Anybody else feel we got ripped off on MHP deal?

[CBH99]

Something has been bothering me lately about the MHP...yes, I know - the infamous collection of failures on behalf of the Liberal government.

If anybody else can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.  But the numbers regarding the MHP simply don't add up to me.


1.  We purchased 100 Griffon helicopters for $1B.

2.  In the recent Defense Authorization Act, down in the US, congress approved $280M for 27 new black hawk helicopters.


How is it that 100 Griffons cost $1B....27 Black Hawks cost $280M,  and yet 15 "Cyclones" for $3B?  The Cyclones/EH-101 deal seems absurdly expensive when compared to the other examples I listed.

Even when taking inflation into account, 100 Griffons for $1-billion dollars is a far better deal then 15 Cyclones for $3-billion dollars.  And although the US Black Hawk procurement is in USD, even when converted into Canadian funds, they are paying far less per helicopter than we are.

I know the contract also includes lifetime maintence/warranty details - but does anybody else find the amount we're paying for 15 helicopters absurdly expensive when compared to other examples of helicopter procurement?

 

[Inch]

Before you start spouting off, you might want to get some of your facts straight. We're getting 28 CH148's, not 15 and the actual contract was for 1.3ish Billion with the remainder of the money going towards the 20 yr 3rd line maintenance contract.

Griffons don't have anywhere near the amount of sensors and equipment that a Cyclone has.   The Sonar ball alone is probably a few million, plus radars. Not to mention that the Cyclones are nearly 3 times the size of a Griffon, which means it's got bigger more powerful engines and a stronger main gearbox and rotor head. It's also 10 years newer than the Griffon so it's going to have far better avionics.

I'm going to drive the bloody things and I think they're a great deal.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Not to mention what they will have to do to the ships so we can embark the Cyclone.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Not to mention what they will have to do to the ships so we can embark the Cyclone.

It was always in the plan to make modifications to the ships for a new helo   (Ever notice the complete absence of proper storage for parts in a frigate hanger?) because we had no idea what helo we would end up with when we built the ships.  

Look for some flight deck mods, a new hauldown system, proper hanger storage and a better LSO compartment coming soon to a frigate near you!

For CBH99- No, sorry, don't agree that we were "ripped off" with MHP.   Without saying anything bad about EHI, I like Sikorsky and their products.   I have over 1000 Sea King hours (including about 350 decklandings in all sorts of nasty weather) and I can't say enough good things about that helo's toughness.   If our new helo is only half as well built, we will have done well.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I have over 1000 Sea King hours (including about 350 decklandings in all sorts of nasty weather) and I can't say enough good things about that helo's toughness.   If our new helo is only half as well built, we will have done well.

What is it about the Sea King that has made it so durable compared to other aircraft? What makes it "tough?" .. is it the design, or the quality of the construction or the quality of the maintenance? The easy answer might be to say it's a combination of all three, but is there one item that can be distinguished from the others?

Cheers..

 

[JBP]

I myself was glad we attained new helicopters at all but the Cyclones seem pretty damn hot to me! Nice aircraft, maybe not as fancy smancy (warning for anal retentives: smancy isn't a word and I DO know this!) but also a lot cheaper and a very well rounded helicopter. Inch, congratulations for succeeding in your flight training and having the honor to fly one of the newest Canadian helicopters! In a way, it's people like you who are my hero, honestly. Now it's time to become my own hero when I get sworn in around November!!!

> ---->  :warstory:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What is it about the Sea King that has made it so durable compared to other aircraft? What makes it "tough?" .. is it the design, or the quality of the construction or the quality of the maintenance? The easy answer might be to say it's a combination of all three, but is there one item that can be distinguished from the others?

Cheers..

Wow- you ask tough questions, W601.

I think that it is partly design.  The Sea King was designed in the days before computer modelling so (I'm told) the prevailing wisdom was that in that absence of actual data, a good engineer just increased the safety margin by factor of four.  The aircraft is so incredibly overbuilt it is beyond belief. 40 years of deck landings and life at sea are a testament to that.

We maintain Sea Kings to the point of overmaintenance.  We are hyper sensitive to corrosion-control (that's a good thing).  We have a vibration analysis progam that is really doing good things in making the helo fly smoother and detecting problems before they get big.  We have alot of really diligent techs who spend alot of time and effort making sure the maintenance is done right. If we are in doubt, we don't go flying.

Where the Sea King is running into serious issues is with an antique avionics suite (I'm thinking primarily of the ADF and Gyro heading and Reference System (GHARS)) , an electrical system that provides only "dirty power" that modern avionics do not like, sensors that are all past their prime, and alot of older parts that require alot of maintenance hours just to monitor because they are getting old. I like the old gal, but she is not up to the rigours of modern, link-driven, sensor-to-shooter warfare.  She is a classic that belongs to another time.

To any techs- if I'm talking out of my hat on the maintenance stuff- feel free to correct me!

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think that it is partly design.  The Sea King was designed in the days before computer modelling so (I'm told) the prevailing wisdom was that in that absence of actual data, a good engineer just increased the safety margin by factor of four.  The aircraft is so incredibly overbuilt it is beyond belief.

Thats a good post SeaKing Tacco. There's a tech lurking here as we speak.
WRT the above quote, would the safety margin therefore be engineered to nil +1 in today's models, since the entire design would be tested by computer modelling? 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Thats a good post SeaKing Tacco. There's a tech lurking here as we speak.
WRT the above quote, would the safety margin therefore be engineered to nil +1 in today's models, since the entire design would be tested by computer modelling?  

Trying to trap me, eh?    

My personal opinion only-
Today's aircraft are safer than ever before because they have multiply redundant systems that try to prevent aircrew from breaking the laws of physics (or flying into the ground, unplanned).  The airframes are designed to be far more protective in an accident. What I don't think we have a handle on yet is the full life cycle of composite materials.   Things today are engineered to an extremely high tolerance to save weight and cost.   The parts are strong and durable and have a built in safety factor.   There are built-in monitoring systems that tell you what is about to go wrong before a part fails. But, how will the entire airframe age (I'm speaking of any new generation aircraft here) over a service life of 30-40 years?   I think that is anyone's guess.

The nice thing about a metal airfame like the Sea King's is that if you bend it accidentally, mostly you can just straighten it again (I realize that I am grossly over-simplifying).   I think that it is a bunch more complicated with composite materials.   It is going to change the way our AVN (Airframes) techs do business.   It is going to change the way we do damage control on ships (because of the danger of carbon fibres if there is ever an accident).   It is going to change a bunch of other stuff we have not even thought of yet.

Again- I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.

 

[a_majoor]

While the Cyclone may be a great helicopter, it is absurd it took so long to get them, and of course, we could have gotten EH 101's and had a common pool of spare parts, training, maintainence etc with the SAR Cormorant (EH 101) fleet. (and back in 1993, of course)

I think CBH may be refering to the fact we now have two mini fleets of very similar helicopters to do almost the same job, so now have two supply chains, two training streams....economy of scale is a very real bonus when dealing with multi-million to billion dollar contracts.

There is a very real monetary cost in never having to admit an error or say "I'n sorry", and we the taxpayers are being stuck with it. (again)

 

[Gunnerlove]

When you stress composite components to the point of material failure you remove and discard them. When you stress aluminum components to the point that they are distorted you remove them and discard them. Contrary to popular belief metals are not homogeneous hence when you start distorting things you start destroying the crystalline structure of the material. Aluminum will flex a suprising amount without taking a memory and becoming sprung. Once it has though you run the increased risk of intergranular corrosion if you try to force it back into its original shape. This is why a great deal of components are fabricated/formed out of "O" temper aluminum before it is sent off to be heat treated.

Composite airframes are only going to become more common as they continue to improve based on info gathered from some composite structured aircraft which are approaching 30 years of service. It is important to remember that many of the problems related to composites stem from a lack of training and understanding of the materials on the part of "old school" techs. Yes it will change life for the techs but so did aluminum. If we fail to accept the risk that comes with change we will miss out on all of the benefits as well. Another thing to consider is that if a military is operating 40 year old aircraft something is very wrong with that military.  

Another interesting thing is that after aluminum is heat treated it continues to grow stiffer and more brittle as it ages (which is one reason why aircraft shops must keep track of material manufacture dates). This is a contributing factor to metal fatigue and the development of cracks.


What danger of carbon fibers are you concerned about? I figured the flailing rotor blades and the fuel tanks would be enough of a hazard when a chopper beats itself to death on board a ship?

Sorry for the rant but no one wants to talk about structural materials at the bar.

 

[a_majoor]

Unfortunatly because most of us have little understanding of anything more complicated than the structure of the glass mug sitting right in front of us!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Good post, Gunnerlove.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Storm]

Unfortunatly because most of us have little understanding of anything more complicated than the structure of the glass mug sitting right in front of us!

Well, if you want to change that, just take a look at files at the links below (you can take the whole course without paying... you just don't get credit for it   ;D):

http://www.mmat.ubc.ca/courses/apsc278/default.htm
http://www.mmat.ubc.ca/courses/mmat380/default.htm

 

[Inch]

While the Cyclone may be a great helicopter, it is absurd it took so long to get them, and of course, we could have gotten EH 101's and had a common pool of spare parts, training, maintainence etc with the SAR Cormorant (EH 101) fleet. (and back in 1993, of course)

I think CBH may be refering to the fact we now have two mini fleets of very similar helicopters to do almost the same job, so now have two supply chains, two training streams....economy of scale is a very real bonus when dealing with multi-million to billion dollar contracts.

There is a very real monetary cost in never having to admit an error or say "I'n sorry", and we the taxpayers are being stuck with it. (again)

I'm going to disagree with you on the cost benefits of similar aircraft. I've posted my views on this before but I'll save you the search and state them again. 

SAR and MH are two very different jobs and have different systems on board, not to mention that the Cormorant maintenance is done entirely by civilian contractor, which doesn't work too well for MH since the Navy won't allow civvies on ship.  So you're going to need to train maintenance pers anyway.  Back to the techs, an MH has sonar, radar, and defensive capabilities (chaff, flares, and a GPMG to name a few), these are all different from the SAR birds and you'd need to train the techs separately to maintain them.

For the aircrew, the only common denominator are the pilots.  SAR birds don't have TACCOs or AESOps, and MH birds don't have Flight Engineers or SAR Techs. No common training for the backenders.  As for the pilots, aside from the basic flying of the machine which is only 18 flights to make you a qualified co-pilot, your operational qualifications are far different. We both do hoisting but that can be learned in about 2 hrs.  SAR crews don't do sonar dips, they don't drop sonobuoys, they don't sling much and of course they don't do shipborne ops. So you'd need an additional school to do that. You could probably send them to our school to learn the basics, but as I said, it's only 18 flights and the cost savings aren't going to be enough to shock anybody, in fact they're probably negligible.

For parts, the Cormorants are having a hell of a time getting parts out of Italy, I don't think it'd be any easier, in fact I think it'd be harder, to get spare parts for 28 more aircraft. Serviceability is another problem facing the Cormorant/EH101/Merlin platform, this is just hearsay, but a RN pilot that we have on exchange here told me that their Sea Kings have better serviceability than the Merlins. I personally think that getting parts out of the USA will be a whole lot faster and cheaper than the 10,000km supply chain for the Cormorants.

As my cohort in MH stated already, Sikorsky builds some bloody good helicopters. I'm in full support of the decision to get Cyclones.

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think though we should have ordered more. 36-42 would have covered what we need plus what we would embark on the JSS and the Common Surface Combatant, like the Air Force types here the Navy is pleased with selection.

 

[aesop081]

Personaly, i'm glad they selected the cyclone.  When i graduate from BAC, i may just wind up in the MH world.  As far as comonality with the cormorant is concerned , i think the air force made a good choice with the cyclone. Parts are a problem for the cormorant fleet and if MH was flying them as well, who do you think would get priority ??  MH or SAR ??

Anyways, Inch & Seaking Tacco..........maybe i see you guys in a few months......or maybe not !! 

(Go west coast)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So what is the status of the order now that the EH people have challenged the purchase?

 

[Bean]

The challenge hasn't been scheduled for a hearing yet as far as I can tell.  If you want to follow it, the link below is for the board that handles these things for the GoC

http://www.citt.gc.ca/index_e.asp

 

[Cloud Cover]

It's a go, I think the legal stuff is an action for damages. They have no real basis to get an injunction to stop the purchase, but they could conceivably recover their costs, plus damages for lost profit and loss of economic opportunity amongst various causes of action. That doesn't mean they won't try and stop the purchase,  but they would overturn a decade of jurisprudence if they did. That would be quite a feat.

Bean: is CITT the proper forum for this action? I understand it is an international bid, but the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement seems to oust it's jurisdiction in this matter:

" General exceptions applicable to all Parties
Article XXIII of the GPA refers to the exceptions the Parties may apply to its own
procurement when imposing or enforcing measures necessary to protect public morals,
order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property, or
relating to handicapped persons, philanthropic institutions or prison labour.
There is a general exception for procurement necessary for the protection of essential
security interest relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition and war material or
procurement indispensable for national security or national defence."

I believe the proper forum will the FCTD, unless there is a jurisdiction clause in the tendering contract.

Cheers.