Anybody else feel we got ripped off on MHP deal?

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Notwithstanding the delay which was unforgivable, I'm quite happy with the purchase.

In particular, I think any time we can add hi-tech industrial manufacturing capacity as off-shoot of a procurement plan (as opposed to paying to add hi-tech industrial manufacturing capacity in Italy), I think it's a good idea.

That being said, the key override is that the bird must perform to spec.




Matthew. 

 

[Storm]

The ability for EH to sue just doesn't sit right with me. If you're shopping for clothes and go into a store and say "hey, I like that blue shirt" to the salesperson, but then after trying it on in the changeroom say "actually, I don't like it so much afterall, I'll go get the green shirt at that other store" the company can't sue you. Nothing against the blue shirt, but the customer just likes the green one better. We're a customer here. It is our right to spend our money wherever we damn well please and for whatever reason. If money does get wasted, then it is the job of the Canadian people to object, not some foreign corporation. If EH doesn't like the fact that the customer is always right, and that you don't get every contract, then they should get out of sales.

For the record, I was very much in favour of the EH-101 for our MH. However, the decision was made, and a helicopter was selected that can do the job extremely well, so that should be the end of it IMO.

 

[Bean]

You are probably correct on that one whiskey, but its where I was directed initially when speaking to a few folks in Ottawa.  I may have just been off base, along with my source.  Thanks for the reference though.  I have seen a number of DND/CF bid at CITT over the years but it is possible other forums take precedence in this case.

 

[Inch]

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

The word here at 12 Wing is that we're expecting the contract to be signed any day now, the end of Nov at the latest. We're expecting the construction contractors to show up not too long after. 


Cheers

 

[Sheerin]

Has this legal hiccup affected the slated delivery date?

Also, do you think Sikorsky will be able to deliver them on time? 

 

[Inch]

Has this legal hiccup affected the slated delivery date?

Also, do you think Sikorsky will be able to deliver them on time?  

The delivery date will be 48 months from the time the contract is signed, that hasn't changed.

Sikorsky has a solid reputation in the helicopter business, I have not doubt that they'll deliver a quality product on time. That's just my opinion though.

Cheers

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

I have to wonder if the Cyclone in it's MH configuration is the best platform for the JSS. It seems to me that ship will require a cargo/troop carrying version of the Cyclone. Or, is the air element on the JSS supposed to be a mirror capability of what is on the AOR right now.    Is there any chance the Griffon is being contemplated for that role? I know it's a POS, but it is highly unlikely the Navy Air Force will get extra helo's.

 

[a_majoor]

Is there a "follow on" option in the contract to get more Cyclones for troop lift/medium lift or Navy duties?

 

[CBH99]

Ah yes...

My wires were crossed on that one.  I somehow had the Cormorant and MHP mixed together in this head of mine, your right.

 

[Inch]

Is there a "follow on" option in the contract to get more Cyclones for troop lift/medium lift or Navy duties?

I don't think that info has been made public, the contract hasn't been signed yet. As to the feasibility of using an MH for troop lift, etc, I'm not sure that'd work as well as you think. There are some parts of an MH that remain, even if you can roll off the ASW kit.  Stuff like sonobuoy tubes and the hole for the sonar dome that are built right into the airframe. It all depends on the layout, and as of now, I don't think anyone really knows what the final cabin layout is going to be.

 

[Cloud Cover]

As to the feasibility of using an MH for troop lift, etc, I'm not sure that'd work as well as you think. There are some parts of an MH that remain, even if you can roll off the ASW kit.   Stuff like sonobuoy tubes and the hole for the sonar dome that are built right into the airframe. It all depends on the layout, and as of now, I don't think anyone really knows what the final cabin layout is going to be.

Yep. That's what I was getting at ... probably better to buy the non ASW version, but that is asking a lot right now. This is why i was getting at the rear ramp idea awhile ago, vis my comment on the EC130 and the ability to remove gear in a hurry and the pain in the but to get it back in place ad recalibrated for ops. Anyway, that won't happen with the MH, for the reasons you point out above. The machine appears to be primarily a sensor and weapons platform, which is what is required anyway. Is the Griffon maritime ops capable for protracted periods, and can it be configured to be hauled down and rolled around if required? 

 

[Inch]

The primary problem with the Griffon is the lack of a folding rotor and tail pylon. I'm not an expert on hauldown by any stretch of the imagination, I know the Sea King system but that's about it. I don't imagine it'd be a major concern, just the need for a probe for the bear trap to hold onto and a way to wheel the machine out of the hangar since it's on skids. Of course ditching wouldn't be my idea of fun in a Griffon, it'd probably turtle in a matter of seconds. 

Cheers

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The Griffon is not hauldown capable without major mods to the airframe.   In any case, the JSS won't have a hauldown system any way (just like our current AORs).

It is theoretically possible for Griffons to operate from any of our ships now.   The problems are (in no particular order):

1. A rotor head that doesn't easily fold (if at all- can't remember- you may have to remove the baldes to get them in the hanger.)
2. Skids.   A dangerous thing on ships.   You have to a cart to move the helo; you have to put rubber on the skids to help dampen vibration and you have to be extremely careful to avoid "deck resonance" which can quickly lead to the helo overturning on deck.
3. Aircrew training.   Landing-on/Launching from a ship is tougher than it looks.   Untrained pilots tend to "follow" the motion of the ship and not wait for the ship's steady period.   Mess that up and you go swimming (if you are lucky...).   They also don't know navy flight procedures, which is a whole other language that tac hel guys aren't taught.
4. Technician Training and Aircrew training (Pt 2).   Operating from a ship means, like it or not, being part of the ship's damage control organization, which means a couple of weeks of initial trg plus work-ups.  
5.   The Griffon is not especially "Sea-proofed", which means that corrision control procedures would have to be developed on the fly.

None of the above by itself is a show stopper (except maybe the rotorhead part) and can all be fixed with training, but the skills are perishable.

The training issues can be dealt with of course, but at what cost?

I think that is good to begin to have the debate about what, exactly, we intend to fly off of the JSS, apart from Cyclones.

I once, tongue-in-cheek, suggested that we keep a bunch of Sea Kings as troop lifters (gutted interiors, Self-Defence suites, door guns front and back) but was told to STFU and get back in my box.

Cheers

 

[Cloud Cover]

LOL .. ok, lets talk about JSS helo's. I think the choice should be a cargo variant of the H-92, just to keep things simple. Not a heavy lifter, and I'm not really sure how to measure the adequacy of a sea borne cargo/troop helo, so lets start there. What qualities are desirable in this type of helicopter?

 

[Inch]

Good points on the Griffon SKTacco.

For a JSS helo, since it will for the most part be shipborne, I'd say you're going to want a lot of the same features that the Cyclone is going to have, minus of course the ASW kit/sono/sono tubes/etc.  A second cargo door would be handy for troop lift, either that or a ramp but not a necessity.

H-92 in a utility version has my vote, since you can only carry so many parts on a tanker, having the same airframe would be a big advantage in maintenance of the helos.

Cheers

 

[canuck101]

If we got the H-92 in a utility version for the JSS how many do you think would we need. I don't think we need more than ten.

 

[Inch]

It depends on whether or not you want to be able to send all 3 JSS's to sea with a full complement of helos and still be able to maintain the training system on shore.  I believe they're each supposed to carry 4, so that would mean 12 for the fleet, you would want a few for attrition as well as serviceability, so 15 to 18 I would think should work well. The pilots can be trained at the MH school on the Cyclones.

Cheers

 

[Bograt]

Currious question,

Is the ASW info collected by Sea Kings and their replacement linked up with Auroras and the ships? What I mean to say is, can they all see what each other has on their sensors?

Inch, is there a naval range where Sea King and Aurora crews can launch live torpedoes? Does it happen during the normal course of pilot/crew training?

 

[Inch]

The Aurora and the ships are connected with a Datalink, the Sea King doesn't have this capability but the Cyclone will. The Datalink works just like you said, it allows the ships (and anyone on the datalink) to see what the Cyclone sees and vice versa. There are some restrictions on the system though, it's not perfect. I'm not too sure on the limitations of it, but I think line of sight is one of them since the system is based on UHF, though that may be remedied with sat comms now. Someone else may be able to clarify.

We don't fire torpedoes as part of the Sea King OTU, we go through the motions but we never actually drop a live or practice torp. Not sure about on Sqn, it's not a regular occurrence if it even happens at all, SeaKingTacco could probably confirm that.

Cheers

 

[Zoomie]

Inch and I were typing our responses at the same time - I will leave my response "as-is".

Is the ASW info collected by Sea Kings and their replacement linked up with Auroras and the ships? What I mean to say is, can they all see what each other has on their sensors?

Sorry, I could answer this question, but then I would have to kill everyone that read the answer.  The world of Sub-killing and its tactics are very much in the realm of OPSEC.  If you and I were talking in person and I was showing you around the CP-140, that would be another story, but Osama might be reading this and you can't be too careful.  :blotto:

... is there a naval range where Sea King and Aurora crews can launch live torpedoes? Does it happen during the normal course of pilot/crew training?

Yes .. and.. yes - most torps that are dropped are of the recoverable type (ie inert warhead and no OTTO fuel onboard) - Launching a live warhead torpedo against a target is rare and not done (as far as I know) in Canadian waters.  I am sure TACCO might be able to shed a little bit of non-sensitive information about this.