a new gov't won't axe this although even the NDP said we need new choppers.   How many Sea Kings are currently in servvice?



Cyclone is better than Petrel, which was what it was going to be called the first time we were supposed to get replacements.  As for the NDP, the MP for Shearwater area is an NDP, I met him today, he seems to support the military, mostly because Shearwater is a big part of the local economy and he wants to keep us where we are, not to mention the fact that he was surrounded by about 300 of us today so he couldn't exactly bad mouth the military.

JSS is Joint Support Ship, it's currently on the drawing board to replace the tankers (Protecteur and the other 2). There's info on it somewhere.

At present there are 28 Sea Kings, we've crashed 7 over the years.


----------



## Recce41 (23 Jul 2004)

I believe we bought it for three reasons:

1. Its partly owned buy the same "B" company that brought us our . MLVW, HLVW, Iltis, Challengers, etc,etc.
2. We had to kiss alil US ***
3. We are so F%^&ing cheap.

We as Canadian, buy crap. ie WW1-the Ross Rifle, WW2- I cannot recall anything that sticks out, Korea-mixed US and British kit because we sold most of ours to the Greece,South Africa,etc after the WW2, We cut the Arrow/the BobCat/the Maritime Class ships, rented Leos, bought the MLVW,etc, now the Griffin, LAV Family and NOW the H92.

 Add it up 3.2 Bil+500mil for 28 which =   or before 5 bil for 50


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

Don't forget the $790m for the 15 Cormorants. That's a total of $4.49B or $104M a copy, the original contract was $100M a copy.

Bombardier doesn't own a stake in Sikorsky Int'l that I've ever heard of.

As for the Ross rifle, there's a little misconception there, it was a more accurate rifle than the Enfields, however, when our boys got over seas they weren't issued the proper ammunition, they got cheaper stuff that gummed up the rifles, very similar to what happened with the M16 in Vietnam.  Once they started using the proper ammo the M16 turned out to be a very good weapon.

The LAV's I can't believe you have a heartache with, even the Marine Corps bought them, they're a fine piece of kit.  We wouldn't be exporting it in such large numbers if it sucked that much. Where we're going wrong is trying to replace an MBT with a LAV, that's a dumb idea.

Cheers


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Jul 2004)

My initial impression is that I like the deal.

In particular, $4.5 billion in Canadian Investment by Sikorsky as an offset is huge!

Bottom Line:  Unless this bird ends up being just terrible, I think we got an unreal
deal in order to be the very first customer for the aircraft.

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Jul 2004)

Just a couple of add-on's....

1) Apparently the new engines (CT7-8Z's) have 25% more power than the standard S-92 engines,
which should enable single engine operation in case of emergency.

2) Here's a picture that may be more representative of the final design (visualize in blue/grey):







Cheers all....



Matthew.


----------



## Pieman (23 Jul 2004)

What is the aircrew for this type of chopper? Is it the same as the sea king? 

Also another question for Inch and other Air force people:

Do you happen to know how flexible this kind of chopper is in it's roles? From what I understand, the importance of submarine hunting is not as high as it used to be? (Cold war era) Is this chopper going to be flexible to play other roles in the war on terror? 

Someone said it was not compatable with JSS, why exactly not? Too little room on board, or lack of on bord defence systems?


----------



## Fruss (23 Jul 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Bombardier doesn't own a stake in Sikorsky Int'l that I've ever heard of.



From http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/index.html
Sikorsky and Bombardier Aerospace have an industrial teaming agreement to offer the H-92 as a replacement for Canada's Maritime Helicopter. 28 helicopters are required and a selection is planned for the summer of 2004.


By the way, does someone know if this helo will be able to lift the arty??  I read somewhere that the Griffon was not able to..  I don't know about the Sea-King..  What will it be able to transport?  LAV, arty, MBT?????


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

I believe that it is not intended to fill the role of transporting arty.  Strictly naval thing.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2004)

As CFL has pointed out this helo was bought to fulfill naval requirements and while it probably could do tactical missions its unlikely to be used for such.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

From http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1583,00.html

Based on proven BLACK HAWKÃ‚® technology, the Sikorsky H-92 SUPERHAWK is built for the rigors of military missions. With its large cabin, survivable design and enhanced range, the SUPERHAWK does it all. It can perform austere to all-weather operations in arctic cold, ice, desert heat, at temperatures anywhere from -40 ºC to +55 ºC, day and night. The SUPERHAWK is ready to serve all branches of the military in a broad range of missions. 

Well-equipped to take on the job, the SUPERHAWK gives you everything you've ever wanted in a military helicopter. Some of the features that make the SUPERHAWK the ideal choice for performance include: scramble start in less than two minutes; a 6-foot wide aft ramp for easy loading and unloading of cargo and troops; the ability to outlift the competition by 1500 lbs. at 300 nautical mile range. 



The SUPERHAWK can be configured to match your missions. As a systems integrator, we deliver the right systems for the job, including extensive electronic warfare equipment, navigation system controls and displays, infrared suppression, refueling probe, weapons, Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance (TF/TA) radar and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR). 

Mission flexibility and low operating costs were identified as primary design criteria - and the result is a high performance, versatile helicopter that is the safest and most economical in its class.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

That said considering it has roots in the Blackhawk it seems it could make a good work horse helicopter for the army (airforce).   Put the Griffon in a Recce role.   Now that we will have this for the navy it would make sense to outfit a couple wings for a cmbt role..see less parts and training for air crews and mechanics.   Who knows, maybe some in gov't has a clue and this is there intention if everything goes well.   (Yeah I know, who am I kidding).

Some features:
SUPERHAWK HELICOPTER CABIN
For tactical troop transport, the 17m ³ cabin can be fitted with folding crashworthy seats for 22 combat equipped marines. The cabin is sufficiently high for passengers to stand and is fitted with sliding cabin windows and weapon mounts. 

The raised position of the tailboom and wide rear ramp and overhead door allow rear loading via the ramp. 

For the search and rescue role, the cabin can be equipped with a 272kg-capacity hydraulically powered rescue hoist. The crew can use the rescue hoist cable viewing window and spotlight to assist in deployment. The helicopter can be fitted to evacuate 12 stretcher patients.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

With regards to Frank in Vancouver post it seems that either they had advance knowledge of the contract or they are really good with updating their site really quick.

"Sikorsky and Bombardier Aerospace have an industrial teaming agreement to offer the H-92 as a replacement for Canada's Maritime Helicopter. 28 helicopters are required and a selection is planned for the summer of 2004"


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2004)

> Max. underslung load (max. AuÃƒÅ¸enlast): 4535 kg in military version





> Passengers (Passagiere): 19 in civil version or 22 combat-ready troops.


http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRS-92.htm

LGI Mark II weight


> Weight: 1.5 t


http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_50_1.asp?uSubSection=50&uSection=2

C3 105mm Howitzer


> Weight: 2,380 kg


http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_52_1.asp?uSubSection=52&uSection=2

As an aside I found this.





> with folding crashworthy seats for 22 combat equipped marines


http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/index.html

Yes but how many manly Canadians.. ;D

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2004)

Are you guys under the impression that the Cyclone can be configured from ASW on one flight to a troop transport on the next and then a medium lift helo on its next mission,  or am I reading too much into your posts?


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (23 Jul 2004)

from what i heard before was that the govt wanted the asw equipment to be roll on/roll off so that the new mhp could be used as a troop transport when the new jss comes in and to fully support boarding party operations.  as for lifting arty and such i don't think that it is even a consideration with the h92 or the eh101.  the us and brits both use the s53 and the chinook for their heavy lift needs for things such as arty for their amphib forces.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

The flexibility is there for the changing roles but I would imagine that if things go well, more would purchased when the support vessel is nearing completion.


----------



## Recce41 (23 Jul 2004)

Inch
 Your a lil off. The Ross had a semi locking bolt, just as the M16. The Enfield (which I own) has a flat face bolt. The FN was the same. It will fire even if the head spacing is off.
 As for the LAV, is crap, The Marines have the Lav 25 (Coyote). The Army has purchased the LAV!!! based Styker. But when the Crew Commander has to get out to clear a misfire or reload the Coax MG. It sucks. They get stuck just going off the road. You cannot transport the crew/kit/ammo/add on armour,etc on one Herc. It will take three hercs to deploy anyone of the LAV Family( LAV MGS, LAV 111, LAV TOW). And as CFL has stated a joint team? 
 I still like the Big Old Chinock, for the Army though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

The thing with the LAV is it isn't really designed for the same terrain as a M113.  If you use the equipment for its intended purpose (and I know we ask more for our equipment ie. cougar, LAV etc) then it will perform fine.  If the cannon is loaded correctly then the only stoppage you should get is when you run out of ammo.  It is a very technical wpn platform for sure.  (unless your talking about the Stryker, but wouldn't the coax be mounted internally). I'm of course not familiar with the stoppage procedure of the Stryker.  Perhaps you could elaborate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2004)

I see the Minister has described it as the best helicopter at the best price for Canadians.

Let's all hold the government's feet to the fire on that "best price for Canadians" policy in all future acquisitions.


----------



## Inch (24 Jul 2004)

Frank in Vancouver said:
			
		

> Sikorsky and Bombardier Aerospace have an industrial teaming agreement to offer the H-92 as a replacement for Canada's Maritime Helicopter. 28 helicopters are required and a selection is planned for the summer of 2004.
> 
> By the way, does someone know if this helo will be able to lift the arty??   I read somewhere that the Griffon was not able to..   I don't know about the Sea-King..   What will it be able to transport?   LAV, arty, MBT?????



This is the press release from Sikorsky

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1844,00.html

They make no mention of Bombardier, that info could be from the late 90s when we were still trying to get new helos and had the avionics and mission kit as a separate contract from the airframe.

The Cyclone will have a crew of 4, 2 pilots, 1 TACCO, and 1 AESOp.  As for slinging arty, there's not a whole lot of arty in the North Atlantic so I don't think it'll ever be a concern of ours. Everyone seems to be concerned with the multi mission capabilities, how come no one asks these questions about the Cormorant? It's sole role is SAR, ours is fleet defense and ASW with a few utility roles for the Navy.  We don't work with crunchies, we don't even come into contact with crunchies.  We don't learn Tac flying since it's not our primary role, and I doubt I'll ever see a piece of arty in my MH days.

Now as for Hercs not being able to transport LAVs + ammo/crew/kit, etc, they can't transport MBTs or M109s, they're tac airlift, not strategic. On the question of slinging MBTs, there isn't a helo in the world that can sling an MBT, there's barely aircraft that can haul them (yes there are a few before someone jumps on that one).

Another point on the Cyclone, it is my impression from the guys at work that it will not have a ramp. I can't say for sure but the talk leads me to believe that it won't have a ramp. Sub hunting is not a major concern these days (it's still our primary role though), but the helo does extend the range of the ships eyes and ears, it allows the ship to identify possible hostiles without putting the ship and crew in danger.  Helos are a lot cheaper than frigates. So until we can get beyond line of sight with radar, a helo will continue to be part of the fleet defense package.

One final point for this post, having the same airframe for different roles isn't necessarily a good thing.  If one has a problem, now your entire helo fleet is grounded, at least with different airframes your world won't stop just cause a SAR bird had a problem. I've seen it with the Harvard in Moose Jaw, some American Texan II has a problem and the entire T-6 fleet is grounded, ours included.

Cheers


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (24 Jul 2004)

i think the concern for multi-mission comes form the jss announcement and the need for a helo to operate from them.  the role of the helo on board the jss seems very similar to how the seakings were used in somalia in a purely ship to shore support role.  if the jss does come through then i think the role of the maritime helo pilot will have to change to adjust with the needs of the mission.  i don't know about the ramp, but i would guess as the asw version of the merlin does not have one the same thinking will eliminate the need for one on the h92.


----------



## Inch (24 Jul 2004)

I agree, as the mission dictates the role of the helo and crew will change, I'm not against that, I'm simply pointing out that in the 40+ years that the Sea King has been in service, it's really only come up a handful of times. The main concern I have about multi mission capabilities lies in the old adage, "jack of all trades and master of none". There's only so many things you can be the best at without sacrificing quality. I for one like the idea of having a door gunner, reminds me of back in '78 when I was in Nam.   :warstory:

28 Cyclones won't be enough to outfit 3 JSS's as well as the Frigates, Destroyers, and the domestic training and proficiency flying. We'll definitely need more and if we're going to get into the amphibious warfare game, another dozen or so helos with ramps would probably be a good acquisition

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jul 2004)

LOL hey now Inch even the Sea Kings have door gunners


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (24 Jul 2004)

28 would not be enough, but leave it to a liberal govt to give it a good try.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jul 2004)

There is nothing that says they could not order more down the road.


----------



## JBP (24 Jul 2004)

Forgive me, this is slightly off topic...

From some posts in this thread about the LAV's... It seems after we phase out our only MBT the Leopard, we won't realistically have an actual TANK to go into combat with? I ain't the most informed on these fine war machines, but uh... If you took 10 LAV's against 10 Leopards, wouldn't the LAV's look like scrap-yard material shortly thereafter? Or are we going with the thought that we won't need giant moving guns like tanks because we'll just be in a supporting/defence roll for most of our operations with allies? I know historically over the last while we don't take offensive ground operations anyway. Not in a big way! Operation Anaconda in Afganistan aside.

Is it really a good idea to not have an actual MBT of any kind in the future?!?!!

*Scared for us Canuckians*
 :crybaby:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jul 2004)

Do a search on MBT's and you should find a wide variety of opinions on the matter.  

Inch
From this link (you are right it wasn't Sikorsky) they were either really lucky or knew ahead of time ie Summer of 2004, unless it was common knowledge that the government was going to announce a contract in 2004.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/index.html


----------



## Inch (24 Jul 2004)

I think the summer 2004 announcement was common knowledge for the last couple months or so. That article had a sentence using Mar 04 in the past tense so it was probably written recently but that doesn't mean their info was up to date.  Given that the media has said stuff like Shearwater Naval Air Station, a Squad of pilots and crew (even if they were talking about a Squadron, there was actually 2 squadrons there plus all the admin wienies, sorry to any admin wienies), and calling the H92 the Sikorsky Cyclone, I wouldn't put it past them to assume that the partner in Mirabel was Bombardier.  

Yeah, Sea Kings have door gunners , we're hella cool that's why.

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jul 2004)

Understood.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2004)

Just a question here.

I too was under the impression that, at least at one stage of the competition, the requirement was to be able to dismount the ASW suite to allow the helicopter to assume other roles.  

Does anybody know if that is what was finalized in this buy?  If so how many ASW suites were bought? One for each helicopter or some lesser number? Like the Coyote perhaps? -203 platforms bought, 32 full-up systems installed, about 80 reduced capability systems of which many were dismounted and put into storage.

What other roles could the helo be used for if the ASW suite were removed? Surface Search, Boarding Parties, Cross-Decking supplies?  ----- Troop lift?

If not troop lift then do we need to buy a third airframe for the JSS or would we have to choose between CH148 and CH149?  Would either of those be a better choice to also supply a National Domestic airlift capability that would work with domestic land forces during both civil and military emergencies?

These are the questions that have prompted the speculation on the CH148 Cyclone and its capabilities in supporting Land Forces.  At teast they are the questions that come to my mind.

Cheers


----------



## Inch (24 Jul 2004)

All 28 will have the ASW suite, ASW is our bread and butter and what we practice the most of so having a Cyclone without it would be pretty useless to us. For dismounting it, I'm not sure, some of the ASW stuff is mounted to the airframe like the sonobuoy tubes and the sonar that we dip. You could probably remove the consoles but in most cases it's probably easier to make 2 trips than spend hours removing and reinstalling the stuff. Boarding parties, vessel identification and most of the other jobs we do can be done with the ASW stuff on board. Also, the ASW suite also contains a radar, very convenient and necessary to find that little piece of grey metal in the middle of the ocean so removing the consoles probably wouldn't be a good idea.

For the JSS, we would just need to buy a few more CH148s or CH149s, my guess would be the CH148 since it'll be shipborne with folding rotor and tail as well as the haul down/bear trap system already in place. Just get some without the ASW stuff. A ramp would be nice for troop lift, but not a necessity. During civil or military emergencies, all military assets are avail but for most day to day stuff it's the Griffon that does that. 

For the Domestic question, I'd say the Cormorant would be more suited to the job, it doesn't have a ton of electronics to remove and it's got a ramp. The CH148 is for supporting the navy and that's what it's designed to do so there are other more capable aircraft out there that were designed with troop transport in mind, the Cormorant being one of them. The Griffon and Cormorant don't support the navy and the Cyclone isn't expected to support the army, unfortunately these questions come up in a unified military since everyone wants to play with the new toy. 

In short, what the Sea King does now is what the Cyclone will do for the next 20 or so years.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2004)

Good enuff Inch.

Thanks for the reply.  Glad to hear that they are outfitting all 28.  Understand the position on the CH148 and 149.
.
Cheers


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Jul 2004)

http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040726.wxchoppers26/BNStory/National/

By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Monday's Globe and Mail 

Ottawa â â€ The federal government concealed the fact last week that it was forced to buy Sikorsky helicopters to replace its fleet of Sea Kings after the only other competitor in the $5-billion race had been previously disqualified on technical grounds, sources say.

Instead of saying that the contract had been awarded to the only company that was still standing, government officials made it seem as if the contract had been a two-way race to the end.

The revelation that Team Cormorant was quietly thrown out of the competition earlier this year is the latest twist in the ongoing saga that is now expected to be played out before the courts.

A government official said information about Team Cormorant's disqualification was not made public last week because the government thinks it will be a pivotal point if Team Cormorant decides to launch a lawsuit over the outcome.

Defence Minister Bill Graham, in announcing the decision to buy 28 helicopters from U.S.-based Sikorsky, said on Friday that it "represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians."
Even at a thorough technical briefing that day, senior bureaucrats did not tell journalists that the contract was awarded to the only bidder still in the running.

"It gave the impression that there were two companies, and that we went for the cheapest," the government source said yesterday.

There is growing bitterness between Team Cormorant and the government over the process. A senior government official yesterday dismissed a report that there was only a 1-per-cent price difference (about $50-million) between the winning bid of Sikorsky and the disqualified bid of Team Cormorant.

The government is arguing that the difference was more in the range of 15 per cent, meaning that Team Cormorant's bid was about $750-million higher.

The fact that Team Cormorant was disqualified in recent months is surprising because the federal government adopted a complicated process two years ago to prevent such an outcome. In 2002, the government created a "prequalification" phase under which the competing helicopters would have to meet specific technical requirements before entering the final leg of the competition, which would be settled solely on the issue of price.

Team Cormorant and Sikorsky met the requirements of the prequalification process, but Team Cormorant was, nonetheless, disqualified from the competition later. The reason for Team Cormorant's disqualification is unclear, as government and industry officials remain coy about recent events.

It is a stunning twist for a company that won the first competition to replace the Sea Kings in the early 1990s under the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. That contract was cancelled by then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien in 1993, but Team Cormorant later won a smaller competition to produce search-and-rescue helicopters for the Canadian Forces.

"It's an incredible outcome after Cormorant won in 1992, won in 1998, prequalified in 2003, to be told that their bid is not acceptable in 2004," an industry source said.

The government now expects that its decision to exclude Team Cormorant from the competition will be at the centre of a lawsuit from AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian consortium that builds the aircraft.

Team Cormorant has long alleged that the process to replace the Sea Kings was rigged in favour of other competitors, and has vowed to take the matter before the courts if it lost the contract.

Team Cormorant has three legal options: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Ontario Superior Court.

The CITT, an administrative tribunal, provides the quickest way ahead for Team Cormorant, which could challenge its disqualification as well as Sikorsky's qualification. If Team Cormorant wins its case, the CITT could order the retendering of the contract or call on the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.

Second, the Federal Court could provide a judicial review of the process, and it could eventually send the contract back to the government for retendering.

Finally, Team Cormorant could argue before the Ontario Superior Court that Sikorsky did not meet the government's requirements and did not deserve the contract. If Team Cormorant was successful, the Ontario Superior Court could order the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.

In addition, the Auditor-General is expected to review the contract and determine whether the federal government adopted the best strategy to replace the Sea Kings.


----------



## ags281 (26 Jul 2004)

What a gong show.

Who would have thought that a simple order for a few helicopters could be screwed up so badly so many times.   :


----------



## Inch (26 Jul 2004)

Amen brother, I just hope this BS doesn't delay the procurement.

Cheers


----------



## Scratch_043 (26 Jul 2004)

kinda makes your head spin :-\


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2004)

Kinda makes me wonder how much taxpayer money and how many potential fuselages on the tarmac have been lost to uphold the image of a campaign promise.


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Jul 2004)

Me think's we are getting another Civie chopper painted GRAY i.e Griffon!!!

A useless piece of kit,look's good but can do jack shit!!


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (27 Jul 2004)

it's not fair to compare the h92 to the griffon.  the main problem with the griffon is that it is underpowered, that is not the case with the h92.  its engines are increased from the s92 civvy version of the helo and if their is one thing sikorsky knows what to do it is build martime helos, nevermind just military helos period.  look at their track record blackhawk/seahawk, seaking, the jolly greens of the vietnam era, and also the most powerful helo out there the super stallion.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Jul 2004)

Personally I think the H92 will be a success and I lok forward to seeing it being intergrated in the fleet.


----------



## Yard Ape (27 Jul 2004)

One problem of the Griffon was that it replaced two airframes with two different roles.  If the Cyclone is the best helicopter for the maritime roll, then maybe it is not bad that we did not go Cormorant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2004)

It would be SO nice for JUST ONCE, the army were to say "Hey we need a new one of these" and then a few companies put in a bid, one was chosen, they made  the equipment and we got it.

That simple.

No waiting 10 years for the contract to start followed by 10 years to make it. No companies crying over loosing the contract, no accusations, no loosing millions and millions on stupid canceled contract fees. No rumors of political favorites.

Just once i'd like to have faith in whoever buys stuf for the Canadian Forces and be professionally proud of something we get.

Can't we cut the bullshit just once?


----------



## Fruss (27 Jul 2004)

Ghost: it's good to dream...  if you're young enough, you might see that when retiring...  That's what they call a goverment..  nothing simple..  just BS!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jul 2004)

Another take:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

The Maritime Helicopter Project 
  
  
(Source: Canadian Department of National Defence; issued July 23, 2004)
  
  
 There is no question that the Canadian Forces (CF) needs a new maritime helicopter suitable for the operational demands of the 21st century. The CH-124 Sea King has been in service since the 1960s and, despite the many upgrades and meticulous maintenance it has received throughout its service life, today it is obsolete and increasingly expensive to maintain. To meet current and future defense requirements, Canada clearly needs a maritime helicopter capable not only of the myriad operations possible in today's global environment, but also of integrating smoothly into the Navy's fleet of modern, highly interoperable patrol frigates.  

Until that helicopter can be identified and acquired, the Sea King will continue to perform in a wide range of important roles wherever Her Majesty's Canadian ships are deployed.  

A helicopter extends the offensive reach and defensive perimeter of a warship to about 175 km (more than 100 nautical miles) on the surface of the sea, and adds hundreds of meters of altitude as well. It also contributes:  

--A significantly enhanced ability to detect and destroy submarines;  
--An enhanced ability to observe and identify marine traffic, and to provide close security for boarding parties;  
--A faster, longer-range, and more versatile search-and-rescue or surveillance capability; and  
--The vital ability to transport anything, from people to parts, quickly and safely.  


The Maritime Helicopter Project  

In 1999, once the Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR) was approved, development of the specifications began, led by the Maritime Helicopter Project Management Office. During this phase of a procurement project, the military needs set out in the SOR are described in the technical language of industry, so potential suppliers can make a fully informed decision on whether to bid on the contract, and so government contract authorities can establish the criteria required to evaluate the bids. The early draft specifications produced by the Maritime Helicopter Project Management Office were circulated widely, not only to stakeholders in the Air Force, but also to industry, producing hundreds of hours of consultations and thousands of observations.  

Commentators both inside and outside the Canadian Forces observed that the early specifications were so robust that it was questionable whether any helicopter on the market could meet the standard. But the aim of the process is to collect and analyze such feedback and to achieve a balance between what the industry can deliver and what the military wants and needs. Before any changes were made as the specifications went through various drafts, concurrence was sought from the Air Force. To ensure that the specifications remained consistent with the SOR, they were evaluated twice by a credible, independent, non-profit engineering firm in the United States and, although the specifications passed through many levels of departmental approval, the leaders of the original military analysis team say that they remain consistent with their findings.  

In 2000, the government announced that DND would proceed with the maritime helicopter procurement. In 2001, the procurement strategy was announced: the airframe and mission system would be contracted separately, and each contract would include long-term maintenance services. The all-up cost of the project was estimated at $2.9 billion, and the winning bid would be the one evaluated â Å“lowest cost compliant.â ? In the words of Alan Williams, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) and the senior government official responsible for the Maritime Helicopter Project: â Å“Our approach is to specify exactly what we require and to select the company that meets our requirements and presents the lowest-cost solution for the full 20-year life cycle of the helicopter.â ? This approach will ensure that the needs of the Canadian Forces are met and the interests of the Canadian taxpayer are protected.  

In December 2002, in an effort to expedite the procurement, the government announced that the helicopter would be acquired by means of a single contract for the airframe and mission systems, comprising the procurement of 28 fully integrated maritime helicopters, a simulation and training suite, integrated logistics support, and a 20-year in-service support contract. With inflation factored in, the new project cost was set at $3.2 billion, not including the long-term maintenance contract.  

A Letter of Interest issued to industry in December 2002 produced replies from three companies: AgustaWestland (formerly EH Industries), offering the Cormorant helicopter with a Boeing mission system; Sikorsky, offering the H-92 helicopter with a mission system from General Dynamics Canada; and Lockheed Martin Canada, offering the Eurocopter NH 90 basic helicopter with a Lockheed Martin mission system.  

In March 2003, the Maritime Helicopter Project Management Office began pre-qualification screening of the three bidding consortiums. This is a new process that allows potential bidders to determine whether their proposed equipment complies with the technical specifications demanded for the Maritime Helicopter Project: it ensures that suppliers are fully aware of the requirements, and gives them an opportunity to correct deficiencies before the formal Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued.  

On December 17th, 2003, the Government announced the results of the pre-qualification process and the issue of the RFP. AgustaWestland and Sikorsky were deemed compliant and thus eligible to submit bids in response to the RFP. The deadline for submissions was May 14th, 2003, followed by the formal evaluation of the two bids.  

Having received the submissions, the Project Team evaluated a number of important elements such as price, the responses to the Statements of Work (SOW) for both the MH acquisition and long term In-Service Support, delivery, contract terms and conditions, and Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs). The Project Team also evaluated specific plans such as the Project Management Plan, the System Engineering Management Plan and the In-Service Support Management Plan.  

The evaluation was based on proposals meeting mandatory requirements and achieving minimum passing marks on the rated requirements established in the evaluation plan. The selection process identified the bidder who submitted a technically compliant bid, at the lowest price with acceptable delivery, terms and conditions and Industrial Regional Benefits.  

After a thorough examination of every aspect of the submissions, the bid by Sikorsky represented the lowest cost for the airframe, mission systems, associated logistics and 20-year in-service support, and was declared the winner.  


Benefits for all Canadians  

As part of its winning bid, Sikorsky has committed to undertaking more than $4.5 billion in industrial activity across Canada. The direct benefit of this activity for Canadians will continue long after the delivery of the last helicopter, with work on the helicopter project continuing over the next 20 years. Sikorsky has committed to partner with 170 firms, both large and small, and from our Aboriginal business community, with most regions of the country being home to significant portions of the project activity.  

Sikorsky's commitment includes more than $1 billion in Atlantic Canada â â€ an unequivocal acknowledgment of the expertise of individuals and firms in the aerospace industry across the Atlantic region. Sikorsky's bid also involves major activity in the West, totaling more than $390 million and involving innovative companies across the region â â€ from Vancouver to the established industry in Manitoba. As well, Canada's traditional aerospace centers in Ontario and Quebec will host significant portions of the project, including more than $2 billion in Ontario and $955 million in Quebec.  

The procurement strategy encouraged bidders to include and involve Aboriginal businesses in their proposals. Sikorsky's bid is very reflective of the Government of Canada's restated commitment to developing business and training opportunities for our Aboriginal people. Work on the Maritime Helicopter Project is a great example of action in this regard, with Sikorsky committing to partner with Aboriginal businesses on upward of $37 million of activity.  

Equally significant is Sikorsky's commitment to involve Canadian small business in work on the helicopters. Indeed, its winning bid includes fully $685 million in industrial activity to be undertaken in our small businesses. This is indicative of the innovative skills and processes that exist in not only our larger enterprises, but in the small businesses that are at the heart of Canada's economy.  

Canadian efforts on this project will involve innovative companies and talented individuals from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador. These industrial partnerships will mean that Canadians will participate in innovative work on a variety of initiatives, including advanced mission systems, electronics, software development, and sophisticated components that are integral to the helicopter's design and function. Canadians will also work on components of the helicopter's airframe and engine.  

Importantly, Sikorsky's work on the Maritime Helicopter Project represents a lasting opportunity for Canada. Firms and individuals across the country will participate in the long-term support of these helicopters. Canadians will be fully involved in areas such as the maintenance and repair of the helicopters and their mission systems, and the provision of simulation and training services. Equally important are the relationships that Canadian companies will establish within the international aerospace and defense industry. In the coming years, Sikorsky will continue to work with Industry Canada to develop these opportunities for Canadian industry, and to follow through on its commitment to delivering industrial and regional benefits to Canada. Canadian involvement in this project will position our industry to access future opportunities, and for participation in other significant projects like the MHP in the years ahead.  


The Future  

Sikorsky will be awarded two separate, but interrelated contracts.  

The first contract will be for the delivery of 28 fully integrated maritime helicopters, a simulation and training suite, integrated logistic support and ship modifications. The second contract will be for the 20-year in-service support of the helicopters. The contract should be finalized and signed this fall.  

Delivery of the first helicopter is required to be no later than 48 months from contract award with the remaining helicopters to be delivered at a rate of one per month. Built into the procurement contract is a series of bonuses for early delivery and penalties for late delivery that make it very much in the company's best interest to deliver the helicopters as quickly as possible.  

The Maritime Helicopter Project has faced its share of challenges, but the Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence are confident that it will result in an unrivalled helicopter at the forefront of modern technology.


----------



## Freight_Train (2 Sep 2004)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040902/SEAKING02/TPNational/Canada
Rival in copter deal takes Ottawa to court
By DANIEL LEBLANC
Thursday, September 2, 2004 - Page A5 
OTTAWA -- Ottawa's $5-billion helicopter contract landed in court yesterday when the losing company launched legal action that raised new allegations over the government's handling of the drawn-out process.

Team Cormorant took the matter before the Federal Court of Canada in a bid to stop the government from awarding the contract to Sikorsky, which was announced as the winner on July 23. In addition, Team Cormorant argued that it should either be given the contract to replace the 40-year-old Sea Kings, or that the whole process should be retendered.

By launching a court proceeding, Team Cormorant delivered on months of threats of legal action against the government if it lost the coveted helicopter contract. In its 18-page submission, Team Cormorant alleged that the government "committed serious errors" in the evaluation of the two bids, "favouring Sikorsky and discriminating against" Team Cormorant.

Team Cormorant said that the federal government's "fairness monitor," who was hired earlier this year to vet the process, worked from 1999 to 2001 as a lobbyist for Sikorsky's main partner in the helicopter contract, Ottawa-based General Dynamics Canada. 

Team Cormorant said that with the hiring of retired bureaucrat André Dumas, the government chose a "fairness monitor so closely associated with the Sikorsky bid . . . that his selection could not help but raise a reasonable apprehension of bias."

Mr. Dumas could not be reached, and federal officials had no immediate response to Team Cormorant's legal action.

In its submission, Team Cormorant alleged the government ignored clear breaches of mandatory requirements in Sikorsky's bid. In particular, Team Cormorant said, 100 pages of documents were missing from Sikorsky's official bid, which normally would have called for its immediate disqualification.

"Instead, [government] officials instructed the evaluators to rescue the Sikorsky bid by having reference to Sikorsky's electronic data," the court document alleged.

Team Cormorant said it did not benefit from the same consideration, which led to its own disqualification in the late stages of the competition.

"At the same time, [government] officials took the diametrically opposite position and refused to allow the evaluators to have reference to their examination of [Team Cormorant's] electronic data," the company said.

Team Cormorant is also alleging that the government and Sikorsky are both aware that the winning helicopter, the H-92, cannot be delivered within the mandatory four-year period. Instead, Team Cormorant said, a delay in the production of a key piece of electronic equipment will add at least two more years to the delivery of the first Sikorsky helicopter.

"Sikorsky knows that it cannot deliver the first H-92 for at least six years and possibly much longer. Sikorsky deliberately misrepresented its ability and intention to meet the delivery deadline in the certification filed with its bid," Team Cormorant alleged.

Sikorsky has always rejected claims that it cannot deliver its aircraft, which has never been produced for a military client, on time. 

"We have built probably more aircraft than all the other helicopter manufacturers put together, so this is business as usual for us," Sikorsky's Lloyd Noseworthy said last month.

After years of delay, Ottawa said last month that the massive contract to replace the Canadian Forces' fleet of Sea Kings had been awarded to Sikorsky. 

The replacement of the Sea Kings had been on hold since 1993, when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien tore up a deal that would have awarded the contract to Team Cormorant. Team Cormorant is accusing the government of acting in a manner that is "biased, unfair and contrary to the rules" ever since the cancellation of the first deal.


----------



## Brock (11 Sep 2004)

The MHP has been so screwed up for so long by both the military and the Government, we deserve what we get.  At this point buying the H-92 is retarded because we already use the EH-101--aka the CH-149.  Didn't we introduce the Griffon to reduce tactical helicoper costs by reducing the number of helicopter types.  That reason was always BS, as the Griffon fleet not only costs more than the old fleet, but is less capable.  However, in this case substantial savings would be achieved by procuring a naval Cormorant.  Personally, at this point the Cormorant was the only choice, because we bought it for SAR and the Cormorant better meets Canadian requirements and more importantly it is a proven helicopter.

With that said, the simple fact that Canada excluded the NH-90 during the pre-tender process highlights the problems.  The NH-90 is possibly the best medium sized helicopter in the military market.  The Canadian military and defence bureaucrats set the bar so high, the best value helicopter was excluded.  The process was never fair and that will continue to be the case until the Canadian military procurement system is overhauled.  Why would a purpose built naval helicopter externally smaller than the Sea King and the H-92 and EH-101, but with more than sufficient internal cabin space and payload be excluded....because it did not meet our navy's requirements, why?  The requirements were too stringent.  The NH-90 has been chosen 11 countries including France, Germany, Great Britain--for their SAS, the Netherlands, Italy, Australia--who operate in similar conditions to our North Atlantic, Oman, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and others.  The only problem with the NH-90 is the cabin height which is like 1.68 m, but this has been resolved with a simple already modification to meet Swedish military requirements of a cabin height of 1.8 m--the same cabin height as the H-92.  The folded dimensions of the NH-90 are smaller than the Sea King while achieving a larger and more functional internal cabin with dual sliding cargo doors and/or rear ramp; the cabin is only slightly smaller than the H-92 which is slightly smaller than the EH-101.  This is a key issue with the MHP requirements wanted the MHP to be capable of conducting boardings with the full internal ASW/ASvW mission suite--which no other navy does. Why would we do this when the mission suite can be rolled off in less than an hour--also a requirement?  

Anyway, there are many more issues that could be discussed, but we yet get the Cormorant--if they win the case, but Canada is more likely to be fined for breaking its own best value buying rules.


----------



## Slim (11 Sep 2004)

I doubt very much that the helicopter failed any test except the "Govt. doesn't want it" one.

The CF has a long history of buying crap at twice the cost of what any other company would pay.

I, personally, can't see any reason for this unless there are kickbacks flying back and forth. (I have no proof of this, mind you. Just an opinion)

The MGS for the Armoured Corps has FAILED every test it took. We're still getting the thing.

Going back further
-The Iltis (a great veh until we got hold of the design and "Canadianized it"
-The LSVW (Underpowered and squeaky ceramic brakes)
-The UNBREAKABLE plastic magazines for the C7 rifle (brakeable!!!)
-The MLVW (Not nearly as tough as what it replaced)

I'm sure the list goes on...Feel free to make it longer.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Sep 2004)

Personally I am glad we got the H92. The maker is right across the border in the event of any problems. They also happen to be on of the longest manufacturers of helicopters in the world, so I think they know what they are doing. Also an endorsement from someone who will be flying them:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17798.75.html

So if Inch says they are good to go that works for me.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Sep 2004)

I like the economic spinoff (bigtime)
I like the H-92 manufacturer (different than Iltis, etc.)
I like the baseline technology (different than Iltis, etc.)

I thought we could've saved some money by going with smaller simpler Helicopters
on our Frigates and Destroyers (for as long as we have them   : ) and then go
with the Troop Carrying Version of the EH-101 for the JSS for use in ferrying troops,
Canadian Civilians, or Equipment to/from a hotspot.

But all things being equal, I liked the deal....I just don't like the fact our airmen may
be stuck with Sea Kings for any additional length of time due to bureaucratic
inteference that has justified a lawsuit.

That part is just brutal and somewhere heads need to roll....


Matthew.


----------

