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

[X Royal]

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

Pro Patria

 

[aesop081]

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

 

[Inch]

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

Pro Patria

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

Cheers

aesop, you answered while I was typing, correctomundo!

 

[X Royal]

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

Pro Patria

 

[Inch]

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

Pro Patria

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

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

Cheers

 

[Playa69]

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

I see a trend forming

Blame the liberal government.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Edit: for you sheerin

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

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

 

[Playa69]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sheerin]

Are you aware of what plagiarism is, Ghostraven?  

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Playa69]

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

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

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

 

[Inch]

Don't think these Sikorsky's are not going to have their line of problems, probably even more than the EH-101. I'm just trying to make a point that we should not be all dazzled about this; it might turn out to be our worst nightmares! That's all im implicating.

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

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

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

and they now invested in more modernized Sikorsky's,

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

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

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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

GhostRaven-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Inch- You posted while I was typing!

 

[Infanteer]

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

Scott Taylor?  :-\

 

[aesop081]

Inch, SKT....

Could not have said it better myself

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

Scott Taylor?    :-\

 

[Playa69]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It's cool.

 

[Inch]

No worries amigo.