Author Topic: CH-148 Cyclone Progress  (Read 703856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WrenchBender

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 100,121
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 88
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #125 on: April 30, 2008, 14:38:37 »
"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"
Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids

Offline recce_copper

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #126 on: April 30, 2008, 15:22:50 »
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.
if your gonna be bold, be bold early

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #127 on: April 30, 2008, 15:53:06 »
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 *** 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. 

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 26,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,648
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #128 on: April 30, 2008, 17:48:57 »
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.
Chimo!

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #129 on: May 01, 2008, 12:04:16 »
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

Offline MrWhyt

  • Civillian
  • New Member
  • **
  • 3,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #130 on: May 01, 2008, 12:53:47 »
Quote
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.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #131 on: May 01, 2008, 13:07:14 »
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

Quote
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
Quote
...
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline KingKikapu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #132 on: May 01, 2008, 13:12:41 »
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?

Offline Hippie

  • New Member
  • **
  • 380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #133 on: May 01, 2008, 15:11:35 »
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.

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #134 on: May 01, 2008, 15:16:14 »
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/


Offline Fireball

  • Member
  • ****
  • 50
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 173
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #135 on: May 01, 2008, 15:26:53 »
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

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #136 on: May 01, 2008, 15:45:38 »
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

Quote
...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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #137 on: May 01, 2008, 16:32:18 »
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/


Offline drunknsubmrnr

  • Semper in Excreto
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 557
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #138 on: May 01, 2008, 16:38:44 »
If there's a dispute with Sikorsky, I'm not so sure another of their products would be a good idea.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #139 on: May 01, 2008, 16:39:18 »
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
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 16:49:23 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,597
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #140 on: May 01, 2008, 17:50:28 »
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?

Offline CharlieCF

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #141 on: May 01, 2008, 17:57:16 »
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.

Offline Fireball

  • Member
  • ****
  • 50
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 173
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #142 on: May 02, 2008, 15:50:48 »
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


Offline T.S.Rea

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 48
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #143 on: May 04, 2008, 12:18:04 »
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

  • Guest
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #144 on: May 04, 2008, 12:33:59 »


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.  ::)

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #145 on: May 04, 2008, 12:41:04 »
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........
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,332
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,002
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #146 on: May 04, 2008, 12:42:02 »
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.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #147 on: May 04, 2008, 12:45:29 »
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.


Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 20,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,421
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #148 on: May 04, 2008, 13:21:43 »
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

  • Guest
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #149 on: May 04, 2008, 13:27:00 »
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 ?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2008, 13:30:26 by CDN Aviator »