• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,869
Points
1,010
TBH I really can't fathom why the RCAF/RCN didn't come back to Sikorsky and say - thanks but we'd really like to see something in the SH-60 model ;)
But was the original EH-101 supposed to do SAR, and MH ASW?
We did not buy 60Rs because Sikorsky did not offer them- they only offered the 92.

Best ask the Liberal Government of 2004 why the Merlin was not selected.

Yes, the original concept was that 50 x EH-101 would replace both Sea King and Labradors. In hindsight, it would have been a bargain…
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,891
Points
1,360
We did not buy 60Rs because Sikorsky did not offer them- they only offered the 92.

Best ask the Liberal Government of 2004 why the Merlin was not selected.

Yes, the original concept was that 50 x EH-101 would replace both Sea King and Labradors. In hindsight, it would have been a bargain…
…add in that there was an option for 15 more to replace the original Chinooks. NTH (New Transport Helicopter) was the short-lived project.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,869
Points
1,010
…add in that there was an option for 15 more to replace the original Chinooks. NTH (New Transport Helicopter) was the short-lived project.
That would have worked, too. Not as good as a hook, but not horrible, either.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,891
Points
1,260
Now now, that smacks of the MRH-90 that the ADF just decided to retire early :sneaky:
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,891
Points
1,360
Now now, that smacks of the MRH-90 that the ADF just decided to retire early :sneaky:
You mean the ‘common configuration’ NATO chopper that had 17 different configurations? 😆

No, NH90 by whatever name, isn’t near as capable as the EH-101 was or is.

The worst fit of that multi-fleet would have been the NTH, as the 101 only outs 9,000lbs on the hook….not…24000-28000. 😉
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,035
Points
1,090
We did not buy 60Rs because Sikorsky did not offer them- they only offered the 92.

Best ask the Liberal Government of 2004 why the Merlin was not selected.

Yes, the original concept was that 50 x EH-101 would replace both Sea King and Labradors. In hindsight, it would have been a bargain…
Pffftttt…

I mean paying $500 million in cancellation penalties only to not get any helicopters only seems like bad financial management in hindsight…

At the time, I’m sure it seemed like a stroke of pure genius!


Using a common airframe to replace both helicopters? Streamlining the aircrew & maintenance training pipeline towards one airframe instead of two?

C’mon man, that’s just crazy.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,837
Points
1,110
Pffftttt…

I mean paying $500 million in cancellation penalties only to not get any helicopters only seems like bad financial management in hindsight…

At the time, I’m sure it seemed like a stroke of pure genius!


Using a common airframe to replace both helicopters? Streamlining the aircrew & maintenance training pipeline towards one airframe instead of two?

C’mon man, that’s just crazy.
Two words: "Cadillac elicopters"
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
I mean paying $500 million in cancellation penalties only to not get any helicopters only seems like bad financial management in hindsight…
I think in actual fact it was $157.8 million but still a bad decision that haunts us to this day. Hopefully we can avoid something similar and just pick the F-35. I'm sure the Gripen is a fine plane but what would we call it as we already have one
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,060
Pentagon cutting F35 orders by 35%?
An indication that there was no there there?

F35s were built to defeat sophisticated air defence systems. But what if there are no sophisticated air defence systems? What if the shambles in Ukraine is the reality. Why spend money on that capability? Add to the fleet because it is useful in many other ways but with a reduced threat and emerging alternate solutions (Drones, LAMs, UCAVs and LRPFs) perhaps there is less of need to put so much money on that bet?


Apparently I can't get behind the paywall. Perhaps someone else will have better luck

 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
294
Points
730
I think in actual fact it was $157.8 million but still a bad decision that haunts us to this day. Hopefully we can avoid something similar and just pick the F-35. I'm sure the Gripen is a fine plane but what would we call it as we already have one
You d do realise that is probably the actual reason they may use not to buy it. As opposed to the one they give to the public.
Expect a 1500 page press release when they do get to making the decision either way.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,035
Points
1,090
I think in actual fact it was $157.8 million but still a bad decision that haunts us to this day. Hopefully we can avoid something similar and just pick the F-35. I'm sure the Gripen is a fine plane but what would we call it as we already have one
I think I had read, in more than one place, that when all of the costs came in, the number was higher. It’s been ages and I could very well be wrong - your number sounds a lot more reasonable. And precise 😉

I wish I had $157.5 million dollars that I could just turn into a pile, douse with gasoline, light on fire, and just watch it burn without caring all that much.

Must be nice…
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
You d do realise that is probably the actual reason they may use not to buy it. As opposed to the one they give to the public.
Expect a 1500 page press release when they do get to making the decision either way.
Think of the money we can save an entire CAF's of Gripens and Griffons

VBMR Griffon - Wikipedia for LSVS?

Is there a naval option?

I think I had read, in more than one place, that when all of the costs came in, the number was higher. It’s been ages and I could very well be wrong - your number sounds a lot more reasonable. And precise 😉

I wish I had $157.5 million dollars that I could just turn into a pile, douse with gasoline, light on fire, and just watch it burn without caring all that much.

Must be nice…
Ill take a look Im sure I have it book marked or down loaded somewhere

About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
Canada's Government said yesterday that it had reached a settlement agreement with E. H. Industries, a jointly owned unit of Westland Helicopters Ltd. of Britain and Agusta S.p.A. of Italy, for a claim arising from the 1993 cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter program. The settlement, worth $157.8 million (Canadian), or $115 million (United States), was reached in October but was made public only yesterday.
David Dingwall, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, said the settlement meant the Government "has closed the books on the EH-101 helicopter program." Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Government canceled the deal, reached by his Conservative predecessors, soon after taking office in late 1993. (Reuters)

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 24, 1996, Section D, Page 18 of the National edition with the headline: INTERNATIONAL BRIEFS;Canada Settles Claim On Canceled Helicopters. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

the above from the NY Times originally I think I read via CASR website

I'd pay $158M to go back to the original deal and get the 50
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,626
Points
1,140
Pentagon cutting F35 orders by 35%?
An indication that there was no there there?

F35s were built to defeat sophisticated air defence systems. But what if there are no sophisticated air defence systems? What if the shambles in Ukraine is the reality. Why spend money on that capability? Add to the fleet because it is useful in many other ways but with a reduced threat and emerging alternate solutions (Drones, LAMs, UCAVs and LRPFs) perhaps there is less of need to put so much money on that bet?


Apparently I can't get behind the paywall. Perhaps someone else will have better luck

They didn't mention that the reason for that is foreign orders. LocMart can't build anymore any faster...
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,369
Points
1,090
When talking EH101, there are both sunk costs already paid, plus cancellation penalties.

With two small bespoke fleets, both reduced by crashes, and problems with supply chains because both are bespoke, it may be time for the CAF to once again try to buy a single fleet, but this time an off the shelf, already in service model... If nothing else, it would boost defence spending.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,626
Points
1,140
When talking EH101, there are both sunk costs already paid, plus cancellation penalties.

With two small bespoke fleets, both reduced by crashes, and problems with supply chains because both are bespoke, it may be time for the CAF to once again try to buy a single fleet, but this time an off the shelf, already in US service model... If nothing else, it would boost defence spending.
Fixed it for you
Cough Blackhawk cough...
MH-60R can do the AWS job,
MH-60G can do SAR/CSAR/CANSOF
UH-60 can do the regular UH role.

and the Liberals could buy them and blame the Conservatives for not getting them originally...
 
Top