Seakings Will Serve Until 2012

[scm77]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/12/canada/seaking040412

Sea Kings will serve until 2012: government

OTTAWA - Some venerable Sea King helicopters will continue flying for another eight years, documents obtained by CBC Radio show.

The trouble-prone aircraft, which first flew under Canadian colours in 1963, are supposed to be replaced within four years, Defence Minister David Pratt said recently in response to a question from New Democratic Party MP Alexa McDonough.

But documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show the Canadian Forces is considering 2012 as its new official retirement date for the Sea Kings.

They‘ll be more than 50 years old by then.

"You have to look at the number of years it takes to get full delivery of all aircraft," said Col. Francois Pion, who oversees the Sea King life extension project.


Canada bought 41 Sea King helicopters in 1963. They were designed for hunting Soviet submarines during the Cold War. Since then, Sea Kings have been drafted for search-and-rescue missions, cargo and troop transportation and reconnaissance missions. Twenty-eight are still in service.

Over the past 40 years:
12 of the aircraft have crashed;
31 have been damaged, but were repaired;
there have been 27 forced landings;
10 people have died;
111 people have been injured, six severely.

Each of the remaining Sea Kings requires 30 hours of maintenance for one hour of flight.

The federal government is expecting to spend $3 billion to replace the fleet.

"And then on top of that, you have to look at how long it‘s going to take to train your personnel, be it maintenance personnel or aircrew, and how long it‘s going to take them to actually come up to speed and become operational on the new aircraft."

That makes 2012 the earliest reasonable retirement date for the Sea King â “ if all goes well with the purchase of new helicopters, one memo says.


Meanwhile, the Sea Kings will require millions of dollars in upgrades to stay airworthy.


Because of mechanical problems, Sea King pilots have been trained to fly on one engine, and how to ditch at sea. They are also restricted in the kinds of flying they can do.

The Liberals cancelled an order to replace the helicopters in 1993. A contract for a new machine to replace the Sea Kings is expected to be announced this month.

Sea Kings are used for anti-submarine and coastal patrols, and search and rescue.

The government bought 15 Cormorant helicopters in 1998 for search-and-rescue operations.


Written by CBC News Online staff

:crybaby:

 

[canuck101]

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=d2dbea6c-e906-4f00-b2e0-8f85b0ce52c5

Delay in replacement helicopters affects Sea Kings
By Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
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, 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.

"Trying to maintain Sea King operations until the arrival of the Cyclone is already a very trying exercise," says Lee Myrhaugen, a retired air force colonel, Sea King pilot, and former deputy commander of the military's maritime air group.

"Parts are being taken from other aircraft, we're down in fleet numbers, down in flying hours, down in serviceability. All of this is putting a strain on operations."

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," 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, "thelikelihood 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.

Those aircraft that do go to sea must be used sparingly, because the old airframes and engines now require roughly 30 hours of maintenance for every hour they spend in the air.

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

"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.

"When that contract was let, there were painstaking efforts to ensure the delivery would be on time and on budget," says Myrhaugen. "Everyone was expecting the arrival of those Cyclones in 2008. If they don't, it'll be extremely disappointing."

 

[canuck101]

sorry for the re-post of the article.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Jeeze, now if we could just get auto manufatcturers to make cars that last 50 years, we'd be all set. We'd all be driving antiques.

Seeing the seaking is an antique, the only place it should be flying is from wires hanging from the ceiling in a museum.

I think some people in Ottawa better shake their heads, because me thinks there are a few screws loose upstairs.

 

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
I think some people in Ottawa better shake their heads, because me thinks there are a few screws loose upstairs.

Everybody in official Ottawa has known, for about 20 years, that we have an urgent requirement for new helicopters. In fact, waaaaaay back in 1993 we had a contract for new helicopters. Then, in an off the cuff, unconsidered, unscripted campaign stop Jean Chretien promised "zero helicopters." All politicians like to keep one campaign promise and that was an easy one for 'tit Jean and then, because he could/can never admit to being wrong he forcd his government - politicians, civil servants and soldiers, alike - to wait and wait and wait until he was out of office before a new helicopter contract could be awarded, just in case DND might decide it still needed the machine he axed.

It's the people of Canada who need to shake our heads: we're the ones who elect and re-elect the Montreal mafia, Toronto silk-stocking socialists, Shawinigan trailer trash and the other assorted second raters. If we want to see the enemy we need only look in the mirror.

 

[geo]

Ed,
While I agree with you on much of your post, it must be noted that the order IS in and that the 1st Cyclones are supposed to be coming out by November of this year... Having someone in Ottawa go back to Sikorsky with a new list of wants & requirements at this time will add umpteen million dollars onto the pricetag.

For people to say that technology not available in 2004 needs to be included in the production order at this point in time is a little far fetched if you ask me.  There will always be technological breakthroughs coming up.... so we shouldn't be surprised if this years' bells and whistles aren't present in the 1st production order.

WTF were they thinking?

Are they thinking?

Think!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Having someone in Ottawa go back to Sikorsky with a new list of wants & requirements at this time will add umpteen million dollars onto the pricetag.

I don't see anywhere in article where it says that we changed the SOR mid-stream.  Do you have info to that effect?

Since when do you believe everything that you read in the media-especially when it has anything to do with either:

a) the military or
b) aviation

 

[geo]

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


Quote
...
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

Changed engineer requirements ..... while I don't necessarily trust MsM more than I have to, the other thread on this subject (M92 progress) has enough contributors who appear to accept the notion that the Cyclone project is being changed.... and all changes mean that time and money, lots more money will be spent before we see em in the CF

 

[Edward Campbell]

Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) are the easy road to riches for contractors.

There are many and varied and good reasons for both customer and vendor to propose ECPs: new technology which will (substantially) improve performance without causing undue delivery delays or undue price increases are obvious “good” ECPs and may be initiated by either the contractor or the customer; sometimes a component supplier goes out of business and the vendor must propose an ECP to integrate a replacement component into the system – such ECPs are often allowed, without penalty, even if they increase costs and delay delivery.

There are an equal number of bad ECPs: the most obvious is when one party or the proposes a change to the “deliverable” which should have been part of the original contract. In my time in NDHQ I saw more than one of these – sometimes it was, simply, inept staff work at the requirements/definition stage (in other words the customers didn’t really understand what they wanted to buy), sometimes it was chicanery on the part of the vendor (critical elements were not brought to light during negotiations – a common problem when the vendor has more or better engineers than does the customer), and sometimes it was systemic (DND does not have enough money at the time of contract award so key elements are deleted at contract award and added later when it would be financially irresponsible for the Government of Canada to back away from a signed contract). In the last case DND is cheating its own government and is then surprised when the Privy Council suspects DND of mismanagement.

In the case of these new helicopters we have had 25 years to get the requirement right but, during that 25 years, the engineering staffs in Ottawa have been cut and cut and then cut again; it is not surprising that our negotiating team might have missed something – especially when dealing with a new vendor. (Sikorsky is not a totally new vendor, per se, but it was ‘new’ to the Canadian shipborne helicopter project which had been focused on EHI for years.)

It may be that Sikorsky has an evolving product line and is unwilling (maybe technically unable) to work on two versions of the aircraft at once – on “old technology” Canadian version and a “new technology” version for everyone else. That would be a good reason to propose an ECP. It may also be that Sikorsky “low balled” their bid – predicting an unattainable delivery date, as EHI suggested in their now defunct (I think) lawsuit. DND may, also, have left a few things of the initial contract or “changed its mind” (as too often happens when a new very senior officer arrives and insists on some feature or another – at great cost in time and money). I would not be surprised if it is a bit of all three plus a few other factors I haven’t mentioned.

There is something we used to call Khufu's Law which says that: Nothing ever gets built on time and within budget – but maybe we were just cynical and the folks in NDHQ are waaaay smarter than we were. See: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/greatpyramid1.htm

 

[geo]

Too true Ed  +1

Considering the amount of time that has gone by between contract signing in 2004 and Jan 2008, it is baffling that it is only now that these ECPs are only being brought up NOW... with airframes already on the production line and parts in inventory.

Obviously someone missed the call to "wake up and smell the coffee"

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not so sure it's baffling (see my mix of possible reasons for this delay, above) and I suspect the ECPs have been active for quite some time. I'm guessing we are, finally, seeing, in public, what the PMO and vendor have known for months, if not a year or so: delivery will slip.

If most of the delay is to accommodate Sikorsky then costs need not rise too much. Additionally and consequentially, some unforecasted cash will, also, be available in 2009/10/11 but some other projects (navy, army and air force) may get hurt in 2012/13/14 to accommodate the new helicopters.

 

[Neill McKay]

Each of the remaining Sea Kings requires 30 hours of maintenance for one hour of flight.

Is there anybody here who can comment on this figure?  I've heard it often but have always had a hard time believing it.  30 man-hours, maybe?

 

[aesop081]

30 man-hours, maybe?

Yes indeed.

 

[Zoomie]

30 man-hours, maybe?

It has always been man-hours, which is why this number is grossly misleading.

 

[Inch]

At sea, 9 technicians do the A check and B check for about an hour and a half after every shut down. That's 13.5 man-hours right there, and these are normal servicing procedures done every single day. I've signed off ground runs that take 30 min, but since there were 3 techs out there with me, it goes into the books as 2 hours of maint.

The number is hugely misleading, trust me, we wouldn't be using all of our yearly flying if it truly took 30 hours per hour of flight. There aren't enough days in the year to do 30 hours of maintenance after the thousands of hours of flying done every year.