# Government of Canada Awards Contracts to Sikorsky for New Canadian Forces Mariti



## Sam69 (23 Nov 2004)

_From dnd.ca:_

*Government of Canada Awards Contracts to Sikorsky for New Canadian Forces Maritime Helicopter*

NRâ â€œ04.090 - November 23, 2004

OTTAWA â â€ The Government of Canada today announced the signing of two separate but interrelated contracts with Sikorsky International Operations Inc. for the Maritime Helicopter Project.

The first contract, worth $1.8 billion, covers the acquisition of 28 fully integrated, certified and qualified helicopters with their mission systems installed.

The second contract, valued at $3.2 billion, is for the 20-year in-service support for the helicopters, and includes the construction of a training facility, as well as a simulation and training suite.

â Å“The CH-148 Cyclone will provide our men and women in uniform with a helicopter that can perform the diverse and difficult roles required in today's global security environment,â ? said Defence Minister Bill Graham. â Å“This acquisition is one that will provide significant economic benefits to Canadian companies from coast to coast for decades to come.â ?

â Å“The awarding of these contracts marks the end of an extremely rigorous procurement process, through which Canada has purchased the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians,â ? said the Honourable Scott Brison, Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

â Å“The Canadian Forces are increasingly called upon to respond to challenging and complex operations throughout the world,â ? said General Ray Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff. â Å“The CH-148 Cyclone provides us with a robust, multi-role helicopter that will support our maritime operations well into the future.â ?

Delivery of the first helicopter, to be called the CH-148 Cyclone, is required to be no later than November 2008, 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.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2004)

About time....

Hope you like it, Inch.


----------



## Torlyn (23 Nov 2004)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> 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.



This part I like...  I wonder if (as there seems to be some incentive) that we (sorry, the CF) may get the new Helo's sooner?  (fingers crossed)

T


----------



## Sam69 (23 Nov 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> This part I like...  I wonder if (as there seems to be some incentive) that we (sorry, the CF) may get the new Helo's sooner?  (fingers crossed)
> 
> T



I think this is highly unlikely (IMHO) as I understand that the incentives are not huge but the challenge of creating this helicopter are (entirely new mission system, folding rotorhead, and ship/helo interface). I am just hopeful that the first aircraft actually arrives in 48 months.

Sam


----------



## enfield (23 Nov 2004)

Excellent!

Now.... the Griffon? And perhaps the non-existent troop transport helicopter?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2004)

Being the Canadian Governemnt, they will probably opt to buy back our Chinooks from the Dutch twice the price we sold them for....


----------



## Inch (23 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> About time....
> 
> Hope you like it, Inch.



I already do. As long as the bloody thing doesn't have as many problems as the Cormorants, we'll be laughing. Too bad there's 18+ months of testing and evaluation on the things before the first helo and crews are ready to embark. So I could be one of the first crews flying, maybe even doing the T&E or I could be flying Sea Kings for up to 8 more years!    

Cheers


----------



## Inch (23 Nov 2004)

Enfield said:
			
		

> Excellent!
> 
> Now.... the Griffon? And perhaps the non-existent troop transport helicopter?



The Griffon is actually one of the newer pieces of kit in the inventory. Only about 10yrs old.  I would expect fixed wing SAR next followed by the rest of the Hercs, but that remains to be seen.


----------



## Acorn (23 Nov 2004)

The Griffon is, of course, the aerial equivalent of MILCOTS. Paint a civvy truck green.

The Army needs real combat helos (recce, light and med lift and attack).

My opinion, worth what you paid for it, I suppose.

Acorn


----------



## BillN (23 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Being the Canadian Governemnt, they will probably opt to buy back our Chinooks from the Dutch twice the price we sold them for....



I don't believe we sold them to the Dutch.   I believe we gave them to them under a NATO "help them out" agreement.   The birds had just come out of Boeing in Arnprior after their mid-life re-build, when shortly after we flew them to Mountain View to go into storage and the two Squadrons were disbanded.

Six months later some of were asked to come back and fly them to Philly to the Boeing Plant.   They were upgraded to D models and off they went to the Dutch. :crybaby:

They were a beautiful thing to fly, and the missions we flew were always interesting and challenging.   I wish we still had them.....I'd still be in   

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/11/24/f146.raw.html

$5b deal to replace Sea Kings has liftoff  

By Michael Tutton / The Canadian Press

Ottawa quietly signed contracts worth $5 billion on Tuesday to replace Canada's geriatric fleet of Sea King helicopters, even though the losing bidder plans to challenge the deal either before the courts or at a trade tribunal.

One of the contracts requires Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn., to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008 - four years after the signing.

The company faces penalties of up to $100,000 a day, to a maximum of $36 million, if it doesn't meet the deadline.

A portion of the deal, worth about $3.2 billion of the total, sets up a two-decade arrangement for Sikorsky to maintain and support the helicopters.

"I think it's a good deal for the government," Defence Minister Bill Graham said in an interview.

"The contract is written in a way in which we minimize the possibility of facing a delay."

Graham and Public Works Minister Scott Brison first announced the government's decision to buy the Sikorsky H-92 - later dubbed the Cyclone - last July before an audience of Sea King pilots in Nova Scotia.

They said buying the Cyclone was a better bargain than purchasing the larger, three-engine EH-101 Cormorant, built by a British-Italian consortium led by AugustaWestland Inc.

However, the rival bidder launched legal action in August, asking the Federal Court to force Ottawa to hand it the deal or start the decade-long selection process over again.

The 19-page court document, filed Sept. 1, charged that the government's evaluation of the bids was "biased, unfair and contrary to the rules of the procurement."

The documents also said that Sikorsky's helicopter faces "major redesign hurdles to operate on a ship" and that the "minister is aware that Sikorsky cannot meet the mandatory 48-month deadline."

As well, the first delivery will take at least six years, rather than four years, Augusta-Westland said.

None of these allegations have been proven in court.

A spokesman for the Public Works Department, which is handling the contract, said Ottawa is convinced the helicopters will be delivered on time.

"You have to appreciate that Sikorsky is a very capable manufacturer," said Michel Lapointe. "It has been doing this for 50 years."

Earlier this month, the Federal Court ruled the case can't go forward until the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines whether it will deal with the matter.

A ruling is expected this week.

But Lapointe said Ottawa was unwilling to delay the contract signing due to legal proceedings.

"Just think of the project office of 100 or so people and you have to maintain this group six months longer," he said.

Lee Myrhaugen, a former Sea King pilot and squadron commander, said he was surprised the deal was signed before the complaints and lawsuits were settled.

"It suggests to me that somebody (in Ottawa) is of the opinion that the litigation isn't sufficient to hold up the contract," he said.

The new helicopters will be used for anti-submarine patrols and reconnaissance.

In Nova Scotia, where most of the helicopters will be based, the reaction among pilots to the contract announcement was cautious.

"We've been through this for 20 years, those of us that have been in the community that long," said Victor Ruzgys, a Sea King pilot at 12 Wing Shearwater.

"We're not about to cheer for anything. We'll cheer when we see the aircraft on the ramp."

Under the contract, the last of the Cyclones is expected be delivered in 2011 - almost 50 years after the first Sea King took to the air over Shearwater.

Meanwhile, the existing Sea King fleet - involved in four fatal crashes that have claimed at least 10 lives over the years - will require about 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time.

The contract is the latest step in a saga that began in the 1980s, when the Defence Department set out to replace the CH-124 Sea King - also a Sikorsky product.

The matter could have been settled when Brian Mulroney's Conservative government ordered 50 EH-101 helicopters - essentially a fancier version of the Cormorant - in 1992.

But the $5.8-billion contract was cancelled by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien, who declared in the 1993 election campaign that the helicopters were "Cadillacs" the country couldn't afford


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

Backgrounder
The Maritime Helicopter Project http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1521


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2004)

Do you have anything to say, or are you just filling the board with new articles on topics that have already been posted?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Nov 2004)

BillN said:
			
		

> I don't believe we sold them to the Dutch.   I believe we gave them to them under a NATO "help them out" agreement.   The birds had just come out of Boeing in Arnprior after their mid-life re-build, when shortly after we flew them to Mountain View to go into storage and the two Squadrons were disbanded.
> 
> Six months later some of were asked to come back and fly them to Philly to the Boeing Plant.   They were upgraded to D models and off they went to the Dutch. :crybaby:
> 
> ...



I think that getting rid of the Chinook was probably one of the most short-sighted things that DND ever did.  It has made the CFs completely dependent on the ability of coalition forces with airlift capability.  This had to be a serious kick in the teeth for the light community in terms of operational capabilities and training opportunities.


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you have anything to say, or are you just filling the board with new articles on topics that have already been posted?



First of all, I'm just adding an article in my view that correlates well to the one that has been posted. If that's a problem, by all means please delete it. Contemplating on your reasoning, I do not want to waste anyone's time, nor do I want to "fill" the board unnecessarily. What might have been is an abstraction, remaining a perpetual possibility only in a world of speculation. Sorry i wasn't productive enough, next time I'll work up to your expectations!

Concerning if I have anything to say towards this topic; as a matter of fact, i do. I'm not going to applaud the government because this process has been incredibly slow and carelessly flawed (project delayed for 10 years) by choosing a helicopter that has no "track record because Canada will be the first to use it as a military aircraft", and thats a risk for our crews.

I understand that the government plans to buy 28, bargain-priced Sikorsky Cyclones to replace Canada's fleet of Sea King helicopters, but do you firmly believe that the "Sikorsky H-92 helicopter represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians?" In fact, the Defence Department had long pushed the government to buy the more expensive Cormorant as far back as 1987. 

I don't know if any of you guys know Sgt. Phil Moffitt (Halifax-based retires next fall after 27 years working and flying Sea Kings), said he would have preferred the Cormorant. "We already have that aircraft (the Cormorant) in the Canadian Forces. It would be better for cross training for technicians and air crew," and "Its size, reliability, the fact it has the extra engine - in my opinion, it's the best aircraft for the job," he said.

Now $1.8 billion for 28 helicopters and $3.2 billion for 20 years of service and parts might sound like a good investment: The twin-engine S-92 is less expensive than its chief rival, the larger, three-engine EH-101 Cormorant. But in the end, its seems like they are trying to lower the bar as if the Liberal government was set on destroying Canada's military. The decisions made are not appropriate military decisions.

Saying the lighter aircraft is capable of fulfilling its role as the "eyes and ears" of Canada's 12 frigates -- I'll only believe it when i see it.

"In the long run the political posturing has cost us far more money, plus we got far less value, than the original reasonably good purchase decision that was made over 10 years ago."

Edit:

CTV.ca, Ottawa awards $3.2B chopper contract to Sikorsky, News Staff, July 24 2004
URL: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1090582695264_85991895/?hub=Canada Viewed: November 24, 2004


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Nov 2004)

GhostRaven I think if you read the Navy/AirForce/Joint forums you will see that the people who wil be flying this aircraft are more then happpy with its selection.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Nov 2004)

Let me put it to you straight:

As a guy who is facing the prospect of flying Sea kings, this is a good buy for the forces.   Yes the cyclone is untried, but so what ?   As for the cormorant, talk to anybody who works on them at the moment and ask what the problems are for that airframe ( winshield craking on T/O,   premature avionics failure, tal rotor prblems, fule system problems, not to mention the way the A/C itself is built) and see that the EH-101 is not the "be-all-end-all".

Yes, we have waited far too long and spent way too much money on this, but i'm glad that there is now a replacement in sight. From what we have been breifed on the cyclone's mission suite, it WILL be the "eyes and ears" of the fleet and will enable us to jump into the 21st century , at least as far as sensor integration and dataliks are concerned.

I may have limited time/experience in as an AESOp, but i am jumping for joy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Nov 2004)

Hopefully your waiting as long for the new hello as we are for rucksacks.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Nov 2004)

I left the army tired of waiting for new kit.....now i'm waiting for new kit in the air force.............

I see a trend forming


----------



## Inch (24 Nov 2004)

Ghostraven, what exactly are you basing your opinions on? Please don't tell me you're basing it on what the media tells you or the out of context quotes that they chose to use from a guy that to my knowledge is not an AESOp so therefore must be a technician that flys in the Sea King once in a blue moon. 

Here's my thoughts on similar aircraft:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/22082/post-117638.html#msg117638

One point that I didn't bring up there that someone else brought up, is Search and Rescue. If you have the same aircraft and one of them has a problem (read tail rotor hub cracks on the Cormorant), then your entire fleet is grounded. That's all well and good, but do you know who's doing SAR on the coasts right now? That's right, the 40+ year old Sea Kings because the brand new Cormorants are grounded.  At least you have someone to cover the SAR duties while one of the fleets is grounded, I would say that peoples lives are far more important than the peanuts you're going to save, if any, by having the same aircraft.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, I just wish you'd research a little more before telling us what a bum deal we got.


----------



## X Royal (24 Nov 2004)

I like the idea we are getting new helicopters. As if these are the best choice I'll let those with more knowledge on the subject than myself comment. One thing I don't like is the service contract. We as a country would be in big trouble if we ever went to war. Lets hope it never happens but the role of the military ultimately is to prepare for war. Would all the civilian techs join the forces (I think not). Now we are at war with support services that are lacking in long term experience and military leadership skills. I still think we should recruit and train all our support services. 

Pro Patria


----------



## aesop081 (24 Nov 2004)

I agree, but this is (as i understand it) only for 3rd line depot level maintenance therfore we will still go to ship with military techs.


----------



## Inch (24 Nov 2004)

X Royal said:
			
		

> I like the idea we are getting new helicopters. As if these are the best choice I'll let those with more knowledge on the subject than myself comment. One thing I don't like is the service contract. We as a country would be in big trouble if we ever went to war. Lets hope it never happens but the role of the military ultimately is to prepare for war. Would all the civilian techs join the forces (I think not). Now we are at war with support services that are lacking in long term experience and military leadership skills. I still think we should recruit and train all our support services.
> 
> Pro Patria



The service contract is for 3rd line maintenance. The same sort of contract that has been in place for the majority of our fleets for the past decade or more. 3rd line maintenance is major overhaul stuff and wouldn't be done in theater anyway, things like engine changes, rotor/gearbox changes, etc are done by us and will continue to be done by us for exactly the reasons you stated. The Cormorants are one of the exceptions to this due mostly to the fact that they're not combat aircraft nor do they deploy.

Cheers

aesop, you answered while I was typing, correctomundo!


----------



## X Royal (24 Nov 2004)

At a time of war 3rd line may be performed a long way from Canada and not necessarily that far from the battle ground as far as missiles & aircraft are concerned.. Look at WW2 for an example. At a time of larger losses distance for repairs can greatly effect availability. This also applies to service contracts on land vehicles. I feel that if we did all the repairs ourself it would leave the forces better prepared an more flexible. Also in a time of war there will be a great increase in numbers of members and the pool you have to draw on for your senior leadership positions (both NCM & Officers) will be smaller with sub contracting. At a time of war what does not deploy now could also change. During WW2 many civilian aircraft & ships were converted for military purposes. What has been subjested will work for our commitments now or small conflicts but not for total war.

Pro Patria


----------



## Inch (24 Nov 2004)

X Royal said:
			
		

> At a time of war 3rd line may be performed a long way from Canada and not necessarily that far from the battle ground as far as missiles & aircraft are concerned.. Look at WW2 for an example. At a time of larger losses distance for repairs can greatly effect availability. This also applies to service contracts on land vehicles. I feel that if we did all the repairs ourself it would leave the forces better prepared an more flexible. Also in a time of war there will be a great increase in numbers of members and the pool you have to draw on for your senior leadership positions (both NCM & Officers) will be smaller with sub contracting. At a time of war what does not deploy now could also change. During WW2 many civilian aircraft & ships were converted for military purposes. What has been subjested will work for our commitments now or small conflicts but not for total war.
> 
> Pro Patria



I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think times have changed. During WWII, it wasn't uncommon to have aircraft coming back shot up, the holes patched and the thing sent on it's way, they were very simple machines. With the complex aircraft and strict rules of today governing them, we're not going to be doing the same kind of ad hoc maintenance on them.  At a time of total war, there's nothing stopping you from having your maintenance done overseas, there is relatively little leadership amongst the technicians compared to what the army is used to. The techs work mostly on their own or for a Sgt/WO, there's maybe 3 AERE officers for 100+ techs, so I don't believe that would be a real problem when training guys to do the 3rd line maintenance. The techs already have in depth knowledge of the machines and their systems, so it wouldn't take that long to bring them up to speed to do the 3rd line stuff.  

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, take 'em or leave 'em.  

Cheers


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I left the army tired of waiting for new kit.....now I'm waiting for new kit in the air force.............
> 
> I see a trend forming



Blame the liberal government.

Remember the 1993 federal election campaign, when "Jean Chrétien and his Liberals attacked the Tory plan as wasteful, calling the EH-101 a "Cadillac" helicopter. When the Liberals won and Chrétien became prime minister one of his first acts was to scrap the Tory deal, an act that cost the Canadian government nearly $500 million in cancellation fees. His move cost taxpayers $375 million in penalties."

We need new helicopters because the "Sea Kings are now a sick, aging fleet, with pieces literally falling out of the skies. Canada bought 41 of the single-rotor Sea Kings, technically known as the Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King. Twenty-eight of them remain in service, and those still flying are often hit by flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures and gearbox problems. Pilots have died flying them, falling into oceans, crashing into muskeg â â€œ more so the older they get" -- and they now invested in more modernized Sikorsky's, the S-92". Don't think these Sikorsky's are not going to have their line of problems, probably even more than the EH-101. I'm just trying to make a point that we should not be all dazzled about this; it might turn out to be our worst nightmares! That's all im implicating.

The liberal  government has made many poor choices towards the military in the past --this seems to be another one. Basically, my point is, we should not cheer for anything until we see the aircraft on the ramp. That's what i dont understand, people are all excited for something we haven't even placed our hands on. We're already praising something that does not yet exist.

Inch i have done my research and well (including the fact my old women is into politics, and my cousin is an avionics tech for Canadian airlines) judging through the media -- dont even say that. I understand that the cormorant has its line of problems. I'm only jabbing at this decision with political analysis, as you can see im not basing my opinions comparing the technical sides of the helicopters -- but then again how can we compare if we do not have hand technical experience with the newcoming S-92. So im going back at it again, we should not get all excited until we actually see it in motion. Now if these helicopters are what some of you are stating -- better word is hoping -- then i will be overly gratified, because all i want is the best for the Canadian Forces--thats all we deserve. Now that we have made this investment, i do hope for the best--thats all i hope for and dream for. But if things go haywire, dont say i didnt warn you!

Hey, dont make me seem like im a backstabber...im just an old angry Tory. What more can i say?  

Here's the other thread relating to the same topic if people are interested: http://army.ca/forums/threads/2676.15.html


Edit: for you sheerin

CBC News, Requiem for the Sea King, July 23, 2004
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/seaking.htm Viewed: November 24, 2004

National Defence, Backgrounder, The Maritime Helicopter Project, November 23, 2004
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1521 View: Novermber 24 2004


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

I believe some will find this of interest. It's a high revolution transparent image of cracks on the tail rotor half hub. http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/2004/10/grfx/Tail_Rotar_Half_Hub_new.gif

EDIT: Cormorant 22 hours per flight hour? Thats not too much less than the Sea Kings, i've heard 30 hours per flight hour, but then again it's 40 years old while the Cormorant are new.

I found this reference: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/international/agwest/EH101/EH101.htm


> The potential for US Military sales is considerable, with new medium-sized helicopters needed by the USAF, US Coast Guard, US Navy and Marine Corps. The latter force undertakes the enormously prestigious role of transporting the US President by helicopter. Although impeccably maintained, the VH-3Ds used by HMX-1 in this role are in need of replacement. Potential candidates include the NH-90, which is politically handicapped by it's French and German 'old Europe' background; *the S-92 again, which has lost every military competition it has entered (except for a distinctly dubious Irish Air Corps deal which was quickly cancelled)*, and the EH 101, which can offer three-engined safety, a full height cabin and the world's most effective active vibration damping system.


I assume the time this article was written it was correct.


----------



## Sheerin (24 Nov 2004)

Are you aware of what plagiarism is, Ghostraven?   



> We need new helicopters because the Sea Kings are now a sick, aging fleet, with pieces literally falling out of the skies. Canada bought 41 of the single-rotor Sea Kings, technically known as the Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King. Twenty-eight of them remain in service, and those still flying are often hit by flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures and gearbox problems. Pilots have died flying them, falling into oceans, crashing into muskeg â â€œ more so the older they get --



You posted this at 1836 EST this evening, it seemed rather odd for someone write, especially someone who (according to your profile) is 19 and has no military experience (of course this could be wrong as people have misinterpreted profiles before...) so I did what any wanna be TA would do when marking an assignment that seems a little fishy; I selected 2 sentences (consecutive of course) and googled it.   You'll never guess what I came across. 



> the Sea Kings are now a sick, aging fleet, with pieces literally falling out of the skies. Canada bought 41 of the single-rotor Sea Kings, technically known as the Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King. Twenty-eight of them remain in service, and those still flying are often hit by flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures and gearbox problems. Pilots have died flying them, falling into oceans, crashing into muskeg â â€œ more so the older they get.



This is from the CBC news indepth article on the Military, specifically from a piece entitled Requiem for the Sea King      edit: ops forgot to include the link, yes kinda ironic    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/seaking.html

A word of advice, be careful and for the love of god, ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS cite your sources!


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

;D I don't want to get off topic now. Let me get this straight, its fishy because, a: You think I'm 19 (what your trying to say 19 year old plagiarise). b: 1836 EST this evening(whats so fishy about this). c: has no military experience(and even if thats true, civilians have no say or opinion where their tax dollars are going into). Simply put, you don't know me; and as to what formal education i have. It's quite daunting sometimes.  I do not see anything fishy other than you had nothing better to do then going on google and "marking an assignment". 

I don't even understand why your dropping me the question of plagiarism. I normally use quotes to back up my opinions. And i wasn't writting an assignment. These posts have been high paced -- i usually write too much -- then i forget to cite the pages. I have no intent in using them as my words (plagiarise), which i always use quotes "" but i may not always cite the webpage or newspaper because of the time im pressed on and effort i spend writing a post (if u haven't noticed).

But anyway, if you have nothing else to say other than the topic at hand, please analyse what your going to say because thats a pretty hefty charge. I don't want to end up sitting here thinking i wasted my time and effort because some softhead without anything better to do, didnt like what i was saying. Instead, why don't you debate it.


----------



## Inch (24 Nov 2004)

GhostRaven said:
			
		

> Don't think these Sikorsky's are not going to have their line of problems, probably even more than the EH-101. I'm just trying to make a point that we should not be all dazzled about this; it might turn out to be our worst nightmares! That's all im implicating.
> 
> The liberal   government has made many poor choices towards the military in the past --this seems to be another one. Basically, my point is, we should not cheer for anything until we see the aircraft on the ramp. That's what i dont understand, people are all excited for something we haven't even placed our hands on. We're already praising something that does not yet exist.



Yes it's true, all new equipment will have growing pains.   As you said you're "jabbing at this decision with a political analysis", how can you even make a statement that we'll "probably have more problems than the EH101"? What are you basing this on? Some unknown fact that us dumb drivers in Shearwater don't have knowledge of? 

As for waiting till we see the aircraft on the ramp, I've seen an S-92 on the ramp and in fact I've flown it. It's quite an impressive piece of kit, but that's a technical perspective from a helicopter pilot so take it or leave it.



> and they now invested in more modernized Sikorsky's,



Are you implying that Sikorsky doesn't build good helicopters and the Sea King is proof of this? The Sea King has been flying longer than almost every other helicopter that's ever existed. Truly a statement of their longevity and durability. The Blackhawk/Seahawk/etc family and the CH/MH-53's are more proof of the quality helos that Sikorsky builds. Given that the Sea King was designed in the 50's, I'm absolutely in awe of the systems on board.   

One last point, for those of you non believers out there, having three engines just means you've got 3 times the chance of having an engine failure.   The H-92 will hover out of ground effect on one engine, the same can't be said for the EH101 (it needs 2 engines to do the same stuff the H92 can do on one engine).   For you out there that are thinking, "well you could lose both engines", I say that if you lose 2 engines, you're probably going to lose the third since it's more than likely a fuel problem or major mechanical problem. The 3 engine camp is full of old guys that remember the early days of jet engines when they failed ad nauseum. The new turbine engines on the market are incredibly reliable, thus I don't believe that three holds any advantage. It's just extra weight that could be fuel or payload.

Anyway, as for your political conspiracy theory, I don't buy it. If you're not going to believe the operators of the kit, then I don't know who you can believe.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Nov 2004)

Well said INCH! You know how it is Inch some of us don't know what we are talking about. :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Nov 2004)

GhostRaven-


> We need new helicopters because the "Sea Kings are now a sick, aging fleet, with pieces literally falling out of the skies. Canada bought 41 of the single-rotor Sea Kings, technically known as the Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King. Twenty-eight of them remain in service, and those still flying are often hit by flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures and gearbox problems. Pilots have died flying them, falling into oceans, crashing into muskeg â â€œ more so the older they get" -- and they now invested in more modernized Sikorsky's, the S-92". Don't think these Sikorsky's are not going to have their line of problems, probably even more than the EH-101. I'm just trying to make a point that we should not be all dazzled about this; it might turn out to be our worst nightmares! That's all im implicating.



Look- I fly in Sea Kings. THEY ARE NOT FALLING OUT OF THE SKY! CBC is in the business of selling air time.   Overheated news stories sell air time.   Please, listen to those of who actually fly the equipment, hmmm? The Sea King is old.   It is no longer capable of keeping up in modern warfare. We have reliability issues because many systems onboard have gotten obsolete and there is often inadequate spares. Also, we have a shortage of qualified technicians, which means that our qualified techs spend sometimes spend as much time teaching new guys as they do fixing, which impacts serviceability rates. Much of our accident rate is due to the environment in which we fly- which is some of the most demanding in the world.   Any aircraft would have a problem from time to time doing the things we demand of a Maritime Helicopter in Canada.

Have we crashed aircraft due to mechanical problems?   Yep.   However, thinking back over most of the accidents in the past twenty years or so, I can only think of a few where something "purely" mechanical went wrong- that is to say human error is almost always the major cause factor (Sam69 can correct me if I am wrong...)

As for for your assertion that we are "probably going to have more problems with the Sikorsky" (vice the EH-101- I've paraphrased here), this is based on what?   The fact of the matter is, we don't know what teething problems we will have.   No one does- not our project team, not the manufacturer, and certainly not you.   That said, I do know this- the S-92 Cyclone is based on the Blackhawk/Seahawk family of helos- about 75% of the dynamic components are interchangeable (I remembering an old briefing- Sam69 can again correct me).   This family of helicopters has millions of flight hours on it, exists in quantities approaching tens of thousands and has thousands of hours of combat proven time.   Are elements of the S-92 brand new?   Yep.   Will Sikorsky drop the ball with this design?   It's unlikely, based soley upon their track record as a helicopter manufacturer over the past 50 years.

As for quoting an AESOP saying EH-101 is the best helo.   So what?   That is his opinion.   Mine is that I prefer the S-92.   Now what are you going to do?   Could both of be right? Or wrong?   I am not calling down EH-101 here.   It has had teething problems, but it has also done some amazing things.   

You have basically implied that Sikorsky won through some sort of evil conpiracy.   Have you forgotten that it is now ten years after the (IMHO) really bad, uninformed decision to cancel the EH-101 and that it is just possible that technology has gotten better to the point that someone ELSE might possibly win the contract?   I mean, the EH-101 was designed in the 80's.   It has three engines because no two engines in the world were powerful enough at that time to do what we wanted.   Please allow for the fact that other manufacturers develop better products on occasion.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion.   As I said, I fly in Sea King Helicopters.   And I am not losing sleep over our choice of helos, so maybe that should say something to you.


Inch- You posted while I was typing!


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2004)

> Anyway, as for your political conspiracy theory, I don't buy it. If you're not going to believe the operators of the kit, then I don't know who you can believe.



Scott Taylor?   :-\


----------



## aesop081 (24 Nov 2004)

Inch, SKT....

Could not have said it better myself

"if you can't hover, you're queer !"


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> > Anyway, as for your political conspiracy theory, I don't buy it. If you're not going to believe the operators of the kit, then I don't know who you can believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Taylor?     :-\


----------



## Playa69 (24 Nov 2004)

> ...how can you even make a statement that we'll "probably have more problems than the EH101"? What are you basing this on? Some unknown fact that us dumb drivers in Shearwater don't have knowledge of?]...how can you even make a statement that we'll "probably have more problems than the EH101"? What are you basing this on? Some unknown fact that us dumb drivers in Shearwater don't have knowledge of?



Merely speculation. I don't fly planes. I don't fix them either. I also have no aircraft technical knowledge. So what am I basing my statements on?  It's just my logical point of view -- and yes i can admit, CBC & CNN.."gotta love em".....but mostly it's accountable to political influences in my family..To think of it, i hate politics!.... There's no perfect helicopter built; there will always be problems, but for the so called "best" we were led to believe, flawed as the EH101 is, creates a state of uncertainty. The fact we are the first, and perhaps the only country (few interested -- correct me if I'm wrong) with an investment of these S-92 helicopters, it's pretty hard to believe that we bargained for fine machinery (to a certain extent with perspectives from pilots reporting S-92's are excellent helicopters got me quite in a headlock) As a Canadian citizen with military roots (my grandfather was soldier and died a soldier -- love him and respect him dearly) and with no current technical perspective relating to helicopters, its very difficult for me to deduct something like this, other than criticizing political movement. Basically all i want is the best for this country... I never said the S-92 'sucks'  just wary about it; knowing the Sea Kings were very good helo's,  i guess the Sikorsky S-92 should be considered especially with their excellent track record.



> As for waiting till we see the aircraft on the ramp, I've seen an S-92 on the ramp and in fact I've flown it. It's quite an impressive piece of kit, but that's a technical perspective from a helicopter pilot so take it or leave it



Didn't know this. See you guys could have said sothing earlier. Yeah, yeah...i had my head to far up my ass! Knowing that Canadian pilots(best trained pilots i have seen in my whole life -- will not deny any of you guys) and techs have actually reviewed the aircraft and thumbs up, i feel quite stupid  :-[, and now comfortable with the S-92's.    I'm a believer. But...nevertheless, EH101 is still a great machine.

SeaKingTacco, nicely said! To all, thanks for enlightening me with the truth about S-92's, greatly apreatiate it.

I'm not even going to comment on the so called "conspiracy theory". What a joke!  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Nov 2004)

It's cool.


----------



## Inch (25 Nov 2004)

No worries amigo.


----------

