# CH-148 Cyclone Progress



## Kirkhill

100 MUSD over 20 years for avionics, simulators, training and support




> Rockwell Collins Contracts with Sikorsky on Canadian Helicopter Program
> 
> 
> (Source: Rockwell Collins; issued Sept. 29, 2005)
> 
> 
> CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa --- Rockwell Collins has been selected by Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. to provide avionics, simulators, training and support on its S-92 platform for the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program.
> 
> The program has a potential value of more than $100 million to Rockwell Collins over the 20-year life of the program.
> 
> "This agreement demonstrates that Rockwell Collins provides a complete rotary wing cockpit solution to our customers," said Woody Hogle Jr., vice president and general manager of Integrated Systems for Rockwell Collins Government Systems. "Our solution includes equipment, development and integration, as well as training and support throughout the duration of the program."
> 
> Equipment selected for the program includes Rockwell Collins' integrated cockpit solution for the S-92, as well as the new Rockwell Collins EyeHUDââ€žÂ¢ helmet mounted display, two (2) Level D equivalent full-flight simulators and communications products. The concurrent development of the simulator and aircraft systems will allow Rockwell Collins to integrate the simulation hooks into the avionics development to provide the end user an integrated training system that will maintain currency between the aircraft systems and full flight simulators.
> 
> 
> Rockwell Collins is a worldwide leader in the design, production, and support of communication and aviation electronics for commercial and government customers. The company's 17,000 employees in 27 countries deliver industry-leading communication, navigation, surveillance, display, flight control, in-flight entertainment, information management, and maintenance, training and simulation solutions.
> 
> -ends-



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


----------



## Inch

> Replacements for Canada's Sea Kings running late
> 
> By MICHAEL TUTTON
> 
> HALIFAX (CP) - Replacement helicopters for Canada's geriatric fleet of Sea Kings will be delivered at least 5 1/2 weeks late from Sikorsky International because of a strike at the company's factory in the United States.
> 
> However, the federal government says the delay is reasonable, and it is forgoing the late penalty provisions in the contract, which allowed it to charge up to $100,000 a day in penalties to a maximum of $36 million. The $1.85-billion deal announced with fanfare by the federal Liberals in 2004 required delivery of the first of 28 maritime helicopters by Nov. 30, 2008.
> 
> That has been changed to Jan. 9, 2009.
> 
> At the time of the announcement, federal officials emphasized that the penalties would serve as a deterrent to the project being late.
> 
> Sikorsky International has blamed the delivery delay of the S-92 Cyclones on a strike by the Teamsters union that ended last April.
> 
> Pierre Manoni, a spokesman for the Department of Public Works, said the federal government accepted the explanation.
> 
> "The problem with the labour dispute pushed back the delivery date," he said.
> 
> "The government determined that a labour dispute caused an excusable delay, and we're going to amend the contract."
> 
> Manoni said it's expected the remaining S-92 Sikorsky choppers will be delivered at a rate of one per month after the first aircraft arrives in Canada.
> 
> Timely delivery of the Cyclones was emphasized when it was announced, partly because the fleet of existing Sea Kings requires high levels of maintenance.
> 
> There have also been two crashes of the Sea Kings in the past three years, the most recent when a helicopter ditched in the ocean off Denmark last February.
> 
> Questions about delays started to emerge last February, when The Canadian Press obtained a schedule that indicated the preliminary design for the S-92 helicopters was six months behind its original schedule.
> 
> At the time, the Department of National Defence insisted a new schedule was in place for the Cyclones and it said the time would be recovered in a new schedule.


----------



## navymich

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/01/23/pf-3432392.html

January 23, 2007
*Strike delays new choppers*
By MICHAEL TUTTON

HALIFAX (CP) - Replacement helicopters for Canada's geriatric fleet of Sea Kings will be delivered at least 5 1/2 weeks late from Sikorsky International because of a strike at the company's factory in the United States.

However, the federal government says the delay is reasonable, and it is forgoing the late penalty provisions in the contract, which allowed it to charge up to $100,000 a day in penalties to a maximum of $36 million. The $1.85-billion deal announced with fanfare by the federal Liberals in 2004 required delivery of the first of 28 maritime helicopters by Nov. 30, 2008.

That has been changed to Jan. 9, 2009.

At the time of the announcement, federal officials emphasized that the penalties would serve as a deterrent to the project being late.

Sikorsky International has blamed the delivery delay of the S-92 Cyclones on a strike by the Teamsters union that ended last April.

Pierre Manoni, a spokesman for the Department of Public Works, said the federal government accepted the explanation.

"The problem with the labour dispute pushed back the delivery date," he said.

"The government determined that a labour dispute caused an excusable delay, and we're going to amend the contract."

Manoni said it's expected the remaining S-92 Sikorsky choppers will be delivered at a rate of one per month after the first aircraft arrives in Canada.

Timely delivery of the Cyclones was emphasized when it was announced, partly because the fleet of existing Sea Kings requires high levels of maintenance.

There have also been two crashes of the Sea Kings in the past three years, the most recent when a helicopter ditched in the ocean off Denmark last February.

Questions about delays started to emerge last February, when The Canadian Press obtained a schedule that indicated the preliminary design for the S-92 helicopters was six months behind its original schedule.

At the time, the Department of National Defence insisted a new schedule was in place for the Cyclones and it said the time would be recovered in a new schedule.


----------



## frist one

I have a question about the weapons that ch-148 will use. Will they used  mk46v. In will the able to handle anti- shipping missiles.


----------



## Good2Golf

Although specifics of weapons systems would be classified, it's reasonable to assume that the CH148 would be capable of the same weapon systems that the CH124A is capable of employing. 

More publicly available info on the CH148 here.

G2G


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

While giving the Cyclones an ASM capability would increase its effectiveness it may be more expensive that be desired. You would have to add modifications for the ships to store those missiles, training, establish doctrine.


----------



## gaspasser

The 146 looks like a cross between a -53 and -101.  Is Canada buying yet another clunker of the politcal arena?
And, will our ships be able to handle the airframe, it looks like it's larger than a -124?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> The 146 looks like a cross between a -53 and -101.  Is Canada buying yet another clunker of the politcal arena?
> And, will our ships be able to handle the airframe, it looks like it's larger than a -124?



Already been discussed mes ami


----------



## aesop081

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> The *146 * looks like a cross between a -53 and -101.  Is Canada buying yet another clunker of the politcal arena?
> And, will our ships be able to handle the airframe, it looks like it's larger than a -124?



You mean *148*


----------



## Sf2

> nd, will our ships be able to handle the airframe, it looks like it's larger than a -124?



Its probably safe to assume that they checked that BEFORE they bought them.  We aren't THAT stupid.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

It's a nice looking bird that's for sure.


----------



## Sub_Guy

From where I sit it looks like someone took a MH-60 and MH-53 gave them some booze with some hole punched condoms!


----------



## frist one

Has anyone else order the H-92 superhawk .Are we going to be the only one using it.    frist one


----------



## Good2Golf

Cougar helicopter already operates the S-92 to Hibernia as we speak.


----------



## Haletown

more info here

                     http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helo-ch148-cyclone.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

frist one a lot of your questions have already been addressed.


----------



## frist one

Thank you for the answers in help, All the best.


----------



## newfin

A little bit of an update regarding CH-148 Cyclone progress.  This article states that the first airframe is entering final assembly now and will be integrated with the new fly-by-wire system being concurrently developed.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/03/215927/sikorsky-prepares-fly-by-wire-s-92-for-flight.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Out of curiousity...will the Cyclones be able to be fitted with C6s like the Sea Kings?


----------



## h3tacco

Yes, the C-6 will be fitted on the CH148.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

I remember during my OJT at the PMO MHP, talking with some of guys running the various projects and there was a bit of a grassroots movement to try to get a .50 on the Cyclone instead of the C6. It didn't seem very likely to me in my uniformed naivety but maybe it will be one of those last minute addendums *crosses fingers*


----------



## geo

from a personal perspective, don't think there is a real need to have a 50cal in the door.

A C6 for the door gunner will do quite nicely thank you very much..... if you want more, I would suggest you inquire about pods with a 20 or 25mm to warm things up.  A side order of rockets for good measure?


----------



## aesop081

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> I remember during my OJT at the PMO MHP, talking with some of guys running the various projects and there was a bit of a grassroots movement to try to get a .50 on the Cyclone instead of the C6. It didn't seem very likely to me in my uniformed naivety but maybe it will be one of those last minute addendums *crosses fingers*



Ever fire a .50 ?


The .50 on a single point mount is enoug of a b**** to fire, let alone at 90-100 kts and the cyclic rate is slower than the C6 (IIRC, sure felt that way). The added weight of the gun and ammunition , IMHO, invalidates any perceived bennefit.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> and there was a bit of a grassroots movement to try to get a .50 on the Cyclone instead of the C6



If someone thinks that they need a .50 cal, vice a C6 as a door gun, on the Cyclone, I suggest that they go the SOCD (statement of capability deficiency) route and staff it up the chain, with proper justification.

There are .50s that are optimised for door gun work...

I personally think that this might be fun:

http://dillonaero.com/SM134.html  > (but I can't justify it...)


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I personally think that this might be fun:
> 
> http://dillonaero.com/SM134.html  > (but I can't justify it...)



+1


----------



## volition

+2 ;D


----------



## bison33

+3 on that...and tacco, sure you can justify it. I'd love to see those on yours and our birds, just a tad more fun than the C6 I would think. I know I find the C6 ho hum.....time for something with more "pizazz".


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

But is there any news on when we're getting the first airframe??


----------



## Baz

The fly by wire test aircraft, 592, has done ground runs without the blades.  It should do ground runs with blades on in late August, and first flight in late September.

Our first airframe, 148801, was delivered to West Palm Beach from Keystone Helicopter last Fir, 10 Aug, for final assembly.  It should be flying by the end of the year, for test purposes.  It will be used spring and summer '08 for at sea flight deck testing on HMCS Montreal, which is currently being modified, but will not have been delivered to Canada at that time.

Scheduled delivery of the first aircraft is still January 2009, when Operational Testing will commence.  The first aircrew conversion course, leading to the first Cyclone detachment, is scheduled for 2010.


----------



## geo

Baz,
Any idea on what kind of mods are required for the ships ?


----------



## George Wallace

The hangars and hangar deck would probably be the major ones.  Didn't someone also mention the 'Bear Traps' in a previous post?


----------



## Baz

I had posted this info before (in a thread about whether it fits in the hangar, it does), but here it is again with a couple of edits:
- replace the trap with a new low profile trap, and add a nose wheel tray, including a new console for the LSO
- add a flight deck motion display
- move the tail guide winches forward and remove the tail probe fish tail
- redo the line up lines
- change the lighting for NVG compatibility
- offset the aircraft about 18"left when trapped and aligned, by moving the lock position in the trap to the left, because of the tail fold to the right extends past the sponson
- redo a bunch of cranes, servicing platforms, etc, in the hangar; the new storage is mostly modular in the hangar
- a bunch of new cabinets, computers, displays, etc in the air spaces, the largest piece is for the Integrated Technical Information Service and the Mission Planning and Analysis Service (MPAS).  MPAS gets information from certain ship system.  Both services uses comms links back to shore for other types of info.

I need to get over to the ship to have a look


----------



## geo

somehow, I get this uneasy feeling that this is going to be an expensive refit....


----------



## Bograt

Any new on what their plans are for pipeliners? Are they shutting down the OTU for Sea Kings, and what are they going to do for new pipeliners.  I can't imagine that they won't be taking anyone into the MH community for the next 1-2 years.

I am looking at BHS in April- hoping to get into the community. Any news or gossip?


----------



## Baz

I'm not going to pass on gossip, I spend enough time working on how to ensure that the right information is getting out  

According to the current schedule, the last Sea King Ab Initio (pipeliner) course will tentatively finish some time late in 2010, with the first Cyclone Ab Initio course sometime mid 2011.  Conversion courses (for already qualified Sea King aircrew) will start after OT&E is finished, scheduled for early 2010, and running until all aircrew are converted.  The schedules are different for maintainers, and this is just the current snapshot of a very complicated schedule.

However, the big point is this: we can't afford to gap Maritime Helicopter aircrew training (between Cyclone and Sea King Ab Initio), which includes having dets at sea.  Flying helicopters at sea is a demanding role and we need to ensure that we keep core skills during the transition.


----------



## Inch

geo said:
			
		

> somehow, I get this uneasy feeling that this is going to be an expensive refit....



It's not going to cost us any more than it already has. IIRC, mods to the ships was included in the MHP contract.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

frist one said:
			
		

> I have a question about the weapons that ch-148 will use. Will they used  mk46v. In will the able to handle anti- shipping missiles.



According to the link provided by G2G, the CH-148 will have two hardpoints that can take up to 1,000 lbs each. So, in theory they should be able to carry ASM's, however, I would think that they would have to have targeting/guidance equipment fitted to the aircraft before they could be used.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is a link to the CH-148 Cyclone at the Sikorsky webpage:

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,,cli1_div69_eti2282,00+en-uss_0fsbc.html

According to this webpage the first Cyclone will be delivered "November 2008."  However, you go to the CF CH-148 webpage it states the first airframe will be delivered in January 2009. The link is here:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/ch148/default_e.asp


----------



## geo

Not much of a difference in the delivery dates.... Nov 08  - Jan 09
For once, I think they agree


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> According to the link provided by G2G, the CH-148 will have two hardpoints that can take up to 1,000 lbs each. So, in theory they should be able to carry ASM's, however, I would think that they would have to have targeting/guidance equipment fitted to the aircraft before they could be used.



The Cyclone will be delivered fitted for, but not with, an ASM capability.  I'm sure we will get to it in due course...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The Cyclone will be delivered fitted for, but not with, an ASM capability.  I'm sure we will get to it in due course...



If we do get ASMs for the Cyclone (which I think would be a good thing), where would we keep said ASMs?


----------



## Inch

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> If we do get ASMs for the Cyclone (which I think would be a good thing), where would we keep said ASMs?



Probably a modified torpedo locker, but what do I know about storing weapons on ships?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thats as good as a place as any...on a CPF they could use one of the torpedo magazines....for the NWTs out there, its pretty unlikely they would store ASMs with torpedoes correct?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> for the NWTs out there, its pretty unlikely they would store ASMs with torpedoes correct?



Why would it matter, so long as the ammo classes were not incompatible and it was a floodable space?


----------



## hippie

Baz said:
			
		

> The fly by wire test aircraft, 592, has done ground runs without the blades.  It should do ground runs with blades on in late August, and first flight in late September.
> 
> Our first airframe, 148801, was delivered to West Palm Beach from Keystone Helicopter last Fir, 10 Aug, for final assembly.  It should be flying by the end of the year, for test purposes.  It will be used spring and summer '08 for at sea flight deck testing on HMCS Montreal, which is currently being modified, but will not have been delivered to Canada at that time.
> 
> Scheduled delivery of the first aircraft is still January 2009, when Operational Testing will commence.  The first aircrew conversion course, leading to the first Cyclone detachment, is scheduled for 2010.



Baz, do we have any pictures of 801?  I've only seen pictures of our guys climbing around a civie S-92, which is obviously going to be pretty different that our 148s.  It'd be great to actually SEE some actual progress of our first bird.  Pretty isolated from any of the MHP out here on the left coast!


----------



## Baz

We have some pictures taken by one of the guys camera's as the aircraft arrived.

Send me an E-Mail an DWAN, I'll get them to you.


----------



## newfin

Are there any pictures around of any of these airframes? We are 1 year from 1st delivery so there must be something that can be shown to the public?


----------



## Zoomie

> SEA KING REPLACEMENTS ON HOLD
> 
> STEVE RENNIE
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> January 9, 2008 at 8:56 PM EST
> 
> OTTAWA — The delivery of new military helicopters to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings will likely be delayed by 30 months and Ottawa is threatening to deeply penalize the U.S. contractor “thousands of dollars” for each day the choppers are late, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> A senior government source, speaking on background, said late Wednesday that department officials told Public Works Minister Michael Fortier on Monday that Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. would be late with the long-awaited delivery of new CH-148 Cyclones.
> 
> Sikorsky will be penalized thousands of dollars each day the Cyclones are delayed, the source said.
> 
> Calls to Sikorsky were not immediately returned on Wednesday.
> 
> The Defence Department referred all calls Wednesday night about the delay to Public Works.
> 
> “We are assessing the implications of what a delay on the delivery of the maritime helicopters will have on the operational requirements of DND and PWGSC is considering all possible options with respect to Sikorski's default on the timely delivery of the Maritime Helicopters,” wrote Jacques Gagnon, Mr. Fortier's communications director, in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.
> 
> Ottawa signed the contract in November 2004 to replace the 40-year-old Sea King fleet. The deal required Connecticut-based Sikorsky to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008.
> 
> The Defence Department first set out to replace the Sea Kings in the 1980s, and former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government decided in 1992 to buy 50 EH-101 helicopters in a $5.8-billion deal.
> 
> But Jean Chrétien's Liberals tore up the deal when they came to power, paying $500-million in penalties for backing out of the contract.
> 
> Retired air force colonel Lee Myrhaugen, a former deputy commander of the military's maritime air group and a veteran Sea King pilot, said the military made every effort to extend the Sea Kings' life cycle and the delay could put further strain on the aging choppers.
> 
> “If it's going to be extended some 30-odd months, that's just going to stretch that rubber band that much further,” Mr. Myrhaugen said.
> 
> “The bottom line is, you can only stretch that rubber band so far. The calculations for the delivery date of the Cyclone were based on the fact that they had extended the life of the Sea King to its maximum.”



Everyone who is genuinely surprised - please raise your hand.


----------



## newfin

Well, I have to admit that I am surprised.  This contract was issued 3 years ago for delivery in 4 years.  If you add 30 months to that then that means that the first a/c will be 6.5 years from the date the contract was issued.  That's pretty pathetic.  I thought a company like Sikorsky would deliver them in the time that they agreed to.  I will admit that I have been getting concerned since there has been almost no news on these choppers lately and it would have made sense that if the delivry was going to be met that we would have photos and some sort of positive news by now.

The more time that goes by the more I am pissed at Chretien.


----------



## navy-nesop

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The Cyclone will be delivered fitted for, but not with, an ASM capability.  I'm sure we will get to it in due course...



I may be wrong, but I don't think we would be getting ASM capability.  As our navy is more a defensive type navy.  Can't go really deep in details but it would be hard for us to support an Helo doing OTHT.  They would be pretty much alone out there and it's just not the way we do things.

On top, since you would never have our ships alone in a war situation.  We could never make use of any OTHT tactics.  The US navy would take care of that.  ASM capability on helos is an offensive  method, it's just not our purpose.  It would be a waste of money, in my own opinion.

Keep that money to get the army guys some good vehicles so they can get home safe.

this is navy-nesop, over


----------



## GK .Dundas

navy-nesop said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but I don't think we would be getting ASM capability.  As our navy is more a defensive type navy.  Can't go really deep in details but it would be hard for us to support an Helo doing OTHT.  They would be pretty much alone out there and it's just not the way we do things.
> 
> On top, since you would never have our ships alone in a war situation.  We could never make use of any OTHT tactics.  The US navy would take care of that.  ASM capability on helos is an offensive  method, it's just not our purpose.  It would be a waste of money, in my own opinion.
> 
> Keep that money to get the army guys some good vehicles so they can get home safe.
> 
> this is navy-nesop, over


I'm really hoping you being sarcastic if not perhaps we should let the Americans handle air defense for us too. 
Wars happen in the damnedest places and at the oddest times  I can think of any number of scenarios where we we might find ourself all by ourselves and actually have to something along those very lines. I rather have the capability and never ever need it then not have it and need it desperately


----------



## hippie

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping you being sarcastic if not perhaps we should let the Americans handle air defense for us too.
> Wars happen in the damnedest places and at the oddest times  I can think of any number of scenarios where we we might find ourself all by ourselves and actually have to something along those very lines. I rather have the capability and never ever need it then not have it and need it desperately



+1


----------



## Inch

navy-nesop said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but I don't think we would be getting ASM capability.  As our navy is more a defensive type navy.  Can't go really deep in details but it would be hard for us to support an Helo doing OTHT.  They would be pretty much alone out there and it's just not the way we do things.
> 
> On top, since you would never have our ships alone in a war situation.  We could never make use of any OTHT tactics.  The US navy would take care of that.  ASM capability on helos is an offensive  method, it's just not our purpose.  It would be a waste of money, in my own opinion.
> 
> Keep that money to get the army guys some good vehicles so they can get home safe.
> 
> this is navy-nesop, over



Wow, you really know nothing of Sea King ops do you? Without getting into details... OTHT is something we do all the time, what's one of the purposes of a helo again? That's right, extending the range of the ship's sensors (aka over the horizon). We routinely fly 50+ miles from mom in order to have a look at what's out there and report contacts if need be. The only thing that's going to change when we get the new helo is that it will be done by link instead of voice.

Having and using our own missile system is not OTHT. A google search will tell you all about OTHT.


----------



## navy-nesop

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping you being sarcastic if not perhaps we should let the Americans handle air defense for us too.



I don't want to burst your bubble, but who do you think handles air defence most of the time?  Don't get me wrong.  I don't like having to rely on other nations to complete our battle group.  But it's just the way it is right now.

There is more to ASUW capabilities than just putting missiles on an helicopter.   You need a whole system to do this kind of stuff, so that's why I don't think we would be getting this capabilities any time soon.  You need to protect that helicopter as much as you can.  You know, watch each others back.  They protect us, we protect them.  Right now we just can't do it efficiently with what we have.  It's hard to explain without getting into OPSEC.

When I say that I don't think we need it, it's because there is other priorities.  I'm just being realistic considering our situation a the present time.

My job on a ship is above water warfare (including air defence),  but right now, we detect and they shout.  Unless you are on a 280, but we only have 3.  It's a big ocean out there.

So don't fire at me, we are not talking about what we wish we had but what we are most likely to get.

Edited after last post:  Wow right in my face!  Like they say , if you are going through hell, keep going.  Thanks for the refresher.


----------



## h3tacco

Where our Navy operates there is a significant threat from FIACs (Fast Inshore Attack Craft, basically any small fast armed vessel). Armed helos have been proven to be one of the most effective platforms to counter FIAC threats. The Navy understands this. My guess is that at some point in the CH148 service life it will be armed with some sort of anti-surface weapon. My preference would be sooner rather than later.


Leadmark: The Navy's Strategy for 2020



> In particular, organic air will allow naval forces to optimise the capabilities of weapons and sensor systems by its ability to extend substantially the ISR and control capabilities of its host unit or task group. An organic air capability is unique in its ability to respond quickly to over-the-horizon threats day or night, in most weather conditions. It will facilitate the rapid investigation of contacts, allowing commanders to conduct Battle Damage Assessment (BDA, to ascertain the need for further engagement), at ranges beyond that which other organic sensors are able to provide accurate information. *If armed, it also will permit the prosecution of targets beyond the range of weapon systems fitted to the host unit.*



http://www.navy.dnd.ca/leadmark/doc/part7_e.asp#sub3g



The Royal Navy's experience in the first Gulf War proved the usefulness of shipborne armed helicopters. 



> Six Lynx helicopters (armed with Sea Skua Air to Sea Missiles) .were sent from 829 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) to the Gulf on four Royal Navy frigates. In total the Lynx helicopter was responsible for 15 Iraqi ship kills, at least five of which were made by a single helicopter, Lynx 335 of H.M.S Cardiff. The various confrontations are detailed below:
> 
> * Lynx 335 from Cardiff together with an American Sea Hawk destroy a target, believed to be a minesweeper or landing vessel, marking the first Royal Navy success of the war.
> * Lynx helicopters from Type 42 destroyers Cardiff and Gloucester are dispatched with US forces to destroy two anti-aircraft batteries that had been constructed on oil platforms off the coast of Kuwait. 12 Iraqis were captured in the process becoming the first prisoners of war (POWs).
> * 24th January: Lynx 335 attacks three Iraqi vessels, sinking two minesweepers, off the Island of Quarah. Cardiff 's Lynx tries to capture a minelayer but the Iraqi crew scuttle the vessel and 22 are taken prisoner. The island is later captured.
> * 29th January: A flotilla of 17 landing craft, part of an attempted Iraqi amphibious assault on the town of Khafji, is spotted and engaged by Royal Navy Lynx helicopters. Flights from Brazen and Gloucester attack and sink one vessel while Lynx 335 from Cardiff sinks another. The remainder are damaged, destroyed or dispersed by American carrier based aircraft and Royal Navy Sea King helicopters.
> * 30th January: A convoy consisting of 3 Polnochny class landing ships, three TNC- 45 fast attack craft and a single Type 43 minelayer (also part of the attempted assault on Khafji) is identified. H.M.S Gloucester's Lynx destroys a TNC-45 with Cardiff and Brazen's helicopters attacking the T43. Gloucester's Lynx then destroys the other two TNC45's. Other units were damaged including a Polnochny that was later destroyed by RAF Jaguar aircraft.
> * 8th February: Lynx 335 attacks a Zhuk class patrol boat.
> * 11th February: Lynx 335 attacks and sinks another Zhuk Class patrol boat.
> * 15th February: H.M.S Manchester's Lynx helicopter sinks a salvage vessel named Aka.
> * 16th February: H.M.S Gloucester's Lynx destroys a Polonchy class landing craft."



http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/gulf.htm


----------



## Haletown

Something in this story doesn't add up right.

At Sikorsky's website they have news about the H92 meeting milestones and the S92 having reached 20,000 hrs ops with a civilian operator.  And there is not even a sniff of this that I can find in any aviation industry websites.  

So is it the helicopter or the mission avionics integration that is going south on this project ?  General Dynamics has that part of the project.  Or is the PMO changing requirements on the fly and changing the Scope of Work ?  Don't know but this story is too vague. 

Another odd aspect of the story is announcing a 30 month schedule slip 11 months before first delivery . . .  if it turns out to be an accurate story then whoever is tracking Critical Path in the PMO has some 'splaining to do.  This kind of slip would have popped up a looooong time ago.

I'm going to wait & wee on this story until we get some more details.  I smell a preemptive ass covering happening.


and ref the discussion above about the role of the Cyclone (according to Sikorsky)

"The Cyclone will be multi-mission capable and will perform surface surveillance and control, subsurface surveillance and control, and utility operations that included search and rescue, passenger and cargo transfer, medical evacuations and tactical transport"


----------



## MarkOttawa

Did the the Liberals simply choose a lemon?  We were the launch customer for this naval version of a civilian design and so far no-one else has bought it.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-to-supply-alq210-derivative-for-ch148-helicopters-03221/#more
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,CLI1_DIV69_ETI263,00.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

The S-92 has been quite successful selling on civy street - offshore oil, S&R uses come to mind and some of the best civilian fling wing firms have selected it - CHC being the largest helicopter operating company in the world and east coast based Cougar was the launch customer. If it wasn't working for them word would have leaked out by now.    I'll see if I can find some numbers.

I know the H-92 is not the same but there is far more in common than in a complete  new design and both are derived from the Blackhawk series.  So I think the technical risks on the aircraft development side of the program should be manageable.

So I don't think the actual aircraft is a lemon.  OF course, can't say for sure but my hunch is, if there is in fact, a 30 month slip, it will be in the mission systems integration part of the Program.   

But I'm just working a hunch . . . . .


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: You may well have it right;
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=226818



> ...
> Mr. Myrhaugen, one of a number of retired officers who have campaigned hard to have the Sea Kings replaced, says negotiations are currently underway between Ottawa and Sikorsky, the prime contractor, to rewrite portions of the Cyclone procurement contract. He says new engineering requirements -- likely a result of technology advances in certain aircraft components, which weren't foreseen in 2004 -- mean the original contract must now be reworked.
> 
> "Manufacturers may well have new equipment or upgrades available. And as a result of it, they've come to a situation where the original contract is undeliverable," Mr. Myrhaugen said. "What's being negotiated between Sikorsky and the Crown is how we get the end product in view of that situation.
> 
> "This is not abnormal," he said, "but when contracts change, it has an impact on arrival time and cost, and it's almost like starting over in some respects."
> 
> The original 2004 contract included penalties against the manufacturer in the event of delivery delays. Mr. Myrhaugen says he isn't aware of any penalties being levied yet, and no official announcement has been made about any delays. Sikorsky's Web site still says the first Cyclone is due for delivery in November...



But note the headline from our ace journalists;

Arrival of new helicopters for army delayed

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> It's a nice looking bird that's for sure.



Agreed.


----------



## Haletown

So now I am very curious . . .  what has changed ?? Increased scope ??  Change of scope?  New mission req's ??

Earlier in this thread it was stated the first aircraft was delivered to Florida in August and would be ready for flight deck testing on HMCS Montreal in early 08.  So I'm guessing the aircraft part of the puzzle is basically good to go.

That would leave me to guess mission equipment/sensor package.  Anyone know what's going  on ??  Wouldn't be the first time we wanted some very unique "Canadianized" stuff instead of buying off the shelf and adapting doctrine to the equipment  -  but I'm just guessing 

The PMO knows . . .  we will find out eventually.


----------



## Zoomie

I wonder if the fact that we are the only customer of the militarized version of this helicopter has slowed down the process some-what.  Our ship-borne helos require folding heads and booms - the civilian choppers don't.  Has this technical aspect made the design too complicated and they are only realizing it now?


----------



## Inch

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I wonder if the fact that we are the only customer of the militarized version of this helicopter has slowed down the process some-what.  Our ship-borne helos require folding heads and booms - the civilian choppers don't.  Has this technical aspect made the design too complicated and they are only realizing it now?



It can't be that complicated, the Sea King folds and it was designed in the 50's. The new SH60R/S Seahawks have a working fold system, I don't see why it would be that complicated to engineer one for the Cyclone when Sikorsky has been building shipborne helos for 50+ years. I would suspect it has more to do with the untested stand alone fly-by-wire system, but I can't say for sure.


----------



## Zoomie

Inch said:
			
		

> I would suspect it has more to do with the untested stand alone fly-by-wire system, but I can't say for sure.



Interesting...  Does the civilian version not have similar control systems?


----------



## hippie

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Interesting...  Does the civilian version not have similar control systems?



Negatron.  The H-92 is the only version of this airframe that has FBW.  For now anyways..  Who knows, maybe once all the kinks are worked out, some of the civie operators may want FBW..  It's entirely possible that the system integration part of it is a big challenge as well.  Maybe Baz can shed some light on this.


----------



## Inch

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Interesting...  Does the civilian version not have similar control systems?



As Hippie stated, that's a big negatron good buddy. The S-92 has conventional rods and cables connecting the servos to the flight controls, the H-92 will be a stand alone FBW system with no mechanical linkage or backup. It's never been done before, sure there are FBW helos out there, but they all have a mechanical backup to my knowledge.


----------



## Kirkhill

Inch said:
			
		

> It's never been done before........



 Oh My!!!


----------



## cameron

As much as I like the Cyclone, and I do, for reasons of safety wouldn't it be better to have mechanical backup?


----------



## Haletown

I recall the EH 101 had an experimental FBY system in 2005/6 but I don't think it ever went into production.  It was called HEAT or something like that.

This Cyclone delay is very curious.  

If it is the FBY system, I wonder if it has anything to do with the NRC's role in the joint development with Sikorsky of the original test-bed FBY technology for the H-92 back in 2005.

"Sikorsky and NRC Aerospace win award for helicopter Fly-by-Wire flight control system

Flight tests using NRC Bell 412 airborne simulator demonstrate significant reductions in pilot workload


Paris, June 13, 2005 — Sikorsky Aircraft and the National Research Council of Canada Institute for Aerospace Research (NRC Aerospace) have received the 2005 American Helicopter Society (AHS) Gruppo Agusta International Helicopter Fellowship award for their achievements in developing advanced Fly-by-Wire (FBW) flight control laws. The international collaboration resulted in the development of an advanced FBW flight control system for the Sikorsky H-92 helicopter that incorporates automatic load limiting control. The advanced control laws were implemented on the NRC Aerospace Bell 412 in-flight simulator, and flight tests were conducted that successfully demonstrated significant reductions in main rotor hub loads during aggressive manoeuvring with no effect on pilot handling qualities. The award was presented at the 61st AHS Annual Forum and Technology Display in Grapevine, Texas on June 2nd, 2005." 

http://iar-ira.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/press/news_1_24_e.html


The lack of details coming out makes me think there is some CYA going on . . .  again, just a hunch.


----------



## Kirkhill

> National Research Council of Canada Institute for Aerospace Research (NRC Aerospace)



 Oh My!!!!!


----------



## GK .Dundas

Oh goodie ! Brand spankin' new state o' the art cutting edge technology which an engineer friend of mine translates as the ability to burn 100 dollar bills  by the bucketful  while developing ulcers when working out the bugs with the added excitement of discovering new and interesting ways of killing yourself ....and your coworkers and innocent bystanders etc... etc.....................
 I'm hoping that it will all work out and they'll be able to get the the program back on track.But this is what happens when you let military procurement programs be run almost purely for the political gain of the government of the day.


----------



## Haletown

Gen Hillier on TV yesterday, commenting on the delay.

42 minute mark

http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/politics/politics_thu.wmv


----------



## Haletown

so here's a potential clue . . .  from Sikorsky 

"Sikorsky Aircraft Helicopter With Fly-by-Wire Completes Flawless First Flight
News Category: [Aerospace] [Aviation][Defence-Air]

STRATFORD, Conn., Dec. 21, 2007 - The first H-92(r) helicopter to feature fly-by-wire technology has completed its first successful flight, Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. announced today. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).

The historic first flight took place on Dec. 20 at 9 a.m. from the Sikorsky Development Flight Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. The new fly-by-wire technology is designed to significantly improve aircraft maneuverability, safety and effectiveness. Sikorsky currently has two development programs which will feature the FBW technology, the X-2 Technology(tm) demonstrator, and the newest model of the BLACK HAWK helicopter, the UH-60M.

"This successful flight of the first H-92 helicopter to feature state-of-the-art fly-by-wire technology ushers in a new era for the H-92 product line," said Stephen B. Estill, Sikorsky vice president & chief marketing officer. "This aircraft was the first of a new generation of helicopters designed to new and more demanding standards for safety and reliability, and with fly-by-wire, it sets course for the path ahead and the* next phase of flight testing in 2008.""*

http://www.asd-network.com/press_detail/14597/Sikorsky_Aircraft_Helicopter_With_Fly-by-Wire_Completes_Flawless_First_Flight.htm



So could it be that the H-92 is being used by Sikorsky, with our encouragement & NRC R&D invlovement, as the development platform for the  FBY for the X-2 and the next gen UH-60M Blackhawk and Canada, after seeing the successful first flight, has now requested an Engineering Change to include it on our Cyclones ??

Don't know for sure,  but it's plausible.   The  * next phase of flight testing in 2008.*  line could explain the +30 months on the sched


----------



## Inch

Haletown said:
			
		

> So could it be that the H-92 is being used by Sikorsky, with our encouragement & NRC R&D invlovement, as the development platform for the  FBY for the X-2 and the next gen UH-60M Blackhawk and Canada, after seeing the successful first flight, has now requested an Engineering Change to include it on our Cyclones ??
> 
> Don't know for sure,  but it's plausible.   The  * next phase of flight testing in 2008.*  line could explain the +30 months on the sched



Huh? The Cyclone was always going to have it, what do you think an H-92 is? H-92 = CH148 Cyclone


----------



## Haletown

yes I know the UH-60/S-92/H-92/Cyclone heritage.

If the Cyclone/H-92 was always going have FBY,  why does Sikorsky say only TWO programs  - the X-2 demonstrator and the UH-60M are being designed with FBY.

There is a disconnect somewhere.

What is the source for your information that it was always part of the plan ??  


Maybe somebody in Ottawa forget to tell Sikorsky we wanted the FBY option included   :-*


----------



## Inch

My source is the multiple briefings we've had here at 12 Wing from Sikorsky as well as one of the test pilots currently in West Palm Beach.

If the X-2 and UH-60M are the only two programs, why is it being tested on an H-92? Does that make any sense?


----------



## Haletown

interesting.  No mention that I can find of FBY in any other place except what your are being briefed on.  Do you recall if FBY was in the original briefs or has it crept into the briefs as the program went on ?



wrt the H-92 as a test bed . . it could make sense since neither the X-2 or UH-60M are flying yet, they need something to use for flight testing and would make sense if Sikorsky found a partner/program to pay for/share the development $$/risks.

Wouldn't ya think if FBY  was part of the package from day 1 both DND & Sikorsky would be shouting form the rooftops ?? After all this is an industry first and there are bragging rights here.  I can't find any references in the procurement decision phase about including a significant aviation first in the program.

I'm still thinking there is much more to this story and the fact that everyone is being tight lipped about WHY they need 30 more months is very suspicious.  When PMO's & politicians go silent & run for cover there is  a story to be told.

We'll find out eventually.

bty . . keep up the great work on the Project . . the wait will be  worth it and the kit will be much appreciated I'm sure.


----------



## Inch

I'm pretty sure it wasn't in our statement of requirements, but as far as I can remember, this has been in the works for at least a couple years.

There isn't a -60M flying yet, but there are plenty of H-60's out there to try it out on.


----------



## hippie

Haletown said:
			
		

> interesting.  No mention that I can find of FBY in any other place except what your are being briefed on.  Do you recall if FBY was in the original briefs or has it crept into the briefs as the program went on ?



I was at the west coast decision brief in 2004 at 443 Sqn, and it was mentioned there that it was to be FBW.  I can't remember specific examples, but I BELIEVE it was part of the H-92 pitch before it was selected for the MHP.  Plus every bit of correspondence that I have read and the presentations I have seen has always referred to FBW.  I'm no engineer, all I do is stir the sticks, but as Inch has eluded to, it's a stand alone system, so I can imagine it will be a challenge to develop and implement.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It was also based on the flight system for the cancelled US army Commanche, so Sikorsky was not exactly starting from scratch here.


----------



## Haletown

Very interesting.


I found a reference that Sikorsky proposed FBY for their failed  V-92 "Marine One" proposal so it looks like Sikorsky has been looking for a development program/project for awhile.  

Speculation  . . .  along comes Canada, launch customer for the H-92 and voila,  FBY that Sikorsky has wanted to develop has a program that is "interested", a government agency (NCR) with money and a possibility to introduce an aviation "first" to the market  but with shared cost burden

I'm pretty sure now FBY was not part of the original contract - not 100% sure but it looks that way. So it looks like FBY is an ECR to the project and it MAY be the reason for the 30 month schedule extension that is being sold as a "delay".

I don't know why they would do this, if indeed this is the actual case, but there are too many zipped lips here to make me think all is above board.




Sorry for being so cynical . . .  just my experience on big Federal projects says this kinda things happens a lot. ECR's are the bread & butter of suppliers and the Snr Management often awards $$Bonuses for getting the government to pay for big buck ECR's.   Some journo will dig up the whole story eventually . . . .  who authorized what, when & why.

I'm not saying it is a wrong decision to delay for FBY -  if that's the reason.  They just seem to want to try and hide the reason for the delay/schedule adjustment.  Stupid really, its always the cover-up that screws the pooch.

I've got some pilot friends with lotsa experience and contacts in the offshore oil helo business . . .   I've emailed them asking for opinions on the S-92's.


----------



## hippie

Haletown said:
			
		

> Sorry for being so cynical . . .  just my experience on big Federal projects says this kinda things happens a lot. ECR's are the bread & butter of suppliers and the Snr Management often awards $$Bonuses for getting the government to pay for big buck ECR's.   Some journo will dig up the whole story eventually . . . .  who authorized what, when & why.
> 
> I'm not saying it is a wrong decision to delay for FBY -  if that's the reason.  They just seem to want to try and hide the reason for the delay/schedule adjustment.  Stupid really, its always the cover-up that screws the pooch.
> 
> I've got some pilot friends with lotsa experience and contacts in the offshore oil helo business . . .   I've emailed them asking for opinions on the S-92's.



Remember, Haletown, this was JUST 'announced' not even two days ago.  Sikorsky or PWGSC hasn't even made any 'official' announcement yet.  All these press reports are all saying 'MAY' and 'POSSIBLY' about the 30 month delay thing.  We all know how reliable the press can be.  People seem to be jumping to conclusions and quoting the source as gospel.  I think it's a bit early to be crying foul and accusing the players of hiding information.  Let us just wait and see what comes up in the next few days / weeks.

Also, remember the S-92, besides the airframe, is vastly different than the CH-148 / H-92 in almost all areas.  We're talkin engines / tranny / gearbox / avionics etc..  Nevermind the extensive, and I mean EXSTENSIVE mission systems included on the MH.  I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong, you may be completely right!  I'm just saying let's just wait and see.  It's still a year before the first a/c is even supposed to wop wop it's way into Canadian airspace.  Patience my good man.


----------



## h3tacco

Haletown you are reading way too much into this. There are very few major defense projects that are either delivered on time or on budget. If there is any delay (remember there have been no official announcements from the crown or Sikorsky) there are any number of reasons that could be the cause. Just look up the VH-71 or RH-70 programs in the US and you will see they are both have problems with budget and schedule. Both programs have been considered for cancellation due to problems. Unfortunately this is a fact of life when it comes to major defense projects, contractors make promises that cannot always be met.


----------



## Good2Golf

Just so folks know, the NH90 has been flying for years (since 1997) with fly-by-wire controls.  H92 wouldn't be the first.

NH 90

G2G


----------



## FoverF

Anybody else hear that Sikorsky is moving all of their civilian chopper work to Poland?

Given that Canada is the only military customer (well, only militarized customer), it seems plausible to me that Sikorsky might want to move the whole S-92 line to Poland in the near future.


----------



## Inch

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Just so folks know, the NH90 has been flying for years (since 1997) with fly-by-wire controls.  H92 wouldn't be the first.
> 
> NH 90
> 
> G2G



Ah, good call. Everytime they come to Shearwater they pimp it about being the first, maybe something to do with FAA certification.


----------



## Haletown

Hey folks, like I have repeated, IF, IF, IF  . . .  I'm just postulating a theory . . .  it is highly unusual to have a 30 month delay (IF that is what it is) announced at this schedule point in a contract and they can't/won't explain why.  The usual format is to bring in the spin-doctors and surround the announcement in positives  & platitudes etc.  

They have not announced the reason WHY and there is "non-clarity" if it is a schedule extension or a delay.   I'm just saying its unusual and I'll be surprised if someone somewhere isn't doing a nifty CYA.   Time will tell . .  it can't be kept a secret for long.

Quick google confirms the NH90 having FBY, but looks like they only announced it in 2004.

It would be interesting to have a debate between SH-92 and NH90 folks over how they define FBY & who has done what first.   :blotto:


----------



## h3tacco

The NH-90 has FBW but it is having a number of problems meeting scheduled deliveries. There are two versions the army TTH and naval NFH. Only a few TTH have been delivered and there are no NFH in operational service.


----------



## Haletown

The Minister starts the response . . .  blames Cruton and says 11  months 

"The Sea King replacement was a political albatross for Mr. Chrétien during his 10 years in power. It wasn't until his successor, Paul Martin, announced the $5-billion Sikorsky contract in 2004 that it looked like the air force would finally get new maritime helicopters to replace the 1960s-era fleet that has become prone to breakdowns and a periodic embarrassment to the military.

The first new Sikorsky aircraft was due in November, but that deadline has come and gone, sparking reports that the delivery is now three years behind schedule.

Mr. MacKay said the *delay has been more like nine to 11 months*, but that, he said, is still not acceptable.

"It's a tremendous, tremendous disappointment to see once again this vital piece of equipment may be delayed. And it can all go back to a single, solitary decision and a flippant and callous stroke of the pen," Mr. MacKay said by telephone from Victoria, referring to Mr. Chrétien's cancellation of the Cormorant contract shortly after he was sworn in as prime minister."



http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fd32b59c-efdf-4941-b940-5ebec4c4bef3

stay tuned, film at  11


----------



## Haletown

A FlightGlobal article dated 11 July 2006 states:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/11/07/210370/2006-helicopter-manufacturers-review.html

"A testbed for the MH-92's fly-by-wire flight control system will fly in February, with delivery of the first of 28 Canadian aircraft - designated CH-148 Cyclones - scheduled for November 2008."

That would be February 2007.  



but by late July 2007 they were still doing ground testing 

http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/military/14368.html

"Monday, July 30, 2007
Canadian Maritime S-92 Fly-by-Wire Technology Passes First Ground Runs
Sikorsky Aircraft reports that fly-by-wire technology for the H-92 version of the S-92 that it is building for the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program has passed two days of initial ground tests.


But it didn't fly until a few weeks ago.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,9602,CLI1_DIV69_ETI2650,00.html

"Sikorsky Aircraft Helicopter With Fly-by-Wire Technology Completes Flawless First Flight

Dec. 21, 2007
-  

STRATFORD, Conn., - The first H-92® helicopter to feature fly-by-wire technology has completed its first successful flight, Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. announced today. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).

The historic first flight took place on Dec. 20 at 9 a.m. from the Sikorsky Development Flight Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. The new fly-by-wire technology is designed to significantly improve aircraft maneuverability, safety and effectiveness. Sikorsky currently has two development programs which will feature the FBW technology, the X-2 Technology™ demonstrator, and the newest model of the BLACK HAWK helicopter, the UH-60M.

"This successful flight of the first H-92 helicopter to feature state-of-the-art fly-by-wire technology ushers in a new era for the H-92 product line," said Stephen B. Estill, Sikorsky vice president & chief marketing officer. "This aircraft was the first of a new generation of helicopters designed to new and more demanding standards for safety and reliability, and with fly-by-wire, it sets course for the path ahead and the next phase of flight testing in 2008."




This could be the delay . . . .  the time line fits - about 11 months 


IF this ends up being the cause for the sched change/slip, then the PMO has known about it for quite a while.  I'd be really surprised if FBY was not on the Critical Path, so at the best case scenario any FBY delay is a day-for-day program slip.  And that's a best case.

Time will tell.


----------



## h3tacco

Problems with the VH-71 program.



> NEW YORK (Reuters) - A large Lockheed Martin (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) contract to build a fleet of helicopters for the president could be in trouble, the Wall Street Journal said on Friday, citing people familiar with the situation.
> 
> The newspaper said John Young, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, has called for a meeting with the company on Saturday to talk about Lockheed's plans to build 28 Marine One helicopters for the White House.
> 
> According to the report, the program has run into engineering challenges and delays, which could push the $6.1 billion contract over budget by billions of dollars.
> 
> The paper said that the Pentagon is considering canceling, severely cutting back the program, or even asking United Technologies Corp.'s (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Sikorsky helicopter unit to produce a version of its S-92 helicopter for the president.
> 
> Lockheed, along with Italian firm Finmeccanica SpA (SIFI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research), won the contract to build the helicopters in 2005.
> 
> A company spokesman said Lockheed continues to look at options with the Navy on how to proceed with the program.
> 
> (Reporting by Michael Erman; Editing by Ben Tan)



http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN1133358720080112

Problems with NH90 program.



> The Finnish Defence Forces are set to get EUR 16 million in compensation for the delay in the supply of the NH90 transport helicopters that it has ordered, reports the Tampere newspaper Aamulehti. The order is more than two and a half years behind schedule.
> In early December, the helicopter model got its first approval for use by authorities in Germany. However, approval for the copters to be supplied to Finland will have to wait. According to Colonel Mika Soininen of the Finnish Army air unit, the move is expected by early February. If this happens, the first of the aircraft could be in use in April.
> 
> The French manufacturer NH Industries is paying a fine for the delay which is about the equivalent of the cost of a single helicopter. Aamulehti says that the total price tag of EUR 554 million will remain unchanged.
> The Finnish company Patria will assemble 50 NH90 transport helicopters as a subcontractor of the French Eurocopter SAS at its plant in Jämsä, where 18 of the 20 NH90s that are to come to Finland will be assembled.



http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finland+to+get+EUR+16+million+for+delay+in+production+of+helicopters/1135223678606


----------



## Haletown

meanwhile the first test airframes VH -71's have been delivered . . 

Patuxent River, Md. — The first two VH-71 helicopters built for the President of the United States have entered the flight test phase with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The Navy-owned test vehicles, TV-2 and TV-5, arrived at NAS Patuxent River in November and December, respectively, aboard a U.S. Air Force C-17 cargo plane from AgustaWestland’s facility in Yeovil, England. The government and industry integrated test team will use the aircraft primarily for structural and propulsion testing, and pilot training. TV-2 and TV-5 are the first of four test aircraft built for the initial phase of the VH-71 program known as Increment One

couple of nice pictures 

  http://www.skycontrol.net/helicopters/vh-71-begins-us-flight-testing/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Buying military equipment still a tricky venture (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ee4e4730-f955-4e71-b797-f56db23cb290



> It has become far too easy to predict the failure of military equipment procurement in Canada. In fact, if you could get odds on this in Las Vegas, it would be easy money.
> 
> The latest project to enter into contract limbo is the replacement of the Canadian Sea King naval helicopters that help protect and monitor our massive coastlines.
> 
> It was revealed last week that the Cyclone replacement models chosen by the government in 2004 may not be delivered until 2010. The American company Sikorsky was originally scheduled to begin delivery of the helicopters at the end of this year.
> 
> Although the delay is a recent discovery, it was predicted by many defence analysts before the ink was dry on the original contract. The delay will also come as no surprise to the general public, as they have been hearing about contracts to replace the helicopters since the 1980s.
> 
> If there is one thing that most Canadians know regarding our military equipment, it's how decrepit our helicopter fleet is. Much like Britney Spears, the topic is popular for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> The latest chapter of this story began last month, when AgustaWestland dropped its billion-dollar lawsuit against the federal government.
> 
> The company was the losing bidder for the 2004 replacement contract and claimed that the selection process was fraudulent and biased against its aircraft.
> 
> And there certainly was a case for choosing AgustaWestland. They knew that Sikorsky could not meet the November deadline. The Cyclone has never flown in a military configuration and Canada is its first customer.
> 
> This actually contradicts an earlier defence policy of only buying tried and tested equipment for the Canadian Forces. Ironically, the policy of avoiding a first production run was actually implemented in the last attempt to replace the Sea Kings in the 1980s and '90s. The government signed a contract with EH Industries (now AgustaWestland) for the EH-101 only after the British did so first to replace its own Sea Kings.
> 
> The Cyclone, which was then called the S-92, was barely even considered, as it was still in development and was nowhere near being certified and tested as a military aircraft.
> 
> The EH-101 was unanimously considered the superior aircraft over all competitors by the experts at National Defence.
> 
> Although a contract had been signed with EH Industries by 1992, Jean Chretien made cancelling the contract his first act as prime minister in 1993.
> 
> He claimed the EH-101 was a "Cadillac" and was completely unnecessary. He claimed the Cold War was over, that the world was returning to peace, and that he "would not lose any sleep" over removing this capability from the military.
> 
> The total cost to Canadian taxpayers to cancel the contract amounted to $478.3 million. There was no study done as to what the repercussions would be.
> 
> No military professionals were consulted. It was simply cancelled. And here we are 15 years later, still scrambling to keep helicopters in the air that have no place in modern operations. Just last week, two Sea Kings were pulled out of exercises off Nova Scotia due to engine fires.
> 
> It is likely that AgustaWestland dropped its lawsuit to ensure the Canadian government could remain a future customer.
> 
> Although Chretien's government was prepared to pay far more to cancel the 1992 contract, it is speculated that AgustaWestland let the feds off easy to help its bid for the search and rescue helicopter competition it knew was coming.
> 
> In 1998, AgustaWestland won this contract with a near replica of the model that Chretien had so vehemently attacked in 1992.
> 
> But when the competition for the naval helicopter was officially initiated in 2000, the Liberal government was determined not to be embarrassed again. EH Industries, by then called AgustaWestland, again put forth its military model. But as the allegations go, the procurement process was subsequently altered to preclude the company from winning. In July 2004, the $3.2-billion contract was given to Sikorsky and AgustaWestland filed its lawsuit.
> 
> Now we discover that the government is off the hook and the winning competitor may be nearly three years late.
> 
> The Canadian government could potentially penalize Sikorsky several thousand dollars a day for being late, and it would certainly set a good precedent. It is unlikely the Sea Kings will remain serviceable for three more years.
> 
> The tax dollars that have gone toward hours worked since the 1970s on replacing the Sea Kings are incalculable and there is still nothing to show for it.
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier was obviously frustrated by the news and correctly explained that Canada needs to lose its reputation for being "world-class at maintaining old equipment." The first step, however, would be to buy equipment that actually exists and can be delivered on time.
> 
> Until then, the failures in the Canadian procurement system will remain a good bet.
> 
> Aaron Plamondon is a National Defence Fellow at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and teaches history at Mount Royal College



So maybe it's all Paul Martin's fault, not Jean Chretien's as MND MacKay has said,
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/cyclones-its-all-jeans-fault.html

since his government chose the Cyclone over the Cormorant--but the Cormorant itself has not been without problems...
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69118.0.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Aaron Plamondon should look at what is going on in Europe where the A400 is far behind schedule and falling behind even further - as they wait for a power plant to make the darned thing go....


----------



## dot connector

As part of the contract, Sikorsky agreed to enlist approx. 170 Canadian companies as suppliers and at least some of them have to be new to Sikorsky, is it possible that some of the delays might be attributed to difficulties within the supply chain?


----------



## geo

would have doubts that "that" is the cause for sudden changes in delivery plans.

Sikorsky has been exposed to Canadian industry for a long, long time (Sea King is a Sikorsky product).

The lines of communication are open and, if the main supplier has gotten himself caught flatfooted like that... he deserves every fine and penalty that this little military can levy at him.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> would have doubts that "that" is the cause for sudden changes in delivery plans.
> 
> Sikorsky has been exposed to Canadian industry for a long, long time (Sea King is a Sikorsky product).
> 
> The lines of communication are open and, if the main supplier has gotten himself caught flatfooted like that... he deserves every fine and penalty that this little military can levy at him.



I like the idea of negotiating for extra air frames in lieu of penalties....much more useful to us in the long run.


----------



## FoverF

Too true. 

Especially since attrition replacement is going to be pretty much impossible. It looks to me like the odds of another sucker customer coming along are fairly slim, so when our production run is finished, that'll probably be all she wrote.


----------



## geo

H





			
				FoverF said:
			
		

> Too true.
> 
> Especially since attrition replacement is going to be pretty much impossible. It looks to me like the odds of another sucker customer coming along are fairly slim, so when our production run is finished, that'll probably be all she wrote.



Ohhh?

Pray tell why we are "suckers" in your expert opinion.
All sort of experts are saying that the Sikorsky is an excellent aircraft..... what's your dissenting opinion all about?


----------



## FoverF

I think the first mistake was splitting the SAR and MH buys, as now we're supporting _two_ small fleets of _two_ of the most expensive choppers in the world. It doesn't seem to me like there's a HUGE difference in capability between the Cyclone and Merlin, so I really don't see any advantage to operating both types simultaneously. Either all Cyclones, or all Merlins, but splitting the buy doesn't really give a substantial increase in capability, and it duplicates a lot of costs (infrastructure, spares, training, engineering/development/AETE, paperwork for a new acquisition program, spares, etc).

I'm not saying that the Cyclone is going to be a crappy chopper, but I think that regardless of it's teething problems, (and some dodgy customer support), the Merlin would have been a better choice. 

The through-life upgrade/development costs, spares, tooling costs, etc, of the Merlin will be amortized across a fleet of a couple hundred airframes, with 9 military users and counting. For the Cyclone, in contrast, virtually all of these costs (and they add up, boy howdy, over 25-50 years) will be borne by the Canadian taxpayer, directly or indirectly. Someday we'll want a laser-warning receiver, or new FLIR turret, or DIRCM system, or avionics suite, or whatever, and there's going to be nobody else to pick up the development costs. And the cyclone will have it's own expensive teething troubles too, new designs always do. 

All of which is why you should never buy the A-model of anything. Being the launch (and probably only) customer was our sucker move, IMHO. The western world bought the Blackhawk, NH90, and Merlin. We bought the Betamax of MH. 

And while I have worries about AW's customer support, I don't expect Sikorsky to move mountains for us. The financial incentive just isn't there to provide a huge amount of engineering support for a product with a single small customer. The H-92 isn't likeky to be a commecial success, so there's no reason for Sikorsky to invest large sums of money in it. 

I don't claim that the Merlin is superior to the Cyclone on it's technical merits alone. I don't really know. What I do know, however, is that the US Government chose a FOREIGN design to fly around the PRESIDENT of the United States, rather than buy the S-92. That's worth reading twice. It also lost in the USAF CSAR competition, and, come to think of it, every other military bid it's ever made. 

So 'all sort of experts' also seem to have their doubts. 

Just my opinion, no warranties expressed or implied.


----------



## dot connector

What about the notion that the S92 cabin door was too small for the Stokes litter causing Sikorsky to elongate the cabin area adding about a foot, shorten the tail by about 3 feet, thereby shifting the CG forward.  The center of gravity shift required the stab to be moved to the bottom of the tail creating a major source of delay for the production model S-92's??


----------



## geo

Dot.... references?

from the sikorsky site I get that the S92 can carry between 19  & 23 passengers & cargo in airline style comfort
and from the pics, they can certainly fit stokes litters aboard as well....


----------



## dot connector

Capacity, I don't think is an issue it was the door size and resulting modifications that may have created the problem.  The reference states the problem and the changes but doesn't go into the potential delay issue.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helo-ch148-cyclone.htm


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

dot connector said:
			
		

> Capacity, I don't think is an issue it was the door size and resulting modifications that may have created the problem.  The reference states the problem and the changes but doesn't go into the potential delay issue.
> 
> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helo-ch148-cyclone.htm



No it doesn't; that articles states: 





> *Stability problems during  the development of the H-92 [2]  required  a 40cm  fuselage stretch* to shift the aircraft’s centre of gravity forward.
> ...
> [2] Prototype H-92s experience a nose pitch-up at 60 knots (110 km/h). To correct the problem, Sikorsky redesigned the tail. Horizontal tail surfaces were repositioned from port to starboard and from a high-mounted to a low-mounted position (the earlier configuration is shown in the centre-left image, above). Size of the vertical fin was also reduced and the tail rotor position was lowered (resulting in lower weight).


  :


----------



## dot connector

At what point does the H-92 move from a military variant of the S-92 to becoming a fleet of 28 unique aircraft?

Is it when:  Stability problems during  the development of the H-92 [2]  required  a 40cm  fuselage stretch to shift the aircraft’s centre of gravity forward.
...
[2] Prototype H-92s experience a nose pitch-up at 60 knots (110 km/h). To correct the problem, Sikorsky redesigned the tail. Horizontal tail surfaces were repositioned from port to starboard and from a high-mounted to a low-mounted position (the earlier configuration is shown in the centre-left image, above). Size of the vertical fin was also reduced and the tail rotor position was lowered (resulting in lower weight).

When: New sub type engines are incorporated - GE CT7-8C

When: The S-92 has conventional rods and cables connecting the servos to the flight controls, while the H-92 will be a stand alone FBW system with no mechanical linkage or backup


----------



## dot connector

From this time line of events it would seem like FBW could be the number one candidate for the delay.  Does anyone have any additional data or alternative reasons?

01/08 - Sikorsky announces Delivery of the CH-148 Cyclones could be delayed by 30 months.  No reason given?
12/07- First H-92 helicopter to feature FBW has completed its first successful flight
07/07 – Still doing FBW ground testing – was to have had actual flight test in 02/07
06/07 – Paris Air Show – CH53K to use Hamilton Sundstrand FBW flight control computers and actuators - $150M and could reach $250M
Q1 ’07 – 2006 UTC Annual Report – Current S-92 models rely on Hamilton Sunstrand flight control computers and digital engine controls.  Future versions will add Hamilton-Sundstrand FBW technology.
07/06 – (flightglobal.com) – A testbed for the MH-92’s FBW technology flight control system will fly in 02/07, with delivery of the first of 28 Canadian aircraft (CH-148) scheduled for 11/08
06/05 – Paris Air Show – Black Hawk UH-60M to use Hamilton Sundstrand FBW flight control computers and actuators - $300M – 1,200 aircraft (more than 2,400 worldwide)
06/05 – Sikorskiy and NRS Aerospace win award for helicopter FBW flight control system for H-92
11/03 – FBW flight control for Sikorsky S-92 and H-92 helicopters to use BAE Systems CsLEOS Real-time Operating System
09/03 – BAE Systems developing FBW flight controls for Sikorsky S-92 and H-92 helicopters – under agreement BAE also becomes Sikorsky’s preferred supplier for future FBW systems


----------



## Haletown

bit more . . .   I'm with you - I  too have a gut feel its the FBY

from post 143 awhile back.

"A FlightGlobal article dated 11 July 2006 states:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/11/07/210370/2006-helicopter-manufacturers-review.html

"A testbed for the MH-92's fly-by-wire flight control system will fly in February, with delivery of the first of 28 Canadian aircraft - designated CH-148 Cyclones - scheduled for November 2008."

That would be February 2007. 



but by late July 2007 they were still doing ground testing

http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/military/14368.html

"Monday, July 30, 2007
Canadian Maritime S-92 Fly-by-Wire Technology Passes First Ground Runs
Sikorsky Aircraft reports that fly-by-wire technology for the H-92 version of the S-92 that it is building for the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program has passed two days of initial ground tests.


But it didn't fly until a few weeks ago.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,9602,CLI1_DIV69_ETI2650,00.html

"Sikorsky Aircraft Helicopter With Fly-by-Wire Technology Completes Flawless First Flight

Dec. 21, 2007
- 

STRATFORD, Conn., - The first H-92® helicopter to feature fly-by-wire technology has completed its first successful flight, Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. announced today. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).

The historic first flight took place on Dec. 20 at 9 a.m. from the Sikorsky Development Flight Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. The new fly-by-wire technology is designed to significantly improve aircraft maneuverability, safety and effectiveness. Sikorsky currently has two development programs which will feature the FBW technology, the X-2 Technology™ demonstrator, and the newest model of the BLACK HAWK helicopter, the UH-60M.

"This successful flight of the first H-92 helicopter to feature state-of-the-art fly-by-wire technology ushers in a new era for the H-92 product line," said Stephen B. Estill, Sikorsky vice president & chief marketing officer. "This aircraft was the first of a new generation of helicopters designed to new and more demanding standards for safety and reliability, and with fly-by-wire, it sets course for the path ahead and the next phase of flight testing in 2008."




This could be the delay . . . .  the time line fits - about 11 months


IF this ends up being the cause for the sched change/slip, then the PMO has known about it for quite a while.  I'd be really surprised if FBY was not on the Critical Path, so at the best case scenario any FBY delay is a day-for-day program slip.  And that's a best case.

Time will tell."


----------



## dot connector

Is going from hydraulics to FBW enough of a difference to in effect create a uniquely different airframe from the original S-92 and if so what does that mean to Canada?


----------



## Domagala

Anyone have any idea on how the Air Nav job is going to look like on the new Cyclone???   I applied for Air Nav for RMC 2009.....  and it would be real nice working on a brand new piece of equipment.
-Domagala


----------



## Baz

The basic job description will be much like that on the Sea King.  the crew is staying the same with 2 Pilots, a Nav, and an AESOp.

Navigator is a little bit of a misnomer.  The aircraft has three EGIs (Embedded GPS/INS) to support the Fly By wire, plus a fourth GPS to support the pilots IFR .  So actually needing to do classical navigation won't be a focus, the job is about Tactics, thus the term Tactical Coordinator (TACCO).

Although the basic concepts will be similar to the Sea King, to plan and conduct the mission, the extra capabilities will make it much more challenging.  I think there will be even more pre and post flight interaction with the ship's Ops Room, with the addition of Link and EW sensors.  Airborne, there will be an increase in comms requirements due to the extra information being gathered, and the Tacco will still be responsible for tactical comms.  Picture compilation, sensor fusion and Link correlation will be huge tasks.  The division of labour for sensors (monitoring, operating, and analyzing) is yet to be figured out.  The Tacco will keep responsibility for weapons employment.

The "back door" (a little bit of a misnomer on the Cyclone, the hoisting door is front right) work will be the same - hoisting, slinging, etc.

I think Taccos will still have the opportunity to become crew commanders, which are essentially mission commanders in the MH world.

Its a great time to be MH   (an inside joke...)


----------



## CharlieCF

Has anyone heard anything more about the delays regarding the CH-148.  I know that the message seems to be that it is 30 months, but I still have not heard any clear confirmation from the Government or Sikorsky about this.  Both Sikorsky and the Canadian government are being very tightlipped on this, referring everything to the public works office, but no clear/real answers being given.  It seems to me that instead of working on making this story hidden and the reason for the delays not clearly defined, the government is protecting them, that doesn't seem right to me.  Any thoughts?


----------



## h3tacco

From the Treasury Board's website:



> In November 2007, the project marked the three-year milestone in the implementation phase.  The project focus is now shifting from design and engineering to aircraft manufacturing and assembly followed by flight tests and delivery of the aircrafts.  The prime contractor has recently informed the government of a delay in the planned delivery date for the integrated Maritime Helicopter.  Government representatives are currently conducting a detailed review of all aspects of the contractor's schedule to determine how to minimize the impact of these delays and to ensure that they will not affect the key performance and airworthiness requirements of the Canadian Forces. Other components of the project such as construction of the Training Centre building in Shearwater, NS, and ship modification work on HMCS MONTREAL have progressed well and are on schedule.  The project is currently running within its authorized budget.



http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/dnd/dnd14-eng.asp#mcp16


----------



## MarkOttawa

Crap should hit the rotor:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=80902dde-fa97-45b1-9296-fe7083d67811&k=81872



> The long-awaited arrival of new military helicopters to replace Canada's worn-out Sea King fleet has been *delayed by as many as three years* [emphasis added], CanWest News Service has learned.
> 
> The obsolete, 1960s-era Sea Kings were due to be phased out starting this year with the arrival of new CH 148 Cyclone helicopters, designed to be flown off the decks of the navy's warships.
> 
> The first of 28 Cyclones - ordered in 2004 from Sikorsky International in Connecticut, at a cost of $1.8 billion - was scheduled to arrive at the Shearwater air base near Halifax in November this year, with additional aircraft coming one per month thereafter.
> 
> But military staff at Shearwater have been told that the first new Cyclone won't arrive until 2010 or 2011 - two to three years later than promised.
> 
> The team of pilots, mechanics and technicians assembled to do trials on the first new helicopter has also been put on hold because of the delay.
> 
> That means the military will have to keep the old Sea Kings flying - already a difficult task - another two or three years until the Cyclones are delivered and made operational...
> 
> Myrhaugen [ retired air force colonel, Sea King pilot, and former deputy commander of the military's maritime air group], one of a number of retired officers who have campaigned hard to have the Sea Kings replaced, says negotiations are currently underway between Ottawa and Sikorsky, the prime contractor, to rewrite portions of the Cyclone procurement contract.
> 
> He says new engineering requirements - likely a result of technology advances in certain aircraft components, which weren't foreseen in 2004 - mean the original contract must now be reworked.
> 
> "Manufacturers may well have new equipment or upgrades available. And as a result of it, they've come to a situation where the original contract is undeliverable," Myrhaugen says. "What's being negotiated between Sikorsky and the Crown is how we get the end product in view of that situation.
> 
> "This is not abnormal," he says, "but when contracts change it has an impact on arrival time and cost, and it's almost like starting over in some respects."
> 
> The original 2004 contract included penalties against the manufacturer in the event of delivery delays.
> 
> Myrhaugen says he isn't aware of any penalties being levied yet, and no official announcement has been made about any delays. Sikorsky's website still says the first Cyclone is due for delivery in November.
> 
> Officials at Sikorsky and the Department of Defence did not answer requests for interviews on the matter...
> 
> Myrhaugen says Sikorsky may still find a way to deliver the aircraft on time, but warns that if a delay occurs, "the likelihood of making the Sea Kings survive is extremely limited."
> 
> The Sea King's primary job is flying off Canada's frigates and destroyers. It is a valuable tool for surveillance, search and rescue, and transport .
> 
> But some Canadian warships no longer sail on overseas missions with helicopters - or with their full detachment of helicopters - because there aren't enough reliable Sea Kings available...
> 
> *Myrhaugen says helicopter crews are only getting a fraction of the flying hours they were once required to have to maintain proficiency* [emphasis added].
> 
> "It's sinful. They've cut back to the absolute essentials," he says.
> 
> The Sea Kings were going to be replaced more than a decade ago with new helicopters purchased by the Brian Mulroney government but, in 1993, then-incoming prime minister Jean Chretien cancelled the contract. A new contract was not signed until 2004, after Paul Martin came to power...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## maniac779

Have they stopped the flow of pipes into the MH community as a result of this delay?


----------



## CharlieCF

What is causing the delay?  At first I thought it may be the FBW, but I read recently that Sikorsky is fielding aircraft in the UK that has the capabilities that are going to be included in their CSAR bid in the US.  I know that they are moving the FBW technology into their bid, so what other problems is the company having that is causing these delays?  Also, why is the government not upset about this.  The government does not seem to be readily trying to force Sikorsky to get these aircrafts out on time or pay for a solution that would allow them to have aircraft beginning in November that would suffice until the Cyclone is ready (I am thinking of leasing here).  

Not trying to suppose that there is some cover-up here, but it seems to me that their is some relationship between Sikorsky and the government that precludes anyone from knowing the real cause.

Sikorsky also has their highly-paid lobbyists who are keeping Sikorsky on the governments good graces and the media out of the government and Sikorsky's face as much as possible regarding the delays.


----------



## hippie

maniac779 said:
			
		

> Have they stopped the flow of pipes into the MH community as a result of this delay?



Negatron.  Until we are told otherwise, we still need to generate aircrew to fly the Sea King, since she'll be gleefully galavanting about the heavens until well after the new bird arrives.

Another group of four pipes are slated to start the OTU around the Jul / Aug timeframe, around the time my course should be finished.  In addition, one guy just got posted to 423 Sqn off the most recent BHS course, probably looking at a Jan 09 start.


----------



## geo

Am confused...
They have a relatively large number of Cyclones coming down the pipe.
Would it be practical to take 50% with current - existing technology and permit the delay of the balance to benefit from the technology upgrades... they when we bring the 1st "old" batch into the shop for a major refit, we could process the upgrades.

Sounds simple to me - though I am not a rotorhead


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Myrhaugen says helicopter crews are only getting a fraction of the flying hours they were once required to have to maintain proficiency [emphasis added].



Ummm...No.  12 Wing flew a record amount last year.

Pipes of all types (Nav, AES Op and Pilot) are still flowing to 12 Wing- enjoy flying the classic bird while you still can- people will lament the eventual passing of the Sea King.


----------



## observor 69

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080430.CHOPPERS30//TPStory/Front

Cost overruns endanger copter deal
Ottawa warns it could kill contract after U.S.-based Sikorsky requests up to $500-million more in its bid to replace aging Sea Kings
DANIEL LEBLANC and STEVEN CHASE AND BRIAN LAGHI 

April 30, 2008

OTTAWA -- Federal officials are threatening to cancel a $5-billion contract with Sikorsky Inc. because the U.S.-based helicopter maker is asking for up to $500-million in extra funds to replace Canada's 40-year-old Sea Kings.

Senior sources said the relationship between Ottawa and Sikorsky took a turn for the worse after the firm acknowledged this year that it was running late in its plans to provide 28 high-tech Cyclone helicopters to the Canadian Forces.

The government's controversial efforts to replace the Sea Kings, which go back to the early 1990s, are now complicated by Sikorsky's request for more funds to deliver replacement helicopters.

Sikorsky officials refused to comment on the current negotiations, but senior federal officials said the company has requested between $250-million and $500-million in new funding. 


More at link


----------



## geo

Lovely!

Bid low to land the contract, give the impression that everything is ducky & on schedule for xx months - in order to go beyond the drop dead line AND then hit your client with a whammy - cost overruns that make the whole deal a "take it or leave it"....

Just lovely!


----------



## beenthere

This is starting to smell bad. Very bad. We're now funding the development of new technology rather than buying helicopters.


----------



## Haletown

The article in the Globe doesn't really say much.  


The big issue is that one side - the Government, has "gone public" . . .   which means that the negotiations have gone very sour and the tactics used have totally changed.  Saving face is now part of the deal.

Too bad they couldn't have settled quietly.  I'd bet it's going to get messy.


----------



## CharlieCF

Thank goodness the government is finally saying something.  I love Brousseu's quote of the "contractors claimed reasons for the delays".  I think that finally truth is coming out.  Sikorsky has been saving face for a very long time now, but that was a ticking time bomb.  Can only hold up a front of denial for so long.  I wonder how these delays are going to affect the U.S. CSAR competition considering that the platform they can't deliver to the Canadian government is the same one that they are proposing in this competition.  I would love to hear Sikorsky's "claimed" reasons for the delay, or should I say the true reasons.


----------



## Strike

"It's a good time to be MH!"

How long have people been saying that?   :


----------



## PinkPanther

Hippie said:
			
		

> Negatron.  Until we are told otherwise, we still need to generate aircrew to fly the Sea King, since she'll be gleefully galavanting about the heavens until well after the new bird arrives.
> 
> Another group of four pipes are slated to start the OTU around the Jul / Aug timeframe, around the time my course should be finished.  In addition, one guy just got posted to 423 Sqn off the most recent BHS course, probably looking at a Jan 09 start.



And that guy is me! Just here in MJ at the Glass Palace waiting for my HHT....  so I'm catching up on all the rumors!


----------



## WrenchBender

Strike said:
			
		

> "It's a good time to be MH!"
> 
> How long have people been saying that?   :


Ever since the first "Sea King Replacement" program stood up in 1977.

I arrived in Shearwater as a young wide eyed Pte in Jan 1980 and was told, don't worry something new is coming soon. This year we will celebrate 45 years of the 'Pig serving Canadian Naval Aviation.

WrenchBender
"We don't care,
We're Naval Air"


----------



## BEN 621

hmmmmm... couldn't have seen these problems coming with a new helicopter as opposed to an off-the-shelf model. What are the odds EH would jump with the EH-101 in if the Sikorsky contract is canned? Might be a common sense move to bring some commonality back into the picture.


----------



## Haletown

I'm going to keep my powder dry here for awhile until we find out what is going on.  The Gov't side has leaked to teh press - probably as a negotiating tactic. 

Let's find out why the cost over runs/schedule delays are happening.  Step 1 is to review the Engineering Change Order Record and see what thay says. Then look at the Contracts Letter Log to see which side has been responding promptly and which side has agreed to do what, for how much & by when.

We haven't heard from Sikorsky yet so let's just wait for the details.  This wouldn't be the first time that a PMO has gone sideways and the ass covering plan is to blame the contractor.

This is likely negotiating . .  . I'd doubt the contract would be canceled for a dispute that amounts to 10% of the overall contract value. Time for both parties to bend a little and get the deal back on track.

We need these choppers.


----------



## geo

recce_copper said:
			
		

> hmmmmm... couldn't have seen these problems coming with a new helicopter as opposed to an off-the-shelf model. What are the odds EH would jump with the EH-101 in if the Sikorsky contract is canned? Might be a common sense move to bring some commonality back into the picture.


True, EH would probably jump at the chance to back in here..... BUT, there is the issue of the various problems we've had with the Cormorant AND the matter of that little $$$ hunk of change that was dropped when we cancelled on the 1st go around.


----------



## Haletown

So hints today in the paper that the issue is performance related, they might need more powerful engines or a five bladed rotor instead of the current four.

Interesting . . . did Sikorsky goof on the design & they are overweight ?  Is the current engine pack not delivering as promised? Is the mission equipment coming in heavy ?  Have Gov't instigated Engineering Change Orders caused the  performance gap ?

Quite the mystery and no answers yet.  Must be some MSM journalist out there in Disney on the Rideau with contacts in the PMO.

The answer will come out eventually, I just wanna skip to the last page of the book right now  and find out what has happened   ;D


----------



## MrWhyt

> I wonder how these delays are going to affect the U.S. CSAR competition considering that the platform they can't deliver to the Canadian government is the same one that they are proposing in this competition



A version of the Chinook already won that competition, though of course the losers have raised objections and they might re-open it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Government talking fairly tough; pretty high stakes standoff, in which there sure don't seem to be any easy or very good results.:

Ottawa refuses to pay extra for helicopters
Sikorsky must live up to $5-billion contract, Public Works Minister says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080501.CHOPPERS01//TPStory/National



> The Harper government refused yesterday to fork over any extra cash to Sikorsky Inc., which has asked for hundreds of millions in additional funds to deliver promised helicopters to the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Issuing a warning that applies to all federal suppliers, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said Sikorsky has to live up to its $5-billion contracts to provide 28 Cyclone helicopters to replace Canada's 40-year-old Sea Kings.
> 
> "When the government signs a deal with a supplier for a specific good at price X, that's the price the government should pay for that good," said Mr. Fortier, a lawyer and former banker.
> 
> "Where I come from, a price is not an approximation, it's not an estimate. ... In this case, the price was set at contract signing."..
> 
> ...Mr. Fortier said the U.S.-based firm has to find a way to meet its contract. If that doesn't happen, he made a thinly veiled threat to cancel the deal and find another way to replace the Sea Kings, which are nearing the end of their life cycle.
> 
> "I gave clear direction to my deputy minister that he was to try and break the logjam and find a solution, but at the same time, we are working, as we should be, on alternative solutions if we can't come to an agreement with the supplier [emphasis added]," Mr. Fortier said in an interview...
> 
> Government officials have been told that the prototypes for the Cyclones are struggling to reach key requirements set out by National Defence, such as conducting a typical anti-submarine mission in two hours and 50 minutes.
> 
> There is speculation in the aircraft industry that Sikorsky wants to provide the Canadian Forces with a helicopter that has a more powerful engine, a bigger gearbox and a fifth rotor, which would allow it to meet all requirements.
> 
> However, such a helicopter would be more costly than the original four-bladed version proposed by Sikorsky...



MacKay won’t axe Cyclone deal — yet
Delays, cost overruns put replacement project in jeopardy
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1053191.html


> ...
> The military "started getting vague signals" from Sikorsky last fall about delays in delivery, Mr. MacKay said.
> 
> "We’ve now had one major sit-down with Sikorsky to hash out some of the potential problems here," he said...
> 
> Mr. MacKay said he’s worried further delays could cost the military pilots.
> 
> "Am I concerned? Absolutely," he said. "Am I concerned that we’ve, in fact, already lost qualified people because of the delays? Of course I am. I’m very concerned."
> 
> Any more bad news could be devastating for the "fragile" Sea King community, said Larry McWha, a retired colonel who used to fly the helicopters.
> 
> He’s heard from people who are still in uniform that some air force personnel are considering leaving the military due to the delays...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KingKikapu

If the delay is true, how on earth do they plan to train the next generation operators?  I assume that's getting pushed back as well, and in the meantime, we continue to train people for a system that is only a few quick skips away from the decomissioned junkpile?


----------



## hippie

MrWhyt said:
			
		

> A version of the Chinook already won that competition, though of course the losers have raised objections and they might re-open it.



It already has been reopened.  Just do a google search to find out the latest news on it.  Chinook one the first round, but as you say, after objections from the other competitors, it was reopened.  I've seen it called CSAR v2.0

If the USAF went for the HH-92, it would bode well for us methinks.


----------



## Haletown

DID had an update last week.

Said the H-92 might be in 2nd place.

Not shot of our SAR 101

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gao-re-csarx-recompete-the-contract-03082/


----------



## jzaidi1

Wow,

I must be out to lunch.  I thought the CH-149 Cormorant was supposed to replace the Sea King.  Can they not land on ships?

J


----------



## MarkOttawa

If we're desperate would there be any argument for buying Sikorsky S-70B Seahawks?
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/seahawk/
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-helo-s70.htm

The aircraft was considered for the maritime helicopter for a while in the 90s after the EH-101 contract was cancelled:
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/943-e.htm#2.%20Shipborne

Indeed the Seahawk was initially thought of for the competition the EH-101 won in 1987:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-124_Sea_King



> ...Three contenders were singled out as possible replacement for the Sea King: Sikorsky's S-70 SeaHawk (called the SH-60 Seahawk in the US Navy), Aérospatiale’s AS332F Super Puma and finally, AgustaWestland's new EH-101, of which the latter was purposely designed to be a Sea King replacement[8]
> 
> However, in a surprise move, Sikorsky then withdrew from the contest, the reason being that the SeaHawk was seen by the CF to be too small...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Mark, you must be psychic about an alternate to the Superhawk 

DID posted this a few minutes ago.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mh-60rs-the-usas-new-naval-workhorse-helicopters-04435/


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

If there's a dispute with Sikorsky, I'm not so sure another of their products would be a good idea.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: "Psychic":  some knowledge and good at Googling ;D!

More on new USN Seahawks here:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mh60r-seahawk-upgrade-enters-opeval-0509/

If good enough for them...?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well the bonus would be to buy into a existing buy plus access to spare parts and a much faster learning curve for accidents and malfunction issues. However I have to ask why was this aircraft not considered for the last competition?


----------



## CharlieCF

MrWhyt said:
			
		

> A version of the Chinook already won that competition, though of course the losers have raised objections and they might re-open it.



They already re-opened it in 2007.  The new proposals are due May 27, and Sikorsky is bidding the same aircraft that they have for Canada--so that their new bid includes the FBW.


----------



## jzaidi1

LOL - I think I found our Cyclone replacement...too bad something like won't be coming out anytime soon for the private pilot.

Link:
http://gizmodo.com/385236/falx-promises-private-tilt+rotor-aircraft-verdict-improbable

J


----------



## T.S.Rea

SeaKings getting really old, Cormorants having maintenance problems, Griffons not powerful enough, Chinooks needed now, Cyclones delayed for years.

If used Chinooks can be bought reasonably quickly, why not buy two or three dozen used ones now to replace the SeaKing, Cormorant, and Cyclone, and develop a domestic rebuild/navalization program to begin reworking the airframes to bring them up to requirements.  Although it would raise a number of problems with integrating them to the frigates, would it not also solve multiple requirements in the longer run?  Even if it is a big and expensive aircraft to operate, a reduced airframe/UAV Griffon or some future V-UAV type would likely conserve on the use of the aircraft.

Aren't real helicopters better than paper helicopters?

And start looking to the future for an aircraft better than all of these types?

Just thinking outside the box.


----------



## aesop081

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> If used Chinooks can be bought reasonably quickly, why not buy two or three dozen used ones now to replace the *SeaKing*, Cormorant, and Cyclone,



You go try to fit a Chinook on a frigate. Once your done , come back here and let me know how you made out.  :


----------



## peaches

This is one area we certainly have problems in.  Again, too much with too little of the wrong helo.  The Cyclones will be a great machine when we finally get them.  This is all a result of AF leadership that has no idea they *are* running and AF, let alone *how* to run one.  I can say that, I am AF.

We need the right helos, COMBAT helos, not civy ones painted green.  I think the Cyclone was a good buy, but you need to fix Tac Hel and have them both work together along the lines of the British Joint Helo Force.  

Myself, I would tell the army, no, I cannot provide each brigade with a seperate helo unit, but I can provide the Army with real tac helos when and where they need them.  Buy 1 full Sqn of Chinook's, another full Sqn of "REAL" UTTH and finally a full Sqn of Attck helos.  Base them together on the same airfield so they can train to work together.  Army units can go to that base and conduct air assault training with the helos.  We have 3 CMBG's in Canada; reform 1 Cdn Div, and have 1 Wg their "Avn Brigade".  Train the Maritime helo guys to do troop insertions to augment 1 Wg.  Train 1Wg to operate helos off Navy ships.  A real combat Airforce........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Even thinking outside of a box, there is not an ASW version of the 'hook. I am betting the cost would be too high to convert it to such a role. Please lets keep them in Heavy Lift where they will do the most good.

TS you would also have to add height, length and width to accomodate a chinook on a CPF, more money that could be spent elsewhere.


----------



## peaches

Chinooks on a frigate will not work, too big.  You might be able to put the army version on one of the new proposed supply ships, not sure of the deck dimensions.  But you can train the maritime helo guys to insert troops and their helos do fit on the boats.


----------



## Sub_Guy

peaches said:
			
		

> This is one area we certainly have problems in.  Again, too much with too little of the wrong helo.  The Cyclones will be a great machine when we finally get them.  This is all a result of AF leadership that has no idea they *are* running and AF, let alone *how* to run one.  I can say that, I am AF.



How about an AF leadership who keeps getting screwed around by the government.  Leadership all across the CF are trying their best to upgrade their equipment, this has nothing to do with leadership not knowing what to do.   There is so much to do and a limited amount of resources the last thing the CF needs is a supplier demanding more money for a contract that has had so many problems getting off the ground, all of which due to government, not AF leadership.


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> How about an AF leadership who keeps getting screwed around by the government.



Exactly.

CP-140 AIMP was forced on the AF by the government

The AF would have had the Sea King replaced years ago when we bought the EH-101....government cancelled that

The CH-146 was a political purchase not a military choice

FWSAR......government again

Need i go on ?


----------



## Good2Golf

The most cost-effective and pan-AF supportable solution in the big picture for the AF would have been a fleet of EH-101 variants providing: SAR, Maritime and Heavy-lift Transport, each with reasonable and appropriate alterations to tweak them to the missions, absolutely doable.  Chinook for heavy list isn't a bad thing, and definitely gets the "right arc" of fire for lifting _in extremis_.  The H92, IMO, was born of a two-fold reason: 1) the Libs wanted anything other than an EH-101 so as to keep Chretien's "legacy"  ??? intact, and 2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)  Folding rotors and tail and new FBW should most surely have been portents of the troubles to come on H92/CH148.  There is so much legacy pressure on anything "helicopter" in Canada, I am astounded.  What is it with helicopters that successive governments feel compelled to screw the Departement over on?  ???

G2G


----------



## Haletown

and we still don't know why the 92's are late and over budget . . . .  

The government side has gone public, we need to hear from Sikorski.  Wouldn't be the first time in contracting history that Change Orders have changed dates & budgets so much finger pointing has resulted.  


A fleet of 92's would also fit the bill for single type medium lift helicopter for both Navy & Army use, with a heavy lift squadron of Chinooks for the big stuff and squadron of Griffon's for light/utility.  We just need a government with a majority and the will to make the $$'s happen. 

Assuming the 92's do what Sikorski advertising says they will do.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> 2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)



Tell you what- you go move 200lb stokes litters around or load sonobuoys hunched over or on your knees in the back of bouncing helicopter with a cabin just over 5 feet high.  Let me know how it works out for you.  Even the Sea King is a pain for taller AES Ops and Navigators to work in.   

As you well know, NH-90 is a nice machine- but it fell out of the running for the same reasons as another nice machine (the Seahawk).  It is just too small for the manner in which we operate Maritime Helicopters in Canada.  Sadly, we are forced to be all things to all people, because we are only going to get one airframe type.  That implies a larger aircraft.

Time will tell how this is going to all play out.  In the mean time, Sea King serviceability has never been better.  There will be a near record amount of Dets on simultaneous deployment this summer.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Tell you what- you go move 200lb stokes litters around or load sonobuoys hunched over or on your knees in the back of bouncing helicopter with a cabin just over 5 feet high.  Let me know how it works out for you.  Even the Sea King is a pain for taller AES Ops and Navigators to work in.



SKT, that's also busting some chops, I know.  Honestly, though, you should get the AESOP to do all the hard work, so you don't mess up your manicure.  :-*

Seriously though, if you had your take of 101 (with Ti half-hub), H-92 or NH-90 tomorrow (as in 2009-2010ish), which would you go for?

Cheers, bro.
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Can't believe I'm actually saying this but-

EH-101 with the new tail rotor.  There. said it.

*disclaimer- my comments are mine alone and do not represent Canadian Govt, CF or Air Force Policy.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Can't believe I'm actually saying this but-
> 
> EH-101 with the new tail rotor.  There. said it.
> 
> *disclaimer- my comments are mine alone and do not represent Canadian Govt, CF or Air Force Policy.



Dude, come on...that's not nearly as bad as me saying 101 for heavy-lift!  I'm going straight to "Chez Beelzebub" for that one!  ;D


----------



## KJK

One good thing about a fleet of EH 101's to do everything, it sure would simplify maintenance and training.   

KJK


----------



## h3tacco

The frigate version of the NH90 is not in service and is having multiple development delays with the undercarriage and mission system. If we had ordered the NH90 we would not have them on time.


----------



## beenthere

It's not a great idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. Just imagine the problems that could be created if all of your helicopters developed the same major problem at the same time. Something like a structural failure that required an immediate fix involving a lot of engineering and work. Most of the helicopters that have been around for some time have already gone through their growing pains and problem areas have been identified.


----------



## CBH99

Hey guys,

Been reading through the thread, but I didn't see anything on this idea yet.  If I missed it, sorry.

What about going with a smaller aircraft, like the S-70B Seahawk (Or whatever the modern version is) - instead of the CH-148??

I know it was discussed earlier that we need a larger, more versatile aircraft due to a single aircraft-type fleet, and limited numbers.  But since the Seahawk would undoubtedly have a lower price tag, could we not purchase more airframes for the same cost as we're paying for the CH-148?

Both are built by the same manufacturer.  The Seahawk is already in service, and any growing pains have been worked out.  There is a steady stream of them on the production line.  And as mentioned before, would we not be able to purchase additional airframes due to lower cost??

*I'm totally outside my lane here, I know.  Just curious to hear what you AF guys think about the concept*


----------



## aesop081

CBH99 said:
			
		

> could we not purchase more airframes for the same cost as we're paying for the CH-148?



We can only put so many aircraft at sea on one deployement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CBH99 reply 136 refers to the Seahawk.


----------



## peaches

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> How about an AF leadership who keeps getting screwed around by the government.  Leadership all across the CF are trying their best to upgrade their equipment, this has nothing to do with leadership not knowing what to do.   There is so much to do and a limited amount of resources the last thing the CF needs is a supplier demanding more money for a contract that has had so many problems getting off the ground, all of which due to government, not AF leadership.




I agree 1000% about the government and lack of $$.  But that's where leadership comes to play.  I do not want to sound negative, but we do have a problem within the AF, a serious problem.  we have "de-fanged" the AF, taken away much of its COMBAT capability.  The role of the airforce is AIR COMBAT, fire, brimstone and death from the sky.  We are the keepers of our nations airborne weapons systems, not the forest fire patrol, not the fisheries department!!  We have been doing everyone elses job for so long we have,at high levels, forgotten what our real focus is and should be, warfighting.  

Being in my position, I have been privy to many a meeting at high level, combat is never discussed, an when brought up quickly dismissed.  I have been in several operations where senior leadership has not been willing or able to make decisions, where, were it not for a few quick thinking capts & majs things would have fallen apart.  Recently the former CAS visited my wing before he retired.  He was given a tour of my unit, briefed on our capabilities and limitations.  He asked no questions until he came into our break room and asked 4 about the pool table!!  I heard similar stories from friends in other units he visited.  we have some serious problems that need fixing.  Aircarft like the Cyclone & Chinook will go a long way to fixing the issues, unless some twit puts them on crop dusting duties.


----------



## geo

I feel for ya peaches.
The army was in those exact shoes for night on 40 years and only got back into the warfighting business after 9/11

Remember - the Government of the day was embarassed to bring up Medak to the Canadian public - at the risk of letting people know that we could still fight.

The ariforce as a service provider should be able to do more than offer .... transport.


----------



## beenthere

Right on.  Put the force back into air force.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You go try to fit a Chinook on a frigate. Once your done , come back here and let me know how you made out.  :



You're such a disbeliever, as long as you maintain a 80-90kt groundspeed on approach the Chinook will fit into the hanger, (as well as the stackflats)  ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Unfortunately when the Air Force and the Navy gets looked upon as a transportation asset of the Army by certain Generals then both services end up being defanged to the detriment of all.


----------



## h3tacco

It should not be a big surprise that the USN and CF Navy operate differently and have different requirements. The USN is currently fielding the MH-60R and MH-60S to replace the SH-60B, SH-60F, HH-60H, CH-46 and left-over UH-1s and UH-3s. The MH-60R is designed to handle all the USN's  warfare missions (ASW and ASuW); it has no additional capability. The aircraft is jammed with equipement and barely has room for 3 crew and 1 pax. It has a radar, ESM, dipping sonar, EO/IR, and sonobouy's. It will primarily embark on the FFGs, DDGs, CGs and to a limited extent CVs. The MH-60S is completely stripped out  and does not have any of the mission equipment of the MH-60R except for the EO/IR. It is actually a variant of the UH-60 and has a different cabin and tail wheel config and does not have a RAST. The MH-60S is designed primarily to conduct VERTREP and SAR but does have a prosposed limited ASuW capabilty albeit without a radar. It is also supposed to replace the MH-53 in the Mine Countermeasures Role, however, there are doubts that it has either the payload or endurance to conduct that mission. It will primarily embarke only on AORs and CVs. 

The CH148 will have nearly an identical mission equipment fit to MH-60R with the exception of an additional crew member (TACCO) and the without the Hellfire capability. The big difference is with all the mission equipment the CH148 will still be able to handle an additional six passengers and SAR equipment, with the ability to remove some of the mission equipment in order carry additional pax and gear. 

Purchasing either the MH-60R or MH-60S would not be satisfactory and purchasing a mixed fleet would require a shift in the way we operate, would likely increase O&M, and provide a loss of operational flexibility (the MH-60S could only embark on the AORs or JSS). Whoever said if it is good enough for the USN then it should be good enough for us does not understand the vast difference in how our two navies are organized or operate.


----------



## geo

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Unfortunately when the Air Force and the Navy gets looked upon as a transportation asset of the Army by certain Generals then both services end up being defanged to the detriment of all.



100% agreement from the peanut gallery

Though the Navy has been filling a security / picket role in the Persian gulf & indian ocean... at least that is a "combat/interdiction" role


----------



## peaches

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The most cost-effective and pan-AF supportable solution in the big picture for the AF would have been a fleet of EH-101 variants providing: SAR, Maritime and Heavy-lift Transport, each with reasonable and appropriate alterations to tweak them to the missions, absolutely doable.  Chinook for heavy list isn't a bad thing, and definitely gets the "right arc" of fire for lifting _in extremis_.  The H92, IMO, was born of a two-fold reason: 1) the Libs wanted anything other than an EH-101 so as to keep Chretien's "legacy"  ??? intact, and 2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)  Folding rotors and tail and new FBW should most surely have been portents of the troubles to come on H92/CH148.  There is so much legacy pressure on anything "helicopter" in Canada, I am astounded.  What is it with helicopters that successive governments feel compelled to screw the Departement over on?  ???
> 
> G2G




Agree with everything you say here except for the SAR role.  I do not believe the military should be doing domestic SAR, that is the Coast Guards job, but that's my opinion.  Giving the maritime helo folks the EH101, plus each brigade a sqn of them, and then have 1 Chinook & 1 Apache sqn at division level would make sense for our helo needs.


----------



## observor 69

Ya that sounds about right. The guys at the bottom of the food chain know the right answer but the further up you go the more politics you run into.


----------



## peaches

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Ya that sounds about right. The guys at the bottom of the food chain know the right answer but the further up you go the more politics you run into.



Could not agree more.  Politics screws everything up.  Takes the simple solution and complicates it for the sake of complicating it.  Like the name Baden guy, I was there as a kid '74-78.  Lived in Wintersdorf.


----------



## Haletown

things overall could be worse, we could have ordered A400's instead of buying C17's and we would be waiting, waiting, waiting for our Strat Lift as well.


http://bp1.blogger.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/SB4XQ27OoXI/AAAAAAAAHGk/dkn9z-7PdbE/s1600-h/AIR+-+A400M+6776.jpg


----------



## CharlieCF

Haletown said:
			
		

> and we still don't know why the 92's are late and over budget . . . .
> 
> The government side has gone public, we need to hear from Sikorski.



I completely agree!!!  They want more money citing a need for a more powerful engine, but don't think this realization of theirs just happened overnight.  It seems that the company has known about these problems (technical and financial) for a while now, but are slowing letting things out of the woodwork.  I don't blame the Canadian government for being upset with this situation.  There is no true deadline established, just a rough figure of 30 months and the aircraft is probably still not operational and definitely won't be by the Jan. 2009 deadline (as everyone knows).  I just want the whole story out of Sikorsky...how long and how much...and most importantly why!

I know I have said it before, but what even makes Sikorsky think that their H-92 (CH-148) proposal for the US CSAR-X competition is going to do any better.  It is the same freakin' aircraft.  I think that Sikorsky is stretching out these delays in their hope to win the US CSAR competition which will give them extra funding to upgrade the aircraft, thus they are letting any true reasons for the delay out and will not confirm a delivery date.  The delivery will be sooner if they win the US competition, much later if they don't.     But, if the USAF picks Sikorsky with all of their problems in Canada with the same platform, that is their fault.  Still going to be delays and problems with Sikorsky.


----------



## CharlieCF

So, I constructed this timeline from news I have seen from Sikorsky, trying to encompass the story of the company's delays and see if their was any indication of where it started.  I find it interesting how from going through the history, you can see the Canadian government's initial support turn into frustration and low-confidence in the company and aircraft.

Let me know what you guys think.

05/08: More powerful engine needed for extra lift capacity because of the type of operations flown
05/01/08 – Canada refuses to pay extra $500M for helicopters according to Public Works Minister.  DM MacKay: “We obviously want to avoid-and I emphasize not at all cost-but we want to avoid a further delay.”
04/30/08 --  Defense Minister Peter MacKay: "We're not threatening anything until we have an opportunity to sit down and have a detailed discussion with Sikorsky about when these aircraft are going to be delivered."
04/08 -- Federal officials say that the Cyclones need a more powerful engine to meet Canada's requirements, no reason given.
04/08 – Canada Public Works:  "Once we have completed our review of the contractor's claimed reasons for delay, we will be in a position to determine Canada's next steps.  Canada is keeping all of its contractual and legal options open to minimize delay in procuring new maritime helicopters.” No delivery date in sight.
04/08 -- Federal officials are threatening to cancel a $5-billion contract with Sikorsky Inc. because the U.S.-based helicopter maker is asking for up to $500-million in extra funds 
04/08 –Sikorsky Canada Inc. has a number of influential lobbyists working on their behalf, which include Patrick O’Donnell of CFN Consultants, Pierre Laguex and George MacDonald also of CFN, and Walter Robinson of Tactix Government Consulting Inc. 
02/08 – Canada Public Works statement: “In Nov. 2007, the project marked the three-year milestone in the implementation phase… Government representatives are currently a detailed review of all aspects of the contractor’s schedule to determine how to minimize the impact of these delays and to ensure that they will not affect the key performance and airworthiness requirements of the Canadian Forces.  Other components of the project such as construction of the Training Center building in Shearwater, NS, and ship modification work on HMCS Montreal have progressed well and are on schedule.  The project is currently running within its authorized budget.” 
02/25/08 – S-92 on cover of Aviation Week and Space Technology
01/08 – Canada Public Works statement: “We are addressing the implication of what a delay on the delivery of the maritime helicopters will have on the operational requirements of DND and PWGSC is considering all possible options with respect to Sikorsky’s default on the timely delivery of the Maritime Helicopters.”
01/08 - Sikorsky announces delivery of the CH-148 Cyclones could be delayed by 30 months. He says new engineering requirements -- likely a result of technology advances in certain aircraft components, which weren't foreseen in 2004 -- mean the original contract must now be reworked.   No specific technology advancement given…FBW?  Canada threatening to deeply penalize Sikorsky “thousands of dollars” for each day the choppers are late.  $36 million maximum penalty.
12/07- First H-92 helicopter to feature FBW has completed its first successful flight
07/07 – Still doing FBW ground testing – was to have had actual flight test in 02/07
01/07 -- Replacement helicopters for Canada's geriatric fleet of Sea Kings will be delivered at least 5 1/2 weeks late from Sikorsky International because of a strike at the company's factory in the United States.  However, the federal government says the delay is reasonable, and it is forgoing the late penalty provisions in the contract.  Delivery for Jan. 2009 
07/06 – www.flightglobal.com – A test bed for the MH-92’s FBW technology flight control system will fly in 02/07, with delivery of the first of 28 Canadian aircraft (CH-148) scheduled for 11/08
06/05 – Sikorsky and NRC Aerospace win award for helicopter FBW flight control system for H-92
07/04 – Sikorsky H-92 selected as New Canadian Forces Maritime Helicopter—delivery for Nov. 2008
11/03 – FBW flight control for Sikorsky S-92 and H-92 helicopters to use BAE Systems CsLEOS Real-time Operating System
09/03 – BAE Systems developing FBW flight controls for Sikorsky S-92 and H-92 helicopters – under agreement BAE also becomes Sikorsky’s preferred supplier for future FBW systems


----------



## CharlieCF

Ottawa has it dead right: not a dime more for Sikorsky

The Gazette [Montreal]

Monday, May 05, 2008

The tragicomic running saga of buying helicopters to replace the Canadian Forces' decrepit Sea Kings added another chapter last week. Sikorsky, a division of United Technologies Corp., is trying to shake down Canadian taxpayers for an extra quarter of a billion dollars - or maybe half a billion dollars. Why? The answer could be summed up in one word: "Oops."

The helicopter maker, which won the $5-billion order in 2004 for 28 Cyclone choppers, has decided, after careful consideration, that it will need those extra hundreds of millions to meet all the specifications and produce an aircraft that can perform all the jobs that Canadian Forces explained in great detail to all bidders a mere 17 years ago. The additional swag will pay for more powerful engines and for five-blade rotors instead of four-bladed ones.

Not on your life, replied Public Works Minister Michael Fortier. That might have been a shock to Sikorsky - defence procurement is usually pretty clubby - but it is an admirable stance, and we hope Fortier sticks to it.

His position is not just limpid, but appears unassailable legally: "When the government signs a deal with a supplier for a specific good at price X," Fortier said, "that's the price the government should pay for that good ... A price is not an approximation; it's not an estimate."

He then hinted unmistakably that unless Sikorsky fulfills its obligations at the agreed-upon price, Canada will look elsewhere for a supplier.

That should not be an empty threat. It has been 17 years since Ottawa decided to replace the Sea Kings, and the aged machines have been involved in 10 deaths. This fiasco over the choppers has truly been a bi-partisan effort. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have played with this deal over the years to gain political mileage. Fortier's pushback against Sikorsky is a refreshing change from business as usual.

Seventeen years is enough. Sikorsky should deliver the helicopters with the capabilities it promised when it won the deal. And at the price it promised.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If it were me, I'd be contacting Agusta Westland and giving them a shot at a sole-sourced contract for Merlin's.

They may be willing to fulfill the order at a much lower margin than normal, merely to sink their corporate opponent's primary competitive aircraft.


Matthew.


----------



## observor 69

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If it were me, I'd be contacting Agusta Westland and giving them a shot at a sole-sourced contract for Merlin's.
> 
> They may be willing to fulfill the order at a much lower margin than normal, merely to sink their corporate opponent's primary competitive aircraft.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



God wouldn't that be sweet.  ;D


----------



## Haletown

There is still nothing definitive .  .  some second hand bits & pieces in the newspapers about engines & rotors, but nobody on the record yet.

RUMINT only so far.  Nothing from Sikorsky one way or the other.  Strange PR strategy  

Not saying Sikorsky (or any of the subcontractors providing mission equipment) hasn't screwed the pooch here  . .  but I have seen PMO's go off the rails and the play "newspaper negotiating" to cover their butts.

Somebody on the inside knows if the leaked story is the real story, but so far the lid is still on the can.  I am surprised one of the ace reporters who regularly expose DND issues hasn't jumped into the breach . .   

There doesn't appear to anything substantial doing Google searches, at least that I can find.


----------



## CharlieCF

Haletown...I agree...very strange PR strange PR strategy from Sikorsky.  I am also surprised that no real stories have been uncovered, it seems that this story would be pursued by many Canadian journalists since this is their tax dollars and is affecting their troops.


CH-148 Platform Difficulties
The company has been experiencing FBW issues and they have also been having issues with regards to the platform: 
Had to add 40” plug
Tail assembly redesign
New rotor hub
Five blade system
New transmission 
New engine variant from GE--this is where they are asking for an additional $500 M

Sikorsky’s Tangled Web
Sikorsky has known the requirements since 2004 and to come out four years later and only twelve months before initial H-92 delivery and tell the Canadian Government there would be at least a 30 month delay in delivery with no reason officially publicly stated.  But then, only four months later, to tell the Canadian Government that it will cost $250 million to $500 million extra due to Sikorsky needing to swap out the engine in order to meet Canadian requirements.  Additionally, the company is not making any commitments on the delivery schedule, which can only lead to one of two conclusions.  One, is that Sikorsky is really bad at program management and has no idea of how to produce helicopters. Or two,  Sikorsky totally misjudged the difficulties of taking the S-92 and making it into the CH-148 (H-92). While Sikorsky did a masterful job of taking all of the S-92 goodness and then applying it to the H-92 by virtue of using the 92 designator, estimates are that there is only a 30% commonality between the two meaning that the H-92 is really a ground zero platform with very little pedigree to call on. 

The fact that Sikorsky has only sold 28 of the H-92 rotorcraft and all to Canada makes one wonder if they will ever be able to make a profit off these one-off platforms unless of course they are able to win the US Air Force CSAR-X competition in which case they will making an additional 140 units.

The Big Picture

Leading to the big picture dilemma facing Sikorsky, they have a platform that needs $250 - $500 Million and who knows how many years to have something that will meet the Canadian Government requirements while trying desperately to keep their difficulties in Canada under wraps so as not to hurt their chances in winning the US Air Force CSAR-X program.  Risk is a major factor in any competition and right now Sikorsky looks like a tremendous risk.  Which could be a reason for why they have been so slow in disclosing program difficulties with the Canadian Government while hoping to get a CSAR-X decision before things get too hot.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You said your last paragraph with the exception of the last line twice....


----------



## geo

> Leading to the big picture dilemma facing Sikorsky, they have a platform that needs $250 - $500 Million and who knows how many years to have something that will meet the Canadian Government requirements while trying desperately to keep their difficulties in Canada under wraps so as not to hurt their chances in winning the US Air Force CSAR-X program.  Risk is a major factor in any competition and right now Sikorsky looks like a tremendous risk.  Which could be a reason for why they have been so slow in disclosing program difficulties with the Canadian Government while hoping to get a CSAR-X decision before things get too hot.



From my perspective, if the feces hits the aerator, even after the USAF signs off on a contract for the CSAR-X, then anything pertinent to the decision that Sikorsky might have withheld would give cause to contract cancellation .... and fines for fraudulent representation....


----------



## kj_gully

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Dude, come on...that's not nearly as bad as me saying 101 for heavy-lift!  I'm going straight to "Chez Beelzebub" for that one!  ;D



I hear your disbelief... for the record, since we have received modified tail rotors, have not seen any cracking problems on the "shag" for several hundred hours, restrictions are being slowly relaxed... actually have a few flying. Still has lots of issues but not as bleak as it once was


----------



## Kirkhill

Nevermind.  Beaten to the punch.


----------



## CharlieCF

Brit S-92s Falling Short on Range
Defensetech.org (Blog)
By Christian Lowe
An alert DT reader forwarded this article to me from a British news service.
	New search-and-rescue helicopters serving remote parts of the Highlands have yet to carry out a long-range rescue - eight months after being brought into service.
	There have been problems with the multimillion-pound aircraft over the use of long-distance fuel-tanks.
	The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has insisted the problems have all been resolved, saying the tanks are now fully operational.
	But crews are understood to be unhappy about the loss of seating for casualties on the aircraft in order to accommodate the tanks.
Problems surrounding the fitting of the tanks have meant the four Sikorsky S92s based at Stornoway on Lewis and Sumburgh on Shetland have been unable to carry out non-stop rescues to the range which was originally heralded.
	They are, in fact, covering half the distance.
	The two helicopters at Sumburgh do not have the tanks - which double their range to 400 nautical miles - fitted, while those at Stornoway, where the extra distance is most needed, are yet to carry out a rescue using them.
	The MCA confirmed there had been issues over fitting the tanks.
	Crewmen and spokesmen at both Stornoway and Shetland Coastguard have confirmed the tanks are "not operational" yet, despite the MCA's insistence that they are.
An interesting development for sure, but hardly an indictment on the aircraft itself. Problem is, when Sikorsky is fighting tooth and nail to get back in the running on the CSAR-X contract, news like this can't help.
More...
	The first S92s were introduced in Stornoway in October, and then in Shetland in November.
	Some crew are also understood to be unhappy with the tanks because they halve the seating on the craft and have questioned whether they should be used.
	One source said it was a "Catch 22 situation", adding: "Do you swap the extra miles for less room for casualties, so you rescue fewer people?
The tanks have cut the seats from seven to just three."
	The problems first surfaced in March when a Stornoway-based helicopter was unable to rescue an injured crewman because it was out of range.
	Instead, an RAF helicopter from Lossiemouth had to fly an extra round trip of 250 miles to rescue the Russian seaman, 185 miles off Benbecula -- ironically landing him at Stornoway where the new Sikorsky
S92 is based.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

> They are, in fact, covering half the distance.



How on earth can they be that far off on their performance estimates?


M.   ???


----------



## CharlieCF

I think that all of Sikorsky's lies are catching up with them when it comes time for them to perform.  They are not delivering what they promised, if other buyers are having problems with the companys CSAR solutions, the AF would be mad to choose Sikorsky for the CSAR-X contract.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

"CharlieCF"...I am getting tired of you and "Dot Connector" pretending to be just 'normal' posters.

Why don't you follow  this guys lead and come clean with your connections?


----------



## CharlieCF

Monkhouse, you obviously disagree with my comments, but I am simply calling it as I see it.  I am seeing article after article being published on problems with Sikorsky, I guess that makes me tend to think that they cannot deliver or have their aircraft perform.  Do you work for Sikorsky, is this why you are so offended?


----------



## aesop081

CharlieCF said:
			
		

> Monkhouse, you obviously disagree with my comments, but I am simply calling it as I see it.  I am seeing article after article being published on problems with Sikorsky, I guess that makes me tend to think that they cannot deliver or have their aircraft perform.  Do you work for Sikorsky, is this why you are so offended?



Your post has no bearing on the question Bruce asked you. Now fess up.......


----------



## karl28

CharlieCF  

              Your profile is empty and you have done nothing but attack Sikorsky product .  I  am just curious did Sikorsky fire you from a job or did your company that you work lose on the martime helicopter contract ?  Witch one is it I am curious to find out .   I think it's time that you come clean on who you are .


----------



## CharlieCF

I don't work for Sikorsky and have and never have had an affiliation with them or any other company.  I actually have no ill will at all towards the company, I am looking at this from an objective perspective.  I don't know if I said it on this particular forum, but I follow U.S. AF programs as a hobby...and this one caught my interest because of CSAR-X.  There is no discussion about Boeing or Lockheed on here, so-no comments about them.  I am following the certain platforms that all of the company's are proposing or have modeled their aircraft after.  And doing research on it, I have seen many faults with Sikorsky that when I seem them, I just pass along on this forum.  Because it is CSAR, and I feel a connection to this for personal reasons,and I have really gotten into seeing what each of the company's have.   I have no agenda on this and did not mean to imply that I am not a "normal" poster.


----------



## armyvern

CharlieCF said:
			
		

> I don't work for Sikorsky and have and never have had an affiliation with them or any other company.  I actually have no ill will at all towards the company, I am looking at this from an objective perspective.  I don't know if I said it on this particular forum, but I follow U.S. AF programs as a hobby...and this one caught my interest because of CSAR-X.  There is no discussion about Boeing or Lockheed on here, so-no comments about them.  I am following the certain platforms that all of the company's are proposing or have modeled their aircraft after.  And doing research on it, I have seen many faults with Sikorsky that when I seem them, I just pass along on this forum.  Because it is CSAR, and I feel a connection to this for personal reasons,and I have really gotten into seeing what each of the company's have.   I have no agenda on this and did not mean to imply that I am not a "normal" poster.



Funny that two of you just happen to be streaming in from "XXX" in the United States and interested "as a hobby" in the same thing.

Either your current place of employment does indeed have an interest in this project outcome -- or you've got a double account. One of which should be disclosed to posters as a bias (as given in the site guidelines) and the other of which (the double account) is also against forum policy IAW those guidelines.

Anyway, please fire me off a PM to clarify the circumstances, I'm expecting it.

Have read through the "XXX" bio BTW, including the bit about the 2001-2006 expansion ...

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## karl28

CharlieCF  

          It's one thing to have a hobby but it sure sounded like you had a beef with Sikorsky .   The reason why you don't here about  the other companies you mentioned in this thread is  because this thread is only for this chopper .   I believe on this site if you do some searching  you will find threads about the Chinooks witch is I believed made by Boeing  ( any one with more experience can correct me as I am just a civy )   Also I think you need to fill out your profile and be honest about that  any how good luck .


----------



## aesop081

Hobby .........Lobby

Hahaha....it rhymes


----------



## STONEY

The fact that a developemental defence item is over budget and behind time is not all that unusual . In fact if one looks at defence contracts worldwide , to find one on time and on budget would be extremely unusual or rare.  Thats why so many buy off the shelf items already tested and in service elsewhere , that already have the bugs worked out of them.  Defence contractors are like used car salesman trying to make a sale.  The Aussie's just cancelled a contract for new Naval Helo's that dragged on for years and became obvious the contractor would not be able to deliver in the near future and this was just an older model helo that was being modernized and not a completely new developement and complex machine like the H-92.


cheers.


----------



## armyvern

STONEY said:
			
		

> The fact that a developemental defence item is over budget and behind time is not all that unusual . In fact if one looks at defence contracts worldwide , to find one on time and on budget would be extremely unusual or rare.  ...



Absolutely correct. Nor is it unusual to find those doing the largest amount of "told 'ya so" and complaining about that to be others who had a vested interest in the outcome, but failed to succeed with their bids. That's in the "see the contract was improperly awarded" realm "because the guys we lost to can not meet the contract requirements". You'll also find them frequntly using the media/lobbyists to promote this "arguement" as grounds for having the contract as awarded overturned and a re-visiting of the bidding process.

All's fair in "business" ... especially the Defence Industry - especially when one is on the losing end of the contract.


----------



## Haletown

Looks like Sikorsky is going to flog the H92 at Farnborough next week.  If anyone is at the show, maybe we can get some HUMINT on what is really happening, not the pap that we are getting in the MSM

"The week-long event that begins July 14 brings a number of new elements.

Bell/Agusta Aerospace has reserved a spot in the flying demonstration line-up for its BA609 civil tilt-rotor, according to the show’s organizers. Bell plans to exhibit its new light twin Model 429, which will be shown in an emergency medical service configuration.* Sikorsky Aircraft plans to bring the militarized version of its S-92, the H-92, to Farnborough to kick off a worldwide tour of that aircraft.* Eurocopter will be presenting the 7-9-ton EC175 it is developing with Aviation Industries of China 2 (AVIC 2) for the offshore-support and other markets and highlighting the EC725, which it is proposing for the U.K. Search and Rescue Harmonization (SAR-H) program."


----------



## geo

Cheez.... 
Considering some of the shortcomings that Charlie brought up in post 184 WRT the S92 in "current" use by the UK SAR types, it will be interesting how Sikorsky will propose to market same said airframe at Farnborough.... Ya gotta be certain the the RAF will be asking questions ... or making certain that potential clients ask them...

I hear that 007s "Little Nell" and her twin sister are available.....  Rocket launchers, machine guns, mine dispensers, the works....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I think it was "Little Nellie"....


Matthew.


----------



## h3tacco

geo said:
			
		

> Cheez....
> Considering some of the shortcomings that Charlie brought up in post 184 WRT the S92 in "current" use by the UK SAR types, it will be interesting how Sikorsky will propose to market same said airframe at Farnborough.... Ya gotta be certain the the RAF will be asking questions ... or making certain that potential clients ask them...
> 
> I hear that 007s "Little Nell" and her twin sister are available.....  Rocket launchers, machine guns, mine dispensers, the works....



One article does not tell the whole story. I am not saying that the S-92 has not had problems but the article is not the complete story just as this article is not the complete story.

http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-convention-news/hai-convention-news/single-publication-story/article/norsks-first-s-92-logs-5000th-hour/



> Norwegian operator Norsk Helikopter yesterday celebrated the 5,000th fleet hour of its Sikorsky S-92(R) (Serial No. 11) helicopter. The aircraft reached the milestone on February 5, a little more than two months after the Norsk S-92 fleet reached its 20,000th flight hour.
> 
> Norsk owns and operates six S-92 helicopters and in 2006 became the first offshore oil operator in the North Sea to reach 10,000 fleet flight hours. “The offshore oil segment in the North Sea is a challenging environment, so to realize these distinct milestones in such an aggressive time frame is truly remarkable,” said Sikorsky v-p and chief marketing officer Stephen Estill. “The S-92 helicopter’s record of continuing availability in the rigorous offshore oil segment is a testament to the strength of this aircraft for this mission.”
> 
> Norsk managing director Ivar Eie added, “The S-92 helicopter has demonstrated that it is well suited for its missions. It has performed above expectations.”
> 
> Norsk began transport services to fixed and mobile installations in the North Sea in 1993. Sikorsky (Booth No. 1641) is based in Stratford, Conn.



Sikorsky will not have any problem "proposing" the S-92 at Farnborough. Just as Eurocopter will not have problems "proposing" the NH-90 or Augusta Westland the EH-101.


----------



## geo

good points h3tacco

lets face it, if a product has a problem, the problem will be identified & brought to everyone's attention.
What a manufacturer does with the problem will determine the product's life span.


----------



## Loachman

We had already been taking delivery of F18 when the media began publishing stories of serious shortcomings and failures - based upon reports from the flight test programme that were a couple of years old, and all such identified issues had long since been dealt with.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Whyever did we buy Cyclone helicopters, or, petting the rotor? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/whyever-did-we-buy-cyclone-helicopters.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

This is done thru Public Works is it not?


----------



## geo

What I have a problem understanding is that Sikorsky put together a proposal, put a $$$ value to the project & signed on the dotted line.  Now, if the proposed prototype cannot deliver the performance contracted @ the price quoted, I truly don't understand how it's suddenly OUR fault & that we have to pay ???


----------



## MarkOttawa

geo: Politics plus an over-optimistic_ (i.e._ unrealistic assessment) of the bid?  I've seen quite a few stories about the gutting of CF procurement capabilities over recent years (not that PW&GS Canada is without fault).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

I'm confused.....no...no...this is not a steady state!!!

Did we order the helicopters, then make changes to the order, etc, and now they want to charge us more for the changes?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

No.

Sikorsky wants to make the changes.  It would take way too long here to explain why (even if I understood half of it, which I'm sure that I don't).  But, from their point of view, it probably makes sense.

Me- I'm looking at another Sea King tour that I did not expect to have.  Not that I particularly mind- I'm kind of partial to the old girl.


----------



## GAP

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Sikorsky wants to make the changes.  It would take way too long here to explain why (even if I understood half of it, which I'm sure that I don't).  But, from their point of view, it probably makes sense.
> 
> Me- I'm looking at another Sea King tour that I did not expect to have.  Not that I particularly mind- I'm kind of partial to the old girl.



Oh...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-148_Cyclone

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/ch148/default_e.asp

http://www.casr.ca/bg-helo-ch148-cyclone.htm

http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/helicopters/cyclone/index.php

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mhp/cyclone_e.asp


----------



## Haletown

Not really much new in Mr. ugliese's story, some revised dates etc. but give him kudos for at least being a reporter covering  DND things.  He at least tries and he cares, but suffers from the typical modern journalists need to deliver a "gotcha" or imply blame and or wrongdoing.  Normal these days.  Got to create the controversy in order to sell the advertising.  That's their job.

The story below was published 06/08/07 . . .  the bottom line is yes we are paying more, but we are getting a more powerful, more capable chopper, with more room for mission equipment, auto fold rotors and vastly simplified rotor mechanical linkages that will impact the mission profiles and the ILS Life Cycle costs.   Maybe you do get what you pay for.  

Now that would be a good story for a reporter.  They might even have to offer some praise for the Boys & Girls in Blue who make the decisions on these acquisition projects because they are doing the right thing in getting the right tools for their mates who have to operate at the pointy end of the stick, the end where every possible edge in capability makes a very personal, potentially life saving difference.

I'll check the weekend papers to see if my wish list story is printed.  I'm holding out for a page 1, top of the fold headline.

"Sikorsky prepares fly-by-wire S-92 for flight
By Graham Warwick
Click Here

Sikorsky has begun ground testing a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight-control system in its S-92 medium helicopter to support development of the H-92 maritime variant for the Canadian Forces. The company plans to introduce FBW on the commercial S-92 at a later stage.

An S-92 development aircraft has been modified with the BAE Systems-supplied triple-redundant digital flight-control computers, and will be used for flight testing to obtain US Federal Aviation Administration certification of the FBW system. FAA approval is planned for mid-2008, with delivery of 28 H-92s to Canada to begin early in 2009.

The S-92 will be the first civil-certificated fly-by-wire helicopter, says Stan Hunter, Sikorsky's Canadian Maritime Helicopter Programme manager.

Replacing the mechanical control linkages between the cockpit controls and rotor actuators saves about 70kg (150lb) and provides more space for mission systems, he says, as well as improving reliability and enabling advanced flight-control modes.

Control laws for the FBW system come in four categories, Hunter says: basic, flight director search-and-rescue modes replicating the latest S-92's capability, plus mission modes specific to the Canadian H-92 for anti-submarine warfare and other tasks. "Fly-by-wire will allow us to extend the modes and add different ones for the next customer," he says.

The first H-92 shipboard helicopter for Canada is entering final assembly at Sikorsky, and will fly early next year, says Hunter.

In addition to FBW, changes from the S-92 include automatic rotor and tail fold and increased gross weight. The second aircraft, to fly a month later, will be the first equipped with the mission system."


----------



## newfin

E-i-t-S   -  I have been to all of those web pages several times.  |The info I was looking for confirmation on was that Sikorsky plans to fly one of these before year's end.  ...and a picture of the real thing - not an artists rendering.


----------



## aesop081

newfin said:
			
		

> E-i-t-S   -  I have been to all of those web pages several times.  |The info I was looking for confirmation on was that Sikorsky plans to fly one of these before year's end.  ...and a picture of the real thing - not an artists rendering.



You can google just as much as we can.........


----------



## Eye In The Sky

newfin said:
			
		

> E-i-t-S   -  I have been to all of those web pages several times.



You asked for a photo of it/them.  What you got is what is out there AFAIK.   



> The info I was looking for confirmation on was that Sikorsky plans to fly one of these before year's end.  ...



I didn't answer that because I don't work for Sikorsky.



> *and a picture of the real thing - not an artists rendering.*



Umm, well I work at 12 Wing, but being as there aren't any Cyclone's here yet, taking pictures of them is sort of difficult.  I won't be walking around snapping pictures around the hangers/inner-outter ramp/helipad when they do show up either.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I won't be walking around snapping pictures around the hangers/inner-outter ramp/helipad when they do show up either.



Oh, I don't think you'll need to.  When it does come operational, I think it'll be as highly-photographed as the C-17 was.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't think you'll need to.  When it does come operational, I think it'll be as highly-photographed as the C-17 was.



Yup, and the pictures that come out will be taken by the Image Techs, approved by the PAO or Wing Commander or someone...all approved by 'the proper authority' whoever that maybe...but it certainly isn't me and my Canon.   8)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now they find out:

Choppers need boost
Ottawa claims upgraded engines for helicopters won’t further delay Sea King replacements
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1087200.html



> Canada’s new fleet of maritime helicopters, already projected to be about 20 months behind schedule, are going to need added engine horsepower because they’re heavier than originally expected, says a company involved in the project.
> 
> A spokesman for General Electric says the single engines being built for the Sikorsky Cyclones, also known as the MH-92, are going to be "a variation" of an existing design it has worked on over the past few years.
> 
> "A more powerful engine . . . is required for the MH-92 because the helicopter is heavier than was intended and, therefore, we are assembling an engine that will deliver more power for the maritime helicopter program," said Daniel Verrault, who represents General Electric, a subcontractor on the project, in Ottawa...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Looks like another very old news story being recycled for dramatic gotcha purposes.

this is from March 2006

"Modifications needed to meet requirements for series of international competitions

Sikorsky has unveiled the H-92 Superhawk military variant of the S-92 civil transport helicopter and concluded a deal with General Electric to develop the more powerful CT7-8C for the machine as it prepares to again compete against the AgustaWestland EH101 in a series of critical US and international military competitions.

The principal difference between the H-92 and its civil sister will be the installation of twin uprated 3,070shp (2,300kW) CT7-8C turboshafts, offering a 25% power increase over the CT7-8A. GE, under its new agreement with Sikorsky, will make the first engine available for flight testing in 2006 to meet a targeted certification date the following year. The CT7-8C will have more than 80% commonality with the existing engine, but feature new materials and a three-stage power turbine (Flight International, 20-26 May)."

the CT7-8C ??  and the HC article is talking about the CT7-8A1.

Just wondering   . . . .  I'll have to do some more digging later today when I can get a few free cycles.


----------



## Don2wing

Here is an actual mock-up of the Cyclone on this link:   

                             http://www.airliners.net/photo/Canada---Air/Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone/1417872/M/   

         Compare the mock-up and the earlier concept pictures.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks, it gives a good idea of the size of the aircraft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well that's still further along than the A400  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

At least the A400M is supposed to fly with its real engines, though those haven't flown yet either ;D.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/09/318561/this-week-briefing.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

Thanks Don - that's the first photo I have seen of the full-size helicopter.  Now that it's flown we should be seeing images of the real thing soon.


----------



## karl28

I just hope that the new chopper lives up to its expectations .


----------



## Haletown

story & photo


  http://tinyurl.com/5rw3w8


----------



## Spencer100

It flies!!!

Sikorsky Flies First Canadian Cyclone

Nov 18, 2008 
Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com 


Sikorsky has begun flight tests of the CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter for the Canadian Forces. The aircraft completed its delayed first flight from the company's development center in Florida on Nov. 15.

Sikorsky was awarded a C$1.8 billion ($1.5 billion) contract in November 2004 to build 28 CH-148s to replace Canada's long-serving Sea King ship-based helicopters. First delivery was originally scheduled for the end of this month, but has been delayed by development issues.

Negotiations are continuing with the Canadian government and no new date has been announced, but defense minister Peter MacKay has previously said deliveries are now expected to begin in mid-2010.

The CH-148 is a derivative of Sikorsky's S-92 commercial helicopter intended for missions including anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, search-and-rescue, and troop and cargo transport.

Powered by General Electric CT7-8A engines, the helicopter has digital fly-by-wire flight controls, automatic blade and tail fold, anti-icing and deck recovery assist system.

The mission system is being integrated by General Dynamics Canada and includes maritime radar, electro-optical/infrared sensor, sonobuoy acoustic processor, dipping sonar and electronic support measures.

Photo: Sikorsky


----------



## The Bread Guy

Whoo-hoo!  A bit more from Canadian Press, shared with the usual disclaimer...

*Canadian military chopper makes brief test flight; still behind schedule*
Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press, 18 Nov 08

The long-awaited first flight of Canada's new navy helicopter occurred over the weekend in Florida in a step builder Sikorsky Corp. called "a huge milestone."

The Cyclone helicopters still aren't equipped, though, with vital mission systems - the on-board computers that will allow them to perform military missions.

The first Cyclone was supposed to be delivered by January 2009, but the Defence Department has stated the aircraft has been delayed until the middle of 2010 due to changes in its design.

A Defence spokesman said Tuesday the successful test flight doesn't mean delivery has been moved up.

Sikorksy, in a news release, said the Cyclone hovered during the test flight and accomplished low-speed handling tasks, including forward flight at 48 kilometres per hour, and side and rear movement.

The flight lasted about 30 minutes.

"The helicopter, Tail No. 801, will continue to undergo a series of increasingly demanding flight tests leading up to certification and production deliveries," the company said.

"Sikorsky will build 28 CH-148 helicopters for the Canadian government."

Dan Hunter, an executive at Sikorsky, said in the news release that the flight "represents a huge milestone, transitioning the program from the prototype build to the flight test stage."

"The aircraft performed beautifully, easily achieving each manoeuvre attempted. We're extremely pleased."

The ship-based helicopter will be used for anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, search and rescue, and troop and cargo transport ....

More on link


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Great to see.

Only..its not a Navy helicopter  ;D



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Sikorksy, in a news release, said the Cyclone hovered during the test flight and accomplished low-speed handling tasks, including *forward flight at 48 kilometres per hour*, and side and rear movement.
> 
> The flight lasted about *30 minutes*.



So already it flies faster and longer than a Sea King!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Once the airframe is certified, would it make sense to have a few even without all components installed sent up for training and flight ops? Sending them back as the fully equipped ones come on line.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So you would like to start paying the contractor before the terms of contract have been met, then?

Next time you buy a car- just give them all your money, but only get them to give you a frame, seat and engine- you can drive it around for a few years, then take it back to have the doors, windshield and radios put in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually when you buy a custom made car, you often get the running but incomplete vehicle while they await parts. I buy my trucks the same way, bare of many of the parts I want, but added later. Flying the actually aircraft in limited service and landing on deck might show up issues that can be corrected before all of the air frames are completed. The contractor would still be required to complete the first few aircraft.


----------



## hippie

A couple of pictures available in the public domain for you all to feast your eyes on.

From Flight Global.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/18/318995/pictures-first-flight-for-canadas-cyclone-maritime-helicopter.html

Don't know how to paste them into the forum.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Is it just me, or does the search radar look small in comparison to the EH-101 Merlin as an example?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## aesop081

newfin said:
			
		

> Has to be a different radar.



It is.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does the search radar look small in comparison to the EH-101 Merlin as an example?
> 
> 
> Matthew.   ???



Size has nothing to do with capability.


----------



## hippie

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Size has nothing to do with capability.



That's what my girlfriend always tells me, bless her.

 ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That one was worth a few MilPoints  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

For those with DIN/IntraNet access, click here.  Please note the highlighted text at the top and bottom of the page.


----------



## geo

Heh... you mean the Bold & Yellowed text 8)
Umm... how could we miss that ???


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/talk-about-headline-spin-canadian.html

Talk about headline spin: "Canadian Forces To Receive Helicopter Fleet With Leading Edge Technology"



> The government has caved in to Sikorsky (the title headline, at the link, is so, er, "Canada's New Government"--hurl). What a balls up...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Yet more, from the _Globe and Mail_ (usual copyright disclaimer)

$117-million later, Ottawa's troubles with Sikorsky aren't over
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090107.wplanes07/BNStory/National/



> The helicopter-maker that will replace Canada's aging Sea Kings is embroiled in a secret legal battle with Ottawa that could lead to higher costs for an aircraft that was bought on a fixed-price basis in 2004.
> 
> The government quietly announced two weeks ago that it is giving $117-million in extra funding to Sikorsky International Operations Inc. to settle a dispute over the helicopters' design.
> 
> In addition, the government acknowledged that it will not impose penalties that could have reached $36-million against the company for a four-year delay in the delivery of the first of 28 fully equipped helicopters to replace the Sea Kings.
> 
> The news release announcing the extra funding to Sikorsky came out just before Christmas, which guaranteed it would receive minimal coverage.
> 
> However, the release did not include any hint that Sikorsky and Ottawa are set to face off in a new round of legal talks. *Industry and government officials said Sikorsky will allege before an arbitrator that Ottawa is seeking further improvements on the helicopters* [emphasis added], which the government ordered in a $5-billion contract in 2004.
> 
> The government refused to provide details on the fight with Sikorsky, except to acknowledge it involves a different issue than the one that was settled for $117-million on Dec. 23.
> 
> "The contractor has proposed to submit the topic of scope creep (or out of scope work) to arbitration. Arbitration is one of the dispute resolution processes included in the contract and is an agreed-upon method for resolving issues," Public Works spokeswoman France Langlois said in an e-mail.
> 
> Ms. Langlois said Sikorsky is still working on the helicopters and Ottawa cannot discuss the matter further.
> 
> A spokesman for Sikorsky did not respond to requests for further information.
> 
> The government is refusing to explain exactly why it is spending an additional $117-million to obtain the helicopters it agreed to buy in 2004. So far, the government has said it wants improvements in the "tactical data exchange" that is part of the aircraft's communications system, and a boost in engine power.
> 
> Sources in the defence industry said the government seems to be trying to cover up the fact that it had to climb down from its tough negotiation stand last year.
> 
> While he was public works minister last spring, Michael Fortier told The Globe and Mail that the government was refusing Sikorsky's requests for $200-million to $500-million in additional funding for the requested improvements.
> 
> "When the government signs a deal with a supplier for a specific good at price x, that's the price the government should pay for that good," said Mr. Fortier, who has since left office.
> 
> "In this case, the price was set at contract signing."
> 
> A few months later, a senior official told The Globe that new funding could be necessary to obtain the Sikorsky helicopters. However, the official said that the amount would be relatively low and would produce a better-equipped helicopter.
> 
> "It's now well under $100-million, and that figure could be as low as $40-million for a better helicopter, essentially. Our holding line throughout these discussions has been: we're not paying a penny more for the helicopters that we ordered. We will pay a little more for a better helicopter," the official said.
> 
> The *Department of National Defence will start receiving "fully capable helicopters" in 2012. That means that the first helicopters delivered in 2010 will not include all of the equipment that was requested in the contract four years ago.
> 
> According to the 2004 contract, DND was supposed to receive the first fully equipped helicopter in 2008* [emphasis added].



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

Given that no political party wants to go thru this yet again ! It wont matter if the Cyclone is utterly incapable of even achieving flight much less perform it's assigned tasks . We will buy it and the NDHQ will issue daily press releases extolling it's every virtue even if those virtues don't exist.I suspect that for all intensive purposes Sikorsky has just been given a licence  (if it so chooses) to rape the Canadian taxpayer at will


----------



## aesop081

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> It wont matter if the Cyclone is utterly incapable of even achieving flight



 ???

It has flown already


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GK. Dundas-

Do you even have the first clue about which you post?  Cyclone 801 has been flying since the summer.


----------



## Occam

SeaKingTacco and CDN Aviator:  That's not what he said.  Read the entire sentence, not just the phrase that was quoted.  It makes perfect sense.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> SeaKingTacco and CDN Aviator:  That's not what he said.  Read the entire sentence, not just the phrase that was quoted.  It makes perfect sense.



That is exactly what he said.  And no, what he said does not make "perfect sense". But since you seem to know much more about the Maritime Helicopter Program than I do, please, by all means, correct me.


----------



## aesop081

Occam said:
			
		

> That's not what he said.



That is indeed what he was usggesting.



> Read the entire sentence,



I have.



> It makes perfect sense.



No, it does not. The CH-148 has indeed flown and will be more than able to perform its assigned tasks. Contractual issues and the aicraft's performance are not related. The mission systems are a "known" ( as they are shared with AIMP block 3).


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Contractual issues and the aicraft's performance are not related. The mission systems are a "known" ( as they are shared with AIMP block 3).



Have the mission systems flown in a helicopter before? Especially this model?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

No.  And I am not minimizing the difficulties that lie ahead.

What I took great exception to was the assertion that: 

a. the Cyclone has not flown.  It has.

b.  the Government of Canada, through DND, would aid and abet Sikorsky to be contractually non-compliant on a major capital project.

If Occam and GK Dundas have specific evidence of either, they should post it.


----------



## Occam

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is exactly what he said.  And no, what he said does not make "perfect sense". But since you seem to know much more about the Maritime Helicopter Program than I do, please, by all means, correct me.



I didn't claim to know more about the MHP than you do.  What I'm telling you is that you're failing to comprehend the language he used.

I believe it's called "conditional mood" in writing.  He should have used "wouldn't" instead of "won't", but that's not why you're attacking his post.

_"It wouldn't matter if Ford was unable to build a road-worthy vehicle, much less produce a fuel-efficient vehicle - the government will bail them out anyways."_ - Does that make things any clearer?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> "It wouldn't matter if Ford was unable to build a road-worthy vehicle, much less produce a fuel-efficient vehicle - the government will bail them out anyways." - Does that make things any clearer?



In a word- No. (and I don't mean the grammer). And how do you know what GK. Dundas "meant" to write?

Look- specific evidence or not that Sikorsky is actively screwing Canada on a Major Capital Project and that Canada is aiding and abetting.  Put it up and we have something to debate.


----------



## Occam

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In a word- No. (and I don't mean the grammer). And how do you know what GK. Dundas "meant" to write?



Perhaps because the language he was using was clear to me?



> Look- specific evidence or not that Sikorsky is actively screwing Canada on a Major Capital Project and that Canada is aiding and abetting.  Put it up and we have something to debate.



I have no dog in that race.  All I meant to clear up was that GK.Dundas wasn't trying to suggest that the Cyclone has never flown, or will never fly, or anything along those lines.  Carry on...


----------



## Kirkhill

SKT, I'm afraid that I read GK's post the same way that Occam did.

What I took from the post was the GK "feels" that no matter how the Cyclone eventually performs it will be acquired, strictly on the grounds that "no government will want to go through that (the procurement process presumably) again".

He does seem to be a little less than up to date on the actual capabilities of the machine and its progress.

I don't think there is any active effort to "rape the taxpayer".  I do think that on this project, because of the delays incurred getting this far, that the Government will go a long way to make sure that this particular aircraft gets off the ground......and that may involve opening the wallet a little wider than might otherwise be considered appropriate.

Where I part company with GK is that I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

The greater risk is that pressure will result in the aircraft coming into service before that money is spent and all relevant gremlins have been pitched.


----------



## observor 69

Rrrrrrrright  :


----------



## KingKikapu

Well I read it like CDN Aviator and SeakingTacco.  It most certainly wasn't phrased as a conditional sentence, and the fact that Occam had to provide an alternative conjugation to make the sentence work doesn't speak highly to its clarity.

Semantics aside, this contract has taken donkey years to complete.  I have no clue what's been the biggest hold ups, but I highly doubt it's a straight cash grab.


----------



## ScottS

KingKikapu said:
			
		

> Well I read it like CDN Aviator and SeakingTacco.  It most certainly wasn't phrased as a conditional sentence, and the fact that Occam had to provide an alternative conjugation to make the sentence work doesn't speak highly to its clarity.



I agree.  What he said makes sense, however there is no context for it.  Sure, there have been delays, but almost every major project has delays.  At this point, I don't see any reason to believe that the aircraft will not perform as expected.


----------



## observor 69

Doomed helicopter failed vital safety test, files reveal
Newfoundland crash raises concerns as Ottawa awaits arrival of S-92s 

PETER CHENEY 
From Monday's Globe and Mail
April 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM EDT

When the Canadian government placed a $5-billion order for 28 Sikorsky S-92s in 2004, the model was touted as “the safest helicopter in the world,” with an advanced design certified to tough safety standards that made it ideal for risky offshore operations. But a crash that killed 17 people off Newfoundland last month is raising questions about the safety of the S-92. 

Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that the S-92 failed a critical test of whether the aircraft can keep flying if the oil in its main gearbox leaks out, a key safety feature found in other makes of helicopter – including a model that was beaten out by the Sikorsky for the Canadian military contract. The delivery of the helicopters to the Department of National Defence has already been beset by a series of delays. 

Certification documents show that the S-92 couldn't meet a specification that calls for the main gearbox to run for half an hour without oil – a requirement known as “run dry.” The specification is designed to give pilots extra time to make a safe landing if the gearbox loses its oil. 

That is considered one of the deadliest emergencies a helicopter pilot can face, since it can cause a transmission seizure that stops the rotor blades.
        
                             --------------------------------------------------------------

Although the S-92 flight manual instructs pilots to land immediately if they lose oil pressure in the main gearbox, the actions of the flight crew in the Newfoundland crash on March 12 suggest that they thought they had more time than they did.

After radioing a mayday in which they reported gearbox oil-pressure problems, they spent approximately eight minutes descending from 9,000 feet to about 800, where they apparently levelled off for several more minutes. Although the investigation is ongoing, many pilots and engineers believe the S-92's gearbox seized, dropping the helicopter into the Atlantic when the rotor blades stopped.

Experienced pilots say the crew could have made it from 9,000 feet to the water in less than half the time they took. “To me, the descent rate says they thought they had a longer window,” says a former offshore helicopter pilot. 

Complete article at  LINK


----------



## Zoomie

FWIW - I read it like Occam has so eloquently posted.


----------



## Kirkhill

IIRC  the Cyclone was always supposed to be a Multi-Purpose Aircraft (for good or ill).

Weren't the TACCO stations supposed to roll out of the back to convert the beasts from ASW to UTT configuration?  All this suggests to me is that the split contract for the ASW portion has been sliding under the radar with the ASW contractor hoping that Sikorski won't get its act together any time soon.  

Apparently Sikorski is ready to start delivering airframes while the ASW guy isn't.

In the meantime, aren't a lot of the Sea Kings being used on Anti-Pirate Patrol with a C6/C9 door gunner instead of all that ASW stuff anyway?

Might as well get some use out of the new kit and reduce the workload on the old stuff. 

Hope you don't wear out the new airframes in the sand before you get a chance to onload torpedoes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In the meantime, aren't a lot of the Sea Kings being used on Anti-Pirate Patrol with a C6/C9 door gunner instead of all that ASW stuff anyway?



No.  The back-end guys and gals have their sensor's and the C6.  Its not a 'one or the other' deal, they fly with both.  (if I read your question right)

It will likely be alittle longer that they are ready to fly a Cyclone off the CPFs anyways.  Lots of trg for tech's and aircrew once the Cyclone even starts to show up on the Wing and HelAirDets.  I am not sure you'll see them needing sand washed off them vice sea salt, but stranger things have happened...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the Cyclone became a "stunning success" at moving troops, would they make a viable replacement for the Griffions? Or would it be to much helicopter for the task?


----------



## Loachman

And then buy yet another helicopter to replace the Sea Kings?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I meant by buying additional airframes, since everytime I hear people talk about buying stuff, the lament is about commonality of airframe and minimizing the different types. Do you think the Cyclone in the non-naval role is a contender for the roles played currently by the Griffion?


----------



## Haletown

The Cyclone is quite a bit bigger than a Blackhawk and  Sikorsky has a General Purpose/Army version of the Cyclone called the H-92.


Don't know what they want to do in Ottawa at the Brick Brain but I'd bet the Commander of our Air Wing in Afghanistan would love to have a bunch of FSOD painted Cyclone/H-92 on the ramp in Kandahar.  

They could probably dump those rented Mil 17's (?)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, the incoming TFA Wing Commander just finished up as Wing Commander for 12 Wing.  I am sure he knows full-on all the issues within the MH community and all that jazz and is probably up to speed on the issues around platforms in and needed for TFA.  So, although I don't know Col *P* the way SKT and others on here might, I am not sure I'd put money on him wanting to see Cyclone's in the sandbox.  But, you'd have to ask him that yourself.


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> I meant by buying additional airframes,



I do not see buying more as an option - from where would the money come?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> the lament is about commonality of airframe and minimizing the different types.



We did that too much already, and ended up losing Kiowa and Chinook in favour of an all-Griffon fleet and violating our doctrine of that time. We had/have different airframes for different purposes.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Do you think the Cyclone in the non-naval role is a contender for the roles played currently by the Griffion?



For pure lift? Possibly. I already view the Griffon as too big though, especially for the escort role or any other active armed role.


----------



## Loachman

Haletown said:
			
		

> They could probably dump those rented Mil 17's (?)



And the extra CH148s would be flown and maintained by...?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I agree they are to big, even on civy street the Bell 214 is not used as much as the 206,207 and Astar, to big for most stuff and not big enough for the rest.


----------



## DocBacon

I can only assume you mean the Bell 412, Colin, as the 214 is either a heavy-lift machine of the same size as the 212/412 but with bigger blades and a single big stove (214B), or it's a large-cabin heavy twin (214).  

If you were referring to the 412, then you're right, there are many more 206's and A-Stars (a 207 is a small fixed wing a/c) than 412's.  However, a 206 is a light (typically four-place) and an A-Star is an intermediate (six-place), while a 412 is a 15-place twin in the medium category.  A 206 can be has for under $500,000, an A-Star for a couple million, and a 412 starts at $10,000,000, so that's why you'll not see too many 412's on civvie street.  You will see lots of 205's and 212's, which have the same size cabin as the 412, because they lift better, are cheaper to operate, and cost much less.

As far as Bell mediums being too big or too small, they are like any other machine: for certain jobs they are just right.  For instance, as a SAR machine (provided capacity for flight into known icing isn't required) they're an excellent platform.


----------



## Haletown

Loachman said:
			
		

> And the extra CH148s would be flown and maintained by...?



Probably the same CAF folks who would fly and maintain them if they were flying off a Navy ship.

Last I checked, the members of the CAF were very good at learning how to fly and maintain aircraft.  Don't see any reason this situation would  change because of  92's coming into service.


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> Probably the same CAF folks who would fly and maintain them if they were flying off a Navy ship.
> 
> Last I checked, the members of the CAF were very good at learning how to fly and maintain aircraft.  Don't see any reason this situation would  change because of  92's coming into service.



Methinks you missed the point.

He said "extra" CH-148s. That means there's thos flying off Navy ships and then the extra ones in the Desert. We barely have enough people to fly and fix the shipborne ones.....where are we going to get the extra folks ?

Knit them ?


----------



## Haletown

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Methinks you missed the point.
> 
> He said "extra" CH-148s. That means there's thos flying off Navy ships and then the extra ones in the Desert. We barely have enough people to fly and fix the shipborne ones.....where are we going to get the extra folks ?
> 
> Knit them ?



Part of any purchase is the ILS process . . .  which includes training and all maintenance specialties.  We'll get the "extras" the same way we got the 'originals".

At the rate the ASW electronics package is being developed, the "originals" will be ready but have nothing to do if we didn't send them to Afghanistan or find some other flying task for them.  The 'extras" might be the ones chasing subs for a living, somewhere down the road.


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> Part of any purchase is the ILS process . . .  which includes training and all maintenance specialties.  We'll get the "extras" the same way we got the 'originals".



Thank yuo for that shocking revelation but you havent answered my question. Where are all these extra technicians come from ?



> At the rate the ASW electronics package is being developed, the "originals" will be ready but have nothing to do



Its not because there 's no ASW going on that the Navy has nothing for the MH community to do. Think about it.


----------



## Loachman

Here's the point:

Right now, 1 Wing has,effectively, stood up a whole new unit overseas and added a whole new fleet with no increase in manning. There are only two Tac Hel Squadrons to rotate into and out of theatre - manning both fleets - with some augmentation from two Reserve-Heavy Squadrons, and possibly occasional augmentation from the OTU and 427 Squadron.

The MH community will soon be introducing a whole new fleet while doing their best to continue to operate during the conversion process. Fleet conversions are always highly disruptive and pull people out of the daily operation. There will be barely enough new machines to conduct the missions for which they were bought in the first place, and barely enough people to fly and fix them.

Both communities are short of people, and even shorter of experienced people.

Any CH148s applied to non-MH tasks would have to come from a new purchase. Unless we reduce the CH146 fleet, possibly to the point where it cannot be sustained, crews and maintainers would have to be created or poached from other already-hurting communities.

Tac Hel and MH jobs are very different. They are more than driving or fixing a particular machine.

Again, CH148 is too big and expensive for the escort/recce/surveillance role.

We already have CH147 for lift in theatre.

Would we have a role for a Tac Hel CH148 version in future conflicts or other ops? I personally do not think so.

Presuming that we do eventually get CH147F, then I'd much rather see our CH146s upgraded to or swapped for UH1Ys or replaced with UH60 for the utility role and something else purchased for the armed/recce role.


----------



## Infanteer

Loachman said:
			
		

> Would we have a role for a Tac Hel CH148 version in future conflicts or other ops? I personally do not think so.



I know this is WAY of to the future and is just me thinking out loud - but if that amphibious project (which seems to be a Hillier-idea that'll die on the table) was ever followed through, do you see them as being troop transport in an amphibious setting.  This way, a naval task force with troops has fewer airframes while deployed.


----------



## Loachman

Possibly, although this would be a specialized niche role for which we'd most likely be better off using Chinook, presuming that the planned purchase does indeed happen.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> There will be barely enough new machines to conduct the missions for which they were bought in the first place, and barely enough people to fly and fix them.



If a whacking big JSS and new destroyers aren't bought PDQ, their original missions won't be around that much.


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Torch_ post:

How the Aussies may approach buying new naval helicopters (hint: not Sikorsky MH-92s)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-aussies-may-approach-buying-new.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

can we give the Cyclone a chance it the CF before we start condemning it..... :


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> can we give the Cyclone a chance it the CF before we start condemning it..... :



My thoughts excatly Ex-Dragoon.


----------



## Haletown

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> My thoughts excatly Ex-Dragoon.



Vote # 3 here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

DocBacon said:
			
		

> I can only assume you mean the Bell 412, Colin, as the 214 is either a heavy-lift machine of the same size as the 212/412 but with bigger blades and a single big stove (214B), or it's a large-cabin heavy twin (214).
> 
> If you were referring to the 412, then you're right, there are many more 206's and A-Stars (a 207 is a small fixed wing a/c) than 412's.  However, a 206 is a light (typically four-place) and an A-Star is an intermediate (six-place), while a 412 is a 15-place twin in the medium category.  A 206 can be has for under $500,000, an A-Star for a couple million, and a 412 starts at $10,000,000, so that's why you'll not see too many 412's on civvie street.  You will see lots of 205's and 212's, which have the same size cabin as the 412, because they lift better, are cheaper to operate, and cost much less.
> 
> As far as Bell mediums being too big or too small, they are like any other machine: for certain jobs they are just right.  For instance, as a SAR machine (provided capacity for flight into known icing isn't required) they're an excellent platform.



Thanks, I meant the 407 when I said the 207. The 407 is an impressive machine and flying in them on the tight spots in BC mountains makes you feel safer than a 206 struggling through the air! Trying to keep the model number right from memory is a sure way to fail. The 214 uses twin 1875hp P & W turbines correct?


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thanks, I meant the 407 when I said the 207. The 407 is an impressive machine and flying in them on the tight spots in BC mountains makes you feel safer than a 206 struggling through the air! Trying to keep the model number right from memory is a sure way to fail. The 214 uses twin 1875hp P & W turbines correct?



Negative, 214 comes in two flavours: 

1) 214ST (Super Transport), 2 x T700s (actually civy CT-7s) just like the Blackhawk and Apache; and 

2) 214B (Heavy Lifter), 1 x Honeywell(Lycoming) T-55 (a.k.a. Chinook engine).  

Both variants of the 214 are noticably bigger than a 212 (but they [212 and 214] are all two-bladed rotor helos).

The 412 variants (fuselage the same size as the 212/UH-1N) sport the PT6T-3B or -3D P&WC Twin Pac (from 1800 ESHP ratings - eqvlt HP is thermodynamic maximum, but the pac is flat rated (de-rated) to about 1350 HP continuous...a main transmission power limit)

Cheers
G2G


----------



## ezbeatz

The S-92 (Cyclone) is substantially less expensive than comparable aircraft like the NH-90. In fact, so much so that the German Navy was considering foregoing the NH-90 for the S-92 even with a hefty cancellation fee.

What do you guys think about the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Loachman said:
			
		

> Here's the point:
> 
> Right now, 1 Wing has,effectively, stood up a whole new unit overseas and added a whole new fleet with no increase in manning. There are only two Tac Hel Squadrons to rotate into and out of theatre - manning both fleets - with some augmentation from two Reserve-Heavy Squadrons, and possibly occasional augmentation from the OTU and 427 Squadron.
> 
> The MH community will soon be introducing a whole new fleet while doing their best to continue to operate during the conversion process. Fleet conversions are always highly disruptive and pull people out of the daily operation. There will be barely enough new machines to conduct the missions for which they were bought in the first place, and barely enough people to fly and fix them.
> 
> Both communities are short of people, and even shorter of experienced people.
> 
> Any CH148s applied to non-MH tasks would have to come from a new purchase. Unless we reduce the CH146 fleet, possibly to the point where it cannot be sustained, crews and maintainers would have to be created or poached from other already-hurting communities.
> 
> Tac Hel and MH jobs are very different. They are more than driving or fixing a particular machine.
> 
> *Again, CH148 is too big and expensive for the escort/recce/surveillance role.*
> We already have CH147 for lift in theatre.
> 
> Would we have a role for a Tac Hel CH148 version in future conflicts or other ops? I personally do not think so.
> 
> Presuming that we do eventually get CH147F, then I'd much rather see our CH146s upgraded to or swapped for UH1Ys or replaced with UH60 for the utility role and something else purchased for the armed/recce role.



I think you'll find, if you actually read a thread, someone might have already answered your question.


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> What do you guys think about the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.



I hear you can also make orange juice with apples now.......


----------



## Good2Golf

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> ...What do you guys think about *1)* the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and *2)* would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.



1) You do know we're getting Chinooks, right?  They can carry 5x as many troops as a Griffon, and 

2) Standardization?  So get rid of a fleet of almost 100 helicopters and buy more of a new helicopter so we'll be more like the 28 that we haven't got yet?  ???

Perhaps I'm the only one scratching my head at this...

G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> Standardization?  So get rid of a fleet of almost 100 helicopters and buy more of a new helicopter so we'll be more like the 28 that we haven't got yet?  ???



Ok ok...that one cracked me up.


----------



## Loachman

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> What do you guys think about the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.



Firstly, it's Griffon. Capital "G and an "o" before the "n".

We could also buy a giant LAV that carries a whole platoon in one vehicle. Good idea?

There are reasons for different types and sizes of helicopters, just as there are reasons for different types and sizes of ground vehicles.

Bigger is not always better, and neither is standardization beyond a logical point.

Also, do not consider aircrew and groundcrew to be trained to a common standard between two different roles. Yes, basic driving and fixing would be the same, but there are large differences in operating tactics, techniques, and procedures, and living environments. MH guys live on ships and have to be proficient in all aspects of that. Tac Hel guys live in the field, and have to be proficient in defensive and logistical aspects of that. Each also has to have intimate knowledge of their respective customers. There are similarities between the Combat Arms too, but we differentiate between the four of them for good and valid reason.

Thanks to EITS for reposting my previous post, and for the RTFT (Read The ****ing Thread) reminder.


----------



## GAP

Chinooks will fly too late for Afghanistan 
Daniel Leblanc Globe and Mail Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009 04:28AM EDT
  Article Link

Ottawa bought 15 Chinook helicopters Monday after three years of delays that pushed back the delivery to 2013, two years after the end of the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan.

The purchase prompted a debate over the relevance of the slow-moving procurement and the Conservative government's handling of the $5-billion contract.

Shortly after coming to power in 2006, the Harper government said the transport helicopters would protect Canadian troops from the dangers of roadside bombs in places like Afghanistan.

“The helicopters … will reduce cases in which our men and women in uniform must drive overland, exposing themselves to the risk of ambush, land mines and improvised bombs,” then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor said at the time.

However, the government announced Monday the large helicopters will only enter operations in four years, well after the scheduled 2011 pull-out of Afghanistan.

The seven-year delay between the initial announcement and the first delivery has forced the government to change its narrative and emphasize the domestic usefulness of the helicopters, which are built by Boeing.

“The new CH-147F helicopters will be used to assist civil authorities in responding to emergencies such as floods, forest fires and earthquakes, helping to keep Canadians safe and secure,” the department of National Defence said in its information package.
More on link


----------



## ezbeatz

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 1) You do know we're getting Chinooks, right?  They can carry 5x as many troops as a Griffon, and



How many Chinooks are we getting? 15? Let's say you got 3 for training that leaves you with 12. 



> 2) Standardization?  So get rid of a fleet of almost 100 helicopters and buy more of a new helicopter so we'll be more like the 28 that we haven't got yet?  ???
> 
> Perhaps I'm the only one scratching my head at this...
> 
> G2G



Those Griffons were procured between 1995 and 1997. That means the newest one is 12 years old. If you give a 20 year life span to them that means they'll have to be replaced in the 2015-2017 time frame. What aircraft are you going to replace them with? 

If you're already operating 28 S-92 as an ASW platform, and you're looking for a tactical helicopter replacement for you Griffons (which only carry 8 combat troops), why not choose the utility variant of the S-92?


----------



## ezbeatz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ok ok...that one cracked me up.



Ya, because operating two aircraft types when you can operate one makes SO much more sense.


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Ya, because operating two aircraft types when you can operate one makes SO much more sense.



Guess i was right when i pegged you for an expert.

What part of the air force do you work in again ?


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> why not choose the utility variant of the S-92?



Because the S-92 isnt a light utility tactical hellicopter.............


----------



## blacktriangle

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Guess i was right when i pegged you for an expert.
> 
> What part of the air force do you work in again ?



Taking a look at his profile...the part that jumps out of the plane...


----------



## blacktriangle

Oh wait, that's the army.

Edit...well he's not a SAR tech so you're right!


----------



## aesop081

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Taking a look at his profile...the part that jumps out of the plane...



Maybe he jumps, maybe not. Either way it makes him "army".


----------



## ezbeatz

Average duration of DND procurement project is 7 years.
Average lifespan of a military aircraft before needed to be replaced or essentially rebuilt is 20 years.
Meaning that a replacement or upgrade for the current CH-146 Griffon will have to be looked at by about 2010 for a delivery date of 2016/17.

Gentlemen, since you seem to believe the utility version of the S-92 would be a poor choice of replacement for the Griffon (even though it has a faster speed, longer range, and larger payload capacity), what do you think the Griffon should be replaced with? Or do you believe it overhauled and upgraded instead?

p.s. Good call popnfresh! I do jump out of airplanes


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> (even though it has a faster speed, longer range, and larger payload capacity),



Listen......hopefuly you will this time.

Do you see the US Army replacing all its Blackhawks with Chinooks just because it can carry more troops ? Did you ever think that theres a reason for that ?

Different machines do different jobs because different characteristics are required.


Let me know how jumping out of planes gives you the knowledge and experience to tell experienced aviators about their buisness.......


----------



## Jammer

Wow!
Somebody is bitchy tonight.
While he may be off the mark in some respect to comparisons, I think what he might be alluding to is that the Griffon is a POS.
It should never have been bought as a UTTH, however politics being fickle and all (they were built by Bell in Montreal), they were thrust upon us.
A militarized Bell-412SP (read: they have mil-spec radios in them.), really wasn't they way to go.
So sit back relax and think about this...AESOP = JAFO


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> the Griffon is a POS.



Irrelevant. If you were to say "Blackhawk" instead of the 146 and say it should be replaced by the Cyclone you have the same problem.



> ...AESOP = JAFO



Far from it. I doubt you have the first damned clue what i do and what i am trained to do.


----------



## Roy Harding

ezbeatz:

Somehow I missed this thread - here's a repeat of what I said over on the Helicopters thread:

You do realize that you are arguing with CF airmen who have thousands of hours of flying experience, don't you?

I spent four years jumping out of military aircraft - and I have never considered that that experience gave me any insight into flying the damned things - I was just happy to get the hell out of them.

I think you're attempting to learn something here - and you've come to the right place for it.  Just pull in your horns a bit, stop being argumentative - and ask your questions.  I think you'll learn more that way.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jammer said:
			
		

> Wow!
> Somebody is bitchy tonight.



Apparantly...so what are you so upset about?   8)



> While he may be off the mark in some respect to comparisons, I think what he might be alluding to is that the Griffon is a POS.



Take a quick look thru his posting history.



> So sit back relax and think about this...AESOP = JAFO



JAFO is a term I am familiar with, being former Armd Recce.  I would use the term JAFO for me if I was on CDN Aviators crew tomorrow (which ain't gonna happen, but I'd certainly be a JAFO on a flight at this point), but not anyone who is at his level in the trade.  

I'd not sit here and tell you all a Sig Op does is say "radio check, over".  Because that would be..well...stupid of me, and you've been around longer than me.  

Your call.


----------



## Jammer

Does no one have a sense of humour tonight.
Aviator:
I have a pretty damn good idea about your job...my Dad spent 15yrs on the Argus doing the same thing...steam driven, but the principle don't change. 
Time to get off the self rightous bus mate.


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> my Dad spent 15yrs on the Argus doing the same thing...steam driven, but the principle don't change.



You would be surprised but yeah...you win.......i just look around.



> Time to get off the self rightous bus mate.



Sure. cant wait for your reaction when i post about how great the tacvest is......


----------



## Jammer

I use my own rig...thanks for the thought though.
I ignore it later


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Time for people to STFU and stay in their lanes.

Wanna bitch like schoolkids? Take it to PMs so the rest of us don't have to watch you measure your dicks.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Good2Golf

Jammer said:
			
		

> Wow!
> Somebody is bitchy tonight.



CDN Aviator just showed it more than the rest of us...but I'm not wearing a mod hat at the moment, and I'm feeling a bit of a bitchy twinge too...perhaps it's the ignorant blaze past a polite warning earlier that gets under one's skin...but I do have thousands of hours of flying time and close to a quarter century of helo flying in the CF, so I figured there was something backing up earlier attempts to guide and inform.  How about some kid started telling you about using and denying the EM spectrum and that you were misguided in how you thought the profession of signalling? 



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> While he may be off the mark in some respect to comparisons, I think what he might be alluding to is that the Griffon is a POS.



My professional view, with a bit less than a thousand hours on the Griffon, is that HE IS WRONG! (...and that is with a couple of thousand hours on two other tactical helicopter types in the last 20 years - hint: utility and heavy lifters)  

The Griffon is no more a POS than your PRC-117F is...if you ask too much of something, beyond what it was designed for, it is too easy to ignorantly call it a POS.



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> It should never have been bought as a UTTH, however politics being fickle and all (they were built by Bell in Montreal), they were thrust upon us.
> A militarized Bell-412SP (read: they have mil-spec radios in them.), really wasn't they way to go.



It's a B214CF, which is a militarized EP (note, two further model improvements after the 1978 SP, and the mid-80's HP variants).  You also forgot the MIL-STD-1553B dual digital databus that no other Bell 412 has, amongst other militarization like IR supression systems, laser warning receivers, while we're talking about all the other things it and no other Bell 412 have...



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> So sit back relax and think about this...AESOP = JAFO



Uncalled for dig.

G2G 

_*posted in the spirit that this would have been out before Recceguy locked it if I hadn't gone for a quick break prior to hitting 'Post'*_


----------



## Jammer

Ack 5X5.
My apologies for not being more informed technically.
The point I was trying to make (but failed), was that by adding all the whiz bangy self defense suites to the Griffon, does it not make it a less capable helicopter in terms of how it is employed?
When I left Kandahar a few months ago, a good deal of the CLP overwatches were still being done by OH-58Ds, even though CHFA was declared OPRED in Jan to do this which from what I understood at the time was to be it's primary job.
In defence of CHFA, and with out violating OPSEC they have had some phenominal success's though.
Once again, mea culpa.


----------



## Loachman

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Meaning that a replacement or upgrade for the current CH-146 Griffon will have to be looked at by about 2010 for a delivery date of 2016/17.



As long as the role does not significantly change, there are no major fatigue issues, and Bell and Pratt and Whitney continue to support the airframe and engines (most likely for some time to come), no major upgrade is likely to continue operations.

That does not mean that an upgrade is not desireable. I'd pick the UH1Y under development for the US Marines for the utility role, or the Black Hawk, for the utility role.

I would NOT pick something that nobody else was using in a particular role. Nobody else has shown much interest in Cyclone, but there are most likely going to be Yanks wherever we go. Standardizing on what they use makes sense - and a whole bunch more sense than standardizing upon something purchased for a Naval support role. Our Tac Hel doctrine was also based upon theirs, as it was and is far more developed than anybody else's, so there is another reason to use similar, including similar-sized, equipment.



			
				ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Gentlemen, since you seem to believe the utility version of the S-92 would be a poor choice of replacement for the Griffon (even though it has a faster speed



That is not always relevant, at least in a tactical situation. Do LAVS and Leopards always bomb around at max speed? The faster one goes in a low-level mission, the less manoeuvrable one is, and the more exposed one has to be. We could well be back to those tactics in the next major operation, depending upon threat and geography.

Also, hanging stuff off of the outside (door guns, other mission kits, and slung loads) reduces max speeds. Don't take the manufacturer's shiney sales brochures as practical gospel.



			
				ezbeatz said:
			
		

> longer range



In a tactical situation, that may or may not be relevant either. It's only about 70 to 80 km from KAF to the furthest areas that we operate. Also, actual performance figures, with all of the variables, are not reflected in those fancy brochures. If it was all that simple, I wouldn't be paid what I am.

Here's another thing to ponder: The bigger and fatter a helicopter is, the fewer places it will fit. One big fat target is also more desireable than three or four small ones, from the opposition's viewpoint.



			
				ezbeatz said:
			
		

> larger payload capacity



Less than Chinook, of which we shall soon have fifteen. We do not need another helicopter to compete with that.



			
				ezbeatz said:
			
		

> what do you think the Griffon should be replaced with? Or do you believe it overhauled and upgraded instead?



As previously stated.



			
				ezbeatz said:
			
		

> p.s. Good call popnfresh! I do jump out of airplanes



And sometime in the not too distant future, you may be sitting in the back of a CH146 and notice a patch on the back of a frontseater's electric hat that says Loachman on it.

I promise to do my best not to criticize your exit technique and suggest improvements.


----------



## Jammer

Somehow I knew this topic would tear all the rotorheads away from their suds...


----------



## Loachman

Jammer said:
			
		

> When I left Kandahar a few months ago, a good deal of the CLP overwatches were still being done by OH-58Ds, even though CHFA was declared OPRED in Jan to do this which from what I understood at the time was to be it's primary job.



We were on the same Roto.

I have no idea where you were employed, but I was in a fairly good position to see what was up, where it was, and what it was doing.

Our stuff wasn't there to replace anything, but to add overall capability.

There are still differences in capabilities and operating techniques between the two platforms, their sensors and weapons, and their crews - and experience levels. We are still developing.


----------



## Jammer

That's the info that made it down to us schmucks at SPGG.
Nice to see you guys once in a while though...It got lonely sometimes and Thursday nights were pretty dodgy living with the ANA


----------



## Loachman

Jammer said:
			
		

> That's the info that made it down to us schmucks at SPGG.
> Nice to see you guys once in a while though...It got lonely sometimes and Thursday nights were pretty dodgy living with the ANA



You wouldn't have seen me. I was sitting in a box in KAF, and usually at night. You might have heard an occasional irritating whiny noise from three to five thousand feet above - my "virtual" presence.


----------



## Jammer

I think I mooned you one night...bored and couldn't sleep.


----------



## Loachman

Jammer said:
			
		

> I think I mooned you one night...bored and couldn't sleep.



Must have been one of the other crews.

I did spend far too long watching farmers have midnight dumps in their fields because ISTAR guys thought that was suspicious activity though...


----------



## GAP

Jammer said:
			
		

> That's the info that made it down to us schmucks at SPGG.
> Nice to see you guys once in a while though...It got lonely sometimes and Thursday nights were pretty dodgy living with the ANA



What? You didn't follow the maxim of "When in Rome......"?  ;D


----------



## Jammer

I can understand how a big steamer in an open field at night nowhere close to a road might be misconstrued. One of my guys using ITASS was famous for that.


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> Must have been one of the other crews.
> 
> I did spend far too long watching farmers have midnight dumps in their fields because ISTAR guys thought that was suspicious activity though...



...ahhh, so you saw the glowing left hand after the event on thermal?


----------



## Jammer

We were invited...but politely declined.
They did love borrowing our war/action movies though...go figure.
They weren't to hip to porn..at least that particular platoon.


----------



## Loachman

Jammer said:
			
		

> I can understand how a big steamer in an open field at night nowhere close to a road might be misconstrued. One of my guys using ITASS was famous for that.



That and field irrigation.

"First row fully flooded. Second row twenty percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row thirty percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row forty percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row fifty percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row sixty percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row seventy percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row eighty percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First row fully flooded. Second row ninety percent flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First and second rows fully flooded. Third to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"First and second rows fully flooded. Third row ten percent flooded. Fourth to fourteenth rows no flooding".

"Roger. Cleared to move on..."

Sometimes, it took a little effort to convince them.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...ahhh, so you saw the glowing left hand after the event on thermal?



Same temperature.


----------



## ezbeatz

Loachman said:
			
		

> And sometime in the not too distant future, you may be sitting in the back of a CH146 and notice a patch on the back of a frontseater's electric hat that says Loachman on it.
> 
> I promise to do my best not to criticize your exit technique and suggest improvements.



Look forward to it.  

You had some sound points. It's good to hear.


----------



## Loachman

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> You had some sound points. It's good to hear.



I should have one or two given the time that I've been doing this, nein?


----------



## DocBacon

FWIW:

I was on course at Bell in the winter, and in spite of being a FN (foriegn national) I was included in a discussion of the systems in the Yankee and Whiskey model variants of the Huey.  Impressive aircraft, especially since they're an extension of a roughly 50 year old product line.

I'm told they've the power capacity to operate in the density altitudes of our current AO with useful loads and endurance, and that the cabin plug (the stretched bit aft of the crew doors) accomodates all the sparky bits where they can be maintained easily and creates more useful volume in the cabin and cockpit.

If push came to shove, and a -146 replacement was _required_, it would seem to be an option with fewer additional costs than another completely different type.


----------



## MarkOttawa

New navy chopper falls short of endurance requirement for flight time
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/New-navy-chopper-falls-short-of-endurance-requirement-for-flight-time-53599747.html



> The Canadian officer who will oversee the first flights of Canada's new fleet of navy helicopters next year says the choppers currently can't pass an endurance test that requires them to fly for nearly three hours in extreme conditions.
> 
> "It (the helicopter) falls short of the endurance requirement as allowed under the revised contract," Col. Sam Michaud, commander of Nova Scotia's 12 Wing Shearwater airbase, said in an interview Tuesday.
> 
> The MH-92 Cyclone helicopter's original contract had specified that 28 choppers be delivered, at a rate of one per month, beginning in November 2008.
> 
> However, a revised contract announced last year allowed for the delivery of the helicopters to begin in November 2010, two years behind schedule. It also doesn't require the choppers to meet the 170-minute flying time until after the 19th helicopter has been delivered in 2012.
> 
> But Michaud said he's confident the Cyclones will satisfy the requirement, and that the aging fleet of Sea King helicopters can keep operating until then.
> 
> Still, he acknowledges there will be some limits - such as shorter missions and the need to use more helicopters to perform the same mission - until the endurance requirement is met.
> 
> "So right now, the issue with the interim maritime helicopters is they're having some challenges getting to that endurance number that we've asked for," said Michaud.
> 
> The base commander explained that the helicopter is heavier than originally expected, and as a result fuel is consumed more quickly...
> 
> Michaud explained that when the helicopter's operation requirements were written in the 1990s, defence research experts determined the harsher conditions the aircraft would have to endure, and then calculated the periods of time it would have to stay in the air to carry out missions.
> 
> "To succeed at that mission, to have a probability of success, you need to be able to fly for two hours and 50 minutes," he said.
> 
> He noted that when the helicopter arrives at 12 Wing Shearwater airbase, it will be capable of performing the majority of its missions, as it will be over sea water in cooler air that's considered more dense.
> 
> The choppers are considered to be the "eyes and ears" of the navy, and are used to fly missions from Canadian frigates that roam the world. They are also frequently assigned to assist with search and rescue missions.
> 
> The Cyclone's design was based on Sikorsky's H-92 civilian helicopter, which is used in the offshore oil industry.
> 
> The redesigned, military version has seen the addition of a folding tail and rotors for storage aboard warships, anti-submarine warfare electronics, and a system that allows the aircraft to be flown by computer.



More at _The Torch_:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/cyclone-still-forming-our-interim.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## STONEY

And will they come with all the gearbox problems that plague the civilian s-92.

The saga continues.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think the info from anyone involved on the CF side of the house won't be *unofficially* put up on this site.  Thats just a guess.  DND will release info to the public via official channels, IMO.

 :2c:


----------



## newfin

Eye In the Sky, Since I posted that request for more info I saw The Agenda with Steve Paikin last night on TVO.  Vice Admiral Dean McFadden was being interviewed on there and he stated that Canada would receive its first Cyclone before the end of this year.  So that means in the next two months.  So "soon" means in 2 months or less.

Here's the link to the program:

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

STONEY said:
			
		

> And will they come with all the gearbox problems that plague the civilian s-92.
> 
> The saga continues.



As the majority of them are not yet built, it means that design changes can be implemented quickly and with less cost than retrofitting. Glad they are finding this out now and not in another five years.


----------



## beenthere

I have doubt about anything coming quickly and little doubt that they may try for some funding to implement any changes.


----------



## DocBacon

STONEY said:
			
		

> And will they come with all the gearbox problems that plague the civilian s-92.



The problems that you allude to are resolved by the replacement of the titanium studs retaining the oil filter with stainless steel; apparently this eliminates that issue.  Another issue with the main gearbox is related to cracks in a mount that have reduced the case life to 2700hrs, IIRC - this isn't unusual for a new product and one that will be resolved once an upgrade case is designed.  However, the inability of the gearbox to run dry of oil for even a limited period of time is a bigger problem and one not as likely to be resolved with a quick fix.

Does this mean that the CH-148 will never be a workable replacement for the Sea-King?  I doubt it, but it sure won't help expedite deliveries.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

newfin said:
			
		

> Eye In the Sky, Since I posted that request for more info I saw The Agenda with Steve Paikin last night on TVO.  Vice Admiral Dean McFadden was being interviewed on there and he stated that Canada would receive its first Cyclone before the end of this year.  So that means in the next two months.  So "soon" means in 2 months or less.
> 
> Here's the link to the program:
> 
> http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/



I would consider the VAdm an official source.  I guess the point I was trying to make was, yes, there is info on this known internally (and likely to stay that way).  I, for one, don't want to be the one to put stuff that is coming down from the CoC on this site and then have someone from my CoC come looking for *EITS on Army.ca* and why did EITS say "XYZ" on a public forum.  It is a rather small military we have, afterall.  The annoucements and publicity/media coverage that will happen if/when a Cyclone shows up on the Wing will be at the appropriate level, at the appropriate time.

Watch and shoot.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There may be further delays according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sikorsky-faces-more-setbacks-in-delivery-of-new-helicopters/article1470533/


> Sikorsky faces more setbacks in delivery of new helicopters
> *Manufacturer unable to live up to revised deal signed in 2008, which would see initial delivery of 28 helicopters this year*
> 
> Daniel Leblanc
> 
> Ottawa
> 
> Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010
> 
> There is one more twist in the seemingly never-ending saga of the replacement of Canada's Sea King helicopters.
> 
> More than a year after announcing a four-year delay in the long-running project, Sikorsky has just acknowledged that it is facing another setback in the delivery of the first of 28 aircraft.
> 
> Details are scarce, but Sikorsky is saying it can't live up to the new schedule that was negotiated with Ottawa 14 months ago, and is unlikely to offer all of the promised equipment in the first round of deliveries.
> 
> “Sikorsky has advised the government of Canada of potential delays, and we're working to assess the implications of these potential delays,” said Chris Hilton, a spokesman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.
> 
> According to the initial contract signed in 2004, the Canadian Forces were to begin receiving fully compliant Cyclone CH-148s within four years, by 2008.
> 
> However, the government and Sikorsky announced at the end of 2008 that the first maritime helicopters would only come in 2010, and would not meet the full list of specifications in the contract. According to the deal, the first fully compliant helicopters would come in 2012, about eight years after the signing of the contract.
> 
> In a recent report, Sikorsky's parent company, United Technologies Corp., said it has launched a new round of discussions with Ottawa regarding the delivery of the first interim helicopters, scheduled for late this year.
> 
> “Sikorsky is in discussions with the Canadian government concerning an anticipated delay in completing certain elements of the specification for the interim aircraft,” said UTC's annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.
> 
> A spokesman for Sikorsky refused to expand on its production problems. “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on discussions with customers,” Paul Jackson said.
> 
> Mr. Hilton, however, said the Harper government “fully expects Sikorsky to live up to its legal obligations.”
> 
> Before it awarded the $5-billion contract to Sikorsky in 2004, the government warned that it would impose as much as $36-million in penalties for late deliveries.
> 
> However, in the secret deal signed in late 2008 between Ottawa and Sikorsky, the government decided not to collect any of the penalties. In fact, it agreed to pay an extra $117-million to Sikorsky to obtain “leading-edge technology.”
> 
> The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered new helicopters to replace the Sea Kings in 1992, but Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien cancelled the purchase as soon as he came to office in 1993.




Thank you, Jean Chrétien! You couldn’t resist a bit of cheap, partisan, political theatre. Now our military personnel must fly the ancient, maintenance intensive Sea Kings for an even longer period.


----------



## KingKikapu

Sigh

Someone please tell me the project manager on Sirkorsky's side has been canned by now.

Unforgivable.


----------



## Dog

Should have just gone with the already-produced SeaHawk and been done with it.... but that would be too easy, and make WAY too much sense.


----------



## aesop081

Dog said:
			
		

> Should have just gone with the already-produced SeaHawk and been done with it.... but that would be too easy, and make WAY too much sense.



 :

Nope. Not even close. If you need a 3/4 ton truck, you dont buy a Ford Fiesta.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Take a look at the end of this _Torch_ post:

New (someday) maritime helicopter: Cyclone deliveries continue to go counter-clockwise 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-someday-maritime-helicopter-cyclone.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Nope. Not even close. If you need a 3/4 ton truck, you dont buy a Ford Fiesta.



Well that's exactly what the US Coast Guard did, their helo's are so small, often they have to leave  their rescue swimmer behind in the water to carry survivors.


----------



## speedrose2

Rumour has it that the first Cyclone landed at CFB Shearwater this past Friday. Anybody able to confirm this?


----------



## observor 69

Halifax — The Canadian Press 
Published on Monday, Feb. 22, 2010 12:26PM EST

ARTICLE LINK

Trials are about to begin for the Canadian military's newest helicopter — the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone.

Capt. Paul Finnemore at CFB Shearwater says a stripped-down test model arrived in Nova Scotia over the weekend from the company's facility in Florida.

For the next several weeks an assessment team will put it through its paces in a cold and more hostile marine environment.

The test model will carry a couple of dummy torpedoes to mimic actual flight conditions to more accurately gauge performance.

The federal government is spending $5-billion on 28 Cyclones, the first of which is scheduled to be delivered by June 2012.

The navy will fly its aging fleet of Sea King helicopters until then.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Halifax — The Canadian Press
> Published on Monday, Feb. 22, 2010 12:26PM EST
> 
> ARTICLE LINK
> 
> Trials are about to begin for the Canadian military's newest helicopter — the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone.
> 
> Capt. Paul Finnemore at CFB Shearwater says a stripped-down test model arrived in Nova Scotia over the weekend from the company's facility in Florida.
> 
> For the next several weeks an assessment team will put it through its paces in a cold and more hostile marine environment.
> 
> The test model will carry a couple of dummy torpedoes to mimic actual flight conditions to more accurately gauge performance.
> 
> The federal government is spending $5-billion on 28 Cyclones, the first of which is scheduled to be delivered by June 2012.
> 
> The navy will fly  its aging fleet of Sea King helicopters until then.



I guess all the pilots can go on leave until June 2012 then.   ;D


----------



## Radar114

I saw it fly up the harbour past the dockyard but it was Thursday I saw that.    I'm sure it was.


----------



## newfin

I was hoping that since we live in an age of digital cameras and the internet that I would have seen a photo of it by now. We have been waiting since Brian Mulroney was in power to see a replacement for the Sea King.


----------



## Radar114

Well I have seen 6 pictures of it too at work.  Just none out on the internet.


----------



## Rifleman62

Sent to me on the internet:

A long time in coming, but a nice piece of kit! 

FYI.  It's not officially delivered to the CF yet. Sikorsky still owns during the ship trials. 

Cyclone 801 arrived Shearwater at 2328(L) Friday 19 Feb. Aircraft is now secured in 12 AMS Hgr in preparation for the commencement of SHOL trials.


----------



## GAP

Why just 2 blades....I always thought the "more blades the more lift capacity".....total layman in this regard, but just curious....


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> Why just 2 blades....



There are 4 blades. Look again.


----------



## GAP

In the picture in reply # 354 above, I only see two.....now I know fur shur I can count higher than 2, and I do wear glasses, but..... ;D

ps....I stand partly corrected....there is a third blade mostly hidden by transmission.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> In the picture in reply # 354 above, I only see two.....now I know fur shur I can count higher than 2, and I do wear glasses, but..... ;D
> 
> ps....I stand partly corrected....there is a third blade mostly hidden by transmission.....



The fourth blade is hiding in plain sight! The colour yellow will set you free!


----------



## yoman

GAP said:
			
		

> In the picture in reply # 354 above, I only see two.....now I know fur shur I can count higher than 2, and I do wear glasses, but..... ;D
> 
> ps....I stand partly corrected....there is a third blade mostly hidden by transmission.....



For those who can't see...


----------



## GAP

Uhhhh.....either #2 is crouching behind #1 or it dun fell off...... ;D


----------



## Barts

GAP said:
			
		

> Uhhhh.....either #2 is crouching behind #1 or it dun fell off...... ;D



You're looking at #2 end-on (blade is pointing AT you) The tip is yellow.

To recreate this effect, you can paint your fingernail yellow, then point at your eye...    >


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Does the nose gear extend any longer, it doe not appear to be much room between the dome behind the nose gear and the deck. It looks like if you came down hard the dome will take a hit?


----------



## Haletown

its here . . .

http://tinyurl.com/yegtb2q

One small step for naval aviation . . .


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conclusion of a post at _The Torch_:

We sort of have a CH-148 Cyclone, at last 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-sort-of-have-ch-148-cyclone-at-last.html



> ...
> Australia, for its part, is acquiring a new maritime helicopter--with a competition between two purpose-designed military helicopters.
> http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/25/338801/australia-to-choose-new-naval-combat-helicopter-in-2011.html
> Our Cyclones however are a military version of a civilian aircraft
> http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/s92/
> --for which Canada is the first and so far (and probably forever) only customer. Bit of a lesson there, eh?



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Australia and Canada share a lot of the same issues with procurement of military equipment, failed helicopter purchase, new subs not performing as advertised, etc. It speaks volumes that almost every Western country has problems with military contracts going sideways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maple Leaf article:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6026


----------



## h3tacco

Someone snapped a shot of the aircraft around Halifax.







http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-%28Sikorsky-Aircraft%29/Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone/1673076/L/&sid=d955068bac2e7faf7109ffd1d8d28f9b


----------



## FSTO

The side number N4901C, is that there because it has not been accepted by the Navy (I know its actually an Air Force asset  ;D) yet and still needs a civilian tracking number? I cannot recall seeing the same type of number on the Sea Kings.

Thanks.


----------



## dapaterson

It`s not a CF asset.  It`s a helicopter owned and operated on behalf of the manufacturer, conducting trials with the CF.  As it is not a CF asset, its registration is per its owner.


----------



## observor 69

FSTO said:
			
		

> The side number N4901C, is that there because it has not been accepted by the Navy (I know its actually an Air Force asset  ;D) yet and still needs a civilian tracking number? I cannot recall seeing the same type of number on the Sea Kings.
> 
> Thanks.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA REGISTRY 
N-Number Inquiry Results 

Reserved N-Number 
Type Reservation Manufacturer (Temp) 
Mode S Code 51411226 
Reserved Date 03/07/1981 
Renewal Date None 
Purge Date None 
Pending Number Change None 
Date Change Authorized None 
Reserving Party Name SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT  
Street PO BOX 1621  
City WEST PALM BEACH  
State FLORIDA  
Zip Code 33402  
County PALM BEACH  
Country UNITED STATES  

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N4901C


----------



## h3tacco

FSTO said:
			
		

> The side number N4901C, is that there because it has not been accepted by the Navy (I know its actually an Air Force asset  ;D) yet and still needs a civilian tracking number? I cannot recall seeing the same type of number on the Sea Kings.
> 
> Thanks.



dapaterson is correct the aircraft is still owned by Sikorsky. 

Normally when Sirkosky sells Blackhawks or Seahawks under FMS (Foreign Military Sales) the aircraft temporarily gets at US DOD registration during pre-delivery flights. However, as the CH148 is technically a commercial sale not an FMS sale it flies under a US civilian registration. All US civilian registrations start with the letter N.  When the government formally accepts the aircraft it be given a CF aircraft registration (aka CH148801. CH148802...).  The US civil registration vs US DOD registration means somewhat different rules are applied to the aircraft and how it is flown. Basically a US DOD registration allows more flexibility whereas an N-registration means the aircraft has to abide by FAA regulations.


----------



## KJK

Yet more engine problems.

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/HG1317.xml&CatID=National

KJK


----------



## Haletown

Changes seem pretty minor in the grand scheme of things . . .  probably normal evolution given the time it has taken to get the Airframe built.


It doesn't appear to be on the critical path.

Now if it was a new engine that had be re-certified from scratch . . . .

http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ct7/ct7-8.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

More, with background, at _The Torch_:

Cyclone "debacle" surprise: Engine not good enough 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/cyclone-debacle-surprise-engine-not.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

What a sad farce:

Choppers running late
Two-thirds of new fleet 3 1/2 years behind Defence Department’s original schedule
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1186401.html



> Two-thirds of Canada’s new fleet of 28 navy helicopters won’t begin delivery until June 2012, almost 3 1/2 years behind the original schedule, the Defence Department has confirmed.
> 
> The delivery date in the $5-billion contract with Sikorsky to replace the aging Sea King fleet was November 2008. The Defence Department delayed that last year when it renegotiated the deal so that an "interim" version of the CH-148 helicopter would begin delivery in November 2010.
> 
> The department had stated those helicopters would be delivered at a rate of one per month, which would have brought 19 of the choppers to Canadian bases by June 2012.
> 
> However, Lianne Lebel, a spokeswoman for the Defence Department, says six interim helicopters will come before 2012.
> 
> "In October 2009, Sikorsky advised the government that it would deliver six interim helicopters starting in November 2010 in advance of the delivery of fully compliant helicopters in June 2012," she said in an email.
> 
> "Six interim helicopters are sufficient to complete the necessary operational testing and training until fully compliant helicopters are delivered."
> 
> The remaining 22 helicopters will have upgraded engines and begin delivery in 2012, at which time the group of six early choppers will be sent back to have their engines retrofitted, said Lebel.
> 
> Col. Sam Michaud, the commander of 12 Wing Shearwater, told The Canadian Press in August 2009 that the first helicopter was expected in November 2010 and there would be "one per month after that."
> 
> He went on to say, "According to the revised contract, Sikorsky will deliver essentially the complete aircraft, but it has some performance shortfalls related to power output and weight. They have until the 19th aircraft to come up with the final maritime helicopter configuration."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

That's how old they are--RCN, not RCAF!

OFFICIAL UNVEILING OF ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY SEA KING HELICOPTER
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/06/14/official-unveiling-of-royal-canadian-navy-sea-king-helicopter.aspx

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oops!

SEA KING HELICOPTER CEREMONY IN SHEARWATER CANCELLED
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/06/15/sea-king-helicopter-ceremony-in-shearwater-cancelled.aspx

Maybe the PMO got wind of it.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What a sad farce:
> 
> Choppers running late
> Two-thirds of new fleet 3 1/2 years behind Defence Department’s original schedule
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1186401.html
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've  said this before and I'll say it again the program was a bad idea from the beginning but there isn't a politician out there that will admit  it. Not one has the moral courage to say that it  should be canceled  .
> I t will not matter in the slightest if the aircraft are utterly incapable of flight. they will be delivered and the Department will issue press release after press release telling  us all what great deal they are for the country. And of course the Navy will still lack a viable platform after almost what 15 years?
> Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sikorsky continues playing the Canadian government for suckers.  We pay for the developement of a decent machine...and the company is trying to sell it to the Germans (no “interim” aircraft for them):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/14/AW_06_14_2010_p42-233177.xml



> ...Sikorsky and AgustaWestland see things differently as they eye the potential of displacing Eurocopter for a German navy program to field 30 maritime helicopters and roughly 19 German air force combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) rotorcraft...
> 
> Fleet commonality and low risk are advantages also being touted by Sikorsky with its offer derived from the Canadian CH-148. Gigantelli notes that the German navy helo would be fielded only two years after Canada receives the first of its *final-configuration CH-148s, so development risk would be minimized* [emphasis added]. Moreover, using the Cyclone for the air force CSAR mission and the navy role would provide support and training benefits, he adds. Although Sikorsky has suffered delays in the CH-148 program, company officials insist those problems have been overcome, and four rotorcraft are in flight trials...



The freaking gall.  Where are our journalists?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Sikorsky continues playing the Canadian government for suckers.  We pay for the developement of a decent machine...and the company is trying to sell it to the Germans (no “interim” aircraft for them):
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/14/AW_06_14_2010_p42-233177.xml
> 
> The freaking gall.  Where are our journalists?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


 It would help if we actually had some REAL defence journalists to begin with. Sadly we don't


----------



## Kirkhill

So you would prefer that Canada had a completely orphan fleet?

Wasn't the Twin Huey a helicopter developed to a Canadian spec that ended up dominating the market, even though we only bought a few dozen?

It isn't Sikorski playing us for suckers.  Its the bunch of twits that decided to buy a paper product from the land of never-never rather than buying the original product they cancelled.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So you would prefer that Canada had a completely orphan fleet?
> 
> Wasn't the Twin Huey a helicopter developed to a Canadian spec that ended up dominating the market, even though we only bought a few dozen?
> 
> It isn't Sikorski playing us for suckers.  Its the bunch of twits that decided to buy a paper product from the land of never-never rather than buying the original product they cancelled.


 It is my concern that we will end up with an orphan fleet .There is  a world of difference between the Twin -PAC  Huey and the  S92  . For one thing it  the Huey was already a military A/C . The difference in technologies then and now is enormous .  And I never said it was Sikorsky that was playing  us for suckers ..............but  since you brought it up  as a matter of a fact they  are and why shouldn't they  our brainless  political leadership seem to be OK with being Sikorsky 's B**ch .
They gave them the keys to the treasury and  walked away   because  they didn't want to deal with any sticky problems that might  the  cause average Canadian  who knows nothing about defence and seems to care even less  to start asking questions.
 This hasn't  been helped by the Canadian media who also could care less about defence ( to be fair this changing albeit at a glacial pace, there are one or two people trying to be defence specialists ) I swear there are some days when If I were God  I'd  stuff  most of the the forces in pink tutus and march them up and down  the street of this country singing "I"m a little  tea pot short and stout " Unless it was very slow news day I doubt it would get much coverage.


----------



## observor 69

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It isn't Sikorski playing us for suckers.  Its the bunch of twits that decided to buy a paper product from the land of never-never rather than buying the original product they cancelled.



How's about this for keeping you awake at night?

"One of Chretien's first acts as prime minister in 1993  was to cancel the previous Conservative government's EH-10 contract to replace the Sea Kings, after deriding the Cormorant chopper as a "Cadillac" and a waste of taxpayers' money during the federal election campaign that brought him to power."

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=a9baaa17-8690-4ff4-b954-f1415a587063



"British Royal Navy

 A Merlin HM.1 of 814 NASThe RN's final order was for 44 ASW machines, originally designated Merlin HAS.1 but soon changed to Merlin HM1. The first fully operational Merlin was delivered on 17 May 1997, entering service on 2 June 2000. All aircraft were delivered by the end of 2002, and are operated by four Fleet Air Arm squadrons, all based at RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall: 814 NAS, 820 NAS, 824 NAS and 829 NAS. 700 NAS was the Merlin Operational Evaluation Unit from 2000 to 2008."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101#British_Royal_Navy


Operational by 1997.  :rage:


----------



## dapaterson

One a/c is not "operational".  "Operational" is sufficient airframes, support, and trained personnel to be able to perform some level of sustained operations.

From the referenced article, that sounds like it was in 2000.


----------



## observor 69

OK I'd settle for an operational fleet of choppers in 2000,   :nod: sounds pretty sweet next to our present pickle.

How would you like that Mr.Prime Minister politically or militarily expedient ?


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> It is my concern that we will end up with an orphan fleet .There is  a world of difference between the Twin -PAC  Huey and the  S92  . For one thing it  the Huey was already a military A/C . The difference in technologies then and now is enormous .  And I never said it was Sikorsky that was playing  us for suckers ..............but  since you brought it up  as a matter of a fact they  are and why shouldn't they  our brainless  political leadership seem to be OK with being Sikorsky 's B**ch .
> They gave them the keys to the treasury and  walked away   because  they didn't want to deal with any sticky problems that might  the  cause average Canadian  who knows nothing about defence and seems to care even less  to start asking questions.
> This hasn't  been helped by the Canadian media who also could care less about defence ( to be fair this changing albeit at a glacial pace, there are one or two people trying to be defence specialists ) I swear there are some days when If I were God  I'd  stuff  most of the the forces in pink tutus and march them up and down  the street of this country singing "I"m a little  tea pot short and stout " Unless it was very slow news day I doubt it would get much coverage.




Fair enuff, GK.  But I would still rather have somebody, anybody, else buying these beasts with us even if they do end up paying a lower fare than us.

And Baden Guy, I'm with you.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Fair enuff, GK.  But I would still rather have somebody, anybody, else buying these beasts with us even if they do end up paying a lower fare than us.
> 
> And Baden Guy, I'm with you.


 I tend to agree with you Kirkhill  I think it would be wonderful if the Jerries bought in on it  presuming we can get the frickin thing to work .But there are a couple of reasons why they might not  one's economic and the other two are political ,
 What is really bothering me  is the fact that we deploy ships without their embarked helo dets, Each A/C is approximately 40 % of a frigate capabilities .And one of these day that may very well bite us in the ass.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conservative defence vote buying policy at work:

Standards for navy choppers dropped in exchange for $80 million in local contracts
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/840311--ottawa-drops-standards-for-navy-choppers-in-exchange-for-80-million-in-benefits



> Ottawa is dropping key performance standards for navy helicopters due this fall in return for the manufacturer’s promise to guarantee another $80 million in work for Canadian aerospace companies over the next two decades.
> 
> The revised deal with U.S.-based Sikorsky, signed June 30, means the first six Cyclone choppers that fly from frigates in November won’t be required to have a system allowing some encrypted tactical information to be exchanged between ships and helicopters.
> 
> This message-exchange system was one of the original requirements in the $5.1 billion contract for the 28 helicopters, which are already more than three years behind schedule.
> 
> The helicopters will also no longer have to pass an endurance test for flying in warmer temperatures nor a test that requires one engine to keep going if a second engine fails in higher temperatures [well, we won't need them in Afstan after all ].
> 
> Also, the software needed for some military sensors and weapons systems won’t be complete by the fall.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the federal Department of Public Works says Sikorsky will have to provide additional contracts to Canadian firms in exchange for more time to work on the helicopters.
> 
> “It’s not a penalty. It’s more business for Canadian industry. It’s value added for Canada,” said Johanne Provencher, director of defence and major projects at the department...
> 
> Provencher said the deal is acceptable to the federal government because the helicopters can still be used for military evaluation and training...
> 
> Provencher said Sikorsky has also dropped a claim for $100 million against Ottawa in a legal dispute over what the terms of the original contract required...
> 
> Provencher said Sikorsky has also agreed to provide Ottawa with up to $30 million from sales income if the manufacturer sells the Cyclones to other countries. Sikorsky is currently bidding on a contract to supply the helicopter to Germany.
> 
> The revision is the second contract amendment since Sikorsky originally won a hotly contested bidding war in 2004 to replace the aging fleet of Sea King navy helicopters.
> 
> On Dec. 23, 2008, the government allowed Sikorsky to extend the original deadline almost two years, until this fall, and gave the company an additional $117 million to pay for engine design changes and other features...



One wonders what GK .Dundas thinks.  Gov't news release:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3486

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## karl28

In my opinion the cyclones are going to be a worse disaster than the comerants where . We should of just bough something like the Blawkhawk would of been better in the long run .


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Each A/C is approximately 40 % of a frigate capabilities


 ???


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

karl28 said:
			
		

> In my opinion the cyclones are going to be a worse disaster than the comerants where . We should of just bough something like the Blawkhawk would of been better in the long run .



You mean a Sea Hawk? From a crew stand-point I'm glad we didn't. Those things are tiny in the back.


----------



## George Wallace

Was the SeaHawk not just as big a disaster?


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was the SeaHawk not just as big a disaster?



Far from it. So succesfull that the USN is consolidating its H-60 operations on the R and S models at this time.


----------



## GK .Dundas

As I recall wasn't  there some issue about ditching the bird? That caused someone during the initial bid process waaaayyyy back when, (the late 80's ?) heartburn?


----------



## pete.coach

karl28 said:
			
		

> In my opinion the cyclones are going to be *a worse disaster than the comerants where* . We should of just bough something like the Blawkhawk would of been better in the long run .



Funny that the disaster that the Cormorant would allow it to win all these awards for rescues?  Many of which the old Labrador could not even attempt,
http://www.gapan.org/canada-region/news-brief/.
(http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland-congratulates-2009-cormorant-trophy-winners).
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/19w-19e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=79&id=4966.
just to mention a few. I wish folks would stop perpetuating hearsay and dig up the facts. SAR people are very happy with the aircraft. 
The real issue it the AirForce and their misguided desire to farm out the maintenance and logistics with the unproven and unsubstantiated claims of saving money, particularly on a fleet that they have no history with. They (whomever "they" may be) can make all sorts of claims but have nothing to back it up.
The Cyclone will eventually be a great weapon system, (despite AirForce managements desire to play politics), on the backs of the hard working air and ground crews......as always.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> As I recall wasn't  there some issue about ditching the bird? That caused someone during the initial bid process waaaayyyy back when, (the late 80's ?) heartburn?



Why in gods name would be get rid of our main platform for ASW?? I think you may have misread something, because even naval and air force commanders aren't that clueless.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why in gods name would be get rid of our main platform for ASW?? I think you may have misread something, because even naval and air force commanders aren't that clueless.


 I was trying to remember the reasoning  fro deselecting the SH 60 / S70 back in the day and I seem to recall that that was one of reasons given.the SH 60 had no chance of winning because of this and other factors in particular range The reality was the CPFs were basically designed around a notational helicopter that ended up looking suspiciously like an EH 101. 
BTW pal who pissed in your oatmeal ? I don't think I deserved that attitude adjustment.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-D

I think what GK is getting at, is that, as I remember, the Sea Hawk had less autonomy than the Sea King.  It was, IIRC, essentially designed as a weapons carrying system with the parent ship doing the targeting and directing. 

Perhaps you or SKT can fill in the blanks but, as I understand it, RCN practice, and subsequently Maritime Command practice was to load up the helo with more sensors and allow them more free range - hence the bigger bird.  

The Seahawk was designed to be close held by the parent frigate,....... if I remember what I read on these boards many moons ago.


----------



## Baz

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> As I recall wasn't  there some issue about ditching the bird? That caused someone during the initial bid process waaaayyyy back when, (the late 80's ?) heartburn?





			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why in gods name would be get rid of our main platform for ASW?? I think you may have misread something, because even naval and air force commanders aren't that clueless.



I think what GK.Dundas was getting at is there was a problem with actaully ditching the aircraft in an emergency, ie landing on the water.  If so, he is correct.  Going from my memory the auxilliary flotation bags would block the Pilot and Co-Pilot (ATO) doors when inflated, making egress difficult when on the water.  I think it may have been solved by adding a popup window to the door so that it could be used for egress above the bag if required, instead of opening the door.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ex-D
> 
> I think what GK is getting at, is that, as I remember, the Sea Hawk had less autonomy than the Sea King.  It was, IIRC, essentially designed as a weapons carrying system with the parent ship doing the targeting and directing.
> 
> Perhaps you or SKT can fill in the blanks but, as I understand it, RCN practice, and subsequently Maritime Command practice was to load up the helo with more sensors and allow them more free range - hence the bigger bird.
> 
> The Seahawk was designed to be close held by the parent frigate,....... if I remember what I read on these boards many moons ago.



It depends on whether you are talking about the 60B or the 60F.  If in fact your talking about the 60B then you are correct.  It was heavily dependant on the Hawk Link, which was a high bandwidth link back to the ship.  In fact, in effect part of the crew was actually in the ops room, and there were only 3 crew on board the aircraft.  Advanced radar and acoustic processing was done in the ship.  Video could also be moved down the Hawk Link when the turret was added.  However, this is not in keeping with the way Canada (or the UK or Aus either) do MH ops, who use a crew of 4 to be more autonomous. 

The 60F used a much simpler link to talk to the carrier for inner screen dipping defense, which was in fact pretty much the same as what the H-3 Sea Kings had used before.  The current Sea King tactical computer (ASN-123), which was acquired surplus from the US's H-3s, still has the software to use that link but the hardware (which is on the aircraft) is not connected.

The 60B and 60DF are both being replaced by the 60R (the 60S is for missile shooting, minehunting and utility).  It carries both Link-16 (as does the 60S) and TCDL to replace the Hawk Link.  However, the US is currently moving away from tehered ops as they realize the potential the 60R has.

As an aside, there was also concern about the low (and small) cabin in the 60, as it made utility and SAR more difficult.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Baz said:
			
		

> I think what GK.Dundas was getting at is there was a problem with actaully ditching the aircraft in an emergency, ie landing on the water.  If so, he is correct.  Going from my memory the auxilliary flotation bags would block the Pilot and Co-Pilot (ATO) doors when inflated, making egress difficult when on the water.  I think it may have been solved by adding a popup window to the door so that it could be used for egress above the bag if required, instead of opening the door.
> 
> It depends on whether you are talking about the 60B or the 60F.  If in fact your talking about the 60B then you are correct.  It was heavily dependant on the Hawk Link, which was a high bandwidth link back to the ship.  In fact, in effect part of the crew was actually in the ops room, and there were only 3 crew on board the aircraft.  Advanced radar and acoustic processing was done in the ship.  Video could also be moved down the Hawk Link when the turret was added.  However, this is not in keeping with the way Canada (or the UK or Aus either) do MH ops, who use a crew of 4 to be more autonomous.
> 
> The 60F used a much simpler link to talk to the carrier for inner screen dipping defense, which was in fact pretty much the same as what the H-3 Sea Kings had used before.  The current Sea King tactical computer (ASN-123), which was acquired surplus from the US's H-3s, still has the software to use that link but the hardware (which is on the aircraft) is not connected.
> 
> The 60B and 60DF are both being replaced by the 60R (the 60S is for missile shooting, minehunting and utility).  It carries both Link-16 (as does the 60S) and TCDL to replace the Hawk Link.  However, the US is currently moving away from tehered ops as they realize the potential the 60R has.
> 
> As an aside, there was also concern about the low (and small) cabin in the 60, as it made utility and SAR more difficult.


 That's it! there were concerns about the flotation bags....You know they say the memory's the 2nd thing to go .....I forget what's first.! 
 The incredible thing about the CPF  programme was that the designers had taken the incredibly bold step of designing them around a helicopter that  only existed in their minds.which begs the question if a design that exists on paper, it is called vaporware  but what do you call it when it hasn't got that far?
It's a pity that the Force's political masters have  tended to be far more timid in their imaginations and this has always seemed the trend.
BTW I also recognize the apparent  irony of  my position . I'm opposed to  the Cyclone which is at least has been built but in favor of the  unbuilt EH101 Canadian variant  but there are in my opinion any way , more then few differences.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the clarification Baz:

To be fair I wasn't and still am not that clued in on the variants of the Seahawk but given the vintage of my recollections I am pretty sure it was the -B model that I was thinking of.

Cheers.


----------



## midget-boyd91

I have a bit of a civvie question here but; 
   When an aircraft such as the Seaking has proven it's abilities through many ranges of operations in many nations i.e Falklands in the RN to humanitarian missions, and proven it's long life as a Navy/Airforce hybrid in our own forces...... Why don't manufacturers just continue making the same aircraft (although upgrading through the years)?  
 Sikorsky had an incredible helicopter with the SeaKing and it was used by umpteen nations in umpteen different roles, so why wouldn't they try something similar to the C-130 being "re-released" as the C-130J?


----------



## Haletown

In related Cyclone news . . .

"Canadian Sea King pilots have rewritten Seasons in the Sun to include the following lyrics:

Goodbye papa, please pray for me
My helicopter’s crashing in the sea
We had joy, we had fun, we had Sea Kings in the sun
But the engines are on fire and the Sea Kings must retire"


RtR @           http://tinyurl.com/2ev4qlb


----------



## Occam

Haletown said:
			
		

> In related Cyclone news . . .
> 
> "Canadian Sea King pilots have rewritten Seasons in the Sun to include the following lyrics:
> 
> Goodbye papa, please pray for me
> My helicopter’s crashing in the sea
> We had joy, we had fun, we had Sea Kings in the sun
> But the engines are on fire and the Sea Kings must retire"



Welcome to 2002.   ;D



Sea Kings in the Sun(Sung to the tune of Seasons in the Sun)

_Goodbye papa please pray for me
My helicopter's crashing in the sea
I honestly don't mean to pout,
but my future is in doubt,
My co-pilot just fell out.

Goodbye papa it's hard to fly,
When my airframe’s cracking in the sky,
For every hour in the air,
it takes them 30 to repair,
We fly these things on a dare.

We've had joy, we've had fun,
We've had Sea Kings in the sun,
But the engines are on fire,
and the Sea Kings must retire,

Goodbye Chrétien my stingy one,
You could have bought the EH-101,
Instead you blew 500 mil,
Just to cancel out the bill,
Now I need an airsick pill.

We've had joy, we've had fun,
We've had Sea Kings in the sun
We'll be lucky if we reach,
a crash landing on the beach._


----------



## newfin

Aren't we supposed to be taking delivery of some of these this month?  Can't recall the exact figure but a dozen rings a bell.  Does anyone know if we are close to seeing the first of these?


----------



## CEEBEE501

I found this on Defense industry daily, hope it helps you:



> Initial CH-148 delivery was originally scheduled for November 2008, but that was moved to January 2009, then pushed back again to December 2010. In the wake of a very vague announcement about contract renegotiation and further program delays, observers began questioning whether the program’s initial dates were ever realistic, and whether even the revised dates can be depended upon. Their suspicions were justified when it was revealed that fully operational CH-148s with upgraded engines wouldn’t begin delivery until June 2012, and the full fleet of 28 won’t be delivered until the end of 2013.



And this excerpt from the Auditors Generals report from October


> In 2000, total indicative costs of the 28 maritime helicopters were estimated at $2.8 billion and revised to $3.1 billion in 2003, exclusive of the cost of providing in-service support. The cost of purchasing and providing in-service support for the helicopters, and of training personnel, is currently estimated to be $5.7 billion over 20 years. This estimate does not include costs related to contracted Sea King support, new infrastructure, Canadian Forces personnel, and ongoing operating costs [which raise the program to C$ 6.2 billion for 28 helicopters]. In addition, the project has experienced delays. Delivery of the first fully capable Cyclone, initially expected in 2005, was delayed to 2008 and is now expected to occur in 2012.




http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canadas-CH-148-Cyclones-Better-Late-Than-Never-05223/


----------



## Occam

Neither of those articles mention it, but several sources state that there will be six (6) aircraft delivered this month to allow training to be carried out.  Those aircraft will be interim standard, to be retrofitted at a later date to meet the original contract requirements.

I haven't heard if that timeline is still in effect.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Occam: Some timeline:

Plan to replace aging Sea Kings hits new snag
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/plan-to-replace-aging-sea-kings-hits-new-snag/article1809584/



> Ottawa’s plans to get new helicopters to replace the decades-old Sea Kings have hit another round of delays, less than a month after the Auditor-General criticized the purchase for other problems.
> 
> This will be the third time that Sikorsky has fallen short of its promises in the $5.7-billion contract to provide 28 Cyclone helicopters to the Canadian Forces.
> 
> According to the original contract, Sikorsky was supposed to start delivering fully compliant helicopters in late 2008. However, shortly before the deadline, the government and the company agreed to a major contract amendment under which fully compliant helicopters would start being delivered in 2012.
> 
> To allow the Canadian Forces to begin training its helicopter crews, the government agreed at the time to start taking the delivery of a few “interim” aircraft on Nov. 30 of this year. The helicopters would not meet all the requirements for military missions, particularly in terms of flight endurance, but would be adequate for testing and evaluation.
> 
> On June 30, Sikorsky signed another deal with the government in which it was agreed the actual interim helicopter to be delivered on Nov. 30 would fall short on a number of otherpoints as well. In particular, the government and Sikorsky agreed the interim helicopters would not include all mission system software and would lack the ability to exchange tactical data with its accompanying ship.
> 
> Officials and experts have told The Globe and Mail that the Nov. 30 deadline will not be met despite the recently watered-down requirements for the interim aircraft. Sources said that the biggest obstacle to the first delivery is related to the certification of the aircraft, which might have been delayed by mechanical problems.
> 
> Sikorsky declined to comment about the latest delay…



Good earlier round-up article at _Defense Industry Daily_:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canadas-CH-148-Cyclones-Better-Late-Than-Never-05223/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Occam

Geez, for the interim aircraft, they've gone with lesser engines, no mission system software and no Link-11.  Sounds like they've slapped a main and tail rotor onto a box containing a couple of radios.   ;D


----------



## CEEBEE501

Silly question, But I have herd that with the US if a company dose not deliver by the date or has vast delays, they have to pay fines, and will sometimes include some reduced price equipment, or even give extra at no cost. Not to sure about this correct me if I have it wrong.

So do we have the same clauses with companies or are we just left out to dry?


----------



## Occam

Nope, the same clauses and penalties are usually drawn into our contracts.  I don't recall an instance where we've actually enforced it, though - but I have heard of instances where other benefits are given to us in exchange for not enforcing it.

The other scenario that comes into play is DND making a change to the specs, which results in a delay in delivery but no penalty as the delay was caused by us.


----------



## Klinkaroo

Here are some of the benefits that Canada obtained when they signed the amended contract for the interim helicopters.



> Terms of the Contract Amendment
> 
> By signing the June 30, 2010 contract amendment, both the Government and Sikorsky agreed that Canada would take delivery of six interim helicopters with a preliminary version of the mission software starting in November 2010, thereby allowing the DND/CF to proceed with operational testing and training activities. It is important to note that DND’s training timeline will not be delayed by this. However, in return for Canada’s agreement on this point, the following concessions were made by Sikorski:
> 
> * Withdrawal of an existing Sikorsky arbitration claim;
> * Investment by Sikorsky in additional Industrial and Regional Benefits of $80 million;
> * Benefits on future maritime helicopter sales payable to Canada that could amount to more than US$30 million;
> * Restructuring the established milestone payment schedule and liquidated damages clause. Liquidated damages, if applicable, will be applied for failure to deliver interim helicopters starting in November 2010, and for failure to deliver the fully compliant helicopters beginning in June 2012;
> * Reduced interim helicopter in-service support rates until acceptance of the fully compliant helicopters in June 2012; and,
> * Extending the in-service support until March 2028.
> 
> These concessions result in a significant net benefit to Canada.


Ref:http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/medias-media/2010-07-25-00-eng.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't finally going to  show some...?

Decision to come in February on fines for late navy helicopters 
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1223886.html



> A federal decision on whether the U.S.-based manufacturer of Canada’s new fleet of navy helicopters will pay millions of dollars in fines for late delivery will be made next month.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose says Sikorsky’s request for Ottawa to excuse the latest delay for delivery of the Cyclones has been formally refused.
> 
> But the company has appealed the refusal and a senior civil servant will make the final call on whether it must pay $45,000 per day for up to 120 days of delay.
> 
> Sikorsky told the federal government on Nov. 22 that it wouldn’t meet its Nov. 30 deadline to begin delivering the early version of the fleet of maritime helicopters because of an issue "outside of its control." Sikorsky did not elaborate at the time.
> 
> Rebecca Thompson, Ambrose’s spokeswoman, says the director general of the Public Works and Government Services Department will decide on Sikorsky’s appeal in February.
> 
> The federal government originally ordered 28 Cyclones in 2004 with a delivery date of November 2008, but there have been delays in the more than $5-billion contract on at least two previous occasions.
> 
> Federal auditor general Sheila Fraser has criticized the procurement for its cost overruns and delays.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Caveat- I have no insider information on this process- I am about as far away from the MH project as you can be and still be in the CF.

Mark- let's say we hammer Sikorsky good... I mean real good.  Show them who really is the boss.

And then they decide that 28 helicopters are no longer worth the pain.  They return our $500 million and shut down the line.

Boy, we really showed them who the boss is then, huh?

The point, Mark, that I am gently trying to make is that this situation just might be a tad more complex then you are making it out to be.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Well, we got hooked buying a paper aircraft.  Not exactly brilliant procurement.  By the Liberal government with the CF's apparent acquiescence.  And  now we're well and truly in the corner.  Why even bother with penalties in a contract when it is impractical in practice to enforce them?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Mark- you tell me.  You seem to be way smarter then everyone else in DND when comes to buying everything from fighters to helicopters...

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the real world is a more complex place than most people realize.

Just saying...


----------



## MarkOttawa

From _Defense Industry Daily_, last October:

Canada’s CH-148 Cyclones: Better Late Than Never?   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canadas-CH-148-Cyclones-Better-Late-Than-Never-05223/



> ...
> Canada’s Maritime Helicopter Replacement Program has been a textbook military procurement program over its long history. Unfortunately, it has been a textbook example of what not to do. While Canada’s Sea King helicopter fleet aged and deteriorated to potentially dangerous levels, political pettiness and lack of concern turned a straightforward off-the-shelf buy into a 25+ year long odyssey of cancellations, lawsuits, rebids, and more. Eventually, the Canadian military settled on Sikorsky’s H-92 Superhawk as the basis of its new CH-148 Cyclone Maritime Helicopter, which will serve from the decks of Canada’s naval ships and bases.
> 
> The civilian S-92 has gone on to some commercial success. To date, however, Canada has been the H-92’s only military customer – with all of the associated issues one might expect around systems integration and conversion for naval operations. There are also deeper questions being raised concerning both the machine’s fitness, and DND’s conduct of the program as a whole...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

About flipping time:

Ottawa to impose cash penalties on Sikorsky for helicopter delays 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/somnia/article1926793/



> Ottawa’s patience has run its course as the federal government is set to impose penalties of up to $8-million against Sikorsky for the latest delays in the delivery of a new fleet of maritime helicopters.
> 
> The aircraft manufacturer is facing a financial hit after failing to meet a schedule that already has been pushed back from the original 2008 deadline. The amount of the penalty is largely symbolic, representing up to 0.15 per cent of the $5.7-billion contract, but the move highlights Ottawa’s decision to take a tougher stand against the U.S.-based company...
> 
> According to the original contract, Sikorsky was supposed to start delivering fully compliant helicopters in late 2008. Shortly before that deadline, the government and the company agreed to a major contract amendment under which fully compliant helicopters would start being delivered in 2012.
> 
> To allow the Canadian Forces to begin training its helicopter crews, the government agreed at the time to take the delivery on Nov. 30 of last year of six “interim” aircraft, which would offer reduced capabilities in terms of performance and software.
> 
> However, Sikorsky has also failed to meet that timeline, citing a problem detected during testing...
> 
> In a recent regulatory filing, Sikorsky said the first helicopter would be delivered within the first quarter of this year, meaning by the end of this month. However, Ms. Bétoté Akwa stated, “It is expected that the first interim helicopter will be delivered in spring, 2011,” which provides a longer timetable to the company.
> 
> Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticized the purchase of the new fleet of helicopters in a report released on Oct. 26. It said the selection of the Cyclone was a high-risk proposition given that Sikorsky was still developing the aircraft at the time of the purchase. Since then, the cost of the project has gone up by $150-million.
> 
> “In our opinion, National Defence did not adequately assess the developmental nature of this aircraft, and the risks related to cost, and the complexity of the required technical modifications were underestimated,” the report said. “In addition, the original delivery schedule (48 months after contract award) and the identified risk related to the potential for delays were not consistent with the developmental nature of this acquisition.”
> 
> Ms. Fraser said that the government will pay up to $168-million to keep the Sea Kings in the air between 2008 and 2014.



One more time: NEVER BUY A PAPER AIRCRAFT.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> One more time: NEVER BUY A PAPER AIRCRAFT.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



How about an even better lesson...don't cancel contracts which are already in place with firm dates for delivery.


----------



## Good2Golf

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> How about an even better lesson...don't cancel contracts which are already in place with firm dates for delivery.



...but that was only one part of a three-fold program, cancel: helicopters; NAFTA and the GST....oh wait...  :-\


----------



## prima6

Last I heard there might be one delivered mid April (806).  I even saw pictures of it painted (though incorrectly)  .  Maybe it will beat me to Shearwater this APS.


----------



## observor 69

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> How about an even better lesson...don't cancel contracts which are already in place with firm dates for delivery.



What contract? Agreement to purchase, yes!

What firm date to delivery? Haven't most of the major equipment delivery dates been pushed forward?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baden guy-
The EH-101 *contract* that as was killed by the Liberals in 1993.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

prima6 said:
			
		

> Last I heard there might be one delivered mid April (806).  I even saw pictures of it painted (though incorrectly)  .  Maybe it will beat me to Shearwater this APS.



You haven't got to YAW yet?  They are sure getting their pound of fleah out of you...


----------



## observor 69

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Baden guy-
> The EH-101 *contract* that as was killed by the Liberals in 1993.



I knew there was some reason why I shouldn't have pulled the trigger on that msg.  :-[


----------



## prima6

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You haven't got to YAW yet?  They are sure getting their pound of fleah out of you...



Nope, July now.  OTU in Sept I hope.  I was hoping to escape writing the new course...


----------



## observor 69

One found using Google images.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Canada---Air/Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone/1417872/L/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Tail rotor does not fold? Or they just haven't bothered?


----------



## dimsum

prima6 said:
			
		

> Nope, July now.  OTU in Sept I hope.  I was hoping to escape writing the new course...



Hate to break it to you, but OTU is gonna be a few months past Sept.  "Official" timeline is Nov.  RUMINT is early 2012.  Take it for what it's worth.  Should be a good group of people though.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From 2004:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/11/23/helicopters041123.html



> ...The aircraft will be delivered one per month beginning in November 2008...



From Sikorsky themselves, April 2005:
http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=e762a96c2e289110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD



> ...
> Sikorsky Aircraft was awarded MHP contracts in November 2004 to provide 28 Sikorsky H-92 maritime helicopters, designated the CH-148 Cyclone, which will replace Sea King aircraft currently in service with the Canadian Forces, and to provide in-service support for those helicopters. Sikorsky has joined with General Dynamics Canada and L-3 MAS Canada to form The Maritime Helicopter Team, which will develop, certify and field the new Cyclone fleet.
> 
> "We are delighted to be working so closely with such a valuable customer," said Sikorsky President Steve Finger. "This is yet another milestone that illustrates the common resolve of the MHP office and the members of our team to ensure this program progresses according to schedule. We are on target for the first flight of Canada's new Cyclone in November 2007, and for deliveries to begin in November 2008.".
> 
> Alan Williams, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) for Canada's Department of National Defence [that fellow again], said he is "very pleased by the warm welcome MHP staff members are receiving...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left to right: Mark F. Miller, Sikorsky Vice President Research & Engineering, Stephen N.
> Finger, Sikorsky President, Alan Williams, Assistant Deputy Minister, Michel Lapointe,
> Program Manager for DND, Col. Wally Istchenko, Deputy Program Manager



Why were those people smiling?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Hate to break it to you, but OTU is gonna be a few months past Sept.  "Official" timeline is Nov.  RUMINT is early 2012.  Take it for what it's worth.  Should be a good group of people though.



Unless things have changed, Prima6 is on a slightly different trg program than you are, necessitated by your individual career tracks thus far.


----------



## luke_l

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> One found using Google images.
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/Canada---Air/Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone/1417872/L/



... Full size mockup   Looks a little cartoon-ish doesn't it?

Here's a real one


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Sikorsky is ‘weeks rather than months’ away from finally delivering the first interim aircraft for the CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter programme for the Canadian Forces (CF), according to CEO Jeff Pino. A long-running dispute regarding the purchase of the maritime helicopters was seemingly settled when 28 Cyclones were ordered under a $1.8 billion contract to replace the primary Canadian shipboard helicopter, the CH-124 Sea King. Following delays due to issues surrounding the mission system integration aboard the aircraft, in June 2010 Sikorsky announced that as a provisional measure the CF would receive six interim CH-148 Cyclones in November. However, delivery of these aircraft was also delayed due to undisclosed issues Sikorsky claimed was beyond its control. Speaking to reporters at a ‘state of Sikorsky’ presentation at Heli-Expo in Orlando, Pino said delivery of interim aircraft was now ‘imminent’ and highlighted progress on the programme that included 750 flight hours completed, ongoing sea trials in Canada and the finalising of the aircraft’s certification ….


More here.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More from Sikorsky:

Canada Cyclones to Arrive This Month?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a80034458-fb1b-453e-8c52-6117af5b38d8



> Sikorsky could deliver the first of Canada's much-delayed CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters this month, said president Jeff Pino yesterday at the Heli-Expo show in Orlando. The initial helicopters will not be fully compliant with the Canadian requirement, but will allow training to begin.
> 
> The work still to be done to deliver fully mission-capable aircraft, set for 2012, is "mostly software and some additional power - we're waiting on the engine [GE's CT7-8A6]," says Pino. The additional power will "run through a bigger transmission," but he will not be drawn out on whether it will have the 30-min run-dry capability that the current main gearbox -- from the commercial S-92 on which the CH-148 is based -- does not.
> 
> After a Cougar Helicopters S-92 crashed off Newfoundland in 2009, killing 17 people, when the gearbox failed just 11min after a total loss of oil, there were very public demands in Canada for the CH-148 to have the same 30-min run-dry capability as other military and some commercial helicopters.
> 
> Pino says Sikorsky is still in talks with the Canadian government (aka "the Crown") on the new gearbox. "Another six months with the Crown and we will have a  final configuration for the transmission," he says. Pino also will not comment on the penalties Sikorsky will pay for the Cyclone delays, but he does acknowledge the *company "will take a write-off on every delivery" over the 28 helicopters.
> 
> But -- and it is a big but -- Sikorsky's fixed-price contract includes 20 years of tip-to-tail in-service support over which the company can recover its losses, and despite the penalties Pino still describes the contract to replace Canada's long-serving CH-124 Sea Kings as "lucrative"* [emphasis added]...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RedFive

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> despite the penalties Pino still describes the contract to replace Canada's long-serving CH-124 Sea Kings as "lucrative" [emphasis added]...



I wonder how much they're counting on additional sales of the aircraft for profit. Isn't Germany interested in these to replace their own Sea King and Sea Lynx helicopters?


----------



## Kirkhill

I believe that Sikorski is intending to fly the "Cyclone" against the "Cormorant" for the re-opened Presidential helicopter project.


----------



## h3tacco

The German Navy and the VXX (US presidential) bids are I think Sikorsky's immediate goals. However, if you consider they are still selling H-60s ~30 years after its introduction Sikorsky is also probably considering the long term run of the H-92.  It will be a lot easier to sell the aircraft when the development and initial fielding is complete and the platform is a bit more of a known quantity.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> It will be a lot easier to sell the aircraft when the development and initial fielding is complete and the platform is a bit more of a known quantity.



Indeed.  And done solely at Canada's expense and risk.  Nice bit of gaming by Sikorsky, having backed us into a corner through false promises, with no way out.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Indeed.  And done solely at Canada's expense and risk.  Nice bit of gaming by Sikorsky, having backed us into a corner through false promises, with no way out.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



So I guess this means you confess that competitive bidding is no guarantee  that you get a better product at a better price?

Because it worked so well here  8)


----------



## PuckChaser

Haletown said:
			
		

> So I guess this means you confess that competitive bidding is no guarantee  that you get a better product at a better price?
> 
> Because it worked so well here  8)



Great point.


----------



## MarkOttawa

No.  When the aircraft bid is a paper one, or one still undergoing seemingly endless testing and with no discernible price point.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> When the aircraft bid is a paper one, or one still undergoing seemingly endless testing and with no discernible price point.



So basically the CH-148 then? The S-92 airframe has been around since 2004, and they still can't figure out the proper engines to make a military model.


----------



## h3tacco

The S-92 and CH148 are significantly different aircraft.


----------



## h3tacco

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> No.  When the aircraft bid is a paper one, or one still undergoing seemingly endless testing and with no discernible price point.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



"Seemingly endless testing" is not accurate. Compare the first flight of the CH148 to other similar aircraft. (Nov 2008)

The first flight of the EH-101 was 1987 and it was not operational till the early 2000s. The first flight of the NH-90 was in 1995 and no NFH-90 (naval variant) are in operational service as of today.

You also do not have to look to far into other aerospace programs  to draw comparisons. 777, A400M, RH-70 (canceled), VH-71 (canceled), V-22, F-35.


----------



## prima6

h3tacco said:
			
		

> "Seemingly endless testing" is not accurate. Compare the first flight of the CH148 to other similar aircraft. (Nov 2008)
> 
> The first flight of the EH-101 was 1987 and it was not operational till the early 2000s. The first flight of the NH-90 was in 1995 and no NFH-90 (naval variant) are in operational service as of today.
> 
> You also do not have to look to far into other aerospace programs  to draw comparisons. 777, A400M, RH-70 (canceled), VH-71 (canceled), V-22, F-35.



Yeah, but also consider that other the aircraft you've described are completely from scratch new airframes, the CH-148 isn't.

I talked with a TACCO who was just down in Florida checking out 806.  Apparently he didn't find the back end layout too impressive.  Not that it will matter much for a while, the ETA for a working back end is "sometime after we get the helicopters".


----------



## h3tacco

prima6 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but also consider that other the aircraft you've described are completely from scratch new airframes, the CH-148 isn't.
> 
> I talked with a TACCO who was just down in Florida checking out 806.  Apparently he didn't find the back end layout too impressive.  Not that it will matter much for a while, the ETA for a working back end is "sometime after we get the helicopters".



Ok.


----------



## jacob_ns

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/05/26/ns-mackay-defence-jobs.html



> Years of delays
> MacKay announced Thursday the Canadian military is expected to formally receive its first Cyclone maritime helicopter later this summer after years of delays.
> 
> The federal government originally ordered 28 Cyclones in 2004 with a delivery date of November 2008, but the procurement has been marred by postponements and cost overruns. The current price tag for the choppers is $6.2 billion.
> 
> The interim Cyclone that MacKay viewed Thursday arrived at CFB Shearwater in Halifax two weeks ago to help train Canadian Forces air crew and technicians.
> 
> Sikorsky, the manufacturer of the Cyclone, is expected to formally deliver the first CH-148 Cyclone to the military this summer pending training requirements and an airworthiness certificate, said MacKay.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Could someone go over the differences between the interim model and the actual variant we  want please.


----------



## R933ex

Just noticing the picture on the CBC and I noticed the number on the aircraft, 806, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/05/26/ns-mackay-defence-jobs.html. I guess the question is this, is it normal to have the same number or 2 different AC?  I'm thinking 806 is also the tail number on a 440 twin.


----------



## aesop081

R933ex said:
			
		

> . I guess the question is this, is it normal to have the same number or 2 different AC?  I'm thinking 806 is also the tail number on a 440 twin.



I dont know if it is normal but it certain is not a problem since "806" is only an abreviation of the full aircraft tail number.


----------



## h3tacco

R933ex said:
			
		

> Just noticing the picture on the CBC and I noticed the number on the aircraft, 806, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/05/26/ns-mackay-defence-jobs.html. I guess the question is this, is it normal to have the same number or 2 different AC?  I'm thinking 806 is also the tail number on a 440 twin.



The full registration is CH148806 on the the Cyclone. 

The Twin Otter is CC138806 so their is no duplication. 

CF aircraft paint schemes only have the last three digits of registration on the aircraft in large lettering, which can lead to "duplication".  

This link does a pretty good job chronicling CF registration over the years.

http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/


----------



## Loachman

jacob_ns said:
			
		

> MacKay announced Thursday the Canadian military is expected to formally receive its first Cyclone maritime helicopter later this summer after years of delays.



So Reply 425 above ("'weeks rather than months' away") is just as valid now as it was on 8 March.


----------



## R933ex

Thanks guys


----------



## The Bread Guy

From Question Period in the House of Commons 20 Jun 11:


> _Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):_  Mr. Speaker, Canada has been waiting for 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters since 2004. These delays have cost Canada $6.2 billion. The Minister of National Defence described the agreement for the Sikorsky helicopters as one of the worst examples of military procurement, but he did not say that Sikorsky still owes penalties for the delays.  While Canadian families are tightening their belts, how can the government allow large military companies to take advantage of us by failing to collect the money we are owed?
> 
> _Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):_  Mr. Speaker, when we sign a contract with a military supplier, we expect its obligations under the contract to be met. The first interim maritime helicopter has arrived at 12 Wing Shearwater to support training of Canadian Forces air crew and technicians for the maritime helicopter project. *It is important to know that Sikorsky has confirmed that it will deliver the 28 fully compliant maritime helicopters on schedule starting in June of this year.*


----------



## Radar114

Wow.  June of this year, I wonder if anyone told Shearwater that cause the ramp will get some congested.


----------



## Haletown

Good to see the NDP Research Room is up to snuff on the issue and writing pointed, poignant  and of course historically accurate questions for HM Loyal Opposition members to use in Question Period.


----------



## FoverF

10 days is a pretty ambitious timeline, especially considering the most recent announcements suggested at least a 2 year wait. Perhaps this member has understandably confused the similar-sounding 'fully compliant' aircraft with the 'interim and not fully compliant' aircraft. 

I'm also curious how the delays have cost $6.2 billion? Is this the NDP's professional estimate of the incremental difference in operational costs between the Sea King and the Cyclone since the original contracted delivery date? Or is the member implying that the total acquisition and in-service support costs of the program (approx $6.2 billion) would have been waived had the aircraft been delivered on time? 

Good thing we have such bright bulbs as this running the show. 

But really, this is just a textbook example of a political exchange. One person asks a question based on a premise which they know full well is completely false. The person being asked then chooses not to answer the question, instead delivering a pre-determined political message, which is also false.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FoverF said:
			
		

> I'm also curious how the delays have cost $6.2 billion? Is this the NDP's professional estimate of the incremental difference in operational costs between the Sea King and the Cyclone since the original contracted delivery date? Or is the member implying that the total acquisition and in-service support costs of the program (approx $6.2 billion) would have been waived had the aircraft been delivered on time?


This figure seems to have come from the Auditor General's report of October 2010:


> .... Taking into account all direct and related costs associated with the Cyclone capability, we estimate the total costs to be in the order of $6.2 billion exclusive of National Defence personnel and operating costs ....


Methinks at least _some_ of those costs would have been incurred even if the Cyclone wasn't delayed, so to say it's ALL delay cost may be stretching.



			
				FoverF said:
			
		

> But really, this is just a textbook example of a political exchange. One person asks a question based on a premise which they know full well is completely false. The person being asked then chooses not to answer the question, instead delivering a pre-determined political message, which is also false.


Harsh, but touché.


----------



## Haletown

FoverF said:
			
		

> But really, this is just a textbook example of a political exchange. One person asks a question based on a premise which they know full well is completely false. The person being asked then chooses not to answer the question, instead delivering a pre-determined political message, which is also false.



Perfect description.

Which is why it is called Question Period, not Answer Period.


----------



## jacob_ns

I've heard today that CH148806 has been put into short term storage here in Shearwater. Things are looking mighty grim for the Cyclone at the moment.


----------



## rathawk

I've followed this forum as a guest for several years and I decided at long last today to throw my oar in.  I've had and continue to have considerable first hand knowledge of the MH (Cyclone) Project (for quite a few tears now) and have always followed posts to sites like this one on the subject with great interest.  Most of what appears often seems to me to be uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion.

Your recent post about the aircraft being in storage and your opinion of unfolding troubles are, however, accurate.

The helicopter that Sikorsky "delivered" to Shearwater last year has not been accepted by Canada for a multitude of very serious reasons.  It is indeed in storage at Shearwater, remains unflyable, and also remains under Sikorsky title unusable to Canada for any purpose other than as a static display aircraft.      

The MH procurement is indeed currently in serious trouble.  The Cyclone does not/cannot meet many of the key minimum performance requirements of the original contract and. for these and other reasons, cannot be certified as being airworthy for anything more than daytime, fair weather, over land operations at best.... in other words, unsuitable both for flight training and the operational roles for which it was acquired.


----------



## Occam

rathawk said:
			
		

> I've had and continue to have considerable first hand knowledge of the MH (Cyclone) Project (for quite a few tears now) and have always followed posts to sites like this one on the subject with great interest.



Freudian slip?   ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

Occam said:
			
		

> Freudian slip?   ;D



I opine it is both deliberate and tragically brilliant.


----------



## Good2Golf

rathawk said:
			
		

> ...Most of what appears often seems to me to be uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion...



This...on the INTERNET?  Say it isn't so!  






			
				rathawk said:
			
		

> The MH procurement is indeed currently in serious trouble.  The Cyclone does not/cannot meet many of the key minimum performance requirements of the original contract and. for these and other reasons, cannot be certified as being airworthy for anything more than daytime, fair weather, over land operations at best.... in other words, unsuitable both for flight training and the operational roles for which it was acquired.



Is this part you stating an as yet unreleased official assessment without formally identifying yourself and your precise involvement with the project?  Many might call that yet again more of "the internet"...you know, someone spouting out potentially "uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion."

Just remember..._Vivamus gladio, morientur gladio_.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Haletown

how about providing a list of that multitude of serious problems?

One person's serious can sometimes be a nitpicking pissing match initiated by contracts officers to drag out negotiations . . .   

So if you do know what is happening, that  list would be appreciated.


----------



## Kirkhill

op: Oooooooo


----------



## rathawk

[how about providing a list of that multitude of serious problems?

One person's serious can sometimes be a nitpicking pissing match initiated by contracts officers to drag out negotiations . . .   

So if you do know what is happening, that  list would be appreciated.]

Without getting too technical:

The "drivetrain" (engines and main gear box) are inadequate.  New engines and a new MGB are currently in development but will not be ready in time for the amended late delivery date of June 2012.  There is no guarantee that the engines and MGB under development will meet the original requirement.

Airframe vibration and flutter grossly exceed the contract standard... there is no easy fix for this.

There are a number of outstanding issues related to the airworthiness of the Fly-by-Wire flight control system.  Procedural "work-arounds" may end up being the only way to deal with some but there are still matters of robustness and lack of maturity that remain basic safety concerns.  

There remain unresolved landing gear and blade fold concerns that impact ship compatibility.

There are more "issues" but those are some of the big ones (and, they are certainly not nits) that need to be overcome on an aircraft that was supposed to have been delivered ready for duty 3.3 years ago.


----------



## Haletown

excellent . . .  now that 's substantive information.  

Anything else of that serious nature ?


----------



## rathawk

If this is not "serious" enough for you, please forgive me.  Feel free to chalk it all up to chat room hyperbole if you think that any of these matters are not potential show stoppers.


----------



## Haletown

rathawk said:
			
		

> If this is not "serious" enough for you, please forgive me.  Feel free to chalk it all up to chat room hyperbole if you think that any of these matters are not potential show stoppers.



very serious enough . . .  but I was expecting that some of the combat systems  integration issues would have blown up by now as well.  

Appreciate the news . . .   keep the info rolling, please.


----------



## rathawk

There are still a few remaining Mission System integration matters to be resolved, but except for one of them potentially, I believe that none can be classified as show stoppers and so I felt that they were not worth highlighting.  They are mainly software-related and those troubles are invariably curable over time.


----------



## Zoomie

Hi Rathawk - is this an authorized forum for you to release this information?  Your profile clearly states that you are a Colonel in the RCAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was thinking along this line, and mindful of the words in yellow highlight on the bottom of the 12 Wing MHPMO DIN site.


----------



## FSTO

I am also curious of these accusations. I have a few buddies in the MH community I haven't heard a word of show stopping issues regarding the Cyclone.


----------



## Haletown

time will tell about the aircraft issues listed here . . .  meanwhile, some background info on the electronics suite that we are told is doing OK.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_electronics.html


----------



## GAP

RCAF to get only five test choppers as manufacturer faces $80 million fine
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 01/26/2012 
Article Link

OTTAWA - The manufacturer of the air force's new maritime helicopter has told National Defence it will deliver only five test aircraft this year — opening the door to tens of millions of dollars in fines on a project the auditor general has said is late and over budget.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is supposed to deliver a "fully mission capable" version of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter by June, or face a further $80 million in contract penalties on top of $8 million the federal government has already levied.

Senior defence officials say safety certification of the aircraft is still ongoing and it's highly unlikely the giant U.S. aircraft-maker will meet its target, even though the program is years behind schedule.

"Sikorsky are only committing to deliver five by this year, which will be training aircraft," said a high-level defence source, who spoke to The Canadian Press on the condition of anonymity.

The Cyclones are the highly touted replacement for the CH-124 Sea Kings, which will mark a milestone 50 years in service in 2013.

Originally, the company was supposed to deliver its first chopper in 2008 and have the whole fleet of 28 on the flight line by end of last year. When it became evident a few years ago that schedule wasn't going to be met, the Harper government worked out a deal with the Stratford, Conn.-based corporation to provide a handful of scaled-down aircraft, which would be retrofitted later.

The so-called interim helicopters, which are minus combat systems, were supposed to allow crews to train. But only one helicopter was delivered last year and it arrived late, prompting the government to impose an $8 million fine.

Sikorsky has still not completed full certification of the training aircraft, although it is expected to happen sometime this year. But that's a long way from delivering a "fully capable (maritime helicopter), with all its mission software," which is what the contract stipulates.

When originally proposed 12 years ago, the cost was expected to be $2.8 billion, but that has ballooned to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to a 2010 report by former auditor general Sheila Fraser.

She criticized the Cyclone purchase as well as the plan to buy 15 CH-147-F helicopters, saying Defence turned what was supposed to be off-the-shelf purchases into a customization nightmares.

New Democrats have slammed the Harper government for apparently not collecting the initial $8 million fine.

But senior defence officials said that penalty and the anticipated additional $80 million will be deducted from future payments the federal government will make for maintenance on the helicopter fleet.

"The $8 million comes out of reduced payments and in-service support over time, which is to our advantage," said the senior official.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell

> When originally proposed 12 years ago, the cost was expected to be $2.8 billion, but that has ballooned to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to a 2010 report by former auditor general Sheila Fraser.
> 
> She criticized the Cyclone purchase as well as the plan to buy 15 CH-147-F helicopters, saying Defence turned what was supposed to be off-the-shelf purchases into a customization nightmares.



This, taken from the Canadian Press story just above, highlights an old and, probably, never to be resolved, dilemma:

1. We want to buy "off the shelf," systems because they are both "proven" and less likely to require expensive "customization;" but

2. "Off the shelf" usually means old ... and we worry about emerging threats, support through our systems' (often very long) service lives and we want to be up-to-date (but see the CH-147); and

3. Canadian companies want to "customize" "Canadianize" things - that's how they can make some easy money; and

4. Both NDHQ staff officers and Industry Canada want to "fix" whatever DND buys.

There were/are "proven" maritime helicopters out there - one had a political problem - but we have chosen a "developmental" aircraft with all that entails in terms of risks and costs.


----------



## Privateer

Just curious, for anyone who is qualified to answer: If you had to buy a new Maritime Helicopter today, "off the shelf", what helicopter(s) would be appropriate for the RCAF?


----------



## Good2Golf

Privateer said:
			
		

> Just curious, for anyone who is qualified to answer: If you had to buy a new Maritime Helicopter today, "off the shelf", what helicopter(s) would be appropriate for the RCAF?



_Disclaimer: I'm a "green" helicopter guy, vice a "grey" helicopter guy, but I slept at a HolidayInn Express last week, so I'm probably fairly close to the correct answer._


EH-101, NH-90, and SH-60R.

That said, however, a country would have to specify which on-board systems it wanted from a "menu" of systems already installed for other operators, so technically there is no "100% off-the-shelf" MH, unless you are willing to accept another country's particular configuration.

Regards
G2G


----------



## h3tacco

The naval NH-90 (NFH-90) is not in service with any country yet and many countries (ie Germany, Sweden and Australia) are having troubles introducing the simpler TTH-90 (Army Helo) and are expressing dissatisfaction with it. Sweden ended up buying Blackhawks to overcome the delays with their aircraft.  Also despite already having purchased the NH-90, the RAN chose the MH-60R over the NFH-90 to replace the their S-70Bs. 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20100224/DEFSECT01/2240302/German-Army-Report-Highlights-NH90-Deficiencies

http://www.helihub.com/2011/04/15/sweden-buys-15-black-hawks/

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/01/10/02.xml

The NFH-90 has been in the works for about 10 years longer than the CH148 and is probably only a little bit ahead. 

IMHO the only aircraft in 2004 to be truly off-self and mostly meet our requirements would have been the RN Navy Merlin HM Mk 1 or the possibly the Italian Navy EH-101.  As G2G has pointed out, this would have meant buying them in the exact configurations used by those operators. 

The MH-60R would probably meet our needs but would definitely require a change in how we operate our maritime helicopters.  It is also pretty much at max growth potential already. Albeit, it has the fairly large advantage of being in service in large numbers with USN. Though in 2004 it was not yet in service. It was only delivered to the USN in Dec '05 and probably was not "operational" till '07. 

Some perspective:

NH-90 first flight 1995, entered limited service with the Germans 2006. As of yet no naval version in service anywhere. 

EH-101 first flight 1987, entered limited service 1999 with Royal Navy. Full operation service with RN not until 2004.

CH148 first flight 2008, when is it going to fully operational?, not sure but based on similar aircraft 10 years might be a good bet. 2018 anyone?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks for that very informative post h3tacco.


----------



## a_majoor

What is making this a little head spinning for me is the CH-148 is an evolution of the well proven UH-60, and the civil version of the CH 148 is used world wide (including Canada).

Since this is/should be a proven airframe, I could understand issues integrating sensors and weapons, but the idea the aircraft itself is having issues is difficult to understand. (The idea the company is having issues delivering a product which is both an evolution of a long running product line and in service in other markets is simply inexcusable).

Hopefully there will be an acceptable resolution soon.


----------



## Good2Golf

H92/CH148 is fly-by-wire.  The 60-series and the S-92 were not.  It was like transplanting the Comanche's flight control system into a different helicopter.

Regards
G2G


----------



## GK .Dundas

This project dates back to 1983 and we have yet to receive one single operational aircraft ! Am I the only one bothered by this?  :facepalm:
I have even seen statements  that it will be at least ten more years before we see aircraft in fleet use.That's almost 40 years from the start of the first program to replace the Sea King.
 Other countries manage to run Defence procurement projects .Some of them actually get them done on time and on budget.
 I'm incredibly frustrated right now I can only imagine what the Sea King crews are feeling right now!


----------



## dapaterson

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Other countries manage to run Defence procurement projects .Some of them actually get them done on time and on budget.



The C17 acquisition was ahead of schedule and under budget.  Others have also come in on time and on budget.

No need to badmouth all the folks working in procurement because one inititative with lots of outside DND/CF fingerprints on it isn't making the grade.


----------



## h3tacco

The claim that the S-92 or the CH148 are simply evolutions of the UH-60 are mainly for marketing purposes.  The only thing the S-92 or CH148 shares with the UH-60 are the same engines. The S-92 and CH148 are significantly different enough that they have separate production lines. Sikorsky does not take a S-92 and turn it into a CH148. They are for all sakes and purposes two different but related aircraft.


----------



## aesop081

h3tacco said:
			
		

> They are for all sakes and purposes two different but related aircraft.



"Based on, but not a conversion of"


----------



## Zoomie

The RCAF is also the premiere customer for the H-92 airframe.  They are using us as a test bed for future evolutions.  Fly-by-wire and tail folding are two such systems that are being developed.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The RCAF is also the premiere customer for the H-92 airframe.  They are using us as a test bed for future evolutions.  Fly-by-wire and tail folding are two such systems that are being developed.



We're the testbed......the German Navy is Sikorski's real target.


----------



## Haletown

Anyone know the differences in the S-92 airframe & the H-92 model ?

Ya'd think going fly FBW would drop a lot of weight but we heard here they need more HP, a stronger tranny and work on vibration issues.


----------



## Zoomie

Haletown said:
			
		

> Ya'd think going fly FBW would drop a lot of weight but we heard here they need more HP, a stronger tranny and work on vibration issues.


As a complete outsider to this program, I can only speculate.

/speculate mode
Mission gear, torpedoes, armour(?), RADAR, dipping SONAR, winches, folding tail assembly, etc would make the airframe considerably heavier than a passenger carrying one.

/end speculate mode


----------



## h3tacco

Probably not all inclusive but here are some of the top of my head. 

The FBW is the biggest change as it is total change in the Flight Controls, Flight Modes, Flight Director etc. The aircraft subsequently have different handling and flight envelopes that requires a significant amount of certification. For example the Auto-rotation envelope for the S-92 and CH148 will be different as will basically all flight maneuvers. 

Other changes include the following: 

1. Folding head and tail which in turn means different main rotor blades. Different rotor head. Different Nr. 

2. The cockpits look similar and share some of the same controls and displays but a number of changes were made to account for the different aircraft systems functionality. Different FMCDU from commercial S-92s. Armoured Seats. The addition of the Cable Angle hover. Interface between mission system and the FMCDU. 

3.  Different variant of the same engine to produce more power. (Mostly software change) 

4. Different Landing Gear and the addition of the RAST probe. 

5. Changes to fuel sponsons to make them ballistically tolerant. Different amount of fuel. 

6. Different All-up-weight. (ie changes again to flight envelope) 

7. Changes to both the electrical and hydraulic systems (mostly to account for the mission system).

8. Changes to the MGB.  

9. Changes to the anti-ice system. 

10. Changes to the Cabin to include new main door, 2 x GPMG mounts, changes to various avionics racks/storage, basic cabin layout is all new. Requires completely different egress certification. 

11. Different Radio Fit and new ICS. 

Some of these changes in themselves are fairly minor (ie new radios and amoured seats) but when they all add up they are significant. In addition,  all these changes are for the most part without considering the mission system which in itself are significant. The individual bits of the mission system of are mostly C/MOTS but the integration is all developmental. 

Oh yeah almost the forgot the addition of Cup Holders to all crew positions. Although I am pretty sure this requirement has been already been demonstrated and isn't holding up delivery.


----------



## GK .Dundas

h3tacco said:
			
		

> P
> Oh yeah almost the forgot the addition of Cup Holders to all crew positions. Although I am pretty sure this requirement has been already been demonstrated and isn't holding up delivery.


 Don't be too sure


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... from the CF Info-machine on the status of the project:


> .... *Current Status:* DND continues to closely monitor progress towards achieving all delivery requirements for the interim maritime helicopters, as well as the potential impact on the schedule for delivery of the final version of the Cyclone. The Canadian Forces expect to take formal delivery of the interim maritime helicopters later this summer ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... in the latest Fact Sheet (also attached if link doesn't work for you)....





> .... Current Status: DND continues to closely monitor progress towards achieving all delivery requirements for the interim maritime helicopters, as well as the potential impact on the schedule for delivery of the final version of the Cyclone. *The Canadian Forces expect to take formal delivery of the interim maritime helicopters in 2012* ....


P.S.:  If you click on the April version of the Fact Sheet, you'll note they've also changed the "ready by" date there, too.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Helicopter Project.
> ◦Acquisition: The first contract, worth $1.8 billion, was for 28 fully integrated, certified and qualified helicopters with their mission systems installed, to replace the Canadian Forces’ CH-124 Sea King helicopter fleet.  Delivery of the first helicopter was expected in November 2008.
> ◦Maintenance/Infrastructure: The second contract, valued at $3.2 billion, was for 20-years of in-service support for the helicopters, and included a simulator, training suite, and the construction of a training facility



Is it just me or, in light of the discussions on the acquisitions of the Chinooks and the F-35s, is it curious that the "pie" appears to have been sliced differently on this project?

Wasn't/Isn't the "Infrastructure" portion of the more recent projects included in the Capital phase (simulators, training suite and training facility) vice the Maintenance Support?  Or was that just a ploy by DND to make the previous Liberal government look better by "backloading" the project and reducing the publicly announced capital allocation?  After all JC had promised that he could outbid Mulroney and get the job done for less than Cadillac prices.

How does the Auditor General compare those old line items to current line items?


----------



## Good2Golf

MHLH infrastructure was Vote 5 Acquisition funding, not Vote 1 O&M.  

There is a break out of the costs in the OAG Fall 2011 report, Chapter 6.


----------



## Edward Campbell

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_, headlined Decades-long mission to replace Sea Kings hits another snag, the project has missed yet another milestone: "Sikorsky is pushing back on the [scheduled for Jne 2012] delivery, with still no official date being offered for the completion of the contract."

The report goes on to say that, "Sikorsky and the federal government are remaining vague about the problems with the Cyclone program, but it is clear the company is struggling to obtain the “airworthiness certification” that is mandatory for the helicopters to fly off on military missions. In addition, the company is still working to ensure the helicopters have the necessary engine power to meet the government’s mandatory endurance requirements."


----------



## observor 69

It was this paragraph, in the article, that caught my attention:

"The purchase is the latest in a series of problematic procurements by the Canadian Forces, such as the purchase of underperforming second-hand submarines and delays in acquiring search-and-rescue planes. The biggest controversy for the Harper government to date surrounds the mishandling of the sole-sourced $15-billion deal for F-35 fighter jets, which was the subject of a hard-hitting report by the Auditor-General this spring."

I mean when you put it that way. (Where's the sarcasm icon?)
Procurement policies historically prioritized by political calculation vice the best choice.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> It was this paragraph, in the article, that caught my attention:
> 
> "The purchase is the latest in a series of problematic procurements by the Canadian Forces, such as the purchase of underperforming second-hand submarines and delays in acquiring search-and-rescue planes. The biggest controversy for the Harper government to date surrounds the mishandling of the sole-sourced $15-billion deal for F-35 fighter jets, which was the subject of a hard-hitting report by the Auditor-General this spring."
> 
> I mean when you put it that way. (Where's the sarcasm icon?)
> Procurement policies historically prioritized by political calculation vice the best choice.




I just ignore those sorts of paragraphs ... they're about par for the anti-government course.

But they, the snide comments, might be useful if they can stir up a bit of comment over the summer while MPs are back home, in their ridings. The Prime Minister can be stirred into action to reform defence procurement if it is a "hot" enough political issue.


----------



## observor 69

Also two other quick thoughts that come to mind as a result of that para;
the "Rona Ambrose" method of procurement and a new "Navy" CDS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Are we so far along the path that we can't get off and if we did cancel the contract is there a flying helicopter fitted for our needs out there?


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> Are we so far along the path that we can't get off and if we did cancel the contract is there a flying helicopter fitted for our needs out there?



Other considerations may include a fixed buget, with considerable sunk costs - if we walk away, there would be less money for the replacement solution.


----------



## Lardofthedance

The CH 148 is stictly a vehicle. It's sole purpose  is to carry the sensors to be employed; Radar, Sonar, EO/IR, etc. We know what we need and have for sensors for today's and tomorrow's missions, but the vehicle itself may prove to be another ball of yarn.


----------



## agc

CBC.ca



> *New military helicopters may not be ready for 5 years*
> 
> Canada’s long-promised fleet of new Sikorsky naval helicopters, already four years late and $300 million over budget, likely won’t be delivered and ready for combat for up to another five years, informed industry sources tell CBC News.


----------



## Haletown

"informed industry sources"

Well that settles it.  Must be true.  

We always trust the CBC, especially when the report on things military.


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> "informed industry sources"
> 
> Well that settles it.  Must be true.
> 
> We always trust the CBC, especially when the report on things military.



Unfortunately, even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Good2Golf

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, even a broken clock is right twice a day.



...unless it's one of those fancy 24-hour hospital clocks.  Then it's only right once a day.


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...unless it's one of those fancy 24-hour hospital clocks.  Then it's only right once a day.



I can just imagine saying "There's a contact on the surface, about 5 miles at 18 o'clock" !!


----------



## dapaterson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I can just imagine saying "There's a contact on the surface, about 5 miles at 18 o'clock" !!



..but if you're off the coast of Newfoundland, it's at 18:30.


----------



## Sythen

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mackay-cyclone-helicopter-deal-worst-in-canada-s-history-1.872924



> MacKay: Cyclone helicopter deal 'worst' in Canada's history
> 
> HALIFAX -- Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the much-delayed deal to buy a fleet of new helicopters for the air force represents the "worst procurement" in Canada's history.
> Last month, Sikorsky International Operations missed another deadline to begin delivering the first batch of 28 CH-148 Cyclones.
> MacKay, who was in Halifax on Tuesday for a shipbuilding announcement, said the federal government is pushing as hard as possible to deliver the choppers.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... from the DND Info-machine (also attached if link doesn't work):





> .... Some critical work remains outstanding before the Canadian Forces can take formal delivery of the first interim maritime helicopters. Most notably, a Canadian military flight clearance and training for the initial cadre of aircrew and technicians need to be completed.
> 
> *Current Status*: DND continues to closely monitor progress towards achieving all delivery requirements for the interim maritime helicopters, as well as the potential impact on the schedule for delivery of the final version of the Cyclone. The Canadian Forces expect to take formal delivery of the interim maritime helicopters in 2012 ....


----------



## Haletown

Numbers 3 & 4. . . .  Mean looking bird.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:11abf357-708a-4842-a773-ffdb1230389e


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am just a MARS bar here, but perhaps one of you can just entertain me.

What do you need all those cabin windows, obviously inherited from the civilian passenger model, for?

Doesn't it reduce the amount of bulkhead interior space available for mission equipment to be set against or stowed?


----------



## Good2Golf

Amongst other things, emergency egress when things stop going right...

Regards
G2G


----------



## h3tacco

Windows in the Cabin serve two main purposes. Emergency exits, as previously mentioned, and windows for visual spotting. 

Including the Cabin door there are a total of 5 emergency exits in the Cabin. Four are legacy from the S-92A. One is blocked by the Sonar Reeling Machine in the ASW config. One was added to the CH148, middle right side,  to provide an exit for the TACCO and SENSO that did not require them to move across the entire cabin underwater. 

None of three or so Cabin configurations has a great set-up for viusal spotting from the back. The passenger windows are relatively small for spotting and there is no seating that would allow for comfortable prolonged spotting in the back. The visual spotting requirement was a "Should" whereas other cabin requirements were written as a "Shall". This is a known deficiency but there is no appetite to revisit the Cabin configuration.  As a side note, there is a list of upgrades/enhancements DND would like but none of these will be addressed until post-acquisition. This will probably be addressed as any other fleet SOCD once the aircraft is in service. 

While I do not have a definitive answer, the main reason the remaining windows are there is because it was easier (aka cheaper) for Sikorsky to leave them than to redesign the Cabin Shell. There is one S-92A passenger window that is covered over on the left side to allow for the placement of a Circuit Breaker panel but other than that the remaining S-92A windows are present.  

As for the weight, Sikorsky went through a pretty extensive weight reduction program a few years back. I have the feeling that if they could have saved considerable weight by removing the windows they would have.


----------



## jacob_ns

It would be great if us techs were allowed anywhere near the Cyclones currently in Shearwater.


----------



## WingsofFury

Status update....



> September 25, 2012: Interim aircraft MH 806 has returned to 12 Wing Shearwater after having undergone modifications at the Sikorsky facility at West Palm Beach, Florida. With the addition of MH 806, there are currently four IMHs at 12 Wing Shearwater (MH 805, 806, 807 and 808) to assist with initial cadre training to CF aircrew and technicians.
> 
> Some critical work remains outstanding before the Canadian Forces can take formal delivery of the first interim maritime helicopters. Most notably, a Canadian military flight clearance and training for the initial cadre of aircrew and technicians need to be completed.



Entire history can be found here ->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4158


----------



## Edward Campbell

There are reports that Louis Chenevert, chairman of the corporation that owns Sikorsky, has conceded that the promised delivery of five Cyclone helicopters in 2012 and 19 more in 2013 (as part of the Defence Department’s maritime helicopter program) wont happen and, instead, Sikorsky is planning to deliver eight of the Cyclone helicopters in 2013.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Didn't the USAFs CSAR project have Sikorsky S92 as a contender as well and if so what does this mean for the RCAF if the USAF select it.


----------



## dapaterson

This is the point where Sikorsky should have the contract cancelled, and be sued for a long, long list of damages.  The original schedule called for delivery to be complete in 2011.

At the very least, the RCAF should start sending teams out to look at other aircraft - in a very public manner, to put some fear into Sikorsky.


----------



## GAP

If I remember correctly, was not the cost and time delays attributed to the "Canadianization" changes requested?


----------



## Good2Golf

GAP, not fundamentally. Sikorsky offered the H92 as the "base airframe" and this included a digital fly-by-wire flight control system, while the original civilian S92 'Helibus' had a conventional hydromechanical (pilot flight control levers physically connected to hydraulic actuators) flight control system.  It is widely assessed that Sikorsky vastly underestimated the challenges of designing, developing, engineering and producing essentially a new (although visually similar) helicopter within the MHP required timeframe.  Since Canada is the only H92 customer to date, whatever Sikorsky offered is the baseline design, not a customization. 

The largest amount of 'Canadianization' that one could reasonably attribute to the project would actually be the on-board electronics of the mission system, itself a separate 'project-within-a-project' and contracted to General Dynamics, not Sikorsky. 

The delays being discussed are for the raw airframe from Sikorsky, not including integration of General Dtnamics' mission system.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

G2G:

Does Sikorsky have any "fly by wire" aircraft of any model operating currently?


----------



## h3tacco

A couple points. 

First just a slight clarification. There is not a separate contact between Canada and GDC for the mission system. Sikorsky has the entire contract for the full-up aircraft and mission system. Sikorsky, as a result of IRBs, has sub-contracted the mission system to GDC. The contract for the mission system is between Sikorsky and GDC. GDC does most of the work but the deliverables to Canada for the mission system are from Sik not GDC.  

Sikorsky bid a modified S-92 in the original contract. In the first year of the contract, Sikorsky proposed moving forward with a Fly-by-wire variant of the S-92 which Sikorsky has referred to over the years as a S-92F, S-92X and H-92. Sikorsky came to Canada and said we are going to put fly-by-wire into your aircraft and the cost of development will be covered by Sikorsky. This is around the same time Sikorsky was fairly confident they were going to win the USN VXX project (the presidential helo that the EH-101 eventually won and then was later cancelled) and the USAF CSAR-X (which was won by the CH-47 but was later overruled after LM and Sik protested). The idea was that the MHP project would be the lead-in to VXX and CSAR-X. To note Canada did agree to move forward with Fly-by-wire. 

CSAR-X has been restarted as the Combat Rescue Helicopter. Sikorsky and LM are teamed together for this competition. However, all the other competitors have declined on submitting bids. This means if the project moves forward Sikorsky will win by default. However, most people suspect that the RFP is heavily weight for an H-60 size aircraft and it is unlikely Sikorsky will bid an S-92/H-92 variant. 

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_11_2012_p0-527012.xml

The VXX project is in the process of starting up again. Sikorsky is teamed with LM which is a little strange as Augusta-Westland was team with LM when they won the original contract with the EH-101. The size of aircraft for this mission most likely means it will be a competition between the 101 and the 92. Presumably Sik would bid the fly-by-wire H-92 and if it won would be significantly beneficial for DND.

The primary reason for the delays is Canada set this project up as an Off-the-self purchase and then went ahead a signed a contract for a developmental aircraft. Sikorsky understated the difficulty and Canada over estimated Sikorsky's capability. As a side note, AW sued the Government immediately after Sik won the contract saying Sik's bid should have been non-compliant as there was no way they could complete the amount of work in 4 years. AW eventually dropped their lawsuit.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> G2G:
> 
> Does Sikorsky have any "fly by wire" aircraft of any model operating currently?



Kirkhill, yes and no.  

Yes, in that there are two specially-modified UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters being operated as a US Army test program (started in ~2007, IIRC) to assess whether fly-by-wire (FBW) should be retrofitted to the existing UH-60M utility fleet.  

No, in the sense that these two helicopters are prototypes (and have been for the last five years), not production aircraft.

The Comanche advanced scout helicopter (prior to its cancelation in 2004) was the only Sikorsky helicopter prior to the Cyclone that had implemented a full FBW flight control system (FCS).  It's technology was clearly leveraged into the trial UH-60M program as well as the H-92 (Cyclone) program, with both the UH-60M FBW prototypes and the first H-92 aircraft flying with FBW FCS in 2007.

Sikorsky's CH-53K advanced Super Stallion will also have a FBW FCS.  The first prototype CH-53K (called the Ground Test Vehicle - GTV) is scheduled to commence powered ground testing in early 2013. 

So, that makes 2 x UH-60M FBW test prototypes and the Canadian CH-148 aircraft as the only existing flying FBW products from Sikorsky at the moment.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Haletown

Seem to recall Sikorsky, in addition to the FBW development, had some weight problems with the aircraft that required a tweaked & re-certified engine that was not foreseen.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, yes and no.
> 
> Yes, in that there are two specially-modified UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters being operated as a US Army test program (started in ~2007, IIRC) to assess whether fly-by-wire (FBW) should be retrofitted to the existing UH-60M utility fleet.
> 
> No, in the sense that these two helicopters are prototypes (and have been for the last five years), not production aircraft.
> 
> The Comanche advanced scout helicopter (prior to its cancelation in 2004) was the only Sikorsky helicopter prior to the Cyclone that had implemented a full FBW flight control system (FCS).  It's technology was clearly leveraged into the trial UH-60M program as well as the H-92 (Cyclone) program, with both the UH-60M FBW prototypes and the first H-92 aircraft flying with FBW FCS in 2007.
> 
> Sikorsky's CH-53K advanced Super Stallion will also have a FBW FCS.  The first prototype CH-53K (called the Ground Test Vehicle - GTV) is scheduled to commence powered ground testing in early 2013.
> 
> So, that makes 2 x UH-60M FBW test prototypes and the Canadian CH-148 aircraft as the only existing flying FBW products from Sikorsky at the moment.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



That would seem to put them a long way back on the supply curve.  N'est ce pas?


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That would seem to put them a long way back on the supply curve.  N'est ce pas?



I do know from speaking with the PM Utility folks (program managers for the US Army's UH-60 fleet(s)) that it was a deliberate choice not to move ahead right away with FBW implementation on the UH-60M fleet beyond the initial two prototypes.  I would say that the US Army is relatively conservative regarding helicopter FBW flight controls.  

In that regard, the CH-148 Cyclone reasonably stands to be the first operational Sikorsky FBW-controlled fleet, as the CH-53K, while fully intended by the USMC to be fielded, is still in the initial ground test stages and the US Army has yet to commit to UH-60M FBW fleet fitment.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are reports that Louis Chenevert, chairman of the corporation that owns Sikorsky, has conceded that the promised delivery of five Cyclone helicopters in 2012 and 19 more in 2013 (as part of the Defence Department’s maritime helicopter program) wont happen and, instead, Sikorsky is planning to deliver eight of the Cyclone helicopters in 2013.



More on that....


> After another year of expensive delays, the first eight replacements of the Sea King helicopters are slated to arrive in 2013.
> 
> The government is negotiating a new delivery schedule for the CH-148 Cyclones after manufacturer Sikorsky missed its already-extended June deadline.
> 
> Although Ottawa isn’t commenting on the new schedule, the manufacturer confirms no helicopters will be delivered this year.
> 
> “There will be no shipments in 2012,”said Louis Chenevert, chief executive officer of Sikorsky’s parent company, United Technologies Corp.
> 
> “There’s likely to be a charge, but we’re still confident in our guidance.”
> 
> In a conference call this month with analysts and investors, Chenevert said the end is finally near for what Defence Minister Peter MacKay called “the worst procurement in the history of Canada.”
> 
> Chenevert said 24 of 28 Cyclones are in production, assembly or test stages. He said the company plans to deliver eight choppers in 2013 but did not say when the rest would be completed.
> 
> “As you know, the program has had some challenges, but we have made solid progress overall,” said Chenevert. “These will be truly fantastic aircrafts for the customer.” ....


Halifax _Chronicle-Herald_, 19 Dec 12


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another Info-machine update (also attached if link doesn't work)


> (....)
> 
> May 12, 2011: Arrival of the first interim helicopter (MH 806) at 12 Wing Shearwater.
> May 17, 2012: MH 806 left 12 Wing Shearwater for the Sikorsky facility at West Palm Beach, Florida to undergo modifications prior to returning to at a later date.
> June 7, 2012: Arrival of interim maritime helicopter (MH 804) to 12 Wing Shearwater.
> June 16, 2012: Arrival of interim maritime helicopter (MH 808) to 12 Wing Shearwater.
> August 3, 2012: Arrival of interim maritime helicopter (MH 807) to 12 Wing Shearwater.
> September 25, 2012: MH 806 returned to 12 Wing Shearwater after having underdone modifications at the Sikorsky facility in West Palm Beach, Florida
> 
> (....)
> 
> Current Status:
> 
> Some critical work remains outstanding before the Canadian Armed Forces can take formal delivery of the first interim maritime helicopters. Most notably, a Canadian military flight clearance and training for the initial cadre of aircrew and technicians need to be completed.
> DND continues to closely monitor progress towards achieving all delivery requirements for the interim maritime helicopters, as well as the potential impact on the schedule for delivery of the final version of the Cyclone. The Canadian Armed Forces expect to take formal delivery of the interim maritime helicopters in 2013.
> 
> (....)


----------



## Loachman

"Underdone modifications"? Half-baked...?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> "Underdone modifications"? Half-baked...?


Good one - I guess the spell-check didn't catch it because the wrong word was spelled correctly.


----------



## dapaterson

Or possibly a PAO accidentally let some truth get out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> "Underdone modifications"? Half-baked...?



People likely thought it was powerpoint jargon.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Don't know which I like better.....


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> People likely thought it was powerpoint jargon.


or


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or possibly a PAO accidentally let some truth get out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Another potential problem according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/25/pol-sea-king-replacement-contract-sikorsky.html?cmp=rss


> Sea King helicopter replacement hits a new snag
> *Ottawa hires consultant to study if Sikorsky can deliver promised helicopters*
> 
> By James Cudmore, CBC News
> 
> Posted: Jun 25, 2013
> 
> The decades-long project to replace Canada's 50-year-old Sea King helicopters has hit another snag, with the government now hiring an independent expert to study whether helicopter-maker Sikorsky is even capable of delivering a replacement as promised.
> 
> CBC News has learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose has gone outside government and hired a consultant to study Sikorsky's work, and Canada's contract, to determine whether it's even possible for the U.S. helicopter giant to deliver the aircraft Canada ordered.
> 
> The details of the hire — or the review — are not publicly available and Ambrose's office has yet to provide more information, but Ambrose herself offered the news after questions from the CBC about Sikorsky and its contract.
> 
> "I have employed the services of an independent consultant and contractor to undertake a review of the ability of this company to deliver this to the government," Ambrose said.
> 
> The Defence Department's maritime helicopter project is the successor to the failed procurement of 50 EH-101 helicopters promised in 1992 by former prime minister Brian Mulroney. That program was cancelled in 1993 as part of an election promise made by Jean Chrétien.
> 
> For years, the program lay dormant as Canada's Sea King helicopters slowly gathered wear and tear.
> 
> In 2004, Sikorsky won a formal contract to provide 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters to Canada.
> 
> The initial contract was worth $1.8 billion for aircraft, and an additional $3.2 billion for 20 years of maintenance and support.
> 
> *Missed deadlines*
> 
> Delivery was to begin in November 2008, but it never did. The deadline slipped, and then slipped again.
> 
> In 2010, Canada agreed to accept six interim helicopters with lesser capabilities than those ordered by DND, provided Sikorsky agree to deliver "fully compliant" helicopters beginning in June 2012.
> 
> So far, only four helicopters have been delivered — all of them interim, and none of them meeting even those lower "interim" standards, said Ambrose.
> 
> "I am very disappointed in Sikorsky," she told CBC News. "They have not met their contractual obligations to date. They have missed every deadline and every timeline in the delivery of even the interim maritime helicopter, never mind the fully compliant maritime helicopter."
> 
> With the Sea Kings now about to enter their 50th year of service, and maintenance costs soaring, the military is desperate for some form of new maritime helicopter.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force realizes the procurement process is slow, and unless the military is able to begin training on some variant of the Cyclone it won't be ready to fly the new helicopters when they finally start arriving.
> 
> Now, CBC News has learned Public Works is refusing to allow the military to accept delivery of those four interim helicopters, because they allegedly aren't up to standards.
> 
> "The bottom line is that they have not met their contractual obligation," Ambrose told the CBC. "The interim helicopter does not meet the requirements of the air force, so we are not going to take delivery of a helicopter that is not compliant."
> 
> Sikorsky seems to be sensitive to Ambrose's criticisms, though it's not clear what it intends to do about it.
> 
> "We appreciate the minister's concerns and, consistent with our past practice, will not comment on any discussions we are having with the Canadian government," Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said by email. "The program itself is among the most sophisticated ever conducted by Sikorsky, and it continues to move forward."
> 
> Regardless, the 4½-year delay continues to have an effect on military plans.
> 
> The air force is already working on how to keep flying its Sea Kings for years more. And that has consequences for the Royal Canadian Navy, too, affecting the long-planned upgrade of its Halifax-class frigates.
> 
> The upgrade is necessary to extend the life of the vessels, and naval planners had intended to use that lengthy work period to upgrade the ships' helicopter facilities.
> 
> The Cyclone is larger and heavier then the Sea King, and the landing decks and hangars need to be upgraded.
> 
> But with no deadline in sight for delivery of the final version of the Cyclones, the navy is planning to keep some of its frigates fitted for Sea Kings. That will necessitate a further refit for the ships, once the Cyclones actually arrive.




Ms. Ambrose is able to restrain her enthusiasm for DND and, indeed, her own officials. This business of resorting to "outsiders" ~ a committee of DMs to develop the _shipbuilding strategy_, a team of "outsiders" to examine the new fighter aircraft options and now this suggests that the Prime Minister shares her mistrust of the established bureaucracy.

I believe the level of mistrust extends well beyond procurement, _per se_; I'm guessing that the "top table" - the cabinet Priorities and Planning Committee and the Treasury Board - suspects that DND's military requirements are not well grounded in reality. If that's the case then expect a new white paper on defence in which another team of "outsiders" will redesign the CF. That process - outside "experts" writing the white paper - was a spectacular failure in the 1980s when the Mulroney government tried it, but it's been over 25 years so we have almost certainly forgotten that lesson.


----------



## MarkOttawa

"suspects that DND's military requirements are not well grounded in reality."

Such as 15 planned RCN Canadian Surface Combatant when the UK will have only these,

'The Royal Navy will be equipped with 19 frigates and destroyers"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/strategic-defence-and-security-review-published--2

and  thus for the other major non-US NATO ally with global and independent pretensions 

"The French Navy will see itself reduced down to no more than 15 first line escorts."
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-tale-of-two-defence-reviews-thoughts.html

Worth thinking about.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

So with all of these delays, what is the plan if Sikorsky can't deliver?  Continue to wait?  Look at a different helicopter?

I'm interested to find out since the Sea Kings are aging rapidly.


----------



## Haletown

Related . . .

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ring-my-bell-new-helicopters-for-canadas-coast-guard-014679/

S-92s for the Diefenbaker?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "suspects that DND's military requirements are not well grounded in reality."
> 
> Such as 15 planned RCN Canadian Surface Combatant when the UK will have only these,
> 
> 'The Royal Navy will be equipped with 19 frigates and destroyers"
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/strategic-defence-and-security-review-published--2
> 
> and  thus for the other major non-US NATO ally with global and independent pretensions
> 
> "The French Navy will see itself reduced down to no more than 15 first line escorts."
> http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-tale-of-two-defence-reviews-thoughts.html
> 
> Worth thinking about.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Not a completely fair comparison, Mark.

While the number of "escorts" seems out of whack, remember that the French and the Brits also operate aircraft carriers, amphibs, nuclear submarines, mine warfare crafts etc.

They can afford to operate with a smaller number of "escorts" because, unlike us these are not the only warships they have to face any given situation.

Aslo, bear in mind that there is a forceful debate going on in England over how the RN would have too few escorts to work with under this current projection of 19 DD/FF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I find it sad that Sikorsky is no longer capable of producing a helicopter in an arena which they at one time owned outright. Maybe leasing some M-17's or KA-31's for trials will wake the industry up.


----------



## Haletown

Colin P said:
			
		

> I find it sad that Sikorsky is no longer capable of producing a helicopter in an arena which they at one time owned outright. Maybe leasing some M-17's or KA-31's for trials will wake the industry up.



anyone know the background on this ?

How much of the delay is the helicopter and how much is the mission equipment?

How much of the delay is Sikorsky screwing the pooch and how much is DND spec changing, ECR/ECP dicking around?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I recall we do have to shoulder some of it, but it's not like the company has never built a maritime helicopter before, they are the SME's for this stuff and if the military is asking for to much, they should have identified that up front as an issue. It is likely the company over promised what the helicopter was capable of and the military accepted their assurances at face value. Had this been Bombardier I would blame the military more as the company would not really have a clue. But this is the company that pretty much invented the maritime helicopter niche, screwing the pooch is unacceptable for them.  Igor is likely flopping around in his grave at this.


----------



## HB_Pencil

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "suspects that DND's military requirements are not well grounded in reality."
> 
> Such as 15 planned RCN Canadian Surface Combatant when the UK will have only these,
> 
> 'The Royal Navy will be equipped with 19 frigates and destroyers"
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/strategic-defence-and-security-review-published--2
> 
> and  thus for the other major non-US NATO ally with global and independent pretensions
> 
> "The French Navy will see itself reduced down to no more than 15 first line escorts."
> http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-tale-of-two-defence-reviews-thoughts.html
> 
> Worth thinking about.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Canada has 70% of the GDP of these countries, relies to a greater degree on exports for its GDP growth and has a much larger coastline. As  Oldgateboatdriver stated, we also don't have nearly the same level of capabilities to support like carriers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm in the 'very confused camp' on this whole procurement thing....

Here's my assumptions as of right now on this file:
1.  I'm assuming that if the government hasn't fined Sikorsky up the wazzoo, or outright cancelled the order, then there must have been some significant 'capabilities creep' after the contract signature.
2.  If no one at DND has been fired for the 'capabilities creep' and subsequent delays than there likely was political interference by the Liberals at the time of contracting to sign for something that DND advised them would not cut it, as the political necessity existed to get anything but the EH-101.

What I don't understand is if the above (2) assumptions are true (and even if they're not), why the Harper government has not bee more above-board about the situation.   Their secrecy on all this (and many other things they do) certainly gives the impression that they're 'managing things' and as such, they're responsible for the problems.

Anyone in a position to elaborate at all?



M.


----------



## Haletown

I have a memory of both parties agreeing to update the original spec to a new Fly By Wire design.  I seem to recall we got that upgrade as "a gimme" for accepting sched slippage.

When you factor in that the Cyclone is the H-92 which is based on the well known S-92, something went sideways.

The usual suspect in modern mil procurement is software. . .   might be a big player in this case as well . . .  esp the mission suite software.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Haletown said:
			
		

> I have a memory of both parties agreeing to update the original spec to a new Fly By Wire design.  I seem to recall we got that upgrade as "a gimme" for accepting sched slippage.
> 
> When you factor in that the Cyclone is the H-92 which is based on the well known S-92, something went sideways.
> 
> The usual suspect in modern mil procurement is software. . .   might be a big player in this case as well . . .  esp the mission suite software.




I thought I had read that there was a significant engine upgrade issue....that the contract was signed based on a mission payload of 'X', and post-contract the payload was upped to 'X + 500lbs' or something....which required a new higher output engine (and mechanicals).  

Does that ring any bells with anyone?


Matthew.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Haletown said:
			
		

> anyone know the background on this ?
> 
> How much of the delay is the helicopter and how much is the mission equipment?
> 
> How much of the delay is Sikorsky screwing the pooch and how much is DND spec changing, ECR/ECP dicking around?



Tough to say. There has been some gold plating going on, but its hard to tell who is at fault or if they had a serious effect on the program. However the problem with the program probably can be largely laid at its outset. To meet the GoC's requirements Sikorsky offered a modification of the S-92 Cougar helicopter. This was rated as a "low risk" design. What did it entail? The replacement of the engine, avionics, rotor and other segments, structural reinforcement of the airframe, the addition of weapon systems, and a bunch of other milspec things. So basically the entire aircraft was redesigned. Alot of the subsequent DND mandated changes has been in response to development problems or omissions. 

In reality this was a full blown development program. Sikorsky should have never been sold as one, and DND should have never accepted its characterization as one. There were several legitimate competitors that could have done the job. the AW101 (Merlin HM) would have made the most sense in this case; its proven and could create a larger maintenence pool with the cormorants. This could have helped drive down costs for both aircraft.

 If you want a parallel, look at the now cancelled Nimrod MRA4 programme in the UK; Originally sold as a low risk modification of a current aircraft, it ballooned into a multibillion dollar disaster.


----------



## Haletown

This might eventually provide some answers.


Ottawa hires consultant to study if Sikorsky can deliver promised helicopters
By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Jun 25, 2013 8:25 PM ET 
The decades-long project to replace Canada's 50-year-old Sea King helicopters has hit another snag, with the government now hiring an independent expert to study whether helicopter-maker Sikorsky is even capable of delivering a replacement as promised.

CBC News has learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose has gone outside government and hired a consultant to study Sikorsky's work, and Canada's contract, to determine whether it's even possible for the U.S. helicopter giant to deliver the aircraft Canada ordered.

The details of the hire — or the review — are not publicly available and Ambrose's office has yet to provide more information, but Ambrose herself offered the news after questions from the CBC about Sikorsky and its contract.

"I have employed the services of an independent consultant and contractor to undertake a review of the ability of this company to deliver this to the government," Ambrose said.

The Defence Department's maritime helicopter project is the successor to the failed procurement of 50 EH-101 helicopters promised in 1992 by former prime minister Brian Mulroney. That program was cancelled in 1993 as part of an election promise made by Jean Chrétien.

For years, the program lay dormant as Canada's Sea King helicopters slowly gathered wear and tear.

In 2004, Sikorsky won a formal contract to provide 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters to Canada.


www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...replacement-contract-sikorsky.html


----------



## FSTO

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Tough to say. There has been some gold plating going on, but its hard to tell who is at fault or if they had a serious effect on the program. However the problem with the program probably can be largely laid at its outset. To meet the GoC's requirements Sikorsky offered a modification of the S-92 Cougar helicopter. This was rated as a "low risk" design. What did it entail? The replacement of the engine, avionics, rotor and other segments, structural reinforcement of the airframe, the addition of weapon systems, and a bunch of other milspec things. So basically the entire aircraft was redesigned. Alot of the subsequent DND mandated changes has been in response to development problems or omissions.
> 
> In reality this was a full blown development program. Sikorsky should have never been sold as one, and DND should have never accepted its characterization as one. There were several legitimate competitors that could have done the job. the *AW101 (Merlin HM)* would have made the most sense in this case; its proven and could create a larger maintenence pool with the cormorants. This could have helped drive down costs for both aircraft.
> 
> If you want a parallel, look at the now cancelled Nimrod MRA4 programme in the UK; Originally sold as a low risk modification of a current aircraft, it ballooned into a multibillion dollar disaster.



Completely and utterly unacceptable to the Chretien Liberals who cancelled the EH101 (Merlin) and signed the Cyclone contract


----------



## Haletown

Quite the sad procurement saga . . .

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/


----------



## AirDet

Colin P said:
			
		

> this is the company that pretty much invented the maritime helicopter niche, screwing the pooch is unacceptable for them.  Igor is likely flopping around in his grave at this.



If you had told me when we first selected the Cyclone that Sikorsky couldn't deliver; I wouldn't of believed you. This is an embarrassment for the company that wrote the book on HELOs.


----------



## Good2Golf

...maritime helos...


----------



## AirDet

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...maritime helos...



What do you mean? Is there any other kind of helo?  :bowing:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Of course not: there are (maritime) helos and wanabees.


----------



## h3tacco

Recent Article in Vertical 

http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/24552#.UeNgx421H25


----------



## UnwiseCritic

To me this just means the seakings were just 50 years ahead of their time, good buy. ;D


----------



## AirDet

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Recent Article in Vertical
> 
> http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/24552#.UeNgx421H25



Thanks. I have a feeling I know which Sr officer/pilot they were quoting. Like him, I too dearly love the old girl. She's a hard worker. The harder you push her the better she flies. It'll be a sad day for the RCAF and RCN when she lifts off a flight deck for the last time. I hope I'm there to retire with her.


----------



## AirDet

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> To me this just means the seakings were just 50 years ahead of their time, good buy. ;D



An awesome buy. Hopefully we get the same value with the new helo.


----------



## AirDet

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Recent Article in Vertical
> 
> http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/24552#.UeNgx421H25



This quote from that article makes a valid point that few have considered;

"When you see the two aircraft side by side, you can't even compare them; they're night and day. I love the Sea King dearly; it's carried me all over the world and brought me home. But if I was going to war tomorrow and had a choice, I'd pick the undelivered, uncertified aircraft, because it's so much more capable. We're talking about the technology jump from our current CF-18 to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being huge? This is akin to jumping from the CF-104 Starfighter to the F-35. The 104 and the Sea King were both first delivered in 1963!"


----------



## Rifleman62

it was reported in Defense News  10 hours ago:



> Canada Refuses To Accept Sikorsky Helos



it was written by DP, so no link. I read the article and nothing definitive to back up the headline. Possible a rehash.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Rifleman62: Indeed largely of this June 25 CBC piece:

Sea King helicopter replacement hits a new snag
Ottawa hires consultant to study if Sikorsky can deliver promised helicopters
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/25/pol-sea-king-replacement-contract-sikorsky.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

I read the CBC  piece, among others, looking for confirmation of DP's article.  Posted just in case there was something rather than a rehash. 

Hard to make a buck sometimes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Rifleman62: Indeed largely of this June 25 CBC piece:
> 
> Sea King helicopter replacement hits a new snag
> Ottawa hires consultant to study if Sikorsky can deliver promised helicopters
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/25/pol-sea-king-replacement-contract-sikorsky.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Also in the first paragraph of the verticalmag.com article referenced earlier in the thread (highlights mine) ....


> There are four Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater, N.S., the vanguard of an eventual fleet of 28 replacements for Canada's 50-year-old Sikorsky CH-124 Sea Kings. All of those Shearwater Cyclones remain the property of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., as do five more in a secure facility in Plattsburgh, N.Y., at a former U.S. Air Force base located about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from the Canadian border. Two more are undergoing testing at Sikorsky's facilities in Florida and Connecticut, and the rest of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) machines are in final assembly. But *to date, not one of them has been accepted by Canada* ....


----------



## h3tacco

Both sides seem more open to talking publicly lately....

http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/19521-cyclone-crew-training-to-begin-next-month.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it is reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sea-kings-could-be-retired-sooner-under-proposal-from-us-aircraft-maker/article13472242/#dashboard/follows/


> Sea Kings could be retired sooner under proposal from U.S. aircraft-maker
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Sunday, Jul. 28 2013
> 
> The Harper government has been asked to accept the air force’s long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters as they are currently configured and gradually phase them into service using regular software upgrades intended to make the aircraft fully operational.
> 
> The proposal is being floated publicly by Sikorsky aircraft in the wake of a federal cabinet shuffle that has left both National Defence and Public Works with seasoned but not yet fully acclimatized ministers.
> 
> At the same time, the aircraft-maker and Defence have agreed to a separate plan that would allow flight testing to begin on four helicopters that have been delivered to the military air base in Shearwater, N.S. Twenty-eight of the aircraft have been ordered.
> 
> The evaluation, to begin in early August, inches the politically painful program ahead for the Conservative government, which has grown more impatient and vocal in its frustration over the replacement of decades-old Sea Kings.
> 
> The helicopters were first ordered in 2004 by Paul Martin’s Liberal government at a cost of nearly $3.2 billion — a figure which has now ballooned to $5.7 billion — and were supposed to be in service by 2008.
> 
> The failure to deliver new aircraft — detailed a few years ago in a scathing auditor general’s report — was underscored over the last few weeks with the grounding of the entire CH-124 Sea King fleet. One of the nearly 50-year-old helicopters was involved in a spectacular accident that saw the blades on one aircraft chipped away when the chopper unexpectedly careened forward.
> 
> Flight testing on the new Cyclones will begin even though the Defence Department has yet to formally accept the four aircraft that have been delivered.
> 
> Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson says the company is still in negotiations with the federal government on that aspect.
> 
> At the centre of the dispute is software to run the aircraft for the variety of missions it is expected to undertake.
> 
> Sikorsky has agreed to provide the basic program and upgrades every few months until the aircraft is fully “mission ready,” but the government — sticking to the letter of the contract — has refused to accept the aircraft until all the proper software has been installed.
> 
> “These aircraft, which are already there, can be performing service to the government in getting the Sea King fleet retired and out of service all the quicker,” Jackson said.
> 
> He said Sikorsky can foresee the Cyclone picking up some search-and-rescue duties in the meantime while it’s brought on stream, and the idea of gradual upgrades is something widely accepted in the U.S. defence industry.
> 
> The proposal puts the Harper government in a difficult position because the notion of introducing the aircraft through scheduled block software upgrades was the centrepiece of its F-35 stealth fighter plan — a program which is now on hold.
> 
> It also raises a host of potential legal problems because agreeing to Sikorsky’s plan could be a tacit acknowledgment that the Cyclones have been “under development,” which was not how the original contract and bidding process was structured.
> 
> Defence was asked to comment but did not respond.
> 
> Just before the cabinet shuffle, former Public Works minister Rona Ambrose reportedly ordered an outside evaluation of whether Sikorsky could deliver what it had promised.
> 
> United Technologies Corp., the parent company of Sikorsky Aircraft, struck a very optimistic tone with market analysts last week, saying the program is “gaining momentum” and even suggested that five more helicopters — already assembled and warehoused in New York State — could be flown to Nova Scotia to add to the training pool.
> 
> Greg Hayes, UTC’s chief financial officer, said two additional helicopters are being flight tested, and there is “a solid plan” to deliver eight more aircraft “going into the year,” for a total of 19 machines.
> 
> The nine remaining Cyclones are still on the assembly line, he said.
> 
> Hayes told analysts that “some issues” remain to be resolved with the Canadian government.
> 
> Aside from the issue of accepting the aircraft, the federal government and the manufacturer still faces the question of fines to be levied over delivery deadlines Sikorsky has missed.
> 
> To date, the aircraft-maker owes just under $86 million in penalties.
> 
> A senior defence official, speaking on background to The Canadian Press last year, said the government planned to collect the money by deducting the fines from in-service support payments once the helicopters are in fully operational.
> 
> Whether Sikorsky agrees with the plan is unclear.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what to make of this, but it is reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sea-kings-could-be-retired-sooner-under-proposal-from-us-aircraft-maker/article13472242/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> 
> 
> The Harper government has been asked to accept the air force’s long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters as they are currently configured and gradually phase them into service using regular software upgrades intended to make the aircraft fully operational ....
Click to expand...

I know you want these options on your truck for your business, but I have an idea - we'll sell you the truck as is, at full cost, and we'll add the bits you need to do your work a bit at a time.  By the way, you won't be able to drive it at night or in the rain for the first while.

What could possibly go wrong?

_- edited to add bits in yellow -_


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> What could possibly go wrong?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqvCq21Z1xE


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqvCq21Z1xE


Perfect (even in a chopper)!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect we are kind of stuck at this stage, even if we pulled the plug and turned around and ordered the E101, we would still have to go through about 5 years of haggling and then go through the same issues with outfitting them for ASW and other tasks. We should have pulled the plugs several years ago on Sikorsky for failing to provide what the contract stated. while perhaps our contract terms were not based in reality, they did agree to them and knew exactly what they were and what they could deliver.


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> By the way, you won't be able to drive it at night or in the rain for the first while.



Worse.  It's not flight in the rain that's prohibited, it's flight over water.

A bit of a limiting factor for a _maritime_ helicopter.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Some news.  Shared under the provisions of Sec 29 of the copyright act.



> Testing of Sea King replacement to begin in AugustJuly 28, 2013 - 3:20pm By THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> OTTAWA — Flight testing of the air force’s long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopters is set to begin next month in Nova Scotia.
> 
> The manufacturer and National Defence have agreed to the proposal, inching the politically painful program ahead for the Harper government, which has grown more impatient and vocal in its frustration over the replacement of decades-old Sea Kings.
> 
> United Technologies Corp., the parent company of Sikorsky Aircraft, told market analysts this week that Canadian air force pilots and technicians will begin giving the aircraft its shakedown exercises at the base in Shearwater in early August.
> 
> The evaluation is taking place even though defence has refused to accept formal ownership of the Cyclones in what’s become a long-running dispute with Sikorsky over delays in delivering a final version of the aircraft.
> 
> At the centre of the dispute is software to run the aircraft and the variety of missions it is expected to undertake.
> 
> Sikorsky has agreed to provide the basic program and upgrades every few months until the aircraft is fully “mission ready,” but the government has refused to accept the aircraft until the final software installation.
> 
> About the Author
> By THE CANADIAN PRESS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Guess I should have done more reading,  :facepalm: did not realize the EH101 already has folding tails and rotor blades. that would certainly remove a lot of design time from my estimate. Also they claim an existing ASW suite option for the EH101, how compatible would that be with a current shipboard systems?

http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw101-1


----------



## Haletown

How much of this is the helicopter performance vs the software/mission equipment?


----------



## h3tacco

Colin P said:
			
		

> Guess I should have done more reading,  :facepalm: did not realize the EH101 already has folding tails and rotor blades. that would certainly remove a lot of design time from my estimate. Also they claim an existing ASW suite option for the EH101, how compatible would that be with a current shipboard systems?
> 
> http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw101-1



Not a surprise given one of the original goals of the EH-101 was a shipboard ASW platform to replace the RN Sea King.


----------



## h3tacco

Haletown said:
			
		

> How much of this is the helicopter performance vs the software/mission equipment?



Both


----------



## Kirkhill

Is Sikorsky picking up flak that General Dynamics Canada should be dodging?

Sikorsky was supposed to present a flying platform into which General Dynamics Canada would fit a variety of sensors from multiple vendors.

What happens when the Sikorsky avionics suite needs to power, and talk to, the General Dynamics Canada weapons suite?  Who is in charge of squaring the circles?


----------



## h3tacco

The GoC only signed a contract with Sikorsky. GDC is a sub-contractor to Sikorsky. Sikorsky is responsible to the crown for the entire MH acquisition contract.


----------



## FSTO

It is called the Merlin, and it is what we would of had if Chretian had carried on with the contract.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/July/24/130724-RN-Merlin-helicopters


----------



## Kirkhill

h3tacco said:
			
		

> The GoC only signed a contract with Sikorsky. GDC is a sub-contractor to Sikorsky. Sikorsky is responsible to the crown for the entire MH acquisition contract.



Thanks for the correction H3tacco.


----------



## observor 69

FSTO said:
			
		

> It is called the Merlin, and it is what we would of had if Chretian had carried on with the contract.
> 
> http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/July/24/130724-RN-Merlin-helicopters



I am just so dam jealous.


----------



## Edward Campbell

A reminder, from Michael de Adder, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journalist and Milnet.ca member James Cudmore is reporting, right now, on _CBC Radio News_ that the government is "exploring other options," which he suggests might be a different (interim?) helicopter.


Edit to add: Here is a link to the a story.


----------



## FSTO

From what I read of the Hitachi report is this:

- Government thought it was buying an OTS helicopter (which I read as an aircraft ready to fly with all the bells and whistles working);
- Sikorsky felt that this was another developmental helo that would deliver interim (not fully mission capable) birds with subsequent birds being more and more capable as the bugs are fixed.

As a result, our governments inherent inability to be flexible and nimble has caused a pretty strait forward procurement to become the decades long debacle. It also doesn't help that the folks who make the rules and decisions (Treasury Board) do not have one iota of a clue on anything military.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> It also doesn't help that the folks who make the rules and decisions (Treasury Board) do not have one iota of a clue on anything military.



They know what they are told in submissions to the board.  Who writes those submissions?  DND/CAF.

So, if person A is ignorant of a fact, and person B who is responsible for it never told person A, is the problem with person A or person B?


----------



## Rifleman62

DAP: Why do you continually have to be so realistic and scupper people’s reverie?


----------



## dapaterson

Guess I'm too much a fan of Pogo Possum - "We have met the enemy - and he is us."


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> They know what they are told in submissions to the board.  Who writes those submissions?  DND/CAF.
> 
> So, if person A is ignorant of a fact, and person B who is responsible for it never told person A, is the problem with person A or person B?



Have you read some of the progress reports that are on this site?

http://otg-vcd-webs018.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/CID/intro_e.asp

The frustration with the process expressed by Project Managers (the ones who fill out the reports) is depressing;

" , there was much additional angst injected into the approval proceedings as the Project Team did "back & forth" communication with assorted Fin CS Analysts who were needed to tweak the submission documentation for CFO attestation purposes.  The big issue was turning a portion of the project budget into Vote 1 (from Vote 5) dollars to account for some "new" rule that relates to accounting rules for Environmental (soil) remediation work ... which is project work-scope that cannot be "capitalized."  Suffice to say that this agony having passed, the Submission was "promoted" very quickly in February up to the MND, who signed off and sent the file to TB on 20 Feb 2013"

"It is clear to me (the PD) upon taking over this project as PD in April 2013, that the Schedule (timelines) have slipped; and, that the Schedule Risks are the ones that we have to be most particularly interested in.
The "good thing" that this project has going for it, is that the Government of Canada's intention to implement this project has been publicly announced already: by the MND on 18 February 2013 at a specifically arranged Press Conference @ CFB Esquimalt; and, then in the Federal Budget of March 2013"

"The past year-plus has been an absolute `bust`` !  In the spring of 2012, it came to pass that those in charge of the CIP(I) could not and would not see their way clear to according this relatively high-scoring project (very high scored as far as the RCN was concerned) any Definition (Vote 5) funding in FY 12/13.  Moreover, the CIP(I) for 2013-23 left a full 2-year gap in between the Definition and implementation funding that could be accorded to this project."


Granted this is from one individual but I would hazard a guess that this is the commen sentiment throughout PM world.  This rigid adherence to the "process" where rules upon rules upon submissions upon briefing notes bog down projects to the point that cement is more fluid. 
I have no idea other then a huge amnesia and EMP hit to Ottawa that would destroy the "process" religion and create the whole thing from scratch with no corporate memory to screw things up again.


----------



## dapaterson

You started out complaining about Treasury Board, and now support that argument with examples of internal departmental issues. 

(And yes, I am quite familiar with the CID)

Let's look more closely at your examples.

1.  CFO attestation.  Departments must demonstrate that their projects have been properly planned financially before they are approved.  And every time someone pulls an F-35 or other stunt, the scrutiny gets greater.  So, that's a self-inflcited wound, not a TB problem.

2.  Schedule slip.  No indication of what / where / why; nothing to suggest it's all the fault of those nefarious TB/TBS staff.

3.  CIP(I).  Just because a project is important to one organization within the department does not mean it's a priority for the department overall.  And thus it may well be delayed because of other priority projects; there is a finite amount of staff capacity to advance projects.


I've met with and worked with TBS analysts, and have been largely impressed with their intelligence and work ethic.  If they do not understand something, they ask.  And often any lack of understanding is due to a lack of clarity or lack of information provided by the department in a submission.  I have also noted several occasions where the TBS analysts have more background and history for the department's activities than the departmental staff.

Are the internal processes of DND onerous?  Yes.  Should some be reformed?  Again yes.  But there is a need for oversight and control.  Projects left without adequate supervision suffer from scope creep, missed milestones and increased cost.  And as long as there are high-profile failures there will be increased, not decreased, scrutiny.


----------



## Haletown

from cbc.ca

""We are conducting an analysis of price and availability of other [aircraft] manufactured by other vendors. The government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our armed forces have the equipment they need at the best value to the taxpayer," Irwin told Power & Politics in a statement"

Should take about 30 seconds  to do that analysis.    It is not like fully equipped maritime helicopters that meet CF Operational Requirements are just sitting around waiting to be used.

Anyone know what's going on?

Negotiating with Sikorsky via the media?  


I still would like to know how much of the delay and increased costs are due to the aircraft and how much is the mission systems and what is left to be completed to meet the contractual obligations.


----------



## observor 69

The Canadian Press

September 5, 2013
Updated: September 6, 2013 | 8:00 am

Canada looks at Royal Navy choppers

OTTAWA – The Harper government may be ready to throw in the towel on the purchase of long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopters and has gone as far as sending a military team to Britain to evaluate other aircraft.

Defence sources say the team, which included an officer from the air force directorate of air requirements branch, visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.

A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Findley confirmed the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/786834/canada-looks-at-royal-navy-choppers/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmm I wonder does the RN have a surplus of Merlin's at present? Leasing some might be an option for now and something this government has not been shy on doing.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Brits took some off the Danes' hands for service in Afghanistan.  I don't think there is much likelihood of help there.  

On the other hand I hear the Dutch have a got a brand new, never been sailed, BHS/JSS ship up for grabs.  >


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You started out complaining about Treasury Board, and now support that argument with examples of internal departmental issues.
> 
> (And yes, I am quite familiar with the CID)
> 
> Let's look more closely at your examples.
> 
> 1.  CFO attestation.  Departments must demonstrate that their projects have been properly planned financially before they are approved.  And every time someone pulls an F-35 or other stunt, the scrutiny gets greater.  So, that's a self-inflcited wound, not a TB problem.
> 
> 2.  Schedule slip.  No indication of what / where / why; nothing to suggest it's all the fault of those nefarious TB/TBS staff.
> 
> 3.  CIP(I).  Just because a project is important to one organization within the department does not mean it's a priority for the department overall.  And thus it may well be delayed because of other priority projects; there is a finite amount of staff capacity to advance projects.
> 
> 
> I've met with and worked with TBS analysts, and have been largely impressed with their intelligence and work ethic.  If they do not understand something, they ask.  And often any lack of understanding is due to a lack of clarity or lack of information provided by the department in a submission.  I have also noted several occasions where the TBS analysts have more background and history for the department's activities than the departmental staff.
> 
> Are the internal processes of DND onerous?  Yes.  Should some be reformed?  Again yes.  But there is a need for oversight and control.  Projects left without adequate supervision suffer from scope creep, missed milestones and increased cost.  And as long as there are high-profile failures there will be increased, not decreased, scrutiny.



I grant that my rant at TB may have been more of a nuclear attack on Ottawa vice a sniper shot at the root cause of our procurement problems. But I would also argue that the idea of putting more reports, oversight and other scrutiny measures on an already cumbersome bureaucracy is not the way to get the best value for investment. 
MHP, JSS, Army Trucks etc, have been scrutinized beyond all reason and we are no closer to getting them now then we were 20 years ago.


----------



## dapaterson

Not arguing the fact that processes are messed up, mostly internally.  But why don't we learn from our mistakes?  While not identical, many are similar to mistakes in the past.  Yet every project manager decides that Their Project Is Different, so there's no need to apply lessons learned, so they create unworkable schedules (or inheirit unworkable schedules), are insanely optimistic, and so on.  It's always fun to attend the Senior Review Board for a project just after it's transitioned to the implementer - when they state that the schedule they agreed to on transition is now unworkable and going to be delayed.

Certainly, there are times when rules change midway through a project; those delays are understandable.  But when a project schedule is designed with no margin for error and no flexibility, when a contractor underperforms and the whole project then shudders to a series of knock-on delays - delays that good management would have foreseen and taken precautions to mitigate against - our fault lie not with our stars, but with ourselves.

When you're in year sixteen of a ten year project, with three years to go, it's not because TBS complained, it's not because ADM(Fin CS) was slow - it's because you were poorly managed.


And, in usual governmental fashion, we never punish those responsible for the problem; we punish the system as a whole.


----------



## h3tacco

Haletown said:
			
		

> I still would like to know how much of the delay and increased costs are due to the aircraft and how much is the mission systems and what is left to be completed to meet the contractual obligations.



Not sure what you want to know but the delays are related to both the aircraft and the mission system. 

There is a persistent thread in the media that requirements have been changing and this has resulted in the delays but this is in fact false. The requirements today are essentially the same as they were in 2004.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> N
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, in usual governmental fashion, we never punish those responsible for the problem; we punish the system as a whole.



Because they have sniffed the poop and have already moved on to "champion" another project before the blame can be squarely pegged onto them.


----------



## FSTO

I really hope that this report of looking at another helicopter is just the media engaging in mischief. Would the tall forheads in the government really do this? And all I can think of is "Yes, they would".
 :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson

How long do you keep chasing after a failure?  According to the original plan, the project should have closed five years ago.  We still have no aircraft accepted.

Unless you're a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, at some point you have to admit that it isn't going to work, stop it, and find something that works.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really hope that this report of looking at another helicopter is just the media engaging in mischief. Would the tall forheads in the government really do this? And all I can think of is "Yes, they would".
> :facepalm:




I can see a slight, but measurable *partisan political* upside to ditching the _Cyclone_ and buying something else - if there is a "something else."

This is a Liberal mess: Jean Chrétien cancelled a signed contract for the _Merlin_ in 1993; Paul Martin signed the deal for the unproven _Cyclone_ in 2004; now, the CPC can say, we care cleaning up the whole bloody disaster.

Maybe, also, this can stimulate ministers to seriously explore reforming defence procurement.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really hope that this report of looking at another helicopter is just the media engaging in mischief. Would the tall forheads in the government really do this? And all I can think of is "Yes, they would".
> :facepalm:


Methinks this quote, if copied/shared correctly....


> .... A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Findley confirmed *the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones*, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget ....


.... it's more than just media speculation.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I can see a slight, but measurable *partisan political* upside to ditching the _Cyclone_ and buying something else - if there is a "something else."
> 
> This is a Liberal mess: Jean Chrétien cancelled a signed contract for the _Merlin_ in 1993; Paul Martin signed the deal for the unproven _Cyclone_ in 2004; now, the CPC can say, we care cleaning up the whole bloody disaster.


It would be easy to message, but opponents of the AFG fight didn't seem to remember it was the Liberals that did that one, too, so one wonders if "they'll" get it.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe, also, this can stimulate ministers to seriously explore reforming defence procurement.


Dare to dream ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If they did it right, the political mileage would be great, but likely they rush into it, the new helicopter contract will bog down and Sikorsky will sue and try to stop it as well. It's a bit late to go down this path, they had better make dam sure they have a 2nd option and the legal side tightly wrapped our this will be a huge millstone around the CPC necks.


----------



## tomydoom

I think given the history of our main stream media in this country, the CPC are in a no-win situation on the MHP acquisition. Even though the MHP program and the Victoria Class acquisition were initiated by the prior Liberal government you continue to see no end of handwringing in the press about how "Harper" is wasting tax money on botched acquisitions of unsuitable equipment. Similarly budget cuts and deficit reduction when undertaken by the Liberals is portrayed in the press as "prudent" but when undertaken by Conservatives, is portrayed as a threat to the fabric of our society. Further, the current government has been in office for 6 years and could have begun looking at alternatives much sooner, so they are not entirely blameless in this fiasco. To me this looks like nothing more then political posturing and possibly "negotiating through the press".


----------



## The Bread Guy

Maybe I should put quotes around "progress" in the thread title?


----------



## McG

Re-enter the EH-101.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/06/pol-sea-king-replacement-flawed.html


----------



## Haletown

MCG said:
			
		

> Re-enter the EH-101.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/06/pol-sea-king-replacement-flawed.html



And how long would it take and what would it cost to put the mission system hardware and software we use in a 101?

Seems like a breakout of silly journalism again.


----------



## Kirkhill

What are the alternatives?

Cyclone
AW-101
NH-90

MH-60R is a bit on the lighter side than those three.

Still lighter is the Lynx Wildcat.

MH-60R and lighter don't have the troop carrying and logistics potential of the first three.

As for which one is better..... Google any of the above and add the word "problems" to the search field.


----------



## Haletown

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What are the alternatives?
> 
> Cyclone
> AW-101
> NH-90
> 
> MH-60R is a bit on the lighter side than those three.
> 
> Still lighter is the Lynx Wildcat.
> 
> MH-60R and lighter don't have the troop carrying and logistics potential of the first three.
> 
> As for which one is better..... Google any of the above and add the word "problems" to the search field.



Agreed on the "problems" bit.  

The only one that  is designed to function within the RCN operational concept is the Cyclone. If we were to switch ponies now and adopt any of the others, we would  have extensive changes to the way operations are conducted, the selection and training of crews etc . . .   Big deals all around.

More and more this looks to be negotiating via media leaks.  The government and Sikorsky are at the table and it  looks like pressure application  on Sikorsky.

Time will tell


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hi Haletown,

Was hoping you could elaborate on the "RCN Operational Concepts" and how equipment which appear extremely similar to a non-expert such as myself may not in fact be easily subtitutible?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## observor 69

Yes I also would be interested in what difficulties there would be in purchasing the AW-101 and integrating it into our ASW world.
And what contractual problems might there be in freeing ourselves from Sikorsky.

Cheers


----------



## h3tacco

In 2004 there were two compliant bids the EH-101 and the Cyclone. Of all the truly off-the-shelf aircraft the RN's Merlin HM Mk2 would most closely meet our operational needs. The Cyclone was selected over the EH-101 because Sikorsky's bid was lower. 

If the GoC decides to go with the EH-101 there will  be a some developmental work to be done. To maintain an OTS purchase the aircraft would have to be purchased with the RN's mission system. While not trivial, the only development would be the integration of the MK-46 Torpedo and the integration with Canadian ships. 

The billion dollar question is whether staying with the Cyclone will be quicker and cheaper than cutting bait and switching vendors. The fact that this is even open for debate some 9 years after contract award likely provides some insight to just how far Sikorsky is behind. One way or another the decision will be made by the GoC.


----------



## Baz

Here's a couple of links.

The Original SOR, almost exactly the same:
http://www.aero.polimi.it/~rolando/bacheca/imprimatur/canadian-naval-helicopter.pdf
It has a good discussion of how a Canadian MH is intended to be used.

The MHRS, some changes, but nothing major:
http://www.aero.polimi.it/~rolando/bacheca/imprimatur/canadian-naval-helicopter.pdf

Look at para 4.1.2.5.7.1 of the SOR for the mission system "boxes."

I don't know what Haletown means by putting out current system (paraphrasing) on the AW101.  If you mean the Sea King, its no where near the requirement.  The Sea King currently has:
- a non-pulse Doppler radar
- a slightly modded AQS-13B sonar
- FLIR-2000 (IR only)
- AIS (not in the MH SOR)
- an emerging Full Motion Video and plot link, but the plot is not Link 11, 16, or 22
The CH-124 is remarkably un-integrated with Canadian Ships.  The Canadian Concept is independent ops, full Surface and Sub-Surface spectrum, 4 crew.

If, on the other hand, you mean the mission system from the Cyclone, that would be a considerable effort, and is a big part of the reason we are were we are with the Cyclone.

However, the MH project includes better integration with the ship through MPAS pre and post flight... implementing that would be harder for an OTS buy.  The airborne integration is easier at it uses STANAG compliant datalink.

Look at page 21 of this http://www.nhindustries.com/site/docs_wsw/PDF/NH90_brochure.pdf, its near the SOR.  The Merlin is similar except no FLIR, but they can put a MX-15 on a weapon station pod.  Either *could* be made to fit the Canadian model.

The 60R does not fit the Canadian model, it is less capable of independent ops.


----------



## Haletown

Ahhhh sorry . .  . Slower morning after a single malt event last night.

The point I was trying to make is there are two options when buying complex military kit.

Buy COTS and then adapt your operational concept and ILS systems to what the vendor has built.

Buy custom and get the vendor's engineers to build what you want so you can operate it and maintain it the way you want.


We went the custom route with the Cyclone, we are now talking about going the COTS route with XXXXX.

There is the in-between option, buy COTS and then do some customization.  The Victoria class subs went this route and the burn is still lingering.


Agreed  . . . Nine years in and this is in the GCF category of procurements.


----------



## Baz

Absolutely agree with your two options.

At the time that the MH project was starting, Canada believed its only option was to buy custom in order to get what it needed.  Or maybe more correctly, it tried to write a spec that defined what it felt it needed, which led down the road of building custom.  However, time has ticked on.

Although its on oversimplification, there are on three operational concepts for surface and subsurface warfare helicopters:
- capable, multirole, varied sensors aircraft with normally four person crews that operate independently: Cyclone, Merlin (without some capabilities, like EO, as they also have the Lynx), Aussie S-70, and NH-90 in full config.  This was developed by the British and Canadians with their respective Sea Kings, but ours has been steadily falling behind since the 80's and now is way out back.
- capable, multirole, varies sensors, but less capable crew and "somewhat" tied to its mother ship.  US Lamps I, Lamps III (60B), and 60R.  However, even they have considered intermittently moving to the fist concept.
- less capable, multirole but usually focused on one or the other, less sensors, smaller crew: Lynx, Huey's, 60F, Sea Sprite, etc

As we are in the first concept, the integration to the ship is "easier."  Over time, those other airframes have proven that they are also capable in that concept as well.

I just think we should get on with making the Cyclone work, but it is really being driven by the politics of procurement, which is way above my pay grade.


----------



## Infanteer

When you say "independent", is the term used to describe a helo that can conduct all of its tasks without having to rely on the more powerful weapons/sensors of its parent ship?


----------



## Good2Golf

If we got the EH-101, at least we would have some spare parts (major components), having procured the residual VH-71 fleet...


----------



## Baz

Infanteer said:
			
		

> When you say "independent", is the term used to describe a helo that can conduct all of its tasks without having to rely on the more powerful weapons/sensors of its parent ship?



Yes and no:

Independence in surface warfare is being able to detect, identify, track and correlate the plot within the platform.  Its the difference between making your own decisions on searches, etc, and just running around wherever the ops room tells you.  In my experience, it is much more effective to have a thinking crew.  The heavy weapon will be the ships Harpoons or equivalent in any case.

For ASW, its being able to prosecute the sub by yourself, or as a dip gang of two, maybe with an MPA; in the best case, the ships are going in the other direction while this is happening.  In reality, the ASW weapon is the helicopter, the ships ASW weapons are really only for self defense.  If a ship is close enough to use its torps on a sub it is probably already subject to being no longer afloat.  Historically, the Brits and us  (them better than us) went out and prosecuted our discretion; the Americans remained firmly under the control of the ship ( a good example, although completely unrealistic, is where the torp was destroyed in "The Hunt For Rad October" by the ship).

For ASW, in the "older" days, what made an independent helicopter was a sonar, a radar, and a weapon.  This gave you the ability to search, detect, localize, track, and attack by yourself, and the ability to work as a dip gang of two very effectively.  The radar allowed the two helos to coordinate, and to do vectored attacks.  Now, you also want ESM, EO, and Link (primarily for surface warfare), and maybe sonobuoy acoustics.


----------



## rathawk

In early 2012 I briefly checked into this forum as a guest and divulged some inside information pointing out that there might be a serious problem or two with the Cyclone.  There was some bully reaction to my info so I went back into my shell.

H3 TACCO reported a few entries ago :

In 2004 there were two compliant bids the EH-101 and the Cyclone. Of all the truly off-the-shelf aircraft the RN's Merlin HM Mk2 would most closely meet our operational needs. The Cyclone was selected over the EH-101 because Sikorsky's bid was lower.   


This is not exactly correct.  Yes, it is true that the MHPMO declared that there were two compliant bidders following the MH Pre-Qualification evaluation that was conducted between May and October 2003; however, there was actually only one compliant PQ bidder.  The S92 was evaluated by the PQ evaluators to be non-compliant with a number of the key MHRS (MH Requirement Speciifications) requirements but was given a "pass".   If not for this PQ "pass", the only bidder to advance to the RFP stage would have been the politically dreadful 101.   Everyone will recall that MHP was a "lowest cost compliant" competition.  As H3 TACCO correctly reports, the Sikorsky bid was the lowest cost of the two ... to guarantee an outcome, the solution Sikorsky proposed was merely pencil whipped as "compliant" but it remains to this day quite otherwise. 

This is why the MH procurement is in such a mess.


----------



## Haletown

Well that has Jean Chretien's political legacy fingerprints all over it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Leaving all the politics aside, I have two questions:

     1. Is the _Merlin_ available for sale in a reasonable time frame? and

     2. Can the _Cyclone_ be made compliant at a reasonable cost and in an equally reasonable time frame?


----------



## MilEME09

Haletown said:
			
		

> Well that has Jean Chretien's political legacy fingerprints all over it.



that mans prints will come back at the CF for decades to come.

As for the Merlin it really depends on what work or modifications need to be done with it to make it ready for our service. An Issue with making the cyclone compliant is we've gone back and change requirements and then get mad when they cant meet targets. I've heard that we might not see them till 2015, now the question becomes, can we trust that delivery window? If so is it better to wait out and not get an interim solution?


----------



## Kirkhill

A dozen Indian VIP Merlins are hanging fire just now, pending the outcome of an Italian corruption trial.

Delivery rate seems to be about one a month

Yeovil is just delivering upgraded RN maritime Merlins.


----------



## h3tacco

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> An Issue with making the cyclone compliant is we've gone back and change requirements and then get mad when they cant meet targets.



This is incorrect. The requirements are unchanged since 2004.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: In addition the Indians have a forex problem



> Rupee's Falling Value Hurts India's Defense Budget
> http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130906/DEFREG03/309060011



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Baz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Leaving all the politics aside, I have two questions:
> 
> 1. Is the _Merlin_ available for sale in a reasonable time frame? and
> 
> 2. Can the _Cyclone_ be made compliant at a reasonable cost and in an equally reasonable time frame?



I have no idea of the answer to your first question.

For your second, I'll quote the Hitachi report, available here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/05/pol-sikorsky-cyclone-helicopters-sea-kings-contract-public-works.html

<Quote>
Government should recognize that they will be required to sacrifice less import MHRS requirements to delvier relevant capability to the RCAF.
This would require the Government, Sikorsky, and GDC to negotiate within a defined "trade space" over the next 45-90 days to meet RCAF operational needs within a valiated contractor approach.
Through this effort, a viable MHP could be achieived which would be relevant to the RCAF and which may not fundamentally violate the SOI, however this must be validated by the government.
<Unquote>


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, Baz; so am I correct in reading "could be achieived which would be relevant to the RCAF and which may not fundamentally violate the SOI" as meaning that an _acceptable_ aircraft is possible, and that "acceptable" ≈ compliant?

(I suppose I'm asking if it is close enough for government work.  :camo: )


----------



## Baz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks, Baz; so am I correct in reading "could be achieived which would be relevant to the RCAF and which may not fundamentally violate the SOI" as meaning that an _acceptable_ aircraft is possible, and that "acceptable" ≈ compliant?
> 
> (I suppose I'm asking if it is close enough for government work.  :camo: )



I read it to mean that an acceptable aircraft is possible, in that it will meet the RCAF's/RCN's mission needs as stated in the Statement of Operational Intent (SOI); but it may not be completely compliant, in that it may not meet all the detail specs in the Maritime Helicopter Requirements Specification (MHRS, which should have been derived from the SOR/SOI).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Interesting tidbit from someone on high, speaking on the record, about what could happen, via The Canadian Press (highlights mine) ....


> The head of the Defence Department’s procurement section said he doesn’t know when the military could have a new maritime helicopter in place if Ottawa abandons the CH-148 Cyclones as it seeks alternatives in the long-delayed program.
> 
> Rear Admiral Pat Finn said at a security meeting in Halifax on Friday that the timeline is unclear now that the federal government is looking at other options to replace the air force’s aging fleet of Sea Kings.
> 
> He described the latest development as part of a multi-track process with the government assessing other assets that might better suit the military’s maritime needs while remaining in talks with the Cyclone’s manufacturer, Sikorsky.
> 
> *“If there is to be a change of direction … we would have to work at what’s the other solution, what’s the different approach and I wouldn’t be able to give you any kind of schedule at this point,” Finn said following a speech updating the military’s procurement programs. “But we want to make sure that we get the capability that the navy needs and the air force operates on their behalf.”
> 
> Sources revealed September 5 that a military team visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.*
> 
> A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Finley says the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget ....


----------



## Haletown

In the morning mail. . . .  


"1. Mission system software which controls all weapons and sensors won’t be ready.

2. Messaging functionality/ tactical data exchange capability (automated data-link exchanges of tactical data between designated units, including the ships and aircraft) won’t be fully installed.

3. Mission flight endurance will be 21 minutes less than the contracted requirements.

4. The ability to operate on a single engine, even at high temperatures that cost helicopters their lift.

The first 2 issues will be solved with software and electronics upgrades. The latter 2 issues are expected to be solved by uprated turboshaft engines. All of these upgrades will, of course, require extensive testing of their own."



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/


----------



## h3tacco

Haletown said:
			
		

> In the morning mail. . . .
> 
> 
> "1. Mission system software which controls all weapons and sensors won’t be ready.
> 
> 2. Messaging functionality/ tactical data exchange capability (automated data-link exchanges of tactical data between designated units, including the ships and aircraft) won’t be fully installed.
> 
> 3. Mission flight endurance will be 21 minutes less than the contracted requirements.
> 
> 4. The ability to operate on a single engine, even at high temperatures that cost helicopters their lift.
> 
> The first 2 issues will be solved with software and electronics upgrades. The latter 2 issues are expected to be solved by uprated turboshaft engines. All of these upgrades will, of course, require extensive testing of their own."
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/



Broadly speaking this list is incomplete.


----------



## rathawk

I just received the attached release from a colleague.  It was in pdf format with an AgustaWestland Press Release Header on it.  I don't know how to copy a pdf copy here.  What follows is the text content of the pdf that has apparently been distributed to all Canadian News Media today:


 10 September 2013 
AgustaWestland understands the Government of Canada is considering an alternate solution to the CH-148 Cyclone for the Royal Canadian Air Force Maritime Helicopter replacement programme. 
AgustaWestland confirms it is ready to respond, by offering a fleet of the latest generation of AW101 maritime helicopters which meet or even exceed all elements of the original Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR). It is worth of noting that the AW101 had already been deemed fully compliant through the original arduous competition held by the Canadian Government. 
Events in Canada in the recent years have clearly demonstrated the AW101 is still the only helicopter which remains compliant and true to all the requirements of the original SOR. The AW101 maritime helicopter is a modern, proven rotorcraft system in service with the British Royal Navy, the Italian Navy and the Japan Maritime Self Defence Force performing the widest scope of naval missions and with an outstanding track record of operational success. 
The AW101 would provide the Royal Canadian Air Force with the best aircraft in the world to meet the mission today and for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the AW101 maritime helicopter would have considerable commonality with the proven AW101 “Cormorant” search and rescue fleet which has provided outstanding service to the Royal Canadian Air Force through over 58,000 hours and countless missions in the most extreme conditions possible. The added NATO commonality with other nations would make the selection of the AW101 a viable international force extender. 
Furthermore, AgustaWestland has a proven track record of meeting Canada’s offset obligations to Canadian Industry during the previous Cormorant programme. Thus the Company is capable of generating jobs and skills with Canadian Industry to take them into the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well they certainly made sure to hit all the checkboxes in that statement.


----------



## Kirkhill

The cat's amang the pigeons noo.


----------



## The Bread Guy

rathawk said:
			
		

> I just received the attached release from a colleague.  It was in pdf format with an AgustaWestland Press Release Header on it ....


Attached is a copy of the statement from the company.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to admit that if AW can deliver and the Government cancels the Cyclones, it may be the best thing that ever happens to the Western defense industry. I have no doubt that Sikorsky will attempt to sue and block the new deal. The government will need big balls and tell Sikorsky and any court to go piss up a rope about stopping the new contract. The fallout of this would be a very strong focus on new contract language by both governments and industries. No longer being able to sweep the capacity gaps under the the rug for later or fix them with contract changes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have to admit that if AW can deliver and the Government cancels the Cyclones, it may be the best thing that ever happens to the Western defense industry. I have no doubt that Sikorsky will attempt to sue and block the new deal. The government will need big balls and tell Sikorsky and any court to go piss up a rope about stopping the new contract. The fallout of this would be a very strong focus on new contract language by both governments and industries. No longer being able to sweep the capacity gaps under the the rug for later or fix them with contract changes.



From an election standpoint, I think the government would be much better off either cancelling it and moving on with a sole-sourced AW solution (preferably at lower cost than current Sikorsky contract), or committing to a new & improved Sikorsky solution as soon as possible.  They are definitely in no man's land in terms of oversight of this file and their opponents will definitely use against them.


M.


----------



## Haletown

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Attached is a copy of the statement from the company.



Well this genie can't be put back in the bottle.   

Be fun to be a fly on the wall at Sikorsky HQ as they discuss how to respond.  You can bet this is a topic in the C Suite offices.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> .... The government will need big balls and tell Sikorsky and any court to go piss up a rope about stopping the new contract ....


Also, Canada's case would be stronger if it shows it's been consistent in its approach/needs and following all the steps reasonably - I have no inside knowledge at all, but just based on what I read here, one wonders how easy that might be to prove in a court.

As a taxpayer, all I ask is that a reasonably-priced replacement to the Sea King (too late to inlcude "in a timely fashion") that'll get the the job done.


----------



## Edward Campbell

As much as going all the way back to the original AW solution is really attractive, if I were a senior official I think I would advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work if, and it is a HUGE *IF*, the price comes down _and_ delivery to the fleet, with at least some useful operational capability, is within the same window as might apply to the _Merlin_.

On the other hand, if I am a minister - someone who is not seen as _papabile_, a likely leadership contender - but who is, also, known as a good manager and a stickler for good business practice, and if I have deep, deep roots in the Party, especially based upon my late husband's major role in winning elections for Prime Minister Harper, and if I really want to make the government work better, then I _might_ just be inclined to upset the apple cart. I (that minister) know that the PM wants this thing solved. My officials tell me that the _Merlin_ will work. I may use it as a lever to pry defence procurement out of DND ~ I wil tell my friend the MND that my department will buy him what he needs, efficiently and effectively and expeditiously if, another big, Big *IF* he can impose a little discipline on his admirals, generals and officials and make them give me sensible, operational, performance requirements, not their own _solutions_. His job is to get the money and tell me what he needs and then get out of the way; my job is to deliver. No other government departments get a "say."


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As much as going all the way back to the original AW solution is really attractive, if I were a senior official I think I would advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work if, and it is a HUGE *IF*, the price comes down _and_ delivery to the fleet, with at least some useful operational capability, is within the same window as might apply to the _Merlin_.
> 
> On the other hand, if I am a minister - someone who is not seen as _papabile_, a likely leadership contender - but who is, also, known as a good manager and a stickler for good business practice, and if I have deep, deep roots in the Party, especially based upon my late husband's major role in winning elections for Prime Minister Harper, and if I really want to make the government work better, then I _might_ just be inclined to upset the apple cart. I (that minister) know that the PM wants this thing solved. My officials tell me that the _Merlin_ will work. I may use it as a lever to pry defence procurement out of DND ~ I wil tell my friend the MND that my department will buy him what he needs, efficiently and effectively and expeditiously if, another big, Big *IF* he can impose a little discipline on his admirals, generals and officials and make them give me sensible, operational, performance requirements, not their own _solutions_. His job is to get the money and tell me what he needs and then get out of the way; my job is to deliver. No other government departments get a "say."


Fascinating scenario, indeed - albeit one requiring a _lot_ of Swiss cheese slice holes to line up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The kicker here I think; can AW deliver and how strong is Canada's case against Sikorsky. the risk is (Metaphor starts) jumping ship, only to find out the lifeboat is sinking at the same rate as the ship and the ship is rolling over on the lifeboat. The lifeboat needs to float and motor away on it's own.  (metaphor ends)


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Globe and Mail_ reports that the "Troubled helicopter deal has already cost Ottawa more than $1-billion." The report goes on to say that Sikorsky says that, "Sikorksy stands ready to work with Ottawa on a “pragmatic approach” that could speed things up. “We are in ongoing discussions with the government regarding delivery schedules and the best way to expedite them.” But, "The Canadian government recently sent a team to Britain to consider the Royal Navy’s Merlin helicopters."

There's nothing really new in that report, but in some ways, in contractual negotiations, it is always nice to have options: Canada has one, Sikorsky doesn't.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And yet more in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CTV News_:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cyclone-chopper-technical-concerns-are-potential-show-stoppers-sources-1.1452160


> Cyclone chopper technical concerns are potential 'show stoppers': sources
> 
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Thursday, September 12, 2013
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canadian air force engineers and flight-certification officials are grappling with serious concerns related to the electronics aboard the CH-148 Cyclone helicopters that are supposed to replace the geriatric Sea Kings.
> 
> That's the word from defence sources with intimate knowledge of the troubled program.
> 
> The federal government has refused to accept four test helicopters, currently parked at the Canadian Forces facility in Shearwater, N.S., on the basis they are "non-compliant" -- and most of the public explanation has related to software issues.
> 
> But the sources say there's concern that delicate flight systems, including a computer that runs the engines, are not sufficiently shielded against powerful electromagnetic waves, such as those produced by military-grade radar on frigates.
> 
> The interference has the potential of blanking out the digital instruments and possibly shutting down the engines.
> 
> The directorate of air worthiness at National Defence issued a restricted flight certificate in July and imposed restrictions on the helicopter's operations specifically because of so-called E-3 concerns -- electromagnetic compatibility, electromagnetic vulnerability and electromagnetic interference.
> 
> "Each of them are potential show-stoppers," said one source, who asked for anonymity.
> 
> "The vulnerability depends on the frequency and the strength of the signal. You have the potential of losing your instruments and not knowing where you are, and having to take visual cues from outside your aircraft to get down safely."
> 
> The Cyclone, meant to replace 50-year-old CH-124 Sea Kings, was cleared to fly within sight of the ground only during daylight hours as part of a long-delayed flight test program that was to have been carried out last month in Nova Scotia.
> 
> It also cannot fly over water because of separate, unresolved concerns about the flotation system.
> 
> The Conservative government signalled last week it is examining "other" options to the Sikorsky-built helicopter, which is five years behind schedule and overbudget.
> 
> Debate within the military test community has revolved around whether the electromagnetic issue is a fatal blow to the program, since the Cyclone's design was based on a less-rugged civilian variant.
> 
> "The aircraft was not designed from the ground up with this kind of shielding in mind," said the source. "Military aircraft, the skin of military aircraft, are sometimes embedded with a fine copper screen or mesh to prevent the intrusion of electromagnetic interference."
> 
> There are potential fixes, according to several defence sources.
> 
> One solution could involve retroactively installing screens around sensitive electronics, but that could add as much as 136 kilograms to the weight of the helicopter. That worries engineers who have long been concerned whether the Cyclone's engine is powerful enough to comfortably lift its existing weight.
> 
> Both Sikorsky and National Defence were asked to comment on the technical concerns, and given specific detailed questions.
> 
> "Our contractual agreement with the Canadian government precludes us from publicly discussing technical aspects of the program," Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson responded in an email. "Since your questions pertain to such aspects, I will have to decline to comment on them."
> 
> Public Works, which manages the contract on behalf of Defence, ducked the issue.
> 
> "The government expects suppliers to meet their contractual obligations and Canada will not accept the helicopters until contractual requirements are met," Annie Trepanier, the manager of media relations at Public Works said in an email.
> 
> "The government of Canada continues to work with Sikorsky in respect to the contract."
> 
> The National Defence website says the aircraft is built with an aluminum frame to withstand high-intensity radio frequencies, but those are only one form of electromagnetic energy.
> 
> Defence expert Michael Byers, of the University of British Columbia, documented the Conservative government's struggles with the Cyclones in a report earlier this year.
> 
> The public deserves straight answers about the $5.7-billion program, he said.
> 
> "At some point, someone should say enough is enough," said Byers. "The question is, when are they going to stop messing around and deliver a highly functioning maritime helicopter for the men and women of the Canadian Forces?"
> 
> The Cyclones were supposed to be on the flight line in 2008, but Sikorsky has delivered only a handful of choppers for testing.
> 
> Former auditor general Sheila Fraser trashed the program a few years ago in a report that set out in painstaking detail how Paul Martin's Liberal government agreed to buy the Cyclones, even though the military version had not been developed.
> 
> The theme cropped up again last week in a leaked independent report that the Harper government commissioned. The analysis said the helicopters were essentially still in development and the federal government should attempt to salvage program within 90 days.
> 
> The air force recently sent a team to look at the runner up in the 2003-04 competition, the EW-1 Merlin, and a Public Works official said they are considering aircraft "other" than the Cyclone.
> 
> Byers said cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives.
> 
> "The Cyclone was selected by a Liberal government and they have the political room to say, we tried, but the fundamental flaw in this procurement was just too serious," said Byers, who ran for the federal NDP in 2008.




Well, will wonders never cease? I agree with Michael Byers: "cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives," but, were I a senior official I would still advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, will wonders never cease? I agree with Michael Byers: "cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives," but, were I a senior official I would still advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work.


It appears the political decision makers are preparing the info/political battlefield for a cancellation, though, with all the "sources that shall not be named" crowing like barnyard roosters.


----------



## Underway

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It appears the political decision makers are preparing the info/political battlefield for a cancellation, though, with all the "sources that shall not be named" crowing like barnyard roosters.


In agree completely.  The are preparing the ground for the new budget and re-release of the CFDS.  Buddy of mine who is a Sea King pilot told me months ago that all options were on the table for the season king replacement.


----------



## PanaEng

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And yet more in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CTV News_:
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cyclone-chopper-technical-concerns-are-potential-show-stoppers-sources-1.1452160
> 
> Well, will wonders never cease? I agree with Michael Byers: "cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives," but, were I a senior official I would still advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work.


why? other than to reduce the price and haste delivery...


----------



## Jungle

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My officials tell me that the _Merlin_ will work. I may use it as a lever to pry defence procurement out of DND ~ I wil tell my friend the MND that my department will buy him what he needs, efficiently and effectively and expeditiously if, another big, Big *IF* he can impose a little discipline on his admirals, generals and officials and make them give me sensible, operational, performance requirements, not their own _solutions_. His job is to get the money and tell me what he needs and then get out of the way; my job is to deliver.



Are you talking about requesting "_effects_" ? 

Things like that and _mission command_ are concepts that surely make for great discussions at the staff college, but we are not good at implementing them in our everyday functions. Actually, I found that the ANA was better at _mission command_ than us...


----------



## dapaterson

Jungle said:
			
		

> Are you talking about requesting "_effects_" ?
> 
> Things like that and _mission command_ are concepts that surely make for great discussions at the staff college, but we are not good at implementing them in our everyday functions. Actually, I found that the ANA was better at _mission command_ than us...



In late September 2001, I suggested that if we truly wanted to destroy the military ability of the Taliban we should airlift in NDHQ and put it in charge of them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

PanaEng said:
			
		

> why? other than to reduce the price and haste delivery...




As a general rule governments, ours included, should act with caution, prudence and within the law, including within signed contracts. If, big *IF*, Sikorsky can deliver an acceptable (nearly compliant) machine in an acceptable time period then, in my _opinion_, the government should carry on with it. If, however, either Sikorsky's finished product or the time frame are unacceptable then, of course, going to an alternate is the best option.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As a general rule governments, ours included, should act with caution, prudence and within the law, including within signed contracts. If, big *IF*, Sikorsky can deliver an acceptable (nearly compliant) machine in an acceptable time period then, in my _opinion_, the government should carry on with it. If, however, either Sikorsky's finished product or the time frame are unacceptable then, of course, going to an alternate is the best option.


Agreed, however the timeframe is already unacceptable at 5 years past its due date.  Some times a clear message needs to be sent and we need to move on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Agreed, however the timeframe is already unacceptable at 5 years past its due date.  Some times a clear message needs to be sent and we need to move on.



I find myself in agreement with Canadian Trucker.  Unless there is a really ugly skeleton hiding in one of our closets on the surface it appears that we have given Sikorsky ample opportunity to giterdun.


----------



## Haletown

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I find myself in agreement with Canadian Trucker.  Unless there is a really ugly skeleton hiding in one of our closets on the surface it appears that we have given Sikorsky ample opportunity to giterdun.



There may not be a single ugly skeleton. When we find out how much "we" have interfered with Sikorsky getting it done, how ECR/ECP cycles were dealt with, how intransigent we have been in decision making on design options, how arbitrary we have been in interpreting specifications we will have a better sense of where all the skeletons are.  

As noted above, this has all the marks of a preemptive media blitz negotiating tactic.

Going to be fascinating to watch it play out.


----------



## Half Full

Everyone has focused on the helicopter, strictly from an airborne platform point of view.  Has anyone thought that maybe the Navy has invested billions of dollars in upgrading the frigates and in planning new ships all based on the Cyclone aircraft.  They have gone and redesigned the frigates to accommodate these helicopters.  If we go with a different one, will these changes suit the new helicopter or will we need go through a whole bunch of new engineering changes.  Then there is the whole helo ship integration piece.  Again, with the frigate modernization project, the Cyclone was the helicopter they were to integrate with.  How much more money will it cost to change the software to integrate with another helo?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Half Full said:
			
		

> Everyone has focused on the helicopter, strictly from an airborne platform point of view.  Has anyone thought that maybe the Navy has invested billions of dollars in upgrading the frigates and in planning new ships all based on the Cyclone aircraft.  They have gone and redesigned the frigates to accommodate these helicopters.  If we go with a different one, will these changes suit the new helicopter or will we need go through a whole bunch of new engineering changes.  Then there is the whole helo ship integration piece.  Again, with the frigate modernization project, the Cyclone was the helicopter they were to integrate with.  How much more money will it cost to change the software to integrate with another helo?


What kind of sense does it make buying a less-than-ideal product (or one that doesn't do what else we need it to do) just because it fits on the ships?  That's like buying a crappy car/truck because it fits in your garage, no?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Half Full said:
			
		

> Everyone has focused on the helicopter, strictly from an airborne platform point of view.  Has anyone thought that maybe the Navy has invested billions of dollars in upgrading the frigates and in planning new ships all based on the Cyclone aircraft.  They have gone and redesigned the frigates to accommodate these helicopters.  If we go with a different one, will these changes suit the new helicopter or will we need go through a whole bunch of new engineering changes.  Then there is the whole helo ship integration piece.  Again, with the frigate modernization project, the Cyclone was the helicopter they were to integrate with.  How much more money will it cost to change the software to integrate with another helo?



I do not have a dog in this fight (believe it or not), but will point out the EH-101 was found to be compatible with our frigates, twice now.  Not saying that engineering changes would not have to be made, but in the grand scheme of a 5 billion dollar (ish) project, it would be peanuts.


----------



## Half Full

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> What kind of sense does it make buying a less-than-ideal product (or one that doesn't do what else we need it to do) just because it fits on the ships?  That's like buying a crappy car/truck because it fits in your garage, no?


That`s oversimplifying the issue a little bit.  If the helo doesn`t fit in the hangar, you won`t be taking it to sea.  And if you think it won`t cost too much to retrofit the frigates to support a different helo, find out how much it cost to retrofit REGINA back to being able to support the Sea King.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Half Full said:
			
		

> That`s oversimplifying the issue a little bit.  If the helo doesn`t fit in the hangar, you won`t be taking it to sea.


True, but if the chopper can't do the job, there's no POINT taking it to sea, even if it fits the ships.

While the ship issue is likely going to be a factor, it shouldn't be the _main_ factor at this point.


----------



## Half Full

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While the ship issue is likely going to be a factor, it shouldn't be the _main_ factor at this point.


Granted.  I`m just saying they are a lot more equal than you may think.  We shouldn't`t overlook the fact that this is an Air Force asset that is specifically designed to be operated for/with/by the Navy (it is a system of systems) and you can't just have a helo that does the job, if it doesn't fit or work with our ships, much the same as you can't have a helo that doesn't do the job, eventhough it fits.  The two issues are mutually-inclusive.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Half Full said:
			
		

> Granted.  I`m just saying they are a lot more equal than you may think.  We shouldn't`t overlook the fact that this is an Air Force asset that is specifically designed to be operated for/with/by the Navy (it is a system of systems) and you can't just have a helo that does the job, if it doesn't fit or work with our ships, much the same as you can't have a helo that doesn't do the job, eventhough it fits.  The two issues are mutually-inclusive.



At the risk of repeating myself, the EH-101 fits our frigates.  Again, no dog in this fight- just saying.


----------



## Baz

Half Full said:
			
		

> Granted.  I`m just saying they are a lot more equal than you may think.  We shouldn't`t overlook the fact that this is an Air Force asset that is specifically designed to be operated for/with/by the Navy (it is a system of systems) and you can't just have a helo that does the job, if it doesn't fit or work with our ships, much the same as you can't have a helo that doesn't do the job, eventhough it fits.  The two issues are mutually-inclusive.



Both the Cyclone and the Merlin will fit in the hangar, and neither were spec compliant with the current SOR.  They wanted 3 feet all around it which they originally didn't have, but they would both fit.  Don't forget that the Halifax class was originally designed with the EH101 (now the AW101 in mind).  As well, people are already forgetting how tight the Sea King was in the steamers; it was measured in inches.

The Merlin would be closer to the Cyclone config for the deck... both are nose wheel config vice tail wheel like the Sea King.

Although the current SOR wants the Cyclone Mission Preparation and Analysis Service to be compatible with the ship's software, in my opinion that isn't what either spec should say, for a whole lot of reasons.  Airborne it's a non-issue because they are both spec'd to be compatible with Link, either STANAG 5511 (Link -11) or STANAG 5522 (Link-22) (this is where one of the major shortcomings currently is), and STANAG 5516 (Link 16) would also be nice but not in the current spec.

On the deck pre and post flight, it should like wise be compatible with a standard: Over-The-Horizon Gold for exchange of plot, maritime message system standard, acoustic standards, video and image standards ESM standards, etc.  The idea of connecting it directly to the ships systems have a lot of issues, just starting with what to do when operating from ashore...


----------



## Haletown

Baz said:
			
		

> Both the Cyclone and the Merlin will fit in the hangar, and neither were spec compliant with the current SOR.  They wanted 3 feet all around it which they originally didn't have, but they would both fit.  Don't forget that the Halifax class was originally designed with the EH101 (now the AW101 in mind).  As well, people are already forgetting how tight the Sea King was in the steamers; it was measured in inches.
> 
> The Merlin would be closer to the Cyclone config for the deck... both are nose wheel config vice tail wheel like the Sea King.
> 
> Although the current SOR wants the Cyclone Mission Preparation and Analysis Service to be compatible with the ship's software, in my opinion that isn't what either spec should say, for a whole lot of reasons.  Airborne it's a non-issue because they are both spec'd to be compatible with Link, either STANAG 5511 (Link -11) or STANAG 5522 (Link-22) (this is where one of the major shortcomings currently is), and STANAG 5516 (Link 16) would also be nice but not in the current spec.
> 
> On the deck pre and post flight, it should like wise be compatible with a standard: Over-The-Horizon Gold for exchange of plot, maritime message system standard, acoustic standards, video and image standards ESM standards, etc.  The idea of connecting it directly to the ships systems have a lot of issues, just starting with what to do when operating from ashore...



thank you  . . .  appreciate your insights.


----------



## FSTO

I was commenting in another forum regarding the old CF-18 Maintenance blowup and came across this gem from 1986. The PM talking about the Sea King Replacement Project!


----------



## The Bread Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> I was commenting in another forum regarding the old CF-18 Maintenance blowup and came across this gem from 1986. The PM talking about the Sea King Replacement Project!


Holy crap - good catch!  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## rathawk

Here is a fairly reasonable report of the current situation regarding the present program and the alternative-

*Time for Plan B?*

2013-09-11 16:37:18 

By Ken Pole  -  VERTICAL Magazine 



The federal government’s confirmation that it is willing to consider alternatives to the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone for its Maritime Helicopter Project (MHP) has prompted AgustaWestland to voice renewed interest in what former Defence Minister Peter MacKay described as the “worst procurement in the history of Canada.”

It was a spokesperson for Public Works & Government Services Minister Diane Finley who disclosed in a published email that the government is “conducting an analysis of price and availability of other aircraft manufactured by other vendors.”

That was subsequently confirmed by Rear Admiral Patrick Finn, chief of staff, Material Group, at the Department of National Defence (DND). He called the development part of a reassessment of DND’s maritime needs.

"If there was to be a change of direction . . . we would have to work at what's the other solution, what's the different approach, and I wouldn't be able to give you any kind of schedule at this point," Finn told reporters. “We want to make sure that we get the capability that the navy needs and the air force operates on their behalf."

Finn also said the latest development should put pressure on Sikorsky to deliver fully-compliant aircraft rather than the few “interim” platforms being used for training at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater, N.S., where an informed sourced has told Vertical that after weeks of “absolutely no Cyclone activity,” the RCAF had begun classroom training of pilots and technicians, provided free of charge by Sikorsky. However, “backseat” tactical and sensor crewmembers, who would ordinarily sit in with the pilots, were not expected to begin classroom training until mid-October “at the earliest” because courseware was not ready.

The initial training sessions are not part of the government’s contract with Sikorsky, but are described as “an initiative between DND and Sikorsky to give the appearance that progress is being made and hopefully counter any cries for contract cancellation.” That being said, the training was expected to be a useful initial validation of the flight manuals and courseware.

Other sources have indicated that the interim Cyclones continue to have issues with engine power, vibration, electromagnetic interference and safety flotation. Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson would say only that the company remains focused on delivering a state-of-the-art helicopter. He declined comment on the alleged deficiencies which make the Cyclones “non-compliant” with Canadian requirements, explaining in an email that the decision not to comment was made by the OEM’s program and legal departments. “The questions focus on technical aspects of the aircraft, which by contractual agreement with the Canadian government we cannot publicly discuss,” he wrote.

Jackson did say that an independent report commissioned by Rona Ambrose, Public Works and Government Services Minister Diane Finley’s predecessor, “lays nearly all the blame for the . . . delays on the government’s procurement processes.” 

The report by Hitachi Consulting states that the fundamental problem with the MHP is that “the government believed they bought an OTS (off-the-shelf) product” and that although the consultants believe that the Cyclones have the potential to offer “unsurpassed” capability, the government and Sikorsky are “misaligned in the most fundamental way.”

Hitachi has recommended that the government must act urgently to “test for program viability” by negotiating with Sikorsky and its missions-systems partner, General Dynamics Canada.

An AgustaWestland Alternative?

As for AgustaWestland, its managing director of international business, former UK Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon, told CBC Television from London on Sept. 10 that the Canadian government had not been “directly” in touch with the Anglo-Italian conglomerate.

“We wouldn’t expect them to before they’ve taken a decision in the interests of the Canadian people and the . . . Air Force, but we stand ready to be of assistance,” Hoon said. “We have a long record of support for helicopters in Canada and we would be delighted, obviously, if Canada decided to come to us and asked us to be of further assistance.”

AgustaWestland lost the MHP competition in 2004 even though its AW101 (designated the CH-149 Cormorant by the RCAF) fit all the requirements, and has been the backbone of Canadian military search and rescue since 2000. Sikorsky won on the basis of price for a “lowest cost compliant” helicopter.

Hoon declined to speculate on why Sikorsky now seemed stymied by the operational requirements. “That is entirely and rightly a matter for the Canadian government,” he replied. “What I can say, however, is that we have by far the best helicopter currently available on the market.”

Noting that naval variants are in service with the UK, Italy and Japan, he insisted the AW101 could satisfy Canada’s “demanding requirements” for the MHP. “I’m in absolutely no doubt that if Canada does take the decision to replace its existing helicopter, we are in a very strong position to satisfy those demanding requirements. Indeed, we conducted a very thorough survey of those requirements and I’m confident that we can meet, if not exceed, the demanding needs of Canada today. . . . We are available to supply the right machine at the right price.”

In the meantime, it has been confirmed that a Canadian government delegation has visited a Royal Navy base to have a closer look at the UK’s Merlin naval variants.

Jeremy Tracy, a former Royal Air Force pilot and AgustaWestland test pilot who is the company’s Ottawa-based head of region for Canada, acknowledged on Sept. 11 that when the company lost to Sikorsky in 2004, the venture “went off our radar until . . . the issue really started boiling up in Parliament” where the government has come under stiff criticism from the Opposition over the troubled program.

“It was apparent . . . that there were difficulties and at that stage the company reinitiated a survey of all the points of the Statement of Operational Requirements that emanated from the original competition to see whether the AW101 would be compliant,” he told Vertical. “We ascertained that the aircraft was compliant and would still meet the original DND requirements.”

Tracy said the AW101 not only “restores the range and endurance to the original specification” but also has “tremendously good” one-engine-inoperative performance, a “capacious cabin” and key safety features proven in the CH-149, including flight into icing conditions.

“One of the main benefits would be its commonality with the Cormorant, which then allows you a simpler logistics chain for the total fleet and also a common training base, which was, really, the advantage at the very outset when the aircraft was considered in the late ‘80s.

“The other thing that we stress is the NATO commonality. . . . You have essentially the same aircraft operating not only at sea but also in other trouble spots like Afghanistan, where Italy was very present and the UK, too. Denmark is going to Afghanistan at some point. So there are a number of military operators where that commonality may be prevalent.”

Its deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq also has proven the AW101’s capabilities in desert and mountain operations. “The aircraft has had really quite a good performance on the hot-and-high side, with the RAF and Italian Navy operating there,” Tracy said. “The aircraft was the battle commander’s aircraft of choice in Iraq due to availability, smoothness and speed. One of the benefits we see for the future in terms of having upgraded AW101s is the engines go to the General Electric CT7-8E engine, which has even better hot-and-high performance (than the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 in the original aircraft). It’s one of the benefits we see for the future. Everybody’s considering that.”

He also pointed out that the aircraft has proven itself in the Canadian environment despite some early teething problems. “It’s now gone over 58,000 hours with the Canadian Forces and it has a tremendous record of availability for search and rescue – 99 per cent of the time for the SAR commitment.”

Despite his optimism, he demurred when asked how quickly AgustaWestland could begin delivering aircraft if the government did scrap its contract with Sikorsky.

“It would depend entirely on what DND wanted to pursue. If they wanted to go for a Merlin Mk 2 system, that would be a lot easier for us and Lockheed Martin, as this upgrade is just entering service. But we suspect that they won’t because they probably would want a (rear) ramped aircraft. We could produce a naval variant with that. Also, if they wanted to stay with the GDC mission system, we know nothing about that. So we would have to talk to GDC…. But if they wanted to go with a mission system that we know – we’ve obviously integrated a fair number of mission systems – into our helicopters, we could find that a lot simpler. I can’t really give you a time. . . . That would require detailed discussions.

“We would also naturally involve Canadian industry in any solution we have and we do have a current teaming agreement for 101 activities with IMP, who as you know, are already doing depot level maintenance on the Cormorant, as DND’s preferred supplier of ISS (in-service support), so they are very familiar with the type. Everything on this file depends on which course the government wishes to follow, and we can only be reactive to that; but as you can see, we have prepared for the approach – should it come.”.


----------



## Haletown

Hmmmmm.

E.R. Provides hypothetical advice to his Minister.  I provide hypothetical advice to the C Suite at AugustaWestland

 The recent interest Canada has expressed in acquiring the Merlin 2 from us is, quite frankly, a long shot.  Perhaps we should package a deal for the Canadains that would offer them solutions to multiple acquisition and maintenance problems as a means of increasing our appeal to the Canadian Forces and  resolve some political problems for the Canadain Government.

Canada purchased an orphan fleet of our EH 101's from us - we made only 15 units of that model and it really isn't a military aircraft due to its civilian electrics and electronics. These aircraft  are coming due for  a significant midlife refit program.  We should offer a package deal that would include  upgrading the Cormorant's with proper Mil Spec electrics, modern cockpit avionics and switching the old  engines out for the more common RTM322 engines.


This way Canada would simplify their maintenance complications and costs by having a  fleet of helicopters that are common technology and they would solve their Maritime Helicopter need and their need to perform a midlife technology infusion to their current fleet of SAR Cormorants.

AW should fly his on the flag pole and see if any Canadian winds blow in our direction.


----------



## rathawk

Just received info that the final Hitachi report has been received and the future of this project is now being being reviewed.  A decision is expected to be announced before the 15 October throne speech.  I was also told that this decision will be the crossing of the Rubicon... if it is in favour of the Cyclone, there will be no further recourse; if its not in favour, the preferred alternative will be a directed procurement of a fleet of AW101-611 naval helicopters equipped with the GDC MH mission suite.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A British defence blog's solution:


> .... Whilst the Merlin has developed a bit of a reputation for being fragile and expensive to maintain it has nevertheless seen many years of service now and is finally catching its second wind of maturity.
> 
> The Royal Navy is upgrading 30 Merlin from HM1 to HM2 standard leaving 8 airframes unchanged. Initially, thinking was these 8 spare airframes would probably form part of Crowsnest getting a permanent AEW fit. Sensibly (in my opinion) the MOD and navy has decided that Crowsnest will instead be a quick fit solution to any of the HM2 fleet ensuring that we don’t end up with “fleets within fleets”.
> 
> That leaves 8 standard HM1 going spare and possibly a home for them.
> 
> If the Canadian government was to suck up the embarrassment  they could buy the AW Merlin HM2 with the 8 HM1 being given to them at a throw away price as a hot swap to get them going.
> 
> Once new build HM2 become available off the line the older HM1 in Canadian service can be upgraded to the common standard. The second article does clearly state the Canadian team did look at the HM1 in particular so is a happy solution close to hand.
> 
> The main barrier as it stands is the Omni-shambles of the Victoria class procurement, the Canadian public is not exactly happy about that disaster despite a significant proportion of blame being laid at their own door ....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> The main barrier as it stands is the Omni-shambles of the Victoria class procurement, the Canadian public is not exactly happy about that disaster despite a significant proportion of blame being laid at their own door ....



Methinks, good deal or bad, given the submarine debacle, it'll be a long, long time before we buy any major used equipment from Britian. 

Especially if the deal seems too good to be true


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Methinks, good deal or bad, given the submarine debacle, it'll be a long, long time before we buy any major used equipment from Britian.
> 
> Especially if the deal seems too good to be true


:nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, more expertise is needed to keep the Sea King replacement project moving forward ....


> .... The Department of National Defence requires support services so that the Project Management Office (PMO), Maritime Helicopter Project (MHP) is able to review, manage, and coordinate MHP acquisition deliverables related to these fields in an effective and timely fashion.
> 
> The objective of the MHP is to replace the CH-124 Sea Kings with a fleet of new maritime helicopters (MHs).  The Maritime Helicopter Acquisition and In-Service Support contracts were released in November, 2004 with the first of twenty-eight (28) MHs/CH-148s due to be delivered late in 2010.  In order to progress the CH-148 acquisition and in-service support requirements, professional support services are required.  In particular, PMO MHP requires the immediate support of a senior ILS specialist to support CM, system safety, and airworthiness
> documentation support requirements ....


Am I the only one that snickered at the "timely fashion" reference?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The irony of "_effective and timely fashion_" is likely lost on them

The ability to Clusterf*** is the only form of excellence shown in this program.


----------



## Haletown

Colin P said:
			
		

> The irony of "_effective and timely fashion_" is likely lost on them
> 
> The ability to Clusterf*** is the only form of excellence shown in this program.



To be accurate, it would be the ability to Group Cluster F@ck.  Takes a team to really screw up.


----------



## MilEME09

Haletown said:
			
		

> To be accurate, it would be the ability to Group Cluster F@ck.  Takes a team to really screw up.



But if they all screw up, is it really screwing up? or just doing it the way they were told?


----------



## ks64

Hi everybody.
Is somebody know why the CH-148 hasn't been powered by a GE *CT7-8C* ?
This one was presented at Salon du Bourget in 2011 with this powerplant, and now it's equiped by a CT7-8A7... ???


----------



## h3tacco

The Interim CH-148 is equiped with the CT7-8A1. (Only four airframes)

The Final CH-148 is equiped with CT7-8A7. 

The change was negotiated in the 2008 contract amendment. 

I suspect who ever told you the CT7-8C was misinformed.


----------



## ks64

:facepalm:
The CH-148 Cyclone was presented at Salon du Bourget in 2011 with a CT7-8C turboshaft...

--> http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/sitta/les-salons-precedents/le-bourget-2011/le-bourget-2011-article <--

Oddly, after this year I can't find anything about this powerplant  

The CT7-8C is very similar to the demonstrator GE 3000 because it has a third power turbine wheel.


----------



## h3tacco

148807 that was at the Paris Airshow in 2011 had CT7-8A1 engines installed and still has CT7-8A1 installed. The text in your link is incorrect. 

The CT7-8C has never been installed in a CH148 aircraft. Not sure what else to say.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

h3tacco said:
			
		

> 148807 that was at the Paris Airshow in 2011 had CT7-8A1 engines installed and still has CT7-8A1 installed. The text in your link is incorrect.
> 
> The CT7-8C has never been installed in a CH148 aircraft. Not sure what else to say.



If only you were a 'credible source' who worked in the MH community or something.   :blotto:

Then Ks64 might have reason to believe you....


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually H3 is an incredible source..... ;D


----------



## GAP

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually H3 is an incredible source..... ;D



You do know you are fluffing his feathers, eh?   ;D


----------



## ks64

It's true that a governmental website is not a credible source... 
I found that very suspect because in many texts I find that CH-148 is equipped with a CT7-8C...

"Initial Cyclone specifications called for GE’s 3,000 hp class CT7-8C engines, but helicopter weight growth will force another engine upgrade before the final design is ready."
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/)
But it's impossible because the power of the 8C is bigger than the CT7-8A7, so this argument is fake.

Nobody have informations about this powerplant ?????


----------



## George Wallace

ks64 said:
			
		

> It's true that a governmental website is not a credible source...



Probably the problem lies in the fact that often something will get posted; but never updated in a timely manner, or by someone who is in the know.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More for the "Ain't Gonna Be Cyclones" story line from CBC.ca ....


> CBC News has learned the government is considering a major rethink of how the military uses its helicopters at sea. The change, if implemented, would spell the end for a five-year-old, $5-billion contract with Sikorsky to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings, instead opting for smaller, cheaper helicopters.
> 
> The possible shift comes as part of a data-gathering engagement initiated earlier this month in which three rival helicopter manufacturers were asked to provide information about possible alternatives to the CH-148 Cyclone, including two much smaller choppers that could save the government billions of dollars.
> 
> The government wants the information by next Tuesday — an indication it may be preparing to end the nearly 25-year-long saga to replace the navy's Sea Kings and a procurement process that the then-Minister of Defence Peter MacKay called "the worst in the history of Canada."
> 
> The attempt to chart a new course for the long-delayed helicopter replacement program took place in Ottawa last Thursday at a meeting between government officials and executives of helicopter-makers Agusta Westland, Eurocopter subsidiary NH Industries and Cyclone manufacturer Sikorsky.
> 
> The fast-tracked process is an indication the government may be close to giving up on the $5-billion contract with Sikorsky for 28 Cyclone helicopters meant to replace the military workhorse Sea Kings which have been relied on for 50 years ....


----------



## rathawk

Its been a while since I logged into this site so I just noticed the question about Cyclone engines raised by Ks64:

"It's true that a governmental website is not a credible source... 
I found that very suspect because in many texts I find that CH-148 is equipped with a CT7-8C...

"Initial Cyclone specifications called for GE’s 3,000 hp class CT7-8C engines, but helicopter weight growth will force another engine upgrade before the final design is ready."
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/)
But it's impossible because the power of the 8C is bigger than the CT7-8A7, so this argument is fake.

Nobody have informations about this powerplant ????? "

The fact is that Sikorsky never proposed the CT7-8C engine for MHP.

The confusion about Cyclone engines undoubtedly began when GEAE and Sikorsky made a joint press announcement at the Paris Air Show in 2003 stating that the triple turbine GE CT7-8C 3000+shp engine had been selected to power the H-92 (military variant of the yet-to-be-fielded S-92). 

However, in 2004 Sikorsky proposed the GE CT7-8A (2500 shp) engine for MHP. 

After contract award, it became apparent to Canada that the CT7-8A engine did not meet the minimum MH performance requirements and Sikorsky and GE subsequently agreed to modifications that resulted in the currently fitted CT7-8A1 engine (in the "interim" MH).

As time went on, it became apparent to Canada that Sikorsky had grossly understated the weight of its proposed MH (the Cyclone) and it was clear that more powerful engines such as the 3000+shp CT7-8C would be required in order to meet Canada's minimum one-engine-inoperative (OEI) performance requirements.  Unfortunately, by then, President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates had mutually agreed to cancel the AW101 VH-71 program and, along with it, the development program for the super-charged CT7-8C engine that Sikorsky desperately needed for the Cyclone.

In response, Sikorsky and GEAE (at the latter's expense) agreed to a development program to squeeze every ounce of power from the existing CT7 twin turbine engine.  GE eventually achieved off-aircraft FAA certification for a fully tweaked CT7 engine in late 2011 (the CT7-8A6 & CT7-8A7 -- the latter specifically designed for the orphan Cyclone fleet).  Despite GE's valiant efforts, the CT7-8A7 was certified well short of the Cyclone's OEI power requirements.

The latter explains (but only partially) why HITACHI (in close consultation with Sikorsky) has recommended to PWGSC that Canada step back from its basic MH safety of flight requirements and agree to something less.


----------



## observor 69

rathawk said:
			
		

> Just received info that the final Hitachi report has been received and the future of this project is now being being reviewed.  A decision is expected to be announced before the 15 October throne speech.  I was also told that this decision will be the crossing of the Rubicon... if it is in favour of the Cyclone, there will be no further recourse; if its not in favour, the preferred alternative will be a directed procurement of a fleet of AW101-611 naval helicopters equipped with the GDC MH mission suite.



Any update on the way forward?


----------



## rathawk

Recommendations to the Ministers are now due to be put forward in very early November.  A request for information was issued to potential alternative suppliers in early October and responses had to be submitted not later than last Tuesday (22 October).  The RFI was not issued via MERX so the details of it are not readily available.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Watch out for single sourcing Merlins HM2!

If I was the Government, I would want this matter off the table, done and over with and deliveries starting RFN so that it would not be an issue that becomes embroiled with the F-35 fiasco at the time of the next election.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Is the GDC MH suite fully debugged?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Is the GDC MH suite fully debugged?



My apologies, but can a civvie request clarification on the acronym: GDC MH?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## observor 69

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> My apologies, but can a civvie request clarification on the acronym: GDC MH?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, Matthew.



Google says it means "General Dynamics Canada MH suite."


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

It's the General Dynamics Canada Maritime Helicopter electronics suite. It's all the elctronics bits like the radar, mission computer, weapons interfaces etc. 

To my knowledge, the mission suite they're planning to install in the CH-148 is brand new and has never flown in an aircraft before. I might be wrong on that, I don't follow it closely.


----------



## rathawk

Information about the process is being closely held but here is what I know along with a personal assessment of the options:

The RFI was issued only to three OEMs - Sikorsky, Eurocopter and AgustaWestland.

Sikorsky was asked to provide information (cost, schedule and technical) for the USN MH-60R Seahawk; however, this product is apparently only available via a US DoD FMS procurement and would likely be an ITAR headache.  It uses a Lockheed Martin IMS very similar to the one integrated in the RN Merlin Mk2.  

Eurocopter was asked to provide information (cost, schedule and technical) for the NFH-90; however, this is not a Eurocopter product (it is produced by NHI) and, at any rate, Eurocopter would only be able to respond with the French Navy version of the NFH-90 mission system at best.

AgustaWestland was asked to provide information (cost, schedule and technical) for the AW159 (Wildcat) and the AW101.   The Merlin (EH101) versions are no longer built.  They have been superceded by the new AW101-600 series.  Therefore,  Agusta Westland wpuld be able to offer a new-build AW101-600 naval or naval utility variant with the new Italian Navy IMS (which exceeds the capabilities of both the Merlin Mk2 and CH149 GDC IMS), or the Lockheed Martin IMS fitted in Merlin Mk2.

All alternative contenders could accept the Cyclone GDC IMS but integration of it would require some development work that Canada would most likely want to avoid at this juncture.


----------



## GAP

Yeah, but that is all predicated on Canada's minions not adding in the extras to Canadianize it like they did the CH-148 Cyclone


----------



## rathawk

The new target date for recommendations to Cabinet on the way ahead for MHP is now nlt Friday 15 November.  From my experience in the puzzle palace, this means a decision could possibly be announced before Christmas.  The only other piece of info available right now is that the recommended way ahead must be (by decree) a choice between the two options that were placed on the table back in September.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

rathawk said:
			
		

> The new target date for recommendations to Cabinet on the way ahead for MHP is now nlt Friday 15 November.  From my experience in the puzzle palace, this means a decision could possibly be announced before Christmas.  The only other piece of info available right now is that the recommended way ahead must be (by decree) a choice between the two options that were placed on the table back in September.



Sorry rathawk, 

Can you clarify?  In your previous post I interpretted it that there were four ways forward:  1. Original Path with Cyclone, 2. Sikorsky MH-60, 3. The AW 101 and 4. The NH-90?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## rathawk

The options that can be put forward for decision are reported to be limited to: 

(1) terminate MHP (two contracts: Acquisition and ISS) for cause in accordance with the current contract terms and conditions for Contractor non-performance; or

(2) accept the non-performance and amend the MHP contract(s) terms and conditions (as recommended by the HITACHI report) to significantly change the delivery schedule and reduce or remove the oriiginal MHP 2003 performance requirements that the Cyclone cannot meet to date.

In early October 2013, PWGSC and DND jointly identified four alternative platforms in the event that option 1 was the outcome.  You have correctly identified three of those.. the fourth one selected by PWGSC/DND was the AW159 Wildcat; however, my understanding is that at least three of those four have now been judged deficient based upon the responses to the RFI that were submitted to PWGSC and DND on 22 October.


----------



## rathawk

The following story appeared in several papers today, shared here in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright Act_.  A colleague at NDHQ has described it to me as a potential "tipping point" and added that it (the Cyclone) is hanging on the edge of the cliff.

*DND warned in 2004 about Cyclone helicopters’ performance issues, files show*
MURRAY BREWSTER
OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
4 November 2013

Canadian air force evaluators warned nearly a decade ago that the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter might not measure up in terms of engine performance, acoustic noise and its ability to resist electronic interference, The Canadian Press has learned.
Previously unreleased National Defence reports that date back to September 2004, recently viewed by CP, cite a litany of concerns about Sikorsky’s plan to convert its existing S-92 helicopter for maritime and military missions.
The highly technical appraisals were conducted by a team of dozens of air force engineers before then prime minister Paul Martin awarded what was at the time a $1.8-billion contract.
Yet, despite the concerns and the fact that some aspects of Sikorsky’s plan were declared “non-compliant,” the bid was allowed to proceed based on the assumption the company would be able to overcome the existing problems.
The red flags that were set down by engineers, based on some 475 different evaluation criteria, proved prescient in identifying major issues that have plagued and ultimately delayed the program to the point where the Harper government is now considering scrapping it.
Nonetheless, the program has progressed significantly since the evaluation documents were first produced nearly 10 years ago, Paul Jackson, a spokesman for the U.S. aircraft maker, said Sunday.
“Sikorsky has either demonstrated ready solutions or fully resolved any technical issues raised in early technical reports,” Jackson said in an e-mail.
“The CH-148 Cyclone is the world’s most advanced maritime helicopter, bar none. We continue to make solid progress toward completing this program and delivering unrivalled capability to the Canadian Forces.”
Officials from the Department of National Defence did not respond to a detailed series of written questions provided Friday about the technical reports, as well as the possible implications of scrapping the deal.
The Harper government, which is looking at other helicopters, is expected to decide later this month whether to continue with the program.
In terms of the evaluation of the Cyclone engine’s airworthiness, the reports show the company was given the benefit of the doubt in 2004 since it had not yet built a military version of the aircraft.
“Sikorsky did not provide some of the [proof of certification] material as required,” said the evaluation. “However, the material presented is generally judged to meet the intent of the [Maritime Helicopter Requirement Specifications] requirement.”
Evaluators were skeptical about the amount of testing hours devoted to the engine, and rated the risk to the bid as “medium.”
Years later, however, the issue resurfaced when it became clear the heavier military requirements made the Cyclones sluggish and less efficient in the air. In 2010, Sikorsky announced it would upgrade the engine to a more powerful model, the CT7-8A7, and the Harper government agreed to spend an additional $117-million to support the plan.
Evaluators also raised questions about the helicopter’s ability to stay airborne in the event of a catastrophic loss of oil. The report noted that the S-92 “failed on the initial test and did not meet the 30-minute” run-dry requirement – something that would become significant in 2009 with the crash of an S-92 off Newfoundland that killed 17 oil workers and flight crew.
A Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that two of three titanium studs that secure the oil filter bowl assembly to the helicopter’s main gearbox sheared off mid-flight. The board’s final report said the resulting loss of oil pressure was one of a “complex web” of factors that contributed to the crash.
It also recommended that all Sikorsky S-92 helicopters be able to run without oil in their main gearboxes for 30 minutes.
Defence sources recently questioned the Cyclone’s ability to withstand intense electromagnetic fields, the kind generated by military-grade radar. In 2004, air force engineers raised questions about the interference, which has the potential to blank out instruments.
“The [High Intensity Radiated Fields] has still not been rectified to match up with the [Maritime Helicopter Requirement Specifications],” one of the evaluators wrote on Sept. 8, 2004.
Since Sikorsky had not yet converted the helicopter to military specifications, it acknowledged the government would have to trust it to meet the requirement.
“The bidder has stated here that the testing cannot be completed until final aircraft assembly, at a proper site (in this case Patuxent River, Maryland, USA or Canadian equivalent).”
The evaluation report also raised questions about acoustic noise and the Cyclone’s ability to land and take off from the pitching deck of a warship at sea.
In some cases, Sikorsky told National Defence it would provide more information after the contract was signed, leading one evaluator to note that “it was up to DND management to decide if DND is ready to accept the risk of not having a [basis of compliance] as clearly defined as possible before signing a contract with the winning bidder.”
After Sikorsky won the contract, rival bidder AgustaWestland cried foul, citing politics: 10 years before the Martin government, Jean Chrétien’s Liberals cancelled a contract with the company to buy EH-101 helicopters. In 2004, the company offered up the AW-101 – a variant of the original, but still close enough to be politically uncomfortable.
Alan Williams, the senior defence bureaucrat in charge of the Cyclone purchase at the time, said AgustaWestland’s bid was “non-compliant” and dismissed as nonsense any suggestion that the political fix was in for Sikorsky.
“They blew it. They were clearly non-compliant and they know it,” Williams said in an interview with The Canadian Press. “They didn’t do a good enough job.”
Williams’ comment was met with a firm denial by AgustaWestland, which said in a statement late Sunday that “at no point did the Government of Canada declare that the AW101 was non-compliant.”
“The aircraft met all of the performance and equipment requirements of the original Request for Proposals, then and now, and Mr. Williams knows this,” the statement said.
What exactly the company did wrong, Williams was not prepared to say, but he insisted the Liberal government of the day never exerted pressure on him to favour one bid over another.
He acknowledged the concerns presented in the pre-qualification report, but noted that it was just the first kick at the tires.
“Unless it’s a really, really black-and-white thing, in the pre-qualification you’re not going to eliminate people.”
Williams said he pressured engineers in a number of closed-door meetings to assure him that Sikorsky could make the leap from civilian to maritime military helicopter.
“They said: ‘It’s not a slam dunk.’ But the thinking was that it could be done, and so I didn’t feel we didn’t have cause to rule them non-compliant even though I knew that this wasn’t a slam dunk.”
Williams acknowledged that he could be blamed for “picking something that turns out to be non-deliverable.”
He left the defence purchasing office shortly after the contract award, but added that had he been there in 2006 when it became apparent the program was in trouble, he would have recommended it be cancelled.
“If the government thought the contract was non-deliverable, it did the one thing it should never have done, it let [Sikorsky] off the hook,” Williams said. “It would have been much smarter to do what they might do now” and cancel it.
When former defence minister Peter MacKay described the Cyclones as the “worst” procurement in government history, “quite frankly he made it into the worst procurement,” Williams added.
The Cyclones were supposed to be on the flight line in 2008, but Sikorsky has delivered only a handful of choppers for testing.
The federal government has refused to accept those helicopters, currently parked at the Canadian Forces facility in Shearwater, N.S., on the basis they are “non-compliant.”
Former auditor-general Sheila Fraser trashed the program a few years ago in a report that set out in painstaking detail how Martin’s Liberal government agreed to buy what are essentially undeveloped helicopters.
The theme cropped up again last month in a leaked independent report that the Harper government commissioned. The analysis said the helicopters were essentially still in development and the federal government should attempt to salvage the program within 90 days.
So far, the federal government claims it is owed $88.6-million by Sikorsky in penalties for contract violations.

_- mod edit to add link to article, full-text Copyright Act disclaimer -_


----------



## Kirkhill

Alan Williams: Procurer Extraordinaire.


----------



## Haletown

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Alan Williams: Procurer Extraordinaire.


. 

Does that mean the same as legend in his own mind?


----------



## Kirkhill

Various definitions

Edited:  :-[  Sorry.  Wrong Link


----------



## Skydiv3r

Looks like we're getting closer and closer to sticking with the Cyclone.

http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/26111#.Uqvjj2RDuq8

[quote author=Vertical Mag]
Despite ongoing uncertainty about Sikorsky Aircraft’s schedule for supplying fully-compliant CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), the chairman of Sikorsky’s parent company, United Technologies, remains cautiously confident about the program.

A couple of minutes into Louis Chenevert’s presentation to investors and analysts in New York, anticipating questions about the Cyclones, he opted to “take this head on” by showing a PowerPoint image of one Cyclone taking off and two others taxiing at 12 Wing Shearwater, N.S. Shearwater will be the primary base for the Cyclone, operated by 406 Maritime Operational Training Squadron and 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron. 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron will also operate the Cyclone on the West Coast from Patricia Bay.

“The current status is: we have four helicopters at . . . Shearwater that are being utilized for initial training,” Chenevert said, adding that six more are being held in Plattsburgh, N.Y., pending RCAF acceptance of what the Canadian government still considers an “interim” maritime helicopter.

“We have 28 helicopters in the build process, which is the totality of the helicopter commitment,” he continued. “We’ve started preliminary operational testing and evaluation; we’re allowing the pilots and the maintainers, really, to learn more about the aircraft and its capabilities.”

Shortly after the latest deadline for acceptance of the helicopters expired, there was a rumor that the government had told its caucus the procurement would be cancelled because of ongoing technical problems, but Chenevert said that “we’re continuing to have productive discussion with the Canadian government.”

He said the plan still was for official delivery of eight aircraft in 2013, followed by eight more each in 2014 and 2015. “Obviously there’ll be an EPS (earnings-per-share) upside if those helicopters are not sold this year, but the eight and eight and eight that we described before still holds true at this point in time.”

In Ottawa Dec. 13, Public Works and Government Services Minister Diane Finley, whose department is the government’s purchasing arm, was unable to provide any more details. She did confirm to reporters that “we are in discussions with Sikorsky” to determine “if we can put together a plan to go forward.”[/quote]


----------



## Colin Parkinson

While smoke signal seem to support that direction, this government has been known to change it's mind at the last minute and head off in another direction without much warning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Looks like they are moving forward.

http://skiesmag.com/news/article/Government-of-Canada-to-continue-with-Maritime-Helicopter-Pr#.Usc8BHi9Kc3


----------



## Infanteer

Nice Friday afternoon, quiet news release....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-to-start-retiring-sea-kings-in-2015-won-t-scrap-cyclone-purchase-1.1617194


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Nice Friday afternoon, quiet news release....
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-to-start-retiring-sea-kings-in-2015-won-t-scrap-cyclone-purchase-1.1617194



I'm going to take it as read that the Sikorsky donkey understood the concept of a 2x4 between the eyes.  

Equally the government or its agents have accepted some watered wine.  If  the CH-148s do nothing other than handle vertrep, SAR, anti-piracy patrols and logistics movements in their early days surely they are contributing?

The development of the 148 as an ASW platform can take a little longer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Nice Friday afternoon, quiet news release.....


Right at 1700 Eastern, in fact - this from the info-machine:


> _*Government of Canada to continue with Maritime Helicopter Project and begin retiring Sea Kings in 2015*_
> 
> OTTAWA, Ontario, January 3, 2014 – Given ongoing challenges with the Maritime Helicopter Project, the Government of Canada commissioned an independent third party, Hitachi Consulting, to determine the viability of the program. The Government accepts the recommendations in the third-party report, which found that the program would be viable with a different project structure and governance model. Today, the Government of Canada and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation announced that a Principles of Agreement (POA), which will form the basis of formal contract negotiations to put those recommendations into place, was concluded on December 31, 2013.
> 
> “The decision to continue with the Maritime Helicopter Project is consistent with our goals of getting the Canadian Armed Forces the equipment they need while protecting the investments taxpayers have already made in this program,” said the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence. “The Royal Canadian Air Force has been providing guidance in determining operational priorities through the newly established Integrated Product Teams comprised of team leaders from Sikorsky and General Dynamics Canada, as recommended by the third party.”  Under the terms of the POA, Canada will see delivery of helicopters with operational capability sufficient to begin retirement of Sea Kings in 2015, and a program to enhance those capabilities culminating in a fully capable CH 148 Cyclone Maritime Helicopter in 2018.
> 
> “Under the new terms established in the Principles of Agreement, Sikorsky has committed to deliver the needed helicopter capability at no additional cost to Canada,” said the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services. “In addition, the Government of Canada will only issue further payment to Sikorsky upon capability delivery. This is the right path forward for the Canadian Armed Forces and taxpayers.” Sikorsky has agreed to pay Canada $88.6 million in liquidated damages for non-delivery.
> 
> “As the pre-eminent helicopter manufacturer in the world, we regret that we have not executed this program to the satisfaction of the Government of Canada and that no aircraft were delivered in 2013,” said Mick Maurer, President of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. “We recognize that we and our sub-contractors must do better. We have completely restructured our approach, and added considerable new resources and technical expertise. As a result of the third-party review commissioned by the Government of Canada, we believe we have the right plan in place to deliver the most capable maritime helicopter in the world.”
> 
> The restructured program will see the continuation of the initial training and testing of the Cyclone now underway in Shearwater, Nova Scotia. Hitachi Consulting will remain engaged in the project to ensure delivery of a fully capable maritime helicopter.


----------



## suffolkowner

I am assuming this is a positive development?
If the Sea King begins retirement in 2015 does that mean that IOC for the Cyclone is 2015? Or is IOC now 2014 for the 12 Cyclones ready?
FOC is 2018,right? Does anyone know what capabilities are to be added over that period?
I am assuming that the Cyclone has now been cleared for over water operations, ship borne operations, and night flights?  
If I remember correctly there was quite a list of deficiencies only a few months ago.


----------



## rathawk

There are currently a number of dates being bandied about.  2015 is now the new delivery date for the first "interim MH" with "sufficient capability" to commence full initial cadre crew training and commence Sea King retirement, although the latter point seems to have been dropped into the release from the blue... presumably as optics for the 2015 election campaign.  Until delivery of "sufficient capability", the restriction to daytime, over and in-sight-of-land flight is expected to remain in place.   Delivery of the first "fully capable" aircraft has been promised for 2018 and the new target date for IOC is now 2019.   The aircraft are not cleared for operations from HMC Ships yet except for the ship-helicopter operating limitation trials.  There is still much to be done before those trials can be called complete.

The new definitions of "sufficient capability" and "fully capable" have not been released yet.

When a year (without a designated month or quarter) is given as a milestone date it is always assumed to mean "on or before the last day of that year".   When a quarter is designated (e.g. third quarter 2018) it means "on or before the last day of that calendar quarter".


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, at least there's a *plan*, of sorts ... maybe not the best plan, maybe not even a really good plan, but we've won more important victories with less. This, at least, allows engineering and financial people to move, in concert, towards some agreed goals. 

I, and others, might have wished for a different plan but I'm nowhere near the decision making process and I don't know what all the pros and cons (technical, operational, financial and political) of all the options might have been.

There is every possibility that the _Cyclone_ will be the "good enough," affordable solution which is always the mortal enemy of the (more expensive) "best." There is even the possibility that the _Cyclone_ will be a truly first rate ship-borne aircraft, the equal, in its generation, of the venerable _Sea King_.

Let's all wish the teams - Government of Canada's and Sikorsky's - well.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

rathawk said:
			
		

> There are currently a number of dates being bandied about.  2015 is now the new delivery date for the first "interim MH" with "sufficient capability" to commence full initial cadre crew training and commence Sea King retirement, although the latter point seems to have been dropped into the release from the blue... presumably as optics for the 2015 election campaign.  Until delivery of "sufficient capability", the restriction to daytime, over and in-sight-of-land flight is expected to remain in place.   Delivery of the first "fully capable" aircraft has been promised for 2018 and the new target date for IOC is now 2019.   The aircraft are not cleared for operations from HMC Ships yet except for the ship-helicopter operating limitation trials.  There is still much to be done before those trials can be called complete.
> 
> The new definitions of "sufficient capability" and "fully capable" have not been released yet.
> 
> When a year (without a designated month or quarter) is given as a milestone date it is always assumed to mean "on or before the last day of that year".   When a quarter is designated (e.g. third quarter 2018) it means "on or before the last day of that calendar quarter".



Hi rathawk,

Any word on the engine upgrade requirement to accommodate the extra weight?

My understanding is they absolutely do need more HP, but the release seems to gloss over where exactly those engines are going to come from?  

Do they already exist and will drop cleanly into the existing design....and it's just a matter of cost/engine?  

Do they already exist, but will require structural modifications?

Or are they hypothetical engines that a supplier will now need to develop and test?

It seems like this is a pretty big 'TBC' in their plan....


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## rathawk

All good questions... no answers yet.  I suspect we shall have to wait another year or two to learn more.  A significant amount of development is still required before Sikorsky will be able to satisfy the original (2003) performance requirements.  And, we have yet to learn what, if any, of the original performance requirements have been compromised or reduced in the 31 December Cyclone Rescue operation.

The most amazing aspect of this decision is that Sikorsky has been awarded yet another four years to come up with an acceptable MHP solution following such a sterling records of so many unkept promises.


----------



## NavyShooter

The question of good money after bad comes into play...

The question of what aircraft manufacturer would, in it's right mind, offer again on a CF Contract if this one fell through is also in play...

The question of how much effort has been emplaced already beyond airframes such as training, maintenance programs, equipment, dedicated hangars, support facilities, etc etc that would be lost if the airframe was changed is also in play...

The delay, the non-compliance, the continuing delays....the cost....the question of will it ever meet the requirements....well....a lot of questions there.

Is it good enough...?  

Will it be able to be made good enough...?

The answer is, we'll see.

YMMV, but I'm actually glad a decision has actually been made.  This is a legacy of poor decisions over a lot of years, by many governments, dating back to killing the EH-101.

NS


----------



## MilEME09

Another question is, with the fleet being replaced, if we wait to long it will be to late to change the specs on the ships to fit a different helicopter.


----------



## rathawk

Perhaps it would be best to ensure that the new ships' aviation facility designs are as flexible as possible.  After all, we are not sure yet that the Cyclone will be able to operate from the current CPFs in sea and wind conditions anywhere near the same as the Sea Kings currently do, let alone be able to operate from new AORs and Destroyers.  The trials to date have revealed significant limitations with land/launch, blade fold/spread, deck handling, etc, not to mention the EME limitations that have been reported.  With Sikorsky just having been awarded almost five more years (ie until end 2018) to demonstrate that they have solved the ship compatibility problems, we will just have to wait.


----------



## McG

> *Canada could have obtained world-class helicopters at bargain prices, but the Conservatives weren’t interested*
> Michael Byers
> National Post
> 08 January 2014
> 
> Two curious developments occurred in the global helicopter industry last week.
> 
> On Wednesday, India cancelled an $800-million order for 12 AgustaWestland 101 helicopters, after allegations that the British-Italian manufacturer paid bribes to secure the contract in 2010.
> 
> The AW101 is the latest version of the EH101 — a helicopter that Canada uses for maritime search and rescue. Canada would also be using the EH101 on its destroyers and frigates, had Jean Chrétien not cancelled a $5-billion contract in 1993, incurring $478-million in penalties. The AW101 is currently in service with the British Royal Navy, the Italian Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. Last month, Norway contracted to buy 16 of the helicopters.
> 
> The loss of the Indian contract could cost thousands of jobs at the AgustaWestland plant in Somerset, U.K. This poses a problem for Britain’s Conservative government, which has heavily promoted the defence and aerospace industries.
> 
> On Friday, late in the afternoon in Ottawa, a news release announced the Harper government’s intent to proceed with the troubled procurement of CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters from Sikorsky. The Cyclones are supposed to replace the Sea King helicopters that have operated off Canada’s destroyers and frigates for more than 50 years.
> 
> Mechanical failures and service limitations plague the fleet. Seven personnel and 14 Sea Kings have been lost in accidents, and the risk of another fatal accident increases each time one of the aged aircraft flies.
> 
> Paul Martin initiated the Cyclone procurement in 2004. Since 2006, the project has been an albatross around Stephen Harper’s neck. Two years ago, in a rare moment of candour, then-defence minister Peter MacKay called the Cyclones the “worst procurement in the history of Canada.” Tellingly, Canada is the only country to have chosen the Cyclone.
> 
> The problems are manifold. The original contract with Sikorsky was signed when the Cyclone was a still a “paper aircraft” that existed only in design. Canadian defence officials insisted on the addition of new electronics and weapons systems, which proved too heavy for the engines. This required more powerful engines, which in turn required an expensive full re-engineering of the helicopter.
> 
> Making matters worse, the Cyclone design is based on an existing civilian variant, the Sikorsky S-92. In 2003, Sikorsky claimed the S-92 was capable of 30 minutes safe operation following an oil leak. That claim that proved false in 2009, when an oil leak was followed immediately by a crash. Yet Sikorsky claims the Cyclone — again, based on the S-92 — is also capable of 30 minutes safe operation after a leak. The use of a civilian design may also explain why Sikorsky failed to integrate copper mesh into the airframe of the Cyclone – necessary to shield the aircraft electronics from the electromagnetic waves generated by radar on naval vessels.
> 
> Last September, after a full decade of delays, the Harper government finally announced that it was looking at alternative aircraft to replace the Sea King — including the AW101 — as it considered cancelling the Cyclone contract with Sikorsky. Officials travelled to the U.K. to see the AW101 in service with the British Royal Navy, where it is called the HM-1 Merlin.
> 
> Not surprisingly, Sikorsky fought back, agreeing to pay $88.6-million in penalties for delays and offering to restructure the procurement — with the first fully capable Cyclone now promised for 2018. The Harper government accepted the offer, probably hoping the least disruptive approach will help keep the procurement out of the news.
> 
> Sikorsky says it will deliver “interim” helicopters that can be used while it develops Cyclones with the full range of capabilities. But is it fair to foist a less-than-fully capable helicopter on an aircrew that has to conduct an anti-submarine mission during a North Atlantic storm?
> 
> This takes us back to the Indian government’s recent cancellation of its contract for AW101s. AgustaWestland produces what is widely regarded as the best maritime helicopter in the world. It now faces having to layoff thousands of highly trained workers. Stephen Harper could have seized the opportunity to obtain bargain-price, world-class AW101s in very short order.
> 
> A competition would not be necessary: the EH101 was deemed fully compliant with Canada’s requirements, and the AW101 is an even more capable aircraft.
> 
> Our Conservative prime minister could have finally set aside the Liberals’ discredited and dangerous Cyclone procurement. He could have returned to the course so wisely charted by Brian Mulroney — and so foolishly abandoned by Jean Chrétien. Stephen Harper could, at long last, have actually replaced the Sea Kings.
> 
> _ Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia._


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/08/michael-byers-canada-could-have-obtained-world-class-helicopters-at-bargain-prices-but-the-conservatives-werent-interested/


----------



## h3tacco

"Canadian defence officials insisted on the addition of new electronics and weapons systems..."

This concept keeps being brought up by media and others and has become a defacto truth among critics but it is not ture. Neither the requirements nor the mission equipment has changed in any significant manner since contract award.


----------



## rathawk

H3 TACCO is absolutely correct.  The Rideau Institute is, intentionally or not, helping to lend true the urban myth that performance and equipment requirements were added on/increased after contract award.  There have been a few relatively minor changes to the original 2003 requirements specs since the contract was awarded but these were reductions in capability made at the contractor's behest.  The performance and equipment requirements have remained substantially unchanged since the 2003 Pre-qualification phase in 2003. 

A troop seat configuration was added in 2006 as an ECP but this has had nothing to do with the delivery delays and Sikorsky's inability or reluctance to comply with the original requirements.  The troop seat configuration kit ECP merely added to the overall acquisition and ISS costs, but not by a very large amount in the grand scheme considering the large contract amendments made in late 2008 ($148.3 million) and early 2009 (another $52.2 million) plus the millions that have been spent sustaining DND project management and engineering costs through the years of delay. 

There are other myths about this Project circulating as truth and while these tend to annoy those of us who know better, the real agony lies in the untold truth.


----------



## suffolkowner

I wished they had just cancelled the Sikorsky purchase. Can't say I have a lot of faith in Sikorsky to deliver. Perfect way out for the government just blame the Liberals. The reality is this should have been cancelled years ago after multiple missed deadlines. A return to an all AW101 fleet seems like a preferable solution. But apparently loves buying/operating micro/orphan platforms. 

Assuming a helicopter is delivered I think we have a numbers issue
1 x 15 CSC = 15
3 x 2  AOR = 6
that gives a total of 7 for training, spares, overhaul and maintenance rotation, enough?
Does anyone know what helicopter is bound for the 6-8 AOPS

I guess we all know that the chances of 15 CSC and 6-8 AOPS being delivered are slim so that might solve the #'s issues


----------



## Infanteer

rathawk said:
			
		

> There are other myths about this Project circulating as truth and while these tend to annoy those of us who know better, the real agony lies in the untold truth.



It's like the opening credits to a scary movie.... op:


----------



## Baz

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Assuming a helicopter is delivered I think we have a numbers issue
> 1 x 15 CSC = 15
> 3 x 2  AOR = 6
> that gives a total of 7 for training, spares, overhaul and maintenance rotation, enough?
> Does anyone know what helicopter is bound for the 6-8 AOPs
> I guess we all know that the chances .of 15 CSC and 6-8 AOPS being delivered are slim so that might solve the #'s issues



That's a huge over simplification of the numbers.  The numbers required are based on deployment requirements, not a one for one.

Firstly, just because the AOR can take two aircraft doesn't mean it always will.  There was a time it carried three and one crew... They were a maintenance test crew to keep aircraft servicable for other ships.

Basically you need  enough helos in the force to give the commander the coverage he needs.  So, a task group needs five, give or take.

To put it another way, those 15 CSC and 3 AORs aren't always available either.  Say, 7 CSC and 2 AOR at at time... 2 TGs plus one independant deployment.  So max 11 aircraft.

at full manning the Wing is supposed to support 15 aircraff in 11 dets, but its been a long time til we were anywhere close; and will be a longer tume til we get close again, if ever.


----------



## Baz

rathawk said:
			
		

> There are other myths about this Project circulating as truth and while these tend to annoy those of us who know better, the real agony lies in the untold truth.



I'd like to know who you are as you seem to have an agenda, and you've indicated you're connected to the project on numerous occasions.

Before anyone asks, my nickname tells anyone connected to MH ops who I am, and for everyone else I'm an ACSO at 12 Wing Shearwater.


----------



## rathawk

Hi Baz

I know who you are and I also know that you're an extremely well-respected MH (12 Wing) star and a very big (backseat) Cyclone and GDC champion.  

I've been both directly and indirectly involved in this failed procurement since 1975 right up until the present day but I'm now about to step away into the shadows knowing with confidence that, although I was there at the beginning of this train wreck, I was not responsible for it.

BTW, how old were you in 1975 when my SKR pursuit began?  I hope I'll be there to pay you a beer or two the day this procurement hits the omega, should I live so long.  For info, the myths that continue began in 1992 leading to the fateful political election plank to cancel the NSA "attack helicopters".   Up until November 3rd 1993, everything about this procurement was running along just fine.   That was the day the train ran off the tracks and where it remains today.

Kindest regards,
Rathawk


----------



## Baz

OK... you know of me, but I still can't identify you; so be it.

I am not a star, I have a niche; I make the most out of the very limited resources we have had for the last 15 years.

I'm also not a Cyclone or GDC fan... if that was the case I would not have to be censured for having a very public disagreement with them.

My concern is with the crews... to give them the best we can given the resources.

If you have been working that long then I respect your efforts... a respect that obviously isn't mutual.  I was seven in 1975, and the point is?  The reaction doesn't surprise me, given how many times I've been told a silly operator doesn't know anything, especially one that can't get promoted.
Things were fine in 1993, but we weren't finished.  we still hadn't rolled uo our sleeves as a team and made it work.  And, in my opinion, the only way to get where we need to be now is to do the same, but I'm not sure when that is going to happen.


----------



## suffolkowner

BAZ, fair enough. If your confident in the numbers, I mean that's what your working with now, so...I'll take your word for it. Still I wonder where the AOPS fits in assuming 6 ships.


----------



## Scott

Rat hawk, lighten up on the condescending attitude, please. It'll win you zero respect here


----------



## MilEME09

*Too big to cancel? Tories spent $1.7B on troubled chopper program*

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/too-big-to-cancel-tories-spent-1-7b-on-troubled-chopper-program-1.1632160



> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:13PM EST
> Last Updated Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:17PM EST
> 
> OTTAWA -- More than $1.7 billion has already been spent on the elusive effort to upgrade Canada's helicopter fleet, internal documents show -- a clue as to why the Harper government is sticking with the troubled program.
> 
> The eye-popping figure -- about 30 per cent of the overall $5.3-billion budget -- could have meant a far worse political firestorm for the Conservatives than the one that accompanied the ill-fated plan to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> In the aftermath of an independent report last fall on the beleaguered plan to buy the CH-148 Cyclone choppers as replacements for Canada's aging Sea King fleet, the government acknowledged it was looking at other aircraft -- even going so far as to meet with other manufacturers.
> 
> Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act show the money went towards "acquisition progress payments" and "in-service support set-up." The nearly decade-long program has delivered just four test helicopters that National Defence has refused to formally accept.
> 
> The $1.7-billion figure is slightly higher than numbers that were buried deep in federal public accounts records released last fall.
> 
> Only about one-third of the total has been spent on aircraft. The bulk has gone towards developing mission systems, training facilities in Nova Scotia and B.C., flight-simulation equipment and support.
> 
> The briefing notes, prepared for a committee of deputy ministers, also paint a more detailed picture of the back room tug-of-war and building frustration in the military as missed delivery deadlines continued to pile up.
> 
> Cancelling the program was clearly not an option, say critics who accuse the Conservatives of perpetrating a charade with its consultations last fall.
> 
> Spending so much money and having virtually nothing to show for it would have caused untold political damage, especially among a frustrated Conservative base still reeling from the ongoing Senate expense scandal.
> 
> "It would have been a bigger blow to them, to their base, than the F-35 situation," said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.
> 
> "I am certain that politics was part of the calculations."
> 
> The Conservative reputation for prudent management of the public purse took a hit in 2012 when the auditor general slammed the F-35 stealth fighter program, even though no money had been spent.
> 
> Regardless of whether Ottawa could have recouped some of the costs, cancelling the Cyclones would have triggered an ugly, protracted court battle in the run-up to the 2015 election, said Michael Byers, a political science professor and defence researcher at the University of British Columbia.
> 
> "I think this is a big, dark cloud that hangs over the Conservative government," said Byers, who has argued publicly for the deal to be scrapped.
> 
> "We saw some of this exposed during the scandal over the F-35, and the Sea King replacement is another story that speaks very loudly to the problems this government has managing multibillion-dollar military procurements."
> 
> Byers said the government is rolling the dice on an unproven, developmental aircraft when it could have had an established maritime helicopter by 2018 -- the latest deadline set by Sikorsky, the Cyclone's manufacturer.
> 
> The Cyclones are meant to replace Canada's 50-year-old CH-124 Sea Kings. Conservatives often criticized Jean Chretien's Liberal government for cancelling the original program in 1993, to the tune of $478 million in penalties.
> 
> The Department of Public Works waited until after the close of business Friday -- "take-out-the-garbage day" in political communications circles -- to announce it would renegotiate the Cyclone contract, a clear sign to many the government was anxious to mitigate the political damage.
> 
> The government was sensitive to the bad optics even before last Friday's announcement. A briefing dated Dec. 13, 2012, noted that officials had leaned on Sikorsky to paint their ongoing meetings as "discussions," not "negotiations."
> 
> Ottawa's relationship with the aircraft maker has been increasingly strained, especially after former defence minister Peter MacKay characterized the Cyclone program as the "worst procurement in the history of Canada."
> 
> The flight decks of a number of Canadian warships -- notably HMCS Regina -- were reconfigured to accommodate the Cyclones, only to be switched back because of the delays. Internal documents show National Defence wanted the contractor to foot the $700,000 bill for the modifications, a demand overruled by Public Works.
> 
> There was also table-thumping about who would pay for the fuel in the already-delivered test helicopters.
> 
> Eventually, National Defence decided to bill Sikorsky and tack on an extra $250 per fill-up "to recover the direct personnel and equipment costs associated with the refuelling process and administrative overhead costs for accounting and invoicing." The Aug. 28, 2012, briefing insisted that the government wasn't making any money off the deal.
> 
> The government has set a deadline of the end of March to negotiate the new contract with the U.S.-based manufacturer and promises no further cheques will be cut until fully completed helicopters are delivered.
> 
> Flight training began in October on four Cyclones already at the military air base in Shearwater, N.S., said Public Works spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold.
> 
> The air force is prepared to take ownership of up to eight test helicopters before the Cyclones are declared capable, Bujold said in an email.
> 
> That appears to be a concession; the government has said it would not formally accept the aircraft until Sikorsky had delivered a helicopter that's up to snuff.
> 
> The government's statement last Friday said it expected the Cyclones to be fully operational by 2018 and that the Sea Kings would begin retiring next year.
> 
> National Defence has not explained whether Canada would be short of helicopters during the time between the retirement of the Sea Kings and the arrival of the Cyclones.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Right or wrong, the CPC now owns this issue, if it goes sideways again they can't pin it on anyone else from here on forward.


----------



## McG

For those that joked we should keep the SeaKing because its 50 years of service fits nicely with the current “heritage announcement” trend, I have read there is now at least one person suggesting we should keep the SeaKing because the airframe still is good enough for the US government to invest.



> Sikorsky Press Releases
> *Modernized S-61T™ Helicopter Launches First Flight
> U.S. Department of State Already Under Contract for 13 Aircraft*
> January 06, 2014
> 
> SHELTON, Connecticut - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. today announced the successful maiden test flight of the modernized S-61T™ helicopter with an integrated glass cockpit and enhanced performance capabilities. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).
> 
> In 2010, Sikorsky began a program to upgrade S-61™ aircraft and return them to productive service. An industry workhorse, the S-61 helicopter has performed missions reliably for U.S. and foreign allied militaries during the past several decades. The modernized S-61T helicopter represents the latest version, with a full structural refurbishment, overhaul of all major dynamic components, and installation of key upgrades including new composite main rotor blades (CMRB), a survivability suite and state-of-the-art glass cockpit, as well as all new electrical wiring throughout the aircraft. The initial test flight was completed in late 2013.
> 
> Sikorsky is under contract with the U.S. Department of State (DoS) for refurbished S-61 aircraft and already has delivered 16 helicopters. The latest order is for 13 S-61T models, with the first delivery scheduled in the first quarter of 2014. The five-year IDIQ (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity) agreement with DoS allows for the purchase of up to 110 modernized S-61 aircraft. The IDIQ purchase agreement serves as the contracting vehicle for any U.S. government agency to purchase the new helicopter.
> 
> “The first flight of the S-61T represents a major milestone in the program,” said Steven Rogers, Director S-61 Programs. “The modernized S-61T helicopter can be outfitted to meet a wide variety of requirements, and we believe it provides best-in-class-value for a mid-size, multi-mission helicopter.”
> 
> Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries worldwide.


http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=4d023e2428a63410VgnVCM1000004f62529fRCRD


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> *Too big to cancel? Tories spent $1.7B on troubled chopper program*
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/too-big-to-cancel-tories-spent-1-7b-on-troubled-chopper-program-1.1632160


Sunk costs may be emotional, but they should not be a factor in deciding if a program should stay-the-course or change directions.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MCG said:
			
		

> For those that joked we should keep the SeaKing because its 50 years of service fits nicely with the current “heritage announcement” trend, I have read there is now at least one person suggesting we should keep the SeaKing because the airframe still is good enough for the US government to invest.
> http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=4d023e2428a63410VgnVCM1000004f62529fRCRD



But do they say if this refurbishment of S-61T is for airframes, such as ours, that go back to the first batch in 1959 to early 1960's or the final batches in mid to late 1970's? And have they been used (or abused) in extreme conditions like ours?


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But do they say if this refurbishment of S-61T is for airframes, such as ours, that go back to the first batch in 1959 to early 1960's or the final batches in mid to late 1970's? And have they been used (or abused) in extreme conditions like ours?


The good idea fairy never puts that much thought into assessing an idea.


----------



## h3tacco

Recent photo in the wild taken Dec 2013.

<a href="http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=2364784">
Click Here</a> to view the photo


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It is a nice looking piece of kit...but...it is still just a big 'ol eggbeater.    8)


----------



## h3tacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It is a nice looking piece of kit...but...it is still just a big 'ol eggbeater.    8)



I understand, add a galley and you might like it more.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A toaster!  How can they expect anyone to fly with no toaster!!


----------



## Sub_Guy

Or a pisser, shitter, fridge, and oven.   I will take the Sheraton over 13 mess any day of the week!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A toaster!  How can they expect anyone to fly with no toaster!!



I bet the Merlin offered a "Boiling Vessel"


----------



## AirDet

I'm still trying to figure out who Rathawk is. He's been in the MH world since 75 and still somehow involved. Vaughn maybe? 

Any Idea, Wrenchbender? You've had more time on the greylady than me.


----------



## AirDet

> Final VH-71 cost – $2.3 billion to give Canada 9 helicopters as spare parts vehicles. Why?; Article reformatted.
> 
> Jan 27/14: VH-71 Termination. Inside Defense reports that Lockheed Martin and the US government finalized the end of the VH-71 helicopter program on Dec 19/13 with a final $91.1 million payout: $38.5 million for completed work and $51.6 million in termination fees. That brings the termination total to about $203 million (q.v. June 2/11).
> 
> The contract was terminated on June 2/09, and the total amount paid to Lockheed over the entire contract ends up costing the taxpayer about $2.2 billion. The biggest reason for all that waste is a President’s own office that couldn’t stop adding requirements (q.v. Dec 13/07, Jan 19/08), but enforcing Navy certification requirements on a helicopter designed to commercial aviation standards wasn’t helpful, either (q.v. March 14/08). Sources: Inside Defense, “DOD, Lockheed Settle On Final $2.3 Billion Tab For Terminated VH-71 Program”.


https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheedmartin-us101-wins-us-presidential-helicopter-contract-064/

Isn't this an interesting twist?


----------



## George Wallace

Anyone getting the feeling now that Sikorsky really doesn't give a damn about getting the bugs out and holding up their end of the bargain?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> King Stallion: Newest Marine Helo Gets a Royal Rollout
> 
> Defense News
> May. 5, 2014 - 08:36PM   |   By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS   |
> 
> *WEST PALM BEACH, FLA*. — To the fanfare of a US Marine bandand in the presence of helicopter royalty, Sikorsky rolled out the first flying CH-53K heavy-lift test helicopter Monday, moments after Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, revealed the new aircraft’s nickname: King Stallion.
> 
> The name perpetuates the Sea Stallion monicker of the two-engined CH-53 first introduced in 1966, and the later three-engined CH-53E Super Stallion.
> 
> “It is a bird that has a very special place in my heart,” said Sergei Sikorsky, son of company founder and helicopter pioneer Igor Sikorsky.
> 
> The younger Sikorsky, now 80 and a “goodwill ambassador” for the company, was the program manager in his younger days for the CH-53G version produced for the German Army, and came to Florida especially for the rollout.
> 
> Onlookers, which included Marine combat veterans and industry partners, crowded around to get a first look at the new aircraft, the first of four flying engineering development models built here at Sikorsky’s sprawling facility set amidst the wetlands and resident alligators of the Gold Coast.
> 
> Although the King Stallion looks unmistakably like its predecessor H-53s, it features a great many improvements over the previous CH-53E model.
> 
> “This is a new aircraft,” proclaimed Col. Robert Pridgen, the Marines’ heavy-lift helicopter program manager. “We started with a clean sheet.”
> 
> The aircraft — the first Sikorsky aircraft to be entirely designed using digital tools — features three new T-408 General Electric Aviation engines, providing 50 percent power than the E model.
> 
> Pridgen ticked off the improvements and changes: new main rotor blades, new transmission, wide use of composite airframe construction, fly-by-wire digital flight controls.
> 
> The aircraft, he added, has numerous features to make maintenance and servicing much easier — fewer engine parts, better parts access, easier seat removal in the main cargo space.
> 
> The classic form of the aircraft, Sikorsky pointed out, is due to the need to fit aboard Navy ships.
> 
> “We want to carry much more, carry it higher, operate at higher temperatures,” he explained. “But we have the dimensions of the aircraft carrier, and that is the deciding factor. It is the one single engineering challenge to do the job, get the required performance, and get the aircraft small enough to go up and down the elevator.”
> 
> Since the program was re-baselined in 2009, Pridgen said, he’s “holding tight” to cost growth — “less than five percent over budget.”
> 
> The key, he pointed out, was rigorous control over requirements creep — the tendency to want to add and change features over the course of construction. “No is the first thing you have to learn to say,” he said.
> 
> Rear Adm. Cindy Jaynes, Program Executive Officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault and Special Mission Programs, declared the 53K “is the future for heavy lift for the Marine Corps.” Despite the budget-cutting pressure sweeping the Pentagon, she said, “there is support from both the Marines and the Navy to keep this program going forward.”
> 
> The Marines plan to buy a total of 200 King Stallions, with the first aircraft to achieve initial operating capability (IOC) in 2019.
> 
> Although the program has experience some delays, officials noted some of that time has been made up.
> 
> Asked if he was confident the 2019 IOC could be reached, Amos said it would be.
> 
> “I’m the commandant of the Marine Corps,” he told reporters after the ceremony. “I’m the eternal optimist.”



More on LINK


----------



## Spencer100

The President is getting S-92's, so if they screw up again Canada can buy them for parts for the Cyclones  ;D


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140506/DEFREG02/305060024/Presidential-Helo-Contract-Expected-Week?odyssey=mod_sectionstories


----------



## The Bread Guy

Is that the sound of Satan ice skating?

This from The Canadian Press:


> The Harper government formally signed a deal Wednesday to amend its contract with the U.S. manufacturer of the long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters.
> 
> The agreement with Sikorsky Aircraft — a division of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) — paves the way for the retirement next year of Canada’s outdated fleet of Sea King choppers.
> 
> United Technologies issued a brief statement saying the contract amendment clears the way for the delivery of the 28 aircraft under the $5.7-billion program, which had been stalled and appeared in jeopardy of being cancelled last fall.
> 
> It did not disclose any details of about the new agreement.
> 
> It’s the second time the government has negotiated a contract amendment with Sikorsky, which has missed previous deadlines to deliver completed helicopters, accruing more than $88 million in penalties as a result.
> 
> It's unclear how that will be resolved ....



This, from the Info-machine:


> Today, the Government of Canada announced that it has completed all required amendments to both the acquisition and long-term in-service support contracts with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation for the acquisition and maintenance of 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). These contract amendments are further to the Principles of Agreement announced in January 2014.
> 
> The amended acquisition will ensure the delivery of helicopters with operational capability to begin retirement of the Sea Kings in 2015, and a program to enhance those capabilities culminating in a fully capable CH-148 maritime helicopter beginning in 2018.
> 
> In its final configuration, the CH-148 Cyclone will be one of the most capable maritime helicopters in the world, and at the forefront of modern technology. It will be capable of a full range of search and rescue and utility missions in challenging environments. The CH-148 Cyclone will also be fully interoperable in a modern battle space, and will be able to concurrently conduct a full spectrum of anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare in hostile, high-threat environments.
> 
> The Government of Canada engaged the services of an independent third party—Hitachi Consulting—to review and assess the viability of the Maritime Helicopter Project. The third-party expert confirmed the viability of the project under a new governance structure and phased delivery of the maritime helicopters. With the contract now completed, Hitachi Consulting will continue to oversee aspects of the implementation plan, ensuring that delivery times remain as promised for the RCAF.
> 
> As previously announced, payment will be issued to Sikorsky only upon capability delivery.
> 
> Quick Facts
> 
> The total budget of $1.9 billion for the acquisition of the 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters has not changed.
> The budget for in-service support (including the amendments to the contract) totals $5.7 billion.
> The project is being implemented under a new governance model, including integrated teams from Sikorsky and Canada, supported by Hitachi Consulting.
> The amendment to the in-service support contract extends the term by an additional 10 years at rates based on those competed in 2004, thus generating significant value for taxpayers. This amendment ensures maintenance of the Cyclone helicopters until 2038.
> 
> (....)


----------



## MilEME09

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Is that the sound of Satan ice skating?



Once we see first delivery yes it will be


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Technically have they not already done the first "delivery" It's just that we did not accept it?


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Technically have they not already done the first "delivery" It's just that we did not accept it?



What we haven't accepted are interim helicopters till ours are delivered, Idea being is that we can start training our pilots now and such so that when the real ones come we already have trained pilots and ground crews ready to go


----------



## cudmore

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sea-king-replacements-5-7b-cyclone-maritime-helicopters-lack-key-safety-requirement-1.2684036

The Conservative government has agreed to accept new helicopters to replace Canada's 50-year-old fleet of Sea Kings even though they don't meet a key requirement recommended for marine helicopters by Canada's air safety investigator, CBC News has learned.
The government announced Wednesday it had finally signed a renegotiated contract with helicopter-maker Sikorsky for 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters at a cost of $5.7 billion.

Now, CBC News has learned the details of what the government has agreed to forego in order to conclude a long-awaited new deal with Sikorsky, and it includes a formerly mandatory safety measure: a 30-minute run-dry standard for its main gear box.

The importance of the ability to fly for 30 minutes after a loss of lubrication in the main gear box was reinforced by an investigation into a deadly 2009 crash of a Sikorsky-built helicopter.

The gearbox is a kind of linkage between the helicopters engines and its rotor system. It's packed with lubricating oil that cools the gears and keeps power flowing to the rotors. If a helicopter loses oil in its main gearbox, the system will get too hot and either seize up or otherwise fail. That would lead to a loss of power in the rotor, forcing a helicopter from the sky.

A helicopter that meets the run-dry standard can continue flying for 30 minutes even if there's no oil in the main gear box — a critical feature for helicopters flying hundreds of kilometres out to sea.

"I am shocked, this is a very dangerous thing," said Jack Harris, the NDP's defence critic.

"This is a major safety requirement ... necessary for the safety of the aircraft operating in the maritime environment.

"This is a significant safety issue."

Mandatory requirement in original bids

Sikorsky has struggled for years against the allegation its main gearbox could not meet that 30-minute standard.

It was a mandatory requirement in the 2004 competition held to determine which helicopter would best serve Canada's interests.

Sikorsky won that competition, besting the AW 101, a helicopter that meets the 30-minute standard and flies search and rescue for the Canadian military today.

Critics suggest if Sikorsky could not meet that requirement, it ought not to have won the competition to replace Canada's Sea Kings in the first place.

"There are other helicopters that can meet that standard," Jack Harris said. "These guys signed a contract with this as a requirement. They said they could do it."

In an e-mail, Defence Department spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said the main gearbox on Canada's new Cyclones is designed to ensure the total loss of oil lubrication is "very remote."

"The Cyclone gear box lubrication system has many safety features, including a bypass valve than can be used to isolate the gearbox case from the oil cooler in the unlikely event of an external leak, to prevent further loss of transmission oil," Lemire said.

Since Canada first signed with Sikorsky in 2004, the American company has been over budget and years behind schedule.

Last year, the government even took the unprecedented step of announcing it might drop Sikorsky and began looking at other choppers. But a consultant's report suggested the government recognize Sikorsky was essentially developing a military helicopter for Canada and accept it might have to let some promised items slip.

The government accepted that advice and the announcement last week was the conclusion of a process that saw the government reveal its bottom line on its requirements and Sikorsky lay out realistic capabilities and timelines.

In the end, the Cyclone helicopters Canada will get will feature several trade-offs when compared to the helicopter the government ordered a decade ago.

Government makes concessions

The 30-minute run-dry capability is just one of seven concessions the government has made.

The others include:

The ability to secure the helicopter's ramp in various positions during flight.
Crew comfort systems during extreme temperature operations.
Unobstructed hand and foot holds for technicians to conduct maintenance.
The ability to self start in very cold weather.
Cockpit ergonomics factors.
A system to automatically deploy personnel life rafts in emergency situations.
Lemire said the air force accepted those concessions because "there is no impact to overall operational capabilities and will not risk crew safety."

But it's hard to see how that's the case.

Sikorsky refers to Canada's Cyclone helicopters as H-92s. The H is used to identify the helicopter as a military aircraft. The H-92s are militarized and upgraded versions of Sikorsky's civilian S-92s.

When that lineage is understood, the lack of run-dry becomes more of a concern.

17 died in crash of Cougar S-92

In 2009, a Sikorsky-built Cougar Helicopter S-92 on the way from St. John's, N.L., to an offshore oil platform crashed into the sea when two titanium studs securing the main gearbox failed, causing a total loss of lubrication. All but one of the eighteen people aboard died.

The Canadian Transportation Safety Board investigation made several recommendations but it also highlighted the problem with the helicopter's failure to meet that 30-minute run-dry certification.

"We recommend that all Category A helicopters, including the S-92, should be able to fly for at least 30 minutes following a massive loss of main gearbox oil," TSB chair Wendy Tadros told reporters in 2011.

Military helicopters are subject to different operating standards than civilian choppers, but in this case the government says Canada's upgraded and militarized versions of the S-92 will meet civilian airworthiness regulations.

That American standard, called FAR Part 29, allows for Sikorsky's design to fly, as it provides for an alternative arrangement to a run-dry requirement that allegedly makes the total loss of lubrication "extremely remote."

It's that standard defence spokeswoman Ashley Lemire says Canada is now relying on.

"Through extensive testing, proper operating procedures will be established to satisfy the required airworthiness regulations, including the civil run-dry requirement, to ensure the safety of the crew and aircraft," Lemire said.

Following Tadros' investigation of the Cougar crash, the TSB chair said that extremely remote standard was not good enough.

"The 30-minute requirement is negated by the 'extremely remote' provision. Therefore, (the provision) needs to go. It's as simple as that."

The TSB urged U.S. regulators to amend the standard, pointing out other helicopter-makers were designing aircraft that could meet the 30-minute standard.

Qualification under that FAA regulation is what both the government of Canada and Sikorsky are relying on in order to get their deal done.

"Sikorsky and the Canadian government have agreed on all technical requirements for the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter," says Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson. "The gearbox meets all FAR Part 29 requirements by the FAA, including those related to loss of primary lubrication."


----------



## Loachman

If the Sikorsky solution ends up being at least equal to a run-dry requirement, then I see that as satisfactory. A one-size-fits-all requirement (thirty-minute run-dry) is not necessarily the best.

Regardless, a transmission failure is probably the worst thing that can happen to one in a helicopter, other than catastrophic mid-air disintegration, massive fire, collision, twenty-bazillion volt wire strike, being hit by multiple RPG rounds etcetera etcetera.

I've never worried about any of those, either. 

Preventing loss of oil in the first place would be better than relying on a run-dry capability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Agreed, but no doubt they claimed that it was a remote possibility for the Super Puma's and S-92's as well. I guess there is remote and then there is "really remote".


----------



## Loachman

The Emergency pages in checklists are based upon designers' best estimates of things that may go wrong, and are then amended each time some unforeseen tragedy or near-tragedy occurs - and these can occur at any point over a design's career.

On 12 June 1985, five days after returning from RV85 in Wainwright, I flew Kiowa 136258 from Petawawa to Downsview and back, accompanied by another Pilot. It performed flawlessly.

Upon our return, I discovered that I was on the schedule to fly that night. Our usual nightflying nights were Thursdays, and this was a Wednesday, so that was unusual. I also had way more night than needed to meet our quarterly minima due to the exercise, and I was planning to visit the Air Cadet Squadron in Pembroke as I was their Liaison Officer and I had not been able to drop in for about two months. I had no difficulty weaselling out of the trip as a result.

I would have flown the same machine that night, had I gone.

My Flight Commander, Major Bob Connell, took it instead. His Observer was Sergeant Henry Anderson.

They did not return. The wreckage was found floating on and at the bottom of a small lake in Quebec north of Pembroke the next morning.

The investigation took almost nine months.

The spragg clutch, part of the freewheeling unit which essentially connects the engine to the transmission, was ultimately found to be three ten-thousandths of an inch out-of-round. The allowable tolerance was two ten-thousandths of an inch. The spragg clutch began slipping intermittently, which put severe torque spikes on the driveshaft and soon caused it to break which resulted in complete loss of power to the transmission and rotor system even though the engine was still running.

An immediate autorotation was required in order to have any hope of survival, but they were in pitch blackness with no outside references whatsoever over hills, trees, and lakes and nobody would ever want to have to autorotate under those circumstances. With an operational engine, nobody would have considered doing so to be of any value anyway. The torque spikes had also been causing a rapid and jerky yaw as the tailrotor sped up and slowed down, so they had been misled into believing that they had a tailrotor problem of some sort. Within about thirty seconds of the driveshaft failure, they hit the water hard and fast. It took a week to find their bodies in the murk and silt - the lake was sixty feet deep at that point and visibility was no more than one foot.

The freewheeling unit had been on the helicopter for about three hundred hours, or about eight months of normal use of the machine.

The failure resulted in an immediate addition to the checklist emergencies and a subsequent addition of a low-rotor-RPM audio warning to the fleet.

The fatal part did not meet one of its specifications, and two good men died because of an error smaller than the thickness of a human hair.

The point of this tale is to illustrate that there are a huge number of unforeseen, and otherwise trivial, things that can go wrong. Such failures are, fortunately, extremely rare. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hours had been accumulated by many thousands of Kiowas and Jet Rangers (the civ version) around the world to that point, and hundreds of thousands more in the twenty-nine years since, and that had never happened before and has not since.

The corrective measures that Sikorsky has taken since the Cougar crash will likely prevent a recurrence. I have every confidence that that lesson has been learned and applied and we will not see that problem again.

Far bigger threats are weather, environment, and a variety of human factors (fatigue, disorientation, misjudgment, expectation, distraction, complacency and a bunch of others).

One's machine seldom lets one down.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Is Sikorsky doing some testing in NYC? I saw a Cyclone fly down the Hudson today.


----------



## FSTO

Any news on the Cyclone front? Are there anymore at Shearwater? Any more testing off ships?


----------



## donaldk

HMCS Halifax is the next test mule on the ship side.  Work is currently ongoing to have her hangar converted.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There was a unicorn Cyclone spotted in the Valley a few weeks ago...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Cyclones are flying on a daily basis in Sheawater. We just don't own them, yet.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Cyclones are flying on a daily basis in Sheawater. We just don't own them, yet.



Any timeline on a transfer of ownership? 2015, 16, 17?


----------



## h3tacco

Formal acceptance is currently on track for June 2015. There has been a lot recently activity to support this, including RCAF aircrew and technician training in Shearwater and flight test activity at various locations in Canada and the US. 

Once formal acceptance has started there will be a bit of delay before the first operational detachments start deploying. However, there will likely be some deployments on large exercises before IOC is declared.


----------



## FSTO

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Formal acceptance is currently on track for June 2015. There has been a lot recently activity to support this, including RCAF aircrew and technician training in Shearwater and flight test activity at various locations in Canada and the US.
> 
> Once formally acceptance has started there will be a bit of delay before the first operational detachments start deploying. However, there will likely be some deployments on large exercises before IOC is declared.


Good to hear!
Maybe I'll see IOC before I retire!!!


----------



## NavyShooter

DLTV on HAL's Flight Deck today....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Formal acceptance is currently on track for June 2015. There has been a lot recently activity to support this, including RCAF aircrew and technician training in Shearwater and flight test activity at various locations in Canada and the US.
> 
> Once formal acceptance has started there will be a bit of delay before the first operational detachments start deploying. However, there will likely be some deployments on large exercises before IOC is declared.



Sorry h3tacco, but what does "formal acceptance" mean?

That we've received and tested a model and now authorize it for production?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## h3tacco

Cdn Blackshirt,

Sorry for the confusion. Formal Acceptance, while not the actual contractual language, just means we are accepting that all the contractual requirements are in place for Canada to pay Sikorsky for the delivery of the aircraft. For Canada to accept the aircraft there are a number of contractual steps that need to be completed such as: first cadre of aircrew and maintainers trained, maintenance program approved, flight manuals approved, aircraft technically certified, etc...

Basically by June 2015 the first batch of aircraft will be Canadian owned and operated by Canadian aircrew and maintainers. They will be still need to go through some operational testing before IOC can be declared. Operational testing, however, will be conducted by RCAF crews and maintainers vice the current developmental testing which is being conducted with mixed contractor/RCAF crews and Sikorsky maintenance. 

H3


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Nice.  That's great news.  Thanks so much.


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## MilEME09

interesting story today I found related to Sikorsky, looks like UTC is looking to sell them off, probably won't effect the Cyclone project but an interesting development. Though I doubt an Canadian company would have the funds to buy them up, that is if Sikorsky doesn't decide to go it alone.



http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/03/12/report-utc-exploring-sikorsky-spinoff/70205612/


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The latest update on the status of the CH-148 Cyclone, courtesy of the Halifax Chronicle Herald. Re-produced under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Cyclone choppers to land starting in June — feds
> PAUL McLEOD OTTAWA BUREAU
> Published April 10, 2015 - 7:48pm
> 
> The CH-148 Cyclone helicopters have still not been accepted by Canada but the government says they will start to be delivered in June, one year after the government renegotiated its contract for the choppers.
> 
> Four of the aircraft are currently housed at 12 Wing Shearwater, and Royal Canadian Air Force pilots are being trained on them.
> 
> The helicopters have gone to sea on Halifax-class frigates for trials, but National Defence is not saying how they’re performing.
> 
> “It is premature to report on the Cyclone’s performance in trials,” said spokeswoman Ashley Lemire.
> 
> After years of delay, last June the Harper government signed a renegotiated deal with Sikorsky Aircraft for the $7.6-billion program. The government accepted certain concessions on the requirements for the 28 aircraft.
> 
> National Defence says Sikorsky aircraft will be accepted with enough capabilities to allow for the retirement of the 50-year-old Sea King helicopters in 2015.
> 
> But this milestone will kick off a new program to enhance the Cyclones so that they are fully capable, beginning in 2018.
> 
> The choppers were initially supposed to be delivered in 2012, but disputes between the company and the government delayed the process.
> 
> In its 2014-15 annual report, Sikorsky’s parent company, United Technologies Corp., reported that it sold $1.3 billion of inventory to the Canadian government, including capitalized contract development costs.
> 
> But the contract has been an albatross for the company; the renegotiation resulted in a net drop of $438 million on the contract.
> 
> The renegotiated deal extends Sikorsky’s maintenance contract for the choppers by a decade until 2038. The government claimed this new provision as a win because the maintenance rates are based on 2004 figures.



 Article Link


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fully capable in 3 years?  My sympathies to the MH folks living thru what appears to be a clusterfuck.


----------



## h3tacco

Your sympathies are appreciated but a lot of the issues are similar to the Block III Aurora. Fully capable is often tossed around when it should read fully contract compliant. There will be a lot of growing pains but there will be a lot of capability sooner.


----------



## Infanteer

Excuse me for not retracing 31 pages of commentary, but are issues with the ASW pieces of the platform, or with its actual flight systems?  Do we have a good helicopter with teething problems in its ASW role?


----------



## Edward Campbell

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Your sympathies are appreciated but a lot of the issues are similar to the Block III Aurora. Fully capable is often tossed around when it should read fully contract compliant. There will be a lot of growing pains but there will be a lot of capability sooner.




Thank you for that reminder; and good luck with the new aircraft.


----------



## PuckChaser

As long as the Cyclones don't randomly choose their own landing spots, it's gotta be a one up on the Seakings.


----------



## Jammer

The airframe is great....mission package...not so much


----------



## Eye In The Sky

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Your sympathies are appreciated but a lot of the issues are similar to the Block III Aurora. Fully capable is often tossed around when it should read fully contract compliant. There will be a lot of growing pains but there will be a lot of capability sooner.



Ah, seen.  B3 had its challenges, like any undertaking like that would have.  

I was briefed on the system and sensor capabilities once when I was in YAW, if all goes well it will be one sweet MH.  

Looking forward to the first time we get to work with you guys with your shiny new toy.


----------



## McG

Jammer said:
			
		

> The airframe is great....mission package...not so much


A step forward from the Sea King at least?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Best answered by an MH type, but knowing what I know from briefings/cross-training with MH folks, it will be an increase in capabilities.

Ya.  That is safe to say.   8)


----------



## h3tacco

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Excuse me for not retracing 31 pages of commentary, but are issues with the ASW pieces of the platform, or with its actual flight systems?  Do we have a good helicopter with teething problems in its ASW role?



The mission system gets a bad rap for being the cause of all the delays. It certainly has its share of issues but it does share a lot of commonality with the Aurora which from the limited amount I know is performing well on Op Impact. The ASW side is probably the strongest part of mission system. 



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> The airframe is great....mission package...not so much



The basic vehicle still has some work to be done. The CH148 had to evolve a lot from the S-92 to meet our requirements. This has been a driving factor for delays and also means comparatively the aircraft is less mature than a S-92. There is a lot of capability on the CH148 over and above the S-92.


----------



## h3tacco

MCG said:
			
		

> A step forward from the Sea King at least?



By and large the mission system on the Cyclone is a generational leap ahead of the Sea King. There are a couple capabilities recently added to the Sea King that the Cyclone will lack. The main ones are really a result of the requirements being locked since 2004 and 10 years of operations happening in the meantime. However, they should be relatively easy to add from a a technical stand point and will bepartially addressed in the Block 2 aircraft.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I am curious to see how the sensor operators will be employed on this aircraft.  From everything I have read, it is a huge technological leap forward, especially with the addition of passive acoustics. 

I've heard the saying "we will do everything you do on the Aurora, but we will do it with one operator", too much recently.  One can't be balls deep into passive acoustic tracking, then step out to update the radar plot, or analyze an ESM hit.  It's going to be an exciting time for the MH community when these choppers finally come online.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

They're going to find out they need 2 AESOPs onboard or share sensors with the TACCO. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## h3tacco

TB said:
			
		

> They're going to find out they need 2 AESOPs onboard or share sensors with the TACCO.
> 
> My 2 cents.





			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I am curious to see how the sensor operators will be employed on this aircraft.  From everything I have read, it is a huge technological leap forward, especially with the addition of passive acoustics.
> 
> I've heard the saying "we will do everything you do on the Aurora, but we will do it with one operator", too much recently.  One can't be balls deep into passive acoustic tracking, then step out to update the radar plot, or analyze an ESM hit.  It's going to be an exciting time for the MH community when these choppers finally come online.



These are both really great points/questions. There is still a lot of work to be done to nail done specific crew duties but there will definitely need to be sharing of sensor duties not just between the SENSO and TACCO but also the non-flying pilot (Pilot Monitoring). I know exactly what you are saying when people say "we will do everything you do on the Aurora, but we will do it with one operator" some people also claim the MH will be do everything a Aurora can do with 4 crew vice 10+ but that is just not going to happen. Other than the range, speed, and payload a main advantage the Aurora has over the Cyclone is the larger crew. The larger crew means you can spend more time per sensor. The advantage the MH has is that it is organic to ship and has a dipping sonar. Even though the sensor fit on the Cyclone is similar to Aurora there is really no way it can directly replace the Aurora. 

My involvement in the aircraft does not really deal with these questions (I am on the developmental flight test side) but here are my thoughts: (take them with a grain of salt)

1. On the Sea King there is already some sensor sharing. The radar is shared between the TACCO and AES Op with the TACCO being the primary radar operator while in the sonar hovar (dip) and the AES Op generally everywhere else. 

2. The Cyclone's primary ASW sensor is the SONAR, while we have very good acoustic processor helicopters do not have the range or sonobuoy payload to take full advantage of sonobouy employment. We will use them just not to the same extent that an Aurora will. During SONAR operations, the SENSO (AES Op) is fully occupied operating the SONAR. Which means the TACCO will need to take over the Radar, ESM etc. The radar plot, tac plot and link plot are very interconnected so it is not a huge leap to group these together. Also the sensor horizon from a 80 ft hover is limited so you are not looking at a huge area. As we transit between dips the SENSO then can get back in the dry-sensor game at altitude. The range of the new sonar means transits between dips will be much greater than currently on the Sea King. 

3. The pilots are going to be involved much more in tactical picture and sensor operation. During heavy workload, the pilots will most likely be the primary EO/IR operator and will probably also help out with some TACCO duties.  

4. MH are much more likely to work in pairs than a LRPA. Doctrinally, the full-up Canadian Task Group is built around having two MH airborne. This may push into tactics which split the workload between two MH (for example one aircraft working ASW and the other maintaining the the surface picture and sharing via link).  

5. IMHO if we had the space and payload a second dedicated sensor operator would increase the performance of aircraft but there is just  not room. The AES Op will be sensor expert on the crew but everyone else will be trained to operate the sensors to a various degree to share some of the workload.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Very good point h3tacco, one thing to consider also will be the impact of the MESIP on the AESOP trade. That will mean you will have Cpl level AESOPs on crews with less experience. We will see some of the effects on the LRP side were most Sgt won't be flying anymore. The ones who will fly won't touch the sensors but be primarily an information manager for the TACNAV. I hope the MH community sees our mistakes and learn from them.


----------



## Kirkhill

TB said:
			
		

> Very good point h3tacco, one thing to consider also will be the impact of the MESIP on the AESOP trade. That will mean you will have Cpl level AESOPs on crews with less experience. We will see some of the effects on the LRP side were most Sgt won't be flying anymore. The ones who will fly won't touch the sensors but be primarily an information manager for the TACNAV. I hope the MH community sees our mistakes and learn from them.



Curiosity - and possible tangent:  How do you develop experienced Sgts in a trade like AESOP if you don't have inexperienced Cpls flying and getting OJT time?

No agenda on this one.  Just curious.


----------



## McG

Develop guys on a bigger aircraft, and employ the developed guys alone on smaller aircraft (ie. Cpl & Sgt on Aurora, MCpl on Cyclone)?


----------



## Baz

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As long as the Cyclones don't randomly choose their own landing spots, it's gotta be a one up on the Seakings.



... and that is based on a perception, not a reality.  Even to this day we are one of the safest MH fleets in the world; we are just scrutinized a lot because of _political_ reasons.

Precautionary landings for us are very high profile, but its not the age of the aircraft that cause them, its the vintage.


----------



## Baz

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I am curious to see how the sensor operators will be employed on this aircraft.  From everything I have read, it is a huge technological leap forward, especially with the addition of passive acoustics.
> 
> I've heard the saying "we will do everything you do on the Aurora, but we will do it with one operator", too much recently.  One can't be balls deep into passive acoustic tracking, then step out to update the radar plot, or analyze an ESM hit.  It's going to be an exciting time for the MH community when these choppers finally come online.





			
				TB said:
			
		

> They're going to find out they need 2 AESOPs onboard or share sensors with the TACCO.
> 
> My 2 cents.



H3Taccos points are correct; however, the quotes above arise from people who don't really understand the MH Conops, SOI, or SOR; indeed people who really don't understand modern Maritime Helicopter Ops.  This includes the vast majority of the RCN, and the RCAF, unfortunately... MH has become an orphaned child in Canada.

It comes from two places: the thought that we invented MH on small ships and are thus still the "experts," and the thought that even with all of the contractual issues we've had we're still going to be the "best" MH in the world.

Whoever is saying that "we will do everything you do on the Aurora, but we will do it with one operator", is wrong.  Full stop. We are going to use that piece of the mission systems that are needed to accomplish the assigned mission.  We can change roles, we can multitask, but we can't do everything at once.  We already know that from our allies, and we have learned it with the latest versions of the Sea King.

What is misunderstood is that MH is not an ISR platform, not a surveillance platform, and certainly not an MPA.  At its heart, it is a reactionary maritime force protection asset.  Using an MH as a long endurance surveillance platform in the presence of an true maritime surveillance platform (like an Aurora, or even more so a Triton) is just a waste of JP-5.

In that reactionary role, you already understand the mission requirements, and you'll use those pieces of the mission kit you need to meet them.

The real problem is readiness; how are we going to keep all the crew ready for all the different types of reactions. The sim will help (hopefully a lot), but it will be a challenge.  That's why a lot of countries use staged crew readiness and have specialty crews.

We are not getting a second AESOP; there is no bunk space and no money.  I would love to see a crew of five, with either a second AESOP or second TACCO, in order to provide a master/apprentice situation for each crew position; not happening.  I could also make a case for changing the ACSO for a second AESOP, but by doing so we lose our independent battle management capability; that capability is the core of our two helo ASW, which in some ways is our bread and butter.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TB said:
			
		

> Very good point h3tacco, one thing to consider also will be the impact of the MESIP on the AESOP trade. That will mean you will have Cpl level AESOPs on crews with less experience. We will see some of the effects on the LRP side were most Sgt won't be flying anymore.



A few points on this to consider.  Yes, MESIP will see a lot of flying positions reduced to Cpl- MCpl but doesn't necessarily correlate directly to experience.  

Before Direct Entry, everyone was a remuster and OFP was MCpl with either OTU or MOAT complete.  Most AES Ops were promoted MCpl 1 year after Wings, and then Sgt very shortly after EPZ for Sgt, with the working rank being Sgt for the most part.  That Sgt would likly have just upgraded around the same time - call it around 3 years after Wings.

Enter the Direct Entry program and MESIP.  OFP is moved back to QL5 (Wings) after finishing in 'Peg.  With the first BAQC and IAQC complete, both remuster Cpls and new Ptes were put into both MH and LRP.  

Looking at the LRP side and the DE Ptes, they went thru the same rough training timelines as the pre-direct entry OTs did. What did change the most was the MCpl rank became competitive because of MESIP and the need to downrank alot of flying positions to Cpl/Pte.  However the level of experience would be about the same.  If it was lower, that would be more directly linked to YFR reductions IMO.

There were Ptes who upgraded to A Cat before being promoted Cpl; the lack of experience aspect now is more of the "NCO and soft skillset" the DE folks are lacking, as they become A Cats and start becoming MCpls with no real leadership base, experience or training to be a Jr NCO.  Being an A Cat means operator skills are developed, but does little on the jr leader side, where the remusters have a definite advantage and demonstrated ability in most cases I have seen

With MESIP, the remuster operators could end up with just as much, if not more experience as they take longer to progress to Sgt with the downranking process and less promotions to MCpl and Sgt each FY.  It likely won't be uncommon to find A Cat Cpls with 1000+ hours logged on Blk3 crews.

Rank and experience will not be joined at the hips as much as it was pre-direct entry IMO.  :2c:



> The ones who will fly won't touch the sensors but be primarily an information manager for the TACNAV.



I have heard a few different plans, one was Sgts would still be on crew, one was MCpl would be highest rank on crew with Sgts in Stds & Trg.   I never heard of the "won't touch sensors" part, which would mean an additional crew slot.  That isn't happening now on our Blk3 crews, and its working fine as we grow into B3.

Curious how that would work though.  I doubt my ability to understand what happens in seats 8 and 9, let alone "manage those folks.  And the same, vice versa.  Lite Brite and Pickup Sticks are 2 different games.



> I hope the MH community sees our mistakes and learn from them.



For sure, there is going to be an IM learning curve on the new MH.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Curiosity - and possible tangent:  How do you develop experienced Sgts in a trade like AESOP if you don't have inexperienced Cpls flying and getting OJT time?
> 
> No agenda on this one.  Just curious.



Its a bit of a misconception I think.  If you read my previous post, I tried to explain the effect the Direct Entry program, coupled with restructuring the ranks in the trade via MESIP is having.

We basically have to tip our pyramid 180, and alot of former Sgt+ flying positions are being downgraded to Pte-Mcpl rank.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> Develop guys on a bigger aircraft, and employ the developed guys alone on smaller aircraft (ie. Cpl & Sgt on Aurora, MCpl on Cyclone)?



That is almost exactly what happened in the Argus-Sea King days, according to our AESOp history lectures in Winnipeg.

Observers, as we were called then, would be trained and fly in the VP (Argus) Sqns first tour.  From that group, some would be selected as potentially good (lone) operators and sent for training and flying second tour to the HS (Sea King) Sqn's.

There's some folks with both airframes in their logbooks, but generally it seems to me most folks stay with 1 or the other and don't move between communities.

I am not the most experienced guy on Sqn (and not an Acoustician), but based on H3s earlier post on sensor management/sharing and how MHs work,  I would think the best guys and gals to move from Aurora to Cyclone would be the wet sensor types, Acousticians.  Again just my  :2c:


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That is almost exactly what happened in the Argus-Sea King days, according to our AESOp history lectures in Winnipeg.
> 
> Observers, as we were called then, would be trained and fly in the VP (Argus) Sqns first tour.  From that group, some would be selected as potentially good (lone) operators and sent for training and flying second tour to the HS (Sea King) Sqn's.
> 
> There's some folks with both airframes in their logbooks, but generally it seems to me most folks stay with 1 or the other and don't move between communities.
> 
> I am not the most experienced guy on Sqn (and not an Acoustician), but based on H3s earlier post on sensor management/sharing and how MHs work,  I would think the best guys and gals to move from Aurora to Cyclone would be the wet sensor types, Acousticians.  Again just my  :2c:



Take your 2 cents and cram it!  (mainly because I am an acoustician, and I enjoy the LRP life)

But yes I do agree with you, although I am against cross pollination (keep experience within the fleet)
My theory is that because passive acoustics is such an art, that takitor from the Aurora and throwing him into the cyclone world makes sense, same acoustic processor.   I think taking a wet operator and teaching them Radar and ESM, is better than a dry operator learning passive acoustics (if that makes sense).  It's not so much the analysis, but the tracking, sure it's easier with the new processor, but you still have to know your Doppler cold.  That being said, frig passive acoustics if you can clear the ocean with one ping, then do that!


----------



## Good2Golf

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> That being said, frig passive acoustics if you can clear the ocean with one ping, then do that!



One ping, and one ping only, of course...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, just one ping is all you need:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr0JaXfKj68


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Take your 2 cents and cram it!  (mainly because I am an acoustician, and I enjoy the LRP life)



I should have elaborated some.  They would likely find the best operator to move to MH would be someone with Navy surface and sub-surface experience prior to OTing to AESOp, who also trained on dry sensors before going acoustics... 8)

If I was that guy, I would hide.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If by "dry" sensors you mean radars and EW systems, and by "wet" you mean sonars (dry/wet are not distinctions we usually make in the Navy, except where the availability of alcohol on board is concerned), then you'll have a hard time finding the person you want in the Navy. These are covered by three different trades (NCIOP for radars, NESO for EW and SonOp for, well, sonars) and you very seldom see sailors switching from one to the other.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In the LRP world, wet sensors are the sonobuoys and processing systems.  Dry sensors are ESM, MAD, RADAR and EO/IR.

Both sides are trained on ordinance duties, but it is usually manned by a dry type (a 'NASO', non-acoustic sensor operator).  Both are also trained on applic bombbay tasks.

There are other tasks the wet folks do depending on the mission itself,  if it isn't hard ASW.

MH AESOps are 1 person shows on a crew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

language is a funny thing, 2 people in somewhat related tasks can use the same word with entirely different meanings.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I should have elaborated some.  They would likely find the best operator to move to MH would be someone with Navy surface and sub-surface experience prior to OTing to AESOp, who also trained on dry sensors before going acoustics... 8)
> 
> If I was that guy, I would hide.



Ok.  I think I know what you are trying to say, there are currently only a handful of Dolphin wearing AES Ops, one is already down in Shearwater, and he also happens to be an ex-sonar op!   Done deal, he is the go to guy, all LRP guys can go about their business.

Don't forget to mention that ASO-AES Ops are also working the EO/IR camera too.  Ordinance duties are shared, but let's be real here, when we are raining steel, the ASO should be in the damn seat.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In the seat, with a sandwich. 

 ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

Colin P said:
			
		

> language is a funny thing, 2 people in somewhat related tasks can use the same word with entirely different meanings.



Just try to "secure a building"....

In the Navy, it means lock it up and sign off rounds.

In the Air Force, they'll take out a 3 year lease with option to buy.

In the Army, they'll do a recce, pre-position the arty, wait 'til dark, then send in a company level flanking maneuver with overwatch from the LAV's and LEOs.  The Arty will fire smoke and suppressive fire on potential egress routes to attrit any exfiltration by OPFOR.  Once the company has taken the ground floor, the Tac-Hel will air-land a platoon on the roof for a dynamic entry and dual axis attack on the upper floors.  Once the building is taken, it will then have mutual overlapping fields of fire setup from both levels, the snipers will move to the roof and the LAV's move up to provide resupply.  THEN the building will be secure.  Ish.


----------



## Spencer100

LOL

You had me at "In the Air Force, they'll take out a 3 year lease with option to buy."

 ;D


----------



## rotrhed

Found this job posting on the net:

https://www.careerbeacon.com/Posting/447255?catsid=3&scol=rel&sdir=DESC



> As a Pilot Instructor, you are responsible for delivering CH148 operational training as well as mission or maintenance Integrated Information Environment (IIE) services or applications.  Training is conducted in classroom, simulators, maintenance training devices, and CH148 aircraft.  Pilot Instructors can be assigned to regularly scheduled ICT or Conversion serials, as well as ad-hoc scheduled training events (currency etc.)  Pilot Instructors also provide/perform Subject Matter Expert (SME) input and review to Training Program Support Cell Lead and Instructional System Designers on training documentation, courseware development, or revision change packages.



Anyone have some insight? And no, I'm not looking for a job! ;D


----------



## h3tacco

This is a job at the MHTC teaching ICT and conversion training. Training is ramping up and Sik needs more instructors to support the upcoming course loads. Currently, these instructors do ground and flight sim instruction while Sik Test Pilots do the flight  instruction but I believe they are looking to offload the flight instruction from the test pilots but I am not sure on the exact status of that.


----------



## rathawk

On the19th of June 1975 I was serving as a run-of-the-line Sea King Crew Commander on HS423 Squadron in Shearwater NS.

That evening, upon returning to Squadron Ops after a DDH deck landing qualification flight for some new co-pilots, I was intercepted by my Squadron Commander (then- LCol Larry Ashley) who told me that he had just designated me as the HS423 rep on a team that would be responsible for the drafting of a Sea King Replacement (SKR) Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR).

The team he spoke of was led by Major (LCdr) Lance Olmstead, an ex-fish-head-come Sea King pilot who was at that time the only Sea King pilot on the staff of the then-Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare School (later CFMWC) in Halifax.

To make a long story short, the agreed SKR SOR was eventually submitted to MARCOM HQ for onward transmission to the new NDHQ (with an info copy sent to the new infant AIRCOM HQ) in early 1976. 

That 1976 draft SOR was the seed that eventually led to the 1987 NSA Contract.

Following the 1986-87 NSA competition and eventual contract award to EHI in late 1987, the NSA Project was sidelined for an extraordinarily long time by the sudden need to add SAR replacement helicopters to the mix.  That extended sideline resulted in a revised 1992 combined NSA/NSH procurement contract.  

The resultant combined $4.8 billion NSA/NSH project became a federal election issue.  Chretien argued that the “Mulroney attack helicopter” money would be better spent on a national childcare program (for which he subsequently never carried through); he nonetheless proved his elected manhood by terminating the NSA/NSH contract within an hour of being sworn in as Prime Minister on 3 November 1993.  None of his other “redbook” election promises were kept.

To backstep, within the 1976 original SKR SOR (that continued into the NSA contract) there were three mandatory but very basic naval helicopter performance requirements:

1) The replacement aircraft needed to have gear boxes that could, after sustaining a detected internal failure or loss of lubricant from any cause, be able to continue safe flight for not less than 60 nautical miles,

2) The replacement aircraft needed to have the capability to fly safely in “all weather” conditions including the ability to penetrate severe wet snow and inflight severe icing and to be able to recover aboard a ship in fog conditions with less than 10 yards visibility; and,

3) The replacement aircraft had to possess the capability to hover (i.e. recover aboard ship) in headwinds of 60 knots, crosswinds of 55 knots and tailwinds of 50 knots.

In late 1975, we were visited by a representative of the UK company Westland Helicopters who assured us that our SKR performance requirements were technically very achievable and that Westland had already joined up with Agusta Spa in Italy to develop a naval helicopter for the UK and Italian Navies that would meet or exceed all of our expectations.  The marvel that he spoke of in the fall of 1975 was eventually to become known as the EH101…  today marketed as the AW101.

What grieves me most is that, on the19th of June 2015, exactly 40 years to the day that my SKR trek began, MND Jason Kenney will be present in Shearwater to accept (on behalf of Canada) four Block 1.0 Cyclone helicopters that are a very very far cry from (and which will never meet) the performance capabilities we had come to expect back in 1975.


----------



## h3tacco

rathawk said:
			
		

> 2) The replacement aircraft needed to have the capability to fly safely in “all weather” conditions including the ability to penetrate severe wet snow and inflight severe icing and to be able to recover aboard a ship in fog conditions with less than 10 yards visibility; and,
> 
> 3) The replacement aircraft had to possess the capability to hover (i.e. recover aboard ship) in headwinds of 60 knots, crosswinds of 55 knots and tailwinds of 50 knots.



While I think the AW-101 is by all accounts a fine naval aircraft I think you greatly over state its capabilities and fail to mention any of its downsides. You need only to look at the RN deck and wind limits for operating from the Type 23 and Type 45 to know that in service even the 101 comes no where near your "very basic requirements". No naval aircraft (101, MH-60R or NH-90) lands on frigates with 55 knots crosswinds, 50 knot tailwinds or in less than 10 yards visibility.


----------



## Good2Golf

50 kt tailwind?  That's spicy even on an H47!


----------



## CycloneMech

Afternoon all,  just found this forum.  At least people ARE talking. And yes you can tell from my handle - been there, done that for the past five and half years since I got to Shearwater.  I think I know Baz from work, at least on sight. I'm on the technical side, plus FS along side of Ben and Rob.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Rathawk,

Merlin is not perfect and you know it. How about Rotor half hubs? Has the serviceability levels of our Cormorants ever come close to what AW said it would in the shiny brochure? And I won't even dignify your wind limits comment with a response.

That said, I wish we had bought Merlins in 1993, like we were supposed to. It would have been cheaper and better in the long run.


----------



## Baz

CycloneMech said:
			
		

> Afternoon all,  just found this forum.  At least people ARE talking. And yes you can tell from my handle - been there, done that for the past five and half years since I got to Shearwater.  I think I know Baz from work, at least on sight. I'm on the technical side, plus FS along side of Ben and Rob.



If you know Ben and Rob then you know me... I'm the only aircrew wondering around in CADPAT...


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That said, I wish we had bought Merlins in 1993, like we were supposed to. It would have been cheaper and better in the long run.



Possibly, sure...

When people say it grieves me that we are finally moving forward with something, especially people who were at the Wing when the real failures happened that got us where we are, then it is easy to dismiss them is irrelevant and having an axe to grind.

The Cyclone is what it is, no matter how we got here.  The community is under enough stress right now that we need to just get on with it.  People who are not part of that would do well to sit quietly on the sidelines and provide morale support...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz- I agree with you. All I am saying is that, if I had the power to roll back the clock to 1993, I would break Jean Chretien's pen and we would have gotten the EH-101.

Now? No- we are way too far down range with Cyclone. We will do fine with her.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It could have been worse, they might have jumped into the USCG SA366 G1 Dauphin contract! 

Let's hope the final completion of the Cyclone contract encourages others to buy them so the parts supply is robust.


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Baz- I agree with you. All I am saying is that, if I had the power to roll back the clock to 1993, I would break Jean Chretien's pen and we would have gotten the EH-101.
> 
> Now? No- we are way too far down range with Cyclone. We will do fine with her.



My comment wasn't directed at you.  Absolutely I would have stayed with the EH-101 once we went down that path.

I am glad we got the tail ramp though... remember the original 101 (nor the Merlin) has that.  It will give us more flexibility in a world that is hard to crystal ball.

But I stand by my comments that those who are directly involved should just let us get on with it...


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> It could have been worse, they might have jumped into the USCG SA366 G1 Dauphin contract!
> 
> Let's hope the final completion of the Cyclone contract encourages others to buy them so the parts supply is robust.



Either that or buy in bulk now and put it in war stocks


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We will need to order another dozen with only 4 equipped for ASW when we get the Mistrals  8)


----------



## suffolkowner

Maybe once the Cyclone is up in running they could replace the Comorants in the SAR role?


----------



## dapaterson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Maybe once the Cyclone is up in running they could replace the Comorants in the SAR role?



Not enough are being purchased for that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Worries about noise?


> Residents near Victoria International Airport are demanding a federal environmental assessment into noise levels associated with Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone helicopters using the government’s new $155-million hangar and operations base.
> 
> Ben Casson, a retired Alberta prosecutor and provincial court judge now living in North Saanich, said that Ottawa has failed to consider the public impact of the new helicopters flying to and from the 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron’s base.
> 
> “I’m not an activist, but maybe I should be,” Casson said in an interview. “I want to expose the process they followed on this project. They deliberately avoided public input. It’s horrific what they’ve attempted to do.”
> 
> He fears that the Cyclone helicopters — the long-awaited replacement for the aging CH-124 Sea King helicopters — will conduct flights at all times of the day and night. Duties could include training missions as well as enforcement of environmental, drug and fisheries laws “without any consultation whatsoever” of the affected public, he said ....


----------



## Ostrozac

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Worries about noise?



A quick look at Air Canada's website shows that Airbus 319 and 320 are already operating out of YYJ. Is a Cyclone really that much louder than a commercial jet? I find that difficult to believe.


----------



## Good2Golf

Imagine, helicopters operating to, in part, uphold laws...it's..."HORRIFIC!"

Noise: About as much noise as the commuter helicopter that lands in the downtown harbour or the medevac helicopter that frequently lands at the Vic General in Saanich.  

#NIMBY


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Imagine, helicopters operating to, in part, uphold laws...it's..."HORRIFIC!"
> 
> Noise: About as much noise as the commuter helicopter that lands in the downtown harbour or the medevac helicopter that frequently lands at the Vic General in Saanich.
> 
> #NIMBY



I guess it's time for the "who was here longer - you or the airport" game.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I guess it's time for the "who was here longer - you or the airport" game.



Using CFB Downsview, or say, Dwyer Hill, as model for precedents, I think I know who will win the coin toss, eventually...


----------



## suffolkowner

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not enough are being purchased for that.



I was suggesting the acquisition of more Cyclones to replace the Comorants. I know many people consider the Cyclone to be an inferior aircraft but we would gain back fleet commonality and economies of scale that might have been part of the original plan. Fond as the Canadian Forces are of running diverse equipment fleets.


----------



## George Wallace

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> A quick look at Air Canada's website shows that Airbus 319 and 320 are already operating out of YYJ. Is a Cyclone really that much louder than a commercial jet? I find that difficult to believe.



The military flights mentioned in the complaint are at any time 24 and 7 through 365/6.  Civilian airlines flying in and out of airports are restricted in many municipalities to operating hours that mean "No flying hours" that vary from six to seven or eight hours from around mid-night to six am.  

That said, I have no compassion for anyone who purchases property near an airport, much the same as someone who purchases property near a pig farm, and then complains that their neighbours are too noisy or the smell is offensive.  Makes the point that even supposedly intelligent persons can be candidates for Darwin Awards.


----------



## FSTO

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The military flights mentioned in the complaint are at any time 24 and 7 through 365/6.  Civilian airlines flying in and out of airports are restricted in many municipalities to operating hours that mean "No flying hours" that vary from six to seven or eight hours from around mid-night to six am.
> 
> That said, I have no compassion for anyone who purchases property near an airport, much the same as someone who purchases property near a pig farm, and then complains that their neighbours are too noisy or the smell is offensive.  Makes the point that even supposedly intelligent persons can be candidates for Darwin Awards.



Night flight training usually ends at midnight. Operational flights are 24/7 but its not like there will be hundreds of aircraft supporting the massive fleet we have operating off the coast of BC.

To the gentleman in North Saanich, you bought a house near an airport, do you think it is going to be silent all the time? Oh and are you going to start to complain about the smells from the dairy and horse farms in the area as well? Dolt.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, lets see here:

The Cyclones are not primary SAR birds. Those are the Cormorant up in Comox, except during the Swiftsure race when they usually bring one down to be closer to the action in case of trouble.

The Navy is not a constabulary: It does not do law enforcement with its ASW helicopters, and extremely seldom has to assist with enforcement of border security.

We have six, and in the foreseeable future (25 yrs horizon) not likely more than eight, helicopter carrying ships on the West Coast. Considering deployment patterns, training requirements and likely emergencies, how many flights between say 20h00 and 06h00 can we expect in any given year? I am a normal human being and I suspect that I have enough fingers to count those.

And I am in full agreement with George: People that decide of their own free will to go live by an airport have no business complaining about noise. Besides, they likely benefited from a lower price on their dwelling because of the airport noise.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> It could have been worse, they might have jumped into the USCG SA366 G1 Dauphin contract!
> 
> Let's hope the final completion of the Cyclone contract encourages others to buy them so the parts supply is robust.



Cyclone is in competition for the German Sea King replacement.  Cross your fingers...

I always thought that we should get some commando variants to supplement the tac hel squadrons.  Wasn't there and option for 8 more helo's at some point?  Did that disapear when they reorg'd the contract?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That brochure is painful to read, they should shorten it to say: "Canada has already paid to fix the majority of the issues and you can piggyback on their pain"


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> I always thought that we should get some commando variants to supplement the tac hel squadrons.  Wasn't there and option for 8 more helo's at some point?  Did that disapear when they reorg'd the contract?



No, there was never that option.

The initial EH-101 purchase was for 50 aircraft, 15 for SAR and 35 for MH.  That was scaled back to the absolute minimum, to meet RCN CONOPs, of 28, during the election of 1993.  In effect, we peeled off any thought of having any for attrition.

There were staff papers during the SFCT period that suggested acquiring 12-15 extra aircraft in littoral maneuver (not commando) config.


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> No, there was never that option.
> 
> The initial EH-101 purchase was for 50 aircraft, 15 for SAR and 35 for MH.  That was scaled back to the absolute minimum, to meet RCN CONOPs, of 28, during the election of 1993.  In effect, we peeled off any thought of having any for attrition.
> 
> There were staff papers during the SFCT period that suggested acquiring 12-15 extra aircraft in littoral maneuver (not commando) config.



I'm assuming that littoral maneuver type are the pic on the right side.







Would that even be useful to the RCAF?  Assuming no "littoral" maneouver requirements would a mid lift helo be valuable for tac hel purposes?  Or just redundant with the Chinooks now online.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Using CFB Downsview, or say, Dwyer Hill, as model for precedents, I think I know who will win the coin toss, eventually...



Although houses were built up along the eastern side of Downsview, and we did get a few complaints from some of those twits, that was not the reason for leaving it.

Infrastructure was crumbling and there was no money for repairs or replacement (Bombardier may have still owned our hangar), the base was being closed anyway, and we were a long way from areas where we could fly tactically any more. It wasn't the houses around the base, but the ever-increasing ring of horse farms around the GTA.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I was suggesting the acquisition of more Cyclones to replace the Comorants. I know many people consider the Cyclone to be an inferior aircraft but we would gain back fleet commonality and economies of scale that might have been part of the original plan. Fond as the Canadian Forces are of running diverse equipment fleets.



For how long would we have to operate additional CH148 in order for the "fleet commonality and economies of scale" to catch up to the cost of buying extra machines?



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> I always thought that we should get some commando variants to supplement the tac hel squadrons.



For what benefit? What could they do that we cannot do with Griffon and Chinook?

If we are to add another type to the Tac Hel mix, it needs to be attack and/or reconnaissance.


----------



## Underway

Loachman said:
			
		

> For what benefit? What could they do that we cannot do with Griffon and Chinook?
> 
> If we are to add another type to the Tac Hel mix, it needs to be attack and/or reconnaissance.



Just asking the question.  Why do you have blackhawks in other armies?  There's obviously a role for a medium helo in the mix as there is an itch that can't be scratched by Heavy and light general purpose helos.  Cyclone could fill that role perhaps.  It can carry a nice amount of pers (20sih)with equipment and could be deployed off any ship for arctic ops, disaster relief, SAR, SOF, resupply, cas evac.....  And do you really think that Griffons truely fit the bill for SOF with their light loads to carry and limited ability to evacuate casualties amoung other things.  More options isn't that bad of an idea, esp if we already have them in the inventory for the shipborne helo job, its not like the schools and supply system isn't already preparing to recieve them.

But I agree if the money on more helo's is to be spent it should probably be on more for the MH variant so we have more than the minimum required.  And then go out and get recce/attack variants.


----------



## Loachman

Black Hawk and Griffon both fall within the Utility category, but obviously not at the same ends of the scale. Griffon is inadequate in the utility role. UH1Y would be nice as a replacement, complimented by AH1Z for commonality. AH64 is still seen as the gold standard, though.

One can dream, but we're going to be stuck with Griffon for a bunch of years to come, with no significant upgrades likely.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that littoral maneuver type are the pic on the right side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that even be useful to the RCAF?  Assuming no "littoral" manoeuver requirements would a mid lift helo be valuable for tac hel purposes?  Or just redundant with the Chinooks now online.



No, that is not a littoral maneuver config, that is an MH in the utility / administrative lift config.  We bought 28 of those (we bought the seat kits for all aircraft).

A littoral maneuver config would not have the radome under the nose, possibly have a nose mounted radome for a weather radar, move the EO/IR higher, possibly enhanced self defence, remove the torp racks for weight, remove the avionics rack at the front of the cabin, swap the ESM/RWR for just an RWR, possibly remove the haul down, upgrade the hoist and/or add a second, give consideration to limited CSAR, etc, etc, etc

Loachman has already covered your second question.

Commonality, in my _opinion_, is overrated; I'm not sure of where the savings come from as the mission sets need to be trained differently.  Especially in MH, flying the aircraft is much easier than being able to fight the aircraft.

In the last few months alone I've heard people mention once we get the Cyclones we can use them for:
SAR
CSAR
Coast Guard
Commando
ISR
Where do the training hours come from?  Where do the readiness hours come from?  We are already a "broad but shallow" skill set; is the RCN willing to accept that in our two primary roles (surface and sub-surface; ie enable the ship to deliberately go in harms way) we will be less capable?  The RCN doesn't seem able to provide the appropriate readiness and training opportunities now.

We need to get the MH Cyclone on the line and get started; at that point we will be in full regeneration mode, and it will take time.


----------



## CycloneMech

Baz - I was wondering the same thing myself especially regarding the "Commando" variant......How to rig a para-cable (like the Lab had), or would live para be only free fall.

Interesting question don't you think?


----------



## Baz

CycloneMech said:
			
		

> Baz - I was wondering the same thing myself especially regarding the "Commando" variant......How to rig a para-cable (like the Lab had), or would live para be only free fall.
> 
> Interesting question don't you think?



Theoretical question: sure.  What are the requirements for a Commando variant:
- para line down the center
- enhanced guns, on at least three sides
- extremely enhanced electronic self defence
- ... and a bunch of things I have no idea what they would be as it is so outside my lanes...

MH-60R is a _Maritime Helicopter_, for inner and outer zone defence, surface and subsurface (primary roles of the Cyclone), that can be striped out and do some littoral maneuver support (like the Cyclone) but is limited by all the expensive stuff hanging off it (like the Cyclone) (same for Merlin HAS).
MH-60S is a general fleet support helicopter (replacing the Navy CH-46s), including force SAR, that has some ability to do littoral maneuver _support_.
My _understanding_ (as it is not my area of expertise):
- UH-1Y is a littoral maneuver _utility_ helicopter
- Marine CH-46 is a littoral maneuver medium helicopter
- Osprey replaces the CH-46, but also has the ability to do deep insertion
- Marine CH-53 is a littoral maneuver heavy helicopter
- Air Force "Pave Lows" (either 60s or 47s) are Commando helicopters, but the Marines use their existing fleets to support that role

My point: again, the helicopter isn't the sole factor; arguable more importantly is how you train the crews.


----------



## CycloneMech

<----------Quotes T'ealc fromStargate  "INDEED"

Para-cable.....I was thinking more likely down the left side of the helo.....going out the center or right puts one close to that nasty whirly thingy called a tail rotor  

"Enhanced guns"...oooooooooo.....careful....there's a SENSO  or two that'll make a mess of themselves over THAT!!!

"Enhanced electronics".....hmmm.... have a feeling that the ACSOs and SENSOs are going to have their hands full for the next 7 - years.


----------



## Loachman

Baz said:
			
		

> Commonality, in my _opinion_, is overrated



I share your opinion.

It was one of the (many) lies told during the Griffon acquisition programme.



			
				CycloneMech said:
			
		

> Baz - I was wondering the same thing myself especially regarding the "Commando" variant......How to rig a para-cable (like the Lab had), or would live para be only free fall.



Griffon has a ring which mounts on the cabin floor. This is for training purposes only (ie, when Hercs and C17s are unavailable). There is no tactical situation that I can see where any sane person would advocate para from a helicopter into a real live operation. Such would do nought but guarantee a fiery death for all.

And loads of posthumous medals.


----------



## Baz

CycloneMech said:
			
		

> <----------Quotes T'ealc fromStargate  "INDEED"
> 
> Para-cable.....I was thinking more likely down the left side of the helo.....going out the center or right puts one close to that nasty whirly thingy called a tail rotor
> 
> "Enhanced guns"...oooooooooo.....careful....there's a SENSO  or two that'll make a mess of themselves over THAT!!!
> 
> "Enhanced electronics".....hmmm.... have a feeling that the ACSOs and SENSOs are going to have their hands full for the next 7 - years.



Thing is, if it was a Commando version, I would expect that there would be no TACCO (ACSO) or SENSO (AESOP) on board... but there would be FEs as crew chiefs and (somebody?) as gunners.

Editted to add: I am an ACSO, and I see no reason why we'd need me or a sensor operator on a special forces lift aircraft (which at the end of the day is what a "commando" helicopter is).  Using an ISR or Airborne Battle Management platform to support those lift platforms is a different story...


----------



## CycloneMech

I doubt FEs.........chances are if that scenario would occur, the lads in black would probably stage from a FF or DD, maybe an AOR.

Pretty well bet an ACSO or SENSO........


----------



## Baz

CycloneMech said:
			
		

> I doubt FEs.........chances are if that scenario would occur, the lads in black would probably stage from a FF or DD, maybe an AOR.
> 
> Pretty well bet an ACSO or SENSO........



Right, but that isn't exactly what we are talking about:
- if it was configuring the Cyclone in the administrative lift config to support the "commando" role "come as you are," then it would be the normal crew, and only those ad hoc modifications we could do and approve quickly.  Emphasis on "come as you are:" we are not trained or equipped for it
- but if it is acquiring or modifying Cyclones to de facto be "commando" aircraft, then it wouldn't be ACSOs or AESOPs

Edited to add: and if it was using the latest Sea King or Cyclone as a "come as you are" "overwatch" (ISR and/or Battle Management) I would bet there is a good chance we would politely be asked to vacate our two seats in favour of an "operator" liaison on the radios and an "analyst" also provided by them.


----------



## CycloneMech

True that.........Maybe I misunderstood your point.

Using the default "Utility" configuration would work for that, and then utilize whomever would be designated as cabin crew to watch over the pax.

As far as the training for the other.......that will probably come in time as we all figure out the capabilities and limitations.

Anyway....GREAT chat........gotta jet for le souper.

Cheers All!!


----------



## Infanteer

Baz said:
			
		

> (somebody?) as gunners.



Army soldiers with long term taskings to a THS.


----------



## Loachman

Not likely for shipborne helicopters, methinks. The Sea Kings did not have such in Somalia.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks all, Baz, especially, for an informative discussion.


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not likely for shipborne helicopters, methinks. The Sea Kings did not have such in Somalia.



...meh...before AFG, Tac Hel didn't have dedicated door gunners either...if there's a requirement, I'm certain that some of the Bos'ns on a NBP can get the requisite training to operate the C6.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...meh...before AFG, Tac Hel didn't have dedicated door gunners either...if there's a requirement, I'm certain that some of the Bos'ns on a NBP can get the requisite training to operate the C6.



Good God, man! Have you ever met a bosun? 

I joke, I joke...

Actually, if we ever get in a situation where we need more door gunners than the standard one , ship trades trained in a secondary role might not be a bad fit on Cyclone. Bosuns can generally be trusted with firearms...


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, if we ever get in a situation where we need more door gunners than the standard one , ship trades trained in a secondary role might not be a bad fit on Cyclone. Bosuns can generally be trusted with firearms...



I don't think it will come to that.  If we are in come as you are admin lift config then our console will be out, and we'll do it.

If we acquire dedicated commando mods (which I'm not advocating, we already have them, they're called Chinooks) it wouldn't be part of the ship or manned anyway the same.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz- just treating this whole thing like a thought experiment. You can never predict what things will look like, 25 years down the road....


----------



## Infanteer

Question:  When a Maritime Helicopter guy says "Commando" variant, in Army speak is that a "Troop/Cargo" variant or a "SOF" variant?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Administrative troop lift, we can do both with the Sea King and the Cyclone.

Assault work? Neither. Not because either airframe can't handle it (although one questions the wisdom of risking a $100 million dollar helicopter to lift 20 troops), but because we do not have enough, time, money or crews to train to level required.


----------



## Baz

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Question:  When a Maritime Helicopter guy says "Commando" variant, in Army speak is that a "Troop/Cargo" variant or a "SOF" variant?



I can't speak for MH guys as a whole (we don't normally talk about a commando variant as its not in our mission set), but as I laid out earlier in this thread yesterday the way I separate them is:
- MH: primary for surface and subsurface; can be stripped out and used as "admin list" or "utility"
- Littoral maneuver: USMC UH-1Ys, CH-46s, CH-53s, Ospreys; UK Sea King Mk8 (actually called a commando variant); meant for troop/cargo ship to shore and ground force support; requires different training to do effectively than what MH types routinely get.
- Commando: "SOF like" aircraft like "Pave Lows;"  Marines don't have specialized platforms and use there littoral maneuver aircraft, but it's a different skill set for the crews.  I'd include CSAR in this category, even though it is a further specialization.

That's why to me MH can come as you are to *basic* littoral maneuver, but would need training time and expertise to get all the way to commando... and openly laugh when people suggest we can "Come as you are" to CSAR...


----------



## Kirkhill

Peanut Gallery here. And further to Infanteer's question

When using the word Commando - is it used in the American sense? All high tech gadgets and bells and whistles to support a small number of troops.  Or is it used in the British sense?  Regular troops using regular kit but selected and trained to a very high standard?

I was under the impression that the Sea King HC4, the Commando, or Junglie, was a particularly austere aircraft. Basically a barn slung under a rotor capable of lifting 28 troops.  And that was used for both administrative (Royal Marine and Fleet Vertrep) and tactical movements, including fast-roping onto the objective.

I also was under the impression that one of the reasons the Cyclone had a tail ramp was not so much to permit rapid exits by troops but to permit a lot of the high tech gear, shown in  the left hand images above, to be rapidly removed and to leave space to carry those 20 troops.






http://www.eliteukforces.info/images/gallery/helicopters/seaking-royal-marines.jpg

Edited to add supporting documentation


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And I am in full agreement with George: People that decide of their own free will to go live by an airport have no business complaining about noise. Besides, they likely benefited from a lower price on their dwelling because of the airport noise.



OGBD, that still won't stop them from complaining.  As a squadron duty officer one evening years ago, I received an after hours noise complaint from a concerned citizen in Ottawa.  He was adament that it was a military helicopter making the noise (at around 0200) and he wanted something done about the thoughlessness of the military for the citizens in his neighbourhood.

It turns out that the concerned individual lived on a side-street immediately off Carling Avenue, about 200m from the Ottawa Civic Hospital's medevac helipad.  A verification of Ottawa International's control tower radio logs indicated it was the Ornge medevac helicopter.  Since the Commanding Officer was away, I drafted and signed a response letter to the complainant noting that DND takes noise complaints very seriously, and that although it was not a CF helicopter that had caused the disturbance we had identified the offending aircraft and the noise complaint file had been forwarded accordingly to the Ontario Ministry of Health in Toronto.  Unbenkownst to me, it turns out that the complainant was a physician who had a part-time home-based practice in close proximity to the hospital and was not at all appreciateive that we (DND) had forwarded his complaint to the MoH.   :'(

G2G


----------



## George Wallace

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Unbenkownst to me, it turns out that the complainant was a physician who had a part-time home-based practice in close proximity to the hospital and was not at all appreciateive that we (DND) had forwarded his complaint to the MoH.   :'(
> 
> G2G



LOL!


----------



## Good2Golf

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Question:  When a Maritime Helicopter guy says "Commando" variant, in Army speak is that a "Troop/Cargo" variant or a "SOF" variant?



Infanteer, I was reading "Commando" exactly as Kirkhill refers, a.k.a. "Junglie", the Westlands Commando variant of the SK.  Thus, the Canadian 'Commando" eqvt (Block 1.1?-ish) would be doing what Baz has described as Littoral Manoeuvre.  As Baz also points out, there are some platforms that, with a large enough skid pallet of LPS for 'poor man's corrosion control', could support LitOps.  Doing math on some publically available specs indicates some RCAF assets could move 20-ish bodies 400+km out from shore.  It all depends on what policy supports such an activity.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Baz

I don't think we'll be doing littoral maneuver for a long time, if ever, we call it OOFT (operations over foreign territory) and its really administrative lift.

I want to stress to terminology I'm using isn't doctrine, its just me trying to describe the three different "levels" of "from the sea" ops.

So, to move away from the term commando and littoral maneuver:
- MH: maritime warfare
- amphibious lift: troop/cargo ship to shore
- SOF incl CSAR

I want to also stress that doesn't preclude on MH trying to do CSAR; however, you aren't equipped or trained to do it properly, therefore you take more risk.  It's the Commander's prerogative and responsibility to accept that risk.

Kirkhill: the ramp on the Cyclone was a freebie; the airframe only comes in a config that has it, it was never spec'd.  It does come in very handy to get all that stuff in and out.  The extra seats were not originally spec'd, but were added (not for free) later on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for that Baz - 

With respect to Littoral Manoeuvre in general, after reading both RPP 2015-16 and DAG 2015 and finding no reference to anything that looks like a BHS anytime before 2036 I can understand your position.

On the other hand there is some opportunity for small scale LM with the AOPS domestically (Platoon scale, Company scale if a pair of AOPS were employed and the Company were reduced) and also some Company scale expeditionary work with the AORs.

The other outlier, with respect to LM, is the CSC programme and whether or not it will incorporate some Absolon type capabilities in some/all of the hulls.   A CTG could then be expected to lift and deploy a Lt Bn Task Gp.  

But all of that depends on how much Jointery the CAF and its Barons are willing to accept.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> Edited to add: and if it was using the latest Sea King or Cyclone as a "come as you are" "overwatch" (ISR and/or Battle Management) I would bet there is a good chance we would politely be asked to vacate our two seats in favour of an "operator" liaison on the radios and an "analyst" also provided by them.



Just a quick question; why would you vacate your seats for a few riders?  Is it a space/seats issue alone or something else?  Just wondering, if you were doing ISR who would be smashing the buttons?

We take 'riders' along but I've never seen them displace a crew member, but we have a bit more room for them compared to you guys.  They look over our shoulders.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

We don't have loadies or FEs, so even in an admin lift of troopies in the back of an MH, you need some combo of ACSO/AESOp in the back to fill the "flight attendent" role of crowd control/ making sure everyone is safe.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just a quick question; why would you vacate your seats for a few riders?  Is it a space/seats issue alone or something else?  Just wondering, if you were doing ISR who would be smashing the buttons?
> 
> We take 'riders' along but I've never seen them displace a crew member, but we have a bit more room for them compared to you guys.  They look over our shoulders.



Again my (albeit relatively well informed) _opinion_.

I hate the term ISR (and I helped to staff the current definition of it in NATO).  It doesn't mean anything, because everyone has a different understanding of what it does mean: surveillance and reconnaissance (but supporting ops or int?), intelligence collection (and PED), a fusion of those three concepts, MAJIIC, the right info to the right person at the right time, airborne battle management, etc???  I do know the term came into vogue because of marketing by companies promising to solve all those problems for you...

So what part of ISR do you mean?  By the way, ISR is not in our CONOPS, SOI, or SOR; SRO (surveillance and reconnaissance ops) is a supporting air operation, but our two primary roles are surface and sub-surface _warfare_; ie enabling the ship or TG to go into harms way against viable threats as a reactive vehicle.

What I do know, is that in some ways we could (but not necessarily will) support certain types of ops it is easier to train someone to "smash" the buttons then it is to train us to understand what they are trying to accomplish, so we should have a thought process that is open to understanding that may be the best way to do it, especially since we only have two screens.  We would still be onboard the aircraft to perform "other aircrew duties as assigned" and assist them.


----------



## Underway

The Cyclones are comming the cyclones are comming!!

And here are the first 6.

Copied from CBC.



> Canada's aging Sea King helicopter fleet has begun to be phased out after the Canadian Forces accepted six CH-148 Cyclone helicopters today outside of Halifax.
> 
> Defence Minister Jason Kenney said the new aircraft is "bigger, faster and more efficient," than the more than 50-year-old Sea Kings.
> 
> Kenney, Public Works and Government Services Minister Diane Finley and Justice Minister Peter MacKay made the announcement at the 12 Wing Shearwater airbase outside Halifax Friday
> 
> The plan to replace the Sea King choppers — which fly from the decks of Canadian warships — is years behind schedule, at least $200 million over budget and beset with technical glitches.
> 
> The government announced last summer it had finally signed a renegotiated contract with helicopter-maker Sikorsky for 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters at a cost of $7.6 billion.
> 
> Kenney took the opportunity to criticize Jean Chretien's Liberal government for cancelling the original program in 1993, to the tune of $478 million in penalties.
> 
> "We should have been at this point many, many years ago," said Kenney. "We're back on track."



So does this mean they are going on deployments shortly?  Are they going to be used for real work?  Or are we not quite there yet and still need to work through the TTP's etc...?  

I'm a bit fuzzy on the airforces implementation timelines.  I understand that the C-17 went right to work but we had the advantage of US training and assistance to pre-prepare the flight crews.  A MH is a little more complicated I would think, especially in getting a handle on the new capabilities and training up the ships crew and flight crew on how to best employ them.


----------



## CycloneMech

It'll be a while yet.  As you indicated, the C-17 world had the advantage of the USAF experiences operating that airframe in various environments for a number of years before we acquired them. The Cyclone crews (air and ground) need to develop and flesh out what can and what cannot be done over the next few months, basically pushing the limits of the envelope beyond what has already been determined. I think "Baz" can probably jump on this one a tad more accurately than me.

Thoughts?


----------



## Baz

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=989279

" The aircraft being accepted today will be based at 12 Wing Shearwater and are being used for training and testing with Canadian Armed Forces personnel."

Basically the acceptance allows us to start Operational Test.  It's not really about expanding the envelope, that's AETE testing; which wiill be part of Block 1.1 and Block 2 deliveries.  Its about ensuring everything is in pkace (procedures,tactics, training etc) to start conversion training (moving people from 124 to 148 for dets) safely and effectively, and measuring the resultant capability for the Commander.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Politics, speeches, delays and all that aside...it was nice to see this happen today; I am on leave and was watching live stream on the PC.

BZ to everyone in the MH world for pushing on thru, and hope to hear of the first Block 'X' CH-148 deploying ASAP.

Any chance one might be seen on TGEX?  We will be there to play...


----------



## yoman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any chance one might be seen on TGEX?  We will be there to play...



I've been hearing rumblings about it happening sooner rather than later...


----------



## cupper

So…

Clear something up for me. Are they actually in Shearwater now, or have they only been accepted at the assembly plant and will be moved onto testing before delivery to Shearwater.

And if they are already in Shearwater, why not have them on display during the announcement?


----------



## yoman

cupper said:
			
		

> So…
> 
> Clear something up for me. Are they actually in Shearwater now, or have they only been accepted at the assembly plant and will be moved onto testing before delivery to Shearwater.
> 
> And if they are already in Shearwater, why not have them on display during the announcement?



They are in Shearwater and they were on display during the announcement...


----------



## cupper

interesting. CBC online didn't show any photos from the event, and only used stock photos taken during tests earlier in Halifax.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canada-finally-gets-replacements-for-sea-king-copters-one-problem-they-may-not-be-powerful-enough

I hope someone in this particular lane can speak on this.


----------



## cupper

Another article I read indicated that the press asked questions about meeting the minimum 30 minute flight time on a dry gearbox as well.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any chance one might be seen on TGEX?  We will be there to play...
> [/quote
> 
> TGEX this year?  No, the OT&E crrws aren't ready for thst yet.
> 
> Next week will be busy with the start of OT&E flying and hosting TRINATS though...
> 
> As for the other questions (gearbox, engine power), they're not in my lanes; if they are an issue it's an Ottawa issue as far as I can tell.
> 
> Perdonally, I think its been a great week.  The yardsticks were advanced on three things I've been working on for a long time early in the week; and at the end of the week the Wing was given the keys to six aircraft


----------



## CycloneMech

CBC didn't show footage because they have a camera crew on-site for this particular dog n' pony show. There are some new stills though.  CTV had a full crew.


----------



## CycloneMech

cupper said:
			
		

> Another article I read indicated that the press asked questions about meeting the minimum 30 minute flight time on a dry gearbox as well.



The "30 minute run dry" requirement was dropped due a change in the MGB design and that, disregarding the crash of Cougar 191 off St John NL, the odds of that scenario occurring are extremely remote. The crash of Cougar 191 was caused by a failure of the titanium mounting studs for the MGB oil filter assembly.  See the attached link below. 
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09a0016/a09a0016.asp


----------



## dapaterson

Canada's new helicopters wil be a Lockheed Martin product.  Lockheed is buying Sikorsky for $9B (US).

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/20/lockheed-martin-strikes-9m-deal-to-buy-helicopter-maker-sikorsky-black-hawk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=chocks-away/icdjny1q

*Notice how long it took from the flight to the release by the PAO and this is on a major PR item*

Chocks away!
   
News Article / July 21, 2015

By Second Lieutenant Dawn O’Connor

Five aircrew from 12 Wing Shearwater’s Helicopter Operational Test and Evaluation Facility (HOTEF) made history on June 22, 2015, when they took the newly accepted CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter on its first flight as an air asset of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF).

The six Cyclones, accepted by Defence Minister Jason Kenney on June 19, 2015, are based at 12 Wing Shearwater, Nova Scotia, and will be used for training and testing with the RCAF. In their final configuration, the CH-148s will be capable of a full range of anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, search and rescue missions, and utility taskings in various environments, and will be among the most capable maritime helicopters in the world

“I think it’s fair to say we’re pretty excited,” Major Travis Chapman, HOTEF commanding officer and tactical coordinator for the first Cyclone mission, said before the flight. “We are ready for the task at hand and are looking forward to commencing the operational test and evaluation (OT&E) program in the coming weeks.”

The HOTEF pilots and crew flew aircraft tail number 820 on this milestone flight. It was a proficiency mission, aimed at refreshing aircrew and pilots who had completed the Cyclone initial cadre training program training this spring.

The testing and evaluation facility provides timely and effective operational testing and evaluation, leads tactical development, and executes acceptance test flight duties on behalf of the maritime helicopter community. HOTEF’s world-class operational test and evaluation team will lead the maritime helicopter community into the future through the safe and effective introduction of the Cyclone weapon system.

“There was a lot of anticipation for this flight and it took a lot of hard work at all rank and trade qualification levels to make it happen,” said Major Kirk Baltussen, flight commander and pilot for the first flight, and deputy commanding officer, HOTEF. “Because of the success of the hard work and preparation, we were able to quickly shift our focus to the task of building our proficiency as a crew. We conducted a variety of training from specific piloting skills to using the mission systems and executing utility training.”

“Needless to say,” he added, “it was very exciting to be a part of the first all-RCAF crew to fly the CH-148 Cyclone.”

OT&E on the Cyclone Block 1 will run until early 2017. It encompasses a wide range of maritime helicopter missions, including flight operations from land and sea. These operations can take place day and night (with night vision goggles, as required) in utility evolutions, search and rescue, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare disciplines.

“We have invested a great deal of time, energy and resources into the Cyclone, and although it will continue to evolve in the coming years, it is important to start the operational testing now,” Major Chapman said. “I have every confidence the Cyclone will mature into the world-class maritime helicopter Canada deserves.”


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just throwing a stupid question here for all those people out there who want the Navy to get rid of the VICTORIA class boats: How would you train and maintain the proficiency of the Cyclone's crew in ASW then, Eh?


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just throwing a stupid question here for all those people out there who want the Navy to get rid of the VICTORIA class boats: How would you train and maintain the proficiency of the Cyclone's crew in ASW then, Eh?



[semi-smartass response]

Contract the Chilean or Spanish Navies for their SSKs? 

[/semi-smartass response]


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we could also rent this


----------



## cupper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just throwing a stupid question here for all those people out there who want the Navy to get rid of the VICTORIA class boats: How would you train and maintain the proficiency of the Cyclone's crew in ASW then, Eh?



We could do ASW training in the Baltic, the Black Sea, north of Norway. 

Sure to be a training target rich environment. Maybe we could even figure out what it was that was sneaking around in Swedish & Finnish waters last year and earlier this year. 

And wouldn't create any issues that I can foresee.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [semi-smartass response]
> 
> Contract the Chilean or Spanish Navies for their SSKs?
> 
> [/semi-smartass response]



Touché!  ;D


----------



## dimsum

cupper said:
			
		

> We could do ASW training in the Baltic, the Black Sea, north of Norway.
> 
> Sure to be a training target rich environment. Maybe we could even figure out what it was that was sneaking around in Swedish & Finnish waters last year and earlier this year.
> 
> And wouldn't create any issues that I can foresee.



I'm sure the Aurora crowd would love to get in that as well out of Andoya, but imagine the amount of $ for TD and ships/aircraft tied up for that.  Last time visited Norway, I remember it wasn't exactly cheap.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> *Notice how long it took from the flight to the release by the PAO and this is on a major PR item*



It was in the Trident 13 Jul, on the front page. http://thechronicleherald.ca/tridentnews/flippingbook/trident-july-13-2015

Seems to me there's no real story here, and the press knows it.  We accepted the airplane, like we said we would.  We are getting on with making it work, like we said we would.  As we get the crews and the aircraft meshing, it will become what it needs to be, like we said we would.

I thought it was cool 'cause I was in a Sea King doing work facing 820 as it taxied.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just throwing a stupid question here for all those people out there who want the Navy to get rid of the VICTORIA class boats: How would you train and maintain the proficiency of the Cyclone's crew in ASW then, Eh?



Main plan is to use the sims... hopefully we'll get some boat drivers at some point over.

Something we're working through is how to do proper Joint training that way.  That's why there is work going on right down to bring all the Maritime assets (RCN and RCAF) together on the Ex Net.  Hopefully in the near future we can bring back the Wed wars.  I'd love to see the Frigates plugged in along side with the Ops Room and bridge manned.  We also need White Cells, Red Cells, Green Cells, Blue Cells...

... and of course culminate it all with TG level exercises at sea; but at that point you should be focusing on Joint C2, not individual skills.

My  :2c:


----------



## Sub_Guy

Baz said:
			
		

> Main plan is to use the sims... hopefully we'll get some boat drivers at some point.



The boat drivers will have to be educated on the system capabilities (ASW tracking).  I have no idea how the cyclone will employ passive tracking but the new system is an amazing piece of kit.  I seriously think submariners are oblivious to what the new system brings.  It is a game changer.   The old "you found us because we wanted you to find us are gone".


----------



## CycloneMech

I'll almost BET that the Cyclone crews are going to be fairly "closed-mouth" about the capabilities of the new passive systems. No point in giving away the entire store before we get a chance to explore it fully.

What do you think there Baz?


----------



## CycloneMech

Going back to the short-ish discussion about training with subs, I am wondering if there are some Project 636 or Project 877 boats available to play with.  "They be SNEAKY buggers."


----------



## Sub_Guy

CycloneMech said:
			
		

> I'll almost BET that the Cyclone crews are going to be fairly "closed-mouth" about the capabilities of the new passive systems. No point in giving away the entire store before we get a chance to explore it fully.
> 
> What do you think there Baz?



I would expect nothing less, this is a new realm for the MH crews.  The LRP crews have had their mitts on the new system for a while now, hopefully the experience gained will be shared, so we can get on with it.


----------



## Baz

CycloneMech said:
			
		

> I'll almost BET that the Cyclone crews are going to be fairly "closed-mouth" about the capabilities of the new passive systems. No point in giving away the entire store before we get a chance to explore it fully.
> 
> What do you think there Baz?



We don't talk about certain things to most people, including most in our own community.  This was true on HELTAS, mostly true on the 'A's, and more true on Cyclone.  And its not just capabilities, and its not just passive.


----------



## Baz

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I would expect nothing less, this is a new realm for the MH crews.  The LRP crews have had their mitts on the new system for a while now, hopefully the experience gained will be shared, so we can get on with it.



Hopefully we can figure out what should be the same, what should be different, and get on with it...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Baz said:
			
		

> We don't talk about certain things to most people, including most in our own community.  This was true on HELTAS, mostly true on the 'A's, and more true on Cyclone.  And its not just capabilities, and its not just passive.



You mean like "Jezebel"? Unless you were a priest or minister referring to the Old testament, just uttering that word in a Halifax bar would get you arrested in the 60's.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from CP, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....


> Canada's air force must speed up crew training and the delivery of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters in the next two years to avoid a shortage as five decade old CH-124 Sea Kings are finally retired, says a senior defence official.
> 
> A senior defence official has told The Canadian Press they are looking at ways to do both, starting next year.
> 
> Concern that the Sea Kings may be phased out faster than the Cyclones have the equipment to be fully capable of replacing them has been around since the former Conservative government announced last June that the old helicopters would be slowly retired by 2018.
> 
> The Sea Kings fly off the decks of warships and there is fear that some Canadian naval vessels might have to go to sea without helicopters.
> 
> The possibility that the Sea Kings would be pulled out of service faster than they can be replaced is something defence planners are scrambling to mitigate, said the senior official with knowledge of the program.
> 
> "We're looking at ways to accelerate the training process to make sure we have enough aircrew available to man the aircraft. And we believe we will," said the official who was not authorized to speak to the media. "We're also looking at having an accelerated delivery of some aircraft in the 2016-17 time frame to give us more aircraft on the ramp in (Canadian Forces Base) Shearwater."
> 
> Only four of the 1960s vintage airframes have been retired thus far and the official could not commit to a specific timetable on when the rest would go. The official did say, however, that the decommissioning program was not on hold.
> 
> The 28 Cyclones have faced repeated development delays since being ordered in 2004 and are not expected to be fully operational on both the East and West Coasts until 2021.
> 
> There are six aircraft at Shearwater, with another two on the way before the end of the year.
> 
> Documents, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws, show that in addition to ensuring an overlap between the fleets the road to retiring the Sea Kings will be bumpy.
> 
> Many of the setbacks relate to the development of the sophisticated software for the Cyclones that runs everything from flight controls to weapons systems and the documents show defence officials believe not all of the bugs will be worked out by the time the aircraft is declared fully operational.
> 
> The software is being introduced in two blocks. The first phase allows the helicopter to fly in a limited capacity including search and rescue, and the second tranche will bring the aircraft up to the full warfighting, submarine-hunting version.
> 
> "While Block 2 represents a fully functional, operationally relevant Maritime Helicopter, there is insufficient time within a realistic schedule to inject all remaining Maritime Helicopter Requirement specification elements," said a Nov. 28, 2013 planning document. "Accordingly, it is anticipated that certain capabilities will need to be added during the in-service support (regular maintenance phase), which nominally begins post-Block 2 delivery."
> 
> The significance was downplayed by the official who insisted that by the end of the second phase the air force will have the helicopter it ordered in 2004.
> 
> One of the significant changes the Harper government allowed was to deem the Cyclone a developmental program, much like the oft-maligned F-35 stealth fighter. That means, as opposed to expecting a fully completed helicopter, the government was willing to accept the risk and delays associated with the trial and error of development.
> 
> The official said National Defence believes it has been able to mitigate the risk and the program is on track.
> 
> But defence analyst Dave Perry, of the Global Affairs Institute, says the problem of training highlights that project delays are not just an accounting nuisance and they have real consequences.
> 
> "On this project, that schedule has been continually slipping further into the future since 2008, which must be presenting a complete nightmare for the RCAF that needs to figure out when it can actually stop training people to operate the Sea Kings and start learning how to use the Cyclone," he said.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The way things are going, there will be a shortage of ships to fly off of.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

*Milestone flight for Cyclone helicopter*

News Article / February 22, 2016 

By Sub-Lieutenant Patrick McCarthy

Just off the coast of Nova Scotia recently, the sun shone on a milestone achievement for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CH-148 Cyclone helicopter project.

The first Cyclone helicopter, fully manned by Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) personnel, successfully landed on a Canadian warship at sea on January 27, 2016. Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Halifax, the ship on which the first Cyclone landing occurred, has been involved with CH-148 testing and training for the past year.

HMCS Halifax began “ship helo operating limits” (SHOL) trials in January 2015 and spent five months working with the Cyclone helicopter conducting tests and trials in order to determine operating limits and best practices for the new helicopter. Recommencing SHOL trials in January 2016, the crew of Halifax were happy to [be] a part of this milestone flight for the RCAF.

“This milestone achievement represents a great step forward towards full integration of the Cyclone helicopter into [Royal Canadian Navy] operations,” said Commander Graham Roberts, the commanding officer of HMCS Halifax. “Halifax has been extremely impressed with the capabilities of the Cyclone over the past year and we look forward to continuing to work with helicopter at sea in the coming months.”

Aircrew and ship’s crew shared similar sentiments. Captain Thomas Munro of 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, located at 12 Wing Shearwater, Nova Scotia, was the landing signals officer for the first landing. He said he was excited to be a part of the ongoing integration of the Cyclone helicopter and noted: “This week was an excellent opportunity for pilot force generation and an important milestone in the maritime helicopter project.”

Personnel at the Helicopter Operational Test and Evaluation Facility (HOTEF) at 12 Wing have been working very hard to ensure milestones such as this one are achieved.

“The CH-148 Cyclone landing on HMCS Halifax is a tangible representation of the hard work and foundational effort the Helicopter Operational Test and Evaluation has invested since acceptance of the aircraft. The HOTEF continues to lead the introduction of the CH-148 weapon system by proving the operational capabilities of the aircraft and its in-service support structure,” said Major Travis Chapman, the HOTEF’s commanding officer.

HMCS Halifax will continue to operate with the Cyclone helicopter fleet for the remainder of the winter, conducting SHOL trials and furthering the ongoing integration of the Cyclone helicopter into naval operations. 

Sub-Lieutenant McCarthy is a member of HMCS Halifax’s crew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

good job to all involved


----------



## CBH99

Colin P,

I was thinking that same thing the other day.  When we first started to acquire the Cyclone, I was thinking that 28 helicopters was such a small number that it wouldn't be enough.  (The government of the day did order the absolute bare minimum required, if I'm correct.)

But now, with the way things are looking - I share your thoughts.  At this rate, there may very well be a lack of ships to fly them off of.


----------



## jmt18325

Well, between the frigates, the Resolve, and the AOPS (I know it won't always carry them) there's 18 - 19.


----------



## Baz

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Well, between the frigates, the Resolve, and the AOPS (I know it won't always carry them) there's 18 - 19.



That's not how it is calculated, because ship's in low readiness don't have dets; plus there needs to be ones for training and maintenance.

12 Wing is organized for 15 det equivalents in 11 dets.  That means there are 15 aircraft deployable, but 4 of the dets are two helo dets.   If you do the standard 1 in 4 out the door, it means you can get 1 two helo dets and 2 single continuously, plus a 3 single helo most of the time.

That is where the true numbers come from... to keep two available in a Task Group you need four serviceable,  which means 5-6 embarked.  The numbers let you be able to keep a Task Group available to surge.  Sort of... it's more complex due to the x ships in xx days, y ships in yy days, etc...

Put another few in maintenance, and retain some for training, and you get 28, the minimum.  35 was the original number, to allow for attrition.

However it won't be helos or decks that is the LIMFAC for quite a while, it will be personnel.  In the core sea going trades 12 Wing is currently manned at approx 6 dets, which will be impossible to maintain through transition.  The pipeline will take a while to regen from that.

As well, some of the core det REMARs have been "borrowed" to support trades, some of which were "lost" to CFB Halifax and Shared Services Canada,  so they are short REMARs.   The hope is the size of the maintenance det will shrink to accommodate the difference. 

So the Navy has some time to regen decks while 12 Wing builds up manning... the real worry is it doesn't be one a race to the bottom!


----------



## CBH99

Baz,

I know the potential for this answer to be long is high, and I don't want to ask anything that will cause you to fall asleep out of boredom just by typing it.

But you had mentioned various factors, re: manning and organizational issues, regarding the force generation for the CH-148.  Is there any way you can elaborate (Just a bit) on what you mean?

For example, when you say 12 Wing will need some time to build up manning?

I was under the very wrong & simplistic idea that the old Sea Kings would be swapped on a 1 for 1 basis with the new Cyclone as the new airframes came online.  (It's never that simple though, is it?)


----------



## Sub_Guy

All this news about the Cyclone.  I will get excited when we have choppers with a mission suite.


----------



## Baz

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> All this news about the Cyclone.  I will get excited when we have choppers with a mission suite.



They have a mission suite; unfortunately it's suffering from some serious issues; quite a few of them are different takes of the same issues Block III suffered from.

Full disclaimer: I am involved in the delivery of the mission suite.  However, I also had been working on the transition to Cyclone well before I retired... literally since last century.

I do hear what you're saying... but almost everyone agrees 12 Wing needs to start the process... it's going to take some work, and not just the mission suite.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> ... were happy to [be] a part of this milestone flight...
> 
> ...The HOTEF continues to lead... the HOTEF’s commanding officer.



Good pickup adding the "be," but the "the HOTEF's" in the article drove me nuts...


----------



## Baz

CBH99 said:
			
		

> But you had mentioned various factors, re: manning and organizational issues, regarding the force generation for the CH-148.  Is there any way you can elaborate (Just a bit) on what you mean?
> 
> For example, when you say 12 Wing will need some time to build up manning?



It's not just 12 Wing, it's all of them to varying degrees; the RCN is also suffering from similar issues.  The details are different but the theme is the same (it's why when Canada was thinking of the Mistrals my plan was to use them as training ships for a couple of years).

The Wings are FG pipelines, there is a continuous flow of people out the back, to other postings and releases, so there needs to be a continuous flow in the front, through the training squadron and then the ops squadron for advanced FG.  The stated highest priority for 12 Wing is FG, and if you read between the lines, for the RCAF as a whole.  12 Wing has some particular challenges as advanced FG is dependant on the RCN providing sea time.

This shouldn't come as no surprise : it's easy to argue that the Allies number one priority in Jun 44 was FG, even as the assault divisions were crossing the beach.  By Mar 45 all the line units were feeling why...

Two things have created the particular issues for MH:
- waiting for the (on paper) more effecient Cyclone pipeline to start; and not keeping Sea King O&M high enough because "Cyclone is right around the corner"
- blowing the FG stagger for Operation Apollo in the early 2000s

When I first started (finished the OTU at 406 Dec 92) we had around 10-12 det equivalents in 8ish dets.  Now they've officially dropped below 5, although holding at 6 has been problematic for a while.  As I said, the establishment is for 15 in 11.

However, it's worse than that... all three squadrons had robust standards, readiness, and ops cells, which also provided depth of manning to the dets.  We actually kept a small manning pool in readiness.  As well, 406 was more robustly manned (although for back enders maintaining the two aircraft types, A and B, was biting), as was Wing Ops.  All of that was centralized and made smaller in or around 2005 by Op Transform, in order to free up pers for transition.  But it was done too early (to be more precise, delays set in), and  those extra pers were whittled away.

The abortion that started as SCTF also bit into the FG, and planning model, especially for the back end crew.

Unfortunately all of this hasn't resulted in a robust HOTEF either... when I retired last fall they were really at 3 crews (1.5 dets) plus overhead, although I hear they've bulked up.  When I was in HOTEF on OJT in 90-91 we were the same (EH-101 was "coming"), and when I was there in both 98-00, 06-07, and 09-11 the manning was always about the same.

12 Wing Mission Support and Ops Support are also a pressure on manning, and will need to bulk up over time.

So, it us imperative that the 1.1 acceptance goes well, they pull of a mini miracle with OT&E, and they get the pipeline started.  Once they can bulk up the whole issue of capability development becomes easier...

Ediited to add: I remebered a quote from a recent article that illustrates the challenges of FG, albeit from a diffeent fleet.  Ref Espirit De Corps Volume 23 Issue 1 Feb 16 page 3: '... the acquisition o fthe fleet of Chinooks was a rare procurement success in that Boeing deliver the 15 choppers on time and on budget.  In fact, the rapid rate of delivery has to date outpaced the RCAF's ability to train qalified Aircrew.  "At present we have eight and a half trained crew," said 450 Squadron Commander...'


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Once the Cyclones are in service I think you find retention a bit easier, less frustrations keeping the Sea Kings going "just a bit longer" , that would get tiring year after year.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> Once the Cyclones are in service I think you find retention a bit easier, less frustrations keeping the Sea Kings going "just a bit longer" , that would get tiring year after year.



Probably yes, but it isn't the main pull out the back end.  The reality I've witnessed is get your 3-4 year ops tour, then maybe a 3-4 year training or other Wing tour, so that we can post you to Winnipeg, Ottawa, or maybe even the Expeditionary Wing in Bagotville.

It often felt the whole purpose of the Wing was to provide that back end flow, not to fly helicopters...

A little different for the maintainers, but a certain amount is just "flow."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> maybe even the Expeditionary Wing in Bagotville.



 :boke:



> It often felt the whole purpose of the Wing was to provide that back end flow, not to fly helicopters...



Not a feeling limited to MH line Sqn's, if that is any comfort...


----------



## macknightcr

Curious to see how the Cyclone project is going to affect newly winged aircrew coming in to the community.  There is a lot of talk concerning careers being stalled for 2-4 more years after receiving ones wings.  

Baz, do you have any insight in to what is happening with the new ACSO's and Pilots being sent to Shearwater or Pat Bay?  Or are these individuals the start of building up the manning within the squadrons?


----------



## Baz

macknightcr said:
			
		

> Curious to see how the Cyclone project is going to affect newly winged aircrew coming in to the community.  There is a lot of talk concerning careers being stalled for 2-4 more years after receiving ones wings.
> 
> Baz, do you have any insight in to what is happening with the new ACSO's and Pilots being sent to Shearwater or Pat Bay?  Or are these individuals the start of building up the manning within the squadrons?



I released in Oct and it's a moving target right now, so anything I did say would just be conjecture.  But yes, I think there will be issues.

However, in my experience in the last few years, careers were generally more important than the right people in the right places.  As we talked about in this thread, the pipe has got to keep flowing or it breaks.

On some good news, however; there are two Cyclones at sea right now doing trials! 

*Link removed IAW site policy*

Edited to add: my apologies, I wasn't aware... unfortunately I don't have another link to the pictures.


----------



## CougarKing

Sigh...

Canadian Press



> *Deck mishap damages miltary's new Cyclone helicopter during testing*
> 
> Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
> 
> March 8, 2016
> 
> HALIFAX - One of Canada's new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters had to be winched off a ship after a small piece tore off while it was being parked, an unexpected problem that sent engineers back to the drawing board.
> 
> Access to information documents say a metal ring on the helicopter's nose snapped as crew tried to get it lined up for a tow into a hangar originally designed to hold the vintage Sea King helicopters that are being phased out.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

You have a habit of selectively picking parts of an article that 'sensationalize' your post, and leaving out other little important facts such as...



> The incident — which wasn't noted in any news release — occurred during testing last year before the former Conservative government announced on June 19 it had accepted ownership of the choppers.
> 
> The helicopter was owned by Sikorsky at the time, and a spokesman for the company says the firm took the decision not to fly the aircraft as a precaution and the issue was rapidly repaired.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Does anyone have any ideas what the schedule looks like to see the Cyclone come into service?

Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## Baz

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any ideas what the schedule looks like to see the Cyclone come into service?
> 
> Thanks in advance, Matthew.



It's funny, I know it, but I'm not sure enough to to quote it...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any ideas what the schedule looks like to see the Cyclone come into service?
> 
> Thanks in advance, Matthew.



Define "service".


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Define "service".



Medium Lift Helicopter / Tactical Transport?


----------



## Baz

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Medium Lift Helicopter / Tactical Transport?



Um... never.

... and I know you were being sarcastic, but I figured I'd cut off others.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Medium Lift Helicopter / Tactical Transport?



It would be like using an AWACS as a passenger hauler....


----------



## Loachman

That would be great. They could turn that smartie into a revolving restaurant.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, what did you expect from soldiers who see the primary duty of the Air Force or Navy as being truck driver to haul the Army everywhere. They just can't stand us having anything that can't be used to carry paratroops or a landing force.

Worse thing is they don't even have real trucks for themselves to get their arses over to the airfield or harbour  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, what did you expect from soldiers who see the primary duty of the Air Force or Navy as being truck driver to haul the Army everywhere. They just can't stand us having anything that can't be used to carry paratroops or a landing force.
> 
> Worse thing is they don't even have real trucks for themselves to get their arses over to the airfield or harbour  ;D



No fun in trucks.  Everyone has one.... except the army. [


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Define "service".



"Taking over responsibilities from the Sea Kings."


----------



## Baz

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> "Taking over responsibilities from the Sea Kings."



The information at http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/maritime-helicoper.page is still correct and describes the  situation better than I can... from the FAQ:

Quote
The first Cyclones will reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2017 and will have an ability to perform a range of warfighting capabilities in a threat environment. The Royal Canadian Navy will be ready to embark and operationally deploy Cyclone detachments on ships at that point.

The Cyclone will deploy to various exercises for testing in 2016. 

Ultimately it is the decision of operational commanders (in this case, the Commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy) as to which aircraft and ships will deploy together. 

/Quote

Two aircraft have been at sea recently doing trials; here's Montreal's Facebook page https://m.facebook.com/HMCSMontreal/posts/1109351009098183


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Awesome....thanks Baz.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest via CBC.ca:


> The country's air force is now projecting it will be 2025 before its long-suffering CH-148 Cyclone helicopter fleet is fully up to speed with all of the aircraft, pilots and ground crew needed for deployments — both at home and overseas.
> 
> The date for what's known in the military as Full Operational Capability (FOC) will be almost 21 years after Paul Martin's Liberal government signed a contract with U.S. defence giant Sikorsky Aircraft to deliver 28 state-of-the-art maritime helicopters.
> 
> It will also be seven years after the last of the vintage CH-124 Sea King choppers is scheduled to retire after flying for over five decades.
> 
> The timelines were released to CBC News as part of research into the country's defence policy review.
> 
> ( ... )
> 
> The last report on major Crown projects, tabled in the spring, said the Cyclone project would be completed and closed out in 2022 ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

to be a bit fair, whoever would have thought that Sikorsky would have bunged up so badly on their design, when they created the niche in the first place.


----------



## Lumber

I can understand how a poor tendering process can cause long delays in actually getting equipment. I don't like it, and I don't want to accept it, but I understand it.

What I do _not_ understand is how you can have a signed contract and still have procurement take this long.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> I can understand how a poor tendering process can cause long delays in actually getting equipment. I don't like it, and I don't want to accept it, but I understand it.
> 
> What I do _not_ understand is how you can have a signed contract and still have procurement take this long.



Government of the day (Martin's Liberals) split the acquisition (Sikorsky) and mission systems (General Dynamics) and the contracts made minimal provisions for who would actually lead (i.e. be responsible for) _integration_ of the two.  Integration remains the long pole in the tent.  While Sikorsky and GD are certainly actors on the stage, the playwright was and remains Canada, in Right of the Queen.  Canada need look no father than the end of both arms to determine with which appendage they should point to/at...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

So the RCN will be sailing with marinized tactical transports until they get all the boxes in the back to work together?  All they need is some more space on board ship to stow muddy boots.   >


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Government of the day (Martin's Liberals) split the acquisition (Sikorsky) and mission systems (General Dynamics) and the contracts made minimal provisions for who would actually lead (i.e. be responsible for) _integration_ of the two.  Integration remains the long pole in the tent.  While Sikorsky and GD are certainly actors on the stage, the playwright was and remains Canada, in Right of the Queen.  Canada need look no father than the end of both arms to determine with which appendage they should point to/at...
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Understood, but it still took far too long to get bare-bone cyclones without the mission fit. If we we're happy to start getting a few equipment-less cyclones and wait a bit longer for the equipment, why didn't we the first batch in 2008 (or even 2010? 2012) instead of 2015.


----------



## FSTO

Every time I see a Merlin flying off the deck of an RN ship........................words cannot convey my anger at Jean Chretien...........


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> Understood, but it still took far too long to get bare-bone cyclones without the mission fit. If we we're happy to start getting a few equipment-less cyclones and wait a bit longer for the equipment, why didn't we the first batch in 2008 (or even 2010? 2012) instead of 2015.



A business-minded person might think that once Sikorsky hit the maximum level of liquidated damages, they might hive (correctly) thought that any further delays come with no additional penalty, and the milestone payments for each airframe were probably written off by the shareholders to future years....i.e. no real (i.e. monetary) incentive to get them done any faster than would deliver the end product in final configuration.  :dunno:


----------



## CBH99

I guess all we can do at this point is hope that future governments learn from this fiasco as a glaring example of how NOT to procure equipment.  Other countries can look at this & learn from it also.

Procure proven equipment that is in service with other countries.  Period.  We don't have the economies of scale to justify going down these roads on our own.


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A business-minded person might think that once Sikorsky hit the maximum level of liquidated damages, they might hive (correctly) thought that any further delays come with no additional penalty, and the milestone payments for each airframe were probably written off by the shareholders to future years....i.e. no real (i.e. monetary) incentive to get them done any faster than would deliver the end product in final configuration.  :dunno:



A business-minder person might think that if a company failed so greatly and so blatantly to meet it's contractual commitments, it would suffer significant damage to it's credibility and share price. Shouldn't that be incentive enough for them?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ah but this is the defense industry, they are the "Chosen ones" everyday rules do not apply.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Why *going it alone* isn't always the best way.  I HOPE we remember these lessons when we look for a new MPA.  :waiting: 

Here's an example of doing it right, or at least, _better_.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/nh90-nfh-asw/

_In June 2000, the participating countries signed a contract for the production of 243 NH90s: France 27 NFH, Germany 80 TTH (with an option on a further 54), Italy 46 NFH and 70 TTH, and the Netherlands 20 NFH. Germany converted 42 options to firm orders (30 TTH for the Army and 12 TTH for the Air Force in June 2007. The first series production TTH helicopter made its maiden flight in May 2004 and the first NFH in August 2007. The French Army ordered an additional 34 NH90 TTH helicopters plus 34 options to replace its aging Puma helicopters. The French Navy placed orders for 27 NH90 NFH helicopters to replace its Lynx and Super Frelon helicopters.

First deliveries of the NH90 took place on 13 December 2006, when three TTH transport helicopters were handed over to the German Army following German type certification.

Deliveries of the TTH to Italy began in December 2007. The Italian Navy received the first NFH helicopter in June 2011.
_


----------



## Kirkhill

Blood from stones

https://www.ft.com/content/ddc3f7b6-c8bf-11e4-b43b-00144feab7de



> The western military market is now in a downturn, and this is a factor behind plans unveiled this week by United Technologies Corporation, the elevator and aircraft engine maker, to spin off Sikorsky, its helicopter business.
> 
> Modernisation programmes for the helicopter fleets of the US army and marine corps — the world’s two most important customers for rotorcraft — have been shelved because of budget cuts and the wind down of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
> 
> “The basic problem with the US helicopter market is that the leading customer, the US military, lacks the funding to modernise,” Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, says. “Sikorsky has made a series of bets on future military rotorcraft but, at the moment, the army and the marine corps simply don’t have enough money to buy many helicopters.”
> 
> Meanwhile, helicopter orders from energy companies — which for several years filled the gap created by declining military sales — have fallen off sharply after the oil price plunge since last summer made expensive offshore oil exploration and production less attractive.
> 
> This combination of weak military and civilian demand for helicopters has forced Greg Hayes, UTC’s new chief executive, to recognise a longstanding issue, according to Richard Aboulafia, analyst at the Virginia-based Teal group. While other UTC businesses — such as Pratt & Whitney, the aerospace engine maker — supply kit to outside companies that fit the equipment into a finished product, Sikorsky is alone in the group as a systems integrator.



Followed by 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/november/151106-lockheed-martin-acquires-sikorsky.html

If Sikorsky was profitable it wouldn't have been bought by Lockheed Martin.

The Cyclone/Fly By Wire programme is, I believe part of Sikorsky's financial problem.   In the past, perhaps, they would have expected new programmes to allow them to bury their development costs but in the absence of those programmes - no cash flow.

My guess anyway.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> A business-minder person might think that if a company failed so greatly and so blatantly to meet it's contractual commitments, it would suffer significant damage to it's credibility and share price. Shouldn't that be incentive enough for them?



 ???

Failed "so greatly?"  The delay damages weren't even a single percent of annual revenue and absorbed over a few years, also less than 1% of EBITDA...


----------



## CBH99

I don't think "failed so greatly" was meant in that the company was a failure.  And with the amount of work Sikorski does on both the military & civilian sides, 28 airframes isn't exactly going to make or break them.  I think we can all agree on that.

I think it was meant in the sense that they "failed so greatly" to deliver a working product in a timely manner.  

Granted that our political processes don't make it easy for companies to do business with us.  But even if our procurement system was streamlined and efficient, there still isn't an excuse for Sikorski to not have an operational product after this long.  After all, I'm pretty sure Sikorski marketed the Cyclone as being just that when the decision was made.

As bad as the political decisions were, I'm pretty sure even the Liberals at the time would have bought something else if Sikorski said "Yeah, this is just a concept & it still needs a lot of work."


----------



## Good2Golf

Two things: 1) Sikorsky was getting into the USMC CH-53K program for Billions and Billions and Billions of USD-worth of big helicopters for the US Marines; and 2) Canada was still under Chretine's edict of anything but an EH-101.  He was pissed off enough that DND snuck the AW101-511 (aka CH-149 Cormorant) in as setting other than an EH-101, but there was no way he was going to allow (and he still had boatloads of influence over the LPC) to procure an EH-101 again.  That left S-92 variant, NH-90 variant and the Eurocopter (now Airbus) H225.  H225 was seen to have msn sys limitations (rightly or wrongly), leaving S/H-92 and NH-90, both of which had fly-by-wire flight control
systems.  Personally, I think the government knew full well that H-92 (mil-spec S-92) was a significant re-design, and there was lots of frustration amongst the NH-90 partner nations, so between that, and the P'tit Gars standing behind Paul Martin Jr., whilst smacking a baseball bar into the pa of his open hand to ward off any I'll-considered last-minute attempts for EH-101 round 3, the -92 was how it went down.  In perspective, it may seem like a big thing to us, but to the US, it's pretty much te thickness of a paint line on the asphalt...it ain't even a speed bump in their business...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Going by the stuff I hear about the NH-90, we may be glad we stuck with the Cyclone.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NFHs are flying now in their intended role though...and not just since yesterday.  I've been in the same airspace as them.  Can't say the same for our Cyclone.   :2c:


----------



## MarkOttawa

At _Defense Industry Daily_:



> CH-148 Cyclones: 4th Time Lucky?
> 
> What did Canada’s military give up on for v4.0 of the program?
> 
> November 7/16: A Canadian CH-148 Cyclone has conducted its first anti-submarine warfare testing
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=another-first-for-the-ch148-cyclone-helicopter/iutm5yf0
> 
> with the HMCS Windsor off the coast of Nova Scotia. The Sikorsky-made naval helicopter was tested as part of its Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) carried out by the Helicopter Test and Evaluation Facility (HOTEF). Crews onboard the CH-148 employed Expendable Mobile ASW Training Targets (EMATTs) to simulate submarine movements and noise patterns, which allowed HOTEF crews to further develop those tactical procedures that will be used by operational crews following CH148 Release to Service...
> 
> Canada’s Maritime Helicopter Replacement Program has been a textbook military procurement program over its long history external link. Unfortunately, it has been a textbook example of what not to do...
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely not news to those involved even remotely, but now public
http://www.news1130.com/2017/04/07/air-force-grounds-cyclone-military-helicopter-fleet-after-issue-during-descent/  

HALIFAX – The Royal Canadian Air Force has grounded its fleet of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters after one of the naval choppers encountered a “severe bump” during a training flight — the latest delay in a project years behind its original delivery date.

Col. Peter Allan, commander at the 12 Wing Shearwater air base, said the problem corrected itself during a descent and the pilot safely landed the aircraft with no damage during a night flight near Halifax on March 9.

However, the glitch prompted a freeze on flying as of March 12, and the Air Force is investigating with the help of aircraft manufacturer Sikorsky.

The Air Force also temporarily grounded the Cyclones in January to check for potential tail rotor problems following an incident on a North Sea oil platform involving a civilian version of the helicopter.

Allan said the latest problem isn’t related to the tail rotor.

He said the Cyclone crew described feeling a “a severe bump on the underside of the aircraft.”

“There were a couple of flight control system advisory lights that illuminated in the cockpit,” he said.

A spokesman later indicated these included the “automatic flight control system advisory” and the “primary flight control system degraded advisory.”

To date, 11 Cyclones have been delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force, of which three are operated for testing and evaluation.

The existing fleet of aging CH-124 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters will continue to provide maritime helicopter support for the Royal Canadian Navy.

Doug Baker, a spokesman from the Maritime Helicopter Project, said he won’t have a definite time when the fleet will fly again until the root cause of the incident is determined and potential fixes are identified.

He said the grounding means that flight testing is delayed, and that further delivery of helicopters from the Sikorsky plant before the summer will be on hold.

However, Allan said it’s too early to predict if the problem will mean a delay in the Sikorsky helicopters being available for operational service.

In the meantime, technicians and air crew will continue training and flight simulators will be in use, he said.

The previous Liberal government signed a contract with U.S. defence giant Sikorsky to deliver 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters by 2008. The program has faced delays and technical challenges, resulting in two contract extensions.

Baker said after almost a month there is no result from the investigation of the latest issue.

“However … the nature of the incident was very momentary,” he said. “It was something that didn’t exist once the aircraft was on the ground. It makes it difficult to isolate, duplicate and determine the root cause.”


----------



## suffolkowner

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/royal-canadian-air-force-cyclone-helicopters-sikorsky-1.4060801

Further to the post above, 11 in service, 2 ready for delivery and 2 in production. I thought we would be ahead of that delivery schedule wise


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> To date, 11 Cyclones have been delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force, of which three are operated for testing and evaluation.


----------



## The Bread Guy

In a related story, the Indian Navy may be able to take our old Sea Kings off our hands once the Procurement Borg has its' crap sorted out ...


> To meet the urgent helicopter requirement of the Indian Navy, India is expected to discuss acquiring Sea King CH-124 helicopters during the coming visit of Canada’s defence minister Harjit Sajjan. Speaking to FE on condition of anonymity, sources said: “At this time Canada is in the process of decommissioning four of its Sea King CH-124 helicopters. These four have very little hours of flying logged in, and four that were decommissioned last December were recently upgraded.” The helicopters, though being decommissioned, are still in condition of being flown.
> 
> “The Indian Navy has Sea King helicopters that have reached the end of their lives and are constantly being upgraded. The Indian side is likely to talk about these machines as these could bridge the gap and to support the depleting Indian Navy fleet as the acquisition process for new helicopters is not making any headway,” they added. Several procurement processes under various categories of helicopters, naval utility, multi-role helicopter (MRH), naval multi-role helicopter (NMRH), are all stuck due to re tendering or blacklisting of AgustaWestland ...


----------



## MilEME09

I'm pretty sure Very little flight hours and Sea King do not go together in this country.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Our average Sea King has about 16,000 hrs.

There are Sea kings doing heli-logging on the west coast with 45,000hrs on the airframe.

Now, going to sea and bouncing them off the deck of a ship does them no favours, but Igor Sikorsky way over built them.

For the record, I would much prefer to see the Indians buy a bunch and keep them flying, rather than see them crushed for scrap metal.


----------



## jmt18325

I thought we needed new helicopters because they were finished?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There is a lot more to a helicopter than the airframe.

Engines. Gearboxes. Electrical systems. Avionics. Sensors. Safety systems.

All of that needs doing on our Sea Kings.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Now, going to sea and bouncing them off the deck of a ship does them no favours, but Igor Sikorsky way over built them.



Don't we wish that genius was still alive and running the show at the company. Maybe the Cyclone would have been on time and with a lot less bugs and bump along the way.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

He was in a class of his own, that for certain.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> He was in a class of his own, that for certain.



Cajones AND style!!! :nod:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So is Sikorsky still in serial manufacturing right now?  I'm assuming we'll continue to receive "unaccepted" helicopters which will later need a standardized upgrade later after they've worked out the defects?


----------



## NavyShooter

I should post that photo on the ADR the next time I'm on a ship....

"Flying stations, weather decks abaft the hanger are out of bounds...OFF CAPS....ON FEDORAS."


----------



## jmt18325

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is a lot more to a helicopter than the airframe.
> 
> Engines. Gearboxes. Electrical systems. Avionics. Sensors. Safety systems.
> 
> All of that needs doing on our Sea Kings.



I get that - but if it's worth it for them to buy, it might have been worth it for us to fix them.  I'm not convinced that the CH-148 will ever be delivered at this point.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> *To date, 11 Cyclones have been delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force,* of which three are operated for testing and evaluation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I get that - but if it's worth it for them to buy, it might have been worth it for us to fix them.  I'm not convinced that the CH-148 will ever be delivered at this point.



For a lot of reasons, I believe that ship has firmly sailed...


----------



## Spencer100

Well here is Sea King checking out the beach in Guam.   The locals are not impressed.

http://www.kuam.com/story/35105079/royal-canadian-navy-chopper-flies-low-over-tumon-bay


----------



## Rifleman62

And no Sea King Bunkers for the locals.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Colin P said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To date, 11 Cyclones have been delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force,* of which three are operated for testing and evaluation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have been delivered - sort of - but not really.
Click to expand...


----------



## suffolkowner

There's 4 more in the pipe for delivery this year as well.


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> There's 4 more in the pipe for delivery this year as well.



None of them are in a configuration that we ordered and paid for.  Are they even usable to us in the capacity we bought them for?  I'm concerned that they won't do the job we need them to.


----------



## suffolkowner

Well block two delivery is supposed to begin in 2018. Block 1.1 delivery will continue as will Sea King removal. If the bugs aren't worked out by 2018 we're going to have a problem


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Well block two delivery is supposed to begin in 2018. Block 1.1 delivery will continue as will Sea King removal. If the bugs aren't worked out by 2018 we're going to have a problem



That's what I'm worried about.  We don't have a contingency at this point.  The Liberals should never have bought a paper helicopter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Only eight years to go?  From Sept. 2016:



> Cyclone helicopters to reach full operating capability in 2025: DND
> _Long, tortured story of getting replacement for Sea Kings a 'case study' in how not to do it_
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-operational-1.3746627



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

And that is still a ridiculous (long) timeline.  The Cyclone project is a great study of how NOT to procure...well anything.  

If you want to read up some on a helicopter project that went well, read up on the NH90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) project that produced not only MH, but Army TacHel airframes as well.


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And that is still a ridiculous (long) timeline.  The Cyclone project is a great study of how NOT to procure...well anything.
> 
> If you want to read up some on a helicopter project that went well, read up on the NH90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) project that produced not only MH, but Army TacHel airframes as well.



You would prefer the NH90 over the AW101 or Cyclone?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's flying and has been for some time, and with more than 1 country in the army and Navy/maritime world.  I believe the timeline from concept to the first MH version being delivered was somewhere around 6 years.  So those 4 countries will have common parts, familiarity with the platform (it is NATO, so that's a good thing) and other benefits.  Meanwhile...we are still flying Sea Kings.

I'm no expect but...it likely would have been cheaper and we would have modern MH in the air, now.  Actually, a few years ago.  We don't have a single ASW-capable Cyclone AFAIK.  I can only image the ass-pain the MH aircrew have and will continue to go thru.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> You would prefer the NH90 over the AW101 or Cyclone?



I thought the Cyclone was a myth ...

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And that is still a ridiculous (long) timeline.  The Cyclone project is a great study of how NOT to procure...well anything.
> 
> If you want to read up some on a helicopter project that went well, read up on the NH90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) project that produced not only MH, but Army TacHel airframes as well.



Really? ???    The fact that "brochure" is actually in the filename should make one pause and contemplate...

Lessons Learned #1 in aircraft manufacture: Don't put a planned in-service year anywhere in the aircraft's name, i.e. NH90 > NH90+17 = NH2007

The Long, Sad Tale of Germany's Botched Helicopter Buy



> ...The initial prototype took off on its debut flight in 1990 and, in 2007, the first examples were ready for combat....



:2c:

G2G


----------



## Sub_Guy

"Stealth"?

I never once thought of the NH-90 as stealthy..


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Really? ???    The fact that "brochure" is actually in the filename should make one pause and contemplate...
> 
> Lessons Learned #1 in aircraft manufacture: Don't put a planned in-service year anywhere in the aircraft's name, i.e. NH90 > NH90+17 = NH2007
> 
> The Long, Sad Tale of Germany's Botched Helicopter Buy
> 
> :2c:
> 
> G2G



I picked the pic only because it listed both the Army and MH models.  I've never looked into the Army version, but the little I know about the MH all seems good.

As I said, they're already flying.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I picked the pic only because it listed both the Army and MH models.  I've never looked into the Army version, but the little I know about the MH all seems good.
> 
> As I said, they're already flying.



Yup...they went IOC only 22 years after project initiation...yay!  Using a similar timeline, Sikorsky could have until 2026 to get it right, so they could beat NH-90 by a healthy margin.

In the platinum category of fast procurement are Chretien's 2 x CL-604s, time from Contract Award to FOC...48 hours.  C-17 next, then everyone else.  Want more international examples?  EFA-2000...oops, there's that planned IOC year in name issue again, etc...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To be fair, no one would have expected Sikorsky to struggle so much to produce a marine ASW helicopter, when they for all intents and purpose invented the role.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yup...they went IOC only 22 years after project initiation...yay!  Using a similar timeline, Sikorsky could have until 2026 to get it right, so they could beat NH-90 by a healthy margin.
> 
> In the platinum category of fast procurement are Chretien's 2 x CL-604s, time from Contract Award to FOC...48 hours.  C-17 next, then everyone else.  Want more international examples?  EFA-2000...oops, there's that planned IOC year in name issue again, etc...
> 
> Regards
> G2G



My info was about 6-7 years from idea to flying.  Something like that.  Source;  Janes.  I had to research the NFH for a NATO ex RECCE briefing when I was doing my upgrade a few years ago.   :dunno:

I didn't look much into the green machine version...just knew one or a few of the 4 countries involved went with both the Army and MH versions.

But...maybe this is a very myopic assessment, the countries involved were flying them for ASW 2 years ago on a NATO ex.  I did the same NATO ex again very, very recently, and the Sea King was still flying off our CPF that was there to play.


----------



## Good2Golf

...and there are not just "two" variants.  There are 18 unique high and low cabin NFH, TTH, TTT, TTT/SAR, TTT/ASW configurations...for 14 nations.  Some nations have three or more sub-variants.  Hardly "2 jacks for all trades."  Some nations were only getting their helos in the mid-20-teens for an aircraft that started design in 1985.  Hardly the paragon of pristine helicopter development and fielding.

Re: 148 - For folks to believe that the Government of the day didn't understand that making a new aircraft, albeit one that looked externally similar to its civilian sibling, would be far from simple, but was well worth the "anything but the EH-101 again!" could be seen to be quite naive.  Cynical or not, I have a hard time believing that the 148 wasn't the result of the LPC's "anything to save face after an election promise" course of action.  Chretien's "Read my lips, no new 'elicopters" was simply an earlier version of Trudeau's "No F-35s"  In fairness to the young Sun King, at least he smiled when he made his promise.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I didn't look into all the configs (in detail), just the NFH.  NFH prototype (produced in Italy) was flying NLT Dec 1999.  First Italian Navy NFH made initial flight from Vergiate on 15 December 2005.  Netherlands
became the first customer to receive NFH version on 21 April 2010, with France following suit on 5 May 2010.  Maiden operational deployment by NFH version accomplished by Netherlands, which embarked one NH90 on frigate HrMs De Ruyter on 20 January 2013;  France declared NFH variant (Step A MOC) operational on 8 December 2011.

Granted, initial studies ('83-'84) to Dec '99 is a long time.  But, in the doc I have (19 pages) it seems most of the initial time wasted was finalizing 'who was in, who was out' (Canada had withdrawn before '83 according to my info).

Prototype ('99) to first NFH ('10) to first MOC and FOC still seem to be respectable timelines, IMO but...I'm a button-monkey, not a procurement guy.  But they're 4 years of operational flying ahead of us.  What was the date given for FOC on Cyclone...2025?

Don't get me wrong here though...I'd of loved to have worked co-op on MANTA with a 148 instead of a 124.  And I certainly feel for the folks in the MH world *living it*.


----------



## Good2Golf

I get that, EITS, honestly, I do.  But I am also wary when folks seem to bash on Canadian programs (that no doubt have their issues), while not taking as equally critical a view of other like programs.  148 is late...sure, but ask NATO nations if they were happy that a helicopter targeted for delivery in the 1990 never became IOC until the late-2000, early-20-teens.  The lopsided critical eye is the same on seized-rotor aircraft - F-35 is late....sure, but so to were Rafale, EFA 2000/EFA/Eurofighter/Typhoon, Gripen, Raptor, J-11, PAK-DA, etc..............

I know one thing, if I ever form an aerospace company to build aircraft, I'm sure as heck not putting the intended IOC year anywhere in the aircraft's name! 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I get that, EITS, honestly, I do.  But I am also wary when folks seem to bash on Canadian programs (that no doubt have their issues), while not taking as equally critical a view of other like programs.  148 is late...sure, but ask NATO nations if they were happy that a helicopter targeted for delivery in the 1990 never became IOC until the late-2000, early-20-teens.  The lopsided critical eye is the same on seized-rotor aircraft - F-35 is late....sure, but so to were Rafale, EFA 2000/EFA/Eurofighter/Typhoon, Gripen, Raptor, J-11, PAK-DA, etc..............
> 
> I know one thing, if I ever form an aerospace company to build aircraft, I'm sure as heck not putting the intended IOC year anywhere in the aircraft's name!
> 
> Regards
> G2G



1970 was a very good year.

MBT 70 (1963 to Never - although it did eventually lead to Abrams and Leo 2)

FH70 (1963 to 1978 - almost on time, same decade at least)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> There's 4 more in the pipe for delivery this year as well.



So that would make 15 deliveries by end of this year, of which likely 3 will remain in the test programs and 12 will be in hangars?   Wow.  That would make for an embarrassing photo for the Liberal Party.


----------



## YZT580

On the other side of the fence sits the Argus.  If memory serves me it was less than one year from conception to first flight and IOC occurred within another year.  And for those interested, we actually did by an interim aircraft to bridge the gap between the Lanc and the Argus; namely the neptune


----------



## FSTO

YZT580 said:
			
		

> On the other side of the fence sits the Argus.  If memory serves me it was less than one year from conception to first flight and IOC occurred within another year.  And for those interested, we actually did by an interim aircraft to bridge the gap between the Lanc and the Argus; namely the neptune



Those were back in the days when Canada actually took its defence responsibilities seriously. Today? Not so much.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> On the other side of the fence sits the Argus.  If memory serves me it was less than one year from conception to first flight and IOC occurred within another year.  And for those interested, we actually did by an interim aircraft to bridge the gap between the Lanc and the Argus; namely the neptune



725 days?  Birth of a Giant.

Of note, she was born from the Bristol Britannia.  "_On March 28, 1957, the first flight of the new aircraft took place, lasting seventy-five minutes. It had taken three years to reach this stage, and a long period of testing still lay ahead.  The first squadron to receive the Argus was 405, at RCAF Station Greenwood. Along with other aircrew and staff officers, the Squadron's crews had been consulted frequently at various stages of construction, and were delighted to welcome the first of the new aircraft on 1 May, 1958. The aircraft was officially handed over to Maritime Air Command on 17 May, which was proclaimed "Argus Day" at Greenwood._"

http://cp107argus.com/ArgusHistory/CP107History.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I get that, EITS, honestly, I do.  But I am also wary when folks seem to bash on Canadian programs (that no doubt have their issues), while not taking as equally critical a view of other like programs.



In retrospect, I likely focus on the fact the NFH is flying and I've watched it on IFF and EO circa 2015 in the Med and...well our new aircraft are grounded and...struggling.  Not exactly textbook unbiased thinking on my part...


----------



## Kirkhill

EITS:

I believe the disconnect you are having is that the NH-90 (ca 1983) is a closer contemporary to the EH101 (AW101, CH-149, Merlin ca 1977) than to the CH-148 which was contracted in 2004 with virtually a clean slate.  

We (Canada) had options.  We just wasted 20 years worth of effort.


----------



## rathawk

There is absolutely neither glee nor prophetic joy of any kind for me to be able to sit back now and say "I warned you this would happen by choosing a paper MHP solution".  In my view, it's a Trumpian "very sad" situation that we are now in but one that any intelligent person should not have expected back in 2004.  I'm certain that we'll learn to live with this Cyclone pig in a poke for a time; we've always managed to get by with faulty or half-assed gear in the past until we simply couldn't accept it any longer.  Good thing that the free world does not have to rely upon Canada for its military capabilities.


----------



## Infanteer

I just ride in helicopters.

Did we go Tesla-powered Cadillac when we should have been looking at a Ford Focus?


----------



## Loachman

This is what the Chretien Liberals wanted instead of the EH-101 "Cadillac".


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I just ride in helicopters.
> 
> Did we go Tesla-powered Cadillac when we should have been looking at a Ford Focus  F250?



Maybe?


----------



## NavyShooter

Nope, we got sold an aircraft that existed on paper....and that we're the only user/buyer in the world for....

Orphan fleet.  Developed specifically for us.


----------



## Good2Golf

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Nope, we  (the Govt) got sold deliberately selected for political reasons an aircraft that wasn't the EH-101, the byproduct of which was getting  an aircraft that existed on paper....and that we're the only user/buyer in the world for....
> 
> Orphan fleet.  Developed specifically for us.



Some thoughts on that, NS, but the end result was the same.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We got briefed recently on how the MH world is transitioning from one platform to the other, maintainers and aircrew.  I feel for them, on both coasts.     They are going full tilt to maintain Dets with the 124 while also converting to the 148, and there is definitely some extra ass pain happening.  Definitely challenging times for the MH community.


----------



## Loachman

Every flying community goes through this over time. It is seldom easy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We got briefed recently on how the MH world is transitioning from one platform to the other, maintainers and aircrew.  I feel for them, on both coasts.     They are going full tilt to maintain Dets with the 124 while also converting to the 148, and there is definitely some extra *** pain happening.  Definitely challenging times for the MH community.



I would have thought they concentrate one airframe on one coast and the other on the other coast, until you have enough to start forming 2 fleets of the new machine on each coast?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would have thought they concentrate one airframe on one coast and the other on the other coast, until you have enough to start forming 2 fleets of the new machine on each coast?



They probably can't risk flying the Seakings across the country and the potential for multiple breakdowns in the process.   ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They probably can't risk flying the Seakings across the country and the potential for multiple breakdowns in the process.   ;D



We can, and do, routinely.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would have thought they concentrate one airframe on one coast and the other on the other coast, until you have enough to start forming 2 fleets of the new machine on each coast?



Something like that, ya.  Its not my community so I don't think I should be stating details but...from what I can gather, they're a REAL busy bunch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good article giving the current status of the aircraft

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/future-forward/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here's an even better one!   8)

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/future-forward/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would this be something we would consider for our Cyclones? http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile

PARIS — France successfully fired on June 21 for the first time the anti-navire léger, also dubbed Sea Venom, a helicopter-borne anti-ship missile, the French armed forces ministry said.

France and Britain are developing and building the ANL/Sea Venom in a bilateral program under the Lancaster house defense cooperation treaty.

This was the first development firing of the ANL on the Mediterranean missile test center of the Direction Générale de l'Armement, the French armed forces ministry said in a July 4 statement. The missile, which can operate in fire-and-forget mode and also with an operator in the loop, was fired from a Panther test bed helicopter flown by the DGA.

The missile will replace the British Sea Skua and French AS15TT anti-ship weapons, and is due to be fitted on the Royal Navy’s AW159 Wildcat and the French Navy’s Hélicoptère Interarmées Léger, MBDA said in a statement.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I believe the intent later on is to introduce some form of air to surface weapon with Cyclone.


----------



## Underway

With the VDQ getting ready to be first to deploy with a Cyclone embarked here's a well written article/initerview regarding where we are WRT the Cyclone project and including some of the differences in how we operate a MH vice our allies.

http://www.sldinfo.com/canada-and-north-atlantic-defense-the-coming-of-the-cyclone/

Maybe some of our less rotary challenged members could elaborate for us on the basic doctrine for helo usage in this case (ie retasking etc...) and how it differs from how other nations.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Underway said:
			
		

> With the VDQ getting ready to be first to deploy with a Cyclone embarked



I didn’t think we had full mission capable Cyclones with fully trained aircrew.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:
			
		

> With the VDQ getting ready to be first to deploy with a Cyclone embarked here's a well written article/initerview regarding where we are WRT the Cyclone project and including some of the differences in how we operate a MH vice our allies.
> 
> http://www.sldinfo.com/canada-and-north-atlantic-defense-the-coming-of-the-cyclone/
> 
> Maybe some of our less rotary challenged members could elaborate for us on the basic doctrine for helo usage in this case (ie retasking etc...) and how it differs from how other nations.



With some nations, their helo is literally an extension of the ship and not an independent unit capable of making its own tactical decisions- some of these helos do not possess an ability to process sensor info onboard their own helo and rely on direction from their ship's ops room.. In Canada's case, our Maritime Helicopters have always been employed in such a way that they are capable of making their own tactical decisions (within the established Comd hierarchy of the task group and within ROE, naturally), once they leave the deck.


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I didn’t think we had full mission capable Cyclones with fully trained aircrew.



VDQ is expected to deploy with a Cyclone next year (summer).  Whether that aircraft will have full or partial capability I don't know.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:
			
		

> VDQ is expected to deploy with a Cyclone next year (summer).  Whether that aircraft will have full or partial capability I don't know.



It will be capable enough...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is certainly the goal. It will make crewing the helicopter interesting....



MH is really going to be well-rounded from an "interesting job" point of view.  New ride, new sensors and cap's, and firings GPMGs off ramps and doors has to be more fun than man-handling active's into p-chutes.

The numbers of pro's is going 'up' to being on the MH side...wonder, are ex-LRP types allowed to wear their VPI patches at MH Sqns??   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> We aren't really established for routinely having a 5th crew member onboard.
> 
> Not that I can envision a scenario where, routinely, we fly around with a two gun setup.



There could be a semi-convincing argument for having a 'wet' and 'dry' sensor operator instead of just one...maybe in the future?  Then you'd have both guns crewed and the kit covered off.  Not that the AES Op trade is manned for it right now...but in the future...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> MH is really going to be well-rounded from an "interesting job" point of view.  New ride, new sensors and cap's, and firings GPMGs off ramps and doors has to be more fun than man-handling active's into p-chutes.
> 
> The numbers of pro's is going 'up' to being on the MH side...wonder, are ex-LRP types allowed to wear their VPI patches at MH Sqns??   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> There could be a semi-convincing argument for having a 'wet' and 'dry' sensor operator instead of just one...maybe in the future?  Then you'd have both guns crewed and the kit covered off.  Not that the AES Op trade is manned for it right now...but in the future...



Many ex-LRP AESOPs wear their VPI patches on MH Sqns.

The problem with a wet and dry sensor op is that there are only two work stations in the back and no room for another.

For better or worse, we are going to have to figure out how to manage the battle with a 4 person crew. Luckily, the helicopter largely flies itself, so one of the pilots can be freed up to also work a sensor.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Am I wrong in my assumption that the ACSO will also be trained in sensor operations?  

The NCM is only there to take the fall when things go south.   :stirpot:

The door gunner on the cyclone will get to see the nice parts of the world, and travel in style!


----------



## winnipegoo7

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Luckily, the helicopter largely flies itself, so one of the pilots can be freed up to also work a sensor.



Any guess as to which sensor the pilot would manage? Just curious.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Am I wrong in my assumption that the ACSO will also be trained in sensor operations?
> 
> The NCM is only there to take the fall when things go south.   :stirpot:
> 
> The door gunner on the cyclone will get to see the nice parts of the world, and travel in style!



The entire crew is going have to operate as a crew, interpreting sensor info, is my guess. Raising, lowering and operating the sonar is probably (I am not Cyclone trained) an AESOp only job, but I would guess passive acoustic, EO, radar and ESM interpretation will get shared around to whomever has the time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> Any guess as to which sensor the pilot would manage? Just curious.



See my post above. I don't believe "union rules" are going to work on this helicopter.

Anyway, we have drifted this thread off of door gunnery...


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The entire crew is going have to operate as a crew, interpreting sensor info, is my guess. Raising, lowering and operating the sonar is probably (I am not Cyclone trained) an AESOp only job, but I would guess passive acoustic, EO, radar and ESM interpretation will get shared around to whomever has the time.



The dome control is located between the TACCO and AESOP, but the sonar is next to the AESOPs seat, so the TACCO can't really see it raising and lowering.

The sonobuoy and tethered sonar OMIs are not available to the pilot.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Anyway, we have drifted this thread off of door gunnery...



True; Mods, can you move the Cyclone 'stuff' to this thread?

https://army.ca/forums/threads/35098.975.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The entire crew is going have to operate as a crew, interpreting sensor info, is my guess. Raising, lowering and operating the sonar is probably (I am not Cyclone trained) an AESOp only job, but I would guess passive acoustic, EO, radar and ESM interpretation will get shared around to whomever has the time.



Do MH Pilots & ACSOs do BPAAC, Triple-A-C coursing?  

I've never done MH, so this is a generalized comment;  IMO, for RMP/ASuW, you (and MH AES Ops) will probably find that the AES Op can handle RADAR and ESM quiet easily and EO as well.  When we are heading to and getting ONSTA, once the sfc plot is settled, 1 NASO can and does take RADAR/ESM/EO on their own (with what is most likely a bigger sensor horizon than MHs usually have, just by our altitude).  I've done ASW with 4 AES Ops total (2 wet, 2 dry);  with the 2 wet folks stuck in their seat the whole time, that left 1 dry guy for Ordinance and 1 to do RADAR/ESM/EOIR/MAD.  I set up the sensor seats and ran it for a few hours, then I put my B Cat on the rail, explained how/why I set things up the way I did, and then I went back to Ordinance for the second half of the trip.  It worked fine; not ideal, but the point is I think after people get comfortable with the sensors they'll realize that the bigger job may be analyzing the amount of data, not gathering it.  That might be the bigger task for the non-flying pilot, backing up the TACCO while the SENSO mashes buttons and feeds data into the DMS.

ASW - I don't see how the acoustic stuff is going to be shared based on my understanding of acoustics (very basic...enough to be dangerous and misleading probably).   With really decreased sensor horizons in the dip, at least the TACCO and non-flying pilot won't have to worry about a gazillion ESM hits and RADAR contacts.

Question - has the MH community considered getting current LRP line and training sqn reps down for any working groups happening, to get our take on things based on our Blk 3 experience?   We've done a significant amount of overland and maritime stuff the past few years;  getting some suggestions and face-to-face with people currently at 404, 405 might be of value.  

* I know the ship has already sailed on this, but man it would have been nice if there was 1 more station on the platform.  It would free the TACCO up from 'getting data' and allow him/her to think tactics and manage info.  I'd also like to win the lottery, if anyone comes along that can make the new MH platform come with a '5th seat'.   ;D


----------



## Baz

I know, this needs to move to a different thread, we war *way* off topic...



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Do MH Pilots & ACSOs do BPAAC, Triple-A-C coursing?



The pilot's do not have access to the native sono processor and sonar OMI; they only get the processed info like tracks.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Question - has the MH community considered getting current LRP line and training sqn reps down for any working groups happening, to get our take on things based on our Blk 3 experience?   We've done a significant amount of overland and maritime stuff the past few years;  getting some suggestions and face-to-face with people currently at 404, 405 might be of value.



Yes, more than once; I've personally been involved.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> * I know the ship has already sailed on this, but man it would have been nice if there was 1 more station on the platform.  It would free the TACCO up from 'getting data' and allow him/her to think tactics and manage info.  I'd also like to win the lottery, if anyone comes along that can make the new MH platform come with a '5th seat'.   ;D



Not just about the seat.  There is a simple answer; the MH isn't supposed to do as much as the MPA.  Before I put a fifth seat in I'd add TCDL and give some of it to the ship...  The crewing of the MH has been studied Ad Nauseam.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That is pretty much the answer.

A Maritime Helicopter is only crewed to do one thing at a time (despite some community opinion to the contrary).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Copy that.  

My question about the cross-talk came after reading the article linked  in this post , specifically this passage:



> Question: Moving from Sea Kings to Cyclones is bringing about a shift in cultures as well because of the technological shifts and the work flow shifts.  How will you deal with the culture change?
> 
> Colonel Sid Connor: “We have elements of our culture that we absolutely must maintain and we have elements of our culture that going forward we absolutely must drop. We need to figure out which is which and that will happen as we operate and shape lessons learned from our operations. We really won’t know the right answers until we operate and learn from those operations.  But culture change is clearly part of the challenge.



I was more curious if there was 'current line operator to current line operator' level talks;  'at the weed level'.  Good to know the communities are talking though;  I exist in a pretty small bubble and don't hear everything going on.  I've done more co-op with Cdn MH away from homeplate than 'local', which is strange considering how close the Sqns are on both coasts.

Also, from the same article:



> “We are doing exercises this Fall and next year which will help shape our thinking about load sharing within the helicopter in executing missions more effectively.  The first will be the Submarine Commanders Course and the next will be at RIMPAC 2018.”



Good luck to the crews!


----------



## Baz

> “We are doing exercises this Fall and next year which will help shape our thinking about load sharing within the helicopter in executing missions more effectively.  The first will be the Submarine Commanders Course and the next will be at RIMPAC 2018.”



I would check your DND sources wrt RIMPAC...


----------



## AirDet

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Many ex-LRP AESOPs wear their VPI patches on MH Sqns.
> 
> The problem with a wet and dry sensor op is that there are only two work stations in the back and no room for another.
> 
> For better or worse, we are going to have to figure out how to manage the battle with a 4 person crew. Luckily, the helicopter largely flies itself, so one of the pilots can be freed up to also work a sensor.


Do you really want a pilot running sensors?! Remember Johnny 5?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AirDet said:
			
		

> Do you really want a pilot running sensors?! Remember Johnny 5?



What voice do we have?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AirDet said:
			
		

> Do you really want a pilot running sensors?! Remember Johnny 5?



If they are trained to be a secondary, why not?  They could use RADAR in its basic functions, or slew EO onto a surface track, or monitor the plot for air tracks.  

The cultural change, that could be one of the big factors - but I can tell you, it's very manageable to run RADAR, EO and ESM all by yourself as a sensor type especially when you're low and slow.  I'd be insulted if we were cruising around at 2500' and someone asked me if I 'needed a hand'.   rly:   Down lower, we also have MAD in the picture and it's no big deal to manage all 4 really, unless you're in a crazy dense contact area, but even then you'll be moving slower than I'm used to so have more time to operate/analyze.


----------



## Good2Golf

AirDet said:
			
		

> Do you really want a pilot running sensors?! Remember Johnny 5?



Some pilots are quite capable of running on-board sensors when no ACSO or AESOp is on the helicopter.....ever.  

Perhaps 148 pilots could ask 147 pilots how to use state-of-the-art sensors like the Webcam MX-15HDi (and then adapt it accordingly to their own environment)?  ???

G2G


----------



## Baz

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Some pilots are quite capable of running on-board sensors when no ACSO or AESOp is on the helicopter.....ever.
> 
> Perhaps 148 pilots could ask 147 pilots how to use state-of-the-art sensors like the Webcam MX-15HDi (and then adapt it accordingly to their own environment)?  ???
> 
> G2G



One Sea King had a MX-15HDi on it (12416)....

In some ways EO is just an extension of the pilot's Mk-1 eyeball, which is arguably still the best sensor on the aircraft.  I would actually like to see a head tracker so the pilot can slew the turret to what he sees... like other aircraft already have.


----------



## Good2Golf

Baz said:
			
		

> One Sea King had a MX-15HDi on it (12416)....
> 
> In some ways EO is just an extension of the pilot's Mk-1 eyeball, which is arguably still the best sensor on the aircraft.  I would actually like to see a head tracker so the pilot can slew the turret to what he sees... like other aircraft already have.



I wouldn't say 'just', but an important part of...

Slewed...and queued...to key aircrew's (any aircrew with an HMD) attention to a sensor's track, if not slewed.  :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> One Sea King had a MX-15HDi on it (12416)....
> 
> In some ways EO is just an extension of the pilot's Mk-1 eyeball, which is arguably still the best sensor on the aircraft.  I would actually like to see a head tracker so the pilot can slew the turret to what he sees... like other aircraft already have.



That would be cool. And would end the perennial question from the back end over the ICS "which way are you looking"?

Example-

Pilot: Crew- feather in the water! CERTSUB!

Tacco: Where?

Pilot: Right over there!

Tacco: (getting angry) no, moron- give me a direction and estimated range....


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That would be cool. And would end the perennial question from the back end over the ICS "which way are you looking"?
> 
> Example-
> 
> Pilot: Crew- feather in the water! CERTSUB!
> 
> Tacco: Where?
> 
> Pilot: Right over there!
> 
> Tacco: (getting angry) no, moron- give me a direction and estimated range....



It was part of the reason the ASP camera had a place to plug it in up front... instead of the pilot saying there were a bunch of boats around you could just take pictures of them and get the bearing line in the back.  Wasn't well understood by the crews though...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It was taught well enough (at least to me)- it just never really came up in an operational setting before we stopped hooking the camera up and transfering photos in ASP.


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It was taught well enough (at least to me)- it just never really came up in an operational setting before we stopped hooking the camera up and transfering photos in ASP.



Why did you stop hooking it up?  I never got mub feedback then and even less now...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That would be cool. And would end the perennial question from the back end over the ICS "which way are you looking"?
> 
> Example-
> 
> Pilot: Crew- feather in the water! CERTSUB!
> 
> Tacco: Where?
> 
> Pilot: Right over there!
> 
> Tacco: (getting angry) no, moron- give me a direction and estimated range....



I wanted to use a smiley face but wasn't sure if you were joking... :Tin-Foil-Hat:

* if you're not joking, I can see if someone from our world can help you guys out with...stuff like that.   ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

To be fair, it does not happen often, but when it does, it is epically frustrating for us denizens of the aluminum tube, who sit sideways and do not have a window.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Picture from facebook of it doing hover refueling https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/33104654_1853969121328476_3072633987403874304_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=e7ba1e41c0bdfcb2b43c58ce23781867&oe=5B8F617E


----------



## SeaKingTacco

HIFR


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Short video:  Not sure if it is already posted here.

https://vimeo.com/236927416


----------



## garb811

What are the advantages to an inflight hot refuel, which I think is what they were doing at the end, compared to putting it onto the deck for a hot refuel?


----------



## winnipegoo7

garb811 said:
			
		

> What are the advantages to an inflight hot refuel, which I think is what they were doing at the end, compared to putting it onto the deck for a hot refuel?



I assume it is usually done for practice, but some real reasons might be:

The helicopter might not always be able to land on the flight deck. The helicopter could be damaged and unable to safely land. The flight deck could be damaged; there could be objects on the flight deck blocking the deck (rope, sea container, another helo);  the flight deck could be too small for the cyclone if it’s a different class of ship; and the sea state could be too rough for a safe landing. 

Also I think they do inflight hot refuels because the pilot might get wet while attempting an inflight cold refuel. 😉

*i included one joke in this post.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A few pictures from the RCAF FB page of the first CH-148 AirDet, with the RCAF Comd and CWO.

Article Link

There are also some pics on the VDQs FB page as well.


----------



## Loachman

My only attempts at deck landings were on severely reality-limited simulators with no peripheral vision, resulting in very few successful ones despite fairly mild (so it was claimed) sea states, but...

I've done a lot of hot refuelling on land.

The refueller has move in under the rotor disc to plug the nozzle in and remain there until refuelling is complete. A fire guard is also right up close, in the event of a leak - the nozzle separated from the hose while an AH64 was being refuelled hot several years ago, resulting in fuel being sprayed into at least one of the engine air intakes, almost immediate ignition, and complete loss of the machine but, fortunately, minor injuries.

Kiowa's fuel capacity was only 276 litres. Refuelling still took a while (although I never timed it). Larger helicopters take longer, obviously.

Trying to hot-refuel a helicopter on a pitching deck strikes me as a tragedy waiting to happen - rotors turning, major source of potential ignition in the event of a leak, personnel moving in close proximity and under the rotor disc, a large fire extinguisher that could roll or tumble, and the likely damage to the ship in the event of a catastrophic fire.

Picking up a flexible hose from a stable hover and then moving off to one side - and right over the world's biggest fire extinguisher - until refuelling is complete seems to be far quicker, simpler, and safer.

Operating over land was far more comfortable for *so* many reasons.


----------



## Baz

Loachman said:
			
		

> Trying to hot-refuel a helicopter on a pitching deck strikes me as a tragedy waiting to happen - rotors turning, major source of potential ignition in the event of a leak, personnel moving in close proximity and under the rotor disc, a large fire extinguisher that could roll or tumble, and the likely damage to the ship in the event of a catastrophic fire.



"Pip pip pip pip... no smoking throughout ship, fuelling JP-5..."

... so how was it in the '90s on some ship I can't remember someone tossed their still lit butt off the starboard side (where no one could see them) and it landed neqxt to the fuelling hatch.

The feeling of pulling yourself out the door even though you hooked your foot around the troop seat when trying to connect the pressure fueling nozzle for  HIFR was "special."


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Loachman said:
			
		

> My only attempts at deck landings were on severely reality-limited simulators with no peripheral vision, resulting in very few successful ones despite fairly mild (so it was claimed) sea states, but...
> 
> I've done a lot of hot refuelling on land.
> 
> The refueller has move in under the rotor disc to plug the nozzle in and remain there until refuelling is complete. A fire guard is also right up close, in the event of a leak - the nozzle separated from the hose while an AH64 was being refuelled hot several years ago, resulting in fuel being sprayed into at least one of the engine air intakes, almost immediate ignition, and complete loss of the machine but, fortunately, minor injuries.
> 
> Kiowa's fuel capacity was only 276 litres. Refuelling still took a while (although I never timed it). Larger helicopters take longer, obviously.
> 
> Trying to hot-refuel a helicopter on a pitching deck strikes me as a tragedy waiting to happen - rotors turning, major source of potential ignition in the event of a leak, personnel moving in close proximity and under the rotor disc, a large fire extinguisher that could roll or tumble, and the likely damage to the ship in the event of a catastrophic fire.
> 
> Picking up a flexible hose from a stable hover and then moving off to one side - and right over the world's biggest fire extinguisher - until refuelling is complete seems to be far quicker, simpler, and safer.
> 
> Operating over land was far more comfortable for *so* many reasons.



There is no loose, large fire extinguisher for hot fuels on our ships. We have fire fighting teams closed up and lots of fitted systems.

It is a routine event, with obviously catastrophic implications if someone does it wrong. That said, I have been in helicopters for literally 100s of hot fuels over the years, with nary an incident.

HIFRs, on the other hand, are nearly always a high drama affair...


----------



## Loachman

Roger. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RCAF Video - Crew of first cyclone deployment is coming home

BZ and welcome home


----------



## Baz

There was a five ship loose form for the departure of HMCS Toronto yesterday.


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.facebook.com/MaritimeForcesAtlantic/videos/797685777264903/    Departure Ceremony HMCS Toronto

Around the 16:26 mark. Looks like 5 escorting the ship's helo.

My Grandson is deployed on the ship.


----------



## cf100mk5

Video of Cyclone 148823 aboard HMCS Ville de Quebec.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS8pSF-9zOw


----------



## Rifleman62

https://globalnews.ca/news/4866978/new-military-helicopters-join-hmcs-toronto-as-it-departs-on-six-month-tour/

*New military helicopters join HMCS Toronto as it departs on six-month tour
*
Video at link. Approx 01:20 mark. Just a few seconds.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is it true that there is a Cyclone det on Asterix? 

"MS Asterix, HMCS Montréal and HMCS Ville de Québec are currently the only naval vessels assigned with the Cyclone. The remaining Halifax-class frigates will receive the Cyclone once the Sea Kings are officially retired at the end of 2018."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone


----------



## Eye In The Sky

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/for-crew-of-mv-asterix-return-home-means-a-chance-to-refuel-1.23546336

From Dec last year.  She departed Halifax in April 2018, well before the VDQ and the VDQ was the first Cyclone Det to sail.  Neither the Asterix or CAL had an AirDet for their Pacific deployment to OP PROJECTION.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Is it true that there is a Cyclone det on Asterix?
> 
> "MS Asterix, HMCS Montréal and HMCS Ville de Québec are currently the only naval vessels assigned with the Cyclone. The remaining Halifax-class frigates will receive the Cyclone once the Sea Kings are officially retired at the end of 2018."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone



No. It is not true. She is not even certified yet for Cyclone.


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No. It is not true. She is not even certified yet for Cyclone.



As she went past the Cyclone Combined Test Force in West Palm Beach last year they conducted T&E.  Possibly that is where the misunderstanding is comng from?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That could be. There has been some trial work done on Asterix, but is not yet finished.

I know that, in certain quarters, there is a strong desire to see a Det on Asterix. At this point, we are still working out the kinks in frigate deployments.


----------



## Spencer100

It's being reported that a Cyclone has had a "hard" landing on the Asterix near Hawaii. No injuries.  I can not link the report from the National Post


----------



## observor 69

From: Can Force Twitter

1/4
On February 18, 2019, the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter, currently deployed on Operation PROJECTION, experienced a hard landing on board Naval Replenishment Unit (NRU) ASTERIX West of Kauai, Hawaii. 
2/4
No serious injuries were reported to @CanadianForces or civilian personnel during the incident. The damages to the Cyclone are still being assessed, no damages were reported to NRU ASTERIX, and an investigation has been initiated to determine the cause of the hard landing.
3/4
We’d like to thank our deployed personnel and the civilian staff of the ASTERIX for their professionalism and hard work during this incident.
4/4
The Cyclone and NRU ASTERIX are operating with HMCS Regina in the Asia Pacific Region on #OpPROJECTION.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

They are headed to Guam and the MRP was being worked up, the last I heard late last week.  This one is more than a 'tire change'.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They are headed to Guam and the MRP was being worked up, the last I heard late last week.  This one is more than a 'tire change'.



Not a whole lot of freeboard if that undercarriage compresses too much!

Radar, antennae, EO/IR turret....


----------



## CBH99

Good thing we bought a few extra airframes, for those inevitable occurrences!!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It is not nice to make people gag on their morning coffees, CBH99.





But ... it made my morning.  ;D


----------



## Baz

Saw an update on Facebook by an air type embarked on Asterix that they got the tail put back together and were spinning the head.


----------



## Dale Denton

*Sikorsky announces retrofit and new-build enhancements for S-92 helo*

Full Article at link:
https://www.janes.com/article/87033/sikorsky-announces-retrofit-and-new-build-enhancements-for-s-92-helo



> Sikorsky has unveiled upgraded versions of its S-92 helicopter that have been developed for a number of roles, including search and rescue (SAR).
> 
> The announcement was made at the HAI HELI-EXPO event in Atlanta, Georgia, on 5 March. Current S-92 helicopters retrofitted with the enhancements will be designated S-92A+, while those that have them included on the production line will be designated S-92B.
> 
> "The two variants will share a nearly identical configuration, with S-92B helicopters also featuring enlarged cabin windows and plans for a common cabin door suitable for offshore and SAR configurations," Sikorsky said in a statement. "These changes to the venerable S-92 helicopter will introduce new technology that is focused on reliability and operating cost reduction, while at the same time delivering increased capability."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Cyclone's hard landing happened with civilian at helm

The military hasn’t placed flight restrictions on its Cyclone helicopters, despite not knowing the cause of a hard landing aboard Halifax-based Asterix in the Pacific Ocean last month where the pilot was a civilian.

The CH-148 Cyclone’s main rotor blades hit and damaged the tail of the aircraft while landing on the Asterix during wind-envelope testing on Feb. 18.

The helicopter and supply ship were operating with HMCS Regina on Operation Projection near Hawaii.

There were no serious injuries, said the Department of National Defence spokeswoman. But she wouldn’t say no one was injured.

The test pilot recently retired from the Royal Canadian Air Force with “extensive Sea King and Cyclone flight experience,” and was brought in under an agreement with Transport Canada, said a Department of National Defence spokeswoman.

The pilot took “refresher and currency training at the Cyclone Operational Training Unit and re-qualified on the Cyclone,” said the spokeswoman.

The incident took place during daylight and in relatively calm conditions, military sources told The Ottawa Citizen. The helicopter appeared to suddenly drop about two metres onto the deck.

Larry McWha, a retired helicoper pilot, said a Cyclone’s flight control system doesn’t allow for a co-pilot to intervene quickly.

“In a Sea King if the pilot is doing something that is incorrect or potentially hurtful or could cause an incident, the non-flying pilot could intervene,” said McWha, who flew Sea Kings from 1967 until 1994.

“In a Cyclone, it is not possible for the non-flying pilot to intervene quickly enough to stop something like this from happening,” he said.

McWha compared the Cyclone’s flight control system to two joysticks connected to a game, but when one moves, the other doesn’t.

“So if it’s sitting in the middle in a neutral position, you wouldn’t automatically know where it is,” he said.

The Cyclone also has a unique two-point landing: the first on the main landing gear and the second on the nose gear.

“That is strictly a matter of design features of the Cyclone,” he said.

The damaged Cyclone was taken to Guam with the Asterix and HMCS Regina to have its tail pylon replaced and is now back to full operational capability.

The Sikorsky-built Cyclones are the much-delayed replacements for the Sea King helicopters. The East Coast fleet of Sea Kings went out of service last year after more than a half-century.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

CH-148 Cyclones Significantly Expand Surveillance Area, RCAF Says

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CH-148 Cyclones by Sikorsky significantly improve upon the surveillance area of the Sikorsky CH-124 Sea Kings, which the RCAF retired late last year, according to RCAF Col. Sid Connor, commander of 12 Wing in Shearwater, Nova Scotia.

"We can see 10 times farther underwater, and the Cyclone's radar and ESM (electronic warfare support measures) capabilities give us a chance to do above water surveillance 10 times greater than before," he said. "The Cyclone can identify contacts for the ship captain. On any given flight, the area you are able to pick up, whether that's identifying narcotics trafficking or unidentified smaller vessels, is 10 times greater, or 100 times as much area."

Two Cyclones are deployed — one aboard the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax-class frigate, HMCS Regina, in the Middle East, to support Operation Artemis, the Canadian portion of CTF 150 — a multi-nation effort to battle terrorists and illicit flows of drugs, weapons, and people. The other deployed CH-148 is aboard the HMCS Toronto, in the Black Sea in support of Operation Reassurance — the Canadian contingent of NATO European deterrence efforts in Central and Eastern Europe.

In February, the Royal Canadian Navy accepted delivery of the 17th CH-148 of a planned acquisition of 28 by 2021 to replace the venerable Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters.

The February delivery marked the ninth CH-148 Block 2 aircraft in the field. The Royal Canadian Navy has accepted two Block 2 Cyclones and seven upgrades of 15 Block 1 Cyclones to the Block 2 configuration. Sikorsky has four of those 17 CH-148s and is upgrading them to Block 2 configuration.

Block 2 Cyclones include situational awareness enhancements, an upgraded Northrop Grumman AN/AAR-47(V)2 missile approach warning system, avionics upgrades, and sea state 6 capability.

In addition, operational tests of Block 2.1 are to begin late next year with the possible delivery of the first CH-148 with Block 2.1 in 2021. Block 2.1 upgrades mission systems and sensor integration and increases component time between maintenance. For example, gear boxes are to increase from 600 hours of life to 2,000 hours.

The Cylone's "radar, sonar, and ESM are all connected to online databases, so as they encounter other contacts, the data base grows and the sensors get smarter," Connor said. That experience informs how the RCAF may use the Cyclone against potential adversaries, he said. The RCAF Lockheed Martin CP-140 Aurora aircraft has a similar data learning profile.

Powered by two General Electric CT7-8A7 turboshaft engines, the CH-148's advertised maximum speed is 155 knots, 10 percent faster than the Sea King, according to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The Cyclone is to perform a variety of missions, including surveillance, utility, search-and-rescue, and tactical transport for national and international security efforts. Incorporating flaw tolerance and engine burst containment, the helicopter also has an aluminum and composite airframe that has lightning-strike and high-intensity radio frequency pulse protection, the Royal Canadian Air Force said.

Members of the Royal Canadian Air Force praised the performance of the CH-148 after it returned in January from its first international deployment aboard HMCS Ville de Québec, in support of Operation Reassurance.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> It’s a Navy first! Last week a #RCAF Cyclone helicopter was working with a #RCNavy ORCA class vessel off Victoria #BC. #MARPAC
> 
> https://twitter.com/MARPAC_FMARP/status/1123251487012839424





















> Check out these images from April 19 of a Canadian CH-148 Cyclone from Canadian frigate HMCS Toronto conducting the first ever Cyclone torpedo drop by an operational crew at sea to bring the helo to full Anti-Submarine Warfare status while in the Med with #SNMG2.
> 
> https://twitter.com/NATO_MARCOM/status/1123221026396082177


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nice pics!  Love the one of the torp falling.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What the device in the foreground sticking out of the ship? Some sort of launcher?


----------



## Sub Standard

Colin P said:
			
		

> What the device in the foreground sticking out of the ship? Some sort of launcher?


  That is one of the surface launch torpedo tubes.


----------



## Spencer100

Question.  From another forum.  The Cyclone can't land on water like the Sea King?  I would say no. But just checking.  

Is that a big loss of a capability?  Was it used much?  I remember seeing Prince William do it in a Canadian Sea King a few years ago.


----------



## Baz

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Question.  From another forum.  The Cyclone can't land on water like the Sea King?  I would say no. But just checking.
> 
> Is that a big loss of a capability?  Was it used much?  I remember seeing Prince William do it in a Canadian Sea King a few years ago.



No, the Cyclone can't.

The Sea King couldn't land on water operationally.  It was for emergencies.  The pilot's were trained to get the aircraft back off the water in some cases, or to shut down and hopefully not catch a tip to facilitate crew egress .

What Prince William did was called waterbird training.  It was discontinued some years before the retirement as it ate a lot of hours.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Question.  From another forum.  The Cyclone can't land on water like the Sea King?  I would say no. But just checking.





			
				Baz said:
			
		

> No, the Cyclone can't.



Is an emergency landing considered a type of crash?  The Cyclone does have three airbags that inflate (can be inflated?) upon an emergency water landing.  One on each side of the cockpit and another under the rear fuselage.  They only designed to keep the helo floating upright long enough for crew egress.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> Is an emergency landing considered a type of crash?  The Cyclone does have three airbags that inflate (can be inflated?) upon an emergency water landing.  One on each side of the cockpit and another under the rear fuselage.  They only designed to keep the helo floating upright long enough for crew egress.



Most if not all overwater helicopters have emergency flotation systems, including the Sea King which had one in each sponsor.

The Sea King had a "boat shaped" hull and could attempt to take off after a water landing, if the crew was trained (hence waterboard training).  For the Cyclone a subsequent take-off or long term towing should not be attempted.

Normally emergency landings and crashes are different.  An emergency landing is under control and a crash isn't.  In the case of a crash it is unlikely the aircraft remains upright and the bags can be deployed... you just try to get out.

The Cyclone bags can be deployed by the pilots or will automatically deploy upon water entry if armed, which is not normally armed.  It's armed as part of the pre-ditching procedures and for over water take-offs and landings.

Also significantly the Cyclone life raft is mounted externally which can be deployed from the cockpit, again like most if not all modern overwater helicopters.  The Sea King raft wasn't... it was next to the troop seat and had to be dragged to the cargo door and manually deployed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CH-148 Cyclone tour video, Ex BREEZE 2019 from the SHAPE FB page.


----------



## Baz

A picture of the Cyclone landing on the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth prior to her arrival in Halifax.  Shared from Trident News under the Fair Dealing exception of the Canadian Copyright Act.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe it's just me but...I find she looks bigger in pics than she does in person.  Saw one close to a NH90 though and the 148 looks slightly bigger to me.

Haven't seen much in way of news from the HFX deployment...


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me but...I find she looks bigger in pics than she does in person.  Saw one close to a NH90 though and the 148 looks slightly bigger to me.
> 
> Haven't seen much in way of news from the HFX deployment...



Yes, volume and tonnage a Cyclone seems about 20% larger


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bluedrop gets Sikorsky contract for training on Canadian Maritime Helicopter Project

Bluedrop Training & Simulation Inc., a subsidiary of Bluedrop Performance Learning Inc., has renewed its contract with Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Company, to provide instructors and training courseware for pilots and maintainers for Canada’s CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters. The agreement extends the services that Bluedrop is providing to the program until March 2024. The estimated value of the contract is US$29.5 million.

“This agreement will ensure the continuation of our training services for the RCAF aircrew and maintenance personnel at 12 Wing Shearwater,” said Jean-Claude Siew, Bluedrop executive vice-president, Technology and Simulation. “We thank Sikorsky for its continued trust in Bluedrop and our Halifax-based training team.”

Bluedrop will initially provide up o 47 highly-skilled technician and aircrew instructors, simulator operators and training program support personnel for the 406 Operational and Training Squadron located at 12 Wing Shearwater in Nova Scotia. The Cyclone training suite includes two flight simulators, two operational mission simulators, six mission procedures trainers and two aircraft maintenance trainers — supplemented by several maintenance part task trainers.

Sikorsky leads an industry team that has delivered 19 of 28 CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters to the Royal Canadian Air Force. Bluedrop is part of Sikorsky’s In Service Support team that is training and supporting Cyclone aircrew and technicians to achieve high operational readiness.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CAF FB Page Article Link

The 20th of 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters 🚁 arrived in Shearwater earlier this week. To celebrate, here’s a video of its arrival.
Canada’s CH-148 is a maritime helicopter that conducts anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, as well as search and rescue operations. The CH-148 Cyclone can also conduct utility transport missions in support of national and international security efforts. 

Recent deployments:
▪️Cyclone 822 is currently deployed with HMCS Fredericton since 20 January 2020
▪️Cyclone 823 was deployed with HMCS Halifax (551 hours were flown between July 2019 and its return in January 2020)
▪️Cyclone 814 deployed to Newfoundland on Op LENTUS on 20-23 January 2020


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile being reported as a UFO 

https://www.squamishchief.com/news/local-news/what-was-that-military-chopper-flying-above-squamish-1.24117776?fbclid=IwAR0A3UtD3IQntlVQznz-v9dXnuuMBdQW36RyVPEWTuZGMCATbtpEy4W5AHE


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This sucks, but the prudence is understandable. Hopefully the cause and the solution is found and done quickly. https://twitter.com/AngusTopshee/status/1263514442312101890/photo/1


----------



## Dale Denton

*British Navy conducts test-fire of new Martlet missile from Wildcat HMA Mk2 helicopter*

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/may-2020/8473-british-navy-conducts-test-fire-of-new-m.html



> The Martlet missile offers a unique capability to defeat asymmetrical and terrorist threats in the littoral environment, such as Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FIAC), RIBs or even jet skis. The precision laser beam riding guidance concept of LMM and the accurate launcher stabilization has been demonstrated for the first time in a UK MoD Sponsored TDP with several firings from a T23 Frigate off the Pembrokeshire coast at an operationally representative remote-controlled FIAC target. It has a weight of 13kg, travels at Mach 1.5, has a range exceeding 6 km, and an immediate launch capability.









This possible to do with a Cyclone?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> *British Navy conducts test-fire of new Martlet missile from Wildcat HMA Mk2 helicopter*
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/may-2020/8473-british-navy-conducts-test-fire-of-new-m.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This possible to do with a Cyclone?



Not currently. An air to surface missile is on the “to do” list.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> *British Navy conducts test-fire of new Martlet missile from Wildcat HMA Mk2 helicopter*
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/may-2020/8473-british-navy-conducts-test-fire-of-new-m.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This possible to do with a Cyclone?



They had me at 'will destroy jet skis.' I hate those things #pi**edoffkayaker


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not currently. An air to surface missile is on the “to do” list.



IIRC the attachment points for the helo are universal, so where you place the torp you can place any helo carried weapon system.  I know CANSOFCOM's ears perked up when they heard that.  So quick huddle troops... "get CANSOFCOM super interested and _they will pay_ for helo upgrades....".  I wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## dapaterson

Attachment points are not the same as USB plug and play - still sensor and control system integration involved, to say nothing of airworthiness testing.

All costly, and all demand personnel resources that are in short supply.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> IIRC the attachment points for the helo are universal, so where you place the torp you can place any helo carried weapon system.  I know CANSOFCOM's ears perked up when they heard that.  So quick huddle troops... "get CANSOFCOM super interested and _they will pay_ for helo upgrades....".  I wouldn't be the first time.



The BRU (Bomb Release Unit) is universal, the wiring isn't.  However, most if not all surface weapons the Cyclone would be considered for mounts a rack to the BRU, and then that rack or rail fires the weapon.  You can see in the picture above there is a five missile launcher on each weapon station for the Martlet.

Historically there has been a problem in that each weapon type required a separate wire bundle and interfaces.  Some need seeker head guidance, some coordinates, some current GPS position, some a video feed etc, etc.  Torpedoes need different stuff.  There is a STANAG (1760) that is intended to make all NATO air launched weapons use the same wiring standard to make it _easier_ to integrate weapons.  However, the MK-54 Torpedo doesn't follow it.  The MK-54 uses the same _wires_ as the 46 but the are repurposed to different _electrical formats_ to enable a broader range of selections.  This requires modifications to the Stores Management Computer.

We integrated the AGM-65 into a version of the MDMS used on the Cyclone for the Peru H-2 Sea Sprite.  It did not use STANAG-1760 but instead the legacy Maverick interface.  The Maverick uses the LAU-117 launch rail and electrical interface (or the LAU-88 for triple rails).  Raytheon produces a version of the LAU-117 called the Dual Mode Launcher that can use either legacy Maverick interface or STANAG-1760 (http://www.midkiff.cz/obj/firma_produkt_priloha_140_soubor.pdf). Maverick is (or was?  SupersonicMax?) in service with the CF-18 using legacy LAU-117 rails.

To the best of my knowledge Martlet is not STANAG-1760 compliant, and needs a laser designator (which also means it would need seeker head control to get the head on the designation).  This would also require a new EO turret for the Cyclone as the current SAFIRE-3 does not have a designator, and the integration and wiring to the missile.  Ironically the last version of the Sea King did have a laser (MX-15) but the interlock was hardwired off (laser safety integration on an aircraft is a big deal).

It is understood at a broad level what it would take to make the Cyclone Stores Management Computer and wiring compatible with STANAG-1760, but there is no plan to do so at this time.

Edited to add: Just getting the missile on the aircraft is not everything.  Then you need safe release trials.  Then ground handling safety procedures.  Possible laser safety procedures. Then weapons employment and release procedures.  Then ship safe storage (which historically has been an issue when discussed).  Then load and download procedures at sea, and how they interact with hot fuel and crew change.  Then launch and recover procedures, remembering that the hot missile would be pointed directly at the hangar at some point, unless you did an yaw'd launch and recovery, turning before pulling the pins (how exactly would you do that, connect the guide winch?).  See USS Forrestal at Yankee Station (and John McCain's interesting involvement) where one of the contributing factors is they pulled the pins before getting to the cat to speed up the launch...


----------



## OceanBonfire

Call sign RAPTOR:








> https://twitter.com/RoyalCanNavy/status/1283103666564734982
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/posts/1197080610653672


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nice picture from last week of RAPTOR about to land on TOR...

https://www.facebook.com/HMCSToronto/photos/a.467942729896695/3490473120976959/?type=3&theater

And, one from the TF Latvia FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/TFLPUBLICAFFAIRS/photos/a.226302624924678/593614998193437/?type=3&theater


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I note the RN flies two main types of helicopter (Actually 4 if you count the two types of Merlin's and Wildcats) With the addition of the AOP's into the fleet, does it start to make sense to have a smaller helicopter to accompany them, which would like lessen footprint, fuel consumption and maintenance?


----------



## dapaterson

No.

RCAF can't sustain aircrew now; adding a platform to support a ship class which is, at best, a make-work "learn to make warships" project for ISS would be throwing good money after bad.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The AOP's are going to end up being more useful than you giving them credit for. For initial ice operations, the DND could hire TC helicopters and crews to provide ice reconnaissance and personal transport and light cargo moves. In fact you can supplement our existing helo's with contracted helicopters and crews, similar to how the RFA and USN do. With the down turn in the resource economy and small commercial drones eating away at the bread and butter jobs for helicopter companies, I suspect that DND pilots might not want to be in to much of a hurry to leave.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin, maybe not now (it has slowed down but not stopped) but as soon as the economy picks back up, they will leave again.  Decisions today should be made with that in mind.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now that commercial drones carry stuff like LIADAR and other instruments, it's really eating into the work that helicopter companies used to stay alive and that's going to get worse for the smaller helicopter companies. I will say to rotary wing pilots, is don't count on a long term civy career as the supply of pilots is going to be greater than the jobs available in the next decade.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Never heard it referred to as LIADAR before (assuming you're talking about Light Detection and Ranging...lasers).  But, yes, it's a neat bit of tech.

Re: a 2nd, smaller fleet for use on AOPs, etc...similar to how the RCAF will use the Aurora as a MMA (multi-mission aircraft), I suspect the Cyclone MH will be used as a "MMH".


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> The AOP's are going to end up being more useful than you giving them credit for.



I hope you are right; my fear is that we're paying Irving prices to get Irving quality.


----------



## NavyShooter

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I hope you are right; my fear is that we're paying Irving PRICES to get Irving 'quality.'



Slight modification for emphasis...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Never heard it referred to as LIADAR before (assuming you're talking about Light Detection and Ranging...lasers).  But, yes, it's a neat bit of tech.
> 
> Re: a 2nd, smaller fleet for use on AOPs, etc...similar to how the RCAF will use the Aurora as a MMA (multi-mission aircraft), I suspect the Cyclone MH will be used as a "MMH".



Oops, I meant LIDAR was tired


----------



## OceanBonfire

First Cyclone to land on HMCS Harry DeWolf:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1395409575713595397

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1395409582533529601


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A few pictures here as well...






						Log in or sign up to view
					

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oh yea, glad they found them. Someone was doing a good job of inspecting their aircraft.

_Nearly all of the Royal Canadian Air Force's Maritime fleet of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters are undergoing repairs after cracks were found in the tails of the aircraft.

"12 Wing Shearwater, which encompasses the entire fleet, is prioritizing the order of repair to maximize return to serviceability for each aircraft," according to a Department of National Defence statement to CBC News on Saturday.

After the cracks were found on one of the Sikorsky-made helicopters during routine maintenance on Nov. 26, other aircraft in the squadron were inspected and cracks were found in three more, according to the statement.

On Sunday, CBC News requested clarification on the number of helicopters affected and where they were based.

The RCAF replied that, in fact, 19 of its total fleet of 23 CH-148 aircraft were found to have the cracking problem. Two were found to have no cracking and the remaining two are in long-term maintenance and have not yet been inspected._



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcaf-grounds-cyclone-helicopters-cracks-1.6273953


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> Oh yea, glad they found them. Someone was doing a good job of inspecting their aircraft.
> 
> _Nearly all of the Royal Canadian Air Force's Maritime fleet of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters are undergoing repairs after cracks were found in the tails of the aircraft.
> 
> "12 Wing Shearwater, which encompasses the entire fleet, is prioritizing the order of repair to maximize return to serviceability for each aircraft," according to a Department of National Defence statement to CBC News on Saturday.
> 
> After the cracks were found on one of the Sikorsky-made helicopters during routine maintenance on Nov. 26, other aircraft in the squadron were inspected and cracks were found in three more, according to the statement.
> 
> On Sunday, CBC News requested clarification on the number of helicopters affected and where they were based.
> 
> The RCAF replied that, in fact, 19 of its total fleet of 23 CH-148 aircraft were found to have the cracking problem. Two were found to have no cracking and the remaining two are in long-term maintenance and have not yet been inspected._
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcaf-grounds-cyclone-helicopters-cracks-1.6273953


How normal is this? And what is the solution? It's not fatigue but stress? So more reinforcement?

Also we're now up to 24 out of 27 aircraft delivered, I'm assuming we can expect the entire fleet to be operational by end of next year


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's not that unusual, depending where and on what, the part can be redesigned and replaced. If it's on some key parts, it can be a problem.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

“In the tails” is pretty vague in terms of area.  Normal?  Hard to say.

Operational; depends on what you categorize that as I guess.

“Only two of Canada's 23 Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone helicopters are currently fit to fly. The rest of the multibillion-dollar fleet is in need of repair”...

Yup.  Not many people will say this is a good thing.   



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cyclone-helicopter-cracks-concerns-expert-1.6274439


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:


> “In the tails” is pretty vague in terms of area.  Normal?  Hard to say.
> 
> Operational; depends on what you categorize that as I guess.
> 
> “Only two of Canada's 23 Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone helicopters are currently fit to fly. The rest of the multibillion-dollar fleet is in need of repair”...
> 
> Yup.  Not many people will say this is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cyclone-helicopter-cracks-concerns-expert-1.6274439


So worse then, great


----------



## YZT580

The good thing:  we aren't reading an accident report and there is no reason to lower our flags to half-staff and there are no pressing operational reasons why we need to push limits and keep a couple flying.  I would say those are pretty good positives


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup - great this was caught. I hope the tech(s) who discovered this are properly recognized (I think it was techs).


----------



## kev994

IIRC the cormorant also had tail rotor issues (cracks) early in its life.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> IIRC the cormorant also had tail rotor issues (cracks) early in its life.


…and Griffons.


----------



## Zoomie

Ambiguous reporting - “cracks in tail”.   I’ll have to snoop around work and see if there is an actual DND report that stimulated this news report.   Cracks in tail rotor seems more probable - similar to 149/146 growing pains.   149 ended up with a total re-design of the rotor blade assemblies.


----------



## Sf2

Zoomie, based on what I saw llast week at work, they are actual structural cracks in the tail, not the tail rotor


----------



## SupersonicMax

Zoomie said:


> Ambiguous reporting - “cracks in tail”.   I’ll have to snoop around work and see if there is an actual DND report that stimulated this news report.   Cracks in tail rotor seems more probable - similar to 149/146 growing pains.   149 ended up with a total re-design of the rotor blade assemblies.


If you go on the DWAN 1 CAD OA website, there should be an ARA with a bit of details (under OA Documents/CH148).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> IIRC the cormorant also had tail rotor issues (cracks) early in its life.



It's not the rotors...


----------



## Good2Golf

It’s usually just a matter of time before structures manifest cracks and doublers (or triplers) become the fashion for the rest of a helicopter’s service. Sometimes the doublers are part of the original design (like the Griffon, that had similar doublers to the Twin Huey on the tail fin where it joins the tail boom, but were part of the original build, vice a post-delivery mod for the Twin.)  I’ve seen cracks in every green helicopter less the new Chinooks…but those will come in due time around the aft pylon…it a known and predictable, addressable occurrence. Given that the cracks were found on the Cyclone at a relatively early stage and the SI & mods are being actioned quickly, I’d say: 1) good on the tech for finding them, and 2) DND and SIK addressing it in an expeditious manner. 

$0.02
G2G


----------



## KevinB

While nothing specific about the RCAF Cyclone - I found it interest that Sikorsky was flying a two tone grey 92 around my house this afternoon in some very odd and erratic hard turning maneuvers - I snapped some pictures from my iPhone while hanging Christmas lights, but the overcast sky didn't do much with me on a ladder so I doubt anyone cares for a pixelated blob.


----------



## AM Sup

SIK has been pretty consistent in stating that this particular issue on the 148 is not something they've seen on the S92.  No definitive root cause that they've released to us yet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> I snapped some pictures from my iPhone while hanging Christmas lights...



It's 'that time of year' so my mind just automatically played this when I read _hanging Christmas lights._..


----------



## TCM621

From what I have been told, the cracks are in the tail section near where the tail and the fuselage join. They are structural in nature. I have also been told that Sikorsky had known about the issue with the 92Fs but hadn't informed the military, although this could just be rumour so we should wait for verification on that particular front.


----------



## AM Sup

TCM621 said:


> From what I have been told, the cracks are in the tail section near where the tail and the fuselage join. They are structural in nature. I have also been told that Sikorsky had known about the issue with the 92Fs but hadn't informed the military, although this could just be rumour so we should wait for verification on that particular front.


We've asked about the 92 cracking during conversations with SIK engineering and they've told us that our issue is not related to that.  It's sometimes a 'good' thing when we can find commonality between our frames and the S92. It can give us a much larger bank of flight hours to draw upon when trying to establish frequency or severity of occurrence.  It wasn't an option here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not all S92s do what the Cyclone tail does...must make it even harder to categorize.


----------



## AM Sup

After spending some time in meetings with some pretty smart folks on the SIK side and on our side, they have some theories but nothing settled. I understand that they might be able to ID the root cause by getting the cracked portions cut out and sent for analysis.  How they do that... I've only a basic idea.  I'm sure there's someone in this group who can speak to how they might classify stress or fatigue from a sample.


----------



## suffolkowner

AM Sup said:


> After spending some time in meetings with some pretty smart folks on the SIK side and on our side, they have some theories but nothing settled. I understand that they might be able to ID the root cause by getting the cracked portions cut out and sent for analysis.  How they do that... I've only a basic idea.  I'm sure there's someone in this group who can speak to how they might classify stress or fatigue from a sample.


Magnaflux?


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> Magnaflux?


Works for detecting cracks - but not much analysis beyond that.

I suspect they will take samples from the areas of issue.

Confirming material composition using a combination of Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS),
X-ray Photoelectron Spectrometer (XPS), and verification with X-Ray Florescence Spectrometer (XRF).

I suspect that certified material was used - however when conducting any analysis you will need to confirm the materials first.
  You will get a number of relative weight charts and EDS micrographs of the various samples, binding energy graphs from XPS - this will also confirm that the materials are within spec - and if you have some without cracking if the materials are slightly different in ones with failure and without.
  As well you need to examine the substrate and surface and determine what has occurred from heat treatment (e.g., quench and tempering, induction hardening, flame hardening, laser hardening, and electron beam hardening), thermochemical treatment (e.g., carburizing, carbonitriding, nitriding, nitrocarburising, and boriding) or implantation (e.g., of nitrogen ions).  Treatments are commonly used to improve properties such as hardness.

Without writing a paper on metallurgical analysis (which I am wholly unqualified to do) it's hard to explain everything that needs to get done - and we haven't even started to get in to what is done to examine metal treatment or coatings...

Then once all of that is done - one needs to compare it to the model and how the model compares in Stress Analysis software to what is being observed -- the problem with ANSYS type software is garbage in --> worse garbage out - so if the stresses on parts wasn't correctly anticipated - the models won't show you a valid representation of what occurs - and you end up with catastrophic issues - or parts severely over engineered.


----------



## Good2Golf

…and ultrasonic and Eddy current in addition to X-ray, for aluminum.  I’m not even sure Magnaflux works on aluminum?  I only saw it used on ferrous or semi-ferrous metals.


----------



## RaceAddict

According to the CBC article:



> Sikorsky is working with the RCAF to make repairs, according to the department. RCAF experts estimate that the repairs to some of the aircraft will be completed in "the next few days."



So, whatever the issue is, it's a relatively simple fix. Something they can do in "the next few days" isn't reengineering anything... they're just replacing a cracked part with a non-cracked part. Will the fix be permanent? Or will the new parts just have to be subsequently inspected at much lower intervals?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely it's a direct replacement with the same part, followed by a whole bunch of engineering to create a better part that does not create problems with other existing parts around it.


----------



## KevinB

RaceAddict said:


> According to the CBC article:
> 
> 
> 
> So, whatever the issue is, it's a relatively simple fix. Something they can do in "the next few days" isn't reengineering anything... they're just replacing a cracked part with a non-cracked part. Will the fix be permanent? Or will the new parts just have to be subsequently inspected at much lower intervals?






Colin Parkinson said:


> Likely it's a direct replacement with the same part, followed by a whole bunch of engineering to create a better part that does not create problems with other existing parts around it.


Yup.

Sounds like a simple replacement of swappable parts.
   So it isn't a fix, it's just a make shift solution until they can analyze the parts and figure out what a long term solution will be.


Good2Golf said:


> …and ultrasonic and Eddy current in addition to X-ray, for aluminum.  I’m not even sure Magnaflux works on aluminum?  I only saw it used on ferrous or semi-ferrous metals.


It needs to be magnetized - so Magna-flux won't work for Aluminum - but I'm sure there are some other alloys involved in the tail structure as well.

   I couldn't see any images as to exactly what cracked - I would guess it to be aft of the hinge on the tail boom, or portions of the hinge (which I strongly doubt would be aluminum for that role).


----------



## OceanBonfire

So one has been repaired:









						Cracked Cyclones: One military helicopter repaired using reinforcement in the tail
					

Repairs have been completed on one of the Canadian military's 19 Cyclone helicopters recently found with cracks in its tail, the Royal Canadian Air Force confirmed Wednesday.




					atlantic.ctvnews.ca
				












						Cracked Cyclones: One military helicopter repaired using reinforcement in the tail  | Globalnews.ca
					

Repairs have been completed on one of the Royal Canadian Air Force's 19 Cyclone helicopters recently found with cracks in its tail.




					globalnews.ca
				






> "The location of the cracks on the tail structure are unique for each aircraft, although they are on the aircraft's frame and no cracking was found on the tail hinge or its components," the air force said in a news release on Wednesday.





			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/fixing-cracks-in-ch-148-cylones-require-different-strategies-1.6278616
		



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468279203313369102


----------



## OceanBonfire

Not until spring we'd know how much it cost and how extensive the fix is for the software issue:









						'Scope' and cost of software fix to naval helicopters expected in spring 2022
					

The scope and cost of changes needed to remedy a software issue that was a cause of a naval helicopter crash off Greece resulting in six deaths won't be known until next spring.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				












						‘Scope’ and cost of software fix to naval helicopters expected in spring 2022  | Globalnews.ca
					

The scope and cost of changes needed to remedy a software issue that was a cause of a naval helicopter crash off Greece resulting in six deaths won't be known until next spring.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## OceanBonfire

The tail repairs are considered "non-standard":









						'Non-standard' repairs made to fix cracks on military helicopters: commander
					

The commander of Canada's air force says he is concerned about the recent discovery of tail cracks in most of the military's new Cyclone helicopters, and the need for 'non-standard' repairs to each aircraft, but he remains confident in the fleet.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				












						‘Non standard’ repairs made to fix cracks on military helicopters, says commander - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Three of the Cyclone helicopters have been repaired since the problem was first discovered two weeks ago, while another four should be back in the air by the end of the week.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## AM Sup

Non-standard repairs are quite common.  It basically means that the issue is either something for which we have no approved repair scheme or it's something for which we have a repair scheme but the unserviceability exceeds published repair/damage limits in the maintenance manual.  There are a lot of them on the 148 and they range from minor touch-ups for scratches in protective coatings all the way up to what we've got with this tail issue.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AM Sup said:


> Non-standard repairs are quite common.  It basically means that the issue is either something for which we have no approved repair scheme or it's something for which we have a repair scheme but the unserviceability exceeds published repair/damage limits in the maintenance manual.  There are a lot of them on the 148 and they range from minor touch-ups for scratches in protective coatings all the way up to what we've got with this tail issue.


Thumbs up to what AM Sup said.

”Non-Standard” has specific meaning in aviation industry. It does not mean “sub-standard”. A better way of looking at it is that each repair is bespoke or individualized to a particular tail number.


----------



## TCM621

SeaKingTacco said:


> Thumbs up to what AM Sup said.
> 
> ”Non-Standard” has specific meaning in aviation industry. It does not mean “sub-standard”. A better way of looking at it is that each repair is bespoke or individualized to a particular tail number.


I don't think we can afford bespoke repairs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

TCM621 said:


> I don't think we can afford bespoke repairs.


What exactly is your experience with aviation?

Every single aircraft that is flying today in the world, civil or military, probably has at least one NSR in it’s maintenance history. It is a perfect normal procedure. 

But, you know, internet experts are going to ”expert”…


----------



## Good2Golf

AM Sup said:


> Non-standard repairs are quite common.  It basically means that the issue is either something for which we have no approved repair scheme or it's something for which we have a repair scheme but the unserviceability exceeds published repair/damage limits in the maintenance manual.  There are a lot of them on the 148 and they range from minor touch-ups for scratches in protective coatings all the way up to what we've got with this tail issue.





SeaKingTacco said:


> Thumbs up to what AM Sup said.
> 
> ”Non-Standard” has specific meaning in aviation industry. It does not mean “sub-standard”. A better way of looking at it is that each repair is bespoke or individualized to a particular tail number.



Less my last aircraft flown, which still had the showroom smell to them, every CAF aircraft I ever flew had cracks and I’m certain of it, mon-standard repairs. Can non-standard repairs give cause to have the standard revised, and fleet modifications to be embodied? Absolutely.  Does it mean any particular fleet is dangerous? No.  That CAF/RCAF operational and technical airworthiness systems and flight safety/investigative systems are probably some of the notably better systems out there globally is a good thing.  Even the points for improvement, amongst them the implementation of increasing levels of automation, are being addressed affirmatively.  Perfectly, perhaps not, but pretty darn good.  Does that mean bad things won’t happen from time to time? No, it doesn’t. However, the mark of a learning organization is not shying away from a timely, honest and comprehensive  assessment of what has happened to date and what needs to be done to be better in the future.

$0.02
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

For background, wikipedia has some good information to rabbit hole into here on metallurgy failure analysis; if you start running down the trails into the different types there is a lot of info.

Metallurgical failure analysis - Wikipedia

QETE does a lot of this and usually after the NDT is done you end up looking at the face under a scanning electron microscope or similar. Generally they can tell from the physical signs left what type of failure it is and can work back from there to some causes.


----------



## TCM621

SeaKingTacco said:


> What exactly is your experience with aviation?
> 
> Every single aircraft that is flying today in the world, civil or military, probably has at least one NSR in it’s maintenance history. It is a perfect normal procedure.
> 
> But, you know, internet experts are going to ”expert”…


I'm an aircraft technician but thank's for being a dick. I was making a joke about the word Bespoke and how it carries a connotation of expensive like a bespoke suit.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

TCM621 said:


> I'm an aircraft technician but thank's for being a dick. I was making a joke about the word Bespoke and how it carries a connotation of expensive like a bespoke suit.


Sorry, but why did you go off on my explanation when you full well know (I hope you know) what an NSR is?


----------



## OceanBonfire

6 repaired and 2 more helos have the issue:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471536072509300741


----------



## Spencer100

OceanBonfire said:


> 6 repaired and 2 more helos have the issue:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471536072509300741


Interesting they digitally blotted out the tail part in the corner of the pic.   What is in the section? I know probably can tell me LOL!


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Interesting they digitally blotted out the tail part in the corner of the pic.   What is in the section? I know probably can tell me LOL!


That's the folded section - so all the interfaces for connection etc would be exposed - plus anything else that may be held in the folded section (chaff/flares?)


----------



## Good2Golf

I think it’s more to obfuscate proprietary structural design elements.  The CMDS and RWR are wide open in the other picture and they’re pretty standard, well-known kit, even though there’s an EW/SP nexus to them.


----------



## armrdsoul77




----------



## Good2Golf

Look away!

😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm not going to judge the CAF/12 Wing PAO folks/whoever blotted the picture out for playing it safe.  ITAR, CG, etc...


----------



## OceanBonfire

Tail cracks on military's new helicopters likely due to weight of equipment: DND
					

The Department of National Defence is blaming an apparent design flaw for the cracks recently discovered in the tails of most of the military's new Cyclone helicopters.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				






			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/national-defence-determines-cause-cracks-cyclone-helicopters-1.6335495


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just for clarity, the "ESM antennas" are the units in the red boxes on the attached pics.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just for clarity, the "ESM antennas" are the units in the red boxes on the attached pics.



And the weight of those "red boxes", and their positioning, is more consequential than the mechanical load and the structural weakening resulting from folding the tail?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> And the weight of those "red boxes", and their positioning, is more consequential than the mechanical load and the structural weakening resulting from folding the tail?


It would seem so.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> It would seem so.


No doubt the factory will be proven right.


----------



## Good2Golf

OceanBonfire said:


> Tail cracks on military's new helicopters likely due to weight of equipment: DND
> 
> 
> The Department of National Defence is blaming an apparent design flaw for the cracks recently discovered in the tails of most of the military's new Cyclone helicopters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/national-defence-determines-cause-cracks-cyclone-helicopters-1.6335495


From the article…with some ‘*practical envisioning’ aids* to help understanding:



> Sikorsky spokesperson John Dorrian told CBC News the cracks "are the result of local stresses caused by *the electronic support measures and [satellite/communications] antenna mounts* *aerodynamic and weight loads of two objects the size of a beer fridge*, which were not previously anticipated."
> The Cyclone is a militarized version of the Sikorsky S-92 civilian helicopter, *which does not have the beer fridges attached to them*.
> 
> Dorrian said the S-92 does not have the same electronic support measures and antenna mounts as the Cyclone, and has not experienced the same cracking issues.


👍🏼


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> And the weight of those "red boxes", and their positioning, is more consequential than the mechanical load and the structural weakening resulting from folding the tail?



The article does say "*likely*";  because it is a unique and small fleet, there's not a lot of historical data to reach back to.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> The article does say "*likely*";  because it is a unique and small fleet, there's not a lot of historical data to reach back to.


The S-92's that had issues when being tested as a replacement for Marine One also had issues -- I suspect also had some similar stuff - which may have been part of the reason Sikorsky/LocMart team came to that conclusion.   The Marine One replacement issues where all classified so I'm just guessing- but they do dovetail into timeframe very similarly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> The S-92's that had issues when being tested as a replacement for Marine One also had issues -- I suspect also had some similar stuff - which may have been part of the reason Sikorsky/LocMart team came to that conclusion.   The Marine One replacement issues where all classified so I'm just guessing- but they do dovetail into timeframe very similarly.



It's unfortunate if there is some previous data but it can't be shared...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OceanBonfire said:


> 6 repaired and 2 more helos have the issue:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471536072509300741



The latest article seems to jive with these pics (taken from the port side;  the antenna's being referred to is the component just forward of the orange disc (which is the BAU - Beacon Airfoil Unit [CPI/FDR/ELT]).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Came across a few pics of the interior "tac compartment" of the Cyclone:

One in this article;  good pic of the tac compartment facing aft (with a TACCO in what is normally the SENSO seat).  The big piece of kit to his left is part of the dipping sonar system.









						PHOTOS: In the air and on the sea with Exercise Cutlass Fury | SaltWire
					

Maritime Forces Atlantic is running a training event for Cutlass Fury 21 in the Bedford Basin and St. Margaret’s Bay this week. The exercise involves ...




					www.saltwire.com
				





Another similar one, but with both TACCO and SENSO seats manned, pic is towards the bottom of the article.









						Leading the way - Skies Mag
					

As the first and only operator of the CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter, the Royal Canadian Air Force is blazing an operational trail and learning new lessons every day.




					skiesmag.com
				





From the back looking forward;  dipping sonar is not installed.  









						Record-breaking Year for CANSEC - Armada International
					

CANSEC recorded over 12,000 registrants for the show on May 29-30, including over 5,000 from government and the Department of National Defence.




					www.armadainternational.com


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> Came across a few pics of the interior "tac compartment" of the Cyclone:
> 
> One in this article;  good pic of the tac compartment facing aft (with a TACCO in what is normally the SENSO seat).  The big piece of kit to his left is part of the dipping sonar system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHOTOS: In the air and on the sea with Exercise Cutlass Fury | SaltWire
> 
> 
> Maritime Forces Atlantic is running a training event for Cutlass Fury 21 in the Bedford Basin and St. Margaret’s Bay this week. The exercise involves ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saltwire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another similar one, but with both TACCO and SENSO seats manned, pic is towards the bottom of the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the way - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> As the first and only operator of the CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter, the Royal Canadian Air Force is blazing an operational trail and learning new lessons every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the back looking forward;  dipping sonar is not installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record-breaking Year for CANSEC - Armada International
> 
> 
> CANSEC recorded over 12,000 registrants for the show on May 29-30, including over 5,000 from government and the Department of National Defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.armadainternational.com


Am I the only one disappointed they don't have Miniguns?  I see 4 good mounting spots for door gunners


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Am I the only one disappointed they don't have Miniguns?  I see 4 good mounting spots for door gunners


 mini-guns do not come up a bunch in ASW…


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> mini-guns do not come up a bunch in ASW…


So you're saying there is a chance


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would have been great for ASW in 1940....


----------



## GR66

SeaKingTacco said:


> mini-guns do not come up a bunch in ASW…


But I'm sure could come in handy against anything that isn't under the surface...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Gratuitous shots of U-boats getting shot up, just because


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GR66 said:


> But I'm sure could come in handy against anything that isn't under the surface...


It should probably go without saying that everything in a helicopter is a weight penalty. You want more door guns, to carry less (or no) torpedoes, sonobuoys or fuel.

There is also the mission set. What in the current mission set of a Canadian Maritime Helicopter would require 1-4 miniguns?

I will wait…


----------



## GR66

SeaKingTacco said:


> It should probably go without saying that everything in a helicopter is a weight penalty. You want more door guns, to carry less (or no) torpedoes, sonobuoys or fuel.
> 
> There is also the mission set. What in the current mission set of a Canadian Maritime Helicopter would require 1-4 miniguns?
> 
> I will wait…


Anti-piracy operations?  Emergency transport of troops/personnel from ship-to-shore or shore-to-ship for evacuation of embassy personnel, etc?

This certainly isn't my issue and I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep because our MH fleet isn't armed with mini-guns, hellfires or rockets.  They do stellar work for their primary purposes just as currently equipped.  

That being said, I think that it would be wrong to suggest that there would be ZERO potential benefit to being able to mount some type of gun in the doors if and when required by circumstances which your initial response seemed to suggest.  

Again, probably number 1,523,476 on my priority list of capability shortcomings for the CF so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## SupersonicMax

GR66 said:


> Anti-piracy operations?  Emergency transport of troops/personnel from ship-to-shore or shore-to-ship for evacuation of embassy personnel, etc?
> 
> This certainly isn't my issue and I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep because our MH fleet isn't armed with mini-guns, hellfires or rockets.  They do stellar work for their primary purposes just as currently equipped.
> 
> That being said, I think that it would be wrong to suggest that there would be ZERO potential benefit to being able to mount some type of gun in the doors if and when required by circumstances which your initial response seemed to suggest.
> 
> Again, probably number 1,523,476 on my priority list of capability shortcomings for the CF so I'll just leave it at that.


The effort required to certify and qualify the installation of those (we’re talking in terms of years and millions, taking assets away from their main task) would need to be outweigh by the benefits and likelihood of needing it.  If it is not in the statement of operating intent of the Cyclone, there is probably a good reason for it.  We, the RCAF, are in no position to entertain “nice to have” at the moment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> The effort required to certify and qualify the installation of those (we’re talking in terms of years and millions, taking assets away from their main task) would need to be outweigh by the benefits and likelihood of needing it.  If it is not in the statement of operating intent of the Cyclone, there is probably a good reason for it.  We, the RCAF, are in no position to entertain “nice to have” at the moment.


Hell, we are having a hard time entertaining “must have” at the moment.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> It should probably go without saying that everything in a helicopter is a weight penalty. You want more door guns, to carry less (or no) torpedoes, sonobuoys or fuel.
> 
> There is also the mission set. What in the current mission set of a Canadian Maritime Helicopter would require 1-4 miniguns?
> 
> I will wait…


The issue I see is simply that due to the # (or lack thereof of #'s) of MH, means the MH assets there are will be used for more than just the intended role.  If you only have 1 Helo on the ship, it needs to be able to do any of the Rotary Wing tasks that come up.  CR66 hit on a few that theoretically should be within the mandate for a MH role.

 I like Miniguns way better on helicopter than much slower ROF GPMG's as they can saturate the target much better.

The Cyclone is a pretty big bird with a decent payload, I'm honestly confused that ~200lbs of weapons and ammo and 2 additional crew at ~200 each would cause it to need to reduce anything its carrying for ASW - it was supposed to have 2xC6 anyway (or allow for it).


----------



## h3tacco

KevinB said:


> The issue I see is simply that due to the # (or lack thereof of #'s) of MH, means the MH assets there are will be used for more than just the intended role.  If you only have 1 Helo on the ship, it needs to be able to do any of the Rotary Wing tasks that come up.  CR66 hit on a few that theoretically should be within the mandate for a MH role.
> 
> I like Miniguns way better on helicopter than much slower ROF GPMG's as they can saturate the target much better.
> 
> The Cyclone is a pretty big bird with a decent payload, I'm honestly confused that ~200lbs of weapons and ammo and 2 additional crew at ~200 each would cause it to need to reduce anything its carrying for ASW - it was supposed to have 2xC6 anyway (or allow for it).



In the ASW config, with full fuel, weapon and stores load (2xMk46 + 22 Sonobuoy, CMs etc) the CH148 is pretty much taking off at Max GW. I think you are under estimating the weight of the ASW config. This is more or the less the with the MH-60R btw. An aircraft like the AW101 is really the size of aircraft you need to accomplish the mission with spare capacity. The RN Merlin Mk2 can be  equipped with both a door mounted M134 or .50 (M3M?) while retaining the ASW kit. 

The CH148 is funded, designed and will field  two GPMG (C-6); one in the Cabin Door and one on the Ramp. The C-6s generally will be used for the all the previously mentioned mission sets (counter piracy, limited NEO missions, etc..) While it is technically possible to replace those weapons with miniguns or .50 cal there would be significant cost in resources to acquire, design, test and field them that really is the primary limiting factor. The way MH dets deploy you really couldn't practically deploy with two extra dedicated door gunners. If needed the crew would be adapted with the existing complement of SENSOs/TACCOs to fulfill the door gunner role when required. This is the common method amongst allies as well (USN, RN, RAN etc..). 

As well , the MH community has a laundry list of capability deficiencies (which I believe improved ASuW weaponry is already on the list) that need to be addressed before it got to miniguns. 

Finally, the RCN or larger RCAF has never been a big supporter of the requirement for an improved armed MH helo. For better or worse, the RCN/RCAF doesn't see it as a priority. Other the last 30+ years there have been various efforts to improve the armament of both the CH124 and CH148 that have largely failed due to lack of interest by the RCN/RCAF. At one time, this included arming the CH124 with the M134 and we even had a mock up of it. ASuW weapons were looked at for the CH124 at various times including a study to integrate the AGM-65 on the CH124. At one point, a feasibility study was conducted by industry looking at various armed helo approaches for the CH148 (this included common missiles AGM-114, AGM-65, AGM-119 etc). Everything is in the realm of possibility but none of these concept have ever reach the point where they were high enough priority to be actioned. Probably similar reasons why the CP140 was never armed with AGM-84 or 65. 

Finally, (though I have been out of the loop for a couple years), in its current state the MH community doesn't have the capacity to take on any additional training, equipment or missions. Again I could be wrong but I think "treading water"/"staying afloat" would be an overly optimistic view of the current state of the community.


----------



## KevinB

h3tacco said:


> In the ASW config, with full fuel, weapon and stores load (2xMk46 + 22 Sonobuoy, CMs etc) the CH148 is pretty much taking off at Max GW. I think you are under estimating the weight of the ASW config. This is more or the less the with the MH-60R btw. An aircraft like the AW101 is really the size of aircraft you need to accomplish the mission with spare capacity. The RN Merlin Mk2 can be  equipped with both a door mounted M134 or .50 (M3M?) while retaining the ASW kit.
> 
> The CH148 is funded, designed and will field  two GPMG (C-6); one in the Cabin Door and one on the Ramp. The C-6s generally will be used for the all the previously mentioned mission sets (counter piracy, limited NEO missions, etc..) While it is technically possible to replace those weapons with miniguns or .50 cal there would be significant cost in resources to acquire, design, test and field them that really is the primary limiting factor. The way MH dets deploy you really couldn't practically deploy with two extra dedicated door gunners. If needed the crew would be adapted with the existing complement of SENSOs/TACCOs to fulfill the door gunner role when required. This is the common method amongst allies as well (USN, RN, RAN etc..).
> 
> As well , the MH community has a laundry list of capability deficiencies (which I believe improved ASuW weaponry is already on the list) that need to be addressed before it got to miniguns.
> 
> Finally, the RCN or larger RCAF has never been a big supporter of the requirement for an improved armed MH helo. For better or worse, the RCN/RCAF doesn't see it as a priority. Other the last 30+ years there have been various efforts to improve the armament of both the CH124 and CH148 that have largely failed due to lack of interest by the RCN/RCAF. At one time, this included arming the CH124 with the M134 and we even had a mock up of it. ASuW weapons were looked at for the CH124 at various times including a study to integrate the AGM-65 on the CH124. At one point, a feasibility study was conducted by industry looking at various armed helo approaches for the CH148 (this included common missiles AGM-114, AGM-65, AGM-119 etc). Everything is in the realm of possibility but none of these concept have ever reach the point where they were high enough priority to be actioned. Probably similar reasons why the CP140 was never armed with AGM-84 or 65.
> 
> Finally, (though I have been out of the loop for a couple years), in its current state the MH community doesn't have the capacity to take on any additional training, equipment or missions. Again I could be wrong but I think "treading water"/"staying afloat" would be an overly optimistic view of the current state of the community.


Thanks for the insight -


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> Am I the only one disappointed they don't have Miniguns?  I see 4 good mounting spots for door gunners



KevinB how do expect them to get miniguns when they can't even get a decent F@#$%^g pistol


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> KevinB how do expect them to get miniguns when they can't even get a decent F@#$%^g pistol


The BHP isn't a bad gun - the CAF No2 Mk1* suffers from poor sights, a small awkward manual safety, and the utterly useless magazine safety, and the lack of a light rail, or a method of affixing a MRDS.

However the RCN and the RCAF are much more on the ball for most things than the CA.
    If the CA was in charge of Rotary Wing - the Bell 47G would be standard and the only weapon would be the pilots No2 Mk1* 
      The Dipping Sonar - would be the co-pilot with a rope out the window with a hook to see if they catch any subs...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

GR66 said:


> But I'm sure could come in handy against anything that isn't under the surface...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the first Gulf War wasn't it a door gunner on a Canadian Sea King that shot up an Iraqi gunboat?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Retired AF Guy said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the first Gulf War wasn't it a door gunner on a Canadian Sea King that shot up an Iraqi gunboat?


It was a Hornet with two Air-to-Air missiles and ultimately, the gun.


----------



## blacktriangle

Retired AF Guy said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the first Gulf War wasn't it a door gunner on a Canadian Sea King that shot up an Iraqi gunboat?


IIRC, it was strafed by CF-18s.

Edit: a more credible source beat me to it.


----------



## Dana381

Of course the BHP is a good gun, Raymond reddington uses one . I'll bet his has a little less wear on it the the ones in CAF stock.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

h3tacco said:


> In the ASW config, with full fuel, weapon and stores load (2xMk46 + 22 Sonobuoy, CMs etc) the CH148 is pretty much taking off at Max GW. I think you are under estimating the weight of the ASW config. This is more or the less the with the MH-60R btw. An aircraft like the AW101 is really the size of aircraft you need to accomplish the mission with spare capacity. The RN Merlin Mk2 can be  equipped with both a door mounted M134 or .50 (M3M?) while retaining the ASW kit.
> 
> The CH148 is funded, designed and will field  two GPMG (C-6); one in the Cabin Door and one on the Ramp. The C-6s generally will be used for the all the previously mentioned mission sets (counter piracy, limited NEO missions, etc..) While it is technically possible to replace those weapons with miniguns or .50 cal there would be significant cost in resources to acquire, design, test and field them that really is the primary limiting factor. The way MH dets deploy you really couldn't practically deploy with two extra dedicated door gunners. If needed the crew would be adapted with the existing complement of SENSOs/TACCOs to fulfill the door gunner role when required. This is the common method amongst allies as well (USN, RN, RAN etc..).
> 
> As well , the MH community has a laundry list of capability deficiencies (which I believe improved ASuW weaponry is already on the list) that need to be addressed before it got to miniguns.
> 
> Finally, the RCN or larger RCAF has never been a big supporter of the requirement for an improved armed MH helo. For better or worse, the RCN/RCAF doesn't see it as a priority. Other the last 30+ years there have been various efforts to improve the armament of both the CH124 and CH148 that have largely failed due to lack of interest by the RCN/RCAF. At one time, this included arming the CH124 with the M134 and we even had a mock up of it. ASuW weapons were looked at for the CH124 at various times including a study to integrate the AGM-65 on the CH124. At one point, a feasibility study was conducted by industry looking at various armed helo approaches for the CH148 (this included common missiles AGM-114, AGM-65, AGM-119 etc). Everything is in the realm of possibility but none of these concept have ever reach the point where they were high enough priority to be actioned. Probably similar reasons why the CP140 was never armed with AGM-84 or 65.
> 
> Finally, (though I have been out of the loop for a couple years), in its current state the MH community doesn't have the capacity to take on any additional training, equipment or missions. Again I could be wrong but I think "treading water"/"staying afloat" would be an overly optimistic view of the current state of the community.


I might know the person who wrote the AGM-65 study…


----------



## Kirkhill

Is there a common thread here?

Regardless of the platform - land, sea or air - it seems to me that weapons fit comes at the tail end of the design requirements.  One might have thought the range of possibilities might have pushed that discussion a little higher on the priority list.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> Is there a common thread here?
> 
> Regardless of the platform - land, sea or air - it seems to me that weapons fit comes at the tail end of the design requirements.  One might have thought the range of possibilities might have pushed that discussion a little higher on the priority list.


I would not say that is the case. It is a mugs game to design an aircraft to deliver a specific brand of ordinance.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> I would not say that is the case. It is a mugs game to design an aircraft to deliver a specific brand of ordinance.


----------



## Kirkhill

While it may be a mug's game to design to a specific brand, shouldn't the design reflect the full range of capabilities resulting from employing all available ordnance options?

Especially if we are restricted in the number and variety of platforms and aspire to be a broadly useful multi-functional force?


----------



## dapaterson

OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization.  There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.

And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization.  There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.
> 
> And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.


Clearly you haven't been at some SOCOM S&T events


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization.  There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.
> 
> And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.



Perhaps we could invite the manufacturer's rep to show up at the range with her full catalogue of options and let her do the trigger pulling.  Then we could see what happens from a safe distance.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Kirkhill said:


> Perhaps we could invite the manufacturer's rep to show up at the range with her full catalogue of options and let her do the trigger pulling.  Then we could see what happens from a safe distance.


If they use our helos to do so, they need to conform to our airworthiness regulations. Even if we decide to procure, we still need to integrate, certify and qualify the weapons.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:


> Perhaps we could invite the manufacturer's rep to show up at the range with her full catalogue of options and let her do the trigger pulling.  Then we could see what happens from a safe distance.


There's a material difference between a demo and OT&E.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enough.

But why do we do things like buying the Carl Gustav to launch one round and then fail to exploit the range of rounds available?  Similarly with 40mm grenades, 60 and 81mm bombs, 105 and 155mm shells?  The full range of possibilities afforded by 70mm rockets?

It can't be a lack of time.  Some of that kit has been in production for over 50 years.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

SupersonicMax said:


> It was a Hornet with two Air-to-Air missiles and ultimately, the gun.


Knew about the CF-18s strafing the target and the boat was later engaged by the door gunner on the Sea King. I thought I had a write-up about it, but can't find it. 

_Macht Nichts!_


----------



## dapaterson

Time, space, funding, personnel availability...

Want new rounds?  Ok.  How many?  Where can you fire them?  Where can you store them?  What's the shelf life?  Where can you maintain them?  What holdings do you require for training?  What holdings for operations?  Where does this particular capability land on the list of desired capabilities?  What is the cost?  Who has authority for that level of expenditure? 

Off the top of my head ...


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Time, space, funding, personnel availability...
> 
> Want new rounds?  Ok.  How many?  Where can you fire them?  Where can you store them?  What's the shelf life?  Where can you maintain them?  What holdings do you require for training?  What holdings for operations?  Where does this particular capability land on the list of desired capabilities?  What is the cost?  Who has authority for that level of expenditure?
> 
> Off the top of my head ...


Sounds like a missing G-8 (Force Mod) position or more...
  9 times out of 10, in my experience the end users have not articulated any requirement.
I also think the CA does a poor job in the G-8 department, but not necessarily relevant to this thread.




SupersonicMax said:


> If they use our helos to do so, they need to conform to our airworthiness regulations. Even if we decide to procure, we still need to integrate, certify and qualify the weapons.


Having dealt with some "minor" aspects to AWC's I can only imagine the headache of anything actually mounting and fired from the AC structure.
  The RCAF having an orphan fleet (at this point in time) doesn't help.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> Having dealt with some "minor" aspects to AWC's I can only imagine the headache of anything actually mounting and fired from the AC structure.
> The RCAF having an orphan fleet (at this point in time) doesn't help.


It is a lot more than just structures.  Do the guns impede egress? Do the shell casings safely separate from the helo? Do the vibrations translate into objectionable flying qualities?  Do the guns, when fired at night, impede on NVIS? (And many other questions) A test campaign to answers those questions takes a lot of time and effort,  Any deficiency will need to be assessed for its risk on airworthiness and/or survivability. If the risk is not within what we consider acceptable, a commander will need to accept the risk.  If that risk is not worth the reward, they will simply not accept it.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> It is a lot more than just structures.  Do the guns impede egress? Do the shell casings safely separate from the helo? Do the vibrations translate into objectionable flying qualities?  Do the guns, when fired at night, impede on NVIS? (And many other questions) A test campaign to answers those questions takes a lot of time and effort,  Any deficiency will need to be assessed for its risk on airworthiness and/or survivability. If the risk is not within what we consider acceptable, a commander will need to accept the risk.  If that risk is not worth the reward, they will simply not accept it.


Agreed - but given the mounting system and weapon is already in use on some of the of CAF rotary wing assets -and for the sake of the 134, same caliber as weapon already certified, has an empty casing feed chute etc - some of those are fairly simple.

I was involved in one with a fighter ejection seat - and holy crap, you'd thought that one was proposing drunken brain surgery - so in the end, the stuff went in the box - as the box was already certified -- no one cared what the box weighted after - just that no size/form function had been altered - as apparently I could have filled the box with lead and it was still going to be within acceptable test parameters.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> Agreed - but given the mounting system and weapon is already in use on some of the of CAF rotary wing assets -and for the sake of the 134, same caliber as weapon already certified, has an empty casing feed chute etc - some of those are fairly simple.
> 
> I was involved in one with a fighter ejection seat - and holy crap, you'd thought that one was proposing drunken brain surgery - so in the end, the stuff went in the box - as the box was already certified -- no one cared what the box weighted after - just that no size/form function had been altered - as apparently I could have filled the box with lead and it was still going to be within acceptable test parameters.


Even with a gun certified on other platforms, we run into unexpected issues.  We can’t rely on certification based on similarities for different helo types. We can leverage the work that was done to guide the effort but you still need to do it. Feed chutes (and everything else) need to be adapted to the aircraft and its intricaties.  Having been involved in some of those test programs, with weapons that were “previously certified on other helos,” I’d say it’s anything but simple.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> Even with a gun certified on other platforms, we run into unexpected issues.  We can’t rely on certification based on similarities for different helo types. We can leverage the work that was done to guide the effort but you still need to do it. Feed chutes (and everything else) need to be adapted to the aircraft and its intricaties.  Having been involved in some of those test programs, with weapons that were “previously certified on other helos,” I’d say it’s anything but simple.


The Port side "crew chief" window is the same as the UH-60, same with the rear (port and starboard) window areas.  
    - the weird one is the starboard door - as that is not a good spot based on door and winch location -  I'd accept 3 window mounts and a ramp mount 

Yes I agree you can't cut and paste from one AC to another, but it can make life easier.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

h3tacco said:


> As well , the MH community has a laundry list of capability deficiencies (which I believe improved ASuW weaponry is already on the list) that need to be addressed before it got to miniguns.
> Finally, (though I have been out of the loop for a couple years), in its current state the MH community doesn't have the capacity to take on any additional training, equipment or missions. Again I could be wrong but I think "treading water"/"staying afloat" would be an overly optimistic view of the current state of the community.


 101% this.

I’d remain fixed on sorting out the MH in its current form before anything else.   That is a big enough task for the near future (5 years or so).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization.  There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.
> 
> And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.



Not to mention, there’s a significant amount of work just to get to OT&E itself.   Huge.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> The Port side "crew chief" window is the same as the UH-60, same with the rear (port and starboard) window areas.
> - the weird one is the starboard door - as that is not a good spot based on door and winch location -  I'd accept 3 window mounts and a ramp mount
> 
> Yes I agree you can't cut and paste from one AC to another, but it can make life easier.


The Port and Starboard sponsons are real buggers. They make life miserable for placing door/window guns, as they really limit arcs of fire. I am pretty certain that the CH148 will only have a starboard side gun and (maybe) a ramp gun and both will be C6s (At least the C6s all seem to be brand new) for the foreseeable future. We have much bigger fish to fry.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Port and Starboard sponsons are real buggers. They make life miserable for placing door/window guns, as they really limit arcs of fire. I am pretty certain that the CH148 will only have a starboard side gun and (maybe) a ramp gun and both will be C6s (At least the C6s all seem to be brand new) for the foreseeable future. We have *much bigger fish to fry*.



Is that Naval Aviator code for 'enemy submarines'?


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> 101% this.
> 
> I’d remain fixed on sorting out the MH in its current form before anything else.   That is a big enough task for the near future (5 years or so).




I understand.  

But I'm curious.

Wasn't one of the initial design criteria the ability to roll the ASW kit on and off the Cyclone so that it could also function as a utility helicopter?


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> Time, space, funding, personnel availability...
> 
> Want new rounds?  Ok.  How many?  Where can you fire them?  Where can you store them?  What's the shelf life?  Where can you maintain them?  What holdings do you require for training?  What holdings for operations?  Where does this particular capability land on the list of desired capabilities?  What is the cost?  Who has authority for that level of expenditure?
> 
> Off the top of my head ...



DAP

As usual, what comes of the top of your head leaves me scratching mine. 

So, after a few hours scratching I offer this.

Do we have to have on hand all of the approved rounds?  Or can we better exploit the national capability to manufacture ammunition?

I don't know the facilities available or the QA and Safety programs they employ but doesn't GD-OTS in Repentigny have to manage supply of multiple types of ammunition concurrently?  Wouldn't that be a good place to start looking at the supply chain by modifying their contracts to ensure that there is an appropriate flow and inventory of stock?

If we are only using one round every 20 years, so be it.  But we know where we can get it when we need it.  

It will be inefficient, and inefficiency costs money, agreed, but maintaining readiness is an inefficient, costly, process.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Port and Starboard sponsons are real buggers. They make life miserable for placing door/window guns, as they really limit arcs of fire. I am pretty certain that the CH148 will only have a starboard side gun and (maybe) a ramp gun and both will be C6s (At least the C6s all seem to be brand new) for the foreseeable future. We have much bigger fish to fry.


Understand on the other issues - seems to have a lot of accoutrements.

CH-148 Points of Interest: A left bank by the Cyclone, exposes the multitude of active and passive sensors that have been incorporated into the design in order to detect aircraft, surface and subsurface vessels, and radio frequency  and laser-threat emitters. The sensors can also survey coastlines and inland geographic features, and detect weather  systems. _(A Sikorsky photo via Vertical 911 Magazine)_
1. AN/AAR-47 Missile Approach Warning System.
2. AN/ALQ-210 ESM.  
3. Countermeasures Dispenser.  
4. MK-46 anti-submarine warfare torpedo.  
5. HELRAS tethered dipping sonar.  
6. Sonobuoy Chute.
7. APS-143B(V)3 Multimode Radar (Oceaneye) .
8. FLIR EO/IR STAR SAPHIRE III Multi-sensor thermal imager.  
9. HF antenna guide.
10. Personnel hoist




- the Block II MH-47G's manage 5 Miniguns - they kicked the winch on the starboard door out further - so the CC can man the gun when not winching.   Those sponsons are similarly awkward for the arcs as the 148 - but admittedly it is a SOF bird that is going to be flying in harms way a lot more than a Cyclone - at least by intent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But why do we do things like buying the Carl Gustav to launch one round and then fail to exploit the range of rounds available?  Similarly with 40mm grenades, 60 and 81mm bombs, 105 and 155mm shells?  The full range of possibilities afforded by 70mm rockets?
> 
> It can't be a lack of time.  Some of that kit has been in production for over 50 years.



Doing T & E (trials and evaluation) on small arms is vastly different than doing the various testing and evaluations on aircraft/aircraft systems (PAT&E, ET&E, OT&E, etc).  The airworthiness aspects, permits to fly and under what conditions and restrictions, development of test plans and conduct of testing (ground and airborne) is fairly complex and fairly rigid.  There is an entire Order dedicated to flying testing on top of a hockey bag full of other regulations, orders, SOPs, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> I understand.
> 
> But I'm curious.
> 
> Wasn't one of the initial design criteria the ability to roll the ASW kit on and off the Cyclone so that it could also function as a utility helicopter?



I’ll say “yes” while not being 100% on the details.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> Doing T & E (trials and evaluation) on small arms is vastly different than doing the various testing and evaluations on aircraft/aircraft systems (PAT&E, ET&E, OT&E, etc).  The airworthiness aspects, permits to fly and under what conditions and restrictions, development of test plans and conduct of testing (ground and airborne) is fairly complex and fairly rigid.  There is an entire Order dedicated to flying testing on top of a hockey bag full of other regulations, orders, SOPs, etc.



70mm rockets are a pet toy of mine because, although they were originally an air to air weapon for bringing down bombers, and developed a very useful life in the air to ground role I continue to be fascinated by their flexibility and the possibilities in the ground to ground roles, or even the ground to air roles.  (I wonder what 19 flechette rounds would do to a UAV swarm?)

I appreciate that it isn't as simple as "suck it and see" but I have to think it would be useful to have a catalogue of certified solutions available to the problem solvers on the ground rather than having a choice between the limited stock on hand and blue sky notions that have to go through the entire OT&E process before they make it to the field.

Could OT&E work more pro-actively with suppliers?


----------



## Kirkhill

70mm Flechette rounds.


M255E1/A1Flechette warhead14.0 pounds (6.4 kg)1179 60 grains (3.9 g) flechettes

WDU-4/AAPERS warhead9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)96 flechettes of unknown weight

WDU-4A/AAPERS warhead9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)2205 20 grains (1.3 g) flechettes

M255APERS (anti-personnel) warhead2500 28 grains (1.8 g) flechettes


----------



## SupersonicMax

Kirkhill said:


> 70mm rockets are a pet toy of mine because, although they were originally an air to air weapon for bringing down bombers, and developed a very useful life in the air to ground role I continue to be fascinated by their flexibility and the possibilities in the ground to ground roles, or even the ground to air roles.  (I wonder what 19 flechette rounds would do to a UAV swarm?)
> 
> I appreciate that it isn't as simple as "suck it and see" but I have to think it would be useful to have a catalogue of certified solutions available to the problem solvers on the ground rather than having a choice between the limited stock on hand and blue sky notions that have to go through the entire OT&E process before they make it to the field.
> 
> Could OT&E work more pro-actively with suppliers?


It’s not so much OT&E than DT&E (development of the solution) and ET&E (certification/qualification).  We already work extensively with manufacturers.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> 70mm rockets are a pet toy of mine because, although they were originally an air to air weapon for bringing down bombers, and developed a very useful life in the air to ground role I continue to be fascinated by their flexibility and the possibilities in the ground to ground roles, or even the ground to air roles.  (I wonder what 19 flechette rounds would do to a UAV swarm?)
> 
> I appreciate that it isn't as simple as "suck it and see" but I have to think it would be useful to have a catalogue of certified solutions available to the problem solvers on the ground rather than having a choice between the limited stock on hand and blue sky notions that have to go through the entire OT&E process before they make it to the field.
> 
> Could OT&E work more pro-actively with suppliers?


Flechette warheads aren't really what you want for a drone swarm.
   Prefragmented proximity warheads tend to work best - as flechettes - even from a 120mm tank gun aren't nearly as effective as one would think - they can cut a small channel - but as they are so light - they loose energy quickly and they generally don't spread out much.
   One of the most disappointing things I've seen used - followed by the Claymore mine and Fragmentation grenades and the 60mm Mortar being the other major disappointments.   
  *One of the most "exciting" things I have used is "Smoke, Screening, Delay" - Note: maybe the UK should just mark it WP Grenade in small print below that, and that way coalition troops raiding their little pile in the ASP won't have such a shock when they thought they threw a smoke grenade.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> It’s not so much OT&E than DT&E (development of the solution) and ET&E (certification/qualification).  We already work extensively with manufacturers.



Thanks Max.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> It’s not so much OT&E than DT&E (development of the solution) and ET&E (certification/qualification).  We already work extensively with manufacturers.



For those not familiar with RCAF flight testing and evaluation terminology & sequence, I'll expand on SSM's post;  ref is the CFTO "Flight Test Orders for the CF" (UNCLAS, non-CG).

PURPOSE OF FLIGHT TEST AND EVALUATION

The specific purpose of flight T&E is to gather quantitative and qualitative data that cannot be collected by any other practical means, to validate a computer based model or simulation, or make recommendations based on the evaluation of that data regarding the airworthiness or other relevant characteristics of the article under test.

TYPES OF FLIGHT TEST AND EVALUATION

There are three general types of flight testing:

A.  Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) - used to assist in design and development, and to demonstrate the degree to which technical performance specifications and regulatory safety standards have been met. DT&E is normally the responsibility of the developer or integrator and can be conducted for the purposes of research and development (R&D) or prototype integration of systems.

B.  Engineering Test and Evaluation (ET&E) - used to determine if a design is in compliance with contracted technical performance specifications and regulatory safety standards, to determine if a test item is in conformance with an approved design, or to collect other technical data related to weapon system life cycle management. It should validate the technical adequacy and safety of the weapon system in preparation for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).   ET&E is sub-divided:

      1.  Compliance T&E - determines whether or not a particular specification has been met.  Commonly referred to as Proof of Compliance Demonstration Test and Evaluation                                                    (PCDT&E) and is further sub-divided according to the type of  specification including:  (a) Certification T&E - determines whether or not technical                                                            airworthiness specifications have been met; and (b) Qualification T&E -  determines whether or not contractual specifications have been met.

     2.  Conformance T&E - determines if a particular test item conforms to its approved design. It is conducted as part of the process of transferring an item from a contractor’s                                                     manufacturing or modification process to DND. Conformance T&E may also be required when a modification has been performed by a DND or CF                                                         organization. In the case  where the manufacturing or modification process is performed by a contractor or ATESS, conformance T&E is known                                                                as acceptance testing and is commonly referred to as Production Acceptance Test and Evaluation (PAT&E).

     3.  Technical T&E -  provides technical authorities with information required for making engineering decisions related to inservice or disposal issues, where these are not related                                         to  compliance or conformance.

C.  Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) -  determines whether a weapon system is operationally capable when operated and maintained by  the end users, in realistic operational                                                                           scenarios, and with the provided support systems, training and documentation. It is performed by designated operational aircrew with                                                                           OT&E specific training.  OT&E is sub-divided:

      1.  Initial Operational Assessment (IOA) - provides estimates of operational effectiveness of a system and operational suitability prior to an
                                                                        acquisition decision

      2.  Initial OT&E (IOT&E) - follows the decision to proceed with acquisition or adoption of a new role.

      3.  Follow-on OT&E (FOT&E) -  is conducted after the completion of IOT&E and is conducted on production items in an operational environment.  It is conducted after                                                                            operational airworthiness has been established and can extend throughout the entire service life of a weapon system as part of its ongoing                                                                    development or the development of tactics, techniques and procedures.

Maintenance test flights (MTF) are normally conducted as part of the continuing airworthiness plan which ensures that an aircraft or aircraft system has been returned to its approved type design following a maintenance activity and that it is ready to return to service.

These differing types of test and evaluation occur throughout the lifecycle of a weapon system.  The sequence of events will vary depending on the nature and objectives of the test program. Figure 1-1-1 depicts the common sequence of T&E activities within the Materiel Acquisition & Support (MA&S) process of conception, acquisition, support and disposal.

* screenshot of Fig 1-1-1 attached.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Apparently first time changing a Cyclone engine while the ship is underway:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493881712153337857


----------



## NavyShooter

I think this was a routine thing for Sea Kings....probably more than routine actually.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

NavyShooter said:


> I think this was a routine thing for Sea Kings....probably more than routine actually.


It wasn’t super routine. I think I saw maybe one engine change at sea on a Sea King in my sailing time.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:


> It wasn’t super routine. I think I saw maybe one engine change at sea on a Sea King in my sailing time.


I can't exactly recall which ship I was in when the det did an engine change at sea. It was a big deal.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:


> I can't exactly recall which ship I was in when the det did an engine change at sea. It was a big deal.


The old -8f engines were getting pretty unreliable by the late 1990s. However, once they were upgraded and rebuilt to Dash 100 standard, they were pretty freaking bullet proof, right to the end in 2018 (we had alot of engine life left in cans when we retired the Sea King).

The thing is: it isn’t (wasn’t?) that big a deal to change a Sea King engine at sea, assuming you had the correct spare engine (they were either left-handed or right-handed. Even then, if you had an Engine Tech with the right experience and parts, they could swap them either way). Taking one out was usually only a few hours of work. The trick with putting the new one in was that sometimes getting the output drive shaft vibration analysis into acceptable limits could take days of ground runs (and rotating or weight balancing the shaft)  if you were unlucky. This could drive ship’s COs and OOW mad, as it put the ship at flying stations for hours at a time. Or, you could have an issue with an engine mount that you would only discover once the engine was out, which required an ACS tech to fix that dets did not have. That could take weeks to get an MRP to a ship.

The Cyclone (to circle this all back to the thread at hand) is designed to be even easier. “Engine change” is a now bit of a misnomer, because the current engines are highly segmented. Usually, only a section of a Cyclone engine is changed, not the whole assembly. Caveat- I am not following why this particular Cyclone needed a component swap, so I have no idea what got changed.


----------



## AM Sup

I changed a few engines at sea, it was pretty uncommon in the latter part of the Sea King's life.  It could be a finicky job and as SKT points out, the high speed shaft could give you some trouble from the VA side.  The forward mount required a Non Destructive Testing inspection while the engine was removed which demanded silver soldering skills should the mount bushing need replacing. Those skills were not available on the dets at the time, current 148 dets sail with an ACS tech.  We used to have to lean on the Hull Techs for fabrication or structural skill-sets, they did great work and they usually got a kick out of working on the helo.

Main rotor blade changes are a much bigger pain, I was unlucky/fortunate enough to have to do a few while sailing.  Same issue with ground run/test flight requirements.  Adjustments can be a pain and it really disrupts the ship's daily operations to have a spread helo on the deck or to be obligated to keep returning to a flying course while underway. 

This recent engine change on the 148 was an unfortunate requirement, they've been pretty solid thus far.  The whole engine needed to come out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AM Sup said:


> I changed a few engines at sea, it was pretty uncommon in the latter part of the Sea King's life.  It could be a finicky job and as SKT points out, the high speed shaft could give you some trouble from the VA side.  The forward mount required a Non Destructive Testing inspection while the engine was removed which demanded silver soldering skills should the mount bushing need replacing. Those skills were not available on the dets at the time, current 148 dets sail with an ACS tech.  We used to have to lean on the Hull Techs for fabrication or structural skill-sets, they did great work and they usually got a kick out of working on the helo.
> 
> Main rotor blade changes are a much bigger pain, I was unlucky/fortunate enough to have to do a few while sailing.  Same issue with ground run/test flight requirements.  Adjustments can be a pain and it really disrupts the ship's daily operations to have a spread helo on the deck or to be obligated to keep returning to a flying course while underway.
> 
> This recent engine change on the 148 was an unfortunate requirement, they've been pretty solid thus far.  The whole engine needed to come out.


Ugh. You just reminded me of a 7 hr (in 30 min chunks, because the aircraft had to remain within a fairly narrow weight band) marathon of VA/ rotor smoothing in the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, in 35C. We could not get the blade to come into limits…


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Ugh. You just reminded me of a 7 hr (in 30 min chunks, because the aircraft had to remain within a fairly narrow weight band) marathon of VA/ rotor smoothing in the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, in 35C. We could not get the blade to come into limits…


Yay VBAS! 😆


----------



## Eye In The Sky

VBAS;  I’ll take a stab at it.  Variable Blade Angle “Something”?


----------



## Good2Golf

No, it’s a vibration and balance analysis system.  It was used for balancing Sea King main rotor blades, but I was part of a trial on the Twin Huey…it had a habit of ‘chasing itself’ (moving weights around and adjusting pitch links) back and forth between blades.  We had some SK techs come out with the Ottawa project team and they’d snicker and say, “oh, so it doesn’t just not work for us! Lol”.  We (Hueys) went back to experienced tech and test pilots to tune our aircraft - we could tune and smooth a Huey usually within a couple hours flight time.  VBAS was good for adding a chunk of time to my logbook though? Lol. Maybe it would have been better with some actual algorithms made for a 2-blade vs 5-blade rotor system, but the trial never got that far.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thanks for that info;  I thought I might have had a SMRT moment with my first cuppa.   😁


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498759603081052160


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have hooked up loads under a Cyclone. It is an order of magnitude more difficult working under it, just due to the downwash. Let alone that stupid reach pendant and the tiny hook receptacle you have to try and hit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have hooked up loads under a Cyclone. It is an order of magnitude more difficult working under it, just due to the downwash. Let alone that stupid reach pendant and the tiny hook receptacle you have to try and hit.



Ya...challenges in air ops are a real thing.  Like...sometimes it's hard walking down the stairs of the '140 with a suitcase AND $800 CAD worth of stuff from Scotland...#WeSufferToo.  👊




😬


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ya...challenges in air ops are a real thing.  Like...sometimes it's hard walking down the stairs of the '140 with a suitcase AND $800 CAD worth of stuff from Scotland...#WeSufferToo.  👊
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😬


Shut up.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> Shut up.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have hooked up loads under a Cyclone. It is an order of magnitude more difficult working under it, just due to the downwash. Let alone that stupid reach pendant and the tiny hook receptacle you have to try and hit.


It’s as though slinging was an afterthought on that machine…


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> It’s as though slinging was an afterthought on that machine…


You limit that observation to just slinging?!


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ya...challenges in air ops are a real thing.  Like...sometimes it's hard walking down the stairs of the '140 with a suitcase AND $800 CAD worth of stuff from Scotland...#WeSufferToo.  👊
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😬


My loadmaster would carry mine for me… #evenmoresuffering


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> You limit that observation to just slinging?!




Taking care not to overreach first-hand critique.

SKT’s prose about trying to hook up on a wee nubbin of a _crochet_, has me both snickering a bit, but also feeling a bit sorry for them when they try to leverage a tertiary capability.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Taking care not to overreach first-hand critique.
> 
> SKT’s prose about trying to hook up on a wee nubbin of a _crochet_, has me both snickering a bit, but also feeling a bit sorry for them when they try to leverage a tertiary capability.


I Know where SSM works, so I will accept that he is reasonably informed on Cyclone…


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I Know where SSM works, so I will accept that he is reasonably informed on Cyclone…


Agree, was just ‘splaining why I didn’t go Full Retrograde on ya, mate. 😉 I say keep the wiggly amos on board  and VERTREP_ in extremis_.


----------



## OceanBonfire

From ADM(MAT)'s LinkedIn account:


----------



## KevinB

OceanBonfire said:


> From ADM(MAT)'s LinkedIn account:


Testing at Northern limits, during the summer…

Legitimately, I wonder how much crack is smoked in the CAF these days -


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Testing at Northern limits, during the summer…
> 
> Legitimately, I wonder how much crack is smoked in the CAF these days -


It has to do with testing/certifying the FMCDUs and the EGIs North of 70. Not cold weather testing.

It spoke to one of the aircrew on that trip, recently. It was a spectacular series of flights. They got to within 300Nm of the North pole, which is certainly a record for a Canadian Maritime Helo.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> It has to do with testing/certifying the FMCDUs and the EGIs North of 70. Not cold weather testing.


Okay, but it still seems a little junior varsity to do a northern trip in the summer, and brag about it.  



SeaKingTacco said:


> It spoke to one of the aircrew on that trip, recently. It was a spectacular series of flights. They got to within 300Nm of the North pole, which is certainly a record for a Canadian Maritime Helo.


I’ll be impressed when it does it in February


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Okay, but it still seems a little junior varsity to do a northern trip in the summer, and brag about it.
> 
> 
> I’ll be impressed when it does it in February


Not to be a dick, but it really raises the stakes and the danger level in doing a navigation system trial in the arctic, in the dark, at minus 40c.

you know- crawl, walk, run?


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> It has to do with testing/certifying the FMCDUs and the EGIs North of 70. Not cold weather testing.
> 
> It spoke to one of the aircrew on that trip, recently. It was a spectacular series of flights. They got to within 300Nm of the North pole, which is certainly a record for a Canadian Maritime Helo.




FMCDUs and EGIs?

Is that to do with the ability to automatically hold a hover?  I understand GPS is challenging in those latitudes.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> It has to do with testing/certifying the FMCDUs and the EGIs North of 70. Not cold weather testing.
> 
> It spoke to one of the aircrew on that trip, recently. It was a spectacular series of flights. They got to within 300Nm of the North pole, which is certainly a record for a Canadian Maritime Helo.


I think the EGIs are the same/similar model to the CH-147F, so you folks should be good to go. 😉

And as you note with the 148, SKT, the 147F first round Northern testing was also done in August. 👍🏼 









						CH-147F Chinook tested in Northern Canada
					

Canadian CH-147F Chinook helicopters were evaluate from CFB Petawawa  Ontario, to Alert Nunavut, and then to Iqaluit on Baffin Island Nunavut, spanned more than 8,600 kilometres.




					www.helis.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice view of a torpedo drop

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551014642952327169


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> Not to be a dick, but it really raises the stakes and the danger level in doing a navigation system trial in the arctic, in the dark, at minus 40c.
> 
> you know- crawl, walk, run?


I expect more from MH pilots than I do from most other pilots  
  Almost as much as I expect from formerly young Huey pilots @Good2Golf


----------



## armrdsoul77

Epic expedition: Proving the CH-148 Cyclone's capabilities in the North - Skies Mag


----------



## Good2Golf

That routing brings back memories (other than a YOW/YWA start vice YAW).  Good story…well done the Fleet Air Arm, BZ!


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> well done the Fleet Air Arm


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Good2Golf said:


> *Fleet Air Arm, BZ! *



Shhhhhh you'll rouse Zombie Hellyer!


----------



## torg003

rmc_wannabe said:


> Shhhhhh you'll rouse Zombie Hellyer!


No need to worry about that, he's too busy giving lectures on the existence of extra-terrestrials.  (not a joke)


----------



## rmc_wannabe

torg003 said:


> No need to worry about that, he's too busy giving lectures on the existence of extra-terrestrials.  (not a joke)


----------



## Spencer100

torg003 said:


> No need to worry about that, he's too busy giving lectures on the existence of extra-terrestrials.  (not a joke)


Tim Pool was talking about him two weeks ago. LOL  

Plus


----------



## torg003

OK, I stand (or sit at the keyboard) corrected.  Didn't realize that he had died, but he did believe in aliens.


----------



## Spencer100

torg003 said:


> OK, I stand (or sit at the keyboard) corrected.  Didn't realize that he had died, but he did believe in aliens.


At this point if Aliens just showed up I would be...really it took this long to show yourself?  LOL  

After watching a video of a DOE director of nuclear waste steal luggage in a dress, combat boots and leather dog masks on his submissives they can't be any weirder.  LOL


----------



## torg003

If aliens are watching us, I'd bet they're sending holo-recordings (or whatever high tech recording system they'd have) back to their planet as a  reality show depicting just how stupid an intelligent dominant planetary species can act.


----------



## Spencer100

torg003 said:


> If aliens are watching us, I'd bet they're sending holo-recordings (or whatever high tech recording system they'd have) back to their planet as a  reality show depicting just how stupid an intelligent dominant planetary species can act.


"So you think you can Human" tonight at 8:00 

We're not in the Matrix, we on Survivor and The Galaxy's Funniest Planet Videos


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spencer100 said:


> "So you think you can Human" tonight at 8:00
> 
> We're not in the Matrix, we on Survivor and The Galaxy's Funniest Planet Videos


----------

